welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

11.08.07 - I Can't Change 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DeD CHiKn



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 10223
Location: Baltimore, Maryla*gunshot*

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your official last post was a lie. You sir are a liar.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Mr_Moustache



Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 9123
Location: The thing in itself that is Will

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rednecks excluded/
_________________
When life gives you lemons, some people make lemonade. I just eat them and make a sour face.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thewaitersitsondown



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2673
Location: The walrus was Paul

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pytheus wrote:
I shouldn't have to defend my beliefs.


That's not what I believe.
_________________
TORTOISE RUGBY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17164
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pytheus wrote:
I shouldn't have to defend my beliefs.


no - and beliefs shouldn't have to defend themselves from you.

your mistake was in saying "god never spoke directly to humans", and completely missing the point that many religions say he/she/it did just that. you may believe those religions are wrong - but within their context, god did in fact speak to mortals.

you need to be clear what context people are arguing in.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17164
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bun bun wrote:
YenTheFirst wrote:
Actually, your explanation is quite clear.
The original passage, on the other hand, is not. Not clear to me, at least.

Wittgenstein wrote a lot of his work completely alone (ironic considering his theories about truth) in a remote cabin living off oatmeal and cocoa. I don't think anyone could ever claim that Wittgenstein wrote clearly, and if they do, they're lying.


he also wrote in german, which doesn't help at all. i hate to think of the compound words he must have made up.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10342
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pytheus wrote:
I'm sorry Mouse. I just wanted to answer your post. Let me make clear, I am in no way shape or form Chirstain. My beliefs are not bound to christainity. I believe no religion has all the answers so I look at all of them and draw my own conclusions. I'm eclectic.

I would like to better defend my possition, didn't know I was getting into a fight. Its been 10 years since I cracked open a religious book and read anything. I don't have any notes or bookmarks to help me reference sources. I'm not prepaired to argue my points. I believe what I believe and I'm happy with that. I shouldn't have to defend my beliefs. Nor should I be made to feel I must believe a certain way or be considered "stupid".


If you feel that you were being labeled as stupid it is because of the highlighted. Don't bring anything up 'round these parts unless you are prepared to support/defend it or willing to ignore ridicule/dissection of your views.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Yorick



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 12101
Location: In the undersnow

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mostly don't say anything if you're not prepared to be ridiculed.
_________________
Currently experiencing: not summer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kame



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2565
Location: Alba Nuadh

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pytheus wrote:
kame wrote:
Genesis 3:8-9 wrote:
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"


You don't read your bible, do you good sir?


Ok I give. Adam and Eve spoke to god. Got it. Moving on. Though I'm curious. Why would god need to ask "Where are you?"


Because it's a legendary story, it's not real!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Pytheus
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One last attempt to save face. I give you a few quotes from one of my books. Take its as you may, but hopefully you can see where I got my crazy notions.

Quote:
Angel of the Burning Bush - Zagzagel; Michael. A strict interpretation of the use of the term (in Exodus 3:2; Luke 20:37; Acts 7:35) would suggest that it is the Lord Himself who is the angel of the burning bush, made manifest in angelic guise. The ascription to Zagzagel is found in Targum Yerushalmi


Quote:
Zagzagel - Prince of the Torah and of Wisdom. Zagzagel instructed Moses in the Knowledge of the Ineffable Name. He is the angel of the burning bush (but see Michael) and chief guard of the 4th Heaven, although he is said to reside in the 7th Heaven, the abode of God.


Quote:
Angel fo the Lord - a Biblical theophorism, usually identified or personified as Michael, Metatron, Malachi, Gabriel, Akatriel, Yehadriel, Homadiel, Phinehas, etc. Where the expression occurs in the Old Testament, particularly in the earlier books, God Himself. In numbers 22:22 the Angel of the Lord is the adversasry (i.e., ha-satan) acting for the Lord.


Quote:
In the New Testament, as in Acts 12:1-7 (where Peter is released from prison), the angel of the Lord is not the Lord but a heavenly messenger sent by the Lord and acting for the Lord.


Quote:
Angels of the Garden of Eden - the 2 angels commonly identified as the angels of Eden are Metatron and Messiah, both of the order of cherubim. But Raphael is also regarded as the angel of earthly paradise by virtue of his having guarded the Tree of Life.


Quote:
While Enoch, in his writings dating back to earliest Christian times and even before, names many angels (and demons), these were ignored in the New Testament gospels, although they began to appear in contemporaneous extracanonical works.


Its a 400 page book so it will take me awhile to find all the references. So you can see where I get confused cause alot of references to god are also referencing angels as well. The first quote make reference to god guising himself as an angel, which I tried to explain earlier that he comes in angelic form (a lesser form).

I thought this was interesting though.

Quote:
Adam ("man") - int he Book of Adam and Eve 1, 10, Adam is called "the bright angel." In Enoch II, he is a "second angel."


Just thought that was interesting.
Back to top
bun bun
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's like he's looking up capital cities or population data or something.

They're not real.
Back to top
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pytheus wrote:
One last attempt to save face. I give you a few quotes from one of my books. Take its as you may, but hopefully you can see where I got my crazy notions.

Alright. I'm gonna try to explain what I think you're doing wrong. It falls into two categories:

1) You are misunderstanding the complaints against you.

It began in the post I reacted against on page 3. You characterized everyone talking to you as too dogmatic to pay attention to what you had to say. This was wrong because no one had shown any sign of that - several people were responding with counterexamples, that is, they disagreed, but were listening and discussing.

Other complaints people had were that you hadn't offered any reasons for what you were saying. mouse, on page 4, said this very clearly, that you can't just assume that "god said" meant "god said via angel." You need to back that up somehow. This is again, perfectly fair discussion, but after another exchange without you characterized her argument as stemming from "following what [she's] been taught." Now, there are a number of problems with that, the first of which is that it comes from nowhere. She was asking you for evidence, for you to build an argument, she wasn't dogmatically replying that "only the Bible is true." A second reason it's ridiculous is that I'm pretty sure mouse isn't a Christian, anyway. Smile

Still later in the discussion, you made comments like "people shouldn't be judged on their beliefs" and "I shouldn't have to defend my beliefs" and the best example, "Nor should I be made to feel I must believe a certain way." The reason all of these are badly mischaracterizing the people arguing with you is that no one has been criticizing your beliefs. No one is calling you stupid because of your beliefs. You are getting insulted because you are arguing poorly. Everyone was looking for your reasoning, or your sources, the things you'd read and studied, the evidence you mentioned on page 3. Until this very last post, you offered nothing of the sort.

Are you getting what I'm saying?

2) You are arguing poorly.

Instead of just making statements that really seem to come from nowhere, you need to make chains of statements that logically proceed from one to the next.

When you declare that God never talks to people directly, you need to be able to answer the direct counterexamples people give you. You can't just say, "no, those were really angels despite what the Bible says," because that doesn't rest on anything but your say-so.

And when you say the Bible isn't the primary source for info on God-human interaction in Judaism and Christianity, you really have to back that up, because it is. It really is.

And at no point can you get away with saying that you're disagreeing with Christianity when people offered counterexamples out of the Tanach. The Old Testament is Jewish.

In your last post, you offer quotes from a book you have. Can you see how that doesn't really inspire much confidence in us? You haven't told us what the book is, from where it gets its material, what expertise the author has... Why should we take it seriously? Is it a rabbi? Did he base his comments on Talmud or other Jewish literature? Maybe Kabbalah? Does it even make a sweeping statement that it's always angels, or are there just these individual examples?

Can you see all of this? How you can't fairly complain about us not being convinced when you really haven't given us any reason at all to take the comments seriously?
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pytheus
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The book is the book I mentioned earlier. Dictionary of Angels by Gustav Davidson. It list tons of reference material in which the angels came from but I only gave a portion of the text cause its just so long to type it all out and for you to read everything. It lists sources from biblical and metaphysical texts.

There is no sweeping statements saying all instances are angels. Its just something I assumed from all the references and the examples above.

I say the bible isn't the only source cause there was a lot of scrolls that were rejected during the bible's creation. Some are rejected now. The Vatican last I heard doesn't want to recognize the Dead Sea scrolls. Not everything is in the bible. I also draw from other religions that reference angels or angelic like beings.

As far as how I presented myself. As I stated, I was not prepared. I didn't actually think people would question me, silly as it may sound. I took it for granted that I wasn't the only one who believed such things or if not, it would just be dismissed. I don't often question other's beliefs, even if it made no sense to be at the time. Cause I don't feel I have to correct them, its their beliefs.. not mine.

When people started questioning me, I got defensive. This is because of past experiences when I was attacked for my beliefs on boards I often posted on. I use to study Wicca and Kabbala and received a lot of hateful posts and attempts to deceive me.

For example I had someone pretend to be wiccan and tell me such horrible things about the religion's past that was clearly the usual Christian misrepresentation. And when I called her out for it I got a wall of text about Jesus. So forgive me, I'm a bit paranoid. You have no idea the shit I had to take.
Back to top
bun bun
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A linguist, a chemist, and a logician are all on a train to a conference in Scotland. They're gazing out the windows, when the linguist spots something. "Aha," he says, "all sheep in Scotland are black." The chemist corrects him, saying, "No, sir. There is at least one sheep in Scotland that is black."

The logician heaves a great sigh. He says, "There is at least one sheep in Scotland, at least one side of which is black."

I suck. Sad


Last edited by bun bun on Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How did the logician transform into a mathematician?
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest



Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's up to you to figure out. Logically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group