Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. 12 Apr '12 14:01
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Calvin burned a man at the stake, Michael Servetus for publishing a pamphlet on the
    errors of the trinity (De trinitatis erroribus) which he held was a non Biblical teaching,
    Tyndale was also executed for his opposition to the church and no doubt there are
    many others.
    Well is that not Christians burning people at the stake, or am I terminally confused again. Thomas Moore (a man for all seasons) was quite fond of burning a heretic.
  2. 12 Apr '12 14:04
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Well is that not Christians burning people at the stake, or am I terminally confused again. Thomas Moore (a man for all seasons) was quite fond of burning a heretic.
    Robbie is excessively fond of 'no true Scotsman' arguments.

    Anyone who does anything he doesn't approve of isn't a Christian so any argument you make
    where you say well here are some Christians doing something bad he just says, well they aren't
    Christians.
  3. 12 Apr '12 14:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Robbie is excessively fond of 'no true Scotsman' arguments.

    Anyone who does anything he doesn't approve of isn't a Christian so any argument you make
    where you say well here are some Christians doing something bad he just says, well they aren't
    Christians.
    I wondered why that phrase kept popping up and what it referred to.
  4. 12 Apr '12 14:31
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    I wondered why that phrase kept popping up and what it referred to.
    Ah it's a formal logical fallacy that Robbie can't stop using.

    It's one of several.

    The straw man is his other favourite.

    Along with
    Argument from Ignorance
    Argument from incredulity
    Argument from popularity
    ad hominems

    And well, bald faced lying.

    But apart from that he's a great guy...
  5. 12 Apr '12 14:40 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Robbie is excessively fond of 'no true Scotsman' arguments.

    Anyone who does anything he doesn't approve of isn't a Christian so any argument you make
    where you say well here are some Christians doing something bad he just says, well they aren't
    Christians.
    Robbie is excessively fond of 'no true Scotsman' arguments

    this is a lie, and i can prove its a lie,

    please demonstrate which part of of the Biblical cannon, (on which a Christians
    teaching is based), indicates either directly or indirectly, that its permissible for a
    Christian to burn people at the stake, if you cannot or will not, then the statement that
    you have uttered is a lie, proving that you are a slanderous liar and cannot be trusted
    and you will publicly admit that those who perpetrated the crimes were not Christians
    but something else, regardless of any other consideration.

    Here is your chance to vindicate your assertion where is the teaching? or are you a liar?
  6. 12 Apr '12 14:42
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Ah it's a formal logical fallacy that Robbie can't stop using.

    It's one of several.

    The straw man is his other favourite.

    Along with
    Argument from Ignorance
    Argument from incredulity
    Argument from popularity
    ad hominems

    And well, bald faced lying.

    But apart from that he's a great guy...
    your chance to exonerate yourself, where is the Christian teaching to be found which
    states thats its acceptable to burn people at the stake? produce it, or, be henceforth
    known as a slanderous liar (we know that already, but now we are going to prove it), so
    where is it?
  7. 12 Apr '12 14:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    I wondered why that phrase kept popping up and what it referred to.
    Slander is the best he can do, in effect, he knows nothing about spirituality, nothing
    about scripture even less about history and is a sad and pathetic fellow best left to his
    own devices. Plus he covets my material possessions.
  8. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    13 Apr '12 11:22
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    What would you know Mr 'closed minded and ignorant', you don't even have the balls to look at the other side.
    This coming from someone who doesn't want another side taught, priceless. 🙂
    Kelly
  9. Subscriber Proper Knob
    Cornovii
    13 Apr '12 11:25
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    This coming from someone who doesn't want another side taught, priceless. 🙂
    Kelly
    Sorry, i don't know that you're talking about. Could you explain in a little more detail?
  10. 13 Apr '12 12:17 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    your chance to exonerate yourself, where is the Christian teaching to be found which
    states thats its acceptable to burn people at the stake? produce it, or, be henceforth
    known as a slanderous liar (we know that already, but now we are going to prove it), so
    where is it?
    The straw man is his other favourite. [Googlefudge]

    And, right on cue, there it is.

    The accusation was not that the Bible says burning at the stake is acceptable, it was that people were burned at the stake for criticising things that the Bible did say.

    --- Penguin.
  11. 13 Apr '12 12:28
    Originally posted by Penguin
    [b]The straw man is his other favourite. [Googlefudge]

    And, right on cue, there it is.

    The accusation was not that the Bible says burning at the stake is acceptable, it was that people were burned at the stake for criticising things that the Bible did say.

    --- Penguin.[/b]
    sigh if rhetorical tricks is the best you can do, then its the best you can do.
  12. 13 Apr '12 13:02
    Originally posted by Penguin
    [b]The straw man is his other favourite. [Googlefudge]

    And, right on cue, there it is.

    The accusation was not that the Bible says burning at the stake is acceptable, it was that people were burned at the stake for criticising things that the Bible did say.

    --- Penguin.[/b]
    Yes he does seem to have trouble opening his mouth without uttering a logical fallacy.
    He actually commits several in his responses but the straw man was certainly in there.


    However if he wants the bible talking about who should be burned to death...

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/burning.html

    "If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you." -- Leviticus 20:14

    "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." -- Leviticus 21:9

    "Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." -- Genesis 38:24

    "He that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath. ... And Joshua ... took Achan ... and his sons, and his daughters ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire." -- Joshua 7:15, 24-25



    It doesn't actually say that they should be tied to a stake to be burned but it's a bit hard to do it otherwise
    because people have a tendency not to stand still while you burn them to death.
  13. 13 Apr '12 14:02
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Yes he does seem to have trouble opening his mouth without uttering a logical fallacy.
    He actually commits several in his responses but the straw man was certainly in there.


    However if he wants the bible talking about who should be burned to death...

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/burning.html

    "If a man take a wife and her m ...[text shortened]... wise
    because people have a tendency not to stand still while you burn them to death.
    So not only did did Robbie produce a Straw Man argument rather than addressing the actual argument, since you have produced the biblical sources he demanded, he has also failed to topple even the straw man!

    I nearly LOLed out loud.

    --- Penguin.
  14. 13 Apr '12 14:51 / 7 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Yes he does seem to have trouble opening his mouth without uttering a logical fallacy.
    He actually commits several in his responses but the straw man was certainly in there.


    However if he wants the bible talking about who should be burned to death...

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/burning.html

    "If a man take a wife and her m wise
    because people have a tendency not to stand still while you burn them to death.
    Here is the actual statement AGAIN which in your inability to comprehend a simple
    statement you yourself are producing more straw than the first little pig and he
    managed to build an entire house

    that its permissible for a Christian to burn people at the stake!

    Please note the term, Christian, it may prove helpful to you, but I dont hold out any
    real hope.

    Your Biblical statements are without exception ALL taken from the Mosaic law which,
    because of your ignorance you fail to perceive is no longer applicable to Christians
    in practice although in principle it remains to an extent binding, a rather damning
    and fundamental flaw in your stupid and ill informed reasoning, in fact its akin to
    someone asking, please tell, where does the Christian belief on the second coming
    of Christ arise from in the ancient text and you respond by handing them the phone
    book.

    Now I understand that attacks on my person really are the best you can do, after
    all, you dont know anything about scripture, but if you are going to make a mockery
    of a christians beliefs (it really is the best you can hope for) then make sure that
    you really understand the basis for that belief, not on some text which is no longer
    applicable in practice.

    Now let me reiterate the point and lets see if you can comprehend it this time, ill put
    it in bold as an aid,

    Please tell us where it is permissible for a Christian to burn people at the stake!

    [b]note: the Mosaic Law was only applicable to the ancient Hebrews, Christians are
    different, like Muslims and Hindus, or Sikhs and Buddhists. Christians are not Jews.
  15. Subscriber Proper Knob
    Cornovii
    13 Apr '12 15:36
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Sorry, i don't know that you're talking about. Could you explain in a little more detail?
    Bump for Kelly.