|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 21:22:10 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 20, 2009 21:22:10 GMT -5
I see where you are coming from sirius, but I do agree that you need to tone it down so that we can discuss some of your "topics". You and Kaderin, the only two that have tried, don't seem to have a problem having a civil discussion with me. You might want to reconsider what your purpose for posting here really is and respond with an appropriate tone. If you are here to get everybody riled up, don't change a thing. On the other hand, I am intrigued about what your message really is as I totally agree, Christianity for the most part, has very little that is Christ-like in it. Men take the bible and pervert it to fit their personal agendas... This is my purpose. Is rejection of false christianity and the men that propagate it rejecting God? I did read your last few posts and it looks like you are willing to at least try...I hope you do and stick around. If you upset somebody, let them know it that wasn't your intent. Usually it is the tone not the actual thing being discussed. Again, thank you for your understanding. So far, there hasn't been a problem having a discussion with those willing to have a discussion. I will be more considerate and give the BOTD to all, understanding there are some real scars here. Every forum I have been on, with the exception of one, the poster was afforded the same courtesy and BOTD over the perceived tone.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 21:28:48 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 20, 2009 21:28:48 GMT -5
No. I will not be your teacher in this. I advise you again to check out the link I posted. You are a clueless one, aren't you. You've got the longest discussion thread going on this topic, and the issue we are choosing to discuss is your behavior and words *here.* Obviously, we find that more worthy of addressing than your proposed issues. If you are not willing to explain don't post. I would say it is because you don't want to address the issues I brought up. I mean, your not even willing to explain yourself above. What kind of discussion is that?
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 21:38:54 GMT -5
Post by jemand on Apr 20, 2009 21:38:54 GMT -5
I would suggest that you picture the way your words would sound to a group of people who have rallied around one simple idea-- that patriarchal ideas of male superiority hurt women. Most of us have the scars to show it. My balanced opinion there is that abuse of male superiority hurt women. Because male superiority is the absolute fact in your mind. "abuse" of male superiority, you write, not "myth" of male superiority. There is no question in your mind men ARE superior which entirely explains everything you've said including your tone up to now, to when you explicitly state it. Of COURSE we need your guidance and wisdom! You are male! You are superior! You are not abusing your superiority on this board! We are just so ignorant as to not recognize it for some reason! roflol And you even bold "abuse" to be certain we don't miss the point. And then you plead ignorance. Sorry, no, you know EXACTLY what you are doing and then you are trying the "poor me" technique to get out of it.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 21:58:00 GMT -5
Post by jadehawk on Apr 20, 2009 21:58:00 GMT -5
This is my purpose. Is rejection of false christianity and the men that propagate it rejecting God? how is christianity based on some bible verses more false than christianity based on other verses? how is coming to the conclusion that all "christianities" are arbitrary interpretations of a human-made text, just as all other religions, and therefore god is unlikely to even exist "rejecting God"? for that matter, how do you reject something that doesn't exist? Atheists don't reject Santa or the tooth-fairy, and they don't reject any gods, for the same reasons. however, many atheists reject the god-hypothesis. there's a difference.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 22:08:08 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 20, 2009 22:08:08 GMT -5
My balanced opinion there is that abuse of male superiority hurt women. Because male superiority is the absolute fact in your mind. "abuse" of male superiority, you write, not "myth" of male superiority. There is no question in your mind men ARE superior which entirely explains everything you've said including your tone up to now, to when you explicitly state it. Of COURSE we need your guidance and wisdom! You are male! You are superior! roflol And then you plead ignorance. Sorry, no, you know EXACTLY what you are doing and then you are trying the "poor me" technique to get out of it. Wha? You misunderstood what I said. Absolute fact? Yes, in earthly position. Does the police have authority over you? Do you care to answer this question? "surely if both husband and wife are in agreement here and there is no abuse from either party there are no scars, correct?" I am not imposing this belief on anyone. I didn't bring up the subject, I just answered krwordgazer. Still, feel free to answer the question. So where did I imply ignorance or apply the poor me technique? I simply stated in a home were both the husband and wife agree the man is the head but the man and woman both seek respect and desires each others knowledge and wisdom in all things, there will be no scars. Agree or not? If you don't believe someone needs to be 'in charge' that's fine. I'm not here to debate this. A quick look at any institution sheds plenty of light on the correct answer here. Again, I didn't bring this up. It could be that the woman is in charge, I don't care what someone else does in their home.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 22:12:16 GMT -5
Post by jadehawk on Apr 20, 2009 22:12:16 GMT -5
You misunderstood what I said. Absolute fact? Yes, in earthly position. Does the police have authority over you? Oh. My.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 22:14:53 GMT -5
Post by Kaderin on Apr 20, 2009 22:14:53 GMT -5
Yes, you have a point, this could indeed be a valid argument. Could you maybe quote the relevant passage? However, there is a reason to scripturally-based arguments not being used that much - because the "Atheists are immoral!"-argument is usually coupled with the "How can you be moral if there is no God?"argument. I have never seen them not used together. To refute the first with the scripturally supported argument put forth by you would require the atheist to assume (1) God exists and (2) Scripture really is his inerrant word. And then to proceed to dismantle the second argument would require you to make the opposite assumption of (1). Basically, it's complicating the matter - it suffices to answer the second argument, because it makes the first one moot. Yes, your argument is sound, but it's not needed. We already have a refutation, one that does not require us to make assumptions. Scripturally supported positions are not our position. We reject scripture, and why should we embrace it when we have alternative arguments that don't require us to? The Bible can be twisted to say all kinds of things, as evidenced by bickering sects. To argue from such a self-contradictory mess when we don't even believe it is our last resort. The atheist article you linked - read it again. It starts out with: Forget for a moment that the historicity of the Garden of Eden, of Adam and Eve, a talking snake, etc. has no basis in reality and was lifted from the Babylonian Epic of Creation.
Forget for a moment that the historicity of Jesus depends on a few forged documents and the conflicting and contradictory accounts in the Gospels.
Forget also that we have none of the actual teachings of Christ, just those that have reported allegorically or anocdotally in the New Testament. These are all objections atheists would raise before using Scripture. Yes, we can say "Ha, your position isn't supported even by your own scripture!", but what we're actually arguing is "Your scripture doesn't make sense in the first place." First: Tasteless. Honestly, this is what riles us all up - you keep insulting positions other than your own. Second: Exactly - so your comment about fighting against something that isn't there was nonsense - because someone with those beliefs clearly exists, even if you don't share 'em. *sigh* Disagreeing with your interpretation does not weak-minded make I never thought the day would come when I'd defend the religious right, but here goes: They are wrong. So very very wrong. But that doesn't make them weak-minded idiots, it makes them mistaken and sometimes even indoctrinated. Which is why we have to engage in dialogue. Again, Debate: Ur doing it wrong! You're never going to get anywhere by insulting people who disagree. *headdesk* That validation thing? There were invisible <sarcasm> tags. Look, I perceived an insult to atheists' intelligence in your first post(s). I called you on it and you responded by saying you actually agree more with atheists than with christians on many things (and also linking to that atheist). Apparently, you measure someone's intellect on how much they agree with you. The insult still stands - I'm still an idiot, just not that much of one. Cue the "I feel validated /sarcasm". And yes, I understood perfectly what was discussed, and I even agreed. But that's not what it's about. Great. Now we get the True Definition (TM) of offense, put forth by All-knowing sirius. Nice non sequitur there... really epic proportions. Offense. Insult. Ad hominems and arguments from authority. You have repeatedly insulted our collective intelligence - and refuse to apologize or even acknowledge it. And you wonder why we're "slamming" you? Hint: It's got nothing to do with what's dangling between your legs. What you call confidence, I call self-absorbed. I really get the imprresion you aren't here for a dialogue - it seems you want a solo show. Also, ty. But honestly, I'm just konfliktgeil. (Lovely German word with no English equivalent...) You are joining this community. Which means you have to play by our rules. We are not obliged to adjust to you. As Vicky said... welcome to her turf. And just because it can't be said enough: for Ceiling Cat's sake, work on your delivery. Wordgazer said it best: If you want to be listened to with respect, then speak with respect. We will respond in kind.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 22:19:31 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 20, 2009 22:19:31 GMT -5
how is christianity based on some bible verses more false than christianity based on other verses? how is coming to the conclusion that all "christianities" are arbitrary interpretations of a human-made text, just as all other religions, and therefore god is unlikely to even exist True christianity bears natural fruit and sets one completely free, not works of flesh and religious fruit. Contrary to popular belief Hebrews 11 says faith is seen and has substance and evidence not that it is something not seen. The entire chapter then gives real examples of substance and evidence. How do christians miss that? Because they have mastered pulling verses out of context to fit any particular situation on any given day at any given moment. IF a christian doesn't have this natural bearing fruit their witness is weak or even dead.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 22:25:47 GMT -5
Post by nell65 on Apr 20, 2009 22:25:47 GMT -5
I know some of you have 'been round the internet' for a while now - so you've probably encountered the bingo cards for internet sites that deal with powerful topics. If you haven't, the cards are created by members of sites devoted to a topic, say feminism, or atheism v. Christianity, or science, or racism, who found that they regularly draw comments from those who are not familiar with the topic and so object to the basic premises of the discussions going on. Further, it eventually became obvious that each new poster presenting their objections to the very premise of the ongoing discussions, raised tediously predictable points. Growing tired of refuting the same damn thing, over and over again, members of these communities realized that these new posters were largely not, in fact, posting in good faith, out of a desire to learn - but rather to distract and derail the discussions and disrupt the communities. Here is the anti-feminism bingo card from Hoyden About Town: farm1.static.flickr.com/168/458582249_edbf713fd0.jpg?v=0(sorry - tried to put in the image, but couldn't figure out how) While this isn't a feminist board, I am not at all surprised to see that I already have five squares checked off from Sirius's comments. Not bingo yet because they aren't in a line - but still, pretty good going there. ("It's your job to teach me about feminism," "you're being silly and overemotional," "you feminists all hate men," "you've just got a victim mentality," and - last but hardly least, "but I want to talk about this. Listen to me!") I don't think sirius is here in good faith, I think he is here to lecture to Vickie and Laura and the rest of the women who post and read here. He wants to do so without the slightest desire to listen respectfully to their stories, while demanding over and over that to be taken seriously by him, we have to engage his topics in his preferred manner. The very fact that even on a not entirely applicable "anti- xxxxx - bingo" card I could find five squares where sirius typed what has been typed 1,000s of times before in attempts to disrupt, derail, and damage discussions among women and their male friends and supporters about issues important to their own lives is telling. Sirius is not here to listen or engage on Vickie and Laura's terms, and he is not even not listening in an original or interesting way.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 22:35:41 GMT -5
Post by Kaderin on Apr 20, 2009 22:35:41 GMT -5
Gah, this is what happens when you spend forever tiping up an answer...
I second Jadehawk. Oh my, indeed. Therefore, I'd like to get back to my original suggestion: GTFO.
On second thought, no, I take that back. I shall take my beloved pharyngulan approach: Dance, troll, dance!
Nell
Ha! I actually had not seen that feminist bingo card before (although I know several others...) Truly a taste of awesome sauce.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 22:37:39 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 20, 2009 22:37:39 GMT -5
Kaderin, Thanks for taking the time. I will have to respond tomorrow but just one thing. I didn't say 'weak minded idiots', I said 'weak minded' as implicated in scripture describing believers.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 23:00:59 GMT -5
Post by jadehawk on Apr 20, 2009 23:00:59 GMT -5
True christianity bears natural fruit and sets one completely free, not works of flesh and religious fruit. that sentence makes no sense with the common usage of those words, so I'd like you to define the words "natural" and "religious".
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 23:02:50 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 20, 2009 23:02:50 GMT -5
Gah, this is what happens when you spend forever tiping up an answer... I second Jadehawk. Oh my, indeed. Therefore, I'd like to get back to my original suggestion: GTFO. but you said..... "Look, we all want to get along here - this community strives for diverse tolerant viewpoints. Atheist, Christian, Wiccan, Agnostic, whatever. Debate and dissent is encouraged" ...what happened?
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 23:08:18 GMT -5
Post by jemand on Apr 20, 2009 23:08:18 GMT -5
Because male superiority is the absolute fact in your mind. "abuse" of male superiority, you write, not "myth" of male superiority. There is no question in your mind men ARE superior which entirely explains everything you've said including your tone up to now, to when you explicitly state it. Of COURSE we need your guidance and wisdom! You are male! You are superior! roflol And then you plead ignorance. Sorry, no, you know EXACTLY what you are doing and then you are trying the "poor me" technique to get out of it. Wha? You misunderstood what I said. Absolute fact? Yes, in earthly position. Does the police have authority over you? www.worldofstock.com/slides/PWO2661.jpgShe does. She and hundreds more like her are on police forces across America. I'd like to see you argue that in fact you have authority over her I'm not a mod here, but I suspect you are cruising for a banning...
|
|
linnea
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 23:14:41 GMT -5
Post by linnea on Apr 20, 2009 23:14:41 GMT -5
Ooh, selective quoting! Is that on the bingo card?
Try reading the rest of the sentence, and the sentence after it:
Debate and dissent is encouraged, but it should remain at all times respectful to others. If you can't be respectful, then your viewpoint can, quite frankly, kiss our collective butt.
I would like to add, debate and dissent should also make some sense.
For instance, when Jadehawk asks "how is christianity based on some bible verses more false than christianity based on other verses?" and you reply by citing what the bible says . . . that doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 23:15:34 GMT -5
Post by Kaderin on Apr 20, 2009 23:15:34 GMT -5
Dissent and debate - it's a package deal. Your response to Jadehawk confirmed what I already suspected: You're not here to debate. You're here to lecture us silly wimminz.
Can you honestly say that you're here to expand your horizon, to listen to the stories told and the arguments we put forth? To contribute to and enrichen a dialogue with your perspective, and in turn consider the perspective of others? And be at all times accepting and respectful to the viewpoints of others?
Or is your mind made up and are you here to make us see The Truth (TM)?
Also, als linnea pointed out: Context, bitches ;P
Besides, I took the GTFO back - I find trolls vaguely amusing.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 20, 2009 23:16:05 GMT -5
Post by jadehawk on Apr 20, 2009 23:16:05 GMT -5
Wha? You misunderstood what I said. Absolute fact? Yes, in earthly position. Does the police have authority over you? www.worldofstock.com/slides/PWO2661.jpgShe does. She and hundreds more like her are on police forces across America. I'd like to see you argue that in fact you have authority over her I'm not a mod here, but I suspect you are cruising for a banning... even so, police do not have authority OVER us, per-se. police are granted special rights and responsibilities to defend the authority of the law, established by the people. A police officer doesn't have the authority to tell me what to do, unless it's within the specified limit of his/her duty as defender of law. these rights and responsibilities can and will be revoked at any time when abuse occurs. This is also the only kind of "authority" that should be permitted. it's the kind of authority the dominant partner in BDSM relationships is granted: it's conditional and revokable, even if it LOOKS and FEELS total EDIT: more concise me: the law of the land is the authority, not the police. and the authority over the law is the people. it's a cycle. and if a police officer comes to my door demanding to search my place, i get to tell them "no".
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 21, 2009 0:17:37 GMT -5
Post by krwordgazer on Apr 21, 2009 0:17:37 GMT -5
I would suggest that you picture the way your words would sound to a group of people who have rallied around one simple idea-- that patriarchal ideas of male superiority hurt women. Most of us have the scars to show it. My balanced opinion there is that abuse of male superiority hurt women. I know many disagree of course and that's fine, but surely if both husband and wife are in agreement here and there is no abuse from either party there are no scars, correct? Do you believe males are superior? If so, at least you're being honest. Most people who believe like you do insist that men and women are equal-- but that men are born to lead women and women are born to follow men. However, I see that you posted later that you believed male superiority was more like a police officer's superiority. In that case, the "superiority" ought to come from some kind of training or education, not as a matter of birth. Superiority that exists because of birth alone is not what a police officer enjoys, thank God. Anyway, it has been my experience that the lack of scars usually occurs when the man chooses to love his wife sacrificially, as Christ loved the church-- in such a way that he lays down his supposed authority and puts his wife's needs before his own. When he does that, he is actually following Eph 5:21-- they are both submitting to one another-- and in that case, I have seen it work. Please don't put words in my mouth. If your wife had posted with such a tone, I would have called her arrogant too-- but it is particularly inappropriate for you as a man to post in such a way in this particular venue. What I'm hearing here is that you plan to be kinder to the poor abused women. After all, noblesse oblige. I'm being blunt-- but then, you have been being blunt too. And perhaps it is me putting words in your mouth this time-- but that is what it sounds like to me. I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion so long as you believe God created you with some kind of privilege of birth such that if I were married to you, I'd have to bow to your authority. What that attitude produces, in my experience, is a tendency to treat women and their opinions as negligible. After all, there must be some reason why God created us to be ruled, right? There can't be a true dialogue of equals if one party to the dialogue is equal in name only, and unequal in every way that actually matters.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 21, 2009 19:40:54 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 21, 2009 19:40:54 GMT -5
I would like to add, debate and dissent should also make some sense. For instance, when Jadehawk asks "how is christianity based on some bible verses more false than christianity based on other verses?" and you reply by citing what the bible says . . . that doesn't make sense. Jadehawk did not give any scripture. I stated what all scripture states regardless of passage or interpretation. Find any sect that theologically disagrees with what I said.
|
|
linnea
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
sirius
Apr 21, 2009 20:13:04 GMT -5
Post by linnea on Apr 21, 2009 20:13:04 GMT -5
Sirius, I have to assume that your posts make sense to you, but if there really is a logical thread you're certainly not expressing it very well. Here's what you said in response to Jadehawk's question "how is christianity based on some bible verses more false than christianity based on other verses?"
True christianity bears natural fruit and sets one completely free, not works of flesh and religious fruit. Contrary to popular belief Hebrews 11 says faith is seen and has substance and evidence not that it is something not seen. The entire chapter then gives real examples of substance and evidence. How do christians miss that? Because they have mastered pulling verses out of context to fit any particular situation on any given day at any given moment. IF a christian doesn't have this natural bearing fruit their witness is weak or even dead.
And then you described the above post thusly:
I stated what all scripture states regardless of passage or interpretation. Find any sect that theologically disagrees with what I said.
No, you mentioned a particular scripture, and said that "christians" (with no qualifier - not "some christians" or "some sects") get it wrong. First you say they all get it wrong (except, I suppose, "true christians" like you), and then you say that every sect agrees with you. And you challenge me to prove otherwise.
Where's my bingo card?
|
|
linnea
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
sirius
Apr 21, 2009 20:14:52 GMT -5
Post by linnea on Apr 21, 2009 20:14:52 GMT -5
And, as Jadehawk mentioned, it would help a lot if you would define your use of the terms "natural" and "religious".
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 21, 2009 20:22:09 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 21, 2009 20:22:09 GMT -5
Dissent and debate - it's a package deal. Your response to Jadehawk confirmed what I already suspected: You're not here to debate. You're here to lecture us silly wimminz. Can you honestly say that you're here to expand your horizon, to listen to the stories told and the arguments we put forth? To contribute to and enrichen a dialogue with your perspective, and in turn consider the perspective of others? And be at all times accepting and respectful to the viewpoints of others? Or is your mind made up and are you here to make us see The Truth (TM)? Also, als linnea pointed out: Context, bitches ;P Besides, I took the GTFO back - I find trolls vaguely amusing. That’s silly. My desire was to question Vyckies theology that led her to “apostasy”. I think many here should go back and reread my first post. Where is man as head? Antifeminist? Or any other offtopic subject discussed in this thread? I simply wanted to understand how she came to her conclusions and offer a perspective she may have never heard or considered. Themomma seems to be the only one that has caught on and is interested to hear my intent. Pages later we are still trying to get past ‘my tone’. I have never had this problem on any other board. I’ve had plenty of comments and PM’s on my tone, but I have never been hindered discussing a topic. This is approaching insanity if it is not already there. So no, concerning theology, I am not here to expand my horizon, but that’s the case on other bible forums as well with men and women. Has nothing to do with this forum made up mostly of women. Please, I have much more important things to do than troll at women forums. My only hope was to have Vyckie reconsider the mean angry puppetmaster God she rejects. That’s all. Not as a man, but as a believer, because there is neither male or female in Christ. You say you took the GTFO back then call me a troll? I’m then supposed to respond to your questions in your previous post? I was really happy to see the dialogue and questions but now I see you won’t take what I say seriously. If you want the quick and easy legitimate way to prove atheist have morals I will post the scripture. The Christian must adhere to scripture alone so there’s no better to way to prove it. Sorry, but, ‘scripture doesn’t make sense’ doesn’t cut it. Are you serious? Ever hear Hicthens say that? I haven’t. In jest Dawkind, Harris, and Hicthens may but not seriously. Billions haven’t believe it, and million died over it, because it 'doesn’t make sense'. From a Christian and atheist POV you definitely need a real argument, and scripture is not only the only option but it is the best way to prove to a Christian that atheist are moral.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 21, 2009 21:18:22 GMT -5
Post by Kaderin on Apr 21, 2009 21:18:22 GMT -5
Silly by your standard? The one that leads you to rebuke people to "discuss something of substance", again, by your wise standard? This is not your board, sirius. Your standards don't apply here, Vicky's and Laura's do. The first option I described is how I interpret Vicky's vision for this community. She places a lot of value on respectful dialogue, and not on confrontational debate. Honestly, had I met you on other forums, those meant for Christian-Atheist debate, I wouldn't have given a fuck about your tone. I'd have no problem with sticking to the debate points. But this is not this kind of forum - this is community building. And that's why people are still hung up on your tone. I changed my confrontational debate style here, because it's not appropriate for this community. You should too. It's that simple - Vicky is your host and you behave yourself according to the rules set up for this community. And you simply refuse to do that! That's why I call you a troll. Not because you have nothing worthwile to say, but because it's the hallmark of a troll to disrupt the flow of conversation. Nobody is stopping you from doing that - to an extent it's what we all do. Actually, the second paragraph is pretty much a mission statement of several other Christians here on board. And strangely, they don't get attacked. Why is that? We're just asking you to show some fricking respect. Too much to ask? Guess your still refering to your first post here? If so, stop putting words in my mouth. I did not accuse you of any such thing. In fact, I honestly thought that people were maybe jumping to the "superior male lecturing us" conclusion too fast - until you went ahead and confirmed it. "Male superiority: Absolute fact? Yes, in earthly position" So don't play the victim card here - they assumed rightly. It appears other posters can spot patriarchs better than me. That's sad. And the very definition of close-mindedness. You can be very sure of your position and still be receptive to new ideas. Dear Cthulu, that sounds dismissive Not to mention sexist. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean for it to come out this way, but don't be surprised if people go for the obvious conclusion. Your posts are littered with phrases like these. Oh, I do take theological debates seriously. And I love me some dialogue. But again, that's not what you're engaging in. How can there be dialogue if you don't listen? We're asking one thing, have been asking for it for pages: Tone it down. How can you ask for serious dialogue if you won't engage in it? Oh, and you weren't "supposed" to do anything, at least not at my request. Except, you know, adjust your fricking manners. Yes, I really do want to know that passage. If that singular claim ever comes up, I'll be sure to use it and will actually be grateful for you to have shown it to me. However, you completly ignored what I said - that the claim of atheistic immorality most often goes together with the question how anyone can be moral without God. It's just better to discuss morality without God, which makes the "Atheists are immoral"-position moot. Yes, scripture might shut them up, but we're also trying to promote our own understanding of the world. The truly relevant arguments to an atheistic positions are the ones we truly hold. For example, take public prayer. I think it's better to first explain our actual stance (stemming from the seperation of curch and state, freedom from religion, et cetera), but if all that fails, then, and only then, do I quote the sermon on the mount. (Matthew 6:5-6 And whenever you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to stand in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they will be seen by people. I tell you with certainty, they have their full reward! But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees from the hidden place will reward you.) I do have real arguments, a great deal of them, but I'd rather not waste them on what was an infantile argument to begin with - "Atheists don't use The Ultimate Argument approved by All-Knowing Sirius, and even though they have multiple arguments that address the same problem which don't invoke Scripture and more accurately reflect their position, they are not as intellectual as they think, hate God and/or are pursuing their evil atheist agenda! And somehow, this is a rebuttal of the No True Scotsman Fallacy!" Riiiiiiiiiiight. Oy. Martyrdom does not make truth. Neither does a popular vote. Billions have believed in the Quran and many a martyr died for it (the twin towers come to mind...)- does that make it true? Yes, the Bible does not make sense, meaning it contradicts itself, contradicts history and in some instances even the laws of the universe. (And, um, I've yet to meet an atheist who does not say so) The same goes for the Quran, books by L. Ron Hubbard or any other holy text.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 22, 2009 7:46:46 GMT -5
Post by jemand on Apr 22, 2009 7:46:46 GMT -5
From a Christian and atheist POV you definitely need a real argument, and scripture is not only the only option but it is the best way to prove to a Christian that atheist are moral. So I am not allowed by the all-knowing sirius to construct any argument except from the book that I've determined to be incorrect..... Any argument without reference to this book (that I am sometimes trying to show is inconsistent) as an authority is "not a real argument."
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 25, 2009 17:43:56 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 25, 2009 17:43:56 GMT -5
Sirius, I have to assume that your posts make sense to you, but if there really is a logical thread you're certainly not expressing it very well. Here's what you said in response to Jadehawk's question "how is christianity based on some bible verses more false than christianity based on other verses?" True christianity bears natural fruit and sets one completely free, not works of flesh and religious fruit. Contrary to popular belief Hebrews 11 says faith is seen and has substance and evidence not that it is something not seen. The entire chapter then gives real examples of substance and evidence. How do christians miss that? Because they have mastered pulling verses out of context to fit any particular situation on any given day at any given moment. If a christian doesn't have this natural bearing fruit their witness is weak or even dead.
And then you described the above post thusly: I stated what all scripture states regardless of passage or interpretation. Find any sect that theologically disagrees with what I said.No, you mentioned a particular scripture, and said that "christians" (with no qualifier - not "some christians" or "some sects") get it wrong. First you say they all get it wrong (except, I suppose, "true christians" like you), and then you say that every sect agrees with you. And you challenge me to prove otherwise. I probably am not expressing it well and I apologize. First, I did not say all get it wrong, I said, “Contrary to popular belief…….” “How do christians miss that?” “Because they have mastered pulling verses out of context…..” “If a christian doesn't have this natural bearing fruit their witness is weak or even dead.” Another point here is that many ‘true christians’ do not understand Hebrews 11 this way. It has nothing to do with being ‘like me’, just what it literally says in plain context and language without trying to spiritualize it out of context. Second, all christians believe christians naturally bear fruit. I used Hebrews 11 to show that not all Christians agree what that fruit and substance and evidence of faith is. The challenge was to find a sect that does not believe a christian will bear fruit. The challenge was not to prove all sects agree on what fruit is. Does that make more sense?
|
|