Freethought & Rationalism Archive

daemon · 10-03-2002, 02:14 PM

Quote:

RJS: It is interesting to me as a relatively new Christian (less than 2 years), that I would have said the same thing two years ago (even though I was a theist at the time). But with Christ, the clearest most truthful posts on this entire thread are the "pride" posts by Geo and Van. With Christ, the truth is so easy to see in the bible - every word leaps out with meaning, when historically it was just a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me. It is like Christ provides the special decoder glasses. With Christ, the blinders are taken off - the inverted world of the "last shall be first and the first shall be last" and "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of Me will find it" all makes sense.

This is known as an ad hominem fallacy.

Ron Garrett · 10-03-2002, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
No, the question was, "What is the single most obvious contradiction in the NT"?

Two have been provided. Sorry if that confused you. Looking forward to your response. Not really expecting you to provide one based on your pattern so far inthis thread.

Quote:

Yes, you realize that you have been disrespectful. You are like so many here who rely upon insults and intimidation to promote your unsubstantial views.

Respect is earned. Save the martyr routine. You're not initimidated. You're too certain god has told you that you're right. I have seen nothing in your responses to promote respect. Indeed I have seen nothing in your responses that qualify as other than rhetoric. You are a condescending troll at best who ducks honest questions and answers in Buddha-like inanities in order to be annoying and provocative without ever reaching beyond the level of smirking psuedo-intellectualism. It's how I see it. If it insults you that I say it, I've done my good deed for the day.

Quote:

Please avoid further attempts to distract the discussion. It would be best for you to retreat back into whatever dark, stifling world you came from (the existence of which is highly evident as I consider the tone of your post).

I hadn't planned to stay, nor especially to interact with you further since so far you have nothing to say that I haven't heard from a hundred other religious zombies. However, I will occasionally skulk out of my dark and stifling little world (you are desperately in need of a colonic, you know), until you crawl back into your hermit-crab shell of smug certitude. If you keep posting dimestore apologist challenges like the one to which I was responding, I will keep posting the responses which I am thinking you will ignore. You may be beyond improvement, but some onlooker might be enlightend as a result.

Autonemesis · 10-03-2002, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Then make your objection clear. You have demonstrated no contradictions.

How can a so-called loving god condemn persons to infinite eternal torment in hell, for finite, transient sins, and still be considered loving? That is the contradiction under discussion.

Quote:

Please understand, I do not "wish" for you to believe in Jesus. There is no quota for me to meet.

I never implied there was a quota. But you are an unusual Christian if you have no desire to convert people.

Quote:

Please tell me, in your own words, what is the single most obvious contradiction in the gospels, or the entire NT for that matter. Please demonstrate your case with examples from the text.

There are two mutually exclusive accounts of Judas' death:

"And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself" (Matt. 27:5).

"Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out" (Acts 1:18)"

If one of these accounts is true, the other one must be false. Of course, they could also both be false. But there is no way both could be true, unless you ignore the plain meaning of the words in the text. I have yet to see an explanation for the incompatibility of these two accounts that did not rely exclusively on extra-biblical interpretations.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]

Ron Garrett · 10-03-2002, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


You are in error, sir. I did not present an inerrancy challenge.

Perhaps you have a unassailable defintion of inerrancy that you could share with us.

Vanderzyden

RUN AWAY! It's Monty Python's Black Knight!

RJS · 10-03-2002, 02:20 PM

Quote:

This is known as an ad hominem fallacy.

Hey, English only please

Choose to ignore it then. It is my life.

Starboy · 10-03-2002, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RJS:


Hey, English only please

In English it would be known as Christian double speak.

Starboy

sandlewood · 10-03-2002, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
1. How does life come from non-life?
2. Why does something exist rather than nothing?
3. How does mind come from non-mind?
4. Why do so many things take on the appearance of specialized purpose?

Mageth has already answered this well, but just to add a bit�

Assuming God exists, how would you answer these questions?

1. How does God make life come from non-life?
2. Why does God exist rather than no God?
3. How does God�s mind come from nothing?

(As for #4, don�t confuse function with purpose.)

By creating a god, you�ve just pushed the answers to these questions one step back and you�ve given the unknown a name. But you still don�t know any more than you did. But for some reason, this satisfies many, many people and I don�t know why.

RJS · 10-03-2002, 03:06 PM

Quote:

But you still don’t know any more than you did. But for some reason, this satisfies many, many people and I don’t know why.

I reckon it has to do with love.

Mad Kally · 10-03-2002, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RJS:


I reckon it has to do with love.

I reckon it has to do with fear of death.

Mageth · 10-03-2002, 03:10 PM

A bit of a non sequitur there, RJS (oops..forgot you requested English-only answers).

Anyway, to quote Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it? What's love but a second-hand emotion?"

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

10-03-2002, 03:10 PM	#140
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	A bit of a non sequitur there, RJS (oops..forgot you requested English-only answers). Anyway, to quote Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it? What's love but a second-hand emotion?" [ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.