KalvinB said:
Did I say that was the only reason they cry? No.
Your entire statement implied that the act of crying was directly linked to selfishness. If crying was not somehow indicative of selfishness, why is whether or not Jesus cried even an issue? Why, when discussing crying babies, did you even bring up the idea that Jesus did not cry? Ostensibly, you wanted to prove that, if babies were better people, they wouldn't cry. So, you used Jesus as an example.
By the way, you still managed to supply
no Biblical evidence of this fact. Now, am I supposed to assume you are correct before I can prove you wrong? Why should I assume something for which you do not even have a prima facia case? I can only assume you are making things up, since you will not provide a source.
You like to accuse me of not understanding the basics of debate. Well, surely you're aware of a little thing called "supporting evidence." I've asked you for this multiple times and you continue to ignore me. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Here's your quote: "Ever wonder why the Bible says Jesus didn't cry as a baby?"
Now, I'm asking you one more time. Point me toward the Bible verse that says Jesus did not cry as a baby or concede that you have no textual evidence for your belief.
KalvinB said:
You're going to have to explain why God taking a life or ordering the death of someone is bad, yes. I thought I was very clear about that. I even explained the process of how to go about arguing your position. You can assume the Bible is false and pat yourself on the back. Or assume the Bible is true and demonstrate a contradiction.
You want to know why taking a life in God's name is bad? Study the Crusades.
The issue is whether or not we can know
if God orders people to kill other people. At the time being, there is no way to prove if
anyone has ever been ordered by God to kill someone -- unless you simply accept the Bible's self-claimed truthfulness.
Here's how the circular logic works:
Bill: "How can you know whether or not God ordered anyone to kill people?"
Fred: "Because the Bible says he did."
Bill: "How do you know the Bible is true?"
Fred: "Because it says it is."
One might say, "There is also no proof that God
did not order killings." Here are two problems with assuming God
does order killings: 1) There is no concrete way of knowing which of the (oftetimes conflicting) parties is actually receiving messages from God, and 2) The belief that God has ordered wars and killing has only led to
more killing in his name (e.g. Crusades, Inquisitions, witch burnings, etc.)
We are quoting passages and examining them as to their validity, likelihood, and general consistency with the rest of the Bible. In that way, we are,
for the sake of argument, "assuming" the passages are true. Then, we are deconstructing them. What else are you looking for? Look back at this thread, Ben. Jenyar and I have been
entertaining each other's positions, again for argument's sake, in order to make our respective points. There is a difference between entertaining truth or falsity and accepting truth or falsity. Aside from converting on the spot, I fail to see what more I could do, regarding the entertaining of assumptions.
Also, your methodology seems to suggest that, if something cannot or is not proven to be false, it must be true. This is another logical fallacy, technically called
argumentum ad ignorantiam. Look it up if you want to learn something instead of simply impressing us with your own razor-sharp comebacks.
Do you understand a single word I'm saying?
You and JustARide have a real talent for not being able to comprehend even the most basic of concepts even after I explain it to you a number of times.
So, until you can demonstrate an ability to comprehend plain english, I'm done.
Ben
Ben, you seem to be quite an angry person, very much out to prove something to us evildoers. I might suggest you calm down for a moment and cease being a reflexive contrarian for just a second here. It's just an internet messageboard... not the trial of the century.
In order to debate, each side must
entertain the other side's position in order to point out inconsistencies. I am doing just that. You asserted that Baby Jesus never cried. OK then. Let's assume he did not cry because he was unselfish and knew his parents would take care of him. Now, you seem to be saying that, because I cannot point to specific evidence that he
did cry (aside from the fact that all babies, except extremely unhealthy ones, cry) that
you must be correct. Meanwhile, you have provided absolutely no evidence for your claim, unless repetition somehow counts as proof.
Anyway, if you choose to leave -- while we're learning to comprehend English, perhaps you could learn how to spell words like "ridiculous" and "congratulations."
Josh
It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks