Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LogicalFallacy

Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

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 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.

 

I also want curious readers to understand why I say that it only gets worse for the apologist's as they try and apologize. Can everyone see how by trying to excuse this, Luth is going into something like a chinese finger trap that gets tighter and tighter the more you try and struggle? 

 

If he tries to go further, it will actually get worse than it is currently. 

 

I showed him the way out of the trap, out of courtesy. He has to let it go and admit that Genesis 1 can not be proven. And live with that. Let us know why he believes something that can't be proven instead of resisting the finger trap of trying to prove what can not be proven. But he's still trying to resist the finger trap despite the fair warning...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I showed him the way out of the trap, out of courtesy. He has to let it go and admit that Genesis 1 can not be proven. And live with that. Let us know why he believes something that can't be proven instead of resisting the finger trap of trying to prove what can not be proven. But he's still trying to resist the finger trap despite the fair warning...

 

 

Liberal Christians take the escape route and state that Genesis is just metaphor.  But fundamentalists realize that if you accept some of scripture as not literal then you may end up with the Resurrection and Hell as metaphor too.  So they can’t go there.  Hence the mental gymnastics required to present Genesis as literal.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TABA said:

Hence the mental gymnastics required to present Genesis as literal.

 

...while in actuality not taking it the least bit literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TABA said:

 

Liberal Christians take the escape route and state that Genesis is just metaphor.  But fundamentalists realize that if you accept some of scripture as not literal then you may end up with the Resurrection and Hell as metaphor too.  So they can’t go there.  Hence the mental gymnastics required to present Genesis as literal.  

 

That's what SDA's are stuck with. It's all about the sabbath and the 4th commandment. But if there wasn't a literal six day creation, with a literal rest on a literal seventh day, then WTF does any of this mean to begin with? The 4th commandment hinges on god literally resting on a literal seventh day. Why else would the god be mad and offended if people didn't observe his sacred sabbath's? Dominoes right on through the bible. Example after example. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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. 

 

A couple of vedantic sages (Ramana Marharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj) like to say "Dont believe what I say. Find out for yourself." Then suggest a practice that will help bring about enlightenment.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there should be an official canon of the official canon of scripture, to tell us which parts of scripture are literally true, which parts are metaphorical, and which parts mean what they say.  This way, even the christians would be able to agree.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Maybe there should be an official canon of the official canon of scripture, to tell us which parts of scripture are literally true, which parts are metaphorical, and which parts mean what they say.  This way, even the christians would be able to agree.

 

The way it works is you pick a denomination.  Then you work backwards from that denomination’s theology to decide which parts of scripture are literally true, metaphorical etc.  If you try to work forward the way you suggest, there’s a grave danger you could become an Ex-Christian. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

That's what SDA's are stuck with. It's all about the sabbath and the 4th commandment. But if there wasn't a literal six day creation, with a literal rest on a literal seventh day, then WTF does any of this mean to begin with? The 4th commandment hinges on god literally resting on a literal seventh day. Why else would the god be mad and offended if people didn't observe his sacred sabbath's? Dominoes right on through the bible. Example after example. 

 

 

 

Well, you see, a day was a few billion years long ... until it became 24 hours long. :) Checks my watch. Oh look, I dont have to go to church till tomorrow...a billion years from now.

 

It's interesting that Saturday is called Sabado in Spanish and comes from the Latin/Greek/Hebrew words that means sabbath. Saturday is the 7th day of the week, I believe, according to my calendar. It's interesting when Christians whine about having to work Sunday ... sorry, Sunday is not God's day of rest. Now get your Christian ass to work!

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sabbatum#Latin

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saturday is still the Sabbath in Judaism.  christians consider Sunday the Sabbath because it was the day jesus rose from the grave.  And because it flies in the face of those damn Jews who killed christ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Maybe there should be an official canon of the official canon of scripture, to tell us which parts of scripture are literally true, which parts are metaphorical, and which parts mean what they say.  This way, even the christians would be able to agree.

 

The new Color Coded Bible.

 

Red highlighting means you have to believe it or burn.

Yellow means literal or metaphorical, depending on convenience.

Green means totally ignorable.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

Saturday is still the Sabbath in Judaism.  christians consider Sunday the Sabbath because it was the day jesus rose from the grave.  And because it flies in the face of those damn Jews who killed christ.

 

That's where the adventists come in. People from all various denominations gathering around the fact that sabbath was changed per tradition, not scripture. Blaming the satanic proto-catholics for it, basically. And in the process of reading revelation 12:17, eventually evolved the idea that in order to fulfill this status they would have to keep the 10 commandments to the letter, and holding to the testimony of jesus both, equally. And disregard the Sunday worship tradition in favor of scripture. 

 

So they thought they'd found something key and pivotal about the whole of christianity at the time of the mid 19th century, and a monstrous trick of the devil among the all of churches. In order to get on track for the "end times," a group would have to step away from the others and start following the 4th commandment correctly thus fulfilling revelation 12:17. Setting the stage for the 144,000 remnant of Israel, which, at the time, was thought of as a spiritual Israel because world war II hadn't happened and there was no modern Israel to speak of yet. Apparently EG White didn't see that coming with the "spirit of prophecy." 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick recap:

 

Luth has failed to satisfy the burden of proof concerning both the existence of the christian god and the veracity of scripture.  Instead, he expects both to be accepted a priori (which is christianese for "because I said so").  If the foundation of his argument (the existence of the christian god and the veracity of scripture) is not accepted a priori then he sees no reason to continue the "debate." 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Quick recap:

 

Luth has failed to satisfy the burden of proof concerning both the existence of the christian god and the veracity of scripture.  Instead, he expects both to be accepted a priori (which is christianese for "because I said so").  If the foundation of his argument (the existence of the christian god and the veracity of scripture) is not accepted a priori then he sees no reason th continue the "debate." 

 

Luth appears unwilling or unable to admit his religious beliefs are based solely on his religious faith.

 

So much for intellectual honesty.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luth: I'll say it again. If Genesis is not a literal reading, we have no reason to understand anything. I suppose some will take that as some extremist Christian position and use it as a basis for dismissing Christianity but that only reveals the deeper issue.

 

.........

 

If you want your basic foundation of understanding to be based on something that does not fit with reality then of course you are free to do so. Though, in my opinion people (Christians included) base their understanding of reality on common sense and observation of what is. 

 

Christians don't really live their lives as if all the wacky bullshit in the bible is true. If they did they would all be in mental institutions or prison. Christians (and everyone else) use common sense and logic and reason first and foremost, then sprinkle it with Jesus later on. 

 

When it comes to web forums, church , and other unimportant activities, Christians will get fired up over their mythical nonsense that supposedly took place back then but is not observable today. It's easy to say you believe the crazy nonsense happened in the past... but not now, of course. Why is there no expectation of talking snakes and burning bushes and 700 year old people now?

 

Of course, there's nothing wrong with wacky beliefs ... unless you try to codify wacky beliefs into law or otherwise insist others believe them.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Of course, there's nothing wrong with wacky beliefs ... unless you try to codify wacky beliefs into law or otherwise insist others believe them.

 

Or taunt others that you will sit back and enjoy watching them get theirs for not believing, coming from William, a predestination Calvinist!!!!!!

 

The people that apparently are not believing (those of us here he is addressing), that he expresses joy in seeing get what they have coming, are only getting what they were predetermined by a supernatural god to get in the first place regardless any choices on their part. God, as far as his beliefs go, predetermined that we'd stop believing in god. So then what sort of person gloats around and taunts unbelievers who were predetermined by a supernatural god to disbelief in that same supernatural god? 

 

A jerk? Some degenerate carrying on smirk and smug towards the eternal damnation of his human peers who he is looking forward to seeing burn forever and ever with a holier than thou attitude to boot? At some point people need to look at this situation and ask themselves why in the world they would even want to be a part of any of this internally inconsistent, contradictory nonsense even if it was true? Even if it did magically result in living forever. 

 

That's something that I see many of us express from time to time. We're at the point where even if it was true, we're entirely uninteresting in what they're selling. And what they're selling, as it were, is so largely based on false advertising that we could never very well go back to pretending it isn't. That seems to be a common thread with a lot of members here, myself not withstanding. 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

Or taunt others that you will sit back and enjoy watching them get theirs for not believing, coming from William, a predestination Calvinist!!!!!!

 

The people that apparently are not believing (those of us here he is addressing), that he expresses joy in seeing get what they have coming, are only getting what they were predetermined by a supernatural god to get in the first place regardless any choices on their part. God, as far as his beliefs go, predetermined that we'd stop believing in god. So then what sort of person gloats around and taunts unbelievers who were predetermined by a supernatural god to disbelief in that same supernatural god? 

 

A jerk? Some degenerate carrying on smirk and smug towards the eternal damnation of his human peers who he is looking forward to seeing burn forever and ever with a holier than thou attitude to boot? At some point people need to look at this situation and ask themselves why in the world they would even want to be a part of any of this internally inconsistent, contradictory nonsense even if it was true? Even if it did magically result in living forever. 

 

That's something that I see many of us express from time to time. We're at the point where even if it was true, we're entirely uninteresting in what they're selling. And what they're selling, as it were, is so largely based on false advertising that we could never very well go back to pretending it isn't. That seems to be a common thread with a lot of members here, myself not withstanding. 

 

 

 

I've never heard a predestinationist explain how God chooses who to save.  He saves who he saves, is good enough for them, evidently.  Maybe it's the ones conceived doggy-style. Makes as much sense as anything else in that wacky world view.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what is the prize, exactly? Christians assume that kissing their deity's ass forever and ever in 'Heaven' is desirable. I dont think they have really thought that through. But I remember that as a Christian,  thinking was discouraged. Just follow the rules. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Well what is the prize, exactly? Christians assume that kissing their deity's ass forever and ever in 'Heaven' is desirable. I dont think they have really thought that through. But I remember that as a Christian,  thinking was discouraged. Just follow the rules. 

 

I'm going with the thoughtless option. People generally don't consider the issue very deeply. Asking doesn't do much good when the people being asked are merely invested in shoring up the faith. Just more salesmanship through false advertising. And they are selling what appears to be an imaginary cure for an imaginary disease. Then waging imaginary threats to those who simply don't buy in to the false advertising campaign. 

 

Go figure. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh goody.  We get to explain the difference between evolution (speciation through natural selection) and abiogenesis (the origins of life) again for the fuckteenth time.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We don't know, therefore god."  ~Luth

 

For every gap science does fill, god gets smaller.  How small can god get and still be omni-present?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

"We don't know, therefore god."  ~Luth

 

For every gap science does fill, god gets smaller.  How small can god get and still be omni-present?

Wrong. "Science" cannot fill those voids either. What do you say when "science" is made mute? You say "someday it will tell us." thus having "faith" in science.

 

And you really must desist from the silly tactic of promoting science as being at odds with Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Wrong. "Science" cannot fill those voids either. What do you say when "science" is made mute? You say "someday it will tell us." thus having "faith" in science.

 

And you really must desist from the silly tactic of promoting science as being at odds with Christianity.

This is just stupid.  Having "faith" in a chair is derived from having had multitudinous experiences with sitting in a chair (and knowing that the chair is real).  Having "faith" in an airplane comes from multitudinous experiences with flying (and knowing that the airplane is real).  "Faith" in science also comes from experience and from the number of times it is proven correct, tempered with its self-correcting nature.

 

This is a completely different kind of "faith" than that of religion; and only an extremely dishonest liar, such as Luth, would attempt to equate the two.  Further, science has no opinion on religion, thus cannot be "at odds" with it.  Beyond demonstrating things like the earth being round, and thereby inadvertently disproving the bible, science doesn't care what you believe, or why.  

 

You're really showing your ignorance Luth; and in this day and age, this kind of ignorance is a deliberate choice. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One hundred years ago, in 1919, people could not conceive of being able to transplant a new heart into a patient; people could not conceive of being able to FaceTime with someone clear on the other side of the world.  The DNA molecule had not yet been illuminated; quarks had yet to be perceived.  Hell, electricity had only begun to be exploited and manipulated.

 

Today we take those things for granted.  Because of the tremendous advances that have been made in science.  Yet, here we have LUTHeransAreMotherFuckers telling us that 

 

"Science" cannot fill those voids either.

 

Does this clown know the future?  Can he predict, with any accuracy, what life and society will be like in 3019?  Is he omniscient?  Or does he merely suffer from certain delusions which psychology has been able to define in the past hundred years.  Is this any different than the "church" condemning Galileo as a heretic?

 

In 1919, the world was dying from an epidemic of the Spanish Flu.  It's 2019; get your flu shot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I'm not Lutheran. Leave it to a festering mind willing to jump to any according conclusion.

 

Second, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 500 years ago WHOOOP DE DOO. So technology advances. Proving what, exactly? Proving nothing, that's what. Other than man does what he was created to do. Do you think our day is the only period of advancement? Ooooo the Internet. Ooooo having.

200 years ago a man took a photograph. Must not be God. 580 yrs ago came the printing press. Changed the course of history. Who woulda thunk? Man on the moon. Deep sea exploration. 

And what does predicting the future have ANYTHING to do with anything? You can't either. SO WHAT???

 2000 years ago, men had hard hearts and darkened minds and would not believe what was demonstrated and proved before their own eyes Seems you haven't "advanced" any further. Oh, I know...You have "seen" no such thing. But you trust what you've never seen every day. Maybe science will create a shot for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

First of all, I'm not Lutheran. Leave it to a festering mind willing to jump to any according conclusion.

Never said you were.  That was a conclusion your festering mind jumped to.

 

Secondly, throwing a tantrum because you can't refute the points I made is just childish.

 

I'm starting to think @webmdave was right about this guy being a troll. 

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.