Did Hitler win?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2014, 08:43 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 03:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 03:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I could, but if I was answering YOU then you would be de facto reneging on your assertion that we were using the wrong DEFINTION of miracles.

Pick one and stick to it, please.

Not at all. What were *seen* to be miracles were all natural events.
By all means ("I could", just like you "could discuss Greek" ... hahahahaha, sure you could, uh-huh)
go ahead. Facepalm

(Methinks this one doth bluster a tad too much).
I was wondering why someone would represent them-self as the Q, unless he actually was suffering also from :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect

Listen, we got off on the wrong foot here. I apologize. I would like to discuss your points from the Greek with you. I'm sure I would learn a lot. I'd ask only that we go a few points at a time because you put out a lot of points at once and my time is sometimes limited.

I always like to learn--but I do repeat that the Bible is clear on this point already. The Bible says Peter and John saw an empty tomb. Jesus had been buried in his sudarion and under pounds of spices. Seeing the empty cloth laying there, they believed in his bodily resurrection.

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
26-11-2014, 08:45 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 03:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I was being facetious. Sorry about that.

In which case the latter holds regardless.

You are in no position to dismiss the personal experience of others solely by virtue of your own personal experience. Whoops!

Guess you can't say who's a True Christian™ after all.

If your statement is true, then why do you dismiss Christians who say they have a relationship with God? You might respond because you are adding certain facts to their testimony. So do I, and I need and want to know who really is saved for a wide variety of reasons.

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
26-11-2014, 08:50 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 06:49 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 03:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  At least now, finally, we are on the issue. In my opinion, a true Christian is born again, does miracles and doesn't murder people. But that opinion is informed by the Bible. Just because a Nazi claims to be biblical doesn't mean he IS biblical. Put another way, I claim to have an opinion--that is correct!

Being a true Christian, I can even--sometimes--tell when one isn't a true Christian. Or put another way, it's really obnoxious, not just uninformed, for non-Christians to tell Christians what makes a Christian! But they do it ALL THE TIME to salve their consciences.

So, you're admitting that you cannot prove your personal rubric for determining the "true" Christians? Do you understand why anyone else with a differing opinion may find yours wrong, despite the fact that they, too, cannot prove theirs correct?

The problem is, the benchmarks you are using are nonfalsifiable, so it's impossible to prove whether or not your opinion is even correct. If you can't demonstrate why you're right, then you're arbitrarily deciding who is and isn't Christian on a hunch.


(25-11-2014 03:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  So how about you call an NTS on Bucky? BE CONSISTENT.

I haven't been reading Bucky's posts because we weren't addressing each other. I've been reading your posts.

A document used for a rule book isn't a hunch. The Bible contains tests and even uses words that are in English "testing". We don't answer quizzes on school on hunches, or at least we should not. We answer based on texts.

And I would repeat that you are being inconsistent to only accuse a Christian of NTS rather than yourself or others. Why yourself? Because if I am a True Christian, I can successfully identify the right criteria, and you are saying I cannot do so, and indeed that no one can do so. A person who calls a True Christian inaccurate in their knowledge of what a True Christian is is guilty of NTS!

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
26-11-2014, 08:52 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 08:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 03:32 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

And the Bible itself comes before the parts of the bible you list. Since much of the bible includes the Jewish old testament texts that have sections of God telling people to kill other people. Giving orders on how to tag people so you know they're slaves. It's got a whole lot of Nazi actions within it a new christian should be interested in seeing.

Are you familiar with Jewish apologetics for these things in the Old Testament? Why is it pinned to Christians? Because they believe both testaments are valid?

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
26-11-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 10:20 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 03:32 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

So you are saying that Moses, who was in direct contact both verbal and physical, did not have the "Spirit of God" ? 'Cuae he murdered a shit ton of dudes. Hell by that standard God does not have the "Spirit of God" cause he has murdered millions. God never turns the other cheek in the Bible, God never loved anyone as he does him self in the Old Testament that's for damn sure.

Well I mean hypothetically they both murdered shit tons of dudes, given that neither exists they technically haven't but for the sake of argument.

Moses killed an Egyptian before he first encountered G_d more than 40 years after. Whom did he murder after? And since when is one a ton?

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
26-11-2014, 08:56 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(25-11-2014 11:43 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We can all stop arguing as I have found a way to determine who is, and is not, a True Christian™.


Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


So as soon as Q can wrangle up all of the Christians and get them all to either perform cunnilingus with King Cobras or drink arsenic, then we can start weeding out all of the dead Christian pretenders...

Why this got 2 likes so far, I have no idea. I've admitted elsewhere recently we can omit the end of Mark from the Bible. Or do you disagree with most of the NT experts on this forum?

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
26-11-2014, 08:59 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(26-11-2014 08:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 03:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not at all. What were *seen* to be miracles were all natural events.
By all means ("I could", just like you "could discuss Greek" ... hahahahaha, sure you could, uh-huh)
go ahead. Facepalm

(Methinks this one doth bluster a tad too much).
I was wondering why someone would represent them-self as the Q, unless he actually was suffering also from :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect

Listen, we got off on the wrong foot here. I apologize. I would like to discuss your points from the Greek with you. I'm sure I would learn a lot. I'd ask only that we go a few points at a time because you put out a lot of points at once and my time is sometimes limited.

I always like to learn--but I do repeat that the Bible is clear on this point already. The Bible says Peter and John saw an empty tomb. Jesus had been buried in his sudarion and under pounds of spices. Seeing the empty cloth laying there, they believed in his bodily resurrection.

No. You don't know that at all.
The entire episode is surrounded by myth, (many others rising, (Matthew) the temple curtain being torn, the earthquake). In light of it's mythological setting, *what got written by humans many years later into the texts that ended up in the Bible*, (NOT "THE BIBLE SAYS"), tells of an encounter by two of the followers that insinuates that they experienced (metaphorically ... JUST LIKE THE OTHER METAPHORS IN THE SAME STORY), that the meaning of what they understood Jesus' life had been, had been altered. The Bible is FULL of the uses of literary devices. There is NO REASON not to think "the good news" is *metaphorically* attempting to say the event MEANT to them that Jesus was "exalted". You are interpreting something that is not necessarily there. You don't know
a. the motives of the authors of the text,
b. if the text at all contains any "truth" value, there is no way of knowing what they thought.

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
26-11-2014, 10:23 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(26-11-2014 08:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 11:43 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We can all stop arguing as I have found a way to determine who is, and is not, a True Christian™.


Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


So as soon as Q can wrangle up all of the Christians and get them all to either perform cunnilingus with King Cobras or drink arsenic, then we can start weeding out all of the dead Christian pretenders...

Why this got 2 likes so far, I have no idea. I've admitted elsewhere recently we can omit the end of Mark from the Bible. Or do you disagree with most of the NT experts on this forum?


Hey oblivious fuckwad!

The point isn't the passage's supposed authenticity, because if we're going by any degree of 'authenticity' then all of the anonymously written Gospels would be rightly tossed out the fucking window. It's meant to illustrate, once again, just how fundamentally flawed it is to even attempt to exclude others from your True Christianity™. Because as far as they're concerned, all of the Appalachian Pentecostals are True Christians™ according to their own standards, and us atheists are just standing there on the sidelines laughing at your entirely futile pissing contest.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 10:27 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(26-11-2014 08:45 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 03:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  In which case the latter holds regardless.

You are in no position to dismiss the personal experience of others solely by virtue of your own personal experience. Whoops!

Guess you can't say who's a True Christian™ after all.

If your statement is true, then why do you dismiss Christians who say they have a relationship with God? You might respond because you are adding certain facts to their testimony. So do I, and I need and want to know who really is saved for a wide variety of reasons.

Like you dismiss all those German Christians in Nazi Germany? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(26-11-2014 08:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And I would repeat that you are being inconsistent to only accuse a Christian of NTS rather than yourself or others. Why yourself? Because if I am a True Christian, I can successfully identify the right criteria, and you are saying I cannot do so, and indeed that no one can do so. A person who calls a True Christian inaccurate in their knowledge of what a True Christian is is guilty of NTS!

Oh, for fuck's sake. You keep reiterating your No True Scotsmen Fallacy because either you are utterly incapable of honest self appraisal or you still don't understand the fallacy you are committing.

There is no objective basis for who is or isn't a Christian(let alone a True Christian™), unlike there being objective criteria for being a Scotsman.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: