Did Hitler win?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2014, 03:14 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 01:43 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 09:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Unfortunately, it cannot be the dictionary definition, at least until we pick one of these 11 choices!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian
You're going full potato aren't you. Never go full potato. You don't get to decide the def. Dictionary doesn't *either*. Def is by consensus and dictionary is a kinda handbook of then-current consensus. You *cannot* just declare "I don't like the dictionary definition, so I'll make up my own". That *is* committing the NTS fallacy.

Quote:And I was NOT claiming that believing the Bible was written by humans or non-humans makes one a Christian or not a Christian. I'm stating that apart from the issue of what makes one truly a Christian, I am capable, as are you, of determining the correct Bible interpretation for a given statement (within certain limits and limitations).
ORLY? So any time I disagree with your interpretation it's because I'm not a true Christian. How convenient.

Quote:If we define a Christian not just as "one who follows Jesus" but "one who is religiously motivated to follow Jesus to attempt to get to Heaven" then I have issues with people who say they are Christians but do not see the need to be born again, since Jesus said:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” - John 3:3
As wonderful as that is, you still got no right to say to them that they are not truly Christians, any more than they can say the same to you. It's *subjective*.

Quote:Unless you think I've made a misinterpretation by saying when you get to heaven you can see it!
Are you high?

Huh? I want YOU to tell me what a Christian is, and then we can argue. Every atheist on this thread has refused to do so other than to say it's what one self-professes to be. Demonstrably untrue... or won't they admit that prisoners in jail pretend to be Christians to lighten their debt to society. Right! Few atheists in prison because no one would ever say, "Oh! You've become an atheist now? Let's lighten your sentence and agree you are being rehabilitated..."

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 02:58 PM)justauntb Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 02:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He himself killed almost (almost??) no one. So there's that little annoying fact for you retards to deal with.
Hitler had some really messed up thoughts, but, here's another fact I give him credit for.... opening the first No-Kill animal shelters in Germany.

Well, he loved his dogs... until he poisoned them to death. And let's not forget, he was 100% for gun control among the German populace! Even before the war!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 03:17 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 03:06 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 11:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You can stop preaching anytime. You're wasting your breath. (What are you doing here anyway ?)

Calling something a "fringe interpretation" which you have provided NOT ONE reference for, or reason for, just shows how intellectually bankrupt you are.
I neg-repped you because YOU LIED about what I said, and MIS_represented what I said. I stand by it.

I'll quibble with you when and if I please you Fundie idiot. I realize it's inconvenient for you Fundie idiots to be reminded that the Fundie view is not THE ONLY VIEW. The "Interpreters Bible" did not say "bodily resurrection'' YOU read that in. There is nothing in the quote you provided that could not make sense in the position I have suggested.

I could care less what you do or don't do. I have demonstrated that your assumptions about what the Bible means or could mean were totally false, and not only that you were total unaware of the state of scholarship in the field.

Jesus never did anything. He never existed. They made him up. The world is exactly the same as it was before he (supposedly) "saved" it, (which was NOT THE ROLE of a messiah in the first place).

Of course you tell yourself you're a "born again". No one expected a patronizing lying misrepresenting ignoramus to be anything else.

The fact is I demonstrated here that there IS no Christian consensus on these matters, and the views of the "born agains" are really not in line with the culture that produced their cult. Apaocalyptic "exaltation" as Ehrman writes about in his latest book IS in line with it, AND the idea of a "shade" (which is NOT a "resurrected body" but a "dormant one") IS more in line with Hebrew culture. A "shade" is not a "ghost", but the peculiarities and intricacies Hebrew culture are not something Fundies want to deal with. They only want "literal" childish Babble.

I see. You demonstrated that there are certainly cats among the pigeons, however few, by citing three sources 1) one PhD 2) Crossan who has been widely denounced for poor scholarship even more so than any blasphemous renderings of the text 3) yourself. Well, that's three scholars out of 30,000 worldwide, anyway.

I would counter that "magically" (which is saying a lot to a materialist!) YOU read in that it WASN'T a bodily resurrection, or isn't this clear enough for you FROM the Interpreter's Bible:

The
essence of the Christian faith concerning the
Resurrection, as it is set forth in the New
Testament, is not that Christ survived death
according to some general capacity for survival
inherent in the human soul as such, but rather
that God raised him up; that is to say, the
Resurrection was part of God's mighty act of
redemption to save mankind and establish his
kingdom.

Or perhaps you want your fellows here to understand that UNITED METHODIST PUBLISHING promulgated as a great new work that Jesus didn't bodily rise from the dead, that is, created what for Methodism would be an absolute apostasy and heresy?

Feel free to un-neg-rep me for I apologize for claiming you made up a translation of Matthew 28 when all you had done was quote a fringe scholar.

I'm aware of both the state of scholarship in the field and that the historical position from churched and un-churched scholars alike is that Jesus taught a bodily resurrection. You are doing your fellow atheists a disservice to say otherwise, after all, even today they are claiming Mark 16's ending was written to promulgate just such a theory...

"...SEE, HIS TOMB IS EMPTY BECAUSE HE HAD A NON-BODILY RESURRECTION."

Um, yeah, Bucky, that makes sense in English AND Greek. Not!

You've provided a number with not one name, or any reference as to how you cooked up that number. In light of the fact you MISREPRESENTED my posts, and are now a know LIAR, everything you say must be referenced how EXACTLY you know what their positions are. Crossan was thought of well enough to be asked to be in the Jesus Seminar. Were YOU asked ?

Are we suffering from early Dementia ?
My 3rd scholar was Bart Ehrman, you fucking fool.
Have a nice (albight deluded) day. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-11-2014, 03:24 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 03:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  In my opinion, a true Christian ... does miracles...

O rly?

These "miracles" you speak of; are they, perhaps, of that singular mysterious kind that only ever occur in the testimony of the credulous, without direct confirmation, or indeed any reliable external evidence whatsoever?

I wonder why that is.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 03:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 01:43 PM)morondog Wrote:  You're going full potato aren't you. Never go full potato. You don't get to decide the def. Dictionary doesn't *either*. Def is by consensus and dictionary is a kinda handbook of then-current consensus. You *cannot* just declare "I don't like the dictionary definition, so I'll make up my own". That *is* committing the NTS fallacy.

ORLY? So any time I disagree with your interpretation it's because I'm not a true Christian. How convenient.

As wonderful as that is, you still got no right to say to them that they are not truly Christians, any more than they can say the same to you. It's *subjective*.

Are you high?

Huh? I want YOU to tell me what a Christian is, and then we can argue. Every atheist on this thread has refused to do so other than to say it's what one self-professes to be. Demonstrably untrue... or won't they admit that prisoners in jail pretend to be Christians to lighten their debt to society. Right! Few atheists in prison because no one would ever say, "Oh! You've become an atheist now? Let's lighten your sentence and agree you are being rehabilitated..."

I really hope you're not serious with that tripe.

Were you genuinely trying to make the, ah, "argument" that, because there once was a person who professed insincere Christianity that all people who profess Christianity and disagree with you are therefore insincere?

Even you I would give slightly more credit than that. You then remain completely unable to account for those who actively disagree with you and your ilk on fundamental theological questions and yet see themselves as devoted and devout true believing Christians.

That's the tortured pretzel logic of a True Believer™ for you, I guess...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 03:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Huh? I want YOU to tell me what a Christian is, and then we can argue. Every atheist on this thread has refused to do so other than to say it's what one self-professes to be. Demonstrably untrue... or won't they admit that prisoners in jail pretend to be Christians to lighten their debt to society. Right! Few atheists in prison because no one would ever say, "Oh! You've become an atheist now? Let's lighten your sentence and agree you are being rehabilitated..."

You can question their motives, but who are you to say whether they are or are not Christians? It is *not* you who gets to decide, not me either. I personally take it that if someone calls themselves a Christian that's good enough for me, but to be strict, you could say for example that someone who called themselves a Christian and then violated the common usage of the term (e.g. by worshiping Donald Duck instead of Jesus) is *not* a Christian.

Look, you're taking a population and you're dividing them into Christians and non-Christians using a criterion X. If a person does not satisfy criterion X then you can say that they are not a Christian, but if a person satisfies X, that's it. You can't then post-facto decide that you don't like them and pretend that they have to satisfy criterion Y as well in order to be Christian.

And the whole point of this discussion is that *you* don't get to decide criterion X. It is pre-existing, as the agreed consensus definition, which you do not control.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 03:29 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 03:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 03:06 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I see. You demonstrated that there are certainly cats among the pigeons, however few, by citing three sources 1) one PhD 2) Crossan who has been widely denounced for poor scholarship even more so than any blasphemous renderings of the text 3) yourself. Well, that's three scholars out of 30,000 worldwide, anyway.

I would counter that "magically" (which is saying a lot to a materialist!) YOU read in that it WASN'T a bodily resurrection, or isn't this clear enough for you FROM the Interpreter's Bible:

The
essence of the Christian faith concerning the
Resurrection, as it is set forth in the New
Testament, is not that Christ survived death
according to some general capacity for survival
inherent in the human soul as such, but rather
that God raised him up; that is to say, the
Resurrection was part of God's mighty act of
redemption to save mankind and establish his
kingdom.

Or perhaps you want your fellows here to understand that UNITED METHODIST PUBLISHING promulgated as a great new work that Jesus didn't bodily rise from the dead, that is, created what for Methodism would be an absolute apostasy and heresy?

Feel free to un-neg-rep me for I apologize for claiming you made up a translation of Matthew 28 when all you had done was quote a fringe scholar.

I'm aware of both the state of scholarship in the field and that the historical position from churched and un-churched scholars alike is that Jesus taught a bodily resurrection. You are doing your fellow atheists a disservice to say otherwise, after all, even today they are claiming Mark 16's ending was written to promulgate just such a theory...

"...SEE, HIS TOMB IS EMPTY BECAUSE HE HAD A NON-BODILY RESURRECTION."

Um, yeah, Bucky, that makes sense in English AND Greek. Not!

You've provided a number with not one name, or any reference as to how you cooked up that number. In light of the fact you MISREPRESENTED my posts, and are now a know LIAR, everything you say must be referenced how EXACTLY you know what their positions are. Crossan was thought of well enough to be asked to be in the Jesus Seminar. Were YOU asked ?

Are we suffering from early Dementia ?
My 3rd scholar was Bart Ehrman, you fucking fool.
Have a nice (albight deluded) day. Tongue

Sorry, which number, the 14% of Seminar scholars who were religious scholars?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 03:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 03:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Huh? I want YOU to tell me what a Christian is, and then we can argue. Every atheist on this thread has refused to do so other than to say it's what one self-professes to be. Demonstrably untrue... or won't they admit that prisoners in jail pretend to be Christians to lighten their debt to society. Right! Few atheists in prison because no one would ever say, "Oh! You've become an atheist now? Let's lighten your sentence and agree you are being rehabilitated..."

I really hope you're not serious with that tripe.

Were you genuinely trying to make the, ah, "argument" that, because there once was a person who professed insincere Christianity that all people who profess Christianity and disagree with you are therefore insincere?

Even you I would give slightly more credit than that. You then remain completely unable to account for those who actively disagree with you and your ilk on fundamental theological questions and yet see themselves as devoted and devout true believing Christians.

That's the tortured pretzel logic of a True Believer™ for you, I guess...

I was being facetious. Sorry about that.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 03:31 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 03:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 03:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  In my opinion, a true Christian ... does miracles...

O rly?

These "miracles" you speak of; are they, perhaps, of that singular mysterious kind that only ever occur in the testimony of the credulous, without direct confirmation, or indeed any reliable external evidence whatsoever?

I wonder why that is.

And then he can explain how they were any different from all the other miracles all the other miracle workers were thought to be doing at the time, and why any report from a population that was 5% literate should be given any credibility anyway.
Angel

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 03:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 03:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Huh? I want YOU to tell me what a Christian is, and then we can argue. Every atheist on this thread has refused to do so other than to say it's what one self-professes to be. Demonstrably untrue... or won't they admit that prisoners in jail pretend to be Christians to lighten their debt to society. Right! Few atheists in prison because no one would ever say, "Oh! You've become an atheist now? Let's lighten your sentence and agree you are being rehabilitated..."

You can question their motives, but who are you to say whether they are or are not Christians? It is *not* you who gets to decide, not me either. I personally take it that if someone calls themselves a Christian that's good enough for me, but to be strict, you could say for example that someone who called themselves a Christian and then violated the common usage of the term (e.g. by worshiping Donald Duck instead of Jesus) is *not* a Christian.

Look, you're taking a population and you're dividing them into Christians and non-Christians using a criterion X. If a person does not satisfy criterion X then you can say that they are not a Christian, but if a person satisfies X, that's it. You can't then post-facto decide that you don't like them and pretend that they have to satisfy criterion Y as well in order to be Christian.

And the whole point of this discussion is that *you* don't get to decide criterion X. It is pre-existing, as the agreed consensus definition, which you do not control.

I agree--NTS is about making a post facto criterion. Imagine how I felt as a new Christian, hearing about the Nazi "Christians" and then discovering in the Bible to love your neighbor as yourself, turn the other cheek, not to murder or one shows on has not the Spirit of God, etc. The Bible comes before the Nazis and is not making post facto judgments OF the Nazi butchers.

And yes, I don't HAVE to decide Criterion X but STILL await any atheist even ATTEMPTING to decide Criterion X.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: