Members chuckgp Posted October 8, 2006 Members Share Posted October 8, 2006 you most definately do need to not only read my posts more carefully, but anything else you may have read on the subject in the last twenty years. hahahaaaaaa!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pigsinzen Posted October 8, 2006 Members Share Posted October 8, 2006 Originally posted by chuckgp Its better than spewing 2nd hand bull{censored}, like you've been. Second hand? Anything anyone says in here about the matter is second hand. You DO seem to know a lot about your defect, but not much about history, religion, mythology, or any of the other related areas. My defect? Oh I get it, another ad-hominem. I won't debate you, it would be unfair, I think. Pretentious too. The facts are easy to find for yourself, and might mean more to you if you discover them on your own. Cop-Out Lots of baseless accusations in this thread. Lots of people telling me I am wrong "Just Cause I said So" without backing up their assertions. And no "Look it up yourself" isn't a legit answer. Either are straw-men ad-hominems. I expected too much I guess. Expecting to have an adult conversation in here is too much to ask. People that have no argument usually revert to ad-hominems. This thread is proof of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chuckgp Posted October 8, 2006 Members Share Posted October 8, 2006 Exactly what part of "Look it up yourself" don't you understand? You are the one copping out. Study up and then you can get your Certificate and legally debate the elders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Blittzkrieg Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 man this is rediculous... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thefyn Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 >A woman has the last word in any argument. Just reminds me of Pigsinzen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Originally posted by Pigsinzen Sure, the main one being when Jesus died on the cross. One of my favorite stories is aobut Medieval Christian missionaries who sailed to India to bring the Good News to the savages that God Himself had been born on Earth to save mankind. For the first few months, they sent back glowing letters to the "home office" about the remarkable progress they were making, how the natives were taking so quickly to the "new" faith.The letters stopped after a couple of months, when the missionaries were finally shown into a temple, where the natives had placed a crucifix amongst hundreds of statues -- of all the *other* incarnations of Vishnu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chuckgp Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 That darn Vishnu!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Originally posted by Pigsinzen Ok first thing I am going to do is remove all of your ad-hominem/ad nothing to discussion attacks. Then I will move onto your actual substance. I've read through that list over and over, backwards & forwards, and I hate to be the one to tell you, but there's not a single "ad hominem" attack in there. Not one.Now, if I conclude, from this FACT, that you don't know what "ad hominem" means, and if I dare to point that out -- will you mistake *that* for an ad hominem attack, as well?I'm not kidding, dude -- you seriously need to look that term up, and you need to quit using it until and unless you figure out what it really means. Ok, now that I have skipped all the chest pounding pretentiousness and verbal masturbation on your part,I looked back through that list again, after this, and you know what? I cannot find a single, solitary example of *either* "chest pounding pretentiousness" or "verbal masturbation" in there, as well.Look, you can *call* things whatever you want to call them, but that doesn't make your labels accurate.Now, if you're mislabeling these things out of ignorance, that's one thing. That can be corrected -- all that's required is for you to use a dictionary.If it's not simple ignorance, then there are only two other possible explanations: either you're too stupid to see that the labels you're using don't fit the situation, or you're deliberately lying (i.e., mislabeling on purpose) in order to .... I don't know what... Maybe you're hoping other people will read your false accusations and accept what you're saying without actually reading what I wrote for themselves? But here's a little test we can use to clear it all up. In the paragraph right before this one, do you think I called you stupid?If you answered "yes," then it's clear that you're reading comprehension skills are not sufficient for you to participate in this converstation. You see, I began by saying "if"; that creates a hypothetical situation, which is contrary to actual reality. If you caught that, then we have a hope of being able to communicate; if not, then I'm sorry, but that would mean that you're stupid. I will get to the actual content. Sucks I have to do this. It does suck, that your perceptions are so muddled that you've so thoroughly missed the points I've presented to you as to think you must spout off anything further. Sigh. Let's play it out, and see where you take it.... No need to look it up. I know what I am talking about. Whom are you trying to convince -- me, or yourself? But please, humor me. Show me were I am wrong. Point me to a reference on the web proving what you say. What a silly thing to say. Are you seriously stating that you'll accept a web reference, and concede the point if I post one?Aside from the fact that it's glaringly obvious that Jesus was a devout Jew and never even attempted to be anything *other* than a devout Jew -- which means, perforce, that everything He taught was firmly rooted in Judaism, let's take a look and see if I can't find at least one website to shut you up. 1. http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/judaism.htm(Pay particular attention to the 2nd paragraph of the introduction.)2. http://www.solbaram.org/articles/origin.html3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/judaism.html (This one's great for cultural context.)4. http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1993/v50-3-article8.htm(This may be the most academically sound source I've come across in a while.... It is an *excellent* primer on historico-political context, though it doesn't focus as much on Jesus's teaching per se; However, I'll quote this passage for your convenience:"What about Jesus himself? The parallels between Jesus and other Jewish prophets, both biblical and post-biblical, are numerous and vital. I shall mention only one point, the topic that the Gospels single out as the major theme of his message: He taught that the kingdom of God was at hand. This depends on a very Jewish idea, that God controls history and that it has a goal. This is one of the main theological ideas in the Bible and one that was fully shared by first-century Jews. Jesus, like his hearers, was deeply rooted in study of the Bible. The belief that God controls history makes one interpret the world in a way that is very distinctive. It is quite different from the view that history is not going anywhere, or that the only operative force is chance." {Emphasis mine.})5. http://www.jesusisajew.org/Jesus_is_a_Jew.php(This is a BLATANTLY biased site, but since you said that an internet source would suffice, I offer it to you, most particularly because it uses SCRIPTURE ITSELF to affirm the JEWISHNESS of Jesus's life and teaching. An excerpt:"Although He differed with some of His contemporaries on how to keep the commandments (Matt. 12:12), He did not disagree on whether to keep them, saying such things as,"if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments," (Matt. 19:17). When He healed someone of leprosy, he instructed him to,"show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded..." (Matt. 8:4, Lev. 14).Yeshua not only taught others how to live a Jewish life, He lived it Himself. The outward signs of this were such things as wearing tzitzit (tassles) on His clothing (Luke 8:43, Matt. 14:36, Strong's # 2899) to serve as a reminder of the commandments (Num. 15:37-39). He observed Passover (John 2:13) and went up to Jerusalem (Deut. 16:16). He observed Succot (John 7:2, 10) and went up to Jerusalem (John 7:14). He also observed Hanukah (John 10:22) and probably Rosh haShanah (John 5:1), going up to Jerusalem on both those occasions as well, even though it isn't commanded in the Torah.The inward sign of His Judaism was a circumcised heart (Deut. 10:16, 30:6).When faced with temptation, Yeshua answered from the Hebrew Scripture (Matt. 4:2-10, Deut. 8:3, 6:16, 6:13). When teaching, He taught from the Hebrew Scripture (Matt. 22:42-45). When admonishing, He quoted from the Hebrew Scripture (Mk. 7:6-13).Yeshua self-identified as a Jew (John 4:22) and as King of the Jews (Mk. 15:2). From His birth to His last Passover seder (Luke 22:14-15), Jesus lived as a Jew." )6. http://www.helsinki.fi/~merenlah/oppimateriaalit/text/english/judaism.htm7. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/27/story_2719_1.html(I close with one from Bishop Spong, just because he's such a fun character.)Now, will you concede the point that Jesus did not "do away with" anything, but merely called the Jews of His day back to the very Jewishness of their faith? Or will you persist in repeating your same misguided statements?(continued) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Continued: Under Moses law you also made sacrifices. Why did that stop after Jesus died on the cross? Who says it did?EVER HEAR OF EUCHARIST?!?!? I suggest you read what Jesus has to say about the Pharisees.I suggest you read what Jesus had to say about His ****NOT**** abolishing the Law and the Prophets! And then you might want to check out the links to the resources I provided, regarding the Pharisees and other players within the cultural milieu in which Jesus preached and taught. You outlook on this isn't the norm actually like you are acting. Are you more intested in what's "popular" or what's ACCURATE?Would you rather be "normal" or "Right"? But I am sure you know better. Weren't you very recently whining and crying about "ad hominem" attacks? Interesting.... Plus show me why Christians aren't stoning people, or never DID stone people. Or why it's not taught to do such a thing. Because burning people has been a lot more fun, apparently, if the history of the Christian Church is anything to judge by.Do you really not know what the Church has been doing for the past 2000 years? I mean in a lot of Muslim countries they still practice such behavior.What does that have to do with ANYTHING?!?We're not talking about Islam. We're talking about the fact that Jesus was THOROUGHLY Jewish, and that YOU -- by denying that FACT -- are picking and choosing which bits of Scripture to follow and which ones to ignore, something you falsely accused me of doing, which also means you're bearing false witness, which is a violation of the Ten Commandments brought forth by Moses from the mouth of God Himself. If Jesus didn't condemn such behavior (And he did condemn it) why aren't we still practicing it?You don't pay much attention to current events, let alone world history, do you?Or do you restrict your perspective to one tiny county or state in one single country, within a particular decade? Your little belief here isn't the norm.First, what little belief? That Jesus was a Jew? Second, why are you so obsessed with "the norm"? Do you believe that the majority is usually right, or that correctness is proven by numbers?If so, I hate to break it to you, but you're in a bad way, because those who *misinterpret* Christianity the way you do are definitely in the minority around the world, especially when you look at the numbers of those who belong to non-Christian religions. So if being the "norm" makes something "right," then you'd better become a Buddhist! But a bizarre twist of the scriptures. Yeah, the kind of bizarre twist that comes from ACTUALLY READING THEM! We just simply disagree on this.You're right. I prefer to follow Scripture, and the teachings of Christ Jesus. You... well, you just do whatever you do. And most of the Christian world also disagrees with you. The sheer hubris you display in daring to speak for the alleged majority of the Christian world is staggering. Man, the ego you have! The fact is, your statement is simply untrue, and as such, it's further evidence that you are either A) simply ignorant, B) deliberately lying, or C) outright delusional. But like I said, I am sure you know better. All I know is what the facts indicate. If you can PROVE otherwise, you're welcome to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Originally posted by Pigsinzen Wow that was a dodge/non-answer to my questions? I love ad-hominem attacks with no substance. The fruity goodness! And could you show the class what I actually asked you to do? I think what you mean is, you BELIEVE he was. But have no proof to back up said belief. So in other words, you have FAITH Jesus was a myth. Just like draelyc has FAITH he is right. Just like I have FAITH that I am. None of us can really PROVE either way. I am sure I will come back here and find more ad-hominem goodness though. I do not have to have "faith" that I am right. I actually base my statements on fact, research, investigation, and reason. No faith required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Originally posted by Pigsinzen How did I attack you personally? Is me asking you to not make ad-hominem attacks on me attacking you?I don't think so. And BTW, you did it again. Thanks for not disappointing me.Instead of debating the subject, you attack the messenger. That is what we know as an "ad-hominem" argument. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy. So, you can copy & paste the definition, but can you put the defintion in your own words? I doubt it, since your usage plainly indicates you have no idea what the term means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Originally posted by AtarisPunk29 Did you notice the Jews don't practice it either? It wasn't Jesus who stopped them, it was them. And beyond that, sacrifices continued while there was a Temple in Jerusalem, and stopped when there wasn't (I doubt this is even true of all sects of Judaism). That has nothing to do with Jesus, it has to do with Romans, Ottoman Turks, etc destroying the location to do such things, the diaspora from Israel, etc. There is a modern movement to rebuild the temple in fact (though that's incredibly controversial and sectarian). What you are really missing out on is that Jesus' views make a ton of sense in context of the 15 or so sects of Judaism that existed. The general dislike for the Pharisees, from the Sudduces, the Essenes, the Qumran Sect-- they all had ideas that mirrored or easily could become those of Jesus. Also Jesus never said that the Old Testament is now bunk, just that the leaders of the Hebrew temple were corrupt and had lost sight of the original intentions of the word of God. Never did he discuss a new religion, rather, he wanted to reform Judaism to practicing in a way that was more practically towards life, that more people would embrace, and that didn't involve a corrupt leadership structure (ho ho ho Roman Catholics). I suggest you read something about Hellenistic society, especially in Judae from 200 BCE until 300CE or so. You missed a lot of history from right after Jesus' death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fl00 Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 so guys what did i miss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Originally posted by rawhedrex this just in! despite the fact that the rules of football have in fact changed over the last couple of hundred years - football has in fact remained exactly the same!!!!!! WOW. LOL~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Originally posted by thefyn Just reminds me of Pigsinzen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Originally posted by Fl00 so guys what did i miss I apparently attacked a bunch of hominy grits, and "most" Christians want to stone me, or burn me, or pig me in zen.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fl00 Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Originally posted by draelyc I apparently attacked a bunch of hominy grits, and "most" Christians want to stone me, or burn me, or pig me in zen.... Sounds fun! Did I miss any actual good debates, or was it just a bunch of "NU-UH, YOU'RE DUMB" from either side with those who can actually reason being overshadowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gdwill2u Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 I have not participated in this thread, but I see the same old crowd abusing and attacking a Christian that I see on every other religious thread.These guys seem to be very insecure, and their overly militant behavior is evidence of this.Here are their tactics:1. argue through attrition, just keep on sending line after line after line until all those that oppose their viewpoint just give up in utter boredom or are unwilling to spend the kind of time needed to refute all line by line stuff.2. Ad hominem arguements, this is obvious, and they do it all the time, and they do it waaaay more than anyone they oppose.3. Using "straw man arguments", this is one of their most favorites, they love to tell others what Christians feel and think and mean, which of course is obviously in error or taken out of context and then using their own made up reality to refute the entire Christian position.None of these tactics would be succeed at a high school debate, but around here they actually think they are winning a useless arguement.My hats off to the brother, brothers who are on the front line for this round of attacks, good luck and keep the faith. I have done my time with these guys and been relieved of my duties (for now haha). Now I'm outa here before I get drawn into more ugliness.Peace in Christ, Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Originally posted by Fl00 Sounds fun! Did I miss any actual good debates, or was it just a bunch of "NU-UH, YOU'RE DUMB" from either side with those who can actually reason being overshadowed? Uh, yeah. I don't think I can answer that question without dangerously exposing myself to unfounded personal attacks, gnome sane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 9, 2006 Members Share Posted October 9, 2006 Originally posted by gdwill2u I have not participated in this thread, but I see the same old crowd abusing and attacking a Christian that I see on every other religious thread. These guys seem to be very insecure, and their overly militant behavior is evidence of this. Here are their tactics: 1. argue through attrition, just keep on sending line after line after line until all those that oppose their viewpoint just give up in utter boredom or are unwilling to spend the kind of time needed to refute all line by line stuff. 2. Ad hominem arguements, this is obvious, and they do it all the time, and they do it waaaay more than anyone they oppose. 3. Using "straw man arguments", this is one of their most favorites, they love to tell others what Christians feel and think and mean, which of course is obviously in error or taken out of context and then using their own made up reality to refute the entire Christian position. None of these tactics would be succeed at a high school debate, but around here they actually think they are winning a useless arguement. My hats off to the brother, brothers who are on the front line for this round of attacks, good luck and keep the faith. I have done my time with these guys and been relieved of my duties (for now haha). Now I'm outa here before I get drawn into more ugliness. Peace in Christ, Bob Thank you, Bob. I sincerely appreciate your support. It gets rough, dealing with the straw-man & ad hominem attacks, and it's very, very time consuming to respond to all the uninformed ranting with actual facts and critical reasoning, but I'm glad to see that at least someone out there appreciates the effort.Sincerely, thank you. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pigsinzen Posted October 10, 2006 Members Share Posted October 10, 2006 Originally posted by gdwill2u I have not participated in this thread, but I see the same old crowd abusing and attacking a Christian that I see on every other religious thread. These guys seem to be very insecure, and their overly militant behavior is evidence of this. Here are their tactics: 1. argue through attrition, just keep on sending line after line after line until all those that oppose their viewpoint just give up in utter boredom or are unwilling to spend the kind of time needed to refute all line by line stuff. 2. Ad hominem arguements, this is obvious, and they do it all the time, and they do it waaaay more than anyone they oppose. 3. Using "straw man arguments", this is one of their most favorites, they love to tell others what Christians feel and think and mean, which of course is obviously in error or taken out of context and then using their own made up reality to refute the entire Christian position. None of these tactics would be succeed at a high school debate, but around here they actually think they are winning a useless arguement. My hats off to the brother, brothers who are on the front line for this round of attacks, good luck and keep the faith. I have done my time with these guys and been relieved of my duties (for now haha). Now I'm outa here before I get drawn into more ugliness. Peace in Christ, Bob Hit the nail on the head. I haven't seen such poor arguements and knee-jerking since I browsed AOL's chatrooms in the early 90s. Atheist fanatics and fringe religious nuts are worse than maninlain religious zealots in this forum. Usually it's those that are professing tolerance that don't practice it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thefyn Posted October 10, 2006 Members Share Posted October 10, 2006 Originally posted by gdwill2u I have not participated in this thread, but I see the same old crowd abusing and attacking a Christian that I see on every other religious thread. These guys seem to be very insecure, and their overly militant behavior is evidence of this. Here are their tactics: 1. argue through attrition, just keep on sending line after line after line until all those that oppose their viewpoint just give up in utter boredom or are unwilling to spend the kind of time needed to refute all line by line stuff. 2. Ad hominem arguements, this is obvious, and they do it all the time, and they do it waaaay more than anyone they oppose. 3. Using "straw man arguments", this is one of their most favorites, they love to tell others what Christians feel and think and mean, which of course is obviously in error or taken out of context and then using their own made up reality to refute the entire Christian position. None of these tactics would be succeed at a high school debate, but around here they actually think they are winning a useless arguement. My hats off to the brother, brothers who are on the front line for this round of attacks, good luck and keep the faith. I have done my time with these guys and been relieved of my duties (for now haha). Now I'm outa here before I get drawn into more ugliness. Peace in Christ, Bob I have no qualms with you at all. Just with piggy. I am not attacking his faith, I am attacking him as a person. An individual.However, in your post there is an identical ref to all of pigs accusations. Almost word for word.When you discuss these issues with Atheists are you given a handbook of phrases to use?1: Your loop (which I pointed out to piggy)2: "Ad hominem" If I hear that word one more time I will laugh or cry. 3: "straw man arguments". How about "man against man" arguments. I have noticed Piggy thought he was talking FOR others. Often using the term "We" instead of "I".I wanted some original insight from piggy but all I got were your 3 main points bandided around and not touching on any of my points. And reading your post it seems like you pre arm yourself with these neat terms which can apply in most cases because they are so vague.I was debating with one man on here. Piggy. And he is of the impression that he talks for others. Truth be told: He disliked a band because they were called "Atheist" and he turned this into an "All metalheads that defend bands are stupid" thread.And then goes on to preach about tollerance. Its just so funny to me! Just like he tollerates people who thinks PC's are better than macs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 10, 2006 Members Share Posted October 10, 2006 Originally posted by Pigsinzen Hit the nail on the head. I haven't seen such poor arguements and knee-jerking since I browsed AOL's chatrooms in the early 90s. Atheist fanatics and fringe religious nuts are worse than maninlain religious zealots in this forum. Usually it's those that are professing tolerance that don't practice it. Worse how? In that they think? Guess that's the gravest of mortal sins, to dogmatic, brainwashed theocrats who don't even understand the tenets of the "faith" they parrot so "faithfully." Oh, btw -- your cartoon showing Darwin as an "atheist fanatic" ... Nice touch. Say goodbye to the last, lingering shreds of your credibility, thanks to that. The only thing I refuse to tolerate is idiocy. Please explain to me how that's wrong. Why *should* I tolerate idiocy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted October 10, 2006 Members Share Posted October 10, 2006 Originally posted by thefyn I have no qualms with you at all. Just with piggy. I am not attacking his faith, I am attacking him as a person. An individual. However, in your post there is an identical ref to all of pigs accusations. Almost word for word. When you discuss these issues with Atheists are you given a handbook of phrases to use? 1: Your loop (which I pointed out to piggy) 2: "Ad hominem" If I hear that word one more time I will laugh or cry. 3: "straw man arguments". How about "man against man" arguments. I have noticed Piggy thought he was talking FOR others. Often using the term "We" instead of "I". I wanted some original insight from piggy but all I got were your 3 main points bandided around and not touching on any of my points. And reading your post it seems like you pre arm yourself with these neat terms which can apply in most cases because they are so vague. I was debating with one man on here. Piggy. And he is of the impression that he talks for others. Truth be told: He disliked a band because they were called "Atheist" and he turned this into an "All metalheads that defend bands are stupid" thread. And then goes on to preach about tollerance. Its just so funny to me! Just like he tollerates people who thinks PC's are better than macs. I'm glad someone else noticed that gdwill2u had actually enumerated each of the tactics used repeatedly by Pigzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pigsinzen Posted October 11, 2006 Members Share Posted October 11, 2006 Ah just more ad-hominems. If you fellah were to actually go into a intellectually based forums with your brand of debate, you'd get banned or laughed out of it. It's just horrible. And I am not attempting to be condescending, I am attempting to maybe steer you in a different direction. You'd get more respect and credibility that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.