Jump to content

Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

They may be in a family which has instituted a corporate belief system of Christianity. They have been taught to never question Christianity. Questioning results in sanctions against them or in some cases physical abuse. So they just lurk. Watching is not questioning, necessarily. Some probably just read without getting an account. Others may get an account but never post. People on some other forums use throw away accounts because their believer spouse or siblings will recognize them when they do post about the emotional manipulation their family engages in. Everyday (elsewhere) I read posts where someone wants to tell their parents they dont believe in Jesus but are afraid of the fallout. Some are already dealing with the fallout after spilling the beans. Sometimes somebody comes out to their spouse so now they are doing damage control with their marriage. 

 

Some people are so programmed by Christianity that they cannot conceive of letting a family member have their own freedom of thought. These type of Christians insist that family members 'believe' in Jesus through coercion, though they dont seem to think that real belief can't be forced. 

Yayyyyy for coercion!

Double yayyy for programming!

Boooooo freedom. Bad bad bad.

 

What color is the sky in your world?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 620
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I take it that "eat it" is Christianese for "fuck you."

I prayed to Jesus for 10 years.                                                                         William prays to Jesus now and I guess for quite a while now.  Jesus gave me a false pastor

Luth:  jesus is real   Ex-c chorus:  prove it   Luth:  I don't have to.  The bible already proved it.   Ex-c chorus:  so prove the bible is true.   Luth:  I don

Posted Images

  • Super Moderator
4 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

What color is the sky in your world?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/320-blue-skies-eye-beholder.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
9 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

God's Creation IS amazing, is it not?

 

Absolutely.  I'm particularly amazed at how he created Lucifer and the fallen angels, and then created hell for them, and then decided to throw everybody else into hell except for you and your 4 YouTube subscribers.   The sheer stupidity of god's "creation" truly staggers the imagination.

 

Here are a few more amazing "creations" of god's:

 

https://www.popsci.com/human-eye-parasites/

 

https://www.medicinenet.com/necrotizing_fasciitis/article.htm

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

 

https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/osteosarcoma

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
25 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Absolutely.  I'm particularly amazed at how he created Lucifer and the fallen angels, and then created hell for them, and then decided to throw everybody else into hell except for you and your 4 YouTube subscribers.   The sheer stupidity of god's "creation" truly staggers the imagination.

 

Here are a few more amazing "creations" of god's:

 

https://www.popsci.com/human-eye-parasites/

 

https://www.medicinenet.com/necrotizing_fasciitis/article.htm

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

 

https://www.chop.edu/conditions-diseases/osteosarcoma

 

 

 

 

Lets not forget the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I mean the tree ok... but fruit on it that Eve could eat? It's like putting steak in front of a dog, walking away then giving it a hiding when you come back to find the steak eaten.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Lets not forget the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I mean the tree ok... but fruit on it that Eve could eat? It's like putting steak in front of a dog, walking away then giving it a hiding when you come back to find the steak eaten.

Like I say, you never understood squat and now your black mind still attempts to talk about it. Idiocy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, florduh said:

If anybody else is getting sick of this obnoxious fuck, speak up.

 

I pegged poster LuthAMF as a narcissistic little shit in a post in this thread on May 30, 2019, identified him as a TULIP wannabe (i.e., Calvinist) on June 5, 2019, and commented in the few subsequent posts about his disingenuousness, projection and other things.

 

His posts have certainly served as an example to members and lurkers alike of how presuppositional religious beliefs can foster serious emotional, psychological and mental dysfunctions.  I think that lesson has been well demonstrated.

 

And let's not forget Josh's mature and rational attempt to engage poster LuthAMF in the parallel "informal debate" thread, from which we were given only more of poster LuthAMF's hubris, discordance and bleating. 

 

Allowing him to continue to expose his empty suit, with attendant vacuous vitriol, focused hate and irrational nonsense is not going to help members or lurkers any further, and is only going to foster a deepening of his unfortunate malady.  For his own good, he should simply go away.

 

Yes, ban him.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Agree with the above sentiments. It's devolved to the point where apparently I have a black mind. No doubt he means something alone the lines of the bible verse talking about reprobate minds... but he doesn't bother to engage the points made nor back up unfounded assertions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

     LuthAMF and I have become best friends so you should not ban him.

 

         mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has grown tiresome. I'm not much for banning people, but he's basically begging for it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
3 hours ago, mwc said:

     LuthAMF and I have become best friends so you should not ban him.

 

         mwc

 

 

Do you need help? Should I call a therapist? Maybe the psychiatric ward? I'm concerned about you.

 

Best

LF

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Do you need help? Should I call a therapist? Maybe the psychiatric ward? I'm concerned about you.

 

     Don't worry.  You're still my best imaginary friend.  :)

 

          mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
14 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

And let's not forget Josh's mature and rational attempt to engage poster LuthAMF in the parallel "informal debate" thread, from which we were given only more of poster LuthAMF's hubris, discordance and bleating. 

 

Allowing him to continue to expose his empty suit, with attendant vacuous vitriol, focused hate and irrational nonsense is not going to help members or lurkers any further, and is only going to foster a deepening of his unfortunate malady.  For his own good, he should simply go away.

 

Yes, ban him.

 

I have to agree with the above. The presuppositionalism is a dead end road. It's not evidence based and can't prove anything. The gigs up, basically. 5 pages of opportunity to come in strong with hard evidence should have left plenty of opportunity to do so. But no hard evidence was provided. Newbies, lurker's and whoever else can read through and contemplate the whole thing. If some new apologist comes forward and wants to continue on where Luth has failed, then I will hear them out unless they too devolve to mindless trolling and trying to aggravate members. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I have to agree with the above. The presuppositionalism is a dead end road. It's not evidence based and can't prove anything. The gigs up, basically. 5 pages of opportunity to come in strong with hard evidence should have left plenty of opportunity to do so. But no hard evidence was provided. Newbies, lurker's and whoever else can read through and contemplate the whole thing. If some new apologist comes forward and wants to continue on where Luth has failed, then I will hear them out unless they too devolve to mindless trolling and trying to aggravate members. 

Josh I sent you a pm. You need to read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

The presuppositionalism is a dead end road. It's not evidence based and can't prove anything.

 

I'm not arguing for a ban, but I certainly agree with the above. Presuppositionalism is asinine. Anyone can presuppose anything, be it Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, atheism, Scientology, astrology, etc. Presupposing something to be true, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, and trashing everything else for not conforming to the presupposed assumption is NOT a path to truth. It's simply idiotic on every level.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
17 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

I'm not arguing for a ban, but I certainly agree with the above. Presuppositionalism is asinine. Anyone can presuppose anything, be it Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, atheism, Scientology, astrology, etc. Presupposing something to be true, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, and trashing everything else for not conforming to the presupposed assumption is NOT a path to truth. It's simply idiotic on every level.

 

Citsonga, folks, Luth is willing to back off from the issues going on in the side gallery and elsewhere which have become disruptive to a lot of members here. He's still interested in proceeding with the informal debate. 

 

But having said that, I think that in order to continue with the debate another direction may need introduced due to the inherent problems with using a presupposition oriented position. And I'm not sure how Luth will choose to try and rectify the problem. But I'm open to allowing him to continue trying. Especially because he's asked that he be allowed to continue and isn't giving up or throwing in the towel. So perhaps this isn't quite over yet. 

 

If we hit another brick wall, though, we'll be looking at the same problem again in new clothing. For the sake of lurkers who might think we're unfair if we shut him down prematurely, I think we ought to let him continue for now. If we do exhaust every position he can possibly take in this same way, the way of dead ends, what else can we do at that point? Luth or us? At that point, if we get there, fair is fair and the game may reach a complete dead end......

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Good luck in going up against a presup. I've heard Matt Dillahunty talk about debating presup's and he says you just get No where. The idea of a debate is that good argument and evidence should change your mind. But if your position is presuppositionalist then evidence and argument is kinda moot.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.