JTaylor

How do you know to whom you are praying?

Turbohot

I am NOT going to answer you. You're in the hot seat here, not me. You are intentionally diverting the thread because you can't possibly face accepting that your faith is crooked at places. Whether I believe in God or not has nothing to do with the FACT that your Christianity is flawed. End of. Accept it.

JTaylor

I didn't know I was in the "hot seat", I thought we were having a discussion. Still, if you're unsure about your own world view, then I guess you'd want to shine a light on other peoples'.

Matthew 7:1-3

neil-h

Do you not address them at the start of a prayer?

JTaylor

Go on then, talk me through a deist prayer.

neil-h

Very clever, I see what you did there

On a side note. These little debates do tend to lead to some surprisingly interesting reading, so cheers for that.

JTaylor

I'm here to serve, Neil.

neil-h

That was a bit crafty though, choosing a philosophical stand point which sees little or no discernible benefit in prayer. Then asking me to explain how it'd work

Turbohot

Yes, but by putting up your fundamentalist religious beliefs here and justifying them, you put yourself in a position to be questioned. You don't answer the questions straight but churn out a load of waffle. But when your beliefs are disputed, you manipulate by questioning me. My belief or no belief on God doesn't make it any less undisputable that some of your Christian rules that you've put up here for people to see are crooked as f**k.

JTaylor

Go back to #468.

neil-h

Not sure I see your point.

JTaylor

Having dinner, will explain later.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

Takes time to feed the multitude

JTaylor

Easy.

JTaylor

Yabbadoo implied that Swati believes in a creator, but not one from scripture. I took some licence and suggested Swati had a deist philosophy. You picked up on it and asked why you need to know a god in order to pray to it and I asked you to give an example of how one would pray to the god of deism. You then tell me I'm crafty, but actually it was Yabbadoo who raised it and you who pursued it. All I did was field a few questions.

Anyway, hopefully Swati's had plenty of time to think through her belief set and will feel confident enough to answer that multiple choice quiz I set her. We'll see.

JTaylor

A couple more things for you, Swati. First, you've mentioned 'fundamentalist' a few times now. Do you actually understand the concepts that you speak of, my dear? I've explicitly stated in this thread and a number of others that I am a theistic evolutionist and in theological circles the label 'fundamentalist' usually implies that the brother or sister interprets the creation account literally. I hope you're willing and able to discuss and that you don't feel I'm putting you in the "hot seat". Secondly, you keep describing parts of Christianity as "crooked as fùck", I only follow Jesus, so can I assume that you're describing Him as "crooked..."?

Geezer

To me, this is a real issue. It's cherry picking. One of the central tenets of Christianity is that Jesus was resurrected. Yet that story in itself (apart from not being in the original Christian texts), could be allegorical, but it must be true, for Christians.


Yet, they can dismiss out of hand the literal creation account. Again, we come back to the old question of why do you accept some parts of the bible as gospel, and others as allegorical? There is nothing whatsoever in the texts to point to them being either way. It is a defence mechanism against rational thought.


P.S. that meal looks jolly nice!

Martin2005

That's a terrific post, and put better than I ever managed to

dpb

You should go into the god business in Africa/Elsewhere James

youd clean up

JTaylor

I thought we'd dealt with this at #253. Clearly not. First, you've set up a strawman by claiming my position and others' is "cherry picking". You then state, over confidently knocking down the strawman, that "there's nothing in the text to point to them being either way". Well there is. Given that you'd not heard of the literary framework view until just a few days ago, I'm amazed at your hubris, Geezer! Some of the books in the Bible are to be read literally and some aren't. To repeat, Genesis 1-3 was never intended to be read literally. However, the account of Jesus' resurrection is meant to be read as a historical account. If you don't accept these readings that's fine, I can expand on this post and give you as much literature as you can manage. If you want to do a Hodgy and go for the low hanging fruit then I recommend you go and have a discussion with a young earth creationist.

The meal was very nice, thank you; medium-rare ribeye with Roquefort sauce. The Chilean merlot was minging (as all Chilean wines seem to be).

hodgy0_2

you have simply repeated your "cherry picked" position regarding the interpretations of portions of the bible

JTaylor

Well I don't know how much clearer I can be! Any serious theologian will tell you that within the field of hermeneutics there are four main types of interpretation: the literal, moral, allegorical and anagogical. Gen. 1-3 is allegorical and the resurrection account literal. Your contention should not be that this is "cherry picking" it ought to be with the fact I believe a man literally rose from the dead!

Paben

iTrader: (5)

You clearly know less about Chilean wine than you do about God. While Chilean wine can be variable in its quality the best will match wine from almost anywhere. Admittedly you have to know what you're buying, and you'll have to spend more than the fiver you probably invested to accompany your meal!

Turbohot

Ive been busy with work that I quite like, James. Some people genuinely appreciate what they sincerely do, for their living. For that reason, they may not prioritise thinking over an ongoing tedious religion-related debate on Scoobynet. It's been done to death here; over and over- like a stuck f**king record. Anyway.....



No, you're the only one who understand everything. Everyone else is an utter imbecile

Please, act like a 'good Christian' and stop being so condescending with calling me 'my dear' with giving me 'multiple choices', 'couple of things' assignment, and by and challenging my 'ability' because I call some of the nonsense from your Christianity crooked. I haven't even called you bent or crooked, so keep the decorum, please. I haven't even called you a hypocrite either, you keep calling yourself one. I can't help that.

Now,

1. Please provide me with the source where it says that 'Christ is the ONLY way to God', which would mean that all other faiths are no roads to God but only Mister Jesus Holy Christ.

2. Please provide me with the source from which you get this 'Christian marrying a Christian only' and 'sex before marriage is a sin' from. Where do you get these ideas from?

2. Please provide me with the source where you get your 'brotherhood' and 'sisterhood' with the likes of you i.e. with Christians from, which excludes other humans and promotes segregation.

3. Please provide me with the source where it says that in order to be a good Christian, you must promote Chritianity, which you would support and follow by distributing your bibles to the vulnerable and wounded non-Christians in 'strike it when it's hot' fashion.

Are they not the basic fundamental statements / teachings of your Christianity that you tend to literally follow and glorify on the threads like these?

You're taking the word 'fundamentalist' as for the statement / person speaking against the evolution. I was talking about 'fundamental' fundamentalist teachings. If I confused you, I'm sorry. Or if You see it as a flippant and erroneous use of the term 'fundamentalist', I'm sorry for that, too. I've now explained what I meant, though. Hope this helps.

Now, even that doesn't dispute that your Chritianity does involve some utter nonsense, as per point 1, 2, 3 and 4. You pulling me over on a terminology doesn't outweigh that.

JTaylor

I'll take your word for it as it seems to be your field.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

Haha, you could be right, I may have quaffed the odd bottle or two

hodgy0_2

Presumably those would be Christian theologians?

JTaylor

John 14:6

1 Corinthians 7:2

Matthew 10:34

Mark 16:15

JTaylor

You presume wrong, Hodgy.

dpb

I'm sure if youre a real skoller or even not you can pick a verse at random that nearly suits every eventuality !