Frank Apisa wrote:RexRed wrote:
Ass kissing is ass kissing...whether done by Shiyacic Aleksandar, RexRed, or St. Augustine.
And it is enough to make a grown man vomit.
Most grown men believe this stuff remember Frank... you are part of the dysfunctional MINORITY... remember?
Ahhhh...and you think that makes it something other than ass kissing???
I don't think so.[/quote]
Can you say... "Christian values"...
Try a few, they can make a world of difference...
Your descriptive metaphors (ass kissing) leave much to be desired...
RexRed wrote:Agnosticism = artificial impediment...
Impediment to what?
How is such an impedient "artificial?"
What would be an example of a natural impediment?
RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:RexRed wrote:
Ass kissing is ass kissing...whether done by Shiyacic Aleksandar, RexRed, or St. Augustine.
And it is enough to make a grown man vomit.
Most grown men believe this stuff remember Frank... you are part of the dysfunctional MINORITY... remember?
Ahhhh...and you think that makes it something other than ass kissing???
I don't think so.
Can you say... "Christian values"...[/quote]
Yeah. And I can say "military intelligence" also. Or "pretty ugly."
What is your point?
Quote:Try a few, they can make a world of difference...
Okay....which do you suggest: Hypocrisy, denial, addiction to rationalization, ass kissing?
I'm game.
Quote:Your descriptive metaphors (ass kissing) leave much to be desired...
Hummm...that can be interpreted a couple of different ways.
Listen...you go with what turns you on and I'll go with what turns me on.
RexRed wrote:My meaning in saying Set was in denial was because he did not post many of my words in his reply... Maybe because "most" of my words stand on their own...
I possibly could have found a better word to describe that than "denial"...
I did not post any of "your words" in reply. You do not own such words as artificial and impediment. I'm not about to quote your absurdities, it's bad enough that people have to read them once. Your statement then, as is so often the case, was incoherent, and it is ludicrous to suggest that the words you cobbled together with no regard for meaning "stand" in any sense of the word.
Rex' comments in red.
Frank Apisa wrote:RexRed wrote:
You say or convince yourself you have no idea if there is a God,
Then you "actively" believe no one can have an idea,
You are off your meds again.
I have never "actively" "believed" anything about whether or not you or anyone "can have an idea."
I've never really seen you have an idea...but...
If you believe God cannot be known (on a human/spiritual level) then you also impose this stringent idea upon others. It is evidenced by the way you attack God, his people and the way you attack those who "know" and desire an intimate and personal righteous relationship with God.
Quote:You practice this belief until it becomes a rock solid "doctrine"...
Nice try.
No Sale!
You are set in your ways Frank which = rock solid "doctrine".
Quote:SO you have a "belief" system that is not based on personal practical application.
No I don't.
Well let's hear a very personal "testimony" as to why you do not believe anyone can (on a human/spiritual level) know God.
Quote:You refuse to entertain knowledge and demonstrate it's power due to this "belief".
You're blathering.
How can power ever be demonstrated if it is never applied?
Quote:For wisdom is "applied" knowledge...
Then your refusal/denial to recognize and entertain spiritual realities obscures viable truths.
Huh????
Name one.
The love of God
Quote:
If you had at least tried to "apply" spiritual knowledge then you would have a "reason" for your inaction.
But since you are not even sure what the Bible is trying to say you could not have even given the "truth" a fair try.
Your Biblical knowledge is full of holes.
Sounds like you are trying to describe your head, Rex.
No, I am aptly describing your lack of knowledge of the scope of the Bible. That is not an insult it is simply an observation.
Quote:This is why I have tried to show some of the more unknown but foundational aspects of the word of God to you Frank...
You are constantly ass kissing your god, Rex. You are terrified of the god. That is why you do the things you do.
One does not need to kiss ass to show love and affection to God and their neighbor... this is another product of your slighted belief system.
Quote:This is why I cause fellow Christians heads to spin... because many of them are even unknown to them.
Thus you are impeded ALSO by your own limited dogma and unfortunate and seemingly closed mindedness..
Or, an "artificial impediment"...
Take your meds. Calm down. The world is not coming to an end. This is just discussion.
Someday you will realize as Augustine did that there is another spiritual reality other than your own...
Setanta wrote:RexRed wrote:My meaning in saying Set was in denial was because he did not post many of my words in his reply... Maybe because "most" of my words stand on their own...
I possibly could have found a better word to describe that than "denial"...
I did not post any of "your words" in reply. You do not own such words as artificial and impediment. I'm not about to quote your absurdities, it's bad enough that people have to read them once. Your statement then, as is so often the case, was incoherent, and it is ludicrous to suggest that the words you cobbled together with no regard for meaning "stand" in any sense of the word.
By not quoting me then you can stretch my "truth" to your own designs without any obvious contrast...
RexRed wrote:Rex' comments in red.
Frank Apisa wrote:RexRed wrote:
You say or convince yourself you have no idea if there is a God,
Then you "actively" believe no one can have an idea,
You are off your meds again.
I have never "actively" "believed" anything about whether or not you or anyone "can have an idea."
I've never really seen you have an idea...but...
If you believe God cannot be known (on a human/spiritual level) then you also impose this stringent idea upon others.
Jesus H. Ceeerist, Rex. What the hell is your problem.
I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT I BELIEVE GOD CANNOT BE KNOWN...ON ANY KIND OF LEVEL.
I have actually written several threads devoted to the notion that one cannot logically say that if there is a God...it CANNOT be known.
I see no evidence that anyone knows anything about any gods....but if there is a God...and it wanted humans to know it exists and what it expects of them....IT SURE AS HELL COULD MAKE ITSELF KNOWN.
Quote:
Well let's hear a very personal "testimony" as to why you do not believe anyone can (on a human/spiritual level) know God.
Get your head out of your ass. You are gonna sit down and break your neck.
I HAVE NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS.
Quote:Quote:You refuse to entertain knowledge and demonstrate it's power due to this "belief".
You're blathering.
How can power ever be demonstrated if it is never applied?
I don't even know what in the hell this means.
Quote:For wisdom is "applied" knowledge...
Then your refusal/denial to recognize and entertain spiritual realities obscures viable truths.
Huh????
Name one.
The love of God[/quote]
How in the hell can you assert that it is a visible truth that there is a God...let alone that the god is love??????
Quote:Quote:
If you had at least tried to "apply" spiritual knowledge then you would have a "reason" for your inaction.
But since you are not even sure what the Bible is trying to say you could not have even given the "truth" a fair try.
Your Biblical knowledge is full of holes.
Sounds like you are trying to describe your head, Rex.
No, I am aptly describing your lack of knowledge of the scope of the Bible. That is not an insult it is simply an observation.
It is a delusion...but why quibble.
Quote:
Quote:This is why I have tried to show some of the more unknown but foundational aspects of the word of God to you Frank...
You are constantly ass kissing your god, Rex. You are terrified of the god. That is why you do the things you do.
One does not need to kiss ass to show love and affection to God and their neighbor... this is another product of your slighted belief system.
No...it is not. Actually, I agree. One does not need to kiss ass to show love and affection to any god that might exist.
Makes me wonder why you do so much of it.
Rex, you're still just preaching, proselytizing and parroting when you're not digressing into ad hominem attacks. You ramble, you dissemble, you avoid, you obfuscate, you mischaracterize, you spew unsupportable allegations and base your core proposition on an illicit premise, itself composed of illicit premise stacked upon illicit premise ad infinitum. While there is no reason to doubt you yourself are convinced of the existance of the god you champion, you have yet to provide any proof for that, or for any, god. The primary illicit premise is that there is any god - that has not been established. A consequent illicit premise is that any god might be the supreme being, the creator. That simply has not been established. Consequent to that illicit premise, it has not been established that the god of the Judaeo-Christian tradition exists. Consequent to that, it has not been established the Protestant Christian god is The God. Congruent to the foregooing illicit propositions is the assumption stemming from the illicit premise that the assemblage of texts termed The Binble is other than a human-developed repository of myths and traditions. FDor there to be any validity whatsoever to the "answers" you attempt to foist, ALL the foregoing unproven assumptions, every single illicit premise, must be proven. In that not one relevant assumption or premise has been proven, your offered "proofs" start and end nowhere. Your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, you merely preach, proselytize, and parrot, and do so from a position devoid of authority and meritorious of no respect or regard beyond that accorded to the concept of free discourse. You're welcome to preach, proselytize, and parrot; its just not gonna get you anywhere.
Oh, and BTW - it'd prolly be best for all concerned if you were to be far more circumspect than has been evidenced by your recent practice concerning ad hominem attacks - around here, those can have real consequences. Apart from that, engaging in such behavior serves only to impeach the credentials and argument of the perpetrator.
Edited to correct some bonehead typos - then I gave up - timber
RexRed wrote:By not quoting me then you can stretch my "truth" to your own designs without any obvious contrast...
Truth in quotes--that's good, because what passes for truth with you exists only in your mind, and not within reality. You referred to "artificial impediments" without preamble or explanation. I asked you to define your terms--seems the concept has overwhelmed what little reason you deploy in debate.
Setanta,
To simplify your question, then
Quote:What ....... elevates [the] Protestant Christian [belief] above any competing religious tradition?
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The authority of the New Testament can be accurately said to hinge upon this.
In the first, place, that is not something which the Protestant tradition has exclusive of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Syriac and Nestorian traditions. In the second place, there is not only no evidence that said resurrection ever occured, there is no evidence that the putative Jesus ever existed. There is no such authority for the "new testament," because what is described therein has no outside corroboration.
Which is why it is pathetically disingenuous to attempt to split off that portion of the question from the terminal clause of the question, to wit: "What, apart from conviction and passion on the parts of its adherents, differentiates it, or any of them, from superstition?" Absent corroboration for that scripture, there is nothing which differentiates such belief from superstition.
Finally, that is no answer at all to the core of the question, and the core question of this thread. How does such a contention--leaving aside for a moment the total lack of historical evidence for it--make such a belief set superior to any other belief set?
Setanta wrote:Here, i'll save the Big Bird the trouble. Any of the Christians here willing to attempt an answer to this question?
What about the Abrahamic religious tradition validates it, let alone elevates its Protestant Christian subset above any competing religious tradition? What, apart from conviction and passion on the parts of its adherents, differentiates it, or any of them, from superstition?
Setanta wrote:I see none of the Christians here have yet been willing to tackle the very reasonable question which Big Bird posed, and which i have edited to remove any excuse to claim it entails a priori assumptions.
A half dozen pages later, I come back and. . .Whew!
I'll try. but first I ask your permission to edit the question.
I'm not interested in any traditions outside of the biblical story.
Would it be safe to say you are asking someone to explain how the story of Abraham fits in with the theme of the bible and how it validates and is validated by the remainder of the scriptures?
I believe I can articulate an answer to that, though I would not expect my answer to settle the issue.
But what do you say? Is my rephrasing acceptable?
Frank Apisa wrote:I'm not sure what "denying God" has to do with this...
...but in any case, I do not deny God.
Never have.
Never will.
I have no idea if there is a God.
How very convenient. Future conversation between Frank and Unowho:
Unowho: You've been a bad boy, Frank. (GRRR!)
Frank: But I have never denied you. (Snivel)
Unowho: You called me an idiot; you called my letter to you a fairy tale; You accused me of murder; and you called my worshippers @#Sholes. What do you expect me to think? (GRRR!)
Frank: I had no idea. (Snivel)
Edited for content
Rephrase all ou want: we're all waiting for your answer.
neologist wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:I'm not sure what "denying God" has to do with this...
...but in any case, I do not deny God.
Never have.
Never will.
I have no idea if there is a God.
How very convenient. Future conversation between Frank and Unowho:
Unowho: You've been a bad boy, Frank. (GRRR!)
Frank: But I have never denied you. (Snivel)
Unowho: You called me an idiot; you called my letter to you a fairy tale; You accused me of murder; and you called my worshippers @#Sholes. What do you expect me to think? (GRRR!)
Frank: I had no idea. (Snivel)
Edited for content
If any of you think that commenting on the idiot god of the Bible...constitutes talking about God...you are entitled to that opinion. But I think you are nuts.
I have carefully differentiated between anything I say about God or GOD...and the god of the Bible.
But you folks want to play your denial games...and who am I to begrudge you that.
Remember..I love ya all.
By the way...I am willing to acknowledge that the piece of shyt called god in the Bible...may actually be God. In which case...I have been calling it names. But considering the lowlife that god is...it deserves ever word of what I've said.
In the meantime....if that comic book, cartoon god is not GOD...and a GOD actually exists...
...YOU PEOPLE have been the ones insulting GOD.
neologist wrote:I'll try. but first I ask your permission to edit the question.
I have no brief to tell you what to do or not to do. However, editing the question is a form of evasion.
Quote:I'm not interested in any traditions outside of the biblical story.
How extraordinarily, willfully ignorant of you. I don't believe it for a moment, by the way. I would believe you if you stated that you have no interest in any religious traditions without reference to the bobble. It would still be a sad comment on your desire to learn about the world, but it would make some sort of sense.
Quote:Would it be safe to say you are asking someone to explain how the story of Abraham fits in with the theme of the bible and how it validates and is validated by the remainder of the scriptures?
It would be safe--having electrons thrown at you doesn't hurt. It would not, however, be true.
Quote:I believe I can articulate an answer to that, though I would not expect my answer to settle the issue.
Somebody give that boy a cee-gar.
Quote:But what do you say? Is my rephrasing acceptable?
I have no problem accepting your desire to evade the question. I'm not likely, however, to evince much interst in the response. Why not simply answer the question?
OK. Well, I don't believe I can answer your question if I am forced to accept non scriptural assertions about Abraham as truth. (If that is what you are requiring)
Sorry.
You're making a diversionary side issue of Abraham. The question contains no assertions about Abraham at all, scriptural or otherwise. Abrahamic religions is an academic commonplace, used to describe all of the sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which religions claim to have a descent from Abraham.
So, how about an answer?
Setanta wrote:You're making a diversionary side issue of Abraham. The question contains no assertions about Abraham at all, scriptural or otherwise. Abrahamic religions is an academic commonplace, used to describe all of the sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which religions claim to have a descent from Abraham.
So, how about an answer?
Sorry, Set.
I know what you mean; but I can't understand how you can expect me to defend Abrahamic religions as a group when their priesthoods present a cacophony of religious misinterpretations, perfect straw men, if you will.
Were I to try, I would be advancing an argument I knew from the start to be spurious.
