[quote]haney wrote:
Not bad. Had you rebutted, my rebuttal I would have probably gone to the greek next…
I admit I have changed many of my presupposition about the Bible by just going to the original text.
Perhaps we can have a few interesting conversations about other topics if you are up to it.
[/quote]
Sounds good, Haney. I’m always up for an interesting conversation.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
panther2k wrote:
harris447 wrote:
panther2k wrote:
harris447 wrote:
panther2k wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
You try to come across as intellgent, but you can’t tell he difference between “their” and “there” and have to “look up” existential theories which don’t exist.
No need to look it up. It’s called Solipsism.
Thanks. Good call, Harris.
Yeah…but YOU idn’t know what you were talking about, did you?
Back to class, son.
Let’s recap:
Strike 1- You were wrong about anyone calling me an idiot.
Strike 2- You call me out for a typo when you can’t tell your ass from a keyboard.
Strike 3- “Existential theories that don’t exist”- oops, actually, they do!
That’s three buddy, you’re already out.
No, someone did call you an idiot: me.
The whole “philosophy 101” thing was cute, but you still stated that “no one can prove anyone exists, man”
Which is the biggest load of freshman year bonghittery I’ve encountered since I saw Pink Floyd at Giants Stadium.
And the fact remains: you had no idea what you were talking about. Stil don’t. Luckily the whole field of philosophy is full of such utter dreck an nonsense, that a “theory” exists for every half-baked ruin of an idea.
You were just playing the odds.
Bell just rang. Go play tag with the other boys and girls.
Well, I talked to my teacher and she said you should learn some basic grammar and punctuation before insulting other people’s intelligence. She also said there was a word for what your doing, but I can’t seem to remember it. Oh yeah, IRONY.
The definition of ‘irony’ is correcting someone else’s (proper) grammar while steadfastly refusing to learn the difference between “your” and “you’re”.
That was funny, actually.
Care to try again, son?[/quote]
lol I guess that could be a double irony??
Anyways…
For starters you could try putting the period inside of the quotation marks, not outside. I’m not the one who started a piss fest about typing quickly on a forum, but I thought I would point it out since you haven’t learned that yet.
What is that? Strike 6, 7…?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
haney wrote:
Not bad. Had you rebutted, my rebuttal I would have probably gone to the greek next…
I admit I have changed many of my presupposition about the Bible by just going to the original text.
Perhaps we can have a few interesting conversations about other topics if you are up to it.
Sounds good, Haney. I’m always up for an interesting conversation.[/quote]
just sent you a PM
[quote]haney wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
What who was saying?
Jesus
Which paragraph, and what is “proof in God” supposed to mean? I never addressed any such point.
Sorry poor choice of words. The faith that he was talking about was the faith that God can do all things
Hello kettle? You’re black!
Show me where I took something out of context.
[/quote]
Uh, that was in response to your crack about my reading comprehension.
[quote]I just did in my last post to you. You saying that I didn’t doesn’t make it not so.
You saying you did doesn’t make it so either.
[/quote]
No, me citing a quote that disproved your statement did.
[quote]To recap, you said;
No where does it (the Bible) say that we should have faith with out questioning things.
And I provided a biblical quote that completely contradicted this.
No you went quote mining and took the words out of context.
[/quote]
Of course! How silly of me! It seems that no matter how many Bible quotes you drop on a Bible-thumper, they will always be “out of context”, so why bother?
[quote]Instead of addressing this one thing, you went on a rant about some unknown third party and “proof in God”, whatever that means.
I explained above it was a poor choice of words
[/quote]
[quote]haney wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
And according to what you call Scripture, one who does is a heretic. You can’t pick and choose the parts you want to follow
I’m not. I just understand the text better than you do. [/quote]
So, you are saying with a straight face that you follow all of the parts of the Bible, as instructed in the text?
And I’ve heard this before, Sparky.
“I understand the text better” = “I know how to make up excuses as to why the despicable, disgusting parts of the Bible are ‘allegory’, and the warm-and-fuzzy parts are fact. Anyone who says otherwise is taking Scripture ‘out of context’”
Working within the context of this bullshit:
Saul of Tarsus, whose job was to persecute Christians (and who, by all accounts, liked his work) had to be converted.
You, as a self-professed Christian claim to need constant convincing. If you can’t see the contradiction here, well, I’d tell you to go buy a dictionary, but I doubt you’d be able to grasp it even then.
[quote]So, you have a “need for reasonable proof” to maintain your “faith”. Wow.
If that’s your criteria for believing your religion, you are pretty much fucked.
I seem to be continuously searching for more answers.[/quote]
But your “faith” is strong. Gotcha.
Um, no, that’s pretty much what the above means.
[quote]I am very content with my journey. I have found many things re-affirmed, and many thoughts totally changed.
Faith as you described it would mean I would be wrong for searching for answers.[/quote]
Not as I described, as I quoted your book as describing.
A very unique one, at that…
Did this Bible of yours come with crayons?
[quote]As proof from the thousand of times where God allows people to ask for proof.
Ahh, the power of denial is eternal…
The only one in denial is you…
you throw out one verse that you took out of context, and suddenly you are a Bible scholar.
Son you should sit down while the big boys have this discussion. When you learn exegessis, and hermanuetics then you can come back to the big boys table.[/quote]
Ooooh! You called me “son” right back! Burn on me! Great comeback!
So, I am not into the art of bullshitting myself by studying dead languages to justify following a hate-filled book written by ancient savages, therefore my opinion is invalid. I get it. I’ll leave you alone with your Bible and jar of Vaseline now.
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
haney wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Hello kettle? You’re black!
Show me where I took something out of context.
Uh, that was in response to your crack about my reading comprehension.
[/quote]
Yes, I know. You are stating we are both doing the same thing. I am asking you to show me where I did.
Ok… let me slow things down for you.
I said you won’t find it any where in the Bible where it states that you have to believe with out questioning.
You quoted
Mat 21:21 Jesus answered and said to them, Truly I say to you, If you have faith and do not doubt, you shall not only do this miracle of the fig tree, but also; if you shall say to this mountain, Be moved and be thrown into the sea; it shall be done
my comment was that Jesus doesn’t say if you question things you don’t have faith.
your response was a quote about Jesus saying if you have faith in God all things are possible.
they are not the same thing. There is no condemnation from Jesus for questioning. You are as I said taking something out of context.
You are like the Micheal moore of this forum. Let me add these pieces together that are similiar, but aren’t the same so I can try to make a good point.
Why not show me where it was wrong for Paul to need to see Jesus(a.k.a have proof) rather that try and make these sad little arguments.
It seems no matter how much you point out to an arrogant skeptic that they are way off base, and taking the text out of context they just never get it.
When your comprehension skills match your arrogance than maybe you will have a leg to stand on.
[quote]haney wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
haney wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Hello kettle? You’re black!
Show me where I took something out of context.
Uh, that was in response to your crack about my reading comprehension.
Yes, I know. You are stating we are both doing the same thing. I am asking you to show me where I did.
No, me citing a quote that disproved your statement did.
Ok… let me slow things down for you.
I said you won’t find it any where in the Bible where it states that you have to believe with out questioning.
You quoted
Mat 21:21 Jesus answered and said to them, Truly I say to you, If you have faith and do not doubt, you shall not only do this miracle of the fig tree, but also; if you shall say to this mountain, Be moved and be thrown into the sea; it shall be done
my comment was that Jesus doesn’t say if you question things you don’t have faith.
your response was a quote about Jesus saying if you have faith in God all things are possible.
they are not the same thing. There is no condemnation from Jesus for questioning. You are as I said taking something out of context.
You are like the Micheal moore of this forum. Let me add these pieces together that are similiar, but aren’t the same so I can try to make a good point.
Why not show me where it was wrong for Paul to need to see Jesus(a.k.a have proof) rather that try and make these sad little arguments.
To recap, you said;
No where does it (the Bible) say that we should have faith with out questioning things.
No you went quote mining and took the words out of context.
Of course! How silly of me! It seems that no matter how many Bible quotes you drop on a Bible-thumper, they will always be “out of context”, so why bother?
It seems no matter how much you point out to an arrogant skeptic that they are way off base, and taking the text out of context they just never get it.
When your comprehension skills match your arrogance than maybe you will have a leg to stand on.
[/quote]
Ah, yes, I see you’re reading right from the “Brainwashed Zealot’s Handbook”.
[i]1) If a skeptic proves you wrong, say he is quoting Scripture “out of context”, then make up your own interpretation of what the passage means to fit your argument, whether it meets modern English usage standards or not.
If the skeptic is not flustered by this, claim to “know the text better” and claim victory.
If the skeptic is still undaunted, keep repeating yourself while calling him “arrogant”.
If you have not dissuaded the skeptic by now, call him a “hate monger” and any other name you can make up that denotes immorality.[/i]
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
So, you are saying with a straight face that you follow all of the parts of the Bible, as instructed in the text?
[/quote]
Are we talking about all of the Bible? I thought we were talking about this specific subject using the Bible as the text.
I thought the conversation was about my statement on if you could have faith and test it according to the Bible.
Ok but that doesn’t answer why it is ok for him to need proof of some kind and it is unacceptable for everyone else to ask the same. You didn’t answer anything. I think your reading skills are getting worse as the conversation goes on.
This from a guy who has yet to even skirt the edge of the issue little own actually come up with a descent point.
wow what a reply. I think intelegent skeptics are hiding in shame from being associated with you.
That isn’t a description of faith. That is a statement on what can be accomplished with faith in God. All you keep doing is stating that you got me. When you didn’t even get close.
I said
“That would be contrary to the Bible its self. No where does it say that we should have faith with out questioning things.”
which you replied with
"I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, "
faith with out doubt doesn’t equal faith with out questioning things.
So once again you are shown to have a comprehension problem.
[quote]
Ooooh! You called me “son” right back! Burn on me! Great comeback!
So, I am not into the art of bullshitting myself by studying dead languages to justify following a hate-filled book written by ancient savages, therefore my opinion is invalid. I get it. I’ll leave you alone with your Bible and jar of Vaseline now.[/quote]
Hebrew and greek are dead languages?
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Ah, yes, I see you’re reading right from the “Brainwashed Zealot’s Handbook”.
[i]1) If a skeptic proves you wrong, say he is quoting Scripture “out of context”, then make up your own interpretation of what the passage means to fit your argument, whether it meets modern English usage standards or not.
If the skeptic is not flustered by this, claim to “know the text better” and claim victory.
If the skeptic is still undaunted, keep repeating yourself while calling him “arrogant”.
If you have not dissuaded the skeptic by now, call him a “hate monger” and any other name you can make up that denotes immorality.[/i]
[/quote]
You are a disgrace to respectable skeptics every where.
If you were even half the talent of this guy www.caseagainstchrist.com this conversation would have atleast been worth while. Although if you were half that guy you wouldn’t suffer from a reading comprehnsion problem.
[quote]haney wrote:
faith with out doubt doesn’t equal faith with out questioning things.
[/quote]
This is the core of the matter.
The fact that you wrote and actually believe that completely oxymoronic statement is proof that I am dealing with a schizophrenic loon.
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of mental gymnastics religious zealots will resort to to make the Bible fit what they want it to mean and/or not seem like a book of atrocities written and compiled by ancient, sociopathic savages to control primitive people.
Plain English becomes “open to interpretation”, anything contradicting to the zealot’s viewpoint is labeled “out of context” and twisted to their own ends (usually under guise of some obscure scholarship). Anyone that points out the glaring errors in their logic is ridiculed and insulted.
Whatever your opinion of my abilities as a skeptic, I must say that you do your Christian zealot brotherhood proud. Really, you fall right in line with every one I’ve ever encountered: You try to use the Bible as proof of itself and expect others to play your game on your field. When they don’t, you claim victory by forfeit.
Although I’ve seen it hundreds of times, it never gets any less sad and pathetic. I actually find myself feeling sorry for you, haney. But you know what? I think I’ll get by.
[quote]haney wrote:
wow what a reply. I think intelegent skeptics are hiding in shame from being associated with you.
[/quote]
Umm, next time you’re on the warpath to insult someone’s intelligence, you might want to use the spell check.
This one was so easy I almost let it go, but I’m a dick that way.
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
haney wrote:
faith with out doubt doesn’t equal faith with out questioning things.
This is the core of the matter.
The fact that you wrote and actually believe that completely oxymoronic statement is proof that I am dealing with a schizophrenic loon.
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of mental gymnastics religious zealots will resort to to make the Bible fit what they want it to mean and/or not seem like a book of atrocities written and compiled by ancient, sociopathic savages to control primitive people.
Plain English becomes “open to interpretation”, anything contradicting to the zealot’s viewpoint is labeled “out of context” and twisted to their own ends (usually under guise of some obscure scholarship). Anyone that points out the glaring errors in their logic is ridiculed and insulted.
Whatever your opinion of my abilities as a skeptic, I must say that you do your Christian zealot brotherhood proud. Really, you fall right in line with every one I’ve ever encountered: You try to use the Bible as proof of itself and expect others to play your game on your field. When they don’t, you claim victory by forfeit.
Although I’ve seen it hundreds of times, it never gets any less sad and pathetic. I actually find myself feeling sorry for you, haney. But you know what? I think I’ll get by.
[/quote]
I have yet to argue that the Bible is true.
The whole conversation was that you have to have faith with out questioning things to be a Christian.
As for insults you started slinging them first.
The whole crux of the matter is that you can’t read and understand plain english.
I am not jumping through any hoops. I am clearly showing that you…
as for your other thoughts on me and my faith I seriously doubt I am anything like other Christians that you have ever encountered. My post history is testimony of that.
As a side note there are many atheists on this board that have actually been very helpful in my discovery of my “evolving faith”. Some things they have solidified, and somethings they have forced me to change my view points. You unfortunatly are not cut from the same cloth as them.
with that I will give credit to pookie for challenging me the most. You should aspire to be 1/10 the skeptic he is
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
haney wrote:
wow what a reply. I think intelegent skeptics are hiding in shame from being associated with you.
Umm, next time you’re on the warpath to insult someone’s intelligence, you might want to use the spell check.
This one was so easy I almost let it go, but I’m a dick that way.[/quote]
yes… I actually rarely use spell check, and my posts are filled with typo’s.
I didn’t say you lacked intellegence, I just said that intellegent skeptics are hiding in shame. I am sure you have some subject that you know well, being a skeptic just isn’t one of them
[quote]haney wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
haney wrote:
wow what a reply. I think intelegent skeptics are hiding in shame from being associated with you.
Umm, next time you’re on the warpath to insult someone’s intelligence, you might want to use the spell check.
This one was so easy I almost let it go, but I’m a dick that way.
yes… I actually rarely use spell check, and my posts are filled with typo’s.
I didn’t say you lacked intellegence, I just said that intellegent skeptics are hiding in shame. I am sure you have some subject that you know well, being a skeptic just isn’t one of them
[/quote]
And clearly reading, comprehending, and now, apparently, spelling English words that are spelled correctly right in front of you are not your fortes.
Look, you think I’m full of shit, I think you’re full of shit.
Hopefully, we’ll meet in another thread under better circumstances, but this is becoming a waste of even frivolous internet posting time.
I like the direction this thread is moving lol