lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 24, 2007 16:13:56 GMT -5
This is getting ridiculous. I dare you to find a website about religion more objective than religioustolerance.org. Good luck. Interesting. You didn't address the point I raised. I guess you're scared. So you're admitting you can't back up your claims? Wonderful!!! We're clearing up all sorts of things! You're making good steps, Blondie. You've admitted you don't know anything about the Bible. You've admitted you're too lazy to try to learn. And now, you've admitted you can't back up your claims!!! I'm so proud of you!!! YOU NEED TO [glow=red,2,300]BACK-OFF[/glow] Insurance boy!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 16:15:10 GMT -5
This is getting ridiculous. I dare you to find a website about religion more objective than religioustolerance.org. Good luck. Interesting. You didn't address the point I raised. I guess you're scared. What's your point? That religioustolerance.org is anti Christian?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 16:17:18 GMT -5
Interesting. You didn't address the point I raised. I guess you're scared. What's your point? That religioustolerance.org is anti Christian? Are you having trouble understanding the point I raised?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 16:18:42 GMT -5
sad. I've got an unbiased, objective source. You've got nothing but your opinion and the dogma of a subset of Protestants. You've yet to prove the assertion that you made in regards to the Mark passage. Can't do it, can you?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 16:19:33 GMT -5
YOU NEED TO [glow=red,2,300]BACK-OFF[/glow] Insurance boy! Why? What are you going to do? Send me nasty emails?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 16:20:42 GMT -5
oh...using a new word. Instead of objective sources..it's now unbiased sources. LOL. Ok, your "unbiased" sources are biased and therefore invalid. You have presented zero evidence that is valid. Try again. Again, it's up to you to prove your premise and so far you have failed miserably...try evilbible.com. sad. I've got an unbiased, objective source. You've got nothing but your opinion and the dogma of a subset of Protestants. It has already been established by consensus that you don't have an objective source. You are the one that has failed to prove your premise. Please stop trying to get us to do your work for you.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 16:21:10 GMT -5
What's your point? That religioustolerance.org is anti Christian? Are you having trouble understanding the point I raised? Why don't you tell me again. I must have missed it.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 16:25:05 GMT -5
Go back and read through the thread. Lazy and stupid is no way to go through life.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 16:26:27 GMT -5
Why don't you tell me again. I must have missed it. I know you're just trying to change the subject because you can't back up the claims you've made but I'll play along. "Then perhaps you can explain why they have a great deal of their site dedicated towards Christianity and most of it speaks of Christianity in a negative light. Yet, if you look into Islam they don't do that." Is that what you would consider an unbiased site?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 16:26:55 GMT -5
sad. I've got an unbiased, objective source. You've got nothing but your opinion and the dogma of a subset of Protestants. It has already been established by consensus that you don't have an objective source. You are the one that has failed to prove your premise. Please stop trying to get us to do your work for you. Ha, that's funny. Looks like I have an objective source and you don't have any source at all. I don't even think you have a point. Are you saying that religioustolerance.org/ is bias? I don't believe so. They go out of their way not to be. So it looks like you're going to have to give me an example.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 16:30:00 GMT -5
Ha, that's funny. Looks like I have an objective source and you don't have any source at all. I don't even think you have a point. Are you saying that we have to have a source to substantiate our claim that you are unable to substantiate your claims?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 16:30:02 GMT -5
YOU NEED TO [glow=red,2,300]BACK-OFF[/glow] Insurance boy! Why? What are you going to do? Send me nasty emails? LOL...blood red at that.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 16:32:59 GMT -5
Ha, that's funny. Looks like I have an objective source and you don't have any source at all. I don't even think you have a point. Are you saying that we have to have a source to substantiate our claim that you are unable to substantiate your claims? No, we have to have an objective source to substaniate our claim that she is unable to substantiate her unobjective claim.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 16:33:38 GMT -5
Why don't you tell me again. I must have missed it. I know you're just trying to change the subject because you can't back up the claims you've made but I'll play along. "Then perhaps you can explain why they have a great deal of their site dedicated toward Christianity and most of it speaks of Christianity in a negative light. Yet, if you look into Islam they don't do that." Is that what you would consider an unbiased site? I disagree. Here's something bad, yet true, about Islam: www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos1.htmwww.religioustolerance.org/judholden.htmNow find something bad about Christianity on the site that's not true. You might have to consider that there are negative things about Christianity. But I'll wait on your damning evidence that will put me in my place.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 16:38:28 GMT -5
Ha, that's funny. Looks like I have an objective source and you don't have any source at all. I don't even think you have a point. Are you saying that we have to have a source to substantiate our claim that you are unable to substantiate your claims? No, but since I don't think you know what you're talking about an unbiased source would sure help you out. So what's your point? That Mark somehow says divorce is OK in the case of adultery?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 16:38:53 GMT -5
Okay. Let me try this way. Why do you think they dedicate so much of their site to Christianity?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 16:42:24 GMT -5
Okay. Let me try this way. Why do you think they dedicate so much of their site to Christianity? Just give up. "This web site has a lot more material on Christianity than on any other religion. That is because about 75% of American adults identify themselves as Christian. In comparison, the next largest religions are Islam and Judaism, whose memberships total only one or two percent of the U.S. population." Now you find an example of bias on that site. Then provide proof for whatever you point is.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 16:45:31 GMT -5
No, but since I don't think you know what you're talking about an unbiased source would sure help you out. So what's your point? That Mark somehow says divorce is OK in the case of adultery? My point is the same as when I first raised it on the other page. You're incapable of showing how Mark can be interpreted to read "no divorce for any reason."
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 16:48:09 GMT -5
Your sources are not objective. Please prove your original premise and stop trying to get us to prove it for you or prove other things outside of your original premise.
blondie YOU do not have to ever prove why our sources are not objective, your declaration that it is not seems to suffice...therefore we do not have to prove why your sources are not objective.
YOU prove that your source is objective...so far you have not.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 16:59:01 GMT -5
No, but since I don't think you know what you're talking about an unbiased source would sure help you out. So what's your point? That Mark somehow says divorce is OK in the case of adultery? My point is the same as when I first raised it on the other page. You're incapable of showing how Mark can be interpreted to read "no divorce for any reason." Jesus says no divorce. He cites no exception in Mark. The fact that is has been interpreted that way shows it can be interpreted that way. Just give up
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 17:05:51 GMT -5
YOU prove that your source is objective...so far you have not. Sad. You have nothing to back up you opinion. I believe my source is objective. They claim to be objective. They back up my argument. So I must be right. The fact that you're attacking my source and not trumping me with a better, more credible and objective source speaks volumes. If you can find bias on my source or find in the book of Mark an exception that allows for divorce I'll send you a box of Omaha steaks.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 17:06:35 GMT -5
Just give up. "This web site has a lot more material on Christianity than on any other religion. That is because about 75% of American adults identify themselves as Christian. In comparison, the next largest religions are Islam and Judaism, whose memberships total only one or two percent of the U.S. population." Now you find an example of bias on that site. Then provide proof for whatever you point is. That doesn't even make sense. If they're trying to push Religious Tolerance (one would assume that's what they'd claim based on the name of the site) then there wouldn't be a need to dedicate so much time going over Christianity. If 75% of American adults indentify themselves as Christians then they don't need to be told what the different points of Christianity are. They would need to be educated in what other religions hold. I don't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 17:07:47 GMT -5
I gave you proof already. You refuse to see it because YOU are not OBJECTIVE.
Matt 5:32
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. KJV
Can you not understand this? It is rather simple and my six year old daughter understands it. Sheesh...like talking to a block of wood.
Who said this Blondie? Jesus said it...show something that contradicts that, WHICH IS YOUR PREMISE. You CAN'T.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 17:10:47 GMT -5
Just give up. "This web site has a lot more material on Christianity than on any other religion. That is because about 75% of American adults identify themselves as Christian. In comparison, the next largest religions are Islam and Judaism, whose memberships total only one or two percent of the U.S. population." Now you find an example of bias on that site. Then provide proof for whatever you point is. That doesn't even make sense. If they're trying to push Religious Tolerance (one would assume that's what they'd claim based on the name of the site) then there wouldn't be a need to dedicate so much time going over Christianity. If 75% of American adults indentify themselves as Christians then they don't need to be told what the different points of Christianity are. They would need to be educated in what other religions hold. I don't buy it. As soon as you find actual bias on that site be sure to let me know. But that's besides the point of Mark not having an exception for divorce. It would be so easy to prove either one of those points if they were true.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 17:13:08 GMT -5
"You have nothing to back up you opinion."
You have never felt the need to prove that our sources are not objective...you just declare that they are. That is the framework of your debates. If it is good enough for the goose than it is good enough for the gander.
"I believe my source is objective. They claim to be objective. They back up my argument.
So I must be right."
That is the lamest form of logic I have ever heard. Using multiple logical fallacies is what is sad on your part dear.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 17:13:56 GMT -5
Blondie, you should give it up. Jesus didn't say that. Read it again: "2And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Nor does he say there aren't any exceptions. That means nothing. Don't be stupid by allowing yourself to think it does. You first.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 17:16:47 GMT -5
But that's besides the point of Mark not having an exception for divorce. Anyone with half a brain would realize that Mark would only contradict Matthew if said that there aren't any exceptions. It is your opinion that is what the passage says but you've yet to provide any evidence to support that claim. Give it up.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 17:21:12 GMT -5
zoom, I keep telling her that they are two distinct conversations at two distinct locations but she can't grasp that simple fact. There is no contradiction but blondie is not objective nor can she be. evilbible.com.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 17:21:21 GMT -5
I gave you proof already. You refuse to see it because YOU are not OBJECTIVE. Matt 5:32 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. KJV Can you not understand this? It is rather simple and my six year old daughter understands it. Sheesh...like talking to a block of wood. Who said this Blondie? Jesus said it...show something that contradicts that, WHICH IS YOUR PREMISE. You CAN'T. Mark. That's not from Mark. My point is: I believe the Bible says several different and contradictory things about divorce.I've posted that about three times. The whole religioustolerance.org thing started because they agree with my point. Poor Kevin. This all started when he foolishly admitted to being divorced. PS. Did you notice in your quote that marrying a divorced woman was adultery? Another wacky thing in the Bible everybody ignores. PSS. You never answered my question about if it's OK for a woman to divorce a man that beats her. I'm glad I'm a secularist and don't have to rationalize by ethics with the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 17:23:28 GMT -5
Nor does he say there aren't any exceptions. He also doesn't say not to eat peoples brains so I guess cannibalism's OK too.
|
|