(December 17, 2012 at 8:42 am)catfish Wrote: You're predictable, I wrote it, you fulfilled it, deal with it...

So, two direct questions to YOU, median. Should the bible be the standard one should use when determining for oneself whether another is a Christian or not? If no, what should be used?

*I predict more deflection, an ad-hom, and possibly some goalpost shifting*

---

And for the record, he's NOT my deity. I never said he was. I argue about what is actually written in the scriptures, if you can't deal with that, it's best to avoid confrontation with me...
.

LOL. A consistently dishonest and irrational debater - going on tangent rabbit trails (ad hominem and red herring) talking in grade school fashion. "Neener, neener, neener, you're predictable neener. I know who the 'real' Christian is." Grow the fuck up.This lame attempt has nothing to do with the OP. If you believe your deity has any of the traits described in Post #1, the burden is on you to demonstrate how you know this deity actually exists, and how you know this deity holds said characteristics. If you make some appeal to your SPIN on the bible, then we'll ask why we should take the bible as an authority on any subject (including your deity).

As to the first question, I already answered it but apparently you can't read. I-DON'T-CARE. You claim you are arguing about, "what is actually written in the scriptures." But that's what every sect of every religion claims. "Our interpretation is the right one!" Haven't we heard that a million times? I don't care. You can debate with other theists all you want. The burden of proof is still on you to demonstrate how you know ANY deity exists. Until you can demonstrate that, your rants are no different than talking about the book of Santa Claus.

(December 17, 2012 at 8:42 am)catfish Wrote: Should the bible be the standard one should use when determining for oneself whether another is a Christian or not?

No

Quote:If no, what should be used?

Belief in christ as an important holy man.

For many years not only couldn't most christian's read but the readings by priests were done in a foreign language that the lay people couldn't understand (latin).

(December 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm)median Wrote: LOL. A consistently dishonest and irrational debater - going on tangent rabbit trails (ad hominem and red herring) talking in grade school fashion. "Neener, neener, neener, you're predictable neener. I know who the 'real' Christian is." Grow the fuck up.This lame attempt has nothing to do with the OP. If you believe your deity has any of the traits described in Post #1, the burden is on you to demonstrate how you know this deity actually exists, and how you know this deity holds said characteristics. If you make some appeal to your SPIN on the bible, then we'll ask why we should take the bible as an authority on any subject (including your deity).

Oh my, did you have to respond the way I expected? Deflection, check! Ad-hom, check! Goalpost shifting, check!

---

(December 17, 2012 at 2:00 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 8:42 am)catfish Wrote: Should the bible be the standard one should use when determining for oneself whether another is a Christian or not?

No

Quote:If no, what should be used?

Belief in christ as an important holy man.

For many years not only couldn't most christian's read but the readings by priests were done in a foreign language that the lay people couldn't understand (latin).

So are you saying orally transmitted stories would be satisfactory to inform one of Christ?

(December 17, 2012 at 2:00 pm)catfish Wrote: Oh my, did you have to respond the way I expected? Deflection, check! Ad-hom, check! Goalpost shifting, check!

ROFL. How predictable that you wouldn't actually answer the entire post. I'll take this as your admission of defeat, since you can't answer honestly or defend your assertions. Deflection? NOPE. I addressed it directly. Ad-hom? NOPE. I didn't argue my position was correct due to an insult. Insults are quite different from ad hominem attacks. Go back to school. Goapost? Please... You're off the topic of the OP (red-herring), talking about your dumb predictions of what people will say (red-herring), and refusing to deal with the arguments before you (dodging).

EPIC FAIL. Keep trying though...

(December 17, 2012 at 2:42 pm)median Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 2:00 pm)catfish Wrote: Oh my, did you have to respond the way I expected? Deflection, check! Ad-hom, check! Goalpost shifting, check!

*itallics by me to reveal a point to be addressed below*

ROFL. How predictable that you wouldn't actually answer the entire post. I'll take this as your admission of defeat, since you can't answer honestly or defend your assertions. Deflection? NOPE. I addressed it directly. Ad-hom? NOPE. I didn't argue my position was correct due to an insult. Insults are quite different from ad hominem attacks. Go back to school. Goapost? Please... You're off the topic of the OP (red-herring), talking about your dumb predictions of what people will say (red-herring), and refusing to deal with the arguments before you (dodging).

EPIC FAIL. Keep trying though...

No, my job was to demonstrate to Gooders why he was wrong in having the view that Christians believe all of HIS points... (have you not read what transpired here???)

You demonstrated the ad-hom as noted above in italics. What assertion by myself have I not defended? Show me...

While you're at it, support your assertion that I'm a "consistently dishonest and irrational debater" with some type of tangible evidence...
.

(December 17, 2012 at 2:00 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Belief in christ as an important holy man.

For many years not only couldn't most christian's read but the readings by priests were done in a foreign language that the lay people couldn't understand (latin).

Yeah, those were the days right?

When I hear anyone of any religion postulate a deity it is like Charley Brown listening to the rantings of a quack of a "teacher",

"Wa wa wa wa wa wa wa Jesus"
"Wa wa wa wa wa wa wa Allah"
"Wa wa wa wa wa wa wa Vishnu"
"Wa wa wa wa wa wa wa Thor"

It all amounts to the same human credulity in wanting wishful thinking and selfish narcissism to be the center, not only of their lives, but the excuse to project their superstition on others.

(December 17, 2012 at 3:11 pm)catfish Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 2:42 pm)median Wrote: *itallics by me to reveal a point to be addressed below*

ROFL. How predictable that you wouldn't actually answer the entire post. I'll take this as your admission of defeat, since you can't answer honestly or defend your assertions. Deflection? NOPE. I addressed it directly. Ad-hom? NOPE. I didn't argue my position was correct due to an insult. Insults are quite different from ad hominem attacks. Go back to school. Goapost? Please... You're off the topic of the OP (red-herring), talking about your dumb predictions of what people will say (red-herring), and refusing to deal with the arguments before you (dodging).

EPIC FAIL. Keep trying though...

No, my job was to demonstrate to Gooders why he was wrong in having the view that Christians believe all of HIS points... (have you not read what transpired here???)

You demonstrated the ad-hom as noted above in italics. What assertion by myself have I not defended? Show me...

While you're at it, support your assertion that I'm a "consistently dishonest and irrational debater" with some type of tangible evidence...
.

Well, since you keep dodging, as you keep trying to shift it the burden, there is no reason for further discussion. You have been asked to defend your alleged deity (how you know said deity exists and how you know said deity has said characteristics). And all you come back with is a tangent - having nothing to do with what is being asked of you (all whilst ignoring your red-herrings, stated previously). Go back and read your post #42. Try #76 while you're at it. God pill? You believe "everything" in the OP? You've been asked to demonstrate how you know those things are real.

As was already stated, I don't care about your tangent "true Christian" nonsense. I don't care what you call yourself. I don't care if you say you believe "all of it", and then begin your interpretation of the text. Anybody can do that with their holy book. Demonstrate your deity or admit you can't.

Last, you are falsely calling "ad hom" when no such attack has been raised. Please try to stay on topic (I know this must be hard for you).

You really need to start paying attention to what people mean, and not just what you want them to mean.

If I may interject...

CATFISH, is your deity omniscient? Does it possess the power to do anything?
Simple question, I know. Enlighten me please and grace me with a simple answer.

My deity is unknowable to my human existence...
.