Christians, What Would Make You Leave Your Faith.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

OrdinaryClay,

 

There is also a definitive definition for what a unicorn is. Therefore, by your own (flawed) logic, they must also exist.

 

Secondly, everything you have said concerning what a christian is--from loving god with all your heart to only being important because of his love for us--was also true of me when I was a True Scotsman. In fact, most of us here would have fit your descriptions and definitions of christianity.

 

Yet, you continue to assert that we were not True christians. Again I ask you, how do you know you are one, if your own evidence demonstrates, to your satisfaction, that we were not.

 

Think on it, man. You can keep dodging the question or redirecting the conversation; but that only further demonstrates your own unwillingness to examine your logic.

 

Have a good day,

TheRedneckProfessor

[rjn]

My memory may be faulty, but as I recall, perhaps two years ago, Bhim had written something about Hinduism in India and about how he thought it wrong for Christian missionaries to go there and try to convert people.

 

OrdinaryClay then posted a long screed about demons and their activities in India or in the lives of Hindus.

 

 

I'm not at all surprised. This dude oozes of arrogance and self-righteousness. It's quite appalling actually, but hey, nothing new under the sun. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

OC doesn't actually have positive evidence that would make ex-Christians decide that Christianity is likely to be true after all. He merely makes little niggling attacks on details in people's posts. As though the truth of Christianity is then upheld. Or maybe he doesn't even think he accomplishes that. Perhaps he only enjoys trolling.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Bhim actually challenged OrdinaryClay to a proper debate on the relative merits of christianity vs. hinduism. After Bhim produced a well written, thought-provoking, and highly intelligent opening argument, OrdinaryClay simply blew the whole thing off with a typical "you clearly do not understand..." response.

 

Suffice to say, none of us were overly impressed, Bhim least of all.

[rjn]

Bhim actually challenged OrdinaryClay to a proper debate on the relative merits of christianity vs. hinduism. After Bhim produced a well written, thought-provoking, and highly intelligent opening argument, OrdinaryClay simply blew the whole thing off with a typical "you clearly do not understand..." response.

 

Suffice to say, none of us were overly impressed, Bhim least of all.

 

I'd love to see this. Link?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Bhim actually challenged OrdinaryClay to a proper debate on the relative merits of christianity vs. hinduism. After Bhim produced a well written, thought-provoking, and highly intelligent opening argument, OrdinaryClay simply blew the whole thing off with a typical "you clearly do not understand..." response.

 

Suffice to say, none of us were overly impressed, Bhim least of all.

Was it that response which OC, when challenged, said was not an "argument"?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Could have been ficino. BAA's the one with elephantine memory. I know Bhim and Clay got into it with each other in one thread and Bhim put forth the challenge. Clay readily accepted and we all thought we were going to witness a right royal bowdy-how. "Anti-climatic" doesn't even begin to describe what we got instead.

 

I'll see if I can scrounge up a link.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Here it is

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59185-discussion-with-ordinaryclay-on-eternal-hell-and-the-veracity-of-the-new-testament/?fromsearch=1

[Jeff]

 

 

This is so exciting

Nope I was wrong. A complete boor it turns out, but necessary for lurkers to see the difference in quality of the arguments presented.

 

Just imagine how wonderful to magically pick the one god who is the right one, and also correctly interpret his horrible idea at instructions, all while in a relationship with that entity where you get to interpret their internal nudgings any way you like as literal direction. All this from the god of all billions upon billions of years and before time.

And you figured it out just right so you can go out and correct the Internet about how wrong it is.

True humility and service to humanity.

Just imagine how wonderful to be that individual among individuals!

 

What a boor

The ultimate intellectual mistake is to believe truth does not exist.

Thank you for condescending to me. I obviously needed to be corrected on something that has nothing to do with my post

[♦ ficino ♦]

Thanks for linking that Bhim/OC debate that never became a debate, Prof. Wow.

It's got a lot of dross, but an instructive read for anyone who may be new here and unfamiliar with OrdinaryClay's tactics. Those tactics were old and failing even back then in 2013.

BAA wrote a good summary of them on #19 on that thread, referring to another website where OC had been in controversy with a Hindu:

"If you read thru the thread, you'll notice that once Clay makes his stand he doesn't budge from it. Only his definitions are correct. Once he 'correctly' defines what constitutes a demon, what constitutes evidence, what the Hindu religion says about this issue, who the burden of proof falls upon and so on, he makes no further contribution to the thread. This is standard operating procedure for Clay - his chosen method of avoiding being held accountable on a given issue.

He may well resort to this here.

Another of his SOP's is the one-liner, "You clearly don't understand (insert whatever)", which he uses to trump all argument and place himself above others. He's already used it recently here, at Ex-C, in another thread.

You'll become familiar with his trickery and stonewalling after a while, Bhim."

[rjn]

Going by that thread, Bhim's a really good debater. I wish we'd see more of him around here than we do, but he only pops in ever so often. 

[duderonomy]

 

 

 

If the god of christianity expects you to know ...

 

You say that as if there is some other God. Do you think there is another?

 

 

Hi OC.  Your god thinks there are other gods.  He says so in Exodus 20:3.

 

Yes, and reading this many on here do too. 

 

 

Why deflect to what we may or may not believe, OC?  The point is, your god believes that there are other gods. 

[rjn]

 

 

Why deflect to what we may or may not believe, OC?  The point is, your god believes that there are other gods. 

 

And curiously enough, those gods happen to be the gods of people living in the proximity of ancient Israel. How come the Bible denounces Baal, but not Vishnu or Odin? 

 

Hmm... Oh no! It couldn't be that Ancient Judaism is just another henotheistic tribal religion of the Levant? No, that can't be it, not at all! 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Another of his SOP's is the one-liner, "You clearly don't understand (insert whatever)", which he uses to trump all argument and place himself above others. He's already used it recently here, at Ex-C, in another thread.

 

You'll become familiar with his trickery and stonewalling after a while, Bhim."

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

 

From BAA's summary of OC's methods.

 

And yep, OC is still at it:

 

Yes, of course I fear hell, only a fool wouldn't fear a lion even if caged, but if you actually understood Christianity you would know that simply fearing hell is not enough to be a Christian.

And this he said to MARGEE! As though she doesn't understand Christianity.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Yeah. He picked the most Scottish of us all.

[♦ ficino ♦]

And, also typical, he misrepresented what she said. Margee did not write that "simply fearing hell is ... enough to be a Christian."

[sdelsolray]

Is this about the time OC runs off and disappears for a year or so?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Is this about the time OC runs off and disappears for a year or so?

If he stays true to his MO, then, yes.  Maybe we'll get another stevebennett incarnation next; those are always fun.

[rjn]

 

Is this about the time OC runs off and disappears for a year or so?

If he stays true to his MO, then, yes.  Maybe we'll get another stevebennett incarnation next; those are always fun.

 

 

Who's that? Sounds like I've missed out on a lot. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Is this about the time OC runs off and disappears for a year or so?

If he stays true to his MO, then, yes.  Maybe we'll get another stevebennett incarnation next; those are always fun.

 

 

Who's that? Sounds like I've missed out on a lot. 

 

All in good time, my son.

[ironhorse]

I hope OrdinaryClay returns. I enjoy reading his posts. He does well defending his faith. 

As a believer, I'm glad to see another Christian post here. 

The posted in this thread is worth taking the time to read. 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59185-discussion-with-ordinaryclay-on-eternal-hell-and-the-veracity-of-the-new-testament/?fromsearch=1#.V32JJdIrLq4

 

On page 5 OC quotes Carl Sagan:

 

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."

 

~ Carl Sagan

 

The few comments about this quote avoided agreeing or disagreeing with Sagan. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I hope OrdinaryClay returns. I enjoy reading his posts. He does well defending his faith. 

As a believer, I'm glad to see another Christian post here. 

The posted in this thread is worth taking the time to read. 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59185-discussion-with-ordinaryclay-on-eternal-hell-and-the-veracity-of-the-new-testament/?fromsearch=1#.V32JJdIrLq4

 

On page 5 OC quotes Carl Sagan:

 

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."

 

~ Carl Sagan

 

The few comments about this quote avoided agreeing or disagreeing with Sagan. 

Kent Hovind made a similar statement in one of his videos.  

 

In his version, he asks the atheist, "Do you understand everything there is to understand in the universe?"

 

Of course, the atheist admits he doesn't.

 

Hovind then proceeds to ask, "Do you understand half of everything there is to understand in the universe?"

 

Again, the atheist is compelled to say, "No."

 

Then Hovind moves in for "the kill" by asking, "Suppose you did understand half of everything there is to understand in the universe.  Would it not be possible for god to exist in the other half?"

 

A neat little sleight-of-hand, I admit.  But isn't "god" supposed to be omnipresent?  If he is, then he would, by definition of his nature, have to exist in both halves of the universe.

 

I don't necessarily agree with Sagan, or Hovind.  If there is a "personal" god, who wants to have a "personal" relationship with me, "personally", then I needn't understand all of the subtle and intricate workings of an impersonal universe in order to find that god.

 

On a personal note (see what I did there?), I'm glad you enjoyed OrdinaryClay's cameo.  I'm hoping you'll take a few pointers from him in becoming a better apologist--iron sharpens iron and whatnot.  Unfortunately, Clay is a lot like the appearance of god in the book of Job: he shows up in a whirlwind, refuses to answer our questions, and tells us all we're confused.  Blow in, blow up, and blow back out again.  I doubt you'll get a chance to visit with him again any time soon; but you'll always have us.

[rjn]

I hope OrdinaryClay returns. I enjoy reading his posts. He does well defending his faith.

 

When writing my previous post, I was going to add "Most Christians on here, save IH and end3, appear to be total dicks" but thought that was a bit douchy of me, so I refrained from doing so. This post of yours just made me change my mind.

 

I'm sorry IH, but no, OC is NOT doing well as an apologist. To be frank, neither are you, but at least you seem like a nice and humble person and for what it's worth, I appreciate your presence here. Someone who's only arguments are "No True Scotsman!" and "You're hellbound heathens!" is simply not worth listening to though. I'll take those Dylan-references BAA and Redneck chides you for any day over that.

[Jeff]

I hope OrdinaryClay returns. I enjoy reading his posts. He does well defending his faith...

^this...this is why you fail

*facepalm*

[quinntar]

 

 

Nothing. John 6:68

Nothing? John 12:37-40.

Yes, nothing.

 

Just because some don't believe does not mean that everyone disbelieves. I don't understand your point in referring to these verses.

 

It is true that I'm at a point in my faith where no real world situation could make me disbelieve. Will this always be the case. I don't know, but at this point I've heard every imaginable atheist spiel and I've dug very deeply into their questions and found nothing of substance to atheism. Nothing.

What is belief OrdinaryClay.