Originally posted by knightmeister
The difference is that ToOne makes no ATTEMPT at coherence. He just pretends certain passages do not exist.

Do you realize that that is how most of us atheists view almost all Theists?
I certainly am yet to meet a Christian who was not highly selective regarding Bible passages and did not have an incoherent belief system. In fact my favorite proof for the non-existence of God is that he is incoherent. The only drawback is that it has to be proved for each individual theist as everyone has their own god (but always incoherent in my experience so far).
I may also point out that your behavior regarding any threads discussing the history of the universe followed many of the patterns you now accuse TOO of.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you realize that that is how most of us atheists view almost all Theists?
I certainly am yet to meet a Christian who was not highly selective regarding Bible passages and did not have an incoherent belief system. In fact my favorite proof for the non-existence of God is that he is incoherent. The only drawback is that it has to be proved for each indi ...[text shortened]... eads discussing the history of the universe followed many of the patterns you now accuse TOO of.

In fact my favorite proof for the non-existence of God is that he is incoherent.

Incoherency may be evidence for the non-existence of God, but it is hardly proof.

Originally posted by whodey
But I think that the main difference is that most who do simply kick the entire teachings to the curb instead of trying to reconstruct them.

So is that it? Reconstruction is somehow worse than outright rejection?

[And is there really anyone who kicks ALL of Jesus's teachings to the curb? I would think not. Some of them are common moral values espoused by other notable figures besides Jesus...]

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Incoherency may be evidence for the non-existence of God, but it is hardly proof.

You believe that a being whose description is incoherent can exist? Or am I misunderstanding you? Or was it my statement that was unclear?
I did not intend to say "[God] is incoherent." as in "what he says is inconsistent" but rather: the description of a given god is incoherent and thus a god as described cannot exist.
Sure, it doesn't rule out a Christian modifying their description to avoid an incoherency that is pointed out, nor does it rule out the existence of beings not matched by the Christians description - but it is of course pointless to try and prove the existence or non-existence of something that does not have a description.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Some of them are common moral values espoused by other notable figures besides Jesus...

Actually a significant proportion are espoused by just about every human being on the planet - which is one of the reasons for Jesus' popularity.

A common mistake however is to deify people who preach values you greatly admire. For example treating Ghandi or Mandela as gods is a mistake. They both deserve a lot of respect but that should not lead us to believe that every word they ever uttered is true.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
So is that it? Reconstruction is somehow worse than outright rejection?

[And is there really [b]anyone who kicks ALL of Jesus's teachings to the curb? I would think not. Some of them are common moral values espoused by other notable figures besides Jesus...][/b]

I don't recall saying it was better or worse, rather, I'm just saying that it is one of the things that sets him apart. In addition, debating with him is often frustrating for a myriad of reasons already listed that has precious little to do with his faith or lack thereof. I believe this to be the main reason.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't recall saying it was better or worse, rather, I'm just saying that it is one of the things that sets him apart. In addition, debating with him is often frustrating for a myriad of reasons already listed that has precious little to do with his faith or lack thereof. I believe this to be the main reason.

Like when you support the ostracization of homosexuals from your church and I point out the hypocrisy and bigoted nature of such a stance? I imagine it IS frustrating to have someone point out such a truth and that doesn't accept your attempts to justify your bigotry.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like when you support the ostracization of homosexuals from your church and I point out the hypocrisy and bigoted nature of such a stance? I imagine it IS frustrating to have someone point out such a truth and that doesn't accept your attempts to justify your bigotry.

he has a moral obligation to protect his church from practices which are clearly condemned in the strongest terms possible in the revealed word of God. Are ladies who exclude men from all ladies nights equally as bigoted, please explain.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he has a moral obligation to protect his church from practices which are clearly condemned in the strongest terms possible in the revealed word of God. Are ladies who exclude men from all ladies nights equally as bigoted, please explain.

Yet he casts a blind eye towards other sins such as the greed and gluttony of others as well as his own sins and no doubt he and his fellow members wax poetically about their compassion, forgiveness, etc. Seems like Jesus often spoke against such hypocrisy. This "moral obligation" amounts to no more than using the Bible as a weapon to further bigotry in a very hypocritical manner. No surprise to see you weigh in on this seeing as you've shown yourself to be such a bigot.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't recall saying it was better or worse, rather, I'm just saying that it is one of the things that sets him apart. In addition, debating with him is often frustrating for a myriad of reasons already listed that has precious little to do with his faith or lack thereof. I believe this to be the main reason.

Many debates between atheists and theists are similarly frustrating. However, it seems like eventually one side or the other is able to give up and walk away at some point. You'd think, if debating him is so frustrating, that you guys would just give up and start ignoring his posts. I've had to do that with certain opponents here - the debates are just so unproductive that they're not worth the time. Why not do the same with ToO?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yet he casts a blind eye towards other sins such as the greed and gluttony of others as well as his own sins and no doubt he and his fellow members wax poetically about their compassion, forgiveness, etc. Seems like Jesus often spoke against such hypocrisy. This "moral obligation" amounts to no more than using the Bible as a weapon to further bigotry in a ...[text shortened]... . No surprise to see you weigh in on this seeing as you've shown yourself to be such a bigot.

Oh there there you bad ol putty cat, does it angst you that he may allow fatties into his church but not homosexuals. Does he have the right to exclude persons from his organisation that break the rules? Please explain, your last attempt explained nothing and was a simple accusation, which we have heard before.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like when you support the ostracization of homosexuals from your church and I point out the hypocrisy and bigoted nature of such a stance? I imagine it IS frustrating to have someone point out such a truth and that doesn't accept your attempts to justify your bigotry.

God calls homosexuality abominable.

Real Christians don't ostracize anyone. But when an individual practices what God calls a sin, and sits in a church where the Bible is preached, they get uncomfortable and either repent or they go away on their own.

There seems to be very few who are willing to go to a church where God's word is preached. Especially if they are actively involved in gross immorality.


Face reality ToO. The world will never accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. It never has and it never will. God certainly won't.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You believe that a being whose description is incoherent can exist? Or am I misunderstanding you? Or was it my statement that was unclear?
I did not intend to say "[God] is incoherent." as in "what he says is inconsistent" but rather: the description of a given god is incoherent and thus a god as described cannot exist.
Sure, it doesn't rule out a Chri ...[text shortened]... try and prove the existence or non-existence of something that does not have a description.

For instance, you may take the fact that evil exists in the world as evidence that a benevolent God does not exist, since it is more coherent to assume that no God exists in order to account for the discrepancy. But the mere fact that a benevolent God reigning over an evil world is not coherent to you, does not, of course, entail that a benevolent God does not exist as such. Neither do evidential challenges such as these make Christian belief necessarily untenable. That's all I'm saying.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh there there you bad ol putty cat, does it angst you that he may allow fatties into his church but not homosexuals. Does he have the right to exclude persons from his organisation that break the rules? Please explain, your last attempt explained nothing and was a simple accusation, which we have heard before.

Read it again. The explanation is there and is clear.

Originally posted by josephw
God calls homosexuality abominable.

Real Christians don't ostracize anyone. But when an individual practices what God calls a sin, and sits in a church where the Bible is preached, they get uncomfortable and either repent or they go away on their own.

There seems to be very few who are willing to go to a church where God's word is preached. Especially ...[text shortened]... homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. It never has and it never will. God certainly won't.

No, man calls it abominable, and borrows "God's" voice to lend himself some authority.

However, the church will end up changing with the times, just as it always does - low turnout doesn't fill offering plates - and the new generation will find some new prejudice to rally behind, some segment of human society to denigrate in order to elevate themselves as 'righteous'.

And yet they will pretend that the church throughout the years has followed some kind of staunch and unchanging moral code. 😀