Dewise writes:
jar's question was in the conditional mood -- "would" is the indication. He was not making a statement that there is a lack of "unity of doctrine and theme" in the Bible, but rather asking whether your test for rejecting the Koran would also be sufficient test for whether you should also reject the Bible.
So when jar says that it DOES NOT have a unity of doctrine, when looking at it, (the Bible), that does not mean to you that he thinks it does not?
You see, Dawn . . . No, clearly you do not see, which is why you need to work on your abysmal lack of reading comprehension.
You see, in that message you are "responding" to,
jar never states that the Bible does not have a unity of doctrine! That is the problem, Dawn,
you are falsely claiming that jar wrote something that he did not write!
In
Message 61, you wrote:
Dawn writes:
Because the Koran is not like the Bible, it cannot sustain itself by its internal evidences, in the nature of historical and archaeological support and especially in doctrine.
It apprears to be a bunch of random spiritual ideas strung together, with very little unity
The unity of doctrine and theme is one of the Bibles supports as being from God
There, you gave "unity of doctrine and theme" in a sacred text as a test for whether to believe in the deity of that text.
Then jar, in his
Message 62, quoted that same text by you and responded with a question:
jar writes:
So looking at the Bible and seeing that it does not have a unity of doctrine and theme would be a sufficient reason to deconvert?
In that question, jar did not state what you so falsely claim, but rather he was asking you a simple and very reasonable question: shouldn't the same test, the same criteria, be applied to the Bible too?
Dawn, either you are unable to understand simple English, or you deliberately misconstrue what we write. Which is it?
My guess is that he does not think that it does.
Your
guess? Is that what it is? You are
guessing what we are telling you?
Dawn, there is no need for you to guess what we are telling you. We have written it down and presented it to you. All you need to do is
read what we have written. It seems such an obvious concept to us, so why is it so foreign to you? Yet another "evil fruit"?
Dewise, you have learned some reading and writing skills, now learn some debating skills.
Perhaps you could quit trying to impress everyone with your grammatical skills and contribute to the subject by doing some actual debating
You've never been a part of any formal debate have you, Dewise?
First, it is DWise1. Get your spelling right, Dawnette! Not that you can get anything else right!
I have been involved in on-line debating and discussion since the mid-1980's. I also participated in local "amateur night" "creation/evolution" debates. I am also very familiar with professional creationist "debating" tactics, thoroughly dishonest and deception; since IDists have adopted creationist deceptive practices, I have no doubt that your own "public debates" follow the creationist playbook down to the letter -- supported by your own descriptions of your debates and by your persistent conduct here.
You may disparage grammar, but then you're just an ignorant monoglot. If you had learned a foreign language, you would have learned that grammar is not an arbitrary set of useless rules (which is how it is taught to monoglots), but rather it is the structure of the entire language and the key to how it works and to how to use it and
be understood in it. But since a monoglot has learned language as sequences of sounds and symbols without realization of the underlying structure, grammar appears to be useless to them. But upon learning a foreign language, you realize that grammar is your best friend; I learned more English grammar in two years of high school German than I ever did in 12 years of English:
quote:
Man kennt die eigene Sprache nicht, bis man eine fremde Sprache lernt.
(You don't know your own language until you've learned a foreign one.)
Lessing
Oh, that's right, you don't want to be understood, nor to understand. Which makes total sense, since the last thing a creationist wants is to be understood. The harder it is to be understood, the more confusion gets generated and confusion is a creationist's life-blood. The last thing a creationist wants is for others to understand his claims. No, that's the second to the last thing; the last thing a creationist wants is to have to discuss and support his own claims. I have seen that so many times in the past 25+ years.
But I'm more inclined towards discussion rather than debate. Instead of getting caught up in a win-lose situation, I'm more interested in the exchange of ideas and information. Of course, creationists hate the idea of discussion. The problem with trying to discuss a creationist's claims with him is that he does not want to. One basic reason for this is that there are basically two kinds of creationists: 1) the follower who just repeats claims he's heard and really knows nothing at all about it and so cannot discuss it, and 2) the professional who created the claim and doesn't want to have to discuss it because he knows full well that it is total bullshit. Well, there is a third kind, the professional who just repeats bullshit claims that he's heard; eg, Kent Hovind, whose defining moment was when he repeated as gospel truth to a church audience a false claim that he had just heard, Oate Man (Onyate Man to monoglots) which was a April's Fool joke intended to gauge creationist gullibility (most creationists were skeptical, except for pros like Hovind).
A couple notable cases in point, Daniel of the TheologyOnLine forum, claimed that industrial pollution affects radioactive decay rates. I had never heard that claim before, so I asked for more information. He became extremely beligerant, the on-line version of violent, and made several extreme and false accusations.
Kent Hovind made claims about the rate at which the sun is losing mass "as it burns its fuel", claiming extreme amounts of mass thus lost, whereas no more than a few hundredths or thousandths of a percent of the sun's mass has been lost in the past 5 billion years (I did the calculations and would need to refer back to them). I requested more information from him, including what his calcuations were if he had originated the claim or, if he had not originated it, then what his source was. He did everything he could to avoid discussing his own claim, even trying twice to pick a fight with me over my screenname (same as here).
In an extended email exchange with a local creationist activist, I tried to discuss his claims with him and he did everything he could to avoid it. Turns out he was something of a bully. I had started because an acquaintence had made contact with him, but didn't know enough about creationism. At first, this guy would come on great guns and mock his opponent unmercilessly (that is what he did to my acquaintence and also to me at first), but the moment he realized that I had some idea of what I and he were talking about, he immediately become very mild-mannered and tried to disengage. Typical creationist mentality.
The things to note about the vast majority of my postings is that I have information or ideas to get across and I write as clearly as I can to get them across to my audience. And if anybody has questions or needs clarification on any point, then I will go out of my way to respond. That is called
communication, something else you despise ... excuse me, that you abhor. That is basically what distinguishes us from each other: I'm in it for the information and for the truth, whereas you are in it for the cheap win for your god, regardless of the cost. Which brings us back to the perennial question I ask creationist and which they avoid: what is Christian doctrine about "lying for the Lord"?
BTW, ironically, Allah, YHWH, and your "God" ... they are all one and the same. So if you believe in "God", then you cannot also
not believe in Allah. Same god, different names, different theologies. Or is it that you really believe in the theology, not the god?
Edited by dwise1, : Getting the double negative right
™ Version 4.2
(1)
(1)
