New Group for Bible Believers.

[DriftingSand]

How many of you want to do a Bible study with me in the religion forum without just talking about doing it and not doing it? How many of you wish to do it without being negative or arguing too much?

How many of you wish to commit to studying an entire book like the book of John and spending a year or more doing it? And what forum can we do it in that wouldn't object to a Bible discussion and also be free of great atheistic debates that would draw the study off track, insult the people studying, keep study from working, etc?

It would be study and no other agenda. I'm talking about going verse by verse Bible study, overturning every word meaning, referencing other books, etc.

I don't know how much I could do with my schedule right now.

What I do know is that I once had a website with the most Bible. It was up for more than a year and no one cared and even though I advertised and had thousands of page views, I took it down. This is partly why I don't really believe many people but I am open to discussion about it.

Sure ... start one up and let's see what happens. One thing I've learned is that I can never plan an outcome. I don't know that anything in my entire life has come out the way I planned. Sometimes when I think something is going to go over really well ... it flops. Sometimes when I think something is going to flop ... it turns out really well.

 

[Capstone]

Can anyone spell: "Self absorbed narcissist?" (speaking of the dude in the video. LOL).

Yeah, don't you just want to smack that condescending smirk off his face? Then again, people like you, DS, probably have to be condescended to by people half your age on a regular basis. I think that's why I posted the video instead of just typing out my own little sarcastic tirade against the absurdity of *Christinsanity (*did I spell that correctly?).

...Has your debate already begun or were you planning on taking it to "the bullring" or wherever debates occur?

Jeremiah has apparently chosen this thread for our pre-debate correspondence. The debate will begin with the posting of the OP in the Bull Ring 2 weeks after he or she has notified me of the chosen topic.

 

[DriftingSand]

Can anyone spell: "Self absorbed narcissist?" (speaking of the dude in the video. LOL).

Yeah, don't you just want to smack that condescending smirk off his face? Then again, people like you, DS, probably have to be condescended to by people half your age on a regular basis. I think that's why I posted the video instead of just typing out my own little sarcastic tirade against the absurdity of *Christinsanity (*did I spell that correctly?).

...Has your debate already begun or were you planning on taking it to "the bullring" or wherever debates occur?

Jeremiah has apparently chosen this thread for our pre-debate correspondence. The debate will begin with the posting of the OP in the Bull Ring 2 weeks after he or she has notified me of the chosen topic.

LOL. I'm almost certain that ANYONE who doesn't share your worldview is suffering from "insanity" -- right? I'll lay $100 down right now and bet that you believe you have all the answers. I wouldn't be surprised if that was YOU in the video. If not then you've likely found your soul-mate. Nice day to ya.

 

[Capstone]

LOL. I'm almost certain that ANYONE who doesn't share your worldview is suffering from "insanity" -- right? I'll lay $100 down right now and bet that you believe you have all the answers. I wouldn't be surprised if that was YOU in the video. If not then you've likely found your soul-mate. Nice day to ya.

Well, I've never claimed to have all the answers as to the name and gender of "God" and the guidelines to serving "Him". That's the province of Christian know-it-alls.

Should I PM you my Paypal info now or later?

 

[DriftingSand]

LOL. I'm almost certain that ANYONE who doesn't share your worldview is suffering from "insanity" -- right? I'll lay $100 down right now and bet that you believe you have all the answers. I wouldn't be surprised if that was YOU in the video. If not then you've likely found your soul-mate. Nice day to ya.

Well, I've never claimed to have all the answers as to the name and gender of "God" and the guidelines to serving "Him". That's the province of Christian know-it-alls.

Should I PM you my Paypal info now or later?

Then if you "don't know" you're in no position to call anyone "insane."

I said I would lay $100 down then I would bet ... I didn't say I would bet the $100. Don't mess with wisdom.

 

[Capstone]

LOL. I'm almost certain that ANYONE who doesn't share your worldview is sufferinhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7MQCJplN7Ig from "insanity" -- right? I'll lay $100 down right now and bet that you believe you have all the answers. I wouldn't be surprised if that was YOU in the video. If not then you've likely found your soul-mate. Nice day to ya.

Well, I've never claimed to have all the answers as to the name and gender of "God" and the guidelines to serving "Him". That's the province of Christian know-it-alls.

Should I PM you my Paypal info now or later?

Then if you "don't know" you're in no position to call anyone "insane."

The "Christinsanity" thing was a joke, DS. I don't actually believe all (or even most) Christians are insane.

Having said that, recognizing delusional thought processes isn't fully dependent on knowing whether a person's beliefs happen to be true or false. The first to formally define the criteria for determining whether a given 'belief' should be considered "delusional" or not, was Karl Jaspers, an early-to-mid 20th century psychiatric philosopher, whose definitions are still widely in use today.

His three main criteria are:

• ·certainty - held with absolute conviction
  
• ·incorrigibility - not changeable in light of compelling counterarguments or evidence to the contrary
  
• ·implausibility of content - patently bizarre, or simply proven falsehoods

Does any of that ring any bells, DS?

That's not to imply that all Christians are "insane"; it's just that all three of Jaspers' criteria are actively encouraged as matters of doctrine among believers of the various Christian sects.

...I said I would lay $100 down then I would bet ... I didn't say I would bet the $100. Don't mess with wisdom.

I think you might want to reconsider the differences between "wisdom" and weaselhood (don't bother looking for the definition of that term -- I just coined it.).

Whatever. You're the Christian, right?

 

[Capstone]

Since Jeremiah's challenge to me for a debate in the Bull Ring was made and accepted in this thread, and this was also the medium he or she apparently chose for our pre-debate correspondence, it seems a fitting place to document for posterity Jeri's recent decision to back out.

The laughable excuse provided is shown for what it is in this post. In response to my point regarding the apparent agreement between another poster's advice (which Jeri had rejected out of hand) and the alleged teachings of Christ, Jeremiah posted a short exposition on how the NT's fulfillment of OT prophecy (with respect to the life of Christ) proves that messianic Jews are wrong in failing to recognize and accept the biblical Christ as their long-awaited messiah. In other words: an exposition that not only failed to address my point explicitly ...but actually supported it implicitly! So, rather than typing out a lengthy rebuttal to Jeremiah's irrelevant (and ultimately circular) anti-Judaic bibbly babble, I chose to point out the implied concession of my point and leave it at that. Jeremiah then seized on this as something that can only be described as an ill-perceived opportunity to back out of our planned debate in the Bull Ring -- all perfectly understandable, however cowardly.

 

[Capstone]

Looks like we're back on.

 

[Capstone]

Has America Suffered as a Result of Rejecting Certain Biblical Practices?

That question will be the topic of our debate.

I will argue in the affirmative (tongue in cheek, of course ).

Jeremiah may choose to argue in the affirmative, as well. Or not. Either way, there will be ample opportunity for disagreement.

Our discussion will be restricted to the consequences of societal evolution away from practices condoned in the Bible in the following three areas:

• Child Rearing-- What to teach our children, and the appropriate means of discipline. Segue to...
  
• Gender Roles -- Proper attitudes between a husband and his wive(s), daughters, female servants/bound concubines, and prostitutes. Segue to...
  
• Slavery -- Justification, property rights, and acceptable treatment.

The debate should allow for discussion on peripheral issues, so long as the their relevance to the three areas outlined above has been clearly demonstrated (with explicit biblical support provided).

The OP will be posted in the Bull Ring in two weeks time.

 

[Capstone]

Here's your notification, [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION].

 

[DriftingSand]

Well, I've never claimed to have all the answers as to the name and gender of "God" and the guidelines to serving "Him". That's the province of Christian know-it-alls.

Should I PM you my Paypal info now or later?

Then if you "don't know" you're in no position to call anyone "insane."

The "Christinsanity" thing was a joke, DS. I don't actually believe all (or even most) Christians are insane.

Having said that, recognizing delusional thought processes isn't fully dependent on knowing whether a person's beliefs happen to be true or false. The first to formally define the criteria for determining whether a given 'belief' should be considered "delusional" or not, was Karl Jaspers, an early-to-mid 20th century psychiatric philosopher, whose definitions are still widely in use today.

His three main criteria are:

• ·certainty - held with absolute conviction
  
• ·incorrigibility - not changeable in light of compelling counterarguments or evidence to the contrary
  
• ·implausibility of content - patently bizarre, or simply proven falsehoods

Does any of that ring any bells, DS?

That's not to imply that all Christians are "insane"; it's just that all three of Jaspers' criteria are actively encouraged as matters of doctrine among believers of the various Christian sects.

...I said I would lay $100 down then I would bet ... I didn't say I would bet the $100. Don't mess with wisdom.

I think you might want to reconsider the differences between "wisdom" and weaselhood (don't bother looking for the definition of that term -- I just coined it.).

Whatever. You're the Christian, right?

This isn't really a forum for debate but I came to a belief in Christ and Christianity using a rational and logical train of thought mixed with a personal, life-changing set of circumstances. Just because you don't follow someone else's thought process doesn't mean that they are automatically "delusional" and you are automatically "rational."

I think it's irrational to believe that the entire universe and all life forms are simply accidents that happened by mistake or chance. That makes no sense whatsoever. Chaos does not create order and our universe is ordered.

Anyway ... believe what you want. Your choices are between you and Christ. We will all stand before Him.

 

[Picaro]

How pathetic is it when a group of Christians can't even start a thread about getting together among themselves, even in a sub-forum that isn't a debating forum, without assorted juvenile tard poseurs spamming it with insults?

Answer: Very.

 

[DriftingSand]

How pathetic is it when a group of Christians can't even start a thread about getting together among themselves, even in a sub-forum that isn't a debating forum, without assorted juvenile tard poseurs spamming it with insults?

Answer: Very.

You would think it would be a simple thing but there are people in this world that literally despise Christianity with every bone of their body and they feel this burning urge to let you know it (if you're a Christian). I always see it as confirmation of the Bible's veracity. Christ said that Christians would be hated for His namesake and the naysayers on this form (and many others) simply prove His point/promise/warning.

 

[mamooth]

Nice persecution song and dance, Drift and Pic. If we all just agree you two are the biggest victims on the planet, will you stop?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nice persecution song and dance, Drift and Pic. If we all just agree you two are the biggest victims on the planet, will you stop?

If I negged you, would you stop?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I figured that would do the trick. Carry on.

 

[DriftingSand]

Nice persecution song and dance, Drift and Pic. If we all just agree you two are the biggest victims on the planet, will you stop?

Another one crawls out from under a stump. See ya later m.

 

[Picaro]

Nice persecution song and dance, Drift and Pic. If we all just agree you two are the biggest victims on the planet, will you stop?

I'm not a Christian. You can't even troll accurately.

Even more pathetic.

 

[hazlnut]

What if I believe in the bible, believe in and worship God, but I'm a Pagan? Am I welcome?

I've never actually heard of anyone believing the Bible and worshiping the biblical God AND being a pagan at the same time.

Christmas and Easter are pagan-based holidays loaded with pagan traditions and symbols.


You may be a pagan and don't even know it.

Do you wear a wedding band (right)?

Pagan!

 

[Capstone]

This isn't really a forum for debate but I came to a belief in Christ and Christianity using a rational and logical train of thought mixed with a personal, life-changing set of circumstances. Just because you don't follow someone else's thought process doesn't mean that they are automatically "delusional" and you are automatically "rational." ...

What makes my thought processes more "rational" than many Christians is the manner in which I hold my beliefs -- without undue certainty, not incorrigibly, and not against the grain of implausibility. Whether those beliefs happen to be true or false, the processes by which I've come to accept them were designed to guard against delusion.

On the other hand, Christians, in general, have been indoctrinated for centuries to employ thought processes that not only fail to guard against delusions but actively encourage them. From the onset of your personal Christian path, you're required to accept an implausible corpus of beliefs "on faith" (not reason), with 'absolute conviction' (not a healthy skepticism), and to remain firm in the face of whatever counter-evidence may come your way (not the least bit rationally). The processes themselves have constituted the recipe of mass delusion for nearly two millennia.

On top of that, many denominations place a great deal of importance on introspective 'religious experiences' that are completely subjective and problematic in other ways as well. As I recently asked a Christian in another thread, how can you be sure that your feelings or the voices in your head are more reliable than the feelings/voices in a Catholic's head? Or a Mormon's? Or a Scientologist's? Or, for that matter, a Muslim's?!

...I think it's irrational to believe that the entire universe and all life forms are simply accidents that happened by mistake or chance. That makes no sense whatsoever. Chaos does not create order and our universe is ordered. ...

As I interpret it, the evidence suggests that there is a multi-aspectual 'natural order' holding sway in the cosmos. That doesn't call for us to postulate a means of order beyond nature itself, though.

As a pantheist, I personally equate "nature" to a very specific form of "divinity", in a way that doesn't violate Occam's Razor; but that's a philosophical worldview with a rich tradition in logic and reason, as well as 'spirituality'.

...Anyway ... believe what you want. Your choices are between you and Christ. We will all stand before Him.

If I ever find myself "stand[ing] before" your god, my sole consolation will be that my rejection of "HIM" in this life has always been based on my God-given faculties. And that, my Christian friend, would be no small consolation, not even amid the flames of Hell.