I know for a FACT that Christians love you.


I do.

Lou, that link took me to a picture of Santa Clause, who in or out of a foxhole I believe in.

Well, yes and no. In one way I feel better knowing that we still have some freedom of speech, at least up to this point. A fight takes two or more people who feel like fighting. But should we even call it fighting? Maybe it's arguing or discussing. And no one is compelled to stay on this thread if they don't like what it's about.

Just got a video sent from my request for understanding. Very informative.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mbef07a...%3Dmbef07aQtB8

About generalizations.
 

Well, I don't want to seem to be piling on, but I'm surprised to learn that you thought the generalization that there are no atheists in foxholes was intended to be taken literally. It was simply meant to express that many who denied there was a God were observed to pray earnestly for deliverance when under fire in combat.

You have to remember this about generalizations:

"No generalization is wholly true, not even this one."

Seems as though a statement not in agreement or different than posted/stated is clearly mis-interpreted as insults....which is an entitled opinion that helps validate a position being taken....however not what was intended by participants responding and very often a totally incorrect interpretation.

btk

It was not meant as a joke. Look at the explanation that was posted earlier that the phrase was believed to have been used by an Army Chaplain during a field sermon during the Battle of Bataan. If you are not familiar with that devastating battle during WWII, you might want to do a browser search and read up on it.

The phrase is most often used to express the belief of the speaker that all people seek a divine power when they are facing an extreme threat.

You might want to read the wikipedia entry about the phrase at There are no atheists in foxholes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The phrase is not to be taken literally.

.

No double meanings. No hidden message. No oblique or distorted message. Only what the words state.....noyhing more.

I am switching to the popcorn...:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

You have reversed the premise again. One does not adopt a position against English speaking squirrels, rather, one does not adopt a position for them. There is a world of difference in those statements.

Not sure if that analogy is apt. Maybe, better would be ask where the non-speaking squirrel came from let alone the proverbial talking one? Darwin and his followers do not really do it justice as the various species have had to come from somewhere whether or not you believe that a God tinkers with how the species come together.

Don't give anybody any ideas!!!!!!:grumpy::cryin2:

Found a good rule to follow when posting. Found this on experience project . Com. I don't think all will accept being corrected even if the are wrong, bul, I will try.

From experienceproject.com


We are all intitled to our opinion and others opinions can be offensive and just plain rude. Some people do this intentionally to get "a rise" out of people especially if they know it upsets you. Don't get mad at all of them but pick your battles. Have your opinion ready and occasionally engage some one on the subject so you don't always feel like people have no idea what they're talking about. Don't argue but genuinely listen to what they're saying and correct them and inlighten them to what just may be the truth. Some people form an opinion based on misinformation and if you can correct they're misunderstanding of a subject you just might make a positive change in someones life.

As they say, you can lead a pig to a foxhole to drink but you can't cast your pearls into a sow's ear. Or something like that. ;~)

The point of my comment is that God's existence has yet to be empirically proved, and appears to be non-existent in the absence of faith. That does not make God non-existent; it means that He cannot be apprehended by intellect alone.

For an atheist to aver confidently that Spirit does not exist because he has only used mind to seek it, is inadequate reason for rejecting the existence of a realm that cannot be comprehended through reasoning.

Wow, it made me dizzy, but after reading it three times, I get it and like what I get. Great post.