Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

How Christians Undermine Their Faith

Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:12:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When Christians say the Bible is not infallible they undermine their faith and compromise a perfect God. When you say the Genesis story and Revelation prophesies are just metaphors, you compromise your faith. When you argue for gays, argue for abortion, argue for euthanasia, you undermine your faith. I think the term gay Christian is an oxymoron (special focus on 'moron'), because it doesn't make sense to be in a religion where your sexuality is despised. And if that one is not enough, there are theistic evolutionists. It seems many Christians partly accept evolution because it's PC to do so, especially if you are a scientist; but they always forget . . .

That evolution is_at its roots_a materialistic philosophy which compromises faith. There's hardly any doubt that evolution has done the most to cause disbelief, even through Communism, since Marx was influenced by Darwin. In fact, deism's prominence dropped because of the TOE. And yet you have Christians helping atheists do their work by affiming evolution.

In this regard, I'd say such Christians are na"ve.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:38:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
And I'd say anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus by doing good works for others in need is the Christian while those who demand a strict obedience to words in a book are just plain paper and ink idol worshipers putting the IDOL before the demonstration of Christian behavior towards others.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:15:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:38:06 AM, biomystic wrote:
And I'd say anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus by doing good works for others in need is the Christian while those who demand a strict obedience to words in a book are just plain paper and ink idol worshipers putting the IDOL before the demonstration of Christian behavior towards others.

People have been doing good works before Christianity. It's not necessary to be a Christian to be good.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
CynicalDiogenes
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 12:03:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:12:45 AM, Iredia wrote:
When Christians say the Bible is not infallible they undermine their faith and compromise a perfect God. When you say the Genesis story and Revelation prophesies are just metaphors, you compromise your faith. When you argue for gays, argue for abortion, argue for euthanasia, you undermine your faith. I think the term gay Christian is an oxymoron (special focus on 'moron'), because it doesn't make sense to be in a religion where your sexuality is despised. And if that one is not enough, there are theistic evolutionists. It seems many Christians partly accept evolution because it's PC to do so, especially if you are a scientist; but they always forget . . .

That evolution is_at its roots_a materialistic philosophy which compromises faith. There's hardly any doubt that evolution has done the most to cause disbelief, even through Communism, since Marx was influenced by Darwin. In fact, deism's prominence dropped because of the TOE. And yet you have Christians helping atheists do their work by affiming evolution.

In this regard, I'd say such Christians are na"ve.

Who told you that those books are supposed to be interpreted literally?

The people who composed those books certainly did not!
Seat of Wisdom, pray for us who turn to you!

Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.-St.Thomas Aquinas
All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle.~ St.Francis of Assisi
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 12:27:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 12:03:35 PM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
At 3/3/2014 9:12:45 AM, Iredia wrote:
When Christians say the Bible is not infallible they undermine their faith and compromise a perfect God. When you say the Genesis story and Revelation prophesies are just metaphors, you compromise your faith. When you argue for gays, argue for abortion, argue for euthanasia, you undermine your faith. I think the term gay Christian is an oxymoron (special focus on 'moron'), because it doesn't make sense to be in a religion where your sexuality is despised. And if that one is not enough, there are theistic evolutionists. It seems many Christians partly accept evolution because it's PC to do so, especially if you are a scientist; but they always forget . . .

That evolution is_at its roots_a materialistic philosophy which compromises faith. There's hardly any doubt that evolution has done the most to cause disbelief, even through Communism, since Marx was influenced by Darwin. In fact, deism's prominence dropped because of the TOE. And yet you have Christians helping atheists do their work by affiming evolution.

In this regard, I'd say such Christians are na"ve.

Who told you that those books are supposed to be interpreted literally?

The people who composed those books certainly did not!

How did you conclude such ? Not to mention that this hardly answers other points I forwarded. Especially, the one showing how evolution is in fact_never NCSE's tap-dancing_opposed to religion.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 1:24:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:12:45 AM, Iredia wrote:
When Christians say the Bible is not infallible they undermine their faith and compromise a perfect God.

When Christians say that the modern English translations are infallible and therefore should be interpreted literally, they ignore the reality that even if the original text were "infallible" that modern translations have been compromised of necessity by the very act of translation.

When you say the Genesis story and Revelation prophesies are just metaphors, you compromise your faith.

Explain to me why you think that is the case.

When you argue for gays, argue for abortion, argue for euthanasia, you undermine your faith.

Homosexuality (i.e. the construct that describes homosexual orientation), and being "gay" is itself is a distinctly modern concept -and not one that is ever referenced in the Bible. Modern English, Spanish, French, German and Russian translations of the bible (those are the only ones I'm familiar with) which include the word "homosexuality" superimpose a concept (the concept of sexual identity) into a text in which the sexual identity did not exist. Synchronically, what the King James Bible actually speaks to is "lying with mankind as with womankind." But what the -ancient- original texts speak to is not the act of having sex with other men, but rather was a critique of certain cultural practices of antiquity whereby sexually mature men would engage in sexual relationships with very young, sexually mature boys (usually between the ages of 11-17). Today, we refer to that as pederasty -and pederasty is NOT homosexuality. The act of translation, and ignorance of translation's impact on a text's meaning has resulted in a diachronic evolution and consequential hermeneutical failure.

I think the term gay Christian is an oxymoron (special focus on 'moron'), because it doesn't make sense to be in a religion where your sexuality is despised.

While it may be the case that many who call themselves Christians actively do "despise" homosexuals, their doing so is not because Christianity itself is antagonistic to homosexuality but because those people have been taught what is very literally a theological error.

And if that one is not enough, there are theistic evolutionists. It seems many Christians partly accept evolution because it's PC to do so, especially if you are a scientist; but they always forget . . .

I think you don't really understand what evolution is. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains how biological diversity results from various process that work together including reproduction, adaption and natural selection. The picture is more complicated than that, but realize that evolution is ONLY a scientific theory and it gives an account of how biodiversity in our natural world came to be. Theories are not fact, they are plausible explanations for how things happened grounded in scientifically verifiable evidence.

The book of Genesis gives another account of how things came to be, which is at once simpler and also more encompassing than anything Darwin ever wrote. And the two are not mutually exclusive. One can both accept Darwin's theories as scientific theories and still believe that God created everything that ever was. The problem is that science has become something like a religion, and religion either tries to pretend to be scientific or reject's science on the basis of it's not being religion. But realize that science only explains the physical world. Science says nothing about the metaphysical -and to the extent that you're trying to say that evolution and God are mutually exclusive because of "science," you're making a metaphysical claim. As such, you're being intellectually dishonest since science cannot tell us about anything metaphysical.

That evolution is_at its roots_a materialistic philosophy which compromises faith.

No, and no. See above.

There's hardly any doubt that evolution has done the most to cause disbelief, even through Communism, since Marx was influenced by Darwin. In fact, deism's prominence dropped because of the TOE. And yet you have Christians helping atheists do their work by affiming evolution.

In this regard, I'd say such Christians are na"ve.

I think you don't really know a whole lot about what you're talking about... but hey, that can be fixed.
Tsar of DDO
Dogknox
Posts: 5,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 3:29:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:12:45 AM, Iredia wrote:
When Christians say the Bible is not infallible they undermine their faith and compromise a perfect God. When you say the Genesis story and Revelation prophesies are just metaphors, you compromise your faith. When you argue for gays, argue for abortion, argue for euthanasia, you undermine your faith. I think the term gay Christian is an oxymoron (special focus on 'moron'), because it doesn't make sense to be in a religion where your sexuality is despised. And if that one is not enough, there are theistic evolutionists. It seems many Christians partly accept evolution because it's PC to do so, especially if you are a scientist; but they always forget . . .

That evolution is_at its roots_a materialistic philosophy which compromises faith. There's hardly any doubt that evolution has done the most to cause disbelief, even through Communism, since Marx was influenced by Darwin. In fact, deism's prominence dropped because of the TOE. And yet you have Christians helping atheists do their work by affiming evolution.

In this regard, I'd say such Christians are na"ve.

The bible is God' words.. God is perfect! I agree it is NOT metaphor!!
These Jews took every word of Jesus serious..
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Jesus replied....
53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 3:55:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 1:24:28 PM, YYW wrote:

When Christians say that the modern English translations are infallible and therefore should be interpreted literally, they ignore the reality that even if the original text were "infallible" that modern translations have been compromised of necessity by the very act of translation.

Not always. In so far it was exact. I believe the Dead Sea scrolls were hailed because of that. Besides, if it is fallible there's one less reason to believe it's divinely inspired by a perfect God.


Explain to me why you think that is the case.

For one, they are written as history narratives. Two, assuming they aren't and are metaphors; then one must apply that reasoning to outrageous claims of the Bible (a man who is God, a gloating axe, God speaking through thunder). Why cherry-pick parts as metaphiors ?


Homosexuality (i.e. the construct that describes homosexual orientation), and being "gay" is itself is a distinctly modern concept -and not one that is ever referenced in the Bible. Modern English, Spanish, French, German and Russian translations of the bible (those are the only ones I'm familiar with) which include the word "homosexuality" superimpose a concept (the concept of sexual identity) into a text in which the sexual identity did not exist. Synchronically, what the King James Bible actually speaks to is "lying with mankind as with womankind." But what the -ancient- original texts speak to is not the act of having sex with other men, but rather was a critique of certain cultural practices of antiquity whereby sexually mature men would engage in sexual relationships with very young, sexually mature boys (usually between the ages of 11-17). Today, we refer to that as pederasty -and pederasty is NOT homosexuality. The act of translation, and ignorance of translation's impact on a text's meaning has resulted in a diachronic evolution and consequential hermeneutical failure.

Bypasses other issues. And to the extent gays as we know now, were evidenced to have been in the Roman empire during Paul's time, it follows that Paul likely refferred to that practice in his letters_he didn't write well of it.

While it may be the case that many who call themselves Christians actively do "despise" homosexuals, their doing so is not because Christianity itself is antagonistic to homosexuality but because those people have been taught what is very literally a theological error.

Not quite. Given my former points. Even assuming you are right; you still make my case. Because I see no reason to treat a fallible book as having a divine source.


I think you don't really understand what evolution is. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains how biological diversity results from various process that work together including reproduction, adaption and natural selection. The picture is more complicated than that, but realize that evolution is ONLY a scientific theory and it gives an account of how biodiversity in our natural world came to be. Theories are not fact, they are plausible explanations for how things happened grounded in scientifically verifiable evidence.

Evolution is held to be factual as seen in variations of extant species. Ultimately, you miss my point. The TOE undermines the very need for your God to create anything. So which gap do you place him in given your belief in the TOE ?


The book of Genesis gives another account of how things came to be, which is at once simpler and also more encompassing than anything Darwin ever wrote. And the two are not mutually exclusive. One can both accept Darwin's theories as scientific theories and still believe that God created everything that ever was. The problem is that science has become something like a religion, and religion either tries to pretend to be scientific or reject's science on the basis of it's not being religion. But realize that science only explains the physical world. Science says nothing about the metaphysical -and to the extent that you're trying to say that evolution and God are mutually exclusive because of "science," you're making a metaphysical claim. As such, you're being intellectually dishonest since science cannot tell us about anything metaphysical.

Yet the TOE explains consciousness. And relativistic physics explains space and time. Your talk of evolution and creation not being exclusive is highly absurd. One abiogenesis is the accepted hypothesis on how life started, no God needed. Evolution supposedly only concerns and explains how life develops, no need for God. Whereas creation requires God did that.


That evolution is_at its roots_a materialistic philosophy which compromises faith.

No, and no. See above.


Poorly treated. Revisit it.
.
I think you don't really know a whole lot about what you're talking about... but hey, that can be fixed.

Let's see if you have the mind for it.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:08:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 3:55:04 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 1:24:28 PM, YYW wrote:

When Christians say that the modern English translations are infallible and therefore should be interpreted literally, they ignore the reality that even if the original text were "infallible" that modern translations have been compromised of necessity by the very act of translation.

Not always. In so far it was exact. I believe the Dead Sea scrolls were hailed because of that. Besides, if it is fallible there's one less reason to believe it's divinely inspired by a perfect God.

I'm guessing that you've never actually bothered to take a look at how the Dead Sea Scrolls were written... and that you probably only fluently speak one language.


Explain to me why you think that is the case.

For one, they are written as history narratives. Two, assuming they aren't and are metaphors; then one must apply that reasoning to outrageous claims of the Bible (a man who is God, a gloating axe, God speaking through thunder). Why cherry-pick parts as metaphiors ?

Your issue does not speak to the legitimacy of the Christian faith, it's with Christian's varying hermeneutical processes. So, your conclusion does not follow from your premises.


Homosexuality (i.e. the construct that describes homosexual orientation), and being "gay" is itself is a distinctly modern concept -and not one that is ever referenced in the Bible. Modern English, Spanish, French, German and Russian translations of the bible (those are the only ones I'm familiar with) which include the word "homosexuality" superimpose a concept (the concept of sexual identity) into a text in which the sexual identity did not exist. Synchronically, what the King James Bible actually speaks to is "lying with mankind as with womankind." But what the -ancient- original texts speak to is not the act of having sex with other men, but rather was a critique of certain cultural practices of antiquity whereby sexually mature men would engage in sexual relationships with very young, sexually mature boys (usually between the ages of 11-17). Today, we refer to that as pederasty -and pederasty is NOT homosexuality. The act of translation, and ignorance of translation's impact on a text's meaning has resulted in a diachronic evolution and consequential hermeneutical failure.

Bypasses other issues. And to the extent gays as we know now, were evidenced to have been in the Roman empire during Paul's time, it follows that Paul likely refferred to that practice in his letters_he didn't write well of it.

Your ignorance on this is stark, but whether you consciously understand that or not is inconsequential.

While it may be the case that many who call themselves Christians actively do "despise" homosexuals, their doing so is not because Christianity itself is antagonistic to homosexuality but because those people have been taught what is very literally a theological error.

Not quite. Given my former points. Even assuming you are right; you still make my case. Because I see no reason to treat a fallible book as having a divine source.

Your former points, in totality, are meaningless insofar as they critique only how Christians practice Christianity, and not Christianity as a faith. Whether you see reason to do anything or not, similarly, is inconsequential to Christianity's legitimacy as a faith.

I think you don't really understand what evolution is. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains how biological diversity results from various process that work together including reproduction, adaption and natural selection. The picture is more complicated than that, but realize that evolution is ONLY a scientific theory and it gives an account of how biodiversity in our natural world came to be. Theories are not fact, they are plausible explanations for how things happened grounded in scientifically verifiable evidence.

Evolution is held to be factual as seen in variations of extant species. Ultimately, you miss my point.

It is not that I missed your point, so much as you don't have any idea what your point actually does -and that it's a non-point, in that it is predicted upon getting science to do something that it cannot do. I mean, I know this is high-level stuff here, but it's really not that complicated.

The TOE undermines the very need for your God to create anything. So which gap do you place him in given your belief in the TOE ?

Your asking that question indicates that you have failed to understand (1) how science works, (2) what evolution actually is, (3) what a theory can do, (4) what a theory cannot do, and above all (5) what science cannot do. I STRONGLY encourage you to, if possible, take a lab science in college. Just any lab science, and think about how the processes of scientific investigation work. Think about the kinds of conclusions that can be drawn from them. Think about the kinds that can't. And above all, avail yourself to learn.

The book of Genesis gives another account of how things came to be, which is at once simpler and also more encompassing than anything Darwin ever wrote. And the two are not mutually exclusive. One can both accept Darwin's theories as scientific theories and still believe that God created everything that ever was. The problem is that science has become something like a religion, and religion either tries to pretend to be scientific or reject's science on the basis of it's not being religion. But realize that science only explains the physical world. Science says nothing about the metaphysical -and to the extent that you're trying to say that evolution and God are mutually exclusive because of "science," you're making a metaphysical claim. As such, you're being intellectually dishonest since science cannot tell us about anything metaphysical.

Yet the TOE explains consciousness. And relativistic physics explains space and time. Your talk of evolution and creation not being exclusive is highly absurd. One abiogenesis is the accepted hypothesis on how life started, no God needed. Evolution supposedly only concerns and explains how life develops, no need for God. Whereas creation requires God did that.

See above. Learn how science works... seriously.
Tsar of DDO
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:51:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"You don't speak lots of languages. You and the Pope and the entirety of the Christian faith are wrong.

I'm YYW, I like to pretend I know a lot of stuff about a lot of places, I'll make comments about those places, their cultures, their attitudes, while really I haven't a f*cking clue, because that's me feeling in control, and here it is again, to back up my delusional Christianity.

Oh, I also haven't a clue about how science works, but like telling people that they don't, and to go to college (another place)".

LMFAO. All right, I'm going to leave you to it again. This recent smattering of posts has been absolutely hilarious, though. "I'm bilingual, I have it all under control" - YYW, a scared little boy.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:52:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:51:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
"You don't speak lots of languages. You and the Pope and the entirety of the Christian faith are wrong.

I'm YYW, I like to pretend I know a lot of stuff about a lot of places, I'll make comments about those places, their cultures, their attitudes, while really I haven't a f*cking clue, because that's me feeling in control, and here it is again, to back up my delusional Christianity.

Oh, I also haven't a clue about how science works, but like telling people that they don't, and to go to college (another place)".

LMFAO. All right, I'm going to leave you to it again. This recent smattering of posts has been absolutely hilarious, though. "I'm bilingual, I have it all under control" - YYW, a scared little boy.

You really want me to talk to you, don't you? Are you lonely, Badger?
Tsar of DDO
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:52:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:36:21 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
lmao, pederasty? Really?

Trust me. This isn't the weirdest you've seen.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:54:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:52:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:51:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
"You don't speak lots of languages. You and the Pope and the entirety of the Christian faith are wrong.

I'm YYW, I like to pretend I know a lot of stuff about a lot of places, I'll make comments about those places, their cultures, their attitudes, while really I haven't a f*cking clue, because that's me feeling in control, and here it is again, to back up my delusional Christianity.

Oh, I also haven't a clue about how science works, but like telling people that they don't, and to go to college (another place)".

LMFAO. All right, I'm going to leave you to it again. This recent smattering of posts has been absolutely hilarious, though. "I'm bilingual, I have it all under control" - YYW, a scared little boy.

You really want me to talk to you, don't you? Are you lonely, Badger?

Nice defense you've got there. Bye, lol.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 4:57:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:12:45 AM, Iredia wrote:
When Christians say the Bible is not infallible they undermine their faith and compromise a perfect God. When you say the Genesis story and Revelation prophesies are just metaphors, you compromise your faith. When you argue for gays, argue for abortion, argue for euthanasia, you undermine your faith. I think the term gay Christian is an oxymoron (special focus on 'moron'), because it doesn't make sense to be in a religion where your sexuality is despised. And if that one is not enough, there are theistic evolutionists. It seems many Christians partly accept evolution because it's PC to do so, especially if you are a scientist; but they always forget . . .

That evolution is_at its roots_a materialistic philosophy which compromises faith. There's hardly any doubt that evolution has done the most to cause disbelief, even through Communism, since Marx was influenced by Darwin. In fact, deism's prominence dropped because of the TOE. And yet you have Christians helping atheists do their work by affiming evolution.

In this regard, I'd say such Christians are na"ve.

*tips fedora*
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:00:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For your information though, dearest YYW, these silly little attempts at counter-psychoanalysis you make based on my very recent posts are quite lame. I tell my mother I love her only because I'm afraid if I didn't she'd disown me? Yeah, nice try retard.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:05:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:54:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:52:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:51:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
"You don't speak lots of languages. You and the Pope and the entirety of the Christian faith are wrong.

I'm YYW, I like to pretend I know a lot of stuff about a lot of places, I'll make comments about those places, their cultures, their attitudes, while really I haven't a f*cking clue, because that's me feeling in control, and here it is again, to back up my delusional Christianity.

Oh, I also haven't a clue about how science works, but like telling people that they don't, and to go to college (another place)".

LMFAO. All right, I'm going to leave you to it again. This recent smattering of posts has been absolutely hilarious, though. "I'm bilingual, I have it all under control" - YYW, a scared little boy.

You really want me to talk to you, don't you? Are you lonely, Badger?

Nice defense you've got there. Bye, lol.

Defense? Who is defending? Not I, of course. But the fact that you think that my response is a defense tells me that you intended yours as an attack. But for what reason?

I think it might be interesting to explore the reasons why you felt it necessary to posit an unprovoked attack, Badger. Shall we do that, together?

I just love our conversations, too. After all, they're always so entertaining for me.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:05:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:00:42 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
For your information though, dearest YYW, these silly little attempts at counter-psychoanalysis you make based on my very recent posts are quite lame. I tell my mother I love her only because I'm afraid if I didn't she'd disown me? Yeah, nice try retard.

Oh, your mother... we did leave off with her the last time we spoke, didn't we. Still a sore spot, I take it?
Tsar of DDO
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:08:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:08:41 PM, YYW wrote:


I'm guessing that you've never actually bothered to take a look at how the Dead Sea Scrolls were written... and that you probably only fluently speak one language.

Partly true. In any case, problems in trabslation undermines the divine inspiration of your religion.


Your issue does not speak to the legitimacy of the Christian faith, it's with Christian's varying hermeneutical processes. So, your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

If the Chrstian sacred book is flawed, then the Christian faith's legitimacy is certainly in doubt.



Your ignorance on this is stark, but whether you consciously understand that or not is inconsequential.

Trashtalk. If there is ignorance, try to correct it or watch it spread.


Your former points, in totality, are meaningless insofar as they critique only how Christians practice Christianity, and not Christianity as a faith. Whether you see reason to do anything or not, similarly, is inconsequential to Christianity's legitimacy as a faith.

So, even though the Bible is flawed the faith is legitimate. I believe there is a name for stuff like this. I'll tell you later.


It is not that I missed your point, so much as you don't have any idea what your point actually does -and that it's a non-point, in that it is predicted upon getting science to do something that it cannot do. I mean, I know this is high-level stuff here, but it's really not that complicated.

You said evolution is not a fact, I corrected that error. Google 'Evolution as a theory and fact'. Know more about your theory. Not to mention how absurd it is that you say theories are not facts, as if gravity isn't.


Your asking that question indicates that you have failed to understand (1) how science works, (2) what evolution actually is, (3) what a theory can do, (4) what a theory cannot do, and above all (5) what science cannot do. I STRONGLY encourage you to, if possible, take a lab science in college. Just any lab science, and think about how the processes of scientific investigation work. Think about the kinds of conclusions that can be drawn from them. Think about the kinds that can't. And above all, avail yourself to learn.

Please, teach me.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:09:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 4:52:56 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:36:21 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
lmao, pederasty? Really?

Trust me. This isn't the weirdest you've seen.

You have this idea about the way things are, and you like the way you understand the world -which is totally understandable. Maybe you've read some books, by Chris Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. Sure, you probably didn't understand most of what you read, but you tried. Maybe you even read some Nietzsche, too. What you ought to do is learn the difference between the physical, and the metaphysical; the empirical and the non-empiricial. The linguistic thing isn't something you really need to understand -but the reality that science doesn't prove or disprove any god is something you should really grasp.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:17:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:08:13 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:08:41 PM, YYW wrote:


I'm guessing that you've never actually bothered to take a look at how the Dead Sea Scrolls were written... and that you probably only fluently speak one language.

Partly true. In any case, problems in trabslation undermines the divine inspiration of your religion.

No, it does not. It means that the literal text must be suspect, not that the Bible isn't what it purports to be. But it's not my objective to convince you here that the Bible is the word of God. Whether you choose to believe that or not is something you have to do on your own, on the basis of your own faith -and not something anyone can rationally persuade you to believe.

Your issue does not speak to the legitimacy of the Christian faith, it's with Christian's varying hermeneutical processes. So, your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

If the Chrstian sacred book is flawed, then the Christian faith's legitimacy is certainly in doubt.

No, it is not. In case you failed to read the above, let me repeat this for you: It means that the literal text must be suspect, not that the Bible isn't what it purports to be. But it's not my objective to convince you here that the Bible is the word of God. Whether you choose to believe that or not is something you have to do on your own, on the basis of your own faith -and not something anyone can rationally persuade you to believe.

Your former points, in totality, are meaningless insofar as they critique only how Christians practice Christianity, and not Christianity as a faith. Whether you see reason to do anything or not, similarly, is inconsequential to Christianity's legitimacy as a faith.

So, even though the Bible is flawed the faith is legitimate. I believe there is a name for stuff like this. I'll tell you later.

It's called religion. You can mock it, disdain it, scoff at those who believe in it -and that's your choice. Christianity isn't for everyone, and you're the only one who can choose whether you believe in it or not. Again, it's not my objective to convince you here that the Bible is the word of God. Whether you choose to believe that or not is something you have to do on your own, on the basis of your own faith (if you have any at all) and not something anyone can rationally persuade you to believe.

It is not that I missed your point, so much as you don't have any idea what your point actually does -and that it's a non-point, in that it is predicted upon getting science to do something that it cannot do. I mean, I know this is high-level stuff here, but it's really not that complicated.

You said evolution is not a fact, I corrected that error.

Facts and theories are not the same thing. I said evolution is a theory. Again, read what I write before responding to it.

Your asking that question indicates that you have failed to understand (1) how science works, (2) what evolution actually is, (3) what a theory can do, (4) what a theory cannot do, and above all (5) what science cannot do. I STRONGLY encourage you to, if possible, take a lab science in college. Just any lab science, and think about how the processes of scientific investigation work. Think about the kinds of conclusions that can be drawn from them. Think about the kinds that can't. And above all, avail yourself to learn.

Please, teach me.

(1) Science can only tell us about the physical world.
(2) Evolution is a scientific theory first posited by Charles Darwin to attempt to explain patterns of observable phenomena. Evolution is not a metaphysical account of being, nor does it rule out metaphysical accounts of being.
(3) Scientific theories explain phenomena about the physical world.
(4) Scientific theories can say nothing of the metaphysical.
(5) Science cannot tell us anything about the metaphysical (God, morality, all that good stuff, etc.)
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:17:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:08:13 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/3/2014 4:08:41 PM, YYW wrote:


I'm guessing that you've never actually bothered to take a look at how the Dead Sea Scrolls were written... and that you probably only fluently speak one language.

Partly true. In any case, problems in trabslation undermines the divine inspiration of your religion.

No, it does not. It means that the literal text must be suspect, not that the Bible isn't what it purports to be. But it's not my objective to convince you here that the Bible is the word of God. Whether you choose to believe that or not is something you have to do on your own, on the basis of your own faith -and not something anyone can rationally persuade you to believe.

Your issue does not speak to the legitimacy of the Christian faith, it's with Christian's varying hermeneutical processes. So, your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

If the Chrstian sacred book is flawed, then the Christian faith's legitimacy is certainly in doubt.

No, it is not. In case you failed to read the above, let me repeat this for you: It means that the literal text must be suspect, not that the Bible isn't what it purports to be. But it's not my objective to convince you here that the Bible is the word of God. Whether you choose to believe that or not is something you have to do on your own, on the basis of your own faith -and not something anyone can rationally persuade you to believe.

Your former points, in totality, are meaningless insofar as they critique only how Christians practice Christianity, and not Christianity as a faith. Whether you see reason to do anything or not, similarly, is inconsequential to Christianity's legitimacy as a faith.

So, even though the Bible is flawed the faith is legitimate. I believe there is a name for stuff like this. I'll tell you later.

It's called religion. You can mock it, disdain it, scoff at those who believe in it -and that's your choice. Christianity isn't for everyone, and you're the only one who can choose whether you believe in it or not. Again, it's not my objective to convince you here that the Bible is the word of God. Whether you choose to believe that or not is something you have to do on your own, on the basis of your own faith (if you have any at all) and not something anyone can rationally persuade you to believe.

It is not that I missed your point, so much as you don't have any idea what your point actually does -and that it's a non-point, in that it is predicted upon getting science to do something that it cannot do. I mean, I know this is high-level stuff here, but it's really not that complicated.

You said evolution is not a fact, I corrected that error.

Facts and theories are not the same thing. I said evolution is a theory. Again, read what I write before responding to it.

Your asking that question indicates that you have failed to understand (1) how science works, (2) what evolution actually is, (3) what a theory can do, (4) what a theory cannot do, and above all (5) what science cannot do. I STRONGLY encourage you to, if possible, take a lab science in college. Just any lab science, and think about how the processes of scientific investigation work. Think about the kinds of conclusions that can be drawn from them. Think about the kinds that can't. And above all, avail yourself to learn.

Please, teach me.

(1) Science can only tell us about the physical world.
(2) Evolution is a scientific theory first posited by Charles Darwin to attempt to explain patterns of observable phenomena. Evolution is not a metaphysical account of being, nor does it rule out metaphysical accounts of being.
(3) Scientific theories explain phenomena about the physical world.
(4) Scientific theories can say nothing of the metaphysical.
(5) Science cannot tell us anything about the metaphysical (God, morality, all that good stuff, etc.).
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:19:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:08:00 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
They're not unprovoked attacks. What I see of you is a murderer. I'll let you dwell on that.

A murderer? Really? Who do you think I killed?
Tsar of DDO
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 5:45:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ah, insidious Christian morality at it's finest - the only ills one man imparts upon another are by way of shunning the 10 Commandments. Indeed, YYW, you're no murderer in those terms, unless one was to count your warmongering against you, but then that sort of thing is generally OK, isn't it? Don't answer that. Do carry on.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 7:36:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 5:45:23 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Ah, insidious Christian morality at it's finest - the only ills one man imparts upon another are by way of shunning the 10 Commandments. Indeed, YYW, you're no murderer in those terms, unless one was to count your warmongering against you, but then that sort of thing is generally OK, isn't it? Don't answer that. Do carry on.

I'm actually very interested to learn about why you think I'm a murderer. I assume you're going to say that a whole lot of people have been killed in the name of Christianity and that, by the virtue of my being a Christian, I am somehow culpable. Naturally, we're all going to laugh at you for the stupidity of that argument... as we do whenever you post anything, but I'm certainly interested in how you're going to spin this one. Then, perhaps, we might pick up where we left off about your mother.
Tsar of DDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:59:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 9:12:45 AM, Iredia wrote:
When Christians say the Bible is not infallible they undermine their faith and compromise a perfect God. When you say the Genesis story and Revelation prophesies are just metaphors, you compromise your faith. When you argue for gays, argue for abortion, argue for euthanasia, you undermine your faith. I think the term gay Christian is an oxymoron (special focus on 'moron'), because it doesn't make sense to be in a religion where your sexuality is despised. And if that one is not enough, there are theistic evolutionists. It seems many Christians partly accept evolution because it's PC to do so, especially if you are a scientist; but they always forget . . .

That evolution is_at its roots_a materialistic philosophy which compromises faith. There's hardly any doubt that evolution has done the most to cause disbelief, even through Communism, since Marx was influenced by Darwin. In fact, deism's prominence dropped because of the TOE. And yet you have Christians helping atheists do their work by affiming evolution.

In this regard, I'd say such Christians are na"ve.

If a Christian doesn't agree with the Christians around him, he just starts another denomination of Christianity and lures new Christians in his church to deceive them with his new interpretations.