Attack a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2013, 12:31 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2013 07:21 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Attack a Theist
(23-05-2013 11:25 PM)Mojch Wrote:  religions are nothing more than an accumulation of various pre-existing cultural elements and that there is nothing that exists within a religion which did not originally exist with the culture itself. Is this correct?

Correct

(23-05-2013 11:25 PM)Mojch Wrote:  (2) Earlier, you pointed out that it was unreasonable for me to generalize about all gay people by stating that there is a single “gay worldview”. In the post you just made, you stated, “Christian Theology would say that…”, thereby implicitly claiming, just as I did, that a group of people who have widely divergent views can be reduced to a single statement of belief. Why have you not just committed the same error I made earlier?

You are the one who made the (unsupported) generalization with your statement about what "Christian parents" believe. I can show you, chapter and verse, from theological textbooks, all kinds of Christians who would disagree with you. You seem to be not so well versed on what Christians actually believe. You made a claim about Christian parents, and I want to know how you know, what you say you know, before I bother to go gather up the material to refute your claim. Christian parents can indoctrinate their children anyway they like. I am questioning your actual knowledge of what Christian beliefs actually are. I can show you, that many Christians do NOT believe what you say they do.
Here's just a billion or so that would not agree with what you said.

Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church :
1260 : "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

(23-05-2013 11:25 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Let’s start with John 6:44. I will attempt a thought experiment to illustrate my point.

You are in a room, separated from 30 people by a vast gulf of lava. Each of the thirty people is dying of a disease for which you have the cure. Your boss, Bob, sent you into the room to rescue the people because you are only doctor trained to administer the cure. Bob himself is standing outside the room and has a switch which can lower a bridge between you and the thirty people. This is the only switch that can bridge the gap between you and the thirty people. In other words, you and Bob have to work together or else, individually, neither one of you can save any of the people.

In this situation, is the following statement NONSENSE? Does it convey NO meaning or only a TRIVIAL meaning?

“No one can come to me unless Bob who sent me lowers the bridge and, if he does, I will give them the cure.” It seems to me it conveys a very serious meaning…that YOU need BOB to rescue these people! You can’t do it on your own. With thirty lives on the line, that is by no means a trivial piece of information. How is this situation and statement different from John 6:44? And, if you can’t distinguish it, then how is John 6:44 nonsense but your statement in the hypothetical situation is not?

Yes it is nonsense, and also the Fallacy of the False Analogy. Bob is obviously not said to be omnipotent and omniscient. Your god is supposedly omnipotent. If that were the case it could do it, or anything, on it's own. There is no reason, (unless the god is SUBJECT to the nature of Reality and not it's creator), that that HAS to be it's only solution, or that it is confined to only one. It (the god) set up the whole problem in the first place. The whole "salvation" paradigm is built on a series of fallacies, religious, logical, historical, and cultural. It also was not in the original teaching of your Jesus. Saul of Tarsus put it in your cult. The statement I quoted said that only some, (ie NOT ALL) are "drawn" and chosen. Either he meant it or he didn't.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
24-05-2013, 12:48 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
(24-05-2013 12:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-05-2013 11:25 PM)Mojch Wrote:  religions are nothing more than an accumulation of various pre-existing cultural elements and that there is nothing that exists within a religion which did not originally exist with the culture itself. Is this correct?

Correct

(23-05-2013 11:25 PM)Mojch Wrote:  (2) Earlier, you pointed out that it was unreasonable for me to generalize about all gay people by stating that there is a single “gay worldview”. In the post you just made, you stated, “Christian Theology would say that…”, thereby implicitly claiming, just as I did, that a group of people who have widely divergent views can be reduced to a single statement of belief. Why have you not just committed the same error I made earlier?

You are the one who made the generization with your statement about "Christian parents". I can show you, chapter and verse, from theological textbooks, all kind of Christians who would disagree with you. You seem to be not so well versed on what Christians actually believe. You made a claim about Christian parents, and I want to know how you know what you say you know, before I bother to go gather up the material to refute your claim. Christian parents can indoctrinate their children in anything they like. I am questioning your actual knowledge of what Christian beliefs actually are. I can show you, that many Christians do NOT believe what you say they do.
Here's a billion or so that would not agree with what you said.

Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church :
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

(23-05-2013 11:25 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Let’s start with John 6:44. I will attempt a thought experiment to illustrate my point.

You are in a room, separated from 30 people by a vast gulf of lava. Each of the thirty people is dying of a disease for which you have the cure. Your boss, Bob, sent you into the room to rescue the people because you are only doctor trained to administer the cure. Bob himself is standing outside the room and has a switch which can lower a bridge between you and the thirty people. This is the only switch that can bridge the gap between you and the thirty people. In other words, you and Bob have to work together or else, individually, neither one of you can save any of the people.

In this situation, is the following statement NONSENSE? Does it convey NO meaning or only a TRIVIAL meaning?

“No one can come to me unless Bob who sent me lowers the bridge and, if he does, I will give them the cure.” It seems to me it conveys a very serious meaning…that YOU need BOB to rescue these people! You can’t do it on your own. With thirty lives on the line, that is by no means a trivial piece of information. How is this situation and statement different from John 6:44? And, if you can’t distinguish it, then how is John 6:44 nonsense but your statement in the hypothetical situation is not?

Yes it is nonsense, and also the Fallacy of the False Analogy. Bob is obviously not said to be omnipotent and omniscient. Your god is supposedly omnipotent. If that were the case it could do it, or anything, on it's own. There s no reason, (unless the god is SUBJECT to the nature of Reality and not it's creator), that that HAS to be it's only solution. It (the god) set up the whole problem in the first place. The whole "salvation" paradigm is built on a series of fallacies. It also was not in the original teaching of your Jesus. Saul of Tarsus put it in your cult. The statement I quoted said that only some, (ie NOT ALL) are "drawn" and chosen. Either he meant it or he didn't.

Mojch, please pay particular attention to these words of wisdom from Bucky...

"The whole "salvation" paradigm is built on a series of fallacies. It also was not in the original teaching of your Jesus. Saul of Tarsus put it in your cult. "

This is so true. The "salvation paradigm" was more or less invented by Paul...a character with no legitimate link with Jesus. I can, and will, prove that to you one day if you're interested.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
24-05-2013, 07:00 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
(23-05-2013 09:31 PM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Houseofcantor: What, in the name of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, is a Gwynnie?

Gwyneth Paltrow, pictured in my sig; my sweet everything. Heart

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
24-05-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(24-05-2013 07:00 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(23-05-2013 09:31 PM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Houseofcantor: What, in the name of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, is a Gwynnie?

Gwyneth Paltrow, pictured in my sig; my sweet everything. Heart

Johnny: creepily adorable since 1999... Tongue Or was it 2000. A big number anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
24-05-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(23-05-2013 09:31 PM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Much, MUCH more importantly, how awesome was the new Trek? Are you a fan of older Trek as well? If so, favorite series? (I know this is the wrong forum but I don't really want to start another thread right now. I am treading water to meet everyone!)

Huge fan, enjoyed the new one immensely but not as much as the previous one. Original series trumps all others.

(23-05-2013 09:31 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Also, I have a question for you based on the quote from Mark. Please forgive me if this comes across agressive. This is very important to me because I think it is one of the fundamental problems with may atheist criticisms of religion. You (and Mark) are evaluating the actions of Christian parents from YOUR perspective, not THEIRS. This is totally unfair. Think how most Christian parents see it...

1. Christ is the only way to heaven. If my child dies without Christ, he goes to Hell.
2. Hell is the absolute worst possible thing that could happen to my child.
3. Therefore, as a loving parent, I do EVERYTHING in my power to prevent my child from going there.

Now, I understand that YOU don't believe the child is in danger of Hell. However, this does not change the PARENTS belief. Mark, and you by your agreeing with him, asked, "Why not teach it when children are experienced enough to reason for themselves?" The simple answer is because doing so INCREASES the risk that the kid will go to Hell from the PARENTS perspective. Your belief that Hell doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that a parent is morally obligated to do what he or she believes is in the best interest of the child. Do you disagree that a parent should do everything in their power to maximize the best interests of their child? And don't parents, as the guardians of children too small to reason well until they are older, have to make certain decisions for the child based on good faith efforts by the parents to determine truth? If the parents exhibit good faith efforts to determine truth and arrive at a religion as in the best interest of their child, how is it morally objectionable for them to teach that to their child?

I'll repost Mark's quote for continuity:

(23-05-2013 04:23 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If parents insist their kids be coached in Christianity, why not teach it when children are experienced enough to reason for themselves? There’s no need to indoctrinate and prejudice young minds. Geography, trigonometry, and economics are universally regarded as valuable, but nobody believes a five-year-old should be saturated with them.

I understand your question and it does pose a cunudrum. From the parent's view I agree they don't see it that way, they see it your way.

I'll approach it from the Roman Catholic perspective since its the one I know best, which is to say, the one I was indoctrinated into.
The first holy sacrament for Catholics is babtism. Until recently a child that died prior to being babtized went to Limbo (I can't even imagine the amount of agony the parents that lost babies before being babtized must have gone through before a snap of the fingers by the Vatican Council and poof, no more Limbo. Limbo was sent to Limbo.) But I digress.

Why wouldn't the Church be content enough with babtizing infants, assuring their entrance into heaven, and leaving the dogmatic teachings until they were old enough to comprehend? I believe it is because even though the child is now "saved" the young mind must be molded to accept the incomprehensible and made a follower of the faith. Because of this the church teaches the parents to teach the children at a young age. A vicious circle if there ever was one.

With these thoughts in mind I'll modify Mark's question to read thus:

If Christianity insist that kids be coached in dogma, why not teach it when children are experienced enough to reason for themselves? There’s no need to indoctrinate and prejudice young minds. Geography, trigonometry, and economics are universally regarded as valuable, but nobody believes a five-year-old should be saturated with them.


Does that make sense to you now? Is this position still "unfair"?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
24-05-2013, 04:44 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(24-05-2013 03:33 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Why wouldn't the Church be content enough with babtizing infants, assuring their entrance into heaven, and leaving the dogmatic teachings until they were old enough to comprehend? I believe it is because even though the child is now "saved" the young mind must be molded to accept the incomprehensible and made a follower of the faith. Because of this the church teaches the parents to teach the children at a young age. A vicious circle if there ever was one.

With these thoughts in mind I'll modify Mark's question to read thus:

If Christianity insist that kids be coached in dogma, why not teach it when children are experienced enough to reason for themselves? There’s no need to indoctrinate and prejudice young minds. Geography, trigonometry, and economics are universally regarded as valuable, but nobody believes a five-year-old should be saturated with them.


Does that make sense to you now? Is this position still "unfair"?

Yes. I was raised to think for myself. My Dad made sure I had any and all books at my disposal. I was provided with "bible stories" which I equated with fables and Greek and Roman god stories and legends. I never had any notion of their connection with a faith or that any stories were something which anyone took to be true.

I don't think I ever even articulated my personal understanding of a faith until I was at least 10 or 11, when finally asked about it. It probably took all of a half hour to reason it all out, but I decided that for me, it seemed to be a story that people actually believed to be true, like history but more along the lines of a legend.

Since I knew the Santa story was kind of like a legend based on a real guy, St Nick - I knew for certain I didn't believe in Santa. Not that I didn't want toys, but it just wasn't real and I wasn't willing to keep up my side of the ruse just to get toys. Thanks to my parents, I was left to form my own personal integrity. I don't know that I could have done it without them providing me with a concrete sense of reality.

I wonder about children who are taught from an early age to essentially keep pretending; to blur the lines of reality until they confuse themselves into believing almost anything someone tells them. How would they ever really know that they aren't lying to themselves?

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
25-05-2013, 10:23 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
***Everyone: Wow. I just checked out the "personal support" section of this forum and was very impressed. I sometimes hear the claim that atheisism results in moral decay. That section of the forum is serious evidence that such claims are absurd.

***A MODERATOR: My replies are getting long due because I enjoy addressing everone. Is that acceptable or is there a post size limit? Don't want to break any forum rules.

***Revanant: Yes, your explanation does help. Would this be a fair description of your perspective? "The moral action is that action which most reduces the potential for human suffering without directly inflicting harm on another human."

***Momsurroundedbyboys: Can I ask you a question and promise you it is not a trap of any kind? I find the symbolism of the Lutheran service (and the Catholic) to be beautiful. Even if I thought everything the symbolism represents was wrong, I think I would find the service itself to be beautiful from a certain perspective. Since you have seen Lutheran services, would you agree?

***Morondog: Ok, we agree on the low level stuff. Thanks!

***Mark: I understand and this makes sense. I don't agree with it all of it, but I do understand it. Also, I am relieved to here you admit that Christian parents think they have the child's best interest as heart. Can I you ask a tangential but, in my opinion, an exceptionally important question? If so, I change from a discussion of Christianity to general theism.

Assuming we define "irrational" as "without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason" then I don't think it is fair to ascribe it to any belief (religious or otherwise) that is not literally logically incoherent. The most basic theist belief I can think of would be some variation of "God(s) could exist and I choose to believe he/she/it/they do(es)." This belief is not logically incoherent because it contains no internal logical contradictions.

Now, assume this belief has no evidence of any kind to support it. I would still assert that it would be improper to characterize this belief as "irrational". Instead, it should be characterized as "completely unsubstantiated".

The reason I ask is that it goes to the heart of questioning theism. If one is an atheist because (and I do NOT mean to imply that people become atheists or theists for a single reason) religion is logically incoherent, then highly productive discussion can occur because the logical flaws can be evaluated and, with sufficient training in formal logic, either confirmed or refuted within a high degree of certainty. In contrast, if one is an atheist because they believe that belief in a deity is "unsubstantiated" (without proof), then discussion must focus on the current level of proof. Since I would assert, with only a few possible exceptions that I don't want to get into now because I haven't, yet, thought them through enough to defend them, that their is insufficient proof to ever make a deity more likely than unlikely, such discussion are much less productive.

This has been relevant even in my time here. On a few occasions, I have proposed a logic question and been responded to by a claim that my logic question is inconsequential because my premises are unsubstantiated. This seems to flow from the thought that I am trying to "substantiate" God when in fact all I am attempting to do is to see if a logical inconsistency can be reconciled without asserting that the given premises can be proven as true.

Sorry if that makes little sense. Lots of people to get to.

Also, in your second post, you asked that I, "pay particular attention to these words of wisdom from Bucky." Out of the sincere respect I have developed for you in our other discussion I will comply.

Bucky, you said that you would "prove that to you one day if you're interested." I officially declare that I am interested. However, let's not clutter this thread up. Would you be willing to type up the explanation and post in another thread? I give you my word that I will NOT simply respond by arguing. I will ask sincere questions and attempt to arrive at an understanding of your position. (I might be slow though. I also have to read evidence presented by Mark and Steven in our Boxing Ring discussion. That's on the agenda for tomorrow!)

***Bucky Ball:

To put it as bluntly and simply as I can: I am not here to defend what you see as mainstream Christian belief. I am here, as I stated in my first post, to test MY beliefs. Please stop arguing against me by telling me what OTHER Christians believe and start discussing with me by asking what I believe. You could simply have corrected my original premise by stating "Mojch, you should not have said most. A more accurate term would have been some." I would have agreed with you and we could have moved on to the ACTUAL argument, which you have yet to address. (I also note that did not refute that your argument itself was a red herring.)

When you assume what I believe, we aren't teaching each other anything. Instead, you are simply restating existing argument against mainstream Christianity that I, and I would venture to guess most of the users on this forum, already agree with. This stifles education and discussion.

I am asking questions, you respond to those questions based on an assumption of what I believe, and nothing is accomplished because your assumption is incorrect. If your response to my argument depends on my believing a certain thing, please ask if I believe it before making the argument. Otherwise, it is time wasted for all. You will notice, on several occasions, me extending this same courtesy to others and, in the one instance I failed to do so by implying a group of diverse individuals held a single worldview, I apologized.

Here is a perfect example of what I mean...

QUOTE: "Bob is obviously not said to be omnipotent and omniscient. Your god is supposedly omnipotent. If that were the case it could do it, or anything, on it's own. There is no reason, (unless the god is SUBJECT to the nature of Reality and not it's creator)..."

YES! You successfully reconciled the contradiction that my thought experiment was getting at! The only way to distinguish these scenarios is that Bob is NOT omniscient and omnipotent in the traditionally understood sense. That was the point I was leading towards. Here, I believe Jesus was claiming very expressly that neither he nor the Father can save mankind on its own. Thus, and this is super important...

You attempted to disprove MY belief by reference to the general Christian belief. You accused my beliefs of being wrong because of an implied contradiction based on an assumption that you made about what I believe. That assumption was wrong and it required several posts to undue the negative impacts made by that assumption. Had you identified your assumption at the outset, I could have simply explained that I do not hold to the assumption. If you will forgive a little dramatic indulgence on my part:

Bucky Ball: "Mojch, you are insane! Clearly, assuming you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God, John 6:44 is meaningless and absurd."

Mojch: "True. However, I do not subscribe to traditional methods of describing God's omniscient and omnipotent abilities."

This would have avoided all of this confusion and, I dare to suggest, would have led to a rather interesting discussion regarding the proper Biblical manner of interpreting claims to God's omniscience.

Does this make sense? (NOTE: Please read my response to Mark as well since I address you directly.)

***Full Circle: We must discuss Trek sometime!

Yes, your position makes perfect sense if the parent is a Catholic. Thus, from the Catholic perspective, we agree. But, how would you evaluate Mark's argument if I modified the situation to be...

1. Christ is the only way to heaven. If my child dies without Christ, he goes to Hell.
2. Hell is the absolute worst possible thing that could happen to my child.
3. Therefore, as a loving parent, I do EVERYTHING in my power to prevent my child from going there.
4. My child is NOT saved by baptism and cannot be saved until a conscious choice is made to accept Jesus.
5. Therefore, I must teach him dogma or else I increase the risk that he will not make the conscious choice in time and end up in Hell.

In this situation, is the choice to teach dogma morally wrong from the perspective of the parent?

***Kim: Loved this post.

You asked "How would they ever really know that they aren't lying to themselves?" I modify the question slightly and present it for your consideration as modified...

"How does anyone ever really know that they aren't lying to themselves?"

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
There is no post size limit, other than the fact that I didn't read anything further than about the first two paragraphs of your post. You want people to read them, up to you to keep the size down Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2013, 11:44 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
Mojch,

I'm on my phone that hates me Wink

My grandma was a life long Lutheran. The church she went to in San Francisco was gorgeous. And honestly it was exactly like a catholic mass, without the kneeling, insence and communion every time. During the sermon they would dim the lights. And I would nap. Lol. I was probably around 6 or so. Coffee hour was fun. After catholic mass you just left. Lol.

And ya I did enjoy the symbolism. I also enjoyed the rituals of the Catholic Church very much. I'm a sucker tho for rituals.

Later when she moved she joined a different church. This one was very cold to me. They did non of the symbolism. They were still part of the Missouri synod but it had a totally different feel.

I only attended that chuch a few times.

Feel free to shorten my name. Momsbb.

Smile


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2013, 12:46 PM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2013 07:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Attack a Theist
(25-05-2013 10:23 AM)Mojch Wrote:  Bucky, you said that you would "prove that to you one day if you're interested." I officially declare that I am interested.

I did not. Mark said that.
I can easily do that, but I'll let him.
When he's done, I'll show you how the entire business is set on fallacious/incorrect OT foundations. If you want a preview, take a look at this :
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ic-Origins

(25-05-2013 10:23 AM)Mojch Wrote:  To put it as bluntly and simply as I can: I am not here to defend what you see as mainstream Christian belief. I am here, as I stated in my first post, to test MY beliefs. Please stop arguing against me by telling me what OTHER Christians believe and start discussing with me by asking what I believe.

Interesting. I thought you said you were a member of a certain sect of Lutherans. YOU are the one who said "most Christians this", and "Christian parents that". Was I somehow to know you do not accept the general tenets of your cult ? I questioned, and pointed out you were mistaken that "most" (anything like you said) was incorrect. I actually have no clue what you believe, as so far you have not stated it, as far as I have seen. You said you were a member of a certain sect of Christians. Why bother to say that, if we were not to make assumptions from your statement that you accept their beliefs ? I see that you subscribe to some sort of divine watchmaker argument, where the god left the universe go. Actually that is (historically) an anti-Christian view, as "active action in history" by their god and spirit is the generally accepted Christian view, and certainly also was the OT god in the Bible.

(25-05-2013 10:23 AM)Mojch Wrote:  That assumption was wrong and it required several posts to undue the negative impacts made by that assumption. Had you identified your assumption at the outset, I could have simply explained that I do not hold to the assumption. If you will forgive a little dramatic indulgence on my part:

Bucky Ball: "Mojch, you are insane! Clearly, assuming you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God, John 6:44 is meaningless and absurd."

Mojch: "True. However, I do not subscribe to traditional methods of describing God's omniscient and omnipotent abilities."

This would have avoided all of this confusion and, I dare to suggest, would have led to a rather interesting discussion regarding the proper Biblical manner of interpreting claims to God's omniscience.

Does this make sense? (NOTE: Please read my response to Mark as well since I address you directly.)

No it does not. "Dramatic indulgence" not accepted.
Don't ever put words in my mouth.
I never said you were insane.
Nice try at making me look unreasonable. I can tell you're a lawyer. Dodgy

As I said above, YOU stated you were a certain type of Christian. Sorry, I assumed you accept any of their tenets. Congratulations. You succeeded in tricking me/us. I won't assume that you are any sort of anything in the future. Obviously, you are not a "Christian" in the traditional sense, but some sort of a "hybrid" *something-or-other*, composed of your "cafeteria selections" of beliefs from your cult(s), which is not at all unusual these days.

(I suspect this may relate to why many of us are "Igtheists" since theists cannot actually cook up a coherent definition of the word "god", including you.)

I do find it highly amusing you complain about all this to me, yet have the balls to say anything about "the proper" way to interpret the Bible, (you again presuming that there is "one" way (and of course, ho-hum, as usual, yours is the *correct* way, to do that, even though you have no training in the field except "bible study")) and in light of the fact that Mark showed you, that you were totally ignorant of what "Biblical marriage" and sexual morality actually was. Where did you get your advanced degree in Biblical Studies ? Or are you yet another amateur, come to "enlighten" us on the "proper way" (of course that's YOUR way), to "read the Bible". Is this your real agenda here ?

From the Missouri Synod Lutheran "Cyclopedia" :
Omnipotence. Attribute of God by reason of which He can and does perform whatever He pleases (Ps 115:3; 135:6).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: