Originally Posted by Nonprofit
His own reference from the Christian Think Tank shot him down concerning chattel slavery and rights... (the part he removed from his post) But he won't admit to it because as he is always "winning"...
these were said in reference to the Garnsy quote on the slavery debate. The issue in the second is that there were brackets on the Burke website and Burke put in the term Chattel just before the quote.
that's a valid thing to do becuase he was just pointing to the context of the quote which was not spelled out. That's valid and permitted and nothing wrong with it. that's the proper use of brackets. Unless you find the original which I did you have to trust.
Of cousre these atheists want to turn it their advantage so they made as though I put the braketts in
then they want to drop big statments like "you are so dishonest about sources." they totally remain silent and jsut sneak when I confront them with the original and prove I'm right which I have done several times.
I did this time by getting the Garnsy book and showing that the quote is on page 2 and the contest is indeed chattel and he actually use the term just a few sentences latter. They are wrong I am right, I am vindicated but they wont admit it.
also the same thing with the Tillich issue on Tillich saying god is not less than personal. see my signature for that. in that case too Sky snuck and didn't say a thing.
the quote I got from Burke was in page 1 the quote on 2 is in the same context. Talking about the same thing, chattel.
page 2 he says:
"there were other types of unfree" that backs up what I said about different types of servitude. then he says:
"Chattel slavery has been historically a rare mode of unfreedom." that would be in sink with the idea that Israel didn't have it, although that by itself doesn't prove the point.
It is in the same context of the things he speaks of before which includes the quote wit the brackets. This proves he's talking Chattel.This just disproves their position completely. Of course the atheists are not going to accept that. They can't possilby accept it becuase their whole self esteem and the truth of their ideology is riding on everyone of them feeling that he's smarter than everyone of us. Let's look at their ratinalizations.
Skylurker knows hes beaten so he shifts to other grounds to claim a consolation prize:
I can't make out a coherent line of reasoning in that above.Meta:
Again the reference that was identified as THE definitive source does not use the word Chattel in the sense you stridently claimed was so. The phrase "chattel slaves" means humans that are slaves as in property who could be provided some protection. End of story on this one... you are just digging the hole deeper.
First he claims he can't figure out what I'm saying, but he figured it out well enough to try and argue that the original didn't say what it dos. But yes, it does I quoted it ver batium.
then he says:
My beef with you and Tillich was his position on the supernatural... you thought he struggled against those who opposed the supernatural when the opposite was the case and he himself rejected supernatural theism.
Of course his real beef was the issue that Tillich didn't accept any sort of peronal God. He just believe God was an imperosnal force like magnatism. Then I quoted Tillich form his systematic theology saying:
Tillch: "personal God does not mean that God is a person. It means that he is the ground of everything personal. HE CARRIES WITHIN HIMSELF THE ONTOLOGICAL POWER OF PERSONALITY.he is not a person BUT HE IS NOT LESS THAN PERSONAL."
--Paul Tillich, Systematic theology vol 1, 245
notice he backs off completely and falls back o the supernatural issue.
Bigthinker, chimes in with the old chestnut:
Another failure to demonstrate that God exists outside of the imagination.
Meta: you always know they know they have lost when they fall back to position no 1. They never see the importance of an argument, so they see they lost on some point fall back to the basic atheist's fetal position. "Who cares if I can't prove this slavery stuff, you still can't prove there's a God." All roads lead to Rome.
look what the lying scum bags say
Originally Posted by MFFJM2
this lying jerk is calling me the king of misrepresentation when he's too lazy to click on the link and scroll to page 2 and see that it's proved in front of his ignorant little face.
The real lesson here is that they have tried to build a mythology of my dishonesty. They lie constantly about myuse of sources. They tried to argue that I added a word in brackets to change the meaning of the quote and I proved I did not. So they can't that they are wrong. they go building the myth. the impression has been created they don't bother to correct it. This is another exampel their brown shirt tactics.
they attempted slander and when prvoed wrong they just refuse to accept their wrong doing.