It started what Knight said about whipping people.
Mods, why was The Barbarian banned?
- Thread starter Kdall
- Start date
It started what Knight said about whipping people.
Of course we do. My agenda is spreading what Jesus says and what Christianity is all about.
I am His follower.
Tone-deaf. :dizzy:
In precisely the same sense and to the exact same degree civility and tolerance forms the bedrock of an actual underwater ecosystem, yes.lain:
Alwight has always benthic. :crackup:
Because he smelled bad.
alwight
New member
Now you're just being unnecessarily disruptive Stripe.
PureX
Well-known member
I think they pay him on the side to be that way … in rep points, probably. :chuckle:
1. I'm aware that I repeated the word. That was intentional. It was for rhetorical effect. It may or may not have been effective.
2. It's not an ad hominem attack. I'm not saying that Quetzal is wrong because he is stupid (which would be an ad hominem). I'm not even saying that Quetzal in particular is stupid (which would be, not an ad hominem, but a sheer insult).
I believe that you've misunderstood me. My point isn't that Catholicism is correct because all of these intelligent people believe it. My point is that all of these extremely intelligent people, who studied more diligently, were much more learned, etc., were Catholics, and they were smarter, wiser, more experienced, etc., than you (whoever the "you," i.e., the audience reading, may be).
"Catholicism is wrong because I have come up with x, y and z objections that never would have occurred to any of these extremely wise and learned people who believed in the Catholic Faith and for which assuredly there is no reasonable answer (never mind the fact that I haven't bothered doing the relevent research to find out)."
Do you not see just how utterly stupid this is, how this is just dripping with an undeserved sense of self-worth/inordinate pride? It's positively American. :nono:
What, pray thee tell, is violent faith? No, I endorse Biblical faith, recognizing that God isn't easily pigeon-holed by pacifism.
No, rather, your problem, it seems to me, is that you grab the tail of an elephant and declare it a snake. I'm just stepping back and suggesting you might want a larger perspective on things.
That would be what I'd be doing if I ignored the inherent violence of judgment day, of the temple incident and of God's instructions to Israel in its formative period.
I suppose. I'm just noting there's more than a handful of verses and you seem determined to shrink scripture down to fit your agenda instead of expanding your agenda to meet scripture.
So where's your whip?
Last edited:
So you endorse violent faith using that verse?[/.qtuoe]
What, pray thee tell, is violent faith? No, I endorse Biblical faith, recognizing that God isn't easily pigeon-holed by pacifism.
No, rather, your problem, it seems to me, is that you grab the tail of an elephant and declare it a snake. I'm just stepping back and suggesting you might want a larger perspective on things.
That would be what I'd be doing if I ignored the inherent violence of judgment day, of the temple incident and of God's instructions to Israel in its formative period.
I suppose. I'm just noting there's more than a handful of verses and you seem determined to shrink scripture down to fit your agenda instead of expanding your agenda to meet scripture.
So where's your whip?
I said what I have to say.
good day.
TH:
Your post was deeply amusing. I'll skip to the points which I feel actually merit an answer (not to demean the post in any way; it's just that several "points" clearly were not intended to be answered).
No kidding? Hey, why don't you tell me (and the rest of TOL) about how you would go about voir dire proceedings? Who would you exclude? What kinds of people?
To my mind, the mere existence of scientology and mormonism speaks volumes. :idunno:
Socrates was put to death by what was, for all intents and purposes, a democratic vote. That is a fact. There is no defending this.
Catholic primary schools, high schools and universities are still a thing. The Pope is a world class intellectual. Catholic priests and bishops are highly educated....
...
...
Speaking of which. What are the qualifications of the pastor at your "church"?
Even if true, he was an exception that proves the rule. Most people are not Thomas Jefferson.
Catholicism has never been a "democratic" religion. Catholicism is and always has been hierarchical.
Your post was deeply amusing. I'll skip to the points which I feel actually merit an answer (not to demean the post in any way; it's just that several "points" clearly were not intended to be answered).
No kidding? Hey, why don't you tell me (and the rest of TOL) about how you would go about voir dire proceedings? Who would you exclude? What kinds of people?
To my mind, the mere existence of scientology and mormonism speaks volumes. :idunno:
Socrates was put to death by what was, for all intents and purposes, a democratic vote. That is a fact. There is no defending this.
Catholic primary schools, high schools and universities are still a thing. The Pope is a world class intellectual. Catholic priests and bishops are highly educated....
...
...
Speaking of which. What are the qualifications of the pastor at your "church"?
Even if true, he was an exception that proves the rule. Most people are not Thomas Jefferson.
Catholicism has never been a "democratic" religion. Catholicism is and always has been hierarchical.
I noticed that your comments were more rhetoric than reasoning. And if your intent was to exhibit your indiscriminate contempt for everyone else, then it was very effective. Otherwise, no.
What's not clear to me is why anyone else should be impressed with your little diatribe against people, in general.
You suggested that his deconversion is only explicable by stupidity. Which is an ad hominem against someone, if not him. And the part where you said this:
| But the problem lies with Catholicism (or, more generally, Christianity), not with the stupidity of the individual, right? The problem clearly is that Catholicism is in error, not that I am in error, am ignorant and simply don't understand (because I haven't studied hard enough). Right? Once again: stupidity and hubris. |
...certainly seems to suggest that your target for at least part of your scorn was him, not someone else.
Right Divider
Body part
And FALSE.TH:
Your post was deeply amusing. I'll skip to the points which I feel actually merit an answer (not to demean the post in any way; it's just that several "points" clearly were not intended to be answered).
No kidding? Hey, why don't you tell me (and the rest of TOL) about how you would go about voir dire proceedings? Who would you exclude? What kinds of people?
To my mind, the mere existence of scientology and mormonism speaks volumes. :idunno:
Socrates was put to death by what was, for all intents and purposes, a democratic vote. That is a fact. There is no defending this.
Catholic primary schools, high schools and universities are still a thing. The Pope is a world class intellectual. Catholic priests and bishops are highly educated....
...
...
Speaking of which. What are the qualifications of the pastor at your "church"?
Even if true, he was an exception that proves the rule. Most people are not Thomas Jefferson.
Catholicism has never been a "democratic" religion. Catholicism is and always has been hierarchical.
And Town Heretic, Quetzel, Rex Lunae, etc...back my initial point (to which you initially were responding)...
What greater evidence need I?
Oh. Well hooey.
It was a comment of general application. He said that his own deconversion was because of "unorthodox reasons."
Now, I have no idea what that means. I have no idea what those reasons are.
But I can almost gaurantee you that, if he tells us what those reasons are, it's only going to strengthen my point.
Note, again, that this is nothing against him in particular, and I do apologize, of course, if any personal offense has been taken.
That's your particular bias. I might be inclined to make the opposite assumption, and that's fine in both cases, to a point, but if you aren't able to put it to the side for the sake of argument, then what is the point of having the discussion at all?
The Barbarian is out of the red. You are in the red probably forever.
It's really not a matter of bias. I believe that you are simply misunderstanding me. This particular point has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of Christianity, atheism, or anything else. It has everything to do with the fact that most people are seemingly incapable of coherent, rational thought and often form beliefs on utterly irrational bases.
Check out the "Would you pay a tax to ISIS" thread in the politics subforum. Check out PureX's responses to my points. And note, I don't think that PureX is particularly stupid. I don't dislike PureX. Let this point be emphasized: I offer all due respect to PureX. As far as average joes go, he's probably above the bell curve.
But what he says in that thread is utterly irrational by all reasonable standards (yours (even as an atheist) or mine, let us note).
I invite Quetzal to share, if it's not too personal, his "unorthodox" reversion story. If and when he does, I think that you will be compelled to agree with me.
Evoken's comments from relatively recently come to mind (I paraphrase):
"I stopped believing because I looked at the world and it seemed to be governed just as would be expected if there were no God."
At first glance, that sounds good. At first glance, that sounds reasonable.
But ultimately, it's philosophical nonsense.
And what's really grevious about it is that he was a Catholic. What was he expecting the world to look like? He believed that God suffered and died on a cross. He believed in an Incarnate God who, on the Cross, cried out: "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?"
Seriously, what was Evoken expecting the world to look like?
And this isn't just about not believing in Christianity for stupid reasons. In fact, there probably are tons of Christians, even Catholics, who believe what they do for incredibly dumb reasons. In fact, every single instance of someone who believes in protestant Christianity is a clear testimony to this very fact (again, a point I made in the ISIS thread).