New Christians Have A Voice

[JStorm]

Hey, this is actually one of those three things you mentioned back at the start of the thread, compassion. I hate to see people so far from what I like to call the truth.

And really, aren't they also acting like the end all.................

Me stating that your post was 'not cool' does not imply that I am without compassion.

I would expect the same from you, had I had a similar post. It's called accountability.

And your definition of the truth doesn't need to be spoken with that type of jest. You should speak with reverence and compassion, and allow the truth to do it's "cutting."


And really, aren't you suppose to act like an adult, and try to set an example instead of pointing blame.


I am not better, and hope that you take this post with a little understanding.

I'm sure you can find all sorts of statements I have made over my tenure that can be deemed 'unfit,' to some.

But I would never make light of one's beliefs and call the lost - 'lost' - as we understand it.

 

[Carcharodon]

As I said, you guys can say what you want but I took the challenge before, passed, so I'll leave it up to you to believe what you want. I'll just restate, if there's an answer to one, there could be answers to all.

That's terrible logic. It's not even logic. It's like logic's disowned, crack-addicted baby.

Rabbits don't chew cud. The bible clearly states that they do. Sorry, but it was clearly in error. I'll let you and your crack-addicted baby try to spin your way out of it, but it's ultimately impossible. So whatev. Spin away!

 

[rodhulk]

Sorry Kel. It is hard to when someone does not respect the other side enough to follow... you know... follow the lines of intelligent discussion

Just take this for example:



argumentum ad ignorantiam - "arguing from ignorance"



argumentum ad ignorantiam - "arguing from ignorance"

He's just continuously going in circles and making people angry through frustration. If anything it seems to provoke people.

Explain how this is ignorance when you knew the rules going in.

And my going in circles is because you're asking me questions that have the same answer(s).

Just so Kel will know since he's watching,

I made it clear that I'm not getting into a big discussion again on creation/evolution and I made my thoughts about creation and evolution very clear and simple ( I simply let people know what I'm looking for in evolution, that supposed missing link. That's my only interest in this creation/evolution thing now).

 

[Superhobo]

As I said, you guys can say what you want but I took the challenge before, passed, so I'll leave it up to you to believe what you want. I'll just restate, if there's an answer to one, there could be answers to all.

Dude, you didn't pass. Your 'explanation' was so riddled with bullet holes, Kirk Cameron himself wouldn't buy it.

WOULDN'T BUY IT.

 

[rodhulk]

That's terrible logic. It's not even logic. It's like logic's disowned, crack-addicted baby.

Rabbits don't chew cud. The bible clearly states that they do. Sorry, but it was clearly in error. I'll let you and your crack-addicted baby try to spin your way out of it, but it's ultimately impossible. So whatev. Spin away!

What it is is an answer to your question. You're just trying to stir the pot up but you know the answer is very clear.

 

[rodhulk]

Dude, you didn't pass. Your 'explanation' was so riddled with bullet holes, Kirk Cameron himself wouldn't buy it.

WOULDN'T BUY IT.

Read my above post. t:

 

[Gilpesh]

Explain how this is ignorance when you knew the rules going in.

And my going in circles is because you're asking me questions that have the same answer(s).

Just so Kel will know since he's watching,

I made it clear that I'm not getting into a big discussion again on creation/evolution and I made my thoughts about creation and evolution very clear and simple ( I simply let people know what I'm looking for in evolution, that supposed missing link. That's my only interest in this creation/evolution thing now).

Deeming all of evolution false because of a missing link. Is a logical fallacy. You cannot say something is false because we don't know something is true 100%. Conversely, because people haven't came up with proof that the bible is false... does not make the bible true.

Also you seem to be showing just a little of invincible ignorance, as people point out that the bible is not 100% true, and you just shrug it off to you already explained it and are not going into it again.

And you also said that evolution is not the only answer because many people are following creationism, which is another flaw in logic. Just because many people follow creationism does not make it true or evolution false.

 

[The Senator]

Dude, you didn't pass. Your 'explanation' was so riddled with bullet holes, Kirk Cameron himself wouldn't buy it.

WOULDN'T BUY IT.

Kirk Cameron was given to us on the eighth day, too-- and with good reason

 

[rodhulk]

Me stating that your post was 'not cool' does not imply that I am without compassion.

I would expect the same from you, had I had a similar post. It's called accountability.

And your definition of the truth doesn't need to be spoken with that type of jest. You should speak with reverence and compassion, and allow the truth to do it's "cutting."


And really, aren't you suppose to act like an adult, and try to set an example instead of pointing blame.


I am not better, and hope that you take this post with a little understanding.

I'm sure you can find all sorts of statements I have made over my tenure that can be deemed 'unfit,' to some.

But I would never make light of one's beliefs and call the lost - 'lost' - as we understand it.

Have you ever read how Jesus talked to many people in the Bible? Have you ever read how some of the apostles talked to some of the people in the Bible? I'm mild compared to them. If it offends you, sorry, but the Bible also warns that people will attack one who speaks the word of the Bible. Isn't this what you're doing to me right now?

 

[Superhobo]

What it is is an answer to your question. You're just trying to stir the pot up but you know the answer is very clear.

He's not trying to 'stir up the pot.' It IS faulty logic. Saying that all contradictions might be false when one is clearly staring you in the face is dumb.

 

[Superhobo]

Have you ever read how Jesus talked to many people in the Bible? Have you ever read how some of the apostles talked to some of the people in the Bible? I'm mild compared to them. If it offends you, sorry, but the Bible also warns that people will attack one who speaks the word of the Bible. Isn't this what you're doing to me right now?

I believe this dude is a biblical scholar, rodhulk. Or something similar.

So .


Also, maybe it's just me, but isn't the story of Creation the one that's most obviously rife with symbolism and metaphors?

 

[JStorm]

Have you ever read how Jesus talked to many people in the Bible?

Presumptuous and rude. I fling no hate your way; please give me the same courtesy.

Have you ever read how some of the apostles talked to some of the people in the Bible?

Again, presumptuous.

I'm mild compared to them. If it offends you, sorry, but the Bible also warns that people will attack one who speaks the word of the Bible. Isn't this what you're doing to me right now?

You feel as if I have 'attacked' you; for that, I am sorry.

However, I know I have not, and think everyone here would agree; for that, I am done with speaking to you.

Good night, and may we be on better terms another day.

 

[The Senator]

Have you ever read how Jesus talked to many people in the Bible? Have you ever read how some of the apostles talked to some of the people in the Bible? I'm mild compared to them. If it offends you, sorry, but the Bible also warns that people will attack one who speaks the word of the Bible. Isn't this what you're doing to me right now?

I'm sorry, but Jesus > you.

 

[rodhulk]

Deeming all of evolution false because of a missing link. Is a logical fallacy. You cannot say something is false because we don't know something is true 100%. Conversely, because people haven't came up with proof that the bible is false... does not make the bible true.

Also you seem to be showing just a little of invincible ignorance, as people point out that the bible is not 100% true, and you just shrug it off to you already explained it and are not going into it again.

And you also said that evolution is not the only answer because many people are following creationism, which is another flaw in logic. Just because many people follow creationism does not make it true or evolution false.

Where'd you get the "deeming all evolution false" from?

You must also understand that I have been challenged many times (mostly in converstaion outside of the Hype) on the Bible's accuracy. Since I've yet to find a flaw, there's no need to always go on and on about it (yes, there will be times that I will again, whether here on the Hype or not is irregardless), but at the moment, I don't feel it's necesary.

And don't forget also (from your last point), just because many people follow evolution doesn't make it true and creation false!

 

[rodhulk]

I'm sorry, but Jesus > you.

But who is Jesus with?

 

[rodhulk]

Presumptuous and rude. I fling no hate your way; please give me the same courtesy.


Again, presumptuous.



You feel as if I have 'attacked' you; for that, I am sorry.

However, I know I have not, and think everyone here would agree; for that, I am done with speaking to you.

Good night, and may we be on better terms another day.

I am only human and respond in that way.

In any case, have a great night and I gotta get going shortly too.

 

[rodhulk]

He's not trying to 'stir up the pot.' It IS faulty logic. Saying that all contradictions might be false when one is clearly staring you in the face is dumb.

But is it a contradiction or there there something else that you've missed.

 

[Superhobo]

But who is Jesus with?

 

[Gilpesh]

Where'd you get the "deeming all evolution false" from?

Throwing it out for creationism.

You must also understand that I have been challenged many times (mostly in converstaion outside of the Hype) on the Bible's accuracy. Since I've yet to find a flaw, there's no need to always go on and on about it (yes, there will be times that I will again, whether here on the Hype or not is irregardless), but at the moment, I don't feel it's necesary.

Ignoring the disproof doesn't equate to not finding a flaw. Also this again falls under the umbrella of, just because no one proves it is false does not make it automatically true.

And don't forget also (from your last point), just because many people follow evolution doesn't make it true and creation false!

Flamboyance doesn't make creation true either. So making it look like you've pointed out a mistake, doesn't mean you have actually pointed out a mistake.

 

[rodhulk]

I believe this dude is a biblical scholar, rodhulk. Or something similar.

So .


Also, maybe it's just me, but isn't the story of Creation the one that's most obviously rife with symbolism and metaphors?

The hardest book to understand in th ebible is Revelations. I find Genesis pretty simple in general.

Anyways, I'm off for the night. Try not to miss me!

 

[Superhobo]

But is it a contradiction or there there something else that you've missed.

'‘And the hare, because he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.’

 

[Tally Man]

But is it a contradiction or there there something else that you've missed.

Its a contradiction plain and simple.

 

[The Senator]

But who is Jesus with?

Well, I hope he isn't with religious bullies who blindly use his teachings to argue against those who don't believe in what he taught. Especially when those arguments are false to begin with.

And I think in a room full of his supporters, if it was a contest between a religious bully and a Biblical scholar, he'd probably pick the one who has been spending his life devoted to studying what he taught to stand with him.

 

[Carcharodon]

'‘And the hare, because he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.’

Its a contradiction plain and simple.

The most painful thing about this is that it's not a contradiction...that is, the bible doesn't contradict itself on the issue because it never goes on to say the opposite is true.

It's an outright fallacy. That's even worse than a contradiction. It stated something that just isn't true. Period. It's hilarious that somebody would try to defend against it. The non-literalists simply dismiss it, but it's the literalists that spin in circles trying to justify the mistake.

Getting back to the main topic: is that the problem? Do literalists have more of the Us vs. Them mentality that the author is describing?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

But who is Jesus with?

that matters not.
but if you want to get technical, it matters who's with Jesus.
the way you present it is as if Jesus was "backing you up" like some goon at your whim, that's terribly sinful of you to even imply such a thing, not to mention marvelously presumptuous.