Why ... (2)

[lasthero]

There is no context in my signature, just Ihis quote which is a quote from him. Nothing more or less that just what he said.

You're using his words to support a position that he's on record as not supporting. He's not using religion in the same way you would use it, obviously, and using it on a Christian website would give most people the impression he's talking about something he's not. It doesn't 'explain your views' at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're using his words to support a position that he's on record as not supporting. He's not using religion in the same way you would use it, obviously, and using it on a Christian website would give most people the impression he's talking about something he's not. It doesn't 'explain your views' at all.

I am using his words as they were given by him. His religious views, if you can call them that, are pretty well known. If I was claiming that he was a Christian or believed in a personal God along with his words then you could have issue.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're using his words to support a position that he's on record as not supporting. He's not using religion in the same way you would use it, obviously, and using it on a Christian website would give most people the impression he's talking about something he's not. It doesn't 'explain your views' at all.

I have to find it rather ironic that you take issue with my sig but then you have what you have on yours.


14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Talk about taking things out of context. I think this exemplifies the double standard that exists with atheists vs. theists.

 

[OllieFranz]

So you're basically taking him out of context.

Well, technically, your signature takes its quote out of context, too.

Of course, that is the whole point of your signature. To reflect all of the quote-mining and other out-of-context qotations some Christians use to lie about what respected scientists actually claim. You have no illusions that you will convince anyone on either side of the debate will think the Bible actually teaches there is no God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, technically, your signature takes its quote out of context, too.

Of course, that is the whole point of your signature. To reflect all of the quote-mining and other out-of-context qotations some Christians use to lie about what respected scientists actually claim. You have no illusions that you will convince anyone on either side of the debate will think the Bible actually teaches there is no God.

So I see what side of the fence you have determined yourself to be.

 

[lasthero]

I have to find it rather ironic that you take issue with my sig but then you have what you have on yours.


14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Talk about taking things out of context. I think this exemplifies the double standard that exists with atheists vs. theists.

I have that in my signature for exactly that point. I originally put it there as a response to gradyll, who did - and still does - have a rather blatant quote-mine in his signature.

 

[lasthero]

So I see what side of the fence you have determined yourself to be.

No, he's right, that's exactly the right reason I put it there. Obviously, the Bible doesn't say that God doesn't exist. Nobody in their right mind would ever think that. The point of my signature was to show that you can make anything say anything you want with a little careful editing.

Do you seriously think I would be crazy enough to try to trick people into believing the Bible says God doesn't exist on a Christian forum? Does that sound like something that would ever work?

 

[OllieFranz]

There is no context in my signature,

That's his point. You are quoting some of the words and leaving out others which give his true perspective.

just his quote which is a quote from him.

Nothing more or less that just what he said.

If the sentences ( or even a phrase) before and/or after in the paragraph from which the quote comes clarifies the meaning, and it is not what your contextless quote seems to say, then you are posting less.

"There is no God," is a direct quote from two psalms. But the Bible does not teach atheism because the full quote in bot cases is "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

 

[OllieFranz]

So I see what side of the fence you have determined yourself to be.

I'm not sure how my post gives you a "so I see" insight. There's a side of the fence in which the deliberate deception that some Christians (like gradyll) engage in is Biblically acceptable? That's the only thing I commented on. I didn't accuse you of deliberate deception.

 

[Clairvoyance]

People always quote mine scientists like Einstein and Hawkings.
When they say "God doesn't play dice" or "we can glimpse the mind of God" everyone knows they are just being poetic.
When Richard Dawkins says "God damn!" or "God only knows..."do you think he converted?

 

[florida2]

People always quote mine scientists like Einstein and Hawkings.
When they say "God doesn't play dice" or "we can glimpse the mind of God" everyone knows they are just being poetic.
When Richard Dawkins says "God damn!" or "God only knows..."do you think he converted?

I'm also always in wonder that they think that a single quote from a single scientist who doubts part of evolution is suddenly enough to destroy the entire fabric of science.

The number of triumphalist posts like this is incredibly common.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm also always in wonder that they think that a single quote from a single scientist who doubts part of evolution is suddenly enough to destroy the entire fabric of science.

The number of triumphalist posts like this is incredibly common.

The phrase "grasping at straws" comes to mind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have that in my signature for exactly that point. I originally put it there as a response to gradyll, who did - and still does - have a rather blatant quote-mine in his signature.

That was not my intent.

 

[lasthero]

That was not my intent.

Fair enough, and I apologize if I was too harsh in my criticism. I really should make the intent of my own quote more clear.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm also always in wonder that they think that a single quote from a single scientist who doubts part of evolution is suddenly enough to destroy the entire fabric of science.

The number of triumphalist posts like this is incredibly common.

I know what you mean, for instance, when an atheist comes up with some erroneous meaning to a Bible quote that they have no understanding of and then think they have proven the whole Christian religion wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Fair enough, and I apologize if I was too harsh in my criticism. I really should make the intent of my own quote more clear.

lasthero, you truly make my heart swell. Thank you.

So no one was offended by the use of my quote I decided to change it.

 

[JWGU]

I know what you mean, for instance, when an atheist comes up with some erroneous meaning to a Bible quote that they have no understanding of and then think they have proven the whole Christian religion wrong.

This is particularly amusing when said quote comes from the Old Testament, when Christianity has been discarding wide swathes of it essentially since its inception (not that Judaism or Islam are not guilty of the same thing).

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is particularly amusing when said quote comes from the Old Testament, when Christianity has been discarding wide swathes of it essentially since its inception (not that Judaism or Islam are not guilty of the same thing).

Said quote? Was there a quote somewhere that I was unaware of? I find it odd that you should think that since The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the entire Hebrew Bible with the exclusion of Esther. The texts were almost identical to what we have in the Bible today.

 

[JWGU]

Said quote? Was there a quote somewhere that I was unaware of? I find it odd that you should think that since The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the entire Hebrew Bible with the exclusion of Esther. The texts were almost identical to what we have in the Bible today.

Where did I say anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls? None of the major religions practice essentially any of the numerous sacrifices outlined in the Old Testament (many of which require a temple). I don't even have to get into anything else, really, though there are many other examples--it's a simple fact that nobody alive today is literally following the bible.

Edit: "Said quote" was a continuation from what your post said--the hypothetical Bible quote.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where did I say anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls? None of the major religions practice essentially any of the numerous sacrifices outlined in the Old Testament (many of which require a temple). I don't even have to get into anything else, really, though there are many other examples--it's a simple fact that nobody alive today is literally following the bible.

Edit: "Said quote" was a continuation from what your post said--the hypothetical Bible quote.

Prime example of the misunderstanding of Christianity. The fact that Jesus was the Sacrifice for all mankind, there is no longer a need for the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old.