Any bible scholars out there?

Can a christian deny the old testament?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#181  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 12:50 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:LOL...

Thomas, I don't engage in fights with children, the mentally challenged, drunks or people with an axe to grind (and others). I can keep this up all day if you need the typing practice, knock yourself out. :lol:

Still opting for peurile flaming, rather than an honest discussion, I see. :roll:


See? Flaming accusation. I never flamed you.

You've just demonstrated you either don't know what flaming means, or that you're lying about your contributions in this thread.
At multiple points, you've either insinuated or outright stated that I am:
- childish
- mentally ill/handicapped
- need to calm down
etc.
Those are all personalised comments that have nothing to with the actual arguments being made and everything to do with attacking my character or mental state.
That's flaming. And it contravenes the FUA.

PensivePenny wrote: I stated a fact about how I behave....

Except that you've repeatedly implied or outright stated that I'm mentally ill/handicapped and need to talk to a therapist.
Thereby not only refuting the claim that you don't discuss with such people, but demonstrably posting inflammatory comments.

PensivePenny wrote: I don't engage many types of people. I listed some.

In response to a post of mine wherein I pointed out that you repeatedly try to imply or outright accuse me of being one of those type of people.
Your previous post don't magically disappear Penny. Their context, as well as that of my own posts, remains in this thread for anyone to see.

PensivePenny wrote: Frankly, I don't know what category you might fit in.

Not only do you have no basis whatsoever to make such a judgement, to do so, would be yet another personalised remark.

PensivePenny wrote: One I listed or one of the (and others). I don't care.

Another demonstrable lie in light of the repeated insinuations and accusations you've made about/to me in this thread,

PensivePenny wrote: I've just identified that this constant misinterpretation of one anothers posts would likely never be resolved.

That's baseless cop-out. I've repeatedly tried to get you to drop your personalised derail and discuss the thread's topic.
Misunderstandings are solved by honest and rational discussion, not dismissing other people out of hand.

PensivePenny wrote:I've responded to you politely for the most part.

More counterfactual bollocks.


PensivePenny wrote: I have indicated I have no intention nor desire to engage you, yet you persist.

It takes two people to engage Penny.
All you have to do is keep to your repeated and false assertions that you've not intention to engage with me, by no longer responding to my posts.
Like I said before, this won't stop me from responding to yours, but you'll no longer be engaging with me.
The fact that you keep coming back and most often only to post personalised invective, makes me doubt your assertions of disinterest and willingness to ignore me.


PensivePenny wrote: In doing so, you indicate you have no respect for my desire. I don't need to justify my feelings.

You're in no position to talk about respect. :naughty:
You've repeatedly tried to paint me with all manner of negative character traits and nefarious motivations.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30268
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#182  Postby Sendraks » Apr 25, 2017 12:51 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
This is a great illustration. See what I said that you quoted? It's my opinion based on my perception. Your response is "No... "


And Fallible's "no" is about what you claimed she was doing. Fallible is qualified to comment on what she is or is not doing. If you claim that Fallible has done something before, then Fall is entirely justified in saying "no" she hasn't. Fall doesn't have to entertain your "opinion" or "feelings" on this matter, especially when you attributing behaviours to Fall as a result of your own imaginings.

The same applies to your imaginings about Fall abusing you. which again is simply you projecting your thoughts and feelings onto others and describing their behaviour on your terms. There's no reason for anyone to entertain that for a moment beyond saying "no."

My advice would be you learn to identify where you're engaging in such projection and stop doing it; for the main reason that it is not a healthy behaviour.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15151
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#183  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 12:53 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
This is a great illustration. See what I said that you quoted? It's my opinion based on my perception. Your response is "No... " In my sphere, people who do that are denying someone their feelings. It is considered rude. Whether your intent is malicious or not, I'm just telling you what I perceive. I'm sorry if that makes you "sad." That wasn't MY attempt.


Penny, do you seriously not realise how hypocritical this statment is in light of your posting history in this thread?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30268
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#184  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 12:57 pm

Well, one thing is certain... we all have opinions. I really don't understand the compulsion to break down line by tedious line someone expressing their opinion and how they feel about how others are treating them. Personally, I couldn't be bothered to expend so much energy over an opinion that was NOT offered un-solicited. You asked. I gave an honest answer.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1687
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#185  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 1:07 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
proudfootz wrote:This thread quickly went off the rails.

I suppose religion tends to tap into people's emotions.


Yes, it did... I'll leave it to others to go back and see at what point that was.


IMO about halfway down page 1.

Religion IS emotional for a lot of people. Agreed. Plus, it's on a forum. Miscommunication isn't difficult.


When some folks started calling the christianity you were raised in 'not True ChristianityTM' because they didn't believe some certain dogma and pointing at the bible as their evidence it was clear emotions were triggered.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#186  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 1:13 pm

PensivePenny wrote:Well, one thing is certain... we all have opinions.

True.

However, opinions are things like: 'I don't/do like X'.
Opinions are not: 'X is saying Y'' Or: X is acting Y'
Those are factual claims that are either true or false.
They are not a matter of personal opinion.

PensivePenny wrote: I really don't understand the compulsion to break down line by tedious line someone expressing their opinion and how they feel about how others are treating them.

I have already explained this to you Penny. Why do you keep expressing ignorance about things that have already been explained to you?
I and others respond line by line, to adress each individual claim that is made, on it's own merrit.
If you post a wall of text that contains multiple opinions and factual claims, I will adress each opinion or claim, I am interested in on it's own merrits.
And make no mistake, saying things like 'Fallible is abusing me' is not a matter of opinion. It's a factual accusation, a false one in this case. Now it might be based on misunderstanding on your part and you might express that as 'it feels/seems to me', but that doesn't mean that impression cannot be challenged. Especially when that impression is mistaken.

PensivePenny wrote: Personally, I couldn't be bothered to expend so much energy over an opinion that was NOT offered un-solicited.

So what? You're not talking to another PensivePenny. You're engaging with other people. People who have no obligation to act or think the way you do. Nor do they have the obligation to let you misrepresent their actions and motivations however unintended they might be.

PensivePenny wrote: You asked. I gave an honest answer.

And Fallible gave an honest explanation as to why you response does not reflect reality.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30268
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#187  Postby Sendraks » Apr 25, 2017 1:13 pm

PensivePenny wrote:Well, one thing is certain... we all have opinions.

Yes, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there is any sort of equal value in those opinions.

Everyone has an asshole but, some assholes need a clean more than others.

PensivePenny wrote:I really don't understand the compulsion to break down line by tedious line someone expressing their opinion and how they feel about how others are treating them.

Yes, yes, this is not a new "complaint." There are plenty of justifications as to why a person would want to break down a post into various sub points and deal with them in turn.

Much in the same way that responding with a single block of text is justified, largely as a ploy for avoiding dealing with specific points raised by your interlocutors.

PensivePenny wrote: Personally, I couldn't be bothered to expend so much energy over an opinion that was NOT offered un-solicited.

And this matters, why?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15151
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#188  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 1:17 pm

proudfootz wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
proudfootz wrote:This thread quickly went off the rails.

I suppose religion tends to tap into people's emotions.


Yes, it did... I'll leave it to others to go back and see at what point that was.


IMO about halfway down page 1.

Religion IS emotional for a lot of people. Agreed. Plus, it's on a forum. Miscommunication isn't difficult.


When some folks started calling the christianity you were raised in 'not True ChristianityTM' because they didn't believe some certain dogma and pointing at the bible as their evidence it was clear emotions were triggered.


I accept how you perceived it. But any perceived emotion on my part wasn't due to "my" religion not being "true." It was that anyone would argue that ANY christian religion isn't a "true" christianity. THAT is what the argument was. If you go back and read that page you'll see where I even advocated that. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone they aren't "Christian." To me that's pretty arrogant. Christianity, to me is an umbrella term that, covers ANY religion that follows Jesus Christ. From there, christianity breaks down into about a million different factions. Am I the only one who sees that?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1687
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#189  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 1:20 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
proudfootz wrote:This thread quickly went off the rails.

I suppose religion tends to tap into people's emotions.


Yes, it did... I'll leave it to others to go back and see at what point that was.


IMO about halfway down page 1.

Religion IS emotional for a lot of people. Agreed. Plus, it's on a forum. Miscommunication isn't difficult.


When some folks started calling the christianity you were raised in 'not True ChristianityTM' because they didn't believe some certain dogma and pointing at the bible as their evidence it was clear emotions were triggered.


I accept how you perceived it. But any perceived emotion on my part wasn't due to "my" religion not being "true." It was that anyone would argue that ANY christian religion isn't a "true" christianity. THAT is what the argument was. If you go back and read that page you'll see where I even advocated that. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone they aren't "Christian." To me that's pretty arrogant. Christianity, to me is an umbrella term that, covers ANY religion that follows Jesus Christ. From there, christianity breaks down into about a million different factions. Am I the only one who sees that?

If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know that the answer is no and virtually everyone sees that.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30268
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#190  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 1:25 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
proudfootz wrote:This thread quickly went off the rails.

I suppose religion tends to tap into people's emotions.


Yes, it did... I'll leave it to others to go back and see at what point that was.


IMO about halfway down page 1.

Religion IS emotional for a lot of people. Agreed. Plus, it's on a forum. Miscommunication isn't difficult.


When some folks started calling the christianity you were raised in 'not True ChristianityTM' because they didn't believe some certain dogma and pointing at the bible as their evidence it was clear emotions were triggered.


I accept how you perceived it. But any perceived emotion on my part wasn't due to "my" religion not being "true." It was that anyone would argue that ANY christian religion isn't a "true" christianity. THAT is what the argument was. If you go back and read that page you'll see where I even advocated that. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone they aren't "Christian." To me that's pretty arrogant. Christianity, to me is an umbrella term that, covers ANY religion that follows Jesus Christ. From there, christianity breaks down into about a million different factions. Am I the only one who sees that?


I think we are in basic agreement.

Ironic that on a site with 'rational' and 'skepticism' in the masthead there'd be folks browbeating someone else about who is and isn't christian based on dogmas their particular sect (meaning only the sect they are familiar with and not that they are now or ever were 'believers') happens to hold, and vaguely citing the bible as their 'proof text'.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#191  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 1:26 pm

proudfootz wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

Yes, it did... I'll leave it to others to go back and see at what point that was.


IMO about halfway down page 1.

Religion IS emotional for a lot of people. Agreed. Plus, it's on a forum. Miscommunication isn't difficult.


When some folks started calling the christianity you were raised in 'not True ChristianityTM' because they didn't believe some certain dogma and pointing at the bible as their evidence it was clear emotions were triggered.


I accept how you perceived it. But any perceived emotion on my part wasn't due to "my" religion not being "true." It was that anyone would argue that ANY christian religion isn't a "true" christianity. THAT is what the argument was. If you go back and read that page you'll see where I even advocated that. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone they aren't "Christian." To me that's pretty arrogant. Christianity, to me is an umbrella term that, covers ANY religion that follows Jesus Christ. From there, christianity breaks down into about a million different factions. Am I the only one who sees that?


I think we are in basic agreement.

Ironic that on a site with 'rational' and 'skepticism' in the masthead there'd be folks browbeating someone else about who is and isn't christian based on dogmas their particular sect (meaning only the sect they are familiar with and not that they are now or ever were 'believers') happens to hold, and vaguely citing the bible as their 'proof text'.

Who exactly was arguing there is such a thing as a True Christian?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30268
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#192  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 1:26 pm

theropod wrote:Then your church taught/believed something that cannot be considered Christianity.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#193  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 1:28 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

IMO about halfway down page 1.



When some folks started calling the christianity you were raised in 'not True ChristianityTM' because they didn't believe some certain dogma and pointing at the bible as their evidence it was clear emotions were triggered.


I accept how you perceived it. But any perceived emotion on my part wasn't due to "my" religion not being "true." It was that anyone would argue that ANY christian religion isn't a "true" christianity. THAT is what the argument was. If you go back and read that page you'll see where I even advocated that. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone they aren't "Christian." To me that's pretty arrogant. Christianity, to me is an umbrella term that, covers ANY religion that follows Jesus Christ. From there, christianity breaks down into about a million different factions. Am I the only one who sees that?


I think we are in basic agreement.

Ironic that on a site with 'rational' and 'skepticism' in the masthead there'd be folks browbeating someone else about who is and isn't christian based on dogmas their particular sect (meaning only the sect they are familiar with and not that they are now or ever were 'believers') happens to hold, and vaguely citing the bible as their 'proof text'.

Who exactly was arguing there is such a thing as a True Christian?


Perhaps the bolded bit you quoted above escaped your notice. :cheers:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#194  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 1:28 pm

Sendraks wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:Well, one thing is certain... we all have opinions.

Yes, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there is any sort of equal value in those opinions.

Everyone has an asshole but, some assholes need a clean more than others.

I think the point of that idiom is that opinions ARE equal... they are ALL meaningless! Some, might be interesting, some might be mundane, but they're opinions precisely because there is no empirical evidence to support them. The only "value" opinions may have are to the individual who owns it. If I'm wrong, can you suggest an example of one opinion that is better than another one?


PensivePenny wrote:I really don't understand the compulsion to break down line by tedious line someone expressing their opinion and how they feel about how others are treating them.

Yes, yes, this is not a new "complaint." There are plenty of justifications as to why a person would want to break down a post into various sub points and deal with them in turn.

Much in the same way that responding with a single block of text is justified, largely as a ploy for avoiding dealing with specific points raised by your interlocutors.

LOL... my point wasn't complaining about the method of responding. My complaint was that something relatively insignificant and unimportant (an opinion) didn't warrant the scrutiny of a nuclear lab.

PensivePenny wrote: Personally, I couldn't be bothered to expend so much energy over an opinion that was NOT offered un-solicited.

And this matters, why?

Only to express my inability to understand the motives of those who've done a line by line breakdown of some stupid opinion they may disagree with. Some people here don't need trolls to get worked up. It only takes a sentence or two, if that sentence or two is an opinion.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1687
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#195  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 1:30 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

I accept how you perceived it. But any perceived emotion on my part wasn't due to "my" religion not being "true." It was that anyone would argue that ANY christian religion isn't a "true" christianity. THAT is what the argument was. If you go back and read that page you'll see where I even advocated that. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone they aren't "Christian." To me that's pretty arrogant. Christianity, to me is an umbrella term that, covers ANY religion that follows Jesus Christ. From there, christianity breaks down into about a million different factions. Am I the only one who sees that?


I think we are in basic agreement.

Ironic that on a site with 'rational' and 'skepticism' in the masthead there'd be folks browbeating someone else about who is and isn't christian based on dogmas their particular sect (meaning only the sect they are familiar with and not that they are now or ever were 'believers') happens to hold, and vaguely citing the bible as their 'proof text'.

Who exactly was arguing there is such a thing as a True Christian?


Perhaps the bolded bit you quoted above escaped your notice. :cheers:


Perhaps the bolded bit you quoted above escaped your notice. :cheers:

I was respectful that it was your opinion and acknowledged it.

<Edited> I apologize. See? I misread who quoted whom and credited the wrong person with the wrong comment.
Last edited by PensivePenny on Apr 25, 2017 1:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1687
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#196  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 1:36 pm

proudfootz wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

Yes, it did... I'll leave it to others to go back and see at what point that was.


IMO about halfway down page 1.

Religion IS emotional for a lot of people. Agreed. Plus, it's on a forum. Miscommunication isn't difficult.


When some folks started calling the christianity you were raised in 'not True ChristianityTM' because they didn't believe some certain dogma and pointing at the bible as their evidence it was clear emotions were triggered.


I accept how you perceived it. But any perceived emotion on my part wasn't due to "my" religion not being "true." It was that anyone would argue that ANY christian religion isn't a "true" christianity. THAT is what the argument was. If you go back and read that page you'll see where I even advocated that. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone they aren't "Christian." To me that's pretty arrogant. Christianity, to me is an umbrella term that, covers ANY religion that follows Jesus Christ. From there, christianity breaks down into about a million different factions. Am I the only one who sees that?


I think we are in basic agreement.

Ironic that on a site with 'rational' and 'skepticism' in the masthead there'd be folks browbeating someone else about who is and isn't christian based on dogmas their particular sect (meaning only the sect they are familiar with and not that they are now or ever were 'believers') happens to hold, and vaguely citing the bible as their 'proof text'.


Oh, I think me are most certainly in agreement on what you just wrote.. I've often wondered about the 'rational' and 'skepticism' here. There are some members here who embody the sites domain name so much, I come back to engage once in a while, just to be in their presence. Once in a while, they even engage me. Like golf.... they say the occasional sweet shot is what keeps players coming back.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1687
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#197  Postby John Platko » Apr 25, 2017 1:37 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:

I treated your comments the same way I treat everybody's comments. One observation I've made here is that some carry so much baggage with some words that they are incapable of reading what I actually write. I say x they hear y.

It doesn't help when you flat-out lie, like when you pretended that conversation about the "psychotic" parts of the Bible that you want to conveniently discard as "errors", but then switch to contradicting stories in the Bible, pretending that's what you were originally talking about. I pointed out to you several times, and you just pretended it didn't happen. Don't blame the forum just because you write a lot of shite.


:scratch: :scratch: I'm sorry but I cannot make heads or tails of that comment. Here's how I suggest you present future arguments so they are coherent:

Step 1) Say something like: John, here (provide a link) you said 'X" (provide a quote)

Step 2) But then here (provide a link) you said "y" (provide a quote)

Step 3) I don't see how X is compatible with Y could you help clarify that?

Then we could proceed to have a rational discussion and clear up any misunderstanding or errors that occurred.

Oh blow it out your ass, you know exactly what I'm talking about :lol: And you had ample opportunity to clarify in that situation and you didn't. Really witless trolling, Platko.



The other observation is that some have a neophyte (not even half baked :nono: ) understanding of religion- even though they may have spent years around it.

If you had the humility you pretend to have,


:scratch: :lol: oh I get it, that's a joke - :lol: :lol:


you'd realize this describes yourself perfectly. You don't know half of what you think you do, and worse you start on this high and mighty "I watched some youtube videos so I'm going to talk down at you" nonsense as soon as anyone calls you on your bullshit.


When do I get my test paper back so I can see exactly how you graded me to get my 50%? :doh: You're not helping your credibility by saying things like this. :nono: Maybe if sometimes I got a 60%, sometimes 40% but I'm always getting half - I don't think so. :nono:

:scratch: :lol: oh I get it, that's a joke - :lol: :lol:

By all means enlighten me and everybody else on what you think you know about religion (or any of the science I've presented for that matter). But I'm not holding my breath. :no:

I'm sure I don't have to point out what an idiotic hoop-jumping demand this is :lol: Also, you wouldn't know science if it bit you in your ass. It usually only takes a moment or two of Googling to see you're full of shite, whatever the topic. I don't claim to know everything about religion or science, but it doesn't take much to see when you're just pulling it out of your ass, cherry picking whatever suits your fancy.


Had this been an actual critique of anything I actually posted there would be details and facts to back up that critique. But this isn't that. :nono: just another super incredulous Ad hominem. Why bother? :scratch: :yawn: :yawn:




They think of angels, and spirts, and souls as magical entities that are beyond nature instead of metaphors to help describe experiences that don't yet have better explanations.

Quite the opposite, folks here understand that they only function as metaphors (if at all). You, on the other hand, are talking about literal creators of the universe. You still won't take that last step to realizing that it is all, at best, metaphor. You still need it be something real, tactile.


Need? :scratch: :dunno: about that. I define God to be what created all - I know of no reason not to. That's an attribute religions usually give to God and science has not provided an explanation that I feel warrants me to think otherwise. And as I've explained at great length, doing that gives me better access to the hard mental processing which cost the blood, sweat, tears, and lives of many people who used that definition before me. I simply think it would be stupid of me to waste their good work.

A good reason is you've got no evidence that such a thing existed, or that anything was created. Surely a worldy creature such as yourself has considered the possibility :lol: Much like your demand above, science has no need to jump through your hoops. Stop bullshitting about some noble reason, you believe it because you want it to be so.


Sure, I considered the possibility. But I have no experience with things just popping into existence so my limited brain that likes to sort knowledge and ideas with the help of reference to things familiar just functions better if I make a definitional assignment of God as creator of all. Then, if/when the actual cause, or no cause, of all is sussed out by science I will make appropriate adjustments. There's nothing unreasonable about that. And there's the other advantage I pointed out, belief in God gives me better access to the rituals, mental exercises, the whole rich spiritual history that people who believed in God have evolved over thousands of years. I explained this early on in my time at the forum and later I demonstrated how this works in my demonstration of how ideas evolve thread. :scratch: You can start from scratch - or you and get a jump start by building on the work of others. A belief in God makes it easier to do the latter. And it's great not carrying around a lot of nasty baggage in my words. I could see the connection between CBT self talk and prayer the moment I learned what CBT self talk was - I didn't need Tanya Luhrmann to explain that which is obvious to me. But some can't make that obvious connection even when it's being explained by a Stanford Professor with the exact expertise needed for such explaining to a group of top medical professionals at the Harvard Medical School. Now why that is so, is as interesting as why some believe bread and water can be made to materialize out of thin air. :nod:





They may have tried prayer but it never worked. And for some reason it is assumed that it is like that for everyone. Because they couldn't make it work, they think nobody can make it work.

Nonsense, I and other former believers fooled ourselves into thinking prayer worked just like you're doing right now. There is no empirical evidence that it does what it says on the box. This is why you contrive absurd, woolly, mostly meaningless definitions for things like prayer, definitions that would be unrecognizable to most people who actually pray.



Well maybe there's your problem, maybe you're right, maybe you fooled yourselves into thinking prayer worked. That doesn't mean everybody else fools themselves. :nono:

And you know, just because I prayed to a jug of milk and it didn't grant my wish, doesn't mean when YOU prayed to a jug of milk it didn't grant your wish :lol: Give me a fucking break.


More or less - exactly! :thumbup:



I've already established beyond any reasonable doubt

:rofl:

that my definition of prayer is recognized as prayer by people who study these things. In Catholicism alone there are many forms of prayer and many spiritual paths. Do you recognize St. Teresa's spiritual experiences as prayer? Did you recognize the Talking to God folks prayers- the date nights with God, etc. etc. as prayer?

There is no crisp definition of what prayer must be. That is a fact. You may not like that fact but you'll never be able to prove otherwise. We saw what the expert in psychological anthropology said about it. We saw how she compared CBT self talk to people talking to God, i.e. prayer. I'm sure I presented all kinds of Catholic spiritual mediation traditions. What have you presented to back up your opinion?

No opinion, just a fact: what you say is prayer is not what the vast, vast majority of people mean when they pray. They're talking to God. St. Theresa was also talking to God. They don't think they're talking to themselves, they really think they're talking to God. That's what prayer is. If you remove that, the word becomes a meaningless placeholder for a thousand very different things. You're peddling childish apologetics.


First of all, we Catholics don't just "talk to God" during our self talk. :no: We have a pantheon of saints, often having their own specialization, that we also use as part of our mental processing. I may have a word or two with Saint Hubert today.





It gets a bit jaw dropping :picard: when they endorse things like CBT self talk and meditation but can't link those things to prayer. It get's just plain pathetic when they mock world class scientists who spell out the linkage for them. That puts some squarely in the bag with creationists and climate deniers. :nod:

CBT and meditation aren't prayer -- you don't talk to the creator of the fucking universe when you utilize CBT. Thanks for making my point for me about how you reduce definitions to meaninglessness :clap: Your "world class scientists" have no empirical evidence to back their claim, the last one you dug up was based on a fucking questionnaire :lol: Let's just ask people if they think they're better at prayer now, that's some deep shit there :rofl:



You are wrong. I provided expert testimony saying CBT self talk was prayer - a Stanford professor speaking at the Harvard Medical School.

Oh look, this again, your meditation:

Harvard Medical School!
World class!
Harvard Medical School!
World class!

:lol:

We know John, you'll believe anything as long as it says what you want to hear.


That's a rather bold statement. But what evidence do you have to actually substantiate that? Have you considered the possibility that you just believe that because you want to believe it? Have you considered what may make you resist the ideas Tanya Luhrmann presented at THMS?


Everything everyone from Harvard Medical School claims is completely valid, and we shouldn't question any of their declarations or point out glaringly obvious things, like in CBT you don't have to be convinced that you're literally talking to your very real creator God.


No one need be convinced they are talking to the creator of all when they pray. :no: There are lots of systems of self talk, people have many archetypal images that they find helpful at different times. You're really only limited by your imagination. But here's where we stand, I provided an expert with the appropriate psychological and religious and anthropological background who gave her expert opinion - which is obviously valued by other experts, and you gave :eh: your opinion? :whistle: I'll just type out a note to the folks at Harvard and tell them wait a minute - SafeAsMilk disagrees. :roll:






All you provide is your opinion. And yes, Luhrmann had empirical evidence to back her claim. Go back an re-read that thread, I'm not presenting the details of the testing again - but it wasn't all done with a questionnaire. :no:

Yes, it all boiled down to a questionnaire. There was no empirical measure of anything in the study whatsoever. No opinion about that, that's a fact.


:naughty: :naughty:

What about the objective perceptual measurements? As I told ProgrammingGodJordon, it's not cool to misrepresent the work of others. :nono:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#198  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 1:44 pm

proudfootz wrote:
theropod wrote:Then your church taught/believed something that cannot be considered Christianity.

:cheers:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30268
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#199  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 1:45 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:

I accept how you perceived it. But any perceived emotion on my part wasn't due to "my" religion not being "true." It was that anyone would argue that ANY christian religion isn't a "true" christianity. THAT is what the argument was. If you go back and read that page you'll see where I even advocated that. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone they aren't "Christian." To me that's pretty arrogant. Christianity, to me is an umbrella term that, covers ANY religion that follows Jesus Christ. From there, christianity breaks down into about a million different factions. Am I the only one who sees that?


I think we are in basic agreement.

Ironic that on a site with 'rational' and 'skepticism' in the masthead there'd be folks browbeating someone else about who is and isn't christian based on dogmas their particular sect (meaning only the sect they are familiar with and not that they are now or ever were 'believers') happens to hold, and vaguely citing the bible as their 'proof text'.

Who exactly was arguing there is such a thing as a True Christian?


Perhaps the bolded bit you quoted above escaped your notice. :cheers:

It did not. I missed theropod's post. Thanks for quoting it.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30268
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#200  Postby Sendraks » Apr 25, 2017 1:49 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
I think the point of that idiom is that opinions ARE equal... they are ALL meaningless! Some, might be interesting, some might be mundane, but they're opinions precisely because there is no empirical evidence to support them. The only "value" opinions may have are to the individual who owns it. If I'm wrong, can you suggest an example of one opinion that is better than another one?


There is a world of difference between an opinion held on facts vs an opinion not held on facts. To suggest there is any sort of equivalent "meaningless" between the two, is nonsense of the highest order. Certainly it is not a rational thing to do but, it is a regular occurrence on these forums that certain people will attempt to handwave away the comments of others as "just an opinion."

PensivePenny wrote:I
LOL... my point wasn't complaining about the method of responding. My complaint was that something relatively insignificant and unimportant (an opinion) didn't warrant the scrutiny of a nuclear lab.

You don't get to decide if that is the case.

PensivePenny wrote: Only to express my inability to understand the motives of those who've done a line by line breakdown of some stupid opinion they may disagree with.

Again, I would point out that your not understanding is simply a matter or choice, rather than ability. The reasons as to why people dissect posts in this matter are all too obvious and perfectly rational, for anyone prepared to make the effort to understand.

But, I can see why someone might hide behind an appeal to incredulity rather than make the effort.
Last edited by Sendraks on Apr 25, 2017 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15151
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest