James: "The Effectual, Fervent Prayer of the Righteous Man..."

[Tinker Grey]

It’s just an expression that means to not waste your time on those who just don’t care.

While calling them pigs

 

[Hammster]

It is well known. The fact that something is well known does not prevent it from being a slur. I don't see why you think a common phrase cannot be used as an insult.

It can. But it wasn’t.

 

[Hammster]

While calling them pigs

No. I never called anyone a pig.

 

[Par5]

No, the only thing that gets "curiouser and curiouser" is our need to go back and read the following before you and I commence further conversation:

MUST READ: Christian Apologetics Statement of Purpose

So, what's your problem? I have stated things that are self-evident. That certain acts recorded in the bible were monstrous and that a declared prophecy did not happen.
They are both self-evident, and if you can't see that and need me to provide some kind of proof to back up what I said, then there is not much I can do about that. It's like me saying there goes a red bus and you asking me to prove it is red.
As for the threat, sorry, "promise" of Psalm 2, how about you giving me a reason as to why I should take it seriously and why you think I will help bring it about.
Because it says so in the bible won't cut it!

 

[Theo102]

Holocaust facts: Where does the figure of 6 million victims come from?

In the Torah it is written: "It shall be a jubilee unto you; and you shall return every man to his possession and you shall return every man to his family." In the Torah, the word for תשבה, teshuva, "return" is missing the letter ו (vav), ordinarily it would be spelled תשובה. The Zohar tells us that the Torah writes teshuva without the letter vav to hint at the year when the Jewish people will return to our land from the long and bitter exile.

The gematria (numerical value) of teshuva is 708 (tav = 400; shin = 300; bet = 2; vav = 6). Therefore the missing vav in the word תשבה, as written in the Torah (which equals the number 6) was a prophecy that the Jews would be allowed to return to Israel minus 6 million of our people: “You shall return minus 6 million"; while the combined numerical value of the word teshuva = 708, indicates the year of our return

The Shoah - Our Jewish Agenda

Hence the newspapare articles quoting "six million Jews" before WWII.

 

[Par5]

No. I never called anyone a pig.

I have often heard Christians quote the bible verse about not casting their pearls before swine. I have heard it so often that it is something I have come to expect when they get annoyed or frustrated with non-believers and sceptics. You say it is just a saying, but there is another old saying that I could use to describe my lack of surprise by your use of the swine and pearls verse and that is, what do you expect from a pig but a grunt. I say I could use it but I wouldn't. Sure it's just a saying as you claim yours is just a saying, but it is still derogatory as someone could easily believe they were being compared to a pig.
Time for breakfast now, my wife has just filled the trough!
I

 

[Hammster]

I have often heard Christians quote the bible verse about not casting their pearls before swine. I have heard it so often that it is something I have come to expect when they get annoyed or frustrated with non-believers and sceptics. You say it is just a saying, but there is another old saying that I could use to describe my lack of surprise by your use of the swine and pearls verse and that is, what do you expect from a pig but a grunt. I say I could use it but I wouldn't. Sure it's just a saying as you claim yours is just a saying, but it is still derogatory as someone could easily believe they were being compared to a pig.
Time for breakfast now, my wife has just filled the trough!
I

Like I said, it wasn’t intended to be derogatory.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, what's your problem? I have stated things that are self-evident. That certain acts recorded in the bible were monstrous and that a declared prophecy did not happen.
They are both self-evident, and if you can't see that and need me to provide some kind of proof to back up what I said, then there is not much I can do about that. It's like me saying there goes a red bus and you asking me to prove it is red.
As for the threat, sorry, "promise" of Psalm 2, how about you giving me a reason as to why I should take it seriously and why you think I will help bring it about.
Because it says so in the bible won't cut it!

No, the things you've stated are most definitely not "self-evident." If anything, the things you're supposedly affirming are "solipsistic" on your part, and if there's anything that is self-evident, it's that you don't seem to consider any contexts whatsoever in your evaluations about the contents of the Bible. No, you just make a splash-and-dash claim (or perhaps what might better be called a "hit-and-run"), and you then stand off to the side gloating as if you've achieved some kind of victory.

Am I wrong here in saying this? Or are you one of those who thinks that Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima could have, should have, been handled ... with "kid gloves"?

 

[Par5]

No, the things you've stated are most definitely not "self-evident." If anything, the things you're supposedly affirming are "solipsistic" on your part, and if there's anything that is self-evident, it's that you don't seem to consider any contexts whatsoever in your evaluations about the contents of the Bible. No, you just make a splash-and-dash claim (or perhaps what might better be called a "hit-and-run"), and you then stand off to the side gloating as if you've achieved some kind of victory.

Am I wrong here in saying this? Or are you one of those who thinks that Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima could have, should have, been handled ... with "kid gloves"?

So far as Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima go, there is a strong case that they shouldn't have happened at all. There is nothing "hit and run" about a statement saying that slaughtering women and children is wrong and saying that a certain prophecy did not happen. Calling me solipsistic will not get me to change my opinion about something I know to be totally wrong. The failed prophecy I don't really give a toss about, it's just another bit of biblical fantasy as far as I'm concerned, and for all your bragging about how qualified you are regarding the bible and its content, and how knowledgeable you are in the use of context and hermeneutics, you don't impress me one little bit. When your academic veneer is rubbed off, underneath you are just another apologist for genocide.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So far as Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima go, there is a strong case that they shouldn't have happened at all. There is nothing "hit and run" about a statement saying that slaughtering women and children is wrong and saying that a certain prophecy did not happen. Calling me solipsistic will not get me to change my opinion about something I know to be totally wrong. The failed prophecy I don't really give a toss about, it's just another bit of biblical fantasy as far as I'm concerned, and for all your bragging about how qualified you are regarding the bible and its content, and how knowledgeable you are in the use of context and hermeneutics, you don't impress me one little bit. When your academic veneer is rubbed off, underneath you are just another apologist for genocide.

An "apologist for genocide?" I can see we're going to have a very productive conversation.

So, if I think that wiping the Canaanites out was 'good,' but -- like you --- I don't think that Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshimi were 'good,' and I wonder if there would have been a better way to deal with both Japan and Germany during WW II, would you still consider me to be an "apologist for genocide"?

 

[Par5]

An "apologist for genocide?" I can see we're going to have a very productive conversation.

So, if I think that wiping the Canaanites out was 'good,' but -- like you --- I don't think that Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshimi were 'good,' and I wonder if there would have been a better way to deal with both Japan and Germany during WW II, would you still consider me to be an "apologist for genocide"?

Yes, your attempts to justify the slaughter of the Canaanites. It's one thing to fight a war and win, but it's another thing that when you have defeated your enemy to then target the women and children for extermination. I have no need to look for context in order to justify such an act because there is nothing that can justify it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Like I said, it wasn’t intended to be derogatory.

Could you expound on your explanation then? You said it meant that there's no use in explaining something to someone who doesn't care. I've been here on this forum for years, as have other atheists. On what grounds would you say we don't care about the discussion?

 

[Hammster]

Could you expound on your explanation then? You said it meant that there's no use in explaining something to someone who doesn't care. I've been here on this forum for years, as have other atheists. On what grounds would you say we don't care about the discussion?

I’m not going to dig back and find the quote.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't get Christians. They'll talk your ear off about how they're dirty, rotten sinners. And yet they absolutely. Will. Not. Admit. Fault. Ever.

 

[Hammster]

I don't get Christians. They'll talk your ear off about how they're dirty, rotten sinners. And yet they absolutely. Will. Not. Admit. Fault. Ever.

I’ve no problem admitting fault.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, your attempts to justify the slaughter of the Canaanites. It's one thing to fight a war and win, but it's another thing that when you have defeated your enemy to then target the women and children for extermination. I have no need to look for context in order to justify such an act because there is nothing that can justify it.

So, you haven't actually 'read' the Bible like an accountable person who has integrity would do? You instead just kind of dismiss it out of hand, kind of like someone who would resort to more or less extreme Leftist or Rightist style tactics? Man, I hope this isn't the case with you, Par5.

Please tell me I'm wrong about you on this, because for the life of me, I deem a person who won't hear another person out or won't offer their own justifications to explain and support their own even 'self-evident' point of view---especially he or she disagrees with the other person---to be somewhat socially dangerous in my book.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't get Christians. They'll talk your ear off about how they're dirty, rotten sinners. And yet they absolutely. Will. Not. Admit. Fault. Ever.

I'm a dirty, rotten sinner, too, NV. ....but, then again, you have me thinking! Maybe I'm not quite right about my sinfulness. Maybe I'm not exactly rotten. Maybe I'm just a dirty sinner. Wow! I feel so much better now that I have that off my chest.... "whew"! Thanks for the therapy, NV!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, your attempts to justify the slaughter of the Canaanites. It's one thing to fight a war and win, but it's another thing that when you have defeated your enemy to then target the women and children for extermination. I have no need to look for context in order to justify such an act because there is nothing that can justify it.

And how do you feel about abortion? How do you feel about children with autism being euthanized? The elderly? How do you feel about women being stoned to death for adultery for being raped?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And how do you feel about abortion? How do you feel about children with autism being euthanized? The elderly? How do you feel about women being stoned to death for adultery for being raped?

Those are all terrible as they all involve death. Hence the reason atheists point out the atrocities in the Bible. Hence our disappointment when we get tapdance answers.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Those are all terrible as they all involve death. Hence the reason atheists point out the atrocities in the Bible. Hence our disappointment when we get tapdance answers.

Not all atheists agree with you.