Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?   The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules.  So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules?   THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make.  Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas. 

How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language?  You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language.  The same problem exists for creating a written language.

 

Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language? 

 

Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy.  Why did we evolve to have this feature?  What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box?  I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.

 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:blacklight915

TWD39 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

Would you like me to give you some examples of Christians using profanity?  I think you may be surprised...

 

What makes you think Christians are much better people than atheists?  Ever heard an atheist tell someone he/she deserves eternal fiery torment?

 

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

If you love and help your neighbor, you are certainly not spreading the message of Christianity.

If you love and help those who you don't know you're way off base for Christianity. You might be closer to atheism - we do it because we are all part of society.

The message of Christianity is "just believe in Jesus and it really doesn't matter how you treat people":

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You get heaven no matter what you do.

 

Romans 10:9 ESV 

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

No reason for you to do anything.

 

"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


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:
OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

What would Jesus do and what did Adam speak?

An infused  language he did not have to learn of course and Eve spoke a  different language Adam could not quite understand. Because she realized Adam could not understand her she never stopped talking. And that explains the invention of the outhouse as a place of peace where Eve would not follow.

Now it came to pass that Adam excused himself to his temple of silence saying he needed to shake his snake. Eve was exceedingly jealous as she knew not what a snake was not having one to shake so she contrived a plan.

When Adam returned she told him she had met a snake which could talk which troubled Adam deeply as the Lord had told him Eve was woman. And Adam cried out to the Lord saying, How can I multiply with this faggot as Thou hast commanded? And the Lord assured Adam, Her snake is not like unto your snake as her snake does not shake nor can it be shaken. And Adam was sore confused.

Upon the next day Adam returned from his fortress of silence and announced to Eve that he had discovered another thing which was also a two but also like unto a snake. To which Eve upped the ante and replied, My snake hath said unto me should we eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge we shall learn a new language instead of this faggoty Olde English speak and we shall knoweth in fullness whereof each other doth speak.

It came to pass they did eat of the fruit and Adam did exclaim, You meant serpent!, and Eve did say, If you meant John Thomas why didn't you say so!, and Adam looked at her blankly. The serpent had lied unto them. And they both heard the voice from on high and agreed the narrator did still speak faggoty Olde English. Amen.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: What's better,

TWD39 wrote:

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

You don't know what I do for my neighbors or for the other people in my life, nor do you know anything else about what people on here do for their neighbors and for their communities.

You would think a 1% Motorcycle Club House, like the one owned by the local Iron Horsemen (guys you don't want to mess with) would be a blight to the low-income neighborhoods that surround them right ?

Wrong. Local store owners automatically give a Horseman or an Outlaw a discount and the neighbors seem to love them. You know why ? Cause car-jacking people's vehicles, break-ins and robberies have dissippated in that area since they made their presence known.

One liquor store automatically gives any Iron Horseman or Outlaw a 25% discount on any pruchase, because it was two Horseman and an Outlaw that saved the lives of a couple of young clerks that were about to get blown away by some edgy robbers.

One young woman near that area without a vehicle said she feels "safe" walking home at night with their clubhouse around the corner and no one has broken into it since it opened up.  

Granted, the church communities and the police try to paint every one of them and everyone that associates with them, like me, as "thugs and criminals" but that is not the case at all.

So I'll post this question in response. What's better, having the trash of society like my friends and I that actually will go to bat for someone, or having someone in a church holding up their hand, saying they care, and not using any profanity ?

You won't answer that one. You won't answer it civilly. You'll answer with some shitty ad-hom and whine and bitch about how Atheists are picking on you. I'll lay a bet on it.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Funny how I'm able to do

Funny how I'm able to do both. I get friendly waves from neighbours all the time stemming from times where I made an impact on individuals or the community at large.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Funny how I'm

Vastet wrote:
Funny how I'm able to do both. I get friendly waves from neighbours all the time stemming from times where I made an impact on individuals or the community at large.

You mean us evil, bullying Atheists that dedicate our lives to making religious people miserable and ruining the lives of those that only want to love god can actually be LIKED by our neighbors ? Holy fucking shit. Who would have ever thought.

I know, I know, more sarcastic, evil, mocking Atheist belligerance on my part.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

Would you like me to give you some examples of Christians using profanity?  I think you may be surprised...

 

What makes you think Christians are much better people than atheists?  Ever heard an atheist tell someone he/she deserves eternal fiery torment?

 

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

If you love and help your neighbor, you are certainly not spreading the message of Christianity.

If you love and help those who you don't know you're way off base for Christianity. You might be closer to atheism - we do it because we are all part of society.

The message of Christianity is "just believe in Jesus and it really doesn't matter how you treat people":

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You get heaven no matter what you do.

 

Romans 10:9 ESV 

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

No reason for you to do anything.

 

 

That's absolutely ridiculous.  Nothing more than a demonstration of bad interepration from not considering the context of a scripture.

 

I can easily point to:

 

 Matt 22:37 - 39

 

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

 

 

Not only is loving your neighbor a message in Christianity, it ranks #2 on list of commandments. 

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

Would you like me to give you some examples of Christians using profanity?  I think you may be surprised...

 

What makes you think Christians are much better people than atheists?  Ever heard an atheist tell someone he/she deserves eternal fiery torment?

 

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

If you love and help your neighbor, you are certainly not spreading the message of Christianity.

If you love and help those who you don't know you're way off base for Christianity. You might be closer to atheism - we do it because we are all part of society.

The message of Christianity is "just believe in Jesus and it really doesn't matter how you treat people":

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You get heaven no matter what you do.

 

Romans 10:9 ESV 

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

No reason for you to do anything.

 

 

That's absolutely ridiculous.  Nothing more than a demonstration of bad interepration from not considering the context of a scripture.

 

I can easily point to:

 

 Matt 22:37 - 39

 

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

 

 

Not only is loving your neighbor a message in Christianity, it ranks #2 on list of commandments. 

 

 

 

 

 

So the son of your God can't keep his story straight? Or he changed his mind and didn't tell anyone? Why didn't it make the list that his dad set out originally? it would've been a good one. 

Also, how does that change the fact that you don't have to do any of them and still get to heaven (according to the son of your God)?

Why did Paul, in the process of making Jesus a full god, remove that loving and doing good requirement from the faith?

Please show me how I'm misreading this - the interpretation is pretty clear to me. It may not be what your pastor told you but the actual biblical context is easy to see.

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:TWD39

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

You don't know what I do for my neighbors or for the other people in my life, nor do you know anything else about what people on here do for their neighbors and for their communities.

You would think a 1% Motorcycle Club House, like the one owned by the local Iron Horsemen (guys you don't want to mess with) would be a blight to the low-income neighborhoods that surround them right ?

Wrong. Local store owners automatically give a Horseman or an Outlaw a discount and the neighbors seem to love them. You know why ? Cause car-jacking people's vehicles, break-ins and robberies have dissippated in that area since they made their presence known.

One liquor store automatically gives any Iron Horseman or Outlaw a 25% discount on any pruchase, because it was two Horseman and an Outlaw that saved the lives of a couple of young clerks that were about to get blown away by some edgy robbers.

One young woman near that area without a vehicle said she feels "safe" walking home at night with their clubhouse around the corner and no one has broken into it since it opened up.  

Granted, the church communities and the police try to paint every one of them and everyone that associates with them, like me, as "thugs and criminals" but that is not the case at all.

So I'll post this question in response. What's better, having the trash of society like my friends and I that actually will go to bat for someone, or having someone in a church holding up their hand, saying they care, and not using any profanity ?

You won't answer that one. You won't answer it civilly. You'll answer with some shitty ad-hom and whine and bitch about how Atheists are picking on you. I'll lay a bet on it.

 

I can only go by your online persona on here which is grossly foul and sarcastic, not in a friendly way.    Your example has nothing to do with my question.    Is it better to mock and put people down or help your neighbors?  Judging by the rapid fire responses,  I'm willing to bet that atheists spend more time in the former part of the question.

 

And for your biker example, I will add that I don't agree with Christians stereotyping and judging others based on appearance.  There are actually Christian biker organizations, and they look every bit the part as other MCs and even have rallies.   I've seen full sleeve tatooed ex-cons get up and preach the word of God.  God doesn't discriminate.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:harleysportster

TWD39 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

You don't know what I do for my neighbors or for the other people in my life, nor do you know anything else about what people on here do for their neighbors and for their communities.

You would think a 1% Motorcycle Club House, like the one owned by the local Iron Horsemen (guys you don't want to mess with) would be a blight to the low-income neighborhoods that surround them right ?

Wrong. Local store owners automatically give a Horseman or an Outlaw a discount and the neighbors seem to love them. You know why ? Cause car-jacking people's vehicles, break-ins and robberies have dissippated in that area since they made their presence known.

One liquor store automatically gives any Iron Horseman or Outlaw a 25% discount on any pruchase, because it was two Horseman and an Outlaw that saved the lives of a couple of young clerks that were about to get blown away by some edgy robbers.

One young woman near that area without a vehicle said she feels "safe" walking home at night with their clubhouse around the corner and no one has broken into it since it opened up.  

Granted, the church communities and the police try to paint every one of them and everyone that associates with them, like me, as "thugs and criminals" but that is not the case at all.

So I'll post this question in response. What's better, having the trash of society like my friends and I that actually will go to bat for someone, or having someone in a church holding up their hand, saying they care, and not using any profanity ?

You won't answer that one. You won't answer it civilly. You'll answer with some shitty ad-hom and whine and bitch about how Atheists are picking on you. I'll lay a bet on it.

 

I can only go by your online persona on here which is grossly foul and sarcastic, not in a friendly way.    Your example has nothing to do with my question.    Is it better to mock and put people down or help your neighbors?  Judging by the rapid fire responses,  I'm willing to bet that atheists spend more time in the former part of the question.

 

And for your biker example, I will add that I don't agree with Christians stereotyping and judging others based on appearance.  There are actually Christian biker organizations, and they look every bit the part as other MCs and even have rallies.   I've seen full sleeve tatooed ex-cons get up and preach the word of God.  God doesn't discriminate.

And since your responding nearly as fast you must be brimming with love for your fellow man (not that you need to - your Bible says you don't as I've shown 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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Vastet

harleysportster wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Funny how I'm able to do both. I get friendly waves from neighbours all the time stemming from times where I made an impact on individuals or the community at large.

You mean us evil, bullying Atheists that dedicate our lives to making religious people miserable and ruining the lives of those that only want to love god can actually be LIKED by our neighbors ? Holy fucking shit. Who would have ever thought.

I know, I know, more sarcastic, evil, mocking Atheist belligerance on my part.

I'd bet not one of my neighbours even knows I'm an atheist. I don't hide it, but I don't scream it at everyone either.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

Would you like me to give you some examples of Christians using profanity?  I think you may be surprised...

 

What makes you think Christians are much better people than atheists?  Ever heard an atheist tell someone he/she deserves eternal fiery torment?

 

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

If you love and help your neighbor, you are certainly not spreading the message of Christianity.

If you love and help those who you don't know you're way off base for Christianity. You might be closer to atheism - we do it because we are all part of society.

The message of Christianity is "just believe in Jesus and it really doesn't matter how you treat people":

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You get heaven no matter what you do.

 

Romans 10:9 ESV 

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

No reason for you to do anything.

 

 

That's absolutely ridiculous.  Nothing more than a demonstration of bad interepration from not considering the context of a scripture.

 

I can easily point to:

 

 Matt 22:37 - 39

 

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

 

 

Not only is loving your neighbor a message in Christianity, it ranks #2 on list of commandments. 

 

 

 

 

 

So the son of your God can't keep his story straight? Or he changed his mind and didn't tell anyone? Why didn't it make the list that his dad set out originally? it would've been a good one. 

Also, how does that change the fact that you don't have to do any of them and still get to heaven (according to the son of your God)?

Why did Paul, in the process of making Jesus a full god, remove that loving and doing good requirement from the faith?

Please show me how I'm misreading this - the interpretation is pretty clear to me. It may not be what your pastor told you but the actual biblical context is easy to see.

 

 

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig and mine the scriptures to see the supernatural consistency throughout the entire word of God.  This is why pastors dedicate their whole lives to studying the Bible, and always finding new revelations, new sermons.

 

To really understand this chapter, you need to understand the purpose of the Old Law, how Jesus fullfilled it, and the New Law.   You are saved by grace, not your works.  Now if you decide to not obey God's commandments, you may still make it to heaven by the skin of your teeth, but you won't get rewards and will be part of the least.  I don't wanna wear that badge for eternity.

 

And Paul certainly did not remove the love requirement:

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  Romans 13:8

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:No, the Bible is

TWD39 wrote:

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig and mine the scriptures to see the supernatural consistency throughout the entire word of God.  This is why pastors dedicate their whole lives to studying the Bible, and always finding new revelations, new sermons.

You would think that an all powerful being having a book written for a primitive and illiterate culture would make it straightforward and clear so that extensive digging and mining wouldn't be needed to understand it. Perhaps the supreme being should take a little time out of his several thousand year vacation and take a writing course or two and then rewrite the bible so there isn't so much confusion. Especially since that confusion has been used many times in history to justify horrendous acts in his name. For example, just adding a little epilogue that says something to the effect "hey dudes, I didn't mean to imply that slavery is cool with me" or "yo Muslims, stoning isn't good anymore, you were supposed to modernize", or "what the fuck GW, I didn't tell you to do that". I know if people were doing that kind of thing in my name I would say something about it. 

 

TWD39 wrote:

To really understand this chapter, you need to understand the purpose of the Old Law, how Jesus fullfilled it, and the New Law.   You are saved by grace, not your works.  Now if you decide to not obey God's commandments, you may still make it to heaven by the skin of your teeth, but you won't get rewards and will be part of the least.  I don't wanna wear that badge for eternity.

Depends on which Xtian you ask. I have talked to dozens of pastors who have dedicated their lives to studying the bible and they all come up with different answers. Pretty much all of them agree I am going to hell though, god might forgive pedophiles, mass murders, rapists etc. but they all agree the one thing he won't forgive is being skeptical of his existence. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

Would you like me to give you some examples of Christians using profanity?  I think you may be surprised...

 

What makes you think Christians are much better people than atheists?  Ever heard an atheist tell someone he/she deserves eternal fiery torment?

 

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

If you love and help your neighbor, you are certainly not spreading the message of Christianity.

If you love and help those who you don't know you're way off base for Christianity. You might be closer to atheism - we do it because we are all part of society.

The message of Christianity is "just believe in Jesus and it really doesn't matter how you treat people":

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You get heaven no matter what you do.

 

Romans 10:9 ESV 

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

No reason for you to do anything.

 

 

That's absolutely ridiculous.  Nothing more than a demonstration of bad interepration from not considering the context of a scripture.

 

I can easily point to:

 

 Matt 22:37 - 39

 

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

 

 

Not only is loving your neighbor a message in Christianity, it ranks #2 on list of commandments. 

 

 

 

 

 

So the son of your God can't keep his story straight? Or he changed his mind and didn't tell anyone? Why didn't it make the list that his dad set out originally? it would've been a good one. 

Also, how does that change the fact that you don't have to do any of them and still get to heaven (according to the son of your God)?

Why did Paul, in the process of making Jesus a full god, remove that loving and doing good requirement from the faith?

Please show me how I'm misreading this - the interpretation is pretty clear to me. It may not be what your pastor told you but the actual biblical context is easy to see.

 

 

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig and mine the scriptures to see the supernatural consistency throughout the entire word of God.  This is why pastors dedicate their whole lives to studying the Bible, and always finding new revelations, new sermons.

 

To really understand this chapter, you need to understand the purpose of the Old Law, how Jesus fullfilled it, and the New Law.   You are saved by grace, not your works.  Now if you decide to not obey God's commandments, you may still make it to heaven by the skin of your teeth, but you won't get rewards and will be part of the least.  I don't wanna wear that badge for eternity.

 

And Paul certainly did not remove the love requirement:

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  Romans 13:8

 

1. So why is it that when something is straightforward as those passages are they need to be interpreted? There is no supernatural consistency here - The writer of Matthew made Jesus contradict himself. Or do you mean by "supernatural consistency" "what my pastor tells me so I don't have to read it"?

2. Some of the pastors who do study the Bible seriously become atheists behind the pulpit. How's that for a new revelation? 

3. The New Law is the one that says you have to believe and that's all. That's one of the reasons why there was a rift between Paul and James. That and elevating Jesus to godhood (not even Jesus did that).

4. If you are saved by grace why are you complaining about atheists helping their fellow man?

5. Romans 13:8 applies to Christians loving other Christians - and you are teaching me about context?

6. Can you get your church to pay attention to Romans 13:7? At least the part about paying taxes?

"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


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:God doesn't

TWD39 wrote:

God doesn't discriminate.

Except against us foolish souls who need repeatable, verifiable evidence to believe things...

 

TWD39 wrote:

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians?

Since part of the message of Christianity is that we're all evil and deserve eternal hell, I would say loving your neighbor and condemning Christianity go hand-in-hand.

 

BeyondSaving wrote:

Pretty much all of them agree I am going to hell though, god might forgive pedophiles, mass murders, rapists etc. but they all agree the one thing he won't forgive is being skeptical of his existence

What a nice guy, this God Christians worship. I mean, He thinks doubting His existence is worse than any harm you could do to your fellow humans.

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

Would you like me to give you some examples of Christians using profanity?  I think you may be surprised...

 

What makes you think Christians are much better people than atheists?  Ever heard an atheist tell someone he/she deserves eternal fiery torment?

 

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

If you love and help your neighbor, you are certainly not spreading the message of Christianity.

If you love and help those who you don't know you're way off base for Christianity. You might be closer to atheism - we do it because we are all part of society.

The message of Christianity is "just believe in Jesus and it really doesn't matter how you treat people":

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You get heaven no matter what you do.

 

Romans 10:9 ESV 

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

No reason for you to do anything.

 

 

That's absolutely ridiculous.  Nothing more than a demonstration of bad interepration from not considering the context of a scripture.

 

I can easily point to:

 

 Matt 22:37 - 39

 

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

 

 

Not only is loving your neighbor a message in Christianity, it ranks #2 on list of commandments. 

 

 

 

 

 

So the son of your God can't keep his story straight? Or he changed his mind and didn't tell anyone? Why didn't it make the list that his dad set out originally? it would've been a good one. 

Also, how does that change the fact that you don't have to do any of them and still get to heaven (according to the son of your God)?

Why did Paul, in the process of making Jesus a full god, remove that loving and doing good requirement from the faith?

Please show me how I'm misreading this - the interpretation is pretty clear to me. It may not be what your pastor told you but the actual biblical context is easy to see.

 

 

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig and mine the scriptures to see the supernatural consistency throughout the entire word of God.  This is why pastors dedicate their whole lives to studying the Bible, and always finding new revelations, new sermons.

 

To really understand this chapter, you need to understand the purpose of the Old Law, how Jesus fullfilled it, and the New Law.   You are saved by grace, not your works.  Now if you decide to not obey God's commandments, you may still make it to heaven by the skin of your teeth, but you won't get rewards and will be part of the least.  I don't wanna wear that badge for eternity.

 

And Paul certainly did not remove the love requirement:

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  Romans 13:8

 

1. So why is it that when something is straightforward as those passages are they need to be interpreted? There is no supernatural consistency here - The writer of Matthew made Jesus contradict himself. Or do you mean by "supernatural consistency" "what my pastor tells me so I don't have to read it"?

2. Some of the pastors who do study the Bible seriously become atheists behind the pulpit. How's that for a new revelation? 

3. The New Law is the one that says you have to believe and that's all. That's one of the reasons why there was a rift between Paul and James. That and elevating Jesus to godhood (not even Jesus did that).

4. If you are saved by grace why are you complaining about atheists helping their fellow man?

5. Romans 13:8 applies to Christians loving other Christians - and you are teaching me about context?

6. Can you get your church to pay attention to Romans 13:7? At least the part about paying taxes?

 

1.   Funny how atheist's interpretation is always the one that is the most negative seemingly contradictory one.  You just can't admit that the Bible actually has good teachings on life's principles.

2.  And some atheists like Lee Strobel who studied the Bible seriously became Christians.  Your point is?

3.  Jesus certainly refers to himself as part of the Godhead.  That is evident way back in Genesis.  He said He came to fullfill the law.   Part of that fullfillment was fullfilling the numerous OT prophecies about the messiah.

4.  I'm certainly not complaining about atheists being charitable or saying that they are incapable of such things.   I'm saying there is nothing good or worthwhile in spending time mocking and cutting down other people.  Nothing at all. 

5.  I see nothing in even the whole chapter that says you should only love your Christian brother or sister.

6.  I have no problem with churches paying taxes.  It would give us the freedom to endorse political candidates and have a clear voice in government.  I bet you wouldn't like that though, huh?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

Would you like me to give you some examples of Christians using profanity?  I think you may be surprised...

 

What makes you think Christians are much better people than atheists?  Ever heard an atheist tell someone he/she deserves eternal fiery torment?

 

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

If you love and help your neighbor, you are certainly not spreading the message of Christianity.

If you love and help those who you don't know you're way off base for Christianity. You might be closer to atheism - we do it because we are all part of society.

The message of Christianity is "just believe in Jesus and it really doesn't matter how you treat people":

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You get heaven no matter what you do.

 

Romans 10:9 ESV 

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

No reason for you to do anything.

 

 

That's absolutely ridiculous.  Nothing more than a demonstration of bad interepration from not considering the context of a scripture.

 

I can easily point to:

 

 Matt 22:37 - 39

 

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

 

 

Not only is loving your neighbor a message in Christianity, it ranks #2 on list of commandments. 

 

 

 

 

 

So the son of your God can't keep his story straight? Or he changed his mind and didn't tell anyone? Why didn't it make the list that his dad set out originally? it would've been a good one. 

Also, how does that change the fact that you don't have to do any of them and still get to heaven (according to the son of your God)?

Why did Paul, in the process of making Jesus a full god, remove that loving and doing good requirement from the faith?

Please show me how I'm misreading this - the interpretation is pretty clear to me. It may not be what your pastor told you but the actual biblical context is easy to see.

 

 

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig and mine the scriptures to see the supernatural consistency throughout the entire word of God.  This is why pastors dedicate their whole lives to studying the Bible, and always finding new revelations, new sermons.

 

To really understand this chapter, you need to understand the purpose of the Old Law, how Jesus fullfilled it, and the New Law.   You are saved by grace, not your works.  Now if you decide to not obey God's commandments, you may still make it to heaven by the skin of your teeth, but you won't get rewards and will be part of the least.  I don't wanna wear that badge for eternity.

 

And Paul certainly did not remove the love requirement:

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  Romans 13:8

 

1. So why is it that when something is straightforward as those passages are they need to be interpreted? There is no supernatural consistency here - The writer of Matthew made Jesus contradict himself. Or do you mean by "supernatural consistency" "what my pastor tells me so I don't have to read it"?

2. Some of the pastors who do study the Bible seriously become atheists behind the pulpit. How's that for a new revelation? 

3. The New Law is the one that says you have to believe and that's all. That's one of the reasons why there was a rift between Paul and James. That and elevating Jesus to godhood (not even Jesus did that).

4. If you are saved by grace why are you complaining about atheists helping their fellow man?

5. Romans 13:8 applies to Christians loving other Christians - and you are teaching me about context?

6. Can you get your church to pay attention to Romans 13:7? At least the part about paying taxes?

 

1.   Funny how atheist's interpretation is always the one that is the most negative seemingly contradictory one.  You just can't admit that the Bible actually has good teachings on life's principles.

2.  And some atheists like Lee Strobel who studied the Bible seriously became Christians.  Your point is?

3.  Jesus certainly refers to himself as part of the Godhead.  That is evident way back in Genesis.  He said He came to fullfill the law.   Part of that fullfillment was fullfilling the numerous OT prophecies about the messiah.

4.  I'm certainly not complaining about atheists being charitable or saying that they are incapable of such things.   I'm saying there is nothing good or worthwhile in spending time mocking and cutting down other people.  Nothing at all. 

5.  I see nothing in even the whole chapter that says you should only love your Christian brother or sister.

6.  I have no problem with churches paying taxes.  It would give us the freedom to endorse political candidates and have a clear voice in government.  I bet you wouldn't like that though, huh?

1. The Bible has good stuff in it. Most of the good stuff was original to the Bible. It also has a lot of bad stuff in it. Funny that an atheist has to tell you how to read your holy book.

2. Lee Strobel was about as much of an atheist as Josh McDowell was when he started work on ETDAV (that is not one at all). That's partly why they don't or can't write honest books.

3. Jesus (if he existed) was an observant Jew and would not have done such a thing. The writers of the Gospel (converts of Paul) had no problem putting those words in the character's mouth as it suited their teacher's needs.

4. I haven't done that to you. And you've been giving as good as you've gotten in the "mocking and cutting down other people" area.

5. "Love one another" only held for the church community. 

6. I don't care about churches endorsing politicians. A good number of them do despite the law. They also have a clearer voice in the government than the atheists do. Why would you think I'd be against freedom? That's the job of the Christian in America.

"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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:4.  I'm

TWD39 wrote:

4.  I'm certainly not complaining about atheists being charitable or saying that they are incapable of such things.   I'm saying there is nothing good or worthwhile in spending time mocking and cutting down other people.  Nothing at all. 

Then why bring up the discussion of helping your neighbor? If mocking xtians makes one person question it and improve their life I think that more than makes up for your hurt feelings.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:  No, the

TWD39 wrote:

  

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig and mine the scriptures to see the supernatural consistency throughout the entire word of God.  This is why pastors dedicate their whole lives to studying the Bible, and always finding new revelations, new sermons.

 

To really understand this chapter, you need to understand the purpose of the Old Law, how Jesus fullfilled it, and the New Law.   You are saved by grace, not your works.  Now if you decide to not obey God's commandments, you may still make it to heaven by the skin of your teeth, but you won't get rewards and will be part of the least.  I don't wanna wear that badge for eternity.

 

And Paul certainly did not remove the love requirement:

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  Romans 13:8

 

Hmm, so only you and the "proper" christians have the right terms. Two words : "Meaningless Assertions"

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Am I the only one still

 Am I the only one still eagerly waiting for the promised reveal of the "EPIC ATHEIST FAIL"? This thread is like a bad lay, so many promises none of them delivered, and no doubt twd thinks it was a great performance.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: I can only go

TWD39 wrote:

 

I can only go by your online persona on here which is grossly foul and sarcastic, not in a friendly way.   

ROFLMAO. Do you know how incredibly prissy that sounds ? GROSSLY FOUL AND SARCASTIC ! AND NOT IN A FRIENDLY WAY !!!! Ouch.

If you bothered to read the very very first post I ever made to you on your very first thread, I was quite civil and even said that I had no problem with people who believed, but that I just happened to not to.

I did not become GROSSLY FOUL AND SARCASTIC until you kept making a grossly inept, prick and crybaby passive/aggressive attitude all over the place.

Treat me good I'll treat you good, treat me bad, and I become a whole lot worse than grossly foul and sarcastic.

TWD39 wrote:

And for your biker example, I will add that I don't agree with Christians stereotyping and judging others based on appearance.  There are actually Christian biker organizations, and they look every bit the part as other MCs and even have rallies.   I've seen full sleeve tatooed ex-cons get up and preach the word of God.  God doesn't discriminate.

Oh like I have never heard of Christian MC's.  There is a guy affiliated with one in North Mississippi that lives right here in Memphis. We all call him Preacher Paul. He is an old, white long haired graybeard, fully sleeved and he and I have had several debates and read over the Bible together.

Not one time did either of us have to get "grossly foul and sarcastic." ( Rolls eyes).

You got to give a lttle respect before you can get any. A lesson that you have seemed to not have learned in your life. How you made it this far without learning that is a mystery to me.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hilariarse

 

TWD39 wrote:

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig and mine the scriptures to see the supernatural consistency throughout the entire word of God.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

TWD39 wrote:

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig and mine the scriptures to see the supernatural consistency throughout the entire word of God.  

Quite clear and consistent is it ? That is pretty funny. Not even long term theists like Caposkia, Gramps and even Fonzie would say something quite that comical. Pretty close, but not quite.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Am I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Am I the only one still eagerly waiting for the promised reveal of the "EPIC ATHEIST FAIL"? This thread is like a bad lay, so many promises none of them delivered, and no doubt twd thinks it was a great performance.

Not only did he not provide the epic fail - he actually proved what he was arguing against when he evolved "supernatural consistency".

 

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Am I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Am I the only one still eagerly waiting for the promised reveal of the "EPIC ATHEIST FAIL"? This thread is like a bad lay, so many promises none of them delivered, and no doubt twd thinks it was a great performance.

 

Yet, you keep coming back to the well for more.  Doesn't say much for your standards if we are going with the sex metaphor. haha

 

EPIC Fail still stands for the non-biased people.  No one has presented a solid argument demonstrating how early man created a fully realized syntax with agreed upon rules when there was no way to communicate such complex internal ideas. 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:No one has

TWD39 wrote:

No one has presented a solid argument demonstrating how early man created a fully realized syntax with agreed upon rules when there was no way to communicate such complex internal ideas.

Well, first of all, that in no way proves the Tower of Babel story is correct.

Second, if you're actually interested in answers, I'm sure you could look into the field of linguistics and find some.

 

Also, I'd prefer if you addressed my previous response before this one, if that's ok.

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:EPIC Fail still

TWD39 wrote:

EPIC Fail still stands for the non-biased people.  No one has presented a solid argument demonstrating how early man created a fully realized syntax with agreed upon rules when there was no way to communicate such complex internal ideas. 

 

You are the one who said that English would not have been spoken at the ToB because "English has evolved."  Your own words.  How did English evolve if there was no way to communicate complex internal ideas that didn't yet exist in the language?  I suggest if you can figure out how English evolved, you will be pretty close to how all language evolved.

Start simple, with simple concepts.  You know, like a little child learns.  Opp:  "Urg hold spear, hit heart-side."  Urg:  "Cut the phony accent, Opp.  I'll circle left, you circle right, and I'll get in the heart shot while you distract that motha.  'K?"

 

Aside: right, left - are they facing the buffalo or coming up from behind?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 260
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Beyond Saving

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Am I the only one still eagerly waiting for the promised reveal of the "EPIC ATHEIST FAIL"? This thread is like a bad lay, so many promises none of them delivered, and no doubt twd thinks it was a great performance.

 

Yet, you keep coming back to the well for more.  Doesn't say much for your standards if we are going with the sex metaphor. haha

 

EPIC Fail still stands for the non-biased people.  No one has presented a solid argument demonstrating how early man created a fully realized syntax with agreed upon rules when there was no way to communicate such complex internal ideas. 

And as I mentioned a while back, it's very difficult to pinpoint exactly how it DID happen, because nobody bothered to document it (and my guess is that spoken language far pre-dated written language, I'll explain why shortly). We can, however, come up with several reasonable ways that it COULD have happened. It would make sense to begin with nouns (point to something, repeat a replicable sound) followed by verbs, then getting more and more complex as time went by. As a child, I personally came up with words or compound words for things that people wouldn't have even thought to describe (although it was all in Polish, I'd provide examples otherwise). Peoples' later desire to be more specific may have expanded language to include adjectives, adverbs, then abstract concepts, poetry, etc. 

The earliest discovered written records (found by a quick google search) suggests that writing became a necessity when civilizations grew, as it became impossible for people to reliably remember everything required to run a civilization. They didn't even bother to use it to document the origin of language, and honestly, without spoken language, writing is rather difficult. By then, generations upon generations had certainly passed since the origin of language itself. This is why we can't know how it did happen for sure. Is this getting through? Or is god righteously plugging your ears so that you don't stray away from him?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
the same with you. It

TWD39 wrote:
Yet, you keep coming back to the well for more.  Doesn't say much for your standards if we are going with the sex metaphor. haha
EPIC Fail still stands for the non-biased people.
No one has presented a solid argument demonstrating how early man created a fully realized syntax with agreed upon rules when there was no way to communicate such complex internal ideas

If you'd ever done any research on the subject at all, it would have already been explained to you that it didn't happen that way. Language didn't suddenly appear, it was gradually formed from different sounds and our ability to recognise that a sound is referring to an object, action, or whatever.

If you were stuck on a island with someone who didn't speak English and spoke a language you didn't understand, you'd find that in a rather short time, despite the likely inability to have a full blown conversation, that you would still be able to communicate anything that was important to this person, and that they could do the

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
the same with you. It

the same with you.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that "ugh" means "rock" if someones pointing at a damn rock while repeating it over and over again.

The only real epic fail here is you, who posted an argument so ridiculously stupid that noone bothered to point out how stupid it was.

Or maybe they did. I've only skimmed through here and there to take potshots, since there was already "too many people to keep up with, wah".
So if someone did bother to take the time, my apologies for not seeing it. But I very quickly lose interest in topics that can spawn a dozen new posts a day. I miss a week and suddenly there's 150 posts to sift through. No thanks.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Beyond Saving

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Am I the only one still eagerly waiting for the promised reveal of the "EPIC ATHEIST FAIL"? This thread is like a bad lay, so many promises none of them delivered, and no doubt twd thinks it was a great performance.

 

Yet, you keep coming back to the well for more.  Doesn't say much for your standards if we are going with the sex metaphor. haha

 

EPIC Fail still stands for the non-biased people.  No one has presented a solid argument demonstrating how early man created a fully realized syntax with agreed upon rules when there was no way to communicate such complex internal ideas. 

You haven't asked for one till now. You kept asking how the change in allelic frequencies over time (evolution) could do it.

Now that you've asked - how many theories would you like? It's still a field that is being researched. I can give you a timeline and some other info that explains some of the research going on.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/la1.shtml

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5541370

 

Even if this isn't complete it beats:

1. God gave everyone the same language

2. Humans start working together at a purpose other than kissing God's tush.

3. God gets paranoid and scrambles their language.

It's another example of God being petulant and screwing things up.

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Beyond Saving

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Am I the only one still eagerly waiting for the promised reveal of the "EPIC ATHEIST FAIL"? This thread is like a bad lay, so many promises none of them delivered, and no doubt twd thinks it was a great performance.

 

Yet, you keep coming back to the well for more.  Doesn't say much for your standards if we are going with the sex metaphor. haha

 

EPIC Fail still stands for the non-biased people.  No one has presented a solid argument demonstrating how early man created a fully realized syntax with agreed upon rules when there was no way to communicate such complex internal ideas. 

You haven't asked for one till now. You kept asking how the change in allelic frequencies over time (evolution) could do it.

Now that you've asked - how many theories would you like? It's still a field that is being researched. I can give you a timeline and some other info that explains some of the research going on.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/la1.shtml

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5541370

 

Even if this isn't complete it beats:

1. God gave everyone the same language

2. Humans start working together at a purpose other than kissing God's tush.

3. God gets paranoid and scrambles their language.

It's another example of God being petulant and screwing things up.

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:TWD39

Vastet wrote:
TWD39 wrote:
Yet, you keep coming back to the well for more.  Doesn't say much for your standards if we are going with the sex metaphor. haha EPIC Fail still stands for the non-biased people. No one has presented a solid argument demonstrating how early man created a fully realized syntax with agreed upon rules when there was no way to communicate such complex internal ideas
If you'd ever done any research on the subject at all, it would have already been explained to you that it didn't happen that way. Language didn't suddenly appear, it was gradually formed from different sounds and our ability to recognise that a sound is referring to an object, action, or whatever. If you were stuck on a island with someone who didn't speak English and spoke a language you didn't understand, you'd find that in a rather short time, despite the likely inability to have a full blown conversation, that you would still be able to communicate anything that was important to this person, and that they could do the

 

Your explanation just doesn't hold water with me.  It over simplifies the topic.  It's a far cry to go from associating sounds with objects to expressing concepts like metaphors, or describing intangle non-physical items.  How would you tell the other person that you love them?  Point to your heart?  No, that's a modern association.

 

If I were stuck on an island with someone of a different language, we would find a way to communicate because we already have foundations of language.  We would draw from those foundations to forge a common communication.  A baby can learn to speak because a foundation already exists.   The foundation had to start somewhere.    You have no proof that early man would have eventually understood even a basic word/object association. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Vastet

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD39 wrote:
Yet, you keep coming back to the well for more.  Doesn't say much for your standards if we are going with the sex metaphor. haha EPIC Fail still stands for the non-biased people. No one has presented a solid argument demonstrating how early man created a fully realized syntax with agreed upon rules when there was no way to communicate such complex internal ideas
If you'd ever done any research on the subject at all, it would have already been explained to you that it didn't happen that way. Language didn't suddenly appear, it was gradually formed from different sounds and our ability to recognise that a sound is referring to an object, action, or whatever. If you were stuck on a island with someone who didn't speak English and spoke a language you didn't understand, you'd find that in a rather short time, despite the likely inability to have a full blown conversation, that you would still be able to communicate anything that was important to this person, and that they could do the

 

Your explanation just doesn't hold water with me.  It over simplifies the topic.  It's a far cry to go from associating sounds with objects to expressing concepts like metaphors, or describing intangle non-physical items.  How would you tell the other person that you love them?  Point to your heart?  No, that's a modern association.

 

If I were stuck on an island with someone of a different language, we would find a way to communicate because we already have foundations of language.  We would draw from those foundations to forge a common communication.  A baby can learn to speak because a foundation already exists.   The foundation had to start somewhere.    You have no proof that early man would have eventually understood even a basic word/object association. 

 

This sounds similar to Ray Comfort's argument that man is the only social animal because no other animal has created a judicial system.

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Your explanation just

"Your explanation just doesn't hold water with me. "

An opinion, not a rebuttable.

"It over simplifies the topic"

There are people who get paid thousands of dollars to go into details. I'm not, so why should I? Go do some research instead of making shit up.

"It's a far cry to go from associating sounds with objects to expressing concepts like metaphors, or describing intangle non-physical items."

Not even remotely. Once the basics have been defined there is a baseline that allows for discussion on other topics. New words are created all the time. You think anyone on Earth knew what a gigabyte was a thousand years ago?

"How would you tell the other person that you love them?  Point to your heart?  No, that's a modern association."

I'd figure it out by trial and error, the way all things are figured out.

"f I were stuck on an island with someone of a different language, we would find a way to ~ snip"

Then why can dogs understand words they are trained to understand?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You fail to understand the

You fail to understand the basic concepts of communication, and have self defined the entire process as if noone had ever actually studied it, then have the sheer arrogance and stupidity to come to a site where people haven't been educated by the local witchdoctor and expect us to accept your ridiculous and unproven assumptions. Get real.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You fail to

Vastet wrote:
You fail to understand the basic concepts of communication, and have self defined the entire process as if noone had ever actually studied it, then have the sheer arrogance and stupidity to come to a site where people haven't been educated by the local witchdoctor and expect us to accept your ridiculous and unproven assumptions. Get real.

 

 

Translation - I have no real counter-argument so let's just call the Christian stupid so we can

A. get the last word in. 

B.  create the illusion of superiority. 

 

The onus is on YOU to prove the origin of language.  You can't.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Translation - I'm too lazy

Translation - I'm too lazy to read a book to learn how things work, and I've already decided how language came to be, so I'll ignore every point the opposition makes and pretend that means I won.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Vastet wrote:You

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You fail to understand the basic concepts of communication, and have self defined the entire process as if noone had ever actually studied it, then have the sheer arrogance and stupidity to come to a site where people haven't been educated by the local witchdoctor and expect us to accept your ridiculous and unproven assumptions. Get real.

 

 

Translation - I have no real counter-argument so let's just call the Christian stupid so we can

A. get the last word in. 

B.  create the illusion of superiority. 

 

The onus is on YOU to prove the origin of language.  You can't.

What I've given you is far more likely than the Biblical idea. Have you looked at it?

"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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
There is no proof of a

TWD39 wrote:

The onus is on YOU to prove the origin of language.  You can't.

 

supernatural origin for any aspect of human culture. Prove there is a supernatural. The onus is on you. You can't. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Beyond Saving

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Am I the only one still eagerly waiting for the promised reveal of the "EPIC ATHEIST FAIL"? This thread is like a bad lay, so many promises none of them delivered, and no doubt twd thinks it was a great performance.

 

Yet, you keep coming back to the well for more.  Doesn't say much for your standards if we are going with the sex metaphor. haha

 

EPIC Fail still stands for the non-biased people.  No one has presented a solid argument demonstrating how early man created a fully realized syntax with agreed upon rules when there was no way to communicate such complex internal ideas. 

Hey, I am a generous guy, I will give someone the benefit of the doubt that maybe they were just having an off night. I've had a night or two where I wasn't exactly at the top of my game. 

I'm pretty sure that there is not a single non-biased person in the world that would describe your pseudo argument as an "EPIC fail" for atheists. Like I said, you would think your performance was great, but sorry hon, I've had better. If you want to try again, I am game.  


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Your

TWD39 wrote:

Your explanation just doesn't hold water with me.  It over simplifies the topic.  It's a far cry to go from associating sounds with objects to expressing concepts like metaphors, or describing intangle non-physical items.  How would you tell the other person that you love them?  Point to your heart?  No, that's a modern association.

 

If I were stuck on an island with someone of a different language, we would find a way to communicate because we already have foundations of language.  We would draw from those foundations to forge a common communication.  A baby can learn to speak because a foundation already exists.   The foundation had to start somewhere.    You have no proof that early man would have eventually understood even a basic word/object association. 

 

My youngest son has a learning disorder, it is called "communication disorder" or "specific language impaired."

Wiki's definition will do:

Quote:

Specific language impairment (SLI) is diagnosed when a child has delayed or disordered language development for no apparent reason.[1] Usually the first indication of SLI is that the child is later than usual in starting to speak and subsequently is delayed in putting words together to form sentences. Spoken language may be immature throughout corresponds to an expressive language impairment. In many children with SLI, understanding of language, or receptive language, is also impaired, though this may not be obvious unless the child is given a formal assessment.[2] Although difficulties with use and understanding of complex sentences are a common feature of SLI, the diagnostic criteria encompass a wide range of problems, and for some children other aspects of language are problematic (see below). In general, the term SLI is reserved for children whose language difficulties persist into school age, and so it would not be applied to toddlers who are late to start talking, most of whom catch up with their peer group after a late start.[3]

 

My son's impairment was severe enough he didn't understand body language.  He didn't speak in full sentences until he was almost 7 and then they were very simple sentences.  Language impacts every thing you learn - even mathematics - and he struggled all through school.  So, did he learn language?  Yes, specifically he learned English.  Can he speak in grammatical sentences?  Yes, and he can express complex ideas including metaphors.  He learned to read in junior high but it has never been a favorite past time.  There was no denying he did not understand communicating in a language before he got into the special ed classes and before I learned how to help him learn.

I read about language and learning disabilities a lot. What I can tell you is that, yes, it would have been next to impossible to learn a full language with metaphors, allegories, and fairy tales with poor Opp and Urg never growing up with the idea of language and complex ideas.  But I am reasonably certain metaphors and such were not required when a person is chipping tools off of stone and making bone needles to sew up their fur bikini. 

Languages evolved just like you said English evolved.  I notice you haven't replied to my previous post.  I am not going to let you get away with this, I will keep repeating what you said until you get it.  Language likely started with simple requests that were relevant to their lives, and evolved - just like English - into more complex language.  I suspect language evolved until it was complex enough that people could begin to speak about complex building projects - the hallmark of civilization.  And then, writing evolved to allow people to account for all their things.  Only when civilization is complex enough that you have a division of labor - farmers, shepherds, craftsmen, warriors, kings and priests - do some people have enough leisure that they can begin to create and tell stories.  And as the old stories became stale, some bright person(s) created allegories and metaphors.

It really isn't all that difficult to be able to imagine how language evolved just like you said English evolved.  

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Your

TWD39 wrote:
 

Your explanation just doesn't hold water with me.  It over simplifies the topic.  It's a far cry to go from associating sounds with objects to expressing concepts like metaphors, or describing intangle non-physical items.  How would you tell the other person that you love them?  Point to your heart?  No, that's a modern association.

You think that all humans have the same concept of love? Really? Language is imperfect, especially when you get to abstract concepts like "love", we might be able to describe in general the feelings and emotions we have but it is hardly universal. Even within the same person- someone who says "I love my kids" and "I love my wife" and "I love ice cream" does not mean the same thing with the word "love" in each instance. When you have different people using the word, the definition can vary even more. Why? Because language is an imperfect method of attempting to communicate ideas and feelings to one another. All the evidence points towards language being imperfect. We communicate the best we can and cobble language together as a means to convey ideas. Kids learn what "love" is by watching the actions of others who say they are "in love" and when they perform those actions they are associated with "love". There is no reason to believe that pre-historic man learned any different from a child. 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1376
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
About that . . .

About that . . .

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig and mine the scriptures to see the supernatural consistency throughout the entire word of God.  This is why pastors dedicate their whole lives to studying the Bible, and always finding new revelations, new sermons.

You would think that an all powerful being having a book written for a primitive and illiterate culture would make it straightforward and clear so that extensive digging and mining wouldn't be needed to understand it.

    TWD39 will testify

John 16:7  New King James Version (NKJV)  7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.

John 14:26  New King James Version (NKJV)  26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I (Christ) have said to you.

 


 

 


BeyondSaving wrote:
  All the evidence points towards language being imperfect. We communicate the best we can and cobble language together as a means to convey ideas. Kids learn what "love" is by watching the actions of others who say they are "in love" and when they perform those actions they are associated with "love". There is no reason to believe that pre-historic man learned any different from a child. 

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

TWD39 wrote:

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig .. consistency throughout the entire word of God.  

 

TWD39 wrote:
..the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.

About that . . .

Thumbnail

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 260
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Translation - I

TWD39 wrote:

Translation - I have no real counter-argument so let's just call the Christian stupid so we can

A. get the last word in. 

B.  create the illusion of superiority. 

 

The onus is on YOU to prove the origin of language.  You can't.

I just explained a couple of hours ago why it's actually impossible to pinpoint exactly how it did happen. You didn't comment on that. I hypothesized how it COULD have happened (twice) and you didn't comment. Other people have provided specific sources on how it most likely developed (somewhat similar to what I simply GUESSED but more specific and accurate for sure), and you didn't comment.

You continue to assume that language simply didn't exist one day, and did another day. It's not our fault that you refuse to accept a gradual explanation of the steps it would have taken to bring language to some semblance of its present complexity. Instead, you pick and choose your posts to reply on, and make sure it's those posts that don't specifically outline how the process may have gone along (even though the posts you reply to make good points as well).

You also refuse to comment on the (almost certain) gap between spoken language, and the (almost certainly much later) written language. Do these ideas scare you because they make sense, and simultaneously don't agree with your Tower of Babel story (which is similar to many non Judeo-Christian stories as well)? 

Why, TWD, could language have not started with simple nouns, moved onto verbs, then adjectives, then adverbs, then more complex functions? Why would it not have possibly developed that way progressively?

Furthermore, I have to ask you point blank again. If god intended to confuse our languages, why, as someone who speaks Polish fluently (but not 100% natively) am I still able to understand much of what a Slovakian, Czech, Russian, Ukrainian, Bosnian, Serbian, Croation, or Slovenian say? Why do the Spanish and the Portuguese understand about equal parts between languages as I do with the aforementioned? You'd figure if god's (an omnipotent god as you would likely state) aim was to confuse the languages, he would have done a better job than that. It's almost...as if they evolved, due to geographic isolation. Funny. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

Would you like me to give you some examples of Christians using profanity?  I think you may be surprised...

 

What makes you think Christians are much better people than atheists?  Ever heard an atheist tell someone he/she deserves eternal fiery torment?

 

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

If you love and help your neighbor, you are certainly not spreading the message of Christianity.

If you love and help those who you don't know you're way off base for Christianity. You might be closer to atheism - we do it because we are all part of society.

The message of Christianity is "just believe in Jesus and it really doesn't matter how you treat people":

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You get heaven no matter what you do.

 

Romans 10:9 ESV 

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

No reason for you to do anything.

 

 

That's absolutely ridiculous.  Nothing more than a demonstration of bad interepration from not considering the context of a scripture.

 

I can easily point to:

 

 Matt 22:37 - 39

 

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

 

 

Not only is loving your neighbor a message in Christianity, it ranks #2 on list of commandments. 

 

 

 

 

 

So the son of your God can't keep his story straight? Or he changed his mind and didn't tell anyone? Why didn't it make the list that his dad set out originally? it would've been a good one. 

Also, how does that change the fact that you don't have to do any of them and still get to heaven (according to the son of your God)?

Why did Paul, in the process of making Jesus a full god, remove that loving and doing good requirement from the faith?

Please show me how I'm misreading this - the interpretation is pretty clear to me. It may not be what your pastor told you but the actual biblical context is easy to see.

 

 

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig and mine the scriptures to see the supernatural consistency throughout the entire word of God.  This is why pastors dedicate their whole lives to studying the Bible, and always finding new revelations, new sermons.

 

To really understand this chapter, you need to understand the purpose of the Old Law, how Jesus fullfilled it, and the New Law.   You are saved by grace, not your works.  Now if you decide to not obey God's commandments, you may still make it to heaven by the skin of your teeth, but you won't get rewards and will be part of the least.  I don't wanna wear that badge for eternity.

 

And Paul certainly did not remove the love requirement:

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  Romans 13:8

 

1. So why is it that when something is straightforward as those passages are they need to be interpreted? There is no supernatural consistency here - The writer of Matthew made Jesus contradict himself. Or do you mean by "supernatural consistency" "what my pastor tells me so I don't have to read it"?

2. Some of the pastors who do study the Bible seriously become atheists behind the pulpit. How's that for a new revelation? 

3. The New Law is the one that says you have to believe and that's all. That's one of the reasons why there was a rift between Paul and James. That and elevating Jesus to godhood (not even Jesus did that).

4. If you are saved by grace why are you complaining about atheists helping their fellow man?

5. Romans 13:8 applies to Christians loving other Christians - and you are teaching me about context?

6. Can you get your church to pay attention to Romans 13:7? At least the part about paying taxes?

 

1.   Funny how atheist's interpretation is always the one that is the most negative seemingly contradictory one.  You just can't admit that the Bible actually has good teachings on life's principles.

2.  And some atheists like Lee Strobel who studied the Bible seriously became Christians.  Your point is?

3.  Jesus certainly refers to himself as part of the Godhead.  That is evident way back in Genesis.  He said He came to fullfill the law.   Part of that fullfillment was fullfilling the numerous OT prophecies about the messiah.

4.  I'm certainly not complaining about atheists being charitable or saying that they are incapable of such things.   I'm saying there is nothing good or worthwhile in spending time mocking and cutting down other people.  Nothing at all. 

5.  I see nothing in even the whole chapter that says you should only love your Christian brother or sister.

6.  I have no problem with churches paying taxes.  It would give us the freedom to endorse political candidates and have a clear voice in government.  I bet you wouldn't like that though, huh?

1. The Bible has good stuff in it. Most of the good stuff was original to the Bible. It also has a lot of bad stuff in it. Funny that an atheist has to tell you how to read your holy book.

2. Lee Strobel was about as much of an atheist as Josh McDowell was when he started work on ETDAV (that is not one at all). That's partly why they don't or can't write honest books.

3. Jesus (if he existed) was an observant Jew and would not have done such a thing. The writers of the Gospel (converts of Paul) had no problem putting those words in the character's mouth as it suited their teacher's needs.

4. I haven't done that to you. And you've been giving as good as you've gotten in the "mocking and cutting down other people" area.

5. "Love one another" only held for the church community. 

6. I don't care about churches endorsing politicians. A good number of them do despite the law. They also have a clearer voice in the government than the atheists do. Why would you think I'd be against freedom? That's the job of the Christian in America.

 

 

1.  Really, can you bring yourself to actually list at least one good teaching in the Bible?  Atheists merely demonstrate that they don't know how to read the Bible.   Yes, it has bad stuff in it because it never lies about history.  Man does bad things ,and the Bible doesn't white wash the events.

 

2.  Yeah, I've heard that one before.  An atheist who becomes a Christian, oh well, they must have never been an atheist!  Interesting how you rationalize things in your mind.  What about this guy? 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/atheist-activist-who-threatened-to-sue-to-stop-texas-nativity-has-become-a-christian/

 

I particularly like this statement:

 

"There’s been one lingering thought in the back of my head my entire life, and it‘s one thought that I’ve never been able to reconcile, and that is the vast difference between all the animals and us,” Greene told The Christian Post on Tuesday, as he began to explain his recent transformation from atheist to Christian. The theory of evolution didn’t answer his questions, he says, so he just set those questions aside and didn’t think about them anymore "

 

3.  So you know Jesus better than the authors of the Bible?   I would think you need a time machine to make such a bold claim.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

Would you like me to give you some examples of Christians using profanity?  I think you may be surprised...

 

What makes you think Christians are much better people than atheists?  Ever heard an atheist tell someone he/she deserves eternal fiery torment?

 

 

What's better, spending time showing love and helping your neighbor, or devoting your life to trashing the message of Christianity and mocking Christians? 

If you love and help your neighbor, you are certainly not spreading the message of Christianity.

If you love and help those who you don't know you're way off base for Christianity. You might be closer to atheism - we do it because we are all part of society.

The message of Christianity is "just believe in Jesus and it really doesn't matter how you treat people":

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You get heaven no matter what you do.

 

Romans 10:9 ESV 

Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

No reason for you to do anything.

 

 

That's absolutely ridiculous.  Nothing more than a demonstration of bad interepration from not considering the context of a scripture.

 

I can easily point to:

 

 Matt 22:37 - 39

 

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'

This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

 

 

Not only is loving your neighbor a message in Christianity, it ranks #2 on list of commandments. 

 

 

 

 

 

So the son of your God can't keep his story straight? Or he changed his mind and didn't tell anyone? Why didn't it make the list that his dad set out originally? it would've been a good one. 

Also, how does that change the fact that you don't have to do any of them and still get to heaven (according to the son of your God)?

Why did Paul, in the process of making Jesus a full god, remove that loving and doing good requirement from the faith?

Please show me how I'm misreading this - the interpretation is pretty clear to me. It may not be what your pastor told you but the actual biblical context is easy to see.

 

 

No, the Bible is quite clear and consistent in its message.  You just have to dig and mine the scriptures to see the supernatural consistency throughout the entire word of God.  This is why pastors dedicate their whole lives to studying the Bible, and always finding new revelations, new sermons.

 

To really understand this chapter, you need to understand the purpose of the Old Law, how Jesus fullfilled it, and the New Law.   You are saved by grace, not your works.  Now if you decide to not obey God's commandments, you may still make it to heaven by the skin of your teeth, but you won't get rewards and will be part of the least.  I don't wanna wear that badge for eternity.

 

And Paul certainly did not remove the love requirement:

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  Romans 13:8

 

1. So why is it that when something is straightforward as those passages are they need to be interpreted? There is no supernatural consistency here - The writer of Matthew made Jesus contradict himself. Or do you mean by "supernatural consistency" "what my pastor tells me so I don't have to read it"?

2. Some of the pastors who do study the Bible seriously become atheists behind the pulpit. How's that for a new revelation? 

3. The New Law is the one that says you have to believe and that's all. That's one of the reasons why there was a rift between Paul and James. That and elevating Jesus to godhood (not even Jesus did that).

4. If you are saved by grace why are you complaining about atheists helping their fellow man?

5. Romans 13:8 applies to Christians loving other Christians - and you are teaching me about context?

6. Can you get your church to pay attention to Romans 13:7? At least the part about paying taxes?

 

1.   Funny how atheist's interpretation is always the one that is the most negative seemingly contradictory one.  You just can't admit that the Bible actually has good teachings on life's principles.

2.  And some atheists like Lee Strobel who studied the Bible seriously became Christians.  Your point is?

3.  Jesus certainly refers to himself as part of the Godhead.  That is evident way back in Genesis.  He said He came to fullfill the law.   Part of that fullfillment was fullfilling the numerous OT prophecies about the messiah.

4.  I'm certainly not complaining about atheists being charitable or saying that they are incapable of such things.   I'm saying there is nothing good or worthwhile in spending time mocking and cutting down other people.  Nothing at all. 

5.  I see nothing in even the whole chapter that says you should only love your Christian brother or sister.

6.  I have no problem with churches paying taxes.  It would give us the freedom to endorse political candidates and have a clear voice in government.  I bet you wouldn't like that though, huh?

1. The Bible has good stuff in it. Most of the good stuff was original to the Bible. It also has a lot of bad stuff in it. Funny that an atheist has to tell you how to read your holy book.

2. Lee Strobel was about as much of an atheist as Josh McDowell was when he started work on ETDAV (that is not one at all). That's partly why they don't or can't write honest books.

3. Jesus (if he existed) was an observant Jew and would not have done such a thing. The writers of the Gospel (converts of Paul) had no problem putting those words in the character's mouth as it suited their teacher's needs.

4. I haven't done that to you. And you've been giving as good as you've gotten in the "mocking and cutting down other people" area.

5. "Love one another" only held for the church community. 

6. I don't care about churches endorsing politicians. A good number of them do despite the law. They also have a clearer voice in the government than the atheists do. Why would you think I'd be against freedom? That's the job of the Christian in America.

 

 

1.  Really, can you bring yourself to actually list at least one good teaching in the Bible?  Atheists merely demonstrate that they don't know how to read the Bible.   Yes, it has bad stuff in it because it never lies about history.  Man does bad things ,and the Bible doesn't white wash the events.

 

2.  Yeah, I've heard that one before.  An atheist who becomes a Christian, oh well, they must have never been an atheist!  Interesting how you rationalize things in your mind.  What about this guy? 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/atheist-activist-who-threatened-to-sue-to-stop-texas-nativity-has-become-a-christian/

 

I particularly like this statement:

 

"There’s been one lingering thought in the back of my head my entire life, and it‘s one thought that I’ve never been able to reconcile, and that is the vast difference between all the animals and us,” Greene told The Christian Post on Tuesday, as he began to explain his recent transformation from atheist to Christian. The theory of evolution didn’t answer his questions, he says, so he just set those questions aside and didn’t think about them anymore "

 

3.  So you know Jesus better than the authors of the Bible?   I would think you need a time machine to make such a bold claim.

 

 

Taken in reverse:

3. Do I know Jesus better than the authors of the Bible? No, I know him exactly as well. See, the authors of the Gospels didn't know him either.

2. The thing is I've read both Strobel and McDowell (I doubt you have). For people who were trying to disprove Jesus they gave up way too easily and/or put no effort into it at all.

1. What would you like me to say? Not killing, not stealing - good stuff. Being honest in your dealings, tempering justice with mercy - good stuff. People were doing that before anyone thought about the Hebrews or the Canaanites. This is why one of the first things they did was exempt their gods from those rules. Men do bad things, true. Those things men do are not nearly as evil as what they create their gods to perform.

Why do theists make this so easy?

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10138
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TWD fails with every post

TWD fails with every post

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 I think we're all

 I think we're all forgetting the golden rule..

Don't bother arguing with an idiot - they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

TWD, you've been absolutely trounced on this thread by several members who have soundly rebutted your premise, and all you can do is ignore or falsely assert suppositions. It's pointless. We all know you need your little god-bud to hear you and justify your actions.. but your position here is untenable.

 

Unfortunately you have no idea how to make a competent case, examine evidence, or admit when you're beaten, which is why there is frustration from some members on your invalid approach to the discussion. (Deny and ignore - as quoted above) so this thread will probably linger on with you saying you're right, and everyone else laughing at you for a while yet.

 

If you do nothing else from this thread, at least understand the Philosophical burden of proof:

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

This is the core issue you have - you assert a positive claim that X is true (Language came from god / god exists) . This is your responsibility to prove - if you shift it to try and get someone else to prove your claim is false, this is known as an appeal to ignorance. This is an invalid technique to use, and you'll keep getting called out on it. 

If you continue to make this error, you'll be treated like an idiot, especially after it's been explained to you (again).

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:TWD fails with

Vastet wrote:
TWD fails with every post

 

Seeing how atheists will NEVER admit that a Christian is right,  I take no offense to such tired rhetoric.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:TWD39 wrote:Your

cj wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Your explanation just doesn't hold water with me.  It over simplifies the topic.  It's a far cry to go from associating sounds with objects to expressing concepts like metaphors, or describing intangle non-physical items.  How would you tell the other person that you love them?  Point to your heart?  No, that's a modern association.

 

If I were stuck on an island with someone of a different language, we would find a way to communicate because we already have foundations of language.  We would draw from those foundations to forge a common communication.  A baby can learn to speak because a foundation already exists.   The foundation had to start somewhere.    You have no proof that early man would have eventually understood even a basic word/object association. 

 

My youngest son has a learning disorder, it is called "communication disorder" or "specific language impaired."

Wiki's definition will do:

Quote:

Specific language impairment (SLI) is diagnosed when a child has delayed or disordered language development for no apparent reason.[1] Usually the first indication of SLI is that the child is later than usual in starting to speak and subsequently is delayed in putting words together to form sentences. Spoken language may be immature throughout corresponds to an expressive language impairment. In many children with SLI, understanding of language, or receptive language, is also impaired, though this may not be obvious unless the child is given a formal assessment.[2] Although difficulties with use and understanding of complex sentences are a common feature of SLI, the diagnostic criteria encompass a wide range of problems, and for some children other aspects of language are problematic (see below). In general, the term SLI is reserved for children whose language difficulties persist into school age, and so it would not be applied to toddlers who are late to start talking, most of whom catch up with their peer group after a late start.[3]

 

My son's impairment was severe enough he didn't understand body language.  He didn't speak in full sentences until he was almost 7 and then they were very simple sentences.  Language impacts every thing you learn - even mathematics - and he struggled all through school.  So, did he learn language?  Yes, specifically he learned English.  Can he speak in grammatical sentences?  Yes, and he can express complex ideas including metaphors.  He learned to read in junior high but it has never been a favorite past time.  There was no denying he did not understand communicating in a language before he got into the special ed classes and before I learned how to help him learn.

I read about language and learning disabilities a lot. What I can tell you is that, yes, it would have been next to impossible to learn a full language with metaphors, allegories, and fairy tales with poor Opp and Urg never growing up with the idea of language and complex ideas.  But I am reasonably certain metaphors and such were not required when a person is chipping tools off of stone and making bone needles to sew up their fur bikini. 

Languages evolved just like you said English evolved.  I notice you haven't replied to my previous post.  I am not going to let you get away with this, I will keep repeating what you said until you get it.  Language likely started with simple requests that were relevant to their lives, and evolved - just like English - into more complex language.  I suspect language evolved until it was complex enough that people could begin to speak about complex building projects - the hallmark of civilization.  And then, writing evolved to allow people to account for all their things.  Only when civilization is complex enough that you have a division of labor - farmers, shepherds, craftsmen, warriors, kings and priests - do some people have enough leisure that they can begin to create and tell stories.  And as the old stories became stale, some bright person(s) created allegories and metaphors.

It really isn't all that difficult to be able to imagine how language evolved just like you said English evolved.  

 

 

I don't disagree that language evolves.  It is in a constant state of evolution.   But in order to for language to evolve, you must have a beginning.  This is where evolution fails to demonstrate evidence of a beginning.  It's a huge leap to go from animal noises to forming distinct vowel sounds and construct a word from those sounds.  How did early man learn to make these vowel sounds and create words with vowels and consonants?   Mitch Hedberg had a funny bit about words from the south missing vowels, and how ridiculous it sounds without vowels.