Quote:when to consider an argument answered,
How about some facts instead of your absurd "arguments?"
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: October 4, 2024, 5:27 am
Thread Rating:
|
This is the Problem
|
 How about some facts instead of your absurd "arguments?"  (October 23, 2014 at 4:52 pm)Christian Wrote: That non-Christians think that the Old Testament is a Christian text and true believers of Christ are somehow bound to it by letter. No sorry, there are quotes in the NT that have Jesus saying he is there to fill OT law. The NT is full of contradictions that right wingers and left liberals use to justify both arguments. Not just on that subject. But also other things. Like on the one hand loving your neighbor, but also saying abandon your own family if they do not follow him. Claims to be about peace but then talks about bringing a sword. The gospels don't even agree on his linage. But so what, lets say we agree with you for argument sake. Lets look at God's behavior throughout the entire book. Part 1. "Be a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt. I beat you for your own good" Part 2. "I am sorry I beat you, I will not do it again, and to prove it I will clone myself and commit a fake suicide to save you from something I did not have to set up in the first place" Part 3, the end times. "Remember when I said I wouldn't beat you again? I lied. Unless you kissed my ass you are going to be thrown in a trash fire forever no matter how good you might have been". Asking us to ignore the OT would be like telling an abused wife to ignore all the prior times the husband beat her because he promised not to do it again. Nothing moral about that book at all. Peppering nice motifs about kindness does not change the abusive nature of the written character. It would be like forgiving the husband for beating you because he brought you flowers after beating you. You are cherry picking. To actually do what that book says word for word you would be forced to become a monster. We are glad you cherry pick it. We would argue it is not that book or your god as to why you don't do horrible things. We would argue you don't do horrible things because your evolutionary compassion does not allow you to be a bible literalist and we are glad you cherry pick it. We just hope someday you figure that out.  (October 23, 2014 at 4:52 pm)Christian Wrote: That non-Christians think that the Old Testament is a Christian text and true believers of Christ are somehow bound to it by letter. But the christ supposedly said "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17). “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35 And ALL of this is in the NEW TESTAMENT - which YOU claim to be christian OF course - YOU do not HAVE to be an christian - you can make up your OWN religion whenever you want to - as you have and LOTS of others have However IF you are going to go through the bother of creating your own religion by ignoring the supposed words of the christ - and doing something else - then why bother using the bible at all - why not write your own scripture - and claim to be inspired by your own god.  (October 24, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Christian Wrote: But that will be under my own terms and conditions, such as, when to consider an argument answered, etc. You are hilarious! I thought you said you would debate me unconditionally? Either way, so basically what you are saying is that when you debate someone, you are reserving the right to claim yourself the victor? Nice. Moron.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---  (October 25, 2014 at 10:42 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: You are hilarious! I thought you said you would debate me unconditionally? Mister, see the rules of this forum is against me so to debate based on the rules is obviously unfair. I want my rights too. (October 25, 2014 at 10:49 pm)Christian Wrote: Mister, see the rules of this forum is against me so to debate based on the rules is obviously unfair. I want my rights too. Not the rules of the forum. The rules of formal debate are stacked against your particular form of inane rhetoric.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
I can debate you using the rules established for formal debate. The same rules that two parties debating any topic ever would abide by. These rules are absolutely neutral. They by their very definition do not carry bias.
Why is it that you insist on special rules for yourself? You want to make rules so that you can simply make a claim, provide no evidence, and then claim that you won simply because you made a claim? Not how the world works. If you would like to challenge me to a formal debate, I would gladly accept, and I'd even allow you to choose the topic. You don't get special rules because you are a theist. You get to play by the same rules as everybody else.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---  (October 25, 2014 at 11:00 pm)Christian Wrote: So you are saying that you cannot debate me on neutral rules?No one can debate you because you don't debate. You ignored my serious attempt to engage you and persisted with bickering with the others instead.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK "That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke 
Lemonvariable72
Copenhagen School  Religious Views: Its all bullshit to keep you handing money to the usher. (October 24, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Christian Wrote:(October 24, 2014 at 1:53 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Alright, all do a debate thread with you. The truth of Christianity can be the topic and we can do it whenever is good for you. Have you ever watched a formal debate before? Why can't it simply be 1v1 and according to the rules of the forum? There are special rules set aside for the debate forum to keep it fair and 1v1.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 64 Guest(s)
