[
Replying to post 1 by Blastcat]
I think this is the very first time that I reply to myself. How weird!
But I thought that I would post this.. as someone didn't want to DERAIL another thread by replying to it a bit too much.
Just in case that person WANTS to reply... here is it copied:
[Replying to post 69 by tam]
Hello, tam
Your score on understanding my position stands at a GENEROUS 1 out of 10
The only thing you got what that I said people interpret the Bible differently. It may be a TRIVIAL point, but it's a point. So you got a 1 for that.
You missed all the OTHER points.
Sorry, tam.
I call this post :
SHEESH CARAMBA!
( not sure why )
tam wrote:
And I responded to rik's post. But I will respond also to yours.
Well, if you are trying your BEST to understand MY position, it might be best to get it from ME, rather than someone else's take on it.
Don't you THINK?
Quote:
Tam, my point has been that OTHERS interpret the Bible THEIR way.. and OTHERS call themselves true Christians.. who TRULY follow Christ and so on.. Some of these other Christians were SO SURE, in fact, that they had no trouble interpreting those lovely Bible passages to mean that they could BURN PEOPLE ON THE STAKE.
tam wrote:
Yes that is your position...
YES IT IS.. thank you for POINTING THAT OUT.
Sheesh caramba!
Do you imagine that people DIDN'T justify their burning using some Biblical justification? I think that's what religious leaders generally DO, don't YOU?
They must have had SOME religious justification, surely. They might have even explained to you how burning was the MOST loving they could be... all very Biblical, too. You could have spent HOURS having back and forth discussion about theology.
Most theological positions rather ARE debatable, aren't they?
So, yes, that IS my position. But I don't know if YOU understand it very well.. just writing "Yes, that is your position".. doesn't show me that.
I have you discussing what I might have said.. with someone else.... and you agreeing with me that something is my position. I have NO way of determining if you have a CLUE as to my actual position, tam. I'm suspecting otherwise.
If you aren't following, I wont bother going further.
Quote:
Now, YOU might call those people not following Christ, but most importantly, tam, THEY might have said the very same thing of YOU.
tam wrote:
Yep. I have never said otherwise.
See how this doesn't INDICATE to me that you understand me at all? For all I know, you might be in agreement but MISUNDERSTANDING ME, anyway. Your ability to FOLLOW what I have to say is in question.
And I have to say.. you aren't going out of your way right now to REASSURE ME, tam.
Quote:
It's NO use complaining to us that THEY aren't true Christians, tam. THEY probably would have said the same about yourself.
tam wrote:
Thankfully I am not complaining to you about that then. I am, in fact, merely responding to a question that was asked of me by someone in this thread.
GOOD COMEBACK!!
But it demonstrates a REMARKABLE lack of understanding.
If you FOCUS on the word "complaining" ... you miss the entire point. I have NO reason yet to think you are following. It's WHAT you are complaining about that matters.. You tell us that SOME Christians aren't really following what YOU consider to be Christ.
YOU FOCUSED ON ANYTHING BUT the important part of my message. Good evasion of the issue, BAD for really addressing it, or demonstrating that you GOT it, tam.
VERY BAD INDEED.
Evasion = 10
Understanding = 0
Quote:
And ATHEISTS don't care about this debate.. go debate it with THEM. ATHEISTS aren't CHRISTIANS.
PGH is the member who asked me the question. I do not know if he is an atheist or not. It does not matter to me. I responded directly to a question asked of me.[/quote]
I still don't know if you are following.
This isn't looking good at all, tam.
And since you question my sincerity, I have to wonder if you aren't being clever disingenuous in your response here. You seem to NOT NOTICE that I specifically mentioned what I thought you should be debating those other Christians about.. Seems to not enter YOUR MIND.
Sorry, tam.
I don't have evidence that you are trying very hard to understand my position.
tam wrote:
This thread was started by an atheist (or rather "a non-theist with ignostic leanings")
So obviously some do care about the debate. I do not think that you are in a position to state who is interested and who is not interested in this debate, or in the question of how to tell if one is following Christ or not. In fact, why ask the question if you are uninterested or merely wish to 'poo poo' the response?
DO YOU IMAGINE THAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT DEBATE?
What KIND of understanding is this demonstrating, tam?
I don't usually POO POO without an extremely DETAILED explanation as to WHY, tam.
Do you IMAGINE that I merely wish to POO POO arguments?
You should NOT imagine it, because I don't merely wish to do that.. it's what I call a "side benefit".
tam wrote:
Or have you forgotten that YOU are the one who asked me how you could know the difference. You initiated this conversation between us.
Not my point, tam.
Not my point at all. I think you could really try harder to understand my point, instead of JUMPING into a defense of it. You are defending yourself about something that is TOTALLY irrelevant to my point.
I have no confidence that you understand it at all.
Sorry, tam.
Defensiveness= 10
Understanding = 0
Quote:
Now, please, tam, I've tried to be as clear as possible, and a little succinct. I hope now, that you understand my point, but just in case that you still don't, I will put it in POINT FORM. It's as clear as I can make it, tam.
Excellent.
Quote:
That's why I usually use point form. TO BE CLEAR AND SUCCINCT.
1. You claim to be a true Christian.. or TRULY following Christ.. and that others don''t.
2. These others can, in fact, say the very same thing of YOU.
3. Atheists are NOT in the position to decide which is which.
4. So, THEREFORE, it's USELESS to tell atheists you are the true Christian and that others aren't.
Is that clear enough?
tam wrote:
Its clear, but I am not sure it makes sense, considering who initiated this conversation.
It's clear, but it doesn't make SENSE?
Telling me that it's clear = 10
Demonstrating that it's clear to you = 0
tam wrote:
First, I did not say that I am the true christian and others are not. I did not make a claim about me at all.
Because not everyone who claims to know Him actually does know Him.
Oh then, YOU don't claim to actually know Him?.. OF COURSE YOU DO!
Come on, tam.
Playing with words = 10
Honesty = lets just say NOT 10
tam wrote:
You jumped in and proceeded to ask me how an atheist can know the difference... and now you are telling me that atheist are uninterested in that debate, and that I should go debate with other believers about it.
When you are the one who asked me the question to begin with.
Do you understand my confusion here?
I understand that you get confused. I'm trying to help you understand. It's not all that easy. I'm not at all interested in Christian vs. Christian debates, tam. That's their affair. I would be interested in how any CLAIM to actually know "Him" can be verified.
So far, I am given BUPKIS about that.
tam wrote:
You cannot turn around and then tell me atheist are uninterested and I should only go have that debate with other Christians.
DO HAVE your theological debates among yourselves, tam. Im not going to have it with you, I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN.
Have your squabble about who is a true Christian or not with those who CARE. ATHEISTS don't CARE who claims to be a true Christian.. We don't happen to think ANY OF YOU have true beliefs. Your complaint about other Christians is MEANINGLESS, and quite fallacious. I'm just pointing it out.
It's USELESS to mention that in YOUR opinion, they ARE WRONG, and that you ARE RIGHT.
You'd have to DEMONSTRATE why you are right and they wrong, tam. If you use the Bible, so do THEY, if you have a special revelation, so might THEY. And NOBODY can go check your special revelations.
My point is that your answer was COMPLETELY USELESS..
tam wrote:
Now your point seems to be that people have their own interpretations and you (or atheists) cannot tell which interpretation is correct or not? So it is pointless to have debates like that with atheists?
Is that correct?
ALMOST, but no cigar yet,tam.
People have ALL kinds of interpretations of what the Bible "means". That part you got right. But you completely missed the more important part about how ONE reasonable INTERPRETATION is as good as any OTHER reasonable INTERPRETATION.
We all have our own interpretations. That's the PROBLEM.
But SOME people claim to have an ACTUALLY CORRECT ONE.
I think you IMPLY that you do.. it's this "love" thing. Anything that doesn't match what you think that HAPPENS TO BE.. doesn't ACTUALLY know Christ, is that correct? Because I think you go out of your WAY to tell us that.. over and over and over again, tam. That's you, isn't it?
The love business?
Well, they might have ANOTHER idea about love, these other people. They might think that BURNING PEOPLE is love. You might think that calling yourself a SLAVE is love. Who KNOWS what Christians think love is?
But we atheists can easily DETECT when someone is using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, tam. And that's what you are doing, even if it's a little bit DISGUISED at first.
We would have to fill PAGES AND PAGES to get you to admit it, though. Your lack of being able to "follow" would make it ALL the more difficult.
But others can plainly SEE what I'm talking about.
You claim to have an ACTUAL relationship with Christ, and claim that OTHERS do NOT.
That's the No True Scotsman fallacy, tam.
When YOU CLAIM that only YOUR interpretation is correct, that's UNJUSTIFIED.
I asked you HOW you KNOW that yours is better than anyone else's, and then HILARITY ensued.
People can defend just about ANY proposition using the Bible and they HAVE.. from slavery to child abuse to burning people at the stake and going to holy wars and so on. But my point isn't that it's POINTLESS to debate Christians about this.. my POINT was that YOUR RESPONSE was pointless.. meaningless, and WRONG.
Wrong on many levels, but you don't even UNDERSTAND my criticisms. Even NOW, you get it twisted up.
My VERY CLEAR CRITICISM of your response is :
1. Cherry picking the Bible to mean whatever it is you imagine it to be.
2. You support that Biblical authority by invoking Christ's authority.
3. You also take the Bible as the EXACT WORDS of Christ, even though you also say that it's REPUTEDLY only, contradicting yourself.
4. You imply that any Christian who doesn't agree with you aren't the REAL followers of Christ, although they claim to be, and thereby, using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
5. YOU YOURSELF claim to be a real follower of Christ.
6. And that on top of all of that, it's pretty PLAIN that you have trouble following the logic of OTHERS. You jump to DEFENSE way before you fully know what you are defending yourself about.
It's POINTLESS to PRETEND to us that you happen to have the CORRECT interpretation, tam. You'd have to try to DEFEND that idea. You only do by quoting the Bible, like people who DON'T agree with you do, and by invoking your quite mysterious connection to Christ, which is ALSO meaningless.
So, yes, your response was MEANINGLESS.
You might as well have been babbling, tam.
I'm pointing that out, and I'm explaining WHY.
I'm sorry if you can't follow.
If you really don't understand something, ask me what I mean.. you don't have to JUMP to a quite useless and meaningless defense right away. Try to find out what the problem IS before you attempt to fix it. Im always responding to your NON SEQUITUR answers, tam.
From one leap of logic to another.
tam wrote:
If that is what you think, then why would you engage me in a conversation on it?
I'm pointing out how MEANINGLESS your response was.
You do a lot of writing in here. I am CHALLENGING your reasoning.
It's QUITE fallacious.
tam wrote:
Why would you ask me a question as to how you could know? I answered thinking you were asking a sincere question.
You don't have to stoop so low as to insult my sincerity, tam.
Low blow.
When I point out that your response is MEANINGLESS, I am being QUITE sincere about it. When I point out that using a word like SLAVE is incredibly offensive I am being QUITE SINCERE, tam.
Perhaps YOUR sincerity should be questioned.
tam wrote:
If you say you cannot tell what is correct or not, then who am I to dispute that? Maybe you cannot, but some other atheist/agnostic/ignostic/or even a fellow believer will find the information helpful?
Yes, and PERHAPS, tam, just perhaps, when I point out that your response is MEANINGLESS, they might understand why its NOT HELPFUL AT ALL.
Understanding how your answer was MEANINGLESS is useful to others. Deconstructing messy logic isn't always that EASY. It's a MESS.. and it's very typical. On the surface it's all very nice. You talk about love, what's wrong with that.. and so on. But if we TEASE IT APART.. and ask a few questions, we easily UNMASK the atrocious logic.
tam wrote:
I certainly dispute the point that it is impossible to tell who is or is not listening to Christ, if only on specific matters:
"Bless those who curse you"... cannot be interpreted as... "Curse those who curse you."
You'd be surprised how clever some Christians can be with their interpretations, tam.
I'm sure we could pull out Bible verses that could be construed in ALL MANNER of creative ways.
You might have HEARD of "cherry picking"?
It's a "thing".
tam wrote:
Do not welcome 'them' (heretics) into your home; love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; shake the dust off your feet and leave that house/town; etc, etc... cannot be interpreted as... 'burn em at the stake.'
Cannot?... You'd be SURPRISED TAM.
Just because YOU cannot doesn't mean that OTHERS cant.
tam wrote:
Do you agree or disagree?
I could do BOTH, tam. I assure you that I am QUITE creative that way.
You pull out two verses that match your belief. We could play Bible tag all day long, tam. You know that.
I don't really like the game.
I don't really take anything in the Bible as RELIABLE... it's just stories to me, tam. And MANY stories tell a quite different tale than LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.
I happen to know of QUITE A FEW Christians who use the SAME Bible to support OTHER kinds of views. Not ALL of them are all that "loving" quotes.
I gave you two examples. Non-believers will burn in hell.
That needs some INTERPRETATION, don't you think?
tam wrote:
As a non-muslim, I can still look at Islam and see that those Muslims who behead people just for not converting to Islam... they are not following their prophet or their holy book.
TO THE ONES WHO CUT OFF HEADS.. it's quite the other way around, tam.
We have TWO SETS OF INTERPRETATIONS:
1. Head cutting is Quran...
2. Head cutting isn't.
1. Burn at the stake isn't Biblical
2. It is.
THERE IS A DEBATE about those, tam. ( maybe not burning anymore.. the Christians STOPPED that , but historically, tam, they USTA. )
tam wrote:
Because the Quran gives specific instruction that a Muslim is only to give warning, and nothing more.
I don't have to be a Muslim to see that. I can just read the holy book for myself.
To the head cutters, you aren't reading it well.
tam wrote:
If I can do that as a non-muslim, why can't some do that as a non-christian?
Because atheists don't NEED to protect ISLAM or CHRISTIANITY. I see both as morally chaotic and dangerous. I don't HAVE an Abrahamic religion to defend. That's YOUR job, tam.
Good luck.
tam wrote:
In fact, I think there are multiple non-Christians who can see even if only from what is written, if a person is following Christ or not. Some of them are on this forum. We might not always be right, but that is where discussion can be useful; to talk it out.
In order to have a RATIONAL discussion, we need to UNDERSTAND one another. I don't think you STILL understand mine, and here is WHY;
1. You went back to using your offensive signature. That's a bad SIGN, tam. I went out of my WAY to tell you that it was great that you had dropped the word. Now, I doubt the sincerity of that gesture. For all I know, it was probably a mistake on your part when you left it out. So, that olive branch went into the trash pretty fast. I just had time to acknowledge it, and it was REMOVED. BAD MOVE, tam. Peace is GREAT. Slavery NOT. That you choose to offend me and the MILLIONS of real slaves doesn't show a LICK of understanding, tam.
2.You have demonstrated a very PARTIAL understanding of my actual position. I think you completely MISSED the part about true Christians and how we can TELL THEM APART. When you bring up burning people, you forget that it was CHRISTIANS who did that. So, invoking Christ or the Bible doesn't help with that... THEY USED THAT TOO.
3. You don't seem to be able to focus on MY position is before you JUMP INTO your defense. Your haste to defend yourself does NOT demonstrate an understanding, but something else, instead.
Sorry, tam.
Try, try again, right?
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
