Lion IRC's challenge.

sennekuyl · #1 by **sennekuyl** » Jul 01, 2011 3:53 am

from here:

Lion IRC wrote:Could one of the Moderators please split this post off into a new derail thread. Thanks

Spearthrower wrote:
sennekuyl wrote::coffee:
I'm extremely disappointed. When I first came to this forum, Lion was one character I thought could sway me back to Christianity. However, the continues dishonesty and refusal to let his 'yes be yes and no', no has disavowed me of that foolish notion.

Until he acknowledges when his behaviour is contrary to his own supposed sacrosanct scriptures, I'm not going to respond to such dishonest postings.

I was thinking about this recently, and the laws of equal and opposite reactions. Willhud started out quite extreme in his religiosity, and has become increasingly less religious, Lion's behaviour started out fairly reasonable and has become progressively more absurd and seemingly willfully destructive.

@sennekuyl

Think about the implications of what you said up there.

You claim my posts have made you more inclined (swayed) towards atheism, but isn’t that just another way of putting an argument that I should dilute/change my own views or else…
Or else what?

Arent you just admitting that if you like what one person says or the way they say it, you will be a Christian and if you don’t then they should change their position. Wouldn’t it be an accusation AGAINST me if I changed my convictions in the face of someone saying what you just did? And isn’t that a contradiction of everything purported by the idea of rationalism?
Burn in hell – nope don’t say that. I dont like that. A universe going to heat death – nope don’t like that either. Anyone got any better ideas? Maybe Lion IRC will say something I like the sound of to "sway" me.

Spearthrower says I used to be "fairly reasonable" and no doubt he feels that I’ve gotten more annoying over time. But isn’t there another possibility? Isn’t it possible he finds me all the more annoying and unreasonable BECAUSE I’ve stayed the same despite any effort on his part?

I got perma-banned from an Undernet chat room called #atheism after visiting there for over 10 years. The Channel Manager “Britomart” said they banned me after a democratic (and ironic) vote agreeing that I would never be persuaded away from Christianity. It wasn’t me who changed. They did. They got more and more irritated at that “F” word - futility.

I’m here to attack the defective idea called atheism by commenting on AvT and related social issues like gay marriage posting selectively as I please.

If you think what I’m doing is preaching to promote Christianity - helping you resolve your faith position - you’re wrong (and I think there’s a little something in the FUA about that too.)

Besides, if you are/were thinking about or wanting to have your Christianity strengthened THIS is not the place to come.

If I were you I would find a quiet church somewhere. Sit down and meditate (another biblical word for prayer.)

Think about your state of being in this universe and what you think lies beyond this universe.

Take some personal responsibility, think for yourself – it’s YOUR life.

I'll get back to this.

sennekuyl · #2 by **sennekuyl** » Jul 01, 2011 4:32 am

Arent you just admitting that if you like what one person says or the way they say it, you will be a Christian and if you don’t then they should change their position. Wouldn’t it be an accusation AGAINST me if I changed my convictions in the face of someone saying what you just did? And isn’t that a contradiction of everything purported by the idea of rationalism?
Burn in hell – nope don’t say that. I dont like that. A universe going to heat death – nope don’t like that either. Anyone got any better ideas? Maybe Lion IRC will say something I like the sound of to "sway" me.

Words in my mouth heh?
I did not criticise your posting for not changing your position. Not that stubbornly sticking to a position has anything to recommend it.
1. the criticism was for dishonesty. You have been caught out, splayed for all to see. Your response: tell the mods. Quite within the FUA, but not in anyway admirable.
2. when shown how such behaviour was against your own scriptures, you have refused point blank to engage. You could recognise the faults (admirable), you could show how either were mistaken ( subjective, but could be admirable), or you could run away. You ran.

I became an atheist, despite hating what it meant. I liked talking to my god. I was a good jabberer. And I listened. As I got older, I tried to do the latter more than the former. It suddenly got quiet. :shock:

I find atheism a terrible position, however, I have this obnoxious problem. I can't lie to myself.

I've admired nunnington for awhile, another a theist that might have persuaded me to 'return to the fold'. I doubt very much I will ever despair of his posts, because over time he has shown himself honourable. There is also Jerome, who I've never come across but is well respected by many regardless of their spiritual inclination.

Spearthrower says I used to be "fairly reasonable" and no doubt he feels that I’ve gotten more annoying over time. But isn’t there another possibility? Isn’t it possible he finds me all the more annoying and unreasonable BECAUSE I’ve stayed the same despite any effort on his part?

Well, I don't know about Spearthrower, I don't know how often you've crossed. My despair of your posts is that they block out the stuff you don't like (such as you did to Fallible et al) while raising the same faulty reason that the blocked stuff addresses. Blatantly dishonest.

If you think what I’m doing is preaching to promote Christianity - helping you resolve your faith position - you’re wrong (and I think there’s a little something in the FUA about that too.)

I never asked you to preach. Funny that. This practice is also called red herrings. Comes up a lot in response to your posts.

Besides, if you are/were thinking about or wanting to have your Christianity strengthened THIS is not the place to come.

Agreed. I came here to learn and practice better thinking and critiquing.

If I were you I would find a quiet church somewhere. Sit down and meditate (another biblical word for prayer.)

Think about your state of being in this universe and what you think lies beyond this universe.

I did that, and I read apologetics and what was actually in the Bible! How do you think one comes to reject indoctrination?

Take some personal responsibility, think for yourself – it’s YOUR life.

Thinking for yourself is over-rated. Try doing it for everyone. (Maybe you will see what is ethically wrong with Christianity)

Spearthrower · #3 by **Spearthrower** » Jul 01, 2011 5:07 am

Spearthrower says I used to be "fairly reasonable" and no doubt he feels that I’ve gotten more annoying over time. But isn’t there another possibility? Isn’t it possible he finds me all the more annoying and unreasonable BECAUSE I’ve stayed the same despite any effort on his part?

Not at all Lion, it means what I said it means.

I don't find you annoying, I pity you.

I’m here to attack the defective idea called atheism by commenting on AvT and related social issues like gay marriage posting selectively as I please.

See? This is where the pity starts. You think that you are commenting on atheism while talking about gay marriage. What else can I feel but pity when you are so wrapped up in your bigoted dogma that you can't even formulate a reasonable statement, and you just clump everything you don't like in one basket. It's a coping mechanism, not an argument.

If you think what I’m doing is preaching to promote Christianity - helping you resolve your faith position - you’re wrong (and I think there’s a little something in the FUA about that too.)

If you actually thought you were promoting Christianity, that would indeed be problematic as the outcome of your behaviour here is more likely to turn people off, and even to make Christians embarrassed.

If I were you I would find a quiet church somewhere. Sit down and meditate (another biblical word for prayer.)

Think about your state of being in this universe and what you think lies beyond this universe.

Take some personal responsibility, think for yourself – it’s YOUR life.

No need to go to church for that... in fact, a lumbering edifice constructed for the vanity of humanity's desperation for self-important in the universe is quite possibly the last place you'd want to go to seek greater understanding. For one thing, you can't even see the sky - nature's where you find your sense of place in the universe, not a building designed to glorify a 2000 year old figment of human imagination.

Lion IRC · #4 by **Lion IRC** » Jul 01, 2011 6:55 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Spearthrower says I used to be "fairly reasonable" and no doubt he feels that I’ve gotten more annoying over time. But isn’t there another possibility? Isn’t it possible he finds me all the more annoying and unreasonable BECAUSE I’ve stayed the same despite any effort on his part?

Not at all Lion, it means what I said it means.

I don't find you annoying...

Phew! In that case :cheers:

I'd rather people ignore me than be annoyed by me.
Lifes too short.

Spearthrower wrote: I pity you...

Well at the very least you get credit as a humanist for a laudible sentiment even if it is misplaced. :cheers:

Wouldnt you agree though, that its irrational for you to continue feeling pity for a person who says they feel happy and richly blessed? By all means feel anything you like about your own relief at not being like me, but surely you can accept that your pity is unnecessary and therefore wasted, if the subject of your pity doesnt even know its basis. It would be like feeling sorry for a fish that "has" to live underwater. The fish doesnt say whats so bad about water? It might not even know what water is.

It would be cheap and easy to dismiss sum up our positions as each feeling pity for the other but isnt it a more noble objective (intellectually) to go deeper and explore why the other says...dont pity me.

OF COURSE we bloody well get inflamed and tempted to anger !!!!...in the way we think an opposite POV needs to be dealt with. I'm no less fluent in expletives than you or Rumracket, The Plc, Hackenslash, Scar etc (who dont use the seven second delay on content they allow to go to air.) Anyone who reads between the lines of my posts should be able to guess that a huge amount of restraint is being exercised against posting the first thing which comes to mind.

I'm simply arguing for a little bit less..."he's preaching, he's just a troll, he's a POE, he never answers posts, he's a creatinist, he's a homophobe, he secretly knows he's wrong, he doesnt really believe what he says, he used to be reasonable but not any more, he's the reason I'm not a Christian...

sennekuyl · #5 by **sennekuyl** » Jul 01, 2011 7:03 am

... he's the reason I'm not a Christian...

*sigh*. The reason I'm not a Christian is I couldn't reconcile Christianity with reality.

I did think (kinda hoped really at that time) you might be able to show me I was wrong. You have been exceptional at showing Christianity is just lies, on top of lies. From the thinking to the behaviour that flows from that thinking.

Lion IRC · #6 by **Lion IRC** » Jul 01, 2011 7:23 am

sennekuyl wrote:...I did not criticise your posting for not changing your position. Not that stubbornly sticking to a position has anything to recommend it.
1. the criticism was for dishonesty. You have been caught out, splayed for all to see. Your response: tell the mods. Quite within the FUA, but not in anyway admirable.
2. when shown how such behaviour was against your own scriptures, you have refused point blank to engage. You could recognise the faults (admirable), you could show how either were mistaken ( subjective, but could be admirable), or you could run away. You ran.

You are completely overlooking the fact that the Moderators are (ostensibly) neutral umpires and their finding whether or not something was dishonest quote mined misrepresentation settles the matter. You can claim it was dishonest as often as you want but referring to it as "...caught out, splayed for all to see..." is simply begging the question presuming your case proven.
Insinuations that a person has breached the FUA should be referred to the Mods. If they are not officially moderated they remain just that - insinuations.

After all that special pleading that people should simply accept your claim about dishonesty in breach of the FUA, you forged ahead and listed point 2 but you missed option 3 and 4 and 5

3. Perhaps such behaviour was not "shown" to have occurred.

4. Perhaps such behaviour does NOT contravene scripture. (I'll debate scripture with you but I wont seek you out as my Sunday School teacher.)

5. Such behaviour was not something that a person should run from in shame but rather that it might be confronted head on. (After all, this thread arose from me running away. I asked for it. )

Lion IRC · #7 by **Lion IRC** » Jul 01, 2011 7:35 am

sennekuyl wrote:
... he's the reason I'm not a Christian...

*sigh*. The reason I'm not a Christian is I couldn't reconcile Christianity with reality.

...You have been exceptional at showing Christianity is just lies, on top of lies. From the thinking to the behaviour that flows from that thinking.

So you are basically repeating the same old thing. "he's the reason I'm not a Christian"

"the best evidence to my knowledge YHWH doesn't exist is Christians"

Yeah yeah. I heard you the first time.

Your problem is you blame Christ for the behaviour of Christians.

People ask me if I'm a Christian and I ALWAYS answer "no, I'm trying to be a Christian"

But you need to come clean and answer whether or not the behaviour of a certain person named Jesus of Nazareth puts you off Christianity. Do that first. If He and His Gospel draw you toward Christianity then you can make better judgements about what you think of Christians.

In the meantime can you come and help me get this mote out of my eye?

The_Metatron · #8 by **The_Metatron** » Jul 01, 2011 8:35 am

Your posts, Lion, have not been intellectually honest. You've used what your superstitious beliefs tell you is unacceptable to support a completely different argument for which no connection to your beliefs exists. When this was pointed out to you, you ignored it, and simply kept repeating the same dogma.

If this is an example of how a christian behaves, and it is, it does not impress. That behavior demonstrates support for a bankrupt argument based on a christian belief.

Not a bellringer for the faith, is it? "Believe what I tell you, or I'll tell you again. And again. And again..."

sennekuyl · #9 by **sennekuyl** » Jul 01, 2011 8:54 am

Lion IRC wrote:
sennekuyl wrote:
... he's the reason I'm not a Christian...

*sigh*. The reason I'm not a Christian is I couldn't reconcile Christianity with reality.

...You have been exceptional at showing Christianity is just lies, on top of lies. From the thinking to the behaviour that flows from that thinking.

So you are basically repeating the same old thing. "he's the reason I'm not a Christian"

"the best evidence to my knowledge YHWH doesn't exist is Christians"

Yeah yeah. I heard you the first time.

Your problem is you blame Christ for the behaviour of Christians.

...
I'll grant you that it is one of the reasons, wrapped up in the " I couldn't reconcile Christianity with reality". Do you feel better now?

If you are following Christ, there is a good reason to "blame Christ for the behaviour of Christians. " He told us to. I'd quote scripture and verse, but you don't do that with the likes of me.

People ask me if I'm a Christian and I ALWAYS answer "no, I'm trying to be a Christian"

And you should know that you can't be saved by works. I'd quote scripture and verse, but you don't do that with the likes of me.

But you need to come clean and answer whether or not the behaviour of a certain person named Jesus of Nazareth puts you off Christianity. Do that first. If He and His Gospel draw you toward Christianity then you can make better judgements about what you think of Christians.

...
It did, until I started to live it.

In the meantime can you come and help me get this mote out of my eye?

Where have I been repetitively shown to be wrong, and still persist in bring that point up?

sennekuyl · **#10** by **sennekuyl** » Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Lion IRC wrote:
sennekuyl wrote:...I did not criticise your posting for not changing your position. Not that stubbornly sticking to a position has anything to recommend it.
1. the criticism was for dishonesty. You have been caught out, splayed for all to see. Your response: tell the mods. Quite within the FUA, but not in anyway admirable.
2. when shown how such behaviour was against your own scriptures, you have refused point blank to engage. You could recognise the faults (admirable), you could show how either were mistaken ( subjective, but could be admirable), or you could run away. You ran.

You are completely overlooking the fact that the Moderators are (ostensibly) neutral umpires and their finding whether or not something was dishonest quote mined misrepresentation settles the matter.

You can claim it was dishonest as often as you want but referring to it as "...caught out, splayed for all to see..." is simply begging the question presuming your case proven.

You are right. I was wrong to beg the question.

Insinuations that a person has breached the FUA should be referred to the Mods. If they are not officially moderated they remain just that - insinuations.

After all that special pleading that people should simply accept your claim about dishonesty in breach of the FUA, you forged ahead and listed point 2 but you missed option 3 and 4 and 5

3. Perhaps such behaviour was not "shown" to have occurred.

4. Perhaps such behaviour does NOT contravene scripture. (I'll debate scripture with you but I wont seek you out as my Sunday School teacher.)

5. Such behaviour was not something that a person should run from in shame but rather that it might be confronted head on. (After all, this thread arose from me running away. I asked for it. )

Well, I've acknowledged I was wrong but countering point 4 & 5 would be you not running away.

You can't be said to run away for asking to extract derails from the thread. The accusation of running away comes from this quote:

Lion IRC wrote:Its His Holy Word. I dont[sic] take bible interpretation classes from people who dont[sic] love Him. (Go preach bible stuff @ a fellow atheist like Skinny Puppy)

from this post.
I contemplated informing you no interpretation is necessary. But that would have mean using other scriptures and you refuse to acknowledge them.

Lion IRC · **#11** by **Lion IRC** » Jul 01, 2011 11:51 am

sennekuyl wrote:

You can't be said to run away for asking to extract derails from the thread. The accusation of running away comes from this quote:
Lion IRC wrote:Its His Holy Word. I dont[sic] take bible interpretation classes from people who dont[sic] love Him. (Go preach bible stuff @ a fellow atheist like Skinny Puppy)

from this post.
I contemplated informing you no interpretation is necessary. But that would have mean using other scriptures and you refuse to acknowledge them.

Are you saying I am running away from a serious bible discussion per se or that me "taking a pass" on discussing the bible with people who I dont think respect Gods bible constitutes running away.

?

Animavore · **#12** by **Animavore** » Jul 01, 2011 11:54 am

Lion IRC wrote:
But you need to come clean and answer whether or not the behaviour of a certain person named Jesus of Nazareth puts you off Christianity. Do that first. If He and His Gospel draw you toward Christianity then you can make better judgements about what you think of Christians.

Actually, yes. It does. This is an apocalyptic preacher who was clearly bat-shit crazy. If he lived nowadays he'd be wearing an "End is nigh" sandwich board at worst and poisoning his followers after a stand-off with the FBI at best.

sennekuyl · **#13** by **sennekuyl** » Jul 01, 2011 1:02 pm

Contemptible evasions.

Spearthrower · **#14** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 01, 2011 1:06 pm

Lion IRC wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Spearthrower says I used to be "fairly reasonable" and no doubt he feels that I’ve gotten more annoying over time. But isn’t there another possibility? Isn’t it possible he finds me all the more annoying and unreasonable BECAUSE I’ve stayed the same despite any effort on his part?

Not at all Lion, it means what I said it means.

I don't find you annoying...

Phew! In that case
I'd rather people ignore me than be annoyed by me.
Lifes too short.

Spearthrower wrote: I pity you...

Well at the very least you get credit as a humanist for a laudible sentiment even if it is misplaced.

Wouldnt you agree though, that its irrational for you to continue feeling pity for a person who says they feel happy and richly blessed? By all means feel anything you like about your own relief at not being like me, but surely you can accept that your pity is unnecessary and therefore wasted, if the subject of your pity doesnt even know its basis. It would be like feeling sorry for a fish that "has" to live underwater. The fish doesnt say whats so bad about water? It might not even know what water is.

It would be cheap and easy to dismiss sum up our positions as each feeling pity for the other but isnt it a more noble objective (intellectually) to go deeper and explore why the other says...dont pity me.

OF COURSE we bloody well get inflamed and tempted to anger !!!!...in the way we think an opposite POV needs to be dealt with. I'm no less fluent in expletives than you or Rumracket, The Plc, Hackenslash, Scar etc (who dont use the seven second delay on content they allow to go to air.) Anyone who reads between the lines of my posts should be able to guess that a huge amount of restraint is being exercised against posting the first thing which comes to mind.

I'm simply arguing for a little bit less..."he's preaching, he's just a troll, he's a POE, he never answers posts, he's a creatinist, he's a homophobe, he secretly knows he's wrong, he doesnt really believe what he says, he used to be reasonable but not any more, he's the reason I'm not a Christian...

Whether my pity is wasted, misplaced, or unnecessary is irrelevant as I don't actually have a choice about what I feel.

As for the last paragraph, instead of asking everyone else to stop responding like that, might it be wise to reflect on whether your behaviour engenders such responses?

Spearthrower · **#15** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 01, 2011 1:14 pm

Lion IRC wrote:
sennekuyl wrote:

You can't be said to run away for asking to extract derails from the thread. The accusation of running away comes from this quote:
Lion IRC wrote:Its His Holy Word. I dont[sic] take bible interpretation classes from people who dont[sic] love Him. (Go preach bible stuff @ a fellow atheist like Skinny Puppy)

from this post.
I contemplated informing you no interpretation is necessary. But that would have mean using other scriptures and you refuse to acknowledge them.

Are you saying I am running away from a serious bible discussion per se or that me "taking a pass" on discussing the bible with people who I dont think respect Gods bible constitutes running away.

?

The problem is Lion that it's a totally useless caveat except as an evasion.

If people are wrong about their citations of the Bible, show them. But if they quote scripture that contradicts your claims, simply ignoring them because they don't believe in the book is not dealing with it fairly. As no one can read your mind, it can only be perceived as intentionally ignoring the inconsistencies.

Further, I dislike this in entirety. I don't need to support or love a book/idea/football team etc. to be able to discuss its merits, or lackthereof. That I am not a supporter of your faith is not excuse to ignore anything I have to say about the inconsistencies of the Bible. I did Bible studies, entirely voluntarily, for around 8 years of my life with several different Christian denominations. I can remember a lot of those studies, and I can recall a lot of parts in the Bible that were problematic for me when I still considered myself a Christian.

If someone tells me that God is Love, why am I not allowed to ask what's loving about inciting your followers to smash your enemies' baby's heads against a wall? Is it not possible that it's actually you who doesn't want to consider it? That you have closeted that little snippet away somewhere where it can't hurt your otherwise contentment with your beliefs? Does it become even more unacceptable to hear this from a non-believer because they're prodding at a soft spot? Almost like a double insult, first that they don't believe, and second that they dare criticise it?

All of my questions here are highly personal, and of course you are not obliged to answer them. You can do so by PM if you want to respond but not publicly, you can ignore them, but please don't respond with some childish diversion, as that would belittle the honesty with which those questions are asked.

Lion IRC · **#16** by **Lion IRC** » Jul 03, 2011 10:36 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
sennekuyl wrote:

You can't be said to run away for asking to extract derails from the thread. The accusation of running away comes from this quote:

from this post.
I contemplated informing you no interpretation is necessary. But that would have mean using other scriptures and you refuse to acknowledge them.

Are you saying I am running away from a serious bible discussion per se or that me "taking a pass" on discussing the bible with people who I dont think respect Gods bible constitutes running away.

?

The problem is Lion that it's a totally useless caveat except as an evasion.

If people are wrong about their citations of the Bible, show them. But if they quote scripture that contradicts your claims, simply ignoring them because they don't believe in the book is not dealing with it fairly...

Do you know how many debates bible-believing Christians have about the scriptures? I have had countless such debates. Christians have been doing it for centuries.

Christians love His Word intensely and they passionately debate theology and scripture.

But I'm not going to "seriously" debate scriptural interpretation with disingenuous people like Agrippina and Skinny Pupppy whose underlying or foundation principle is....its all lies.

If you want to debate me about any biblical theme I would be happy to but not if the discussion ends in you saying...

...oh well the bible's just a pack of lies and it doesnt mean anything since its all woo anyway so... up yours, get stuffed, Christo-fascist, fundy, wack job..

The_Metatron · **#17** by **The_Metatron** » Jul 03, 2011 10:45 am

Shall we rephrase? Are you telling us you'll discuss this with us, so long as we agree with you? You don't don't see a problem there?

Spearthrower · **#18** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 03, 2011 11:10 am

Lion IRC wrote:
Do you know how many debates bible-believing Christians have about the scriptures? I have had countless such debates. Christians have been doing it for centuries.

Yes, it's problematic when even believers can't get their interpretations straight.

As I mentioned many times to you, I also voluntarily attended Bible studies for around 8 years with various denominations, and I learned a lot about what they disagreed on.

Lion IRC wrote:
But I'm not going to "seriously" debate scriptural interpretation with disingenuous people like Agrippina and Skinny Pupppy whose underlying or foundation principle is....its all lies.

If they tell you up front that they consider it all lies, what's disingenuous about it? Surely that would be their argument, and it would be the thing they are seeking to prove through citing the Bible, and what you would be seeking to disprove by rebutting their interpretation?

Lion IRC wrote:If you want to debate me about any biblical theme I would be happy to but not if the discussion ends in you saying...

...oh well the bible's just a pack of lies and it doesnt mean anything since its all woo anyway so... up yours, get stuffed, Christo-fascist, fundy, wack job..

The last series of terms bolded are not what has been directed at you with respect to discussions on the Bible extracts (although fundy and fascist may well have been with respect to positions you've taken on non-Biblically related topics), and I think it's unfair of you to state that this is so. Further, had some of these been directed at you, warnings would have been given. I think it's an unfair caricature.

Regardless, we are talking about specific citations from the Bible. Whether someone believes the veracity of the Bible or not, they are perfectly capable of reading and citing from it.

If I point to Leviticus 24:16 as a counter to a claim about god's merciful nature, then my lack of belief in the Bible is entirely irrelevant with respect to the fact that it is, inarguably, written in the Bible.

Do you recognise that as being valid, or do you insist that only believers should be able to cite the Bible when discussing the Bible?

Lion IRC · **#19** by **Lion IRC** » Jul 03, 2011 11:34 am

The_Metatron wrote:Shall we rephrase? Are you telling us you'll discuss this with us, so long as we agree with you? You don't don't see a problem there?

No. I will discuss it in good faith.
I am sick of people saying..."I am ready to seriously discuss the bible" and then they do some idiotic "Skinny Puppy parody" of scripture because they dont actually think seriously.

Lizard_King · **#20** by **Lizard_King** » Jul 03, 2011 12:38 pm

Lion IRC wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Shall we rephrase? Are you telling us you'll discuss this with us, so long as we agree with you? You don't don't see a problem there?

No. I will discuss it in good faith.
I am sick of people saying..."I am ready to seriously discuss the bible" and then they do some idiotic "Skinny Puppy parody" of scripture because they dont actually think seriously.

So, to paraphrase: Anyone who doesn't believe in the bible (i.e. "take it seriously") cannot discuss the bible. In order to discuss the bible, one has to believe in it first. The problem is, if you truly believe in the bible as a sacred book that describes or interprets god's will, how likely are you to critically examine it? Will anyone who believes the bible stories to be true, like the resurrection of jesus, really argue against it and point out that the evidence for this to really have happened is rather weak? Maybe two christians will discuss whether that particular story is literally true or just a metaphor, but they both work with the same basic assumptions, since they are both christians (i.e. god exists, jesus was his son, and so on). Ergo, if you exclude people from the discussions of the bible who could have a critical point of view, you will only get a limited variety of opinions, most if not all of which will confirm each others preexisting assumptions. Classic bias.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but if this is accurate, then how can you expect anyone to follow that reasoning?

Lion IRC's challenge.

Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Re: Lion IRC's challenge.

Who is online