1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Passing a law designating Islam as a political movement
Posted on 8/24/26 at 4:15 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 8/24/26 at 4:15 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You haven't used reason at all. You've only made claims that seem to be nothing more than an expression of your personal opinions.
You mean I'm not citing some other book and claiming it's the word of God?
quote:
I've given logical responses that are both internally consistent to the content of the Bible that you were attacking, as well as consistent with basic rationality. I've defined terms and provided arguments, connecting premises to conclusions. The only thing I haven't done is provided them in the format of a logical syllogism, but I could do that if you'd prefer.
Sure, let's see it.
quote:
Speaking of someone who can't be reasoned with...
It's actually worse for you, because you should expect me to be unreasonable due to my religious beliefs, but in doing so, you are claiming an implied intellectual superiority. While I am expected to be nothing more than a brainwashed idiot, you, by contrast, are supposed to be reasonable. Yet, you don't understand basic definitions and basic logical arguments.
I don't force you to resort to dogma when pushed. It's not my fault when pointing out how you would feel about a person who created billions of people, giving them senses and things to feel pain, just so I could then use that pain to torture them for eternity you claim it's justified because "God".
You could respond and show justification for it, if such a thing is possible, but you can't actually justify it with reason or anything else. So it just becomes "God can do it because he's God". And you can't even question if such a thing is even true about God because you claim, "The bible is the word of God".
You think these are facts we should share, but in reality, it's dogma that I will not share.
Those are not logical arguments.
quote:
And yet here we are, many pages later, and you are continuing to debate me.
I'm just pointing out why what you believe is dog shite. There has been no real debate on my understandings because you aren't capable of it.
quote:
You continue to ignore what I'm saying. I would question your intelligence at this point if I knew it wasn't an intellectual issue. It's a moral problem, and you are blinded by your sin. You can't even use your God-given reasoning faculties because that would lead you to agree with me, at least in part.
One minute you're telling how much of a sinner you are and how much you need Jesus to be your free ticket. Now you are claiming I'm the one blinded by sin.
And why am I blinded by sin? Because I won't accept that someone wants to give me a "free gift".
quote:
Yes, I've defended it. I've defended the Bible according to the Bible and the biblical teaching of Christianity, defining doctrines and explaining actual meanings that you keep butcher or misunderstanding.
No, I provide context you wish to gloss over. It's like claiming robbing someone is removing them of the burden of how much weight they carried. And if I point out - well no you are robbing them, you start claiming "That's not the context I chose!".
You want to focus on "he's saving you", but when I point out according to your claims billions of others are burning in hell, I'm suddenly "butchering" things.
quote:
I've also explained how the Bible provides cohesion with the observable world around us, especially in terms of science, math, and morality, where the Bible provides an explanation for the uniformity of nature, for example.
You've done nothing of the sort. The closest you could do was try to make up excuses when it was pointed out the creation myth contradicts itself, neither of them is actually right.
And then you do things like claiming billions burning in hell for eternity is justice, because "God" while claiming that is morality.
Your statement is just completely false.
quote:
I have to assume your worldview cannot provide that, because none others can, do to either the truth claims that must be true that those worldviews deny or don't provide, or due to their internal inconsistencies that make those claims unreliable.
I could tell you things, but you wouldn't understand. You don't understand why time isn't real for example. You don't understand that the universe/creation is static, without movement. You don't understand that life/experience is a limitation within it. You don't understand the extra dimensions around you and how choices change the path in it. You don't understand what a soul is, you don't even know who you are.
Not because such a worldview is impossible, but because you are stuck in dogma. You expect people to show you a worldview within the bible. You want to argue with other Christians who have accepted your dogma. That is not me.
Posted on 8/24/26 at 4:15 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
First, Christianity is either true or it isn't. You being hostile or not is irrelevant to whether or not it speaks truth.
Which version of Christianity?
quote:
Second, if you are hostile because one person out of billions reveals the consistency of the Christian religion, then that's definitely a "you" problem.
I am sympathetic to Christians who actually follow Jesus.
You reminded me of the shitty people I grew up around.
quote:
Third, how could you "like Jesus" if you think He didn't exist and/or was merely an archetype?
I think you were already intellectually and morally hostile to Christianity. You were just looking for an excuse to be vocal about it. I'm glad that I was the one that helped you to show your true colors, then.
The same way I like Neo in the Matrix, and the same reason you shouldn't worship idols. If someone wants to talk about philosophy or things using the Matrix as a storyline, I will enjoy that. How he learns the truth about reality, and then tries to set people free with the truth and how a system that relies on the lie and blinds people from the truth views him as a threat, wants to kill him and so forth.
But then here you come along trying to claim Neo is real, and that we must all donate to the telephone company so they can keep payphones everywhere in case he needs to come back again. And how the important thing is we need to worship him and the time he died in the Matrix while trying to free others.
To which you start putting a gun on a necklace around your neck to celebrate the death, claiming he sacrificed himself for you. And that's the important thing, not the fact you are trapped in the Matrix in a system of lies being manipulated and controlled as a resource. And now we must wait for his return to save us, as if the information itself wasn't that which was supposed to save you. As if that isn't exactly what the Matrix/machine/system would want.
Name the way I am morally hostile to Christianity.
quote:
But that's been my point all along: you are now adding another claim, that common sense should be common. Why? And what's the point of having any standards at all, even arbitrary ones? Either there are truths associated with them or there are not, and if not, then it doesn't matter anyway.
As I said earlier, you do not understand how things work.
quote:
Yes and no. This is where trinitarian theology comes into play. The Father and the Son are not the same person; they are two different persons in the same being. The Son paid the debt that other humans owe to the Father, and that debt is then accepted and released based upon acceptance by faith.
In your analogy, it's more like you owe $20 to someone, and his son shows up and pays off your debt.
The son is the limitation, but I'm sure you don't understand that.
And you claim it was created by God so it's still God paying himself by the process of human sacrifice.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son to pay the debt back to himself.
quote:
Understanding what? I assume you are talking about certain truth claims. If so, where do those come from and how does one gain it?
Understanding of the topic we are talking about.
quote:
Another truth claim, aka, "dogma". Where did you get this dogma from?
a "truth claim" is not dogma. Dogma is when you make a claim and then use the same as the authority on the reason why it's true. Like saying the bible is the word of God because the bible says the bible is. And then using that as a basis for other things such as claiming what God does is just because it's God doing it.
I'm not supporting the claim with the claim.
You are born ignorant. You learn during life how to act, good from bad, etc. And somehow me pointing this out is now a "truth claim" and "dogma".
quote:
I have an objective standard to use to judge by. You don't, as far as I can tell. Therefore, I have a rational grounding for my moral judgements while you do not. That's been my point all along. You are being irrational.
Claiming God can do whatever he wants and it's justified is not rational grounding.
And the crazy part about it is you claim God MUST have the sacrifice of Jesus and people to believe that. Otherwise, there is no justice etc.
God can do anything except forgive people outside believing in the human sacrifice of Jesus. Born and killed immediately? Tough shite. Never heard of Jesus? Tough shite. Had any doubts about the claims that seemed crazy to you? Tough shite.
The only "Just" way just happened to be joining your religion.
quote:
False. A vicious circle is a logical fallacy, but circular reasoning, in itself, is necessary when you get to ultimate authorities or first causes. Do some research on that.
You mean dogma is required to believe the nonsense you believe. No shite.
At least you are slowly starting to admit that ultimately you just want me to accept your dogma and then argue with me in the constrains of it.
But then when I point out the dogma you get upset with me, call me irrational and whatever other bullshite.
quote:
You didn't apply what I was saying accurately, though. You can't just come up with a random analogy that doesn't convey the actual meaning of what I'm saying and then apply that to what I believe. That's a straw man fallacy, as I said. I'm telling you exactly what I believe. Unlike you, I'm operating in the light.
I did apply it accurately. You claim the people are burning in hell glorifies his mercy/love for those that aren't.
quote:
Now you're pivoting from an internal inconsistency to an external one. I'll take this as a concession that you know your initial claim was wrong.
Literally nothing changed in what I said.
It has 2 different orders and neither of them is correct.
Posted on 8/24/26 at 4:35 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Can you point anything in the Bible that explains that walking on water or the crown of thorns was related to any other religious myth? Or, are you just assuming that based on supposed similarities? If you are just assuming it, then you can't call that "history".
As I keep saying, you need to justify your claims.
They are references to the sun. Sun worship was extremely popular in ancient times.
In ancient times, sun gods were often depicted wearing crowns of the sun, aka the crown of thrones.
The rising after 3 days is also in reference to the sun and it's solar cycle. Or I guess it's just a coincidence that Christmas and "He is Risen" is just coincidentally shared on the winter solstice.
These are obvious references to the sun.
Walking on water is an ancient reference to mirroring the divine. A perfect unbroken reflection that is only possible when the surface is completely calm. It's not about physically walking on water as a "miracle".
quote:
You were taught that by whom? And according to what standard?
The Bible provides the 10 commandments, with the first one being against idolatry. Jesus and the Father are one (essence), so therefore it is not idolatry to worship Him.
You don't see any connection between me and Jesus because you are ignorant of the Bible. You've shown that over and over again.
Except for when it comes to paying the debt. Don't forget the need to be 2 then.
And it's still an idol.
quote:
No, you need to be specific here, since you are describing something that isn't true.
This is why idols are bad.
And from here on out you just keep repeating the same thing over and over and making claims that is starting to border on gish gallop.
This post was edited on 8/24/26 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 8/24/26 at 4:44 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You still need to show that something if false, though. You can't just say it's false and then wipe your hands and pretend you've won an argument. You need to do better here.
I have over and over in this thread. Your refusal to accept it is your problem.
I don't need you to believe me, what I believe or understand. I'm not trying to pretend I can "save" you.
I'm not trying to start a religion. I'm not looking for followers. This idea that I somehow owe you something or am required to do something for you simple does not exist. I have no religion for you to subscribe to.
You are the one trying to convert me into yours. You made claims, I questioned them.
But you are completely unable to defend my critiques and now you've just started to look for anything you can find or assume about me so you can attack that in response.
As such, I don't see much use in continuing.
Posted on 8/24/26 at 4:58 pm to Boom33
quote:
So because the constitution doesn't come with a dictionary, we get to pretend they mean whatever we as a way of bypassing the constitution to take away the rights of people?
And you don't see or have a problem with that?
Why do you hate freedom? Is it because you are worried how other people may choose to use theirs? You'll give yours up just so they can't have it?
I want no part of it.
There should be no freedom to burn our flag and chant death to America on our soil and preach the quran. They all need to be exiled now.
The quran’s Sura 5:33 says about infidels,
“They shall be slain or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off.” Sura 9:5
says, “Slay the infidels wherever you find them
... and lie in wait for them ... and establish every stratagem (of war against them).
” Sura 47:4-9 promises paradise to whoever cuts off the head of an infidel.
Posted on 8/24/26 at 4:59 pm to The Boat
Texas maybe
Posted on 8/24/26 at 5:02 pm to PaulDrake
quote:
There should be no freedom to burn our flag and chant death to America on our soil and preach the quran. They all need to be exiled now.
Not allowing someone to burn the flag is instead burning the constitution.
No thanks.
I'm fine with deporting people who don't assimilate though. Even more fine with never allowing them here to start with.
This post was edited on 8/24/26 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 8/24/26 at 7:49 pm to Boom33
quote:
Boom33
I don't agree with your theology (or lack of), but I respect how you're defending the constitution
Posted on 8/24/26 at 9:47 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
I don't agree with your theology (or lack of), but I respect how you're defending the constitution
I think both suffer the same issue.
Some people just believe in "United States" and see that as a symbol without regard to the constitution, the principles and philosophy it was founded on and what it means.
In doing so, they tear apart the very foundation of the country. The "US" is like an idol to them, a replacement for what was important. They'll say the most wonderful things, appear to the be the most patriotic and the most extreme about it. And in the process, they will turn it into the very thing it was founded against.
And when it comes to that people like that guy, he does the same thing with Jesus. Instead of focusing on the things he stood for, what he represented and so forth, his life example, it becomes all about the idol of Jesus. Those things he stood for get ignored and the idol becomes the replacement for what was important. They'll say the most wonderful things, appear to be the most devout and they'll be the most extreme about it. Like this guy wanting to change the 1st amendment to declare "Christ is King". And in the process, they turn it into the very thing that Jesus fought against and was killed for threatening.
They'll say the US was founded on Christian principles as a Christian nation. And then turn around and claim these principles are no longer valid/working. Because what really matters is the label "Christian" and the idol worshipping. In reality, the country was founded on the principles and understanding, not religious statehood and idols.
This is evident with the Jefferson bible.
Posted on 8/24/26 at 10:46 pm to Boom33
quote:
Not allowing someone to burn the flag is instead burning the constitution.
No thanks.
Flag burning can be prosecuted under some circumstances.
Anyone involved in flag burning or even approve of flag burning need to get the hell out of Dodge.
Do you approve of flag burning or have any respect for anyone burning our flag?
Posted on 8/24/26 at 11:33 pm to PaulDrake
quote:
Flag burning can be prosecuted under some circumstances.
Anyone involved in flag burning or even approve of flag burning need to get the hell out of Dodge.
Do you approve of flag burning or have any respect for anyone burning our flag?
I approve of someone having the freedom to burn the flag if they want. Because that is what freedom costs - allowing others to have even/especially when you disagree with them.
By not allowing someone to do that we are no longer a country of freedom. And why? Because you are snowflake and got your feelings hurt? You now need a safe space so people can't offend you?
Are there any other things that hurt your feelings and should thus be illegal?
You are a much bigger threat to freedom. All because you got hung up in your feel feels. That's some pussy arse liberal shite. Maybe you can get a therapist to help you through the damage done by seeing someone do that.
Now, if they are burning the flag because they come from some other country and don't assimilate, then deport their arse. Not because they burned the flag, but because they didn't come for the purpose of freedom and liberty. They shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.
Otherwise, frick your cry baby feelings. Welcome to the land of freedom where you have every right to be offended but no right to do shite about it.
This post was edited on 8/24/26 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 8/25/26 at 5:43 am to Boom33
Sounds like your trying to do the twist and your crawfishing out of season 
Posted on 8/25/26 at 12:14 pm to PaulDrake
quote:
Sounds like your trying to do the twist and your crawfishing out of season
Do you feel like you're about to get triggered snowflake?
Posted on 8/29/26 at 9:34 am to Boom33
quote:No, I mean you aren't support your claims at all, with reason. You can connect your claims to a personal belief if you want, but so far, you've only just made assertions.
You mean I'm not citing some other book and claiming it's the word of God?
quote:Here's an example of one for objective morality:
Sure, let's see it.
P1. Objective moral obligations must bind universally and unconditionally, regardless of any individual's or group's beliefs, desires, or consensus.
P2. Human experience (individual or collective) is contingent, variable, and non-binding beyond itself, as it can describe what people do value, but not establish what they must value.
C. Therefore, if moral obligations are truly objective, their ground cannot be human experience; it must lie outside and above it.
You have yet to ground any of your moral judgements in anything beyond your own opinions, which means they are necessarily subjective until proven otherwise. If they are subjective, then they are only really meaningful to you, and no one else has any rational obligation to accept them any more than you condemning someone's favorite flavor of ice cream.
quote:Aside from your misuse of the word "dogma" again, you used the word "feel" here. That's an appeal to emotion, not reason, which further illustrates what I've been saying about and to you. You are not being reasonable, but merely emoting your frustrations about the God of the Bible. You can dislike Him all you want, but you haven't supported your dislike rationally.
I don't force you to resort to dogma when pushed. It's not my fault when pointing out how you would feel about a person who created billions of people, giving them senses and things to feel pain, just so I could then use that pain to torture them for eternity you claim it's justified because "God".
quote:I've made truth claims, provided where those claims originate from, and provided coherent, consistent argumentative support for those claims. You just don't like the source. However, if the source of a truth claim was an eye-witness account, you couldn't dismiss it outright because you don't like the supposed eye-witness. You'd have to provide justification for dismissing the person and the claim. You've done neither so far, other than trying to show that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. I've demonstrated that they are not logically contradictory, so you have failed to discredit neither the claim nor the source. You can reject them if you choose, but you should provide justification for it beyond that you simply don't like them. That's not a rational position to take for any truth claim: preferences don't determine truth.
You could respond and show justification for it, if such a thing is possible, but you can't actually justify it with reason or anything else. So it just becomes "God can do it because he's God". And you can't even question if such a thing is even true about God because you claim, "The bible is the word of God".
quote:I stand corrected, and agree with your point here: there has been no real debate. I'm providing arguments and you are providing emotions. You aren't debating anything, but are only making emotional appeals.
I'm just pointing out why what you believe is dog shite. There has been no real debate on my understandings because you aren't capable of it.
My point stands regarding your engagement, though: you are spending a lot of time and effort to say that you aren't actually engaging in a debate, even though you are expressing disagreements over and over again. Perhaps I should say, you are "venting". Is that better?
quote:Yes, I'm a sinner, but I'm not longer "blinded" by sin, at least not the in the same way you are. I have the Holy Spirit residing in me, and you do not. You are dead in your sins and need God's Spirit to open your eyes and soften your heart. No amount of argumentation will convince you of the truth, otherwise. My desire in this is to show you have absurd your position is. Whether you agree with mine or not is a matter of spiritual blindness.
One minute you're telling how much of a sinner you are and how much you need Jesus to be your free ticket. Now you are claiming I'm the one blinded by sin.
And why am I blinded by sin? Because I won't accept that someone wants to give me a "free gift".
quote:I'm not glossing over anything. I've provided rational argumentation to support my position and disprove your own conjectures based on the teaching of the Bible that you are attacking. It isn't merely a context change, but an understanding of what's actually happening. When you knowingly call self-defense "murder", you are actually being deceptive, not changing the context. Likewise, when many people are judged for their crimes, that isn't murder, but justice. You fail to see that because of your blindness.
No, I provide context you wish to gloss over. It's like claiming robbing someone is removing them of the burden of how much weight they carried. And if I point out - well no you are robbing them, you start claiming "That's not the context I chose!".
You want to focus on "he's saving you", but when I point out according to your claims billions of others are burning in hell, I'm suddenly "butchering" things.
For you, in particular, I was highlighting that no matter your concern for the rest of humanity, you refuse to accept the free offer given to you. You reject the pardon you don't deserve and then complain every other prisoner isn't aware of the same offer, so the King must be unjust. You are refusing to think in biblical categories while rejecting the Bible. You are being purposefully inconsistent at this point.
quote:I love how you call a reasonable explanation an "excuse"
You've done nothing of the sort. The closest you could do was try to make up excuses when it was pointed out the creation myth contradicts itself, neither of them is actually right.
And then you do things like claiming billions burning in hell for eternity is justice, because "God" while claiming that is morality.
Your statement is just completely false.
What I said is not false and you haven't shown that it is. You just keep asserting that it is false, as if I should just believe you because you said it. As I keep saying: prove it. Justify it. Provide reasoning for it.
So far, this has been a one-sided discussion. You are being absolutely unreasonable, and I mean that in it's typical sense: lacking reason.
quote:You have told me a lot of things that I disagree with, but not because I'm incapable of understanding, but because you have not supported your claims with reasoning. You criticize me for basing my beliefs ultimately in the testimony of God (as I believe it) while you want me to take your testimony at face value. Why should I believe you over God, when the Bible provides consistent philosophical support for the reality we live in, and you have not?
I could tell you things, but you wouldn't understand.
quote:I understand what you are claiming, but I don't understand your reasoning for claiming these things. Perhaps if you could explain them to me and support them with reasoning beyond your dogmatic assertions? Or, at least explain why I should take your word for it over the Bible's (or anyone else's, for that matter)?
You don't understand why time isn't real for example. You don't understand that the universe/creation is static, without movement. You don't understand that life/experience is a limitation within it. You don't understand the extra dimensions around you and how choices change the path in it. You don't understand what a soul is, you don't even know who you are.
Posted on 8/29/26 at 10:05 am to Boom33
quote:The one and only version taught in the Bible, summarized by the ancient creeds and the solas of the Reformation, but regardless of "version", the truth claims of the Bible can suffice. You disagree with a lot of them, apparently.
Which version of Christianity?
quote:You're sympathetic to people who follow a myth (from your perspective)?
I am sympathetic to Christians who actually follow Jesus.
You reminded me of the shitty people I grew up around.
You don't even know what Jesus taught and you claim to be cool with those who follow Him, even though I do follow Jesus and you reject me.
Perhaps you are the one who believes a myth about Jesus and you don't like anyone who disagrees with your false view of Him.
quote:OK, so you like the idea of some made-up person that aligns with your arbitrary ideals?
The same way I like Neo in the Matrix
quote:Says who? God declared this in the 10 commandments and defined what was meant by it, but why should I care about your own arbitrary commands?
and the same reason you shouldn't worship idols.
quote:I'm also trying to "set [you] free" from your sin by explaining that Jesus has purchased your freedom as long as you receive it. In the Matrix, you had to swallow a pill to be set free, but all Jesus demands of you is to believe Him. Would it be helpful if I sent you a sugar pill to take?
If someone wants to talk about philosophy or things using the Matrix as a storyline, I will enjoy that. How he learns the truth about reality, and then tries to set people free with the truth and how a system that relies on the lie and blinds people from the truth views him as a threat, wants to kill him and so forth.
quote:The analogy doesn't go so far. Neo didn't claim to be God, accepting worship. He seemed to deny such a thing, actually. Jesus accepted worship and made claims that only God could make. Neo is dead, but Jesus is alive right now and is anticipating your worship.
But then here you come along trying to claim Neo is real, and that we must all donate to the telephone company so they can keep payphones everywhere in case he needs to come back again. And how the important thing is we need to worship him and the time he died in the Matrix while trying to free others.
To which you start putting a gun on a necklace around your neck to celebrate the death, claiming he sacrificed himself for you. And that's the important thing, not the fact you are trapped in the Matrix in a system of lies being manipulated and controlled as a resource. And now we must wait for his return to save us, as if the information itself wasn't that which was supposed to save you. As if that isn't exactly what the Matrix/machine/system would want.
quote:You reject the biblical teachings of sin and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone, for one.
Name the way I am morally hostile to Christianity
quote:I understand how reason works and how truth claims work. You are just making an assertion that I'm wrong and then not backing it up. You are the one who doesn't get how this works.
As I said earlier, you do not understand how things work
quote:You need to describe what you mean by the son being the limitation. From my understanding, the Son is certainly a limitation, since no one else has enough money to pay off the debt. I used $20 to make it simple, but it's more actually an infinite debt that no one has the credit to pay except Jesus.
The son is the limitation, but I'm sure you don't understand that.
And you claim it was created by God so it's still God paying himself by the process of human sacrifice.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son to pay the debt back to himself
God didn't create the debt. Man did, and we don't have the funds to pay off that debt.
I find it ironic that you quoted John 3:16, because in that verse, it speaks of salvation through belief in Jesus. I'm talking about how Jesus actually saves people, but that verse hits it at a high level: we are in need of salvation, and those who trust in Jesus will not perish. You refuse to even believe that message.
quote:Which one? We were talking about the root of morality and justice.
Understanding of the topic we are talking about.
quote:Link to that definition for me, please. I haven't been able to find one like that online.
a "truth claim" is not dogma. Dogma is when you make a claim and then use the same as the authority on the reason why it's true. Like saying the bible is the word of God because the bible says the bible is. And then using that as a basis for other things such as claiming what God does is just because it's God doing it.
What you are saying is that if one dares to use an ultimate authority as an ultimate authority, that that is a "dogma". Do you then claim that "laws of logic exist" is a dogma?
quote:You actually aren't supporting your claims at all. You are just making claims.
I'm not supporting the claim with the claim.
quote:Well it's a truth claim on your part, and based on your prior definitions, it is also a truth claim.
You are born ignorant. You learn during life how to act, good from bad, etc. And somehow me pointing this out is now a "truth claim" and "dogma".
It's also a non-sensical claim. Learning during life how to act is a claim that there is an objective standard that people are all learning to conform to, but you haven't said what that standard is or how we know we are getting close to it. It goes back to our prior discussion of objective morality: you have no basis for it. You just claim it exists, apparently.
quote:It's rational to provide rational justification for the truth claim. God can do what He wants according to His will or He can't. I'm claiming He can, based on His own testimony and the logical examination of the claims, themselves. I've explained how if His claims are true, then they are internally consistent (rational). You haven't shown that they are irrational or untrue.
Claiming God can do whatever he wants and it's justified is not rational grounding
quote:You want God to arbitrarily forgive people. That isn't justice. You want an unjust God. You reject that God should take sin seriously, which is both a denial of His justice and His holiness. You assume that the God of the Bible is different from what He claims to be, and then you judge Him based off of your false beliefs about Him.
And the crazy part about it is you claim God MUST have the sacrifice of Jesus and people to believe that. Otherwise, there is no justice etc.
God can do anything except forgive people outside believing in the human sacrifice of Jesus. Born and killed immediately? Tough shite. Never heard of Jesus? Tough shite. Had any doubts about the claims that seemed crazy to you? Tough shite.
The only "Just" way just happened to be joining your religion.
God's justice requires payment for sin-debt. You can't pay it off, so He sent His Son to pay the debt. You are offered a free gift of paying off your debt and you reject it, and then claim God isn't just because some people haven't heard the free offer, as well? No one deserves to have their debts paid, mind you.
quote:I'm talking about logical fallacies at this point, and you don't even understand them. It's clear that having a rational discussion with you is not possible, because you are irrational, and prefer to merely emote. You just don't like the God of the Bible, so you are saying so. You have no justified reasons for it, only that it makes you uncomfortable.
But then when I point out the dogma you get upset with me, call me irrational and whatever other bullshite.
Posted on 8/29/26 at 10:20 am to Boom33
quote:You did not apply it accurately, and I have been explaining to you exactly how. You need to pay attention.
I did apply it accurately.
quote:This part is true. How you described it before is not true.
You claim the people are burning in hell glorifies his mercy/love for those that aren't.
Yes, God is just, so punishment is Hell is what we all deserve. He pardons billions of people so that they do not receive the punishment that they deserve, and in pardoning them, He should be glorified for His mercy and love.
What you keep getting hung up on is this notion of moral neutrality or innocence, and that you think God owes everyone eternal life. Him punishing anyone for eternity, then, is cruel. I say that your understanding is not accurate, so therefore your conclusions are not accurate, either. You don't understand God's holiness nor the seriousness of sin.
quote:It doesn't have two different orders of creation, and that's what I've tried to explain to you. Genesis 1 is focused on the big picture narrative, and Genesis 2 and 3 are focused on the events in the garden of Eden.
Literally nothing changed in what I said.
It has 2 different orders and neither of them is correct.
Here is another article that explains the situation. As long as a reasonable explanation exists, you cannot call it a logical contradiction.
And in regard to the event as a whole being incorrect, that would be a difference in belief about the age of the universe, earth, and how the earth was created. You are merely asserting the Bible is wrong there. You're free to believe what you want in that matter, but disagreeing doesn't mean the Bible is incorrrect.
Posted on 8/29/26 at 10:32 am to Boom33
quote:Jesus did many miracles and you are only looking at one, or maybe two. Are you just going to pick and choose which ones you think best fit your beliefs?
They are references to the sun. Sun worship was extremely popular in ancient times.
In ancient times, sun gods were often depicted wearing crowns of the sun, aka the crown of thrones.
The rising after 3 days is also in reference to the sun and it's solar cycle. Or I guess it's just a coincidence that Christmas and "He is Risen" is just coincidentally shared on the winter solstice.
These are obvious references to the sun.
Walking on water is an ancient reference to mirroring the divine. A perfect unbroken reflection that is only possible when the surface is completely calm. It's not about physically walking on water as a "miracle".
Also, the texts, themselves, give no indication that these events are related to the sun or sun worship. In fact, they occur in the context of a broader narrative that condemns worshipping the sun or any other idols. The focus is on Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was able to perform miracles by His own power.
Also, the crown of thorns is a laughable example. The thorns were given to mock and ridicule Jesus, not to be an example of how He is truly king as the sun god. He was also given a purple robe and a reed to show He is "king". How do those fit into your narrative
What you're doing is typically called "cherry-picking", and if the Christian writers who composed the Bible really had intended on showing Jesus as a "sun god", then they did a terrible job, considering no one believed that.
quote:Nope, that's not what Christianity teaches.
Except for when it comes to paying the debt. Don't forget the need to be 2 then.
One God (in essence or being), subsisting in three persons.
For someone so hostile to Christianity, you should at least spend some time understanding the most basic elements of the religion.
quote:Not according to God. He cannot be an idol. He is God.
And it's still an idol.
quote:Idols are bad because there is only one God and He deserves all worship. If we worship an idol, we are glorifying something made of our hands and/or imagination and not the one, true, and living God.
This is why idols are bad.
Whatever this view of a god you have is an idol because He has not revealed Himself as such.
quote:I suppose there is only so many ways I can say the same thing before it becomes a pointless endeavor. If you are deaf, there's no point is talking to you. I have explained myself many times and in many ways, and you either ignore it or (seemingly) purposefully twist my words.
And from here on out you just keep repeating the same thing over and over and making claims that is starting to border on gish gallop.
You should start engaging with the actual arguments if you want me to stop repeating myself. You're basically saying "nuh uh".
Posted on 8/29/26 at 10:45 am to Boom33
quote:Give me an example of one explanation you've provided. You have only asserted things and provided no reasoning for your assertions. So no, you have not shown that anything I said is false. As I said previously, you've basically said "nuh uh", without providing any reasoning for why that is. You have just emoted, saying you don't like what has been said. You don't like the God of the Bible. You reject His justice. You reject His mercy. You reject eternal life through Jesus Christ. However, you have not said why He's actually unjust or unmerciful, but have rather resorted to straw man arguments, misrepresenting what the Bible teaches in order to paint God in a bad light. You aren't engaging with what the Bible teaches, even while you reject what you claim the Bible teaches.
I have over and over in this thread. Your refusal to accept it is your problem.
quote:I don't believe you and you have given me no reason to do so.
I don't need you to believe me, what I believe or understand. I'm not trying to pretend I can "save" you.
I'm not trying to start a religion. I'm not looking for followers. This idea that I somehow owe you something or am required to do something for you simple does not exist. I have no religion for you to subscribe to.
I'm not trying to start a religion or looking for followers, either. However I do want you to be saved.
If you thought I were wrong, wouldn't you want me to know what is right? If there is no salvation in whatever it is you believe, then there's no point in me, or even you, believing it. If we can just wander our entire lives and learn whatever we want until we die, then what's the point of your beliefs?
There are eternal consequences to sin, though, which is why it's important for you to turn from your sins right now and believe in Jesus Christ for forgiveness and eternal life. There is no second chance once you die.
quote:All you did was make claims of your own in response. You're acting as if you made some good, probing questions to lead me to a rational position away from what I believe, but you did no such thing. You didn't question God, you rejected Him. You said He was evil. Don't downplay what you've been doing.
You are the one trying to convert me into yours. You made claims, I questioned them.
quote:Unable to defend your critiques?
But you are completely unable to defend my critiques and now you've just started to look for anything you can find or assume about me so you can attack that in response.
You haven't even supported your critiques. You don't understand the definitions of the words you are using and have not engaged in good faith with the biblical teachings as I've presented them. You've gone after straw men with mere assertions and no logical support. You haven't explained why what I believe is wrong, but have only asserted that I'm wrong. You haven't engaged with my argumentation as it is, but have had to twist it into something else. You are a bad-faith actor in this, and I hope I've exposed that to others. It's also interesting that you seem to be an alter, and others are now seeing you for what you are, as well.
quote:That's on you, then. I think I've exposed you as a fraud who tried really hard to keep your beliefs out of the public, but you slipped up and let them come out, confirming you are an alter. You have no support for your own beliefs (or haven't provided them), and have not even supported your criticisms of Christianity. You merely assert your emotions and do not provide logical argumentation for why you are to be believed and why what I believe should be rejected. It just boils down to your own discomfort, which doesn't matter to me or others.
As such, I don't see much use in continuing.
Next time you want to pick a fight, try to support your position.
Posted on 8/29/26 at 12:41 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
No, I mean you aren't support your claims at all, with reason. You can connect your claims to a personal belief if you want, but so far, you've only just made assertions.
I haven't posted beliefs.
quote:
Here's an example of one for objective morality:
P1. Objective moral obligations must bind universally and unconditionally, regardless of any individual's or group's beliefs, desires, or consensus.
P2. Human experience (individual or collective) is contingent, variable, and non-binding beyond itself, as it can describe what people do value, but not establish what they must value.
C. Therefore, if moral obligations are truly objective, their ground cannot be human experience; it must lie outside and above it.
You have yet to ground any of your moral judgements in anything beyond your own opinions, which means they are necessarily subjective until proven otherwise. If they are subjective, then they are only really meaningful to you, and no one else has any rational obligation to accept them any more than you condemning someone's favorite flavor of ice cream.
You have done none of this. All you do is claim everything is moral because God said so and other forms of dogma.
quote:
Aside from your misuse of the word "dogma" again, you used the word "feel" here. That's an appeal to emotion, not reason, which further illustrates what I've been saying about and to you. You are not being reasonable, but merely emoting your frustrations about the God of the Bible. You can dislike Him all you want, but you haven't supported your dislike rationally.
You think having senses is the same as emotions? What a stupid thing to say.
quote:
I've made truth claims, provided where those claims originate from, and provided coherent, consistent argumentative support for those claims. You just don't like the source. However, if the source of a truth claim was an eye-witness account, you couldn't dismiss it outright because you don't like the supposed eye-witness. You'd have to provide justification for dismissing the person and the claim. You've done neither so far, other than trying to show that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. I've demonstrated that they are not logically contradictory, so you have failed to discredit neither the claim nor the source. You can reject them if you choose, but you should provide justification for it beyond that you simply don't like them. That's not a rational position to take for any truth claim: preferences don't determine truth.
They are logically contradictory. And I'm unsure why you keep claiming you are demonstrating things when you've done nothing of the sort. You keep repeating the same few lies over and over.
quote:
I stand corrected, and agree with your point here: there has been no real debate. I'm providing arguments and you are providing emotions. You aren't debating anything, but are only making emotional appeals.
My point stands regarding your engagement, though: you are spending a lot of time and effort to say that you aren't actually engaging in a debate, even though you are expressing disagreements over and over again. Perhaps I should say, you are "venting". Is that better?
You do not provide arguments; you make claims that by default anything you say is true because you claim it is of God. You claim that is reason.
I refuse to do the same and I refuse to accept your dogma and for that reason you keep claiming
quote:
Yes, I'm a sinner, but I'm not longer "blinded" by sin, at least not the in the same way you are. I have the Holy Spirit residing in me, and you do not. You are dead in your sins and need God's Spirit to open your eyes and soften your heart. No amount of argumentation will convince you of the truth, otherwise. My desire in this is to show you have absurd your position is. Whether you agree with mine or not is a matter of spiritual blindness.
You're a liar and you worship Satan.
quote:
I'm not glossing over anything. I've provided rational argumentation to support my position and disprove your own conjectures based on the teaching of the Bible that you are attacking. It isn't merely a context change, but an understanding of what's actually happening. When you knowingly call self-defense "murder", you are actually being deceptive, not changing the context. Likewise, when many people are judged for their crimes, that isn't murder, but justice. You fail to see that because of your blindness.
For you, in particular, I was highlighting that no matter your concern for the rest of humanity, you refuse to accept the free offer given to you. You reject the pardon you don't deserve and then complain every other prisoner isn't aware of the same offer, so the King must be unjust. You are refusing to think in biblical categories while rejecting the Bible. You are being purposefully inconsistent at this point.
And now the 100th claim that you've done something you have not. I'm not sure you remotely understand what rational arguemnt is.
I'm not even sure what the frick you are talking about here. At what point did I ever call self defense murder?
And then you follow it up with more marketing material. Is this what you are claiming is your rational arguments?
quote:
I love how you call a reasonable explanation an "excuse"
What I said is not false and you haven't shown that it is. You just keep asserting that it is false, as if I should just believe you because you said it. As I keep saying: prove it. Justify it. Provide reasoning for it.
So far, this has been a one-sided discussion. You are being absolutely unreasonable, and I mean that in it's typical sense: lacking reason.
It's not a reasonable explanation because none of it is true. It's an excuse because you are just telling me why you don't care that it's not true.
quote:
You have told me a lot of things that I disagree with, but not because I'm incapable of understanding, but because you have not supported your claims with reasoning. You criticize me for basing my beliefs ultimately in the testimony of God (as I believe it) while you want me to take your testimony at face value. Why should I believe you over God, when the Bible provides consistent philosophical support for the reality we live in, and you have not?
It's impossible to reason with someone who didn't get their positions from reason. It's not my fault and there is nothing I can do about it. Jesus couldn't fix that in people either, nobody can.
Posted on 8/29/26 at 12:45 pm to The Boat
quote:
Then passing a law to make the political movement of Islam illegal
This is the way around the 1st amendment
Are you sure what the 1st Amendment says?
Page 27 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News