Author Topic: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated  (Read 5944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #87 on: February 28, 2012, 01:13:28 PM »
Ah, Prov, your post in reply to mine was pretty much as expected.  Why yes, I am serious about being an atheist.  Nice try in your attempt to claim I’m a “Christian in denial”, it’s so cute when theists try their best to lie about atheists.  No, Prov, I was a Christian but no more.  Just because I know a lot about Christianity, evidently much more than you, and I am willing to discuss the religion and its harmful tendencies doesn’t mean I “really” do believe in God.  Many Christians would desperately hope that, so they get more external validation.  Unfortunately, there is none to be found with me.
Hi velkyn:
I suspect that the Christianity you know so much about, is simply someone else's doctrinal opinions which you have memorized.  But hey; one man's Christianity is another man's paganism:-)  I will certainly be happy to discuss Christianity with you.  Since you know it so well, I might be able to learn something.
Quote
It’s so cute that you can declare that the Jews were and are “backslidden” when their religion is just as intact, and supported, as yours.  No evidence for that claim at all.
I know it's cute, but again you are being presumptuous about what I believe.  I don't have a religion, and I accept the Jewish religion as a complete religion.  However, in the context of the story of scripture, the first century Judean Jews were clearly backslidden from the faith of Abraham, and I see no difference between the Jews of Jesus' day, and the majority of Jews today.  Here is the evidence which you are sure does not exist:  The Jewish faith has always nominally been the faith of Abraham.  The faith of Abraham was complete, and justifying the faithful, long before any law, or any Jewish religious traditions existed.  Judaism today is defined by the word "practicing", rather than "faithful".  This means that Jews today see the practice of the law, and religious traditions, as definitive of Judaism.  The Jewish faith, the faith of Abraham, is completely defined by belief in God's promise to Abraham.  The practice of Judaism has absolutely nothing to do with the faith of Abraham, and when Jews are more zealous for being a practicing Jew than in being a faithful Jew, they are backslidden.  The faith came first and the religious rituals were added after.  Zeal for the faith defines a faithful Jew, and zeal for the practice of Jewish rituals defines a practicing Jew.  A Jew can be both a faithful Jew and a practicing Jew, but when his zeal for the practice becomes greater than his zeal for the faith, he is backslidden.  That is exactly what happened to the first century Judean Jews.
Quote
They were waiting for their messiah and Jesus managed to screw up fulfilling the prophecies, and the Jews were split on whether to believe him or not.
Sort of:-)  Jesus' followers, and maybe Jesus himself, expected Jesus to "become" the messiah, but he was executed before it could happen.  The reason Jesus did not become the messiah, because he failed to fulfill the one prophecy which defines messianic purpose; the angelic prophecy that; "he will be give the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men."
Quote
  Early Christians *were* Jews who thought they got the right one but like all theists had to cherry pick their supposed divingly given books to make things fit.
Yes, early Christians were indeed Jews, because early Christianity was simply a return to true Judaism.  Remember that Jesus came specifically to heal the backsliding of the Jews, and bring them back into the fold from which they had strayed(the faith of Abraham).  The early church was simply true Judaism.
Quote
So much for any “truth”.
The meaning of the word "Truth" is quite obvious, but within the context of a story, there is "story-truth".  As an example: It is "story-truth" that James Bond likes his martinis shaken but not stirred:-)  We know that James Bond is a fictional character, and whether of not Jesus is a fictional character is not for me to say.  My contention is simply that there is a clear continuous logical story running through the bible, and the "story-truth" within the bible, is found in that one clear continuous logical story.  The way you say "so much for truth", it sounds as though you are still religious, but have simply changed religions:-)
Quote
JC himself said that the laws were to be followed and yes, that the Pharisees were placing too much emphasis on the “word” and not the implicatiosn behind them.  Again, the laws were still to be followed, all of them.
You sound like a preacher...LOL
Keeping of old redundant Israelite law was an important part of Jewish culture, and Jesus was a Jew.  He did not want Jews to reject their Jewish culture.  One of the problems which existed in the Judea of Jesus' day, was Jews rejecting Jewish culture to embrace Greek culture.  "Hellenization" was a dirty word among practicing Jews.  There was also a problem with Jews discovering that their cultural law keeping was not legally binding, and then becoming lawless.  This had to be a concern for Jesus the Jew.  Jesus did not want Jews to stop being Jewish, he simply wanted the Jews to see that "being Jewish" was not a substitute for "being faithful" to God's promise to Abraham.  Paul explained to the Galatians, that being a Jew is not defined by being Jewish, but by having a circumcised heart.  When you remember that "circumcision" was only ever the sign that one believed God's promise to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant, you will understand why Paul said;  "God preached the gospel first to Abraham saying; "In thee shall all nations be blessed".  Paul used a direct quote from the Abrahamic Covenant to define the gospel, making it clear that the gospel he preached was God's promise to Abraham.  Paul's statements also clarify that the gospel Jesus preached; "the gospel of the coming kingdom", is the very same gospel; "the gospel of the coming great nation".  The church did not miss such an obvious point, it is just not expedient for the church to point it out:-)  Churchmen traditionally believe what they are told by others who have a vested interest.  No wonder people are bitter when they discover that the "Christianity" they committed to memory, might not be true.
Quote
And then we get into your claims about the “end times”. Of course, no answers to be had about the details about those end times, just the usual ooga-booga by a Christian and then when asked about his claims of details on how one knows the end times will come, suddenly nothing.  No detaisl on how “large” is large.  Nice to cover your butt so you don’t look as ridiculous as every other Christain who has told a lie about the end times being “real soon now”.
In the context of the continuous story of scripture, there are no end times because the earth, the coming great nation/kingdom, and peace on earth, good will toward men, are going to exist forever.  According to God's everlasting unconditional gospel promise to Abraham(the one and only faith of scripture), a great everlasting nation is going to bless all the families of all nations, with everlasting peace on earth, good will toward men.  All the stuff about end times, and the end of the world, contradicts God's promise to Abraham.  This means that those who believe the end of the world stuff, do not believe God's promise to Abraham, are not justified by faith, and are simply members of the universal religion of the Roman Empire, which declared it'self to be "Christian" a few hundred years ago.  The Christianity that you claim to know so well, officially began after the first ecumenical council of Nicea, in 325AD, and has absolutely nothing to do with the one and only faith of the bible...The faith of Abraham.
Quote
First, I have said nothing about God returning.
Quote
No, didn’t need to read your mind at all.
Hence the good news of the coming kingdom. When the body of believers, which is being built for the Christ, becomes large enough to take and hold the land defined in God's promise, the Christ will appear and lead it to the resurrection of the kingdom of Covenant Israel from the dead, resurrected Covenant Israel will automatically be under the 10 commandments.....
Quote
(Do you still beat your wife? Answer yes or no!)  Even though you asked your question in such a presumptuous way that I cannot logically answer it, I will answer the question that I think you meant to, or should have, asked:  "Large enough" means enough people to conquer and occupy all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, which is the land defined in God's everlasting, unconditional, good news promise to Abraham.
Quote
oooh, questions I “should have asked”.  That’s good, Prov.  Making baseless claims that you couldn’t “logically” answer what I asked by calling it “presumputous”and then making up a new question.  Nice dodge there, though.  Again, this means nothing.  This would vary depending on time period and technology.  The theist’s vagueness strikes again.
No dodge here!  You got your answer, even though you did not ask it properly.  You are dodging the fact that you asked the question improperly:-)  Go back and look at the way you asked it, and see if you can figure out why I compared it to the "do you still beat your wife" question.
Quote
What a dreamer:-(  Do you really think that everything I write is something that I think I know? 
Quote
  Oh my, what a lovely quote.  Good to know that you write about nonsense and evidently you do know it!
Context girl, context!  I have no knowledge of anything which happened thousands of years ago, and neither does anyone else.  I only write personal opinion, nothing else.  That is all anyone writes, but of course those who insist that they are right will not admit that it is just opinion...LOL
Quote
and this one too
Try to keep in mind that I have made no claims of having any knowledge of biblical truth, but my claim is that I know that there is a continuous, logical, story running through scripture, which has been covered up and ignored by those who would have you believe that they "know" the truth.
Quote
You know, that quote above, where you say “The good news of the coming kingdom”.  Oh yes, that where you claim to be telling what will happen.
Absolutely.  That is what the bible story says, and I argue for the bible story.  It is not for me to tell anyone whether the bible story is actually true or not.
Quote
How could you know that?  What is your definition of a Christian?  You think you know way too much, for one who doesn't have a clue about what she is talking about.
Do you not see how ridiculous your questions are?  If you want me to show where the bible says all the things I have claimed, which you actually only think I claimed:-), I would simply say; read the bible for the chronologically continuous story which flows through it.  It's a story, and a story is only defined by the story.  I don't have a bunch of standard verses which have been doctrinally selected to support my position.  If that is what you expect, then I am becoming more convinced that you are a Christian in denial.
Quote
  So, you’ve not bothered actually showing where the bible supports the things you’ve claimed as I asked.  My definition of a Christian is based someone calling themselves a Christian.  There is no better way to know, especially since Christians differ on how they define being a Christian.
Yes, Christians define Christianity in different ways.  Since you are so knowledgeable about Christianity, what is your definition of Christian?
Quote
Quote
Now, you’ve claimed this, Prov:
“However, God knows that even when Covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, it would break the 10 commandments and fall away again.”
Quote
  I want to know where in the bible it says this.
Jeremiah 31:31-34
Quote
  You have claimed that the bible is a continuous story. You have claimed that that you know that this god knows various things and has said various things. The only way you would know is by the bible, right?   I know the bible quite well and I’m calling you on your claims.  I find your claims ridiculous since they seem to be only things made up by you.  And why would my requests for you to support your claims make me a “Christian in denial”?  It’s a nice thing for you to baselessly claim but again, without evidence, it makes you only seem that you can lie.
You are getting way ahead of the discussion:-)  I can show you from scripture, everything I claim.  However, it is Christians, and ex-Christians, who expect me to do it by offering conveniently worded verses.  When reading a story, every principle cannot be technically explained, because it would make the story too long, and too boring.  Meanings tend to be extrapolated from the flowing text of a story, in the context of the story.  For example: In Genesis, God makes His good news statment that a great nation will bless all nations.  In the NT God makes the same good news statement that the christ will be given the kingdom of his father David and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men.  If one has followed the story of the bible, he knows that the nation of Israel was chosen by God to become the great nation of His good news promise in Genesis.  The story goes on to record that the chosen nation became a kingdom.  Then the story tells us that "David's kingdom" fell into non-existence without becoming everlasting, or blessing anyone.  Jesus comes along trying to heal the backsliding of people who were once zealous for the fulfillment of God's good news.  Jesus is preaching the gospel of the coming kingdom, which matches the original gospel of the coming great nation.  Now in the NT, when God says that the christ is going to be given the kingdom of his father David, and bring peace on earth, good will toward men, it has to be extrapolated from the story, that this is refering to God's promise in Genesis, that a great everlasting nation will bless all nations.  If you say prove it, I cannot show you a verse which states what you want to hear, but the continuous logical story of the bible makes it quite clear.  Since Christians, and ex-Christians have never read the bible as a story, they will miss obvious things like that, and will believe whatever their leaders tell them that any given single verse means.
Quote
Can't you keep your mind on anything long enough to type a sentence?  I just stated that God is not involved with man, and I gave you the reason why I say that, and immediately you ask me why God does not do the things that are in the myths about Him.  There is little point in you asking me questions, if you are going to ignore my answers, and just rant about whatever you imagine...LOL  I think you should settle down and become rational, before you respond to this post.  Apply the common rules of English composition to what I write, and be completely sure that you understand what I said.
Quote
More things made up.
Not made up.  I posted both sides of the converstation.  Why would you say that I made it up?  It is recorded in perpetuity for anyone to look up!
Quote
  yes, I saw that you claimed that god is now not involved with man.  You have declared that god has left the building and that suddenly the whole story is just a metaphor.  Nice decoder ring there.  You are now the arbiter about this god and what bits are myths and what bits are true.
The only thing I have declared is that there is a story running though scripture, and when logically read as a story, it is the proverbial "decoder ring" you mention:-)
Quote
  That’s my point, Prov, you are just one more theist with your own religion.  You have decided on your own what the “true” story of the bible is.
Yes, I have decided on my own what the "real" story of the bible is.  However, any honest, thinking person, who is not biased by preconceived doctrines, which he claims not to believe:-) should easily be able to follow my logic.
Quote
If we were discussing Shakespeare, would you accuse me of stating that Romeo was an actual person?  Get real!!!:-)
Quote
No dear, I wouldn’t.  But I’m guessing that you would not have claimed that your interpretation of Shakespear was the only “right” one.
No, I would have claimed that the interpretation of what Shakespeare wrote, is found in the story, which is exactly what I am claiming for the bible:-)
Quote
But as it seems from your antics so far, you very well might do so.
Since Shakespeare wrote stories, it is likely that anyone who reads them comes to the same conclusion.  If people started interpreting Shakespeare according to selected single sentences, there would be no end of doctrinal possibilities.
Quote
Prov, you have declared that the “10 Commandments” were the only law given by this god.  I’ve shown your claim wrong and I have your inabnlity to support your claim.
Virtually everything found in the 10 commandments, is also found in the 613 Mitzvot laws.  Do you think that God is so doddering that He repeats Himself, or that He forgot that He had already given a law?
Every national assembly that ever existed had laws to maintain civil society, yet as far as God is concerned, no law existed from Adam to Moses.  The 613 Mitzvot laws have the appropriate penalties written right in, which means that the breaking of one of the Mitzvot laws is completely atoned for by the penalty prescribed, and therefore does not come down to what God is going to do to the law breaker after his death.  The 10 commandments were given to the national assembly as a national standard, so there is no individual personal penalties attached, as in the 613.  The national assembly was chosen to become the great everlasting nation of God's good news promise.  National unity is absolutely key for a nation to become great and everlasting.  The 10 commandments cover all the national unity bases without specifying any individual penalties.  When you put all this together with the context of the whole story, it becomes obvious that the 10 commandments had a special purpose for a special nation, and that purpose apart from the 613 laws which were simply the equivalent of the laws of any other nation which ever existed.
Quote
So, I find that I am indeed correct when I accuse you of making up your own version of what the bible “really” means.  We have repeated verses that have this god declaring he is giving laws.  You might wish to ignore those verses to support your own premise but that is exactly what I’m getting at.
Yes, you have indeed declared yourself correct...LOL
One of the very first points in my contention, is that "God finished creation, declared it good, and sat down".  To me that is a metaphore which says;  God's plan was over when creation was finished and declared good.  God sat down because creation was no longer a work in progess, but it was finished.  God, who saw the end from the beginning, revealed the good news that He saw, to Abraham.  A great nation(not God) is going to bless forever, all the families of all nations.  That one statement defines the faith of Abraham, which is faith in the accuracy of God's promise, not faith that God is going to personally fulfill the promise.  After the initial statement of the faith, then scripture writers start writing as if God has taken control of everything.  However, we can see that when God appears to say that He will win the war for Israel, Israelites still have to fight and die to win the war.  It is clear to me, from the context of the bible story, and my own experiential knowledge, the the religious always give God the credit for everything.  It is obviously a common, basic, form of worship, to give God the "glory" for everything, and it is even a bible priniciple.  The continuous logical story of the bible requires that God is not involved with man, and that man is on his own in his attempts to fulfill the good news ending which God saw from the beginning.
Words, and verses, can be doctrinally altered over the centuries, but if there is a continuous logical story present in a book as large as the bible, it will still be there even if some verses conflict with it.
The whole point of appealing to context, is to clarify the meaning of specific text, however, when we know that the text has changed over the centuries, context can also show us which sentences have been changed.
As an example, the gospel of Mark found in our modern bibles, has 10,000 more words than the gospel of Mark found in the oldest bible known to exist: the Sinai bible from around 380AD.  We cannot trust any individual word, or verse, to be accurate, but we can be sure that if a continuous logical story ever existed in the bible, it is still there to discover, by considering that scripture was written in narrative style, and reading it as narrative, and not as single verses to mix and match to make doctrines out of.
Quote
 
The bible is not continuous and chronological.  We have no idea when some of the events occurred or if they did occur.  The bible ignores that it kills some tribes off “entirely” when it brings them back again to be annihilated.  The NT ignores the OT when it comes to prophecies when convenient.  And for you accusing me of paranoia, I do love your claim that
I am perfectly happy to demonstrate how scripture is a chronologically continuous story, and explain why that has been covered up, but I think you should settle down and become rational before I do that:-)
Quote
Ooh conspiracies!  Sigh, one more claim from a theist on how they “know” things.
I would have thought since you left the church, you would no longer be ruled by preconceived beliefs...LOL
Quote


As for your claims that I somehow feel “guilt”, again, nice but baseless claim.  Just how are you taking any punishment for me?  Tsk, such a martyr complex.  Nope, dear, I have anything but guilt, but I do have no problem in showing your claims to be nonsense and calling you on them.
I hope you start soon...LOL
Quote
  You have claimed to know about “Covenant Israel”, something that only a few sects of Christianity try to natter on about.  You claim to know that “whole story of scripture is about Covenant Israel, because God chose Covenant Israel to fulfill His everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise.  Anyone who has read the bible through twice, should know that.” and try to claim that “anyone” should know this somehow, when that is not the case at all, again making claims that your version is the only “right” one.”
Quote
  If your point is that the details are silly, I agree.  Interestingly, one of the important points that one finds in the story, is that concentrating on the silly religious details keeps one from seeing the point of the story.  If anything, the story goes out of it's way to dismiss silly religious details.
Quote
Yep, the details are silly, but they do show your claim that you somehow know that God only gave the “ten commandments” as laws to be utter nonsense.
The "somehow" is the one and only point I am trying to make.  If you have read my stuff this far and you still say that "somehow" I know, you have missed the whole point of what I have written.  I have been trying to explain to you how I arrived at the opinions I have.  There is no somehow about it.  That there is a continuous logical bible story is my only claim.
Quote
  And here we go with the claims of you knowing what the “real” point of the story is.  Yep, you and ever Christian all claims that they know this, and funny how they differ.
Nothing to it:-)  You just have to read the bible as a story, to realize that the whole point of the one and only faith of scripture, is for men to establish a great everlasting nation, and bless all nations with everlasting peace on earth, good will toward men
Quote
 

You wan to claim that you know the “real” gospel.  Hmmm perhaps not a Mormon but a Gnostic Christian who again has made up his own version of the “truth”.  You want to split your god from the religion you don’t like.  Not suprising many theists do.  You’ve all shat on your religions by your actions so that you run away from the concept so you don’t have to be responsible for anything.  Again, nothing to show that this god is what you claim, that is means to bless anything or create an everlasting nation.  Just more wannabee chosen people.
It is no big deal to claim to know the "real" gospel, because it is obvious from the beginning of the bible to the end of the bible, if one is not committed to a preconceived belief.
Those who think they understand Christianity because they have memorized a dozen or so verses suggested to them by a denomination, will never admit that there is a continuous story running through the bible, because they are committed to their doctrinal preconceptions.  Whether they admit it or not:-(
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 01:37:58 PM by Provoker »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10913
  • Darwins +283/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #88 on: February 28, 2012, 01:20:57 PM »
Yes, now I remember.  Cherry picking is looking for a conveniently worded passage to support a preconceived belief.

Which I already explained was wrong. Cherry picking means, for example, accepting one Bible verse and rejecting all others. Quoting one verse is not the same. It's just that - quoting. Are you also going to claim that the way you reply to people is cherry picking?

My point is that every time someone quotes a verse, or a passage, outside of the story it is part of, he is quoting it out of context.  It might mean what he claims, but it is still quoted out of context.  The story is the story, and the story only becomes context when refering to a single verse of passage.  People who define the story with doctrinally selected single passages, are putting the cart before the horse
<snip>

So by replying to your posts by splitting them up into individual quotes, I'm taking things out of context? Good to know.

The verses, or passages, which support the obvious theme, can be reasonable assumed to be understood in context, but verses, or passages, which appear to conflict with, or contradict the obvious theme, must be assumed to be misunderstood, and doctrine should not be made out of them.  The problem of course, is understanding the continuing theme so that it can be used as context for understanding verses.

Cherry picking level: Over 9000
"If it makes sense, it's true. If it doesn't, you misinterpreted it."

The establishment of a logical continuous scriptural theme is the establishment of scriptural consistency.  Considering how old scripture is, and how many administrations it has gone through, it is bound to have inconsistencies.  The key to understanding scripture is separating the story from the chaos of quoted-out-of-context verses

Look, just face it - the Bible has more contradictions in it than a poorly written fan fiction.

That is right, however, understanding the greater context of scripture will allow one to honestly reject the apparent meaning of inconsistent verses.  That is what context is all about

No, that's what cherry picking, lying and poor logic is all about. You reject that which doesn't make sense while claiming that it doesn't matter.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #89 on: February 28, 2012, 02:21:52 PM »
Yes, now I remember.  Cherry picking is looking for a conveniently worded passage to support a preconceived belief.

Which I already explained was wrong. Cherry picking means, for example, accepting one Bible verse and rejecting all others. Quoting one verse is not the same. It's just that - quoting. Are you also going to claim that the way you reply to people is cherry picking?
Hi Luci:
I see your point, but I would say that both our definitions are cherry picking.
Unfortunately, I do often cherry pick when I reply to others.  A personal accusation, or negative innuendo, made within a paragraph, quite often has to be addressed at that point in order not to confuse the issue by addressing it at the end.  The larger issue of the whole paragraph will wait till the end:-)

Quote
My point is that every time someone quotes a verse, or a passage, outside of the story it is part of, he is quoting it out of context.  It might mean what he claims, but it is still quoted out of context.  The story is the story, and the story only becomes context when refering to a single verse of passage.  People who define the story with doctrinally selected single passages, are putting the cart before the horse
<snip>

So by replying to your posts by splitting them up into individual quotes, I'm taking things out of context? Good to know.
It depends.  If I post in point form, it is best to respond to the points individually.  However, if my post is a narrative which makes it's conclusion at the end, it might interfere with the context being established in the narrative.  Nothing is black and white:-)

Quote
The verses, or passages, which support the obvious theme, can be reasonable assumed to be understood in context, but verses, or passages, which appear to conflict with, or contradict the obvious theme, must be assumed to be misunderstood, and doctrine should not be made out of them.  The problem of course, is understanding the continuing theme so that it can be used as context for understanding verses.

Cherry picking level: Over 9000
"If it makes sense, it's true. If it doesn't, you misinterpreted it."
It's not quite that simple.  Remember, nothing is black and white:-)
If a continuous logical story can be seen running though scripture, then any verse which appears to conflict with that story, either has to be misunderstood or spurious.  I am not just making up an arbitrary rule here, I am simply making a logical statement.  The story is context, and the reason we appeal to context is to come to a proper understanding of a verse.  If there is no proper understanding within the context of the story, what are you going to do?  You have to be double minded to believe conflicting principles, so you accept the one which agrees with the context of the story, and reject the one which conflicts with the story.
Think of it this way; if a printer accidently put a page from a different novel into the middle of a novel you happen to be reading, when you come across that page, would you simply accept it as part of the story, or would you reject it because it did not fit into the story?

Quote
The establishment of a logical continuous scriptural theme is the establishment of scriptural consistency.  Considering how old scripture is, and how many administrations it has gone through, it is bound to have inconsistencies.  The key to understanding scripture is separating the story from the chaos of quoted-out-of-context verses

Look, just face it - the Bible has more contradictions in it than a poorly written fan fiction.
There is no doubt that there is a lot of contradictions in the bible, but what is your point?

Quote
That is right, however, understanding the greater context of scripture will allow one to honestly reject the apparent meaning of inconsistent verses.  That is what context is all about

No, that's what cherry picking, lying and poor logic is all about. You reject that which doesn't make sense while claiming that it doesn't matter.
Do you think that accepting that which doesn't make sense, and claiming that it matters, is a better way to go?  You must be a churchman...LOL
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 02:29:05 PM by Provoker »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10913
  • Darwins +283/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #90 on: February 28, 2012, 02:30:16 PM »
I see your point, but I would say that both our definitions are cherry picking.

You can say that as many times as you'd like. It won't make a difference.

Nothing is black and white

Wrong, but let's just skip this for now.


You have to be double minded to believe conflicting principles, so you accept the one which agrees with the context of the story, and reject the one which conflicts with the story.

False analogy, because there is no story in the Bible.

There is no doubt that there is a lot of contradictions in the bible, but what is your point?

Could it be that... *gasp* the Bible is full of crap?

Do you think that accepting that which doesn't make sense, and claiming that it matters, is a better way to go?

False dichotomy and strawman, all in one sentence. I'd say "amazing", but I've seen worse.

You must be a churchman...LOL

Every time you say "LOL" and/or add a smiley face to something that's meant to be taken seriously, you "project" stupidity. Note that I'm not calling you an idiot. At least not based on that.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #91 on: February 28, 2012, 03:16:50 PM »
Mmmm.  You know, this whole post could be really “You’ve made your baseless claism again.  Evidence please.” 

I think I'll just say this rather than the several page response I did.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #92 on: February 28, 2012, 03:18:27 PM »
I see your point, but I would say that both our definitions are cherry picking.

You can say that as many times as you'd like. It won't make a difference.
Hi Luci:
Would you be convinced if I went to wikipedia and edited the definition of Cherry picking to say what I want it to say?  You do understand the priniciple of wikipedia don't you?

Quote
Nothing is black and white

Wrong, but let's just skip this for now.
Now that is a classic ad hominem and strawman...LOL  Don't say "wrong" and then not give an explanation:-)


Quote
You have to be double minded to believe conflicting principles, so you accept the one which agrees with the context of the story, and reject the one which conflicts with the story.

False analogy, because there is no story in the Bible.
That is not an analogy, it is a simple, logical statement of fact, and I don't see anything in what you quoted, which has anything to do with a story in the bible.

Quote
There is no doubt that there is a lot of contradictions in the bible, but what is your point?

Could it be that... *gasp* the Bible is full of crap?
I don't know.  Is that your point?

Quote
Do you think that accepting that which doesn't make sense, and claiming that it matters, is a better way to go?

False dichotomy and strawman, all in one sentence. I'd say "amazing", but I've seen worse.
You write worse...LOL

You must be a churchman...LOL

Every time you say "LOL" and/or add a smiley face to something that's meant to be taken seriously, you "project" stupidity. Note that I'm not calling you an idiot. At least not based on that.
[/quote]Are you sure you see me as a projector, and not as a mirror...Yuk yuk
I apologize for seeing the humour in the silly confrontational attitude, and the poor attempts at wit, of people who pretend that they are here for serious discussion...LOL

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #93 on: February 28, 2012, 03:22:14 PM »
I see your point, but I would say that both our definitions are cherry picking.

You can say that as many times as you'd like. It won't make a difference.

Nothing is black and white

Wrong, but let's just skip this for now.


You have to be double minded to believe conflicting principles, so you accept the one which agrees with the context of the story, and reject the one which conflicts with the story.

False analogy, because there is no story in the Bible.

There is no doubt that there is a lot of contradictions in the bible, but what is your point?

Could it be that... *gasp* the Bible is full of crap?

Do you think that accepting that which doesn't make sense, and claiming that it matters, is a better way to go?

False dichotomy and strawman, all in one sentence. I'd say "amazing", but I've seen worse.

Quote
You must be a churchman...LOL

Every time you say "LOL" and/or add a smiley face to something that's meant to be taken seriously, you "project" stupidity. Note that I'm not calling you an idiot. At least not based on that.
Are you sure you see me as a projector, and not as a mirror...Yuk yuk
I apologize for seeing the humour in the silly confrontational attitude, and the poor attempts at wit, of people who pretend that they are here for serious discussion...LOL

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10913
  • Darwins +283/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #94 on: February 28, 2012, 03:28:39 PM »
Would you be convinced if I went to wikipedia and edited the definition of Cherry picking to say what I want it to say?  You do understand the priniciple of wikipedia don't you?

Yes, I do. Add information from reliable sources and cite said sources. Information without reliable sources gets removed.
Are you sure you understand what that means?

Now that is a classic ad hominem and strawman

Go back to school. You have no idea what those fallacies are.

Don't say "wrong" and then not give an explanation

Why not?

That is not an analogy, it is a simple, logical statement of fact,

If it's not an analogy, then it's irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't know.  Is that your point?

Pretty much.

You write worse

Show me where I "write worse".

Are you sure you see me as a projector, and not as a mirror

Your idiocy is as clear as vacuum.

I apologize for seeing the humour in the silly confrontational attitude,

LOL U GAIZ R DEBATING!! SO FUNNY!!
^That's what you sound like.

and the poor attempts at wit, of people who pretend that they are here for serious discussion

This coming from the idiot who keeps posting "LOL" every third paragraph or so.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline changeling

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +15/-0
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #95 on: February 29, 2012, 06:47:37 AM »
I suppose that on his keyboard the period key was replaced with an LOL key.
The level of dumb they have to sell, is only made remotely possible by the level of flocking their sheep are willing to do in the name of rewards for no thought. quote: Kin Hell

"Faith is the enemy of evidence, for when we know the truth, no faith is required." Graybeard

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #96 on: February 29, 2012, 10:45:31 AM »
Mmmm.  You know, this whole post could be really “You’ve made your baseless claism again.  Evidence please.” 

I think I'll just say this rather than the several page response I did.
Hello again velkyn:-)
And I always thought that cut-and-run was a Christian trait...LOL

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #97 on: February 29, 2012, 10:56:15 AM »
Hello again velkyn:-)  And I always thought that cut-and-run was a Christian trait...LOL
You'd like to see the whole thing? I'm happy to oblige.  You see, I figured you'd try this.  Please do show me how asking for evidence of your claims is "cutting and running".  I'm sorry that you seem to have decided that you need to try to tell a lie about me.

Prov,  the Christianity I know about is that which is in the bible, and the various sects that claim to all be Christian.  Your version is one among many.  You have made repeated claims that you know certain things about it, but of course have no evidence to support your claims.  Again, like so many theists who decide that their version is the only “right” one.

However, I do notice that you simply try to ignore when I point out you are wrong.  Typical.

It seems you do have a religion, but like so many theists, you wish to avoid that word since others like you have made it associated with so many bad things.   You have accused the Jews of being backslidden, but of course you don’t seem to know much about the religion, no matter your claims of knowing it as a “complete religion” whatever that’s supposed to mean.  I see nothing “clear” about the Jews being backslidden.  That seems to be the accusation of a Christian who is looking for support for his religion and the supposed “need” for their supposed messiah. 

You calim that the Jewish faith is “nominally” the faith of Abraham.  If this faith of Abraham was complete, then there should be no need for the laws that the Hebrew god made up.  Of course, this assumes that this story is true and again, no evidence for this at all, none of it.  You have repeatedly claimed that the bible is a continuous chronological story, which makes no sense if you want to declare that only the faith of Abraham is valid which it seems you want to do in your attempts to ignore that your claim that this god only gave the 10 commandments is utterly unsupported. 

I also see that you’ve taken it upon yourself to determine if Jews are “faithful” or not.  I do love to see theists attacking other theists on the basis of what they claim to “know” and no evidence at all.  I think you should as a real Jew if they think they are faithful. I suspect that your opinion matters little to them. 

Again, it seems that you have decided that you know what the god of the Israelites “really” meant, with your ignoring that it seemed to have no problem with giving the laws to the Israelites and it didn’t consider that its promise to Abraham was all that was needed.  Oh and nice how you’ve decided that you and you alone can determine if someone has enough “zeal” for you to accept that they are a faithful Jews.

Oh I love this part
Quote
Yes, early Christians were indeed Jews, because early Christianity was simply a return to true Judaism.
Ah, the claim by a Christian that he’s really part of the supposed “chosen people”.  He’s the “true jew” here.  &) 

Your contention that the bible has some “clear continuous logical story” is belied by the attempts you have made trying to claim that the parts you don’t like aren’t “really” part of this story.  What a magic decoder ring you have.  And oh, claiming againt that I must “still be religious” and the nice little attempt to equate atheism with religion, how not original.  Sorry, to disappoint you dear, but no, I’m not and will not become so, no matter how hard you wish for it.  And no I don’t sound like a preacher, I sounds like someone who’s read the bible. 

and hmmm, how did it become that the religious law of the Jews (for it was not *only* cultural, not to them and not to the bible. Again, you seem unable to accept that this bible has this god repeatedly saying directly that it was giving these laws) become not legally binding?  It seems that it sure was binding, even the Romans allowed it as long as it didn’t conflict with Roman law.

As for what Paul said, it doesn’t often match with what JC said.  Paul needed a new audience and there were plenty of early Christians who disagreed with him aka “judaizers”.  Suddenly, Paul says that you don’t hve to follow those pesky laws, you can just believe and this god is good with it.  Quite a different religion he created.  This bible that you claim is so clear, etc, has a tribal religion for one group to one that is expanded to everyone who wants in.  Not the same god or religion at all. Oh and Prov, Abrham was cutting off real foreskins for his god.  If this god only “really” wanted believers, why did it take thousands of years for this god to decide this and spare men such a personal snipping?  It seems that this religion changes its mind as soon as it needs to accommodate reality, the reality that jews found Jesus and Paul to be ridiculous. Paul does use a direct quote, but golly he had a copy of the torah, so that must mean this god “really” meant it just for him to understand in a completely different way &)  Yep, plenty of believers decide that they know what god “really” meant. 

It seems that you are as guilt of believing what others tell you too.  Nothing original about your conspiracy claims of how you now know the “real” Christianity and how you know what this god “really” means.  Like this:

Quote
In the context of the continuous story of scripture, there are no end times because the earth, the coming great nation/kingdom, and peace on earth, good will toward men, are going to exist forever.  According to God's everlasting unconditional gospel promise to Abraham(the one and only faith of scripture), a great everlasting nation is going to bless all the families of all nations, with everlasting peace on earth, good will toward men.  All the stuff about end times, and the end of the world, contradicts God's promise to Abraham.  This means that those who believe the end of the world stuff, do not believe God's promise to Abraham, are not justified by faith, and are simply members of the universal religion of the Roman Empire, which declared it'self to be "Christian" a few hundred years ago.
  Yep, one more theist sure that his version is the “right” one and the interpretation he’s latched onto is the bestest.  Of course, just like the rest of the theists, you have no more evidence than they do.  I’ve seen Christian after Christian make the same claims you do, that those “other Christians” aren’t TrueChristians, and that you are.  You want to claim that the bible has some “one and only faith” but history is full of various claims of that, debates on what books should have been included. It seems you’d claim that one can stop at Genesis and then have the “truth faith”, of course assuming that has any more validity than the rest of your “complete and continuous” blah-blah-blah. 

 And more claims that I didn’t ask a question “properly”:D  No dear, I did ask it properly, since I asked exactly what I wanted too.  I’m sure you find it improper since you can answer me.  I’m still waiting and if you wish to explain why you think your attempt at being clever “do you still beat your wife” (oh my, I’ve never seen that before &) ) means anything then do so. 

then we get your protestations of “context”.
Quote
Context girl, context!  I have no knowledge of anything which happened thousands of years ago, and neither does anyone else.  I only write personal opinion, nothing else.  That is all anyone writes, but of course those who insist that they are right will not admit that it is just opinion...LOL
I have a lot of knowledge of what happened thousands of years ago. That’s called archaeology and paleontology.  I’m sorry if you’ve never encountered them.  I see your claims that you “only write personal opinion” hilarious when in the same post, you claim to know all about the Council of Nicea and Rome, etc.  Which is it, Prov, do you know history or not? Is it accurate or not?  it is nice to see you try to eat your cake and have it too.

I know a lot about the bible, history, etc.  I suspect that you are not used to that considering your antics.  I know what I’m talking about and unlike you I don’t try to get away with making vague claims like
Quote

Do you not see how ridiculous your questions are?  If you want me to show where the bible says all the things I have claimed, which you actually only think I claimed:-), I would simply say; read the bible for the chronologically continuous story which flows through it.
You see, you claim that the bible is such things, but when I say, demonstrate it, you can’t.  I have read the bible and I do not see this supposed “onologically continuous story which flows through it”.  You cry that it is “obvious” but I do not see it as such, so I want you to support your claims, not wave your hand like just one more Christian. You keep making claims that you know that the bible means this and such but when I ask for verses, you claim you don’t “have a bunch of standard verses which have been doctrinally selected to support my position”.  This makes me wonder where your position comes from then.  If not the bible, if not archaeology, then what?  Of course then you claim that you can show everything I ask for in the bible. 
Quote
I can show you from scripture, everything I claim.
which is it, Prov?  You seem to be wasting a lot of time with these promises but I still don’t see any verses.  Excuse after excuse, claims that you magically know what was “really” meant, declaring that prophecies must have meant this and such when we have no way to know if the books were written as events were happening or not. 
Quote
Since Christians, and ex-Christians have never read the bible as a story, they will miss obvious things like that, and will believe whatever their leaders tell them that any given single verse means.
Oh and I’ve read the bible as a story and I still find you wrong.  Now what’s your next excuse?  Again, you seem to be just as guilty at finding your own belief in whatever you like for each verse or the whole “story” means.  Lucifer is quite right to point out your cherry picking. 

I told you my definition of a Christian which you promptly ignored and asked again.  So I’ll quote myself: “My definition of a Christian is based someone calling themselves a Christian.  There is no better way to know, especially since Christians differ on how they define being a Christian.”  Now, if I was defining it as the bible does, I’d require a Chritian to perform miracles like JC promised they could.  But since Christians can’t agree on what a Christian is, I must take them at *their* word. Not my own, not someone else’s.
Quote
Jeremiah 31:31-34
  Okay, let’s look at this:
Quote
31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand  to lead them out of Egypt,because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God,    and they will be my people. 34 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
and it seems this all is about Babylon and Israel/Judah events with it, and from what scholars think, it was written after the fact.  Nice for ‘Zeke to write about how bad things are and assign reasons after the fact.  To claim that this is a prophecy of Christianity is amusing since it seems that this god failed pretty badly in “writing” anything on anyone’s “heart”.   
It’s just one more theist declaring that after the fact, that oh God must have meant this new thing since the one we thought he meant was wrong.  Ooops, David failed so Jesus must be it!  Oh Jesus failed so Mohammed must be it.  God is not involved with any man since Prov says its true and that he’s found it in the magical “context” and “story” of the bible.  It’s only if you read the bible “logically” as Prov defines it, and agree with him, that you’ll have the “true” meaning of the bible and be considered an “honest, thinking person, who is not biased by preconceived doctrines”.  Seen this all before. Same arguments every time.
Quote
Virtually everything found in the 10 commandments, is also found in the 613 Mitzvot laws.  Do you think that God is so doddering that He repeats Himself, or that He forgot that He had already given a law?
Evidently he is if you believe the bible since it says he did exactly that. So, please tell me how this is in the 10 commandments: Leviticus 20:18? Leviticus 11: 9?  All god given laws and I’ll be hapy to see how you fit them into the “10 commandments”.  Oh yes, you still haven’t shown how you know that god gave only these laws and how the bible is wrong when it says that god gave the others.  The other laws were given to the national assembly as a national standard, just like I showed from bible verses saying exactly that. There is nothing that seperates out the first ten laws from the others if you read the bible like a story, page after page, not ignoring what you don’t like.  If you have evidence to the contrary, show it. If not, it’s just more baseless claims from you.
Quote
One of the very first points in my contention, is that "God finished creation, declared it good, and sat down".  To me that is a metaphore which says;  God's plan was over when creation was finished and declared good.
  And then God appears over and over again, thus belying your claim that God left humans alone. Yep, Israelites do die but god is always claimed to have a reason, so again, nothing to support your claim that the story says god goes away.  Or is that more of the bible that you’ve decided to ignore?  I know the whole story is garbage but I do love to point out to theists that they create their own religions to suit themselves in quite a nice bit of hypocrisy and cherry picking. 

It is only your version that requires that god is not involved, no logic needed or presented. There is no reason to assume that your claim that one can ever find some magical “continuous logical story” especially when we can watch you cherry pick, declaring that anything you don’t like “obviously” must not be considered as valid because they show your claims of the bible having a continuous chronological story to be false.  There is no reason to assume this
Quote
We cannot trust any individual word, or verse, to be accurate, but we can be sure that if a continuous logical story ever existed in the bible, it is still there to discover, by considering that scripture was written in narrative style, and reading it as narrative, and not as single verses to mix and match to make doctrines out of.
  It could all be garbage and indeed seems that it is.
Quote
I would have thought since you left the church, you would no longer be ruled by preconceived beliefs...LOL
  What preconceived beliefs, Prov?  and I’m still waiting for that demonstration of your claims. Lots of excuses but nothing yet.  No evidence supporting how your claims are true. You’ve made nothing but unsupported statements on how you supposedly “know” that the bible is somehow wrong, etc.  That’s what I’m asking for, Prov.  You can make up all you want but until you show that your claims are based in reality, and not your fantasies, it’s all just more theist woo.
Quote
It is no big deal to claim to know the "real" gospel, because it is obvious from the beginning of the bible to the end of the bible, if one is not committed to a preconceived belief.
Funny how so many people don’t find this obvious at all and find you wrong.  I don’t have a preconceived belief and I still find you wrong.  How can that be!
Quote
Those who think they understand Christianity because they have memorized a dozen or so verses suggested to them by a denomination, will never admit that there is a continuous story running through the bible, because they are committed to their doctrinal preconceptions.  Whether they admit it or not:-(
  ah, there we go, the claim that only you understand Christianity “correctly”. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Provoker

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Darwins +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #98 on: February 29, 2012, 11:09:52 AM »
Would you be convinced if I went to wikipedia and edited the definition of Cherry picking to say what I want it to say?  You do understand the priniciple of wikipedia don't you?

Yes, I do. Add information from reliable sources and cite said sources. Information without reliable sources gets removed.
Are you sure you understand what that means?
Hi Luci:
Do you suppose that there are a lot of peer reviewed articles of the meaning of cherry picking, in scientific journals...I can hardly keep from placing an LOL here, but I won't:-)

Quote
Now that is a classic ad hominem and strawman

Go back to school. You have no idea what those fallacies are.
Another strawman/ad hominem combination.  Is the principle too subtle for you to grasp?:-)

Quote
Don't say "wrong" and then not give an explanation

Why not?
Duh...

Quote
That is not an analogy, it is a simple, logical statement of fact,

If it's not an analogy, then it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Wow...LOL  I guess I can buy that you do not consider facts as relevant to this discussion.  So the fact that my statement was not an analogy is naturally irrelevant eh?
Quote
I don't know.  Is that your point?

Pretty much.
Then why did you not just say that instead of asking me if it is your point?

Quote
You write worse

Show me where I "write worse".
Ha ha ha.  The illogical way you write means that you wouldn't get it if I did show you:-)

Quote
Are you sure you see me as a projector, and not as a mirror

Your idiocy is as clear as vacuum.
I guess that one went over your head...LOL

Quote
I apologize for seeing the humour in the silly confrontational attitude,

LOL U GAIZ R DEBATING!! SO FUNNY!!
^That's what you sound like.
The rules here don't allow me to say what you sound like...LOL

Quote
and the poor attempts at wit, of people who pretend that they are here for serious discussion

This coming from the idiot who keeps posting "LOL" every third paragraph or so.
Sorry, I really cannot keep the grin off my face as I read what you think is witty.  Incidently, if my laughing bothers you so much, just consider LOL to mean "lots of luck"...LOL
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 11:12:43 AM by Provoker »

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Debating a christian about this verse. input appreciated
« Reply #99 on: February 29, 2012, 06:27:54 PM »
Moderator request:

Let's get back to the discussion at hand and off of the "cherry picking" debate.  If someone would like to start a separate thread on "cherry picking", it could be a great topic!

Thanks!

Jetson