Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
If you could stop with the vitriol for one moment, I'd like for you to answer the question I asked you before in this thread and tell us exactly where (chapter and verse please) that the "BIBLE ITSELF provides that number." I imagine you ignore me on this because it doesn't. I already explained that the Ussher Chronology is the source of "that number," not the Bible. It really was calculated "out of thin air." Hell, the Catholic church completely rejects it.
So yeah, Young Earth Creationism is a complete fiction, but that doesn't justify your hate against the Christian religion in its entirety, or provide any reason (as you claim) that one should reject the entire book (for one thing, it's not even a single book, but a compilation).
BTW, Paine (of whom I am an immense fan) was referring to state religions, i.e. those with compulsory membership and tithes, not religion in general.
I prefer Jefferson's quote on the same subject: "They (the Anglican priests in Virginia who wanted to establish themselves as the state religion) fear me, and well they should, for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every tyranny over the minds of men."
You never asked for why my opinion existed? You see, if the first thing you asked was "why do you believe that?" I would have answered. Instead you attacked, you made assumptions, etc. Now you want me to explain it so you could jump on that too? Yeah, that is going to be happening REAL soon!
Nonetheless, I have the right to state an opinion. To assume I have no reason is foolish. All you had to do was ask instead of attack. You chose the latter because of your intolerance. You did not wish understanding.
"""when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? " " "
I am still asking you to quote where I stated other people are wrong.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,558
- 146
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Originally posted by: zinfamous
The rest of your arguments are pretty asinine: "It is impossible for the unsaved to truly understand the word of god." Clearly, Rapid Snail is just as qualified of properly translating and understanding the text as Seekermeister. I imagine they would probably disagree on many points as well....wrap that around your god-filled noodles
Zin, when I said that, I was referring to the passage in Corinthians.
Clearly those are not my words, neither my interpretation.
it's not an interpretation? define "natural man," and define "discern." you can't without interpreting what the meaning of these words would have been 2000+ years ago. esp "discern" being a modern translation of some word...I can only imagine it's a stretch from the Hebrew.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,558
- 146
Got it, everyone? Clearly, Seekermeister understands the bible far better than anyone. (even the holy-rollers that would be his allies) The word is truth unto him, and only he shall be its true vessel, and will allow its truth unto you, if you are worthy
Book of Zin 3:36
Shadow9d9 can't hold a candle to Steeplerot's style of diversion and misdirection. Steeplerot depends solely on ad hom and straw man, whereas Shadow9d9 simply uses the weakest of all arguments... "that's my opinion and an opinion can't be wrong." In the end they both look foolish, so the comparison is justified.
An opinion can't be wrong. There is no argument being made. I made a one sentence opinion and he can't handle it apparently.
What exactly is foolish about having an opinion? I'd love to hear. I'd also love for you to explain Vic's statement in my sig! Please enlighten me!
Let me translate your post: "Anyone who hates the bible is my enemy. Must try to slander them to make their opinion less hurtful to me!"
This actually makes you a bigot as well. Intolerance of someone else's view. So many nowadays. People can't handle anything that says something they don't agree with. Being passive aggressive is still aggressive.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?
No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?
Why would you imagine my answer? They are all cons, however, christianity is the biggest con in my book because it has done more harm than any of the others imo. Why would you "imagine" that I'd say "probably not"?
Btw, have of your comparisons are not religion...
Good lot of assumptions from you... one of the reasons that I stated that I can't stand your arrogant postings in another thread. You think WAY too highly of yourself and your opinions.
Let this be a lesson to you all as to how easily (and how nastily) the pompously ignorant get offended whenever their prejudices get challenged. Without his own team to praise and those evil others to blame, what would he have left?
It is the opinion to Shadow9d9 that Christianity is the biggest con but, when put on the spot about it, the best he can do fall back to the position that he is entitled to his opinion. Is this position of a person who comes to his opinions rationally?
Heh. The scary truth is that Christianity is the finest religion that humanity has ever come up with. Its only actual original message is how terrible it is the way we treat each other. "What if God walked among us? Would we put Him up to die horribly on that cross too?" The answer: "Yes, and that should be a lesson for us to try to be better people." That's it. That's Christianity. The rest is all borrowed from other religions and made up as it went along, usually for the worse in some way to obscure the original message. The so-called horrible things that have done in its name are just the same things that would have (and have) been done in every other religion's name too, and in the name of every type and stripe of political agenda I can think of as well.
I'm not defending Christianity, I'm just trying to be productive to the improvement of humanity, as opposed to the usual tactics of "us vs. them" blame games that are more apart of the problem than any supposed solution.
Considering that the majority of Americans are Christian, I would say that you just stated that several million people are wrong. Or is that just another opinion of yours that can't possibly be discredited?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Meh. This is unrelated, but John never said "word" as you see in the English translations (and is the basis for much fundamentalist argument). He said Logos, for which there is no modern English translation. Closest I could think of would be something like the rational thought expressing itself.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I'm sorry... who's making assumptions? None of that has ever been my argument at all (edit: nor was it Satchel's). I could not care less about your precious opinions. I simply find your pompous ignorance akin to finding something nasty in my morning oatmeal. Hold as many opinions as you want, but kindly educate yourself before you air them out, eh? That is... unless you like getting flamed.
Umm, I hope you are joking. What would be the "other" opinion that can't be discredited? NO OPINION CAN BE DISCREDITED.
Opinion-
"1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal."
"An opinion is a belief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction, certainty, or positive knowledge;"
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "
"Opinion is applicable to a judgment based on grounds insufficient to rule out the possibility of dispute: "
It doesn't mean others are wrong, it means that you believe something different than them.
Are you people so foolish that you don't know what an opinion is?
If I said "I think movie X was terrible!", does that mean that I am saying that the people who liked the movie were wrong?
I I said, "The bible was a con in my opinion" that I am decreeing that people are not allowed to have their own views?
Let's repeat it together:
"Opinion is applicable to a judgment based on grounds insufficient to rule out the possibility of dispute:
Opinion is applicable to a judgment based on grounds insufficient to rule out the possibility of dispute:
Opinion is applicable to a judgment based on grounds insufficient to rule out the possibility of dispute:
Opinion is applicable to a judgment based on grounds insufficient to rule out the possibility of dispute: "
I know the definition of the word "opinion" is complex and much discussion is needed to discover its true meaning!
An opinion most certainly can be wrong. If it's my opinion that the moon is filled with cream cheese, is my opinion correct? Of course not, don't be a dumb fvck.
Vic's statement in your sig is completely logical. A con is a fraud, committing a fraud is illegal; therefore stating that someone has committed a fraud is saying that someone has done something illegal. It's logical to imply that if someone has performed an illegal act than that act should be outlawed. Why is this hard for you to understand?
Your "translation" of my post and your little summation of my character are laughable. I read your sig, now read mine. How could you interpret my sig to mean anything other than agnostic? You have a long way to go before you reach rot's level of ad hom and straw man. Nice try though.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?
No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?
Why would you imagine my answer? They are all cons, however, christianity is the biggest con in my book because it has done more harm than any of the others imo. Why would you "imagine" that I'd say "probably not"?
Btw, have of your comparisons are not religion...
Good lot of assumptions from you... one of the reasons that I stated that I can't stand your arrogant postings in another thread. You think WAY too highly of yourself and your opinions.
Let this be a lesson to you all as to how easily (and how nastily) the pompously ignorant get offended whenever their prejudices get challenged. Without his own team to praise and those evil others to blame, what would he have left?
It is the opinion to Shadow9d9 that Christianity is the biggest con but, when put on the spot about it, the best he can do fall back to the position that he is entitled to his opinion. Is this position of a person who comes to his opinions rationally?
Heh. The scary truth is that Christianity is the finest religion that humanity has ever come up with. Its only actual original message is how terrible it is the way we treat each other. "What if God walked among us? Would we put Him up to die horribly on that cross too?" The answer: "Yes, and that should be a lesson for us to try to be better people." That's it. That's Christianity. The rest is all borrowed from other religions and made up as it went along, usually for the worse in some way to obscure the original message. The so-called horrible things that have done in its name are just the same things that would have (and have) been done in every other religion's name too, and in the name of every type and stripe of political agenda I can think of as well.
I'm not defending Christianity, I'm just trying to be productive to the improvement of humanity, as opposed to the usual tactics of "us vs. them" blame games that are more apart of the problem than any supposed solution.
You still try to disprove an opinion. Pretty amazing stuff here.
"Opinion is applicable to a judgment based on grounds insufficient to rule out the possibility of dispute:
Opinion is applicable to a judgment based on grounds insufficient to rule out the possibility of dispute:
Opinion is applicable to a judgment based on grounds insufficient to rule out the possibility of dispute:
Opinion is applicable to a judgment based on grounds insufficient to rule out the possibility of dispute: "
You can try to convince me that your opinion is "right," but you waste your time. Keep trying though, it seems to make you feel important.
Plus, I was right when I said earlier that you were religious. You tried to deny it. Another lie.
You start by cursing... nice!
The moon's content is a fact. The Bible's interpretation and "truth of god" is not. Therefore you can have an opinion on one and not the other. Got it?
Your "interpretation" of the idea that someone conning means that you want to have someone outlawed has earned you a place in my sig.
If a doctor a sham, a con, or a fraud, it does not mean that he is doing something illegal or should be outlawed.
Our schools are failing us.
A fraud CAN be used as a legal term. It, like many other words, have different meanings. I have already quoted the meaning of con many times. I will not do it again.
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm sorry... who's making assumptions? None of that has ever been my argument at all (edit: nor was it Satchel's). I could not care less about your precious opinions. I simply find your pompous ignorance akin to finding something nasty in my morning oatmeal. Hold as many opinions as you want, but kindly educate yourself before you air them out, eh? That is... unless you like getting flamed.
""""when you can claim enough to know that other people are wrong and being conned? " " " "
You made this claim. I am still waiting for a quote and you keep dodging. Dodge!
Fine, then let's focus on something that has not been physically proven. It's my opinion that Pluto's core is a combination of cottage cheese and french dressing. Is my opinion wrong?
From your own source, definition #1...
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
Here's a clue, the bolded means it could be wrong.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
That's funny. I thought it always meant "to cease living." It doesn't bode well for your argument that you have to begin by re-defining terms that already have well-established meanings.
Then what is all this talk of "spiritual death"?
That's just flat-out wrong.
I'm sorry, but your argument is simply preposterous.
And that has exactly what to do with the passage in question?
Where does it say that?
{snip}
It has not been proven either way, so who am I to say it is wrong. It is pure speculation at the moment. I could say it is unlikely based on other planets, but theoretically it is possible.
Course it could be wrong. That is part of what makes an opinion an opinion. I never made a claim of absolute proof. That is what I am trying to get you fools to understand.
I just said that it is my opinion.
Sleep time, back in the morning.
Originally posted by: Satchel
Do you not know what the word "could" mean?
It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.
Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?
Sleep now, I mean it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter