Christianity

[winoman]

Well...his existence is actually historically recorded. You can choose whether or not he is actually the person depicted in the bible/qu'ran...but you must acknowledge him as a real person in history.

- get real - there is no legitimate historical evidence of Jesus existing - he is entirely myth - concocted, stolen (from numerous other [mythical] sources), and then Paulized we could say - etc. The only obliquie reference is from Josephus - and even that is debatable and hardly qualifies as proof of any kind.

[TomServo]

Come on, winoman, get in the Christmas spirit!

[Anonymouse]

part 1

Anon you're so FOS it's ridiculous. In post #42 you wrote about evolution twice ...

Yet more blather from the Lamb Boy. You say I am "FOS" for mentioning evolution twice, but all too clearly forget why I mentioned it. It was within the context of the discussion, within the context regarding dogma and a die hard belief in certain ideas. So the only person here that derailed the thread, and does not want to take credit for it (and why should you admit to an error?) is you.

One meaning Anon as he is the only one worth mentioning in his mind. What was your point? You can speak of the arrogance of any given stance for ppl who actually take a side and do not perpetuate some false neutrality. You didn't argue against what I posted you merely illustrated how other ppl can also be arrogant. Arrogance wasn't the topic in question ...

It must be difficult for you to understand, but I said it already and I will say it again. There is a difference between taking a stance and expressing a belief in something, and dogmatizing an idea to be the end all, and undeniable law that cannot be denied, and anyone who denies it, in the eyes of the zealot is an idiot or full of ignorance and arrogance. I have never criticized your right to believe in evolution, I have criticized your arrogance in asserting that it is the truth, and also your hypocritical behavior for criticizing Christianity, or the said Christian who started this thread and stating he is suffering from arrogance or what have you, and for engaging in the same thing.

Do you expect me to not respond to your question? Yet I derailed this thread? I give my opinions on Christianity on this thread and instead of offering us your own opinions you attack mine and derail the topic by instigating a discussion on evolution. I know you'll never admit I'm right here but it's obvious to everybody else.

You should have copy and pasted my quote, or linked the actual post to the relevant thread and continued on the discussion since we both know I check the said threads often. But to make poor excuses of why you actually derailed the thread when you saw your cherished dogma attacked is really showing how you cannot even admit to the responsibility of derailing the thread when you noticed an attack on your beloved idea. Pretending you did not go off into a tangential note about merit or demerit of evolution doesn't change the fact that you did.

You are yet to actually prove that any of the evidence is not sufficient other than just saying it isn't.

It is not my job to prove a negative. Have you not taken philosophy? How can I prove something that has never been with 100% certainty established? This argument by you assumes that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. That is a fallacy.

I can only show the disparities and inconsistencies or the holes, and there are alot. Hypothetically speaking, even if any idea were to be consistent 99% in its substance, that 1% is enough to raise doubt and where there is doubt, there is uncertainty, and that makes the theory imperfect, and therefore, not the truth, sorry to say. Were you not also the one who stated in the following http://forum.armenianclub.com/showpost.php?p=137470&postcount=153 that "I already stated that the future will prove evolution even more correct than history already has."

Such nonsense and appeals to futures is nothing more than the hallmark of faith. Anything that must appeal to futures or the unknowns, is adorned with faith. Christians believe that the future will prove they are right when Jesus returns. That is faith and nothing more.

Still you feel somehow that you are "holding things to the strictest measure”. If you feel that the evidence isn't sufficient or faulty especially in regards to DNA then by all means show us how it is so. I have provided plenty of evidence that has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." yet you still will not discuss this topic on the merits of the actual evidence. Once again I state evolution is law and the mechanics are up for debate which you prove later in this post that I am quoting ...

That is a nice way of evading the point that you have dogmatized this idea. Only human arrogance would assume that somehow they have solved the riddle of mankind, and that is origins. The fact that you assume questions have not been posed does not absolve it. Questions have been posed, and challenges have been made to evolution. And the answers aren't convincing unless, as I say, one dips as you have into the cookiee jar of faith.

In much the same way that choosing to not make a decision is in fact making a decision your disbelief in evolution is also a belief making it a dogma that you practice frequently. Fossils are historical events btw Anon.

Here is where you are simply trying too hard. That I have admitted that I believe is not a secret. I thought it was clear where the distinctions lie between belief and dogma. I have never criticized your right to believe and express your belief in evolution. I have criticized your often adamant position that evolution is the truth and it is somehow supposedly a law. Now, when something becomes a dogma, it is accepted as somehow the authoritative truth without adequate reasons. This often results in the person that adheres to the dogma to deride, and intellectually belittle those that have a belief different from them - a behavior which you have certainly displayed both in the evolution thread, as well as in this thread. Now, if you simply expressed your belief and you stated that it was your belief, we would not be this far into a discussion.

By the way, fossils are not historical events. “Historical" presupposes history. History is the study of human events, and human action. It began when writing began. Anything prior to that is called anything but history. Fossils are more aptly archaeological events, not historical. So if this was your attempt at trying to establish some link in the weak analogy of evolution and the Genocide, then you can rethink it now.

I don't know might you? After your ambiguous modifiers like "parts" and "some" why would I listen to anything you have to say on the subject? How is pouring water on sand a wasted effort if a seed grows into a plant at the spot where you poured?

Not all sands have seeds, especially in the desert.

If you thought I had forgot then why didn't you mention that in the first place? Here's what I wrote ...

... and you write back ...

The fact that you're directing me where to find the thread is completely indicative that you didn't even think I knew it existed yet now you're trying to contend that somehow I had forgotten? Another example of how you're incapable of admitting you're wrong from time to time ...

This is another attempt at trying too hard to find some fault in what I wrote. I simply assumed that without any other assumptions you may have, that you honestly forgot, and why wouldn't I express it? In your mind, I am not admitting to being wrong, but that is the beauty of belief. You can choose to believe in anything you want to.

Plus your argument that everybody’s shyt smells the same is also patently false as everybody to you doesn’t mean individuals as much as ethnicities. So in your mind Armenian shyt smells different than Greek shyt, but within the ethnic groups it doesn’t vary due to similarities in their diet. Your distinction isn't about individuals so much as it's about ethnicities.

It is about everyone, individuals, and races, etc. No one's shyt, much less body odor smells the same. I think it's about time that we had a discussion about race. Don't you? It's been a long time since the last thread, and that was closed down.

My problem is when all an individual has to offer is a challenge to everybody else’s individual opinions as if we’re somehow not deserving of the way we think while at the same time never offering their own. If you want to believe that evolution isn't a law by the scientific definition of the word then that's fine with me but when you defend this dogma as truth then I will debate the topic. In my mind you're still entitled to your opinions.

So what happened to your claim that I contradicted myself?

I wasn't disproving the rules as much as I was illustrating your own contradiction. Besides why are you making rules for yourself or ideology? Are you creating your own religion?

What contradiction are you possibly referring to? Are you insinuating that it is wrong to make your own religion, values, and belief?

I wrote this ...
I was comparing your weak rationalization to that which the *urks use to justify their claims to the lands in Anatolia, NOT because you disagreed with me. Now who thinks that it is always about them? I did reason cordially in that respect you just took it as a personal attack. I can't be held responsible for the manner in which you perceive the things I say to you. It obviously must be discomforting to you that I referred to your tactics as that of a *urk.

If my rationalization was weak, why did you follow that by comparing your point in a faulty analogy, for I have already explained the problems with that analogy which you have conveniently again ignored. And if you think personal attacks, much less your personal attacks, are somehow discomforting, you can indeed believe in that. That is the beauty of belief. However, the reason I mentioned it is because some of us, aside from snide remarks do actually choose to engage in the actual discussion. All I have noticed in the bulk of your response, is nothing but frustration and an inability to reason, otherwise you would not deviate from the discussion with so much unnecessary and continuous resorts to ad hominems. That seems to be the way winoman discusses anything, and it seems to me that you are slowly showing shades of this similar behavior.

What evidence is there Anon? This is taken directly from the mouth of the Dalai Lama himself on 10 March 1994 Dharamsala ...

"I have not forgotten that 1.2 million Tibetans have died and that Tibet has suffered immeasurably since the occupation of our country by Communist China."

Yes, which is after the occupation, and after the fact. Your insinuation was that somehow previous to this the Chinese motive was to exterminate the Buddhist monks. Now you post a quote by the Dalai Lama about Tibetans, not necessary Buddhist monks.

Now I suppose that you think you have a better idea of what has transpired in Tibet since the occupancy of China but have you ever been to Tibet OR China OR lived in either like the Dalai Lama? I haven't and I also don’t pretend to know more than the ppl who were actually there …

I never considered to have a better idea of what transpired there. This whole tid bit of Tibet and China is nothing more than yet again a deviation from the actual discussion which is lost in space so to speak. No one denies China's policies or the people who suffered. You forget the claim you insinuated with events that transpired after the fact.

Now I hope you're capable of realizing that the tactics you employed are the same as the tactics *urks utilize to defend their right to take the lands of Anatolia. I'm sure you'll just laugh this evidence off in your juvenile manner in an effort to deny what is a truthful claim on your rationalization. Talk about an ad hominem.

First of all, what "tactic" am I engaging in that is somehow similar to what a Turk engages in. Furthermore, how is that, if at all a legitimate disagreement on something, an ad hominem? I am trying to follow the patterns but to no avail, you may have to be more clear in the future of what you state.

If only I received a plot of Anatolian land every time I had to reiterate what I am about to state, then I would maybe have most of former Western Armenia. I don't understand why you felt it was necessary to plug in this little bit above, as you did, but I will address this land issue, since it seems to be a recurring theme in one form or another. If this is a deviation, I don't care, since 1) you didn't seem to care when it was about evolution, and 2) it implies that somehow acceptance of the Genocide, and all the endpoint of it is about land, or getting lands back.

The Armenians were killed, massacred and exiled from their lands in Western Armenia. Was that right? Absolutely not. The fact of the matter is, those lands, are not ours anymore, and haven't been for quite a while now. In history, there is something called change. History always changes, peoples and societies and civilizations change, and whether the change is for the good or the bad, depends on which side is assigning which value to what change. Obviously from the perspective of Armenians, the Genocide and all that following tragic circumstances that resulted from it, is bad. From the Turks' perspective, they got away with murder and in the process managed to steal land.

The only way Armenians will get the land back is for them to either a) take it by force, or b) do what the Mexicans are doing.

[Anonymouse]

part 2

I asked you to point out to me specifically where in Christian doctrine the followers are asked to literally commit suicide for their religion.

You stated no such thing. That is obviously untrue.

The point you're trying to make is completely moot. You're just correlating blanket generalities and being vague and technical at best.

You said "Specifically does every religion call for literal self sacrifice?" and I replied. Does it displease you Lord? I am making a point that almost all the religions, and at least the ones I've read up on, do not advocate selfishness, above selflessness and sacrifice. This whole point was about how religious teaching preaches the same message of humility, selflessness, and compassion. That was the only thing I was saying, and it was you that was getting caught in the superficialities of the technical points, the rituals, etc.

Where/when did you admit to being incorrect about anything? I admitted to incorrectness when I first stated that evolution was a theory when in fact it is not. That fact alone completely contradicts your previous statement.

So I take that you do not deny that you are more spiteful toward Christianity than Buddhism? And as far as your admission of incorrectness, that hardly qualifies for that is your expressed belief. You cannot be correct or incorrect in belief. It is your belief that evolution is an undeniable law, since otherwise everyone would believe in evolution because it would be undeniable, but since it is not, people disagree. Hence, the flaw in your reasoning is that it assumes exactly what it is sets out to prove, namely that, evolution is a fact/law.

I am cool with disagreement but as I pointed out before that's all you ever have to offer.

Winoman seems to think the same way. It appears that those who are vehemently embroiled into the dogma of some idea, will engage in anything to have validation of their belief. And what they often engage in is trying to denigrate, deride, and diminish the viewpoints of those who dare expose their infantile beliefs to criticism.

You are yet to enlighten us all with your own viewpoints, other than you think we were created by aliens.

Who is this "us" thing. Did you speak with and/or read the mind of everybody, and did they suddenly and mythically transform into your ally or is that another part of your faithful imaginings like evolution?

It would seem that the only opinion you have is an antithesis to everybody else’s individual viewpoint(s). How noble. It's like you're incapable of an autonomous thought without a catalyst in the form of someone else’s opinion to begin with.

That is obviously untrue. I agree with people when their opinion coincides with mine, and I disagree where it doesn't.

Yes I did ... proof is within the pages of the the Evo thread for anyone who cares to read. You admitted before that we're probably just debating definitions of the word "law" at the end of the day so you can chalk it up to that if you like.

I admitted we are discussing semantics about evolution, not law, so you do not need to assume any more things. I have never admitted evolution is a law. In addition, as I said before, only arrogance would assume that man has solved the questions of his own origins.

You don’t have to claim neutrality when you constantly are or pretend to be. I understand the quote as taken at face value Anon. I just took it a step further and thought the quote through in respect to applying it to anyone's lifestyle. Sorry if that was too much for you to observe/absorb.

How do I pretend to be neutral? That's amusing. You should think that one over. The reason is that obviously not all of us are as wise and knowledgeable as you are.

If I ever find it I'll bring it to your attention but for now I concede that I was probably wrong about that point. It also might have been another member. See I admitted I was wrong twice!

Maybe they should have an award contest for who admits to the most faults.

Are you pretending that you actually read the article? They are preconceived minds huh? Now who is a psychic? They came to their own conclusions through science not bias.

Did I say I read the article? Why are you assuming that now? I only replied to what you posted in the thread. I can see for a minute you were so happy that somehow this gave you yet more ammo for your ad hominem gun, since that seems to be your only way out of this.

And as far as your article and science, it does not state any claims that I have not already seen and it certainly doesn't contain the magic elixir of knowledge regarding our origins. Perhaps you should actually ask the questions I posted there.

You brought it up twice as I have shown above and posed a question that I suppose you would have preferred I didn't answer. You instigated the discussion of Evo I just followed your lead.

Questions are not always asked to garner an answer, sometimes they are entirely rhetorical. It remains, you derailed the thread, not that you will admit to it.

As I stated in the first part that you would debate the mechanics of evolution as if you were actually debating evolution itself ... here we have proof. I have stated that the mechanics are completely theoretical where the fact that evolution actually occurs is the law. Natural selection and punctuated equilibria are both mechanisms of evolution. They are not evolution as you might think just the means by which it takes place. I think you're incapable of separating the two ...

It remains that you are completely evading the point that just like you accuse Christian doctrine as having gone through revisions, and deriding the pointlessness of believing in it for that, yet evolution has gone through the same thing. Why should anyone believe in evolution since it has gone through so many revisions and in fact, cases of intellectual dishonesty? That is the point as uncomfortable as it is for you, having the faith in your idea. Furthermore, in terms of logic, or logical analysis, you assume what you are setting out to prove, that evolution occurs and is a law.

Exactly what I had posted before ... that somehow, to you, if anybody speaks of knowledge of either evolution, or now religion, then somehow they become omniscient to every topic. I don't pretend to know everything. What I stated in this thread are my opinions on, primarily, Christianity ... I mean that was the topic of this thread until you instigated the evolution discussion.

Yet again the evasive Lamb tries to muster out of the burden of having derailed the thread by blaming me for instigating the discussion about evolution. Whereas you expressed a belief about Christianity, it is not so with evolution. There, you are certain, beyond a doubt, that evolution is the truth.

EDIT: Hey Anon I forgot to address the question you posed about what's wrong with revisions to the Bible. Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the Bible was supposed to be written, or at the very least guided by the hand of God. That's what makes belivers out of the followers and becomes a source of power for them as well. So how does one revise the words of God and not make a mockery of the fact that the Bible was written by God? I can never understand that part ... to me it diminishes the validity.

Perhaps because you shouldn't read it literally.

[Կարմիր Բ]

[Sip]

I

think

I'll

start

posting

like

this

from

now

on!

This

is

kinda

cool.

[jgk3]

Re: Christianity

It's pretty dumb to debate in this topic... You just need to see the pros and cons of organizaed religion, and if you see more pros, go and join it, you halfwit!