Jesus

[Inti]

It's kind of weird. When you look around and see the complexity of the universe and every living thing and system in it, it's not hard to see a God behind it all. But when you try to say that this same entity can cause an animal to speak, then you've just gone way too far. Like that could never happen.

Typical answer: "Because God made him speak".

I expected no less of this place.

You can all stick with your talking donkeys, and i'll stick with my equal rights for everyone and space aliens :tinfoil:

If you expected no less of this place, then why even bother commenting on it?

As very occasionally someone will reply to me with a post that actually forces me to engage my brain.

Not today it seems though.

Altho it seems nebula has a sense of humour!

Edited January 25, 2006 by Inti

[nebula]

Oh please explain to everyone about Balaam and his talking donkey and try to keep a straight face.

Actually the weird part of that story wasn't that the donkey talked to Balaam but that Balaam actually talked back!

[WISDOM]

The truth is much of science supports the Bible. Now, isn't that interesting?! Sometimes people need to be careful what they say!

[MrSealedEternal]

Oh please explain to everyone about Balaam and his talking donkey and try to keep a straight face.

Actually the weird part of that story wasn't that the donkey talked to Balaam but that Balaam actually talked back!

I think it was even more weird that this donkey saw the angel of the Lord and that Balaam had to have his eyes opened to see the angel of the Lord blocking his way because it was contrary and adversarial to God.

Mrs. SE

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

What's even greater and more Glorious is that when Balaam opened his mouth the to curse Israel. Only a Blessing would come out. Not once but Three times.

The more important thing is this though. God is Faithful to His Word. He will keep His Word.

Nu

[Leonard]

AD SERIATAM: Paragraph 1. Can't you see that your unseen and theorized 'quantum soup' is subject to the same reductio ad absurdum that you are so uncomfortable with when the theists apply it: "Ooh! The mysterious new 'quanta' at an ever deeper level--that's what explains it!" Methinks thou hast the shoe on the wrong foot!

Paragraph 2. Well, since this is not (as even you concede) taught in the Bible, why bring it up here? Because it is a convenient red herring. Well, nonetheless, just to demonstrate how things get twisted about, and ill-taught at our colleges today, I shall take it up. How many people actually died for believing the earth revolved around the sun? I have not been able to find a single record of such an occurance, although to hear secularist professors talk about it, it must have been a daily occurance all over Europe! And before you bring up Galileo, (who of course was not killed, but suffered badly for his views) study what actually happened and why; if you bring it up without really knowing your history, you will lose that argument with me rather embarassingly! Just food for thought: Nicolas Copernicus was ALREADY teaching the Copernican model, BEFORE Galileo. Why wasn't Copernicus prosecuted, if the Church was simply out to suppress such a view? Why did Galileo's prosecution become the cause celeb' amongst the secularist scholars, and why do they hide the fact that Copernicus was NOT prosecuted? Do you think maybe they've sold you a bill of goods? (Hint. Hint.)

Paragraph 3. The brilliant Stephen J. Gould and other great scholars in the American Humanist Society (of which I believe he was President, for a long while) used to hold debates against creationist scientists at universities (a pretty friendly environment for Gould, and pretty hostile to creationists!) around America. Unfortunately Gould and his compatriots KEPT LOSING THE DEBATES! They couldn't produce any true 'transitional forms' that would stand up to review in the academic debating environment. It got sooooo embarassing that Gould actually directed the society not to debate the creationists anymore, because the evolutionists always lost! If Harvard's Gould and the best secularists of the finest universities can't come up with legitimate transitional forms and you can, you need to break to them the amazing news that you know where there are lots and lots of them!!! I assure you, you will have a tremendous career as an academic, and make a LOT of money! You are being fed bilge water, while being told it's truffles!

Leonard, do you practice selective hearing? Seriously?

Paragraph One: Before I move into my logical fallacy I point it out with "But what if." I also go on to say God is where we will never see him rendering what if statements useless. Oh, but at the same time I'm using it against someone that uses What if all the time. "What if God were real." Point that finger somewhere else. So logic stands.

Paragraph Two: I was making the point that the Bible didn't play as much a part in history as did the powers to be wanted it to. They told us what they felt, there is no red herring here. You felt I offered my point in the first sentence maybe, well, maybe you should read the whole paragraph.

Paragraph Three: Who told you this Gould stuff? It's bad stuff, Wikipedia has nothing on him that is even remotely close to the "QUOTES" you profess. Did you read a "christian" book that made you proud hearing this? Go ahead and tell me how bias Wikipedia is and why I should demonize it myself.

matt

My boy, whoever read my post to you, obviously didn't tell you what it actually said. You seem to be responding to internal stimuli, rather than my statements! Up to this point, I have been been enjoying a most pleasant conversation. It now appears that you are either genuinely stupid, or being deliberately intellectually dishonest. I do not think you are stupid, so I can only assume that since you realize you have completely lost the argument, you are retreating into utter intellectual dishonesty. Most atheists I talk with are not so insecure as all that, and most are too honorable to do so. When you decide, dear boy that you are serious, please feel free to PM me. I have no time to spare for those who are playing silly, childish games. Good day.

[artsylady]

Typical answer: "Because God made him speak".

What do you want? Some scientific explanation of how God changed the vocal chords of this animal? Would that satisfy you?

Admit that you've already decided that the God of the Bible doesn't exist because you can't believe that if He did, he would have the ability to speak through an animal.

[nebula]

THE ILLUSION OF WINNING A DEBATE

My goal in debate was to make the intelligent Christians look stupid. The stupid Christians didn't need my help, but there were some who were smart enough to be an encouragement to others and this really irked me. Most of the time, I didn't have to find real problems with their arguments; I just found ways to psychologically undermine their audience's confidence in the Christian who was presenting those arguments. While I couldn't dissuade the superior Christian thinker from his well thought out belief, his audience was fair game.

If it is done skillfully, intellectual intimidation and ridicule can generate an uneven psychological playing field. Politeness can be mistaken for submissiveness when it takes place in an atmosphere of subtle (or not so subtle!) condescension and this can then have the effect of making another's argument APPEAR weak, not that it actually is. I created this illusion by taking advantage of the stigma of hypocrisy that Christians try to avoid. Not many Christians were willing to stoop as low as me, but when they did, I quickly lost the psychological edge. When both participants do an equally good job of discrediting the thinking of the other, the audience is forced to examine the argument itself. In light of this, I ask Christians to not be too critical of their brothers or sisters who adopt the 'tit for tat' method of debate. It could very well be that they are not speaking out from mean-spiritedness, but from recognizing the need of an even playing field. Proverbs 26:4-5 states, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Sometimes, an arrogant fool needs to be ridiculed and belittled in order to see how ridiculous and obnoxious he is. Of course, when my opponent would do this, I would jump all over them for being a poor representation of Jesus and I was overjoyed when his own flock would do the same!

The hardcore skeptics know this game of audience manipulation and that's why they post victorious titles to any argument, regardless of outcome. To declare victory is to create the appearance of having actually won. If your newspaper accurately reported the news but slanted the headlines, it could easily deceive the casual browser who didn't take time to read the entire article. Pay no attention to declarations of victory; focus on the actual arguments.

From The Games Skeptics Play

[Inti]

What do you want? Some scientific explanation of how God changed the vocal chords of this animal? Would that satisfy you?

Admit that you've already decided that the God of the Bible doesn't exist because you can't believe that if He did, he would have the ability to speak through an animal.

Then the story would have been about how God spoke through the donkey.

[nebula]

This is amazing....I do nothing of the sort of what that thread says, the quoted one you use from "The Games Skeptics Play."

Yes you are, Matt.

I've even asked for the opinions of others to see if I was alone in how I perceived things.

They didn't disagree with me, but I don't think you would like to hear what they said.

Really, if you had just answered the question about "What happened to the body" I wouldn't have had a reason to pursue this matter. but instead you claimed an answer while responding with such tactics as were described in that quote I posted.

Of course, I wouldn't have felt a desire to harp on you at all if in the thread about "the Mind" you had actually responded to what I said about the interaction between the body, soul and spirit. Instead, you focused on my into about hypocrisy. And then when I shared why I believe in Jesus, you challenged my truthfulness in my stating having a depression problem! You also scoffed at my claim to having questioned my faith in-depth.

It was clear to me then that search for truth was not your intention, but rather to defame belief in "the Bible" for "your own thinking."

Sorry, mister. The actions of your posts speak as of one who has an agenda to turn us away from Jesus.

Now, if there are any Christians reading this thread who disagree with me and want to explain to me otherwise why my perception is wrong, I'm willing to hear you out.

Oh, and BTW - I wasn't responding to the quote in your sig line. You are incorrect in that.