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.

 

To those that call themselves Christian

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


No, by this time tomorrow you will be as frustrated as I am when you refuse to acknowledge the absurdity of discussing via logical fallacies. Yours are not of the absurd variety, they are subtle, but to give you subtle examples wouldn't show you they are absurd.



The issue at hand is the 613 laws... I argue that these laws were not given by God... Further more, this same so called "god" (little g intended)... commands his servants in this particular circumstance... to murder rape and pillage...


Yes, I agree that's the issue at hand... so:

Jeremiah was the prophet in Jerusalem when Ezekiel was doing his work for God as a prophet in Babylon so tell me which one was telling the truth to the king? Jeremiah, Ezekiel or both?


***This post is an intentional straw man or a red herring fallacy, do not take literally***




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



No, by this time tomorrow you will be as frustrated as I am when you refuse to acknowledge the absurdity of discussing via logical fallacies. Yours are not of the absurd variety, they are subtle, but to give you subtle examples wouldn't show you they are absurd.


I expected a reply like that...


Yes, I agree that's the issue at hand... so:

Jeremiah was the prophet in Jerusalem when Ezekiel was doing his work for God as a prophet in Babylon so tell me which one was telling the truth to the king? Jeremiah, Ezekiel or both?


That has nothing to do with the topic...

Im not playing your game if you won't play mine...

Oh and its my thread either way... so stick to my topic and explain the passage i requested...

Again... You're just trying to steer the debate... I object!




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



That has nothing to do with the topic...


LOL, you got the point after the 2nd one!
But you aren't frustrated enough to stop yourself, that will come, this is how someone long ago broke me of it.

Back to what you said:


You said the 613 laws of Moses are God's laws and His Word, so why are you asking me this question again?


***This post is an intentional straw man or a red herring fallacy, do not take literally***



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



You said the 613 laws of Moses are God's laws and His Word, so why are you asking me this question again?


I didn't say that...

YOU said these were laws given by God... I said nothing of the sort...

Putting words in my mouth won't get you far




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



You said the 613 laws of Moses are God's laws and His Word, so why are you asking me this question again?


I didn't say that...


Good, you're learning. The red portion of the text is the type of fallacy I'm using...

Anything else to discuss?


YOU said these were laws given by God... I said nothing of the sort...


Agreed, you did not.

That's why a straw man is absurd. I cannot invent your statements and use them in an argument as if you actually said them.

Get the point yet or do we need further examples of the absurdity of arguing with fallacies and why I get so frustrated most of the time?

Understand completely? I can do this for 19 more hours if not.


Putting words in my mouth won't get you far


Remember me saying I refuse to discuss this way earlier?

Still need more examples? Or do you get it now?


edit on 15-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I did not put words in your mouth...

Nor did i say you said something you did not...

If you can't answer the questions just say so dude...




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

The original question was about Jesus saying he was going to fill up the law.
He did this by filling in the missing or ignored part which was about making the world a better place by following a spiritual law which actually helps people, rather than a law of just going through the motions of seeming to be obedient to a ceremonial law.
If you think of the law from a Christian viewpoint, then this makes sense, but if you are stuck in this idea that performing rituals somehow makes you holy, then you will never get it.
If anyone wants to uphold some concept that Jesus came to demonstrate the validity of a book of rules written by men, then they get no support from the New Testament, so have to resort to basically name calling to discredit any rational way of thinking.

edit on 16-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I did not put words in your mouth...

Nor did i say you said something you did not...

If you can't answer the questions just say so dude...



*sigh*

Okay, more..

"You just said I can answer the questions, and that you put words in my mouth, but how do you know this? You didn't put words in my mouth, I spoke them myself."



***This post is an intentional straw man or a red herring fallacy, do not take literally***



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Would it be possible to actually debate the issue rather than play mind games?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Hes just trying to frustrate me so as to avoid the issue here...

I don't mind, these are hard issues from a christian mindset...

Nut seems to think hes teaching me something... when both of his "Falacy" statements were completely valid

All good though, let the reader decide the truth here...




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


No. Trying to show you my frustration I experience whenever people use those same fallacies in their arguments, then refuse to learn what they are so they will avoid making them again. I'm using the same methodology someone a long time ago used on me to break me from the bad habit of using them myself. That's the PURPOSE behind the practical application. You're just as stubborn as I was and I'm using the same process that broke me of the habit. You, like me, are stubborn. You've already admitted that, and trust me, i know how to deal with stubborn friend, because I am that way too by nature. So therefore just directing a stubborn horse to the well of knowledge will not make him drink, stubborn horses need their heads pushed to the trough by force.

There is ALWAYS a method behind my "madness", always friend. Someone that didn't genuinely love you would have wrote you off long ago. I cannot, I see myself 10 years ago in you.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Would it be possible to actually debate the issue rather than play mind games?



My question back sir is can we legitimately debate any issue on Earth when a party involved is straw manning and using red herrings?

No we cannot. But I can leave and not address them when they are presented in an argument. That's plan C and I have too much love and fortitude to abandon plan B right now.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The problem is the "falacy" you seem to think you pointed out were incorrect... what i said was completely valid.. you just sidestepped the issues and slapped labels on them...

IF the falacy was actually there this would be a different issue... but you're beating a dead horse...




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 
I think there should be a fallacy of labeling other people's arguments as fallacies as if that in itself substitutes for a valid counter-argument.
There should also be a fallacy for saying the word, absurd, as if that was in itself a valid counter-argument.
I would accept the concept that fallacies should be something learned in the process of becoming an educated debater but using those labels as an actual debating tool is not acceptable and to me only shows the lack of ability of the person using then to come up with a substantial argument themselves.
edit on 16-4-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Ahh... but there is...

They're called "debate tactics".... something you learn in debate classes or on a debate team, like our friend here... Labeling arguements as Falacy without anything to back up the label is in fact a falacy in it self.

They're excuses or a way of stalling for time when said person does not have an answer...




edit on 16-4-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Alright, no biggie. I wish your thread success friend.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I think its been a success... considering you are likely the only one that would challenge these issues...

i'd say case closed.

No need to continue down this path, my point has been made and validated.

A star for your attempt though


edit on 16-4-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


It was a success for you, I don't gauge success in the same manner. And I won't attempt to show you what you call "debate tactics" are anymore. Ill just follow the advice of scripture which is what I should have done from the start. Thank you for again reminding me the folly there is in operating in the flesh. Praise God for that. I didn't want it to come to this, but if you straw man me in the future or use a red herring again I will ignore and refuse to answer that post.

I refuse to answer according to the folly.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


I can at least inform those that claim to be christian that they are mistaken.

My claim is this... IF you as a christian, follow these laws... You are NOT following Christ.... And thus... Are not christian...

Astute observation. I guess I should have looked at this thread sooner. I don't claim to be a Christian for the simple reason that I don't believe Jesus actually accepted the offered role of Messiah.

I just came here attempting to see what your actual take is, since you caught my attention on another thread. I will attempt to catch up, it's 10 pages already, and I'm only just on page 1.

reply to post by Akragon

Likely because Jesus saw the error in the theology of Judaism... and refused to conform to what he was born into... Though it seems those that followed him, returned to judaic beliefs to some extent.

I think Paul never got past the Torah himself. As much as he railed against Judaizers eg in Galatians, he himself placed the IEDs or U-turn here signs by making statements like: Romans 3:1 "Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Because first of all, they were entrusted with the oracles of God. "

Once the initial flush of Christianity wears thin, where will the Christians turn? Right back to "the oracles of God", that's where. So Jesus ends up becoming the hook to get the Gentiles to run after Torah, in which is only death. They have then returned to their own vomit.

Paul should have really freed himself from Torah before ever talking to a single Gentile.
edit on 16-4-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


This thread has taken an entirely different path then what i originally thought would happen...

Just so you know... the thread changed at page 7... which stemmed from another thread with the same issue.

The issue now is that Jesus went against many of these so called laws... and also taught against them...

Oh and try to excuse the first and second page... its mearly myself getting frustrated with an old troll friend of mine....


edit on 16-4-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join