Jump to content
LogicalFallacy

Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, crazyguy123 said:

Well, they haven't actually said that yet, but what I said in Discord was that I suspect it might happen. At the very least, I got my debate opponent to at least recognize the fact that I have investigated their claims, even if I rejected them as being true. I will just have to see how things turn out.

 

Ah, sorry misread.

 

I personally have had that said to me a number of times, so certainly a likely possibility.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, crazyguy123 said:

Well, they haven't actually said that yet, but what I said in Discord was that I suspect it might happen. At the very least, I got my debate opponent to at least recognize the fact that I have investigated their claims, even if I rejected them as being true. I will just have to see how things turn out.

 

Good on you for debating it in any case. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LuthAMF     9

 
  •  
  •  
  •  
  On 5/21/2019 at 10:25 PM,TheRedneckProfessor said:

I suspect Luth will tuck tail and run pretty soon.  There's a tantrum brewing just below the surface (though he probably won't be as childish about it as christfuckems was)--an impatience at the fact that we aren't swayed by what he perceives as his arguments.  I've seen plenty of christians come and go from these forums.  They start out strong, as Luth did, make plenty of overtures to peaceful discussion/debate, as Luth did, fail to address any of the questions or counter-arguments raised against them, as Luth did, and eventually they run out of steam, as Luth is fixing to do.  They often get more arrogant and spiteful toward the end, which is where Luth currently is.  I've seen this pattern repeated many times; and nothing ever changes but the screen names and profile pics. 

 

He might surprise me by sticking around; but he just doesn't have the staying power that Ironhorse and End3 had.  I miss those guys.

Love...absolutely LOVE the psychoanalysis. Staying power? I just may become legendary here. This "battle" has raged from time immemorial. Think a few minutes matter? 

 

It appears our resident "legend" has, in fact, tucked tail and run.  Hmm... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some personal issues Luth had to deal with. He's told me that he's going to come back with a response. So we'll have to see how that goes. I told him to take his time. So communication hasn't ceased yet. As far as I know the debate is still on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR:

 

Your scholars are biased; but mine ain't.  Oh, and y'all weren't never real christians.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians are currently arguing among themselves at christforums about similar issues: https://www.christforums.com/forums/topic/24177-is-it-possible-to-fall-away-from-the-faith-and-lose-salvation/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Becky in post #126 on Christforums says, "What you are attempting to preach tell the world man is in control of his salvation . The Scriptures say other wise. That man is in control of his salvation is a heresy..."

 

So, it's not in my hands... :) Yayy

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm...

 

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.  Philippians 2:12

 

So... yeah.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Umm...

 

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.  Philippians 2:12

 

So... yeah.

 

 

Maybe log on over there and let Becky know. She seems to think we're automatons or something. And if we were indeed automatons then what is the point of salvation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Maybe log on over there and let Becky know. She seems to think we're automatons or something. And if we were indeed automatons then what is the point of salvation?

 

It's like a monkey making love to a greased football over there in the world of competitive cult think.....

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Maybe log on over there and let Becky know. She seems to think we're automatons or something. And if we were indeed automatons then what is the point of salvation?

 

Christforums is basically a Calvinist group.  As far as I can tell, their belief is that we are all, from before birth, either chosen by God or not chosen.  Those who are chosen cannot resist “God’s grace” and even if they fall away they will return, to be saved.  Those who are not chosen, even if they become Christians, can’t keep it up and will eventually fall away.  That seems to describe most of us here (assuming we’re not going back):  we’re just not his people, too bad.  Not sure if they believe that we’re all going to burn in Hell for not being chosen, but I think so.  Is it just me or is this monstrous?

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TABA said:

 

Christforums is basically a Calvinist group.  As far as I can tell, their belief is that we are all, from before birth, either chosen by God or not chosen.  Those who are chosen cannot resist “God’s grace” and even if they fall away they will return, to be saved.  Those who are not chosen, even if they become Christians, can’t keep it up and will eventually fall away.  That seems to describe most of us here (assuming we’re not going back):  we’re just not his people, too bad.  Not sure if they believe that we’re all going to burn in Hell for not being chosen, but I think so.  Is it just me or is this monstrous?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like they aren't far off from Sam Harris when it comes to free will as an illusion. 🤣

 

How do they know that god hasn't planted me here at ex-C on purpose to raise up arguments against the faithful apologist's who are actually so faithless? And work as an instrument of the most high to humble those from the churches who god deems worthy of rebuke? Only to wave the magic wand at the end, and, ta da!!!!

 

It's transcendent, err, pearly gates and streets of gold for good ole josh! Servant of the Lord all along....

 

😂😂😂

 

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flips Jesus the bird. It's his will that I do that. :)

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

 

Sounds like they aren't far off from Sam Harris when it comes to free will as an illusion. 🤣

 

How do they know that god hasn't planted me here at ex-C on purpose to raise up arguments against the faithful who are actually so faithless? And work as an instrument of the most high to humble those from the churches who god deems worthy of rebuke? Only to wave the magic wand at the end, and, ta da!!!!

 

It's transcendent, err, pearly gates and streets of gold for good ole josh! Servant of the Lord all along....

 

😂😂😂

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was Strongly Impressed upon me today that  nobody over at CF are on His list. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thou art predestined to have free will, thus saith the Prof. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we're apparently the idiots who can't seem to apply sound logic and reasoning. 🤣

 

At right around 28 years out of the church, it's painful, so painful to read through a thread like that. Not in any emotional way, but in a pull your hair out sort of way. It's hard to imagine anymore being thrown in among that type of cult group think. Based on the bible. To see them going on and on about who's right about a mythological book crafted together from diverse writers many of which contradict and disagree with one another, that can't in and of itself be substantiated in the first place, is about as nonsensical as it gets. 

 

It's like hey folks, let's please start at square one before taking off ripping each other's heads off about who's wrong about something that wasn't in and of itself ever proven right to begin with....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to dig up an ex-Reformed Presby on Reddit and have him visit CF. :) Cuz none of us here had the correct belief.

 

So if I walk into a Pentecostal church, my prayers are automatically routed to False Jesus?

And I walk into a Reformed Presbyterian church my prayers are automatically routed to the @Real Jesus?

What happens if I'm chilling at McDonalds and pray? Which Jesus does my prayer go to?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What happens if I'm chilling at McDonalds and pray? Which Jesus does my prayer go to?

 

McJesus......

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Image result for mcjesus
He was wounded for our mcnuggets, bruised for our filet with cheese.  The chastisment of our fries was upon him; and by his shakes we make meals.
 
 
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

He was wounded for our mcnuggets, bruised for our filet with cheese.  The chastisment of our fries was upon him; and by his shakes we make meals.

 

Best get out of there in a McFlurry

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a point of clarification, "all is as it has always been" is not a commonly held hypothesis.  This is because science can demonstrate that things have not always been as they are now.  Science can demonstrate that there were ince conifers but no deciduous trees.  Science can demonstrate there there were once reptiles but no mammals.

 

The bible, however, can not demonstrate that the "breath of god moved upon the face of the waters."  It makes the claim, but provides no supporting evidence.  This is known as an "unfounded assertion."  The bible is full of them; and Luth seems particularly fond of them as well.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As a point of clarification, "all is as it has always been" is not a commonly held hypothesis.  This is because science can demonstrate that things have not always been as they are now.  Science can demonstrate that there were ince conifers but no deciduous trees.  Science can demonstrate there there were once reptiles but no mammals.

 

The bible, however, can not demonstrate that the "breath of god moved upon the face of the waters."  It makes the claim, but provides no supporting evidence.  This is known as an "unfounded assertion."  The bible is full of them; and Luth seems particularly fond of them as well.

 

Thank you. And to simply try and poke holes in materialistic science doesn't work towards bolstering the claims of the bible. Whether or not the standard model changes has nothing to do with the bible, or vedas, or any other religious work shooting up to take it's place without having first established that it's true. It only results, at best, at leaving behind several claims which weren't able to be substantiated and pushing forward. I understand that it's hard for a christian to wrap their mind around this while under the influence of blind belief. 

 

The other issue is that Luth seems to think that if we toss aside FH for some other rendition of OEC, that suddenly Genesis 1 reads true. It doesn't. The way he was pushing for via his citations is an interpretation where the sun, moon and stars were created in the beginning along with the heavens and earth. It's based on assuming what the bible doesn't say or spell out clearly. So that the first light and evening and morning, the first day, took place because of the sun. But the sun was "hidden" or covered by a mist until the 4th day.

 

So then the claim is that the days are long epochs, not literal days. Where the sun, moon and stars were not visible until the fourth epoch. So then the claim is that millions or billions of years were going by with the sun, moon, and stars covered by a mist so they were not visible from the earth. Grass and vegetation, apparently, as the claim must go, were then growing on the land for millions to billions of years (3rd epoch) while the sun was covered by a mist and not visible from the earth until the fourth epoch, whatever that means. 

 

So where's the evidence of this? How does it work, biologically? 

 

If we were hit with an asteroid and the sun was covered over to where it wasn't even visible from the earth, what would happen? Would vegetation and grasses flourish for millions or billions of years in that condition? This is just an example to put the focus on the apologist. When I say any which way we take it, Genesis 1 comes out nonsensical this is why. Luth seems to think that if he makes an objection to FH then he's overcome the problem of Genesis 1. But he clearly hasn't. There are layers upon layers of evident nonsense involved in taking Genesis literally or symbolically as anyting "true."

 

We've merely grazed the surface in this debate with examples given so far.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

So then the claim is that the days are long epochs, not literal days. Where the sun, moon and stars were not visible until the fourth epoch. So then the claim is that millions or billions of years were going by with the sun, moon, and stars covered by a mist so they were not visible from the earth. Grass and vegetation, apparently, as the claim must go, were then growing on the land for millions to billions of years (3rd epoch) while the sun was covered by a mist and not visible from the earth until the fourth epoch, whatever that means. 

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night: and the evening and the morning were the first day."  Genesis 1:5

 

The text makes clear what is meant by one day.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's stuck. I hope that's clear enough to readers following along. Luth has to disregard these problems at the beginning in order to jump ahead and try and prove the bible with the bible. And then, we must face the problem of using some book in order to prove the claims within that same book. It could be any book. At some point we have to cross examine the claims of the book with outside sources like the soft and hard sciences. Otherwise we're taking something at face value. 

 

Do the veda's prove the claims within the veda's? 

 

Does the book of mormon prove the claims made within the book of mormon? 

 

Is reincarnation true, because buddhist literature seems to claim that it is? 

 

The very suggestion involves an incredible amount of special pleading. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The other issue is that Luth seems to think that if we toss aside FH for some other rendition of OEC, that suddenly Genesis 1 reads true. It doesn't. The way he was pushing for via his citations is an interpretation where the sun, moon and stars were created in the beginning along with the heavens and earth. It's based on assuming what the bible doesn't say or spell out clearly. So that the first light and evening and morning, the first day, took place because of the sun. But the sun was "hidden" or covered by a mist until the 4th day.

 

So then the claim is that the days are long epochs, not literal days. Where the sun, moon and stars were not visible until the fourth epoch. So then the claim is that millions or billions of years were going by with the sun, moon, and stars covered by a mist so they were not visible from the earth. Grass and vegetation, apparently, as the claim must go, were then growing on the land for millions to billions of years (3rd epoch) while the sun was covered by a mist and not visible from the earth until the fourth epoch, whatever that means. 

 

I've seen this argument before and it's beyond ridiculous. It's mind-boggling that people who claim to believe the Bible will go to such laughable lengths to get the Bible to mean something completely different from what it actually says. It clearly specifies that the sun, moon & stars were created/formed on the fourth day, not merely made visible. Besides that, what would be the point of being made visible then anyway? Visible to whom? Nobody had been created yet, so there was nobody on the earth to see or not see the sun, moon & stars at that point. That whole argument is nothing short of preposterous. Those who resort to such twisting are clearly grasping at straws.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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.