The Puke on Christians Thread ......

Originally posted by Darfius
Exhibit C sucks. I clearly meant the Church as a whole. And I've already made my position clear concerning that.

Yes you've made your position clear: if someone believes in the precepts of the Catholic Church, then they're not a Christian (A).

Ivanhoe believes in the precepts of the Catholic Church (B)

Therefore, Ivanhoe is not a Christian (C).

That's simple logic: they teach you that even in the colleges in Texas, don't they, Darfius?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes you've made your position clear: if someone believes in the precepts of the Catholic Church, then they're not a Christian (A).

Ivanhoe believes in the precepts of the Catholic Church (B)

Therefore, Ivanhoe is not a Christian (C).

That's simple logic: they teach you that even in the colleges in Texas, don't they, Darfius?

Speaking of logic, when will you begin to use some? Did I say all precepts, or some? Catholics believe Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind. Do I disagree with that? Does God?

Catholics who believe in precepts that contradict the Bible are not Christians. Ivanhoe hasn't made that claim yet, and it would be stupid for you or I to assume he does.

Originally posted by Darfius
Speaking of logic, when will you begin to use some? Did I say all precepts, or some? Catholics believe Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind. Do I disagree with that? Does God?

Catholics who believe in precepts that contradict the Bi ...[text shortened]... claim yet, and it would be stupid for you or I to assume he does.

No, he hasn't made a claim, and won't make a claim, that anything the Catholic Church believes "contradicts the Bible" as he clearly does not believe it does. You, however, have an interpretation of the Bible that differs from this Church and pretty much every other Christian church; when your interpretation differs from theirs, you claim they are not Christians even though they all believe that Jesus Christ is savior of mankind (I don't know that God exists and if he does I don't know whether he agrees with that or not).

Ivanhoe has previously stated that he does not take a literalist position as regards the Bible; I don't for example believe that he believes that everything was created in 6 literal days. I'm sure that he could present other examples. Would you say that someone who doesn't believe that everything was created in 6 literal days could be a Christian, Darfius?

Originally posted by Darfius
Exhibit C sucks. I clearly meant the Church as a whole. And I've already made my position clear concerning that.

Doesn't the sweeping generalisation 'the catholic church as a whole' include all practising catholics, including our special friend, Ivanhoe?

D

Since I figure I'd get called on it: thread 16729, page 6 - Debates Forum: Bible Question -

Ivanhoe: The Bible should not be interpreted literally. This will lead to disasters of all kinds. Biblical texts should be interpreted in the context and the Light of the Scriptures as a whole.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since I figure I'd get called on it: thread 16729, page 6 - Debates Forum: Bible Question -

Ivanhoe: The Bible should not be interpreted literally. This will lead to disasters of all kinds. Biblical texts should be interpreted in the context and the Light of the Scriptures as a whole.

I thought you said you were not going to post in this forum?

Originally posted by RBHILL
I thought you said you were not going to post in this forum?

I'll post where I want; I never promised I wouldn't post in this forum.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Doesn't the sweeping generalisation 'the catholic church as a whole' include all practising catholics, including our special friend, Ivanhoe?

D

Not when I clearly stated my position in another thread. Look it up.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, he hasn't made a claim, and won't make a claim, that anything the Catholic Church believes "contradicts the Bible" as he clearly does not believe it does. You, however, have an interpretation of the Bible that differs from this Church and pretty much every other Christian church; when your interpretation differs from theirs, you claim they ...[text shortened]... ho doesn't believe that everything was created in 6 literal days could be a Christian, Darfius?

I never once made the claim that if you do not believe in a literal 6 day creation that you weren't a Christian. As per usual, you resort to lies to make a point. Get a conscience.

Originally posted by Darfius
I never once made the claim that if you do not believe in a literal 6 day creation that you weren't a Christian. As per usual, you resort to lies to make a point. Get a conscience.

All right, let's get clear. Post right here the main precepts of the Catholic Church that "contradict the Bible" in your view.

BTW, are you saying that someone can disbelieve in the literal account of a six day creation that is given in the Bible and be a Christian? What other parts of the Bible are they free to not accept literally and be a Christian?

And how can a question, to wit: Would you say that someone who doesn't believe that everything was created in 6 literal days could be a Christian, Darfius? - be a lie?

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Exhibit A

From http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=15986

In response to my post:'Any ideas on why Israel released a news story that Arafat had died, when in fact he's still alive and kicking. Well maybe not kicking, but he is still alive. '

Ivanhoe posted:' Because Arafat is indeed dead. They, the Palestinian authorities, ...[text shortened]... have abided them to the letter.

D


[EDIT] Hey, no fair. 2Bit beat me to it. Twice. 🙁

Exibit One: You sure use a lot of words to come to the conclusion that your interpretation was indeed a misrepresentation of my words. You're using mathematical symbols to give it a mask of objectiveness and now you call it a "parafrasing". Beautifully said, but I guess that proves my claim, that I never stated the quote you gave.

Exibit Two: IvanH: "'The majority of all these protesters were imported from Syria for the occasion. They were all Hezbollah supporters, these bigoted Islamists, also known as "Les Barbes".

Ragnorak: "Unfortunately, as the first part of your statement doesn't make any sense, I had to try to make sense of it."

"You had to try to make sense of it"

Would you please try and make sense of it in the future without misquoting me ? As you have implicitely admitted I did not say "ALL the protesters came from Syria." This is indeed a laughable statement, but I never said it. No1 claimed I said it and you believed him. If you are interested, there were among others also protesters from the south of Lebanon. We can all see how no1 is twisting my words to make them appropiate for the plan he has in mind before he even read one word I wrote and that is to ridicule me .... and you chose to swallow his words without investigating things yourself.

Ragnorak: "Like, how can any sane debater say this:'They were all Hezbollah supporters'

Because they were ! Hezbollah organised this manifestation, nobody in possession of all his faculties will attend a manifestation in support of Hezbollah if they don't support it. Hezbollah speakers adressed the crowd. Hezbollah is an Islamist terrorist organisation, financed by Syria. People protesting there are supporters of Islamist rule, supporters of Hezbollah. In the Arab world the political Islamists (mind you NOT the Muslims in general before you jump to any ridiculous conclusions) are also known as "les Barbes" (the Beards).

It seems you misunderstand many of my statements because you lack the knowledge of interpreting my words and placing them in the correct perspective. Because you cannot make any sense of it or simply because you don't like the tone of it, you jump to comfortable conclusions instead of trying to find out more about the facts of the situation. You could do some research of your own instead of waisting your time dismissing my views or "tone".

Ragnorak: "There is no twisting of facts, or misrepresentation."

After my explanations and elaborations you hopefully can understand and accept why I do not agree with you.

About the Darfius thingy: You have not been following the relevant events. So please be carefull in making any statements about this.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Exibit One: You sure use a lot of words to come to the conclusion that your interpretation was indeed a misrepresentation of my words. You're using mathematical symbols to give it a mask of objectiveness and now you call it a "parafras ...[text shortened]... ents. So please be carefull in making any statements about this.

Are you saying that you didn't state that Arafat was dead when in fact he wasn't? Are you saying that you didn't say that he was 'indeed dead'? So, I paraphrased without stating that I was paraphrasing. Its an unfortunate risk you take when you write your own material, and don't take the easy option out of copying and pasting. That's a childish debate if I ever saw one, especially seeing as the meaning of your original statement and my paraphrase are equivalent.

You said exactly this, Your words, not mine...'The majority of all these protesters were imported from Syria for the occasion.' The first 3 words in that sentence render the sentence incomprehensible, without them, it makes perfect sense. I can't misquote u, when I use the exact words you used. As for 2Bit twisting, I hadn't read his posts on the matter. I was referring totally to your very own post.

I'm taking no further part in this thread that you created, which was created by you for the explicit purpose of attacking religion. I'll take no further part in your hateful actions. Peace.

D

Originally posted by no1marauder
Facts, facts. Took some digging but in thread 15986 on November 4, 2004 here's the exchange between you and Ragnorak:

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Any ideas on why Israel released a news story that Arafat had died, when in fact he's still alive and kicking. Well maybe not kicking, but he is still alive.

Seems a shocking thing to ...[text shortened]... e "evil" people but you lack the guts to come right out in the open. Mr. Pro-Life, indeed.

You are a political activist, fighting against the US and the West in general. I want to investigate what is going on in the world and what will eventually happen.

These different general stances will never mix. That is why you constantly want to place me in the camp of your ennemies with all kind of Strawmenreasoning. You don't mind using blatant lies and one dimensional reasoning, leaving out of the picture dozens of posts I wrote to address these complicated issues. Your aim is not to understand more of the situation, you simply want to try and depict me as a mass murderer ...... well go ahead, no1. The floor is yours .....

Originally posted by ivanhoe

You are a political activist, fighting against the US and the West in general. I want to investigate what is going on in the world and what will eventually happen.

These different general stances will never mix. That is why you constantly want to place me in the camp of your ennemies with all kind of Strawmenreasoning. You don't mind using blatant li ...[text shortened]... to try and depict me as a mass murderer ...... well go ahead, no1. The floor is yours .....

You are a political activist, fighting against the US and the West in general. I want to investigate what is going on in the world and what will eventually happen.

Actually, I'm not enough of a political activist as I've grown somewhat cynical about the US political process and any hope to change it for the better anytime soon. I also am NOT "fighting against the US and the West in general" but fighting FOR the US to return to the basic principles that were the core of the country at its founding: respect for an individual's natural rights and a belief in limited government. These principles are incompatible with the incessant meddling and interference in other countries' affairs that the US and other Western governments has been doing for far too long now.

Your "dozen of posts" take consistent stands favoring the interference into other countries' affairs. It is to be expected that these other countries and their people will object to this. You have a certain way of trying to avoid the unpleasant realities, but in the end you always come down to using force against these countries if they do not bow to what you believe is right. As some won't, this means war. And once you start down the path of insisting these countries do something, it is inevitable that war will be the end result as you never favor compromises of any sort: it is either they will do as they are told or they will be made to. Whether you admit it or not, the policies you epouse in the Middle East have led to and will lead to in the future, more war, death and suffering for the people there. Those are the facts; ignore them if you desire but don't expect me to ignore them when I meet you in the forums.

Curse you, Christians! I hereby spew last night's tuna casserole onto your beliefs! HUUUUAAAGGHHH!

And for good measure, I hereby excrete on this whole wretched forum! 😠 <-- He is squeezing.