John Cuthber Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 The sermon on the mount doesn't need a miracle to be understood. Does any of it say anything that isn't covered by "do unto others..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Man talk about arrogance you can tell me what I am thinking I mean seriously it's called sarcasm but I will admit I should have put that it was sarcasm in the post my bad but really I do believe that you atheists don't really address what I say but instead you just dismiss as complete bs shutout even proving why Part of the problem is that you are completely out of your league here and you are unable to recognize that fact. You don't yet have the knowledge or experience in debate, logic, science, or religion to have a meaningful discussion here, and you display petulant behavior when challenged. You are a backyard footballer arguing dribbling technique with Lionel Messi. While I would normally suggest it is you who is arrogant, in this case I attribute your behavior to immaturity and inexperience. While there is nothing wrong with that (we all start there), you might want to consider a different approach while you get up to speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Does any of it say anything that isn't covered by "do unto others..." Yes, it says arrogance is the perfect shield to understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Yes, it says arrogance is the perfect shield to understanding. Does it point out that shields work in both directions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Why would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) Why would it? Because it's true. If I can't shoot the bank teller because of the bullet proof glass then they can't shoot me. Less literally, the arrogance of the theists stops them understanding that the Book is... just a book. Weirdly, they usually grasp this idea of all the other Books, but not for theirs. Edited July 6, 2016 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Because it's true. If I can't shoot the bank teller because of the bullet proof glass then they can't shoot me. Less literally, the arrogance of the theists stops them understanding that the Book is... just a book. Weirdly, they usually grasp this idea of all the other Books, but not for theirs. When have I said otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 You actually can buy such a thing. Too useful not to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Man talk about arrogance you can tell me what I am thinking I mean seriously it's called sarcasm but I will admit I should have put that it was sarcasm in the post my bad but really I do believe that you atheists don't really address what I say but instead you just dismiss as complete bs shutout even proving why I've attempted to start a dialogue with you a few times now and each time you have outright stated that you aren't interested in any evidence contradicting your beliefs nor in having a conversation about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Infinity Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Part of the problem is that you are completely out of your league here and you are unable to recognize that fact. You don't yet have the knowledge or experience in debate, logic, science, or religion to have a meaningful discussion here, and you display petulant behavior when challenged. You are a backyard footballer arguing dribbling technique with Lionel Messi. While I would normally suggest it is you who is arrogant, in this case I attribute your behavior to immaturity and inexperience. While there is nothing wrong with that (we all start there), you might want to consider a different approach while you get up to speed. That's your opinion friend and like I said arrogance I mean really a little high in yourselfI have admitted that I have a lower iq than you and also before you insult someone just think about their situation I am a depressed 16 year old looking for a group of intelligent people to help me learn and love life a little more but I guess I can see that most of you are arrogant people that use their gifts to simply prove they are right so I guess what I am trying to say is don't pity me but try to learn some perspective so you don't destroy other people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 That's your opinion friend and like I said arrogance I mean really a little high in yourself I have admitted that I have a lower iq than you and also before you insult someone just think about their situation I am a depressed 16 year old looking for a group of intelligent people to help me learn and love life a little more but I guess I can see that most of you are arrogant people that use their gifts to simply prove they are right so I guess what I am trying to say is don't pity me but try to learn some perspective so you don't destroy other people You need to stop taking things so personally. I am not attacking you; I am attacking your ideas and approach. You are immature, by definition. You are inexperienced. You are unwilling to consider evidence that is contrary to your beliefs. These are not attacks, they are traits you exhibit and behaviors I've observed. You may be a wonderful person, but that doesn't equate to being a person who suddenly has an understanding of logic and physics. Of course we are trying to prove we are right. That is what we do here. Nearly every thread consists of people who are debating and trying to show in what way their idea is right and the other person's idea is wrong. Everyone who is now disagreeing with you has at one time or another disagreed with each other. There is no better way to ascertain the 'truth' than to have people vigorously challenge your views and ideas. What remains intact after such a debate is closer to the truth than what existed before the debate. You are not being attacked here. You are being treated in the same manner as we treat each other. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Infinity Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Well I guess I have just decided I am leaving this site so good fricking riddance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Well I guess I have just decided I am leaving this site so good fricking riddance If you decide to come back, you'll be welcome. When you're depressed, it all seems like things are caving in on you, and you can tend to take things too personally. Some folks deal with it by doing nothing, some like to get even more emotional. And some people try to find something to trust, something they can count on to be consistent, that doesn't lie, that doesn't stretch the truth, that isn't open to interpretation from every person you meet. This is a place for reason and science. We care about how you feel but it really shouldn't matter to the subjects we discuss. We attack ideas to make them stronger. People aren't their ideas, people HAVE ideas. And most, the vast majority, are wrong. That's just the way it is, and we think science is the most effective and trustworthy way to explain the universe. And it sort of requires us to leave our egos at home, and deal with these topics as objectively as we can. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 ...looking for a group of intelligent people to help me learn and love life a little more but I guess I can see that most of you are arrogant people that use their gifts to simply prove they are right so I guess what I am trying to say is don't pity me but try to learn some perspective so you don't destroy other people This forum is really a science forum and as such you have to expect most of us to want to use logic and reason as our guiding principles. We all have to be open to the fact that not everyone will agree with our points of view - scientific or otherwise. You have to expect people to question any claims that are based on religion and similar. Anyway, I am sure we all wish you luck and hope that everything turns out okay for you. You are always welcome here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Because it's true. If I can't shoot the bank teller because of the bullet proof glass then they can't shoot me. Less literally, the arrogance of the theists stops them understanding that the Book is... just a book. Weirdly, they usually grasp this idea of all the other Books, but not for theirs. That analogy doesn't work when the shield is arrogance and it's just as arrogant to dismiss out of hand something you don't fully understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) That analogy doesn't work when the shield is arrogance and it's just as arrogant to dismiss out of hand something you don't fully understand. I guess it's not arrogant to assume that someone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't fully understand... Edited July 7, 2016 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 I guess it's not arrogant to assume that someone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't fully understand.. If you can't guarantee that the translation is correct then it's no longer reliable and, once again you have pointed out why we should drop it. John's argument is based on us not understanding the bible, so no. It's never arrogant to understand, true arrogance is assuming others can't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 That analogy doesn't work when the shield is arrogance and it's just as arrogant to dismiss out of hand something you don't fully understand. I have here, and elsewhere, asked people to tell me what it is that I don't understand. They have never been able to answer. Can you rule out the idea that this "understanding" is just self-delusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) I have here, and elsewhere, asked people to tell me what it is that I don't understand. They have never been able to answer. Can you rule out the idea that this "understanding" is just self-delusion? Of course not, that would be arrogant, can you? I have here, and elsewhere, asked people to tell me what it is that I don't understand. They have never been able to answer. You have repeatedly explained why the bible can't be understood, my answer is the OT. Edited July 7, 2016 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Of course not, that would be arrogant, can you? You have repeatedly explained why the bible can't be understood, my answer is the OT. I am going to go way out on a limb here and assume you do understand what the OT says? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) You have repeatedly explained why the bible can't be understood, my answer is the OT. Would that be the OT that the NT says still stands? (And here we go round again) John's argument is based on us not understanding the bible, so no. My argument is based on you telling me that nobody can be sure of the meaning of the Bible. Do you not remember saying this? The fact that the text was translated, automatically means it's an interpretation, that of the translator, among others. Since you say nobody can know what it originally meant, how can anyone rely on it for anything? Edited July 7, 2016 by John Cuthber 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Would that be the OT that the NT says still stands? (And here we go round again) My argument is based on you telling me that nobody can be sure of the meaning of the Bible. Do you not remember saying this? Since you say nobody can know what it originally meant, how can anyone rely on it for anything? That line in context was intended to show how you're intransigence (the OT stays) is unfounded. My position has been constant on this, the NT is understandable when divorced from the OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 That line in context was intended to show how you're intransigence (the OT stays) is unfounded. My position has been constant on this, the NT is understandable when divorced from the OT. When you divorce the NT from the OT you lose the reason for jesus in the first place, you lose original sin, you lose your creation story, you lose the ten commandments, you lose the very basis for your religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) When you divorce the NT from the OT you lose the reason for jesus in the first place, Why? you lose original sin, you lose your creation story, you lose the ten commandments, you lose the very basis for your religion. Hmmm, that sounds good. What I have to wonder in all this, is motivation, are you both arguing to keep the OT simply to destroy? Edited July 8, 2016 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) Why? Hmmm, that sounds good. What I have to wonder in all this, is motivation; are you both arguing to keep the OT simply to destroy? I am arguing that religion is nothing but mythology and following a book written by people who lived thousands of years ago is nuts. Even the NT fails, it supports slavery, suppresses women, I see no reason to go back to dueling scriptures, it you know your own holy book then you know the "bad parts" I get tired of pointing them out to be honest... The reason for Jesus was to forgive original sin, he was the perfect sacrifice to atone for that original sin which is immoral to start with. No one should be held accountable for the sins of their fathers.. Edited July 8, 2016 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now