Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Just reminds me of people who didn't read the material for their English class trying to get one over on the teacher to me.

That would be very impressive if they were successful... like I was and Socrates was.

You claimed that there is no free will and that Christianity necessiates determinism. When pressed, you failed to back up your claims. 

I did back it up, it's on an earlier page. 

And I explained why your attempt to back it up failed.... once on an earlier page and then right below the text you quoted. It's the bit you refused to address.

Just how one could use a Chemistry book to prove Chemistry, so too do those who prescribe to Christianity use The Bible. If arguing over their tenants, then it makes sense to visit their material rather than go through the rigmarole of proving God's existence. It isn't about any sort of objective truth, but rather over how their reading material portrays their deity in question. God could be any number of things (or any number of gods), but when going through the Christian belief system you're stuck with what they preach.

1) You don't use the Chemistry book to prove Chemistry. 2) I said nothing about proving God's existence. 3) I never said it isn't about how their reading material portrays the deity in question. 4) There are a number of Christian denominations. I'm mostly Lutheran, but don't subscribe to all practices. "What they preach" depends on the person in addition to the denomination. The Bible is not a scientific book. I certainly don't subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible and neither do many people. It's a sliding scale and not a black-and-white binary. This was all answered in my previous post.... in the bit which you refused to address or quote.

tpp said: 

Turncoat said: 

 

Just how one could use a Chemistry book to prove Chemistry, so too do those who prescribe to Christianity use The Bible. If arguing over their tenants, then it makes sense to visit their material rather than go through the rigmarole of proving God's existence. It isn't about any sort of objective truth, but rather over how their reading material portrays their deity in question. God could be any number of things (or any number of gods), but when going through the Christian belief system you're stuck with what they preach.

1) You don't use the Chemistry book to prove Chemistry.

This is what he was insinuating, I believe.

Also, "literal interpretation" is an oxymoron.

Buttered Toast said: 

This is what he was insinuating, I believe.

Also, "literal interpretation" is an oxymoron.

Feel free to join the conversation, Jerry.

tpp said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

This is what he was insinuating, I believe.

Also, "literal interpretation" is an oxymoron.

Feel free to join the conversation, Jerry.

 Don't tell me how to feel, Summer.

Buttered Toast said: 

Don't tell me how to feel, Summer.

Oompa loompa.

tpp said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

Don't tell me how to feel, Summer.

Oompa loompa.

 Veruca Salt.

tpp said: 

Turncoat said: 

Just reminds me of people who didn't read the material for their English class trying to get one over on the teacher to me.

That would be very impressive if they were successful... like I was and Socrates was.

I mean if you call not understanding the material 'success', then sure, go full blown Flat Earth. 

You claimed that there is no free will and that Christianity necessiates determinism. When pressed, you failed to back up your claims. 

I did back it up, it's on an earlier page. 

And I explained why your attempt to back it up failed.... once on an earlier page and then right below the text you quoted. It's the bit you refused to address.

If you don't even know the material, how are we supposed to discuss it? 

Just how one could use a Chemistry book to prove Chemistry, so too do those who prescribe to Christianity use The Bible. If arguing over their tenants, then it makes sense to visit their material rather than go through the rigmarole of proving God's existence. It isn't about any sort of objective truth, but rather over how their reading material portrays their deity in question. God could be any number of things (or any number of gods), but when going through the Christian belief system you're stuck with what they preach.

1) You don't use the Chemistry book to prove Chemistry.

I didn't say 'the Chemistry book', that'd imply there's only one. I said a Chemistry book, as in any published work that otherwise serves as a learning aid or comparative model. 

2) I said nothing about proving God's existence.

You insinuated that something as all powerful as God could miss things, and couldn't, because 'It's God'. You're effectively taking a non-stance in the hopes the other will do all the work for you, but without you having any understanding of the material how am I supposed to do that? 

3) I never said it isn't about how their reading material portrays the deity in question.

I did though, I'm working within the canon of The Bible's claims no differently than when I was debating with Delora over Harry Potter. 

The Bible is not a scientific book.

There's many card carrying Christians who, while they might not use the word 'Science' from having demonized the concept, are otherwise using it as a fact book with little to no room for exceptions. Literally I've heard them spout that 'There's only one book you need to read to understand the world', so as such I'm going from within their idea of the canon. 

If you want to introduce other outside concepts to the discussion that's fine I guess, but it'll stop being a fundamentally Christian discussion at that point. 

I certainly don't subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible and neither do many people.

How 'many', compared to how many that take it at least 85% literally? 

Turncoat said: 

I mean if you call not understanding the material 'success', then sure, go full blown Flat Earth.

Demonstrate a single thing I haven't understood. I pointed out that you didn't have a case. You're the Flat Earther in this scenario. You're the one with a claim that needs to be demonstrated, not me.

If you don't even know the material, how are we supposed to discuss it?

Discuss? You claimed Earth is flat. I asked for proof. You said you can't discuss proof unless I understand the entirety of flat earth theory. If you can't back it up, then stop claiming shit lol.

You insinuated that something as all powerful as God could miss things, and couldn't, because 'It's God'. You're effectively taking a non-stance in the hopes the other will do all the work for you, but without you having any understanding of the material how am I supposed to do that?

All the work for me? The burden of proof is on you. So yes. You claiming Earth is flat means you have to do the work to prove it, not other people.

There's many card carrying Christians who, while they might not use the word 'Science' from having demonized the concept, are otherwise using it as a fact book with little to no room for exceptions. Literally I've heard them spout that 'There's only one book you need to read to understand the world', so as such I'm going from within their idea of the canon. 

If you want to introduce other outside concepts to the discussion that's fine I guess, but it'll stop being a fundamentally Christian discussion at that point.

I'm not a fundamental Christian.

I certainly don't subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible and neither do many people.

How 'many', compared to how many that take it at least 85% literally?

85%?

Fundamentalists are a small portion. Take the Finnish population, for instance, most people don't take the Bible literally. Check evangelical lutheran churches or read about the different denominations... Besides, it's not a crowd vote.

The biggest difference between me and you is that when I'm wrong I admit it... You double down.