 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1072
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:47 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| FFT wrote: | | Ryck wrote: | | Incorrect because nowhere is there a command to kill children for being disrespectful. |
Deuteronomy
21:18 If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail,
21:19 his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city.
21:20 They must declare to the elders of his city, “Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say – he is a glutton and drunkard.”
21:21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. In this way you will purge out wickedness from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.
Leviticus
20:9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother18 he must be put to death. He has cursed his father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself.
|
Is this an example of extreme cruelty toward children? By no means! Actually, this account clearly shows God’s justice in dealing with those who were incorrigibly wicked and refused to respond to merciful treatment. The “son” in this case was not a young child but was old enough to be a “glutton and a drunkard.” (In other words if you cann't discern the obvious - at least a young adult.) Further, his parents had repeatedly warned him, but he would “not listen to them.” And, very importantly, notice that the son was not put to death until he was brought to trial before “the older men of his city.” This just standard is in stark contrast with what has been practiced in some patriarchal societies. Discussing certain desert tribes in the Middle East, Raphael Patai says:
“In fact, the patriarch’s absolute power over life and death of the members of his family included the right to decide at the time a child was born to him whether to let it live or to condemn it to die. We know from historical documents . . . from pre-Islamic times down to the nineteenth century that often a father decided to put to death a daughter either immediately upon her birth or at a later date. The usual method of putting a newborn daughter to death was to bury her alive in the sands of the desert.”—Family, Love and the Bible, p. 122.
So, among many peoples, family members had no opportunity for getting just treatment when the patriarchal head arbitrarily decided against them. But in the Bible by requiring a trial before the ‘older men of the city,’ the Law, however, protected even an accused family member, permitting him to have a fair hearing. This reveals, not a harsh God, but One of genuine justice. How perfectly his Law balanced mercy and justice!
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | See how silly you make yourself when you make wild assumptions and then jump to conclusions with them? |
See how silly you look when you assume you know everything?
|
Oh really? I'm the one that looks silly by assuming to know everything? 
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | By nay-saying? |
Yep. Your statement had no bearing on the factual level of either mythology and I called you on it.
|
You have a strange grip on reality. I was the one that called *you* on it.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | Wasn't it you, or P., who advised me against using Wikipedia because it is not an acredited encyclopedia. |
It's not good for proof but it's a good starting point.
|
Remember that the next times I quote from Wikipedia now that all bets are off. 
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | Anyway, the Romans used Crucifixion for this and more. Even for the fun of it! (Reference Nero.) But according to your thinking Jesus was a pirate, highway robber, assassinator, forgerer, liar, mutinous, traitor (there's that word!), and rebellion maker because he was crucified??? |
Are you really that obtuse?
|
I'm being obtuse? I'm reflecting your arguments right back at you. Now do you see how silly you look like?
When I corrected you to use the correct term "seditionist" instead of "traitor" you bring up that Jesus was killed because of crucifiction because that is what Romans used to deal with such people as per your Wikipedia article quote. Then when I called your conclusion the way you applied it. Now you do the about face and say I'm obtuse??? You're too silly!!
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | Where did you learn your argumentation skills from? Do you want me to explain your fallicies and errors or can you figure this one out for yourself? |
Oh, feel free. This should be delicious.
|
Nah. Since you claim to know better let's see more of that dazzling display of logic in action. This way is more entertaining.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | Oh? You go from "it needs to be done" to "what?". Playing innocent now? |
The history's fine, for the most part. You make it seem like if "Bible" is mentioned anywhere I'm going to contradict it immediately.
|
I didn't make it seem that the Bible is mentioned everywhere, my dear. My Gosh! I think your prejudice is showing!
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | By all means discuss it. Get your facts straight first otherwise your assumptions will appear invalid. |
I agree.
|
Yippie!
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | So work for compromise. So work to understand what makes your position inferior and the other side superior, etc etc. But just nick-picking around the sidelines and nay-saying every other point because you have a problem with the other person's position is a shallow way of doing things, IMHO.
I believe you are better than that. |
There's not much of a compromise between "God!" and "No God!"
|
I wonder how many agnostics or those that are unsure or unconvinced, or to put it on a positive spin, those that are yet to be convinced in the world?
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | These are Bible teachings. Show me why these Bible teachings are wrong? |
Most of them are fine. Almost half are not.
|
Oh, so you have quantified it? There are 1,189 chapters in the Bible. There are 31,103 verses in the Bible. This should be interesting. Let's see you show almost half of these as being wrong teachings.
One question: Is this your research or are you about to copycat paste from Bible bash sites?
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | Show me how being respectful to authority is a bad? |
Authority is not always correct.
|
Neither is anarchy.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | Show me how honoring my mother and father is a bad thing?
Show me why not treating my husband or my wife with honor is a terrible thing? |
Should children honor their father or mother if they're being abused? Should a spouse honor their spouse if they're being abused?
|
No. For that you call the police, silly!
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | Show me how keeping my virginity until I'm married is a terrible thing? |
 Marriage. Marriage is an outdated institution to determine paternity. We've got these nifty paternity tests now to do that. We don't do the dowry business any more either.
|
We should be a nation of bastards? Really? I'm sure there are some deadbeats and welfare moms out there that would agree with your position. They would produce all sorts of children and make a nice welfare living out of them.
So you are one of those that believe that children don't need a father in the home.
And burn wedding dresses, and wedding receptions, and honeymoons,wedding cakes, and flower girls? 
I could go on but I'm starting to feel really sad for you.
You must have missed a few hugs when you were growing up. I'm sorry you feel this way.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | Show me how being truthful is a bad thing?
Show me why not lying is bad? |
When the truth leads to negative consequences. If a guy with a gun says "tell me where soandso is so I can kill him!" should you tell him the truth?
|
LOL I just knew you'd invent a silly scenario. Ok, I'll play along.
If a guy with a gun asks me where somebody is, and they tell me the reason why - so they can kill him or her - then it really doesn't matter what I say, right? What makes you or me think he is going to leave me behind alive as a witness that knows what he looks like?
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | Show me why my not fullfiling the agreements I make with others is a bad thing? |
When the agreements were made under duress, perhaps?
|
LOL Contacts under duress never is, silly! They are not legally binding. But what about contracts you sign not under duress - like your credit card applications, house mortgage, rental agreements, and confidentiality agreements? Ok to be dishonest about any of those just for the heck of it? You expect the other party to hold up their end of the agreement or they are perfectly right to treat the agreement the same way you would?
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | Show me why my not treating my body with honor is a terrible thing? |
The problem is when different people decide what that means.
|
We are not talking about different people deciding. We are talking about *MY BODY*. Read the statement accurately, not how your bias keeps re-interpreting and vectoring the argument.
Try to stay on track with me, FFT. See? I'm not dancing around the subject. Wish I can say the for you and your tactics. But can't say that I can.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | These are Bible teachings. Show me why these Bible teachings are wrong? |
The problem isn't just these. There are many more teachings in the Bible that are morally questionable.
|
You say blanket statements about the Bible then you do the about face when challenged.
| Quote: |
Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off from his people – he has failed to carry out my requirement.”
|
You got a problem with circumcision? Are you a man?
| Quote: |
Exodus 21:28 “If an ox gores a man or a woman so that either dies, then the ox must surely be stoned and its flesh must not be eaten, but the owner of the ox will be acquitted.
21:29 But if the ox had the habit of goring, and its owner was warned, and he did not take the necessary precautions, and then it killed a man or a woman, the ox must be stoned and the man must be put to death.
|
You're kidding me about this one, right? This is to emphasize to owners of a dangerous animal to keep his animal control or he will be personally responsible for it as if he did the killing.
Personally, when viewed with such a liability, I think an owner of a dangerous animal would probably sell it to a slaugther house or kill the animal rather than allow the possibility of such an eventuality from ever happening. I think this should be obvious to you, FFT!
So, a win-win situation for the owner and his neighbors, I think. I don't see a downside - except for those who don't care about human life and welfare.
| Quote: |
Exodus 35:2 In six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there must be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of complete rest to the Lord. Anyone who does work on it will be put to death.
|
Yeah, like this was to happen all the time! LOL
So if there was a law that absolutely told you to rest on the Seventh Day, you'd balk at that? Well, workaholics kill themselves anyway. So what's the difference?
My personal advice: Take the day off! Enjoy it! Enjoy it with your family! It's just one day out of the week. It's no big deal!
| Quote: |
Leviticus 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. (In whatever way this passage is interpreted, the punishment is still death)
|
Homosexuality was not allowed. It kept sexual relations honorable.
There were plenty of men and women around. Find a nice man or woman, settle down, and have sexual relations the way the male and female of the species were designed to have. Be natural! Believe me, this is not a hard law to follow. LOL!
| Quote: |
Leviticus 20:14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst.
|
You're kidding me, right? You like and defend incest?!
| Quote: |
Leviticus 20:18 If a man has sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her fountain of blood and she has exposed the fountain of her blood, so both of them must be cut off from the midst of their people.
|
In other words, the husband respected his wife during her period. If he didn't, the wife could press charges. I don't know of any wife who loved her husband would do that but it certainly kept the wife safe from the husband pressing his advances on her when she is in this physical condition.
So, you are for a husband having sexual relations, even raping his wife, when she is not ready for sexual relations? What kind of sick enjoyment could that bring?
| Quote: |
Leviticus 20:27 “‘A man or woman who has in them a spirit of the dead or a familiar spirit must be put to death. They must pelt them with stones; their blood guilt is on themselves.’”
|
Voodoo, black magic, superstitions were not allowed. So if you are in the black magic business and thrive on people's fears of the occult and the unknown, you won't be able to set up shop in ancient Israel.
Frankly, FFT, I'm surprised at you on this one. I thought you'd be against black magic and superstitions. Here in the constitution for the nation black magic and superstitions were not allowed. How that must free people from all sorts of stupid rituals, beliefs, etc.!
| Quote: |
Leviticus 24:14 “Bring the one who cursed outside the camp, and all who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the whole congregation is to stone him to death.
24:15 Moreover, you are to tell the Israelites, ‘If any man curses his God he will bear responsibility for his sin,
24:16 and one who misuses the name of the Lord must surely be put to death. The whole congregation must surely stone him, whether he is a foreigner or a native citizen; when he misuses the Name he must be put to death.
|
When God gave the Israelites the Law at the foot of Mount Sinai, they agreed to be bound to it. And one of them is that you can't curse against God.
This shouldn't be a tough one to follow, FFT. Unless you have a habitually filthy and dirty mouth that knows no limits!
| Quote: |
Deuteronomy 17:2 Suppose a man or woman is discovered among you – in one of your villages that the Lord your God is giving you – who sins before the Lord your God and breaks his covenant
17:3 by serving other gods and worshiping them – the sun, moon, or any other heavenly bodies which I have not permitted you to worship.
17:4 When it is reported to you and you hear about it, you must investigate carefully. If it is indeed true that such a disgraceful thing is being done in Israel,
17:5 you must bring to your city gates that man or woman who has done this wicked thing – that very man or woman – and you must stone that person to death.
17:6 At the testimony of two or three witnesses they must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
17:7 The witnesses must be first to begin the execution, and then all the people are to join in afterward. In this way you will purge evil from among you.
|
This falls in line with those who preyed on people with voodoo, black magic, the occult, and superstitions. Astrology and idolatry was forbidden too.
And did it escape your notice that anyone who was accused they had to "investigate carefully."????
| Quote: |
Deuteronomy 21:18 If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail,
21:19 his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city.
21:20 They must declare to the elders of his city, “Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say – he is a glutton and drunkard.”
21:21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. In this way you will purge out wickedness from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.
|
Repetitious. Already answered above.
| Quote: |
Deuteronomy 22:20 But if the accusation is true and the young woman was not a virgin,
22:21 the men of her city must bring the young woman to the door of her father’s house and stone her to death, for she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by behaving like a prostitute while living in her father’s house. In this way you will purge evil from among you.
|
Promiscuity wasn't allowed. Neither was lying about it. One thing not being a virgin. It was another thing passing yourself as one.
This encouraged girls to remain virgins because not only what happened to them but also for the shame it brought against her house and her family name.
Really not a hart law to follow either, FFT. I'm sure the vast vast majority of girls in ancient Israel were virgins at their wedding night.
What about the guy if he deflowered a virgin? I'll let you look that up as homework.
| Quote: |
2 Chronicles 15:12 They solemnly agreed18 to seek the Lord God of their ancestors with theirwhole heart and being.
15:13 Anyone who would not seek the Lord God of Israel would be executed, whether they were young or old, male or female.
15:14 They swore their allegiance to the Lord, shouting their approval loudly and sounding trumpets and horns.
15:15 All Judah was happy about the oath, because they made the vow with their whole heart. They willingly sought the Lord and he responded to them. He made them secure on every side. |
Once again, when God gave the Israelites the Law at the foot of Mount Sinai, they agreed to be bound to it. And one of them is that He was their only God.
This shouldn't have been a hard one to follow either, FFT.
Got any more? I believe you produced 27 verses. You claim that about half of all the verses of the Bible are wrong teachings? Well, after debunking your assertions above I figure you have about (31,103 / 2) - 27 verses to go.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6067
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryck wrote: | | Is this an example of extreme cruelty toward children? |
Death? Yes.
| Ryck wrote: | | The “son” in this case was not a young child but was old enough to be a “glutton and a drunkard.” (In other words if you cann't discern the obvious - at least a young adult.) |
Then why were his parents trying to discipline him?
| Ryck wrote: | | And, very importantly, notice that the son was not put to death until he was brought to trial before “the older men of his city.” |
Excuse me? What part of "They must declare to the elders of his city, 'Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say – he is a glutton and drunkard.' Then all the men of his city must stone him to death." implies that there is a trial involved?
Further, you completely ignored the Leviticus verse, which doesn't have any leeway for you to wiggle out with "trial!" or "he's not a child!"
| Ryck wrote: | | Oh really? I'm the one that looks silly by assuming to know everything? |
And the trend continues.
| Ryck wrote: | | You have a strange grip on reality. I was the one that called *you* on it. |
Called me on what? That Abrahamic and Greek mythology had different levels of moral strictness so therefore the Abrahamic is inspired by God and the Greek by men? Because that's the bad reasoning I called you on.
| Ryck wrote: | | I'm being obtuse? I'm reflecting your arguments right back at you. Now do you see how silly you look like? |
All you're doing is putting words in my mouth. Did I assert that Jesus was all of those things?
| Ryck wrote: | | Then when I called your conclusion the way you applied it. |
How did I apply it? I certainly didn't state that Jesus fulfilled all the requirements for crucifixion.
So you're either lying, or mistaken. Which is it?
| Ryck wrote: | | Nah. Since you claim to know better let's see more of that dazzling display of logic in action. This way is more entertaining. |
Copout.
| Ryck wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | You make it seem like if "Bible" is mentioned anywhere I'm going to contradict it immediately. |
I didn't make it seem that the Bible is mentioned everywhere, my dear. My Gosh! I think your prejudice is showing! |
Your reasoning astounds me.
Did I say that the Bible is mentioned everywhere?
Seriously, explain your reasoning here.
| Ryck wrote: | | I wonder how many agnostics or those that are unsure or unconvinced, or to put it on a positive spin, those that are yet to be convinced in the world? |
Agnosticism is still split between agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
| Ryck wrote: | | Oh, so you have quantified it? There are 1,189 chapters in the Bible. There are 31,103 verses in the Bible. This should be interesting. Let's see you show almost half of these as being wrong teachings. |
Context, sir. About half of the ones you posted are wrong. Did you not notice that I was responding to "Show me why these Bible teachings are wrong?"
| Ryck wrote: | | One question: Is this your research or are you about to copycat paste from Bible bash sites? |
Research? No. These are my opinions based on certain Bible teachings you posted. I didn't paste them from anywhere, though other places may say similar things.
| Ryck wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Authority is not always correct. |
Neither is anarchy. |
Didn't say it was, did I? I'm simply pointing out that there is a substantial flaw in always being respectful to authorities.
| Ryck wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Should children honor their father or mother if they're being abused? Should a spouse honor their spouse if they're being abused? |
No. For that you call the police, silly! |
Well, that's hardly honoring them, is it? Apparently you agree with me!
| Ryck wrote: | | We should be a nation of bastards? Really? |
Did I say that?
| Ryck wrote: | | So you are one of those that believe that children don't need a father in the home. |
Did I say that?
| Ryck wrote: | | And burn wedding dresses, and wedding receptions, and honeymoons,wedding cakes, and flower girls? |
Did I say that?
| Ryck wrote: | | You must have missed a few hugs when you were growing up. I'm sorry you feel this way. |
Well, I'm sorry you can't seem to get very far before you have to put words in my mouth rather than debating what I've actually said.
| Ryck wrote: | LOL I just knew you'd invent a silly scenario. Ok, I'll play along.
If a guy with a gun asks me where somebody is, and they tell me the reason why - so they can kill him or her - then it really doesn't matter what I say, right? What makes you or me think he is going to leave me behind alive as a witness that knows what he looks like? |
So do you tell him the truth? Because that's the actual question.
| Ryck wrote: | | LOL Contacts under duress never is, silly! They are not legally binding. |
Legally, this is true. Does the Bible support this? Because that's the actual question, isn't it?
| Ryck wrote: | | We are not talking about different people deciding. We are talking about *MY BODY*. Read the statement accurately, not how your bias keeps re-interpreting and vectoring the argument. |
Is that how the Bible states it? Or does it also define what it means by "honoring" your body?
| Ryck wrote: | | Try to stay on track with me, FFT. See? I'm not dancing around the subject. Wish I can say the for you and your tactics. But can't say that I can. |
| Ryck wrote: | | You say blanket statements about the Bible then you do the about face when challenged. |
???
I showed why those Bible teachings were wrong, and then I showed other Bible teachings that are wrong. What on Earth are you going on about?
| Ryck wrote: | | You got a problem with circumcision? Are you a man? |
Do you believe that someone should be cut off from his people for not having a circumcision?
| Ryck wrote: | | Yeah, like this was to happen all the time! LOL |
They certainly tried to kill Jesus for it, didn't they?
It doesn't matter how the rule was implemented, the Bible states as clearly as possible that there is a punishment of death waiting for you if you work on Saturday. Is this morally right?
| Ryck wrote: | | Homosexuality was not allowed. It kept sexual relations honorable. |
Since same-sex marriages were legalized in certain European countries, heterosexal marriages have been on the rise as well.
| Ryck wrote: | | Believe me, this is not a hard law to follow. LOL! |
Not for everyone. Should those that act on their attraction to the same sex as them be killed for it?
| Ryck wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Leviticus 20:14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. |
You're kidding me, right? You like and defend incest?! |
1. Did I say that?
2. Does the passage actually say anything about incest?
It doesn't say at the same time, it's at all. If you had sex with a woman one day and her mother the next, you're to be burned to death. There's no implied incest.
| Ryck wrote: | | In other words, the husband respected his wife during her period. If he didn't, the wife could press charges. |
DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE WIFE PRESSING CHARGES? DID YOU EVEN READ THE PASSAGE?
"If a man has sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her fountain of blood and she has exposed the fountain of her blood, so both of them must be cut off from the midst of their people."
| Ryck wrote: | | So, you are for a husband having sexual relations, even raping his wife, when she is not ready for sexual relations? What kind of sick enjoyment could that bring? |
IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT RAPING A WIFE. IT IS ABOUT HAVING SEX WITH THE WIFE WHILE SHE IS ON HER PERIOD.
I've had sex with my girlfriend while she was on her period. She probably enjoyed it more than I did. Should we be banished from the land?
If you aren't even going to bother reading the passages to see why they are immoral, why should I even bother discussing this?
| Ryck wrote: | | Frankly, FFT, I'm surprised at you on this one. I thought you'd be against black magic and superstitions. Here in the constitution for the nation black magic and superstitions were not allowed. How that must free people from all sorts of stupid rituals, beliefs, etc.! |
And the punishment is death.
Killing people for having different beliefs is morally wrong, sorry.
| Ryck wrote: | When God gave the Israelites the Law at the foot of Mount Sinai, they agreed to be bound to it. And one of them is that you can't curse against God.
This shouldn't be a tough one to follow, FFT. Unless you have a habitually filthy and dirty mouth that knows no limits! |
So if any of them have second thoughts and stop believing, dead. Moral?
| Ryck wrote: | | And did it escape your notice that anyone who was accused they had to "investigate carefully."???? |
This is the definition of "investigate carefully:"
"At the testimony of two or three witnesses they must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness."
| Ryck wrote: | | Promiscuity wasn't allowed. Neither was lying about it. One thing not being a virgin. It was another thing passing yourself as one. |
Death by stoning then? Sounds perfectly moral.
| Ryck wrote: | | What about the guy if he deflowered a virgin? I'll let you look that up as homework. |
There was rarely any punishment beyond having to marry whoever they had sex with.
| Ryck wrote: | | This shouldn't have been a hard one to follow either, FFT. |
And yet, death?
| Ryck wrote: | | Got any more? I believe you produced 27 verses. You claim that about half of all the verses of the Bible are wrong teachings? Well, after debunking your assertions above I figure you have about (31,103 / 2) - 27 verses to go. |
Just because you apparently can't read doesn't make me wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1965
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ryck,
Hi.
I know it can be fun discussing some of the interesting points FFT brings up, however if you are in any way expecting him to be reasonable, beware. I found this out early with him, and decided not to discuss scripture with him because of that.
Matt 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw YOUR pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip YOU open.
So I proceeded to discuss something nonscriptural with him to show him how he is unreasonable. He kept showing himself unreasonable yet refused to understand how, even though I showed him how.
| FFT wrote: | | Ah yes, that. You've still failed to show how I'm unreasonable, only assert it. This is behavior we humans call "unreasonable." |
I showed him all along but he kept saying I only asserted his unreasonableness. So I grouped them together for him to see. Notice his reasonableness from a few of my proofs: FROM http://www.bible-discussion.com/message-board-forum/viewtopic.php?p=45510#45510
| Tbax wrote: | 1- Question-Are you saying science cannot prove that water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen? CAN SCIENCE PROVE THIS?YES OR NO?
FFT's RESPONCE:no
2- QUESTION-Let me ask you,not just to be sarcastic,but can science prove you have a brain?
FFT's RESPONCE:no
3-QUESTION-Are you saying the earth hasn't been PROVED to be a sphere?
FFT's RESPONCE:Yep
6-You admit you would have to be crazy to expect 10 royal flushes in a ROW yet you think 1000 in a row is fesible?This is exactly why you are unreasonable. |
He seems to also be heavy into philosophy and likes to play word games.
Do you see the lengths he is willing to go to, to prove his point. He is willing to say science cannot prove he has a brain. Do you think it is possible to reason from the scriptures with him?
Just a word of caution. Even though it can be fun, it will be fruitless.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: |
I showed him all along but he kept saying I only asserted his unreasonableness. So I grouped them together for him to see. Notice his reasonableness from a few of my proofs: FROM http://www.bible-discussion.com/message-board-forum/viewtopic.php?p=45510#45510
| Tbax wrote: | 1- Question-Are you saying science cannot prove that water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen? CAN SCIENCE PROVE THIS?YES OR NO?
FFT's RESPONCE:no
2- QUESTION-Let me ask you,not just to be sarcastic,but can science prove you have a brain?
FFT's RESPONCE:no
3-QUESTION-Are you saying the earth hasn't been PROVED to be a sphere?
FFT's RESPONCE:Yep
6-You admit you would have to be crazy to expect 10 royal flushes in a ROW yet you think 1000 in a row is fesible?This is exactly why you are unreasonable. |
He seems to also be heavy into philosophy and likes to play word games.
Do you see the lengths he is willing to go to, to prove his point. He is willing to say science cannot prove he has a brain. Do you think it is possible to reason from the scriptures with him?
Just a word of caution. Even though it can be fun, it will be fruitless. |
Wow. Way to misunderstand the point and go on to take a quote out of context. Here is an explanation of proof as it relates to science. Do yourself a world of good by reading that.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: |
I know it can be fun discussing some of the interesting points FFT brings up, however if you are in any way expecting him to be reasonable, beware. I found this out early with him, and decided not to discuss scripture with him because of that.
|
Pretty funny coming from one of the most irrational and dishonest debaters on this entire forum... The goal of this post of yours is PURELY to interfere with a discussion that two other members of the board are having. You think that it is ok for you to interfere in other people's discussions in this way without adding anything constructive???
| Tbax wrote: | 1- Question-Are you saying science cannot prove that water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen? CAN SCIENCE PROVE THIS?YES OR NO?
FFT's RESPONCE:no
2- QUESTION-Let me ask you,not just to be sarcastic,but can science prove you have a brain?
FFT's RESPONCE:no
3-QUESTION-Are you saying the earth hasn't been PROVED to be a sphere?
FFT's RESPONCE:Yep
6-You admit you would have to be crazy to expect 10 royal flushes in a ROW yet you think 1000 in a row is fesible?This is exactly why you are unreasonable. |
TBax, you clearly don't understand what FFT was saying. I understand what he was saying. How come your response to people whose statements you don't understand is that THEY are unreasonable. Why don't you try to understand what they are saying???
| TBax wrote: |
Just a word of caution. Even though it can be fun, it will be fruitless. |
It really isn't your place to try to get people here black-balled from discussions.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1965
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ana,
We were not talking about evolution. Although that was the main thrust of the conversation, these specific questions show science can and does provide proof, which FFT denied. Don't tell me about context. I created the context to see how far FFT is willing to go, to be unreasonable to prove his point.
P,
You have absolutly no room to talk. I am not arguing with you here. We have are own disfunctional conversation going on else where.
_________________
Agape,
TBax
Last edited by TBax on Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6067
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | I know it can be fun discussing some of the interesting points FFT brings up, however if you are in any way expecting him to be reasonable, beware. I found this out early with him, and decided not to discuss scripture with him because of that. |
Interestingly enough, I decided long ago that debating things with you was basically useless. But I still do it, don't I?
I'm trying to help you see things from my perspective. You're apparently doing your best to ignore me while simultaneously trying to discredit me.
Which of us, then, is a better person?
| TBax wrote: | | Do you see the lengths he is willing to go to, to prove his point. He is willing to say science cannot prove he has a brain. |
By what means would science prove I (or anyone, for that matter) have a brain? Do you still not understand what proof is in the context of science?
| TBax wrote: | | We were not talking about evolution. Although that was the main thrust of the conversation, these specific questions show science can and does provide proof, which FFT denied. |
Even a cursory examination of the article Ana linked shows that it says little, if anything about evolution. Reading the title and deciding to ignore the rest based on the title is hardly being "open-minded," is it?
And you think I'm the unreasonable one here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1965
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
FFT,
My goal was not to discredit you here, but to warn Ryck not to think he can get anywhere with you. You don't even think science can prove you have a brain.
You decided that debating things with me is useless? I agree, if you want me to believe unreasonable things it will be useless.
I did a cursory reading of Ana's article and agree that evolutionary scientists cannot prove anything.
Do you still believe science cannot prove you have a brain?
Ryck,
Sorry for interupting. I'll try to be silent here, starting now.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | Ana,
We were not talking about evolution. |
Well, it's a good thing the article I cited is not about evolution then. That would have been almost as embarrassing as mistakenly revealing I didn't read something before responding to it...
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6067
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | My goal was not to discredit you here, but to warn Ryck not to think he can get anywhere with you. |
"My goal was not to discredit you, but to discredit you."
Well-poisoning is well-poisoning no matter how you swing it. But I'm the unreasonable one, of course.
| TBax wrote: | | You don't even think science can prove you have a brain. |
Again, by what means would science prove I (or anyone, for that matter) have a brain?
| TBax wrote: | | You decided that debating things with me is useless? I agree, if you want me to believe unreasonable things it will be useless. |
Circular argument. And I'm the unreasonable one?
| TBax wrote: | | I did a cursory reading of Ana's article and agree that evolutionary scientists cannot prove anything. |
The article Ana linked applies to all science.
Again, a cursory reading would reveal that evolution isn't even the point of the article. Not counting the title, "evolution" is named four times. The first mention is as part of a link to an FAQ on Evolution and Philosophy, specifically directing to the philosophical side of the FAQ. The second mention of "evolution" is as part of the word "Anti-evolutionists," and is as part of an attack on creationist thought on science itself, not as support of evolution in particular. The third mention is contained in the same section and is just as irrelevant to the rest of the article. The final mention is again part of the word "anti-evolutionist," and is again an attack on the way creationists think about science.
So it really says nothing about evolution science specifically. But I'm the one that's unreasonable.
| TBax wrote: | | Do you still believe science cannot prove you have a brain? |
Yes. By what means do you believe science could prove I have a brain?
Seriously, what methodology would prove I have a brain? I've been waiting on an answer since you originally made this a sticky point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1965
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
FFT,
| FFT wrote: | | Tbax wrote: | | You decided that debating things with me is useless? I agree, if you want me to believe unreasonable things it will be useless. |
Circular argument. And I'm the unreasonable one? |
How, exactly, is that a circular argument? Is it because you baselessly call me unreasonable? Too bad I seem to be the only one who provides proof of such accusations.
You also think getting a definition out of the dictionary is playing a word game.
| FFT wrote: | Yes. By what means do you believe science could prove I have a brain?
Seriously, what methodology would prove I have a brain? I've been waiting on an answer since you originally made this a sticky point. |
I am beginning to agree that science could not prove you have a brain. But they can prove the rest of us do. You've been waiting for the answer? Well perhaps if you read my responces you would have seen the answer.
My first responce:
| Tbax wrote: | | Empirical logical proof or CAT Scan or surgery.Let me guess,are you going to say these aren't science?Don't continue to be silly about this. |
My second responce:
| Tbax wrote: | | I'm not going into a lengthy discussion on this with you. My answer is sufficient but you cannot understand it. Figure out for yourself what kind of empirical logical proof would prove that it is not just decorative, or a temporary construct. There are scans and procedures that show brain activity you know. |
You need everything spelled out for you, and even when the time is taken to spell it out, you don't see it. This is an excellent example as to why trying to reason with you is pointless.
Oh, and preemptively discounting any future responce is not at all closed minded, is it FFT.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1965
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ana,
| Ana wrote: | | Well, it's a good thing the article I cited is not about evolution then. That would have been almost as embarrassing as mistakenly revealing I didn't read something before responding to it... |
I understand that this article was written to support evolution. Especially since it is unprovable.
Much of the references by scientists are talking about complex theories, of which the general and specific theories of relativity would be included. So would evolution. However, absolutely general validity has supported Einstein's theories, not Darwin's. Evolution should have been thrown out, but it wasn't because scientists cannot comprehend or don't want to accept the alternative.
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”—Sir Arthur Keith.
You must understand, these statements do not apply to simple scientific matters. Science can certainly tell if an organism posses intelligence, or a brain, don't you think? FFT refused to acknowledge the difference. Can you?
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6067
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | How, exactly, is that a circular argument? Is it because you baselessly call me unreasonable? Too bad I seem to be the only one who provides proof of such accusations. |
Actually, it's because you assume that I'm the unreasonable one in your logical sequence.
Assuming the conclusion as a premise makes a circular argument.
| TBax wrote: | | You also think getting a definition out of the dictionary is playing a word game. |
It is when there's more to the meaning of a word than is in the dictionary — "logical fallacy," for instance, is very distinct from just "fallacy."
| TBax wrote: | | I am beginning to agree that science could not prove you have a brain. But they can prove the rest of us do. You've been waiting for the answer? Well perhaps if you read my responces you would have seen the answer. |
Again, by what methodology. Put up or shut the hell up.
| TBax wrote: | | Empirical logical proof or CAT Scan or surgery.Let me guess,are you going to say these aren't science?Don't continue to be silly about this. |
Not proof that I currently have a brain, only that I had a brain at the time of the scan/surgery.
Unrealistic scenario? Definitely. But it's part of that whole "proof" thing.
| TBax wrote: | | You need everything spelled out for you, and even when the time is taken to spell it out, you don't see it. This is an excellent example as to why trying to reason with you is pointless. |
I've tirelessly tried to explain to you how science works in the first place and you seem to be steadfastly ignoring it.
Science does not work in proofs, it works in disproofs. Period.
| TBax wrote: | | Oh, and preemptively discounting any future responce is not at all closed minded, is it FFT. |
There's nothing at all wrong with discounting a future response when you already know it's not going to be valid.
| TBax wrote: | | “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”—Sir Arthur Keith. |
Stop looking for soundbites that support your conclusion and make an argument. I'm sick of playing this cat and mouse game.
Present a case. Make an actual valid argument.
| TBax wrote: | | I understand that this article was written to support evolution. Especially since it is unprovable. |
Yet apparently you don't understand that the article applies to all science. Until you realize this, it is absolutely pointless to argue with you.
| TBax wrote: | | Science can certainly tell if an organism posses intelligence, or a brain, don't you think? |
I have never disputed it. What I have been actually saying is that science can not | | |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
