|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2018 16:50:25 GMT
No, let's note that I didn't feel like discussing it before I discuss the very first thing you brought up - my denomination. I have rarely discussed my beliefs with you so why would I start now? Further, it is not correct for you to add to the beliefs of "my denomination" when you don't know those. Can you really be this big of a moron? This marks your second opportunity to dispute anything I said, and you still don't (because I'm correct). Instead, you opt for blowing smoke and offering insult. Do you think that will work, and if so, for how long? Well, I am disputing the notion that you know anything about me that I haven't told you. Is that not good enough or do I have to waste time dismissing your random and made up list of things I believe? Don't you realize that writing stuff just to write it is simply making you out to be the liar we both already know you are? If you can live with that i can too, but it bears repeating that you're a moron.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 14, 2018 17:01:33 GMT
First, let's note you don't dispute anything I said about your denomination. So the "fundie" shoe fits. Don't be shy about wearing it. That's for you to say to others if you ever wish to. Until then, I'll just say "Your denomination"; and that's perfectly fair since YOU'VE called it that yourself (when speaking to goz not long ago).
No, let's note that I didn't feel like discussing it before I discuss the very first thing you brought up - my denomination. I have rarely discussed my beliefs with you so why would I start now? Further, it is not correct for you to add to the beliefs of "my denomination" when you don't know those. The word “rarely” implies that you have in fact discussed them in the past. So this wouldn’t be a “start” to anything. Just an observation! Also, you haven’t established that he has “added” any beliefs of your denomination at all since you are unwilling to state your denomination, and haven’t denied any aspects about it that he stated. So what are you saying he added that is incorrect?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 14, 2018 17:07:14 GMT
This marks your second opportunity to dispute anything I said, and you still don't (because I'm correct). Instead, you opt for blowing smoke and offering insult. Do you think that will work, and if so, for how long? Well, I am disputing the notion that you know anything about me that I haven't told you. Is that not good enough or do I have to waste time dismissing your random and made up list of things I believe? Don't you realize that writing stuff just to write it is simply making you out to be the liar we both already know you are? If you can live with that i can too, but it bears repeating that you're a moron. Here’s the thing cool. Isapop may not know much about your religious beliefs at all. But everyone here is free to make assumptions educated guesses about your “fundamentalism” based on the things you say, the positions you take, and the fact that you are intentionally coy about what some of your beliefs are, and your unwillingness to be open and honest. You’ve had every opportunity to convince people here just how NOT fundamentalist you are by expressing areas where you disagree with traditional fundamental beliefs. But you’ve chosen not to do that, which suggests that you ARE in fact a fundamentalist and just embarrassed about that (for whatever reason). In any case, you’ve given everyone here (including myself) more of a reason to believe you are one than the reverse. Coming into the discussion, I wasn’t sure if you were or not. Every response you’ve given to Isapop as this thread has progressed has led me to believe further and further that you are one. So if your intention is to convince people that you are not, you’ve had the opposite effec so far.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 14, 2018 17:18:22 GMT
I accept that the bible was written by a lot of different men for a lot of different reasons, some good some bad and that a lot of the accounts of what happened are not eye witness, even if they were and the writers meant the best they were relying on memory from a long time ago. Also there is the matter of context and intended audience. So yeah in other words you don't trust what's written in the bible. You basically resort to cherry picking what you want to accept and reject. The question still stands why are you a Christian if you don't trust the bible, Gadreel you heretic? Remember what we said about heresy? You are also a heretic. Welcome to the gang buddy.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 14, 2018 17:22:23 GMT
Exactly... Take for example... Adam and Eve... & Noah and his Ark. Did they write their autobiographies? No. Did their children write their biographies? No. Did their best friends write about them? It seems, No. So, it was all written as hearsay... And as pointed out by another poster... those stories were with a limited vocabulary, in languages that had to be (inaccurately?) translated, and had to be interpreted. So, Who knows what really happened. To take it all as 100% historical fact, is pretty foolish... As Christians we believe the authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Gadreel obviously isn't as confident in the Holy Spirit's capabilities. more like I am not as confident in man's honesty, but I wish I could be like you and blindly accept what is told to me by other men.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 14, 2018 17:37:04 GMT
captainbryce Gadreel is sceptical about any of the words attributed to Christ being genuinely his, so that can't be it. In fact he isn't sure whether any of it is authentic, and yet he finds it shocking to be labelled a heretic. How about you don't put words in my mouth. Your idiocy is one thing, but false statements are entirely another.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 14, 2018 17:44:38 GMT
As Christians we believe the authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Gadreel obviously isn't as confident in the Holy Spirit's capabilities. HUGE LULZ 'inspired by the holy spirit? So is the holy spirit God, Jesus, Jehovah, the Holy Ghost, Mother Mary Meek'n Mild or any other of the cast of fictitious characters? No that is not what he is saying and well you know it. As Christians we believe that at least some of the authors were inspired by the holy spirit. The holy spirit is essentially that which inspires men to acts of spirituality (I recognise in light of your thread previously that this could be a bit wishy washy, but it has to be). For lack of a better understanding, the holy spirit is the force or the interconnectedness of everything or whatever you want to call it, it is the ineffable face of God™ and it is what inspires some people of all faiths to write actual faith works defined as works that attempt to help readers come to terms with spirituality. You know full well that the list of 'fictitious' characters you gave is not what is meant in the term holy spirit. Just out of interest, the term has to be a bit vague and interpretive because it is only through personal understanding that you can have an idea of the All (which is a much better term than the holy spirit).
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2018 17:52:00 GMT
No, let's note that I didn't feel like discussing it before I discuss the very first thing you brought up - my denomination. I have rarely discussed my beliefs with you so why would I start now? Further, it is not correct for you to add to the beliefs of "my denomination" when you don't know those. The word “rarely” implies that you have in fact discussed them in the past. So this wouldn’t be a “start” to anything. Just an observation! Also, you haven’t established that he has “added” any beliefs of your denomination at all since you are unwilling to state your denomination, and haven’t denied any aspects about it that he stated. So what are you saying he added that is incorrect? Whether I discuss or don't discuss any or all of my beliefs at any point in time has no correlation to assuming what those beliefs are. Everyone here knows approximately two things about my beliefs, hence the rarely discussed part - 1. I believe in God 2. I am a Christian One can ignore all the vagueness that could entail considering a couple billion people identify the exact same way, but any other assumption impugned from those two criteria is the accuser's burden to back up rather than mine to respond to and defend. Of course, it is perfectly board legal to call me a fundy based on a made up list and a made up denomination. What can I do about it? Nothing. However, it is perfectly my right to call someone a liar for creating a list based on a made up denomination.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 14, 2018 18:03:09 GMT
This marks your second opportunity to dispute anything I said, and you still don't (because I'm correct). Instead, you opt for blowing smoke and offering insult. Do you think that will work, and if so, for how long? I haven't claimed any such knowledge about YOU. I stated some things that YOUR DENOMINATION teaches and you don't dispute that your denomination teaches it. So, even having a THIRD opportunity, you still don't dispute anything that I actually said.Random list? It was YOU who twice asked, "What makes me a fundy?" That list goes directly to answering your own question. You shouldn't ask questions if you are afraid of getting an answer. Furthermore, you'll note that I said that these are things that your denomination teaches. I specifically did not say whether or not you believe it. Whether you believe what your denomination teaches only you can say. But if they're your denomination, then the "fundy" label goes along with it. So, more name calling, this time "liar", even though after three chances you do not dispute what I said (and that's because what I said was the truth).
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2018 18:38:43 GMT
I haven't claimed any such knowledge about YOU. I stated some things that YOUR DENOMINATION teaches and you don't dispute that your denomination teaches it. So, even having a THIRD opportunity, you still don't dispute anything that I actually said.Random list? It was YOU who twice asked, "What makes me a fundy?" That list goes directly to answering your own question. You shouldn't ask questions if you are afraid of getting an answer. Furthermore, you'll note that I said that these are things that your denomination teaches. I specifically did not say whether or not you believe it. Whether you believe what your denomination teaches only you can say. But if they're your denomination, then the "fundy" label goes along with it. So, more name calling, this time "liar", even though after three chances you do not dispute what I said (and that's because what I said was the truth). Whatever weirdo. Since you have confessed to being an idiot about this, I'll go ahead and leave it alone after this. Liar isn't name calling. Weirdo may be, but liar simply describes what some one is and whether you are trying to be funny at my expense or not intelligent enough to have a conversation simply on the merits of the topic, you are using lies to prove a point no one asked you to interject in. this is a clear sign that you cannot not argue about something you desperately want to, but have run out of tricks on. You can;t win anything against me in a normal conversation, so now you do weird stuff like this. Come to think of it, based on your logic, weirdo isn't name calling either.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 14, 2018 18:48:39 GMT
I haven't claimed any such knowledge about YOU. I stated some things that YOUR DENOMINATION teaches and you don't dispute that your denomination teaches it. So, even having a THIRD opportunity, you still don't dispute anything that I actually said.Random list? It was YOU who twice asked, "What makes me a fundy?" That list goes directly to answering your own question. You shouldn't ask questions if you are afraid of getting an answer. Furthermore, you'll note that I said that these are things that your denomination teaches. I specifically did not say whether or not you believe it. Whether you believe what your denomination teaches only you can say. But if they're your denomination, then the "fundy" label goes along with it. So, more name calling, this time "liar", even though after three chances you do not dispute what I said (and that's because what I said was the truth). Whatever weirdo. Since you have confessed to being an idiot about this, I'll go ahead and leave it alone after this. Liar isn't name calling. Weirdo may be, but liar simply describes what some one is and whether you are trying to be funny at my expense or not intelligent enough to have a conversation simply on the merits of the topic, you are using lies to prove a point no one asked you to interject in. this is a clear sign that you cannot not argue about something you desperately want to, but have run out of tricks on. You can;t win anything against me in a normal conversation, so now you do weird stuff like this. Come to think of it, based on your logic, weirdo isn't name calling either. So what is your denomination?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2018 19:02:21 GMT
Whatever weirdo. Since you have confessed to being an idiot about this, I'll go ahead and leave it alone after this. Liar isn't name calling. Weirdo may be, but liar simply describes what some one is and whether you are trying to be funny at my expense or not intelligent enough to have a conversation simply on the merits of the topic, you are using lies to prove a point no one asked you to interject in. this is a clear sign that you cannot not argue about something you desperately want to, but have run out of tricks on. You can;t win anything against me in a normal conversation, so now you do weird stuff like this. Come to think of it, based on your logic, weirdo isn't name calling either. So what is your denomination? I belong to a non-denominational church, hand picked by me. Otherwise, I don't spend a lit of time discuss what my church believes because my views are broader than that as it would be with any religious person. It is far more interesting to discuss the Bible with atheists, the majority of people here, as if it is fiction since that is the common ground & the words don't change. To inject my actual beliefs would be to imply my religion shares all of my views which would not be the case or even possible. Like most people, my views are based on what I learn, what I feel, what I read, & my personal thoughts on any particular matter. To involve a particular congregation just results in something similar to someone constantly stating something is omniscient or not believing in the trinity is heretical or all dogs go to heaven.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 14, 2018 19:19:16 GMT
So what is your denomination? I belong to a non-denominational church, hand picked by me. Otherwise, I don't spend a lit of time discuss what my church believes because my views are broader than that as it would be with any religious person. It is far more interesting to discuss the Bible with atheists, the majority of people here, as if it is fiction since that is the common ground & the words don't change. To inject my actual beliefs would be to imply my religion shares all of my views which would not be the case or even possible. Like most people, my views are based on what I learn, what I feel, what I read, & my personal thoughts on any particular matter. To involve a particular congregation just results in something similar to someone constantly stating something is omniscient or not believing in the trinity is heretical or all dogs go to heaven. ok so you are very much like me I suspect, so teh next question is why do you not expound on your personal beliefs? why not just itemise what isapop has said say, oh yeah I believe that, or oh no I dont belive that? I mean this is a similar vein to the omnipotence question where I pointed out a flaw in the perception of omnipotence and resposibility and you argued with me, but it turned out you never held that god was omnipotent in that way, surely it would be easier to simply state your belief?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2018 19:31:53 GMT
I belong to a non-denominational church, hand picked by me. Otherwise, I don't spend a lit of time discuss what my church believes because my views are broader than that as it would be with any religious person. It is far more interesting to discuss the Bible with atheists, the majority of people here, as if it is fiction since that is the common ground & the words don't change. To inject my actual beliefs would be to imply my religion shares all of my views which would not be the case or even possible. Like most people, my views are based on what I learn, what I feel, what I read, & my personal thoughts on any particular matter. To involve a particular congregation just results in something similar to someone constantly stating something is omniscient or not believing in the trinity is heretical or all dogs go to heaven. ok so you are very much like me I suspect, so teh next question is why do you not expound on your personal beliefs? why not just itemise what isapop has said say, oh yeah I believe that, or oh no I dont belive that? I mean this is a similar vein to the omnipotence question where I pointed out a flaw in the perception of omnipotence and resposibility and you argued with me, but it turned out you never held that god was omnipotent in that way, surely it would be easier to simply state your belief? 1. Isapop has made it clear he doesn't actually care what I believe which just verifies he isn;t worth the effort to refute. It doesn't matter to me what isapop believes about me. it doesn't change reality. To be clear, it's not just hi, it's anyone who makes an assumption that has no foundation. I have no idea why that should mean, given the variety in religion, people should assume anything. Bryce accused me of not follow the example of Christi on the basis of nothing other than he doesn't believe it which goes back to it not really changing the reality of a situation. 2. The topics I am interested in very rarely have to do specifically with my beliefs, but rather on the Bible so it's far better to focus on that and if people are bored by tat subject, then that is yet again something that I can't help. I can't really think of a thread that required that perspective that I participated in. 3. A fundy is pretty much anyone who believes in God and reads the Bible at the same time, so my beliefs are irrelevant in creating a consensus about me. Cody & I are not similar in anything but because we are both "theist, that means we are pretty much the same and especially when you can just make up stuff to compensate ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 14, 2018 19:37:16 GMT
ok so you are very much like me I suspect, so teh next question is why do you not expound on your personal beliefs? why not just itemise what isapop has said say, oh yeah I believe that, or oh no I dont belive that? I mean this is a similar vein to the omnipotence question where I pointed out a flaw in the perception of omnipotence and resposibility and you argued with me, but it turned out you never held that god was omnipotent in that way, surely it would be easier to simply state your belief? 1. Isapop has made it clear he doesn't actually care what I believe which just verifies he isn;t worth the effort to refute. It doesn't matter to me what isapop believes about me. it doesn't change reality. To be clear, it's not just hi, it's anyone who makes an assumption that has no foundation. I have no idea why that should mean, given the variety in religion, people should assume anything. Bryce accused me of not follow the example of Christi on the basis of nothing other than he doesn't believe it which goes back to it not really changing the reality of a situation. 2. The topics I am interested in very rarely have to do specifically with my beliefs, but rather on the Bible so it's far better to focus on that and if people are bored by tat subject, then that is yet again something that I can't help. I can't really think of a thread that required that perspective that I participated in. 3. A fundy is pretty much anyone who believes in God and reads the Bible at the same time, so my beliefs are irrelevant in creating a consensus about me. Cody & I are not similar in anything but because we are both "theist, that means we are pretty much the same and especially when you can just make up stuff to compensate ignorance. Fair enough, you are welcome to argue about what you want and if you don't want to discuss your beliefs that is fine, but that does leave the issue that we encountered in the omnipotence discussion, where you argued against my stance and then finally admitted you did not believe in that sort of omnipotence anyway, seems to me like it would be easier for you to simply state your belief in that instance. But as I say you are welcome to do what you want, I was simply interested.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2018 19:43:47 GMT
1. Isapop has made it clear he doesn't actually care what I believe which just verifies he isn;t worth the effort to refute. It doesn't matter to me what isapop believes about me. it doesn't change reality. To be clear, it's not just hi, it's anyone who makes an assumption that has no foundation. I have no idea why that should mean, given the variety in religion, people should assume anything. Bryce accused me of not follow the example of Christi on the basis of nothing other than he doesn't believe it which goes back to it not really changing the reality of a situation. 2. The topics I am interested in very rarely have to do specifically with my beliefs, but rather on the Bible so it's far better to focus on that and if people are bored by tat subject, then that is yet again something that I can't help. I can't really think of a thread that required that perspective that I participated in. 3. A fundy is pretty much anyone who believes in God and reads the Bible at the same time, so my beliefs are irrelevant in creating a consensus about me. Cody & I are not similar in anything but because we are both "theist, that means we are pretty much the same and especially when you can just make up stuff to compensate ignorance. Fair enough, you are welcome to argue about what you want and if you don't want to discuss your beliefs that is fine, but that does leave the issue that we encountered in the omnipotence discussion, where you argued against my stance and then finally admitted you did not believe in that sort of omnipotence anyway, seems to me like it would be easier for you to simply state your belief in that instance. But as I say you are welcome to do what you want, I was simply interested. To correct the argument, it's not that i don;t believe that type of omnipotence, I'm arguing the type you mentioned is not ascribed to God in the Bible which is purely a literary argument. You were making an assumption that I could not locate evidence for and you would not provide. Totally analytical.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 14, 2018 20:14:08 GMT
tpfkar No, let's note that I didn't feel like discussing it before I discuss the very first thing you brought up - my denomination. I have rarely discussed my beliefs with you so why would I start now? Further, it is not correct for you to add to the beliefs of "my denomination" when you don't know those. Can you really be this big of a moron? Let the hate & frantic squirm flow... Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 14, 2018 20:36:28 GMT
The word “rarely” implies that you have in fact discussed them in the past. So this wouldn’t be a “start” to anything. Just an observation! Also, you haven’t established that he has “added” any beliefs of your denomination at all since you are unwilling to state your denomination, and haven’t denied any aspects about it that he stated. So what are you saying he added that is incorrect? Whether I discuss or don't discuss any or all of my beliefs at any point in time has no correlation to assuming what those beliefs are. True. But it DOES have a correlation to whether or not you’ve previously discussed your beliefs or not (which you simultaneously acknowledged that you had, and claimed that you wouldn’t start). That was the point I was making. The word “approximately” implies a large degree of uncertainty with a number as specific and as low as TWO! So if it is not EXACTLY two, and potential could be three, or four, then there is great potential for people to deduce your denomination based on whatever else might be “approximately” known. That may be true. But in this case the accuser (or rather multiple accusers from what I can tell now) have already given their reasons for believing that you are in fact a fundamentalist. Bolstered in part by your refusal to be direct and honest about your beliefs or state some area of fundamentalist doctrine that you disagree with. Beliefs don’t have to be proved! And if you willingly contribute to other people believing that you are a fundamentalist by refusing to elaborate, then YOU bear the burden of convincing people that what they believe is incorrect. You are the one who has chosen to deny the accusations without mounting any sort of defense. That part is on you! Actually, there is plenty you can do about it. A) You can refute one or more of the listed criteria as being representative of fundamentalism B) You can openly state a specific criteria listed that you disagree with and do not adopt. C) You can provide your own alternative list of criterion that you believe represents “true” fundamentalism. D) You can simply state what denomination (if any) of Christianity you follow or align with. You can do many things to clear up the disconnect between what you claim and what everyone else here seems to believe. But as long as you choose not to avail yourself of these options, it is disingenuous of you to cry foul when it comes to how others perceive you. The reason most of us believe that you are a fundamentalist is because with each response you’ve given us MORE evidence to validate that suspicion, not less. Nobody here is questioning your “right”. What is being questioned is your honesty. Your supposed fundamentalism is already assumed, and you’ve chosen not to address that assumption. Therefore, your accusation is meaningless other than as an ad hominem. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2018 21:12:06 GMT
captainbryceI have not discussed the beliefs listed, thus no connection. If specifics are not discussed then there is no uncertainty, but rather nothing known in the first place. If something is not know then why comment on it as if it is known or worse, that the possibility of it makes it likely? That is a waste of dialogue and boy was it rampant in that goofy circumcision thread. Why? that makes it my job to respond to something without much value. Why? Again, I would have to prove something the accuser should intelligent enough to prove in the first place. Why? I don't care about fundamentalism. I was just wondering what qualified me as such when there's never been a discussion about those qualities with me. Again, that puts the burden on me to provide something that isn't necessary except for curiosity's sake. People should try to win debates based on what they believe rather than what they believe about their opponent. It's not my fault that the only way people can try to win against me is to make up something about me. And to be clear, maybe some of those things on the list are correct regarding my beliefs. The point is that it was not based on anything isapop derived from me & he's already admitted to that. There's no reason to question that. Not only do I have no reason to lie to a bunch of people that mean nothing to me in life, but I've never even been caught in a lie in order to be question about my honesty. It's just a feeling some people have and that spidey sense is horribly off. you are stating something I repeated, but rest assured, if you say something about me that is not true, you'll be called out on it. that's all. It won't matter one hoot to you or others if I call you a liar, so have at it.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 14, 2018 21:16:23 GMT
What do you mean, like if I found out I was in some Matrix-like simulation? After watching Keanu eat grey goop and chased by robot squids, probably take the blue pill.
|
|