ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete
- Thread starter prodigal
- Start date
wickwoman
New member
I saw a debate between Sharpton and Fallwell yesterday morning. Very interesting. It seems the highest incidence of abortion, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc., is to be found in the good ole' Bible Belt. I can show you at least one of each, maybe more in the A of G church I grew up in.
Clete, your are still shifting responsibility. You refuse to answer direct, fairly simple questions (though you take it for granted that others should answer yours), you won't even attempt to actuallyapply the "logical coherence" of your position to a specific case, you respond with more questions, and have the gall to call chasing your presuppositional tail in circles an argument.
Tiresome...
Soulman
Tiresome...
Soulman
Rolf Ernst
New member
Granite 1010--Your post #347 is contrary to what the scripture teaches about Christ's motive in redeeming His people. Read the Bible for relevant information. Ephesians is a good place to start for this type of information. Ephesians, despite the thoughts of men, says that He gave Himself for the church that He might present it to Himself as a chaste bride without any spot or blemish.
If the motivation was to simply save people from hell, what about all those who want to escape hell but He turns them away with "depart from me you workers of iniquity."? What about the apostle's question, "do you not know that the wicked shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven?" and his warning, "be not deceived. God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows that shall he also reap."
If the motivation was to simply save people from hell, what about all those who want to escape hell but He turns them away with "depart from me you workers of iniquity."? What about the apostle's question, "do you not know that the wicked shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven?" and his warning, "be not deceived. God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows that shall he also reap."
Dotcom,
Yeah sure, why not?
Ah, my good friend Lighthouse,
LH thanks for clarifying. That’s what I’ve been looking for from the beginning. You have no way to prove to anyone but yourself that your system of belief in god is valid.
I dunno, man. I still think it’s a crummy analogy.
Than it’s not free. If it’s restricted in the least than it’s not free.
We’ll just have to wait and see.
Hey, is it always a battle around here for the last word, or is this just a peculiar situation?
Granite1010
Don’t forget about Lot having sexual intercourse with both of his daughters.
Wickwoman,
I’ll get Lynyrd Skynyrd to play.
Aimiel,
That’s your response to what Soulman has been driving at? That’s it? Aimiel. Go stand in the corner.
While you’re in the corner Aimiel, you can answer my hypothetical question. Lighthouse refuses to because the thought of such a hypothetical situation caused him to ball up in a little hyper-ventilating ball of self-loathing and simultaneous god adoring nail biting panic.
IF I had hard, indisputable proof that jesus was a fraud, would you accept the proof and reject jesus, or would you continue to believe despite the proof?
I would appreciate a clear and direct response.
Has Clete joined Hilston in the “tail between the legs” club? I don’t see him anywhere…
Maybe he’s waiting for Hilston to come back to fight his battles for him again?
Yeah sure, why not?
Ah, my good friend Lighthouse,
LH thanks for clarifying. That’s what I’ve been looking for from the beginning. You have no way to prove to anyone but yourself that your system of belief in god is valid.
I dunno, man. I still think it’s a crummy analogy.
Than it’s not free. If it’s restricted in the least than it’s not free.
We’ll just have to wait and see.
Hey, is it always a battle around here for the last word, or is this just a peculiar situation?
Granite1010
Don’t forget about Lot having sexual intercourse with both of his daughters.
Wickwoman,
I’ll get Lynyrd Skynyrd to play.
Aimiel,
That’s your response to what Soulman has been driving at? That’s it? Aimiel. Go stand in the corner.
While you’re in the corner Aimiel, you can answer my hypothetical question. Lighthouse refuses to because the thought of such a hypothetical situation caused him to ball up in a little hyper-ventilating ball of self-loathing and simultaneous god adoring nail biting panic.
IF I had hard, indisputable proof that jesus was a fraud, would you accept the proof and reject jesus, or would you continue to believe despite the proof?
I would appreciate a clear and direct response.
Has Clete joined Hilston in the “tail between the legs” club? I don’t see him anywhere…
Maybe he’s waiting for Hilston to come back to fight his battles for him again?
Rolf, you're missing the point: IF the bride is not chaste, if she is "spotted," as it were, she has no place in the kingdom. Christ must redeem his people from hell; it's not just about making Christians "good people," or something. The threat of hell is the bedrock of Christianity. Jesus isn't special without the danger of eternal torture.
Rolf,
Directing an ex-christian to the bible is really the last thing in the world you should do. First of all, you lack the capacity to comprehend the point of view that myself, Granite and Soulman all possess. You pointed Granite to the scripture, but Granite's been to the scripture, as have I and Soulman. It's ineffectual, we're immune to it. It's not good enough anymore, so you're going to have to start coming up with some better answers. LH has already told me that it is impossible to prove the existence of god via the five senses, and we dispute the infallibility of your bible in the first place, so that really leaves you with nothing. Scripture won't work on us, and we're going to keep agitating until we get good answers, not just the regular, boring fare that fundies like yourself send our way.
In short, apart from scripture, using the fives senses as a standard, present some form of evidence that what your book says is true.
LH has already said it is impossible.
When challenged, Hilston digressed and used irrelevant, hypothetical counter arguments to divert attention from his inability to effectively defend his faith. He has since, disappeared.
Clete still hangs around, but after four hundred posts has refused to reveal the "proof" that he has since the beginning claimed to possess. He has yet to outline his biblical worldview, though I would deny it by default. His refusal to defend himself on such a basic level and then claim victory by means of an irrelevant counter argument is childish at best.
Rolf, perhaps you won't be joining the masses of the self-deluded and will actually present me with some form of scripture-seperate evidence for why what you believe is true.
I don't think you can. I don't expect you to. I expect you to make a counter argument, I expect ad hominem attacks, I expect you to shift responsibility, I expect you to skirt the issue. I DON'T expect you to meet the challenge head on.
Directing an ex-christian to the bible is really the last thing in the world you should do. First of all, you lack the capacity to comprehend the point of view that myself, Granite and Soulman all possess. You pointed Granite to the scripture, but Granite's been to the scripture, as have I and Soulman. It's ineffectual, we're immune to it. It's not good enough anymore, so you're going to have to start coming up with some better answers. LH has already told me that it is impossible to prove the existence of god via the five senses, and we dispute the infallibility of your bible in the first place, so that really leaves you with nothing. Scripture won't work on us, and we're going to keep agitating until we get good answers, not just the regular, boring fare that fundies like yourself send our way.
In short, apart from scripture, using the fives senses as a standard, present some form of evidence that what your book says is true.
LH has already said it is impossible.
When challenged, Hilston digressed and used irrelevant, hypothetical counter arguments to divert attention from his inability to effectively defend his faith. He has since, disappeared.
Clete still hangs around, but after four hundred posts has refused to reveal the "proof" that he has since the beginning claimed to possess. He has yet to outline his biblical worldview, though I would deny it by default. His refusal to defend himself on such a basic level and then claim victory by means of an irrelevant counter argument is childish at best.
Rolf, perhaps you won't be joining the masses of the self-deluded and will actually present me with some form of scripture-seperate evidence for why what you believe is true.
I don't think you can. I don't expect you to. I expect you to make a counter argument, I expect ad hominem attacks, I expect you to shift responsibility, I expect you to skirt the issue. I DON'T expect you to meet the challenge head on.
Rolf Ernst
New member
Prodigal--in reference to your post #489: God frequently uses the wickedness of men to execute judgement against them, and what they do against one another in their wickedness is testimony to the gross wickedness of men and to His justice in executing judgement against them.
It also openly displays the wicked depravity of men, leaving them without excuse if they fail to seek out God's redemption from sin.
If you think the wickedness of men upon the earth is great, just wait until you are forever separated from God and you are left without any way of cleansing yourself from the gross wickedness of your own nature. At that time, God will no longer be restraining the evil that is in you by your own nature.
Then you will realize that even though you considered yourself to be a decent person, yet your more temperate lifestyle was due only to God restraining your innate wickedness from breaking forth upon society. At that time it will be too late. No longer will the message of grace and deliverance from sin be heard. Forever you will be bound by the cords of your iniquity and you will find yourself to be as wicked as any other person and every other person as wicked as yourself.
Today there are cities and streets you would find unpleasant--even nightmarish--because of the wickedness some do against others. But they are sunday school picnics compared to the eternity that awaits those who today have no use for the deliverance from sin which is available only through Christ. Don't revel in the thought of the present day friends you know whom you expect to see in eternity. You will not find them so friendly once their evil nature is given free rein by Christ.
It also openly displays the wicked depravity of men, leaving them without excuse if they fail to seek out God's redemption from sin.
If you think the wickedness of men upon the earth is great, just wait until you are forever separated from God and you are left without any way of cleansing yourself from the gross wickedness of your own nature. At that time, God will no longer be restraining the evil that is in you by your own nature.
Then you will realize that even though you considered yourself to be a decent person, yet your more temperate lifestyle was due only to God restraining your innate wickedness from breaking forth upon society. At that time it will be too late. No longer will the message of grace and deliverance from sin be heard. Forever you will be bound by the cords of your iniquity and you will find yourself to be as wicked as any other person and every other person as wicked as yourself.
Today there are cities and streets you would find unpleasant--even nightmarish--because of the wickedness some do against others. But they are sunday school picnics compared to the eternity that awaits those who today have no use for the deliverance from sin which is available only through Christ. Don't revel in the thought of the present day friends you know whom you expect to see in eternity. You will not find them so friendly once their evil nature is given free rein by Christ.
Rolf,
Please don't threaten me with hell. You can't prove that it exists in the first place, so what makes you think I'm intimidated?
Rolf, I don't believe in hell. I don't believe in hell because you, and everyone else who agrees with you, cannot and will never be able to prove that it exists. Therefore it's as good as empty words to me. You seem to think that I am frightened by your words of a place that cannot be proven to exist. Hmmm.
This is what I said,
You have made me very happy. You have fulfilled my predictions and proved yourself to be rooted in your subjective, hyper-emotional pre-suppositions, and therefore handi-capped. Soulman, Granite1010 and myself have very unique perspectives on the christian faith that you haven't the capacity to understand Rolf. We have sat on both sides of the table, you sit on only one. We see the whole, you see the half. Your insistence on not providing answers to simple questions that prick at your faith is proof enough for me that your faith is based on nothing more than your inherent need to be better than those around you.
You have failed.
Once again, Rolf:
Present me with evidence, apart from what scripture says, that corroborates what you believe. Present me with proof, scripture-seperate proof, that acts as a second witness to what you believe. Something that a lay man would be able to comprehend with one or all of his five senses.
Once again, I expect you to digress, I expect you to threaten me with your god, I expect you to threaten me with hell. I expect ad hominem attacks, I expect diversion attempts, I expect blatant skirting of the issue and blatant dodging of the challenge.
You haven't let me down so far, Rolf. You've done exactly what I've predicted. So far I've proven my worldview simply by predicting your behavior. You have yet to do so.
Please don't threaten me with hell. You can't prove that it exists in the first place, so what makes you think I'm intimidated?
Rolf, I don't believe in hell. I don't believe in hell because you, and everyone else who agrees with you, cannot and will never be able to prove that it exists. Therefore it's as good as empty words to me. You seem to think that I am frightened by your words of a place that cannot be proven to exist. Hmmm.
This is what I said,
You have made me very happy. You have fulfilled my predictions and proved yourself to be rooted in your subjective, hyper-emotional pre-suppositions, and therefore handi-capped. Soulman, Granite1010 and myself have very unique perspectives on the christian faith that you haven't the capacity to understand Rolf. We have sat on both sides of the table, you sit on only one. We see the whole, you see the half. Your insistence on not providing answers to simple questions that prick at your faith is proof enough for me that your faith is based on nothing more than your inherent need to be better than those around you.
You have failed.
Once again, Rolf:
Present me with evidence, apart from what scripture says, that corroborates what you believe. Present me with proof, scripture-seperate proof, that acts as a second witness to what you believe. Something that a lay man would be able to comprehend with one or all of his five senses.
Once again, I expect you to digress, I expect you to threaten me with your god, I expect you to threaten me with hell. I expect ad hominem attacks, I expect diversion attempts, I expect blatant skirting of the issue and blatant dodging of the challenge.
You haven't let me down so far, Rolf. You've done exactly what I've predicted. So far I've proven my worldview simply by predicting your behavior. You have yet to do so.
This post will serve as a response to both you (Soulman), and prodigal, as well anyone else who is in agreement with this nonsense that I've quoted above.
I am not shifting responsibility; I simply refuse to answer questions that you have no right to ask. I am not attempting to skirt the issue; I am simply demonstrating that your own worldview is in the precise condition that you claim that mine is in. The simple fact of the matter is, I don't have to prove anything to you nor do I intend to. Prodigal started this thread with a challenge that he had no right to make, I (and Jim) have now proven that beyond any rational persons expectations and I have grown tired of repeating myself.
You, prodigal, wickwoman, and granite are all hypocrites. You insist that the Christian worldview cannot be defended and therefore reject it for lack of proof of its verity, but at the same time cling tightly to your own respective worldviews which themselves have now been shown to be logically incoherent and have therefore been proven false, for that which cannot be true must be false.
My intent when I got involved in this thread was not to defend the Christian worldview directly but simply to expose the hypocrisy of a non-Christian making such a challenge in the first place. As that has now been amply done, I think I'm finished here.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Wow! You actually got something almost right (the threat of hell being the bedrock of Christianity isn't right but you got the rest of it)! Very good.
It is interesting to note that those who reject an eternal hell almost universaly reject the divinity of Jesus as well. The two logically follow because without eternal punishement there is no need for an eternally valuable price to be paid thus it isn't necessary that Jesus be God.
dotcom
New member
Originally posted by prodigal
QUESTION TO PRODIGAL:
How about the Holy Quran? Is Islam also obsolete? In short, are ALL "world religions" obsolete?
PRODIGAL'S ANSWER:
Yeah sure, why not?
You are not concerned with the difference between truth and falsehood. You know Islam is not obsolete taking into account terrorism carried out by Islamic fundamentalists against infidels. You know religion is not obsolete taking into account how religion affected US elections early this month.
You are impevious to reasoning. You keep creating new fabrications how religion is obsolete, yet you cannot explain why terrorists use religion to carry on their evil deeds against innocent people.
I don't think you are in a position to distinguish fantasy from reality if you insist religion is obsolete. It might be in your own head, but reality shows us religion is alive and strong. That's all I can say for now till I see anything of value added to your postings.
QUESTION TO PRODIGAL:
How about the Holy Quran? Is Islam also obsolete? In short, are ALL "world religions" obsolete?
PRODIGAL'S ANSWER:
Yeah sure, why not?
You are not concerned with the difference between truth and falsehood. You know Islam is not obsolete taking into account terrorism carried out by Islamic fundamentalists against infidels. You know religion is not obsolete taking into account how religion affected US elections early this month.
You are impevious to reasoning. You keep creating new fabrications how religion is obsolete, yet you cannot explain why terrorists use religion to carry on their evil deeds against innocent people.
I don't think you are in a position to distinguish fantasy from reality if you insist religion is obsolete. It might be in your own head, but reality shows us religion is alive and strong. That's all I can say for now till I see anything of value added to your postings.
"I am not shifting responsibility; I simply refuse to answer questions that you have no right to ask."
This is the biggest steaming crock I've seen since my company chili cook-out last week.
So Christianity should, if everyone became a Little Clete, refuse to answer the questions of skeptics and play If I Can't See Them They Can't See Me? Oh, well. There's a winning strategy if I ever heard one.
By what standard do you determine who has a "right" to ask what particular question? This would have worked wonders for Paul, Peter, and other evangelists confronted with the pagan skeptics of Rome...
This is the biggest steaming crock I've seen since my company chili cook-out last week.
So Christianity should, if everyone became a Little Clete, refuse to answer the questions of skeptics and play If I Can't See Them They Can't See Me? Oh, well. There's a winning strategy if I ever heard one.
By what standard do you determine who has a "right" to ask what particular question? This would have worked wonders for Paul, Peter, and other evangelists confronted with the pagan skeptics of Rome...
I had said…
"I am not shifting responsibility; I simply refuse to answer questions that you have no right to ask."
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Resting in Him,
Clete
"I am not shifting responsibility; I simply refuse to answer questions that you have no right to ask."
My entire point has been that based on your worldview, you wouldn't know a crock if you got smacked in the head with one.
Yes!
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
How would you know if you had ever heard one or not? How would you go about finding out?
If the question is not hypocritical and not logically incoherent, it would be a good start.
Both Peter and Paul used the presuppositional approach exclusively.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete,
You just made my case, you just made Soulman’s case. You aren’t shifting responsibility, you’re just not taking any responsibility. Oh I see the difference. You’re skirting the issue, Clete, you’ve done it from moment one when you came to this thread and you’re doing it now. And whether we have the right to ask it or not is incidental, you’ve been asked, you’ve been challenged, the burden of proof was laid on you, and instead of defending yourself, you’ve skirted the issue to the end. You’re a coward plain and simple. You can’t take tough questions. Maybe your faith and religion aren’t as great as you claim they are?
You have yet to prove anything. Hilston ran for the hills with his tail between his legs. Since he’s not here to do that for you anymore, it looks like you’ll be following his suit. Again.
No such thing has been done, Clete. I refuted all of Hilston’s arguments, and when that happened he back tracked to the original challenge, a challenge for proof. When I told him to present whatever he had, he ignored me and eventually left. This is your only defense, to ignore me. When it comes right down to the wire, when your hypothetical counter arguments have been refuted and the challenge is made clearer than it ever has been, your only choice is to claim victory and walk away. You’ve won nothing and you’re walking away a coward.
That was not done. I successfully refuted Hilston’s hypothetical counter argument and you have continued to cling to it even after he slunk away. You can’t fight battles on your own, so it’s no surprise to me that your posts have begun to lose frequency, and you are now subsequently leaving yourself. This thread was not started so that you could expose anything, but it was started as a venue for you to fearlessly defend what you believe. You have not done that, you have skirted every issue, dodged every question, you have run from every challenge. Hilston proposed a ludicrous counter argument which I have refuted, but you have clung to as a means to claim victory. You have even admitted that what you THINK is IRRELEVANT. Clete, you had a chance to fearlessly defend yourself and you blew it, you are claiming victory via a useless, refuted counter argument brought about by someone stronger in the mind than you who has since slipped away with his tail planted firmly between his legs.
Ah, the dodge.
You are finished here, Clete.
You are.
You hit the nail on the head. Without hell the death of jesus is empty. You got it!
Dotcom,
You said it yourself, religion is USED. Just because religion is used as a means to justify one’s insecurity and fanaticism does not necessarily mean that it is necessary. I think that as humans we’ve grown past the need to justfy emotions such as guilt, hatred, fear, loathing, etc. by placing them on the shoulders of an ancient text or set of beliefs. We’re past it. Just because religion is USED doesn’t mean that it isn’t OBSOLETE.
There is no longer a necessity. Doesn’t mean that people don’t still buy it.
Granite1010,
Dude, Clete’s finished. He admitted it himself, just as he admitted that what he thinks is irrelevant. By his own admission he does not use his brain therefore whatever he says is a product of religious fanaticism. We live in a day and age where the answers religion, especially Christianity provide are just not good enough. Clete has been faced with that reality, that is why he is leaving. That is why he claimed victory via a pathetic, hypothetical counter argument that even Hilston, Clete’s knight in shining armor, dropped.
In short, Clete has come face to face with the limitations of his primitive form of god worship. We need to evolve from humans with the need to WORSHIP god to humans who may or may not simply ACKNOWLEDGE god. The fear of hell is no longer necessary, the self-loathing associated so heavily with fundamentalist Christianity is no longer necessary. People can and have the ability to figure god out on their own without having to handi-cap themselves or weigh themselves down with a 2000 year old book.
That is what Clete came face to face with. In order to save face he claimed victory. All he did was go into Christian “shut down” mode.
That’s all.
You just made my case, you just made Soulman’s case. You aren’t shifting responsibility, you’re just not taking any responsibility. Oh I see the difference. You’re skirting the issue, Clete, you’ve done it from moment one when you came to this thread and you’re doing it now. And whether we have the right to ask it or not is incidental, you’ve been asked, you’ve been challenged, the burden of proof was laid on you, and instead of defending yourself, you’ve skirted the issue to the end. You’re a coward plain and simple. You can’t take tough questions. Maybe your faith and religion aren’t as great as you claim they are?
You have yet to prove anything. Hilston ran for the hills with his tail between his legs. Since he’s not here to do that for you anymore, it looks like you’ll be following his suit. Again.
No such thing has been done, Clete. I refuted all of Hilston’s arguments, and when that happened he back tracked to the original challenge, a challenge for proof. When I told him to present whatever he had, he ignored me and eventually left. This is your only defense, to ignore me. When it comes right down to the wire, when your hypothetical counter arguments have been refuted and the challenge is made clearer than it ever has been, your only choice is to claim victory and walk away. You’ve won nothing and you’re walking away a coward.
That was not done. I successfully refuted Hilston’s hypothetical counter argument and you have continued to cling to it even after he slunk away. You can’t fight battles on your own, so it’s no surprise to me that your posts have begun to lose frequency, and you are now subsequently leaving yourself. This thread was not started so that you could expose anything, but it was started as a venue for you to fearlessly defend what you believe. You have not done that, you have skirted every issue, dodged every question, you have run from every challenge. Hilston proposed a ludicrous counter argument which I have refuted, but you have clung to as a means to claim victory. You have even admitted that what you THINK is IRRELEVANT. Clete, you had a chance to fearlessly defend yourself and you blew it, you are claiming victory via a useless, refuted counter argument brought about by someone stronger in the mind than you who has since slipped away with his tail planted firmly between his legs.
Ah, the dodge.
You are finished here, Clete.
You are.
You hit the nail on the head. Without hell the death of jesus is empty. You got it!
Dotcom,
You said it yourself, religion is USED. Just because religion is used as a means to justify one’s insecurity and fanaticism does not necessarily mean that it is necessary. I think that as humans we’ve grown past the need to justfy emotions such as guilt, hatred, fear, loathing, etc. by placing them on the shoulders of an ancient text or set of beliefs. We’re past it. Just because religion is USED doesn’t mean that it isn’t OBSOLETE.
There is no longer a necessity. Doesn’t mean that people don’t still buy it.
Granite1010,
Dude, Clete’s finished. He admitted it himself, just as he admitted that what he thinks is irrelevant. By his own admission he does not use his brain therefore whatever he says is a product of religious fanaticism. We live in a day and age where the answers religion, especially Christianity provide are just not good enough. Clete has been faced with that reality, that is why he is leaving. That is why he claimed victory via a pathetic, hypothetical counter argument that even Hilston, Clete’s knight in shining armor, dropped.
In short, Clete has come face to face with the limitations of his primitive form of god worship. We need to evolve from humans with the need to WORSHIP god to humans who may or may not simply ACKNOWLEDGE god. The fear of hell is no longer necessary, the self-loathing associated so heavily with fundamentalist Christianity is no longer necessary. People can and have the ability to figure god out on their own without having to handi-cap themselves or weigh themselves down with a 2000 year old book.
That is what Clete came face to face with. In order to save face he claimed victory. All he did was go into Christian “shut down” mode.
That’s all.