[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="CoreoVII"]You know what really grind's my gear's?
Theokhoth
Horrible grammar?
It was the government! The government did it!
...I don't get it! :cry:
Flaw in Christian beliefs
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="CoreoVII"]You know what really grind's my gear's?
Funky_Llama
Horrible grammar?
It was the government! The government did it!
...I don't get it! :cry:
In one of his enlightening paragraphs, he basically turned religion into a government conspiracy.
If the topics were why do you believe in God that would be different. But they aren't...and it frankly isn't his business.You avoid any questions. You can't reasonably refuse to state whether you believe in God while in a religious debate thread. In answer to the obvious question of "DO YOU BELIEVE GOD IS REAL?", for example, you replied: "So what I'm getting from this argument of yours is that you don't understand the difference between belief and fact." Why are you so determined to not admit theism? Do you actually even believe in God?
Oh, and your last point is flawed; it's an appeal to motive.
Funky_Llama
And the reason for that answer had you read the conversation was that he initially said that believing in God means you stated a fact. Read the whole conversation...not one post please. It does no good not know the actual context. K? I told him several times they are NOT the same thing. He doesn't want to change the topic because he was avoiding answering my question about his statement. He still has not answered though he stated it as fact.
It's not flawed....it's an assessment.;)
i don't mean to offend anyone, but christians cant pretend to be "witnesses to the world", when they are relatively a younger religion, one that has repeatedly squashed out smaller faiths. That and(this may sound like i've read the Da Vinci Code too many times, i've only read it once), there are secrets about christianity that are NOT known to the general public. The Vatican has admitted there are scriptures that it keeps secret and does not let out.auron_16
:roll: Look on the back of the Da Vinci Code. It says fiction.
i don't mean to offend anyone, but christians cant pretend to be "witnesses to the world", when they are relatively a younger religion, one that has repeatedly squashed out smaller faiths. That and(this may sound like i've read the Da Vinci Code too many times, i've only read it once), there are secrets about christianity that are NOT known to the general public. The Vatican has admitted there are scriptures that it keeps secret and does not let out.auron_16Da Vinci code isn't the tell all you think. By the way...it is known there are scripture that isn't included. The Gnostics for instance...and they had a reason for that as they Gnostics were making their own teachings.....
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="CoreoVII"]You know what really grind's my gear's?
Theokhoth
Horrible grammar?
It was the government! The government did it!
...I don't get it! :cry:
In one of his enlightening paragraphs, he basically turned religion into a government conspiracy.
Ah, I see what you did there. :P
Yes, Mister Coreo VII has been quite entertaining today. Here's one:
Why is that a little white man and his white angels are all white people? I am a white person myself but I'd rather turn gay then believe for a second this invisiable white dude exists. Why are their no black or asian angels? I mean, are christains narrow minded or what?
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]If the topics were why do you believe in God that would be different. But they aren't...and it frankly isn't his business.You avoid any questions. You can't reasonably refuse to state whether you believe in God while in a religious debate thread. In answer to the obvious question of "DO YOU BELIEVE GOD IS REAL?", for example, you replied: "So what I'm getting from this argument of yours is that you don't understand the difference between belief and fact." Why are you so determined to not admit theism? Do you actually even believe in God?
Oh, and your last point is flawed; it's an appeal to motive.
LJS9502_basic
And the reason for that answer had you read the conversation was that he initially said that believing in God means you stated a fact. Read the whole conversation...not one post please. It does no good not know the actual context. K? I told him several times they are NOT the same thing. He doesn't want to change the topic because he was avoiding answering my question about his statement. He still has not answered though he stated it as fact.
It's not flawed....it's an assessment.;)
Technically this is off-topic, but I don't see you refusing to respond.
To believe in God is to imply his existence.
i don't mean to offend anyone, but christians cant pretend to be "witnesses to the world", when they are relatively a younger religion, one that has repeatedly squashed out smaller faiths. That and(this may sound like i've read the Da Vinci Code too many times, i've only read it once), there are secrets about christianity that are NOT known to the general public. The Vatican has admitted there are scriptures that it keeps secret and does not let out.auron_16
The Davinci Code isa fictional storybook made to entertain. Not a historical document, not a documentary, not anything but a fictional book.
The Vatican has never made such a statement. There would be an uproar, especially in Protestant denominations, all over the world if that happened. It's well-known that there are some writings that never made it into the Canon, such as the heretical Gnostic gospels.
I'm fairly sure the idea of Hell is more a catholic/protestant thing rather than christian as a broader religion. There's a lot of evidence to show that hell is an entirely man-made idea which never featured in the original teachings of the new testament.
I think the idea that good people could go to "hell" for simply not knowing about god is rediculous, and adds further weight to the idea that there obviously is no hell and that the idea was created by priests and politicians looking to scare people into obedience.
Technically this is off-topic, but I don't see you refusing to respond.
To believe in God is to imply his existence.
Funky_Llama
But as I stated my beliefs are none of his business. Not yours either to be honest.:)
Let me make this simple for you. There are two kinds of statements one can make.
1. I believe in God.
2. God exists.
Now those are two different statements. #1 calls for nothing other one to read what someone believes. It makes no statements other than personal belief and is not debateable.
#2 however is a statement that can be debated. As could the opposite statement. They are presented as absolute statements regarding existence of God. To make a statement such as that is not belief and deserves proof as would the reverse statement. Logically, we know the existence of God cannot be proven/disproven as scientific fact.
Now what DS is assuming is that #1 must have the defense of #2. This is not true. It's a misrepresentation of #1. Two distinct and different ideas are present in these statements.
His argument styIe in this instance is not using logical conclusions.....but he is using emotional conclusions. An error of debating.
[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="Franklinstein"]I'm so sick of these threads, I say we boycott them, let's just let it die. If you hate threads like this LET IT DIE FOR GOD'S SAKE!Theokhoth
these posts are more annoying.
Definitely.
Not only that....but this thread was dropping down the page and he bumped it ironically.:lol:I find it ridiculously hilarious how some Christians think they are more holy if they speaketh thy holy words of thy Lordeth in that manner.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="Franklinstein"]I'm so sick of these threads, I say we boycott them, let's just let it die. If you hate threads like this LET IT DIE FOR GOD'S SAKE!LJS9502_basic
these posts are more annoying.
Definitely.
Not only that....but this thread was dropping down the page and he bumped it ironically.:lol:I find it ironic that some want to quash legitimate discussion on a 'forum' -- what else are you going to do on a forum but discuss.
Stare at a screen?I find it ironic that some want to quash legitimate discussion on a 'forum' -- what else are you going to do on a forum but discuss.
MetalGear_Ninty
[QUOTE="Truth_Seekr"]Layeth the smacketh downeth.I find it ridiculously hilarious how some Christians think they are more holy if they speaketh thy holy words of thy Lordeth in that manner.
Grouchu
lol you made pop come out of my nose!!!
[QUOTE="Robinho1873"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="NaiKoN9293"][QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="four_of_clubs"]That is not a flaw and Romans chapter 1 mentions this when it says:Here is a doozie of a puzzler:
You say that you must follow the path of Christ/God in order to achieve eternal salvation in heaven. Okay, point taken.
But I then bring up the point "Hey, what about poor kids in Africa that aren't able to reach out to a church and learn about god?"
They say "That is mankind's fault for turning Africa poor etc etc etc." Okay, point taken.But here is the question to you:
Think about First Nation's in North America, whom originally came from Asia thousands of years ago over the magic of the "seasonal ice bridge." Why were they not aware of god? Why is it that only wealthy states were originally aware of the presence of god? Are you telling me that anyone whom lived in these times living in North America simply went to hell because they were not informed?
Well, sorry, they were aware of god. But a different god. Their god. Actually, there were many gods. Why did these many gods exist? You can't simply say that they are false idols... to the First Nation tribes, they actually serve a lot of purpose!
I figure that if god's plan is to have you follow ten rules in order to get into heaven, then every single tribe/state/nation should have been informed from the get-go.
Of course I imagine the rebuttle will be along the lines of a "loss of information", or "but they sent missionaries to help them! (along with small-pox and domination of the land -cough-) but hey I'd like to hear what you have to say, as I could be mistaken and totally wrong.Not to mention it's late, and my thoughts probably are not one hundred percent coherent.
mindstorm
(18 ) The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, (19) since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. (20) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
are you saying that africans go to hell?
Mostly. The verse I mentioned stated that God is made known to them and that they are without excuse. Because of this, however, some may realize they are living how they should morally and need something or someone to save them. Many tribal religions are based off of this idea even. I honestly do believe that one who has never heard the name of Christ can find him if he seeks hard and faithfully enough but I think that would be few.God judges based off of what you know and what position you are in (example, as I'm studying to become a minister I'll be held more accountable for my actions than any of the rest of us). Someone who hears the name of Christ is going to be judged much more severely for rejecting his name than someone who has never even heard the name.
With all of that said, no man can come to the Father except through the Son (e.g. no person can go to heaven without knowing Christ). God alone can judge who goes to heaven or hell and God alone knowns what is in a person's heart (in other words, even many who call themselves Christians will not go to heaven due to their lack of seeking Christ in their lives).
How are you supposed to ''find Christ'' if you don't know he exists. Thats like you searching for a Matabooboo.That's why it's so important that Christians do their duty in spreading their faith.
One can still be convicted by the Holy Spirit that they are a sinner and in need of a savior even if they have never heard the name of Christ. They can still seek to serve him in the best way they know how in serving the Creator and not the Creation and in living a holy life. If a person who has never heard the name of Christ does that then I think they might just have a chance at salvation.
An example would be Abraham of the Old Testament. He only knew of the pagan gods of his father but the Holy Spirit was still able to convict him to do what God would have him to do with his life.
The christians I know are cool, but if I meet someone like you who tries to convert me................
I'll just raise a thought here that I've been pondering:
A lot of world religions place a lot of weight on the pure content of 'faith', but isn't this slightly unfair as some must have more faith than others; For example, which man is holier, the man that witnesses christ after his ressurection, or the man that hears a retelling 2000 years later, obviously the modern man needs more faith -- is this fair -- if the fate of one's soul is placed on this circumstantial concept of faith.
I'll just raise a thought here that I've been pondering:
A lot of world religions place a lot of weight on the pure content of 'faith', but isn't this slightly unfair as some must have more faith than others; For example, which man is holier, the man that witnesses christ after his ressurection, or the man that hears a retelling 2000 years later, obviously the modern man needs more faith -- is this fair -- if the fate of one's soul is placed on this circumstantial concept of faith.
MetalGear_Ninty
Your faith isn't about how much you have, at least not in that sense. Replace the word "faith" with the word "trust."
Who has more trust in Christ: The man who witnesses Christ after the Resurrection, or the man who hears about it thousands of years later? Well, either one could be it. Only God knows the answer to that, since the man who witnessed Christ could still not trust Him.
When you hear "faith," you hear "belief with little evidence," which, in the context of most religions, is an incorrect definition.
And again LJ, YOU WERE WRONG about seperation of church and state being existent in our country. Why you keep dodging this point, I may never know...Deity_Slapper
If you think that the United States of America is a theocracy, then please tell us which religion it is that controls us. And if that religion has different sects, then please name a specific sect (like if it is Christianity, then name something like Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc.; if it's Islam then something like Sunni or Shi'ite, and so on).
My bet is that you can't. In the functions of government there is no influence from religion. The Pope, for instance, has no say in what Congress votes on. We may have prayers, we may even have "In God We Trust" on our currency, but the fact of the matter is that our government is NOT controlled by ANY religion. If you could name something that ANY religion has final say over that is a function of the federal or state governments, then I will go away.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]I'll just raise a thought here that I've been pondering:
A lot of world religions place a lot of weight on the pure content of 'faith', but isn't this slightly unfair as some must have more faith than others; For example, which man is holier, the man that witnesses christ after his ressurection, or the man that hears a retelling 2000 years later, obviously the modern man needs more faith -- is this fair -- if the fate of one's soul is placed on this circumstantial concept of faith.
Theokhoth
Your faith isn't about how much you have, at least not in that sense. Replace the word "faith" with the word "trust."
Who has more trust in Christ: The man who witnesses Christ after the Resurrection, or the man who hears about it thousands of years later? Well, either one could be it. Only God knows the answer to that, since the man who witnessed Christ could still not trust Him.
When you hear "faith," you hear "belief with little evidence," which, in the context of most religions, is an incorrect definition.
Its pretty easy to say that the guy who ACTUALLY WITNESSES it is gonna trust the lord over some guy that hears/reads it froma book over 2000 years old..
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]I'll just raise a thought here that I've been pondering:
A lot of world religions place a lot of weight on the pure content of 'faith', but isn't this slightly unfair as some must have more faith than others; For example, which man is holier, the man that witnesses christ after his ressurection, or the man that hears a retelling 2000 years later, obviously the modern man needs more faith -- is this fair -- if the fate of one's soul is placed on this circumstantial concept of faith.
sSubZerOo
Your faith isn't about how much you have, at least not in that sense. Replace the word "faith" with the word "trust."
Who has more trust in Christ: The man who witnesses Christ after the Resurrection, or the man who hears about it thousands of years later? Well, either one could be it. Only God knows the answer to that, since the man who witnessed Christ could still not trust Him.
When you hear "faith," you hear "belief with little evidence," which, in the context of most religions, is an incorrect definition.
Its pretty easy to say that the guy who ACTUALLY WITNESSES it is gonna trust the lord over some guy that hears/reads it froma book over 2000 years old..
Yeah what he said.
What I'm trying to say, isn't that extremely unfair, to have one's eternal fate based upon mere circumstance?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I can honestly say I've never considered myself challenged by you DS.
Funky_Llama
Hmm... I consider DS to be at least your equal.
No way. He doesn't respond to what is posted...but what he wants to be posted. Sorry....:roll: Your posts are so vague that you can't blame him when he gets the wrong idea. And trying to get you to clarify is like playing cat and mouse.
The nail has just been hit on it's head.
His posts aren't vague but I do notice you and funky avoid his points.The nail has just been hit on it's head.
Deity_Slapper
No...because your point was refuted makes your wrong.
LJS9502_basic
Refutation does not create wrongs. It's simply another viewpoint. :roll:
By the way I not only refuted your points about seperation of church and state, but proved how YOU'RE WRONG. Oh, and I guess this is you losing a debate on OT.
Oh no! :lol:
Read your responses to people. You can't concieve of any point of view but yours.
LJS9502_basic
Read my responses to people. You'll see how many times I actually play fair. Just because you don't give me credit doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Seriously, LJ...is this the best you can do?
Another thing...for someone who cries about "ad hominem" all the time, didn't you just do it right here? Attacking my character? Guilty. :|
Because I've successfully responded to it...you don't get it.
LJS9502_basic
Again...way too convenient. You can't claim you're right and then just run off. Well, you can, but it doesn't mean anything to anyone...just so you know.
You think you win because you keep repeating the same thing over and over?
LJS9502_basic
I think I didn't win...because there is no competition, actually. I said the word "win" because I knew it would get under your skin. :lol:
And I was right. You're obsessed with "winning" internet arguements. ;)
My posts aren't vague. LJS9502_basic
They are. Very. All the time.
I'm only wondering how long you've been living in denial like this. It's kinda scary.
I avoid his personal questions. LJS9502_basic
And why? No reason to. All I asked was if you believe god is real. I already know the answer is "yes", I just wanted you to say it...and I knew that you couldn't. Some embarrassing weaknesses are coming to the surface here...hmm...
he did not provide anything that corraborated his statements in the least....other than some slogan on coinage....doesn't instill fear. LJS9502_basic
For the fifth time, the slogan on our currency DOES NOT instill fear. The slogan on the currency is evidence of INTEGRATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I've made this crystal clear. You must be playing dumb on purpose to avoid admitting being wrong. All you're doing is falsely accusing me of making statements I never made.
So, even if there was a competition going on between us, it looks like you just forfeited...by way of sticking your head in the sand, and pretending not to see my posts.
The pledge...doesn't instill fear and court...LJS9502_basic
In some people, it would, because some people admit that they fear god. You lose.
and not all courts use that statement nor a Bible. I've been a witness....never encountered either...so at best.....it's local. LJS9502_basic
At best, it's local? Well, now! Looks like you just stumbled upon the proof of integration of church and state that you were trying to avoid! Oops! :lol:
If some courts do it, and some don't, that's proof of local laws and regulations influencing the way proceedings are conducted in court. Clear integration of church and state. I would imagine that in heavily-christianized areas :P , hands are still placed on the bible before testimonies are given.
I've had many a good debate here and no one except for those ill equipped to respond to me have called my posts vague.LJS9502_basic
The debates you call "good", are the ones you've won quite easily, because you were debating against unprepared, inexperienced people. People who call your posts vague, are simply stating a fact. A handful of people have agreed with me that your posts are vague, and they're all some of the more intelligent people here. You just don't like being called out.
[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]His posts aren't vague but I do notice you and funky avoid his points.The nail has just been hit on it's head.
Godly_Cure
Do you ever do anything other than assume the role of LJ's sidekick? C'mon... :roll:
If you think that the United States of America is a theocracy, then please tell us which religion it is that controls us. tycoonmike
We're not under control of any specific religion. The government uses people's religious beliefs against them, in order to control them. Most religions have gods. If someone who believes in Allah takes the stand, and hears the phrase, "do you swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god?", the court's hope is that the Allah worshipper will think of his almighty Allah, as the "god" they referenced, and not wanting to upset Allah, this person will agree to tell the truth. It's not necessarily one religion. They never say, "so help you Jesus"...they say, "so help you god"...it covers all religions that have gods.
In the functions of government there is no influence from religion. tycoonmike
Correct. There is no religious "influence"...there is just government using people's fear of their personal god against them, no matter what religion they are.
We may have prayers, we may even have "In God We Trust" on our currency, but the fact of the matter is that our government is NOT controlled by ANY religion. tycoonmike
Again, government is NOT controlled by religion, people's decisions ARE controlled by THEIR fear of THEIR specific god, and the government simply uses that fear against them. Do you understand yet?
Again, this wasn't even my main point here. I said that "mass-population control" was just a theory. My main arguement with LJ was that he said we have seperation of church and state in this country, when we clearly do not. People's religious beliefs are CONSTANTLY exploited for the gains of the courts, and thus, the "state".
Why can't the court just ask us to tell the truth? And if they find out we lied, they'll try us for perjury? Wouldn't that work? That's just as fear-inducing, is it not? But no...I guess the courts understand that people fear their god more than they fear their fellow man, so that's why the courts decide to integrate church and state...by exploiting people's beliefs, to get what they want.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
No...because your point was refuted makes your wrong.
Deity_Slapper
Refutation does not create wrongs. It's simply another viewpoint. :roll:
By the way I not only refuted your points about seperation of church and state, but proved how YOU'RE WRONG. Oh, and I guess this is you losing a debate on OT.
Oh no! :lol:
:lol: Actually yes....if someone bases an opinioin/viewpoint on information that is cleary incorrect....their points are wrong. And anyway...I wasn't talking opinion. I was referring to your statements of fact that you make without any corroborating evidence.
No you have not yet refuted that this country does not have separation of church and state. You haven't proven me wrong. I suggest you read up on some Supreme Court decisions.
Oh look...yet again DS posts his opinion and claims he's winning. That never gets old.:roll:
Read your responses to people. You can't concieve of any point of view but yours.
LJS9502_basic
Read my responses to people. You'll see how many times I actually play fair. Just because you don't give me credit doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Seriously, LJ...is this the best you can do?
Another thing...for someone who cries about "ad hominem" all the time, didn't you just do it right here? Attacking my character? Guilty. :|
Play fair? If you ask someone a question and they answer...and I mean personal in nature...one that you LOGICALLY cannot refute....you present ad hominem attacks and then declare yourself the victor because your OPINION is different.
I'm not attacking your character. That is called assessing your posts.
Because I've successfully responded to it...you don't get it.
LJS9502_basic
Again...way too convenient. You can't claim you're right and then just run off. Well, you can, but it doesn't mean anything to anyone...just so you know.
You have yet to respond to my posts. You have yet to offer counter evidence. Thus, as it stands....I've proven my side...you have not.
You think you win because you keep repeating the same thing over and over?
LJS9502_basic
I think I didn't win...because there is no competition, actually. I said the word "win" because I knew it would get under your skin. :lol:
And I was right. You're obsessed with "winning" internet arguements. ;)
And here again is proof that you call yourself a winner in every thread. I have not done so. I've mentioned that I'm waiting for you to provide your proof. You have failed to do so. You did say you won...so my post was in answer to that attitude. Context is everything....and you usually edit posts to take them out of context. That doesn't bolster your case, however, Anyone who has read the thread can see what you've done.
My posts aren't vague. LJS9502_basic
They are. Very. All the time.
I'm only wondering how long you've been living in denial like this. It's kinda scary.
Funny then that the majority of OT understands enough of my posts to respond to them. Seems to be an isolated case of only you not understanding. Hmm....what could the common denominator be?
I avoid his personal questions. LJS9502_basic
And why? No reason to. All I asked was if you believe god is real. I already know the answer is "yes", I just wanted you to say it...and I knew that you couldn't. Some embarrassing weaknesses are coming to the surface here...hmm...
And had your read my last post I believe to Funky_Llama you would clearly see I know what your agenda is and I'm not playing that came. It's an illogical conclusion.
he did not provide anything that corraborated his statements in the least....other than some slogan on coinage....doesn't instill fear. LJS9502_basic
For the fifth time, the slogan on our currency DOES NOT instill fear. The slogan on the currency is evidence of INTEGRATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I've made this crystal clear. You must be playing dumb on purpose to avoid admitting being wrong. All you're doing is falsely accusing me of making statements I never made.
So, even if there was a competition going on between us, it looks like you just forfeited...by way of sticking your head in the sand, and pretending not to see my posts.
Your posts all say the same thing.....we have the monies and the pledge. Forget the rulings the courts hand down. Forget the laws in this country. We have the monies.:roll:
The pledge...doesn't instill fear and court...LJS9502_basic
In some people, it would, because some people admit that they fear god. You lose.
Some people? Now that's what I call vague. Link? Oh...and there you go again proclaiming yourself the "winner". Irony...irony...irony.
and not all courts use that statement nor a Bible. I've been a witness....never encountered either...so at best.....it's local. LJS9502_basic
At best, it's local? Well, now! Looks like you just stumbled upon the proof of integration of church and state that you were trying to avoid! Oops! :lol:
If some courts do it, and some don't, that's proof of local laws and regulations influencing the way proceedings are conducted in court. Clear integration of church and state. I would imagine that in heavily-christianized areas :P , hands are still placed on the bible before testimonies are given.
That's not integration of church and state. The church is not running the court decisions. The court is not telling the state what to try. Etc. Sorry....not a logical conclusion here either.
I've had many a good debate here and no one except for those ill equipped to respond to me have called my posts vague.LJS9502_basic
The debates you call "good", are the ones you've won quite easily, because you were debating against unprepared, inexperienced people. People who call your posts vague, are simply stating a fact. A handful of people have agreed with me that your posts are vague, and they're all some of the more intelligent people here. You just don't like being called out.
No actually...the debates I call good are when I face a worthy adversary......there doesn't have to be a "winner"...just intelligent, educated points....not opinions.
You have not called me out. You just have this opinion of yourself that you perceive you have.
Again, this wasn't even my main point here. I said that "mass-population control" was just a theory. My main arguement with LJ was that he said we have seperation of church and state in this country, when we clearly do not. People's religious beliefs are CONSTANTLY exploited for the gains of the courts, and thus, the "state".
Why can't the court just ask us to tell the truth? And if they find out we lied, they'll try us for perjury? Wouldn't that work? That's just as fear-inducing, is it not? But no...I guess the courts understand that people fear their god more than they fear their fellow man, so that's why the courts decide to integrate church and state...by exploiting people's beliefs, to get what they want.
Deity_Slapper
Proof of your assumptions in paragraph one?
As stated...that is what is done here. The Bible isn't used and the penalty is not hell...but perjury for lying under oath.;)
:lol: Actually yes....if someone bases an opinioin/viewpoint on information that is cleary incorrect....their points are wrong.LJS9502_basic
Opinions can't be wrong to the individual. Unless you're saying your opinion is greater than theirs. Because every time you've said that someone's opinion is wrong, you only provide your own opinion in contrast...never concrete facts. That's arrogance. :roll:
You have yet to respond to my posts. You have yet to offer counter evidence. Thus, as it stands....I've proven my side...you have not.
LJS9502_basic
What are you talking about? BEING VAGUE AGAIN!
What did I not answer? If you're going to say I didn't answer something, make a reference to what it was! But no, you just say, "you didn't answer me. Meh." Well, that doesn't help either one of us, now does it?
And here again is proof that you call yourself a winner in every thread.
LJS9502_basic
I say that sometimes sarcastically, because you're the one who's so obsessed with it. Look, even now you're trying to convince me that I didn't win.
I know I didn't win! There's no competition! :lol:
I have not done so. I've mentioned that I'm waiting for you to provide your proof. You have failed to do so. LJS9502_basic
Again, proof of what? So far, in this thread, I've answered everything you've asked of me. However, YOU on the other hand, avoided 4 times my question of, "Do you believe god is real?". Hypocracy is ugly.
Context is everything....and you usually edit posts to take them out of context. That doesn't bolster your case, however, Anyone who has read the thread can see what you've done. LJS9502_basic
I cut them to focus on specific points. I'm not changing anything anyone has said however. Saying I'm "editing" posts makes it sound like I'm trying to change what people say. I've seen you cut posts as well. The pot is calling the kettle black here. Give it up, dude.
Funny then that the majority of OT understands enough of my posts to respond to them. Seems to be an isolated case of only you not understanding. Hmm....what could the common denominator be? LJS9502_basic
The majority of OT probably doesn't care, that's why they don't say anything. And most people just avoid the crap they can't understand. You also tend to annoy many folks here with your smugness. They probably just avoid you.
Oh wait! I have an even better response to this! Check it out, here goes: Link? :lol: Proof? :lol: Give me proof that the majority of OT understands you, LJ. Can't do it, huh? But I guess I should just believe the same lie that you convinced yourself of, right? Yikes...
And had your read my last post I believe to Funky_Llama you would clearly see I know what your agenda is and I'm not playing that came. It's an illogical conclusion. LJS9502_basic
I saw that. And I'll make a post responding to that, after this one.
Some people? Now that's what I call vague. Link? LJS9502_basic
You need a link to prove that some people fear god? Really? :? Come out of your cave every once in a while, and you would know this to be a fact. I don't need a link. To deny something that is common knowledge, makes you appear extremely sheltered, perhaps even ignorant.
That's not integration of church and state. The church is not running the court decisions. The court is not telling the state what to try. Etc. Sorry....not a logical conclusion here either. LJS9502_basic
Read my post to tycoonmike. It explains what I meant. Of course the church isn't running the courts! :lol: But you go ahead and keep your head in the sand there, buddy....yeah, keep pretending that's what I'm saying. Real big of you. :roll:
Let me make this simple for you. There are two kinds of statements one can make.
1. I believe in God.
2. God exists.LJS9502_basic
1 = 2, in this case. You know it. Everyone knows it. Stop denying it. It's sad.
You couldn't claim #1, unless you also believed #2.
Like Funky said:
To believe in God is to imply his existence.
Funky_Llama
^^^ He understands, and I'm sure many others do, too.
So, why, in all of your supposed wisdom and intellect, can you not grasp this simple concept, the same way that 2 other people (who are both younger than you) have?
There is a great difference, to say that you believe somwthing is irrelevant to a debate -- 'I believe in a spaghetti monster', no matterwhat anybody says, hypothetically, can shake the fact that I believe that.
To argue whether one believes in something or not us irrelevant to discussion.
To argue whether one believes in something or not us irrelevant to discussion.
MetalGear_Ninty
It's not about whether he believes it or not. I am just pointing out to LJ how wrong he can be, since he thinks he's never wrong. It's simply annoying.
He says #1 does not equal #2, when clearly, by way of COMMON SENSE, it does.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]To argue whether one believes in something or not us irrelevant to discussion.
Deity_Slapper
It's not about whether he believes it or not. I am just pointing out to LJ how wrong he can be, since he thinks he's never wrong. It's simply annoying.
He says #1 does not equal #2, when clearly, by way of COMMON SENSE, it does.
1 can't be argued whilst 2 can.
All I'll say is that don't let your personal bias cloud your judgement. That's never a good thing.
He says #1 does not equal #2, when clearly, by way of COMMON SENSE, it does.
Deity_Slapper
Were it not for those hash signs, I'd have a new and extremely out-of-context sig.
1 can't be argued whilst 2 can.
MetalGear_Ninty
Dude, you think I don't know that? That's not the issue here!
[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]He says #1 does not equal #2, when clearly, by way of COMMON SENSE, it does.
Funky_Llama
Were it not for those hash signs, I'd have a new and extremely out-of-context sig.
That's why I put them there. I was thinking about you...I mean, me...I mean...you wouldn't do that anyway, would you? :?
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]1 can't be argued whilst 2 can.
Deity_Slapper
Dude, you think I don't know that? That's not the issue here!
Therefore 1 does not equal 2.
[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]1 can't be argued whilst 2 can.
MetalGear_Ninty
Dude, you think I don't know that? That's not the issue here!
Therefore 1 does not equal 2.
Let's try this again... :roll:
If someone says they believe in god...even though I can't argue whether or not they truly believe in god, the fact still stands that they also would have to believe that god exists, to hold belief in him.
Forget the numbers, and which parts can be argued, or not. There is legitimate linear logic here, that can be easily followed by anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense.
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]He says #1 does not equal #2, when clearly, by way of COMMON SENSE, it does.
Deity_Slapper
Were it not for those hash signs, I'd have a new and extremely out-of-context sig.
That's why I put them there. I was thinking about you...I mean, me...I mean...you wouldn't do that anyway, would you? :?
No, it'd embarrass you, and thus me also. ;)
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]1 can't be argued whilst 2 can.
Deity_Slapper
Dude, you think I don't know that? That's not the issue here!
Therefore 1 does not equal 2.
Let's try this again... :roll:
If someone says they believe in god...even though I can't argue whether or not they truly believe in god, the fact still stands that they also would have to believe that god exists, to hold belief in him.
Forget the numbers, and which parts can be argued, or not. There is legitimate linear logic here, that can be easily followed by anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense.
Nonetheless, 1 is irrelevant to discussion.
MetalGear_Ninty, yes, you're right. #1 does not "equal" #2.
Wrong choice of words. I should have said, #1 leads to #2, as in, if someone belives in god (#1), then they would also have to believe god exists (#2). My mistake. But the rest of my post made logical sense. :P
See LJ, it's not that hard to admit when you make a mistake. I made an error. So sue me. Big deal. I'm human. :)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment