It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christian Answers Repository

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

MOD NOTE: ATTENTION!!!




Please discuss the topic.

Christian Answers Repository




That means no belittling, off topic posts, casting aspersions on another's character, talking down to other members, harassing or ridiculing others.

Further such remarks can and will result in post removals and/or warnings including temporary posting bans.


Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

MOD NOTE: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Ad Hominem Attacks And You

Trolling, And What To Do About It

YOU are responsible for your own posts




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LHP666
OK. Let's start at the top, shall we?

We shall at last!


From the site:

The God of the Bible is not worthy of my respect: * The God who 'created' nature is cruel


I dont know anyone that rejects the jew desert god because nature is "cruel". Nature is nature. Respect it or die. Or you can respect it AND die.

Did you only read the title, or did you read the content and arguments? It isn't an argument Thinktank is making but a typical, common, often-made accusation against the Bible and Christianity: that since nature is cruel, then if God created it God must be cruel. How hard is that to grasp?



# God practices genocide, and even endorses anti-Semitic writings in the New Testament (John, 1 Thess 2)
That leads to a long page, and I don't want to write a f'n book here, so I read one of the first sentences and find this gem:

Are you aware of ATS's rule against pseudo-swearing?

And are you aware that to refute something you have to read it first, and not just the opening sentence or paragraph?



On those very rare occasions when God displays His judgment within human history, it is very sobering and one which we find genuinely disturbing--it reminds us that "ethics" is not just another branch of philosophy!


1) "Very rare"? He is counting on the ignorance of those that haven't bothered to read their bibles when he said that. Both the OT and NT are drenched in blood. These massacres are about as "very rare" as sand in the desert.

Specifics please. On what basis do you assert that "he is counting on the ignorance of those that haven't bothered to read their bibles"? You are quote-mining, not reading.


2) "Sobering"? No, more like sickening. Twisted. Perverted. Vile. Hypocritical (Dont murder! Now, Murder them all!!! -psycho-god)

But you don't hate Christianity or Christians. Right.

All of which confirms my suspicion that trying to converse with someone who makes no effort to hide their intent to flame and not actually debate is a waste of time.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   


Did you only read the title, or did you read the content and arguments? It isn't an argument Thinktank is making but a typical, common, often-made accusation against the Bible and Christianity: that since nature is cruel, then if God created it God must be cruel. How hard is that to grasp?


Nonsense. I dont recall EVER hearing that argument from anyone. Nature is what nature is. It can be both beautiful and deadly at the same time, It has nothing to do with cruelty.





# God practices genocide, and even endorses anti-Semitic writings in the New Testament (John, 1 Thess 2)
That leads to a long page, and I don't want to write a f'n book here, so I read one of the first sentences and find this gem:

Are you aware of ATS's rule against pseudo-swearing?

And are you aware that to refute something you have to read it first, and not just the opening sentence or paragraph?


It is also against the ATS rules to make one line posts. But that didn't stop you, did it?





On those very rare occasions when God displays His judgment within human history, it is very sobering and one which we find genuinely disturbing--it reminds us that "ethics" is not just another branch of philosophy!


1) "Very rare"? He is counting on the ignorance of those that haven't bothered to read their bibles when he said that. Both the OT and NT are drenched in blood. These massacres are about as "very rare" as sand in the desert.

Specifics please. On what basis do you assert that "he is counting on the ignorance of those that haven't bothered to read their bibles"? You are quote-mining, not reading.


So you do want me to write a book, just for you? I tried to be fair by starting at the beginning instead of searching for a even more outrageous quote to comment on. Cherry-picking quotes is never necessary.




But you don't hate Christianity or Christians. Right.

All of which confirms my suspicion that trying to converse with someone who makes no effort to hide their intent to flame and not actually debate is a waste of time.


I'm not flaming anyone here. I am addressing the topic. If you don't like the way I am doing that, then it's your problem and not mine.

You're just mad because I am not agreeing with you. And I give reasons why.
You're taking this way too personally. It's not about you. It's about the topic.
edit on 20-6-2011 by LHP666 because: format



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LHP666
Nonsense. I dont recall EVER hearing that argument from anyone. Nature is what nature is. It can be both beautiful and deadly at the same time, It has nothing to do with cruelty.

Thinktank is using examples of THEIR experiences, not yours. I happen to have similar experiences to Thinktank, and I'm pretty sure many others have as well. But again, Thinktank is not supposed to know your personal experiences. You might keep an eye out for fellow anti-believers making this charge and set them straight so you can call Thinktank ignorant or something.



It is also against the ATS rules to make one line posts. But that didn't stop you, did it?

WHAT one-line post? That refers to a whole comment, not a response to one part of a comment! Wow.

And with that sort of "nonsense", I'll only respond to people the OP was intended for: Christians who might like to be aware of the Thinktank site.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Temporarily closing to allow members to read the links in my last post.


ETA
This thread is now reopened...with the provision that rules and followed and members post on topic,...

This applies here, too.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on Mon Jun 20 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by LHP666
Nonsense. I dont recall EVER hearing that argument from anyone. Nature is what nature is. It can be both beautiful and deadly at the same time, It has nothing to do with cruelty.

Thinktank is using examples of THEIR experiences, not yours. I happen to have similar experiences to Thinktank, and I'm pretty sure many others have as well. But again, Thinktank is not supposed to know your personal experiences. You might keep an eye out for fellow anti-believers making this charge and set them straight so you can call Thinktank ignorant or something.


It sounds more like he was building strawmen to knock down.

I've been in religious forums for years now and do not recall this "cruel nature" ever being at the top of the list of objections. For some reason, the website owner decided to put it at the top of his list.

On the other hand, the "cruel god" objection was at or near the top of the objections that I heard from others.

If you want to get anywhere in converting others, you need to address that "cruel god" issue in a more effective manner than that website did. He/she couldn't even get the objection worded properly without making the issue seem like it hardly ever happens. It's best to not sugarcoat it like he/she did.

However, the bible itself contradicts any attempt to gloss over this issue. Your only hope is that they take their lead from other christians and don't read the bible for themselves.

Don't blame me though. I'm just trying to help you be a more effective witness...
I am doing a better job of it than that website does.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


Didn't Jesus say something about removing the log from your eye? The act of ignoring an individual who is making legitimate critiques of your claims is, itself, a trolling action.

Granted, you did the same with my posts waaaay back when you first joined.

Does your repository have an answer to this summary dismissal of a Biblically literal deity?

Premise 1: If the Bible is literal, then all the actions performed within it attributed to the deity necessarily happened.
Premise 2: All of the physical evidence directly contradicts the first few chapters of the Bible.
Conclusion: A deity defined literally by the Bible necessarily does not exist.


Example: Flood story, tower o' Babel, both creation stories (which contradict each other, not to mention the physical evidence), the idea of a flat and circular earth, the idea of a solid dome sky, geocentrism, etc...all of that is false, therefore a literal interpretation of the Bible necessarily cannot define an existing deity.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I feel like I'm on safe ground, topic-wise, when I say that OP's intention was to direct christians/theists to the manual of pre-made answers for the un-informed christian.

Un-informed isn't to be taken as an insult, no-one can know everything; though I would like to add, that while 'un-informed' isn't meant as an insult, getting some real knowledge about a subject is a better way than using non-understood material from 'authority'.



My next step in this post is more daring.

While the OP author apparantly feel it a good idea to turn attention to the answer-manual....

(Quote: [". So I thought it might be good to highlight a site that addresses the most common objections."])

....it's nor clear if a discussion of the quality of said manual is topic-relevant.

But it WOULD be topic-related if I found some really, really ignorant site with primitive pro-atheist arguments, and directed attention to it.´...wouldn't it?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Read the Thinktank, and that includes content, and that means whole articles instead of quote mining.

Remember the OP is directed AT Christians, so if you're not a Christian, don't complain about being ignored, especially if you were told personally and directly that this was due to personal attacks and/or failure to communicate. If your arguments are so good, then you don't need the attitudes and trolling, trolling, trolling of Christian threads, or starting multiple anti-Christian threads of your own.

Remember the OP.

Did I mention that it would be nice if we could all remember the OP?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


Let me put it this way:

Christians, don't go to this think tank because it is full of horse feces.

That's what the think tank is. It provides shallow answers to straw men that are carefully crafted and manipulated in such a way to not only ignore reasonable skeptical objections but to distort them in such a way as to render them all but unrecognizable at anything but a cosmetic level. The same goes for the second link, which also contains idiotic attacks on objections that seek to ridicule.

If someone could show me one instance in which this isn't true, I'll be happy to cease in referring to this think tank has horse feces or equine excrement or any other variant.

Granted, I think one thing that's telling is that the OP is apparently for Christians...which means that the think tank is there to be an exercise in cognitive dissonance...I mean "apologetics" for those who merely want to keep believing in spite of reasonable objections.

Does it handle the necessary logical contradictions of a deity as described by Christianity? hmm...can't find any.

It doesn't tackle the omniscience/free will conflict, the omnipotence/immortality conflict, the omnibenevolence/hell conflict, or any other seemingly conflict that arise from the deity as described.

I would like to point out that the second link does provide a response to "Can god make a _____ so _____ that he cannot ______ it" form questions...by simply declaring them ungrammatical. Which is the most idiotic response I've yet to hear to such an objection.

To clarify that this is on topic, I'm telling Christians that these are inadequate, huckster responses that are equivalent to the defecation of large mammals and not to use them.
edit on 21/6/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 





Remember the OP is directed AT Christians, so if you're not a Christian, don't complain about being ignored,


Do feel free to ignore this.

You want no opposition. You want only one view to be presented; the christian view. What you want doesn't matter. Post something and it's fair game.

There is another view, and that is the skeptical/atheist/agnostic/pagan/whatever view(s). All views can be presented as replies to the OP. People can make informed decisions. Such is the nature of discussion boards.

Naturally, you can present your views on non-xtian topics.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


Trolling attempts? lol

Disagreement does not equal trolling.

There are people with all sorts of worldviews here. There is no rule stating that only xtians can reply to xtian topics. And it doesn't matter if the OP tries to limit such replies to like-minded people only, or not.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by LHP666
 


What is a "xtian"?




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by LHP666
 


What is a "xtian"?


It's a derogatory term for "Christian", though originally it was a medieval way to save space. Same with "Xmas". Another popular anti-Christian term is "Jebus". This sort of vocabulary is a sure sign of a mocker. In my experience. For what that's worth.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by LHP666
 


What is a "xtian"?


It's a derogatory term for "Christian", though originally it was a medieval way to save space. Same with "Xmas". Another popular anti-Christian term is "Jebus". This sort of vocabulary is a sure sign of a mocker. In my experience. For what that's worth.


Ummmmm, okay.

Is that a sign of a phobia or paranoia with typing the word "Christ"?

Like a cooties thing?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
So what about getting to the point of OP, instead of all the debate-tactical considerations.

Does the OP include the option of a critical analysis of the offered link? And if 'no', ....why is source criticism not acceptable.

Madness wrote a comment on the linked answer-manual, and I wouldn't mind spending some extra time on it on the area(s), where my own competence is sufficient (I don't know everything).

What I've seen sofar of the answer-manual makes me agree with Madness for the duration.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by LHP666
 


What is a "xtian"?


It's a derogatory term for "Christian", though originally it was a medieval way to save space. Same with "Xmas". Another popular anti-Christian term is "Jebus". This sort of vocabulary is a sure sign of a mocker. In my experience. For what that's worth.


Ummmmm, okay.

Is that a sign of a phobia or paranoia with typing the word "Christ"?

Like a cooties thing?


Is this relevant to topic?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join