- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Why do American Christians support Israel?
Posted on 5/19/21 at 11:41 am to squid_hunt
Posted on 5/19/21 at 11:41 am to squid_hunt
quote:
Because you can't read the original languages in the original dialect, you're working with a false interpretation?
If you are going to focus on the details of the language in a section of an ancient text, yes. This is not generally true for most religious purposes.
quote:
Do you understand the implications of what you just said with regard to science? Unless you read every single published document and perform every single lab and document every single result yourself, you can't possibly understand what is going on with the research. And God forbid it be published in a foreign language.
This is a silly comparison because the experts translating the text differ in their conclusions. No one disputes the photoelectric effect.
1
Posted on 5/19/21 at 11:45 am to tigger1
quote:
Mo Jeaux That is because you seem not to read it?
I've read it quite a bit in the past.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 11:46 am to RollingwiththeTide
Does this make Judas a good guy then?
Posted on 5/19/21 at 11:47 am to TK421
quote:
This is a silly comparison because the experts translating the text differ in their conclusions. No one disputes the photoelectric effect.
Did you just imply no disputes in science? The science is settled? All of it?
Your petard, you just hoisted yourself on it, buddy.
But it's ok. Everybody has inherent biases and prejudices.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 11:55 am to jimbeam
quote:
And some people would say that the Jews were the reason that Jesus was crucified.
i mean how can this be refuted
Seriously? What a moronic original statement, and then you add this bit of idiocy.
It's funny when people who clearly have never set foot in Sunday School try to comment like they understand anything about Christian beliefs and teachings.
The sins of mankind are the reason Jesus was crucified. If you don't know that, you know less about Christianity than the head of cabbage in my fridge.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 11:57 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
The sins of mankind are the reason Jesus was crucified.
But also, the Jews, in the ultimate rejection of God, killed his son in the manner of the parable of Mark 12.
While he laid down his life willingly, they willingly joined in.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 11:58 am to squid_hunt
quote:
Did you just imply no disputes in science?
No.
But this guy is is stating he has the only objective interpretation of scripture when he bases it on a heavily disputed interpretation.
This is quite different from someone concluding evolution is generally true.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:00 pm to TK421
quote:
But this guy is is stating he has the only objective interpretation of scripture when he bases it on a heavily disputed interpretation.
You just implied the exact same thing about science and yourself.
And the argument wasn't about his interpretation being correct. You implied he couldn't have the correct interpretation because he wasn't reading in the original language.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:06 pm to squid_hunt
quote:
You just implied the exact same thing about science and yourself.
No, and if you honestly think it is the same, you are not smart enough to continue arguing with.
quote:
And the argument wasn't about his interpretation being correct. You implied he couldn't have the correct interpretation because he wasn't reading in the original language.
You seem to have trouble following the progression of an argument. He said he had the only possible valid interpretation of scripture. For a variety of reasons, this is nonsensical.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:06 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
For the sake of argument, let’s say I grant you all the premises presented here. I could spend hours pointing out how they are incorrect, and have before, but let’s just say they are all true. That still says nothing whatsoever about the truth/validity of the claims themselves.
You can’t even defend morality. As an atheist you have very limited options and your best response is “well, that is how I feel”. Your ethical system is preference. If you try to argue any of the points I stated when asked a difficult question you will respond with “just cause.”
This is atheism. A world full of hypocrisy.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:13 pm to ctiger69
quote:
You can’t even defend morality. As an atheist you have very limited options and your best response is “well, that is how I feel”. Your ethical system is preference. If you try to argue any of the points I stated when asked a difficult question you will respond with “just cause.”
This is atheism. A world full of hypocrisy.
This whole argument is unconvincing and sophomoric. As a Christian myself, I really hate Christians sometimes.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:15 pm to TK421
quote:
No
Yes. Your arguments work just as well regarding science. "No, it's different." isn't an argument.
quote:
He said he had the only possible valid interpretation of scripture.
Pretty sure he didn't say that.
He said he has a consistent interpretation based on using scripture to interpret scripture. As in his beliefs on what the Bible said follow from beginning to end. Using the world's interpretations to slant the Bible is antithetical to the Bible's teachings and to the philosophies of Christianity.
I'm sorry you have trouble following the progression of an argument.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:19 pm to TK421
quote:
This whole argument is unconvincing and sophomoric. As a Christian myself, I really hate Christians sometimes.
Say what you will but it's not sophomoric. 2 of the great minds of today spent hours debating this subject. Atheism has no morals, it's true.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:23 pm to Pdubntrub
quote:
Atheism has no morals, it's true.
According to who? This sounds like a FMC assertion wherein he presupposes everything necessary to proclaim some alleged truth as irrefutable....but it’s actually just his preferred interpretation of a given principle.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 12:31 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
According to who
Pdubntrub.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:04 pm to ctiger69
quote:
You can’t even defend morality. As an atheist you have very limited options and your best response is “well, that is how I feel”. Your ethical system is preference. If you try to argue any of the points I stated when asked a difficult question you will respond with “just cause.”
This is atheism. A world full of hypocrisy.
Ok, sure, like I said for the sake of argument I’m granting you these premises. What if that were reality though?
The fact that you find an idea too horrifying to accept says nothing about whether or not it is true.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:14 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The fact that you find an idea too horrifying to accept says nothing about whether or not it is true.
The fact that you find the idea of accountability to a creator too horrifying to accept says nothing about whether or not it is true.
A fallacious argument is fallacious no matter which side uses it, and that’s the second or third time you’ve played that card.
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:22 pm to Flats
quote:
The fact that you find the idea of accountability to a creator too horrifying to accept says nothing about whether or not it is true.
Agreed, which is why I’ve spent more years of my life as a Christian than not and would happily do so again...if I actually discovered or was shown good reason to believe it was true. Do I find certain concepts in Christianity, such as the idea that the vast majority of humans who have ever lived with be in Hell forever, horrifying? Sure, I’d argue only a sadist or a sociopath could genuinely believe that and not be horrified by it. But it could absolutely be true regardless of what I think about it.
The difference between me and ctiger is that I’m more than willing to accept his version of reality and live as a Christian again IF he can show the truth of it, instead of simply arguing that the alternative is too horrifying to possibly be true. He is under no circumstances ever going to consider my version of reality however, regardless of the evidence, and openly has stated as much. And this difference is in and of itself an indicator of the relative deficiencies, from an evidentiary standpoint, of his position.
There’s a reason I don’t argue against the existence of God or Christianity by claiming certain aspects of the theology are unsavory or uncomfortable to think about. It’s because they are irrelevant when considering whether or not those ideas are true. My goal is to argue FOR my position in as much as the evidence indicates it is true, and only argue AGAINST the existence of God in as much as the evidence FOR such a being is lacking. Mainstream Christian apologetics is almost entirely an argument AGAINST unbelief as opposed to an argument FOR the faith. And this is fundamentally the difference between faith, particularly faith in things that supposedly lie outside the physical, testable universe, and empiricism.
This post was edited on 5/19/21 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:38 pm to TK421
quote:I have access to trustworthy sources and a seemingly endless amount of information on the internet to help derive my view.
You have no way of knowing this objectively because you are dependent on someone else's interpretation and translation.
I have had these discussions for years with people like yourself. I know the points and counter-points and the meaning of yom and its different meanings within different contexts. If you would like to have that discussion, I'm happy to do so.
quote:That God created the earth quickly and that it's young (thousands of years old).
What is the orthodox christian teaching about the history of the universe?
The only real debate up until the last few hundred years was whether or not God created the universe in one instant or if He did so over a few literal days. There was no reason to assume long ages were in mind in Genesis because there was nothing in the scripture that would lead someone to that conclusion.
quote:I agree.
Christian Orthodoxy didn't start in Alabama in 1950.
This post was edited on 5/20/21 at 8:13 am
Posted on 5/19/21 at 1:42 pm to TK421
quote:Actually I said I have a consistent interpretation of scripture that uses scripture to interpret itself. I'm not interpreting it based on secular theories or interpretations of reality.
You seem to have trouble following the progression of an argument. He said he had the only possible valid interpretation of scripture. For a variety of reasons, this is nonsensical.
Page 15 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News