Christian Patriarchy.

[BornReady]

Oh really? Do you have a running tally on this?

Not at all. I've haven't kept track of your posts or GIA's. So I could easily be wrong. It was just more of an impression I got.

 

[doombug]

Not at all. I've haven't kept track of your posts or GIA's. So I could easily be wrong. It was just more of an impression I got.

I guess it would be an easy assumption since there aren't any Christians starting threads like GIA.

 

[Tuffdisc]

I swear to god my 4 year old son does a better job of making coherent statements.

You forgot to put, "I swear to god my 4 year old son does a better job of making coherent statements than myself." (as in you if your not following yourself)

 

[Greatest I am]

Nah, I don't feel the need to create myths to support my beliefs.

You do not have to create them. They have already been created for you.
You are supposed to recognize them as myth and not develop a belief based on them.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I guess it would be an easy assumption since there aren't any Christians starting threads like GIA.

Of course not. A mind is required for judging and theists will not question or use their minds. They just follow like good sheeple and spout dogma.

Regards
DL

 

[Tuffdisc]

Poor Tim has to neg me on the previous post, proving to himself what he has called me :24:

 

[Minor Axis]

I don't know what your beliefs are. I just meant you slam atheism as much as GIA slams literal Christianity.

Doombug never says he is a Christian, just spends all of his time in this forum defending the tenants of Christianity. He claims to be open minded but only takes issue with those questioning Christianity. If someone questions the Bible, even a story as fundamentally flawed as Adam and Eve, he'll fight you, and he never says (not that I can recall), "good point, that IS questionable". What does that make him? Christian in my book.

 

[doombug]

Doombug never says he is a Christian, just spends all of his time in this forum defending the tenants of Christianity. He claims to be open minded but only takes issue with those questioning Christianity. If someone questions the Bible, even a story as fundamentally flawed as Adam and Eve, he'll fight you, and he never says (not that I can recall), "good point, that IS questionable". What does that make him? Christian in my book.

That's funny stuff Minor Axis but you still have nothing to back up your assumption. The reason I spend time here posting against the crap is because there are no Christians starting threads here. This forum is mostly Christian bashing and if I see bullshit then I'm gonna say something. So far all I have ran up against is mostly crap supported by more crap. You so badly want to put me in the Christian category so you can dismiss the truth and get on with your bullshit....nice try.

 

[darkcgi]

Christians win again! Yes!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[doombug]

Christians win again! Yes!!!!!!!!!!!

....huh?.....

 

[Minor Axis]

That's funny stuff Minor Axis but you still have nothing to back up your assumption. The reason I spend time here posting against the crap is because there are no Christians starting threads here. This forum is mostly Christian bashing and if I see bullshit then I'm gonna say something. So far all I have ran up against is mostly crap supported by more crap. You so badly want to put me in the Christian category so you can dismiss the truth and get on with your bullshit....nice try.

I was going to say actions speak louder than words, but as that won't work, I'll say defense of a principle speaks louder than denials of affiliation. As I've said, even when someone makes a good point regarding a questionable premise in the Bible without fail you'll fight them on the ridiculous premise they don't have proof. That is your biggest problem. If I say "Adam and Eve is an implausible story with a terrible lesson" your typical retort is "prove it!". And you act as if the stories in the Bible are infallible truth, so you never worry about the proof for this content. You only demand proof from those who question. At a minimum this is not being open minded. For the most part, this is not about proof, it's faith. And it's about what is plausible and that standard comes from the values of those involved in the discussion.

However, there are things that can be disproven such as the Bible's 6000-10000 year (whatever it is) history of mankind, and the flood that covered the earth and wiped out every thing except Noah's Ark, but for most of it there is nothing to prove, just aspects of the story to weigh and decide if the document has any value to live by. Actually the Bible contains some good moral standards along with terrible standards most people even Christians scoff at or ignore today.

 

[doombug]

I was going to say actions speak louder than words, but as that won't work, I'll say defense of a principle speaks louder than denials of affiliation. As I've said, even when someone makes a good point regarding a questionable premise in the Bible without fail you'll fight them on the ridiculous premise they don't have proof. That is your biggest problem. If I say "Adam and Eve is an implausible story with a terrible lesson" your typical retort is "prove it!". And you act as if the stories in the Bible are infallible truth, so you never worry about the proof for this content. You only demand proof from those who question. At a minimum this is not being open minded. For the most part, this is not about proof, it's faith. And it's about what is plausible and that standard comes from the values of those involved in the discussion.

However, there are things that can be disproven such as the Bible's 6000-10000 year (whatever it is) history of mankind, and the flood that covered the earth and wiped out every thing except Noah's Ark, but for most of it there is nothing to prove, just aspects of the story to weigh and decide if the document has any value to live by. Actually the Bible contains some good moral standards along with terrible standards most people even Christians scoff at or ignore today.

I only ask for proof from the source who makes a premise. It is a valid request. Either this can be shown or not. It is that simple.

 

[Minor Axis]

I only ask for proof from the source who makes a premise. It is a valid request. Either this can be shown or not. It is that simple.

Your premise is invalid. Your request completely misses the point of the OP's original post. The only premise expressed by the OP is doubt. This needs no proof. Again, so what premise has GIA expressed that requires proof be provided?

Instead, as the Bible banner carrier in this thread, I challenge you to tell explain why GIA's questions and assumptions are invalid. If you can't see this then you are beyond help.

 

[doombug]

Your premise is invalid. Your request completely misses the point of the OP's original post. The only premise expressed by the OP is doubt. This needs no proof. Again, so what premise has GIA expressed that requires proof be provided?

Instead, as the Bible banner carrier in this thread, I challenge you to tell explain why GIA's questions and assumptions are invalid. If you can't see this then you are beyond help.

GIA's premise is more than questions. He makes statements as if they are fact but doesn't back them up. Why do you leave out such detail? Seems quite dishonest to me.

 

[Minor Axis]

GIA's premise is more than questions. He makes statements as if they are fact but doesn't back them up. Why do you leave out such detail? Seems quite dishonest to me.

Well he starts by questioning and then extrapolates and compares the actions of God to a human or uses logic, historical reference, or human standards to cast doubt. What details have I ignored? Please do me a favor and quote a post illustrating a statement that requires proof or made as if it is fact. Maybe that will help.

 

[doombug]

Well he starts by questioning and then extrapolates and compares the actions of God to a human or uses logic, historical reference, or human standards to cast doubt. What details have I ignored? Please do me a favor and quote a post illustrating a statement that requires proof or made as if it is fact. Maybe that will help.

Go back and read. If you can't understand what GIA has written then you have problems understanding what is written. If so then you aren't going to understand what anyone else writes either.

Regards
db

 

[Minor Axis]

Go back and read. If you can't understand what GIA has written then you have problems understanding what is written. If so then you aren't going to understand what anyone else writes either.

Regards
db

Clearly we have nothing constructive to say to one another.

 

[porterjack]

Clearly we have nothing constructive to say to one another.

Hallelujah
Hallelujah

 

[Greatest I am]

GIA's premise is more than questions. He makes statements as if they are fact but doesn't back them up. Why do you leave out such detail? Seems quite dishonest to me.

Yet in Eden, your God left out many of the details of the benefits and loses of A & E eating of the tree of knowledge.

Do you see that as dishonest as well?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Clearly we have nothing constructive to say to one another.

Nor has he with anyone else.

Regards
DL