I was on the atheist experience :)

[Won2blv]

Christianity appears to be the Hydra... there are so many interpretations of the vague scriptures, plus figuring out what is literal/figurative, what was meant for only the person to whom Jesus was speaking (or the churches to which Paul was writing) versus what is meant as an answer to that person but applied to everyone, and of course which of the violent remnants of the OT we plan to cherry-pick for the modern age. I mean, did he mean I can handle actual snakes, or not? Then of course, there are the extra-Biblical traditions of the various churches, such as the goat-hoofed, forked-tailed, pitchfork-carrying Devil... or worshiping on Sundays instead of the actual Sabbath.

And on it goes, until every single Christian with whom you argue can tell you that you're the one who's failing to understand Christianity.

I've been trying to avoid commenting thus far, but I have to jump in here because Won2blv is starting to piss me off.

1) No, they're NOT saying Jesus made it an absolute rule.

2) They're saying it might be a way Jesus was showing everyone is a part of the path to heaven.

3) If you believe the Jesus stories, then it is irrational not to increase your chances of doing what Jesus wanted, and therefore getting yourself into heaven, by following this one thing he wanted (and all the other things).

It doesn't matter, for the purposes of this discussion, if it actually increases your chances, or if that's what the verse actually means. So you're arguing about nothing!

Stop. Think.

A lame argument is a lame argument, whether or not it comes from a theist or an atheist. Whatever point NV is trying to make is lame. And yes he did say it was an absolute rule. In an early post he said that if a christian bashes gays he asks them if they have sold all of their belongings and if they haven't then he makes the point to that individual christian, they are no different than a homosexual because they're (the christian) living in a perpetual state of sin. And for your 3rd point to be valid, a christian would have to view salvations as akin to odds making. I personally never have thought of it that way, even when I was a strong believing theist. I always believed that there was a certain character assessment made. Like if I was going to have a pizza party and everyone from atheistforums.org was invited except NV. But then NV started trying to be super cool with me just so he would get invited. I would remember all the mean things he has said to me. Like how I am apparently a fucking retard. Maybe despite the fact that being nice to me wouldn't hurt his chances, I'll probably pass. But this is just me speaking. So I am not speaking for any one else on this matter. However, if NV thinks he has made some super awesome point only to have it nitpicked and shown to have many fallacies and illogical reasonings, not to mention that the whole thing begins on a straw man, then put the burden on him.

[Nihilist Virus]

I said repeatedly that this is not the case.  This is not what I said.  Kindly fuck off.

So what is your point? I have asked you multiple times and you haven't even responded to that simple question. That is in addition to the multiple fallacies you've displayed. You instead have digressed to ad hominem attacks

Not an ad hominem. I didn't say your argument is invalid because you're a fucktard. I dismantled your argument for what it was and then correctly labeled you as a fucktard. I'm not going to repeat my argument again for the 100th time. Go back and re-read the thread.

[robvalue]

Won2: You're saying what is and isn't the case about what Jesus meant. You're stating it as fact, not owning your opinion.

Ironically, when I do own my opinion, you accuse me of telling you things instead.

[Nihilist Virus]

A lame argument is a lame argument, whether or not it comes from a theist or an atheist. Whatever point NV is trying to make is lame.

Telling a Christian to follow the instructions of Jesus is lame?


Look, I know he was talking to the rich young ruler and not to us. By that logic, since you're not Timothy or Titus or Philemon or a Corinthian or a Thessalonian, maybe you don't have to give a shit about the entire NT or whatever shit you JWs believe.

And yes he did say it was an absolute rule. In an early post he said that if a christian bashes gays he asks them if they have sold all of their belongings and if they haven't then he makes the point to that individual christian, they are no different than a homosexual because they're (the christian) living in a perpetual state of sin.

Different context, different argument, different forum, different site even. Why wait so long to clarify, and why clarify to someone else instead of to me?

Yes I said it but not in this argument. Why's it matter? In this argument I'm assuming the bullshit Christian perspective. I don't always do that, normally I don't assume Jesus was who he said he was and normally I don't roll with the Christian half-assed "I follow the stuff I like" garbage. In normal conversation, I hold Christians to the standard of what Jesus said.

[Won2blv]

A lame argument is a lame argument, whether or not it comes from a theist or an atheist. Whatever point NV is trying to make is lame.

Telling a Christian to follow the instructions of Jesus is lame?


Look, I know he was talking to the rich young ruler and not to us.  By that logic, since you're  not Timothy or Titus or Philemon or a Corinthian or a Thessalonian, maybe you don't have to give a shit about the entire NT or whatever shit you JWs believe.

And yes he did say it was an absolute rule. In an early post he said that if a christian bashes gays he asks them if they have sold all of their belongings and if they haven't then he makes the point to that individual christian, they are no different than a homosexual because they're (the christian) living in a perpetual state of sin.

Different context, different argument, different forum, different site even. Why wait so long to clarify, and why clarify to someone else instead of to me?

Yes I said it but not in this argument. Why's it matter? In this argument I'm assuming the bullshit Christian perspective. I don't always do that, normally I don't assume Jesus was who he said he was and normally I don't roll with the Christian half-assed "I follow the stuff I  like" garbage. In normal conversation, I hold Christians to the standard of what Jesus said.

First of all, ad hominem is simply attacking the person, not the argument. That is what you have digressed to you. You mentioned it on this forum, on this site, in this context, and it was completely germane to your argument, or whatever it is. You need to demonstrate that it this was an instruction of Jesus. You can just throw a single verse out there. One more time, that is called the fallacy of composition. Or are you immune from fallacies because you're not making an argument?

I think the problem here is that you were so proud that you made it on the AE and Matt gave you a pat on the head. But when confronted with an actual response to your lame argument, you have no way of knowing how to respond so you digress to name calling and generalized statements. Hmmm, who does that remind you of?

And just to remind you and everyone else of you absolute statement

Because if you own a TV while children are starving, and you're a Christian, you're simply not trying. Period.

[Won2blv]

Won2: You're saying what is and isn't the case about what Jesus meant. You're stating it as fact, not owning your opinion.

Ironically, when I do own my opinion, you accuse me of telling you things instead.

Rob, i highly respect your opinion. And if you're referring to another thread, I simply asked you to keep out how I came to my belief. I have made posts on this thread that are my opinion. But I have asked repeatedly that the OP simply show how that one single scripture proves his point that christians don't live up to christs words. It seems like the most reasonable point made on this thread is that because Jesus was mostly a fictional person, it is impossible to clarify his standards. So, using the OP's argument is only useful to someone who bases their faith in god on pascals wager. Even then its a rough one. Otherwise, what is the difference between his argument and a theist pointing out that the chances of the universe coming about by chance are infinitesimal, therefore, god. Its almost like he is saying, the chances of a christians living up to christ are infinitesimal, therefore, no god. But again, he hasn't explained his point, so I'm not sure

[robvalue]

Edit: Forget it.

[Nihilist Virus]

Telling a Christian to follow the instructions of Jesus is lame?


Look, I know he was talking to the rich young ruler and not to us.  By that logic, since you're  not Timothy or Titus or Philemon or a Corinthian or a Thessalonian, maybe you don't have to give a shit about the entire NT or whatever shit you JWs believe.



Different context, different argument, different forum, different site even. Why wait so long to clarify, and why clarify to someone else instead of to me?

Yes I said it but not in this argument. Why's it matter? In this argument I'm assuming the bullshit Christian perspective. I don't always do that, normally I don't assume Jesus was who he said he was and normally I don't roll with the Christian half-assed "I follow the stuff I  like" garbage. In normal conversation, I hold Christians to the standard of what Jesus said.

First of all, ad hominem is simply attacking the person, not the argument. That is what you have digressed to you. You mentioned it on this forum, on this site, in this context, and it was completely germane to your argument, or whatever it is. You need to demonstrate that it this was an instruction of Jesus. You can just throw a single verse out there. One more time, that is called the fallacy of composition. Or are you immune from fallacies because you're not making an argument?

I think the problem here is that you were so proud that you made it on the AE and Matt gave you a pat on the head. But when confronted with an actual response to your lame argument, you have no way of knowing how to respond so you digress to name calling and generalized statements. Hmmm, who does that remind you of?

And just to remind you and everyone else of you absolute statement

Because if you own a TV while children are starving, and you're a Christian, you're simply not trying. Period.

You kept making it sound like that was part of THIS argument which means you are either dishonest or confused.

You keep crying about ad hominems, meanwhile you are addressing my beliefs rather than the argument. That is a fallacy. Name which one it is genius.

[Won2blv]

First of all, ad hominem is simply attacking the person, not the argument. That is what you have digressed to you. You mentioned it on this forum, on this site, in this context, and it was completely germane to your argument, or whatever it is. You need to demonstrate that it this was an instruction of Jesus. You can just throw a single verse out there. One more time, that is called the fallacy of composition. Or are you immune from fallacies because you're not making an argument?

I think the problem here is that you were so proud that you made it on the AE and Matt gave you a pat on the head. But when confronted with an actual response to your lame argument, you have no way of knowing how to respond so you digress to name calling and generalized statements. Hmmm, who does that remind you of?

And just to remind you and everyone else of you absolute statement

You kept making it sound like that was part of THIS argument which means you are either dishonest or confused.

You keep crying about ad hominems, meanwhile you are addressing my beliefs rather than the argument. That is a fallacy.  Name which one it is genius.

So what are you attacking when you point out to a theist that they are living in perpetual sin if they don't sell all of their belongings? You're attacking their beliefs! And again, if you're saying that they aren't living up to christs teachings based off a single scripture its the fallacy of composition and the tu quoque. Now, when you ignore those points and just say that I'm retarded, dishonest, or confused without addressing them, that is called an ad hominem attack. Its like if I said, you just don't believe in god because you love to sin.

[Nihilist Virus]

You kept making it sound like that was part of THIS argument which means you are either dishonest or confused.

You keep crying about ad hominems, meanwhile you are addressing my beliefs rather than the argument. That is a fallacy.  Name which one it is genius.

So what are you attacking when you point out to a theist that they are living in perpetual sin if they don't sell all of their belongings? You're attacking their beliefs! And again, if you're saying that they aren't living up to christs teachings based off a single scripture its the fallacy of composition and the tu quoque. Now, when you ignore those points and just say that I'm retarded, dishonest, or confused without addressing them, that is called an ad hominem attack. Its like if I said, you just don't believe in god because you love to sin.

Got anything else or are we done here?