• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not [W:775]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
Calling for help and for people to laugh won't change the reality that any position related to the existence of 1 or more deities remains unsupported. As such, the difference between you and Logicman is fervor. He believes his god appears if he chants enough incantations, you believe the same deity exists in some other form, and has the ability to influence the natural world (i.e. by giving you what every animal has - free will).

You are welcome to continue groveling, double speaking and naming posters you think will come to your rescue. It's the last resort for those who can't debate their point alone.

:shrug:

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

You're proving Lursa to be correct with every single post you make in response to her...
 
Last edited:
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
Calling for help and for people to laugh won't change the reality that any position related to the existence of 1 or more deities remains unsupported. As such, the difference between you and Logicman is fervor. He believes his god appears if he chants enough incantations, you believe the same deity exists in some other form, and has the ability to influence the natural world (i.e. by giving you what every animal has - free will).

You are welcome to continue groveling, double speaking and naming posters you think will come to your rescue. It's the last resort for those who can't debate their point alone.

:shrug:

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

I didnt call for help, :lamo , I didnt quote or contact any of those people.

And the reality that wont change is that either you didnt read my posts in this thread or you read them with 'glasses' so heavily biased and entrenched in your own rigid dogma that you couldnt understand them. You continually asserted things about my responses that were nowhere even implied and certainly werent written.

You didnt even realize that I was concurring with you in post 681, my first post. :roll:

There's no groveling but I see you're still here trying to pretend you got called out on how hypocritical you are on rigid thought on the OPPOSITE side of religion in a religious thread. It's a riot.

And most of the world believes the bold. That you find anything wrong with that, since in the US the great majority are not interested in influencing the govt in any way with their religion...it a clear dismissal of the First Amendment (not religious freedom but freedom of speech).

To be so dismissive of the majority of Americans? :doh Your own blind fervor on this has shown clearly your limitations.
 
Last edited:
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

RAMOSS said:
Funny how is 'i discussed that', but it's never here, and no one remembers you doing so. It's always 'I already supported that', but it's never now. However, I will accept a link to where you supported it, and I can use your old discussion as a leaping off point. However, if you never actually discussed it, I will get an evasion and a snarky remark.
Click to expand...

You deserve a snarky response for your pathetic, misinformed posting.

I even discussed it with YOU, starting here: https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457295.html#post1067457295

I wrote: "Just show me ONE (JUST 1) specific example from the book (which I have read and which I have with me) that's false or bogus. Give me your best one - JUST ONE - YOUR BEST ONE EXAMPLE. Make your case and show us the page number that you're referring to."

You gave me a generic argument about Josephus here but didn't provide the page #: https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457313.html#post1067457313

And when I pressed you for a page # here (https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457324.html#post1067457324) to prove that your argument was from the Case for Christ, you answered with this sorry excuse:

Ramoss: "Shrug.. I am sorry I don't feel obligated to play by your rules." https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457331.html#post1067457331

You weaseled out of showing you read the book!! LOL!!

You're busted!
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Logicman said:
You deserve a snarky response for your pathetic, misinformed posting.

I even discussed it with YOU, starting here: https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457295.html#post1067457295

I wrote: "Just show me ONE (JUST 1) specific example from the book (which I have read and which I have with me) that's false or bogus. Give me your best one - JUST ONE - YOUR BEST ONE EXAMPLE. Make your case and show us the page number that you're referring to."

You gave me a generic argument about Josephus here but didn't provide the page #: https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457313.html#post1067457313

And when I pressed you for a page # here (https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457324.html#post1067457324) to prove that your argument was from the Case for Christ, you answered with this sorry excuse:

Ramoss: "Shrug.. I am sorry I don't feel obligated to play by your rules." https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457331.html#post1067457331

You weaseled out of showing you read the book!! LOL!!

You're busted!
Click to expand...

That's right..because you demand evidence from others, but don't give ti yourself.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Logicman said:
You deserve a snarky response for your pathetic, misinformed posting.

I even discussed it with YOU, starting here: https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457295.html#post1067457295

I wrote: "Just show me ONE (JUST 1) specific example from the book (which I have read and which I have with me) that's false or bogus. Give me your best one - JUST ONE - YOUR BEST ONE EXAMPLE. Make your case and show us the page number that you're referring to."

You gave me a generic argument about Josephus here but didn't provide the page #: https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457313.html#post1067457313

And when I pressed you for a page # here (https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457324.html#post1067457324) to prove that your argument was from the Case for Christ, you answered with this sorry excuse:

Ramoss: "Shrug.. I am sorry I don't feel obligated to play by your rules." https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067457331.html#post1067457331

You weaseled out of showing you read the book!! LOL!!

You're busted!
Click to expand...

I've noticed a trait with die hard debaters...they're so entrenched in proving their point...whatever that is...they seldom, if at all, read with any sense of comprehension, what they're responding to...it's all about them and one upping the other person...SMH...
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

gfm7175 said:
Just because you don't see the support doesn't mean that others can't or haven't... I would be one who would make a claim that I have experienced the Christian God in my life. I "know" he exists because I've "experienced" it. Can I scientifically prove that to you? No... Can I convince you that I've in fact had real experiences instead of simply being mental or whatever other explanation for it? No... But continue making fun if it floats your boat...
Click to expand...

That is nonsense.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

RAMOSS said:
That's right..because you demand evidence from others, but don't give ti yourself.
Click to expand...

Another Ramoss lie.

Here's where doxygen and I discussed the "Case for Christ", starting here: https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067526181.html#post1067526181

Here’s my response: https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067526543.html#post1067526543

And here’s where doxygen responded back to me, saying he’d need to look into it more and get back with me. https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067527824.html#post1067527824

So you see, Ramoss, contrary to your lie, dox and I did discuss the book, and I responded back to him about his claim.

I'm saving these examples (including post 753) so the next time you lie about me not responding back, or not reading a book I cite, you'll be reminded of when you claimed to have read the book but couldn't prove it yourself.

So enough of your lies.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
That is nonsense.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

No, that's the truth...
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Logicman said:
Another Ramoss lie.

Here's where doxygen and I discussed the "Case for Christ", starting here: https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067526181.html#post1067526181

Here’s my response: https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067526543.html#post1067526543

And here’s where doxygen responded back to me, saying he’d need to look into it more and get back with me. https://www.debatepolitics.com/phil...ase-christ-post1067527824.html#post1067527824

So you see, Ramoss, contrary to your lie, dox and I did discuss the book, and I responded back to him about his claim.

I'm saving these examples (including post 753) so the next time you lie about me not responding back, or not reading a book I cite, you'll be reminded of when you claimed to have read the book but couldn't prove it yourself.

So enough of your lies.
Click to expand...

lol...you go, LM...;)
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

RAMOSS said:
That's right..because you demand evidence from others, but don't give ti yourself.
Click to expand...

Logicman demands evidence from something which can very easily be proven (such as if you have read a particular book or not), but you regularly demand from him (and myself) physical evidence (through use of the scientific method) of spiritual things. I have personally given you much reason to believe not only in objective morality, but in the Christian God himself, and you refuse to believe because the evidence isn't showing itself according to your standards/preferences.

Also, the funniest part, Ramoss, is that you've continuously said (or made evident through your posts) that you won't believe anything without evidence, yet there are MANY things that you currently believe without any shred of evidence to support them. It shows just how ignorant and misguided your worldview is.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Lursa said:
I didnt call for help, :lamo , I didnt quote or contact any of those people.

And the reality that wont change is that either you didnt read my posts in this thread or you read them with 'glasses' so heavily biased and entrenched in your own rigid dogma that you couldnt understand them. You continually asserted things about my responses that were nowhere even implied and certainly werent written.

You didnt even realize that I was concurring with you in post 681, my first post. :roll:

There's no groveling but I see you're still here trying to pretend you got called out on how hypocritical you are on rigid thought on the OPPOSITE side of religion in a religious thread. It's a riot.

And most of the world believes the bold. That you find anything wrong with that, since in the US the great majority are not interested in influencing the govt in any way with their religion...it a clear dismissal of the First Amendment (not religious freedom but freedom of speech).

To be so dismissive of the majority of Americans? :doh Your own blind fervor on this has shown clearly your limitations.
Click to expand...

Whether 1 or 100,000,000 believe in something is irrelevant. Your massive argumentum ad populum fools nobody and you should be ashamed of it.

The funniest part is that you harp about people who do not accept evolution in the US as being too extreme (Logicman and Elvira, and Angel being perfect examples) - a majority - and then say - well a majority also believe in a deity - how dare you say they're wrong!

Easily. They've provided absolutely no evidence. Only apologetics like yours.



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

gfm7175 said:
Logicman demands evidence from something which can very easily be proven (such as if you have read a particular book or not), but you regularly demand from him (and myself) physical evidence (through use of the scientific method) of spiritual things. I have personally given you much reason to believe not only in objective morality, but in the Christian God himself, and you refuse to believe because the evidence isn't showing itself according to your standards/preferences.

Also, the funniest part, Ramoss, is that you've continuously said (or made evident through your posts) that you won't believe anything without evidence, yet there are MANY things that you currently believe without any shred of evidence to support them. It shows just how ignorant and misguided your worldview is.
Click to expand...

Why, that is what is known as 'lying'.. because he doesn't show he read the books he is promoting. When asked to do that, he provides a read herring.. and demands evidence of soemthing I didn't claim. So stop pretending

Notice.. he didn't actualy show any evidence he read either 'Case for Christ' , or 'I don't have enough faith to be an athiest'. Instead, he does diversionary tactics.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

gfm7175 said:
No it's not.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is illogical to make claims about the natural world, then when pressed to prove them, claim you do not need proof and proof can't be given because you say so.

You should get used to having your claims about the natural world challenged. Until you can prove the existence of the supernatural as you describe it.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Elvira said:
No, that's the truth...
Click to expand...
Lmao - truth cannot come from faith because truth requires proof and faith does not.

Logic 101.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

RAMOSS said:
Why, that is what is known as 'lying'.. because he doesn't show he read the books he is promoting. When asked to do that, he provides a read herring.. and demands evidence of soemthing I didn't claim. So stop pretending

Notice.. he didn't actualy show any evidence he read either 'Case for Christ' , or 'I don't have enough faith to be an athiest'. Instead, he does diversionary tactics.
Click to expand...

Who cares? FTR he does not have to prove a thing to you and you have no way of knowing what he does IRL...you are turning into Hatuey...SMH...
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
Lmao - truth cannot come from faith because truth requires proof and faith does not.

Logic 101.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read any of Lursa's posts? No...no you did not...:roll:
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
It absolutely is illogical to make claims about the natural world, then when pressed to prove them, claim you do not need proof and proof can't be given because you say so.
Click to expand...
Where your ignorance on deeper knowledge will become evident is when I press you on the same things that I have pressed Ramoss on in the past, such as the fact that you, like everyone else here on Earth, believe in many things which are completely unsupported by evidence, such as the belief that the past is real (that the world wasn’t created five minutes ago with built-in appearances of age), and the belief in the existence of the external world around you, and the belief in the presence of other minds like your own. You believe those things, yet you can't provide me with any argument to back up those beliefs...

Hatuey said:
You should get used to having your claims about the natural world challenged.
Click to expand...
Now, the same applies to you... Have at it, good Sir...
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Elvira said:
Did you bother to read any of Lursa's posts? No...no you did not...:roll:
Click to expand...
None of it provided any proof - just further apologetics that are more tame than logicman's but apologetics none the less.

Whenever you get around to figuring out which part of the bible justifies a HQ for JWs in NY, please let me know.





Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Hatuey said:
None of it provided any proof - just further apologetics that are more tame than logicman's but apologetics none the less.

Whenever you get around to figuring out which part of the bible justifies a HQ for JWs in NY, please let me know.





Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

Oh good grief, she never claimed to provide proof...your comprehension level is -10...:roll:
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

gfm7175 said:
Where your ignorance on deeper knowledge will become evident is when I press you on the same things that I have pressed Ramoss on in the past, such as the fact that you, like everyone else here on Earth, believe in many things which are completely unsupported by evidence, such as the belief that the past is real (that the world wasn’t created five minutes ago with built-in appearances of age), and the belief in the existence of the external world around you, and the belief in the presence of other minds like your own. You believe those things, yet you can't provide me with any argument to back up those beliefs...


Now, the same applies to you... Have at it, good Sir...
Click to expand...

That is a very cute post. However the claim isn't whether other people exist. We know they do. We have interactions with them, exchange ideas and all of this can be repeated over and over again in neutral environments from labs to organic representations of the same.

You've gone down an absurdly ridiculous path - that makes your post sound like a cheap Morpheus from The Matrix knockoff - all so you won't have to explain any of your claims concerning the natural world.

You've made the claims about the existence of the supernatural. Nobody else will work to prove them for you.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Elvira said:
Oh good grief, she never claimed to provide proof...your comprehension level is -10...:roll:
Click to expand...
That's kind of the point. She makes baseless claims about the natural world and then refuses to substantiate them with anything but versions of 'becaue I read/heard/felt/believe so'.

Keep up.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Elvira said:
Did you bother to read any of Lursa's posts? No...no you did not...:roll:
Click to expand...
Lmao, your posts are getting pretty flustered and it shows. I guess that's what happens when you can't ad-hom your way through a debate.

You do know truth is objective and determined through proof, correct? That makes it completely allergic to faith. For example, if I say water can turn to ice, that's an objective statement based on my knowledge of temperatures and it's effect on liquids. If you say a Jewish guy from the 1st century turned water into wine, and then won't say how, that's faith - not truth because we know water cannot naturally turn to wine and nobody has demonstrated otherwise to this day.

Logic 101.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Last edited:
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Watching Elvira shoot her own argument in the foot is the highlight of this thread.

She is supporting faith based claims, denying they need proof and then declaring them as truths - while ignoring that proof is required for truth to be established.

Silly, silly position for her to take.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Moderator's Warning:
Friendly warning: Stop discussing each other and your respective posting styles and stick to the topic of biblical literalism. Failure to heed this warning may result in points and thread bans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom