"Jane, you ignorant slut!"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2013, 02:46 PM
RE: "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
(22-10-2013 02:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 01:52 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We'll see. You can also find numerous threads where I ask a game-changing question of BB and the thread sits forever awaiting his reply. I'd pay money to debate him in an auditorium in public...

Salvation (as a paradigm), was not original to Christianity.
The fight over salvation by faith or works, went on for centuries, starting with the the early church. The individual peccadilloes are not important. They got the concept of salvation from culture, not the other way around.

BB:

I appreciate your desire to set the facts straight, but not the pedant's view that you need to explain every trifle of Christian and Jewish history to me. I have a Bachelor's in Religion from a secular university. I know the history of faith v. works. I know the Bible weighs in on the issue, and I know it's stance.

Salvation by trusting God/Jesus by faith (and I'd be happy to give you verses from both testaments if that helps) IS original to the Bible. You are saying it was via works because you want to refute my refutation of your comment.

I've also stated in response to your opine that the Bible offers nothing new, nothing of value, how:

*it contains scientific accuracies--you don't want to discuss those, indeed no one here at The Lost World does, you only want to discuss scientific inaccuracies, such as the statement "the sun rises in the East" which is a true statement in context, is wrong--we can find bizarre inaccuracies in the Hindu scriptures or the Noble Qu'ran but not in the scriptures... again, not looking to hear the sames ones again from the "original thinkers" online here, but merely requesting to look at the accuracies

*of the 600-plus Torah laws, over 200 of them have direct health benefit

*the language, poetry and prose of the scriptures is unparalleled in every way is part of the world's zeitgeist and thought

That's for a start. Why bother more, though, since you'll just cherry pick what I've written here to suit you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 02:49 PM
RE: "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
(22-10-2013 02:13 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  PJ, you missed other possibilities such as:

Societal norms force people into certain beliefs a la the Emperor's new clothes
People have been brainwashed into thinking something they really haven't seen

But this is like arguing with a rock. You refuse to produce any evidence with some twisted worldview that the skeptic needs to produce the evidence supporting extraordinary claims.

Yes on societal norms. Yes on brainwashing as logical possibilities, for BOTH atheists and theists.

There really isn't anything that can be said of substance here, except to note, perhaps, that scientism, by definition, disallows any tools we could possibly attempt to use in metaphysics.

How many PhDs believe in God, in spirituality, in metaphysics as reality? How many of the above do NOT and still allow for things they don't yet comprehend in their experience/paradigm to be possible? How many PhDs trust that quantum physics implies extraordinary possibilities for time and a metaverse(s) beyond this known universe?

When you come right down to it, atheists as a class may not be full of hot air, but those who aren't agnostic about it, are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
(22-10-2013 02:46 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 02:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Salvation (as a paradigm), was not original to Christianity.
The fight over salvation by faith or works, went on for centuries, starting with the the early church. The individual peccadilloes are not important. They got the concept of salvation from culture, not the other way around.

BB:

I appreciate your desire to set the facts straight, but not the pedant's view that you need to explain every trifle of Christian and Jewish history to me. I have a Bachelor's in Religion from a secular university. I know the history of faith v. works. I know the Bible weighs in on the issue, and I know it's stance.

Salvation by trusting God/Jesus by faith (and I'd be happy to give you verses from both testaments if that helps) IS original to the Bible. You are saying it was via works because you want to refute my refutation of your comment.

I've also stated in response to your opine that the Bible offers nothing new, nothing of value, how:

*it contains scientific accuracies--you don't want to discuss those, indeed no one here at The Lost World does, you only want to discuss scientific inaccuracies, such as the statement "the sun rises in the East" which is a true statement in context, is wrong--we can find bizarre inaccuracies in the Hindu scriptures or the Noble Qu'ran but not in the scriptures... again, not looking to hear the sames ones again from the "original thinkers" online here, but merely requesting to look at the accuracies

*of the 600-plus Torah laws, over 200 of them have direct health benefit

*the language, poetry and prose of the scriptures is unparalleled in every way is part of the world's zeitgeist and thought

That's for a start. Why bother more, though, since you'll just cherry pick what I've written here to suit you?

You MISSED the point, or attempt to evade it. No one cares where you went to school. Salvation was NOT a part of Hebrew culture before the apocalyptic period, and even then it did not mean what it means today.

But nice try. I'm not interested in doing a fundie debate about irrelevant shit. The Torah laws CAME from culture, they did not GIVE them to culture. Again you missed the POINT. There is nothing "different" about the language, poetry, and prose of your Babble. You have established NO criteria for that, or demonstrated that, and actually you are incompetent to judge that, with that degree.

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
22-10-2013, 03:18 PM
RE: "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
(22-10-2013 02:13 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  You refuse to produce any evidence with some twisted worldview that the skeptic needs to produce the evidence supporting extraordinary claims.

Well yes. That's how he rolls.

Burden of proof is something for other people.

Claiming not to see something apparently requires special knowledge, but claiming to see something need not be substantiated.

If genocide is a-okay on God's say-so, whatever objection might He have to dishonesty, evasion, conflation, ignorance, misrepresentation, backhanded insults, and good old fashioned unctuous disingenuousness?

(22-10-2013 02:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  How many PhDs...

Vacuous appeal to authority and popularity. How compelling.

(22-10-2013 03:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You MISSED the point, or attempt to evade it.

Ding ding ding.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 10:57 AM
RE: "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
(22-10-2013 03:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 02:46 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  BB:

I appreciate your desire to set the facts straight, but not the pedant's view that you need to explain every trifle of Christian and Jewish history to me. I have a Bachelor's in Religion from a secular university. I know the history of faith v. works. I know the Bible weighs in on the issue, and I know it's stance.

Salvation by trusting God/Jesus by faith (and I'd be happy to give you verses from both testaments if that helps) IS original to the Bible. You are saying it was via works because you want to refute my refutation of your comment.

I've also stated in response to your opine that the Bible offers nothing new, nothing of value, how:

*it contains scientific accuracies--you don't want to discuss those, indeed no one here at The Lost World does, you only want to discuss scientific inaccuracies, such as the statement "the sun rises in the East" which is a true statement in context, is wrong--we can find bizarre inaccuracies in the Hindu scriptures or the Noble Qu'ran but not in the scriptures... again, not looking to hear the sames ones again from the "original thinkers" online here, but merely requesting to look at the accuracies

*of the 600-plus Torah laws, over 200 of them have direct health benefit

*the language, poetry and prose of the scriptures is unparalleled in every way is part of the world's zeitgeist and thought

That's for a start. Why bother more, though, since you'll just cherry pick what I've written here to suit you?

You MISSED the point, or attempt to evade it. No one cares where you went to school. Salvation was NOT a part of Hebrew culture before the apocalyptic period, and even then it did not mean what it means today.

But nice try. I'm not interested in doing a fundie debate about irrelevant shit. The Torah laws CAME from culture, they did not GIVE them to culture. Again you missed the POINT. There is nothing "different" about the language, poetry, and prose of your Babble. You have established NO criteria for that, or demonstrated that, and actually you are incompetent to judge that, with that degree.

Have you read the NT beyond googling bits of it for classroom "studies"? Do you know how foolish it sounds to argue that there was no Hebraic concept of salvation to a people who were keeping endless laws and rituals and praying to enter God's book of life on Yom Kippur when the NT arrived and became so widely distributed among Jews and their proselytes that the first few hundred thousand Christians were Jews and their Gentile proselytes?

News flash AGAIN: I'm 100% aware that Jewish people after they separated from the Christian sect utterly, trivialized away the literal readings of the HB, moved more towards Talmudic practice and belief, and denied concepts of individual salvation.

But the Hebrew people were rife with the concept when Messiah came to the world. Your point is moot.

**

As for asserting that the Torah laws, all 613 of them, came from culture rather than the scriptures, I'd love to see your empirical evidence for same and/or your refutation of how it was that over 200 of them have a direct health benefit, and many of the others reciprocal and economic benefit for individuals and the nation. Remission of debt? Freedom and purity? Sounds better than Obamacare by far.

BB: Learn from me--saying "I have no desire to argue fundy stuff with you" is a way of restating "I can't win the argument". You are right, there...!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 11:00 AM
RE: "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
(22-10-2013 03:18 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 02:13 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  You refuse to produce any evidence with some twisted worldview that the skeptic needs to produce the evidence supporting extraordinary claims.

Well yes. That's how he rolls.

Burden of proof is something for other people.

Claiming not to see something apparently requires special knowledge, but claiming to see something need not be substantiated.

If genocide is a-okay on God's say-so, whatever objection might He have to dishonesty, evasion, conflation, ignorance, misrepresentation, backhanded insults, and good old fashioned unctuous disingenuousness?

(22-10-2013 02:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  How many PhDs...

Vacuous appeal to authority and popularity. How compelling.

(22-10-2013 03:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You MISSED the point, or attempt to evade it.

Ding ding ding.

Not a vacuous appeal. My point is refuting BB's constant "but mainline scholars agree that...." Mainline scholars agree GOD EXISTS.

You all on this forum as freethinkers are also constantly citing scholastic authorities as smoking gun proofs for your doctrines. Mainline scholars agree GOD EXISTS and although many are mere deists or agnostics, they likewise trivialize atheist delusions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 11:37 AM
RE: "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
(23-10-2013 10:57 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Have you read the NT beyond googling bits of it for classroom "studies"? Do you know how foolish it sounds to argue that there was no Hebraic concept of salvation to a people who were keeping endless laws and rituals and praying to enter God's book of life on Yom Kippur when the NT arrived and became so widely distributed among Jews and their proselytes that the first few hundred thousand Christians were Jews and their Gentile proselytes?

Irrelevant. We're talking about the OT.

(23-10-2013 10:57 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  But the Hebrew people were rife with the concept when Messiah came to the world. Your point is moot.

Your new catch phrase today I see. "Moot". LOL Prove it.
Assertion is proof of nothing.

(23-10-2013 10:57 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  As for asserting that the Torah laws, all 613 of them, came from culture rather than the scriptures, I'd love to see your empirical evidence for same and/or your refutation of how it was that over 200 of them have a direct health benefit, and many of the others reciprocal and economic benefit for individuals and the nation. Remission of debt? Freedom and purity? Sounds better than Obamacare by far.

Nice try at deflection. It doesn't matter if they got them "from scripture". Scripture GOT THEM from culture. There is NOT ONE you can demonstrate, (whatever it benefit, where ever they got it), that was NOT already in culture, (which proves no "divine" or unique origin). Freedom, and internal and external "purity" predated any Biblical notion of that in Zoroastrianism, and multiple other cultures, by thousand s of years. Fail again.

(23-10-2013 10:57 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  BB: Learn from me--saying "I have no desire to argue fundy stuff with you" is a way of restating "I can't win the argument". You are right, there...!

Nice try. I don't debate "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".
There IS no argument to be won. Your premise is false.
It would make more sense to argue how many tea pots are orbiting the sun.

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
23-10-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
(23-10-2013 11:37 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 10:57 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Have you read the NT beyond googling bits of it for classroom "studies"? Do you know how foolish it sounds to argue that there was no Hebraic concept of salvation to a people who were keeping endless laws and rituals and praying to enter God's book of life on Yom Kippur when the NT arrived and became so widely distributed among Jews and their proselytes that the first few hundred thousand Christians were Jews and their Gentile proselytes?

Irrelevant. We're talking about the OT.

(23-10-2013 10:57 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  But the Hebrew people were rife with the concept when Messiah came to the world. Your point is moot.

Your new catch phrase today I see. "Moot". LOL Prove it.
Assertion is proof of nothing.

(23-10-2013 10:57 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  As for asserting that the Torah laws, all 613 of them, came from culture rather than the scriptures, I'd love to see your empirical evidence for same and/or your refutation of how it was that over 200 of them have a direct health benefit, and many of the others reciprocal and economic benefit for individuals and the nation. Remission of debt? Freedom and purity? Sounds better than Obamacare by far.

Nice try at deflection. It doesn't matter if they got them "from scripture". Scripture GOT THEM from culture. There is NOT ONE you can demonstrate, (whatever it benefit, where ever they got it), that was NOT already in culture, (which proves no "divine" or unique origin). Freedom, and internal and external "purity" predated any Biblical notion of that in Zoroastrianism, and multiple other cultures, by thousand s of years. Fail again.

(23-10-2013 10:57 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  BB: Learn from me--saying "I have no desire to argue fundy stuff with you" is a way of restating "I can't win the argument". You are right, there...!

Nice try. I don't debate "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".
There IS no argument to be won. Your premise is false.
It would make more sense to argue how many tea pots are orbiting the sun.

Are we talking about the OT? Because it says in 109 verses a reference to the Hebrew word salvation, which word in English is arguably etymologically derived from the OT.

Yet though YOU date the OT and TALMUD late, you still don't realize that means you have NO documents proving your assertions, no empirical evidence! If there are no documents extant before the late post-exilic period, and you date the OT to just before Christ's time, where in the world did you get the notion that the Hebrews didn't believe in salvation before the HEBREWS wrote the OT! Weeping

Of course I can continue to give examples of benefits in the scriptures and unique twists in the HB not found elsewhere. You're just being a grumpy atheist, is all. And you're also full of nonsense. WHAT CULTURE TOLD PEOPLE NOT TO COVET WITH THEIR MINDS--that they could be guilty before god of a mental, not physical, transgression! 10th commandment of Exodus 20.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 02:59 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2013 03:28 PM by Losty.)
RE: "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
(24-09-2013 01:25 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Jane usually began her reply with "Dan [Aykroyd], you pompous ass..."

AGAIN today on threads (yawn!) I was told I was ignorant and "to take a community course in logic", etc.

My observation is that I've now been told several hundred times by "the gang" that I'm stupid and ignorant and would understand the skeptic's perspective best if I came into the light of [modern] knowledge. Yet not one time have any of you said "PJ, you'd really understand why your X is wrong and my Y is right if you were more loving... more gentle... more compassionate..."

My $0.02. Flame retardant gear now worn.

"But the wisdom from above is first of all pure. It is also peace loving, gentle at all times, and willing to yield to others. It is full of mercy and good deeds. It shows no favoritism and is always sincere." - James 3:17

How will being loving, gentle, or compassionate help you to understand facts?
Those are all great qualities to have and by all means work on being more loving, gentle, and compassionate if you feel you need to. It will help you to be a good person, but it will not help you to understand facts. The notion seems silly to me.

That's just crazy talk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 02:12 PM
RE: "Jane, you ignorant slut!"
(23-10-2013 02:59 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 01:25 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Jane usually began her reply with "Dan [Aykroyd], you pompous ass..."

AGAIN today on threads (yawn!) I was told I was ignorant and "to take a community course in logic", etc.

My observation is that I've now been told several hundred times by "the gang" that I'm stupid and ignorant and would understand the skeptic's perspective best if I came into the light of [modern] knowledge. Yet not one time have any of you said "PJ, you'd really understand why your X is wrong and my Y is right if you were more loving... more gentle... more compassionate..."

My $0.02. Flame retardant gear now worn.

"But the wisdom from above is first of all pure. It is also peace loving, gentle at all times, and willing to yield to others. It is full of mercy and good deeds. It shows no favoritism and is always sincere." - James 3:17

How will being loving, gentle, or compassionate help you to understand facts?
Those are all great qualities to have and by all means work on being more loving, gentle, and compassionate if you feel you need to. It will help you to be a good person, but it will not help you to understand facts. The notion seems silly to me.

That's just crazy talk

Because truth is more than facts. It is facts plus perception and may be received. When a lover tells you they love you, whether or not you love them in return, should you respond with invective or gently?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: