Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Freak
New member
I would think since this is a formal debate Bob would have spent some more time researching his information before posting.
For the Record:
I think Bob has done an outstanding job overall in this debate but has made a few assertions that I'm concerned about. I'm curious to see his response when he's been confronted with the truth.
LightSon
New member
Re: Re: Modesty
Re: Re: Modesty
If Bob is mistaken in his facts, just what kind of response would be more appropriate?
Re: Re: Modesty
Bob's moving to verify his statements. If he is wrong, why shouldn't he "retract his assertion with a public display of integrity"? What would you prefer? Shame? Public flogging? A public display of obfuscation?
If Bob is mistaken in his facts, just what kind of response would be more appropriate?
Freak
New member
Bob--will you retract your statement based on the truths that have been revealed?
From a earlier post:
Bob stated, incorrectly I might add, in his last post: So tribesmen can adopt minimalist clothing and condition their women to go topless, but missionaries find that women in such cultures readily reassert their modesty.
I have traveled & have lived in the third world (nearly 30 different nations) and have seen that many of these women are not so willing to "reassert their modesty" as you have proposed. I have preached the gospel in many remote areas of Asia, Africa and the Carribean where women run around topless with no concern for modesty.
Bob, as a fellow believer in Christ, I'm calling you to retract your assertion. This is making you look bad, my friend.
From a earlier post:
Bob stated, incorrectly I might add, in his last post: So tribesmen can adopt minimalist clothing and condition their women to go topless, but missionaries find that women in such cultures readily reassert their modesty.
I have traveled & have lived in the third world (nearly 30 different nations) and have seen that many of these women are not so willing to "reassert their modesty" as you have proposed. I have preached the gospel in many remote areas of Asia, Africa and the Carribean where women run around topless with no concern for modesty.
Bob, as a fellow believer in Christ, I'm calling you to retract your assertion. This is making you look bad, my friend.
LightSon
New member
If Bob's program can possibly help you perceive your own foolishness and wicked heart then it has served a good purpose.
Like you were there billions of years ago and can testify as to how evolution really works...... ha.
You beg the question. There was NO sexual function or chemistry before life was presumably formed. You act as though "evolution" knows where it is headed. This is silly.
Again, evolution somehow "just knows" where its going and should "lock in", as if it were trying to solve a combination lock on a safe.
Wake up Aussie. You desperately need for God to not exist to validate your choices. Instead, what you really need is to get on your face before your creator and surrender your stubborn heart to Christ.
Last edited:
LightSon
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Modesty
Re: Re: Re: Re: Modesty
Of course. You have pointed that out.
What do I mean by"verify"? This is just my manner of speaking Freak. I take you at your word that you are correct about the reasserting modesty issue. When I say "Bob is moving to verify his statements", why I mean to imply is that Bob should now (based on your challenge) reasonably question his statements. I accept what you said. And Bob probably does too, but as a public speaker, he needs to take an extra step and prove to himself what you said by cross-checking with at least one additional source. Otherwise, he could easily be "tossed to and fro".
I hope that if he is proved wrong, he will retract.
All of this is implied by "verify". To verify is to prove right and is just the positive leg of the equation. The negative leg is likewise there; I just didn't talk about it. Does that make sense?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Modesty
Of course. You have pointed that out.
What do I mean by"verify"? This is just my manner of speaking Freak. I take you at your word that you are correct about the reasserting modesty issue. When I say "Bob is moving to verify his statements", why I mean to imply is that Bob should now (based on your challenge) reasonably question his statements. I accept what you said. And Bob probably does too, but as a public speaker, he needs to take an extra step and prove to himself what you said by cross-checking with at least one additional source. Otherwise, he could easily be "tossed to and fro".
I hope that if he is proved wrong, he will retract.
All of this is implied by "verify". To verify is to prove right and is just the positive leg of the equation. The negative leg is likewise there; I just didn't talk about it. Does that make sense?
Freak
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Modesty
Re: Re: Re: Re: Modesty
Bob stated: And if atheistic evolution were true, especially indoors, the universality of clothing itself is difficult to account for and should be easily discarded. Even nudists use private restrooms and claim to conceal their sexual behavior from relatives and other onlookers. In rejecting God, an individual or societal conscience can be seared and values lowered. So tribesmen can adopt minimalist clothing and condition their women to go topless, but missionaries find that women in such cultures readily reassert their modesty. Behaviors that are characteristically human, which are unlike those in the animal kingdom from which we supposedly evolved just a short time ago, testify to a morality of human nature imposed upon us by the Creator.
He said they (the woman) "readily" reassert their modesty. This is simply untrue as I have pointed out. Now, Bob, will you retract this statement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Modesty
Bob stated: And if atheistic evolution were true, especially indoors, the universality of clothing itself is difficult to account for and should be easily discarded. Even nudists use private restrooms and claim to conceal their sexual behavior from relatives and other onlookers. In rejecting God, an individual or societal conscience can be seared and values lowered. So tribesmen can adopt minimalist clothing and condition their women to go topless, but missionaries find that women in such cultures readily reassert their modesty. Behaviors that are characteristically human, which are unlike those in the animal kingdom from which we supposedly evolved just a short time ago, testify to a morality of human nature imposed upon us by the Creator.
He said they (the woman) "readily" reassert their modesty. This is simply untrue as I have pointed out. Now, Bob, will you retract this statement?
If you are going to attempt to refute evolution, at least refute the things evolution actually says. You guys just make stuff up as you go along, and gleefully cheer when someone can't counter the stuff you are making up. Bob's "program" is ridiculous. It in no way resembles the concepts actually held in evolution. Just because creationists can't or refuse to understand what evolution actually suggests doesn't make evolution wrong. It only means that you don't understand it, as demonstrated by Bob's idiotic "program" that he would like his minions to believe is actually a fair representation of evolution. It's a popular method used by creationists when preaching to people that don't have the time or the inclination to learn about evolution. I mean, who better to learn the theory of evolution from then a creationist, right? :nono:
Zakath
Resident Atheist
More or less. There is apparently more redundancy allowable among peptides than the simple models taught in schools and textbooks would indicate.
Not quadrillions, no. Did you read article at the link I provided? Since I'm not a biochemist and haven't studied protein synthesis for almost thirty years, that might answer some of your questions more directly than I am capable of doing.
Getting back to:
Zakath wrote:
<2. If God were to exist, then he would love all Christians and want that love reciprocated. He
would also strongly desire that, here on earth, Christians become aware of, and be clear
about those aspects of his nature>
Certainly not just Christians, but all of His children.
<and system of governance that have importance to their
lives.>
"system of governance"? That God has such a system is certainly an assumption. "Free-willers" believe that He has left that function to us.
<3. Hence, if god were to exist, then he would prevent Christians from becoming confused in
their beliefs about his nature>
In order to do that He would have to take away one's free will to become an atheist. Actually, He has provided a guide to knowing Him and His will for us, through the teachings of Jesus (and others), and through personal guidance by the Holy Spirit. It isn't God's fault that the vast majority of us exercise our free will not to accept that option.
In order for us to love God, we have to know Him as He is, and to know Him meaningfully, we have to approach Him through our own desire. It should be clear to a psychologist that real love cannot be generated through a set of rules, even if they are spelled out on stone tablets.
The Holy Spirit moves each of us so slowly, because (as Enyart says), any deviation from our present beliefs tends to be met with resistance, and the Holy Spirit has to wait patiently for a willingness to budge.
Zakath keeps telling us that he is a psychologist, but he pretends that he doesn't know anything about the human psyche at the subconscious level.
The complex that dominates our character at that level is the ego. (Freud's assertion that it was the libido was pure dogma, as he finally admitted to Jung.) And, the primary tools that the ego uses to maintain its dominance are projection and denial. (Thomas Kuhn's work on "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" documents the effectiveness of denial among scientists.)
Enyart is using projection when he argues God's existence based on natural beauty, human nature, animal nature, etc.. He looks on them and sees what he wants to see, and finds evidence for God's activity. He projects the good part onto God. But a skeptic would see in the negative side of those same things evidence for God's absence.
A materialist or an atheist, however, is locked in denial in asserting from the very beginning that there is no spiritual world, or a god. I can't think of any good reason for one to close his mind on any subject, as along as the subject is open to question.
The point of all of this is that, if God is indeed Spirit, and if He grants us free will, all of Zakath's 3 sets of hypotheses are flawed, and the conclusions don't follow.
Zakath wrote:
<2. If God were to exist, then he would love all Christians and want that love reciprocated. He
would also strongly desire that, here on earth, Christians become aware of, and be clear
about those aspects of his nature>
Certainly not just Christians, but all of His children.
<and system of governance that have importance to their
lives.>
"system of governance"? That God has such a system is certainly an assumption. "Free-willers" believe that He has left that function to us.
<3. Hence, if god were to exist, then he would prevent Christians from becoming confused in
their beliefs about his nature>
In order to do that He would have to take away one's free will to become an atheist. Actually, He has provided a guide to knowing Him and His will for us, through the teachings of Jesus (and others), and through personal guidance by the Holy Spirit. It isn't God's fault that the vast majority of us exercise our free will not to accept that option.
In order for us to love God, we have to know Him as He is, and to know Him meaningfully, we have to approach Him through our own desire. It should be clear to a psychologist that real love cannot be generated through a set of rules, even if they are spelled out on stone tablets.
The Holy Spirit moves each of us so slowly, because (as Enyart says), any deviation from our present beliefs tends to be met with resistance, and the Holy Spirit has to wait patiently for a willingness to budge.
Zakath keeps telling us that he is a psychologist, but he pretends that he doesn't know anything about the human psyche at the subconscious level.
The complex that dominates our character at that level is the ego. (Freud's assertion that it was the libido was pure dogma, as he finally admitted to Jung.) And, the primary tools that the ego uses to maintain its dominance are projection and denial. (Thomas Kuhn's work on "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" documents the effectiveness of denial among scientists.)
Enyart is using projection when he argues God's existence based on natural beauty, human nature, animal nature, etc.. He looks on them and sees what he wants to see, and finds evidence for God's activity. He projects the good part onto God. But a skeptic would see in the negative side of those same things evidence for God's absence.
A materialist or an atheist, however, is locked in denial in asserting from the very beginning that there is no spiritual world, or a god. I can't think of any good reason for one to close his mind on any subject, as along as the subject is open to question.
The point of all of this is that, if God is indeed Spirit, and if He grants us free will, all of Zakath's 3 sets of hypotheses are flawed, and the conclusions don't follow.
Flake
New member
Re: Re: Re: Modesty
Re: Re: Re: Modesty
You missed the point and obfuscate to boot. Bob is using a maniplulating damage limitation tactic and you cannot see it because you are not meant to.
Ask yourself why Bob cannot verify his statement from his own research or knowledge, after all he made the assertion in the first place. Why does he require Freak to provide anything?
He is indirectly challenging Freak in the hope that Freak cannot substantiate his claim, or if he can, his challenge is masked in charm so much so that he can gracefully submit defeat and gain integrity points. Bob hopes that Freaks public unsubstantiated contrary claim will promote Bobs own claim disguising the fact that his own claim is also unsubstantiated, and it wont if you can spot it.
He cant lose, its very clever and very subtle and pointing it out is not a direct attack on anybody, but if you live by the sword then die by it and if you think you can use tricks to outsmart people then expect to be outed, and in public.
People in the public eye with something to lose often use tactics like this. It is defensive in the extreme and demonstrates a willfull manipulation of opinion, as is proven by your post. He should be a politician. Its not even about facts, its about being shown to be wrong in public and how you deal with it to limit damage and maybe even make a gain. This is the man you admire, is he worthy of it?
Re: Re: Re: Modesty
You missed the point and obfuscate to boot. Bob is using a maniplulating damage limitation tactic and you cannot see it because you are not meant to.
Ask yourself why Bob cannot verify his statement from his own research or knowledge, after all he made the assertion in the first place. Why does he require Freak to provide anything?
He is indirectly challenging Freak in the hope that Freak cannot substantiate his claim, or if he can, his challenge is masked in charm so much so that he can gracefully submit defeat and gain integrity points. Bob hopes that Freaks public unsubstantiated contrary claim will promote Bobs own claim disguising the fact that his own claim is also unsubstantiated, and it wont if you can spot it.
He cant lose, its very clever and very subtle and pointing it out is not a direct attack on anybody, but if you live by the sword then die by it and if you think you can use tricks to outsmart people then expect to be outed, and in public.
People in the public eye with something to lose often use tactics like this. It is defensive in the extreme and demonstrates a willfull manipulation of opinion, as is proven by your post. He should be a politician. Its not even about facts, its about being shown to be wrong in public and how you deal with it to limit damage and maybe even make a gain. This is the man you admire, is he worthy of it?
Vitamin J
New member
Oh I see, you were using the word "PERIOD" as punctuation.... yea right
Didn't your mother teach you not to double punctuate? "It was wrong PERIOD."Don't you claim to be a former pastor?
If so why do you ask such stupid questions?
I assert you either have lied that you were a former pastor or your an idiot.
Which is true?
Absolutely wrong??????????????
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
<Here is a simple fix. Set it so that every time a “beneficial mutation” happens..
in other word if a letter falls in the correct place, LOCK IT IN. Like evolution does!>
That's only true for simple cases for which there is no problem. But in the case of the elephant, which I cited earlier, a favorable mutation would have had to fall fortuitously early in the cycle in many successive generations, for which the odds were shown by statisticians (not creationists) to be prohibitive. Also, some changes have to take place by simultaneous mutation of 2 or more genes, because the mutation of one without the others would result in a defect, and locking it in would preclude the ultimate change that did occur. (See example in "Creative Evolution" by Henri Bergson.)
Concerning the "origin of life" theory that a self-reproducing molecule was formed by lightning striking a kind of primordial soup, one could compute the odds against it, but the calculation would be meaningless, because the whole idea is sheer speculation at this stage of the game.
Zakath's experiment is even more meaningless than Bob's computer calculations. Deviations from the standard distribution curve are always large for a small number of trials. What is the point of going through this, when no one here has had a course in mathematical statistics? We could post a thousand pages on statistical theory, and those people who believe that you could fill up all the planets with monkeys and keyboards and eventually get a Shakespeare play will still believe it.
<Here is a simple fix. Set it so that every time a “beneficial mutation” happens..
in other word if a letter falls in the correct place, LOCK IT IN. Like evolution does!>
That's only true for simple cases for which there is no problem. But in the case of the elephant, which I cited earlier, a favorable mutation would have had to fall fortuitously early in the cycle in many successive generations, for which the odds were shown by statisticians (not creationists) to be prohibitive. Also, some changes have to take place by simultaneous mutation of 2 or more genes, because the mutation of one without the others would result in a defect, and locking it in would preclude the ultimate change that did occur. (See example in "Creative Evolution" by Henri Bergson.)
Concerning the "origin of life" theory that a self-reproducing molecule was formed by lightning striking a kind of primordial soup, one could compute the odds against it, but the calculation would be meaningless, because the whole idea is sheer speculation at this stage of the game.
Zakath's experiment is even more meaningless than Bob's computer calculations. Deviations from the standard distribution curve are always large for a small number of trials. What is the point of going through this, when no one here has had a course in mathematical statistics? We could post a thousand pages on statistical theory, and those people who believe that you could fill up all the planets with monkeys and keyboards and eventually get a Shakespeare play will still believe it.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
No, I wasn't homeschooled. I'd try to explain that it was an emphatic use, but based on the rest of your post, I'd guess that would be a waste of time.Originally posted by Vitamin J
Oh I see, you were using the word "PERIOD" as punctuation.... yea right
Not only claim, but actually was a pastor.
Because there appears to be little uniformity of Christian belief, particularly on sites like this one and I do try to write to the level of the person I'm addressing. In your case... think about it, you'll get it... :doh:
If I cared, I'd be hurt. But considering the source... :chuckle:
Freak
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Modesty
Re: Re: Re: Re: Modesty
Exactly.
I'm curious to know this too. Bob, in response to my clear rebuttal of your claims, you asked if I could provide you a list of nations that I visited where I witnessed the reality of topless women not "reasserting their modesty." I provided the list.
Bob, as a pastor, it is paramount that you speak the truth.
Again Bob, you stated, incorrectly I might add, in your debate: So tribesmen can adopt minimalist clothing and condition their women to go topless, but missionaries find that women in such cultures readily reassert their modesty.
I have traveled & have lived in the third world (nearly 30 different nations) and have seen that many of these women are not so willing to "reassert their modesty" as you have proposed.
I appreciate Bob's service to the Lord Jesus Christ but when I noticed he made an outright false statement he needs to be shown his error. It is my hope he would honor Christ and retract the false statement.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Modesty
Exactly.
I'm curious to know this too. Bob, in response to my clear rebuttal of your claims, you asked if I could provide you a list of nations that I visited where I witnessed the reality of topless women not "reasserting their modesty." I provided the list.
Bob, as a pastor, it is paramount that you speak the truth.
Again Bob, you stated, incorrectly I might add, in your debate: So tribesmen can adopt minimalist clothing and condition their women to go topless, but missionaries find that women in such cultures readily reassert their modesty.
I have traveled & have lived in the third world (nearly 30 different nations) and have seen that many of these women are not so willing to "reassert their modesty" as you have proposed.
I appreciate Bob's service to the Lord Jesus Christ but when I noticed he made an outright false statement he needs to be shown his error. It is my hope he would honor Christ and retract the false statement.
Last edited:
Freak
New member
Bob stated: So tribesmen can adopt minimalist clothing and condition their women to go topless, but missionaries find that women in such cultures readily reassert their modesty.
This is simply not true from my experience and the experience of others who have traveled in the third world.
Apparently, you didn't read the posts I have posted. I have traveled extensively in the third world and I know what I speak of because I have actually lived and witnessed the reality that topless tribeswoman do not "readily assert" their modesty.
Where does Bob base this assertion: So tribesmen can adopt minimalist clothing and condition their women to go topless, but missionaries find that women in such cultures readily reassert their modesty.
What missionaries?:think:
- Status