Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI

[GoreBag]

And again you would lose points - attacking structure not content or context.

Oh, nonsense. One can hardly think to have an argument with a wigger, full of his nonsense slang and silly colloquialisms. My problem with your lack of interest in maintaining a proper level of proficiency with the English language is just that; already have I had problems trying to understand what you're saying.

The quibble is yours not mine - your allegation is that the definition I provided is wrong - however you have not shown it to be wrong - just not complete.

Oh, that's a lie. You're keeping up the debate as much as I am.

An incomplete definition is a wrong definition when it is presented as the entirety of the definition. What do you know, that's about the way it's presented. By the way, it is structure that I'm "attacking", right? I've apparently gone from "context" to "structure" without knowing it.

And in that you would be incorrect.

How's that, now?

The main one in common is that Jesus Christ is the savior - a common idea between both sects of christianity. Some protestant religions still site the Nicean (SP) Creed also.

Semantics. My point stands.

Your beginning to get the point.

You're going to need to explain that comment.

Point taken - however again you haven't shown where the initial definition provided is incorrect. I have a tendency to go tit for tat with verbal sparing.
A weakness of mine so to speak. Statement as such normally get a response that is arrogant from me If I had a nickel for every time I heard a Christian talk to me about Satanism...

That's just about your original definition of Satanism, which was an incorrect statement. Yes, it was incomplete, and in that, it was also untrue and misleading. You have corrected yourself, and you have admitted that you have, but there seems to be something blocking you from admitting that it was, indeed, wrong.

That is the one - a creed counts as a doctrine from what I learned many years ago.

A doctrine that is not a doctrine. Hence "yes and no".

Why spell correctly - no need to if the word is close enough for someone to understand. I have verbal conservations all the time with people who barely speak english and we communicate fine.

You're lucky he's so intuitive.

Not at all - your in the backroom - which is primarily a discussion forum not a down load area. If you did not want to share your opinion and inform the community about different things that you have knowledge on - why come back to the tavern for a discussion?

Boredom, mostly. But now, I get to come back everytime and see another, differently spelled out version of "I wasn't wrong".