Fonzie wrote:

rebecca.williamson,

So you kinda like the Cliff notes version huh.  I think there is a desire to "sum it all up" - and maybe with haste at that - and "write it off".  It's like "the end of the matter, all has been heard" and yet the atheists have heard nothing yet always claim they have made their point somewhere, sometime. 

I might come up with my own summary of the atheist's argument:

 

F.  "It works for me - Christ lives".

A.  "I was once fooled by all this happy horse crap, now I'm free and real"

F.  "What is your faith in?"

A.  "I don't have faith, idiot, I have confidence.  I know what I'm doing.  You haven't proved anything and you don't know anything."

F.  "Where have you come from and where are you going?"

A.  "You idiot, I don't need that and you can't prove that, you don't know me that well to say that!   I can prove what I don't like!  When I die I'm dead and things are great and meaningful now and I've already told you how meaningful.  Besides I'm helping my fellow man be real too.  And I already told you you're an idiot and I'm real". 

F.  "Christ is the Lamb of God Who died for our sins so we could have eternal life starting now". 

A.  "You can't prove it, and you're really annoying me now with these things you can't prove.  I know I'm right and we've all proved it several times.  You even liked a couple answers so that proves we proved it and it proves you like what we're doing - or you did and now you don't?  i thought you were reasonable and I used to like you but now I wonder about your sanity.   So we're atheists, your an idiot, and if you don't believe me just wait until the next atheist supports me on this.  You have faith in something you haven't proved to us.  We know we're right and we've proved it.  And I'm happy and helping my fellow man."

F.  "Faith is like spiritual eyesight". 

A.  "Ok, you're using a computer made by an atheist and what a joke that you'd bring that up on a medium us atheists have created."

etc, ad nauseum...

See, all of your answers here are just rhetoric. It's like saying, "how can you have a creation without a creator?" Well, calling something a creation begs the question. It's a disingenuous, fallacious tactic. And that's the entirety of these kinds of posts. When are you going to learn that you can win people over by playing fast with them?

You are so wrong and you will find out in the end. I have been a "non-denominational, born-again christian" for 40+ years, and it was a mistake and a lie. The only true happiness is when you can make your own decisions in life.

Realistic_Human wrote:

You are so wrong and you will find out in the end. I have been a "non-denominational, born-again christian" for 40+ years, and it was a mistake and a lie. The only true happiness is when you can make your own decisions in life.

 

Realistic_Human,

You kind of remind of a guy 7 people saw commit a murder who then tried to make his case by producing 77 people who didn't see it.  Your testimony means nothing.  You are not even in court on spiritual matters.  Just because you don't perceive spiritual things doesn't mean they are not there to perceive. 

Just because you don't perceive spiritual things doesn't mean they are not there to perceive.

But that's a lie.  I am not the enemy for exposing this lie before the concrete is set up (another rhetoric illustration meaning, there's hope).

...you refuse still to answer simple 'a' or 'b' questions, namely:  Did you create the "what faith you" thread?  That would be the thread titled "what faith you"; created by the user named "mephibosheth" on September 6, 2007 - 5:57pm,  and which can be found here.

Fonzie wrote:

Quote:

Again, a simple question (dodged more times than I can count) : Have you been on this forum before, and did you make the threads "PALACE LIFE", and "What faith you" ?

  McFly, my name is not meth.

 

Fonzie wrote:

PimpingWolfwood, 

No, the problem is the summary is too accurate.  There is much more talk about discussion on this forum than discussion.  This is to hide the fact that atheists don't have anything of substance to offer, especially ones who say they once "believed in God", once "were Christians" then gave up and now try to put a righteous face on that failure. 

Some of discussion is rhetoric - you might want to consider that fact.  For a distraction you attack the word "creation" because you don't have an answer for it.  You don't have anything to discuss, so then you come up with your own version of summary of these posts and add righteous indignation. 

I think the summary is pretty much dead on except I won't imitate your disrespect for God and Jesus even for illustration.

The gospel is truly the best thing that has ever come to mankind, ever.  I have had my eyes opened to the truth of the gospel (good news) of salvation through the atoning death of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God on the cross and His resurrection to an Indestructible Life after 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb.  He had a body when He was resurrected.  Several witnessed that fact and died for their testimony of it.  I was born into Christ through the Spirit and the water of baptism.  I have been born into that resurrection of His and am experiencing the foretaste of eternal life now - while my body and flesh go downhill toward the tomb my spirit is on an uphill climb heading for a new body that fits my saved spirit in Christ. 

I'm secure in Christ.  It's working great for me.  It's a joy to be in fellowship with Him and God and the Holy Spirit.  I'm aware that like many of the participants on this website I could make shipwreck (that's an illustrative rhetoric term with the goal of describing the ruin), shipwreck of my faith and be in a worse state than I was before I was saved from my sins in Christ.  I suppose like those examples of spiritual shipwreck I could then try to put a false "more righteous than Christians" face on that.  But that's a lie.  I am not the enemy for exposing this lie before the concrete is set up (another rhetoric illustration meaning, there's hope). 

No. It's not accurate. You use rhetoric to convince us that you're God is real. That's it. Now, does atheism offer anything? No. No grand afterlife, no God-given rights or morals. But that's irrelevant. I'm not going to believe in Jesus just because it feels good. I'll believe only because I'm convinced of the reality of the religion... And it's just not that convincing.

And no -- creation was an example of the sort of tactic you're using. I couldn't use your own behavior as my example, because I've already covered it half-a-dozen times with you. So I used another that was easily destroyed. It's the same, though. You use tactics that beg the question. You draw doubt to one idea and assert that therefore yours MUST be true, even though you provide not a shred of evidence, real evidence, to prove it so. That's DISINGENUOUS. It's not a debate, at that point. It's you lying to us to convince us of something. That kind of rhetoric shouldn't be part of every conversation.

As for your paragraph that begins, "the gospel is truly," leave it out. That IS NOT the kind of convincing anyone needs here. You can't prove your point by saying, "THE BIBLE IS AWESOME AND JESUS IS AWESOME AND YAY!" That's not evidence for anything.

And your last paragraph literally suggests that everyone who is not a Christian is a spiritual ruin. That. Is. Stupid. I'm glad you can convince yourself that your life was awful without Christ, but I can't. I'm having a damn good life. I don't have some void to be filled. And neither does anyone else. ONLY CHRISTIANS think non-Christians have a hole to be filled. Doesn't that illustrate something?

And there is a difference between disingenuous rhetoric, what I've made clear bothers me, and simple uses of language. I have a feeling you're intelligent enough to know the difference. If you aren't... Well, that's too bad.

Say you were deaf - could I use rhetoric to describe music?  If you were  blind - could I use rhetoric to discuss color?

I have tried to tell you about something that I am experiencing with Christ living in me - along with the Holy Ghost and God, living in me as Jesus promised in the gospel and when you try to tell me it isn't real it's like you are telling me there is no earth, wind or fire.  It is sealed in me.  I am sharing the fact that the gospel is real, the Word of God - the Scriptures - are living and active and the transformation from the dominion of death to the Kingdom of Light is real because I have and am experiencing it. 

The fact that I can't convince you of it no matter what I say doesn't have any bearing on the fact that it is true and real. 

I'm not saying this as a rhetorical put-down but trying to get across how real it is - by saying it would be as if I tried to tell you there is no water in the ocean.  You know it's real no matter what I say and I know Christ is real and living in me no matter what you say.

Now on to your honesty about atheism having nothing to offer - no grand afterlife, no God given rights or morals - I understand your point that you wouldn't give in to pressure to accept a lie just because it had great false promises.  But there is relevance in there somewhere about all this.  Is it logical that you might be missing something in life?  I am confident that you are relevant or you wouldn't be here.

The relevance isn't the crap that is rampant in school teaching these days where flattery is used extensively and from their viewpoint skillfully to lead you down their path and enhance man's desire to worship himself - I'm with you on that manipulative crap.

  I hate it.  I'm not trying to do that.

But with the analogy of talking to a deaf person about music you would need to use something he is familiar with to ramp up to music.

That's what Jesus did with parables - trying to get us to consider the spiritual part of us.  For instance the seed parable - I assume you are familiar.  If the seed falls on the path and isn't even given a chance to germinate (birds or rodents eat) it doesn't grow into what it is.  If seed falls among thorns, then it is choked by other things.  If it falls where there is no depth of soil, it springs but doesn't root.  Now if you apply that to the gospel you can see there are several "drop outs" as illustrated here before you - but nevertheless if the seed is given the good soil chance it can become the biggest thing in the garden.  That rhetoric isn't meant to impress but to ramp up.  You can either consider it or let an A. eat it.

There has to be a little spiritual violence involved in both preaching and accepting the gospel.

This fact is in the Scriptures.  You have to be that serious - and people were irritated about the idea of getting off the throne and hated the truth of the gospel.  But men who were awakened to the fact that it is true - accepted it as hungry men and were prepared if not allowed to die for it.

The way I understand your last paragraph is that if I was using rhetoric for a deceitful purpose - like, to impress, manipulate or parade a new word that would be disingenuous.  I am confident I'm not trying to impress you - just trying to express the fact that salvation by faith in Christ through obedience to the gospel is real and great.  I know I can't cause that to happen with you myself, but I have confidence God can - again, how He would do that I don't know.  But if the ground is ready - the seed is there.

I'll repeat myself. Again.

PimpingWolfwood wrote:

I hate to do things this way, but...

Quote:

Say you were deaf - could I use rhetoric to describe music?  If you were  blind - could I use rhetoric to discuss color?

I'll repeat myself. Again. There are disingenuous uses of rhetoric. Abusive ones. And then there are constructive abuses, like metaphor. What you use is the abusive kind that relies on fallacious logic. So when I said not to use rhetoric, I assumed you were smart enough to know that I was saying it as someone would say it to a politician (or anyone else who abuses it).

Quote:

I have tried to tell you about something that I am experiencing with Christ living in me - along with the Holy Ghost and God, living in me as Jesus promised in the gospel and when you try to tell me it isn't real it's like you are telling me there is no earth, wind or fire.  It is sealed in me.  I am sharing the fact that the gospel is real, the Word of God - the Scriptures - are living and active and the transformation from the dominion of death to the Kingdom of Light is real because I have and am experiencing it. 

The fact that I can't convince you of it no matter what I say doesn't have any bearing on the fact that it is true and real.  I'm not saying this as a rhetorical put-down but trying to get across how real it is - by saying it would be as if I tried to tell you there is no water in the ocean.  You know it's real no matter what I say and I know Christ is real and living in me no matter what you say.

Telling someone that Jesus is totally awesome and you live a good life because of him is great, but not enough to convince the kind of people on these forums. It's a valid argument, but not an effective one. And no. I don't know Christ is real. If I did, I wouldn't have any issues. To me, you're like some crack-head off the streets trying to convince me that aliens are real. And THAT'S why I have so much trouble believing you.

Quote:

Now on to your honesty about atheism having nothing to offer - no grand afterlife, no God given rights or morals - I understand your point that you wouldn't give in to pressure to accept a lie just because it had great false promises.  But there is relevance in there somewhere about all this.  Is it logical that you might be missing something in life?  I am confident that you are relevant or you wouldn't be here.

The relevance isn't the crap that is rampant in school teaching these days where flattery is used extensively and from their viewpoint skillfully to lead you down their path and enhance man's desire to worship himself - I'm with you on that manipulative crap.  I hate it.  I'm not trying to do that.  But with the analogy of talking to a deaf person about music you would need to use something he is familiar with to ramp up to music.  That's what Jesus did with parables - trying to get us to consider the spiritual part of us.  For instance the seed parable - I assume you are familiar.  If the seed falls on the path and isn't even given a chance to germinate (birds or rodents eat) it doesn't grow into what it is.  If seed falls among thorns, then it is choked by other things.  If it falls where there is no depth of soil, it springs but doesn't root.  Now if you apply that to the gospel you can see there are several "drop outs" as illustrated here before you - but nevertheless if the seed is given the good soil chance it can become the biggest thing in the garden.  That rhetoric isn't meant to impress but to ramp up.  You can either consider it or let an A. eat it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Say it more plainly.

 

Quote:

There has to be a little spiritual violence involved in both preaching and accepting the gospel.  This fact is in the Scriptures.  You have to be that serious - and people were irritated about the idea of getting off the throne and hated the truth of the gospel.  But men who were awakened to the fact that it is true - accepted it as hungry men and were prepared if not allowed to die for it. 

The way I understand your last paragraph is that if I was using rhetoric for a deceitful purpose - like, to impress, manipulate or parade a new word that would be disingenuous.  I am confident I'm not trying to impress you - just trying to express the fact that salvation by faith in Christ through obedience to the gospel is real and great.  I know I can't cause that to happen with you myself, but I have confidence God can - again, how He would do that I don't know.  But if the ground is ready - the seed is there.

Prove the fact is in the scriptures.

And you do use rhetoric deceitfully. That's what I've been saying for 15 posts now. When you try to tell someone that their beliefs are wrong and thus yours must be right, that's an 'either-or fallacy.' You're using fallacious reasoning.

 

 

PimpingWolfwood,

 

The logic about the problem of describing music to the deaf and color to the blind is this:  When man sinned he died spiritually.  Man lost spiritual life.  Unless God brings you to yourself and opens your eyes spiritually you can't discern spiritual things.  Man can invent a telescope and microscope to open his eyes to the stars and the atom but man can't open his own eyes to spiritual things.  That miracle comes from God.  It pleases God to do it through the preaching of the gospel of Christ - to Christ's glory not man's.  Misplaced glory is a big problem for men.

Taking the kingdom of heaven by violence? - "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence and men of violence take it by force." (Matthew 11.12 RSV)  There is a spiritual war going on and the Scriptures say if we "shrink back" God takes no pleasure in us.  Paul said he "doesn't box like beating the air" - he aims to land the punch. 

How do you know when you land a punch?  After one of Jesus' sermons they took him out planning to throw Him off a cliff.  After Steven's gospel sermon they "came forward" and stoned him.  The way some are carrying on here.....bull's eye.  But we don't hear the Word of God to judge it - it judges us. 

The seed parable more plainly?    There's nothing wrong with the seed - the question is the soil.  The seed is the gospel.  You, me, Anonymouse, JcGadfly, et al are the soil.  There is the aspect of pulling weeds.  And plowing.  And time.  And harvest - where chaff is separated from wheat. 

 

 

 

 

PimpingWolfwood wrote:

I'll repeat myself. Again.

I propose a drinking game. Every time someone who's trying to talk to "Fonzie" uses the words "repeat", or "again", we consume an alcoholic beverage.

See you guys in the hospital.