GunnerJ

As I shall demonstrate, with trivial ease, you erroniously claimed that gregg claimed the concepts of liberty, democracy and equality originated with secular humanism. This is tantamount to libel.

If you wish.

Emphasis added.

Please demonstrate that gregg made any such claim. Failure to do so is an admission of libel by distortion of your opponent's arguement.

Pardon me, but when you said, "[liberty, democracy, equality and compassion] certainly arent found in Christianity," what did you mean by "Christianity?"

We know what gregg meant by Christianity based on the context of Magus quoting scripture at him as if it had some weight on its own: biblical literalism. You attempted to defend Magus against gregg's argument, and it can only be logically assumed that you accepted the terms of the argument as it stood. Otherwise, it seems that you have no real idea how a debate is conducted, and are therefore in a poor position to be giving out "advice," free or otherwise.

I will rephrase for your convienience: Please deomstrate that biblical literalism, the type of Christianity under debate, supports personal liberty, democracy, and equality.

If you don't think literalism supports those things, why did you attempt to defend it by claiming it does?

RufusAtticus

Okay, Steadele, here is the split thread. After your post I will probably move it to a more suitable forum.

Go right ahead, and I will follow with the verse on people making assertions about that which they do not know.

Heathen Dawn

So what Dawkins says in his article about Kurt Wise holds true once again:



Guys, we're wasting our time on Magus. His mind is already made up. He doesn't want to look at the evidence, and he wouldn't budge if the evidence for evolution hit him in the face. The same is true for most of these fundie creatos. Only a select few, such as Glenn Morton, have had their eyes opened to the evidence and left the cult - the brainwashing cult - of creationism.

Magus, why do think theistic evolutionists are on the wrong track? Why do you think Christianity can only stand upon a literal interpretation of Genesis? Why are Creation and the Flood so important? Even AiG admits (here and here) that creationism is not a requirement for salvation. Why latch onto such a peripheral doctrine, then?

Warcraft3

I disagree that a literal reading of scripture does not encourage those concepts. Christianity contains both the Old and New Testament...so we need to look at both and understand their relationship to one another.

Christian apologists have beat these issues to death and have explained why things were different in the OT than in the NT. I accept these explanations as valid even though they can be unsatisfying in certain areas (like emotionally for example).




Russ

Warcraft3

I know you were being sarcastic and exaggerating for the sake of making a point (and I do love sarcams---so its all good), which is why I responded in a similar style.

As to the OT vs NT thing......I think that if you take the Bible literally (and in context of course) you still dont get an endorsement of those things at the end of the day.

At the end of the day you are still left with the fact that we are not under the OT covenant anymore but are under a NT one. So there were some things that changed from the OT to the NT....and I think the text is quite clear about these issues, since they were pretty major issues that needed to be dealt with in the early church.

Pauls letter to the Hebrews talks alot about the fact that some things are different now.

Now I have to admit that while I accept this answer (cause I believe it makes sense scripturally), I still feel emotionally unsatisfied with it sometimes when Im reading the OT.

So I understand the point you were making...I just disagree with it.



Russ

Warcraft3

GunnerJ:


I said....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And GunnerJ responded:

Trivial ease? LOL thats a phrase that I might have used myself. Funny stuff.

Well that last part wasnt too funny. Comparing what I said to libel.....how silly. Maybe you should take the chip off of your shoulder before posting. You are one of like 3 or 4 people here that seem to have a big ol chip on the shoulder.


I also said....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And GunnerJ responded....
Indeed I do...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Look just because you throw the word "libel" around doesnt mean Im all intimidated or impressed. In fact Im very unimpressed with your charges of libel. Okay now on to your challenge....

I NEVER said Gregg made such a claim. YOU think I implied it with my post though. I merely asked a question and then answered that question myself while still leaving it open for others to answer.

You are making a connection between greggs post and my responce because the connection, however loose and subtle, is implied in both greggs post and my responce. I am merely echoing the subtle, sarcastic implications that gregg made. Of course, since I know his implications were only made sarcastically I also made my comment sarcastically.

But I NEVER ACTUALLY SAID GREGG MADE THE CLAIM!!! I only hinted at the connection that was subtely implied by his post. So no libel here at all. If the connection exists (as you yourself think it does) then it exists in greggs original post and by extension exists in my post as well.

But thats for you the reader to decide. Was gregg making that connection (sarcastically and subtely for the purposes of making a point)? Was I also making that connection ( sarcastically and subtely for the purposes of making a point)? Or was I just asking an honest question and then answering it without any subtle implications?

Thats for you to INTERPRET for yourself....I know what I (and Im pretty sure what gregg also) meant by the post, but you can interpret it in anyway that fits into your argument and I cant really stop you from doing that. But I can point out how moronic you are being if you choose to do so.


I also asked:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And GJ responded.....
Nope. I knew exactly what they were talking about. And the text LITERALLY is not anti-liberty, democracy, equality, or compassion. We are not living under the OT anymore here people we are in the NT.....so literal or not.....the Christian view is quite favorable to those concepts and does not in any way attack them. Just because you may think it does, does not make it true.

Oh no!!! I have no real idea how a debate is conducted....I guess that means you win by default........oh...wait.

And actually as a Christian I am in the perfect position to give you advise on how NOT to debate with Christians. But why use good arguments when you can use bad ones and bring mockery and scorn upon your position? Dont let a silly thing like common sense stop you from using arguments that shut down all discussion and prevent the majority from hearing you out. Really, go right ahead. There are plently of reasonable skeptics that would be willing to have a discussion without resorting to bad arguments.

The new Testament has plenty of passages supporting these concepts and is not hostile to it.

Okay I keep on hearing this phrase.."literalism" and Im starting to wonder exactly what your definition of this is. What is literalism to you exactly? I think we might have different definitions so I need to know exactly what this means to you.



Russ

RED DAVE

From Magus55:

What you are really trusting is the Bible as God's word. Your second sentence shows this clearly. Many people trust God. But very few of them have the belief system derived from a literal reading of the Bible.

And what's with this "unto" shit? The English language has grown over the past few centuries.

RED DAVE

Free Thinkr

Ok, so when you get sick, will you go to church or the hospital?

Mathetes

Are you a creationist, Steadele?

If so, do you agree with the OP? If you had to choose between science/evidence and God, would you choose God?

scombrid

That wasn't an "argument" it was a sarcastic jab. It was a deserved sarcastic jab since most anti-evolutionists like Magus tend to throw out a whole school of red-herrings asserting that teaching materialist evolution causes all of society's problems like teen pregnancy, abortion, violence, etc... When in reality the church has had little or no success in combating societal ills and has been used as a tool in many atrocities over the years.

I think many of us have a good reason to have chips on our shoulders. D. James Kennedy's latest anti-evolution ranting on Sunday morning TV (all falacious crap I'll add) and the movement to ruin science education by aguing dogma in gradeschool science classes instead of showing actual scientific support for their position in peer review is enough to put a whole wood pile on my shoulders.

Also, instead of responding to the sarcastic jab at religion in this thread, why don't you contribute? This is only logical if you're going to be critical of the use of sarcasm. If you support Maguss' position, why does a verse in the bible that says the bible is true make it so? Why should faith trump evidence when dealing with reality?