(October 20, 2013 at 3:13 am)Waratah Wrote: Now stop derailing your own thread that you created to avoid my questions in our discussion and get back to the other thread and reply to my posts.

Loaded question. You have added nothing new to your argument that I have already shown to be false in the other thread. You have refused to post a reply. Now that we know that you have lied about you reason for using neighbour instead of friend we are actually back onto the neighbour issue once again because of this thread.

We can't because you keep stalling. Go back to the thread.

DON''T HOLD YOUR BREATH

He still hasn't responded to this

Drich Wrote:
(9th September 2013 18:26)Drich Wrote:
You do understand that the bible is a book that represents two separate religions correct?

You also understand that the passages you are looking at have nothing to do with Christianity correct?


(9th September 2013 20:58)tokutter Wrote:
And yet somehow....someway.....they made it into the christian bible put together by...christians.

You christian need a new version NIV redacted.......black out all the stuff you dont use anymore.

It will end up looking like a pile of declassifed NSA files......


(9th September 2013, 16:04)Drich Wrote:
Its all there so we would be able to identify sin, and subsequently repent of it.


(12th September 2013, 14:31)tokutter Wrote:
Above you said it has NOTHING to do with christianity

Below its ALL there to help you in your christianity

????????

(October 18, 2013 at 12:14 am)Drich Wrote: While that is completely true, How do you know that all current atheists are and will always be atheist? I once did not believe in God, but the "Father drew " and I then had a choice to make. Fore just because God called me does not mean I had to answer. Are you familiar with the parable of the prodigal son? The Father in that story wanted his son by his side but allowed him to not only leave but to stay gone and spend all that he was given to live the life the son wanted to live. It wasn't till the son made the choice to return did the Father rush out and welcomed him home.

The question is irrelevant. I don't make generalizations about people I don't know. The fact that you changed your opinions is also irrelevant, and anecdotal, at most. What your brain tells you is/was a "call" exists ONLY in your brain. If the utterance : "For many are called. but few are CHOSEN" has any meaning content, it means your deity is capricious, and admits it. If he didn't mean it, why say it ? Quoting Babble stories to those who do not recognize their authority is a waste of time. The parable (which was circulating in the ancient Near East before the gospels, and was not original to the gospels), is a nice story. Nothing more. No honest atheist can make an "honest choice" to affirm ("return to the Father" ... when they were NEVER THERE in the first place) that which she/he absolutely does NOT accept as truth. What you are suggesting is intellectually dishonest, AND you are suggesting your deity would approve of that.

Quote:Professing belief, or even believing that you are 'christian' because of what you do does not make you one. As per what Christ said in mat 7. The choice I was taking about was the choice Christ offered and died to provide.

Nice, but it doesn't address the issue that was raised. Christ offers no "choice" to those who honestly don't buy into any of the BS. Jebus died, if he even existed, AFTER asking to have the cup removed from him, thus PROVING he and the Father WERE NOT ONE, because he was a common crook, and caused a ruckus in the temple, and there was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute troublemakers. There was no trial. The Sanhedrin was NEVER once in Jewish history called into session on Passover weekend. The entire business of "needing to die" means your deity is SUBJECT to the very structure, in reality it supposedly created.
"Salvation" is a VERY non-Hebrew concept, and one that did NOT exist in Hebrew culture, ...see Martin Buber's "Good and Evil" part II). It was imported by Saul of Tarsus from Zoroastrianism/Mithraism. (Tarsus was a hotbed of Mithraism). http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ins?page=2 See post 12.
I realize you NEED, (because you have a low tolerance for ambiguity) to explain the world in simplistic, and absolute black and white (infantile) terms, but you don't get to make generalizations about people you don't know.

(October 22, 2013 at 9:14 am)tokutter Wrote:

(October 20, 2013 at 3:13 am)Waratah Wrote: Now stop derailing your own thread that you created to avoid my questions in our discussion and get back to the other thread and reply to my posts.

Loaded question. You have added nothing new to your argument that I have already shown to be false in the other thread. You have refused to post a reply. Now that we know that you have lied about you reason for using neighbour instead of friend we are actually back onto the neighbour issue once again because of this thread.

We can't because you keep stalling. Go back to the thread.

DON''T HOLD YOUR BREATH

He still hasn't responded to this

Drich Wrote:
(9th September 2013 18:26)Drich Wrote:
You do understand that the bible is a book that represents two separate religions correct?

You also understand that the passages you are looking at have nothing to do with Christianity correct?


(9th September 2013 20:58)tokutter Wrote:
And yet somehow....someway.....they made it into the christian bible put together by...christians.

You christian need a new version NIV redacted.......black out all the stuff you dont use anymore.

It will end up looking like a pile of declassifed NSA files......


(9th September 2013, 16:04)Drich Wrote:
Its all there so we would be able to identify sin, and subsequently repent of it.


(12th September 2013, 14:31)tokutter Wrote:
Above you said it has NOTHING to do with christianity

Below its ALL there to help you in your christianity

????????

I noticed you did not post any links to threads nor did you mention the post number. so I guess we are to simply trust you have not cherry picked these passages out of context?

(October 18, 2013 at 12:38 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2013 at 7:49 pm)Waratah Wrote: I do not have to prove intent. You left out the second definition of lie.

Definition of LIE

intransitive verb
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

By you leaving out definition number 2 you created a misleading impression that a lie had to have intent.

So by trying to defend yourself, you lie. Well done drich
[/hide]

Again I ask are you ignorant of basic English and general comprehension of western soceity? Or are you pushing for more intentional deception? Or do you have a third option? If you feel you have an understand English and western soceity I ask, What does it mean to create? As in to "create a false understanding?"
Wouldn't creation of this deception indicate intent? If your belief is that creation does not include or reflect any intention then please give an example where creation spontaneously occours and does not include intent. Otherwise know intent is critical to BOTH understandings of this word.

Now if I had your understanding of a liar I would be calling you one now, and get to hound dog you. Because by what you have said, and what you posted you omitted 3/4 of the definition lie to only provide the two you thought were revelant and yet represented those two definitions as the only definitions of the word lie.
Which by your own standard makes you a liar. So I ask you using your own logic and own definitions explain to me why in this situation you are not a liar.

---

(October 18, 2013 at 12:25 am)Deidre32 Wrote: I was once a Christian. How do you know the stories you follow in the Bible are true?

God offers proof for those who Ask, Seek and Knock for it as outlined in Luke 11.

Nope. There are no "proofs". Faith is a "virtue" and one of the "gifts of the Spirit", in your world, (see St. Paul). The entire business of "proofs" renders faith unnecessary. It's an entirely non-Christian concept that was invented by Rationalists who also wanted to maintain that their faith was "rational", and that the way to know reality is possible by "Logic". That has been proven false. The universe is not "intuitive", as proven by Einstein (Relativity), Heisneberg, (Uncertainty), and Dirac, (see his math ...tensors and matrices, and that of others. The human brain evolved to deal with reality in a small bandwidth. The ONLY thing that is reliable, is EVIDENCE.

(October 22, 2013 at 12:11 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 22, 2013 at 9:14 am)tokutter Wrote: DON''T HOLD YOUR BREATH

He still hasn't responded to this

Drich Wrote:
(9th September 2013 18:26)Drich Wrote:
You do understand that the bible is a book that represents two separate religions correct?

You also understand that the passages you are looking at have nothing to do with Christianity correct?


(9th September 2013 20:58)tokutter Wrote:
And yet somehow....someway.....they made it into the christian bible put together by...christians.

You christian need a new version NIV redacted.......black out all the stuff you dont use anymore.

It will end up looking like a pile of declassifed NSA files......


(9th September 2013, 16:04)Drich Wrote:
Its all there so we would be able to identify sin, and subsequently repent of it.


(12th September 2013, 14:31)tokutter Wrote:
Above you said it has NOTHING to do with christianity

Below its ALL there to help you in your christianity

????????

I noticed you did not post any links to threads nor did you mention the post number. so I guess we are to simply trust you have not cherry picked these passages out of context?

You can find it right here

Last post on the thread


.

(October 22, 2013 at 11:49 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: The question is irrelevant. I don't make generalizations about people I don't know.

The question asked does make a difference on whether or not you make generalizations. It simply asks how do you know all who are atheist will die atheists? What I am trying to get at is I am here speaking to and answering the questions of those who maybe now are atheist, but will die a believer.

Quote:The fact that you changed your opinions is also irrelevant, and anecdotal, at most.

Show me where i changed my opinions.

Quote:What your brain tells you is/was a "call" exists ONLY in your brain. If the utterance : "For many are called. but few are CHOSEN" has any meaning content, it means your deity is capricious, and admits it.

That depends completely on why few are chosen. You assume all who are chosen show up. The possiablity remains that few who are called show up therefore few are chosen. You must demonstrate this not to be the case if you wish to legitmatly argue your intial point.

Quote:Quoting Babble stories to those who do not recognize their authority is a waste of time.

when a d-bag uses the bible to frame out an accusation to try and convict God of let say being 'capricious' they do indeed recognize the authority of the bible. They are simply dishonest in that they can hypocritically use the bible to fit their agenda but deny it when the same bible is used to defeat their 'biblically based' arguement.

If said douche bags completely did not recognise the bible then their arguement would be to demonstate God or any aspects of Him, but rather they always default to using the bible to make a point but refusing the bible when the same bible is used to defeat their points.

Quote:The parable (which was circulating in the ancient Near East before the gospels, and was not original to the gospels), is a nice story.

proof? any sort of reference? or am i just to take your word on faith?

Quote:Nothing more. No honest atheist can make an "honest choice" to affirm ("return to the Father" ... when they were NEVER THERE in the first place) that which she/he absolutely does NOT accept as truth. What you are suggesting is intellectually dishonest,

how so?

Quote:Nice, but it doesn't address the issue that was raised.

how so?

Quote:Christ offers no "choice" to those who honestly don't buy into any of the BS.

that in of itself is the choice being offered.

Quote:Jebus died, if he even existed, AFTER asking to have the cup removed from him, thus PROVING he and the Father WERE NOT ONE, because he was a common crook, and caused a ruckus in the temple, and there was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute troublemakers.

then why did rome find him innocent, and left it to the jews to decide whether He lived or died?

Quote: There was no trial.

I agree where and the situation surrounding the judgement of Christ was not a trial in any understanding of the word.

Quote:The Sanhedrin was NEVER once in Jewish history called into session on Passover weekend.

Nor at night, untill they did, at which point was not a legal action so why record it?

Quote: The entire business of "needing to die" means your deity is SUBJECT to the very structure, in reality it supposedly created.

how so?

Quote:"Salvation" is a VERY non-Hebrew concept, and one that did NOT exist in Hebrew culture, ...see Martin Buber's "Good and Evil" part II). It was imported by Saul of Tarsus from Zoroastrianism/Mithraism. (Tarsus was a hotbed of Mithraism).

Actually Christ Himself spoke of salvation in several different parables. Wheat/ weeds, Wheat/ Chaff, Sheep/ goats, anytime there is a seperation between believers/followers of Christ and those who are cast out where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth etc, is where Christ Himself speaks of salvation or rather He is establishing the need for it..

That is what happens when you let websites like the one you referenced do all of your thinking for you... (you are proven wrong by the obvious, and made to look foolish.)

What other cliche's do you have for me?

---

(October 22, 2013 at 12:34 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Nope. There are no "proofs".

proof of that statement would be?

Quote:Faith is a "virtue" and one of the "gifts of the Spirit", in your world, (see St. Paul).

Maybe you should actually read what Paul wrote in 1 cor 12 8&10, because he clearly states not all of us get the gifts he is mentioning. Some do indeed get faith, for everyone else 'proof' is needed. Or did you really believe doubting believers stopped with Thomas?

Quote: The entire business of "proofs" renders faith unnecessary.

Indeed! According to Christ all we need to have is the faith the size of a mustard seed then we can move mountains of doubt. (with proof) which means "faith" is not the fulcrum of Biblically Christianity you believe it to be.

Quote:It's an entirely non-Christian concept that was invented by Rationalists who also wanted to maintain that their faith was "rational", and that the way to know reality is possible by "Logic".

Sorry sport, the concept of proof was blazed by Christ Himself in Luke 11

Quote:That has been proven false. The universe is not "intuitive", as proven by Einstein (Relativity), Heisneberg, (Uncertainty), and Dirac, (see his math ...tensors and matrices, and that of others. The human brain evolved to deal with reality in a small bandwidth.

In order for this 'proof' to be valid Einstein and the others must have first established a link between God and what you believe they disproved.

Quote:The ONLY thing that is reliable, is EVIDENCE.

..and what better evidence of God than God?

---

(October 22, 2013 at 12:56 pm)tokutter Wrote:

(October 22, 2013 at 12:11 pm)Drich Wrote: I noticed you did not post any links to threads nor did you mention the post number. so I guess we are to simply trust you have not cherry picked these passages out of context?

You can find it right here

Last post on the thread


.

I am asking for my orginal post, do you have it or not?

(October 22, 2013 at 9:08 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 22, 2013 at 5:52 am)Waratah Wrote: Yes I can admit to lying so now we can move forward. THIS LINK WILL TAKE YOU TO THE POST THAT YOU HAVE NOT REPLIED TO.

I am sure drich will probably find another excuse to not to reply to the post in "Evolution Trumps Creationism" thread.

:get back in chair..

I don't normally do this but because you are a self admitted liar i need to know specifically what you have lied about, otherwise how do I know your not lying now?

I am a Prophet. I knew you would make up another excuse. Moving the goalposts drich.

When I said "Yes I can admit to lying so now we can move forward.". That was a lie. When I said "That was a lie.". That was the lie with intent to show you that I can admit to lying and we can move on.

Just in case that was not good enough because it was a case of lying after your request, I have the following as well.

(October 20, 2013 at 4:41 am)Waratah Wrote: It's seems that when drich said that the reason he insisted on using neighbour instead of friend he was lying. In another thread he said "A neighbor is anyone willing to do you a kindness, no matter who it is if he knows you or not whether you are friends or not.. If we follow his last reason for the neighbour/friend issue then the above sentence would say this.

A neighbor is anyone willing to do you a kindness, no matter who it is if he knows you or not whether you are neighbours or not.

So neighbour = not a neighbour

So either that is a completely stupid statement or he lied saying neighbour and friend means the same thing to him.

I first asked drich about the neighbour/friend issue on 28/9/13. Still has not honestly answered. And drich says he doesn't avoid questions.

The following is just a reminder of a past excuse that you have not conceded in this thread. Remember your comprehension of the good samaritan parable where you stated that it says anyone that you come in close proximity to is a neighbour. Don't worry drich I do not expect a concession in this thread, you have already shown your lack integrity.

Now I would like you now to show me where christ converts the asking into knocking?

In the above post I created the false impression that I was rolling on the floor laughing out loud.

No more moving goal posts please.

(October 22, 2013 at 7:51 pm)Waratah Wrote:

(October 22, 2013 at 9:08 am)Drich Wrote:

:get back in chair..

I don't normally do this but because you are a self admitted liar i need to know specifically what you have lied about, otherwise how do I know your not lying now?

I am a Prophet. I knew you would make up another excuse. Moving the goalposts drich.

When I said "Yes I can admit to lying so now we can move forward.". That was a lie. When I said "That was a lie.". That was the lie with intent to show you that I can admit to lying and we can move on.

Just in case that was not good enough because it was a case of lying after your request, I have the following as well.

(October 20, 2013 at 4:41 am)Waratah Wrote: It's seems that when drich said that the reason he insisted on using neighbour instead of friend he was lying. In another thread he said "A neighbor is anyone willing to do you a kindness, no matter who it is if he knows you or not whether you are friends or not.. If we follow his last reason for the neighbour/friend issue then the above sentence would say this.

A neighbor is anyone willing to do you a kindness, no matter who it is if he knows you or not whether you are neighbours or not.

So neighbour = not a neighbour

So either that is a completely stupid statement or he lied saying neighbour and friend means the same thing to him.

I first asked drich about the neighbour/friend issue on 28/9/13. Still has not honestly answered. And drich says he doesn't avoid questions.

The following is just a reminder of a past excuse that you have not conceded in this thread. Remember your comprehension of the good samaritan parable where you stated that it says anyone that you come in close proximity to is a neighbour. Don't worry drich I do not expect a concession in this thread, you have already shown your lack integrity.

Now I would like you now to show me where christ converts the asking into knocking?

In the above post I created the false impression that I was rolling on the floor laughing out loud.

No more moving goal posts please.

Realy simple sport you can either admit to lying misrepresenting the word lie and applying it to me when it does not apply because you can not show the intent you claim I had, or you can't.

If you can't then you disqualify your self from a conversation with me.

Make your choice sport it's a simple either you can or you can't admit to forcing this definition on to me. Red herrings will not save you.

Sorry drich nothing I seem to say will get you back to the other thread. You say you will if I do this or that. When I do this or that it is still not good enough for you.

How can I be misrepresenting the word lie. This is not my definition. It is merriam-webster.com definition. I followed your link because you can never trust what you say. I went to the word lie labelled with a number 3 where I found your definition listed. With that definition was another definition (which you left out) which clearly shows to me and everyone else (anyone else here can prove me wrong here if I am) except you that intent does not need to be shown.

2: to create a false or misleading impression

I suspect that you do see that you do not have to have intent, because in one of your posts you say "In EVERY Single instance a lie is primarily defined as an intent to mislead."(my bolding). I think you are just pissed off because you thought that you were giving me all this rope to hang myself with and it has backfired on you.

Whether you lie with intent or not still does not change the fact that you have asserted things in our discussion which have been found to be false on many occasions. Even when they have been pointed out to you, you have continued with the same assertions.

My honest belief is that you are a liar with intent, whether you know it or not. Yes I know I cannot prove it but I think that you have made a pretty good case against yourself. You have done the work for me. You are a liar and everyone knows it.

You have no integrity.

I could not honestly give a shit anymore what you have to say. You just cannot accept that you have poor comprehension skills. You make up shit that is not there. You have run away from our discussion many times and I have tried to confront you about luke 11 and your bullshit a/s/k theory. Just keep running.

I may keep the other thread open just in case you change your mind.

The 'good' Samaritan, was a person from a place that had an 'evil' reputation who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, facing a dilemma created by their understanding in the concept of 'good' vs, 'evil'. He (she), when facing the opportunity to disregard cultural upbringing and tradition, made the conscious choice to do the 'good' thing, and did NOT prove that god was the impetus, but rather that despite the pre-required doctrine they chose humanity as the ultimate opportune goal, made god a flagging corpse.