I never liked Michael Jackson as a person, but his music is a whole different story. This man made classic after classic, from Beat it, to Bad, to Billy Jean and many more, the following of which will always be my favorite.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
God the Father.
Vagon, in his latest failed attempt to prove this argument falls victim to reductio ad absurdem brings up a very common misconception about Allah and God. I stated in the conclusion of my argument the following;
Vagon, asserts my argument is a victim to reductio ad absurdum by asserting the following;
In actuality, my argument does not fall victim to reductio ad absurdum, but rather Vagon falls victim to a common misconception about Allah, which leads me to my initial point.
Abraham had 2 children, Issac and Ishmael. Issac is considered the ancestor of the Jewish people.
While Ishmael is considered the ancestor of the Arabs.
This ancestry is significant because both Jews and Arabs beleive and worship the same God as their father Abraham.
Arabs:
While the Jews and Christians obviously maintain that they worship the same God as their Abraham, due to their entire religion being based upon the Torah while the Christians entire religion is based upon the bible. Thus while there are differences and disagreements between the 3 groups, there is no doubt that each group worships the same God, the biggest difference and disagreement among the three religions is Jesus is. It is quite a common misconception(made by Christians and skeptics alike) that Allah is not the same God as Jehovah or God the Father. The main point being that when skeptics appeal to Allah in ways similar to Vagon, they are falling victim to a common misconception.
Counter punches: BUT TD!!! IF MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE SAME GOD YOU DO THEN THEY GET TO GO TO HEAVEN WITHOUT JESUS RIGHT?!???!!!
Not only is this beside the point, it is outstandingly incorrect, Jews worship the same God we do as well, but they like Muslims must accept Jesus as their Savior as well.
BUT TD!!! HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH VERSION IS RIGHT??!!!! THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE SAME GOD?! LOL!! YOU HAVE A ONE AND THREE CHANCE OF GETTING IT RIGHT LOL!!! HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE?!?!!!!
Also beside the point of this thread, but it is a great question and is one that is too complex to cover here and must be saved for a later post. As it stands, this argument has been going on for centuries, and as I said, the main difference and disagreement between the three is who Jesus is(which, in a very poetic sense, suggests what the truth is).
The demand for scientific evidence of God is a self defeating one, the lack of scientific evidence for God is actually evidence of His existence.
Vagon, asserts my argument is a victim to reductio ad absurdum by asserting the following;
"The demand for scientific evidence of Allah, praise be to him, is a self defeating one, the lack of scientific evidence for Allah, praise be to him, is actually evidence of his existence."
In actuality, my argument does not fall victim to reductio ad absurdum, but rather Vagon falls victim to a common misconception about Allah, which leads me to my initial point.
Abraham had 2 children, Issac and Ishmael. Issac is considered the ancestor of the Jewish people.
Sarah bore Abraham a son, Isaac (in Hebrew, Yitzchak), a name derived from the word "laughter," expressing Abraham's joy at having a son in his old age. (Gen 17-18). Isaac was the ancestor of the Jewish people.
While Ishmael is considered the ancestor of the Arabs.
Both Jewish and Islamic traditions consider Ishmael as the ancestor of northern Arab people
This ancestry is significant because both Jews and Arabs beleive and worship the same God as their father Abraham.
Arabs:
According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews [see Qur'an 29:46]. The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham". Peters states that the Qur'an portrays Allah as both more powerful and more remote than Yahweh, and as a universal deity, unlike Yahweh who closely follows Israelites.[9] According to Encyclopedia Britannica (see also the following section for comparison between God's love in Islam and Christianity)
While the Jews and Christians obviously maintain that they worship the same God as their Abraham, due to their entire religion being based upon the Torah while the Christians entire religion is based upon the bible. Thus while there are differences and disagreements between the 3 groups, there is no doubt that each group worships the same God, the biggest difference and disagreement among the three religions is Jesus is. It is quite a common misconception(made by Christians and skeptics alike) that Allah is not the same God as Jehovah or God the Father. The main point being that when skeptics appeal to Allah in ways similar to Vagon, they are falling victim to a common misconception.
Counter punches: BUT TD!!! IF MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE SAME GOD YOU DO THEN THEY GET TO GO TO HEAVEN WITHOUT JESUS RIGHT?!???!!!
Not only is this beside the point, it is outstandingly incorrect, Jews worship the same God we do as well, but they like Muslims must accept Jesus as their Savior as well.
BUT TD!!! HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH VERSION IS RIGHT??!!!! THREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE SAME GOD?! LOL!! YOU HAVE A ONE AND THREE CHANCE OF GETTING IT RIGHT LOL!!! HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE?!?!!!!
Also beside the point of this thread, but it is a great question and is one that is too complex to cover here and must be saved for a later post. As it stands, this argument has been going on for centuries, and as I said, the main difference and disagreement between the three is who Jesus is(which, in a very poetic sense, suggests what the truth is).
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
New rule.
11. Comments are limited to the topic and scope of the thread. Any digression will follow with a warning, and continuing with the digression will result in having all posts that digress from the original topic and scope of the thread deleted.
2 days to comply.
2 days to comply.
Update of rule #3 and rule #5
3. You will be addressed how you addressed others. Expect the typical smug atheist I know it all attitude to be met with a smug Christian/agnostic/etc. I know it all type attitude, reverse applies as well. An apology will 'reset' someones status and give him a clean slate. If poster X starts name calling and having a smug I know it all attitude, as per the rules he will be treated as he treats others, if he apologizes he will be given a clean slate and treated as if he never name called or had a smug I know it all attitude at all.
5. Link arguing or plagiarizing is not permitted here. Link arguing is when someone asks you to back up your assertion and you simply give them a link or a title of a book and that's it. Plagiarizing is simply copying something from a source without citing the source. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
2 days to comply.
5. Link arguing or plagiarizing is not permitted here. Link arguing is when someone asks you to back up your assertion and you simply give them a link or a title of a book and that's it. Plagiarizing is simply copying something from a source without citing the source. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
2 days to comply.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The caliber of a fighter can sometimes be judged by the people who challenge him.
It can be argued that Roy Jones Jr is the best boxers to even lace em up, and one of the ways to argue that is to look at 2 fighters from completely different sports that are challenging him. One of them I already mentioned in a previous post, but the other one is new.
Nick Diaz, 20-7-1 wants to fight him. While he does not have the near flawless record of Silva, he is still a top tier fighter in his weight class. One wonders what these fighters see in Roy that makes them want to challenge him? the passionate fighter in me says they want to challenge him because he presents the best challenge boxing wise, but the business fighter in me says they want to challenge him because they know hes getting old and not only will it be an easy victory, but having a win over Roy is surely going to garner publicity and get your name out there.
With Silva, the former is apparent as his attitude is more like Roy, he wants a challenge from a superior opponent, someone that will test his skills, someone that won't leave him bored in the ring. Nick however, is a bit more tricky, I don't think he is all about the money, and his recent actions in the ring (putting his hands down daring opponents to hit him) suggests that he is looking to prove himself. He could go either way, but I lean toward the former based upon the fact that he left the UFC to sign with Gracie championships, if Nick was looking for money and fame, he sure wouldn't have done that.
After reports surfaced that Dana White had nixed the idea of a fight between Roy Jones Jr and Anderson Silva occuring in the UFC, Strikeforce founder, Scott Coker, agreed to make the fight happen in Strikeforce. Nick Diaz would be fighting Roy Jones Jr.under MMA rules.
“We would absolutely set this fight up. Of course we would have to run it by Showtime for final approval, but I don’t see why we wouldn’t have this fight” -Scott Coker
It now seems that the only hope of seeing one of the legends of boxing stepping into a cage will be through Strikeforce.
Nick Diaz, 20-7-1 wants to fight him. While he does not have the near flawless record of Silva, he is still a top tier fighter in his weight class. One wonders what these fighters see in Roy that makes them want to challenge him? the passionate fighter in me says they want to challenge him because he presents the best challenge boxing wise, but the business fighter in me says they want to challenge him because they know hes getting old and not only will it be an easy victory, but having a win over Roy is surely going to garner publicity and get your name out there.
With Silva, the former is apparent as his attitude is more like Roy, he wants a challenge from a superior opponent, someone that will test his skills, someone that won't leave him bored in the ring. Nick however, is a bit more tricky, I don't think he is all about the money, and his recent actions in the ring (putting his hands down daring opponents to hit him) suggests that he is looking to prove himself. He could go either way, but I lean toward the former based upon the fact that he left the UFC to sign with Gracie championships, if Nick was looking for money and fame, he sure wouldn't have done that.
Update of rule #6
6. There is a 10 error limit and refutation attempt on the blog, if it extends beyond 10 errors or 10 attempts to refute a point you will no longer be allowed to comment on that specific thread, HOWEVER the conversation can continue at my forums. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted.
The new stuff is in bold. Two days to comply.
Rules of the blog
Just like in the UFC and boxing there are rules, these rules are designed among other things to keep the fight from continuing to necessary lengths, (12 round limit) ensure fair play, keep the fight entertaining, and to ensure there is a clear winner. These rules are designed in the same way, to keep the discussions entertaining, ensure fair play, prevent the discussion from continuing to unnecessary lengths..
1. When asked to support your assertion with evidence you will do so or you will admit you either have no evidence or you do not know. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
2. When asked to answer a question you will do so or you will admit you do not know or you cannot answer the question. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
3. You will be addressed how you addressed others. Expect the typical smug atheist I know it all attitude to be met with a smug Christian/agnostic/etc. I know it all type attitude, reverse applies as well. An apology will 'reset' someones status and give him a clean slate. If poster X starts name calling and having a smug I know it all attitude, as per the rules he will be treated as he treats others, if he apologizes he will be given a clean slate and treated as if he never name called or had a smug I know it all attitude at all.
4. You will concede any errors or points. This is in regard to overall points, not spelling errors/typos/ or other insignificant errors. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
5. Link arguing or plagiarizing is not permitted here. Link arguing is when someone asks you to back up your assertion and you simply give them a link or a title of a book and that's it. Plagiarizing is simply copying something from a source without citing the source. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
6. There is a 10 error limit and refutation attempt on the blog, if it extends beyond 10 errors or 10 attempts to refute a point you will no longer be allowed to comment on that specific thread, HOWEVER the conversation can continue at my forums. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted.
7. These rules are subject to change, each change will be announced and you have 2 days to comply with the new change.
8. You will NOT blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Violation of this rule results in a permanent ban.
9. Don't even try to twist and interpret these rules to suit your needs, I made them I know the original meaning and intent of each word rule and the original context of each word and rule.
10. These rules apply to everyone, even me.
11. Comments are limited to the topic and scope of the thread. Any digression will follow with a warning, and continuing with the digression will result in having all posts that digress from the original topic and scope of the thread deleted.
1. When asked to support your assertion with evidence you will do so or you will admit you either have no evidence or you do not know. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
2. When asked to answer a question you will do so or you will admit you do not know or you cannot answer the question. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
3. You will be addressed how you addressed others. Expect the typical smug atheist I know it all attitude to be met with a smug Christian/agnostic/etc. I know it all type attitude, reverse applies as well. An apology will 'reset' someones status and give him a clean slate. If poster X starts name calling and having a smug I know it all attitude, as per the rules he will be treated as he treats others, if he apologizes he will be given a clean slate and treated as if he never name called or had a smug I know it all attitude at all.
4. You will concede any errors or points. This is in regard to overall points, not spelling errors/typos/ or other insignificant errors. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
5. Link arguing or plagiarizing is not permitted here. Link arguing is when someone asks you to back up your assertion and you simply give them a link or a title of a book and that's it. Plagiarizing is simply copying something from a source without citing the source. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted until you comply with this rule.
6. There is a 10 error limit and refutation attempt on the blog, if it extends beyond 10 errors or 10 attempts to refute a point you will no longer be allowed to comment on that specific thread, HOWEVER the conversation can continue at my forums. Violation of this rule will result in having all subsequent posts deleted.
7. These rules are subject to change, each change will be announced and you have 2 days to comply with the new change.
8. You will NOT blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Violation of this rule results in a permanent ban.
9. Don't even try to twist and interpret these rules to suit your needs, I made them I know the original meaning and intent of each word rule and the original context of each word and rule.
10. These rules apply to everyone, even me.
11. Comments are limited to the topic and scope of the thread. Any digression will follow with a warning, and continuing with the digression will result in having all posts that digress from the original topic and scope of the thread deleted.
Monday, June 22, 2009
There's no scientific evidence for God, a very common self defeating argument.
Regarding evidence there is historical, testimonial, and eye witness evidence for God. The only thing missing(and to the skeptics, the most important) is scientific evidence.
Demanding scientific evidence only and placing such a high priority on it leaves the skeptic in a little mess.
For instance, there is no scientific evidence for God, not because God doesn't exist, but because He is simply absent from scientific literature, this is the little mess the skeptic finds himself in, as he believes in things that have no scientific evidence at all. They believe their brother/mother/spouse loves them, or their friends like them but there is no scientific evidence for that. Which leads me to my next point.
God wants peoples faith, He wants people to have faith in Him and if we go by various quotes from skeptics.
Scientific evidence is not faith. Science is not faith based. Why doesn't God show Himself or give scientific evidence for His existence? because according to the skeptics, it would be pointless for God to do so, since scientific evidence is not faith, and that is what God wants us to have, faith. The demand for scientific evidence of God is a self defeating one, the lack of scientific evidence for God is actually evidence of His existence.
Demanding scientific evidence only and placing such a high priority on it leaves the skeptic in a little mess.
For instance, there is no scientific evidence for God, not because God doesn't exist, but because He is simply absent from scientific literature, this is the little mess the skeptic finds himself in, as he believes in things that have no scientific evidence at all. They believe their brother/mother/spouse loves them, or their friends like them but there is no scientific evidence for that. Which leads me to my next point.
God wants peoples faith, He wants people to have faith in Him and if we go by various quotes from skeptics.
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/...s/dawkins.html
Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.
One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...e-faith-based/
This is completely wrong. It shows (unsurprisingly) an utter misunderstanding of how science works. Science is not faith-based, and here’s why.
Scientific evidence is not faith. Science is not faith based. Why doesn't God show Himself or give scientific evidence for His existence? because according to the skeptics, it would be pointless for God to do so, since scientific evidence is not faith, and that is what God wants us to have, faith. The demand for scientific evidence of God is a self defeating one, the lack of scientific evidence for God is actually evidence of His existence.
Monday, June 15, 2009
"Equal rights", Atheism and Marriage.
Atheists that support same sex marriages have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why they shouldn't also be supporting man-animal marriage and incest marriage. The same logic applied to supporting same sex marriage can also be used to support man-animal marriage and incest marriage, which is as follows:
1. Same sex marriage advocates (henceforth called SSMA) seek to change the status quo(which include but not limited to everything from laws, tradition,policies etc.) that marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women.
2. SSMA's can legally attempt and/or successfully change the status quo from(example only) "marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women" to "marriage recognized by the government is between 2 consenting adults regardless sexual orientation."
2a. Why can't animal man marriages and incest marriages also attempt to change the status quo from "marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women" to "marriage recognized by the government is between 2 consenting adults and/or 1 adult and an animal?"
3. The status quo that restrict incest and man animal marriages can be changed to suit their needs and wants no differently than how SSMA's are trying to change the current status quo to suit their needs and wants.
4. Any law the atheist appeals to is irrelevant because of #3.
5. The atheist asserts that marriage is a right.
6. Why shouldn't this right extend to people that want to marry their brothers, fathers, grandmothers etc?
6a. Why shouldn't this right extends to the one adult that wants to marry an animal.
7. Regarding #6, the atheist asserts the right does not extend to them because Incest marriages cause children to have birth defects.
8. #7 is erroneous and irrelevant because this issue is about marriage and not sex. Incest occurs outside of marriage as does homosexuality, sex is not the issue, the issue is marriage. Furthermore, incest does not always lead to birth defects, if both parents do not possess a bad gene the offspring will not have birth defects.
9. Regarding #6a, the atheist asserts the right does not extend to them because, laws and legal reasons(animals do not have rights, animals cannot give consent, animals cannot act as executor of estate etc. etc.)
10. #9 is irrelevant, see #3 for reason.
11. If the atheist appeals to society, (society does not accept incest, man animal marriage etc. etc.)then anyone else can appeal to society too, since society does not accept same sex marriage either.
Conclusion: The atheist has nothing but their own personal opinions, feelings, or the personal opinions and feelings of others as to why they are not fighting for #2a, #6 and #6a the same way they are fighting for same sex marriages. If the atheists personal opinion is good enough to deem same sex marriage acceptable and as a result worth fighting to change the status quo to suit the needs of same sex couples and deem incest marriage and man-animal marriage unacceptable and as a result do not fight to change the status quo to suit the needs of incest marriage and man-animal marriage then anyone elses personal opinion is good enough to deem heterosexual marriage acceptable and as a result worth fighting to keep the status quo and is also good enough to deem same sex marriage, incest marriage, man animal marriage (and all other marriage except heterosexual marriage) unacceptable.
What atheists cannot do is assert that Christians or anyone else for that matter do not have sufficient or good enough reasons to be against same sex marriages, because by their own standard they do not have sufficient or good enough reasons(personal opinions, feelings etc.) to be FOR same sex marriage or sufficient or good enough reasons to be fighting for incest marriage and man animal marriage or if the atheist chooses to assert that marriage is a right, by their own standard they do not have sufficient or good enough reasons as to why that right can't be extended(or enjoyed) to incest and man animal marriages or why incest and man animal marriages can't lobby to extend(or enjoy) that right or why they won't fight for their 'rights' the same why they fight for same sex marriage. If they do assert that they have sufficient or good enough reasons to be FOR same sex marriages then Christians and anyone else have sufficient and good enough reasons to be against it.
Note: I am not promoting incest marriage or man animal marriage, just showing how logically inconsistent atheists are.
Counter punch: BUT TD, WHY DOES THIS APPLY TO ONLY ATHEISTS?!
Because in this particular situation the atheist only has their own personal opinion to rely on. They can't appeal to society because society does not accept same sex marriages(also that constitutes as an appeal to authority) they can't appeal to the law since the law states the government only recognizes marriage between a man and a women, they can't appeal to equal rights because they have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why that right can't be extended(or enjoyed) to incest and man animal marriages or why incest and man animal marriages can't lobby to extend(or enjoy) that right or why they won't fight for their 'rights' the same why they fight for same sex marriage. They have nothing but their own personal opinion, especially on specifics like who should be married and who should not be married. As a Christian, we have something outside of our personal opinion which states quite clearly that incest, man-animal, and same sex are all sins.
1. Same sex marriage advocates (henceforth called SSMA) seek to change the status quo(which include but not limited to everything from laws, tradition,policies etc.) that marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women.
2. SSMA's can legally attempt and/or successfully change the status quo from(example only) "marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women" to "marriage recognized by the government is between 2 consenting adults regardless sexual orientation."
2a. Why can't animal man marriages and incest marriages also attempt to change the status quo from "marriage recognized by the government is between a man and a women" to "marriage recognized by the government is between 2 consenting adults and/or 1 adult and an animal?"
3. The status quo that restrict incest and man animal marriages can be changed to suit their needs and wants no differently than how SSMA's are trying to change the current status quo to suit their needs and wants.
4. Any law the atheist appeals to is irrelevant because of #3.
5. The atheist asserts that marriage is a right.
6. Why shouldn't this right extend to people that want to marry their brothers, fathers, grandmothers etc?
6a. Why shouldn't this right extends to the one adult that wants to marry an animal.
7. Regarding #6, the atheist asserts the right does not extend to them because Incest marriages cause children to have birth defects.
8. #7 is erroneous and irrelevant because this issue is about marriage and not sex. Incest occurs outside of marriage as does homosexuality, sex is not the issue, the issue is marriage. Furthermore, incest does not always lead to birth defects, if both parents do not possess a bad gene the offspring will not have birth defects.
9. Regarding #6a, the atheist asserts the right does not extend to them because, laws and legal reasons(animals do not have rights, animals cannot give consent, animals cannot act as executor of estate etc. etc.)
10. #9 is irrelevant, see #3 for reason.
11. If the atheist appeals to society, (society does not accept incest, man animal marriage etc. etc.)then anyone else can appeal to society too, since society does not accept same sex marriage either.
Conclusion: The atheist has nothing but their own personal opinions, feelings, or the personal opinions and feelings of others as to why they are not fighting for #2a, #6 and #6a the same way they are fighting for same sex marriages. If the atheists personal opinion is good enough to deem same sex marriage acceptable and as a result worth fighting to change the status quo to suit the needs of same sex couples and deem incest marriage and man-animal marriage unacceptable and as a result do not fight to change the status quo to suit the needs of incest marriage and man-animal marriage then anyone elses personal opinion is good enough to deem heterosexual marriage acceptable and as a result worth fighting to keep the status quo and is also good enough to deem same sex marriage, incest marriage, man animal marriage (and all other marriage except heterosexual marriage) unacceptable.
What atheists cannot do is assert that Christians or anyone else for that matter do not have sufficient or good enough reasons to be against same sex marriages, because by their own standard they do not have sufficient or good enough reasons(personal opinions, feelings etc.) to be FOR same sex marriage or sufficient or good enough reasons to be fighting for incest marriage and man animal marriage or if the atheist chooses to assert that marriage is a right, by their own standard they do not have sufficient or good enough reasons as to why that right can't be extended(or enjoyed) to incest and man animal marriages or why incest and man animal marriages can't lobby to extend(or enjoy) that right or why they won't fight for their 'rights' the same why they fight for same sex marriage. If they do assert that they have sufficient or good enough reasons to be FOR same sex marriages then Christians and anyone else have sufficient and good enough reasons to be against it.
Note: I am not promoting incest marriage or man animal marriage, just showing how logically inconsistent atheists are.
Counter punch: BUT TD, WHY DOES THIS APPLY TO ONLY ATHEISTS?!
Because in this particular situation the atheist only has their own personal opinion to rely on. They can't appeal to society because society does not accept same sex marriages(also that constitutes as an appeal to authority) they can't appeal to the law since the law states the government only recognizes marriage between a man and a women, they can't appeal to equal rights because they have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why that right can't be extended(or enjoyed) to incest and man animal marriages or why incest and man animal marriages can't lobby to extend(or enjoy) that right or why they won't fight for their 'rights' the same why they fight for same sex marriage. They have nothing but their own personal opinion, especially on specifics like who should be married and who should not be married. As a Christian, we have something outside of our personal opinion which states quite clearly that incest, man-animal, and same sex are all sins.
An atheists failure to criticize pt 2.
Another ignorant atheist decides to engage in an intellectual battle. When asked to prove my errors, flute provides the following:
The issue was incest of course, so Abraham never married his biological sister.
Genesis 20:12
But indeed [she is] truly my sister. She [is] the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
The word for daughter there is 'bath,' and an acceptable translation for the word bath is adoptive daughter.
So the wiki article becomes irrelevant since I am not maintaining that Sarah was Abraham's half sister, at least in the biological sense, Sarah was an adopted daughter of Abraham's father which was customary back then.
Flute 0/1.
Flute engages in quote mining by completely ignoring the context in which that quote was discussed. I was discussing same sex marriage in the United States and marriage is NOT a right, that UN document is not legally biding in the U.S. No mistake, just another ignorant atheist.
Flute 0/2
Where is the mistake or error here? did I say a cat is capable of acting as an executor of an estate? no I did not, I said it is irrelevant that cats cannot act as an executor of an estate because people leave stuff to their pets when they die all the time.
Flute 0/3
Flute begs the questions, assuming I was proven wrong. Flute also engages in quote mining. I said "The logic that is used to support gay marriage can also be used to support incest and people marrying animals, and atheists have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why they shouldn't be fighting for man-animal marriages and incest marriages as well as same sex marriages." When I said "supporting gay marriage can be used to support incest and people marrying animals" it was simply a variant of that. Also there was no mistake here, flute simply asserted I was proven wrong, he did not show a shred of evidence.
Flute 0/4
Saying "I hope you're kidding" is not providing evidence of me making a mistake.
Flute 0/5
Another quote mine, this was me mocking another atheist, using his own logic to prove that it supports animal man mariages.
Flute 0/6
Conclusion, flute has not provided the necessary evidence to prove a mistake on my part, thus making himself look completely ignorant, basically no change in the status quo.
Flute beats the 10 count
Flute is simply too ignorant to tell the difference between valid interpretations and valid interpretations supported by written context and evidence. For example, Genesis 1 states:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The word earth is 'erets,' which can be translated as the following:
a) earth
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
3) earth (inhabitants
b) land
1) country, territory
2) district, region
3) tribal territory
4) piece of ground
5) land of Canaan, Israel
6) inhabitants of land
These are all valid interpretations of the word, but why do we choose a1 (whole earth) instead of b3?(tribal territory) because of the written and historical context states that 'erets' is talking about the whole earth not a tribal territory. Flute, being the ignorant atheist that he is, sees only valid interpretations and that is it, he is completely oblivious(due to his extreme, deep, unwavering ignorance and inability to think in a logically coherent manner) of context and historical evidence, which is the reason I choose adopted sister rather than half sister.
Atheist logic strikes again, the fact that you and another ignorant atheist think it is a perfectly good word for "sister in law" is not evidence that it is. Just because they are not using what you and another ignorant atheist think they should be using is nothing but an argument from personal opinion. 'Bath' is the word that is used and adopted daughter is an acceptable translation.
Not to mention I said 'adopted daughter,' which has little to nothing to do with Sarah being a sister in law, since she can be an adopted daughter but still be a sister in law.
Flute 0/7
Atheist ignorance strikes again. Look how completely ignorant flute is as he doesn't even realize he proved himself wrong. First off here is the source of the paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Here is the paragraph right above it.
See the bold, it is not formally legally binding, now let's look at Flutes paragraph.
It says it is not a treaty. What is a treaty?
Looks like that marriage 'right,' is not an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. So flute proves his ignorance again, as his own source specifically states the declaration has real power. Let's see what else it says.
"the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights"
So it was adopted only for the purposes of DEFINING the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights."
That UN document of human rights is to the courts what the bible is to the courts. Both are not legally binding. Those rules do not apply to the U.S. anymore than the bible does, both are just moral guidelines. If someone happened to go against the rules in the UN Document they cannot be legally punished, just like if someone happened to go against the rules of the bible they cannot be legally punished. So saying marriage is a right because of an legally unbinding document says it is is like saying Muslims have the right to kill infidels because a legally unbinding document says it does. Here are 2 judges that agree.
Justice kennedy
Justice Scalia
Flute 0/8
Conclusion, flute has not provided the necessary evidence to prove a mistake on my part, thus making himself look completely ignorant, basically no change in the status quo. Eight unanswered punches usually indicates the opponent is in trouble. Will flute throw in the towel or continue to flail about?
Looks like Flute choose to continue to flail about.
Flute is just outstandingly incorrect here.
Stan said the following:
Whatever. Same-sex marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away. Let these peasants have cake.
I responded to that with the following:
Whatever. Bestial marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away. Let these peasents have cake.
Thanks for proving my point stan.
0/9
Bakers evangelical Dictionary and Nave's topical bible are not the end all authorities of translation. Your appeals to authority are irrelevant, just because 2 authorities state it is incest does not in any prove that it is nor does it take away from the FACT that adopted daughter is a valid translation of the word. Due to your utter ignorance you're confusing disagreement with a mistake. Me and 2 authorities disagree, that in no way proves I was wrong or made a mistake.
0/10
Flute due to his complete and utter ignorance simply omits where it states quite clearly that the document is not LEGALLY BINDING, so that definition of marriage is not legally binding. Congratulations on your quote mine and blatant omission of what you can't handle.
There is nothing legally binding about the document, not even the definition. It is nothing but moral guidelines, that is the way in which the U.S. is bound. This unbinding legal documents definition of marriage is no more applicable to the U.S. than the Biblical definition of marriage. Both are not legally binding, both serve as nothing but moral guidelines. Americas has only signed the ICCPR.
The 5 provisions of the ICCPR
So flute once again exposes his ignorance.
0/11
This is nothing but a baseless assertion, Flute simply assertions with no evidence that what I did was a non sequitur, and on that note, what I did was NOT a non sequitur. There, I can assert as baselessly as you can.
0/12
Atheist ignorance strikes again. It doesn't matter what international lawyers believe, it is still NOT a legally binding document. Christians believe the bible is the authority on everything, does that prove that it is? belief does not = proof. Furthermore it states quite clearly that the declaration only forms PART of customary international law, neither of which applies to America btw, so you've made NO POINT. That is nice that the declaration is cited by governments etc. who appeal to its principles for protection of their recognized human rights. Governments etc. etc. also appeal to the teachings of Jesus and things found in the bible as well, they also appeal to society too, which quite clearly stated that same sex marriage is not accepted. Furthermore, where on earth does this prove a mistake I made? marriage is still not a right since the declaration is not legally binding, you have yet to prove a mistake I made.
0/13
Flute shows his ignorance by omitting things. The ICCPR guidelines are as follows.
The 5 provisions of the ICCPR
Nothing in there about marriage you ignorant atheist.
0/14
Its relevant to the subject you ignorant atheist.
Justice kennedy
It quite clearly says that expressing certain fundamental rights by OTHER NATIONS and people underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.
Justice Scalia
This was a DISSENTING OPINION which quite clearly states that taking guidance from the views of FOREIGN COURTS AND LEGISLATURES discharges the awesome responsibility of the court that proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nations moral standards. No non sequitur, just your complete and utter ignorance of the fallacy and reading comprehension.
0/15
Appeal to ridicule. I never said nor insinuated me > lawyers or biblical scholars, I simply said that what many lawyers believe does not = proof of anything an more than what many Christians believe = proof of anything. Furthermore I said that me disagreeing with scholars is not evidence or proof I made a mistake, since adopted daughter is still an acceptable translation of the word 'bath.' You are appealing to ridicule, take the above argument and twisting it to TD>biblical scholars and TD>internation lawyers.
Furthermore, a closer look at your 'lawyer argument,' there is a fundamental flaw. Here is the link in which it was taken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
In the bold it says CITATION NEEDED. Look what wiki has to say about the citation needed flag.
So flutes argument has no back up. How many is many you ignorant atheist? it can range from 5 lawyers to 500!!! Flutes ignorance is once again exposed here.
0/16
Atheist ignorance strikes again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights
So Articles 1 - 27 of the covenant are NOT self executing, which includes article 23. No right to marriage you ignorant atheist, of course I knew this, I was just waiting for you to throw your haymaker before I accurately countered it. Here is more evidence to bury this ignorant atheist.
Gee, I wonder what is missing from the constitution?
MARRIAGE!
Marriage isn't even mentioned in the US constitution, which is more evidence it is not a right, but theres MORE!! Marriage is not talked about or listed in THE BILL OF RIGHTS EITHER!
0/17
Your inability to find scholars does not take away from the fact that adopted sister is a valid translation of the word bath, your inability to research properly does not in anyway prove me wrong or prove I made a mistake.
0/18
How did you get the idea that adopted daughter was a valid translation of bth? From Strong. :-) Who's appealing to authority? Why leap on that translation of bth and ignore the achowth ?
This isn't even a rebuttal. The ignorant atheist flute cited 2 authorities about Genesis 20:12 being about incest. That does not in any prove that it is, it merely proves that 2 authorities think it is about incest. What the ignorant atheists forgets is that the burden of proof is ON HIM to prove I made a mistake. I asserted that the adopted daughter is a VALID interpretation of the word BATH. So this makes me in disagreement with 2 authorities, which does not prove I made a mistake.
Flute brought up me appealing to authority, this is irrelevant since I am not doing it in a fallacious way so why even bring it up? I think it is because the ignorant atheist doesn't know the difference between a fallacious appeal to authority and an fallacious appeal to authority. The word achowth is irrelevant since she can easily be an adopted half sister. No mistake, just another ignorant atheist.
0/19
Irrelevant and also incorrect. My opinion is based on strongs, which are scholars who actually translate the bible, and even if I did hold my opinion higher than scholars(I don't but I am merely proving a point)so what? that does not change the fact that adopted daughter is still a valid interpretation of the word bath and me disagreeing with 2 scholars does not prove I made a mistake.
0/20
Ignorant atheist flute displays his inability to read. It was explained quite clearly in your 17th failure to prove I made a mistake. They do not have to follow this international law because.
1. "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing"
2. "the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."
3. "Congress has not acted to implement the agreement with legislation"
4. "the ICCPR is only ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law."
5. "it does not form part of the domestic law of the nation."
6. It is not found in the constitution
7. It is not found in the bill or fights.
So you've been proven ignorant AGAIN.
0/20
I explained why it was an appeal to ridicule in response to your 16th attempt to prove I made a mistake. You took my argument and twisted it in a way that appeared ridiculous and created a starw man (since I never once said nor insinuated td>lawyers or td>biblical scholars)this was explained the response to your 16th attempt to prove I made a mistake and now, in response to that, all you did was simply baselessly assert No. That is not a logical coherent rebuttal, it is just a baseless assertion and just more evidence that flute is a logically inept ignorant atheist.
0/21
Yes, this is a mistake as I meant adopted daughter, but it must be noted that this has nothing to do with my overall points, it was a simple mistake.
.5/22
Flute exposes his ignorance again. The original person that wrote Genesis 20:12 had only one meaning to the word bath. We don't know what that original meaning is, but biological sister and adopted sisters are EACH VALID INTERPRETATIONS of the word. THere is no such thing as 'more correct' either something is correct or not correct, but due to the fact that at the time we DON'T KNOW the authors original meaning of the word we can only speculate as to WHICH interpretation is the correct interpretation. I explained why my speculation should be taken over the others in my response to flutes first attempt to prove I made a mistake.
http://www.worldreligionday.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=104
Not only that, but flute due to his ignorance forgets that the burden of proof is ON HIM to prove that I made a mistake, me disagreeing with 2 other authorities on this issue does not prove I made a mistake. Flute needs to prove that 'biological daughter' is the CORRECT AND TRUE meaning of the word bath, and that is practically impossible since the original person that wrote it is dead. Two authorities that state it means 'biological daughter' does not prove the original author meant that, it merely proves that 2 authorities favor one valid interpretation over the other.
.5/23
Flute not only ignores and omits the evidence that was provided in the response to his 17th and 20th attempt to prove I made a mistake, he also has shown complete and utter ignorance of the word ostensibly.
.5/24
Flute once again proves his ignorance as he is simply incorrect, Strong DOES agree with me.
As you can see, strong agrees that adopted daughter is a VALID INTERPRETATION of 'bath.' Furthermore, Scholar Victor P. Hamilton agrees with me
Once again flute is simply too ignorant to understand the following, the burden of proof is on HIM to PROVE I made a mistake and disagreement simply does NOT = a mistake, especially on the interpretations of the ancient words, since nobody knows the original meaning there is simply no way for flute to prove I made a mistake.
.5/25
Flue is simply too ignorant to understand that it might be a valid interpretation of the word, that valid interpretation does not describe the ICCPRs relationship to the united states. The ICCPR is not clearly evidently binding upon the United states as a matter of international because of the EVIDENCE I listed in his 20th failed attempt to prove I made a mistake.
1. "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing"
2. "the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."
3. "Congress has not acted to implement the agreement with legislation"
4. "the ICCPR is only ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law."
5. "it does not form part of the domestic law of the nation."
6. It is not found in the constitution
7. It is not found in the bill or fights.
If it was clearly or evidently binding then a1-27 would be self executing, the declaration would be able to create a private cause of action, congress would've implemented the agreement with legislation, it would form part of the domestic law of the nation, marriage would be found in the Constitution and bill of rights. Due to flutes inability to think coherently combined with his ignorance he simply cannot see that his valid interpretation of the word does not apply to the United Staets.
.5/26
Strong's Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool... Since Strong's Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong's Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training...
This is from the introduction to the revised edition of Strong's.
Strong wrote: "there was an obvious consanguinity" You ignored this.
Strong disagrees with you. "[T]here was an obvious consanguinity" between Abraham and Sarah
Flute pointed out another insignificant error, but an error non the less. Strongs is NOT a translation of the bible and Strongs does NOT agree with me, of course this means nothing. Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Samuel P. Tregelle and the scholar listed above all agree that adopted daughter is a valid translation of the word 'bath'.
1/27
Just another frustrated atheist upset because he is too ignorant to prove his point. He proved 2 insignificant mistakes that had nothing at all to do with my overall points, yet I have 28 counts of lack of logical coherent thought and ignorance.
Conclusion, flute has not provided the necessary evidence to prove a mistake on my part, thus making himself look completely ignorant, basically no change in the status quo. Flute managed to land 2 insignificant glancing blow but the fight has not changed, TD is still completely dominating flute. Flute will no doubt continue to try and swing his arms hoping to land a lucky punch.
You said:
"The patriarch you refer to never married his half sister, she was never his sister, he told her to call herself his sister so they wouldn't kill him."
Then later:
...means biological sister, sister in law or adopted sister. Each is a VALID interpretation...
From wiki:
A half sibling (half brother or half sister) is a sibling with one shared biological or adoptive parent.
The issue was incest of course, so Abraham never married his biological sister.
Genesis 20:12
But indeed [she is] truly my sister. She [is] the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
The word for daughter there is 'bath,' and an acceptable translation for the word bath is adoptive daughter.
daughter
a) daughter, girl, adopted daughter, daughter-in-law, sister, granddaughters, female child, cousin
1) as polite address
So the wiki article becomes irrelevant since I am not maintaining that Sarah was Abraham's half sister, at least in the biological sense, Sarah was an adopted daughter of Abraham's father which was customary back then.
However, the kinship pattern of the Semitic chiefs listed in Genesis followed an established protocol that involved betrothal to half-sisters, so Abram may not have lied when he said that Sarai was his sister. On the other hand, there have been ancient tablets recently recovered from the ancient city of Mari that may suggest otherwise. These ancient Semite legal records show that when a woman is married to a man, she is then formally adopted by his father as a full daughter as well[6].
Flute 0/1.
Td:
"Marriage is not a right PERIOD. It isn't even a legal right, it definitely isn't an civil right "
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not legally biding so Jill has no point at all."
Flute: Countries in the UN recognize this declaration.
Flute engages in quote mining by completely ignoring the context in which that quote was discussed. I was discussing same sex marriage in the United States and marriage is NOT a right, that UN document is not legally biding in the U.S. No mistake, just another ignorant atheist.
Flute 0/2
Flute: In response to "a cat is not capable of acting as executor of an estate." you said "People leave their stuff to the pets when they die all the time."
Maybe, but a cat is still not capable of acting as an executor of an estate.
Where is the mistake or error here? did I say a cat is capable of acting as an executor of an estate? no I did not, I said it is irrelevant that cats cannot act as an executor of an estate because people leave stuff to their pets when they die all the time.
Flute 0/3
Flute: The arguments "supporting gay marriage can be used to support incest and people marrying animals,"
When proven wrong, you just said it over and over.
Flute begs the questions, assuming I was proven wrong. Flute also engages in quote mining. I said "The logic that is used to support gay marriage can also be used to support incest and people marrying animals, and atheists have nothing but their own personal opinion as to why they shouldn't be fighting for man-animal marriages and incest marriages as well as same sex marriages." When I said "supporting gay marriage can be used to support incest and people marrying animals" it was simply a variant of that. Also there was no mistake here, flute simply asserted I was proven wrong, he did not show a shred of evidence.
Flute 0/4
TD: Consent is not required to engage in sexual acts with the pets or own the pets in the first place, so your consent point is irrelevant.
Flute: I hope you are kidding.
Saying "I hope you're kidding" is not providing evidence of me making a mistake.
Flute 0/5
Td: Bestial marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away.
Flute: I hope you are kidding.
Another quote mine, this was me mocking another atheist, using his own logic to prove that it supports animal man mariages.
Flute 0/6
Conclusion, flute has not provided the necessary evidence to prove a mistake on my part, thus making himself look completely ignorant, basically no change in the status quo.
Flute beats the 10 count
TD said: "Example: the word 'bath' (sic) means biological sister, sister in law or adopted sister. Each is a VALID interpretation."
Here's the bit you wrote that you have to read again: "Each is a VALID interpretation." If each of a valid interpretation, why is choose adopted sister? (which is still a half-sibling!)
Flute is simply too ignorant to tell the difference between valid interpretations and valid interpretations supported by written context and evidence. For example, Genesis 1 states:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The word earth is 'erets,' which can be translated as the following:
a) earth
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
3) earth (inhabitants
b) land
1) country, territory
2) district, region
3) tribal territory
4) piece of ground
5) land of Canaan, Israel
6) inhabitants of land
These are all valid interpretations of the word, but why do we choose a1 (whole earth) instead of b3?(tribal territory) because of the written and historical context states that 'erets' is talking about the whole earth not a tribal territory. Flute, being the ignorant atheist that he is, sees only valid interpretations and that is it, he is completely oblivious(due to his extreme, deep, unwavering ignorance and inability to think in a logically coherent manner) of context and historical evidence, which is the reason I choose adopted sister rather than half sister.
Besides as Chris Mackey points out, there's a perfectly good word for "sister in law" in Hebrew. (Strong's Number: 02994) Why not use it if that's what it meant?
Atheist logic strikes again, the fact that you and another ignorant atheist think it is a perfectly good word for "sister in law" is not evidence that it is. Just because they are not using what you and another ignorant atheist think they should be using is nothing but an argument from personal opinion. 'Bath' is the word that is used and adopted daughter is an acceptable translation.
Not to mention I said 'adopted daughter,' which has little to nothing to do with Sarah being a sister in law, since she can be an adopted daughter but still be a sister in law.
Flute 0/7
"While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states."
Hilarious. Exactly what I come to expect from an ignorant Christian.
Is the US a member state of the UN? Yes. Is it binding? Yes.
Atheist ignorance strikes again. Look how completely ignorant flute is as he doesn't even realize he proved himself wrong. First off here is the source of the paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Here is the paragraph right above it.
Even though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights.
See the bold, it is not formally legally binding, now let's look at Flutes paragraph.
While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states.
It says it is not a treaty. What is a treaty?
A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as: (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, exchange of letters, etc.
Looks like that marriage 'right,' is not an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. So flute proves his ignorance again, as his own source specifically states the declaration has real power. Let's see what else it says.
"the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights"
So it was adopted only for the purposes of DEFINING the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights."
That UN document of human rights is to the courts what the bible is to the courts. Both are not legally binding. Those rules do not apply to the U.S. anymore than the bible does, both are just moral guidelines. If someone happened to go against the rules in the UN Document they cannot be legally punished, just like if someone happened to go against the rules of the bible they cannot be legally punished. So saying marriage is a right because of an legally unbinding document says it is is like saying Muslims have the right to kill infidels because a legally unbinding document says it does. Here are 2 judges that agree.
Justice kennedy
(c) The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling
here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court's determination that the penalty is
disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830-831, and n. 31. The
United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty.
It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express
affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those
same rights within our own heritage of freedom. Pp. 21-25
Justice Scalia
Worse still, the Court says in so many
words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our
own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the
Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole
arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports
to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures.
Flute 0/8
Conclusion, flute has not provided the necessary evidence to prove a mistake on my part, thus making himself look completely ignorant, basically no change in the status quo. Eight unanswered punches usually indicates the opponent is in trouble. Will flute throw in the towel or continue to flail about?
Looks like Flute choose to continue to flail about.
When I quoted you saying "Bestial marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away." That was a quote mine and not in context.
Flute is just outstandingly incorrect here.
Stan said the following:
Whatever. Same-sex marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away. Let these peasants have cake.
I responded to that with the following:
Whatever. Bestial marriage will soon enough be federally recognized, and the issue will naturally go away. Let these peasents have cake.
Thanks for proving my point stan.
0/9
And still;
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology and Nave's Topical Bible both have Genesis 20:12 as an example of incest. Baker and Nave spent their entire lives translating the Bible into English. Do you honestly think you know better than them?
Bakers evangelical Dictionary and Nave's topical bible are not the end all authorities of translation. Your appeals to authority are irrelevant, just because 2 authorities state it is incest does not in any prove that it is nor does it take away from the FACT that adopted daughter is a valid translation of the word. Due to your utter ignorance you're confusing disagreement with a mistake. Me and 2 authorities disagree, that in no way proves I was wrong or made a mistake.
0/10
TD: "So it was adopted only for the purposes of DEFINING the meaning... "
The conversation was on the definition of marriage. So congratulations on actually reading the link I supplied.
TD: "Those rules do not apply to the U.S. anymore than the bible does,"
They are not rules. But definitions that are binding for all UN member states.
You've mixed up description with prescription, which is understandable, many people don't understand the difference.
Flute due to his complete and utter ignorance simply omits where it states quite clearly that the document is not LEGALLY BINDING, so that definition of marriage is not legally binding. Congratulations on your quote mine and blatant omission of what you can't handle.
Even though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights.
There is nothing legally binding about the document, not even the definition. It is nothing but moral guidelines, that is the way in which the U.S. is bound. This unbinding legal documents definition of marriage is no more applicable to the U.S. than the Biblical definition of marriage. Both are not legally binding, both serve as nothing but moral guidelines. Americas has only signed the ICCPR.
The United States has signed and ratified the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (but not the Covenant’s Optional Protocol, which would allow Americans to seek remedy through the UN for alleged rights violations by the US government). And President Carter has signed the "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights" for the U.S., but the U.S. government and the people of the United States have not yet generated the political will necessary to ratify this Covenant. While Americans generally recognize civil and political rights as human rights, they have not always shared the same understanding with regard to economic, social and cultural rights (such as the rights to food, clothing, housing and health care).
The 5 provisions of the ICCPR
Five categories
1. Protection on individual's physical integrity (against things such as execution, torture, and arbitrary arrest).
2. Procedural fairness in law (rule of law, rights upon arrest, trial, basic conditions must be met when imprisoned, rights to a lawyer, impartial process in trial).
3. Protection based on gender, religious, racial or other forms of discrimination.
4. Individual freedom of belief, speech, association, freedom of press, right to hold assembly.
5. Right to political participation (organise a political party, vote, voice contempt for current political authority).
Two optional protocols
1. Mechanism by which individuals can launch complaints against member states.
2. Abolition of the death penalty.
So flute once again exposes his ignorance.
0/11
TD: "Here are 2 judges that agree, from Roper v Simmons." Non sequitur.
This is nothing but a baseless assertion, Flute simply assertions with no evidence that what I did was a non sequitur, and on that note, what I did was NOT a non sequitur. There, I can assert as baselessly as you can.
0/12
"Many international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law... The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates and constitutional courts and individual human beings who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognised human rights."
Atheist ignorance strikes again. It doesn't matter what international lawyers believe, it is still NOT a legally binding document. Christians believe the bible is the authority on everything, does that prove that it is? belief does not = proof. Furthermore it states quite clearly that the declaration only forms PART of customary international law, neither of which applies to America btw, so you've made NO POINT. That is nice that the declaration is cited by governments etc. who appeal to its principles for protection of their recognized human rights. Governments etc. etc. also appeal to the teachings of Jesus and things found in the bible as well, they also appeal to society too, which quite clearly stated that same sex marriage is not accepted. Furthermore, where on earth does this prove a mistake I made? marriage is still not a right since the declaration is not legally binding, you have yet to prove a mistake I made.
0/13
Td:The United States has signed and ratified the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
Flute:I wonder where the ICCPR got their definitions from? Oh, the UDHR! Exactly! You're getting closer to admitting you were wrong. There's no shame in it.
Flute shows his ignorance by omitting things. The ICCPR guidelines are as follows.
The 5 provisions of the ICCPR
Five categories
1. Protection on individual's physical integrity (against things such as execution, torture, and arbitrary arrest).
2. Procedural fairness in law (rule of law, rights upon arrest, trial, basic conditions must be met when imprisoned, rights to a lawyer, impartial process in trial).
3. Protection based on gender, religious, racial or other forms of discrimination.
4. Individual freedom of belief, speech, association, freedom of press, right to hold assembly.
5. Right to political participation (organise a political party, vote, voice contempt for current political authority).
Two optional protocols
1. Mechanism by which individuals can launch complaints against member states.
2. Abolition of the death penalty.
Nothing in there about marriage you ignorant atheist.
0/14
It was an obvious non sequitur. The judges are talking about another topic.
Its relevant to the subject you ignorant atheist.
Justice kennedy
(c) The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling
here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court's determination that the penalty is
disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830-831, and n. 31. The
United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty.
It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express
affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those
same rights within our own heritage of freedom. Pp. 21-25
It quite clearly says that expressing certain fundamental rights by OTHER NATIONS and people underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.
Justice Scalia
Worse still, the Court says in so many
words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our
own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the
Eighth Amendment." Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court thus proclaims itself sole
arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports
to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures.
This was a DISSENTING OPINION which quite clearly states that taking guidance from the views of FOREIGN COURTS AND LEGISLATURES discharges the awesome responsibility of the court that proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nations moral standards. No non sequitur, just your complete and utter ignorance of the fallacy and reading comprehension.
0/15
TD>international lawyers!
TD>Biblical scholars! (That probably worked on the translation of his bible!)
Appeal to ridicule. I never said nor insinuated me > lawyers or biblical scholars, I simply said that what many lawyers believe does not = proof of anything an more than what many Christians believe = proof of anything. Furthermore I said that me disagreeing with scholars is not evidence or proof I made a mistake, since adopted daughter is still an acceptable translation of the word 'bath.' You are appealing to ridicule, take the above argument and twisting it to TD>biblical scholars and TD>internation lawyers.
Appeal to ridicule, also called the Horse Laugh[1], is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument.
Furthermore, a closer look at your 'lawyer argument,' there is a fundamental flaw. Here is the link in which it was taken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Many[citation needed] international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law
In the bold it says CITATION NEEDED. Look what wiki has to say about the citation needed flag.
The "citation needed" link you just followed was placed there because somebody feels that the preceding statement needs an inline citation. If you cannot find a source for the statement, exercise extra caution when using the flagged information.
So flutes argument has no back up. How many is many you ignorant atheist? it can range from 5 lawyers to 500!!! Flutes ignorance is once again exposed here.
0/16
Td:Flute shows his ignorance by omitting things. The ICCPR guidelines are as follows.
Flute:Just so you don't look silly, I'll print the next part of capital letters.
READ THE ICCPR! A23. READ THE ICCPR!
Atheist ignorance strikes again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights
The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with 5 reservations, 5 understandings, and 4 declarations.[3] Some, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, have noted that with so many reservations, its implementation has little domestic effect.[4] Included in the Senate's ratification was the declaration that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing",[5] and in a Senate Executive Report stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."[6]
[edit] Effect on domestic law
Where a treaty or covenant is not self-executing, and where Congress has not acted to implement the agreement with legislation, no private right of action is created by ratification. Sei Fujii v. State 38 Cal.2d 718, 242 P.2d 617 (1952); also see Buell v. Mitchell 274 F.3d 337 (6th Cir., 2001) (discussing ICCPR's relationship to death penalty cases, citing to other ICCPR cases). Thus while the ICCPR is ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law, it does not form part of the domestic law of the nation.
So Articles 1 - 27 of the covenant are NOT self executing, which includes article 23. No right to marriage you ignorant atheist, of course I knew this, I was just waiting for you to throw your haymaker before I accurately countered it. Here is more evidence to bury this ignorant atheist.
Have you ever heard someone say, "That's unconstitutional!" or "That's my constitutional right!" and wondered if they were right? You might be surprised how often people get it wrong. You might also be surprised how often people get it right. Your best defense against misconception is reading and knowing your Constitution.
Gee, I wonder what is missing from the constitution?
MARRIAGE!
In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point...
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Marriage. Though not mentioned in the Constitution, marriage has become a constitutional hot-button topic in recent years.
Marriage isn't even mentioned in the US constitution, which is more evidence it is not a right, but theres MORE!! Marriage is not talked about or listed in THE BILL OF RIGHTS EITHER!
0/17
I can't find any scholars that agree with you about Abraham's sister/wife
Your inability to find scholars does not take away from the fact that adopted sister is a valid translation of the word bath, your inability to research properly does not in anyway prove me wrong or prove I made a mistake.
0/18
How did you get the idea that adopted daughter was a valid translation of bth? From Strong. :-) Who's appealing to authority? Why leap on that translation of bth and ignore the achowth ?
This isn't even a rebuttal. The ignorant atheist flute cited 2 authorities about Genesis 20:12 being about incest. That does not in any prove that it is, it merely proves that 2 authorities think it is about incest. What the ignorant atheists forgets is that the burden of proof is ON HIM to prove I made a mistake. I asserted that the adopted daughter is a VALID interpretation of the word BATH. So this makes me in disagreement with 2 authorities, which does not prove I made a mistake.
Flute brought up me appealing to authority, this is irrelevant since I am not doing it in a fallacious way so why even bring it up? I think it is because the ignorant atheist doesn't know the difference between a fallacious appeal to authority and an fallacious appeal to authority. The word achowth is irrelevant since she can easily be an adopted half sister. No mistake, just another ignorant atheist.
0/19
No, it just says you hold your opinion higher than scholars, the people who actually translate the Bible.
Irrelevant and also incorrect. My opinion is based on strongs, which are scholars who actually translate the bible, and even if I did hold my opinion higher than scholars(I don't but I am merely proving a point)so what? that does not change the fact that adopted daughter is still a valid interpretation of the word bath and me disagreeing with 2 scholars does not prove I made a mistake.
0/20
Then please show how and why a country, a member state of the UN, does not have to follow international law.
Ignorant atheist flute displays his inability to read. It was explained quite clearly in your 17th failure to prove I made a mistake. They do not have to follow this international law because.
1. "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing"
2. "the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."
3. "Congress has not acted to implement the agreement with legislation"
4. "the ICCPR is only ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law."
5. "it does not form part of the domestic law of the nation."
6. It is not found in the constitution
7. It is not found in the bill or fights.
So you've been proven ignorant AGAIN.
0/20
Appeal to ridicule? No. Just ridicule actually.
I explained why it was an appeal to ridicule in response to your 16th attempt to prove I made a mistake. You took my argument and twisted it in a way that appeared ridiculous and created a starw man (since I never once said nor insinuated td>lawyers or td>biblical scholars)this was explained the response to your 16th attempt to prove I made a mistake and now, in response to that, all you did was simply baselessly assert No. That is not a logical coherent rebuttal, it is just a baseless assertion and just more evidence that flute is a logically inept ignorant atheist.
0/21
In the other thread, you said "Example: the word 'bath' (sic) means biological sister, sister in law or adopted sister. Each is a VALID interpretation."
On Debunking Atheists you once said bath=sister,sister in law, or adopted sister. Not daughter. You made a small mistake.
Yes, this is a mistake as I meant adopted daughter, but it must be noted that this has nothing to do with my overall points, it was a simple mistake.
.5/22
Secondly, you have not stated WHY your valid interpretation is more correct than the scholar's valid interpretation. You stated "Each is a VALID interpretation." EACH. VALID.
Flute exposes his ignorance again. The original person that wrote Genesis 20:12 had only one meaning to the word bath. We don't know what that original meaning is, but biological sister and adopted sisters are EACH VALID INTERPRETATIONS of the word. THere is no such thing as 'more correct' either something is correct or not correct, but due to the fact that at the time we DON'T KNOW the authors original meaning of the word we can only speculate as to WHICH interpretation is the correct interpretation. I explained why my speculation should be taken over the others in my response to flutes first attempt to prove I made a mistake.
http://www.worldreligionday.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=104
However, the kinship pattern of the Semitic chiefs listed in Genesis followed an established protocol that involved betrothal to half-sisters, so Abram may not have lied when he said that Sarai was his sister. On the other hand, there have been ancient tablets recently recovered from the ancient city of Mari that may suggest otherwise. These ancient Semite legal records show that when a woman is married to a man, she is then formally adopted by his father as a full daughter as well[6].
Not only that, but flute due to his ignorance forgets that the burden of proof is ON HIM to prove that I made a mistake, me disagreeing with 2 other authorities on this issue does not prove I made a mistake. Flute needs to prove that 'biological daughter' is the CORRECT AND TRUE meaning of the word bath, and that is practically impossible since the original person that wrote it is dead. Two authorities that state it means 'biological daughter' does not prove the original author meant that, it merely proves that 2 authorities favor one valid interpretation over the other.
.5/23
You might want to read your link again. "the ICCPR is ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law"
Flute not only ignores and omits the evidence that was provided in the response to his 17th and 20th attempt to prove I made a mistake, he also has shown complete and utter ignorance of the word ostensibly.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ostensible
1 : intended for display : open to view 2 : being such in appearance : plausible rather than demonstrably true or real
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ostensible
1. outwardly appearing as such; professed; pretended: an ostensible cheerfulness concealing sadness.
2. apparent, evident, or conspicuous: the ostensible truth of their theories.
.5/24
Strong doesn't agree with you:
1; Marriages between persons thus related, in various degrees, which previous usage, in different conditions of society, had allowed, were forbidden by the law of Moses. These degrees are enumerated in Lev. xviii, 7 sq. The examples before the law are those of Cain and Abel, who, as the necessity of the case required, married their own sisters. Abraham married Sarah, the daughter of his father by another wife; and Jacob married the two sisters Leah and Rachel.
In the first instance, and even in the second, there was an obvious consanguinity, and only the last offered a previous relationship of affinity merely. So also, in the prohibition of the law, a consanguinity can be traced in what are usually set down as degrees of affinity merely.
Flute once again proves his ignorance as he is simply incorrect, Strong DOES agree with me.
1) daughter
a) daughter, girl, adopted daughter, daughter-in-law, sister, granddaughters, female child, cousin
1) as polite address
As you can see, strong agrees that adopted daughter is a VALID INTERPRETATION of 'bath.' Furthermore, Scholar Victor P. Hamilton agrees with me
This is a half-truth, as 20:12 indicates (although "daughter of my father" could mean adopted daughter).
Once again flute is simply too ignorant to understand the following, the burden of proof is on HIM to PROVE I made a mistake and disagreement simply does NOT = a mistake, especially on the interpretations of the ancient words, since nobody knows the original meaning there is simply no way for flute to prove I made a mistake.
.5/25
"os·ten·sible (ä sten′sə bəl)
adjective
1. apparent; seeming; professed
2. clearly evident
3. ....
Etymology: Fr < ML ostensibilis < L ostendere, to show"
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
"the ICCPR is -clearly evidently- binding upon the United States as a matter of international law"
Valid interpretation of the word.
Flue is simply too ignorant to understand that it might be a valid interpretation of the word, that valid interpretation does not describe the ICCPRs relationship to the united states. The ICCPR is not clearly evidently binding upon the United states as a matter of international because of the EVIDENCE I listed in his 20th failed attempt to prove I made a mistake.
1. "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing"
2. "the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."
3. "Congress has not acted to implement the agreement with legislation"
4. "the ICCPR is only ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law."
5. "it does not form part of the domestic law of the nation."
6. It is not found in the constitution
7. It is not found in the bill or fights.
If it was clearly or evidently binding then a1-27 would be self executing, the declaration would be able to create a private cause of action, congress would've implemented the agreement with legislation, it would form part of the domestic law of the nation, marriage would be found in the Constitution and bill of rights. Due to flutes inability to think coherently combined with his ignorance he simply cannot see that his valid interpretation of the word does not apply to the United Staets.
.5/26
Strong's Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool... Since Strong's Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong's Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training...
This is from the introduction to the revised edition of Strong's.
Strong wrote: "there was an obvious consanguinity" You ignored this.
Strong disagrees with you. "[T]here was an obvious consanguinity" between Abraham and Sarah
Flute pointed out another insignificant error, but an error non the less. Strongs is NOT a translation of the bible and Strongs does NOT agree with me, of course this means nothing. Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Samuel P. Tregelle and the scholar listed above all agree that adopted daughter is a valid translation of the word 'bath'.
1/27
TD said: "especially on the interpretations of the ancient words, since nobody knows the original meaning there is simply no way for flute to prove I made a mistake."
It's good that you are willing to admit that. Thank you.
Just another frustrated atheist upset because he is too ignorant to prove his point. He proved 2 insignificant mistakes that had nothing at all to do with my overall points, yet I have 28 counts of lack of logical coherent thought and ignorance.
Conclusion, flute has not provided the necessary evidence to prove a mistake on my part, thus making himself look completely ignorant, basically no change in the status quo. Flute managed to land 2 insignificant glancing blow but the fight has not changed, TD is still completely dominating flute. Flute will no doubt continue to try and swing his arms hoping to land a lucky punch.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Fighting with words
There are many ways you know you got the better of your opponent. I can remember a boxing match, my opponent was an infighter, very busy and very aggressive, constantly swarming me with pressure. I'd try to fight in the inside but that was his domain, so I had to step back to create some space, not only to get him off me, but also to be able to mount an effective offense. After an inside exchange I stepped back looking for a counter, he stepped toward me and I lashed out with a cross, I hit him flush in the face. I thought to myself, 'I should keep an eye out for that opening' and sure enough the next time I stepped back the opening was there. After about 3 or 4 times he stopped rushing in, the pressure subsided, the punches decreased in volume, my opponent had fallen 'silent'.
Jesus seemed to employ that here, countering the chief priests and elders words with His own. After hitting them with so many counters they simply had nothing left, they could no longer apply pressure, their words decreased in volume, Christs superior intellect and grasp of the scriptures allowed Him to counter effectively each time, until they could no longer press the fight.
Getting the opponent in a rage is another indication you've gotten the better of him. I remember being at the gym sparring with new guys and teaching them the ropes, I would go light, not hit too hard, just hit them every time they dropped their hands or made a mistake. After about a round or two they would eventually start swinging for the fences, same thing happened in actual fights, after getting hit with POT shots round after round the opponent goes into a frenzy, throwing hay makers, trying to take your head off with each punch. It takes the opponent out of the game mentally and emotionally. An experienced fighter knows if the only thing they're doing is thinking about killing you, about hurting you, then they're not thinking about defending themselves, usually the fight is over quickly.
The opponents are taken out of the game mentally and emotionally as they picked up stones to try and kill Him. They're so many instances in Christianity that are analogous to fighting I have no doubt in my mind, had Bruce Lee not died so early, he would've become a Christian.
Luke 20:1-26
Luke 20
Jesus’ Authority Questioned
1 Now it happened on one of those days, as He taught the people in the temple and preached the gospel, that the chief priests and the scribes, together with the elders, confronted Him 2 and spoke to Him, saying, “Tell us, by what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?”
3 But He answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one thing, and answer Me: 4 The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men?”
5 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Why then[a] did you not believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.” 7 So they answered that they did not know where it was from.
8 And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”
The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers
9 Then He began to tell the people this parable: “A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time. 10 Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. 12 And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also and cast him out.
13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him when they see him.’ 14 But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’ 15 So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others.”
And when they heard it they said, “Certainly not!”
17 Then He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written:
‘ The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone’?[b]
18 Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”
19 And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people[c]—for they knew He had spoken this parable against them.
The Pharisees: Is It Lawful to Pay Taxes to Caesar?
20 So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, that they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the power and the authority of the governor.
21 Then they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, we know that You say and teach rightly, and You do not show personal favoritism, but teach the way of God in truth: 22 Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
23 But He perceived their craftiness, and said to them, “Why do you test Me?[d] 24 Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have?”
They answered and said, “Caesar’s.”
25 And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
26 But they could not catch Him in His words in the presence of the people. And they marveled at His answer and kept silent.
Jesus seemed to employ that here, countering the chief priests and elders words with His own. After hitting them with so many counters they simply had nothing left, they could no longer apply pressure, their words decreased in volume, Christs superior intellect and grasp of the scriptures allowed Him to counter effectively each time, until they could no longer press the fight.
Getting the opponent in a rage is another indication you've gotten the better of him. I remember being at the gym sparring with new guys and teaching them the ropes, I would go light, not hit too hard, just hit them every time they dropped their hands or made a mistake. After about a round or two they would eventually start swinging for the fences, same thing happened in actual fights, after getting hit with POT shots round after round the opponent goes into a frenzy, throwing hay makers, trying to take your head off with each punch. It takes the opponent out of the game mentally and emotionally. An experienced fighter knows if the only thing they're doing is thinking about killing you, about hurting you, then they're not thinking about defending themselves, usually the fight is over quickly.
John 8:48-59
Before Abraham Was, I AM
48 Then the Jews answered and said to Him, “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?”
49 Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. 50 And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges. 51 Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.”
52 Then the Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ 53 Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Who do You make Yourself out to be?”
54 Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your[a] God. 55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple,[b] going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
The opponents are taken out of the game mentally and emotionally as they picked up stones to try and kill Him. They're so many instances in Christianity that are analogous to fighting I have no doubt in my mind, had Bruce Lee not died so early, he would've become a Christian.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
My way or the highway
This is a very common argument amongst the low tier atheists these days. While the argument itself varies, it basically boils down to this.
1. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevelant.
2. The bible is Gods message of salvation
3. The bible had been misinterpreted various times.
3a. The bible is not clear on some things.
4. God could've taken the time to make it more clear and interpreted better.
5. Therefore God does not exist, or Christianity is less valid, etc. etc.
The problem with this argument is displays a lack of knowledge regarding salvation in general, the second problem is it it stems from nothing but personal opinion and subjectivity which actually defeats the entire argument, but that is putting the cart before the horse, so let's back up.
While I don't subscribe to God being omniscience(at least not in the traditional sense), I do enjoy taking up the position, so I have no problems with #1. It should be noted that possession of the quality is not synonymous with its use, especially using it all the time. God has blessed me with the ability to fight quite well, this does not mean I have to use this ability every time I get into a fight, nor does it mean I have to use this ability all of the time. having omniscience synonymous with using it how the skeptic THINKS it should be used. If someone were to argue "Well God could've done it way X instead of the current way, it would've made more sense," one needs to prove that assertion, Loftus writes on the issue of miscommunication:
If God had condemned slavery from the very beginning there would be nothing to reform, no beatings, no killings, no institutional slavery justified from the Bible. If God had repeatedly said, "Thou shalt not buy beat or own slaves," and never sent any vibes the other way, then Christians could never justify it as an institution.
This is entirely subjective, dependent upon personal opinion, and I daresay a little historically ignorant as well. Loftus seems to think that if God had condemned slavery from the very beginning, there would be nothing to reform, but there are multiple problems with this. Loftus seems to think that all slavery = chattel slavery, which is incorrect, as there are different forms of slavery. The United States military is a form of "slavery" not very different from the Hebrew on Hebrew form of slavery, neither of which resembles chattel slavery.
"So why didn't God condemn Chattel slavery?" He actually did. While this is an entirely different subject that must be brought up at a different time, the following included with the entire NT message about treating others as you yourself would like to be treated, should suffice.
Chattel slavery is not based upon loving the stranger as you love yourself or treating their slaves as one born among them, since chattel slavery was based primarily off whites being superior and blacks being inferior. Were the masters beat? did the masters suffer horrible conditions? were the masters oppressed? these 2 verses also remind Israel about Egypt. What is interesting is in Egypt, when the Hebrews were slaves, they were treated under the same type of chattel slavery system as the one found in the U.S. and God seems to be using the Hebrews experiences in Egypt as a reminder how NOT to treat their own slaves. So it is quite clear to me and various other Christians that God did condemn chattel slavery, and Loftus is being historically ignorant by not looking at the historical context in which slavery is being presented in the bible, and completely ignores the entire NT message about treating others as you would want yourself to be treated. The bible CLEARLY condemns that type of slavery. Loftus is simply grounding his argument on his personal opinion. He states "If God said "Thou shalt not buy beat or own slaves," and never sent any vibes the other way, then Christians could never justify it as an institution,." but it was clearly condemned, just not in the way Loftus personally thinks it should've been.
No problems here.
No problems here.
This is where the problem lies. What exactly is not clear? and to whom is it not clear too? this is entirely subjective, as what might not be clear to one person might be clear to another person. 3a is nothing but a subjective personal opinion. The skeptic might argue "well it should be clear to everyone, everyone should get a clear message" but not everyone is the same, so God must make it clear to some people in one way and make it clear to others in another way, but the problem with this is we wind up back where we started, one message makes sense to one person, but that same message doesn't make sense to the next person, we will still have conflicting messages. This argument is self defeating. One personal only needs to mention 'his' message to somebody else, and the confusion starts.
Furthermore, this argument also shows a complete lack of knowledge in basic communication that happens every single day. Companies and workplaces don't pass out individual messages tailored to each persons 'personal needs and understanding(unless of course they're handicap which is an entirely different subject).' They send out the same message to everyone, "Company Picnic at 5:00". If someone has a problem with the message, it is up to them to seek clarification by either asking someone else or researching for themselves. The skeptic might argue "Well companies do that because they don't have enough resources and energy to tailor to each persons personal needs, God has unlimited energy and resources, so He actually CAN do it," but that simply misses the point, since different messages tailored to different needs would still create confusion, God having the unlimited power is irrelevant since He chooses not to use that unlimited power to affect peoples free will.
The skeptic maintains, "consider the following example, one persons message might say 'go to room 5 on the second floor for salvation,' while another persons message might say 'go up the stairs and go into the third room on the right for salvation,' and the message also includes 'don't tell anyone else about your message.' The people end up going to the same room, in a way that makes sense to them, with the confusion part being taken care of." This assumes that people will not be exercising their free will to disobey Gods message and go ahead and tell people anyway.
"BUT TD WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? the message makes sense to them, so they would know not to tell anyone." There are multiple problems with this.
1. People can reject God even though they have a clear message of His salvation. Perhaps they lose a loved one, or someone runs over their puppy, or their prayer wasn't answered in time or the way they thought it should be answered, all reasons people would reject God that is independent of a clear message of salvation.
2. Satan and his fallen angels main job is to manipulate, distort, deceive, and get people to go against God, and if satan isn't doing it, our own human nature is tempting us to do what we know is wrong. One only needs to look at Loftus himself who claims to have been a very devout Christian, having a clear understanding that 'certain things are incorrect, and clearly wrong,' yet He went ahead and did it anyway. While I am certain Loftus would deny satan had anything to do with it, I am sure he would agree that the temptation was quite strong. So a clear message of 'do not tell anyone about your own message' is not any type of fail safe plan that prevents people from telling others about their own message and causing confusion. Even with a clear message of what is right and wrong, people will still be tempted to do wrong, either by their own human nature or by satan trying to manipulate people into doing wrong.
The skeptic continues to argue, "Why didn't God just make the same message then?" At this point the skeptic is confusing "different opinions" with "the same message." Different denominations have different opinions on what the message is, but that has nothing to do with the message not being the same or not. When the dead sea scrolls were found, they proved the old testament to accurately passed down through the centuries(there were a few spelling mistakes, but nothing that took away from the context). Thousands of years later millions of people have a different opinion on the OT, that doesn't take away from the fact that it was the same message being passed down. The skeptic argues "Well why didn't God stop people from having different opinions?" this would be a violation of peoples free will.
The skeptic continues to argue "Well it's not clear to me," To which I say, perhaps you should abandon your ridiculous assumptions/worldview then?
Variants of the argument
#1 assumes a few things. Where is the requirement that God must get the message out to everyone equally and unequivocally? If there was a requirement, how might God go about doing this? as sending a message tailored to everyone's individual needs will still cause confusion, God can have one message, but due to Him choosing not to interfere with free will, that message would be subject to misinterpretation(kinda like what we have now)and still cause confusion. Update(I don't know why this wasn't included) finally this also assumes that the skeptic has some sort of knowledge about everybody in existence. How on earth would the skeptic know that people are not receiving the message clearly? perhaps everyone is receiving the message clearly but some are simply rejecting it? how does the skeptic know this? where is his evidence?
The skeptic is also confusing Gods plan. Going by the bible, Gods plan was to provide a WAY OUT of hell, which was the sacrifice of Christ, this plan succeeded when Christ conquered death.
God certainly desires everyone to be saved, but that was not part of His plan since there are numerous passages in the bible where God acknowledges that some people don't end up getting saved.
If it were part of Gods plan for everyone to be saved, there would not be people in hell.
This person is right, God DID foresee problems 1-6, which is why He created a system called progressive revelation. First it must be noted that God DID reach people from every nation and every language.
There were A LOT of these people from every nation and every tongue, so many that no one could number them.
So that takes care of 1-4. What about time barriers? well this is where progressive revelation comes into play. Before the gospel was written, before Christ was sacrificed, how did people go to heaven? the answer to this is simply having faith in what God said at the time.
The skeptic then asks "So what about the people that never even HEARD of God? how would they know to put their faith in Him?"
One does not need to know Gods name to put faith in Him.
As you can see, these people were actually worshiping God without knowing who He was! Remember, this is to be taken in context of progressive revelation only in places where people have either not heard the gospel, before the gospel was written and outside of Israel, or before the gospel had been distributed so widely. How is it that they were able to worship God without knowing?
According to Romans, it seems that some information about God can be gathered from creation itself. How God responds depends on how the people respond with that information. If the people respond positively then God will see their open heart and send them more of the revelation, if someone responds negatively to that however, God will leave them to their delusions.
So that takes care of time barriers. Technological barriers is a moot point, since God can reach people regardless of what technology they do or do not possess. This leaves #7.
Misunderstandings due to philosophical/intellectual short comings.
Philosophical/intellectual shortcomings are the fault of the person, not God. It is not Gods fault one chooses to believe illogical, irrational nonsense like atheism, nor is it Gods fault that people go to a different religion. Intellectually handicapped people are of course an exception and go under the same category as children.
I read that God might take people through atheism and extreme skepticism to shed and get rid of false concepts about Jesus and God(kind've like starting from scratch, or clearing the board) in order to start people on a path of a genuine relationship with God, and I agree 100% with that, however this does not mean that being an atheist/agnostic will get you to heaven, nor does it mean that atheism/agnosticism is a valid, rational, logical philosophical worldview. It is simply a tool that God uses for His purposes and like every other tool used, you are still held responsible and accountable for your actions and your knowledge of the truth.
"But I haven't shed my false concepts about Jesus yet! how do I know your explanation/religion/interpretation isn't false?"
If you're doing research with an honest and open mind then you'll find the truth. If you ask a question of a Christian and he answers it(validly) and you simply ignore the answer, that is your fault, if you're researching Christianity and find something that runs contrary to your atheism and ignore it or reject it based upon illogical irrational means, its your fault.
Why no scientific evidence of God? Why no hard proof?
This question is asked a lot and also falls under #7 since skeptics love to maintain that the lack of scientific proof or 'hard proof' is a philosophical or intellectual shortcoming in accepting God. Not only is it hypocritical, it is actually another self defeating argument. Regarding evidence there is historical, testimonial, and eye witness evidence for God. The only thing missing(and to the skeptics, the most important) is scientific evidence.
Demanding scientific evidence only and placing such a high priority on it leaves the skeptic in a little mess.
For instance, there is no scientific evidence for God, not because God doesn't exist, but because He is simply absent from scientific literature, this is the little mess the skeptic finds himself in, as he believes in things that have no scientific evidence at all. They believe their brother/mother/spouse loves them, or their friends like them but there is no scientific evidence for that. Which leads me to my next point.
God wants peoples faith, He wants people to have faith in Him and if we go by various quotes from skeptics.
Scientific evidence is not faith. Science is not faith based. Why doesn't God show Himself or give scientific evidence for His existence? because according to the skeptics, it would be pointless for God to do so, since scientific evidence is not faith, and that is what God wants us to have, faith. The demand for scientific evidence of God is a self defeating one. It also shows the hypocrisy of atheists and agnostics, who demand scientific evidence prior to believing, but believe in things with no scientific evidence all of the time. You certainly believe I exist without requiring evidence prior to that belief, as you certainly believe that your mother/brother/spouse loves you prior to seeing scientific evidence(or ignoring the fact there isn't any).
1. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevelant.
2. The bible is Gods message of salvation
3. The bible had been misinterpreted various times.
3a. The bible is not clear on some things.
4. God could've taken the time to make it more clear and interpreted better.
5. Therefore God does not exist, or Christianity is less valid, etc. etc.
The problem with this argument is displays a lack of knowledge regarding salvation in general, the second problem is it it stems from nothing but personal opinion and subjectivity which actually defeats the entire argument, but that is putting the cart before the horse, so let's back up.
1. God is omniscienct, omnipotenet, omnibenevelant.
While I don't subscribe to God being omniscience(at least not in the traditional sense), I do enjoy taking up the position, so I have no problems with #1. It should be noted that possession of the quality is not synonymous with its use, especially using it all the time. God has blessed me with the ability to fight quite well, this does not mean I have to use this ability every time I get into a fight, nor does it mean I have to use this ability all of the time. having omniscience synonymous with using it how the skeptic THINKS it should be used. If someone were to argue "Well God could've done it way X instead of the current way, it would've made more sense," one needs to prove that assertion, Loftus writes on the issue of miscommunication:
If God had condemned slavery from the very beginning there would be nothing to reform, no beatings, no killings, no institutional slavery justified from the Bible. If God had repeatedly said, "Thou shalt not buy beat or own slaves," and never sent any vibes the other way, then Christians could never justify it as an institution.
This is entirely subjective, dependent upon personal opinion, and I daresay a little historically ignorant as well. Loftus seems to think that if God had condemned slavery from the very beginning, there would be nothing to reform, but there are multiple problems with this. Loftus seems to think that all slavery = chattel slavery, which is incorrect, as there are different forms of slavery. The United States military is a form of "slavery" not very different from the Hebrew on Hebrew form of slavery, neither of which resembles chattel slavery.
"So why didn't God condemn Chattel slavery?" He actually did. While this is an entirely different subject that must be brought up at a different time, the following included with the entire NT message about treating others as you yourself would like to be treated, should suffice.
Exodus 21:16
16 “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 19:34
34 The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God
Deuteronomy 10:19
19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Chattel slavery is not based upon loving the stranger as you love yourself or treating their slaves as one born among them, since chattel slavery was based primarily off whites being superior and blacks being inferior. Were the masters beat? did the masters suffer horrible conditions? were the masters oppressed? these 2 verses also remind Israel about Egypt. What is interesting is in Egypt, when the Hebrews were slaves, they were treated under the same type of chattel slavery system as the one found in the U.S. and God seems to be using the Hebrews experiences in Egypt as a reminder how NOT to treat their own slaves. So it is quite clear to me and various other Christians that God did condemn chattel slavery, and Loftus is being historically ignorant by not looking at the historical context in which slavery is being presented in the bible, and completely ignores the entire NT message about treating others as you would want yourself to be treated. The bible CLEARLY condemns that type of slavery. Loftus is simply grounding his argument on his personal opinion. He states "If God said "Thou shalt not buy beat or own slaves," and never sent any vibes the other way, then Christians could never justify it as an institution,." but it was clearly condemned, just not in the way Loftus personally thinks it should've been.
2. The bible is Gods message of salvation
No problems here.
3. The bible had been misinterpreted various times.
No problems here.
3a. The bible is not clear on some things.
This is where the problem lies. What exactly is not clear? and to whom is it not clear too? this is entirely subjective, as what might not be clear to one person might be clear to another person. 3a is nothing but a subjective personal opinion. The skeptic might argue "well it should be clear to everyone, everyone should get a clear message" but not everyone is the same, so God must make it clear to some people in one way and make it clear to others in another way, but the problem with this is we wind up back where we started, one message makes sense to one person, but that same message doesn't make sense to the next person, we will still have conflicting messages. This argument is self defeating. One personal only needs to mention 'his' message to somebody else, and the confusion starts.
Furthermore, this argument also shows a complete lack of knowledge in basic communication that happens every single day. Companies and workplaces don't pass out individual messages tailored to each persons 'personal needs and understanding(unless of course they're handicap which is an entirely different subject).' They send out the same message to everyone, "Company Picnic at 5:00". If someone has a problem with the message, it is up to them to seek clarification by either asking someone else or researching for themselves. The skeptic might argue "Well companies do that because they don't have enough resources and energy to tailor to each persons personal needs, God has unlimited energy and resources, so He actually CAN do it," but that simply misses the point, since different messages tailored to different needs would still create confusion, God having the unlimited power is irrelevant since He chooses not to use that unlimited power to affect peoples free will.
The skeptic maintains, "consider the following example, one persons message might say 'go to room 5 on the second floor for salvation,' while another persons message might say 'go up the stairs and go into the third room on the right for salvation,' and the message also includes 'don't tell anyone else about your message.' The people end up going to the same room, in a way that makes sense to them, with the confusion part being taken care of." This assumes that people will not be exercising their free will to disobey Gods message and go ahead and tell people anyway.
"BUT TD WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? the message makes sense to them, so they would know not to tell anyone." There are multiple problems with this.
1. People can reject God even though they have a clear message of His salvation. Perhaps they lose a loved one, or someone runs over their puppy, or their prayer wasn't answered in time or the way they thought it should be answered, all reasons people would reject God that is independent of a clear message of salvation.
2. Satan and his fallen angels main job is to manipulate, distort, deceive, and get people to go against God, and if satan isn't doing it, our own human nature is tempting us to do what we know is wrong. One only needs to look at Loftus himself who claims to have been a very devout Christian, having a clear understanding that 'certain things are incorrect, and clearly wrong,' yet He went ahead and did it anyway. While I am certain Loftus would deny satan had anything to do with it, I am sure he would agree that the temptation was quite strong. So a clear message of 'do not tell anyone about your own message' is not any type of fail safe plan that prevents people from telling others about their own message and causing confusion. Even with a clear message of what is right and wrong, people will still be tempted to do wrong, either by their own human nature or by satan trying to manipulate people into doing wrong.
The skeptic continues to argue, "Why didn't God just make the same message then?" At this point the skeptic is confusing "different opinions" with "the same message." Different denominations have different opinions on what the message is, but that has nothing to do with the message not being the same or not. When the dead sea scrolls were found, they proved the old testament to accurately passed down through the centuries(there were a few spelling mistakes, but nothing that took away from the context). Thousands of years later millions of people have a different opinion on the OT, that doesn't take away from the fact that it was the same message being passed down. The skeptic argues "Well why didn't God stop people from having different opinions?" this would be a violation of peoples free will.
The skeptic continues to argue "Well it's not clear to me," To which I say, perhaps you should abandon your ridiculous assumptions/worldview then?
Variants of the argument
1. The bible is not good at getting Gods messages to everyone equally and unequivocally.
2. Therefore this renders God's p;an and God Himself incompetent.
#1 assumes a few things. Where is the requirement that God must get the message out to everyone equally and unequivocally? If there was a requirement, how might God go about doing this? as sending a message tailored to everyone's individual needs will still cause confusion, God can have one message, but due to Him choosing not to interfere with free will, that message would be subject to misinterpretation(kinda like what we have now)and still cause confusion. Update(I don't know why this wasn't included) finally this also assumes that the skeptic has some sort of knowledge about everybody in existence. How on earth would the skeptic know that people are not receiving the message clearly? perhaps everyone is receiving the message clearly but some are simply rejecting it? how does the skeptic know this? where is his evidence?
The skeptic is also confusing Gods plan. Going by the bible, Gods plan was to provide a WAY OUT of hell, which was the sacrifice of Christ, this plan succeeded when Christ conquered death.
God certainly desires everyone to be saved, but that was not part of His plan since there are numerous passages in the bible where God acknowledges that some people don't end up getting saved.
Revelation 14:11
11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
If it were part of Gods plan for everyone to be saved, there would not be people in hell.
God being omniscient should have known his message of salvation couldn't get to the masses for these reasons:
1. land barriers
2. water barriers
3. culture barriers
4. language barriers
5. time barriers
6. technological barriers
7. Misunderstandings due to philosophical/intellectual short comings.
This person is right, God DID foresee problems 1-6, which is why He created a system called progressive revelation. First it must be noted that God DID reach people from every nation and every language.
Revelation 5:8-10
8 Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:
“ You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us[a] kings[b] and priests to our God;
And we[c] shall reign on the earth.”
There were A LOT of these people from every nation and every tongue, so many that no one could number them.
Revelation 7:9
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
So that takes care of 1-4. What about time barriers? well this is where progressive revelation comes into play. Before the gospel was written, before Christ was sacrificed, how did people go to heaven? the answer to this is simply having faith in what God said at the time.
Hebrews 11:1-12
By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”;[a] for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; 10 for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child[b] when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitude—innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore.
The skeptic then asks "So what about the people that never even HEARD of God? how would they know to put their faith in Him?"
One does not need to know Gods name to put faith in Him.
Acts 17:22-24
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
As you can see, these people were actually worshiping God without knowing who He was! Remember, this is to be taken in context of progressive revelation only in places where people have either not heard the gospel, before the gospel was written and outside of Israel, or before the gospel had been distributed so widely. How is it that they were able to worship God without knowing?
Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
According to Romans, it seems that some information about God can be gathered from creation itself. How God responds depends on how the people respond with that information. If the people respond positively then God will see their open heart and send them more of the revelation, if someone responds negatively to that however, God will leave them to their delusions.
Luke 8:18
18 Therefore take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him.”
So that takes care of time barriers. Technological barriers is a moot point, since God can reach people regardless of what technology they do or do not possess. This leaves #7.
Misunderstandings due to philosophical/intellectual short comings.
Philosophical/intellectual shortcomings are the fault of the person, not God. It is not Gods fault one chooses to believe illogical, irrational nonsense like atheism, nor is it Gods fault that people go to a different religion. Intellectually handicapped people are of course an exception and go under the same category as children.
I read that God might take people through atheism and extreme skepticism to shed and get rid of false concepts about Jesus and God(kind've like starting from scratch, or clearing the board) in order to start people on a path of a genuine relationship with God, and I agree 100% with that, however this does not mean that being an atheist/agnostic will get you to heaven, nor does it mean that atheism/agnosticism is a valid, rational, logical philosophical worldview. It is simply a tool that God uses for His purposes and like every other tool used, you are still held responsible and accountable for your actions and your knowledge of the truth.
"But I haven't shed my false concepts about Jesus yet! how do I know your explanation/religion/interpretation isn't false?"
If you're doing research with an honest and open mind then you'll find the truth. If you ask a question of a Christian and he answers it(validly) and you simply ignore the answer, that is your fault, if you're researching Christianity and find something that runs contrary to your atheism and ignore it or reject it based upon illogical irrational means, its your fault.
Why no scientific evidence of God? Why no hard proof?
This question is asked a lot and also falls under #7 since skeptics love to maintain that the lack of scientific proof or 'hard proof' is a philosophical or intellectual shortcoming in accepting God. Not only is it hypocritical, it is actually another self defeating argument. Regarding evidence there is historical, testimonial, and eye witness evidence for God. The only thing missing(and to the skeptics, the most important) is scientific evidence.
Demanding scientific evidence only and placing such a high priority on it leaves the skeptic in a little mess.
For instance, there is no scientific evidence for God, not because God doesn't exist, but because He is simply absent from scientific literature, this is the little mess the skeptic finds himself in, as he believes in things that have no scientific evidence at all. They believe their brother/mother/spouse loves them, or their friends like them but there is no scientific evidence for that. Which leads me to my next point.
God wants peoples faith, He wants people to have faith in Him and if we go by various quotes from skeptics.
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/...s/dawkins.html
Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.
One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...e-faith-based/
This is completely wrong. It shows (unsurprisingly) an utter misunderstanding of how science works. Science is not faith-based, and here’s why.
Scientific evidence is not faith. Science is not faith based. Why doesn't God show Himself or give scientific evidence for His existence? because according to the skeptics, it would be pointless for God to do so, since scientific evidence is not faith, and that is what God wants us to have, faith. The demand for scientific evidence of God is a self defeating one. It also shows the hypocrisy of atheists and agnostics, who demand scientific evidence prior to believing, but believe in things with no scientific evidence all of the time. You certainly believe I exist without requiring evidence prior to that belief, as you certainly believe that your mother/brother/spouse loves you prior to seeing scientific evidence(or ignoring the fact there isn't any).
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Accomplishing the impossible
In my 24 years on this earth I have yet to beat that level. I maintain that the jet bike level is the hardest level in a video game, ever, period. This man deserves some sort of medal, certificate, or an award for this accomplishment. Many a controller was broken, many a wall was smashed, for something that this man did so easily, so effortlessly.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, the death of Sony!!
One of the only Sony exclusives left has officially come to Xbox.
Like Devil may cry and Tekken, the reason MSG must be ported over is because as Play station only exclusives they just aren't making enough money. I have no sympathy at all for Sony as they brought it on themselves pricing their Play Station so ridiculously high, it's no wonder the gaming developers are jumping ship.
Kojima took the stage at Microsoft's press conference and dropped a major announcement:
Remember all those teasers we saw over the past month? It wasn't the new PSP game. It was, in fact, a completely new series in the Metal Gear franchise.
Titled Metal Gear Solid: Rising, the game appears to mainly focus on the character Raiden, as there were no shots of Solid Snake at all in the extremely vague announcement teaser shown.
Like Devil may cry and Tekken, the reason MSG must be ported over is because as Play station only exclusives they just aren't making enough money. I have no sympathy at all for Sony as they brought it on themselves pricing their Play Station so ridiculously high, it's no wonder the gaming developers are jumping ship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)