tabby
New Member
Posts: 5
|
sirius
Apr 25, 2009 18:09:17 GMT -5
Post by tabby on Apr 25, 2009 18:09:17 GMT -5
That’s silly. [snipped!] ...I see you won’t take what I say seriously. Yeah. Um. Back atcha. That out of the way, though, I'm not sure why the "fruits" thing is a challenge at all. You've said there's different ways fruits are different. Cults get their power by controlling members, making them works-based. That's why cult leaders like cults--because works, such as handing their earthly goods and money and lives over, are good for the cult leaders. However, even faith-based branches still believe that there's a difference between themselves and everyone else that shows up in what they do and the way they live. And finally, in the third way of looking at it, "fruits" would be the identifiers: long hair and skirts on women, short haircuts and no piercings for men. So we've reached the three different possible expressions for the Hebrews verse through: gain for a religion, expression of faith, and subcultural identity. That... pretty much sums up the purposes of religion. You're not going to find something that doesn't have one reason, and more likely a blend, unless you find a cult that believes the Rapture happened and they're all doomed. (edit for wrong tense. XD)
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 25, 2009 19:23:30 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 25, 2009 19:23:30 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." You can construct any argument from any source you wish but if you want it to be effective yes, you must use scripture. Because I say so? No! Because that is what a Christian accepts. Some only accept scripture and others (like me) accept scripture and science, but either way scripture must be in the argument in order to be effective to a christian. To deny this is to decide you are not arguing with a Christian, and then what’s the point? If there’s inconsistencies with scripture it is because it is not interpreted holistically. If you tell a young earther the earth is older than the genealogies of scripture they’ll say God created the earth to appear old and that you can’t deny God could do that. Well sure God could do that but if scripture doesn’t require it why would I even go there and why do I need to believe it when there’s plenty reason scripturally to believe the earth is older than the genealogies? Lucifer was here and sinned before man sinned, and when the earth was made (not created) in Genesis 1:2 it already existed (having been previously created) and was in a state of death, which was after He created it “in the beginning” in Genesis 1:1. They say there was no death until Adam sinned but Genesis 1 says God gave all the seeds to have life in them and to yield fruit according to the seed. This process and lifecycle requires corruption/death. The seed must die to bring forth life. Both Jesus and Paul said this as well. Not to mention what I already stated, that the earth was in a state of death in Genesis 1:2. Coal is dead vegetation and older than six thousand years. There was no death for man in mans world until man, who had dominion and authority over all the works of God’s hands, sinned because man had the tree of life provided by God to escape death. Adam was warned he would die if he sinned and after he sinned was separated from the tree of life and death was certain. Man was created a little lower than the angels as corrupt mortal beings (1Cor 15). They say the sinner does not have God and therefore cannot know God and cannot do good but scripture says…. Act 17:27-28 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Rom 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ………. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; …………. …… Rom 2:14-16 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. So, while you can name 10,000 examples of non-believers doing good moral things the christian finds numerous absurd ways, usually injecting ridiculous linguistic interpretation and obscene out of context claims, to reject common and practical sense. You get nowhere because you have not used their own scripture against them. They cannot say you don’t believe in God so you can’t use scripture. That’s completely irrelevant. Your faith is not in question, theirs is. They can’t say you just don’t understand it because just what’s there that is hard to understand? Pertaining to all mankind’s knowledge of the truth of God, just what can be questioned here in these text? What could be translated differently here to say anything other than all mankind know and mankind without the written law has the law in their heart and obey that law by nature? The heart of those that don’t obey the heart is darkened progressively until they have no understanding by their own choice.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 25, 2009 19:27:31 GMT -5
Post by latraviata on Apr 25, 2009 19:27:31 GMT -5
You must be very lucky having the monopoly on the truth. Funny, after a 1 hour lecture, Richard Dawkins got some questions from the audience, one man asked him the following: Dr Dawkins did you ever get a really intelligent question or remark from believers? Dawkins answered........NO. richarddawkins.net/article,3752,Richard-Dawkins-at-American-Atheists-09,Richard-Dawkins Be humble, listen and enlighten yourself.
|
|
tabby
New Member
Posts: 5
|
sirius
Apr 25, 2009 19:29:36 GMT -5
Post by tabby on Apr 25, 2009 19:29:36 GMT -5
To deny this is to decide you are not arguing with a Christian, and then what’s the point? ...discussion and debate can take place between anyone and anyone; all that's needed is reason. I may be of Germanic and Slovakian descent, but you don't need to borrow pieces of Germanic and Slovakian culture to talk to me. Nor do you have to reference atheism. The Bible says not to argue with unbelievers, anyway, so my trawling the Bible for verses and context to support my point wouldn't do any good.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 25, 2009 19:33:36 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 25, 2009 19:33:36 GMT -5
You must be very lucky having the monopoly on the truth. Funny, after a 1 hour lecture, Richard Dawkins got some questions from the audience, one man asked him the following: Dr Dawkins did you ever get a really intelligent question or remark from believers? Dawkins answered........NO. richarddawkins.net/article,3752,Richard-Dawkins-at-American-Atheists-09,Richard-Dawkins Be humble, listen and enlighten yourself. Well see the problem with that is I would be interested in a public debate with Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris, but since I'm not 'mainstream' I doubt they'd be interested and if they were interested as soon as I stump them up, down, left and right, they'd fall back on 'I'm not mainstream'. Also, mainstream christians would deny me as well so....
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 25, 2009 19:36:59 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 25, 2009 19:36:59 GMT -5
The Bible says not to argue with unbelievers, anyway...... Where might that be?
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 25, 2009 19:57:31 GMT -5
Post by jemand on Apr 25, 2009 19:57:31 GMT -5
Sirius says: "To deny this is to decide you are not arguing with a Christian, and then what’s the point?" Accepting scripture means being able to read, being able to parse language, being able to understand reasoning and logic because that's what Biblical texts DO use to make their case... but you're saying a Christian is incapable of thinking at all except through Bible quotes? Sirius says: "They can’t say you just don’t understand it because just what’s there that is hard to understand?" 1 Corinthians 2:14: "A person who isn't spiritual doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can't understand them because they are spiritually evaluated." Yup. Bible verses. You loves them! And that says I can't understand the Bible, because I am not a spiritual person-- I do not believe in God. so... looks like they CAN say I don't understand. Sirus says: "as soon as I stump them up, down, left and right" lol, you're arguments are perhaps not as good as you think they are. However, I do think you are perhaps changing your tone, and actually starting to talk to us instead of lecturing. thanks.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 25, 2009 20:49:19 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 25, 2009 20:49:19 GMT -5
Sirius says: "To deny this is to decide you are not arguing with a Christian, and then what’s the point?" Accepting scripture means being able to read, being able to parse language, being able to understand reasoning and logic because that's what Biblical texts DO use to make their case... but you're saying a Christian is incapable of thinking at all except through Bible quotes? I'm not saying that at all. In fact I said I am one of many that consider science as well, didn't I? Sirius says: "They can’t say you just don’t understand it because just what’s there that is hard to understand?" 1 Corinthians 2:14: "A person who isn't spiritual doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can't understand them because they are spiritually evaluated." Yup. Bible verses. You loves them! And that says I can't understand the Bible, because I am not a spiritual person-- I do not believe in God. so... looks like they CAN say I don't understand. Yes, that's a popular passage for a christian to produce. They do it all the time in debating original sin. Unfortunately they don't ask themselves what spiritual things are not understood. 1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. .......... 1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Now read 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Why would the non-believer receive the belief in a new heaven and earth created by Jesus for all those that believe in Jesus and receive glorification after the first born Jesus? Just a few of the things prepared for and given to believers. These things are not all spiritual things and is not the gospel. They are spiritual things revealed by the Spirit that indwells the believer that believes the gospel of Jesus Christ. This passage does not say a non-believer cannot understand scripture or the gospel. It says they can't truly understand things to come because they have not been born again and do not have the down payment and promise of the Spirit for believers. When Jesus asked people if they believe was it predicated on whether or not the Father had given them faith? Where might I find that in scripture?
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 26, 2009 7:42:46 GMT -5
Post by jemand on Apr 26, 2009 7:42:46 GMT -5
so, I give you a bible verse, and say "Christians use this verse to say I cannot understand the Bible."
Then you say I do not understand that verse.
Stop making my points for me!!! It's a bad debating technique!
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 26, 2009 11:50:13 GMT -5
Post by tapati on Apr 26, 2009 11:50:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 26, 2009 12:31:14 GMT -5
Post by ismist on Apr 26, 2009 12:31:14 GMT -5
The same rudeness, arrogance, and unwillingness to allow that anyone else could possibly be right and he wrong (the only reason someone wouldn't agree with him is that they 'weren't listening'). The same refusal to allow argument on any field but the one he has chosen. How convenient. The writing style is also similarly incoherent, sloppy, and poorly reasoned.
It's certainly comforting to suppose they are the same person, and not that there are two of them.
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 26, 2009 12:54:36 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 26, 2009 12:54:36 GMT -5
so, I give you a bible verse, and say "Christians use this verse to say I cannot understand the Bible." Then you say I do not understand that verse. Stop making my points for me!!! It's a bad debating technique! That wasn't my point. How could it be when I've already given a link to an atheist that understands original sin isn't biblical? Christian or not, anyone that uses that one verse out of context to say non-believers can't understand scripture is wrong. You said.... "Accepting scripture means being able to read, being able to parse language, being able to understand reasoning and logic because that's what Biblical texts DO use to make their case..."I am either right or wrong using the context and previous verses ( what Biblical text Do) to define 'the things' of 1Co 2:14. What say you?
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 26, 2009 13:04:08 GMT -5
Post by sirius on Apr 26, 2009 13:04:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
sirius
Apr 30, 2009 2:14:30 GMT -5
Post by kisekileia on Apr 30, 2009 2:14:30 GMT -5
You can construct any argument from any source you wish but if you want it to be effective yes, you must use scripture. Because I say so? No! Because that is what a Christian accepts. Some only accept scripture and others (like me) accept scripture and science, but either way scripture must be in the argument in order to be effective to a christian. Actually, no. This Christian is quite willing to accept arguments that make sense and don't mention Scripture.
|
|
|
sirius
May 2, 2009 7:58:29 GMT -5
Post by carebear on May 2, 2009 7:58:29 GMT -5
Sirius, I highly recommend the book How To Win Friends and Influence People. When you come across with that kind of attitude, it's hard to hear a word you are saying. The community here is about respect and acceptance for each other, things Vickie, Laura and many of the rest of us have not received from people from whom we needed it the most. It appears that you thought you were thinking along the same lines as others here, but your attitude is too reminiscent of those who have abused some of us. I have to admit that, along with others, I enjoyed the tables being turned. Yet I question myself in this for I do not want to be like those who judged and abused me. carebear
|
|
|
sirius
May 2, 2009 11:55:06 GMT -5
Post by sirius on May 2, 2009 11:55:06 GMT -5
You can construct any argument from any source you wish but if you want it to be effective yes, you must use scripture. Because I say so? No! Because that is what a Christian accepts. Some only accept scripture and others (like me) accept scripture and science, but either way scripture must be in the argument in order to be effective to a christian. Actually, no. This Christian is quite willing to accept arguments that make sense and don't mention Scripture. Are you willing to give a few examples, or even just one? Thanks!
|
|
|
sirius
May 3, 2009 12:24:40 GMT -5
Post by kisekileia on May 3, 2009 12:24:40 GMT -5
Sirius, I was referring to myself, not to you.
|
|
|
sirius
May 3, 2009 15:49:32 GMT -5
Post by sirius on May 3, 2009 15:49:32 GMT -5
You were refuting my claim. I am just asking for an example because if there is an essential truth that is not addressed by scripture I would like to know about it.
|
|
|
sirius
May 3, 2009 17:24:39 GMT -5
Post by ismist on May 3, 2009 17:24:39 GMT -5
For anyone not following along at home, this is exactly why engaging in "debate" with people like Sirius is a waste of time.
>> You were refuting my claim. I am just asking for an example because if there is an essential truth that is not addressed by scripture I would like to know about it.
When what he actually claimed was:
>> scripture must be in the argument in order to be effective to a christian.
Classic attempt to redefine the terms of the argument when called on the fact that his original claim was indisputably wrong. He is attempting to bluster his way past the fact that either he couldn't say what he really meant the first time, or he is incapable of admitting that there are many Christians considerably more open-minded than him with regards to intellectual discourse, or likely both.
He's really of no use to anyone who isn't looking to practice identifying fallacious arguments or who is bored enough to want to play with their food.
|
|
|
sirius
May 3, 2009 22:49:37 GMT -5
Post by sirius on May 3, 2009 22:49:37 GMT -5
You can't answer the question either..... Thanks for your time
|
|
|
sirius
May 3, 2009 23:33:35 GMT -5
Post by ismist on May 3, 2009 23:33:35 GMT -5
I don't discuss spirituality with immoral people, sorry.
|
|
|
sirius
May 3, 2009 23:38:13 GMT -5
Post by sirius on May 3, 2009 23:38:13 GMT -5
....immoral? Like I said, you can't answer either.
|
|
|
sirius
May 3, 2009 23:50:49 GMT -5
Post by ismist on May 3, 2009 23:50:49 GMT -5
Yes, immoral. Your attitude toward the spiritual beliefs of others is offensive in the eyes of my religion.
Furthermore, it is not consistent with my beliefs to prove or disprove the spiritual beliefs of others. So I do not allow you to draw me into immorality. Sorry.
|
|
|
sirius
May 4, 2009 0:33:48 GMT -5
Post by sirius on May 4, 2009 0:33:48 GMT -5
attitude immoral? That's funny!!! Something perceived that is mere thought cannot harm another unless the other is weak enough to allow it. What does offensive mean in your religion? I don't have a "religion" but the doctrinal teaching of offensive in my belief according to the bible is something that damns. What IS your religion? It's obviously not christian. THIS thread only addresses christianity. Futher proving my point that you can't answer the question. ;D
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
sirius
May 4, 2009 6:58:41 GMT -5
Post by aimai on May 4, 2009 6:58:41 GMT -5
Decompensating. Look it up. I, personally, find the assertion that something that is merely mental can't be hurtful "unless you let it" very creepy.
The entire experience of the women on this board is that mental constructs, and especially religious legalism, jargonmongering, logic chopping, and fake piety/authoritiarian manipulations of the men and churches in their lives have been *extremly* harmful.
To argue otherwise is, frankly, the very definition of abusive in this context. Sirius's posts continually align him with an extremely abusive, crude, reductionist, form of solipsistic male self worship that masquerades among seculars as overweening intellectual pride, and among the religious or the para-religious as an overweening religious pride.
I've made as much fun of Sirius as anyone on this board but I actually think now might be a good time to consign his posts to troll hell--that is, to ignore him. I find his posts, his argumentative style, his confrontational style and his bizarre and incoherent religion mongering to be kind of scary. If this is what he is like on the internet imagine meeting this crude, domineering, hectoring, bloviating windbag in person? Imagine being married to him? And that is where I draw the line. Sirius's real goal is to create on this board a kind of mental harem of abused women who he can argue with, and try to dominate. And it doesn't really matter whether we win the argument or not, in any intellectual sense. He's a cross between a foot fetishist and a dominatrix and he loves the kicks as well as the kills.
I'm recommending to everyone to simply ignore Sirius or the board will end up being nothing more than Sirius's serial masturbation blog. If you find Sirius Baiting too tempting we could try the troll recipe pioneered at Dkos--post your favorite recipe whenever you get the urge to respond.
aimai
|
|