Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Floridamom

Phil Robertson suspended from Duck Dynasty 'indefinitely'

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

RationalThought

Your understanding of the Bible is that of a 1st grader.

Nice logical fallacy of ad hominem rather address the substantive points I post.

 

I believe God is 100% consistent. Therefore, from my perspective, the Bible fails to qualify as God's Word. If consistency doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't matter to you, and I'm certainly not trying to convince you otherwise.

 

BTW, people also lose credibility for other logical fallacies BESIDES inconsistency.

 

 

RationalThought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RationalThought

Man but you are predictable. Notice how often you refer to yourself? Shows how transparent and shallow you really are. Like I said, you are not that interesting and are very easy to read.

 

Btw, I know way more about you the you do about me. And how is this so? Because you go out of your way to tell us all about you. Think about it, RT.

I speak for myself rather than for other people as you and others are wont to do.

 

How much DO I know about you? You've posted even MORE about yourself than I do. How's the wife doing?

 

 

RationalThought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

I speak for myself rather than for other people as you and others are wont to do.

 

How much DO I know about you? You've posted even MORE about yourself than I do. How's the wife doing?

 

 

RationalThought

Lol! You got me RT, I have a wife.

 

What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnnybravo

Nice logical fallacy of ad hominem rather address the substantive points I post.

 

I believe God is 100% consistent. Therefore, from my perspective, the Bible fails to qualify as God's Word. If consistency doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't matter to you, and I'm certainly not trying to convince you otherwise.

 

BTW, people also lose credibility for other logical fallacies BESIDES inconsistency.

 

 

RationalThought

 

If you believe God is 100% consistent, then you know of the promises he made. Like the one to Adam and Eve, and Abraham and his children, which all lead to Jesus. And then you should know the significance of Jesus being "innocent" and how that relates to the spilling of innocent blood in the OT to atone sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RationalThought

If you believe God is 100% consistent, then you know of the promises he made. Like the one to Adam and Eve, and Abraham and his children, which all lead to Jesus. And then you should know the significance of Jesus being "innocent" and how that relates to the spilling of innocent blood in the OT to atone sin.

I know what promises the Biblical writers CLAIM God made. Given how many things they wrote for which we have clear demonstration of being wrong, taking the things for which we have NO demonstration as being correct seems a poor choice, IMO.

 

God has been alleged to have said many different things under many different names to many different people. Quite a bit of those things are contradictory and more what the specific people wanted to hear than anything resembling absolute truth. For example, the Muslims think God said quite a bit that's different than what is contained in the OT and NT. Instead of trying to choose which of them are wrong, I choose E: All of the above are wrong.

 

 

RationalThought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnnybravo

I know what promises the Biblical writers CLAIM God made. Given how many things they wrote for which we have clear demonstration of being wrong, taking the things for which we have NO demonstration as being correct seems a poor choice, IMO.

 

God has been alleged to have said many different things under many different names to many different people. Quite a bit of those things are contradictory and more what the specific people wanted to hear than anything resembling absolute truth. For example, the Muslims think God said quite a bit that's different than what is contained in the OT and NT. Instead of trying to choose which of them are wrong, I choose E: All of the above are wrong.

 

 

RationalThought

 

You posted an open letter that somehow was supposed to show the hypocritical inconsistencies of Phil Robertson. I asked for examples of which you gave none, and then went on how the OT should be thrown out since the NT gave us the new law. I proved why the OT is relevant to teaching the NT and after following your strawman you now throw out this red herring. What was it that you said about logical fallacies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

RT is like a kid who thinks it makes him cool to get beat up for his lunch money.

 

Why are you feeding this troll, who's managed to completely derail this thread from its original topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rocketraccoon

Either the OT no longer applies and should be disregarded OR all of it still applies. Consistency allows no other position. Anyone is welcome to be as inconsistent as they want, but if they are they will lose much if not all of their credibility in the eyes of those who value consistency.

 

 

RationalThought

 

Phil said being a homo is a sin. Where in the New Testament did Jesus and Paul say it's OK? Where's the inconsistency? Moreover, where did Jesus and Paul tell Christians to stone people? I didn't read anywhere that Phil suggested that, either.

 

Let's not even try to understand why in the world Jesus challenged the Pharisees on any aspect of their Hebrew theology, which was rooted in the old laws. That would definitely be acting like we're too smart for anybody's good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rocketraccoon

You posted an open letter that somehow was supposed to show the hypocritical inconsistencies of Phil Robertson. I asked for examples of which you gave none, and then went on how the OT should be thrown out since the NT gave us the new law. I proved why the OT is relevant to teaching the NT and after following your strawman you now throw out this red herring. What was it that you said about logical fallacies?

 

Naaahhh...the OT isn't relevant. It doesn't matter that in Numbers (old Jewish law type stuff) there was a prophecy about the guy all the liberals hate; or that Isaiah also predicted his coming; or that even that little-known or read prophet Micah did, too (see Micah 5:2). Not important, or relevant. Especially since those dusty old books, found in the archives at Minas Tirith, were written several hundred to several thousand years before Christ's birth.

 

If you believe in that sort of thing, of course. It's not rational to have those sorts of icky thoughts, I know--but that doesn't make them any less true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rocketraccoon

RT is like a kid who thinks it makes him cool to get beat up for his lunch money.

 

Why are you feeding this troll, who's managed to completely derail this thread from its original topic?

 

His posts give us all a look into the heart of darkness. Into the abyss. Into the arrogance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rocketraccoon

I know what promises the Biblical writers CLAIM God made. Given how many things they wrote for which we have clear demonstration of being wrong, taking the things for which we have NO demonstration as being correct seems a poor choice, IMO.

 

God has been alleged to have said many different things under many different names to many different people. Quite a bit of those things are contradictory and more what the specific people wanted to hear than anything resembling absolute truth. For example, the Muslims think God said quite a bit that's different than what is contained in the OT and NT. Instead of trying to choose which of them are wrong, I choose E: All of the above are wrong.

 

 

RationalThought

 

Well, I have read that the universe was "created" from a "big bang" and that life was "created" when lighting zapped a primordial ooze teeming with amino acids. I also choose E: All of the above wrong. Including your post above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

Oh well, we both knew the roll was going to end at some point. :D

 

I don't think A&E works to separate people from God. I think that only the individual can work to separate themself from God, though all such efforts ultimately fail to the detriment of the individual. Religions, at their best, contain only approximations of God and are useful as a map. But a map should never be confused with the territory itself, and doing so with religion results in exactly what you accuse A&E of attempting, separation from God Himself. Religion is essentially a useful crutch to help people get up on their feet and start their walk with God. But for many people, that crutch eventually becomes a hindrance which limits them and their relationship with God.

 

But this is familiar territory for us.

I didn't mean that AE works actively towards that goal. They are, however, a tool of he who uses everything he can to separate us from God, including AE...Satan. As for the rest, I disagree with you but as you say, we have been there before.

Merry Christmas. May you and yours have love, peace, and joy this holiday season.

 

 

RationalThought

Back atcha. Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RationalThought

You posted an open letter that somehow was supposed to show the hypocritical inconsistencies of Phil Robertson. I asked for examples of which you gave none, and then went on how the OT should be thrown out since the NT gave us the new law. I proved why the OT is relevant to teaching the NT and after following your strawman you now throw out this red herring. What was it that you said about logical fallacies?

Either a person believes the Bible is the 100% true eternal word of God OR they don't. If they do, then by God's law people should be allowed to sell their daughter into slavery and should be killing in various ways all the people who violate the eternal divinely given laws in Leviticus. If people don't take the entire Bible as the 100% true eternal word of God, they are just picking and choosing which parts they follow and which parts they don't.

 

What you seem to be saying is that only PARTS of the OT are relevant. That's picking and choosing.

 

 

RationalThought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RationalThought

His posts give us all a look into the heart of darkness. Into the abyss. Into the arrogance.

This is EXACTLY the sort of comment which gets massive LOLs.

 

Thanks for another good laugh.

 

 

RationalThought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rocketraccoon

 

What you seem to be saying is that only PARTS of the OT are relevant. That's picking and choosing.

 

 

RationalThought

 

Funny. You posted an open letter from a person who "picked" and "chose" scripture solely for the purpose of mocking people who don't think the way he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rocketraccoon

This is EXACTLY the sort of comment which gets massive LOLs.

 

Thanks for another good laugh.

 

 

RationalThought

 

OK, go ahead and LOL massively. I'm glad it's entertaining you. I take it as a compliment. Why didn't you even make a riposte to any of my other posts? Too many grammatical errors? Not enough rational thought in those, for you?

 

Go on and show us all what a big Bible scholar you are.

Edited by rocketraccoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RationalThought

Phil said being a homo is a sin. Where in the New Testament did Jesus and Paul say it's OK? Where's the inconsistency? Moreover, where did Jesus and Paul tell Christians to stone people? I didn't read anywhere that Phil suggested that, either.

 

Let's not even try to understand why in the world Jesus challenged the Pharisees on any aspect of their Hebrew theology, which was rooted in the old laws. That would definitely be acting like we're too smart for anybody's good.

Of course Phil did say this. Phil doesn't live up to the entirety of the Bible, only the parts he wants to live up to.

 

You go right ahead trying to understand why Jesus did anything. I find that like trying to understand why Prester John didn't come to the rescue of Europe under siege by the Muslims.

 

 

RationalThought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RationalThought

Funny. You posted an open letter from a person who "picked" and "chose" scripture solely for the purpose of mocking people who don't think the way he does.

I don't see it as mocking, but rather pointing out an inherent hypocrisy of modern interpretation of the Bible.

 

If someone wants to believe the whole Bible, I'm cool with that. If someone wants to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe, I'm cool with that, too. What I see is a lot of intolerance by believers toward non-believers when those non-believers have their good reasons not to be believers.

 

 

RationalThought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rocketraccoon

Of course Phil did say this. Phil doesn't live up to the entirety of the Bible, only the parts he wants to live up to.

 

You go right ahead and try to infer what Phil does and doesn't "live up to".

 

 

You go right ahead trying to understand why Jesus did anything.

 

 

RationalThought

 

Nice cop-out. Might as well not read the New Testament, or the Bible, at all. Oh...that's right...that's your point. There's my rational thought kicking in again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

Either a person believes the Bible is the 100% true eternal word of God OR they don't. If they do, then by God's law people should be allowed to sell their daughter into slavery and should be killing in various ways all the people who violate the eternal divinely given laws in Leviticus. If people don't take the entire Bible as the 100% true eternal word of God, they are just picking and choosing which parts they follow and which parts they don't.

 

What you seem to be saying is that only PARTS of the OT are relevant. That's picking and choosing.

 

This post is a bunch of nonsense. Your premise is flawed. It's not all or nothing and it's not pick and choose. But you keep on with your dislike of Christian beliefs, it's very entertaining.

 

Funny. You posted an open letter from a person who "picked" and "chose" scripture solely for the purpose of mocking people who don't think the way he does.

 

I know, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rocketraccoon

I don't see it as mocking, but rather pointing out an inherent hypocrisy of modern interpretation of the Bible.

 

If someone wants to believe the whole Bible, I'm cool with that. If someone wants to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe, I'm cool with that, too. What I see is a lot of intolerance by believers toward non-believers when those non-believers have their good reasons not to be believers.

 

 

RationalThought

 

lol. He was mocking Phil. Of course, we believers don't have good reasons for our beliefs, so have no immunity from intolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stick

Of course Phil did say this. Phil doesn't live up to the entirety of the Bible, only the parts he wants to live up to.

 

You go right ahead trying to understand why Jesus did anything. I find that like trying to understand why Prester John didn't come to the rescue of Europe under siege by the Muslims.

 

More garbage analysis as you sit in judgment of Robertson. You continually claim that people here don't know you yet you pretend to know the mind of a man merely expressing his beliefs.

 

Fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rocketraccoon

This post is a bunch of nonsense. Your premise is flawed. It's not all or nothing and it's not pick and choose. But you keep on with your dislike of Christian beliefs, it's very entertaining.

 

 

 

I know, right?

 

That's how they roll, my friend. But they can never seem to find anything in the Koran worth posting, to point out where the Muslims are getting it all wrong. Hmmm...I wonder why?

 

But the holiday named after our main guy is always good enough for them, every 25th of December! WINNING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RationalThought

You go right ahead and try to infer what Phil does and doesn't "live up to".

Not inferring anything. I've not heard of Phil enforcing the OT penalties on those who violate that "eternal law".

 

Nice cop-out. Might as well not read the New Testament, or the Bible, at all. Oh...that's right...that's your point. There's my rational thought kicking in again.

I give the Bible a cover to cover read every few years. I know what it says, I just don't believe it to be true. There are plenty of other books I read which I don't take to be true, like Lord of the Rings.

 

 

RationalThought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RationalThought

This post is a bunch of nonsense. Your premise is flawed. It's not all or nothing and it's not pick and choose.

How about you explain what the middle ground happens to be. If it's not ALL, then it's only PART.

 

But you keep on with your dislike of Christian beliefs, it's very entertaining.

Who said anything about liking or disliking Christian beliefs? I'm just pointing out inconsistencies I see and explaining why I find them literally unbelievable.

 

 

RationalThought

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...