He acts like that's the only time he called believers stupid.
He actually said if God had provided adequate evidence, it would show "respect of persons," i.e., favoritism for intelligent people.
I am not taking you out of context, TLC, and I'm starting to resent your falsewitness. You wanna dig up the quotes and deny you said exactly what you said?
You don't value evidence, you don't value education, you don't have an argument to back up your position, so all you can do is bad-mouth the people who DO have the intelligence and the facts to support theirs.
Try a single post that actually addresses the points being made on this thread without attacking the spirituality (or lack thereof) of those who are demonstrating your position is full of dung.
If you can't do that, you're not really involved in this discussion. You're just trying to derail it because you can't handle where it's headed.
I gotta admit I don't see him fitting that definition of trolling anyway. Trolls sow discord for their amusement. They don't do it because they're afraid independent minds will examine the evidence and come to a conclusion that troubles them. It's a motive thing, I think.
I gotta admit I don't see him fitting that definition of trolling anyway. Trolls sow discord for their amusement. They don't do it because they're afraid independent minds will examine the evidence and come to a conclusion that troubles them. It's a motive thing, I think.
I can't argue against that point. But we might not know his true motive.
Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice).
Taken out of context (which you're so easily inclined towards with certain things I write, such as this) typically does facilitate "another way to read" most things.
In case you forgot (or chose to ignore), it started here:
On 3/12/2019 at 2:19 PM, TLC said:
You do know and realize that this is the real crux of true (i.e., genuine) Christianity, don't you?
I've contended elsewhere on this site (I forget where, or in exactly what manner) that believing in the death and resurrection of Christ is (in this day and time) intrinsic to believing anything aside from or beyond what is (or can be) received and known only by our physical senses. In other words, it is what breaks the bondage to our physical senses of what can be believed. And, in light of that, there is presently no valid material "proof" of his resurrection... for if there were any, believing God would remain bound to the material reality of our senses.
This is why no one ever REALLY believes in the resurrection of Christ unless their heart is opened to it. And only when the inherent hardness of a man(or woman)'s heart is softened, does it ever allow room for it. Furthermore, I personally believe that a real softening of the heart starts with the recognition and acknowledgment of something written in Rom. 3:23. And when we "get" the reason (i.e., the heartfelt need) for our own redemption, verse 24 (of Rom. 3) springs to life within us... as it's understood why Christ is (and has to be) alive. Anything else no longer makes sense. Thus, leaving Rom. 3:23 (or its equivalent) out of the picture seems to stop anyone at the cross of Christ
Then went here:
On 3/13/2019 at 6:25 PM, TLC said:
Frankly, I don't see why (or how) believing in the resurrection of Christ would ever result from the intellectual processing of "evidence," for some number of reasons.
Perhaps this is a bit repetitive, but any and all experiential (or, experimental - if you prefer) evidence (as commonly defined) actually leads to the opposite conclusion - there isn't any resurrection from death. The simple fact is, the ONLY reason anyone nowadays (really) believes that Christ was raised from the dead and lives forevermore, is that they have opened themselves up to the possibility that they won't (rather, that they just can't) make it - or "make sense of it" (... I'm hesitant to think this can be strictly defined, or narrowed down to certain few words) - with their own limited and/or failed abilities.
If it (i.e., believing in the resurrection of Christ, which equates to salvation) were dependent on man's intellectual prowess or ability to "put together the evidence" (however you care to say or think of it)... then there is little doubt that those that were smarter or endowed with more intellectual or reasoning ability (or maybe even just "better access" to evidence) would be at the front of the line for salvation. Making God a respecter of persons, don't you think? Why so advantage some, if that were the case, when it comes to salvation?
Here:
On 3/14/2019 at 7:36 AM, TLC said:
Well, if adapting (for lack of a better word) one's fundamental basis for reality (i.e., what is true) so as to allow for "help from above" (as another way to say it) is (as seems to be in your mind) only perceived as some sort of abandonment of (or disregard for) genuine intelligence or sound reasoning, then that appears to be the perspective of someone that has never actually (or genuinely) experienced help from above.
And here:
On 3/14/2019 at 10:13 AM, TLC said:
Yes, I do think it takes a certain humility for anyone to accept (i.e., believe) the resurrection, however said "certain humility" is not something that anyone should (nor can) lay claim to or don as something unique, "special" or in some weird way ubiquitous unto themselves. It's much too easy to find oneself moved or transitioned from an honest sense of humility to a rather high and mighty position of "more worth" and self-righteousness. So, please stop labeling this as some kind of moral justification or emotional rationalization (and/or stop taking it as a personal assault) and lay it (humility) down (and keep it) where it belongs.
Then allow me to be perfectly clearly here: Your conclusion is false and your contention has absolutely no merit.
To repeat (in so many words), We simply do not share or have exactly the same basis for reality (i.e., what it true, or "real.") You limit your reality to what is or can be received via the physical senses. I do not. I believe that "reality" not merely can be... but is, determined (i.e., set in order) and augmented by the (invisible) logos (aka, "the Word of God".)
Your reality is determined in its entirely by, and communicated exclusively in terms of, "facts."
Mine is not, nor can it be.
Note the bolded line. Seems you missed the word (or the meaning) of augmented.
Perhaps there's another way to depict the difference which, if I have time, will attempt to describe. What must be noted, however, is that the reality I hold to doesn't (as you purport, and would have others believe) simply ignore physical evidence. (And it's not as if this is the first time I've pointed this out.)
On 3/15/2019 at 4:47 PM, TLC said:
Evidently your position is that anything not based in material facts isn't (indeed, can't be) reasonable... which I see as being a very erroneous premise.
However, I really don't care to delve much into why it is. (Especially given the degree of entrenchment you've expressed in that regard.)
You "reason" one way, and I reason another way. I have no issue seeing or admitting that, but apparently you do. Anything not done (i.e., reasoned) "your way" is ALWAYS thought of as being inferior, logically deficient, without merit, and (if little else)... void of reason.
Now, go right ahead and think or call this some sort of ad hominine attack on you, personally. But honestly speaking, it's not. It's faulting the perspective that you have presented on what is (or can be thought of as being) "reasonable."
When the apostle Paul, as his manner was, reasoned with various men in his day and time... do you likewise think (as you have done thus far) that because he based many of his words and thoughts on scripture that he too had "gleefully abandoned" reason? Or, perhaps you suppose that his (or anyone else's, for that matter) manner of reasoning was only valid (or reasonable) to the point that it contained or was based on hard factual (material) evidence. Frankly, it a bit of a challenge to me trying to understand why you're so stuck on "cold hard facts," so to speak. There's just too many times it seems that "said facts" (i.e., evidences) are incomplete, and eventually end up moving or changing.
On 3/16/2019 at 7:40 AM, TLC said:
The issue at hand undoubtedly resides in seeing or understanding the difference between a reality based exclusively on material (i.e., physical) evidence, and reality based (or formulated, if you prefer) on such evidence augmented with spiritual (aka, invisible) information. The later doesn't exclude or deny the former, it supersedes it.
On 3/16/2019 at 10:39 AM, TLC said:
It's really not all that complicated. It boils down to our perception and understanding of reality. In other words, what we believe is real (or true.)
On 3/19/2019 at 9:54 AM, TLC said:
Try and spin my words however you want, it doesn't change what is actually written there. My approach is not (as you purport it to be) an abandonment of facts. However, what it does do, is to allow for the addition of certain pertinent (and consistent), but invisible, information into the equation (i.e. the reasoning process.) Your systemic exclusion of which, leads to what (in computer terms) might be deemed an "unknown variable error."
Furthermore, you do realize that I never said that God deliberately made it harder for smart people to be saved, don't you? What I said or alluded to, was that He didn't make it easier for them. And the reason for it stems all the way back to the choice that Adam made (which I have no time, nor good reason, to delve into further - especially on this forum.)
Taken out of context (which you're so easily inclined towards with certain things I write, such as this) typically does facilitate "another way to read" most things.
In case you forgot (or chose to ignore), it started here:
Then went here:
Here:
And here:
Note the bolded line. Seems you missed the word (or the meaning) of augmented.
Perhaps there's another way to depict the difference which, if I have time, will attempt to describe. What must be noted, however, is that the reality I hold to doesn't (as you purport, and would have others believe) simply ignore physical evidence. (And it's not as if this is the first time I've pointed this out.)
Furthermore, you do realize that I never said that God deliberately made it harder for smart people to be saved, don't you? What I said or alluded to, was that He never made it easier for them. And there reasons for it stem all the way back to the choice that Adam made (which I have no time, nor good reason, to delve into further - especially on this forum.)
Your bullsh*t smells like what bullsh*t would smell like if bullsh*t could sh*t.
Is there anything outside of the Bible that claims Jesus rose from the dead, such as historical records and things of the like? I've never personally seen anything but, then again, I'm not sure I ever really looked.
The best you'll see is claims that refer back to the gospels, none of which are written by eyewitnesses or authors willing to put their names on the documents
Taken out of context (which you're so easily inclined towards with certain things I write, such as this) typically does facilitate "another way to read" most things.
In case you forgot (or chose to ignore), it started here:
Then went here:
Here:
And here:
Note the bolded line. Seems you missed the word (or the meaning) of augmented.
Perhaps there's another way to depict the difference which, if I have time, will attempt to describe. What must be noted, however, is that the reality I hold to doesn't (as you purport, and would have others believe) simply ignore physical evidence. (And it's not as if this is the first time I've pointed this out.)
Furthermore, you do realize that I never said that God deliberately made it harder for smart people to be saved, don't you? What I said or alluded to, was that He didn't make it easier for them. And the reason for it stems all the way back to the choice that Adam made (which I have no time, nor good reason, to delve into further - especially on this forum.)
If your point is that there is a cause/effect connection between believing that God raised Jesus from the dead and being able to "reach into Daddy's cookie jar," you still haven't addressed the problem of discerning when any old thought that pops into said believer's head can be reasonably deemed to be revelation from God as opposed to anything other than revelation.
He's just upset because he equates his ignorance with other people's education and thinks both are entitled to equal respect.
I made my point exceedingly clear: the manufacturers of Yahweh attack intelligence because they know it is a threat to their con. It's an insult to the faithful, like referring to "intellectuals" in quotes but not actually rebutting their educated analysis of the evidence with anything other than the already discredited claims of ancient forgers of phony documents you expect us to believe are God-breathed even though their authors lack the basic integrity to sign their own names instead of Paul's.
"Furthermore,you do realize that I never said that God deliberatelymade it harder for smart people to be saved, don't you? What I said or alluded to, was that He didn't make iteasier for them."
Well then, He's an idiot who clearly would NOT have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. See, when I want people to know something, like, say, the earth is spherical and not a disc covered by a dome, I gather the evidence and present it. I don't conjure up a fairy tale about people who live on a disc covered by a dome and leave you to figure out 5,000 years later that it was figurative even though the people who wrote it believed it was literal.
By the way, the notion that God didn't want to give intelligent people an advantage [holy sh*t, how are you not insulted by this] is not Biblical. Someone's making up that phony argument because he knows the actual evidence doesn't support his position.
Imagine if math worked the way "believers" say faith in the resurrection works.
2+2=4, but you need spiritual insight from the very notion you're trying to prove in order to see it. I can't just show it to you by laying out the evidence because that would give you an unfair advantage over people who can't count.
Holy sh*t.
Lawrence Krauss was criticized once for wearing a shirt that said 2+2=5.
See, "faith" in math could reasonably lead you to that conclusion.
You laugh, but ...
When you round numbers, it's easy to see. 2.499 (which rounds down to 2) + 2.499 (which rounds down to 2) = 4.998, which rounds to 5.
Math is fun and funny that way.
Why do I bring it up?
Because if I'm going to expect you to believe something absurd, I'm going to respect your intelligence enough to explain it to you in terms that can't be disputed. I'm going to give you the evidence, ESPECIALLY IF YOUR ETERNAL DESTINY IS AT STAKE!!! Krauss DID wear a shirt that said 2+2=5. It also said "for large enough values of 2," but his critics like to leave that part out.
TLC wants people to think I left out his context, when his context consists entirely of accepting, as evidence, sh*t no one can prove. You need to be open to the holy spirit to accept the resurrection. Well, no sh*t. That's the point, isn't it. The evidence won't lead you there, but if you'll just open your mind to "not evidence," you'll see it clearly.
DUH!
EVERY. RELIGION. MAKES. THE. SAME. CASE.
It's circular reasoning. You have to assume that which you are trying to prove in order to prove that which you are assuming.
That's not evidence. That's abandoning your mental faculties, which religion PRAISES at the expense of intelligence, which is indicated by words like "so-called" intellectuals or by putting words like "intellectuals" in quotes to denigrate them [by implying they are not open to the things of the spirit].
Honestly, if I were an intelligent Christian, I would be insulted at the insinuation.
You were not taken out of context, TLC. Your argument was rebutted and refuted.
Now stop lying about me. Engage my arguments, if you have a counterargument. "You have to take it on faith" is not a counterargument. It's an admission the facts, evidence and truth are not on your side.
By the way, I know of a female TWIt who, though disclaiming twi these days, makes the same ridiculous (and illogical) argument about the "logic" of spiritually augmented "factual" knowledge as "TLC" has on this thread topic. I wonder if TLC might know that person with initials SKP.
By the way, I know of a female TWIt who, though disclaiming twi these days, makes the same ridiculous (and illogical) argument about the "logic" of spiritually augmented "factual" knowledge as "TLC" has on this thread topic. I wonder if TLC might know that person with initials SKP.
No. Of course, if I actually knew who you might be referring to (I'd need a far better clue than mere initials) and they were at HQ or in an earlier corps back in the day, there's always the possibility that I knew them from back then. But certainly not since then. And aside from it being a terribly clumsy (if not bass ackward) way to refer to what I've said previously on this thread, at least it isn't an accusation of ignoring facts (which I see as a step in a more positive direction.) Not sure it can be easily done, but as mentioned previously, perhaps there's another way to communicate the thought using the analogy of an autostereogram, or hologram...(if/when I have time.) All the material facts in the world, no matter how carefully taken apart, analyzed, put together or studied will never reveal what might be known or revealed by (or through) them with the right light (aka, spiritual perspective.)
No. Of course, if I actually knew who you might be referring to (I'd need a far better clue than mere initials) and they were at HQ or in an earlier corps back in the day, there's always the possibility that I knew them from back then. But certainly not since then. And aside from it being a terribly clumsy (if not bass ackward) way to refer to what I've said previously on this thread, at least it isn't an accusation of ignoring facts (which I see as a step in a more positive direction.) Not sure it can be easily done, but as mentioned previously, perhaps there's another way to communicate the thought using the analogy of an autostereogram, or hologram...(if/when I have time.) All the material facts in the world, no matter how carefully taken apart, analyzed, put together or studied will never reveal what might be known or revealed by (or through) them with the right light (aka, spiritual perspective.)
That's a completely different issue/question than we've been discussing.
The issue at hand, as I have understood it, has been about "reaching into Daddy's cookie jar" for revelation in some real life situation.
You can believe in God all you want. Faith is about believing without getting to see evidence. That's just not the same as suggesting/claiming you have evidence of something just because you had a thought cross or enter into your mind.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
161
58
35
61
Popular Days
Apr 23
28
Apr 24
24
Mar 9
19
Apr 6
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 161 posts
Rocky 58 posts
waysider 35 posts
TLC 61 posts
Popular Days
Apr 23 2019
28 posts
Apr 24 2019
24 posts
Mar 9 2019
19 posts
Apr 6 2019
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc. The Hero With A Thous
Raf
Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice). Why would God deliberately make it harder for smart people t
Raf
Ok, TLC. Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that. I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or con
Posted Images
Rocky
Surely you jest!
I bet he don't wanna.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
AKA trolling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
We're not supposed to use the T word.
Besides, I find describing the behavior more effective than labeling it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I gotta admit I don't see him fitting that definition of trolling anyway. Trolls sow discord for their amusement. They don't do it because they're afraid independent minds will examine the evidence and come to a conclusion that troubles them. It's a motive thing, I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I can't argue against that point. But we might not know his true motive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Taken out of context (which you're so easily inclined towards with certain things I write, such as this) typically does facilitate "another way to read" most things.
In case you forgot (or chose to ignore), it started here:
Then went here:
Here:
And here:
Note the bolded line. Seems you missed the word (or the meaning) of augmented.
Perhaps there's another way to depict the difference which, if I have time, will attempt to describe. What must be noted, however, is that the reality I hold to doesn't (as you purport, and would have others believe) simply ignore physical evidence. (And it's not as if this is the first time I've pointed this out.)
Furthermore, you do realize that I never said that God deliberately made it harder for smart people to be saved, don't you? What I said or alluded to, was that He didn't make it easier for them. And the reason for it stems all the way back to the choice that Adam made (which I have no time, nor good reason, to delve into further - especially on this forum.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Your bullsh*t smells like what bullsh*t would smell like if bullsh*t could sh*t.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Is there anything outside of the Bible that claims Jesus rose from the dead, such as historical records and things of the like? I've never personally seen anything but, then again, I'm not sure I ever really looked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The best you'll see is claims that refer back to the gospels, none of which are written by eyewitnesses or authors willing to put their names on the documents
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Doesn't surprise me that what you claim it smells like isn't how it might smell to someone else.
Edited by TLCAnd I didn't write 2Cor.2:15-16.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Psst
You can call it applebutter if you want to.
It's still bullsh*t.
You've still yet to address any actual issues. Just falsely accuse me of misrepresenting you when I quote your actual words.
Note: when someone praises you for not listening to intelligent people (1 Cor. 13:19), it's not a compliment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Care to try again... genius?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
How is this NOT the "T" word?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
If your point is that there is a cause/effect connection between believing that God raised Jesus from the dead and being able to "reach into Daddy's cookie jar," you still haven't addressed the problem of discerning when any old thought that pops into said believer's head can be reasonably deemed to be revelation from God as opposed to anything other than revelation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
He's just upset because he equates his ignorance with other people's education and thinks both are entitled to equal respect.
I made my point exceedingly clear: the manufacturers of Yahweh attack intelligence because they know it is a threat to their con. It's an insult to the faithful, like referring to "intellectuals" in quotes but not actually rebutting their educated analysis of the evidence with anything other than the already discredited claims of ancient forgers of phony documents you expect us to believe are God-breathed even though their authors lack the basic integrity to sign their own names instead of Paul's.
Double-checking the grammar and...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"Furthermore, you do realize that I never said that God deliberately made it harder for smart people to be saved, don't you? What I said or alluded to, was that He didn't make it easier for them."
Well then, He's an idiot who clearly would NOT have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. See, when I want people to know something, like, say, the earth is spherical and not a disc covered by a dome, I gather the evidence and present it. I don't conjure up a fairy tale about people who live on a disc covered by a dome and leave you to figure out 5,000 years later that it was figurative even though the people who wrote it believed it was literal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
By the way, the notion that God didn't want to give intelligent people an advantage [holy sh*t, how are you not insulted by this] is not Biblical. Someone's making up that phony argument because he knows the actual evidence doesn't support his position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Imagine if math worked the way "believers" say faith in the resurrection works.
2+2=4, but you need spiritual insight from the very notion you're trying to prove in order to see it. I can't just show it to you by laying out the evidence because that would give you an unfair advantage over people who can't count.
Holy sh*t.
Lawrence Krauss was criticized once for wearing a shirt that said 2+2=5.
See, "faith" in math could reasonably lead you to that conclusion.
You laugh, but ...
When you round numbers, it's easy to see. 2.499 (which rounds down to 2) + 2.499 (which rounds down to 2) = 4.998, which rounds to 5.
Math is fun and funny that way.
Why do I bring it up?
Because if I'm going to expect you to believe something absurd, I'm going to respect your intelligence enough to explain it to you in terms that can't be disputed. I'm going to give you the evidence, ESPECIALLY IF YOUR ETERNAL DESTINY IS AT STAKE!!! Krauss DID wear a shirt that said 2+2=5. It also said "for large enough values of 2," but his critics like to leave that part out.
TLC wants people to think I left out his context, when his context consists entirely of accepting, as evidence, sh*t no one can prove. You need to be open to the holy spirit to accept the resurrection. Well, no sh*t. That's the point, isn't it. The evidence won't lead you there, but if you'll just open your mind to "not evidence," you'll see it clearly.
DUH!
EVERY. RELIGION. MAKES. THE. SAME. CASE.
It's circular reasoning. You have to assume that which you are trying to prove in order to prove that which you are assuming.
That's not evidence. That's abandoning your mental faculties, which religion PRAISES at the expense of intelligence, which is indicated by words like "so-called" intellectuals or by putting words like "intellectuals" in quotes to denigrate them [by implying they are not open to the things of the spirit].
Honestly, if I were an intelligent Christian, I would be insulted at the insinuation.
You were not taken out of context, TLC. Your argument was rebutted and refuted.
Now stop lying about me. Engage my arguments, if you have a counterargument. "You have to take it on faith" is not a counterargument. It's an admission the facts, evidence and truth are not on your side.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Unfortunately, the sound quality is poor. Fortunately, this clip is very short.
Also, Dr Krauss was (rightfully?) criticized for sexual harassment and forced out of his professorship at Arizona State University.
But that's beside the point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
By the way, I know of a female TWIt who, though disclaiming twi these days, makes the same ridiculous (and illogical) argument about the "logic" of spiritually augmented "factual" knowledge as "TLC" has on this thread topic. I wonder if TLC might know that person with initials SKP.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TLC, you don't have to answer that.
Rocky, don't think you meant it this way, but your post could be viewed as an attempt to disclose a poster's ID or threaten to do so.
That's a no-no.
TLC may disclose whatever he (or she: don't know/remember) wants to about who he is or who he knows. He may also decline to answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Of course. I doubt that he needed anyone's permission to decline to respond, however. I'm confident he could make that call on his own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
No. Of course, if I actually knew who you might be referring to (I'd need a far better clue than mere initials) and they were at HQ or in an earlier corps back in the day, there's always the possibility that I knew them from back then. But certainly not since then. And aside from it being a terribly clumsy (if not bass ackward) way to refer to what I've said previously on this thread, at least it isn't an accusation of ignoring facts (which I see as a step in a more positive direction.) Not sure it can be easily done, but as mentioned previously, perhaps there's another way to communicate the thought using the analogy of an autostereogram, or hologram...(if/when I have time.) All the material facts in the world, no matter how carefully taken apart, analyzed, put together or studied will never reveal what might be known or revealed by (or through) them with the right light (aka, spiritual perspective.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That's a completely different issue/question than we've been discussing.
The issue at hand, as I have understood it, has been about "reaching into Daddy's cookie jar" for revelation in some real life situation.
You can believe in God all you want. Faith is about believing without getting to see evidence. That's just not the same as suggesting/claiming you have evidence of something just because you had a thought cross or enter into your mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.