Is there any wonder......

Perceptions can really be a problem. Too bad everyone is not capable of recognizing that others may not perceive things in the same manner as the one making comment about his/her own perception of things.

Actually, I have not inquired of the Holy Spirit regarding any missing books. The way my perceptions work is like this: Things are the way they are. If things were supposed to be any different either through divine intervention or through human activity, then things would be different. Now because the book of Enoch is not contained within the Bible, I can only surmise that the book of Enoch was not supposed to be there, else it would be there.

Again, as to Jepthah and his daughter. Ask the Holy Spirit or God. I was not there at the time and again, have not made inquiry on that matter.

 

Except that you pick the least "normal" or standard definition of "reason" in order to construct this elaborate non sequitur.

I'd say it's fairly obvious who cannot use "normal thinking" or "reason".

You continually fail to understand the concept of burden of proof. The idea that "science is anything more than a revision of some of the ancient religions which use Numerology" is a claim that you made, and you have not provided anything to support such a claim. No one need refute a ridiculous claim that you concoct until you can adequately support it with evidence and facts.

Delicious irony. The majority of your posts do nothing but fallaciously steer the discussion off-topic.

 

Stop the presses.

Whatever is "supposed to be there" is there by someone's design, ultimately either God's or the devil's. If the Book of Enoch was omitted by the devil's design, do you not care?

Because...?

 

That is precisely what this thread is about. Recognizing that differing philosophies can also contain differing forms of logic inherent in the individual philosophy and the capacity to utilize other forms of philosophy and the necessary and inherent forms of logic that are contained in those other philosophies. Hence, your recognition that "Your logic makes no sense". You recognize this fact because your mind immediately recognizes that a different form of logic is being applied... a logic that does not stand in accord to that which your mind has become accustomed.

Is your logic willing to allow another form of logic to be considered? Christians who have studied various branches of science are willing to give consideration to and also allow those other forms of logic to be present within their mind at the same time.

All consisting of the opinions of others handed down over thousands of years.

Ditto the above comment of mine. So where is there a difference?

Why not? The opinions of the one who believes or does not believe in the Bible are relevant to a discussion related to the Bible.

Did you ever hear the term 'culture'? Did you ever consider that when a child grows into adulthood that child will make up his/her own mind as to what they want to believe or continue to believe? A few of the Atheists on this forum are prime examples of children who were raised in religious families and upon reaching adulthood, decided that they really did not want to continue in that belief (if ever that child truly believed in the first place). Exposure to a philosophy does not mean that you are being 'forced' to adhere to that philosophy or belief system; especially when you have reached adulthood.

Then what you are saying is that those Atheists who were raised with certain religious beliefs tend to keep those beliefs? Then that would make a liar of any Atheist who claims that they do not believe in the existence of God or gods; especially when the one being considered was "raised with certain religious beliefs". By retaining those beliefs as you have suggested, then the atheist is not truly an atheist or even an agnostic.

The forceful imposition of a culture does not necessarily require that the one who is being imposed upon is going to factually adhere to the requirements of that culture.

Is that really the reason? Can you in truth speak for so many people when you have not consulted all of those people?

No! "this is", is just the ramblings of someone who is identified on this forum as "Giftedone".

The Word of God.

One could claim that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and all the other philosophers is the 'truth' (or "true"), but we do not know if that could be factually considered as 'true'.

Not a contradiction. But to one who views the Bible using the wrong philosophy and or wrong form of logic, then I suppose I can understand why you would think that scenario is contradictory. Strange that only non-theists are suffering from such a condition of confusion with regard to those alleged contradictions. Can you prove that they are contradictions,,,, even though you cite what you BELIEVE to be a contradiction?

All of the Bible is Gods word; short of the indexes, commentaries, publishing information, cross references, dictionaries, maps, graphics, etc.

 

You give your own life meaning. We do not require an ancient book worshiping a fictional character to give our lives meaning. That would be a fantasy.

God of the Gaps. Your argument is a fallacy.

I find it interesting that you mention genocide considering your god condones it.

All morals and ethics are subjective to those who are determining them. The OT says its fine, even encouraged to murder, rape, and pillage. Buddhists not so much. Modern western democracies tend to think that murder, rape, and genocide are negative acts.

Your book was written by man, reflecting the morals, ethics, and way of life for that particular time in history.

 

Where did I even mention the definition of the term 'reason' within the paragraph that you quoted? Oh! I didn't use that definition? OK.. that makes you guilty of misrepresenting what I actually stated and what you actually quoted.

I have no burden of proof being imposed on me. You are attempting to force me to change my religious position by requiring me to adhere to the philosophy of some strange god... a god you call 'logic' of an unknown source -- perhaps a form of logic that is used by practitioners of Numerology.

Don't you just love it. Just savor that delicious, mouth watering, sweetness. Too bad. But thanks for noticing the effectiveness of my method.

 

Oh stop. I am not at all predictable, with the lone exception being...of just about everything I say.

 

Speculation.. speculation is a process by which some Numerologists use. Try again.

 

LOL, are you serious?

There it is. Who's misrepresenting? (rhetorical - it's you, obviously)

You imposed it on yourself when you made the claim that "science is anything more than a revision of some of the ancient religions which use Numerology".

So in this magical fantasy realm of yours, when one makes a claim, they have no burden of proof to back up said claim?

You basically just admitted to being a troll.

Let me ask you, seriously... Why employ such a method that is inherently dishonest? What possible point is there in engaging in a discussion expressly to derail it?

 

LOL Ok

In the OT Divorce was ok by God
In the NT Divorce was a sin against God.

Help me out here.

Does Gods word say it is ok or not ok to divorce your wife ?

 

Where and Where are those mentioned in the Bible?

Provide the specific references you are talking about and I will give you a proper response.

 

It was from the paragraph that I quoted! Here it is again, the whole paragraph, that I also quoted in post #34 where this all started (I bolded the relevant part)...

So now, stop trolling, and actually address my point instead of your usual avoidance and derailing, which was...

"Except that you pick the least "normal" or standard definition of "reason" in order to construct this elaborate non sequitur."

Pro-tip: Make sure you are correct before acting smug.

No it wasn't. You spouted some made-up nonsense, but nowhere did I see any links backing up your claim that:

And as I pointed out, you have failed to back up your claims. Therefore, there is no need for anyone to "challenge" your points until you do.

More strawman BS. I never said that you were obligated to me in any fashion. See previous two statements above as to why your "challenge" is meaningless.

I would normally agree with that, except that your method of going off topic is constant deliberate fallacies (strawmen, red herrings, ad homs, non sequiturs, etc).

What a surprise, more strawman BS, and you managed to avoid answering my question. Responding to a question with another question is not an answer at all. The proper thing to do, would have been to directly answer my question, then present yours.

 

" www.yourdictionary.com/reason
reason:
an explanation or justification of an act, idea, etc.
a cause or motive
the ability to think, form judgments, draw conclusions, etc.
sound thought or judgment; good sense
normal mental powers; a sound mind; sanity"

Now that you have made your claim that I have picked the least 'normal' or standard definition.. prove your point.

If you are making your assertion based on the sequential listing of the definitions, the then sub-definition "sanity" would be the least normal or standard definition. In the case of your using a sequential listing as the standard for greatest or least, , , then, , , You lose again.

 

Hmm, does this mean that, subsequently, Yguy is not using any form of logic?

 

1. You seem to have chosen an obscure dictionary, I can only guess in a dishonest attempt to skew things in your favor - but it didn't work anyway...

2. Your "normal thinking" conclusion seem like it fits best with the last definition. The "ability to think" (def 3) does not presuppose that ability to be "normal", which is the major focus of your used definition and only exists in the last def 5. Where "your" definition exists within the order is irrelevant anyway, as the word is almost always used with one of the other definitions, or as a verb.

(See, I can play your stupid (*)(*)(*)(*)ing word games too - though at least mine make logical sense.)

3. Unsurprisingly, you focus on the least important (idiotic word games) and completely ignore the major statement points I made.

 

Just as religion pure and undefiled does not require a name, logic pure and undefiled requires no formally recognized structure. hth

 

That would depend on what philosophy and subsequent form of logic you are using.

 

It is difficult for you to make clear decisions when your mind is filled with uncertainty forcing you to resort to guesswork. As you grow older and more mature, you will find wisdom to see the error of your ways.

 

Just more bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and evasion. You are completely incapable of an intellectually honest discussion.

 

You still fail by your use of projection. You fail in providing any empirical evidence to support your claims.

 

LOL, you get so caught up in your nonsense and constant derailing and fallacies that you don't even have a clue what we're talking about anymore.

Our whole exchanged began around the fact that you were not backing up your claims, and demanding a challenge to the ridiculousness you pulled from your ass without backing it up.

 

Such as you have done in the posting above?

 

....Says the living embodiment that this assertion is not the case.

 

Yes that is what you are saying, because you have voluntarily stepped into this segment of the conversation and have committed the same offense by not offering any empirical evidence to support the claims that you are defending.

 

Deut 21:

Because you married and shagged the lass you must no longer treat her as a slave or sell her to another as a slave.

Divorcing your wife is fine in the OT.

Not so much in the NT.