Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Context

bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 5:26:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is such a pathetic cop out, isn't it?

"On that day you shall surely die"

Yes but you need to use context.

Oh dear.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 6:26:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why is everyone in this forum keep beating a dead horse?

And by "beating a dead horse", I don't mean a literal beating of a literally dead literal horse.

Just saying.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 6:29:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 6:26:22 AM, Kerfluffer wrote:
Why is everyone in this forum keep beating a dead horse?

And by "beating a dead horse", I don't mean a literal beating of a literally dead literal horse.

Just saying.

Oh what a wonderful response from a contextualists.

Thank you.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 6:30:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh and it might be because they are religious?

Ya think?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 6:37:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

But this applies to everyone starting threads, not just you. People are arguing over and over about the same thing. There seems to be a weekly fashion, too. Every time there's a new topic, it seems we hit a nest of cockroaches and the whole place gets riled up. It used to be "context and metaphors" and before that we had the prophecies about the temple destruction. Now the IN topic is the "Christ Myth". That's getting old, now.

Come on, lets talk about something new. I need to be entertained.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 9:38:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 6:37:04 AM, Kerfluffer wrote:
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

But this applies to everyone starting threads, not just you. People are arguing over and over about the same thing. There seems to be a weekly fashion, too. Every time there's a new topic, it seems we hit a nest of cockroaches and the whole place gets riled up. It used to be "context and metaphors" and before that we had the prophecies about the temple destruction. Now the IN topic is the "Christ Myth". That's getting old, now.

Come on, lets talk about something new. I need to be entertained.

It probably has a lot to do with the circular arguments produced by religionists in order that they defend their beliefs.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 2:07:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 5:26:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is such a pathetic cop out, isn't it?

"On that day you shall surely die"

Yes but you need to use context.

Oh dear.

I know that it has been a time since our last discussion, Bulproof, but I remember distinctly pointing out a quote by Richard Dawkins. I also remember that we left that conversation on comparatively good terms. Why do you act as though the conversation never took place?

My quote from Richard Dawkins... "there is a God"

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 2:19:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 2:07:51 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:26:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is such a pathetic cop out, isn't it?

"On that day you shall surely die"

Yes but you need to use context.

Oh dear.

I know that it has been a time since our last discussion, Bulproof, but I remember distinctly pointing out a quote by Richard Dawkins. I also remember that we left that conversation on comparatively good terms. Why do you act as though the conversation never took place?

My quote from Richard Dawkins... "there is a God"

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

We agreed that your quote was dishonest, now all you need do is explain the dishonesty in my quote.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 2:32:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 2:19:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 2:07:51 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/29/2014 5:26:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is such a pathetic cop out, isn't it?

"On that day you shall surely die"

Yes but you need to use context.

Oh dear.

I know that it has been a time since our last discussion, Bulproof, but I remember distinctly pointing out a quote by Richard Dawkins. I also remember that we left that conversation on comparatively good terms. Why do you act as though the conversation never took place?

My quote from Richard Dawkins... "there is a God"

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

We agreed that your quote was dishonest, now all you need do is explain the dishonesty in my quote.

Apparently, we do not remember equally...
The purpose of my quote was to show you that context is essential, and you accepted my point. If you are drawing a conclusion from that one piece of scripture with zero context or attempts at deeper understanding, then you have made the quote, by your own standing, dishonest as well.

I have also spent several posts in your previous attempt to ask this question, to which you eventually resorted to Ad Hominem as your primary defense. It certainly begs the question of your true motives in asking the question...

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 2:46:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In your quote you omitted the word "if", that is not context it is dishonesty. You altered the meaning of what was said.

I haven't altered anything, I'm being honest. Show me where I have been dishonest like you.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 10:42:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 2:46:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
In your quote you omitted the word "if", that is not context it is dishonesty. You altered the meaning of what was said.

I haven't altered anything, I'm being honest. Show me where I have been dishonest like you.

(Sorry, this response didn't show up on my notification list)

I have not altered anything either. I have simply chosen to omit the surrounding evidence that would contradict the obvious meaning of that which I chose to recite. As you have done here, only "Surrounding" is much more broad than the confines of a sentence or two.

My point is not to start an expletive competition, but to keep you in check here. Now, where have you been dishonest? In the same way that I have in my quote. You and I have had this conversation before, and I have attempted to broaden the confines of the conversation in order to help you understand, but you have opted for remaining in those confines. So, by doing so, it would validate the usage of my own Richard Dawkins quote which you have called dishonest.

If one is disqualified, the other is also. That's as simple as it gets, Bulproof

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 10:46:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 10:42:04 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 2:46:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
In your quote you omitted the word "if", that is not context it is dishonesty. You altered the meaning of what was said.

I haven't altered anything, I'm being honest. Show me where I have been dishonest like you.

(Sorry, this response didn't show up on my notification list)

I have not altered anything either. I have simply chosen to omit the surrounding evidence that would contradict the obvious meaning of that which I chose to recite. As you have done here, only "Surrounding" is much more broad than the confines of a sentence or two.

My point is not to start an expletive competition, but to keep you in check here. Now, where have you been dishonest? In the same way that I have in my quote. You and I have had this conversation before, and I have attempted to broaden the confines of the conversation in order to help you understand, but you have opted for remaining in those confines. So, by doing so, it would validate the usage of my own Richard Dawkins quote which you have called dishonest.

If one is disqualified, the other is also. That's as simple as it gets, Bulproof

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'll give you a chance that dishonesty doesn't deserve yet again. Provide evidence of my dishonesty, show where I have omitted something to alter the text to reflect the absolute opposite of what was stated.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 10:55:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 10:46:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:42:04 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 2:46:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
In your quote you omitted the word "if", that is not context it is dishonesty. You altered the meaning of what was said.

I haven't altered anything, I'm being honest. Show me where I have been dishonest like you.

(Sorry, this response didn't show up on my notification list)

I have not altered anything either. I have simply chosen to omit the surrounding evidence that would contradict the obvious meaning of that which I chose to recite. As you have done here, only "Surrounding" is much more broad than the confines of a sentence or two.

My point is not to start an expletive competition, but to keep you in check here. Now, where have you been dishonest? In the same way that I have in my quote. You and I have had this conversation before, and I have attempted to broaden the confines of the conversation in order to help you understand, but you have opted for remaining in those confines. So, by doing so, it would validate the usage of my own Richard Dawkins quote which you have called dishonest.

If one is disqualified, the other is also. That's as simple as it gets, Bulproof

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'll give you a chance that dishonesty doesn't deserve yet again. Provide evidence of my dishonesty, show where I have omitted something to alter the text to reflect the absolute opposite of what was stated.

"Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died." (Genesis 5:5)

Now, the entirety of Genesis was written in very close succession. These two verses of ours are in very close succession. So, we can now infer that the author knew exactly what he was saying when he said "On this day, you shall surely die", because he then continued to write that Adam lived 930 years. What can you now infer from this?

That it was "On this day" that Adam would now surely die, instead of living eternally with God. This is why I claim that your quote is dishonest. Now, I won't bother asking for why my Dawkins quote is dishonest, because we both have an understanding of it. I would ask now for your own understanding to come into play on the issue you have presented. I have given you surrounding information, and explained my point.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 11:14:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 10:55:04 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:46:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:42:04 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 2:46:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
In your quote you omitted the word "if", that is not context it is dishonesty. You altered the meaning of what was said.

I haven't altered anything, I'm being honest. Show me where I have been dishonest like you.

(Sorry, this response didn't show up on my notification list)

I have not altered anything either. I have simply chosen to omit the surrounding evidence that would contradict the obvious meaning of that which I chose to recite. As you have done here, only "Surrounding" is much more broad than the confines of a sentence or two.

My point is not to start an expletive competition, but to keep you in check here. Now, where have you been dishonest? In the same way that I have in my quote. You and I have had this conversation before, and I have attempted to broaden the confines of the conversation in order to help you understand, but you have opted for remaining in those confines. So, by doing so, it would validate the usage of my own Richard Dawkins quote which you have called dishonest.

If one is disqualified, the other is also. That's as simple as it gets, Bulproof

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'll give you a chance that dishonesty doesn't deserve yet again. Provide evidence of my dishonesty, show where I have omitted something to alter the text to reflect the absolute opposite of what was stated.

"Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died." (Genesis 5:5)

Now, the entirety of Genesis was written in very close succession.
Who makes this claim and what evidence do you have to support it?
These two verses of ours are in very close succession.
Do you mean in circa 500BC?
So, we can now infer that the author knew exactly what he was saying when he said
You can infer anything you like. You can infer that unicorns existed, but you have no evidence to support such a claim.
"On this day, you shall surely die", because he then continued to write that Adam lived 930 years. What can you now infer from this?
That GOD lied or the episode never occurred at all, the most likely.
That it was "On this day" that Adam would now surely die,
Did adam die on that day?
instead of living eternally with God.
Provide evidence that adam was ever supposed to live for ever.
This is why I claim that your quote is dishonest.
Because you fabricated a passage that simply does not exist, not even a hint that your claim is intimated in genesis.
Now, I won't bother asking for why my Dawkins quote is dishonest,
Because you didn't quote the entire statement, as I did.
because we both have an understanding of it. I would ask now for your own understanding to come into play on the issue you have presented. I have given you surrounding information, and explained my point.
You have given excuses for your understanding that simply do not exist in the passage quoted.
You have been dishonest and instead of omitting parts have added parts that simply do not exist.
Because I have not CHANGED ANYTHING in the quote.

It was you who were dishonest enough to omit a word that actually REVERSED the meaning of the quote.

I quoted what your god allegedly said without alteration.

What you did is known as dishonesty.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 11:32:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 11:14:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:55:04 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:46:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:42:04 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 2:46:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
In your quote you omitted the word "if", that is not context it is dishonesty. You altered the meaning of what was said.

I haven't altered anything, I'm being honest. Show me where I have been dishonest like you.

(Sorry, this response didn't show up on my notification list)

I have not altered anything either. I have simply chosen to omit the surrounding evidence that would contradict the obvious meaning of that which I chose to recite. As you have done here, only "Surrounding" is much more broad than the confines of a sentence or two.

My point is not to start an expletive competition, but to keep you in check here. Now, where have you been dishonest? In the same way that I have in my quote. You and I have had this conversation before, and I have attempted to broaden the confines of the conversation in order to help you understand, but you have opted for remaining in those confines. So, by doing so, it would validate the usage of my own Richard Dawkins quote which you have called dishonest.

If one is disqualified, the other is also. That's as simple as it gets, Bulproof

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'll give you a chance that dishonesty doesn't deserve yet again. Provide evidence of my dishonesty, show where I have omitted something to alter the text to reflect the absolute opposite of what was stated.

"Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died." (Genesis 5:5)

Now, the entirety of Genesis was written in very close succession.
Who makes this claim and what evidence do you have to support it?
Because the focus remains on the same person, and is all part of one story
These two verses of ours are in very close succession.
Do you mean in circa 500BC?
I do not pretend to know the exact date, but I will not refute it as of yet, because I want to see where you're going with this...
So, we can now infer that the author knew exactly what he was saying when he said
You can infer anything you like. You can infer that unicorns existed, but you have no evidence to support such a claim.
This is a childish remark. I would ask that you read what I have said, again, and ask yourself if we can say that because two pieces of the same book that were written by the same person in close succession, that the person was on the same train of thought, and knew exactly what he had said only recently?
"On this day, you shall surely die", because he then continued to write that Adam lived 930 years. What can you now infer from this?
That GOD lied or the episode never occurred at all, the most likely.
If that is what you have chosen to infer, then I suppose that you could very well believe in that aforementioned unicorn. You have chosen not to accept even the possibility of another answer than your own. You boast that Christians are close-minded, yet this is such a small matter where anyone can tell that there is another inference than the one you have pointed out, but you refuse to accept even the possibility of it.
That it was "On this day" that Adam would now surely die,
Did adam die on that day?
You have misread me again. It was on that day that Adam would now face the certainty of death. Meaning, before that day, Adam never would have died. Now, on that day, he would face the certainty of death at some point, instead of never. Do you understand?
instead of living eternally with God.
Provide evidence that adam was ever supposed to live for ever.
Genesis 2 and 3. Those are general statements, but here is my specific one: "On this day, you shall surely die." Meaning before that day, Adam would never have died. Do you understand?
This is why I claim that your quote is dishonest.
Because you fabricated a passage that simply does not exist, not even a hint that your claim is intimated in genesis.
I have not fabricated a passage that does not exist. I have given you a verse within the same context of yours, and have given a citation for it. I have also provided evidence for you so as to aid in the proving of my point. You are now rejecting my evidence and other points on principle, which signifies lack of evidential argument, and I request that you concede this point alone.
Now, I won't bother asking for why my Dawkins quote is dishonest,
Because you didn't quote the entire statement, as I did.
And on my quote, I gave you another verse in close relation to the one you presented. I then explained why it makes your quote dishonest, an answer for which I have still not seen beyond your already "Because you fabricated a passage that simply does not exist, not even a hint that your claim is intimated in genesis." Which is silliness and I have already asked for you to concede.
because we both have an understanding of it. I would ask now for your own understanding to come into play on the issue you have presented. I have given you surrounding information, and explained my point.
You have given excuses for your understanding that simply do not exist in the passage quoted.
You have been dishonest and instead of omitting parts have added parts that simply do not exist.
Because I have not CHANGED ANYTHING in the quote.

It was you who were dishonest enough to omit a word that actually REVERSED the meaning of the quote.

I quoted what your god allegedly said without alteration.

What you did is known as dishonesty.

You first say that my issue was that I omitted something, but then that you yourself did not alter anything. The two, therefore, are not parallel for the case of your argument. You did accidentally omit something, and I presented it for you. Now, for you to continue with your point by calling mine fabricated and non-existent, would be to now alter the scripture, thereby raising two points of dishonesty.

Also, I do dislike this Point-By-Point response pattern... In the future, i shall try to address it all in one block instead of piece by piece.
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 11:43:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 11:32:32 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:14:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:55:04 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:46:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:42:04 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 2:46:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
In your quote you omitted the word "if", that is not context it is dishonesty. You altered the meaning of what was said.

I haven't altered anything, I'm being honest. Show me where I have been dishonest like you.

(Sorry, this response didn't show up on my notification list)

I have not altered anything either. I have simply chosen to omit the surrounding evidence that would contradict the obvious meaning of that which I chose to recite. As you have done here, only "Surrounding" is much more broad than the confines of a sentence or two.

My point is not to start an expletive competition, but to keep you in check here. Now, where have you been dishonest? In the same way that I have in my quote. You and I have had this conversation before, and I have attempted to broaden the confines of the conversation in order to help you understand, but you have opted for remaining in those confines. So, by doing so, it would validate the usage of my own Richard Dawkins quote which you have called dishonest.

If one is disqualified, the other is also. That's as simple as it gets, Bulproof

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'll give you a chance that dishonesty doesn't deserve yet again. Provide evidence of my dishonesty, show where I have omitted something to alter the text to reflect the absolute opposite of what was stated.

"Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died." (Genesis 5:5)

Now, the entirety of Genesis was written in very close succession.
Who makes this claim and what evidence do you have to support it?
Because the focus remains on the same person, and is all part of one story
These two verses of ours are in very close succession.
Do you mean in circa 500BC?
I do not pretend to know the exact date, but I will not refute it as of yet, because I want to see where you're going with this...
So, we can now infer that the author knew exactly what he was saying when he said
You can infer anything you like. You can infer that unicorns existed, but you have no evidence to support such a claim.
This is a childish remark. I would ask that you read what I have said, again, and ask yourself if we can say that because two pieces of the same book that were written by the same person in close succession, that the person was on the same train of thought, and knew exactly what he had said only recently?
"On this day, you shall surely die", because he then continued to write that Adam lived 930 years. What can you now infer from this?
That GOD lied or the episode never occurred at all, the most likely.
If that is what you have chosen to infer, then I suppose that you could very well believe in that aforementioned unicorn. You have chosen not to accept even the possibility of another answer than your own. You boast that Christians are close-minded, yet this is such a small matter where anyone can tell that there is another inference than the one you have pointed out, but you refuse to accept even the possibility of it.
That it was "On this day" that Adam would now surely die,
Did adam die on that day?
You have misread me again. It was on that day that Adam would now face the certainty of death. Meaning, before that day, Adam never would have died. Now, on that day, he would face the certainty of death at some point, instead of never. Do you understand?
instead of living eternally with God.
Provide evidence that adam was ever supposed to live for ever.
Genesis 2 and 3. Those are general statements, but here is my specific one: "On this day, you shall surely die." Meaning before that day, Adam would never have died. Do you understand?
This is why I claim that your quote is dishonest.
Because you fabricated a passage that simply does not exist, not even a hint that your claim is intimated in genesis.
I have not fabricated a passage that does not exist. I have given you a verse within the same context of yours, and have given a citation for it. I have also provided evidence for you so as to aid in the proving of my point. You are now rejecting my evidence and other points on principle, which signifies lack of evidential argument, and I request that you concede this point alone.
Now, I won't bother asking for why my Dawkins quote is dishonest,
Because you didn't quote the entire statement, as I did.
And on my quote, I gave you another verse in close relation to the one you presented. I then explained why it makes your quote dishonest, an answer for which I have still not seen beyond your already "Because you fabricated a passage that simply does not exist, not even a hint that your claim is intimated in genesis." Which is silliness and I have already asked for you to concede.
because we both have an understanding of it. I would ask now for your own understanding to come into play on the issue you have presented. I have given you surrounding information, and explained my point.
You have given excuses for your understanding that simply do not exist in the passage quoted.
You have been dishonest and instead of omitting parts have added parts that simply do not exist.
Because I have not CHANGED ANYTHING in the quote.

It was you who were dishonest enough to omit a word that actually REVERSED the meaning of the quote.

I quoted what your god allegedly said without alteration.

What you did is known as dishonesty.

You first say that my issue was that I omitted something, but then that you yourself did not alter anything. The two, therefore, are not parallel for the case of your argument. You did accidentally omit something, and I presented it for you. Now, for you to continue with your point by calling mine fabricated and non-existent, would be to now alter the scripture, thereby raising two points of dishonesty.

Also, I do dislike this Point-By-Point response pattern... In the future, i shall try to address it all in one block instead of piece by piece.
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

Just show me from your scriptures where your additions to the passage I quoted exist.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 11:47:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 6:26:22 AM, Kerfluffer wrote:
Why is everyone in this forum keep beating a dead horse?

And by "beating a dead horse", I don't mean a literal beating of a literally dead literal horse.

Just saying.

Thanks for putting that in 'context'. LOL! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 11:50:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 11:47:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/29/2014 6:26:22 AM, Kerfluffer wrote:
Why is everyone in this forum keep beating a dead horse?

And by "beating a dead horse", I don't mean a literal beating of a literally dead literal horse.

Just saying.

Thanks for putting that in 'context'. LOL! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Danger Will Robinson.............Troll Alert.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 11:51:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 5:26:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is such a pathetic cop out, isn't it?

"On that day you shall surely die"

Yes but you need to use context.

Oh dear.

This is just too funny. People like you are always complaining about Creationists taking quotes From evolutionists out of context. Oh, the irony.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 11:52:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 11:50:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:47:01 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/29/2014 6:26:22 AM, Kerfluffer wrote:
Why is everyone in this forum keep beating a dead horse?

And by "beating a dead horse", I don't mean a literal beating of a literally dead literal horse.

Just saying.

Thanks for putting that in 'context'. LOL! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Danger Will Robinson.............Troll Alert.

Just remember. When you point your hypocritical finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 11:54:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 5:26:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is such a pathetic cop out, isn't it?

"On that day you shall surely die"

Yes but you need to use context.

Oh dear.

Okay, let's just pretend for a moment that the Bible was written by evil Jewish scribes in captivity who ate babies and wanted to trick all their fellow Jews into following a false religion.
The story of the Garden of Eden and the story Fall of Man was most likely written at a similar time, by the same guy.
So what the *bleep* makes you think that he forgot that he wrote "you shall surely die" and wrote that they survived? Especially considering that:
1. It was quite possibly written on the same page as the part where God told them they wouldn't die.
2. If not, wouldn't a person who was creating a religion look back upon what he had already written to make sure there weren't any glaring errors/contradictions in what he wrote?

Oh, and by the way, Adam and Eve did die. It took them a little while, but I don't think God said "you shall surely die the second you eat the fruit."
But then again, in a way, they did die the second they are the fruit: they died a spiritual death.

EPIC FAIL
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 11:58:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 11:54:47 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
But then again, in a way, they did die the second they are the fruit: they died a spiritual death.

Now produce a passage from genesis that makes that claim or forever be known as an idiot looking for a village.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 12:02:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 11:58:01 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:54:47 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
But then again, in a way, they did die the second they are the fruit: they died a spiritual death.

Now produce a passage from genesis that makes that claim or forever be known as an idiot looking for a village.

Why? What is life? Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Therefore, it would only make sense that separation from God is separation from Life itself.
Several verses in the New Testament refer to separation from God as being spiritually dead.
But then again, as you clearly suffer from severe religious illiteracy and cannot see the context behind any verse, this will mean nothing to you.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 12:08:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 12:02:42 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:58:01 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:54:47 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
But then again, in a way, they did die the second they are the fruit: they died a spiritual death.

Now produce a passage from genesis that makes that claim or forever be known as an idiot looking for a village.

Why? What is life? Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Therefore, it would only make sense that separation from God is separation from Life itself.
Several verses in the New Testament refer to separation from God as being spiritually dead.
But then again, as you clearly suffer from severe religious illiteracy and cannot see the context behind any verse, this will mean nothing to you.

You've just proven conclusively that you are wrong. Well done.
Have you heard of genesis?
hahahahahahaha
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 12:10:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 12:08:48 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 12:02:42 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:58:01 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:54:47 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
But then again, in a way, they did die the second they are the fruit: they died a spiritual death.

Now produce a passage from genesis that makes that claim or forever be known as an idiot looking for a village.

Why? What is life? Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Therefore, it would only make sense that separation from God is separation from Life itself.
Several verses in the New Testament refer to separation from God as being spiritually dead.
But then again, as you clearly suffer from severe religious illiteracy and cannot see the context behind any verse, this will mean nothing to you.

You've just proven conclusively that you are wrong. Well done.
Have you heard of genesis?
hahahahahahaha

Why does it have to be from Genesis? Why don't the other books of the Bible work just as well?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 12:26:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 12:10:35 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/30/2014 12:08:48 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 12:02:42 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:58:01 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:54:47 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
But then again, in a way, they did die the second they are the fruit: they died a spiritual death.

Now produce a passage from genesis that makes that claim or forever be known as an idiot looking for a village.

Why? What is life? Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Therefore, it would only make sense that separation from God is separation from Life itself.
Several verses in the New Testament refer to separation from God as being spiritually dead.
But then again, as you clearly suffer from severe religious illiteracy and cannot see the context behind any verse, this will mean nothing to you.

You've just proven conclusively that you are wrong. Well done.
Have you heard of genesis?
hahahahahahaha

Why does it have to be from Genesis? Why don't the other books of the Bible work just as well?

On that day you will surely die.
Do you see something else that your god said to adam?
You know, like spiritual or anyfing.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 1:20:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 11:43:51 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:32:32 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 11:14:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:55:04 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:46:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 10:42:04 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/30/2014 2:46:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
In your quote you omitted the word "if", that is not context it is dishonesty. You altered the meaning of what was said.

I haven't altered anything, I'm being honest. Show me where I have been dishonest like you.

(Sorry, this response didn't show up on my notification list)

I have not altered anything either. I have simply chosen to omit the surrounding evidence that would contradict the obvious meaning of that which I chose to recite. As you have done here, only "Surrounding" is much more broad than the confines of a sentence or two.

My point is not to start an expletive competition, but to keep you in check here. Now, where have you been dishonest? In the same way that I have in my quote. You and I have had this conversation before, and I have attempted to broaden the confines of the conversation in order to help you understand, but you have opted for remaining in those confines. So, by doing so, it would validate the usage of my own Richard Dawkins quote which you have called dishonest.

If one is disqualified, the other is also. That's as simple as it gets, Bulproof

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'll give you a chance that dishonesty doesn't deserve yet again. Provide evidence of my dishonesty, show where I have omitted something to alter the text to reflect the absolute opposite of what was stated.

"Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died." (Genesis 5:5)

Now, the entirety of Genesis was written in very close succession.
Who makes this claim and what evidence do you have to support it?
Because the focus remains on the same person, and is all part of one story
These two verses of ours are in very close succession.
Do you mean in circa 500BC?
I do not pretend to know the exact date, but I will not refute it as of yet, because I want to see where you're going with this...
So, we can now infer that the author knew exactly what he was saying when he said
You can infer anything you like. You can infer that unicorns existed, but you have no evidence to support such a claim.
This is a childish remark. I would ask that you read what I have said, again, and ask yourself if we can say that because two pieces of the same book that were written by the same person in close succession, that the person was on the same train of thought, and knew exactly what he had said only recently?
"On this day, you shall surely die", because he then continued to write that Adam lived 930 years. What can you now infer from this?
That GOD lied or the episode never occurred at all, the most likely.
If that is what you have chosen to infer, then I suppose that you could very well believe in that aforementioned unicorn. You have chosen not to accept even the possibility of another answer than your own. You boast that Christians are close-minded, yet this is such a small matter where anyone can tell that there is another inference than the one you have pointed out, but you refuse to accept even the possibility of it.
That it was "On this day" that Adam would now surely die,
Did adam die on that day?
You have misread me again. It was on that day that Adam would now face the certainty of death. Meaning, before that day, Adam never would have died. Now, on that day, he would face the certainty of death at some point, instead of never. Do you understand?
instead of living eternally with God.
Provide evidence that adam was ever supposed to live for ever.
Genesis 2 and 3. Those are general statements, but here is my specific one: "On this day, you shall surely die." Meaning before that day, Adam would never have died. Do you understand?
This is why I claim that your quote is dishonest.
Because you fabricated a passage that simply does not exist, not even a hint that your claim is intimated in genesis.
I have not fabricated a passage that does not exist. I have given you a verse within the same context of yours, and have given a citation for it. I have also provided evidence for you so as to aid in the proving of my point. You are now rejecting my evidence and other points on principle, which signifies lack of evidential argument, and I request that you concede this point alone.
Now, I won't bother asking for why my Dawkins quote is dishonest,
Because you didn't quote the entire statement, as I did.
And on my quote, I gave you another verse in close relation to the one you presented. I then explained why it makes your quote dishonest, an answer for which I have still not seen beyond your already "Because you fabricated a passage that simply does not exist, not even a hint that your claim is intimated in genesis." Which is silliness and I have already asked for you to concede.
because we both have an understanding of it. I would ask now for your own understanding to come into play on the issue you have presented. I have given you surrounding information, and explained my point.
You have given excuses for your understanding that simply do not exist in the passage quoted.
You have been dishonest and instead of omitting parts have added parts that simply do not exist.
Because I have not CHANGED ANYTHING in the quote.

It was you who were dishonest enough to omit a word that actually REVERSED the meaning of the quote.

I quoted what your god allegedly said without alteration.

What you did is known as dishonesty.

You first say that my issue was that I omitted something, but then that you yourself did not alter anything. The two, therefore, are not parallel for the case of your argument. You did accidentally omit something, and I presented it for you. Now, for you to continue with your point by calling mine fabricated and non-existent, would be to now alter the scripture, thereby raising two points of dishonesty.

Also, I do dislike this Point-By-Point response pattern... In the future, i shall try to address it all in one block instead of piece by piece.
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

Just show me from your scriptures where your additions to the passage I quoted exist.

Genesis 5:5.
I have already presented it. If you are referring to my interpretation of the passage that you presented, then I will say that I would be vastly surprised if someone of college intellect or above, read my interpretation and did not agree with my point.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 5:25:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 5:26:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is such a pathetic cop out, isn't it?

"On that day you shall surely die"

Yes but you need to use context.

Oh dear.

"Context" is the theists, get out of using reason for free, card.

I love it when you point out savage killing of infants, children, raping of women and kidnapping of young virgin females - promoted by God, and the theists yells "CONTEXT!"

If you ask them to outline the context in which any of those actions are moral, they tend to have far less to say. Almost none of the barbaric, hatred and violence of the Bible is the least bit more moral or justified when you absorb the context. It's just what they're trained to say when they don't want to admit to promotions of barbarity.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 5:13:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 5:26:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
Is such a pathetic cop out, isn't it?

"On that day you shall surely die"

Yes but you need to use context.

Oh dear.

Christians have no idea what "being in context" means. They don't know that we saints possess the knowledge of God to know the past, present and future, which is the context needed to interpret all the prophecies. We are authorized to use the scriptures but not Christians. They don't have a clue what the prophecies mean.