Bald Prophets are Dangerous

[Brakeman]

DODGE! or giving you the benefit of the doubt.. you are confused.

I find myself wanting to use words like dummy and stupid right now. I am sorry that i am already here if you are honestly trying to understand. But starting your post out by mindlessly accusing me of being confused simply because I made the same observation about you, is 'button pushing' especially when have not sighted anything to support your accusation.

Liar

I was referring to the "Magic gift" of a god quality sense of right and wrong as I quoted in Genesis 3.5.

(this is the part where i want to desperatly call you a dummy.)
Look _______, Genesis 3:5 is apart of a larger contextual message. It starts at verse. If you have to take it out of context/cherry pick to make an arguement, then know your arguement failed long before you posted it.

Cherry picking is only a fallacy if the meaning changes in context.

Here is how it failed:

3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

So did anything in these verses change the meaning of the verse that says mankind will have god quality senses of right and wrong by the eating of god's magic fruit? .. Nope not here..

After they ate of the fruit verse 7 full fills what verse 5 described. They knew they sinned and as a result made covering for themselves out of fig leaves. The following verses describe what i was saying about self righteousness or the justification of sin:

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

Anything in these verses change the meaning due to context? Nope..

These verses shows Adam's deviation from God's righteousness to his own personal Brand of righteousness/self-righteousness/Morality.

So? Does that change anything bout the issue of our god quality sense of right or wrong? No..

For God's Stated righteousness said it is never ok to Eat of the tree of knoweledge. Adam's new found morality said "It's ok to eat from the tree because "the woman God gave me tricked me."

Again, Does that change anything bout the issue of our god quality sense of right or wrong? No..

So again What God said about the tree was absolutly true, and the message of self righteousness or downward sliding morality is also true as Adam tried to justify his sin with what he felt (and what some of you even argue) was a legit reason for sin, making him 'morally right in his own eyes.' Even so Adam nor do we have the ablity to change the status of sin. Even if we justify it by making it moral to our own selves. (Again, the fact that we try and 'morally justify sin' prooves that we know what we did was wrong, other why the suplmentary justification?)

Perhaps you need to reread what I posted, as you have not understood what I said and have certainly not contradicted it. I don't know what you are trying to argue against. I certainly didn't say that mankind doesn't sin and we make the god regulations, which is about the only thing I can rightfully extract from your argument.

[catfish]

Cherrypicking is a God-given right to everyone to choose what is good and discard that which isn't.
The simple believeth every word, yaknow?
.

[Cyberman]

Drich: our very own grandmaster in the art of verbal white noise. Or does that lot actually mean something, relevant or not? I recognise many of the words, it's just that I can't help feeling they'd object to being knitted together in that way.

They who?

Nope, they what. It's called context - you remember, that stuff that non-desperate-theists are always forgetting. Here's a clue; (please do try to keep up):

I recognise many of the words, it's just that I can't help feeling they'd object to being knitted together in that way.

You are aware that a plurality of anything can be referred to as a "they", don't you? It's not just people. That I chose to impart human feelings onto items incapable of them is a literary device called the pathetic fallacy.

I have no idea where you dragged the rest of your crap from, viz:

Those who would use the words of the bible to place a leading world religion under one MAN'S rule? Or are you saying that the one who came and "up set the apple cart" by completing the law which took and turn Judaism on it head, would be upset even after he threw the old way of worship away without replacing it line by line with a new one? All Christ left us with is what we call the Greatest commands. He told us that all of the law would be completed under these two commands 1 love God with all of your being and the second love your neighbor as your self. So if one mans complete love looks different than another's is the one man supposed to just fall in to a standard worship even if he is only giving 50% of himself to that worship? No of course not. That is why we split and have division. So everyone can worship at capacity.

and of course you are perfectly entitled to express it; but it has nothing to do with anything I said and I'd appreciate not being dragged into your paranoid fantasies, if you'd be so kind.

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='393088' dateline='1359426922']
I find myself wanting to use words like dummy and stupid right now. I am sorry that i am already here if you are honestly trying to understand. But starting your post out by mindlessly accusing me of being confused simply because I made the same observation about you, is 'button pushing' especially when have not sighted anything to support your accusation.

Liar

Are you trying your version of a jedi mind trick?

Are you saying I do not want to call you a Dummy or stupid right now? Because it seems to me that the urge to do so has doubled. Maybe try doing the oppsite if you want your "mind trick" to have a chance of working.

---

Cherrypicking is a God-given right to everyone to choose what is good and discard that which isn't.
The simple believeth every word, yaknow?
.

Actually it is quite difficult to understand, validate and incorperate the whole of scripture into one's life.

---

Nope, they what. It's called context - you remember, that stuff that non-desperate-theists are always forgetting. Here's a clue; (please do try to keep up):

Then show me wise one.

let see some of "there" context. Book, Chapter and verse please

[Cyberman]

Drich, I already resolved this. Not everything has to spew from your silly superstition you know. It's not my fault you didn't read any further than the point at which you cut my quote off.

[catfish]

Actually it is quite difficult to understand, validate and incorperate the whole of scripture into one's life.

Don't worry, I have faith that one day you will be able to understand and "get" the message...
.

[Cinjin]

Actually it is quite difficult to understand, validate and incorperate the whole of scripture into one's life.

And yet you regularly have a cooked-up bull shit answer for everything.

The man doesn't know god from the hole in his butt - has no education to back up anything - openly admits that it's hard to validate and incorporate the Bible and yet consistently shoots his mouth off about what god "really" is ... as if he's some kind of prophet with all the secret codes.

He sells so much bull shit now that he contradicts himself daily. How apropos for a sheep.



...such good "work" you're doing here ... [large enough eye-roll could not be found]

[Brakeman]

.. Maybe try doing the oppsite if you want your "mind trick" to have a chance of working.

And Drich employs his crazy christian dodging skills by avoiding all the bothersome points of post 111!

The christian crowd goes wild!! While the atheist side just sits and rolls their eyes at the stupidity.

[Drich]

Actually it is quite difficult to understand, validate and incorperate the whole of scripture into one's life.

And yet you regularly have a cooked-up bull shit answer for everything.

The man doesn't know god from the hole in his butt - has no education to back up anything - openly admits that it's hard to validate and incorporate the Bible and yet consistently shoots his mouth off about what god "really" is ... as if he's some kind of prophet with all the secret codes.

He sells so much bull shit now that he contradicts himself daily. How apropos for a sheep.



...such good "work" you're doing here ... [large enough eye-roll could not be found]

If the content of my posts can so easily be identified as lacking of substance then why haven't you identified any of these passages? Why is each and every appeal to dismiss my work based on The superfical and not on actual content? You do know the quickest way to dismiss a message is to find inconsistencies in content. so why may I ask is such a smart and 'well educated' person such as yourself only response based on an appeal to probability? Is this how you were taught to think (in logical fallacies?) or did you come up with this thought process on your own?

did you see what I did there? I isolated a legitimate inconsistency in your base logic, identified it (appeal to probability which is a Formal fallacy) then I moved to dismiss the body of your posts by summing up the body of your work as being based in a logical fallacy. I will now lock you into this logical fallacy of your own creation by challenging you to prove that what you believe to be true about me, is indeed true. So again if you can show where any of my arguments are contextually lacking in reference or exegetical support then your sweeping generalization may actually have Merritt. If not Sport, then I'd say it is your argument that lacks intelectual integrity, and if you choose to stand behind your literally baseless accusations and sweeping generalizations, then you too can be quickly identified and labeled as lacking intelectual integrity.

How's that? I posted this from my ipad (with auto correct) with no spelling errors for you to crutch an argument together with, it kind puts a little more sting in what I have to say doesn't it?

..And we are not even really speaking with one's deeply held religious beliefs. We are just jabbing at each Other's pride. Now imagine being de balled by someone who has all the answers you have been looking for religiously/spiritually, but seems completely superior to you in every way. Even if a prick like that did know God no one want anything to do with him. Especially is he approaches everyone with the one ups manship attitdude you are advocating.

That is why I ask;
What is wrong with sharing who I truly am? Flaws and all? I am not looking to project myself a certain way nor do I look to fit a specific profile. If you are to judge me then let it be on actual content. If the content is lacking or suspect then ask me to show you where it is based and or how I came to a given conclusion. If however appealing to logical fallacies is all you have left in you then know your work will be labeled accordingly and dismissed.

It is better to keep ones mouth closed and have others wonder if he is a fool. Than to open it, and prove everyone right.
-last nights fortune cookie

[Esquilax]

If the content of my posts can so easily be identified as lacking of substance then why haven't you identified any of these passages?

There's one on this very page: Stimbo showed you very clearly what he meant by context, and your response was to ask him to show you what he meant. No substance, and if you refuse to see it, that's hardly anyone else's problem.

Why is each and every appeal to dismiss my work based on The superfical and not on actual content?

You would need to start posting things with content first.

You do know the quickest way to dismiss a message is to find inconsistencies in content. so why may I ask is such a smart and 'well educated' person such as yourself only response based on an appeal to probability?

Show one fucking sentence in the post you quoted where Cinjin relied on an appeal to probability, and then we'll talk.

did you see what I did there? I isolated a legitimate inconsistency in your base logic, identified it (appeal to probability which is a Formal fallacy) then I moved to dismiss the body of your posts by summing up the body of your work as being based in a logical fallacy. I will now lock you into this logical fallacy of your own creation by challenging you to prove that what you believe to be true about me, is indeed true.

Your willful ignorance of your own lack of substance doesn't make it vanish, it just makes you blind.

How's that? I posted this from my ipad (with auto correct) with no spelling errors for you to crutch an argument together with, it kind puts a little more sting in what I have to say doesn't it?

Given that you misspelled both 'merit' and 'intellectual' (twice!) I'd say you need a bit more work. Sting removed.

That is why I ask;
What is wrong with sharing who I truly am? Flaws and all? I am not looking to project myself a certain way nor do I look to fit a specific profile. If you are to judge me then let it be on actual content. If the content is lacking or suspect then ask me to show you where it is based and or how I came to a given conclusion. If however appealing to logical fallacies is all you have left in you then know your work will be labeled accordingly and dismissed.

It would be easier to show you if you'd listen. However, it is nice of you to admit that this smug, baselessly arrogant character you've shown here is your real one. I like that candor.