One of Kelly's Statements in the Debate with Kirk and Ray

AeroGuy
Theist
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
One of Kelly's Statements in the Debate with Kirk and Ray

First off i would like to say i am a theist, more specifically a Christian. I am not posting this to engage in heated debate over evolution, existence, etc.. I am merely posting in response to something Kelly said (which I will paraphrase) on the Debate with Kirk and Ray...

I had to watch the debates online since i missed the tv ones so it tended to end suddenly and mess up for whatever reason which i have no idea....that said

During some point in the debate, Kelly ended up saying something to the affect of you can do whatever you want to and as long as you ask forgiveness/repent then its good..Someone maybe can enlighten me on the full quote but i believe that was the main jist of the statement.

That is simply not what the Christian faith is. If you are a true follower of Christ you will not want to sin. It does not mean that you will not sin, but the goal is not to see how much you can get away with, but to see how much you can strive to be like the example Christ set. Everyone will mess up at some point or another. Now as a believer in Christ it is important not to judge people. God does the judging. There is a difference between judging and telling a friend they messed up when you know the facts and their circumstances. No one has the right to judge someone else for an act that was committed.

That also being said, if you believed what Kelly stated, for sake of an example say hypothetically you are a person who believes they can do whatever they want and pray and it all be good. Why are you committing these acts that upon searching, if needed, you would find would not be pleasing to God? If your motivation is to do whatever you want to do then examine yourself. Is God more important than you? Or are you just "Christian" because you have gone to church all your life or your parents are?

This example makes the obvious assumptions that yes there is a God and yes you believe in Him. I believe that motivation is the key in this situation. If you believe that you can do anything you want to as a Christian then your representation of the Christian faith is off.

I say this example to help explain that if you happen to believe in something else, what the Christian faith is about. It is not about serving your own ways, doing what you want to do, when you want to do it, and how you want to do it. It is a life of servitude, putting God first and everyone else before yourself. " Mark 12:28-31 shows this.

Now I am not trying to say you can't do anything (like literally)

You can do absolutely anything you want to. It does not mean it is the best choice, or a right or wrong choice, but you can do whatever you want to. From a Christian's perspective though, although you have the liberty to do whatever you want to, God is more important than yourself as well as others. Focusing all your attention on your own wants and needs is not what the Christian faith is about.

So in response to Kelly's statement, I would just like to say search it out for yourself. I am happy to try to help with your understanding of any issue, but i will be the first to admit i will not have the answers to everything. I am not going to pretend to be some answer guru that can answer any question possible. If i can not answer it i will try to find out the whats and whys, but in the end, I would just ask that you search for yourself also. That is why i encourage checking this issue outfor yourself. Dont just believe something because someone tells you, know why you believe something yourself. Actively search for the answers to the questions you seek.

 


Edweird
Edweird's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
I think that the issue you

I think that the issue you are having with her statement is largely emotional and in defense of your belief. Correct me if im wrong, but your deity of choice is considered to be a forgiving god, to the point that even the most lost individuals can come seek forgivness by accepting your deity as a personal lighthouse of morality. So, if perchance, the most lothesome person you can imagine can make the proper mental reprograming and repent his ways, then you can indeed do anything and get absolved of it per your deitys by laws. Except of course what we pointed out with the blasphemy challenge, for the bylaws "written/inspired" by your deity clearly seperate that as a special exception to the "all is forgiven" policy.

 

-Ed

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?." Douglas Adams


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"If you are a true follower

"If you are a true follower of Christ you will not want to sin. It does not mean that you will not sin, but the goal is not to see how much you can get away with, but to see how much you can strive to be like the example Christ set. "

This is the no-true-scotsman logical fallacy.

"No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking – or do I sincerely want to be right?:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
Flew's original example may be softened into the following [1]:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
This form of argument is an informal fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge" or "doing such a thing [as committing a sex crime]") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

It is an invalid argument.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AeroGuy
Theist
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Ed, Thanks for responding

Ed,

Thanks for responding first. Yes this is a very emotional topic for me. It has bothered me very often that people think this way.  That is why i registered on here and made the post.  In response to what you said, I would say yes also. The beauty of Christianity is that whatever sins you may commit can be forgiven.  You do not have to clean your life up to come to God; you come to God and he does the cleaning.  You can be the most loathsome person and come to Christ.  There is no stipulation in regards to cleaning up your life that must be met to come to Christ; the invitiation is always open.  Now in response to the Blasphemy Challenge.  I have seen online videos plus videos on the news basically saying what it is.  And yes the verse that is used does say that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven.  Now I am definately not a language scholar or a seminary student.  I havnt done extensive research into it.  Mainly stating what the footnote says under it in my Bible, I cant really argue this point thoroughly as i have not done alot of research.  But just from what my footnote says, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not denying that the Holy Spirit exists, rather its saying that the work Jesus did was done by Satan.  I can't really discuss any more about it at this point but i will definately look into it more since you did bring it up.  Reading it does come out to say exactly what the Blasphemy Challenge says.  If you take a literal wording without understanding context of the discussion then I can see how that is said.  I do not fully understand everything in it, but i will look into it more.


AeroGuy
Theist
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, Thanks for

Vastet,

Thanks for responding.  I have never heard of this fallacy before.  It does make sense.  Correct me at any time in understanding the fallacy.  In relation to Christianity, there are many different believes within the denominations and different groups.  My point i was making was from reading the Bible, does it say ever for as a "Christian" you can do whatever you want to and just ask forgiveness and everythings cool.  One can infer that from some verses.  However, not speaking along the lines of any denomination or group, from a Christian's point of view.  If God is first in your life and you know that God hates sin, why are you in a state of rebellion?  Thats where I was saying to examine yourself and ask is my goal to please God in all that i do or to do what i want.

Now the sad thing for me.  There are many different ideas that simply are not biblical in foundation.  For instance, a girl told me that on her college campus, "Christians" came onto her campus holding big signs saying "Homos go to hell" and telling people that.  You do not want to scare people into becoming a Christian.  Like if you dont believe this you are eternally doomed. You want to come to people out of love.  If you would like i could show you some verses that talk about love and compassion in talking to others.  Hopefully, we both can agree that if you were a non-Christian, having people openly tell you without any discussion that you are going to hell could incite anger or dislike.  No one (for the most part) likes hearing they are going to hell.  Now it is necessary in some cases but only after the whole gospel is presented and that person understands why thats so.  But as for an opening statement its simply not biblical in practice.  When you come to Christ, it should be out of need and humility rather than fear.  Hopefully we can also agree that scaring someone into believing an idea is not right.    


Zeus
Zeus's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Your argument however is

Your argument however is one that lacks any sort of logical weight. For one to experience love, peace, compassion, etc., one does not need to be a theist.

"You do not want to scare people into becoming a Christian.  Like if you dont believe this you are eternally doomed. You want to come to people out of love.  If you would like i could show you some verses that talk about love and compassion in talking to others.  Hopefully, we both can agree that if you were a non-Christian, having people openly tell you without any discussion that you are going to hell could incite anger or dislike.  No one (for the most part) likes hearing they are going to hell.  Now it is necessary in some cases but only after the whole gospel is presented and that person understands why thats so."

 1) You are presenting the existance of hell as fact, while there is no proof other then biblical reference which is far from historical fact. It would be like me presenting the existance of Hades as fact because it is in the Odyssey.

2) People don't like being told that they are going to go to hell if they don't/do something because it is a terroristic threat.

3) It is never necessary to instill fear into another in order to accomplish a goal. See> Nazi Germany.

4) You believe the introduction of the fear of hell is only necessary after the whole gospel has been preached. Meaning that you first want people to blindly believe before adding these confusing variables. By then their faith is so strong that the damage is already done, and instilling the fear of hell has become an easier task.

 Let's move on...

"Correct me at any time in understanding the fallacy.  In relation to Christianity, there are many different believes within the denominations and different groups.  My point i was making was from reading the Bible, does it say ever for as a "Christian" you can do whatever you want to and just ask forgiveness and everythings cool.  One can infer that from some verses."

Ok...so you deny the fact that all sins can be forgiven as there are denominations who believe otherwise. However it says in your bible, in your gospel, the piece of literature that cements your faith the following: "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." There are also similiar verses in Matthew 12:31-32 and Luke 12:10. You claim one could infer that this is what it says but not necessarily confirm it. Well of course one would infer it if that's exactly what it says black and white in the most divine of your texts. So the only inconsistency in eternal forgiveness is denying the existence of the entity that you call god, interesting. Sounds like a good way to silence those who fear the flame.

 "Now the sad thing for me.  There are many different ideas that simply are not biblical in foundation.  For instance, a girl told me that on her college campus, "Christians" came onto her campus holding big signs saying "Homos go to hell" and telling people that."

Actually that idea is indeed biblical in foundation. There are multiple biblical passages that denounce homosexuality as a sin against god. Examples:

 Leviticus 20:13- "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Leviticus 18:22- "And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination."

 In Genesis chapters 18 and 19 the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God because of their sins against him. Specifically homosexuality, as the people in the town of sodom were having same sex relationships. One could also argue that there are contextual references to these events in the New Testament that denounces such acts. At any rate homosexuality was presented as deplorable and an act that should be punished. Sounds like a good way to wield one's own agenda and exploit god as a reason one should not do something or else face eternal fire.

 "When you come to Christ, it should be out of need and humility rather than fear.  Hopefully we can also agree that scaring someone into believing an idea is not right."

 

Your right, scaring someone into belief is definately not right. It is also the premise of Christianiy. Do this, or you shall burn for an eternity. It is masked by messages of peace and love so to gain followers, only so that it may yield it's control and agenda with absolute power over the faithful. It is a complex hoax based on fear of death and punishment. It exploits human nature, and allows for those who succumb to it's manmade doctorine to be molded and controlled. Would you believe this had you not been taught to think in such a way?

Perhaps you'd also believe in Valhalla or Hades had you been taught to think in such away. They too had prophets, they too outlandish laws and belief sets exploited so power may be yielded.

 

Stay Rational,

 

Zeus 

 

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

--William Drummond


AeroGuy
Theist
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Zeus, Thanks for

Zeus,

Thanks for responding.  You said a whole lot so i will try to respond best i can to all of it.

I believe in a heaven and a hell.  The Bible clearly teaches on there being punishment for sin.  That punishment is eternal seperation from God otherwise known as hell. As for using hell as a terroristic threat, definately some people do. They use it soley for the reason of creating fear in the person they are talking to and maybe that will motivate them.  A person's motivation to come to Christ should not be because if they dont they will go to hell, but that they recognize that without Him they are lost.  I came to Christ not because someone told me if i dont then i will go to hell, but because i had an experience where i knew that i had sinned.  Knowing "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" I knew that if i did not yes i would spend an eternity in hell apart from God. I decided to put my faith and trust in Christ that moment but i assure you i was not "scared" into becoming a Christian.  I made the choice on my own.  I say that because yes some people try to motivate people to come to Christ out of fear.  But that is not the reason you come to Christ.  What i was saying earlier was its not right just to tell someone they are going to hell without telling them why they are because yes, no one likes hearing they are going to hell.  

Ok I believe all sins can be forgiven.  Yes i know some denominations believe that some cant be.  Maybe you can enlighten me some more on some more specifics on this.  As for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as i said in my earlier replies i am not a language scholar or a seminary grad.  But since you brought it up again i will talk to  some of my friends and people i know and see if i can get a more direct answer for you.  I am quite curious myself. 

Now on homosexuality.   I totally agree with most of what you said.  Yes its clear from the Bible that homosexuality is a sin.  But its important to also note that homosexality will be punished in addition to lying, murdering, etc... Now i do know some denominations, like Catholicism I believe, believe in mortal and vineal sins.  Big sin and little sin.  But from what i read in the Bible i see no distinction between big and little, only that sin will be punished and that all are equal.  If you know of a distinction please feel free to tell me as i have not found one to the contrary.

Now as for wielding power.  Some pastors, priests, etc.. do use this as a means for personal gain.  I am not denying that some people use Christianity as a means to control others.  What i am saying is that idea is not biblical.  Yes the Bible does have instructions on leadership concerning elders and deacons.  But those positions are not there so one or a group of people can excersize authority over the congregation, but to use their position to serve God and the congregation and to make sure everything is ok within the church and that is it accomplishing its goals in itself and in the communtity.  Now as for controlling what i do.  I will be the first to tell you.  No other person controls what i do.  I can litterally do/attempt  whatever i want to.  I choose on my own based on what i read in the Bible or advice given to me what i should and shouldnt do. But sadly yes, some people do use Christianity as a means to control other Christians. 

I think i answered everything but as always if i didnt feel free to tell me and i will try my best to.  


SacKings384
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I think some of you are

I think some of you are missing his point. Kelly tried to make it seem like you could go out, rape and pillage, murder, do whatever you please and at the end of the night go "God please forgive me" and all is well. He's simply trying to say that isn't how the Christian faith works and that is definitely not how it is set up. (BTW, I'm not Christian) Yes your sins can be forgiven, but it's not just like "Hey I'm sorry" and all is done. I mean, I think that's made pretty clear.


Zeus
Zeus's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Actually, if you were more

Actually, if you were more familiar with the Christian faith, you'd know that with the proper mindset and set of confessions, even mortal sins can be forgiven (comparable to buying indulgences for a place in heaven a long time ago). Being just recently turned off of Christianity, Christian mindsets are still unfortunately fresh in my head. The bible claims that the only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the holy spirt. Rape and pillagers feel comforted. There is a place in heaven for you all.

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

--William Drummond


Zeus
Zeus's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Alright, back to the

Alright, back to the grind.

 "I believe in a heaven and a hell.  The Bible clearly teaches on there being punishment for sin. "

The Bible clearly teaches nothing. It mentions a heaven and hell just as the Odyssey mentions Hades. Your blind faith does not serve as premise for argument. Human drawn up conclusions are not basis for fact.

"That punishment is eternal seperation from God otherwise known as hell. As for using hell as a terroristic threat, definately some people do. They use it soley for the reason of creating fear in the person they are talking to and maybe that will motivate them."

 As in, motivate them to follow their beliefs? So they don't go to hell? So they follow for fear of not being punished? Hmm, Stalin must've learned a lot from your god.

"A person's motivation to come to Christ should not be because if they dont they will go to hell, but that they recognize that without Him they are lost."

 Ahh, so hell is only a convenient way to scare Xtians AFTER they've been blindly mislead, I now see the light. Some people do not need Christ to be "found." This personal revelation of logic is much more fulfilling then any mythical christ could have offered me.

 "I came to Christ not because someone told me if i dont then i will go to hell, but because i had an experience where i knew that i had sinned.  Knowing "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" I knew that if i did not yes i would spend an eternity in hell apart from God. I decided to put my faith and trust in Christ that moment but i assure you i was not "scared" into becoming a Christian.  I made the choice on my own.  I say that because yes some people try to motivate people to come to Christ out of fear.  But that is not the reason you come to Christ.  What i was saying earlier was its not right just to tell someone they are going to hell without telling them why they are because yes, no one likes hearing they are going to hell. "

And you believed this because it was instilled in you correct? Or did one day you wake up and begin to feel the flames of hell growing hotter, and decided you needed to expunge your sins or else face eternal damnation? This is not a natural belief. It is propaganda injected into us so that we follow the path of a faith established to maintain control over its believers.

"Ok I believe all sins can be forgiven.  Yes i know some denominations believe that some cant be.  Maybe you can enlighten me some more on some more specifics on this.  As for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as i said in my earlier replies i am not a language scholar or a seminary grad.  But since you brought it up again i will talk to  some of my friends and people i know and see if i can get a more direct answer for you.  I am quite curious myself.  "

 Ok..it's in the bible, I gave you the passages. Just read biotch.

 

"Now on homosexuality.   I totally agree with most of what you said.  Yes its clear from the Bible that homosexuality is a sin.  But its important to also note that homosexality will be punished in addition to lying, murdering, etc... Now i do know some denominations, like Catholicism I believe, believe in mortal and vineal sins.  Big sin and little sin.  But from what i read in the Bible i see no distinction between big and little, only that sin will be punished and that all are equal.  If you know of a distinction please feel free to tell me as i have not found one to the contrary. "

It appears you so blindly believe in the bible that you believe even in Old Testament bullshit soley created for an agenda (much like the New Testament). To say that homosexuality is a sin comparable to rape and murder is ridiculous (to say it is a sin at all is ridiculous, and I am heterosexual for the record). Why don't we just blindly believe everything the bible says? To punish people simply for their differences is inconsistent with the teachings of your god. Why would this be considered a sin other then, "it's wrong, cause God said so?" Such deeply rooted ignorant blind faith in a text full of ambiguity is hard to cure.

"I choose on my own based on what i read in the Bible or advice given to me what i should and shouldnt do. But sadly yes, some people do use Christianity as a means to control other Christians. "

The whole quote basically said the same thing. Christianity wholy uses their doctorine to control their followers, not just partially. From the insertion of Jesus from mythology into historical account (see documetary "The God That Wasn't There," facts such as 7 decade history gap between writing of the gospels and the fact that there were many characters VERY similiar to christ in aincient mythology cited), to manmade law governing the populus.

 

The bible is the users guide to conceding their lives to Christian ideals. Surrender your individuality, they now own your life, and dictate what you can and can't do. Or else be cast into the fire.

 

Stay Rational,

Zeus

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

--William Drummond


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AeroGuy

AeroGuy wrote:

Vastet,

Thanks for responding.  I have never heard of this fallacy before.  It does make sense.  Correct me at any time in understanding the fallacy.  In relation to Christianity, there are many different believes within the denominations and different groups.  My point i was making was from reading the Bible, does it say ever for as a "Christian" you can do whatever you want to and just ask forgiveness and everythings cool.  One can infer that from some verses.  However, not speaking along the lines of any denomination or group, from a Christian's point of view.  If God is first in your life and you know that God hates sin, why are you in a state of rebellion?  Thats where I was saying to examine yourself and ask is my goal to please God in all that i do or to do what i want.

Now the sad thing for me.  There are many different ideas that simply are not biblical in foundation.  For instance, a girl told me that on her college campus, "Christians" came onto her campus holding big signs saying "Homos go to hell" and telling people that.  You do not want to scare people into becoming a Christian.  Like if you dont believe this you are eternally doomed. You want to come to people out of love.  If you would like i could show you some verses that talk about love and compassion in talking to others.  Hopefully, we both can agree that if you were a non-Christian, having people openly tell you without any discussion that you are going to hell could incite anger or dislike.  No one (for the most part) likes hearing they are going to hell.  Now it is necessary in some cases but only after the whole gospel is presented and that person understands why thats so.  But as for an opening statement its simply not biblical in practice.  When you come to Christ, it should be out of need and humility rather than fear.  Hopefully we can also agree that scaring someone into believing an idea is not right.    

Here's the problem. A christian is quite simply someone who believes in the existance of supposed teachings and the being of jesus the christ of the 3 monotheistic religions(moslem, jew, and christian). Technically, being a christian doesn't even require one to believe in a god, let alone follow it's dictates. And I have known a couple of christians who didn't acknowledge a god, believe it or not.

The bible itself isn't known to be accurately translated. There are probably dozens of terms that people aren't certain about(I don't know the specific number or locations and this is irrelevant to this discussion, but Rook would be able to point it out if you ask him). The language is dead. Therefore a great many people have interpretted it different ways. This is why there are different versions of the bible. And part of why while there is 2.3 billion odd christians on the planet, you couldn't even get half of them to agree on one version of christianity.

Since you can't get even get half of christians to agree on what a true christian is, you cannot suggest that anyone who claims to be a christian is not a true christian. Your arguments come from the same source as those of the west borough baptist church(quite possibly the people who you said were seen saying homos go to hell). They use the same original biblical source that you do, they just see the words in a different light than you do.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Areoguy wrote: First off i

Areoguy wrote:

First off i would like to say i am a theist, more specifically a Christian. I am not posting this to engage in heated debate over evolution, existence, etc.. I am merely posting in response to something Kelly said (which I will paraphrase) on the Debate with Kirk and Ray...

I had to watch the debates online since i missed the tv ones so it tended to end suddenly and mess up for whatever reason which i have no idea....that said

During some point in the debate, Kelly ended up saying something to the affect of you can do whatever you want to and as long as you ask forgiveness/repent then its good..Someone maybe can enlighten me on the full quote but i believe that was the main jist of the statement.

That is simply not what the Christian faith is.

You can insist this all you like, but as long as works do not factor into salvation, your claim is illogical.

Quote:
 

If you are a true follower of Christ you will not want to sin.

Wanting to sin is moot, according to christian theism (and our good friend ray comfort) you can't help but sin.

 

Quote:
 

 It does not mean that you will not sin,

Right.

Quote:
 

but the goal is not to see how much you can get away with, but to see how much you can strive to be like the example Christ set.

Again, this is moot. If all sin gets you hell, then all sin is equivalent. So there is literally no moral difference between rape and stealing a pencil in your supposed moral system.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Zeus
Zeus's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
right on vaslet and

right on vastet and todangst.

you did that much more concisely then i ever could.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Zeus wrote: right on

Zeus wrote:

right on vastet and todangst.

you did that much more concisely then i ever could.

I think you did a pretty good job yourself. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
I must say, I thought

I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would sugest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:
I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would sugest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......

You are equating Jimmy Jones and his people to Sapient and his girlfriend?? Do you remember what they are? or were you being stupidly exagerating on purpose? There you go again, acting on preconceptions. you know by your own lords parables, as you have judged others, you have judged yourself. Maybe this means that theres a part of you whos uncomfortable, struggling with doubt, maybe there is something in you that is fearful, and maybe there is some element of submissive psyche in you as well. Pull the timber out of your own eye before youre worried about the sliver in theirs, jesus boy.


Zeus
Zeus's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: I must say, I

Lux wrote:
I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would sugest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......

I believe Kelly and Sapient presented their argument very intelligently and systematically with only a couple minor pitfalls. Your friends Kirk and Ray however were rambling about scripture, preaching rather then proving. They offered absolutely no fact to back up their premise (save of course the "Crocoduck"....are you fucking kidding me?) and claimed they could do so.
How convenient to have an omniscient, omnipitent being that is free from the laws of science, rationality, and man. Makes it easier to believe, and it gives people less headaches.

Sapient is simply exposing what he sees as irrational, and Kelly is supporting, and doing one hell of a job herself.

Perhaps you'd like to debunk their arguments?

As the leading evangelists couldn't (the same geniuses who offered the banana as proof of god's almighty existance).

Stay Rational,

Zeus

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

--William Drummond


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Zeus wrote: Lux wrote: I

Zeus wrote:
Lux wrote:
I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would sugest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......
I believe Kelly and Sapient presented their argument very intelligently and systematically with only a couple minor pitfalls. Your friends Kirk and Ray however were rambling about scripture, preaching rather then proving. They offered absolutely no fact to back up their premise (save of course the "Crocoduck"....are you fucking kidding me?) and claimed they could do so. How convenient to have an omniscient, omnipitent being that is free from the laws of science, rationality, and man. Makes it easier to believe, and it gives people less headaches. Sapient is simply exposing what he sees as irrational, and Kelly is supporting, and doing one hell of a job herself. Perhaps you'd like to debunk their arguments? As the leading evangelists couldn't (the same geniuses who offered the banana as proof of god's almighty existance). Stay Rational, Zeus

 

 

 

 

tell you what, give me a list of the arguements Kelly and boy toy have put forth, that Ray and Kirk couldn't answer, and I will answer them. However, though they did invoke scripture, they came off a little better than RRS. Even Brian and Kelly's Parents were suportive of WOTM, from what I've read.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
If you so high and mighty,

If you so high and mighty, request a debate with RSS, well maybe not. You don't seem to be up to the task. If your arguments you post is your best work, I wouldn't want to waste Sapient's time.  

Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
SacKings384 wrote: I think

SacKings384 wrote:
I think some of you are missing his point. Kelly tried to make it seem like you could go out, rape and pillage, murder, do whatever you please and at the end of the night go "God please forgive me" and all is well. He's simply trying to say that isn't how the Christian faith works and that is definitely not how it is set up. (BTW, I'm not Christian) Yes your sins can be forgiven, but it's not just like "Hey I'm sorry" and all is done. I mean, I think that's made pretty clear.

I used to think that was made pretty clear. But when I see priests and preachers keep getting 'forgiven' but still continue to abuse kids and their community still won't do anything about it, I am left confused and conflicted. So many of these guys have never even had to go to jail for their crimes or face any punishment. Huh? I'm going to hell because I don't think homosexuality is wrong, but this religious yahoo gets to go because he asks for forgiveness *every fricken time* he commits this crime?

Based on that one example (of many), I would have to conclude that yes, indeed you may be evil and that 'forgiveness' thing is a great loophole cause you get to heaven anyway! wo'hoo!

So yeah, I thought it was a no brainer too...

Thank you Kelly for bringing that up in the debate. You took the words right out of my mouth. Thanks for sticking up for me. Actions do speak louder than words in this case.

 

 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
ugzog wrote: If you so high

ugzog wrote:
If you so high and mighty, request a debate with RSS, well maybe not. You don't seem to be up to the task. If your arguments you post is your best work, I wouldn't want to waste Sapient's time.  

 

 

I would have a debate with them. But I'd rather see them debate oh, William Lane Craig, Bill Dembski, Ravi Zacharias, Phillip Johnson. These people I know would make your amaturish little group look silly. Basically your giving Kids bad information. The Blasphemy Challenge WASN"T EVEN BLASHEPMY; thats the first place you all looked dumb. And how mature is it to offer kids a t-shirt for getting on camera and denouncing God? It's a gimic and has been pegged in the media as such. Beileve me I know, I work in the media Eye-wink 

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:

 

tell you what, give me a list of the arguements Kelly and boy toy have put forth, that Ray and Kirk couldn't answer, and I will answer them. However, though they did invoke scripture, they came off a little better than RRS.

 

Lex, I am sorry I can only provide one example for you right now.

Please view the Rational Responeders homepage and watch the first movie. Please advance to just before t he 6 mins mark.

I'm sure there are more, but that one is probably one of the most obvious ones.

Lex wrote:

Even Brian and Kelly's Parents were suportive of WOTM, from what I've read.

I thought that was one of the most important reasons why Brian and Kelly started Rational Responders. I new so I still haven't listened to all the mp3s yet. That was the impression I had. I'll find out.

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:   The

Lux wrote:

 

The Blasphemy Challenge WASN"T EVEN BLASHEPMY; thats the first place you all looked dumb.

 

Now we have to argue about what "blasphemy" is? I think you're missing the point.

Lux wrote:

And how mature is it to offer kids a t-shirt for getting on camera and denouncing God? It's a gimic and has been pegged in the media as such.

 

Hello small and punny, blasphamas Kettle!

Hello gigantic and old, hypocritcal Pot!  Any chance us kettles can get tax-free privilages too?

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: [ There you

Anbesol wrote:

[

There you go again, acting on preconceptions. you know by your own lords parables, as you have judged others, you have judged yourself. Maybe this means that theres a part of you whos uncomfortable, struggling with doubt, maybe there is something in you that is fearful, and maybe there is some element of submissive psyche in you as well. Pull the timber out of your own eye before youre worried about the sliver in theirs, jesus boy.

Timber? Eye? Glass? House?

I got to hand it to xtians, they sure have perfected the art of projection.

I will wait and see what he accusses the next person of. He may be doing that very thing he preaches against! shame!

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AeroGuy

AeroGuy wrote:

Zeus,

Thanks for responding. You said a whole lot so i will try to respond best i can to all of it.

I believe in a heaven and a hell. The Bible clearly teaches on there being punishment for sin. That punishment is eternal seperation from God otherwise known as hell. As for using hell as a terroristic threat, definately some people do. They use it soley for the reason of creating fear in the person they are talking to and maybe that will motivate them. A person's motivation to come to Christ should not be because if they dont they will go to hell, but that they recognize that without Him they are lost. I came to Christ not because someone told me if i dont then i will go to hell, but because i had an experience where i knew that i had sinned. Knowing "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" I knew that if i did not yes i would spend an eternity in hell apart from God. I decided to put my faith and trust in Christ that moment but i assure you i was not "scared" into becoming a Christian. I made the choice on my own. I say that because yes some people try to motivate people to come to Christ out of fear. But that is not the reason you come to Christ. What i was saying earlier was its not right just to tell someone they are going to hell without telling them why they are because yes, no one likes hearing they are going to hell.

Ok I believe all sins can be forgiven. Yes i know some denominations believe that some cant be. Maybe you can enlighten me some more on some more specifics on this. As for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as i said in my earlier replies i am not a language scholar or a seminary grad. But since you brought it up again i will talk to some of my friends and people i know and see if i can get a more direct answer for you. I am quite curious myself.

Now on homosexuality. I totally agree with most of what you said. Yes its clear from the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. But its important to also note that homosexality will be punished in addition to lying, murdering, etc... Now i do know some denominations, like Catholicism I believe, believe in mortal and vineal sins. Big sin and little sin. But from what i read in the Bible i see no distinction between big and little, only that sin will be punished and that all are equal. If you know of a distinction please feel free to tell me as i have not found one to the contrary.

Now as for wielding power. Some pastors, priests, etc.. do use this as a means for personal gain. I am not denying that some people use Christianity as a means to control others. What i am saying is that idea is not biblical. Yes the Bible does have instructions on leadership concerning elders and deacons. But those positions are not there so one or a group of people can excersize authority over the congregation, but to use their position to serve God and the congregation and to make sure everything is ok within the church and that is it accomplishing its goals in itself and in the communtity. Now as for controlling what i do. I will be the first to tell you. No other person controls what i do. I can litterally do/attempt whatever i want to. I choose on my own based on what i read in the Bible or advice given to me what i should and shouldnt do. But sadly yes, some people do use Christianity as a means to control other Christians.

I think i answered everything but as always if i didnt feel free to tell me and i will try my best to.

You believe in heaven and hell. So do other religions, even polytheists. And to all of them I'd ask why?

I am 40. I dont need someone threateng to beat me up for eternity or bribing me with a cookie if I suck up to their leader.

I do good because it is good, not because I fear or expect something.

The beuty of the American Constitution is that it's laws are based on concesnt, not threats or bribes. It puts the responsibility on the individual without coersion.

Name me one Abrahamic deity who's atributes are considering debate or admiting fault and will not punish you if you dont belong to his club?

All these characters are authoritiarn rulers whom if dissobeyed dont just stop at proportional punishment based on public concent, but torture detractors for eternity merely chosing not to be a club member.

I dont find that appealing at all and quite contrary to human freedom. 

Mugger, "You have two choices. Give me your wallet and I'll let you live. Or, keep your wallet and I'll shoot you in the head".

That is how the Abrahamic gods work. They use emotional blackmail.

But even when polythiests do it doesnt make any more sense to me. Even buddhists say that you'll become a cockroach in the next life if you dont do nice things in this one"

A threat is not how you get people to follow. Demonstrating why a givin position. is a good thing to adapt a position, is how you make change.

These are ancient myths people used to maintain power.

Consent and debate and demonstration is a much better way to  go through life than cling to a magical fictional autocrat.

I dont see myth of any kind as anywhere near as usefull as research when it comes to curing desease, crime, famine or war.

Myth is only usefull like watching the NFL or Harry Potter is usefull. It may serve as a metaphore, but it is just entertainment. 

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


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
"Name me one Abrahamic

"Name me one Abrahamic deity who's atributes are considering debate or admiting fault and will not punish you if you dont belong to his club?"

Jesus Christ, even if his followers arent in accordance with this. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: I must say, I

Lux wrote:
I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would sugest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......

Put down the crack pipe or pass it on to me, because it must be some good shit.

And you've actually craweld into their nuerons and video taped their thoughts.

I hope you never sit on a jury ever.

You, "He looks guilty so he must be"

Typical, so typical. Since you cant make a case you delude yourself into believing that the other has emotional problems so you can avoid facing the deficites in your own claims.

She and Brian were on NATIONAL  TV dumbass. My mother giggled like a schoolgirl when she met Jay Leno .

It never occured to you that the situation and pressure of being on national tv caused those reactions. That is a completly seperate issue as to the validity of their case.

You'd accuse me of being a retard if I maid a typo wouldnt you? 

Put the crack pipe down and present the evidence for your deity and stop the pathetic attempts to deflect the fact that you believe in a magicall puppeteer.

If your deity is real, then make your case. Anything less is a dodge and a waste of time. 

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


Zeus
Zeus's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: "Name me

Anbesol wrote:

"Name me one Abrahamic deity who's atributes are considering debate or admiting fault and will not punish you if you dont belong to his club?"

Jesus Christ, even if his followers arent in accordance with this. 

 

Eh..I guess your right, his daddy will do the punishing. Oh wait, aren't him and his daddy one in the same? .-.

So I guess this completely dimembers that argument, as the supposed sinners will all be punished by god (who you believe is jesus...and the holy spirit).

This is of course assuming that the man even existed, as his story conformed strictly to  a mythological pattern. This and the gap between the life of jesus and the gospels. Watch the god movie trailers on the forum.

Brian Fleeming's documentary "The God That Wasn't There," and he is a credited historian. Anyway this is not argument here.

 

Stay Rational,

 

Zeus

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

--William Drummond


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Free Thinking wrote: Lux

Free Thinking wrote:
Lux wrote:

 

tell you what, give me a list of the arguements Kelly and boy toy have put forth, that Ray and Kirk couldn't answer, and I will answer them. However, though they did invoke scripture, they came off a little better than RRS.

 

Lex, I am sorry I can only provide one example for you right now.

Please view the Rational Responeders homepage and watch the first movie. Please advance to just before t he 6 mins mark.

I'm sure there are more, but that one is probably one of the most obvious ones.

Lex wrote:

Even Brian and Kelly's Parents were suportive of WOTM, from what I've read.

I thought that was one of the most important reasons why Brian and Kelly started Rational Responders. I new so I still haven't listened to all the mp3s yet. That was the impression I had. I'll find out.

 

 

 

well, I watched the tape where you told me to. I noticed a few things. I will address a couple of them

 

1. Brian Goes on to refute the idea that if we can see the painting there must have been a designer. Brian then goes on to say something to the effect of"we're in this room, I know the room was designed because I can call the person who designed it". However, this is beside the point. What if you couldn't call or contact a designer, but someone in the room told you who designed it and gave some information about the designer and maybe the name? Would you believe them? What if more than one person in the room with you told you about said designer, would believe them? Futhermore, Why do we have the ability to detect design in nature? How do we recognize information? And how do we tell the difference between information and something random? The point is firstly, that you really wouldn't need someone to tell you if something was designed or not, this is common sense. And, if people told you about the designer, would you have much reason to doubt it was designed?

 

 

2. An infinate universe - This is quite easy, really.

Has the earth always existed? I think we can all agree that it hasn't. What about stars? Have they always existed? the answer is no. Is the universe infinate? I think the answer is no. Look up cosmic singularity. The universe is expanding, suggesting that it had a starting point. I'll get into all this later on at some point.

 

3.  Does the bible teach that all can be forgiven? Can we do anything we want and still be forgiven? The answer is, yes. Do we have to be held accountable for our actions if we sin? Yes. It's really a weak arguement, I know of no Christians that believe they can go out and murder, rape and steal, and then be forgiven and all is forgotten. Forgiveness dopes not equal forgotton. Are we forgiven when we sin, yes. Are still held accountable and punished? yes. the point Brian and Kelly were trying to make was pretty silly.

 

Also, on a side note. When the little pop up said something about Historical method, and consensus, I laughed becuase we use this when we verify the accounts of Jesus, and if we go by Consensus, Jesus would in fact be the Son of God. her point was really quite arbitrary. 

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
" 2. An infinate universe -

"

2. An infinate universe - This is quite easy, really.

Has the earth always existed? I think we can all agree that it hasn't. What about stars? Have they always existed? the answer is no. Is the universe infinate? I think the answer is no. Look up cosmic singularity. The universe is expanding, suggesting that it had a starting point. I'll get into all this later on at some point."

The earth has not always existed, but the matter and energy contained within the earth has always existed.  

the sun has not always existed, but the matter and energy contained therein has.

All things rise and fall to the 'will of god' as you would say, god is the constant creator in the universe, but he has never begun to create, nor can he cease to create.  God is not the beginning of the universe, god is one with the universe, and always has been, as he has time. 

When I say he, do I mean a male?  No, of course not, god is not gendered.  When Jesus was asked how to get into the kingdom of god, one of the many things he said was to "make male and female one". 

When much of the christian church sais "he", they speak of an iedntifiable god that exists outside of the universe, and this is what has destroyed the concept of god to our civilization.  In 1860, Neitzche proclaims that "god is dead".  And indeed, we look at our present culture and we see that the very concept and understanding of god is dead, even though the millenia of writings inspiration to god spoke of something very real, these people cannot see the reality of god because our churches have destroyed understanding him.  Why, they even go so far as to give him a male identity - oppressing women, marking them as subjects of men and not subjects of god, which is an absurd notion to make - we cannot take credit, nor can we hold dominion over the creation of another being.

As soon as you convict yourself in a belief, you stop inquiry into that belief, and stunt your own spiritual growth. 


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: " 2.

Anbesol wrote:
"

2. An infinate universe - This is quite easy, really.

Has the earth always existed? I think we can all agree that it hasn't. What about stars? Have they always existed? the answer is no. Is the universe infinate? I think the answer is no. Look up cosmic singularity. The universe is expanding, suggesting that it had a starting point. I'll get into all this later on at some point."

The earth has not always existed, but the matter and energy contained within the earth has always existed.  

the sun has not always existed, but the matter and energy contained therein has.

All things rise and fall to the 'will of god' as you would say, god is the constant creator in the universe, but he has never begun to create, nor can he cease to create.  God is not the beginning of the universe, god is one with the universe, and always has been, as he has time. 

When I say he, do I mean a male?  No, of course not, god is not gendered.  When Jesus was asked how to get into the kingdom of god, one of the many things he said was to "make male and female one". 

When much of the christian church sais "he", they speak of an iedntifiable god that exists outside of the universe, and this is what has destroyed the concept of god to our civilization.  In 1860, Neitzche proclaims that "god is dead".  And indeed, we look at our present culture and we see that the very concept and understanding of god is dead, even though the millenia of writings inspiration to god spoke of something very real, these people cannot see the reality of god because our churches have destroyed understanding him.  Why, they even go so far as to give him a male identity - oppressing women, marking them as subjects of men and not subjects of god, which is an absurd notion to make - we cannot take credit, nor can we hold dominion over the creation of another being.

As soon as you convict yourself in a belief, you stop inquiry into that belief, and stunt your own spiritual growth. 

 

If matter always existed, it begs the question. How did all of this energy and matter form ITSELF into the universe as we know it? This is an absurd preposition. Even given the billions of years of evolution, I's still irrational to assume that these things just happened. Lets keep in mind the laws of nature and the fine-tuning of the universe that make life possible. We are observers to all of this. Why should we be unique in this way?   

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


Zeus
Zeus's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
"This is an absurd

"This is an absurd preposition."

 

So because science cannot as of yet explain all of the world's mysteries, let's invent a god to explain them? The concept seems flawed to me

Anbesol raises good points. Though I think their are flaws in his christian mindset, he's obviously intelligent.

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

--William Drummond


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Zeus, in reality, jesus did

Zeus, in reality, jesus did not claim he was any unique son of god, he proclaimed he was a son of god, but his intentions were to show others that they are all children of god, which he expressed innumerably. the misconceptions amongst christianity and demanding christ as the lord and personal savior are present because they have not been able to see past the anamolic nature of his parables, furthermore - they also exist because of the Gospel of John, which is the only one of the gospels that actually made any such claims, and was the last written gospel of his disciples. Jesus parables are most profoundly expressed in the Gnostic Gospels, and because Johnians wanted a more unified, strict and controlled perception of christ, they dismissed the other gospels and made one of their own, the LAST gospel written between about 120 and 130 ad, and even went as far as to discredit the gnostic gospels by destroying the perceived characters of the gnostic writers, such as the constantly expressed condescending tones thrown towards thomas, even right down to calling him "thomas the doubter".  This is why the gnostic gospels did not make it into the canon, they wouldnt let the church have thought control over its followers, and the gospel of john was written to please this aim. 

Though there are good teachings of christ within the gospel of john, its awfully crowded by and even tends to get lost in the dogma. You'll find that most christians who are implanting dogma into others, they almost ritualistically cite the gospel of john, because the synoptic and gnostic gospels were much more pleasant, much less demanding, and much more free-spirited.  I really suggest that, if you love christ like you so boldly proclaim, look at his parables in the gnostic gospels, and they may even help lead you to a more conscious clarity.


Anbesol
Theist
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Lux

Brian37 wrote:

Lux wrote:
I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would sugest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......

Put down the crack pipe or pass it on to me, because it must be some good shit.

And you've actually craweld into their nuerons and video taped their thoughts.

I hope you never sit on a jury ever.

You, "He looks guilty so he must be"

Typical, so typical. Since you cant make a case you delude yourself into believing that the other has emotional problems so you can avoid facing the deficites in your own claims.

She and Brian were on NATIONAL TV dumbass. My mother giggled like a schoolgirl when she met Jay Leno .

It never occured to you that the situation and pressure of being on national tv caused those reactions. That is a completly seperate issue as to the validity of their case.

You'd accuse me of being a retard if I maid a typo wouldnt you?

Put the crack pipe down and present the evidence for your deity and stop the pathetic attempts to deflect the fact that you believe in a magicall puppeteer.

If your deity is real, then make your case. Anything less is a dodge and a waste of time.

hehehehehehehe!  You spelled made wrong, you retard! Eye-wink


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Anbesol wrote: Brian37

Anbesol wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

You'd accuse me of being a retard if I maid a typo wouldnt you?

hehehehehehehe! You spelled made wrong, you retard! Eye-wink

Surprised


Aquinas
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, unfortunately your

Vastet, unfortunately your criticism of AeroGuy's argument does not seem to be valid. One cannot utilize the "No True Scotsman" argument if the characteristic being denied is also contradicted in the definition. For example: "no true triangle has more than three sides"

The same principle is true when applied to Christianity. If our definition of a Christian is one who is saved by Christ, and seeks to follow him, then one who is not seeking to follow Christ is contradictory to what is a Christian, and therefore cannot be a Christian.

Thus AeroGuy's criticism is valid by virtue of the principle of non-contradiction.

Now I was looking for the other thread dealing with the Way of the Master debate, and I looked a few pages back, and couldn't seem to find it. I wanted to share my thoughts on the discussion, but I would rather get the ok before I do, I don't want to pull this discussion off topic.


Zeus
Zeus's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Aquinas wrote:Vastet,

Aquinas wrote:

Vastet, unfortunately your criticism of AeroGuy's argument does not seem to be valid. One cannot utilize the "No True Scotsman" argument if the characteristic being denied is also contradicted in the definition. For example: "no true triangle has more than three sides"

The same principle is true when applied to Christianity. If our definition of a Christian is one who is saved by Christ, and seeks to follow him, then one who is not seeking to follow Christ is contradictory to what is a Christian, and therefore cannot be a Christian.

Thus AeroGuy's criticism is valid by virtue of the principle of non-contradiction.

Now I was looking for the other thread dealing with the Way of the Master debate, and I looked a few pages back, and couldn't seem to find it. I wanted to share my thoughts on the discussion, but I would rather get the ok before I do, I don't want to pull this discussion off topic.

eh...this is false because all different christian denominations interpret the bible differently, and therefore have different views on it.

therefore are different.

no true scotsman still holds true.

Stay Rational,

Zeus

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."

--William Drummond


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
To the original poster's

To the original poster's post... I think Kelly's point is reinforced every time they send a deathrow chaplain in to dole out forgiveness to the person who's about to be executed for horrible crimes against humanity.

 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: To the

stuntgibbon wrote:

To the original poster's post... I think Kelly's point is reinforced every time they send a deathrow chaplain in to dole out forgiveness to the person who's about to be executed for horrible crimes against humanity.

"we forgive you *die a horrible death* .... go with god" 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: I must say, I

Lux wrote:
I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would sugest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......

I think Sapient and Kelly merely have little experience in face to face debates on national television, and performed admirably under the circumstances. Kirk and Ray seemed more confident sure....at least until Kirk gave up the whole debate by refusing to respond to a point. Then it was all down hill for them. But then Kirk has been a public figure since childhood, and Ray has been preaching to the masses for decades.
And I can assure you should a day come when Sapient calls himself a god(I mean seriously, not as a joke), then he'll lose 90% of his support and membership instantly. As much as a number of theists like to wish the RRS was a cult or religion, it isn't.
And I think you owe Kelly an apology for such unjustified criticism of her character. I don't know her or Sapient in person, but you have no justification for suggesting she's been enslaved in such a way.

Lux wrote:

ugzog wrote:
If you so high and mighty, request a debate with RSS, well maybe not. You don't seem to be up to the task. If your arguments you post is your best work, I wouldn't want to waste Sapient's time.

 

 

I would have a debate with them. But I'd rather see them debate oh, William Lane Craig, Bill Dembski, Ravi Zacharias, Phillip Johnson. These people I know would make your amaturish little group look silly. Basically your giving Kids bad information. The Blasphemy Challenge WASN"T EVEN BLASHEPMY; thats the first place you all looked dumb. And how mature is it to offer kids a t-shirt for getting on camera and denouncing God? It's a gimic and has been pegged in the media as such. Beileve me I know, I work in the media Eye-wink

No offense, but I could grab a random 12 year old off the street, give him or her a 2 hour briefing, and that's all he or she would need to defeat your so-called experts in religious debate.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
"1Co 10:23 All things are

"1Co 10:23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify."

 

Yes, we can do anything (once saved) and we will continue to be saved. God does not take back salvation, regarless of how sinful we become.

 

Salvation is a gift of God as Ephesians 2:8 specifically says. And it is also a calling, as other verses say.

"Romans 11:30  for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

 

Christians who try not to sin, do so out of love and appreciation for God, never fear. As a saved believer in Christ there is nothing to fear, especially not death or hell.

I know for a fact I could walk away from God right now, and never speak to Him again, and I would still go to Heaven when I die. I stay with Him out of love not fear.

 

I have heard the statment "well, if you can't lose your salvation, why not just do whatever you want" so many times I get nauseus every time I hear it. Have you ever though that maybe living for Christ is what I want to do?

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Zeus wrote: Aquinas

Zeus wrote:
Aquinas wrote:

Vastet, unfortunately your criticism of AeroGuy's argument does not seem to be valid. One cannot utilize the "No True Scotsman" argument if the characteristic being denied is also contradicted in the definition. For example: "no true triangle has more than three sides"

The same principle is true when applied to Christianity. If our definition of a Christian is one who is saved by Christ, and seeks to follow him, then one who is not seeking to follow Christ is contradictory to what is a Christian, and therefore cannot be a Christian.

Thus AeroGuy's criticism is valid by virtue of the principle of non-contradiction.

Now I was looking for the other thread dealing with the Way of the Master debate, and I looked a few pages back, and couldn't seem to find it. I wanted to share my thoughts on the discussion, but I would rather get the ok before I do, I don't want to pull this discussion off topic.

eh...this is false because all different christian denominations interpret the bible differently, and therefore have different views on it.

therefore are different.

no true scotsman still holds true.

Stay Rational,

Zeus

Saved me from saying it. Thanks. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote:

Lux wrote:

I must say, I thought Sapient and Kelly were equally horrible in their futile attempt at debating. Kelly especially looked very uncomortable almost as if she didn't believe what she was saying. Somehow I gather half of what she does is out of love for her Boyfriend. She comes across as someone who isn't very sure of her convictions or lack there of. I would sugest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt, reminds me of Jim Jones and the peop's temple. That kind of control is a dangerous thing. If you read what Jones wrote, he started to tell his followers that HE was God. Be mindful......

 

 

tell you what, give me a list of the arguements Kelly and boy toy have put forth, that Ray and Kirk couldn't answer, and I will answer them. However, though they did invoke scripture, they came off a little better than RRS. Even Brian and Kelly's Parents were suportive of WOTM, from what I've read.

 

Lux, I'd just like to ask you why you feel the need to engage in ad hominem attacks? I've seen so many from you in just a few short days.

Do you truly feel that your christian teachings support your ifondness of critiquing a persons appearance or intelligence? Do you feel that saying these things lends credit to your ideas


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: I would sugest

Lux wrote:
I would sugest that she look into her heart and "be not afraid" to accept the love and truth of God. It seems Sapient has quite a hold on her sprirt

Awesome, Sapient can add "shaman" to his resume now.  


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Lux

Vastet wrote:
Lux wrote:

I would have a debate with them. But I'd rather see them debate oh, William Lane Craig, Bill Dembski, Ravi Zacharias, Phillip Johnson. These people I know would make your amaturish little group look silly.

No offense, but I could grab a random 12 year old off the street, give him or her a 2 hour briefing, and that's all he or she would need to defeat your so-called experts in religious debate.

That sounds like a great idea for a TV show!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Vastet

Sapient wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Lux wrote:

I would have a debate with them. But I'd rather see them debate oh, William Lane Craig, Bill Dembski, Ravi Zacharias, Phillip Johnson. These people I know would make your amaturish little group look silly.

No offense, but I could grab a random 12 year old off the street, give him or her a 2 hour briefing, and that's all he or she would need to defeat your so-called experts in religious debate.

That sounds like a great idea for a TV show!

And at the end of the show, Sapient and Kelly could sit behind a really big table, point to the theist and proclaim "YOU'RE FIRED!"

How's that for an original idea? Wink

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Reality tv that's actually

Reality tv that's actually worth watching. Shocked

Oo. Smileys are back.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.