Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[xmas1997]

You made a pretzel out of a poster.
And it was not complicated.

Another straw man.
Is that the extent of what you characters are capable of?
That is sad for you, but not surprising to me in the slightest.
:lol

[spurraider21]

I specifically said that i'm not referring to symbolism or allegory. The fact that you keep bringing it up tells me you are afraid to answer a yes or no question

[spurraider21]

Straw man again.
I never said you called me a name.
Plus I answered your question.
Don't you realize yet that "symbolism" and "allegory" cannot be answered in the black and white, because it is primarily made up of the gray?
There are no yes and no answers when it comes to allegory.
You might "wish" there were, but you would be wasting your time.
Wish in one hand, and shit in the other, and tell me which will fill up faster.
:lmao
you answered my question? was it a yes, or was it a no? i must have missed it

[xmas1997]

I specifically said that i'm not referring to symbolism or allegory. The fact that you keep bringing it up tells me you are afraid to answer a yes or no question

:lmao
You still don't "get it", do you?
You cannot ask a yes or no question when it comes to an allegorical story.
What is so hard for you to not understand about this?

[pgardn]

I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior.

Its not logical.
Its based on a faith that's hard to explain.
But I believe this. I am human.

End.

Move on.
Not that difficult.

[spurraider21]

:lmao
You still don't "get it", do you?
You cannot ask a yes or no question when it comes to an allegorical story.
What is so hard for you to not understand about this?
i seriously doubt you have any understanding of what the word allegory means

[xmas1997]

you answered my question? was it a yes, or was it a no? i must have missed it

See my post #1242.

[xmas1997]

i seriously doubt you have any understanding of what the word allegory means

You can doubt all you want to, until the cows come home for all I care, but it won't change anything.
:lol

[spurraider21]

See my post #1242.
i'm asking what YOU believe, not how others may or may not interpret it. do YOU believe that God actually spoke with Abraham and ordered him to kill his son.

Yes. or No.

i literally need a one word answer. anything more is just babbling nonsense. i'm not asking you to declare a historical fact. i'm asking about YOUR belief

Yes. or No.

[Blizzardwizard]

Very interesting read guys, don't get many of these around here...

[spurraider21]

You can doubt all you want to, until the cows come home for all I care, but it won't change anything.
:lol
Allegory:

1
: the expression by means of symbolic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symbolic) fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence;also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression

2
: a symbolic representation



if one believes the biblical tales are allegorical, that means the stories aren't meant to be taken as historical or factual, but rather to teach lessons or morals. for instance, most know the tale of the Fox and the Sour Grapes. we don't tell this story because its an historical event... but rather its an allegorical tale to demonstrate that people will often despise something because they're unattainable

[xmas1997]

i'm asking what YOU believe, not how others may or may not interpret it. do YOU believe that God actually spoke with Abraham and ordered him to kill his son.

Yes. or No.

i literally need a one word answer. anything more is just babbling nonsense. i'm not asking you to declare a historical fact. i'm asking about YOUR belief

Yes. or No.

You want a "literal" answer for something that is allegorical.
That is like saying I want you to be black when I am white.
You are missing the whole point of allegory.
It is symbolic.
It is impossible to make something into the substantial when it is made up of the symbolic.
Unless you are God, of course.
Then you can do anything.

[spurraider21]

You want a "literal" answer for something that is allegorical.
That is like saying I want you to be black when I am white.
You are missing the whole point of allegory.
It is symbolic.
It is impossible to make something into the substantial when it is made up of the symbolic.
Unless you are God, of course.
Then you can do anything.
if it is symbolic, then it merely REPRESENTS something, but isn't historical or factual. see my previous post

[spurraider21]

the fact that you can't just tell me whether or not you believe in the story is telling enough. you prefer to dance than to talk and have a normal conversation.

[pgardn]

Is it possible to say, " I don't know."

Or you can't do this on a message board because it is somehow, a defeat...

[xmas1997]

if it is symbolic, then it merely REPRESENTS something, but isn't historical or factual. see my previous post

This is an opinion I do not share with you, but ironical thing about it being symbolic is that it is neither historical, factual, or fictional or fake. It is paradoxical if you will.
There are many many paradoxes in the bible, but not only the bible, but other religious books as well. This becomes more and more apparent the more you try to understand it.
I am not trying to evade answering your questions as you accuse, I am in fact answering them, but not in the way that you want me to that can give you a "concrete" view of my stance.
You are welcome to continue to criticize and make all the false accusations you want to, but it won't change anything. All it will do is make you appear contentious and foolish IMHO.
We share a lot in common in other areas like upstairs on the Raiders and maybe Anderson, but down here we do not see eye to eye.
There is nothing wrong with that, I was once an atheist too, but no longer, I saw the error of my ways.
I am not trying to change what you believe or disbelieve, I am only sharing with you and others what I am able to share with my limited abilities due to the fact I am human.

[spurraider21]

This is an opinion I do not share with you, but ironical thing about it being symbolic is that it is neither historical, factual, or fictional or fake. It is paradoxical if you will.
There are many many paradoxes in the bible, but not only the bible, but other religious books as well. This becomes more and more apparent the more you try to understand it.
I am not trying to evade answering your questions as you accuse, I am in fact answering them, but not in the way that you want me to that can give you a "concrete" view of my stance.
You are welcome to continue to criticize and make all the false accusations you want to, but it won't change anything. All it will do is make you appear contentious and foolish IMHO.
We share a lot in common in other areas like upstairs on the Raiders and maybe Anderson, but down here we do not see eye to eye.
There is nothing wrong with that, I was once an atheist too, but no longer, I saw the error of my ways.
I am not trying to change what you believe or disbelieve, I am only sharing with you and others what I am able to share with my limited abilities due to the fact I am human.
it's not an opinion. i'm telling you what the world allegorical means. the definition isn't up to interpretation.

you are still dodging the question. i'm asking you if you think that god actually spoke to a man named abraham and told him to kill his son. you are responding as if you are a dog chasing his tail

[xmas1997]

it's not an opinion. i'm telling you what the world allegorical means. the definition isn't up to interpretation.

you are still dodging the question. i'm asking you if you think that god actually spoke to a man named abraham and told him to kill his son. you are responding as if you are a dog chasing his tail

You have my answer many times now already.
And my dictionary definition stands the test of time.
So take that for what you will, no skin off my back no matter how many false accusations you throw at me.
They will still be false.
I have used different words to explain and yet you still do not understand.
You may as well admit now that you will probably never understand, or more probably do not want to understand.
That is fine with me. I tried on your behalf. But you have a free will just as I do, and you choose not to understand, no matter how many times I tell you the answer.
It is no longer my problem at this stage but yours.
So go ahead, make some more of your falsehoods and attribute them to me.
Apparently whatever I tell you just goes over your head anyway.

[spurraider21]

you have yet to provide a yes or no answer to my yes or no question.

[Woo Bum-kon]

You have my answer many times now already.
And my dictionary definition stands the test of time.
So take that for what you will, no skin off my back no matter how many false accusations you throw at me.
They will still be false.
I have used different words to explain and yet you still do not understand.
You may as well admit now that you will probably never understand, or more probably do not want to understand.
That is fine with me. I tried on your behalf. But you have a free will just as I do, and you choose not to understand, no matter how many times I tell you the answer.
It is no longer my problem at this stage but yours.
So go ahead, make some more of your falsehoods and attribute them to me.
Apparently whatever I tell you just goes over your head anyway.

It's a simple yes or no question. Whether a story is an allegory or not is irrelevant to one's belief in it.

You type so much yet say so little.

[xmas1997]

you have yet to provide a yes or no answer to my yes or no question.

Yes and no.
There.
Happy now?
That's the best you're going to get.
But I am pretty sure the other answers better expressed my view for those who are capable of understanding deeper issues.

[spurraider21]

Yes and no.
There.
Happy now?
That's the best you're going to get.
But I am pretty sure the other answers better expressed my view for those who are capable of understanding deeper issues.
:lol now you don't understand what the word "or" means. you've done an excellent job displaying your intellect here

[xmas1997]

It's a simple yes or no question. Whether a story is an allegory or not is irrelevant to one's belief in it.

You type so much yet say so little.

Wow, haven't seen you on here in a while.
You were always popular with the straw man explanations too as I recall.
But glad to see you back.
Still up to no good with the false accusations too I see.
:lmao

[xmas1997]

:lol now you don't understand what the word "or" means. you've done an excellent job displaying your intellect here

I will take that as a complement in the interests of civility.
:lol

[spurraider21]

Is it possible to say, " I don't know."

Or you can't do this on a message board because it is somehow, a defeat...
sure, that's a possibility too. heck, i can't tell you with a certainty that god doesnt exist, and that he never spoke with a man named abraham. but there's no really reason to believe so

i'm asking if he believes it happened, not if he knows for certain if it happened, though. in that regard, "i dont know" is really a weak answer

[spurraider21]

I will take that as a complement in the interests of civility.
:lol
actually you should take it as an insult. so far you have been showing that you dont know what the word allegory means, but now you've let the world know that the word "or" is above your comprehension too :lol

[xmas1997]

sure, that's a possibility too. heck, i can't tell you with a certainty that god doesnt exist, and that he never spoke with a man named abraham. but there's no really reason to believe so

i'm asking if he believes it happened, not if he knows for certain if it happened, though. in that regard, "i dont know" is really a weak answer

So then what do you think is the yes or no answer to your question from your point of view?

[xmas1997]

actually you should take it as an insult. so far you have been showing that you dont know what the word allegory means, but now you've let the world know that the word "or" is above your comprehension too :lol

No, I will take it as a complement, thank you very much.
:lol

[xmas1997]

Since you are so intent on taking something I consider to be allegorical to be literal, you tell me how you resolve that paradox.

[spurraider21]

So then what do you think is the yes or no answer to your question from your point of view?
a) i just said it in the post you quoted "there's no real reason to believe so"... basically my answer for ANY "do you think this happened" question will by default be "no" unless there is reason to believe otherwise.

do i believe in god? no. as i find no reason to believe that god exists, i obviously find no reason to believe that said god had a conversation with a man named abraham
do i believe in the flying spaghetti monster? no.
do i believe that there is a green ostrich somewhere in antarctica? no.

were there to be evidence provided for those, my mind could certainly change

b) i asked you first. what's your answer? do you believe that god spoke to a man named abraham and instructed him to murder his son Isaac?

[spurraider21]

Since you are so intent on taking something I consider to be allegorical to be literal, you tell me how you resolve that paradox.
something cannot be both allegorical and literal. if something is merely allegorical and thus symbolic, than it is not historical fact. the fable of the fox and the sour grapes is not based on a true story. it is allegorical. if you find the bible to be allegorical, then you do not find it to be literal, or factual. if you do not find it to be factual, then you find it fictional

its a very basic line of reasoning

[Woo Bum-kon]

Wow, haven't seen you on here in a while.
You were always popular with the straw man explanations too as I recall.
But glad to see you back.
Still up to no good with the false accusations too I see.
:lmao

There are no strawmen or false accusations in my previous post.

It's really sad that a man requires several paragraphs to respond to a yes or no question, and still can't answer it properly.

[xmas1997]

a) i just said it in the post you quoted "there's no real reason to believe so"... basically my answer for ANY "do you think this happened" question will by default be "no" unless there is reason to believe otherwise.

do i believe in god? no. as i find no reason to believe that god exists, i obviously find no reason to believe that said god had a conversation with a man named abraham
do i believe in the flying spaghetti monster? no.
do i believe that there is a green ostrich somewhere in antarctica? no.

were there to be evidence provided for those, my mind could certainly change

b) i asked you first. what's your answer? do you believe that god spoke to a man named abraham and instructed him to murder his son Isaac?

Since you do not believe in God then how can you believe that such an incident took place?
You can't.
Far be it for me to try to dissuade you from your belief.
It makes it even further remote that we can discuss it because you would never believe my answer, you haven't so far, so why should I think you'll change now?
I shouldn't.
But I can tell you that it is an "allegorical" story IMHO that may or may not have happened, and with much deeper symbolism than a nonbeliever would and could ever understand.
We will have to leave it at that if that isn't good enough for you, because to go into the allegory would take a hell of a lot of conjecture since I was not there, and it would require you to suspend your disbelief for you to understand.
I seriously doubt you have an open mind to any of it anyway since you were so anxious to sidetrack the allegory basis of it by trying to force it into being something literal.
It is not simply a yes or no answer IMHO.

[Woo Bum-kon]

But I can tell you that it is an "allegorical" story IMHO that may or may not have happened with much deeper symbolism than a nonbeliever would and could ever understand.

I would love to read your reasoning behind this horseshit.

[spurraider21]

Since you do not believe in God then how can you believe that such an incident took place?
You can't.
Far be it for me to try to dissuade you from your belief.
It makes it even further remote that we can discuss it because you would never believe my answer, you haven't so far, so why should I think you'll change now?
I shouldn't.
But I can tell you that it is an "allegorical" story IMHO that may or may not have happened, and with much deeper symbolism than a nonbeliever would and could ever understand.
We will have to leave it at that if that isn't good enough for you, because to go into the allegory would take a hell of a lot of conjecture since I was not there, and it would require you to suspend your disbelief for you to understand.
I seriously doubt you have an open mind to any of it anyway since you were so anxious to sidetrack the allegory basis of it by trying to force it into being something literal.
It is not simply a yes or no answer IMHO.
All those words and you can't say "yes" or "no" :lmao

[spurraider21]

I'm not asking you if that event occurred with 100% certainty. I'm asking if you personally believe it occurred

[xmas1997]

I would love to read your reasoning behind this horseshit.

Then go ahead and write my dialog for me since you are already labeling it as horseshit.
That is certainly a great and appealing way to get anything ohter than horseshit thrown right back at you.
Or were you too ignorant to realize this before you wrote your bullshit?
:lmao

[Woo Bum-kon]

Dodge # 1


Something tells me xmas won't back up his claim with anything.

[xmas1997]

I'm not asking you if that event occurred with 100% certainty. I'm asking if you personally believe it occurred

I think it could have happened, but maybe didn't because I think the author had a deeper more symbolic reason behind telling the story, one that was meant to teach a lesson perhaps, or give an instance of right versus wrong, or maybe even scare some lazy believers into toeing the line at the time.
It is all conjecture really, and we could discuss it all night, the ramifications, etc.
I do not believe it was meant to be interpreted LITERALLY, and that it is ALLEGORICAL, thus it, as well as the rest of the bible, needs to be examined from an allegorical perspective, and not a literal one.

[spurraider21]

If you feel the stories are purely allegorical then you believe those events did not actually occur as written and thus are fictional. Can you follow this line of reasoning?

[xmas1997]

Dodge # 1


Something tells me xmas won't back up his claim with anything.

And your posts tell me and everyone else here that you are doing what you always do, trying to confuse, trying to distract, and trying to twist things all over the place to suit your own agendas whatever those may be, and as a last resort you make your patented false accusation in hopes someone out there will believe your, what did you call it, "horseshit". :lol
You haven't changed one iota, and furthermore are as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.
So it is no wonder few like or enjoy discussing anything with you, because that is not your aim.
A "discussion" is the furthest thing from your goal on here. But you are somewhat amusing to toy with.
:lol

[xmas1997]

If you feel the stories are purely allegorical then you believe those events did not actually occur as written and thus are fictional. Can you follow this line of reasoning?

I follow your reasoning, but how do you know for sure what you say is true?
You don't.
Besides which, you don't believe any of it in the first place.
So why are we having this discussion?
I am not trying to convince you of anything.
Are you trying to convince me of something?
If so, why?

[spurraider21]

I follow your reasoning, but how do you know for sure what you say is true?
You don't.
Besides which, you don't believe any of it in the first place.
So why are we having this discussion?
I am not trying to convince you of anything.
Are you trying to convince me of something?
If so, why?
I'm not making any claims. You are the saying you believe it is allegorical, and thus fictional, end of the day. Something cannot be both allegorical and literal (factual).

I haven't been preaching to you, I've just been asking about your beliefs and you've still yet to give me a straight answer. Calling it allegorical means it's just a feel good story meant to inspire and teach us lessons, and not based in historical events

[xmas1997]

I'm not making any claims. You are the saying you believe it is allegorical, and thus fictional, end of the day. Something cannot be both allegorical and literal (factual).

I haven't been preaching to you, I've just been asking about your beliefs and you've still yet to give me a straight answer. Calling it allegorical means it's just a feel good story meant to inspire and teach us lessons, and not based in historical events

Why must it be anything more than that tbqh?
But you can't equate literal as meaning the same thing as factual, those are too different things.
Nor can you say that allegorical means it is fictional, it does not mean that.

[spurraider21]

Why must it be anything more than that tbqh?
But you can't equate literal as meaning the same thing as factual, those are too different things.
Nor can you say that allegorical means it is fictional, it does not mean that.
Interpreting the bible literally indeed implies that you are taking every story and word as factual. Ask robdiaz.

And you will never find anybody describing a historical event as allegorical

[xmas1997]

Interpreting the bible literally indeed implies that you are taking every story and word as factual. Ask robdiaz.

And you will never find anybody describing a historical event as allegorical

There is a reason you use fictional to describe something versus allegorical.

And the same goes for literal versus factual.

[spurraider21]

There is a reason you use fictional to describe something versus allegorical.

And the same goes for literal versus factual.
They aren't identical terms. It's like saying every thumb is a finger. But wrong to say every finger is a thumb. Every fictional tale isn't allegorical, but every allegorical tale is fictional

[spurraider21]

All this jibber jabber and you've yet to say yes or no :lmao

[xmas1997]

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
allegory
Top
Home Library Miscellaneous Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Work of written, oral, or visual expression that uses symbolic figures, objects, and actions to convey truths or generalizations about human conduct or experience. It encompasses such forms as the fable and parable. Characters often personify abstract concepts or types, and the action of the narrative usually stands for something not explicitly stated. Symbolic allegories, in which characters may also have an identity apart from the message they convey, have frequently been used to represent political and historical situations and have long been popular as vehicles for satire. Edmund Spenser's long poem The Faerie Queen is a famous example of a symbolic allegory.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/allegory#ixzz39CY9uPCa


Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms:
allegory
Top
Home Library Literature & Language Literary Dictionary

allegory, a story or visual image with a second distinct meaning partially hidden behind its literal or visible meaning. The principal technique of allegory is personification, whereby abstract qualities are given human shape—as in public statues of Liberty or Justice. An allegory may be conceived as a metaphor that is extended into a structured system. In written narrative, allegory involves a continuous parallel between two (or more) levels of meaning in a story, so that its persons and events correspond to their equivalents in a system of ideas or a chain of events external to the tale: each character and episode in John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress (1678), for example, embodies an idea within a pre‐existing Puritan doctrine of salvation. Allegorical thinking permeated the Christian literature of the Middle Ages, flourishing in the morality plays and in the dream visions of Dante and Langland. Some later allegorists like Dryden and Orwell used allegory as a method of satire; their hidden meanings are political rather than religious. In the medieval discipline of biblical exegesis, allegory became an important method of interpretation, a habit of seeking correspondences between different realms of meaning (e.g. physical and spiritual) or between the Old Testament and the New (see typology). It can be argued that modern critical interpretation continues this allegorizing tradition

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/allegory#ixzz39CYlZXbm

[spurraider21]

I'm glad you understand that the story of Paul Bunyan is allegorical and not historical

Whoops it said john not Paul Bunyan lol. Still, all the examples of text there are fictional works. Further proving my point

[xmas1997]

I'm glad you understand that the story of Paul Bunyan is allegorical and not historical

Whoops it said john not Paul Bunyan lol. Still, all the examples of text there are fictional works. Further proving my point

You can make a case for literal being a lot closer to being factual than you can allegorical being close to fictional.

You can't be that confused to believe what you just said, can you?
Those were examples.
I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

[spurraider21]

Don't bother explaining. Just tell me yes or no regarding your personal belief on the story of Abraham

[xmas1997]

Don't bother explaining. Just tell me yes or no regarding your personal belief on the story of Abraham

You tell me, Mr. Contrarian.
I am through playing your kiddie games.
It's obvious to me you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, and definitely what I am saying is going way over your head.
Enjoy yourself.
:lmao

[cantthinkofanything]

Ugh. I just had semi diarrhea and have a slight headache.

[Woo Bum-kon]

And your posts tell me and everyone else here that you are doing what you always do, trying to confuse, trying to distract, and trying to twist things all over the place to suit your own agendas whatever those may be, and as a last resort you make your patented false accusation in hopes someone out there will believe your, what did you call it, "horseshit". :lol
You haven't changed one iota, and furthermore are as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.
So it is no wonder few like or enjoy discussing anything with you, because that is not your aim.
A "discussion" is the furthest thing from your goal on here. But you are somewhat amusing to toy with.
:lol

Dodge # 2

:lol How did I twist anything? I stated that I would like you to expand on a point that you made. That's all.

Are you going to back up your claim with anything or will you type another dozen sentences that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand?

[xmas1997]

Dodge # 2

:lol How did I twist anything? I stated that I would like you to expand on a point that you made. That's all.

Are you going to back up your claim with anything or will you type another dozen sentences that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand?

Reread, if you can.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Dodge # 3


Are you going to provide the reasoning behind the claim that you made or are you going to keep complaining about non-existent strawmen and misinterpreting of your posts that never happened?

For such a rational, mature man, you seem more interested in complaining about other posters than discussing the matter at hand. If you are a reasonable non-troll, you wouldn't mind explaining why you think non-believers cannot possibly get the "deeper meaning" behind the Abraham story than a believer can.

[spurraider21]

You tell me, Mr. Contrarian.
I am through playing your kiddie games.
It's obvious to me you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, and definitely what I am saying is going way over your head.
Enjoy yourself.
:lmao
youve been unable to answer a yes or no question all day :lmao

you tried to be clever and ask the same question back to me and I gave you a very straightforward "no"

you can write and babble for hours but can't give the simplest of answers: yes or no

[Avante]

I haven't read anything here other than when I was here early on.

I think the Bible is a gigantic hoax, yep, totally man made not unlike what Homer wrote. But.......no way this all just happened by chance, there is some Master Designer or Designers. Something is responsible for all this, and it wasn't.....BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As we can see from above nobody EVER EVER EVER changes their stance on this. So to bang heads over this topic is ridiculous, sure I 've done it and was doing a little today. But.......we all have our thing. I think it's totally naive to think something this 100% perfect just happened.

I'll bow out now, it really is a boring topic.

[Blake]

you have no clue what you're talking about

Lol I thought rob had posted that.

My bad

[xmas1997]

youve been unable to answer a yes or no question all day :lmao

you tried to be clever and ask the same question back to me and I gave you a very straightforward "no"

you can write and babble for hours but can't give the simplest of answers: yes or no


And you can ask the same stupid question over and over again without paying any attention to everything else that pertains to it iessentially before it can be answered.
But keep it up.
It's amusing.

[johnsmith]

I haven't read anything here other than when I was here early on.

I think the Bible is a gigantic hoax, yep, totally man made not unlike what Homer wrote. But.......no way this all just happened by chance, there is some Master Designer or Designers. Something is responsible for all this, and it wasn't.....BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As we can see from above nobody EVER EVER EVER changes their stance on this. So to bang heads over this topic is ridiculous, sure I 've done it and was doing a little today. But.......we all have our thing. I think it's totally naive to think something this 100% perfect just happened.

I'll bow out now, it really is a boring topic.

Can't believe this, but I agree with you 100%

[silverblk mystix]

Can't believe this, but I agree with you 100%


Damn, I think xmas putting you on ignore was a "boss" move -

I might have to try that!


:lmao:lmao

[johnsmith]

Damn, I think xmas putting you on ignore was a "boss" move -

I might have to try that!


:lmao:lmao

Well shit, he's gotta be the boss somewhere after getting laid off from his job.

[xmas1997]

Damn, I think xmas putting you on ignore was a "boss" move -

I might have to try that!


:lmao:lmao

And I may have to put him back on ignore after he cried about it so much, because I thought he was going to be a a mature adult, but apparently he hasn't changed one iota and knows nothing about adulthood.
:lmao

[xmas1997]

Well shit, he's gotta be the boss somewhere after getting laid off from his job.

Link?

Uh huh, I thought as much.
It must be rough going through divorce, but blake is probably free.
:lol

[Blake]

I think it could have happened, but maybe didn't because I think the author had a deeper more symbolic reason behind telling the story, one that was meant to teach a lesson perhaps, or give an instance of right versus wrong, or maybe even scare some lazy believers into toeing the line at the time.
It is all conjecture really, and we could discuss it all night, the ramifications, etc.
I do not believe it was meant to be interpreted LITERALLY, and that it is ALLEGORICAL, thus it, as well as the rest of the bible, needs to be examined from an allegorical perspective, and not a literal one.

Lol straddling the fence

[RandomGuy]

Actually, and more accurately, I am working my way back from the "unsupported" premise:

"God Does NOT Exist", because I was once an atheist.

But you get points for being partially right.

:lol

You do know the difference between "I don't believe god exists" and "I believe no God exists", yes?

It is subtle, but important difference often lost on many.

[Blake]

I haven't read anything here other than when I was here early on.

I think the Bible is a gigantic hoax, yep, totally man made not unlike what Homer wrote. But.......no way this all just happened by chance, there is some Master Designer or Designers. Something is responsible for all this, and it wasn't.....BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As we can see from above nobody EVER EVER EVER changes their stance on this. So to bang heads over this topic is ridiculous, sure I 've done it and was doing a little today. But.......we all have our thing. I think it's totally naive to think something this 100% perfect just happened.

I'll bow out now, it really is a boring topic.

Lol 100% perfect

[RandomGuy]

Yawn, in your eyes humans are animals, so why is killing an animal evil? You're evil because you eat animals that have been killed. Simple really.

I think I already explained this, and even provided you with a video that even fleshes out the argument further, that you either didn't watch or are actively lying about.

You can make fun of this idea all you want, it is not what I believe, so I neither will bother defending it, nor will I care what kind of snarky remarks you want to make about it.

This is called a strawman logical fallacy.

http://churchm.ag/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Logical-Fallacies-strawman-620x391.jpg

You have, however, repeated stated that under some circumstances mass killing and child murder is, to you, moral, i.e. "if it is God's enemies" That I can shit on all day long, because it is apparently what you actually believe.

[Blake]

Lots of straw in this thread

[RandomGuy]

Lots of straw in this thread

Well, I do need to do a better job of explaining though. It is my responsibility to do so, and it is always a good mental exercise to think about what you believe and why.

Do you agree on that last bit? (just curious, you and I don't engage much)

[RandomGuy]

Ask any lefty.

When it's renamed abortion.

Define "baby".

[xmas1997]

You do know the difference between "I don't believe god exists" and "I believe no God exists", yes?

It is subtle, but important difference often lost on many.

Besides the fact that one is a "belief" and the other is not, one could be attributed to an atheists' belief (your second example) and the other possibly to an agnostic (your first example).
Or do you have another reason?

[RandomGuy]

The context for Rob's beliefs are, when asked is it evil to hack babies to death, and the response is:


What part of GODS CHOSEN PEOPLE AGAINST HIS ENEMIES DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? DID YOU KNOW THAT JOSHUA FAILED THE FIRST TIME HE ATTACKED AI BECAUSE HIS PEOPLE HAD DONE THINGS WRONG AND WERE NOT LOOKED UPON BY GOD? Geez man.

Bolded words are my emphasis.

This answer is, paraphrased, "It is moral if God is fighting his enemies".

The assumptions that go into this:
God is moral, and dictates what is moral and what is not. i.e. "if God does it, it is automatically moral"

God is moral.
God cannot be immoral.

Therefore
If God does X, X is moral. (X is, by definition, moral, BECAUSE God does it)


X can be anything in this system.

X = Ordering his follower to hack babies to death.

Substitute X into the above:

If God (orders his followers to hack babies to death), (ordering people to hack babies to death) is moral.

This is what Rob is saying, although he is neither honest enough, nor intelligent enough to summarize it this way.

I will represent this as Robs position.

If it is NOT his position, all he has to do is say "I do not believe that ordering people to hack babies to death is moral".

If it is his position, then he will try to deflect it and call me an idiot.

Simple really.

[RandomGuy]

Besides the fact that one is a "belief" and the other is not, one could be attributed to an atheists' belief (your second example) and the other possibly to an agnostic (your first example).
Or do you have another reason?

You don't understand what agnosticism is.

Agnosticism is "I believe there is a God, I just don't have any idea what properties God has"

It is impossible to be an "agnostic atheist". You either reject "God exists" (a-theism) or you accept that premise (theism) Agnosticism is a subclass of theism.

It is though, possible to not be convinced something is true, while not having an opinion that it is outright false.

While I don't rule out the existence of were-walruses on pluto, ("not exist"), I certainly see to reason to accept it is true. ("exists")

[DMC]

This is typically a "few screws loose" type troll where the facts are distorted and intentionally misinterpreted to solicit responses. Facts are out there if anyone cares to learn them. Arguing about them here with people who don't care to actually read them isn't productive.

[Blake]

Well, I do need to do a better job of explaining though. It is my responsibility to do so, and it is always a good mental exercise to think about what you believe and why.

Do you agree on that last bit? (just curious, you and I don't engage much)

Which last bit?

[DMC]

You don't understand what agnosticism is.

Agnosticism is "I believe there is a God, I just don't have any idea what properties God has"

It is impossible to be an "agnostic atheist". You either reject "God exists" (a-theism) or you accept that premise (theism) Agnosticism is a subclass of theism.

It is though, possible to not be convinced something is true, while not having an opinion that it is outright false.

While I don't rule out the existence of were-walruses on pluto, ("not exist"), I certainly see to reason to accept it is true. ("exists")

Atheism is more the absence of belief that any god exists. Some atheists reject the premise of a god, some don't feel compelled to even hear the premise.

[Blake]

This is typically a "few screws loose" type troll where the facts are distorted and intentionally misinterpreted to solicit responses. Facts are out there if anyone cares to learn them. Arguing about them here with people who don't care to actually read them isn't productive.

I don't care to change anyone's mind. I like to post facts to solicit responses from the bat shit crazies.

If that produces entertainment to me and me alone, so be it.

[xmas1997]

You don't understand what agnosticism is.

Agnosticism is "I believe there is a God, I just don't have any idea what properties God has"

It is impossible to be an "agnostic atheist". You either reject "God exists" (a-theism) or you accept that premise (theism) Agnosticism is a subclass of theism.

It is though, possible to not be convinced something is true, while not having an opinion that it is outright false.

While I don't rule out the existence of were-walruses on pluto, ("not exist"), I certainly see to reason to accept it is true. ("exists")

I see where you are coming from in this but below is an example of what I always considered the definition of an agnostic, and not a subset of theism:
ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something
Full Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

By the way, just so you know, we may not always agree on things on here, but I still appreciate that you seem to always try to keep an open mind when you either discuss or debate a topic down here, unlike most of the others and that is why I usually enjoy it when you are involved with it.
One never knows where one might pick up a glimmer of insight.
This is the same reason I enjoy it more when SBM is in one of these spiritual discussions and/or debates too, he also is aware of many insights.
Rob and a couple of others also shed much insight even though we are often at odds on specifics.

[Blake]

This is the same reason I enjoy it more when SBM is in one of these spiritual discussions and/or debates too, he also is aware of many insights.
Rob and a couple of others also shed much insight even though we are often at odds on specifics.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[xmas1997]

And then to set the record straight:

athe·ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\

: a person who believes that God does not exist
Full Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic or athe·is·ti·cal adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly adverb
See atheist defined for English-language learners »

And another dictionary definition:

atheism
  Use Atheism in a sentence
a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism

Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ism, adjective, noun
pro·a·the·ism, noun

[silverblk mystix]

Ugh. I just had semi diarrhea and have a slight headache.


Not to mention, you also forgot to log out of your -cantthinkof shit- account and back into your "maalox" account!

Be more careful!

:lol:lol

[xmas1997]

Lots of straw in this thread

A lot more straw in your head!
:lmao

[johnsmith]

Link?

Uh huh, I thought as much.
It must be rough going through divorce, but blake is probably free.
:lol

See, here's what you don't get, I'm taking an educated guess based on the fact that no employed person could possibly spend the amount of time on here you do, and based on your brilliant posts, I know you're not running a business....you on the other hand just made up the divorce thing which was lame.

[xmas1997]

See, here's what you don't get, I'm taking an educated guess based on the fact that no employed person could possibly spend the amount of time on here you do, and based on your brilliant posts, I know you're not running a business....you on the other hand just made up the divorce thing which was lame.

I'll give you the "lame" part because I did make up the divorce part, but you were consistently wrong about everything else, so I will give you more points for consistency as well.
I honestly think you take everything on here way too seriously because it is always pissing you off.
Try lightening up a little because for the most part I am just kidding and most others are too.
If you want to mistake that for something other than what it is, then that is your prerogative.
I enjoy the occasional discussion on here, and sometimes even the debates, but unless you level an attack at me first, I will give you the benefit of the doubt everytime.
However those who do nothing except attack others on here and have nary a constructive thing to say, such as blake and a few others, deserve no mercy IMHO.

[johnsmith]

I'll give you the "lame" part because I did make up the divorce part, but you were consistently wrong about everything else, so I will give you more points for consistency as well.
I honestly think you take everything on here way too seriously because it is always pissing you off.
Try lightening up a little because for the most part I am just kidding and most others are too.
If you want to mistake that for something other than what it is, then that is your prerogative.
I enjoy the occasional discussion on here, and sometimes even the debates, but unless you level an attack at me first, I will give you the benefit of the doubt everytime.
However those who do nothing except attack others on here and have nary a constructive thing to say, such as blake and a few others, deserve no mercy IMHO.

Funny that once people started making fun of you for taking this place too serious you immediately started telling everyone else they do the same thing....have you noticed how many times you've been accused of using the "rubber, glue" defense? Ya know, the way children use it?

[xmas1997]

Funny that once people started making fun of you for taking this place too serious you immediately started telling everyone else they do the same thing....have you noticed how many times you've been accused of using the "rubber, glue" defense? Ya know, the way children use it?

When they were clearly spewing false accusations and lies?
So now you are also saying you are just kidding and actually never take any of this seriously, similar to me?
Then you know what I am talking about.
The only difference I can see is that it really is no skin off my back, because I always remind everyone that this is just a silly message board, whereas you on the other hand, sure act like it is the end of the world.
Do you get it now?

[DMC]

I believe they occurred "symbolically". Exactly how, when, what, and where is not what is important to the story. It is what the story "symbolized" that is important.
And since I wasn't there at the time, nor were you, nor any of us, what you are asking cannot be answered the way you want it answered, plus you are focusing on the wrong issues.

How does an event happen "symbolically"? If we were remote viewers of this time period, would we be able to see it happen? Or are you saying that it's an important part of a fairy tale with a moral message? I don't get a moral message from a man willing to kill his own son because a voice from the sky told him to. In this day and age, that's delusional and psychotic behavior. When Andrea Yates drowned her kids, she said her god told her to do it. Why is her story less credible than Abraham's?

[Woo Bum-kon]

How does an event happen "symbolically"? If we were remote viewers of this time period, would we be able to see it happen? Or are you saying that it's an important part of a fairy tale with a moral message? I don't get a moral message from a man willing to kill his own son because a voice from the sky told him to. In this day and age, that's delusional and psychotic behavior. When Andrea Yates drowned her kids, she said her god told her to do it. Why is her story less credible than Abraham's?

Well, according to xmas, since you don't believe in God, you're incapable of understanding the true meaning of the Abraham story.

[johnsmith]

When they were clearly spewing false accusations and lies?
So now you are also saying you are just kidding and actually never take any of this seriously, similar to me?
Then you know what I am talking about.
The only difference I can see is that it really is no skin off my back, because I always remind everyone that this is just a silly message board, whereas you on the other hand, sure act like it is the end of the world.
Do you get it now?

Jesus Christ...it's like talking to a wall. You're an idiot man...do me a favor and put me back on ignore. At least when I bothered you enough that you had to ignore me your constant replies towards me made sense.

[DMC]

Well, according to xmas, since you don't believe in God, you're incapable of understanding the true meaning of the Abraham story.
And that may be true, however it doesn't address whether or not the story itself is based on a real event. The mind creates an image of an otherwise unknown entity based on what information it can gather. If that information is based on fairy tales and metaphors, the image itself is no better than a fairy tale or metaphor. Christians don't proselytize the acceptance of metaphors and fairy tales, but the acceptance of a real god as the creator of the universe and the "savior" of mankind (as well as it's creator). It seems all of the information about this creator of the universe is created by man, no different than the god of fire, the goddess of love, Odin, Loki, Thor and Asgard. If it's all just symbolic, it's just men telling you to behave a certain way, and attributing the command to a higher authority because let's face it, who gives a shit what men think?

I don't expect to get any real responses to any of this. Avante started a thread about it and abandoned it right away when called out. Most of these fools are either fake hard one way or fake mushy both ways. They are too chickenshit to take a stance, and when they do take one, they lack the mental capacity to explain it. They don't seem to lack the drive to repeat themselves though.

[xmas1997]

How does an event happen "symbolically"? If we were remote viewers of this time period, would we be able to see it happen? Or are you saying that it's an important part of a fairy tale with a moral message? I don't get a moral message from a man willing to kill his own son because a voice from the sky told him to. In this day and age, that's delusional and psychotic behavior. When Andrea Yates drowned her kids, she said her god told her to do it. Why is her story less credible than Abraham's?

If we were viewing as you describe then we would be observing the author of the story, not the story itself.
Why?
Because the story is allegory, that is, the symbolism you are referring to, and as such, I will summarize that it is a popular form of literature in which a story points to a hidden or symbolic parallel meaning.
Certain elements, such as people, things, and happenings in the story, point to corresponding elements in another realm or level of meaning.
The closer the resemblances between the two realms, the more detailed is the allegory.
The best allegories are interesting, coherent stories in their own right and through the story provide new insight into the realm they depict.
Semitic parables, including the Gospel parables, have varying amounts of allegorical elements.
Those with many corresponding elements in both realms are properly called allegories.
Are you still with me on this?

Allegorical interpretation, sometimes called allegorizing, is interpretation of texts that treats them as allegorical, whether or not their author intended them to be allegories.
Allegorical interpretations even of true allegories can be misleading, either in incorrectly identifying the corresponding elements in the referent or in identifying corresponding elements where no correspondence was originally intended.
Either allegorizing error usually detracts from the coherence of the message the author intended.
Such unwarranted allegorizing was prevalent in the later church fathers and often ludicrous in gnostic circles.
Does any of this make sense to you?

To further summarize, Galatians 4, Paul The Apostle reveals both Old/New Testaments are allegorical by saying Abraham's sons Ishmael/Isaac by bondmaid/freewoman mothers Agar/Sarah are allegorized as two covenants (testaments). They are also allegorized as two mountains (Sinai/Sion), even as two cities (Jerusalem below/Jerusalem above).

Now does it make more sense to you that I have gone into such detail that I had to actually refer to the book itself?

[DMC]

If we were viewing as you describe then we would be observing the author of the story, not the story itself.
Why?
Because the story is allegory, that is, the symbolism you are referring to, and as such, I will summarize that it is a popular form of literature in which a story points to a hidden or symbolic parallel meaning.
Certain elements, such as people, things, and happenings in the story, point to corresponding elements in another realm or level of meaning.
The closer the resemblances between the two realms, the more detailed is the allegory.
The best allegories are interesting, coherent stories in their own right and through the story provide new insight into the realm they depict.
Semitic parables, including the Gospel parables, have varying amounts of allegorical elements.
Those with many corresponding elements in both realms are properly called allegories.
Are you still with me on this?

Allegorical interpretation, sometimes called allegorizing, is interpretation of texts that treats them as allegorical, whether or not their author intended them to be allegories.
Allegorical interpretations even of true allegories can be misleading, either in incorrectly identifying the corresponding elements in the referent or in identifying corresponding elements where no correspondence was originally intended.
Either allegorizing error usually detracts from the coherence of the message the author intended.
Such unwarranted allegorizing was prevalent in the later church fathers and often ludicrous in gnostic circles.
Does any of this make sense to you?

To further summarize, Galatians 4, Paul The Apostle reveals both Old/New Testaments are allegorical by saying Abraham's sons Ishmael/Isaac by bondmaid/freewoman mothers Agar/Sarah are allegorized as two covenants (testaments). They are also allegorized as two mountains (Sinai/Sion), even as two cities (Jerusalem below/Jerusalem above).

Now does it make more sense to you that I have gone into such detail that I had to actually refer to the book itself?

So then the story is not based on real events. It's therefore no different than any other work of fiction. Animal Farm, for example, is an allegory. C.S. Lewis' fictional works are allegories. The Matrix is an allegory. If someone were to ask me if they were based on true events, I wouldn't write a novel about allegories. I would simply say no, they aren't.

The word wrangling displays in obviously feeble attempts to preserve some legitimacy to the Bible do more harm than good for the religious cause.

Also, just post the link to Biblestudytools.com instead of plagiarizing it.

[RD2191]

The context for Rob's beliefs are, when asked is it evil to hack babies to death, and the response is:



Bolded words are my emphasis.

This answer is, paraphrased, "It is moral if God is fighting his enemies".

The assumptions that go into this:
God is moral, and dictates what is moral and what is not. i.e. "if God does it, it is automatically moral"

God is moral.
God cannot be immoral.

Therefore
If God does X, X is moral. (X is, by definition, moral, BECAUSE God does it)


X can be anything in this system.

X = Ordering his follower to hack babies to death.

Substitute X into the above:

If God (orders his followers to hack babies to death), (ordering people to hack babies to death) is moral.

This is what Rob is saying, although he is neither honest enough, nor intelligent enough to summarize it this way.

I will represent this as Robs position.

If it is NOT his position, all he has to do is say "I do not believe that ordering people to hack babies to death is moral".

If it is his position, then he will try to deflect it and call me an idiot.

Simple really.
You type a lot of shit for not saying anything at all. As a believer God is the ultimate judge on life. As a believer, I know he had justification for doing what he did. Especially during a different time and era. Keep it going, atheists.

[RD2191]

:cryGod is evil for killing babies.
:cryI believe in evolution so babies are just animals in my eyes.
:cryKilling animals is evil even though biology insists I do it to survive.
:lolAtheists

[DMC]

You type a lot of shit for not saying anything at all. As a believer God is the ultimate judge on life. As a believer, I know he had justification for doing what he did. Especially during a different time and era. Keep it going, atheists.

Either there is a god or there isn't. Being a believer doesn't change that fact. If any of you believed as you claim to instead of just wearing it like a symbolic gang sign, you'd not act the fools you act on here as if your god either approves of it, doesn't care or doesn't know.

[RD2191]

Either there is a god or there isn't. Being a believer doesn't change that fact. If any of you believed as you claim to instead of just wearing it like a symbolic gang sign, you'd not act the fools you act on here as if your god either approves of it, doesn't care or doesn't know.
Okay then, God exists.

[DMC]

:cryGod is evil for killing babies.
:cryI believe in evolution so babies are just animals in my eyes.
:cryKilling animals is evil even though biology insists I do it to survive.
:lolAtheists
:cry God is real
:cry God created all real things
:cry Evil is real
:cry God did not create evil
:lol Peasants

[RD2191]

Okay then, God exists.

[DMC]

Okay then, God exists.
You claim to know something atheists don't know, or believe something atheists don't believe, but you don't behave as if you know or believe anything different than anyone else.

[RandomGuy]

Which last bit?
do you find it a good mental exercise to explain what you believe and why?

[spurraider21]

DMC I was barking up that tree for a couple of hours yesterday. You aren't going to get a desired response from trollmas1997

[spurraider21]

DMC I was barking up that tree for a couple of hours yesterday. You aren't going to get a desired response from trollmas1997

[RD2191]

You claim to know something atheists don't know, or believe something atheists don't believe, but you don't behave as if you know or believe anything different than anyone else.
I believe in God, atheists do not. Pretty simple.

[xmas1997]

So then the story is not based on real events. It's therefore no different than any other work of fiction. Animal Farm, for example, is an allegory. C.S. Lewis' fictional works are allegories. The Matrix is an allegory. If someone were to ask me if they were based on true events, I wouldn't write a novel about allegories. I would simply say no, they aren't.

Only in an the most extremist and broadest sense could you say this about the story, plus it leaves much out of the allegorical style of writing to fail to include it.

[DMC]

:cry There cannot be something from nothing ergo God
:cry There was nothing before God
:cry God is love
:cry 33% of God's workforce walked out on him prior to the creation of the universe
:cry God protects his children
:cry Mah baby dieded/God's will
:cry Mah baby was butchered/Devil' work
:cry Mah baby dieded and he didn't come back/God called him home
:cry Jesus' best friend died and Jesus resurrects him/Power of God
:lol Peasants

[RD2191]

Those are your words. Not that there is any truth behind them.

[RD2191]

You type a lot of shit for not saying anything at all. As a believer God is the ultimate judge on life. As a believer, I know he had justification for doing what he did. Especially during a different time and era. Keep it going, atheists.
:wakeup

[DMC]

Only in an the most extremist and broadest sense could you say this about the story, plus it leaves much out of the allegorical style of writing to fail to include it.

Did the Matrix really happen? Is Narnia a real place? Was Snowball a hero pig and was Napoleon really a prick?

You plagiarized most of your response, I don't think you're giving this much thought.

[xmas1997]

Ah, now the fanatical atheists rear their ugly heads simply because some of us on here believe in God and this offends their sensibilities.
I see.

[RD2191]

:lolOld fat fuck trying to troll.
:lolTaking angle pics to try and seem skinny.
:lolStalking a grown man online.

[spurraider21]

It's funny because xmas knows the answer but is afraid to spill the beans :lol

[spurraider21]

Only in an the most extremist and broadest sense could you say this about the story, plus it leaves much out of the allegorical style of writing to fail to include it.
The "allegorical style of writing" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the events occurred

[silverblk mystix]

:lolOld fat fuck trying to troll.
:lolTaking angle pics to try and seem skinny.
:lolStalking a grown man online.


pwned


:lmao:lmao

[DMC]

The "allegorical style of writing" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the events occured
It does when you cannot think for yourself enough to type a coherent response.

[RD2191]

pwned


:lmao:lmao
:lmao

[xmas1997]

The "allegorical style of writing" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the events occurred

On the contrary it has everything to do with it, it explains it.
I even borrowed from four different places in order to make it clearer to you, but it is much more detailed then even that.

[DMC]

pwned


:lmao:lmao
I asked you the last time - like a man - and you did the gentlemanly thing last time - but you have crossed a line and can never go back. I will not let this rest until you pay and pay dearly.
You fucked up and the longer you play this game the more it will cost you.
I give you my word that you will regret this.

[silverblk mystix]

I asked you the last time - like a man - and you did the gentlemanly thing last time - but you have crossed a line and can never go back. I will not let this rest until you pay and pay dearly.
You fucked up and the longer you play this game the more it will cost you.
I give you my word that you will regret this.


You have my word!


:lmao:lmao

[spurraider21]

On the contrary it has everything to do with it, it explains it.
:lmao

so if animal farm was written "more stylistically" that would make the events factual? You are a fool

[RD2191]

I asked you the last time - like a man - and you did the gentlemanly thing last time - but you have crossed a line and can never go back. I will not let this rest until you pay and pay dearly.
You fucked up and the longer you play this game the more it will cost you.
I give you my word that you will regret this.
Shut the fuck up. Keep it going and you will find out who you're fucking with. I'm not going to warn you twice.

[DMC]

You have my word!


:lmao:lmao

Still waiting, fat ass.

[DMC]

Shut the fuck up. Keep it going and you will find out who you're fucking with. I'm not going to warn you twice.
lol

[silverblk mystix]

Still waiting, fat ass.


Watch your back!

24/7


Fat Bastards Hands!!!!


From Austin Powers!!!


:lmao:lmao:lmao

[RD2191]

Watch your back!

24/7


Fat Bastards Hands!!!!


From Austin Powers!!!


:lmao:lmao:lmao
I want you in my belly.

[DMC]

Watch your back!

24/7


Fat Bastards Hands!!!!


From Austin Powers!!!


:lmao:lmao:lmao

Why would I need to watch my back? I know who you are and where you are. It's not my back that needs to be watched.

[silverblk mystix]

I want you in my belly.



Who uses balloon hands to go fishing?



:lmao:lmao:lmao

[xmas1997]

:lmao

so if animal farm was written "more stylistically" that would make the events factual? You are a fool

What? Why are you trying to make it factual again? It has nothing to do with facts or fiction, it is allegory, pure and simple.
You need a refresher course in literature.
:lol

[RD2191]

Who uses balloon hands to go fishing?



:lmao:lmao:lmao
Probably caught some cans of tuna from the fridge.

[silverblk mystix]

Why would I need to watch my back? I know who you are and where you are. It's not my back that needs to be watched.


So we're no different - I know your info too!



:lmao:lmao:lmao


Fat bastard!

[silverblk mystix]

Probably caught some cans of tuna from the fridge.



:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao



stalking grown men on the internet!!!!!!!

[RD2191]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao



stalking grown men on the internet!!!!!!!
:cryI was defending my rat face bud chump, even though that wasn't really his picture.

[RD2191]

RG, why do you hate God?

[silverblk mystix]

:cryI was defending my rat face bud chump, even though that wasn't really his picture.


"b-b-but we're aren't homos!"

[spurraider21]

The "allegorical style of writing" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the events occurred


On the contrary it has everything to do with it, it explains it.
I even borrowed from four different places in order to make it clearer to you, but it is much more detailed then even that.


What? Why are you trying to make it factual again? It has nothing to do with facts or fiction, it is allegory, pure and simple.
You need a refresher course in literature.
:lol
You literally JUST said it has "everything to do with it" and now are saying it "has nothing to do with facts or fiction"

you don't even agree with yourself :lmao

[silverblk mystix]

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[xmas1997]

I want you in my belly.

:lmao
That is too funny!
You guys are owning these idiots right and left.
And now they are taking it so seriously that they are taking it personal on top of everything?
:rollin

[RD2191]

:lmao

[silverblk mystix]

You literally JUST said it has "everything to do with it" and now are saying it "has nothing to do with facts or fiction"

you don't even agree with yourself :lmao


You don't understand paradoxes, allegories, fact, fiction, literalism


Just give up already before xmas and rob school you again.

[DMC]

You literally JUST said it has "everything to do with it" and now are saying it "has nothing to do with facts or fiction"

you don't even agree with yourself :lmao

Dude you are owning these guys right and left. I cannot believe they are still responding. They must be salty.

[RD2191]

DMC is a chump. He had no reason to go after SBM when it was Chewbacca who has doing the photoshops.

[silverblk mystix]

DMC is a chump. He had no reason to go after SBM when it was Chewbacca who has doing the photoshops.


"we don't take it serious...unless we get embarrassed...then we show how shitty and personal we can get....wah- don't embarrass me!"


:lmao:lmao

[spurraider21]

The "allegorical style of writing" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the events occurred


On the contrary it has everything to do with it, it explains it.
I even borrowed from four different places in order to make it clearer to you, but it is much more detailed then even that.


You don't understand paradoxes, allegories, fact, fiction, literalism


Just give up already before xmas and rob school you again.
:lmao post 1: "it has everything to do with it"
:lmao post 2: "it has nothing to do with it"

xmas schools himself :lol
robdiaz is ok. I actually had a decent conversation with him earlier in the thread

[xmas1997]

You literally JUST said it has "everything to do with it" and now are saying it "has nothing to do with facts or fiction"

you don't even agree with yourself :lmao

Straw man response again.
You "literally" and "factually" and "fictionally" and "allegorically", and last but not least "figuratively" love doing those!
:lmao

[RD2191]

"we don't take it serious...unless we get embarrassed...then we show how shitty and personal we can get....wah- don't embarrass me!"


:lmao:lmao
:lmao

[RD2191]

spurraider is a good dude, imo. RG ain't too bad either even though he's a smug son of a....

[RD2191]

DMC is a huge faggot though. Along with his buddy Chump and Blake.

[silverblk mystix]

DMC is a huge faggot though. Along with his buddy Chump and Blake.


Is DMC manning up and making this gtg?

[RD2191]

Is DMC manning up and making this gtg?
Doubt it, he's old though, I doubt he wants to get his ass handed to him, tbh.

[xmas1997]

spurraider is a good dude, imo. RG ain't too bad either even though he's a smug son of a....

Sometimes spurraider is a good dude, when he is discussing something he knows something about, unlike now.
But he uses straw man tactics quite a bit in the hopes it will help his point by twisting one of my statements into his straw man conclusion of being contradicting of myself, when any intelligent poster knows they were two different statements about two different things.
But does he get specific? No, because to do so would have shown there were no contradictions.

[DMC]

DMC is a chump. He had no reason to go after SBM when it was Chewbacca who has doing the photoshops.

I didn't go after anyone. rocks/glass house, etc....

[xmas1997]

Doubt it, he's old though, I doubt he wants to get his ass handed to him, tbh.

I doubt DMC or spurraider will man up, they have no conceptions of discussions.
But you two keep owning them.
Like an idiot I keep trying to answer their idiotic questions.
:lmao

[DMC]

I doubt DMC or spurraider will man up, they have no conceptions of discussions.
But you two keep owning them.
Like an idiot I keep trying to answer their idiotic questions.
:lmao
I've taken you to the woodshed a few times in these discussions already and each time you abandon the thread.

[xmas1997]

I've taken you to the woodshed a few times in these discussions already and each time you abandon the thread.

In your dreams.
Now you with the straw man too?
:lmao
I can only laugh at your folly.

[spurraider21]

Sometimes spurraider is a good dude, when he is discussing something he knows something about, unlike now.
But he uses straw man tactics quite a bit in the hopes it will help his point by twisting one of my statements into his straw man conclusion of being contradicting of myself, when any intelligent poster knows they were two different statements about two different things.
But does he get specific? No, because to do so would have shown there were no contradictions.
Coming from a guy who thinks an event can be both allegorical/symbolic and factual :lmao

[spurraider21]

I doubt DMC or spurraider will man up, they have no conceptions of discussions.
But you two keep owning them.
Like an idiot I keep trying to answer their idiotic questions.
:lmao
What's there for me to man up about? My views are explicitly laid out and I've never shied away. You are the one who hasn't been able to tell me if he believes in the story of Abraham or not :rollin

[RD2191]

Be back in a bit. Nephew took over the comp.

[DMC]

In your dreams.
Now you with the straw man too?
:lmao
I can only laugh at your folly.
Go look at Avante's thread on religion, where you aborted...

[xmas1997]

Coming from a guy who thinks an event can be both allegorical/symbolic and factual :lmao

Dude, you take this way too seriously, it is merely a "discussion" on a "message board".
I drew from at least four different sources to aid in your understanding with extreme detail the last time, and you still didn't get it.
Why?
Because of your constant pestering, and refusal to accept the answer the first time I gave it.
So it is blatantly obvious to the intelligent posters on here, Rob, SBM, and RG what your "game" was all along.
You had no intentions of seeking an answer, you just wanted something to nitpick about and argue over.
That was obvious with your first straw man, and the clincher was saying I was contradicting my own words when you took thos two statements totally and completely out of context in order to twist them to your idiotic and confused ends.
You should have just stopped last night after my first answer and done the research yourself instead of asking me to do it.

[xmas1997]

Go look at Avante's thread on religion, where you aborted...

Aborted?
I never aborted anything.
But you can pretend I did if it makes you feel better.
:lol

[spurraider21]

I'm not playing a game or building strawman arguments. I just want to know if you believe the story of Abraham actually, factually occurred. That's it. No games

[DMC]

Dude, you take this way too seriously, it is merely a "discussion" on a "message board".
I drew from at least four different sources to aid in your understanding with extreme detail the last time, and you still didn't get it.
Why?
Because of your constant pestering, and refusal to accept the answer the first time I gave it.
So it is blatantly obvious to the intelligent posters on here, Rob, SBM, and RG what your "game" was all along.
You had no intentions of seeking an answer, you just wanted something to nitpick about and argue over.
That was obvious with your first straw man, and the clincher was saying I was contradicting my own words when you took thos two statements totally and completely out of context in order to twist them to your idiotic and confused ends.
You should have just stopped last night after my first answer and done the research yourself instead of asking me to do it.
You plagiarized and got busted. Stop acting like you were using sources. When you meld in that shit without citing sources, you're plagiarizing. It's not a big deal, but you did it because you cannot make sense of your statements without needing someone else to guide you out of the maze you've created. The allegory explanation doesn't address whether or not the story was based on real events. Just as the story of Job, of Noah, even of Jesus Christ's miracles and the resurrection could be allegories, they form the basic tenents of Christianity. So if your're saying Christianity is based on a series of allegories that the reader must accept as truths in order to see the stories as real, then you have no disagreement from me.

[DMC]

Aborted?
I never aborted anything.
But you can pretend I did if it makes you feel better.
:lol
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237785&p=7528106&viewfull=1#post7528106

[xmas1997]

You plagiarized and got busted. Stop acting like you were using sources. When you meld in that shit without citing sources, you're plagiarizing. It's not a big deal, but you did it because you cannot make sense of your statements without needing someone else to guide you out of the maze you've created. The allegory explanation doesn't address whether or not the story was based on real events. Just as the story of Job, of Noah, even of Jesus Christ's miracles and the resurrection could be allegories, they form the basic tenents of Christianity. So if your're saying Christianity is based on a series of allegories that the reader must accept as truths in order to see the stories as real, then you have no disagreement from me.

Geez, straw man on top of straw man here.
I am not going to defend another one of your worthless claims just because you do not understand literary writing.
There is no publishing going on here.
^Get that in your head. ^
Thus I don't have to cite every single sentence in a message board nor does anyone else on here.
It just gives you a transitory yet shallow feeling of some sort of hollow fictitious victory, for whatever gets you your rocks off.
I even explained this a few times already, and why. But that isn't good enough for you because your only aim is to nitpick and make mountains out of mole hills.

[spurraider21]

I guess that story about religious people blurring fiction and reality was a case study of xmas1997

[xmas1997]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237785&p=7528106&viewfull=1#post7528106

That is what you are claiming is an abortion?
Dude, you don't even know when you are being laughed at for belaboring the obvious to the point of being ridiculously negligible.
Thus your straw man conclusion.'Not to mention you never made a single valid point in that thread but kept acting like you did.
That is deluding yourself, not me.
Try again. That one doesn't fly.
:lmao

[DMC]

Geez, straw man on top of straw man here.
I am not going to defend another one of your worthless claims just because you do not understand literary writing.
There is no publishing going on here.
^Get that in your head. ^
Thus I don't have to cite every single sentence in a message board nor does anyone else on here.
It just gives you a transitory yet shallow feeling of some sort of hollow fictitious victory, for whatever gets you your rocks off.
I even explained this a few times already, and why. But that isn't good enough for you because your only aim is to nitpick and make mountains out of mole hills.

I said it's not a big deal, but you did try to pass it off as your own thoughts. That's dishonest and indicates your level of intellectual honesty here and your true intent. Your writings are not as elegant, and it shows your lack of research and even consideration for the topic. You're not even a good troll.

[DMC]

That is what you are claiming is an abortion?
Dude, you don't even know when you are being laughed at for belaboring the obvious to the point of being ridiculously negligible.
Thus your straw man conclusion.'Not to mention you never made a single valid point in that thread but kept acting like you did.
That is deluding yourself, not me.
Try again. That one doesn't fly.
:lmao

You kept agreeing with me and expounding on it. What's amusing is that I was just copying and pasting blurbs from other sites without any semblance of continuity with the topic. You were in hog heaven.

[DMC]

I guess that story about religious people blurring fiction and reality was a case study of xmas1997
His kung fu is weak.

[leemajors]

Coming from a guy who thinks an event can be both allegorical/symbolic and factual :lmao

http://www.memecreator.org/static/images/memes/2982505.jpg

[RandomGuy]

This is typically a "few screws loose" type troll where the facts are distorted and intentionally misinterpreted to solicit responses. Facts are out there if anyone cares to learn them. Arguing about them here with people who don't care to actually read them isn't productive.

I disagree. As I noted to blake it is always good to at least to get what you really think typed out and clear. It is fun, even with trolls, to pick apart the foolishness for what it is. Often the trolls will ape the stuff they hear others say, so it isn't entirely pointless. The obvious baiting by Rob et al, is fairly easy to side step.

[RandomGuy]

Well, according to xmas, since you don't believe in God, you're incapable of understanding the true meaning of the Abraham story.

The true meaning is that the person ordering someone to sacrifice their own kid to them is an evil shit. The guy who agrees to do it is an evil shit.

Lastly, I would point out that God didn't stop Jepthah.

[RandomGuy]

As a believer, I know [God] had justification for [ordering children to be hacked to death, among other things].

Ah You "know" that. How exactly do you "know" that? Magic book again?

Or maybe you are hearing voices? Prophet Bob?

http://www.hearing-voices.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Pontefract-HVG.jpg

[RD2191]

:lolMelting down over a God you don't believe in.

[RD2191]

It's obvious you're just trolling at this point. You have no justification or basis to claim that God is evil.

[RD2191]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/28/28e48a8bd14c2df91b93c699d72a0f0e82addee04207ca4b05 74d6819fc043e4.jpg

[RD2191]

:wakeup

[RandomGuy]

The context for Rob's beliefs are, when asked is it evil to hack babies to death, and the response is:

paraphrased, "It is moral if God is fighting his enemies".

The assumptions that go into this:
God is moral, and dictates what is moral and what is not. i.e. "if God does it, it is automatically moral"

God is moral.
God cannot be immoral.

Therefore
If God does X, X is moral. (X is, by definition, moral, BECAUSE God does it)


X can be anything in this system.

X = Ordering his follower to hack babies to death.

Substitute X into the above:

If God (orders his followers to hack babies to death), (ordering people to hack babies to death) is moral.

This is what Rob is saying, although he is neither honest enough, nor intelligent enough to summarize it this way.

I will represent this as Robs position.

If it is NOT his position, all he has to do is say "I do not believe that ordering people to hack babies to death is moral".

If it is his position, then he will try to deflect it and call me an idiot.

Simple really.




[RG you are an idiot] [repeats answer as if it isn't some kind of lame excuse].

Honestly I really am beginning to think you would kill in the name of God, if God asked you to.

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/attachments/heer-buckles/26032d1233246492-gott-mit-uns-belt-buckle-real-fake-m4_68-aluminium-nowa-dated-1939-front.jpg

Wouldn't be the first to rationalize it, to be sure.

The guys gassing the women and children that couldn't work sure thought that they were killing the enemies of God.

[RandomGuy]

Godwins law biyatches.

[RD2191]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/28/28e48a8bd14c2df91b93c699d72a0f0e82addee04207ca4b05 74d6819fc043e4.jpg
:sleep

[RandomGuy]

hehehehe...

searching for that belt buckle, led me to this. It is funny.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/91/f5/01/91f5012f56c9d0a0a42b0d66a7e56848.jpg

[RD2191]

Okay, so you are admitting that God exist. :lol

[xmas1997]

I disagree. As I noted to blake it is always good to at least to get what you really think typed out and clear. It is fun, even with trolls, to pick apart the foolishness for what it is. Often the trolls will ape the stuff they hear others say, so it isn't entirely pointless. The obvious baiting by Rob et al, is fairly easy to side step.

This is true, I have no problems side stepping the trolls spurraider and DMC.
They are pretty obvious with their baiting, but I humor them.

[RandomGuy]

:sleep

:sleep

[RD2191]

:sleep
:wakeup

[RandomGuy]

Okay, so you are admitting that God exist. :lol

http://www.comicbookresources.com/images/columns/pop/2008/0817/6-Ming-and-Clytus.jpg

Figure that one out.

Ima go read funny stuff on the internet. When I get back you better have a new schtick.

Or you could tell me why Jesus thinks slavery is ok. That is always the next leg in making the case of how immoral and twisted the bible is.

BBL

[xmas1997]

:sleep


hehehehe...

searching for that belt buckle, led me to this. It is funny.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/91/f5/01/91f5012f56c9d0a0a42b0d66a7e56848.jpg

Both very funny.

[RandomGuy]

Both very funny.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f8/cb/d9/f8cbd9d077e76ebac74f23137773c78a.jpg

[RandomGuy]

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/63/87/bd/6387bd18ef834f7cafa191067ef8f4b2.jpg


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This guy is effing hilarious.

[RD2191]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/62/62486f63250201144b5d7b63c2dad44f18667e2dcb26c433e7 4203cdba0aac88.jpg

[RD2191]

Self explanatory.

[RD2191]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/28/28e48a8bd14c2df91b93c699d72a0f0e82addee04207ca4b05 74d6819fc043e4.jpg
:wakeup:wakeup

[xmas1997]

I get a kick out of spurraider and DMC with their straw man arguments.
It is akin to saying that since my right side is right, then my other side is wrong, rather than left.
:lol

EDIT: Trying to answer their questions or get your point across to those two is useless, you may as well talk to a bag of rocks for the good it will do! :rollin

[RD2191]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p480x480/8762_465771203507220_1829676084_n.jpg

[RD2191]

:lmao

[RD2191]

Atheists love to pull out the straw-man card.

[RD2191]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/197c6ec7f64a514f2773407cb849a7c1/tumblr_n2ua224aEq1syqltto1_500.jpg

[RD2191]

:lmao:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Bob... could you pull your head out of your ass and produce a decent argument for once?



http://www.healthywaytocook.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Rainbow-Pancakes-for-Nailed-it-Breakfast-Edition.jpg

http://snd1.splashpress1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/double_facepalm.jpg

[xmas1997]

Atheists love to pull out the straw-man card.

I wasn't aware that spurraider and DMC were such retarded trolls though, that came as a surprise.
I'll know better next time not to even attempt an intelligent discussion with them.
:lol

[RandomGuy]

Atheists love to pull out the straw-man card.

http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k504/Montag_Wolf/ArchaicRap_zpsc58526f9.jpg

[RD2191]

RG, all of your questions have been answered multiple times. The God you don't believe in is evil in your eyes. :lol

[DMC]

The concept that "morality is just divine edict" is a weak position to take and most theologians will avoid it at all costs. There's an exponentially greater amount of evidence to show that morality is just the macrocosm of ethics. Ethics evolve over time, and so the linearity between the extremes is shifted, so from a wider lens it's a morality shift.

[RandomGuy]

RG, all of your questions have been answered multiple times. The God you don't believe in is evil in your eyes. :lol

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Oh_bc393e_1497709.gif

[RD2191]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/28/28e48a8bd14c2df91b93c699d72a0f0e82addee04207ca4b05 74d6819fc043e4.jpg
:wakeup

[RandomGuy]

The concept that "morality is just divine edict" is a weak position to take and most theologians will avoid it at all costs. There's an exponentially greater amount of evidence to show that morality is just the macrocosm of ethics. Ethics evolve over time, and so the linearity between the extremes is shifted, so from a wider lens it's a morality shift.

Ethics evolve to some extent, but demonstrable harm is demonstrable harm. That is objective and fairly easy to measure for some actions.

[RandomGuy]

:wakeup

http://www.troll.me/images/thumbs-up-jesus-says/jesus-says-thats-not-fuckin-funny-bro.jpg

[RD2191]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p480x480/8762_465771203507220_1829676084_n.jpg
:lol

[RandomGuy]

Dang man... I'm even better at funny internet pictures than Prophet Bob.

Time to sleep.

Maybe he will figure out my mystery picture.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/images/columns/pop/2008/0817/6-Ming-and-Clytus.jpg

.... and why it is making fun of him.

You older nerds know the joke. Rob is only 23, so I would guess it is over his head.

[RD2191]

Old nerds. ROFL.

[RD2191]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/28/28e48a8bd14c2df91b93c699d72a0f0e82addee04207ca4b05 74d6819fc043e4.jpg
One more time....

[DMC]

Ethics evolve to some extent, but demonstrable harm is demonstrable harm. That is objective and fairly easy to measure for some actions.

Murder, dishonesty, theft. All morality centers around these in the Bible yet today it's considered immoral to have sex with a 13 year old girl or against the will of any woman. It wasn't immoral in the OT days, not even in the day of Jesus of Nazareth. In some countries it's still not illegal though the "objective" morality code in the 1st world countries deem it immoral. It's not objective if it's not consistent. Just because you feel a certain way about it doesn't mean it's absolute. Neither history nor current goings on in other nations side with your feelings on the matter. I do, but they don't.

[mouse]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p480x480/8762_465771203507220_1829676084_n.jpg

POTW easy,,

:lmao

[mouse]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/197c6ec7f64a514f2773407cb849a7c1/tumblr_n2ua224aEq1syqltto1_500.jpg

RACK!

:lmao

[xmas1997]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/197c6ec7f64a514f2773407cb849a7c1/tumblr_n2ua224aEq1syqltto1_500.jpg

:lmao

Definitely DMC, johnsmith, blake, chump, Woo, and spurraider for sure!
Too bad there is no gang pic with all 6 sitting around picking each others noses.
:rollin

[RD2191]

:lol

[silverblk mystix]

:lol


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by robdiaz2191 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7539299#post7539299)
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p480x480/8762_465771203507220_1829676084_n.jpg






:rollin:rollin:rollin

[spurraider21]

:lmao

Definitely DMC, johnsmith, blake, chump, Woo, and spurraider for sure!
Too bad there is no gang pic with all 6 sitting around picking each others noses.
:rollin
Troll post.

Also, way to be open minded. Ridiculing and ostracizing those just because of their views and beliefs. How Christian of you

[xmas1997]

Troll post.

Also, way to be open minded. Ridiculing and ostracizing those just because of their views and beliefs. How Christian of you

So says the troll who fired the first salvo.
Can you spell h y p o c r i s y?
:lmao

[spurraider21]

So says the troll who fired the first salvo.
Can you spell h y p o c r i s y?
:lmao
A true Christian would turn the other cheek. One of those allegorical tales says so

[xmas1997]

A true Christian would turn the other cheek. One of those allegorical tales says so

:lmao

San Antonio Raiders!

[xmas1997]

Some on here have made all sorts of wild and outlandish claims about Pope Francis.
Below is what he said about atheists, for those who care.

http://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-atheists/


What Pope Francis really said about atheists
By Stephen Kokx

Pope Francis raised a lot of eyebrows Wednesday after saying all people who do good works, including atheists, are going to heaven.

At least, that’s how the Huffington Post interpreted Pope Francis’ Wednesday morning homily.

Here’s what Pope Francis really said about atheists:

Pope Francis

Stephen Driscoll / CNA

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!

‘Father, the atheists?'

Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter that so much. We must meet one another doing good.

‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’

But do good: we will meet one another there.

[Blake]

do you find it a good mental exercise to explain what you believe and why?

Yup, but the exercise is just icing. If philosophy talk wasn't entertaining, I probably wouldn't post much at all on a messageboard.

Kind of like sudoku when it just became popular.

[Blake]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/197c6ec7f64a514f2773407cb849a7c1/tumblr_n2ua224aEq1syqltto1_500.jpg

What makes this extra funny is that the guy posting it has 500 posts in this thread alone.

Lololol more than double than the person with the second most posts

[Blake]

:lmao

San Antonio Raiders!

what Bible stories are literal to you? Any of them?

[RD2191]

I normally avoid laying out my personal stuff on the internets, but hell, I'm reeling so much right now, I'm asking everyone/anyone in sight what to do.

I had some nukes dropped on me this past week regarding the wife, which after looking back the past 1-2 years I should have seen it and I realize I am a fucking idiot. I've mulled over everything a billion times and there's no where to go but to get a divorce.

I have a 7 year old and some have already told me I need to go all out to get full custody. Any other practical advice? Step 1? Step 2?

Fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

:depressed

[xmas1997]

^^^

[Brazil]

another 50 pages useless thread I suppose...

[Blake]

^ xmas and rob doing wut trolls do

[xmas1997]

what Bible stories are literal to you? Any of them?

IMHO, none of them.
You have to put it in proper perspective though from my particular point of view.
I was raised Catholic all my life not baptized Catholic, always attended private Catholic schools from second grade on, thoroughly absorbed endless amount of catechism classes and later, bible study classes to go along with it.
I didn't actually get baptized Catholic until the eighth grade, and then sometime shortly after high school I embraced atheism and agnosticism in no particular order, so my perspective is somewhat skewed.
Later I delved into various religious researching their deeper myths and mysticisms including Wiccan, Druidic, Judaism, Islamism, and the Eastern faiths like Brahmanism, Buddhism, Taoism, and lastly native American spiritualism, which finally led me to occultism and esotericism. Lots of "isms". :lol

[Blake]

IMHO, none of them.

So to be clear, you're saying nothing in the Bible happened, including Jesus death resurrection story?

[xmas1997]

So to be clear, you're saying nothing in the Bible happened, including Jesus death resurrection story?

You enjoy straw men too apparently?
I already made it perfectly clear.
I have repeatedly said that IMHO the bible, and similar profound religious books, were never meant to be interpreted literally which is what most of you who are arguing about and seem dead set on doing because you do not understand what an allegorical style of writing is, and that that type of writing style which predominately is done in books of that nature is different than saying they never happened.
"Literal translating" is "to the letter", undeviating, or verbatim, which is different that being factual, concise, and actual.
So those events/stories may well could have happened, and they may well might not have happened, but to focus purely on that aspect of them diminishes their truer significance.
I wasn't there at the time.
Were you?

[xmas1997]

I understand that for many of you here it is easier to wrap your mind around things by thinking that everything in life is either black or white, and contains no gray areas.
But IMHO, most of life is made up of the gray areas, and there is no true black or white areas, there are no "absolutes", and everything "changes".
You want t close off everything in the world and pin it down to "definites", so that you do not have to work at having an "open" mind.
Having an "open" mind means suspending your learned notions of things as they seem to appear on the surface in order to attempt to understand what is really going on under the surface, and it isn't to do, and that is why scientists, researchers, philosophers, theologians, and doctors etc. get paid the big money for.
Once you learn this about life, you will be able to cope a hell of a lot better, be able to see different points of views from all sorts of perspectives, put yourself in other people's shoes, and definitely shed being so anal about everything.

[Blake]

You enjoy straw men too apparently?
I already made it perfectly clear.
I have repeatedly said that IMHO the bible, and similar profound religious books, were never meant to be interpreted literally which is what most of you who are arguing about this seem dead set on doing because you do not understand what an allegorical style of writing is, and that that type of writing style which predominately is done in books of that nature is different than saying they never happened.
"Literal translating" is "to the letter", undeviating, or verbatim, which is different that being factual, concise, and actual.
So those events/stories may well could have happened, and they may well might not have happened, but to focus purely on that aspect of them diminishes their truer significance.
I wasn't there at the time.
Were you?

You don't understand what a straw man is. You're just throwing it out there because rubber/glue is how you operate.

I'm asking you a question about your stance for clarification.

Do you believe the literal story of the resurrection or not?

[Chinook]

Something can be symbolic and factual. The fall of the Berlin was was symbolic for the end of the Cold War. But it was also an actual event that we know happened. It's both possible that God literally spoke to Abraham and told him to kill his son and that such an account is remembered because it symbolizes the tough choices people have to make to keep ther faith (or whatever).

So pretty much the last couple of days of conversation was wasted. Xmas believing the story was symbolic does not mean he believes it to be false, but it also doesn't allow him to get out of answering the question.

On other words, just say yes or no, Xmas. And to everyone else, stop going down the allegorical road. It's not productive.

[spurraider21]

Something can be symbolic and factual. The fall of the Berlin was was symbolic for the end of the Cold War. But it was also an actual event that we know happened. It's both possible that God literally spoke to Abraham and told him to kill his son and that such an account is remembered because it symbolizes the tough choices people have to make to keep ther faith (or whatever).

So pretty much the last couple of days of conversation was wasted. Xmas believing the story was symbolic does not mean he believes it to be false, but it also doesn't allow him to get out of answering the question.

On other words, just say yes or no, Xmas. And to everyone else, stop going down the allegorical road. It's not productive.
but the berlin wall isn't allegorical. and as i pointed out several times, my question to him as symbolism/allegory aside, i was asking if he believed the events factually occured

[Chinook]

but the berlin wall isn't allegorical. and as i pointed out several times, my question to him as symbolism/allegory aside, i was asking if he believed the events factually occured

It was not allegorical. Allegory is a quality of fiction. Symbolism isn't, however. Seeing as most people used the terms interchangeably, I don't think it's fair to hold Xmas to his diction.

I agree he needs to answer the damned question. It's not hard, and it wouldn't really change the way he's viewed here. Even as a theist, I find these types of religious arguments to be in horrible form.

[RandomGuy]

Murder, dishonesty, theft. All morality centers around these in the Bible yet today it's considered immoral to have sex with a 13 year old girl or against the will of any woman. It wasn't immoral in the OT days, not even in the day of Jesus of Nazareth. In some countries it's still not illegal though the "objective" morality code in the 1st world countries deem it immoral. It's not objective if it's not consistent. Just because you feel a certain way about it doesn't mean it's absolute. Neither history nor current goings on in other nations side with your feelings on the matter. I do, but they don't.

You missed the "owning other human beings" part. :D

I pretty much ageee, I think. I would note though it isn't a matter of "feel" a certain way, as being able to reason that killing or injuring people is generally harmful. We can feel that harming others is bad, but the harm itself is something notable outside any particular feeling.

In this way, one doesn't really need an invisible magic man to tell us the obvious.

[Blake]

It was not allegorical. Allegory is a quality of fiction. Symbolism isn't, however. Seeing as most people used the terms interchangeably, I don't think it's fair to hold Xmas to his diction.

xmas claims to have graduated magna cum laude from Dartmouth.

I think it's completely fair to hold him on his diction.



I agree he needs to answer the damned question. It's not hard, and it wouldn't really change the way he's viewed here. Even as a theist, I find these types of religious arguments to be in horrible form.

They're in horrid form because these idiots don't know the rules of proper debate and what logical fallacies are.

It's like playing chess with someone that double jumps your pawns with his pawn and yells "crown me".

I lol but I also try to explain the rules to see if it finally clicks that they are aware of how badly they've been losing.

[RandomGuy]

RG said killing was necessary to survive.

I didn't say killing animals was.

Our current method of producing food requires us at the very least to ingest plant matter, and that involves eating and killing living cells at some point.

That subtlety was probably lost on you, but just wanted to be clear.

[RandomGuy]

No, but under the circumstances [drowning infants] was okay and was not murder.

Doubling and tripling down on the bullsit rationalization.

[Chinook]

xmas claims to have graduated magna cum laude from Dartmouth.

I think it's completely fair to hold him on his diction.



They're in horrid form because these idiots don't know the rules of proper debate and what logical fallacies are.

It's like playing chess with someone that double jumps your pawns with his pawn and yells "crown me".

I lol but I also try to explain the rules to see if it finally clicks that they are aware of how badly they've been losing.

There are some stupid Ivy Leaguers. I met quite a few in school. Xmas is being obstinate in this thread, though, not ignorant. He knows what he's doing.

But anyways, I meant diction, because he obviously means symbolic and not allegorical, and everyone else seems to understand that, because they keep using both terms. I don't think you need help from a technicality to win this debate.

Pretty much agree with the rest. Can't even have a productive conversation with the way things are.

[RandomGuy]

So in other words RG believes in God but hates him because he is evil?

No. RG does not believe God exists.

Do you get anything right?

It this point, it would not surprise me to find out that your velcro strap shoes have little "L" and "R" printed on them.

[RandomGuy]

There are some stupid Ivy Leaguers. I met quite a few in school. Xmas is being obstinate in this thread, though, not ignorant. He knows what he's doing.

But anyways, I meant diction, because he obviously means symbolic and not allegorical, and everyone else seems to understand that, because they keep using both terms. I don't think you need help from a technicality to win this debate.

Pretty much agree with the rest. Can't even have a productive conversation with the way things are.

Yes, it is more than a little hard here.

Rob tried until he got painted into a corner, then gave up, and now can't be man enough to admit he is wrong.

Personally, I have a friend who makes the same claim "well that stuff isn't meant to be literal", but that falls into the same "it was just rules for the Jews" camp.

Either way of putting it simply points out the glaring problem of interpretation. The bible didn't come with a cliff notes version. :D

[xmas1997]

You don't understand what a straw man is. You're just throwing it out there because rubber/glue is how you operate.

I'm asking you a question about your stance for clarification.

Do you believe the literal story of the resurrection or not?

Answered many many times on here already and just recently in post #1484.
Reread that and the other posts and you will have your answers and even using different words each time so you and others are not confused.
'nuff said.

[spurraider21]

Chinook this is where it all started. he used the term allegory before symbol, or before anybody else brought those words up. i know ur probably tired of the subject and the pointless argument, but this is where the confusion is coming from


so if God didn't literally tell abraham to kill his son... that would make the abraham story fake


Straw man logic.
I take it as allegory.
"Fiction" and "fake" imply a hell of a lot more.

[Chinook]

Chinook this is where it all started. he used the term allegory before symbol, or before anybody else brought those words up. i know ur probably tired of the subject and the pointless argument, but this is where the confusion is coming from

I couldn't sleep this morning, so I read through the whole thread. I know what you're saying and agree. I know he's misusing the term allegory. I just don't see that misuse to be that big of a deal. It is neither a glaring weakness nor a get-out-of-jail-free card. He's not answering a simple question, that he understands fully. No way to dig him out of that hole.

[spurraider21]

Answered many many times on here already and just recently in post #1484.
Reread that and the other posts and you will have your answers and even using different words each time so you and others are not confused.
'nuff said.
post 1484:

You enjoy straw men too apparently?
I already made it perfectly clear.
I have repeatedly said that IMHO the bible, and similar profound religious books, were never meant to be interpreted literally which is what most of you who are arguing about and seem dead set on doing because you do not understand what an allegorical style of writing is, and that that type of writing style which predominately is done in books of that nature is different than saying they never happened.
"Literal translating" is "to the letter", undeviating, or verbatim, which is different that being factual, concise, and actual.
So those events/stories may well could have happened, and they may well might not have happened, but to focus purely on that aspect of them diminishes their truer significance.
do you believe it happened, though? i'm inquiring about you own beliefs

I wasn't there at the time.
Were you?
well by this logic you shouldn't believe in any historical events that happened outside of what you personally experienced, such as the revolutionary war or the invention of the fluorescent light bulb