Thanks. It seemed particularly appropriate.

Yes. You do not know how to read.

Of course I have offered supports. That is why I quoted from the Rabbis. You do not like what they have to say, that is your right, but it is quite close minded. After all, the Rabbis are not Christian apologists, and have a vested interest in debunking the Jeconiah prophecy.

I can only lead an atheist to logic, I cannot make him think.

Sorry.

Do not misrepresent my position. Jeconiah absolutely was forgiven. There is not "maybes" in this at all except in your small dogmatic mind.

Like most fundamentalists you must have every single thing spelled out for you, then you still do not get it. Sadly, I have yet to find a cure for this malady.

I have noticed this about you. You seek certainty in areas where such things are not possible. History is not mathematics. But we can determine that a thing is far more probable than another thing. I have presented the reasons to believe that Jeconiah was forgiven. You have offered nothing in response except that you think the "possibility" that he was forgiven (as opposed to the certainty) doesn't mean shit. Out of curiousity, what in the world would you classify as certainty? You would not believe how many atheists I encounter that tell me I must offer my proofs from outside of the Bible (working on the bizarre assumption that the Bible cannot be used to confirm itself). I have dozens of proofs of my point from outside of the Bible, yet you want more. What would you like to see Patrick?

Trust me, the word is "blind", and you are blind on this question.

Based on your criteria, you should be able to prove that Jesus knew His own name. Show me the chapter and verse please, or stop being stubbornly stupid.

Of course you do Patrick. And calm yourself. I rarely encounter a fundamentalist that is even remotely open to possibilities beyond what he has already formulated in his mind, and you have proven yourself to be as dogmatic a fundamentalist as they get. I don't knock myself out pounding my head on such rocks any longer.

Hardly. You do not even recognize the nature of evidenciary supports. When I offered them in the words of the Rabbis, you rejected them catagorically, and without any qualification beyond the fact that you did not like what they said. That, my friend, is dogmatism in a nutshell.

I have hoped in vain that you would demonstrate some ability to learn. You have not. I accept your decision. Now we can all move on.

Cool. Bye. (I had to reply to this post only to confirm that you are a bigot for the readers. After this, we are done.)

You mean the atheists here? I have yet to meet one that posts on these boards, and is prepared to admit that a theist may be right about anything he has already made his mind up about. Why would this example be any different?

On the other hand, it is fatal to the arguments from the anti-Christian missionaries I encounter, so that's why I save it for them. They know when they have been beaten. Sadly, I cannot say the same for atheists (and this surprises me, since atheists do not really have a stake in this particular debate. They can accept that Jeconiah was forgiven, and remain atheists. But for some people, like yourself, logic has not proven to be a compelling argument, so I cannot help you here).

Well, I could see it being a big deal to a Biblical literalist, but that is another matter. Like dogmatic atheists, these folks drive me crazy. They make as little sense as you do here.

No, I wish you would be more open minded. I accept that it is often possible for people to have reasonable disagreements. You, on the other hand, have not demonstrated that you can accept that I may be wrong, but can still be reasonable in my position.

What happened to number "3"?

I did support my claims, in spades. And I wanted to set the record straight on the Jeconiah curse. The geneologies questions still don't interest me, and my efforts to refer you to sources that may help you find the answers you seek appears to have fallen on deaf ears. So we are done here.

Good bye.

Nomad

Patrick, excuse me for interrupting, but you won't mind if a fellow small-minded atheist has a go, do you? Thank you.

Nomad.

How have you been? Didja miss me?

Now I must give credit where credit is due. As far as insults go, that was pretty good. Sounded a bit bigoted, betraying your apparent belief that our atheism somehow short-circuits our brain, but I find it in my heart to forgive such a...ahem...less than open-minded opinion, on the grounds that it was witty.

Now, now. You're losing that all-loving-and-attempting-to-understand Ghandi exterior that I admire so much. He isn't getting to you, is he?

It works like this: Xtians who wish to prove their points and sound reasonable must avoid resorting to petty name-calling, as such behavior belies that I'm-only-trying-to-help facade y'all seem to cherish so much. I, on the other hand, am simply trying to make points and I'm not bound by any rules, so I may resort to whatever means I see fit to make my point. Calling someone small-minded, however, makes no point. Sarcasm, on the other hand, makes points (and only implies the opponent is small-minded, which is yet another reason it is my weapon of choice).

I fear you oversimplify. Some proofs must needs be separate from the text in question. For example, I'd feel a lot more comfy about the very existence of Jesus, or the great flood, were someone to produce one extra-biblical source that conclusively confirms it. This is not that sort of argument, however.

The point of this argument--please stay with me--is to show that your holy book is flawed, that it contradicts itself. You simply don't see the contradiction because you base your readings on the presupposition that your god inspired it and therefore, Jeconiah had to have been forgiven. I disagree with your conclusions because you haven't supported your assumption. Please don't confuse lack of support on your part with narrow-mindedness on mine.

What makes you so sure he knew his own name, then? It's possible he was quite soft in the head, particularly after spending so long in the wilderness, indigent and meandering around town preaching "the gospel" with all the other unemployed kooks looking for a handout and that he didn't know his own name. Now that you mention it.

Promises, promises.

Unless I miss my guess, Nomad, your readers have already decided for themselves who the real bigot is here. They aren't nearly as dull as you appear to think they are.

What a coincidence!

Finally, Nomad, I noticed how often you accused your opponent of being illogical, a bigot, a dogmatist, a fundamentalist, small-minded or closed-minded.

Since a Xtian wouldn't try to remove the mote from his brother's eye while he has a beam in his own, I'm wondering what, exactly, leads you to believe that aren't any of these?

I mean that question seriously, Nomad. What is the distinguishing characteristic that makes you above such classification?

diana

Hello again Diana

To be honest (and I do know that this will come as a shock), but I do not really see myself as a Ghandi type figure. When it comes to debates, I look more to the examples of Tertullian, St. Jerome and Augustine myself.

I am unfamiliar with the types of Christians you are accustomed to speaking with, but it is my guess that I am not like most of them as a rule. I certainly am not interested in any kind of facade, and apologize if I have left the impression that I was or am with anyone here.

As for your advice, I understand what you are saying Diana, and will continue to avoid these pitfalls.

Yes. I noticed this from your original post. Sarcasm has been your modus operandi from the get go, and personally, I feel that it has impeded our discussion.

I disagree. If an individual demonstrates a consistent and persistent inability to recognize a reasonable argument with which they disagree strongly, and thereby deny it the legitimacy of reasonableness, I do not know how else to inform them of their error. I loathe this kind of behavior personally, and generally attempt to show those with whom I am dealing when they are displaying such behavior.

Of course, pointing a thing out to a person, and helping them to understand and accept their own weaknesses is a very different kettle of fish, and a puzzle I have yet to solve.

Yes. Luckily for me, I am able to see through the veneer, and understand the implications of what is being said to me. I am sure, however, that others on these boards admire your technique more than they do my own, and look for ways to emulate you. Having conceded this point, I also congratulate you on your effectiveness in using sarcasm as a tool.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You would not believe how many atheists I encounter that tell me I must offer my proofs from outside of the Bible (working on the bizarre assumption that the Bible cannot be used to confirm itself). I have dozens of proofs of my point from outside of the Bible, yet you want more.

Now, here is where we see an example of what I consider to be a very clever "escape hatch", if I may call it that. By using the phrase "conclusively confirms it" you have effectively set up a well constructed moving target. If the theist should come too close to hitting it, you can simply move it to a new position, declare the argument to be "inconclusively proven" and remain safe in your scepticism. I am not chiding you for this practice, merely pointing out how it is used and its effects. On the other hand, I am dismayed by such tactics, and hope you can now better appreciate why I only persue a line of argumentation so far before dropping it, and moving on to more constructive pursuits.

Of course it is. I am no longer attempting to help you see that however, and will allow the point to drop now.

Now do you see where your mistake is Diana? Unlike the Christians with whom you are familiar, I am prepared to concede that there are many apparent, and possibly even real, contradictions within Biblical texts. The point that I am attempting to nail down, in effect, is why anyone would abandon their faith on such trivialities as did Matthew and/or Luke get their genealogies 100% straight. If you can offer a well constructed reason as to why people would be so simple minded, please tell me.

And as for Jeconiah, well, the point has been so thoroughly demonstrated that it hardly needs to be repeated again. If someone can not get it by now, I can hardly be held responsible for that, can I?

Allow me to share one of my favorite quotations from the great St. Augustine when he spoke on this exact point:

“It is just as if they were anxious to see the new or the old moon, or some very obscure star, and I should point it out with my finger: if they had not sight enough to see even my finger, they would surely have no right to fly into a passion with me on that account. As for those who, even though they know and understand my directions, fail to penetrate the meaning of obscure passages in Scripture, they may stand for those who, in the case I have imagined, are just able to see my finger, but cannot see the stars at which it is pointed.”
(St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine)

Now, I am not Augustine by even a country mile, but I certainly can empathize with how he felt here.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Based on your criteria, you should be able to prove that Jesus knew His own name. Show me the chapter and verse please, or stop being stubbornly stupid.

You are quite right, of course, and perhaps we will even have someone appear on this thread to congratulate you on your perceptiveness and insight. I have seen it done a number of times before for others.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">(I had to reply to this post only to confirm that you are a bigot for the readers.)

I agree with you entirely. How I do love firsts.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I have yet to meet [an atheist] that posts on these boards, and is prepared to admit that a theist may be right about anything he has already made his mind up about.

Yes. I see you have noticed the same thing. It is sad though, don't you think?

First, if I may, I am not really that interested in removing anyone's motes. I do have quite enough beams in my eyes to worry about such things.

Second, I fully recognize my own prejudices. If I can assist another in gaining some insight into their own, then I am truly a happy person. Unfortunately, with this crowd, and others I have met on other boards, I am beginning to lose my sense of optimism that I might ever achieve this.

Luckily, I am a very optimistic person.

Forgive me for not thinking that you are serious here Diana. But even with that said, I do not consider myself above any of these things. I am as human as any other person. I do work on my sense of self awareness rather diligently however, so if you feel that I have been bigoted in any way, please point out where, and I will consider it.

Thank you,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 30, 2001).]

Yeah, that must be the problem. I can't read.

Why would the opinions of a few Rabbis be convincing?

This from the guy who just said:

I have not asked for certainty. I have not asked for proof. I have not asked for absolutes. Those are words that only you used; I asked only for support.

Yes. And you have not done this.

Your "reasons" are all opinions.

That is irrelevant. I have not asked for certainty.

Ironically, I want support from the bible.

The fact the you think that is a bizarre assumption speaks volumes.

Again you use the word "proof" while simultaneously claiming that nothing in history can be proven.

I shall repeat: Your "proofs" are all opinions.

Biblical support, at least.

Why should I do that? I have never claimed that he knew his name, and I don't care whether it was Jesus Christ or Slappy McButtons.

The thing is, I do recognize the nature of evidenciary supports, and opinion ain't it.

I hereby retract my request for the following reasons:

1. I suspect that you would regard it as a victory, and I will not have that.
2. We have discovered that it is great fun to laugh at you behind your back.
3. You are an excellent example of why atheists have a negative opinion of christians.

So in the future, feel free to reply to me. Keep providing new material.

BTW, would you like to poll the readers?

Then you have not looked very hard.

You have not used any logic that is valid outside your own mind.

OK, now that you have seen that, try this: If they didn't care enough to get the details of the genealogies right, on what basis do you assume they got everything else right?

I hit the wrong key. Crucify me.

But, do focus on typos, as that is the central issue.

On what basis do you assume that I didn't check them out?

Actually, I've been on the sites you mentioned before, and they have no more to offer than you do.

[This message has been edited by Patrick Bateman (edited January 31, 2001).]

diana, would you like to handle this next one?

Yeah, I know. It sucks to lose doesn't it?

Next time pick your battles better.

Hmm... you mean you actually AREN'T interested in a serious discussion?

How sad.

Thanks.

Go for it slugger.

And if I win a poll on a site called the Secular Web! Run by people that proudly call themselves "Infidels"? Well, I would be happy beyond imaginings!

Don't be a sucker and think that the opinion of the crowd means much here big guy. Just try and offer a rational argument to prove your points. I'm still waiting, and since you have agreed to speak to me again, we can actually do that I suppose.

Let's see what you have.

Nomad

I dunno, Patrick. You can bang all day on the door of the deaf, y'know.

While insulting each of us and being as condescending as possible, he's still managed to escape explaining why a Jew would disparage his own scripture in order to "disprove" the divinity of Christ. I doubt further posts will elicit a response.

While I may be sarcastic, Nomad's arsenal appears to consist entirely of circular reasoning and ad hominem arguments. I'd hoped for something a bit more educated and mature.

I'm wondering why the other Xtians on the board haven't jumped to his defense. I expect it's because he embarrasses them.

diana

[This message has been edited by diana (edited January 31, 2001).]

I take this response to mean that you admit to being illogical, a dogmatist, a fundamentalist, small-minded and closed-minded.

By the way, anyone who lumps an individual into a group and judges that person according to biases he feels toward the group (i.e., "You can lead an atheist to logic but you can't make him think") has just acted on a prejudice and is, by definition, a bigot.

Admitting you have a problem is half the battle toward recovery, Nomad.

diana

(By the way, you needn't bother saying "I can't be bothered to continue this thread" any more. We already know these are empty words.)

I wouldn't know. Apparently you do.

I certainly am. It's just that I do not consider a "discussion" in which I am forced to basically post the same thing over and over, and the other side does little save insult me, to be serious. What I mean is, you're a joke.

I suspect that you have disgusted almost everybody to the point where they no longer read this thread. But if you really want to have a poll, go ahead.

It is not up to me to offer anything. The burden of proof (as it were) is not on me.

BTW, you don't see to realize this, but I am not your son. I am not your nephew. I am not your friend. Stop calling me "big guy" and "sport" and "slugger."