RE: Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge
January 13, 2013 at 7:46 am
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2013 at 8:04 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)
Of course, all posts on the interpretation of a holy text relies on evidence for said holy text being true. As there is none, the cart before the horse comes to mind. And really, I have no interest in having insults and non-replies posted ad nauseum to me by someone as disingenuous as Drich.
Persecution complex much? Who said anything about coming "to shut you down" (as if that we're possible)?
And also, I know you struggle with the definition of words sometimes, but technically you wouldn't be able to view my post as slander it would be libel. This is also impossible if you are posting behind an anonymous handle, so I can ignore all of these sleight of hand attacks.
My main example is your entire contribution to AF.com whilst you were there, specifically all the contradictory hogwash you repeatedly posted and subsequently ignored after you were repeatedly called on it (I am more familiar with your posts there than here by virtue of me being more active over there, but I read very little variation on here):
http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=34070
http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.p...71#p800871
I also just chose this post from that thread as an example, but just scrolling through the thread, there are loads:
You repeatedly re-define words to suit your own twisted lexicon (SEE: post and reply to esquilax that precedes this post).
Every single reply I made to you on the AF.com thread was met with non-replies and tangential remarks, a waste of everyone's time. You even went as far forward to claim you were teaching us about the bible, when what you really meant was you were trying to tell us that your interpretation of the bible was true and that we should accept it hook line and sinker.
But don't worry, I know you won't view it that way, so really, this is for anyone else who is foolish enough to care about your silliness in the same way I was.
Denomination? I never mentioned denomination. I said your interpretation (which can be exclusive to an organized religion) is always forwarded as factual. Really? You're asking for evidence for something you do in this very reply (see: your Romans reply below, full of just interpretation which could be presented a myriad of ways to mean a whole boatload of nonsense depending on the reader)?
Don't re-frame my post to insinuate I was talking about a denomination of Christianity. I am talking specifically about your interpretation of your specific holy book.
Nonsensical non-reply. Ignored.
All of the above, every statement/post you've made on here infering your interpretation as factual (below, everything on this thread, everything you've ever posted on the bible and your personal beliefs).
You just posted lots of not headed nonsense without actually thinking a out what you were saying. But ok:
This does not compute. Divine authority is different from...authority? Ok.
So just to sum up, the church has no say on who goes to heaven/hell (fine), but we're still not free from authority because a version of god who you believe in has final say? Ok, so maybe this is just a semantic shell-game, in which case, I'm not playing. Again, your interpretation, your facts.
And I'm assuming you mean the pope. Ok, but again, interpretation presented as factual (based on what Christ said, in the bible). Entirely your opinion.
It's hurting my head attempting to get around this seeming contradiction.
"I am a slave to gods law [in my mind]". Can you explain this better? I don't want the bible quoted to me I want your thinking process, same with the adjoining statement that "I am a slave to the law of sin".
Also, I do love the part where Paul supposedly says that nothing good resides in the part of him that isn't spiritual.
Maybe I should just die now because I'm all bad
Not slander, and not libelous either, actually quite true. Again, more persecution complex. You are about as much as 'enemy' to me as my neighbor who I've never spoken to and have no interaction with. You don't rank high on my list of cares, in fact you don't feature on it.
The very thought of you taking me apart 'line by line' is almost a big a fantasy as your unevidenced and probably imaginary sky fairy. Good luck.
Edit: ah, sorry, I was reading that thread again and game across this little gem. It made me lol:
Yeah, run out of questions...
(January 13, 2013 at 1:43 am)Drich Wrote:(January 12, 2013 at 3:53 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Actually we just think you're silly.Then providing an example of this should be very easy for you to do. It would seem to me this would be a goto response to refute someone rather than inconsistant name calling.
You post nonsense post after nonsense post and don't seem to actually have any points at all.
For example, you post something you believe, we post something that refutes it, and all you do is just flip your belief around and post something else.
Quote:It's tiring reading your posts because literally there is no point in having a discussion with you, and i remember why talking to you was so tiring on af.com. You are about as disingenuous as they come.Again if I am the MOST disingenuous person you have ever come across then it should be easy for you to site examples, and legitmatly shut me down.. Rather than just alluding to generalities and appealing slandor. Again show me show all of us. Prove your accusations.
Persecution complex much? Who said anything about coming "to shut you down" (as if that we're possible)?
And also, I know you struggle with the definition of words sometimes, but technically you wouldn't be able to view my post as slander it would be libel. This is also impossible if you are posting behind an anonymous handle, so I can ignore all of these sleight of hand attacks.
My main example is your entire contribution to AF.com whilst you were there, specifically all the contradictory hogwash you repeatedly posted and subsequently ignored after you were repeatedly called on it (I am more familiar with your posts there than here by virtue of me being more active over there, but I read very little variation on here):
http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=34070
http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.p...71#p800871
I also just chose this post from that thread as an example, but just scrolling through the thread, there are loads:
You repeatedly re-define words to suit your own twisted lexicon (SEE: post and reply to esquilax that precedes this post).
Every single reply I made to you on the AF.com thread was met with non-replies and tangential remarks, a waste of everyone's time. You even went as far forward to claim you were teaching us about the bible, when what you really meant was you were trying to tell us that your interpretation of the bible was true and that we should accept it hook line and sinker.
But don't worry, I know you won't view it that way, so really, this is for anyone else who is foolish enough to care about your silliness in the same way I was.
(January 13, 2013 at 1:43 am)Drich Wrote:Quote:You take your interpretation of the bible/scripture as the only interpretation,Show me where I have said this. Show me where I said My interpertation was the only one. I KNOW This to be slanderous remarks that maybe true about most christians, and you assume it is true about me as well. Allow me to burst you bubble. I have stated in this very thread that No one denomination (which are derived from various biblical interpertations.) has a lock on 'true christianity.' I have even gone so far as start my own thread and discuss this for 11 pages on this web site, and if I am not mistaken was discussed on the af.com website as well.
Denomination? I never mentioned denomination. I said your interpretation (which can be exclusive to an organized religion) is always forwarded as factual. Really? You're asking for evidence for something you do in this very reply (see: your Romans reply below, full of just interpretation which could be presented a myriad of ways to mean a whole boatload of nonsense depending on the reader)?
Don't re-frame my post to insinuate I was talking about a denomination of Christianity. I am talking specifically about your interpretation of your specific holy book.
(January 13, 2013 at 1:43 am)Drich Wrote: Your appeals to slander are falling apart. Did you see how that was done? I made an assertion and then backed it up with EVIDENCE. Oh,The Irony Here! the Christian who uses Evidence to trump something an atheist wants people to take on blind faith.
Nonsensical non-reply. Ignored.
(January 13, 2013 at 1:43 am)Drich Wrote:Quote:present it as fact (no evidence) and then go onto make a whole myriad of more nonsense up on top of it (see: post to FTR)don't be afraid to be specific (unless you just making stuff us) Again, show me and allow me to clear things up for you.
All of the above, every statement/post you've made on here infering your interpretation as factual (below, everything on this thread, everything you've ever posted on the bible and your personal beliefs).
(January 13, 2013 at 1:43 am)Drich Wrote:Quote:Also, this statement makes literally no sense either:This seems like a legitmate request so note I am approaching it differently than how I addressed the first 1/2 of your post.
You just posted lots of not headed nonsense without actually thinking a out what you were saying. But ok:
(January 10, 2013 at 6:37 pm)Drich Wrote: "The ancient book offers freedom from authority...sin....not that we wot sin anymore"
Quote:Please explain:I Did not say we are free from divine authority. I said we are free from Authority.[/quote]
1. How we can be under a divine authority for eternity and yet be free from all authority
This does not compute. Divine authority is different from...authority? Ok.
(January 13, 2013 at 1:43 am)Drich Wrote: Meaning we are free from the acts, rules, traditions, the heirarchy, everything that 'religion' and religious practices traditionally provided for us. We are free from the works and law of religious practice as a means to earn righteousness (or the state of being/quality of soul we must have to enter Heaven/be in God's presents.) Works are meaningless in of themselves. If we are no longer bound by religious tradition or ritual to cleans ourselves from sin then that makes us free from the authority of those who would administer these rights.
Which is how I can say that the church of the Dark ages is not Christ. as such has no say in who enters heaven and who is going to Hell. That 'judgement' is not for those who worship to a given formula to decide. that desision remains with God. He will decide who believes in His Son and Who is just going through the motions.
So just to sum up, the church has no say on who goes to heaven/hell (fine), but we're still not free from authority because a version of god who you believe in has final say? Ok, so maybe this is just a semantic shell-game, in which case, I'm not playing. Again, your interpretation, your facts.
(January 13, 2013 at 1:43 am)Drich Wrote: Christianity is not something we do. It is who we are at our cores.
Or so says Christ. I would go with what he says over that of a 1500 year old man who was known for wearing funny hats. That said if your into that, then that is between you and Christ.
And I'm assuming you mean the pope. Ok, but again, interpretation presented as factual (based on what Christ said, in the bible). Entirely your opinion.
(January 13, 2013 at 1:43 am)Drich Wrote:
It's hurting my head attempting to get around this seeming contradiction.
"I am a slave to gods law [in my mind]". Can you explain this better? I don't want the bible quoted to me I want your thinking process, same with the adjoining statement that "I am a slave to the law of sin".
Also, I do love the part where Paul supposedly says that nothing good resides in the part of him that isn't spiritual.
Maybe I should just die now because I'm all bad
(January 13, 2013 at 1:43 am)Drich Wrote:Quote:I await your tangential and verbose reply with an orgasmic sense of disappointment.You know in the furture if you have a legitmate question, you do not have to preface it with a slanderous attack. Just ask the question. that is unless you need to be taken apart line by line, to be made the fool publically. Or you could just send an PM if you do not want to be seen speaking with the enemy.. I do not keep a score card of who said what or who I need to get back at.
Not slander, and not libelous either, actually quite true. Again, more persecution complex. You are about as much as 'enemy' to me as my neighbor who I've never spoken to and have no interaction with. You don't rank high on my list of cares, in fact you don't feature on it.
The very thought of you taking me apart 'line by line' is almost a big a fantasy as your unevidenced and probably imaginary sky fairy. Good luck.
Edit: ah, sorry, I was reading that thread again and game across this little gem. It made me lol:
Drich Wrote:Quote:You claim this isn't your first foray into an atheist forum? Tell us, how'd it go in the other forums?It is on Going (Atheistforums.org Same screen name same avatar) if you care to look. Long story short, initially I met alot of opposition, but has since developed into a mutual respect. Matter of fact I have run out of questions to answer on that site and is the reason why I came to this one.
Yeah, run out of questions...
Love atheistforums.org? Consider becoming a patreon and helping towards our server costs.