By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
RadiantDanceMachine on 15 June 2015
Edit Thread
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:

And the circus act continues. Did you miss this post where I cite verbatim the passages these are from? That's incredible...considering I replied directly to you with them. Is it a regular occurrence for you to ignore facts which do not correspond with your rather inappropriate and mendacious view?

No sir, you did not render anything moot. You argued quite fantastically poorly that because love is mentioned more than hate, that the hate is negated; this is a rather elementary level error in reasoning called a non-sequitur, which I see you've failed to acknowledge. Actually, my mistake...you contrasted "Jesus" and "Christ" with "hate" which is even more alarming since they seem to have no analogous relationship at all to the term, either in thesis or antithesis.

I'm left again dumbfounded by a reply that seems largely delusory.

Did you miss the part where I replied to you and linked you to the fallacy of quoting out of context? Because the verbatim citing you did, does exactly that. If anything, you are ignoring the actual fact that the "facts" you claim I am ignoring are fallacies. 

It astounds me that you have such conginitive dissonance that you recognize that I am purposely using a non-sequitor, but fail to realize that because I am mimicing the form of your claim, I am pointing out that your claim is a non-sequitor as well. 

In other words, if you say that the occurrence of Christ in the NT is a non-sequitor, so to is your claim about the occurences of hate. 

I explicitly told you that based on your reasoning, the occurrence of Christ in the NT refers to how the OT is barely pertinent to modern christianity because its lack of Christ.

So I did not "contrast[ed] "Jesus" and "Christ" with "hate" as you claim, I contrasted the occurrences, ~900 vs 16, which is completely different then the fabricated claim you are alarmed at.

You made no replies in reference to my quotations, you made replies in reference to my occurrences which renders your "out of context" entirely obsolete, which is why I ignored a rebuttal that made no sense. I thought this was very easily understood...by anyone, I suppose I was mistaken.

You seem to not be following this procession of events at all I'm afraid.

Your claim: "Thus, if a so called Christian says "God hates X" they are either not a Christian, or at the very least sinning themselves."

Was refuted by:

1) Quite a few quotations which evidence that several things are hated as per the Bible. 

2) The number of occurences within the Bible that hate is used.

Your efforts at refuting 2) were a complete failure due to the argument itself being a non-sequitur. Namely "IFF Christ/Jesus are mentioned more than hate, then no hate exists".

No effort has been made to address 1) at any point in time until now. These efforts currently stem from nothing at all. Read the passages that contain these quotations in their entirety...nothing is taken out of context here. Feel free to look them up, surely you know where they are?

Oh dear...if you can't see the clear and marked distinction between my argument and yours, you truly are way out of your depth here.

My argument is as follows:

P1) If hate is mentioned in the bible, "god" hates something. 

P2) Hate is mentioned in the bible.

C) Ergo, god hates something.

*P1 could very easily be amended to state: "If the bible mentions that god/lord/Jesus hates X, then god hates X" based upon ample quotations of such.

Your argument:

P1) If Jesus/Christ are mentioned in the bible more than hate, then "god" doesn't hate anything. (clearly inept)

P2) Jesus/Christ are mentioned more in the bible than hate.

C) Ergo, "god" doesn't hate anything.

Hopefully this clears up your confusion since you seem wildly confused about the procession of events.