Poor uneducated unintelligent aheists

[Whirling Moat]

Peace...

Why stop at $100? I'm asking for $1000

Would you accept someones hard earned money which you did nothing to earn but put out a hand? Is this the morality which should look forward to from atheists?



Whirling Moat

[Darwinian]

Peace...

Why stop at $100? I'm asking for $1000

Is this the morality which should look forward to from atheists?


Whirling Moat

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!!

[Gawdzilla]

Peace...

Why stop at $100? I'm asking for $1000

Would you accept someones hard earned money which you did nothing to earn but put out a hand? Is this the morality which should look forward to from atheists?



Whirling Moat

You're a Republican, aren't you?

[Doubting Thomas]

Would you accept someones hard earned money which you did nothing to earn but put out a hand? Is this the morality which should look forward to from atheists?

I'm just going by your holy book. If you claim to believe and follow the entire bible without cherry picking parts of it to believe while ignoring other parts, then give me $100 as per instructions by your Jesus.

Luke 6:30 - Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

This wasn't written down by some anonymous OT author, this is supposedly what Jesus himself said.

So where's my $100?

[orogenicman]

Peace...

Why stop at $100? I'm asking for $1000

Would you accept someones hard earned money which you did nothing to earn but put out a hand? Is this the morality which should look forward to from atheists?



Whirling Moat

So you are saying that if someone handed you $1,000, you'd refuse it?

[Gawdzilla]

Peace...

Why stop at $100? I'm asking for $1000

Would you accept someones hard earned money which you did nothing to earn but put out a hand? Is this the morality which should look forward to from atheists?



Whirling Moat

So you are saying that if someone handed you $1,000, you'd refuse it?

Volunteers for field test.

[tackattack]

---

No Tack, I don’t see the laughability of my argument because you are doing exactly what I said in my first post. You are choosing the passage that best fits your thoughts from among contradictory passages. Jesus also said:


"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

"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)

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

You too are cherry picking. You have chosen the passages that best fit what you want the Bible to be. You ignore the things you don’t like. I won’t argue that you have chosen poorly in this extreme example because you haven't, but the fact remains that you have chosen. You have cherry picked that which suits you and disregarded that which does not. Something all Christians are forced to do.

---

No it wasn't cherry picking, I didn't list every single verse because they are just replicating things you've already said, and I agreed that the Bible said that. I hadn't listed the Matthew 5 verses because I also agree with them as a Christian by default. You're absolutely right, Jesus did not come to abolish or change the law of God. He clearly saw it being abused in many cases though and corrected our misuse of the law. When the Pharisees attempted to trip him with the law and asked him which is best, knowing that the real messiah was here as fulfillment of all the law, Jesus used the verses I quoted. That clearly indicated that by loving each other as we wanted to be loved and Loving God with our heart, soul and mind we would be fulfillment of the law God decreed. No more was there need for atonement from the law of Moses, because he was the greatest sacrifice, and they're not necessary now.

You still did not respond, so before this gets really convoluted and tautological answer my question: How do you interpret the meaning when factoring in all the verses you and I both quoted? You call them contradictory because they're not on your side of the argument. They're all talking about the Law of God, which I cited above so they're all relevant, they're only contradictory if you deny they're relevant.

---

OK, if you're not cherry picking from the bible, why don't you sell everything you own and give the money to the poor like Jesus said to? Do you have locks on the doors of your house? If so, why? Jesus said to give to all who ask of you, and don't ask for repayment in return. If someone steals your cloak, offer him your shirt as well. Putting locks on your doors seems to go against what Jesus taught, since he was pretty clear about not accumulating wealth and letting people take things from you.
If you are a true Christian and don't cherry pick from the bible, then give me $100. You can PM me for my address.

---

I do live very humbly paycheck to paycheck. I give what I have available when I have it available. I give furniture to people who need furniture. I do have locks on my doors, but I rarely use them in the physical sense. Metaphorically my door is always open, and I was actually trying to move down to GA this year before Dragon Con so I could hold the first (well technically second) AF.org get together at my house, and let people stay there rather than a hotel. I don't have people steal from me, but if I did, I'm sure if it's replaceable, I'd be fine. The parable of the good steward in Luke 16 is a good example of taking responsibility for your things. As far as the handout, see my PM

[Eudaimonia]

---

I understand critical analysis as a process that includes objectivity and reliance upon evidence .... Otherwise.. I understand non critical analysis as literary analysis where objectivity is not required and one’s subjective opinion is warranted ....

Irrespective of our disagreement on the terms.. my point is that faith by definition does not require any analysis and in my experience when analysis is attempted the goal is to rectify and/or justify one's belief.. It is a circular endeavor.. or an inductive analysis before deductive investigation...

In other words how many of the churches which you are familiar ask questions along the lines of why should the theophanies of distant tribal/desert dwellers loom heavily over my moral sensibilities.. This removes romantic and biased notions of their chosen status.. divine favor status etc.. or to seriously evaluate whether Jesus was a real person.. for instance.. Unless they are seeking ammunition to combat a disbeliever.. I have not known such thinking (similar that is..) to be prevalent among any religious group as a natural course of inquiry..

---

No, Faith doesn't necessitate analysis, nor does knowledge, belief, thousands of other things. You're biased that all theist analysis is circular, unreliable and unjustified by nature. Critical analysis is simply by definition is an appraisal based on reasoning or acting from a perception of the parts and interrelations of a subject that necessarily follow, precluded by experience.
Judging deductive reasoning as connotatively better than inductive reasoning isn't helping anyone. Just because it would be impossible to completely justify inductive reasoning, does not negate the useful practical application of it. It's a far cry from proving inductive reasoning illogical, circular or unreliable as you're half atempting.

They don't use such big words, because that would seem pompous, but we do ask why people belived, how they believed and how it applies to today. I'm not saying there are presuppositions, there are. Seperating wishful thinking and real experience is very prevelant in the congregations I've been in though. As is justification for belief and salvation. As is, also the historicity of the Bible. Apologetics, while something I cre deeply about, is actually focused on less in the general assemblies, but it does play a part in my classes respectively.

Tack..

My point was not that inductive reasoning is illogical or circular.. However, my apologies re. inserting deduction and inductive analysis.. because I see that the terms can be misconstrued here.. I'm used to dealing with deductive investigations of proven premises.. and inductive investigation to teach... However, when dealing with a religious person, I have to keep in mind that the premises themselves are often unproven and the religious mind is apt to utilize red herrings as to not deal with this so I do not wish to throw the conversation into a debate on the validity of the approaches as you and I come from vastly different environments and their use is interpreted differently..

My point however was stated multiple times.. If you would like to continue exploring it.. that would be cool.. otherwise.. if you keep ignoring it I'm not sure why it would be necessary to respond to me.. as that is what I'm concerned with..

Analyzing beliefs with the conscious/subconscious goal to justify the beliefs.. How "faith" inherently does not allow one to challenge one's beliefs but so far because of the aforementioned.. and how the process of investigation itself becomes confused with rigorous analysis..

BTW: How do you hide extensive posts?

[popeyespappy]

---

No Tack, I don’t see the laughability of my argument because you are doing exactly what I said in my first post. You are choosing the passage that best fits your thoughts from among contradictory passages. Jesus also said:


"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

"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)

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

You too are cherry picking. You have chosen the passages that best fit what you want the Bible to be. You ignore the things you don’t like. I won’t argue that you have chosen poorly in this extreme example because you haven't, but the fact remains that you have chosen. You have cherry picked that which suits you and disregarded that which does not. Something all Christians are forced to do.

---

No it wasn't cherry picking, I didn't list every single verse because they are just replicating things you've already said, and I agreed that the Bible said that. I hadn't listed the Matthew 5 verses because I also agree with them as a Christian by default. You're absolutely right, Jesus did not come to abolish or change the law of God. He clearly saw it being abused in many cases though and corrected our misuse of the law. When the Pharisees attempted to trip him with the law and asked him which is best, knowing that the real messiah was here as fulfillment of all the law, Jesus used the verses I quoted. That clearly indicated that by loving each other as we wanted to be loved and Loving God with our heart, soul and mind we would be fulfillment of the law God decreed. No more was there need for atonement from the law of Moses, because he was the greatest sacrifice, and they're not necessary now.

You still did not respond, so before this gets really convoluted and tautological answer my question: How do you interpret the meaning when factoring in all the verses you and I both quoted? You call them contradictory because they're not on your side of the argument. They're all talking about the Law of God, which I cited above so they're all relevant, they're only contradictory if you deny they're relevant.

Your right. In this case “kill your children” and “you shall not kill” are not contradictory. However this is only because the word kill in “you shall not kill” is a mistranslation. The word kill should instead be the word murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is not necessarily unlawful therefore it does not have to be murder. You can kill someone without murdering them but cannot murder someone without killing them.

I often hear the argument of killing versus murder from Christians when discussing an order from God to kill. An example of this is the sacking of Jericho. The argument is that the order from God to the Israelites to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho including men, women, old and young the killing was lawful. The reasoning being that any command from God is lawful therefore the killing was not murder.

According to the Old Testament you should kill your rebellious children. The commandment “You shall not murder” does not apply in this instance because any order from God is lawful therefore not murder which is by definition an unlawful act. The New Testament explicitly reaffirms that a parent should kill their insolent children. Despite these instructions you have managed to cherry pick the “you shall not kill” passage out of the Bible in order to justify not killing rebellious and insolent children. In doing so you have chosen a more modern morality over that of the ancient savages that recorded your holy books. For this I applaud you.

[tackattack]

---

Irrespective of our disagreement on the terms.. my point is that faith by definition does not require any analysis and in my experience when analysis is attempted the goal is to rectify and/or justify one's belief.. It is a circular endeavor.. or an inductive analysis before deductive investigation...

In other words how many of the churches which you are familiar ask questions along the lines of why should the theophanies of distant tribal/desert dwellers loom heavily over my moral sensibilities.. This removes romantic and biased notions of their chosen status.. divine favor status etc.. or to seriously evaluate whether Jesus was a real person.. for instance.. Unless they are seeking ammunition to combat a disbeliever.. I have not known such thinking (similar that is..) to be prevalent among any religious group as a natural course of inquiry..

Tack..

My point was not that inductive reasoning is illogical or circular.. However, my apologies re. inserting deduction and inductive analysis.. because I see that the terms can be misconstrued here.. I'm used to dealing with deductive investigations of proven premises.. and inductive investigation to teach... However, when dealing with a religious person, I have to keep in mind that the premises themselves are often unproven and the religious mind is apt to utilize red herrings as to not deal with this so I do not wish to throw the conversation into a debate on the validity of the approaches as you and I come from vastly different environments and their use is interpreted differently..

My point however was stated multiple times.. If you would like to continue exploring it.. that would be cool.. otherwise.. if you keep ignoring it I'm not sure why it would be necessary to respond to me.. as that is what I'm concerned with..

Analyzing beliefs with the conscious/subconscious goal to justify the beliefs.. How "faith" inherently does not allow one to challenge one's beliefs but so far because of the aforementioned.. and how the process of investigation itself becomes confused with rigorous analysis..

BTW: How do you hide extensive posts?

---

Please see the BB Code Guide for use of the hide tags. Also note that you can't have a hide button nested within a hidden field.
As you can see by the emphasizing of your words you can see where there's a little double standard. Perhaps we should just start fresh and you could state your point and I could rebut it or agree with it.

[quote='popeyespappy' pid='138216' dateline='1305672797']

---

Your right. In this case “kill your children” and “you shall not kill” are not contradictory. However this is only because the word kill in “you shall not kill” is a mistranslation. The word kill should instead be the word murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is not necessarily unlawful therefore it does not have to be murder. You can kill someone without murdering them but cannot murder someone without killing them.

I often hear the argument of killing versus murder from Christians when discussing an order from God to kill. An example of this is the sacking of Jericho. The argument is that the order from God to the Israelites to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho including men, women, old and young the killing was lawful. The reasoning being that any command from God is lawful therefore the killing was not murder.

According to the Old Testament you should kill your rebellious children. The commandment “You shall not murder” does not apply in this instance because any order from God is lawful therefore not murder which is by definition an unlawful act. The New Testament explicitly reaffirms that a parent should kill their insolent children. Despite these instructions you have managed to cherry pick the “you shall not kill” passage out of the Bible in order to justify not killing rebellious and insolent children. In doing so you have chosen a more modern morality over that of the ancient savages that recorded your holy books. For this I applaud you.

---

How exactly is it cherry picking to look at all of the passages as a whole rather than taking one or two verses out of context. I think my example is still valid and has yet to be addressed. I'll enumerate it clearly here.
Example of cherry picking, literal interpretation with no reading comprehansion (What I feel you both are doing):
1)Did you say "you should kill your rebellious children" in your previous post?
2)Was it your intent to ask me to kill my children?