More Examples of the Hate Group in Action: The Need to Mock and Ridicule

CARM,  1/15/10 Poster named "Dr. Petter" "Important Questions for Christians"

---

I would love to be able to ask these questions in a forum where the majority of Christians might be able to read them and give answers but that is not possible. Maybe a Christian frequenting this sub forum can pass them on to others and report back.

1. Where did the words used in the bible come from? God, man or both? If both how much is God and how much is man?

2. If the words are primarily from god why are there contradictions and different interpretations of those words?

3. Are there any ORIGINAL ideas in the bible that can only be found in the Jewish culture? For example creation in a short period of time, resurrection, the golden rule, the idea of sin and sacrifice, everlasting life, honor your father and mother, etc.

Walt give reasonable answer:

Uniquely Christian

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper 1. Where did the words used in the bible come from? God, man or both?

Man.

Quote:

2. If the words are primarily from god ...

N/A

Quote:

3. Are there any ORIGINAL ideas in the bible that can only be found in the Jewish culture?

Chrisitianity teaches that the definitive revelation of the Holy One, blessed be He, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, is the Crucified and Risen son of Mary, Jesus.

The UNIQUE teaching of Christianity is that the Holy One, blessed be He, came into this world between the knees of a Jewish girl, was killed, and was buried in a borrowed tomb.

The Apostle (1 Corinthians 1:23) says this is a "stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."

walt

DP comes back:

So God presented the ideas and man wrote the words. Is this how you get an unambiguous message to those you want to believe. How do you know all the ideas are original and some of them are not borrowed from earlier times. Stories like the Creation and Flood are found in other religions. Resurrection stories are not unique to the Christian religion.

Now that's not a question seeking information or belief, it's an attempt at brow beating copied after Hamilton Berger on Perry Mason. It's an attempt to scorn. It's a rhetorical question. So what he means by "important questions" is brow beating and scorn. So this pattern holds up. Walt gives serious answers and DP gives more brow beating and scorn.

DP:

You said the words were Man's words. Not Gods. Therefore, we are talking about ideas. Words are man made and mean different things to different men.That is the problem with the bible and why we have so many religions and sub religions and sub sub religions.

Quote:

In another thread, I said, as I have often said before:' I infer the characteristics of "God" from the life and death of the crucified Jesus, as his life and death are remembered in the community which acclaims him as LORD.

You are going on "words" written by men. You don't have any direct input from God. That is the problem. You take on faith that these men are communicating directly with God. That is too common a situation in human history that turns out wrong.

Quote:

There is nothing "unambiguous" about a God who discloses himself through a particular crucified Jew, rather than in a catechism.

Again if it wasn't ambiguous then why do not all peoples get the same message. Some do not even recognize Jesus as divine. Others do not even accept that he lived. Even you say you have more questions than answers.

Quote:

You began a thread "What is going on here"? and I responded with a post with the title "Impossible events"? If you are not interested in the responses to the threads you begin, just say so; then we won't have to waste our time answering your questions. Your answers don't make sense in the light of the facts. Which are few and depend on emotion and knowledge from authority. The most valuable gift Matt has given a-theists by hosting these Forums is not the gift of faith -- as far as I can see, most a-theists who come to these Forums remain a-theists. I don't expect you to become a Christian -- in any sense of the word -- as a result of my conversations with you. My only hope is, that as a result of your conversations here, you would have a broader understanding of Christianity and Christians. The most valuable gift Matt has given a-theists by hosting these Forums is an opportunity to see the diversity of those are 'not ashamed of the Gospel." [Disclaimer: It is only fair to note that Matt has, in the past, said that I am a danger to Christianity, and it is equally fair to note that I have received far more abuse in these Forums from Christians than I ever have received from a-thheists. [But up to now, I am the only Christian who has responded to this thread. Perhaps Matt and/or his acolytes will join in later with their point of view. Or perhaps they won't.] It is not easy for a Christian such as me to be a Christian in the 21st century, as my .sig file shows. It would be a lot easier if I could content myself with cliched rhetorical questions, such as you have offered in this thread. But I can't do that, and still be honest with myself; sophomoric bull sessions were for when I was last literally a sophomore, a half a century ago. walt

What has this to do with any thing I have said. I am sorry if I upset you in any way. I didn't mean too. I am also sorry I am an atheist, I can't help it. I simply asked questions to see if any theist could come up with something other than I have faith. Which is about the only thing that makes sense.

 Walt's answers essentually amount to saying "it's my faith and i don't mind that the words are human interpritation of what God told them." Here is DP's answer to what I see a reasonable reply to this loaded rhetorical questions:

But you haven't come up with anything factual all you have is the word of others and you don't know if those words came from God so you must have faith. You don't say you have but you must. I do not understand why you are going on and on about you and your position and how I don't read what you wrote.

Quote:

There is nothing "unambiguous" about a God who discloses himself through a particular crucified Jew, rather than in a catechism.

This disclosure was written 2000 years ago well after the fact by some people you never met. You do not know for certain if any God had anything to do with what they wrote. Therefore, you must have FAITH that what they wrote was factual. Problem is that others have written similar stories about resurrections and divine individuals that you do not believe are factual. Why do you believe this one is?

__________________
He's defending brow beating and ridiculing with in sincere questions not taking the answers on face value but insisting that they over objections he has yet to state.

Then an atheist ally pipes in to get in on the fun:


this is another post by Walt "What's going on?"

In the minds of those who believe in a personal God?

After being involved with CARM for a number of years and having read the thoughts of theists and atheists a question comes to mind. Why do some insist that they know God exists and feel that they have a personal relationship with said god? These folk are convinced they are right and cannot understand why other people do not see what they see is so obvious. They point to the scriptures and how these writings are the word of God and are convinced that God was actually involved in the transmission of information to a handful of Jewish men some 2000 years ago in the Middle East.

Why do they accept these unlikely events as fact and all other religious claims as false? What evidence is there that God actually communicated with these individuals other than their own written word? Is it not fair to say that the bible was written during a time when superstition and myth were common and extraordinary claims were accepted as truth?

What is it that causes people today to accept these extraordinary claims from people they do not know who lived and died so long ago? They will not accept similar claims made by someone still alive today.

Believers will insist the non believers are simply blind when it comes to seeing the obvious; there must be something wrong with them. Many actually become hostile and angry at nonbelievers who do not share their views. Can not any believer here understand why unbelievers may not believe that the scriptures are fact and not myth and that all Gods are imaginary? Do they not feel this way about the hundreds of other gods conjured by humans in the past and even present?

What's going on in their minds, the implication being it's either stupidly or delusion. Of course he spins it all to make it sound as stupid as he  can. This is all the kind of thing that atheists will never understand is slap in the face. They will go "you are being insulting" when I answer this by saying 'you are an idiot" that's becuase you calling me an idiotic, you re calling my father mother idiots you calling my grand mother an idiot you are spitting on everything I've ever cared about and all because you are stupid to understand it. These guys are so stupid they can't see that we know that they are not representing our beliefs but their beliefs about our beliefs. so we are insulted!

__________________

On this one he's joined by an ally who thinks the mocking and ridiculoing looks like fun and wants to give it a try too:

Roundearth, (reflect upon that screen name)

I see each of these factors at work in some theists some of the time:

1. Failure to seriously engage the case for atheism, e.g. most new theist posters here.
2. Dogmatic reliance on an argument(s) for God to the point of blindness to all objections, e.g. Metacrock, Matt Slick.
3. Mistaking emotion for evidence.
4. Inability to grasp the law of large numbers.
5. Some simply do not have a concept of evidence, e.g. Mark Dreher.

Here's my answer to him

I was an atheist big man. you are unwilling to think seriously about logic, or about philosophical issues. you are brain washed by an ideology of hate and you are not willing to open your little mind and try to understand the position those who don't subscribe because that;s what ideologues do. they rationalize the superiority of their own position and the unworthiness of those who don't subscribe to it.

you don't know anything about my God arguments. you are not wiling to think about them seriously because you know that they would destroy your ideology that you need psychologically to feel whole, you apparently need to put other people down to feel good about yourself.

you make this little list of what you see the non subscribers doing that makes them inferior but you just forget that I can show you exampel where do everything thing on there you say we do, and where most atheists on this board do that.

when the board comes on line go look at my exchanges with so called "Big thinker" and see how totally confused he is about the nature of logic and arrangement. I dare you would fair no better, if you understand logic and argument you would not rely on the need to make and ridicule arguments rather than arguing them.

if you think you have an objection to any of my arguments that are not just refusal to think, then debate me 1x1 where you can't hide behind a bevy of ridicule artists to detract from the fact that you can't answer the arguments.

if you really believe you have those answers you will debate me. how come when I make this challenge every single atheist shuts up and stops saying it and wont debate? if you really thought you could beat the argument you would debate.

the truth is you don't really mean things like "logic" and "objections" your only real objection is "that's not my ideology that doesn't make me special." __________________