Jump to content

Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera


Recommended Posts

 And I will go further and encourage others to make a careful consideration of the existing facts before taking any type of presuppositionalist at their word. 

 

A presuppositional Buddhist or Hindu. 

 

A presuppositional New Age cult. 

 

A presuppositional Christian. 

 

A presuppositional Occultist, etc., etc.

 

......

 

Presupposing that my favorite system of thought is the ONE TRUE WAY to be rational, is absurd. I think it's a good idea to draw from different sources of wisdom and knowledge to get through life. And often times to make good decisions in life requires an emotional component. 

 

Skimming this article: It's probably mostly illogical --> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-divided-mind/201207/logic-and-emotion

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
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

  • Moderator
2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Matt did not fare well in his debate with Sye. 

 

You mean the debate where he opened up by saying "Why does God exist? Because its true that God exists" then playing short clips of Matt and responding to them instead of laying out his position proper? 

 

Great. Why does the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist? Because it's true that the invisible pink unicorn exists. Take that unbelievers! 

 

Where Sye says "In my view of reality God exists, and I really really believe that my view of reality is the right view". So what? If you cannot demonstrate it then it's not part of reality that we share. There is just so much wrong with Sye's position. It's only going to convince the converted, or the true believer. 

 

You remember the big hooha a few pages back about you strawmanning Josh? Well Sye strawmans Matt in the debate in order to attack the weak strawman he creates. He takes short clips out of context in order to attack a line from Matt such as "I don't care if this is not the ultimate reality". He then cuts another clip in from years prior of Matt saying "I really really don't care" No context as to what Matt wasn't caring about, only using the clip to reinforce the strawman he was building.

 

I respect some Christian debaters - but not Sye. He's a dishonest, arrogant, condescending 'debater'.

 

I love Matt's opening line "Didn't I just get 10 minutes?" So true. You have to have lost all critical thinking capacity to have your mind changed by Sye. His argument is devoid of any substance. 

 

One commented posted this in the comments section of the debate video: "You cannot have a debate when only one person is willing to debate." Which of course was the point of my above post. If your entire debate argument comes down to saying "How do you know that" then you don't have an argument, you are just a moron.

 

Edit: Listen to the opening 2 minutes of Syes rebuttal. It is seriously so full of shit I cannot adequately express how shitty it is.

 

"All of you know God exists" "I don't present evidence to you because you are not the Judge, God is the judge"

 

For fucks sake. You cannot debate with someone like this. He is totally full of shit. I know this. How do I know this? Because I know, that I don't know that God exists.

 

Syes claim is so outstandingly arrogant and moronic I don't see how anyone would ever be convinced by it.

 

By the way Luth you know no God's exist. You just won't admit it because you can't handle the idea of having to make your own moral decisions. 

 

See how that sounds? Observant people will recognise this as the reverse of the claim that atheists don't want to believe God because they want to sin. 

 

Such drivel is of course wrong and pointless.

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

Of course no presupposition apologist (PA) can ever get anywhere in a debate. How could they? All evidence must conform to their presupposition. Taking an objective look at Genesis 1 doesn't seem possible. And what we find is that a PA has one hell of a time trying to look at it objectively. How could they? They've already presupposed that it's true prior to confirming with credible evidence. To try and tell a PA that the bible doesn't prove the claims made within the bible, looks to fall on deaf ears. 

 

'What do you mean the bible doesn't prove it's own claims? That's the very heart and foundation of presupposition? What are you, dense? The proof of the bible is everywhere written on the pages of the bible!'

 

The Koran doesn't bloody well prove the claims of the Koran, Luth. And that's identical to taking up a similar position about the bible. If the claims are not confirmed outside of the bible, then claims remain unconfirmed.

 

That's why archaeology had to part ways with biblical, special pleading oriented tactics of the past. Many earlier generation archaeologist's of the 19th century and beyond took off claiming that sites were confirming the bible when the opposite was true. Joshua's conquest of Canaan is a good example. Instead of one sweeping conquest it turns out that many of these cities were destroyed for various reasons ranging over a some 1,000 year spread of time - not one sweeping conquest by any historical Joshua as described in the bible, nor fitting the timelines. That's just one very obvious example of many, many other similar situations where the bible has been demonstrably wrong, via the damming evidence that does exist contrary to the admission of PA's and others. 

 

Full documentary for the interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfd4kFPWjzU

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

"Organic inspiration. The proper conception of inspiration holds that the Holy Spirit acted on the writers of the Bible in an organic way, in harmony with the laws of their own inner being, using them just as they were, with their character and temperament, their gifts and talents, their education and culture, their vocabulary and style. The Holy Spirit illumined their minds, aided their memory, prompted them to write, repressed the influence of sin on their writings, and guided them in the expression of their thoughts even to the choice of their words. In no small measure He left free scope to their own activity. They could give the results of their own investigations, write of their own experiences, and put the imprint of their own style and language on their books."

 

Translated: The Holy Spirit helped the writers write how they would have anyway without the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

i.e. The writers made stuff up. 

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

This just shows further confusion.  Your understanding is flawed.  No wonder you're a reprobate.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
50 minutes ago, midniterider said:

"Organic inspiration. The proper conception of inspiration holds that the Holy Spirit acted on the writers of the Bible in an organic way, in harmony with the laws of their own inner being, using them just as they were, with their character and temperament, their gifts and talents, their education and culture, their vocabulary and style. The Holy Spirit illumined their minds, aided their memory, prompted them to write, repressed the influence of sin on their writings, and guided them in the expression of their thoughts even to the choice of their words. In no small measure He left free scope to their own activity. They could give the results of their own investigations, write of their own experiences, and put the imprint of their own style and language on their books."

 

Translated: The Holy Spirit helped the writers write how they would have anyway without the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

i.e. The writers made stuff up. 

 

Exactly!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, midniterider said:

"Organic inspiration. The proper conception of inspiration holds that the Holy Spirit acted on the writers of the Bible in an organic way, in harmony with the laws of their own inner being, using them just as they were, with their character and temperament, their gifts and talents, their education and culture, their vocabulary and style. The Holy Spirit illumined their minds, aided their memory, prompted them to write, repressed the influence of sin on their writings, and guided them in the expression of their thoughts even to the choice of their words. In no small measure He left free scope to their own activity. They could give the results of their own investigations, write of their own experiences, and put the imprint of their own style and language on their books."

 

Translated: The Holy Spirit helped the writers write how they would have anyway without the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

i.e. The writers made stuff up. 

So you don't like it, it makes no sense to you and does not appeal to your autonomous humanity. Big surprise.

 

So if the author took pains to contrast this with other explanations that DO cater to your autonomous whims, you single out this to complain about? So you agree with the others offered instead? Why not just say so?

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This just shows further confusion.  Your understanding is flawed.  No wonder you're a reprobate.

 

Total depravity, baby! lol

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

The Holy Spirit illumined their minds, aided their memory, prompted them to write, repressed the influence of sin on their writings, and guided them in the expression of their thoughts even to the choice of their words. In no small measure He left free scope to their own activity

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

i.e. The writers made stuff up. 

59 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Exactly!

 

 

That's the depths to which you've sunk. 

Seriously? That's how you read that ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

 

That's the depths to which you've sunk. 

Seriously? That's how you read that ?

 

Yes, there is not much difference between inspired by the HS or speaking from their own experience and psyche. 

 

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

"Organic inspiration. The proper conception of inspiration holds that the Holy Spirit acted on the writers of the Bible in an organic way, in harmony with the laws of their own inner being, using them just as they were, with their character and temperament, their gifts and talents, their education and culture, their vocabulary and style. The Holy Spirit illumined their minds, aided their memory, prompted them to write, repressed the influence of sin on their writings, and guided them in the expression of their thoughts even to the choice of their words. In no small measure He left free scope to their own activity. They could give the results of their own investigations, write of their own experiences, and put the imprint of their own style and language on their books."

 

And what they produced are rampant contradictions, inconsistency between one another, and no sign of error free writing in the first place. Human writings, full of human flaw and error, in their native languages, according their own ethnic and regional experiences, culture, education (or lack thereof) etc., etc.

 

You are assuming again. Assuming that these claims about holy spirit inspiration are correct without having proven them as such. And when looking into the claims they'll be uncovered as incorrect over, and over, and over, and over again, and again, and again, and again. It's not just a little off base, it's horribly off base. The inerrant claim is over the top errant, in and of itself. 

 

 

You struggle to understand what we are telling you. We have been there, done that. And transcended the small little lake. We understand what the claims are and we understand where and why those claims are incorrect. We can tell where and why. I've started at the beginning. And I can follow it all the way through. As I intend to do if this nonsense continues on that far......

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Poster LuthAMF is a plagiarizer.  I now add “disingenuous” to Poster LuthAMF’s list of character attributes of which I have observed.

 

Poster LuthAMF’s following post (in another thread on this site) contains copy and pasted text.  Poster LuthAMF has plagiarized this text and has failed to provide original sources or attribution.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82275-luthamf-verses-joshpantera-informal-debate/?do=findComment&comment=1212618

 

Original Sources:

 

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/turretinscripture.html

 

http://servantsofgrace.org/francis-turretin-21-questions-on-the-doctrine-of-scripture/

 

https://thechristianmindng.org/2012/11/04/scripture/

 

There are several other unattributed sources.

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

Poster LuthAMF is a plagiarizer.  I now add “disingenuous” to Poster LuthAMF’s list of character attributes of which I have observed.

 

Poster LuthAMF’s following post (in another thread on this site) contains copy and pasted text.  Poster LuthAMF has plagiarized this text and has failed to provide original sources or attribution.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82275-luthamf-verses-joshpantera-informal-debate/?do=findComment&comment=1212618

 

Original Sources:

 

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/turretinscripture.html

 

http://servantsofgrace.org/francis-turretin-21-questions-on-the-doctrine-of-scripture/

 

https://thechristianmindng.org/2012/11/04/scripture/

 

There are several other unattributed sources.

 

@LuthAMF

 

The rules around here state that you must give proper linkage and citation. No copy and pasting with out clearly stating what you've done and where you've copied and pasted from. 

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

Poster LuthAMF’s following post (in another thread on this site) contains copy and pasted text.  Poster LuthAMF has plagiarized this text and has failed to provide original sources or attribution.

It was not purposely "plagiarizing" with ANY intent to assume the obvious quotation to be my own. So please forgive me. Won't happen again.

 

Coulda been done without the character assassination though. Thanks for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

LuthAMF     14

  2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The delusion you're experiencing is pretty wild. It blinds you to the facts on the table. 

 

Has christianity proven the existence of god? Direct me to the evidence where god has been proven by christianity

 

 

This isnt our debate

 

It's our debate now, you coward.  Answer the fucking question.  Has christianity proven the existence of god?  Direct (us) to the evidence where god has been proven by christianity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

LuthAMF     14

 
  2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The delusion you're experiencing is pretty wild. It blinds you to the facts on the table. 

 

Has christianity proven the existence of god? Direct me to the evidence where god has been proven by christianity

 

 

This isnt our debate

 

It's our debate now, you coward.  Answer the fucking question.  Has christianity proven the existence of god?  Direct (us) to the evidence where god has been proven by christianity.

I see you're finally done playing your stupid game.

There's no "our" concerning you.

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

I see you're finally done playing your stupid game.

There's no "our" concerning you.

You're confused.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

     Make it a part of the side-debate then.  I'd like to know the answer.

 

          mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has christianity proven the existence of god? 

 

That's an easy one. No. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Make it a part of the side-debate then.  I'd like to know the answer.

 

          mwc

 

There's no side debate. This is where everybody comes to gnash teeth and bare the claw.

But that doesn't mean there's no answer. 

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

There's no side debate. This is where everybody comes to gnash teeth and bare the claw.

But that doesn't mean there's no answer. 

So, then tell us what the answer is.  Or admit that the answer is "no, christianity has not proven the existence of god.

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.