Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mars

Get To Know All The Christ-Like Religions.

Recommended Posts

I read through all the posts Mars; each and every one of them. And I read through the links YOU BOTH posted. And had YOU framed your arguments FOR EACH AND EVERY LINK with at least a modicum of understanding (as Calminian did for his), AND had you read the rules (as I suggested), we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because YOU would have known that you weren’t be chastised FOR your argument, but rather the LACK THERE OF.

 

And at this point, you are not only using “Ad hominem attacks” against me, but you are “Complaining about board moderation” as well.

 

Once again, YOU need to read the forum rules prior to coming here and misrepresenting what is going on.

 

Ron whilst I don't agree with Mars I can see his point. BOTH he and Sammy used links as an argument to each other, Sammy didn't explain any of the links just like Mars. Nor would I ask them to since there is an insane amount of points for each claimed person.

 

What would have helped would have to narrowed the discussion down to one supposed similar figure at a time, therefore allowing the specific arguments to be given. I believe I mentioned this before, and I think Sammy also said to focus on just one for now.

 

If we had focused on one, (hence allowing sufficient time and sanity to pose the arguments), and then Mars continued to merely cite links THEN I think it would be safe to pull him up on it.

 

However I do think he needs to learn that links with ad hominem attacks aren't good evidence anyway, an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy... Does Mars think a logical fallacy is a logical argument?

 

 

Provide me with questions to what I posted to believe is true and I will explain why. Is that to much to ask? This post was intented to be fun and interresting, now it is just a bunch of Christians trying to attack so that they can defend.

 

As I said, that is a huge ask for each and every individual (elephant hurling much), try focus it onto on figure and go from there. You can provide a link to your sources and quote relevant parts with your explanation about it.

 

 

Grow up. I am done with this ridiculously one sided little forum. You will see that only a few stick around for this farce, because you chase people away with your one sided mindsets. Open this site to Christians only. Then you can all debate the same things. Lol, you can then tell each other that your imaginary friends are all real.

 

Imaginary? How would you know? Do you claim to know all things? A bit arrogant if you ask me ;)

 

 

I am not convinced. You make stupid rules and arguments and love to take words out of a post and only focus on words. Typical Christian. Always first to quote but a sentence, never realizing that there is something before and after.

 

Perhaps cite some examples of where this has occurred and maybe you will have some strength behind these words.

 

 

If you cannot appretiate my views and post. Then it is fine. I do not need this forum in any shape or form. You can keep your Christian forum and I will move along.

 

Hang on do you mean to say that in order for one to "appreciate" one's views they must accept them? Does this mean that you do not appreciate our views? I believe faulty logic is being used..

 

 

PS. If I must look at all of you and ask if I would like to be like that, then my answer is NO NO NO. You are grumpy old men with closed eyes. Shame I feel sorry for you. You cannot even realize what I was trying to do. Julle almal is moerse dose in my oe. Julle kan almal loop kak. Lmfga. Hoop julle word eendag wakker. Siestog.

 

What were you trying to do?

 

Claiming the God we believe in as "imaginary" doesn't bode well for your intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mars needs our prayers.

 

It's odd how anyone can claim to be tolerant but when someone doesn't reciprocate their version of tolerance they reveal their intolerance with insults and derision.

 

I pray before it's too late that Mars wakes up. When I ponder the state of those that are perishing, it's this particular state of contempt that sadly readies those that get their one appointment with God face-to-face to have the audacity to try and stand in judgement of Him rather than falling on their faces in worship.

 

They will feel justified when they realize that the living God does not prescribe to their distorted version of tolerance.

 

My sister once told me she was intolerant of intolerant people. Chew on that logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mars my friend, it is obvious you only came here to preach without the slightest intention of considering what we had to say (despite you claims).

 

Quite.

 

Mars told us: "Grow up. I am done with this ridiculously one sided little forum."

 

Who are we supposed to agree with? Mars or God? What is our standard of truth; Human opinion, human imagination, or the Word of the living God?

 

I choose the Lord. I think most of us who are regulars here hold to that position.

 

I agree with Adam, he needs prayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First he tells us:

 

"Grow up."

 

Then later we are told:

 

" You are grumpy old men with closed eyes."

 

Hmm, how does one comply with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, on 53 (43 not counting his initial 10) replies, only 3 are about the original topic. I wonder how he got the feeling of being unheard or even attacked...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, on 53 (43 not counting his initial 10) replies, only 3 are about the original topic. I wonder how he got the feeling of being unheard or even attacked...

I thought we were on topic. I was trying to understand the relevance of the first ten. What does it do to believe, Jesus as portrayed in scripture, is parallel with other saviors/religious figures? The topic as I saw it was about looking at all the Jesus-like figures. Maybe I should have started a new thread but thought it was ok to use Mars' thread as a platform to understand what he saw as significant about these perceived similarities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all in the eye of the beholder I expect. As I read it, (and maybe as Mars intended it) it wasn't the discussion in topic intended from the original posts. (discussing the individual similarities instead of discussing the "search" for similarities, which can be a very interesting topic on its own)

 

Again, that's just how I read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you're right.

 

The difficulty with these debates is that we have a tendency to try to fast forward to our position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all in the eye of the beholder I expect. As I read it, (and maybe as Mars intended it) it wasn't the discussion in topic intended from the original posts. (discussing the individual similarities instead of discussing the "search" for similarities, which can be a very interesting topic on its own)

 

Again, that's just how I read it.

 

There are 14 billion eyes on earth today. And.. "There was no King in Israel in those das and everyone did what was right in their own eyes." Therfore lets ignore the color of the :lights" and all attempt to go through an intersection at the ame time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron whilst I don't agree with Mars I can see his point. BOTH he and Sammy used links as an argument to each other, Sammy didn't explain any of the links just like Mars. Nor would I ask them to since there is an insane amount of points for each claimed person.

 

I Just went back a checked one more time Gilbo, and you are incorrect. Calminian (not Sammy) indeed posted at least one comment per link, whereas Mars had wholesale copy-n-paste links.

 

Further, it is inappropriate to complain about moderator actions on the open forum.

 

Once again, a cursory reading of the forum rules would reveal the incorrect application above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provide me with questions to what I posted to believe is true and I will explain why. Is that to much to ask? This post was intented to be fun and interresting, now it is just a bunch of Christians trying to attack so that they can defend.

 

Grow up. I am done with this ridiculously one sided little forum. You will see that only a few stick around for this farce, because you chase people away with your one sided mindsets. Open this site to Christians only. Then you can all debate the same things. Lol, you can then tell each other that your imaginary friends are all real.

 

I am not convinced. You make stupid rules and arguments and love to take words out of a post and only focus on words. Typical Christian. Always first to quote but a sentence, never realizing that there is something before and after.

 

If you cannot appretiate my views and post. Then it is fine. I do not need this forum in any shape or form. You can keep your Christian forum and I will move along.

 

PS. If I must look at all of you and ask if I would like to be like that, then my answer is NO NO NO. You are grumpy old men with closed eyes. Shame I feel sorry for you. You cannot even realize what I was trying to do. Julle almal is moerse dose in my oe. Julle kan almal loop kak. Lmfga. Hoop julle word eendag wakker. Siestog.

My mom used to say the cuckoo calls himself by his own name. Anyway it might be a good idea to read your post above and "pretend" that it is talking about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read what he used you would realize that he used links to tektonics.org as reference to what arguement? He only posted links to someone else's views. I was just showing him that Robert Turkel could be wrong because he is only coming from one point of view.

 

You did this to me with my other post as well. With that post I showed that all my information that I used could be collaborated. Now you are starting again.

 

Dis you read what I posted above in each post? Did you read my links? What on Earth are you on about?

 

You are shallow minded and one sided.

 

Mars I'd love to discuss this with you, but you're being unnecessarily evasive. I'm merely asking you to show me the source material from the original myths, so you can explain how you pieced them together.

 

you see, JP Holding has shown that these interpretations are highly subjective, and frankly fraudulent. For you didn't actually quote any myths, you just told a story you said was based on those myths. For all we know you made up the whole thing.

 

I merely made the point that this kind of things has been done in the past and been debunked. I quoted you all the links that show how things things are manipulated.

 

But what I'd like to do is start fresh. You post your sources for just one of these comparisons you made so we can examine it. I'm getting the feeling though you're not willing to do that. Is it because you have no idea where to find the source material?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mars I'd love to discuss this with you, but you're being unnecessarily evasive. I'm merely asking you to show me the source material from the original myths, so you can explain how you pieced them together.

 

you see, JP Holding has shown that these interpretations are highly subjective, and frankly fraudulent. For you didn't actually quote any myths, you just told a story you said was based on those myths. For all we know you made up the whole thing.

 

I merely made the point that this kind of things has been done in the past and been debunked. I quoted you all the links that show how things things are manipulated.

 

But what I'd like to do is start fresh. You post your sources for just one of these comparisons you made so we can examine it. I'm getting the feeling though you're not willing to do that. Is it because you have no idea where to find the source material?

 

I'd like to see that answer to, but Mr. Mars has departed from us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see that answer to, but Mr. Mars has departed from us.

 

Yes he was being very evasive wasn't he.

 

He should have just focused on one personage at a time, however I guess working under the ambiguity of a large number of diverse claims may have been his "tactic", meaning to try and narrow / clarify the discussion would have spoiled it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However I read the rules and it says nothing about using links solely as one's argument. I totally agree it is disingenuous however if its not in the rules then it cannot be enforced as one.

 

Using the 15 points for rules as found here

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_rules.htm

  • Profanity, obscenity.
  • Advertising.
  • Posting copyrighted material without permission.
  • Use of unauthorized personal correspondence (i.e. email or Private Message).
  • Clear cases of misrepresentation, quoting out of context, or unsubstantiated hearsay.
  • Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.
  • Ad hominem attacks -- discussions about someone's credentials or character are disallowed unless the exchange necessitates a clear need to point out a problem with a source of the information. Such exceptions shall be few and brief.
  • Negative one-liner responses to a post, such as "that's a bunch of baloney".
  • Pointless chatter -- though there is some leeway for occasional friendly banter or brief humor in good taste.
  • Nagging or complaints that an opponent is not responding -- We are all busy, and there is no requirement to respond.
  • Needless repetition.
  • Trolling -- questions or arguments that are insincere or for creating a spectacle. This includes conspiring on another forum to come here and cause trouble for a specific member. While posting under a pseudonym is allowed, it makes you more likely to be taken for a troll, so weigh this into your behavior.
  • Complaining about board moderation.
  • Registeringarrow-10x10.png under more than one pseudonym (also called a "sock-puppet").
  • Elephant hurling, such as providing a barrage of citations to give the illusion of weighty evidence.

Actually Gilbo, as far as the "just pasting links" question, you need to look farther up the page (bold red font added):

 

Forum Guidelines:

This moderated forum fosters scientific dialog on creation-evolution, intended to be useful for visitors and searchers, as well as participants. That is the spirit of all the following guidelines.

  • The subject header should be succinctly descriptive of the content. Content should be specific and mature, and consistent with its chosen subject header. Compact, well-stated posts are preferred. Participants are encouraged to use private e-mail concerning minor points, off-topic, or personal matters.

    Good headers: "Epistasis"; "Black Holes"; "Human/ape DNA similarity"

    Bad headers: "Need help with this"; "YOOOOHOOOOO! Creationists!"; "Evo-babbler Bonehead Post of the month

  • You should provide proper references when quoting an article or website.
  • Your post should not be simply a link or links to articles/websites, or a wholesale cut&paste of an article/web-page. Various snippets from articles are fine, provided it is in the context of the argument you are developing. This shows the reader you understand the topic you are debating and makes for more productive discussion.
  • If you believe another member is breaking a forum rule, please do not post on the open forum your grievance, instead please use the 'Report' button, or PM us to let us know.
wink.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually Gilbo, as far as the "just pasting links" question, you need to look farther up the page (bold red font added):wink.png

Oops thanks for the correction :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair posting a link without an appropriate argument is not breaking a rule. A guideline is more of a recommendation than a rule. However, as moderators we have the freedom and responsibility to make judgement calls about whether or not we see a certain member as being a potential troublemaker given his entire conduct in the forum. Just above the guidelines it states that our goal is to "weed-out the troublemakers early", and to "identify those who give even the slightest inkling that they are here to waste people’s time, consciously or otherwise". We can also read that:

 

"The various moderators and Admins can cut or ban without notice or appeal or explanation."

 

That might seem harsh and unfair, giving the moderators way too much power, but in practice it rarely goes that far. Gilbo asked a valid question - who moderates the moderators? I guess ultimately that would be Fred Williams, but it should also be pointed out that to a certain extent the moderators moderate each other since we make it a habit of discussing among ourselves behind the scenes who the potential "troublemakers" are, and what actions need to be enforced upon them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair posting a link without an appropriate argument is not breaking a rule. A guideline is more of a recommendation than a rule. However, as moderators we have the freedom and responsibility to make judgement calls about whether or not we see a certain member as being a potential troublemaker given his entire conduct in the forum. Just above the guidelines it states that our goal is to "weed-out the troublemakers early", and to "identify those who give even the slightest inkling that they are here to waste people’s time, consciously or otherwise". We can also read that:

 

"The various moderators and Admins can cut or ban without notice or appeal or explanation."

 

That might seem harsh and unfair, giving the moderators way too much power, but in practice it rarely goes that far. Gilbo asked a valid question - who moderates the moderators? I guess ultimately that would be Fred Williams, but it should also be pointed out that to a certain extent the moderators moderate each other since we make it a habit of discussing among ourselves behind the scenes who the potential "troublemakers" are, and what actions need to be enforced upon them.

 

No worries :)

 

I've expressed my concern and am content to leave it at that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Mars, do you believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? Do you believe in "survival of the fit" and you need to be the fittest? Do you respect the religion of Satanism which basically says do anything to anyone you want?

 

Fjuri. That's a great definition of respect straight out of the mouth of Jesus Christ.

 

Here's a story a colleague of mine told me when I explained that I believed we could love everybody like we love ourselves. Oh, by the way he claimed that Christianity was unrealistic. Furthermore, he claimed he was a Jewish atheist.

 

"Suppose you're at a restaurant having dinner with your family and having and enjoyable evening. There is another family at a table across from you enjoying a dinner whith much banter frolicking and fun. Everyone is having a good time.

 

In walks a man brandishing a gun. He seems to be enraged. He makes eye contact with you and announces at the top of his voice, 'Someone in here tonight is going to die and you (Mike--he points at me) are going to decide who it is. It will be your family or the the strangers at the table across from you."

 

See if you an figure out what I answered--who I chose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The introductory posts in this thread make interesting reading. However, it strikes me that there are more telling coincidences between Jesus in the gospels and Old Testament figures. Take, for instance, Jesus in Matthew's gospel and the patriarch Joseph.

In Genesis 30 Joseph is a son of Jacob (later renamed Israel); In Matthew 1:16 Mary's husband Joseph is also a son of a Jacob (compare with "Joseph, the son of Heli" in Luke 3:23).

In Genesis 30:22 God intervenes to help Rachel conceive Joseph (we are not told that He intervened in her conception of Benjamin); In Matthew 1:18 Mary is impregnated through the Holy Spirit (we are not told of divine intervention regarding her other children).

In Genesis 37 Joseph's dreams are the cause of his difficulties but his exile in Egypt avoids his being killed; In Matthew 2:13 Joseph's dream prompts him to seek safety for Jesus in Egypt.

In Genesis 37: 26-28 the brothers (at the prompting of Judah) sell Joseph for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites (their relatives); In Matthew 26:14-16 one of the twelve (Judas) agrees to sell Jesus to the chief priests for thirty pieces of silver.

Both Joseph and Jesus had visions of the future, were falsely accused and were about thirty years old when they began their service.

There also apparent parallels between Jesus and Moses (in Matthew) and Jesus and Elijah (notably in Luke).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See if you an figure out what I answered--who I chose?

My money is on talking him out of killing anyone at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I pray before it's too late that Mars wakes up. When I ponder the state of those that are perishing, it's this particular state of contempt that sadly readies those that get their one appointment with God face-to-face to have the audacity to try and stand in judgement of Him rather than falling on their faces in worship.

 

By "perishing" are you referring to John 3:16 wherein eternal life and perishing are stated as alternative fates? It strikes me that perishing is what happens when you die anyway, it doesn't necessarily imply punishment. To perish has a certain finality about, I've read John 3:16 used against the idea that hell is eternal. We cannot know what the experience of eternal life would be like, it might be a choice regretted and letting go to existence might be wiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We cannot know what the experience of eternal life would be like, it might be a choice regretted and letting go to existence might be wiser.

We can know if we trust that God has revealed Himself and He has.

 

You see the problem here isn't uncertainty but understanding what qualifies as truth and exposing to what lengths people go to in order to reject the plain reality of God and His goodness and us... Ignoring the plain reality our self-imposed depravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me that perishing is what happens when you die anyway,

 

 

What we can observe that when someone dies their physical bodies perish, but we have no evidence of what happens to them spiritually at the point of death. What the atheists have to believe when they subscribe to a naturalistic explanation of life is that our entire personalities, as well as every single thought we have is somehow stored in the brain.

 

But what if our physical bodies were just given to us to clothe spiritual realities in order to represent them in a physical environment? When you write the number seven on a piece of paper you are actually clothing a metaphyiscal concept in a "physical" body for the purpose of convenience. When you destroy the paper, the number seven remains. Only the paper perishes.

 

When an author writes a book he is clothing his ideas with something physical. When an artist paints a picture he does the same thing. When you have ideas in the morning, you might decide to clothe them with actions in the afternoon. When a film producer tells his team what he wants them do do he speaks his ideas into something physical. Similarly, when God's spoke, his ideas were clothed in the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms