The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Bible states no one is

Quote:
Bible states no one is held responsible for what they didn't know was wrong.

WRONG and just the opposite.

If Adam and Eve as the MYTH! goes, didn't know eating the fruit would cause them death, then it can only be called a trap by the standard you claim above because they did get punished in the MYTH, for something outside their knowledge and beyond their control.

It would have been more fair if before Adam and Even in the MYTH! God merely didn't make an arbitrary statement "just dont do that", and said, "Ok guys, what rules do you want to pound out for yourselves"?

God set up the game and the rules without their consent and gave them no opportunity to have a say before hand. I am reading the same words and same book you are and there is no logical consistency to the statement I quoted you above when faced with what plays out in that MYTH!

Otherwise they wouldn't have gotten kicked out of the garden.

It is a myth and a horrible myth that teaches blind obedience and ignorance as a virtue, which is what Adam and Eve had to do to stay in line and even knowing they didn't know better still punishes them.

The truth is that ignorance is exactly what that story teaches you to value. As soon as they got knowledge in that story they got punished for it. In reality knowledge is what helps humanity to move forward. That story and that horrible book teaches you to value ignorance and despise knowledge. FROM PAGE ONE

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Bible

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Bible states no one is held responsible for what they didn't know was wrong.

WRONG and just the opposite.

If Adam and Eve as the MYTH! goes, didn't know eating the fruit would cause them death, then it can only be called a trap by the standard you claim above because they did get punished in the MYTH, for something outside their knowledge and beyond their control.

It would have been more fair if before Adam and Even in the MYTH! God merely didn't make an arbitrary statement "just dont do that", and said, "Ok guys, what rules do you want to pound out for yourselves"?

God set up the game and the rules without their consent and gave them no opportunity to have a say before hand. I am reading the same words and same book you are and there is no logical consistency to the statement I quoted you above when faced with what plays out in that MYTH!

Otherwise they wouldn't have gotten kicked out of the garden.

It is a myth and a horrible myth that teaches blind obedience and ignorance as a virtue, which is what Adam and Eve had to do to stay in line and even knowing they didn't know better still punishes them.

The truth is that ignorance is exactly what that story teaches you to value. As soon as they got knowledge in that story they got punished for it. In reality knowledge is what helps humanity to move forward. That story and that horrible book teaches you to value ignorance and despise knowledge. FROM PAGE ONE

 

There are all manner of verses concerning sins of ignorance. God doesn't let them off the hook.

What is it with Christians not reading their Bible?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Brian37

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Bible states no one is held responsible for what they didn't know was wrong.

WRONG and just the opposite.

If Adam and Eve as the MYTH! goes, didn't know eating the fruit would cause them death, then it can only be called a trap by the standard you claim above because they did get punished in the MYTH, for something outside their knowledge and beyond their control.

It would have been more fair if before Adam and Even in the MYTH! God merely didn't make an arbitrary statement "just dont do that", and said, "Ok guys, what rules do you want to pound out for yourselves"?

God set up the game and the rules without their consent and gave them no opportunity to have a say before hand. I am reading the same words and same book you are and there is no logical consistency to the statement I quoted you above when faced with what plays out in that MYTH!

Otherwise they wouldn't have gotten kicked out of the garden.

It is a myth and a horrible myth that teaches blind obedience and ignorance as a virtue, which is what Adam and Eve had to do to stay in line and even knowing they didn't know better still punishes them.

The truth is that ignorance is exactly what that story teaches you to value. As soon as they got knowledge in that story they got punished for it. In reality knowledge is what helps humanity to move forward. That story and that horrible book teaches you to value ignorance and despise knowledge. FROM PAGE ONE

 

There are all manner of verses concerning sins of ignorance. God doesn't let them off the hook.

What is it with Christians not reading their Bible?

Lets not accuse Caposkia of that, I am quite sure he has, although most don't.

I merely argue his interpretation bias and the logical inconsistencies it brings up when he makes claims about his interpretation.

It is illogical by the story both in motif and as written, to claim it was fair when it was clearly rigged. God did not in that MYTH give them a choice. He set up the garden and allowed the tree to be put in when he didn't have to and then punishes them for gaining knowledge above and beyond all else a sick thing for any society to value ignorance and mandate it as a litmus test to stay in the club. It would be a laughable joke if people didn't literally believe that it could be good morals to value ignorance.

It is both a scientific absurdity in which he can only cop out to metaphor, and a morally corrupt story that sells the idea of remaining stupid is a good thing.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jcgadfly

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Bible states no one is held responsible for what they didn't know was wrong.

WRONG and just the opposite.

If Adam and Eve as the MYTH! goes, didn't know eating the fruit would cause them death, then it can only be called a trap by the standard you claim above because they did get punished in the MYTH, for something outside their knowledge and beyond their control.

It would have been more fair if before Adam and Even in the MYTH! God merely didn't make an arbitrary statement "just dont do that", and said, "Ok guys, what rules do you want to pound out for yourselves"?

God set up the game and the rules without their consent and gave them no opportunity to have a say before hand. I am reading the same words and same book you are and there is no logical consistency to the statement I quoted you above when faced with what plays out in that MYTH!

Otherwise they wouldn't have gotten kicked out of the garden.

It is a myth and a horrible myth that teaches blind obedience and ignorance as a virtue, which is what Adam and Eve had to do to stay in line and even knowing they didn't know better still punishes them.

The truth is that ignorance is exactly what that story teaches you to value. As soon as they got knowledge in that story they got punished for it. In reality knowledge is what helps humanity to move forward. That story and that horrible book teaches you to value ignorance and despise knowledge. FROM PAGE ONE

 

There are all manner of verses concerning sins of ignorance. God doesn't let them off the hook.

What is it with Christians not reading their Bible?

Lets not accuse Caposkia of that, I am quite sure he has, although most don't.

I merely argue his interpretation bias and the logical inconsistencies it brings up when he makes claims about his interpretation.

It is illogical by the story both in motif and as written, to claim it was fair when it was clearly rigged. God did not in that MYTH give them a choice. He set up the garden and allowed the tree to be put in when he didn't have to and then punishes them for gaining knowledge above and beyond all else a sick thing for any society to value ignorance and mandate it as a litmus test to stay in the club. It would be a laughable joke if people didn't literally believe that it could be good morals to value ignorance.

It is both a scientific absurdity in which he can only cop out to metaphor, and a morally corrupt story that sells the idea of remaining stupid is a good thing.

 

 

I will agree that Cap likely reads his Bible but I will say that he seems highly selective in his reading. Why else would he claim a God that holds people blameless for sins of ignorance when his words clearly state otherwise?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Brian37

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Bible states no one is held responsible for what they didn't know was wrong.

WRONG and just the opposite.

If Adam and Eve as the MYTH! goes, didn't know eating the fruit would cause them death, then it can only be called a trap by the standard you claim above because they did get punished in the MYTH, for something outside their knowledge and beyond their control.

It would have been more fair if before Adam and Even in the MYTH! God merely didn't make an arbitrary statement "just dont do that", and said, "Ok guys, what rules do you want to pound out for yourselves"?

God set up the game and the rules without their consent and gave them no opportunity to have a say before hand. I am reading the same words and same book you are and there is no logical consistency to the statement I quoted you above when faced with what plays out in that MYTH!

Otherwise they wouldn't have gotten kicked out of the garden.

It is a myth and a horrible myth that teaches blind obedience and ignorance as a virtue, which is what Adam and Eve had to do to stay in line and even knowing they didn't know better still punishes them.

The truth is that ignorance is exactly what that story teaches you to value. As soon as they got knowledge in that story they got punished for it. In reality knowledge is what helps humanity to move forward. That story and that horrible book teaches you to value ignorance and despise knowledge. FROM PAGE ONE

 

There are all manner of verses concerning sins of ignorance. God doesn't let them off the hook.

What is it with Christians not reading their Bible?

Lets not accuse Caposkia of that, I am quite sure he has, although most don't.

I merely argue his interpretation bias and the logical inconsistencies it brings up when he makes claims about his interpretation.

It is illogical by the story both in motif and as written, to claim it was fair when it was clearly rigged. God did not in that MYTH give them a choice. He set up the garden and allowed the tree to be put in when he didn't have to and then punishes them for gaining knowledge above and beyond all else a sick thing for any society to value ignorance and mandate it as a litmus test to stay in the club. It would be a laughable joke if people didn't literally believe that it could be good morals to value ignorance.

It is both a scientific absurdity in which he can only cop out to metaphor, and a morally corrupt story that sells the idea of remaining stupid is a good thing.

 

 

I will agree that Cap likely reads his Bible but I will say that he seems highly selective in his reading. Why else would he claim a God that holds people blameless for sins of ignorance when his words clearly state otherwise?

The reason is quite simple. He is in complete denial that holding his position is not based on being logically consistent, his position is based on purely his desire for this claimed god to be real. As soon as he faces that he will understand what we know he is doing.

This is what all believers of all labels inflict themselves with. As soon as he realizes why he rightfully rejects the claims of others the same way we reject his claims, he'll understand.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
I think it's time to repeat this...

Arguing scripture is a waste of time and bandwidth.
There are only two questions a theist needs to answer.
Can you give evidence for any invisible, intangible sentient beings with magical powers?
Can you give evidence that any part of the consciousness survives the physical death of the brain?

Scripture, revelation and opinion are just farts in a whirlwind... Unless they can answer EITHER of these questions, nothing they say has any validity or purpose.

LC >;-}>


 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Arguing

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Arguing scripture is a waste of time and bandwidth.
There are only two questions a theist needs to answer.
Can you give evidence for any invisible, intangible sentient beings with magical powers?
Can you give evidence that any part of the consciousness survives the physical death of the brain?

Scripture, revelation and opinion are just farts in a whirlwind... Unless they can answer EITHER of these questions, nothing they say has any validity or purpose.

LC >;-}>


 

I am with you on that. It is pissing in the wind really because there are thousands of god/s and millions of "interpretations"  even with the same holy books.

Until ANYONE CAN, which they cannot, but until anyone of any label can prove empirically that a thought can exist outside biological evolution, I'll default to the most likely probable answer that humans have always made up god/s/deities/ super natural as a mere reflection of their own human attributes and desires.

But if they do want to drag me into their comic book, I will rip it to shreds as the fraud it is.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:When they are

Brian37 wrote:

When they are not by consent in a rigged game, and the person who doesn't know better wouldn't do it if they did know better, then yea, that is entrapment. Just like calling hunting a sport when all it is is a fucking trick is entrapment.

The Bible says you're not responsible for what you don't know... unlike the laws of the United States, where if you're in this country, you're expected to know and if you didn't... well... too bad.   Same with most other countries.   which one is really entrapment here?  

Brian37 wrote:

Dress up in cammies, spray yourself with deer pee, stay quiet with your scope rifle covered by the local foliage and the deer will eventually be tempted by what they think is the smell of a female. You set up the game in hunting. If the deer had the same knowledge of the hunter and didn't want to die, it would, if it still wanted a shot at what it thought was the female deer, would want it's own weapons to defend itself.

Adam and Eve were pawns in a bet rigged by the god character.

resources please.  I don't see the correlation with your example.

Brian37 wrote:

Laws in reality in civil society are by consent, not based on a bet or a trick and most certainly can be changed if those who want to change them care to make the effort. What choice did Adam and Eve have in that game or the bet between God/Satan?

God's laws are by consent as well... you have the choice of being a part of it or not.  Just like most laws, they're put in place to better life.  

What choice did Adam and Eve have... hmm.. to eat or not to eat... 

Lemme ask you this... If I told you that if you did X with something I created, you'll die and suffer a bit before you die... then someone else who did not create it came along and told you I was a liar, what would you do?  Would you try X anyway, clearly knowing that avoiding X altogether would not have any negative consequences regardless of what you've been told?  

I'll bet you would, then you'd be pissed at me despite the fact that I made the consequences clear to you from the start.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Again,

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Again, source please..... if you say the Bible then I think you need to reread it.

You already have the source. The bible is your comic book, not mine.

I'll just leave my previous quote in this post...

Brian37 wrote:

I have read it, you have read it too. The only difference is that I accept it as the comic book it is and you don't.

regardless of whether you think it's a comic book or not,  right now you're telling me that tofu is Superman's weakness.  I think you missed a few key aspects of the story

Brian37 wrote:

The head character "God" is a non material thinking entity despite the scientific fact that we know that thinking only happens in the context of biological evolution.

STRIKE ONE

You can prove that?  despite the proof of signalless communication?  Yes, there are lab tests, look it up.  As far as you know the only way we can detect thought is thorough a biological process... this in no way proves that thought requires biology.   It's like me telling you that your favorite radio station is actually just built into every radio and not actually picked up by waves in the air.  You'd have no means of proving to me that these waves exist except by the means of an instrument that can pick those waves up and turn them into something I can physically experience. 

 

Bowled a strike

Brian37 wrote:

And that is even before you get to page one.

Genesis is the mother load of bullshit, by itself. Adult women popping out of a man's rib. The sun and moon being created more than once and on top of that being treated as separate sources of light.

STRIKE TWO

What's the Hebrew word used in Genesis for "popping"?  My Bible doesn't have that and I need to cross reference.  

As far as the author was concerned, they were 2 separate sources of light... lemme give you any peice of information that's beyond your comprehension... and let's pretend for a moment you'd actually consider it important enough to write down, you're going to write it in a way that you can explain it and not the literal understanding of it.  Same applies here.

Bowled 2 in a row, going for Turkey!

Brian37 wrote:

 

The only back peddle you have is metaphor "words don't mean what they mean", forgetting or willfully ignoring when that comic book was written by scientifically inept people.

STRIKE THREE,

Words don't mean what they mean?  who said that... I'm telling you the English translation of the Hebrew words may not be the same, which loses contextual value at times depending... 

In other words, for your second part.... the only way the bible can be fact is if it was written by scientifically inept people?   Inept to what extent btw?  To 20th/21 century standards?  Who's living a fantasy world now?  

TURKEY!  brhm... that was a bowling reference... not actually calling you turkey... well... then again....

Brian37 wrote:

Then you try to use the claptrap of "metaphysics" as if it can be taught along side entropy and mitosis when you know damned well it is no where close.

so... only consider a narrow aspect of science to be fact... got it.  Why discover truth... belief in your own understanding of life is much easier... I get it.

Brian37 wrote:

And then you ignore that if another claimant of another pet god used the same arguments you are trying to make here, you would RIGHTFULLY reject their pet god.

LIGHTS OUT! GAME OVER!

 

I love how you seem to think these are such slam dunk arguements... as if they first of all are  congruent with everything I said (which they're not) or actually hold up if researched...  nice try... play again?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:God's laws are by

Quote:
God's laws are by consent as well.

BULLSHIT

Can I compete for this god's office and position? Can I have a say in what rules we obey? Can I have him recalled in an election or removed from his office?

You damned well know and defend the concept of your fictional super hero being the absolute final arbitrator.

God set up the game and God is the only law giver.

Just like a abusive man gives his wife "consent".

They can "consent" to stay and live or "consent" and be punished.

There is absolutely no logical or moral rational to claim a being with a final say as providing consent.

You know damned well by your belief that if I don't "consent" I will pay a price.

Please tell me how I have any say in a game I cant compete to set the rules to?

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:No, I'm

jcgadfly wrote:

No, I'm telling you that the concept of sin as hammartia ("missing God's mark&quotEye-wink is unworkable as no one can hit God's mark. Now if you looked at sin as "willfully breaking the known laws of God", the answer is more obvious. I wouldn't rob the bank because I wouldn't break the known laws of man for a less than noble purpose.

alright, then we're on the same page.  So ultimately you're saying that none or even few of Gods' laws can be willfully avoided?  I'm interested in seeing a list of the laws that you feel we can't choose to avoid... not that we don't slip up... granted some of them are easier to break than going to rob a bank, but then again, do you exceed the speedlimit on the road because it was out of your control?  Try telling that one to the cops.

jcgadfly wrote:

If you are like most modern Pauline Christians and look at God's law as non-existent because of Christ's grace (you can't break laws that don't apply to you), you have to decide whether robbing the bank, asking forgiveness and getting God's absolution is worth breaking man's law and being punished for it.

Right, that categorization... if that's what Pauline Christians believe then I don't agree.    All the laws apply to us... Christ only fulfilled them, not voided them.  We are responsible for all the laws that we've broken that we have not repented of... in other words, if we are trying not to break them, the penalty is covered.  It's one thing to say you're trying not to, it's another thing to actually make the effort.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Bible

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Bible states no one is held responsible for what they didn't know was wrong.

WRONG and just the opposite.

Romans 2:12;  "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law."  

Zondervan footnote to Romans 2:12;  "...God judges according to the light available to people.  Gentiles will not be condemned for not obeying a Law they did not possess...."

Soooo.... strike 1

Brian37 wrote:

If Adam and Eve as the MYTH! goes, didn't know eating the fruit would cause them death, then it can only be called a trap by the standard you claim above because they did get punished in the MYTH, for something outside their knowledge and beyond their control.

Genesis 2:17; "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you whall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" 

This implies they understood the concept of death... the further deception of Satan further implies there understanding, otherwise he wouldn't have had to convince them that they wouldn't die.  He'd only have to convince them that death is a good thing.  

Strike 2

Brian37 wrote:

 

It would have been more fair if before Adam and Even in the MYTH! God merely didn't make an arbitrary statement "just dont do that", and said, "Ok guys, what rules do you want to pound out for yourselves"?

now you're looking like an idiot... I'll give you a freebee here.

Strike 2 still

Brian37 wrote:

God set up the game and the rules without their consent and gave them no opportunity to have a say before hand. I am reading the same words and same book you are and there is no logical consistency to the statement I quoted you above when faced with what plays out in that MYTH!

how much concent does a Baby have to the rules of the house they were born into?  I'm guess you're implying they are asked beforehand if they agree before being born into that particular house right?  

Brian37 wrote:

Otherwise they wouldn't have gotten kicked out of the garden.

you're sure?!

Brian37 wrote:

It is a myth and a horrible myth that teaches blind obedience and ignorance as a virtue, which is what Adam and Eve had to do to stay in line and even knowing they didn't know better still punishes them.

The truth is that ignorance is exactly what that story teaches you to value. As soon as they got knowledge in that story they got punished for it. In reality knowledge is what helps humanity to move forward. That story and that horrible book teaches you to value ignorance and despise knowledge. FROM PAGE ONE

 

They weren't punished for gaining knowledge, they were punished for disobeying God... 

STrike 3, you're out

BTW, it's not written, but there are theories on the tree of knowledge... these are that God had a plan to reveal that knowledge to them in time, otherwise, what would be the point of putting the tree in the garden?  

I hope you're not a father... would you teach your kids the birds and the bees as soon as they could comprehend a conversation?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:There are all

jcgadfly wrote:

There are all manner of verses concerning sins of ignorance. God doesn't let them off the hook.

What is it with Christians not reading their Bible?

Ignorance and not at all knowing are 2 different things... I would love to discuss those verses with you though. 

just because you dont' know "The Law" doesn't mean you're not giong to be judged period... there are always standards by which someone is judged... Romans talks about the understanding of Law by what's in your heart... do you kill your neighbor just because you never heard a law written that told you that it was wrong?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

No, I'm telling you that the concept of sin as hammartia ("missing God's mark&quotEye-wink is unworkable as no one can hit God's mark. Now if you looked at sin as "willfully breaking the known laws of God", the answer is more obvious. I wouldn't rob the bank because I wouldn't break the known laws of man for a less than noble purpose.

alright, then we're on the same page.  So ultimately you're saying that none or even few of Gods' laws can be willfully avoided?  I'm interested in seeing a list of the laws that you feel we can't choose to avoid... not that we don't slip up... granted some of them are easier to break than going to rob a bank, but then again, do you exceed the speedlimit on the road because it was out of your control?  Try telling that one to the cops.

jcgadfly wrote:

If you are like most modern Pauline Christians and look at God's law as non-existent because of Christ's grace (you can't break laws that don't apply to you), you have to decide whether robbing the bank, asking forgiveness and getting God's absolution is worth breaking man's law and being punished for it.

Right, that categorization... if that's what Pauline Christians believe then I don't agree.    All the laws apply to us... Christ only fulfilled them, not voided them.  We are responsible for all the laws that we've broken that we have not repented of... in other words, if we are trying not to break them, the penalty is covered.  It's one thing to say you're trying not to, it's another thing to actually make the effort.  

Remember when you typed this "The basis for sin is falling short.?

I assumed that you meant "of God's standard". If that is the case then you claim that everyone sins and that you have no choice in the matter. If that's not the case, please tell me what you meant so we'll both know. That way you can stop projecting your position  onto me.

I cited the Wesleyan/Arminian standard which requires willful intent and knowledge of God's law. In that view, sin can be avoided. In the view you espouse it can't.

Not sure exactly what is meant by Christ fulfilled the law. All I see is that Christians aren't bound by it as long as they have one more prayer for forgiveness than broken law.

Why would you mention "if you're trying not to break the laws" when your position is that you have no choice but to break the laws (be it by thought, word or action)?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Arguing

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Arguing scripture is a waste of time and bandwidth.
There are only two questions a theist needs to answer.
Can you give evidence for any invisible, intangible sentient beings with magical powers?
Can you give evidence that any part of the consciousness survives the physical death of the brain?

Scripture, revelation and opinion are just farts in a whirlwind... Unless they can answer EITHER of these questions, nothing they say has any validity or purpose.

LC >;-}

Been asked that many times... have answered that in many ways and from that I've learned to answer both with "what are you looking for?"

I can answer yes to both, but if you're looking for me to bring you to a lab, put a thought under a microscope or tune it in to your FM radio, then the answer is no...

There are millions of claimed eye witnesses around the world of physically separated consciousnesses... there are also many claims of that that are false... Do some false claims deem all claims false?  

The Bible is understood by believers to be evidence for this invisible, intangible sentient being with as you would say "magical powers"... this evidence includes eye-witness accounts and stories that explain experiences with such beings.  

Unfortunately, this always results in your waste of time and bandwith which is a discussion of scripture and why it is or is not valid.  

There are also miracles of God claimed around the world... how many?  don't know for sure, i couldn't tell you how many are true and how many aren't and how many were from other metaphysical sources.  Documentation?  I have referenced the Vatican, but this doens't mean I believe in what they believe, only that I accept their means of research into the miracle claims.  

So, with that said, what say you... what exactly would you be looking for for "evidence" of either?  Pick one for now.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:But if they do

Brian37 wrote:

But if they do want to drag me into their comic book, I will rip it to shreds as the fraud it is.

tehehh.. yea, cause you've proven you're capable of that over the years.  (sarcasm intended)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:God's

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
God's laws are by consent as well.

BULLSHIT

Can I compete for this god's office and position? Can I have a say in what rules we obey? Can I have him recalled in an election or removed from his office?

can you do that with your parents as a child?  

jcgadfly wrote:

You damned well know and defend the concept of your fictional super hero being the absolute final arbitrator.

same as your parents would be

jcgadfly wrote:

God set up the game and God is the only law giver.

Just like a abusive man gives his wife "consent".

They can "consent" to stay and live or "consent" and be punished.

I did not consent to having no sweets before bedtime, but when I did, I was punished for it... was that wrong of my parents to do?  Guess they owe me a big fat apology

jcgadfly wrote:

There is absolutely no logical or moral rational to claim a being with a final say as providing consent.

You know damned well by your belief that if I don't "consent" I will pay a price.

just as any child would who does wrong in their house with good attentive parents.

jcgadfly wrote:

Please tell me how I have any say in a game I cant compete to set the rules to?

life's a game to you?

 With God you can choose to follow him and his laws or not.  Your punishment at death from what I believe and understand is simply separation from God, not hellfire like most religions would make it out to be... though the understanding is that complete separation from God is hell.  

It's like you telling your parents at age 4, I quit being your kid and running away... you realize after running away, you've got no food, no shelter, no place to live and no one making sure you're safe... life is hell without your parents.  Did they choose in this scenario to take food away from you, or to not give you a roof or not look after you? no, you chose to leave.  Are they at fault for your suffering and is it their fault that you can't find your way back home after running? (this scenario is assuming that you literally ran away and that they did not just let you go... just in case you were gonig to try to pull that tangent)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
God's laws are by consent as well.

BULLSHIT

Can I compete for this god's office and position? Can I have a say in what rules we obey? Can I have him recalled in an election or removed from his office?

can you do that with your parents as a child?  

jcgadfly wrote:

You damned well know and defend the concept of your fictional super hero being the absolute final arbitrator.

same as your parents would be

jcgadfly wrote:

God set up the game and God is the only law giver.

Just like a abusive man gives his wife "consent".

They can "consent" to stay and live or "consent" and be punished.

I did not consent to having no sweets before bedtime, but when I did, I was punished for it... was that wrong of my parents to do?  Guess they owe me a big fat apology

jcgadfly wrote:

There is absolutely no logical or moral rational to claim a being with a final say as providing consent.

You know damned well by your belief that if I don't "consent" I will pay a price.

just as any child would who does wrong in their house with good attentive parents.

jcgadfly wrote:

Please tell me how I have any say in a game I cant compete to set the rules to?

life's a game to you?

 With God you can choose to follow him and his laws or not.  Your punishment at death from what I believe and understand is simply separation from God, not hellfire like most religions would make it out to be... though the understanding is that complete separation from God is hell.  

It's like you telling your parents at age 4, I quit being your kid and running away... you realize after running away, you've got no food, no shelter, no place to live and no one making sure you're safe... life is hell without your parents.  Did they choose in this scenario to take food away from you, or to not give you a roof or not look after you? no, you chose to leave.  Are they at fault for your suffering and is it their fault that you can't find your way back home after running? (this scenario is assuming that you literally ran away and that they did not just let you go... just in case you were gonig to try to pull that tangent)

Wow Cap,

First you project your position concerning sin on me then you put another's words in my mouth...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Remember when

jcgadfly wrote:

Remember when you typed this "The basis for sin is falling short.?

I assumed that you meant "of God's standard". If that is the case then you claim that everyone sins and that you have no choice in the matter. If that's not the case, please tell me what you meant so we'll both know. That way you can stop projecting your position  onto me.

where have I projected... i only tell you what I understand... you can do with that information what you will

basis for sin is falling short, which is an imperfection, in reference to sin, it would be to God's standard, but then the standard is according to what you know.  If you know the Law, the standard is to the Law, if not, the standard is another level.  

How is it that if sin is falling short, then you dont' have a choice... do you have a choice to act on things you know?  if so, then sin is a choice.  

jcgadfly wrote:

I cited the Wesleyan/Arminian standard which requires willful intent and knowledge of God's law. In that view, sin can be avoided. In the view you espouse it can't.

yea, you misunderstood my view then... I agree with the Wesleyan/Arminian standard in this instance.

jcgadfly wrote:

Not sure exactly what is meant by Christ fulfilled the law. All I see is that Christians aren't bound by it as long as they have one more prayer for forgiveness than broken law.

Why would you mention "if you're trying not to break the laws" when your position is that you have no choice but to break the laws (be it by thought, word or action)?

You always have a choice.  fulfilled is taken on the penalty of breaking the law, though the law stands, seeking forgiveness for breaking the law does not require the same thing as once was required.  

When did I quote" you have no choice but to break the laws?"  I did mention that the people when the laws were written were not capable of keeping them and God knew that, but did that mean they had no choice?  They could have also chosen to tell God that they were not capable and God (by understanding through scripture) would have helped them.  

It's like putting choice into an alcoholics hands... I think anyone could say they have a choice to drink every time they have an opportunity to, but the question is are they capable of choosing not to when the oppotunity comes?  and does incapability negate choice?  Could they still choose not to in some instances and not in others?  Where does capability and choice draw a line?  Is there a line? ... and did the alcoholic always have no capability or is it a trained state of mind?  In other words, the choice is always there, but the more you choose one way, the harder it is to choose another way.  

My point is that it's not that we don't have a choice, it's that we may have trained our minds into thinking we don't have a choice deeming ourselves incapable of not breaking that law.  

Then going back to the alcoholic... is the alcoholic then NOT responsible for his/her actions due to the fact that they were incapable of making an appropriate choice?  I think we both know the answer to that.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
God's laws are by consent as well.

BULLSHIT

Can I compete for this god's office and position? Can I have a say in what rules we obey? Can I have him recalled in an election or removed from his office?

can you do that with your parents as a child?  

jcgadfly wrote:

You damned well know and defend the concept of your fictional super hero being the absolute final arbitrator.

same as your parents would be

jcgadfly wrote:

God set up the game and God is the only law giver.

Just like a abusive man gives his wife "consent".

They can "consent" to stay and live or "consent" and be punished.

I did not consent to having no sweets before bedtime, but when I did, I was punished for it... was that wrong of my parents to do?  Guess they owe me a big fat apology

jcgadfly wrote:

There is absolutely no logical or moral rational to claim a being with a final say as providing consent.

You know damned well by your belief that if I don't "consent" I will pay a price.

just as any child would who does wrong in their house with good attentive parents.

jcgadfly wrote:

Please tell me how I have any say in a game I cant compete to set the rules to?

life's a game to you?

 With God you can choose to follow him and his laws or not.  Your punishment at death from what I believe and understand is simply separation from God, not hellfire like most religions would make it out to be... though the understanding is that complete separation from God is hell.  

It's like you telling your parents at age 4, I quit being your kid and running away... you realize after running away, you've got no food, no shelter, no place to live and no one making sure you're safe... life is hell without your parents.  Did they choose in this scenario to take food away from you, or to not give you a roof or not look after you? no, you chose to leave.  Are they at fault for your suffering and is it their fault that you can't find your way back home after running? (this scenario is assuming that you literally ran away and that they did not just let you go... just in case you were gonig to try to pull that tangent)

Wow Cap,

First you project your position concerning sin on me then you put another's words in my mouth...

ugh, I had caught that once before... sorry, this was Brian's posts.  I'll see if I can still fix that...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
 nope, too late..

 nope, too late..


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:  God's

caposkia wrote:

 

 

God's laws are by consent as well... you have the choice of being a part of it or not.  .....

What choice did Adam and Eve have... hmm.. to eat or not to eat... 

 

                                I think I see the connection now.   Having the ability to choose is also the ability to sin.  It's so simple even an atheist can understand it.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: nope, too

caposkia wrote:

 nope, too late..

I had a feeling it was an error but it's happened to me a lot lately so I apologize for the snippiness.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:They weren't punished

Quote:
They weren't punished for gaining knowledge, they were punished for disobeying God...

Bullshit again.

If God didn't care about them having knowledge then why put the tree there and then tell them WITHOUT their prior knowledge and allow them to eat from it knowing what they would get from it? If knowledge was not punishable the tree would have been there in the first place without the arbitrary rule and god would have welcomed them to eat from it.

It is not a real story. It is a literary device the writers used to instill obedience because obedience to the tribal kings was a social norm at that time.

It reflects the tribal kingship's attitude that "I will feed you and keep you well as long as you don't question me or compete with me".

 The tree motif is a literary device reflecting the litmus test of loyalty tribes and kings demanded of their subjects at the time. It is part of the divine family motif in the Canaanite polytheism as well.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Remember when you typed this "The basis for sin is falling short.?

I assumed that you meant "of God's standard". If that is the case then you claim that everyone sins and that you have no choice in the matter. If that's not the case, please tell me what you meant so we'll both know. That way you can stop projecting your position  onto me.

where have I projected... i only tell you what I understand... you can do with that information what you will

basis for sin is falling short, which is an imperfection, in reference to sin, it would be to God's standard, but then the standard is according to what you know.  If you know the Law, the standard is to the Law, if not, the standard is another level.  

How is it that if sin is falling short, then you dont' have a choice... do you have a choice to act on things you know?  if so, then sin is a choice.  

jcgadfly wrote:

I cited the Wesleyan/Arminian standard which requires willful intent and knowledge of God's law. In that view, sin can be avoided. In the view you espouse it can't.

yea, you misunderstood my view then... I agree with the Wesleyan/Arminian standard in this instance.

jcgadfly wrote:

Not sure exactly what is meant by Christ fulfilled the law. All I see is that Christians aren't bound by it as long as they have one more prayer for forgiveness than broken law.

Why would you mention "if you're trying not to break the laws" when your position is that you have no choice but to break the laws (be it by thought, word or action)?

You always have a choice.  fulfilled is taken on the penalty of breaking the law, though the law stands, seeking forgiveness for breaking the law does not require the same thing as once was required.  

When did I quote" you have no choice but to break the laws?"  I did mention that the people when the laws were written were not capable of keeping them and God knew that, but did that mean they had no choice?  They could have also chosen to tell God that they were not capable and God (by understanding through scripture) would have helped them.  

It's like putting choice into an alcoholics hands... I think anyone could say they have a choice to drink every time they have an opportunity to, but the question is are they capable of choosing not to when the oppotunity comes?  and does incapability negate choice?  Could they still choose not to in some instances and not in others?  Where does capability and choice draw a line?  Is there a line? ... and did the alcoholic always have no capability or is it a trained state of mind?  In other words, the choice is always there, but the more you choose one way, the harder it is to choose another way.  

My point is that it's not that we don't have a choice, it's that we may have trained our minds into thinking we don't have a choice deeming ourselves incapable of not breaking that law.  

Then going back to the alcoholic... is the alcoholic then NOT responsible for his/her actions due to the fact that they were incapable of making an appropriate choice?  I think we both know the answer to that.

It's not the choice as much as the standard one is held against. God can't live up to his standard (Bible is replete with examples of this) but will punish us for it.

"no choice but to break the laws" was when you were flipping back to your original "falling short of God's standard" position. This is why I sometimes wonder what position you actually hold (or do you hold both simultaneously?). 

Alcoholism is a poor example as a genetic predisposition to the condition has been shown to exist. One could easily say that God made some people alcoholics as part of his plan. He has a choice to drink or not but he's always going to be an alcoholic.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 nope, too late..

I had a feeling it was an error but it's happened to me a lot lately so I apologize for the snippiness.

It's fine, my fault all the way.  I've done that a few times.  i get caught up in replying from one response to the next and I forget to recopy the new name.   I'll try to be more conscious about it.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Bullshit

Brian37 wrote:

Bullshit again.

I could tell you an orange is orange and you'd still cry bullshit.  Do you see why I can't take you seriously?

Brian37 wrote:

If God didn't care about them having knowledge then why put the tree there and then tell them WITHOUT their prior knowledge and allow them to eat from it knowing what they would get from it? If knowledge was not punishable the tree would have been there in the first place without the arbitrary rule and god would have welcomed them to eat from it.

Brian... i think you need to stop trying to look for problems and start reading the replies to your posts... if I reply to this we will once again be getting redundant... trying to avoid that with you.

Simply I'm saying I've already responded to this... reread please.

Brian37 wrote:

It is not a real story. It is a literary device the writers used to instill obedience because obedience to the tribal kings was a social norm at that time.

source please

Brian37 wrote:

It reflects the tribal kingship's attitude that "I will feed you and keep you well as long as you don't question me or compete with me".

...and yet the Bible teaches that you should always question what you think you know...

wait... I bet I know your response before you even say it... Bullshit right.  yea.  It snows in the winter too.  Bullshit. 

Brian37 wrote:

 The tree motif is a literary device reflecting the litmus test of loyalty tribes and kings demanded of their subjects at the time. It is part of the divine family motif in the Canaanite polytheism as well.

Source please

...and just so you don't think I'm being sarcastic, I ask for sources so I can further research the claim.  The 2 places I asked for sources you made what sounds to me like a factual claim... those claims must have sources.  I'll be glad to discuss those statements with you after reviewing the sources.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It's not the

jcgadfly wrote:

It's not the choice as much as the standard one is held against. God can't live up to his standard (Bible is replete with examples of this) but will punish us for it.

God is the creator and lawmaker.  He is consistent on living up to His standard, however be it that he has created the laws and the environment where they are established, he can also carry out the consequences of breaking the laws, just as any judge can do with us... Murder is wrong, but a judge can sentence people to death... does that mean the judge is just as bad as the murderer? 

jcgadfly wrote:

"no choice but to break the laws" was when you were flipping back to your original "falling short of God's standard" position. This is why I sometimes wonder what position you actually hold (or do you hold both simultaneously?). 

did I actually quote that and say you have no choice or was it in context with convincing your mind that you have no choice?  As far as I remember, I have held the position that we always have a choice, but your state of mind determines what choice you will make and whether you think you have a choice or not... I never held the position that we don't have a choice.   If I conveyed that somehow, I'm sorry, I must have worded my explanation wrong.

jcgadfly wrote:

Alcoholism is a poor example as a genetic predisposition to the condition has been shown to exist. One could easily say that God made some people alcoholics as part of his plan. He has a choice to drink or not but he's always going to be an alcoholic.

going back to the state of mind.  One is always an alcoholic because the brain recognizes the stimulant and craves it.  To get to that point, one has to train their brain.  Granted it's easier for some and harder for others, but I don't hold to the idea that God creates people to be alcoholics. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It's not the choice as much as the standard one is held against. God can't live up to his standard (Bible is replete with examples of this) but will punish us for it.

God is the creator and lawmaker.  He is consistent on living up to His standard, however be it that he has created the laws and the environment where they are established, he can also carry out the consequences of breaking the laws, just as any judge can do with us... Murder is wrong, but a judge can sentence people to death... does that mean the judge is just as bad as the murderer? 

jcgadfly wrote:

"no choice but to break the laws" was when you were flipping back to your original "falling short of God's standard" position. This is why I sometimes wonder what position you actually hold (or do you hold both simultaneously?). 

did I actually quote that and say you have no choice or was it in context with convincing your mind that you have no choice?  As far as I remember, I have held the position that we always have a choice, but your state of mind determines what choice you will make and whether you think you have a choice or not... I never held the position that we don't have a choice.   If I conveyed that somehow, I'm sorry, I must have worded my explanation wrong.

jcgadfly wrote:

Alcoholism is a poor example as a genetic predisposition to the condition has been shown to exist. One could easily say that God made some people alcoholics as part of his plan. He has a choice to drink or not but he's always going to be an alcoholic.

going back to the state of mind.  One is always an alcoholic because the brain recognizes the stimulant and craves it.  To get to that point, one has to train their brain.  Granted it's easier for some and harder for others, but I don't hold to the idea that God creates people to be alcoholics. 

1. Might makes right, huh? Does it always come down to that with Christianity? And yes, murder is murder (whether it is done by criminal, cop or government. Just because something is sanctioned does not make it right.

2. You wrote "the basis of sin is falling short". Did I make a mistake on what you claimed people were falling short of? Did I read "There is none righteous. No not one" incorrectly? 

3. Genetic predispositions to alcoholism stand against you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. Might

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Might makes right, huh? Does it always come down to that with Christianity? And yes, murder is murder (whether it is done by criminal, cop or government. Just because something is sanctioned does not make it right.

Well, I agree with you there, that just because something is sanctioned does not make it right.

Might makes right?  Just becasue you don't understand why something happened doesn't mean it was wrong.  Murder is hard to define when you have control of life and death completely... In other words, everyone who dies isn't dead and can come alive again... if that's the case, is it still murder? 

God is referred to as "The Father"  this reference is to give a perspective of a parent looking out for their children.  From a Children's perspective, no matter how much the parent is in the right, their choice could still be considered wrong.  Does that make the parents choice wrong?  The same applies with God... we as Christians understand that God knows best for us and due to the fact that He has created everything including us and knows the ins and outs of all of it, AND that he hasn't changed who He is or his expectations from day 1, we have no reason to doubt his choices are just and right. 

Just to avoid hypotheticals in this example, we're assuming all things considered, there was something done wrong by a child and the parents punishment and reaction was right despite the fact that the child's perspective that it was wrong. 

It's funny how you can mistake trust and understanding for "might makes right".  Nice try though. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. You wrote "the basis of sin is falling short". Did I make a mistake on what you claimed people were falling short of? Did I read "There is none righteous. No not one" incorrectly? 

It seems you understood that correctly, but how are you going to try to twist this?  

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Genetic predispositions to alcoholism stand against you.

By those standards I should be an alcoholic then.  I know a few other people who defy the "genetic predispositions" as well.  That is evidence that despite what genetics say about what someone might become by action, it is not set in stone.  If you look into the definition it talks about how genetics "influence"... not determine... there are also environmental factors among others.  That in no way determines an outcome nor what someone will become. 

genetic predispositions are usually used to determine a persons likelihood of getting a particular disease like cancers later in life.   Not whether they will abuse alcohol.  I had said it's harder for some people and easier for others.  This was kind of a nod in the direction of Genetic predispositions. 

I am kind of glad you brought that up becasue now we can go back to how your actions influence your children and childrens' children through this same study... I remember there was a disagreement about that a while back. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Paul vs. Gospels

BTW, weren't we going to try to start a new thread discussing the differences between Paul's perspective and the Gospels?

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BTW, weren't

caposkia wrote:

BTW, weren't we going to try to start a new thread discussing the differences between Paul's perspective and the Gospels?

 

Absolutely not. 

The writers of the Gospels were converts of Paul's. 

Now, Paul vs. Jesus' religion we could do - right now I'm in the midst of writing a play.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BTW, weren't

caposkia wrote:

BTW, weren't we going to try to start a new thread discussing the differences between Paul's perspective and the Gospels?

 

I am sure that there are people willing to get into that debate in a separate thread, but with what you offer it would be like Star Trec fans arguing over Klingon language verb translation.

How do you expect any of us to argue your zombie god claim when Jesus fans of all stripes cant agree on their own book? Much less provide evidence that human flesh can survive rigor mortis.

"Poof" may be good language translation for you, but it sucks for the rest of us.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

BTW, weren't we going to try to start a new thread discussing the differences between Paul's perspective and the Gospels?

 

Absolutely not. 

The writers of the Gospels were converts of Paul's. 

Now, Paul vs. Jesus' religion we could do - right now I'm in the midst of writing a play.

Either way, you're the one that had mentioned it.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:caposkia

Brian37 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

BTW, weren't we going to try to start a new thread discussing the differences between Paul's perspective and the Gospels?

 

I am sure that there are people willing to get into that debate in a separate thread, but with what you offer it would be like Star Trec fans arguing over Klingon language verb translation.

How do you expect any of us to argue your zombie god claim when Jesus fans of all stripes cant agree on their own book? Much less provide evidence that human flesh can survive rigor mortis.

"Poof" may be good language translation for you, but it sucks for the rest of us.

 

I'm not the one who originally suggested the idea.  I was just checking.  I offer researched reasoning and evidence.  What's true is true whether you want to accept it or not... What you suggest would happen wtih me is more like debating the best color to wear.  Subjective, not objective.  I know that's the approach you prefer, but I don't like subjective approaches.  It never brings progress or resolution to the problem.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

BTW, weren't we going to try to start a new thread discussing the differences between Paul's perspective and the Gospels?

 

I am sure that there are people willing to get into that debate in a separate thread, but with what you offer it would be like Star Trec fans arguing over Klingon language verb translation.

How do you expect any of us to argue your zombie god claim when Jesus fans of all stripes cant agree on their own book? Much less provide evidence that human flesh can survive rigor mortis.

"Poof" may be good language translation for you, but it sucks for the rest of us.

 

I'm not the one who originally suggested the idea.  I was just checking.  I offer researched reasoning and evidence.  What's true is true whether you want to accept it or not... What you suggest would happen wtih me is more like debating the best color to wear.  Subjective, not objective.  I know that's the approach you prefer, but I don't like subjective approaches.  It never brings progress or resolution to the problem.

No, in the entire almost 5 year history of this thread, you offered the author of a book, bible quotes and metaphysics. None of that is evidence.

Yes you do like subjective approaches because it conveniently leads to your pet god claim. So what, the arguments other people of other pet god claims do that too.

Again, if a Muslim or Jew were to argue  metaphysics you would NOT become a Muslim or a Jew. Not that metaphysics is a science, IT IS NOT. And I wouldn't care if you were arguing metaphysics to prove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn.

Objective is what is taught to all people scientifically. DNA and entropy and evolution as studies do not require belief in the god of Jesus, or Allah, or Vishnu nor is knowledge of the claptrap of metaphysics required to learn or study the science I mentioned.

Your end goal is to convince us that the god of the bible is the one true god. That is subjective, just like when a Muslim tries to show me pictures of red Nebulas while quoting the Koran as proof of Allah.

If you had anything, you could take it to REAL scientists no matter what their personal claims are and demonstrate it to them, not simply claim it here. Their races, national backgrounds and or religion would not matter. You could hand it over to them and they would come up with the same findings you did, if your methodology and formulas and data had merit.

You merely show me what every person with a pet god does, retrofit their personal desires to suit their personal superstition.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No, in the

Brian37 wrote:

No, in the entire almost 5 year history of this thread, you offered the author of a book, bible quotes and metaphysics. None of that is evidence.

Nice try... check again

Brian37 wrote:

Yes you do like subjective approaches because it conveniently leads to your pet god claim. So what, the arguments other people of other pet god claims do that too.

No, subjective approaches bother me, especially when people think they're "logical reasoning".  Subjective is subjective no matter how you put it. 

Nice try again... strike 2

Brian37 wrote:

Again, if a Muslim or Jew were to argue  metaphysics you would NOT become a Muslim or a Jew. Not that metaphysics is a science, IT IS NOT. And I wouldn't care if you were arguing metaphysics to prove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn.

No, likely I wouldn't because metaphysics only supports the idea of God... which we would both agree on.  It has nothing to do with the perspective of God. 

If you really want to argue metaphysics a not a science, then you might want to start a new thread.  There's a good discussion about how it also contributed to the implication of the scientific method, one of which you seem to favor.

Brian37 wrote:

Objective is what is taught to all people scientifically. DNA and entropy and evolution as studies do not require belief in the god of Jesus, or Allah, or Vishnu nor is knowledge of the claptrap of metaphysics required to learn or study the science I mentioned.

you obviously know nothing about metaphysics.. you've really got to do your homework before you talk... you again look like an idiot. 

Brian37 wrote:

Your end goal is to convince us that the god of the bible is the one true god. That is subjective, just like when a Muslim tries to show me pictures of red Nebulas while quoting the Koran as proof of Allah.

You're now deciding my end goal?  Interesting.  Are you saying you believe in a higher power, but not my God?  if so, tell me now, becasue our conversation needs to go into a completely different direction.  Otherwise, your conclusion is subjective in and of itself.

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you had anything, you could take it to REAL scientists no matter what their personal claims are and demonstrate it to them, not simply claim it here. Their races, national backgrounds and or religion would not matter. You could hand it over to them and they would come up with the same findings you did, if your methodology and formulas and data had merit.

well I would... but it's already been done.  It's not fair to take others work and claim it as my own... it's also illegal.

Brian37 wrote:
You merely show me what every person with a pet god does, retrofit their personal desires to suit their personal superstition.

 

Show me specifically where.  You make so many claims, but when someone backs you into a corner and demands you to back yourself up, you're stuck.  I would probably shit my pants literally if you actually did come back with something substantial to any of your claims. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

No, in the entire almost 5 year history of this thread, you offered the author of a book, bible quotes and metaphysics. None of that is evidence.

Nice try... check again

Brian37 wrote:

Yes you do like subjective approaches because it conveniently leads to your pet god claim. So what, the arguments other people of other pet god claims do that too.

No, subjective approaches bother me, especially when people think they're "logical reasoning".  Subjective is subjective no matter how you put it. 

Nice try again... strike 2

Brian37 wrote:

Again, if a Muslim or Jew were to argue  metaphysics you would NOT become a Muslim or a Jew. Not that metaphysics is a science, IT IS NOT. And I wouldn't care if you were arguing metaphysics to prove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn.

No, likely I wouldn't because metaphysics only supports the idea of God... which we would both agree on.  It has nothing to do with the perspective of God. 

If you really want to argue metaphysics a not a science, then you might want to start a new thread.  There's a good discussion about how it also contributed to the implication of the scientific method, one of which you seem to favor.

Brian37 wrote:

Objective is what is taught to all people scientifically. DNA and entropy and evolution as studies do not require belief in the god of Jesus, or Allah, or Vishnu nor is knowledge of the claptrap of metaphysics required to learn or study the science I mentioned.

you obviously know nothing about metaphysics.. you've really got to do your homework before you talk... you again look like an idiot. 

Brian37 wrote:

Your end goal is to convince us that the god of the bible is the one true god. That is subjective, just like when a Muslim tries to show me pictures of red Nebulas while quoting the Koran as proof of Allah.

You're now deciding my end goal?  Interesting.  Are you saying you believe in a higher power, but not my God?  if so, tell me now, becasue our conversation needs to go into a completely different direction.  Otherwise, your conclusion is subjective in and of itself.

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you had anything, you could take it to REAL scientists no matter what their personal claims are and demonstrate it to them, not simply claim it here. Their races, national backgrounds and or religion would not matter. You could hand it over to them and they would come up with the same findings you did, if your methodology and formulas and data had merit.

well I would... but it's already been done.  It's not fair to take others work and claim it as my own... it's also illegal.

Brian37 wrote:
You merely show me what every person with a pet god does, retrofit their personal desires to suit their personal superstition.

 

Show me specifically where.  You make so many claims, but when someone backs you into a corner and demands you to back yourself up, you're stuck.  I would probably shit my pants literally if you actually did come back with something substantial to any of your claims. 

You will have no fucking clue what I am getting at until you debate theists of other pet god claims. Debate a Muslim or Jew for as long as you have us atheists for 5 years in this thread. We have a Jew here. I am sure that she could argue her superstition and claim science as well as you have.

What neither of you have is evidence of a non material thinking entity.

You should be shitting your pants, but you don't because reality is just as foreign to you as any Jew or Muslim because defending a sugar pill is more important to all of you than accepting reality.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: You will

Brian37 wrote:

 

You will have no fucking clue what I am getting at until you debate theists of other pet god claims.

I do and have... you really think Atheists are the only ones i talk to???? hm... interesting.

Brian37 wrote:

Debate a Muslim or Jew for as long as you have us atheists for 5 years in this thread. We have a Jew here. I am sure that she could argue her superstition and claim science as well as you have.

I'm sure she could... I'm also sure I would agree with pretty much everything she says on a science front.  Our disagreements would come on messiah claims.

Brian37 wrote:

What neither of you have is evidence of a non material thinking entity.

Is that so... every time we've gone there you start barking at the gate as if you can bite the person on the other side... The only problem is, you're all bark and no bite.  When you start backing your own claims up, then we can talk about "evidence" and what might be and might not be.

Brian37 wrote:

You should be shitting your pants, but you don't because reality is just as foreign to you as any Jew or Muslim because defending a sugar pill is more important to all of you than accepting reality.

I knew my underwear was safe...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Ah... just waited to see if

Ah... just waited to see if anything else was coming so I can make it official, but thus ends thee most random, redundant, circular and lengthy post ever to fall under all of those categories together on RRS. To all, it was a blast.  Glad I got to know most of you.  See you all in future threads.  Take care all


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Ah... just

caposkia wrote:

Ah... just waited to see if anything else was coming so I can make it official, but thus ends thee most random, redundant, circular and lengthy post ever to fall under all of those categories together on RRS. To all, it was a blast.  Glad I got to know most of you.  See you all in future threads.  Take care all

You'll be back, you've been silent for quite a while. I think you are going to leave and all the doubts we planted in your head, you'll try to ignore but you wont. The will nag you for the rest of your life. Maybe enough for you to wake up, but that is why you are leaving. It is not because you have any earth shattering evidence, but because looking in the mirror at your own claims is too uncomfortable for you.

But you will be back.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Ah... just

caposkia wrote:

Ah... just waited to see if anything else was coming so I can make it official, but thus ends thee most random, redundant, circular and lengthy post ever to fall under all of those categories together on RRS. To all, it was a blast.  Glad I got to know most of you.  See you all in future threads.  Take care all

 

             Whatever.  You will leave, another clone will take your place and the same conversations will take place all over again.  Yippee.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You'll be

Brian37 wrote:

You'll be back, you've been silent for quite a while. I think you are going to leave and all the doubts we planted in your head, you'll try to ignore but you wont. The will nag you for the rest of your life. Maybe enough for you to wake up, but that is why you are leaving. It is not because you have any earth shattering evidence, but because looking in the mirror at your own claims is too uncomfortable for you.

But you will be back.

I never said I'm leaving the site... just closing the thread is all.  I'm still involved in other threads.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

You'll be back, you've been silent for quite a while. I think you are going to leave and all the doubts we planted in your head, you'll try to ignore but you wont. The will nag you for the rest of your life. Maybe enough for you to wake up, but that is why you are leaving. It is not because you have any earth shattering evidence, but because looking in the mirror at your own claims is too uncomfortable for you.

But you will be back.

I never said I'm leaving the site... just closing the thread is all.  I'm still involved in other threads.

Cap if you start another thread, or comment on your super hero in another thread you will still be stuck with the arguments you try to make here.

Now you certainly are welcome to do so. But don't be surprised if you end up repeating yourself.

I think if you want to take a break, do so, and start threads or comment in threads that are not of religious nature. I have constantly had the attitude that outside debate on religious issues, there MOST CERTAINLY is common ground that humans can find, on things like sports, politics, entertainment ect ect.

You have been a great sport about all the punches you have taken here and I for one wish more theists would have your attitude. But in the almost 5 years this thread has been alive, you know darn well, at least with me, that I will not back off on issues of god claims. Other than that, we could hang out and have a beer if we met.

But yea, I do poke you because I DO want you to look in that mirror. It is my hope that someday you see how needless your belief really is and that it really merely is all a mental trap your own brain has fooled you into wanting to believe.

You wont join the Dark Side, I promise. You'll merely wake up.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37