TEXAS GOSPEL STAFF
A devastating incident unfolded at a Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany on 20 December, where a vehicle driven by Taleb al-Abdulmohsen, 50, struck a crowd, resulting in five deaths, including a nine-year-old child, and injuring over 200 others. The attack has raised questions about safety, community unity, and the risks posed by extremism.
Abdulmohsen, a Saudi national and refugee, was previously associated with far-right movements and anti-Muslim rhetoric. He had publicly declared himself an atheist and advocated for Middle Eastern non-believers to migrate to Germany. He spoke of this in a July 2019 BBC documentary. Reports from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Guardian corroborated his background, noting his atheism and open opposition to Islam.
Concerns about Abdulmohsen’s behaviour had been raised long before this tragedy. German publication Der Spiegel reported that the Saudi secret service had warned Germany’s intelligence agency, the BND, about threats he posted online. In one instance, he warned Germany would “pay a price” for its treatment of Saudi refugees.
Abdulmohsen’s history included other troubling incidents. In 2013, a court in Rostock fined him for “disturbing the public peace by threatening to commit crimes.” More recently, in Berlin, he was investigated for “misuse of emergency calls” following a heated exchange with police officers. He had been on medical leave from his job at an addiction clinic near Magdeburg since October. The day before the attack, he missed a court appearance for charges related to the Berlin incident.
The attack deeply impacted Christians celebrating the Advent season. Christmas markets in Germany are cherished traditions, symbolizing hope and togetherness. The violence disrupted the spirit of the season, leaving the Christian community mourning those lost and praying for the injured.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited the scene of the attack, accompanied by national and regional leaders, where they laid flowers near Magdeburg’s main church. A memorial service was held at Johanneskirche, providing a space for reflection and grief.
The incident has led to calls for increased vigilance, especially during public events. For Christians, it serves as a reminder of the importance of standing together in faith and compassion during challenging times.
Texas Gospel Canada Southern Gospel Radio 
amazing how your god does nothing. You will likely claim “free will” but that wouldn’t preclude your god from killing the murderer after he decided to do this. Per jesus, the thought counts as much as the action.
LikeLike
I’d be happy to have a thoughtful discussion about this topic, provided we keep the conversation free of loaded language or assumptions about intent. Dialogue is most productive when we seek understanding rather than simply debating.
LikeLike
okay. Proceed to explain why your god does nothing despite the many promises in the bible that this god will provide protection.
LikeLike
Why would you assume that God does nothing?
LikeLike
Your god repeatedly promises to protect his followers per the bible, in the OT and NT. Psalm 91 is quite clear as is Luke 12.
Per the bible, this god takes a direct hand in doing this in the various stories of how this god interferes with human actions.
This god does nothing now, and you only have these stories, which are no different than any other set of myths of gods helping people.
Where was this god on 9/11? the holocaust? right now during the famine in Sudan? The various school shootings? Church shootings? The raping of children in churches and cathedrals?
LikeLike
Your recent comments seem to assume that because God didn’t act in a way you expected, He did nothing at all. However, where in the Bible does it say we will always get the outcomes we expect? The Bible teaches that it is appointed for everyone to face death (Hebrews 9:27).
God’s role in this world’s suffering isn’t necessarily to prevent it but to be a refuge and strength during it (Psalm 46:1). Even Jesus experienced suffering caused by sinful men. Before His crucifixion, He prayed to God, asking if it was possible to avoid that fate, but ultimately submitted with, ‘Nevertheless, Your will be done’ (Luke 22:42). Despite His suffering, God’s presence and purpose remained.
In the same way, God walks with us through pain and hardship, providing strength and hope. While these answers might not fully satisfy every question, they reflect the biblical perspective on suffering and God’s role in it. Hopefully they will answer yours.
LikeLike
Your bible says what to expect. Why does its promises fail?
Your bible says that true followers will get any prayer answered with what they ask for and quickly. Does your bible lie?
“22 Jesus answered them, ‘Have faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea”, and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” – Mark 11
“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’” Mark 16
“7 ‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” Matthew 7
“21 Jesus answered them, ‘Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, “Be lifted up and thrown into the sea”, it will be done. 22 Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.’” Matthew 21
“1 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.” John 14
“ 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. “ John 15
“13 Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. 14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.” James 5
Your god promises to protect people. Why does it fail? Jesus experienced suffering since the story has a god that failed in eden, failed to fix it for thousands of years and then decided it needed a human blood sacrifice by torture to give itself a loophole for laws it made up. Men did nothing.
The gospels don’t agree if jesus asked to avoid the fate or not. the gospel of john never has the scene in gesthemane. jesus has no problem with the sacrifice, and doesn’t even ask god/himself why he abandoned him.
Your god doesn’t walk with people through pain and hardship. Christians commit suicide too. Christians starve to death.
All you’ve offered is excuses that ignore that your god had no problem wtih directly addressing threats in your bible but does nothing now.
LikeLike
You made a bunch of claims. Let’s stick to one at a time to avoid a Gish Gallop.
Your first claim is that the Bible says true followers will get any prayer answered with what they ask for and quickly; then you ask, “Does your Bible lie?”
The answer is no, the Bible does not lie. But it is often misquoted, and context is often ignored.
The first verse you present is Mark 11:22-24, in which Jesus speaks to His disciples about keeping their prayer within His will and having trust in His divine plan. It does not guarantee that any prayer will be answered exactly as asked, but it teaches the importance of faith, and aligning prayers with God’s will.
It is important to look just ahead of these verses. Jesus cursed the fig tree, demonstrating that faith is not about magical wish-fulfillment, but about understanding God’s will, producing spiritual fruit, and aligning one’s desires with divine purpose.
Throughout the Bible (as I mentioned on previous responses above), it says all prayer should be to ask, “nevertheless Thy will be done.” All of the Apostles knew this. If you ask for something without regard to if it is God’s will, it will not be done. If you ask for something not knowing God’s will, then you have no idea what the outcome should be, and that certainly is not trusting in God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you will get anything you desire and your life will be without pain. The men closest to Jesus did not have it easy. One was crucified upside down, another beheaded, and others faced very unpleasant deaths before leaving this world to be with Jesus, but they died according to God’s will. The Bible does not promise what you say.
Would you like to speak on this further or move to your next claim?
LikeLike
Unsurprisingly, there is nothing in Mark 11 that says what you claim.
This is what it says “’ 20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. 21 Then Peter remembered and said to him, ‘Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.’ 22 Jesus answered them, ‘Have[b] faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea”, and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received[c] it, and it will be yours.
25 ‘Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”
Do show where this other information you claim exists here is. Yep, jesus cursed a fig tree for not providing fruit when it wasn’t the season for fruit. How does that change these verses in their meaning. “12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ And his disciples heard it.”
Your god killed a tree for no reason other bing upset that he didn’t get a snack. This makes no sense since he, supposedly growing up in that area would know when figs are in fruit. No where does this show that one has to match what god wants to have a prayer answered, literally no where. Jesus says that as long as you believe, aka have faith, you will get what you pray for. Why do you think you can entirely make up something different? Do you think I don’t know English?
Unsurprisnigly, the books that have these quotes I’ve used don’t’ have that “thy will be done” in them. These books were never meant to be read together. Curious how the lords prayer doesn’t show up in these books. You assume, with no evidence, your books have something to do with each other. That’ why the bible has so many contradiction, the same people and same story wasn’tn being told.
Per the bible books themselves,no, the apostles didn’t know this. Again, not one place says “god’s will”. Belief in god and trusting god are two different things. You make false claims since I’ve shown that the bible does indeed say you will get what you desire. This god says it will provide everything you need, Luke 12. That other places in the bible contradict that nonsense doesn’t change the meaning of what the verses mean. Psalm 91 says this god will protect its followers from everything bad. That it does not shows your bible lies. There is no evidence the apostles existed, much less were martyrs.
you may continue.
LikeLike
Sure, Mark 11 can be interpreted in different ways as any writing can. This is why big companies pay attornies big dollars so they can bend a text to match what they want it to say. But you say, “there is nothing in Mark 11 that says what you claim.” But in the Hebrew scriptures, fig trees often represent Israel’s spiritual condition (e.g., Jeremiah 8:13, Hosea 9:10.) The Apostles should have understood this clearly, AND it fits the context here. What about wanting a snack fits the context? You say Jesus killed a tree for no reason. If there is no reason, why is it recorded? I find your interpretation less plausible given the broader context of the passage. In Mark 11, the cursing of the fig tree occurs in the context of Jesus’ teaching on faith and judgment, as well as his actions in cleansing the temple. These themes align more with the symbolic interpretation of the fig tree representing Israel’s spiritual state.
LikeLike
thanks for admitting that your bible cacn be interpreted in many ways. And since christians can’t agree on how, that means you are all simply making up what you want. Not one of you can show that your interpretation is any better than the next Christian’s.
Christians are all of those “attorneys” you mention.
Again, nothing in that book that supports what y ou claim. You have to go to other books, which were also never intended to be read together. You assume these books are of one source and have no evidence for that at all.
As we can see in the gospels, especially Mark, the apostles are complete idiots, never grasping what jesus is trying to tell them. They are the fall guys in the story, allowing for exposition to the reader.
Jeremiah and Hosea are not context for the gospels. Christians are always amusing when they want to claim they don’t have to pay attention to the OT when it comes to following laws, but you all run there when you want to hate someone or make excuses.
the verse from Jeremiah is a typical instance of the author of the gospel to try to pretend that their imaginary messiah is really from this god, e.g. “Look look, he says the same thing”. To have two fictional characters say the same thing is nothing different than having a comic book where spider-man says the same thing he said years ago. Still no evidence for the existence of jesus or your god.
Jeremiah is talking about the israelites/jews. And complaining abuot them as usual. Then the followers of jesus made up that this gods was taking that and claiming that the jews were wrong, and they were the new “chosen”. Alas, for them, Jeremiah has god saying that he will redeem the israelites, and no new “chosen” are needed.
Hosea says much the same.
The apostles obviously had no idea what JC was on about. Again, this is a bit of fiction and a way to try to use exposition to a reader.
Your bible has many things that are claimed that make no sense and the question why are they recorded is a good question.
it’s curious you mention the temple incident, since jesus should have known that the temple , per this god, requires the faithful to change their common money into temple scrip to purchase sacrificial animals. His attacking them makes no sense either since he god never says “oh, sorry to change my mind, but no more animal sacrifice is needed.” Just one crazy guy with a whip to try to yet again make another group the “chosen”.
LikeLike
You say, “thanks for admitting that your bible can be interpreted in many ways.” Who said any document could not be interpreted many ways in spite of each one having only one meaning? I could interpret your words to mean many things, but would that mean you actually meant many different things?
But really, you have not said if we are finished with your first claim. We haven’t even touched the two or three dozen other claims you have made in this tread. Before we move on from your first to your second, did you have anything else to add to it?
LikeLike
I know that documents can be interpreted differently. Those claims then need to be compared to what evidence we have on the author’s intent. Without that, we are left with the literal meaning of the words as best we can find for the time period in when they were written.
Christians claim that their bible can be only interpreted in one way, *their* way, and not one of you can show that your version is the right one. For each to claim the one and only truth seems deceptive. I can tell you what I have meant. You have no way to know the same about the bible. Why should I believe your version above all of the others?
I have told you that you may continue with your analysis of my post. If you want to continue with discussion on biblical interpretation, you may. It makes no difference to me.
LikeLike
You say without evidence of the author’s intent we are left with the literal meaning of the words. This is why I gave you context earlier. Context answers some of this.
You are also correct to day that Christians can claim that the bible can be only interpreted in one way, *their* way. The same is true of Atheists. Read your words above. Does this not sound like what you have done in this thread? Consider your words about that along with your words that say, “For each to claim the one and only truth seems deceptive.”
You say, “I have told you that you may continue with your analysis of my post.” True, and you may continue with your analysis of my post. But you have not answered my question about your very first claim. Are you finished with it or do you wish to move to the second claim you made in your first post? Each time I’ve asked you, you have responded by piling on more claims.
So, are we done with the first claim you made, or should we move on to your second claim?
LikeLike
Youru claims of context don’t work sincen these authors were all seperate by time and place. To try to claim that books written decades or centuries apart give the same context is untrue.
Atheists are stuck with the literal meaning with perhaps some historical or cultural context. It is not what I’ve done in this thread. I’ve pointed out that christians cannot claim that their interpretations are any better than the next since they cannot agree on what parts of the bible are literal, metaphor, exaggeration, etc. You each claim that the “holy spirit’ is guiding you and you can’t even show that entity exists.
This agian underlines how christians make up what they want from what they have. Who has the right version? You have yet to explain that.
Since you can’t make a decision, or support your claims so far, you may continue with the second claim
LikeLike
You are making more claims but have not said if we finished with your first.
I said at the beginning, to avoid a Gish Gallop, let’s go over your claims one at a time.
Did you concede your first point before we move to your second?
LikeLike
— Let’s try this — To be clear, in order:
• You made the claim that God does nothing despite promising He will provide protection. Your evidence included Mark 11.
• I pointed out that you are assuming God did nothing because He does not do what you expect him to do. I also said people suffer from sin. Even the sins of others.
• You claimed that you are stuck with only literal meaning of words adding that there is no context.
• I pointed out that Old Testament writings about Fig Trees often represent Israel’s spiritual state and that this is context given Jesus referenced it just before the verse in Mark that you referenced. I also pointed out that that this is something the apostles would have known. They were Jews who studied what we now call the Old Testament. They would have known this and it is context.
Sooo, I ask again: Do you have a rebuttal to this or not? If so, please say what it is.
LikeLike
Your god does nothing, and I expect your god to fulfill its promises. IF someonen is starving, I expect it to provide food. IF someone is being attacked, I expect this god to rescue the person by its actions.
what other actions should I be expecting in such situations?
Again, we are stuck with the literal meaning of words since we cannot know what the author intended. As I also said, we have some little konwledge of culture to help a little but again we simply can’t know what you claim to know.
Fig trees are indeed mentioned in other parts of the bible. The apostles are shown to be rather ignorant and simply have no clue what jesus is doing in that story. You assume they would know what was going on. Why since they were fishermen, etc? Nothing shows that they studied the religion like some jews today study it.
I’ve made my rebuttal.
LikeLike
You assume God has done nothing because he did not give the person food. You said yourself, “I expect….” That is a presupposition. God does not promise every prayer will be answered how we expect, and the Bible stresses all prayers should be, “They will be done.” Just as Jesus prayed that he not have to be executed, but neverthelss, God’s will be done. Then he was executed.
No, we are not stuck with the literal meaning of words because we have context.
You claim we have some little konwledge of culture to help a little but again we simply can’t know what you claim to know.” I said what I know and how I know it. If you find the evidence non-convincing, then it’s a difference of opinion. You claim we have no context. I gave examples of context (the fig tree.) I’m not sure what else you want.
You make the claim that, “The apostles are shown to be rather ignorant and simply have no clue what jesus is doing in that story.” If by that you mean they are following Jesus to learn, then yes. I’m not sure why students learning from a teacher is unusual? If they knew everything Jesus knew, then they would have no need of a teacher.
You claim that I assume they would know what was going on. Nope. I said they would understand the context of the Fig tree. I was very clear on this point.
You ask why Jews who were fishermen woiuld know Jewish teachings? The Jews were a religious/political power at this time. Of course they did. If they did not they would constantly be breaking the religious law and ending up in trouble.
Yes, you made your rebuttal. I do not find it convincing.
Do you have anything else on this or shall we move on to your second claim?
LikeLike
Again, if your god prmoises to provide all that a believer needs and promises to protect them from all evil, what am I supposed to expect the god to provide other than food, clothes, shelter, defense, etc?
It’s not a presupposition since your bible promises these things. So is your bible simply making baseless promises? You also fail when you claim that god doesn’t promise to fulfill every prayer. You should read your bible someday. The books where your god promises to fulfill any prayer of a Christian don’t have those “thy will” bits in them (Mark 11:22-24, Mark 16 15-18, Matthew 7:7-9, John 14:11-14, John 15: 7
James 5:13-18). Again, these books are stand alones, and your claim of context fails.
Your claim about jesus seems to indicate he isn’t god and there is something he is subordinate to. You also have the problem that the gospels don’t agree on if jesus didn’t want to be killed or if he had no problem with it. The gospel of john has no mention of gesthemane, n mention of the anguish of jesus on the cross.
You said you knew by context and I’ve shown you how your claims of context are not true. You have no evidence to support your claims. Again, the fig tree incident shows nothing that the apostles understood or should have understood.
You claim that the apostles would have understood and studied Jewish scripture. And now you are saying that they had to follow jesus to learn. Which is it?
Yes, you said that they would understand the context of the fig tree. I correctly said you assume this since nothing in the story supports that.
Jews weren’t a religious or political power at all even in their own land, so that’s complete nonsense. Rome was. Again, where does it have that fishermen were at the temple learning scripture?
You’ve failed. Move to the second claim.
LikeLike
Again, God promises to provide all that a believer needs and promises to protect them from all evil. If you assume that this only includes giving them food, clothes, shelter, defense, etc., then you presuppose that this life is more important than anything to follow.
If you want to move on without any further evidence for your claim, we may. But it remains unproven.
But before we move on, let me address a few things.
1) When you say things such as, “You should read your bible someday,” you speak ad hominem by insulating something about me personally. Insinuations about me do nothing to back your position. Let’s not go down that road, OK?
2) You keep adding more and more claims before we have finished with your first claim. That’s called a Gish Gallop and it makes it hard to have a legitimate conversation.
Do you have anything to add to your unproven claim that God does not provide our needs?
LikeLike
It’s interesting that you claim that your bible is wrong then since it does indeed have your god promising to do exactly what I’ve described. Psalm 91 promises protection from any opponents. JC’s speech about the liles promises the providing of all that is needed to live. We can see that is quite a lie since right now christians are starving in Sudan, being killed in various parts of the world, and do no better in violent and/or dangerous situations than anyone else. Again, despite the promises in your bible, your god fails those promises.
An ad hominem fallacy is committed when the opponent in a discussion brings up something unrelated to the dicussion in order to throw doubt upon the other participant. Showing that you are ignorant of your bible is not an ad hominem argument since this is directly relevant to our discussion.
I have not added “more and more claims” and I know what a gish gallop is. You may address what you want. It’s unfortunate that you make false claims about me, which seem to be nothing more than attempts to invent an excuse on why you cannot address my points.
LikeLike
Nope. I have not claimed that the Bible is wrong, so you are misrepresenting my position.
Too, you are assuming that our needs are limited to this world only. That’s the only way you can reach your conclusion. I mentioned this above.
Nope, Matthew 6:28-33 does not guarantee that we will never go hungry. The context is clear, Matthew is speaking about those who worry about these things, but God will give us our NEEDS.
Your reference to the song (Psalm 91) and Jesus’ teachings about the lilies of the field, it is speaking poetically (it’s a song,) about God’s protection, emphasizing trust in Him during trials. It does not guarantee that believers will be immune from harm or suffering. In fact, throughout the Bible, there are numerous examples of faithful individuals enduring hardship—Job, Paul, and even Jesus Himself, who suffered greatly despite His closeness to God.
Regarding the accusation of ad hominem, I didn’t say it was a fallacy, only that it was ad hominem and has nothing to do with the topic. Whether or not you believe I am “ignorant of (the) Bible,” is at best a deflection because that does not change the validity of my words.
As I have said before, when discussing claims or counterclaims, it’s crucial to approach each specificity. Addressing one point at a time can help ensure clarity and avoid the perception of sidestepping or overwhelming with arguments.
You say you have not added more claims, but you have made many many claims in the thread above.
So, back to your original claim, do you have any other evidence to back it, or does it remain an opinion?
LikeLike
I am not misrepresenting your position. You have said these things
“• You made the claim that God does nothing despite promising He will provide protection. Your evidence included Mark 11.
• I pointed out that you are assuming God did nothing because He does not do what you expect him to do. I also said people suffer from sin. Even the sins of others.”
“Again, God promises to provide all that a believer needs and promises to protect them from all evil. If you assume that this only includes giving them food, clothes, shelter, defense, etc., then you presuppose that this life is more important than anything to follow.”
So, which is it? And nice try to move the goalposts. Your god promises to provide *everything*, so your attempts to claim that invisible things are being provide fails as an excuse.
You also make false claims about Matthew 6. “25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life?[g] 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.”
funny how it says that all of this will be provided to his followers. That last sentence is quite notable: *all of these things* which includes food, shelter, clothing, etc. These are needs, dear.
Yep, the psalms are songs. That doesn’t change the promises in it, but do show how it supposedly does. Surely you can, right? Show how the meaning changes of these verses:
“Because he cleaves to me in love, I will deliver him;
I will protect him, because he knows my name.
15 When he calls to me, I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will rescue him and honor him.
16 With long life I will satisfy him,
and show him my salvation.”
Your god is saying “I will…” do these things. Your lie fails. Yep, your bible does fail when this god fails to protect those it promises to protect. Again, these books were not written together.
An ad hominem is a fallacy, and it’s typical that a Christian has no idea what they are talking about. You have yet to show how I was not on topic. You are ignorant of the bible and that is demonstrable. It does change the validity of your words since those words are based on false claims.
I have presented my evidence, which you admit. It is my opinion based on facts.
LikeLike
Again, you misrepresent what I said by claiming I said, “God does not provide protection…” I’m not sure how you arrive at this conclusion when I said nothing of the sort. You even copy-pasted my words saying, “…you are assuming God did nothing because He does not do what you expect Him to do.” You are unilaterally deciding what God is bound to do to protect people, and how he is to do it, then condemning him for not doing what you assume he should do.
As I said earlier, and as you copy-pasted: “Again, God promises to provide all that a believer needs and promises to protect them from all evil. If you assume that this only includes giving them food, clothes, shelter, defense, etc., then you presuppose that this life is more important than anything to follow.” This is your lead in to, the false dichotomy, asking, “So, which is it?” There is not choice here. God provides your needs even if you pre-suppose something else is your need.
Additionally, you smuggled in an ad hominem by saying, “And nice try to move the goalposts…” By saying this, you make a claim about me personally rather than defend your position. You claim I am trying to move the goalposts. I did not.
You correctly posted Matthew, saying: “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?”
Right in the middle of that verse you copy-pasted is: “….IS NOT LIFE MORE THAN FOOD, AND THE BODY MORE THAN CLOTHING…” This should make it clear that God is not promising to give you food and clothing but something much more.
You say, “….it’s typical that a Christian has no idea what they are talking about.” This is odd because it is part of your argument about speaking ad hominem and it is an ad hominem itself. An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person or group making an argument instead of addressing the argument itself. In this case, the statement dismisses Christians as a group by claiming they “have no idea what they are talking about,” which targets the person’s identity or affiliation rather than engaging with their actual arguments or points.
You also say, “You are ignorant of the Bible, and that is demonstrable. It does change the validity of your words since those words are based on false claims.” Nope. If I were in error, you could demonstrate it without speaking about me personally. That is speaking ad hominem, and it is not logical.
I’m not sure what you mean by, “I have presented my evidence, which you admit.” If you mean I reached the same opinion as you, you are mistaken.
You say your opinion is based on facts, but as I pointed out in this response, not all of your “facts” are actual facts.
Please notice how little of this has to do with your original point. All of these additional claims about me and about Christians as a whole, etc are Gish Gallops.
Now, did you have anything to back your original point or does it remain just your opinion?
LikeLike
“Again, you misrepresent what I said by claiming I said, “God does not provide protection…” I’m not sure how you arrive at this conclusion when I said nothing of the sort. You even copy-pasted my words saying, “…you are assuming God did nothing because He does not do what you expect Him to do.” You are unilaterally deciding what God is bound to do to protect people, and how he is to do it, then condemning him for not doing what you assume he should do.”
how do you think your god should protect people from attack, as it promises to do? I would posit that keeping them from being killed would be expected.
LikeLike
Any attack from a person may cause pain, suffering and death. That is what sin does. But no attacker can do anything beyond this to a person protected by God. You see only the body and the extremely little time we are in it. Christians see beyond this.
LikeLike
Yep, that’s where I figured you go, trying to claim that your god doesn’t need to fulfill its promises by trying to claim that heaven is the “real” answer. How convenient that this god doesn’t have to do what it promises and christains never can show that heaven exists, or that their god does.
Christians have baseless hope beyond this.
LikeLike
TG, as I noted in my prior post, you now are trying to excuse your god’s inaction by claiming “but but heaven!” How convenient for a cult that never has to show any evidence for their claims. You then try to lie and claim that this god knows our “needs” more than we do, again to make an excuse why it does nothing at all. Your problem is that your god literally does nothing, and there is no alternate action by this god either.
You still have no what an ad hominem argument even is, accusing me of something I do not do in your need to find excuses. Again, an ad hominem argument is introducing something irrelevant to the discussion in an attempt to throw doubt upon the opponent. It is relevant to point out your tactics. You have moved the goalposts when you have tried to excuse your god for doing nothing by now claiming that it’s the afterlife that is more important than this one.
I know I was correct in posting what your god promises. Nice of you to ignore the rest of those verses in your attempt to lie, TG. Here’s the whole thing: “25 ‘Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? 28 And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not worry, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will we drink?” or “What will we wear?” 32 For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”
Funny how that last sentence promises that this god will provide everything, the kingdom of god *and* “all of these things” e.g. being fed like the birds, being clothed like the grass. So your claim “This should make it clear that God is not promising to give you food and clothing but something much more.” Is completely false per your own bible. Why did you choose to try to lie about this?
And gee, more false claims and ignorance about what an ad hominem argument is. I’ve shown that you have no idea what you are talking about which is relevant to the discussion, and thus not an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument fallacy is not when your opponent shows how you fail. You try to claim everything is an ad hominem argument in order to avoid admitting you are wrong. That Christians have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to ad hominem argument fallacies is amply demonstrated by you and many other Christians I’ve debated with, all of which did what you are doing now. They couldn’t support their arguments so they tried to claim that my arguments were invalid because they had no idea what an ad hominem argument actually is.
You are indeed ignorant of the bible as I have demonstrated, as recently as above when you intentionally misrepresented what your bible actually says. I have shown you personally in error. It’s hilarious you claim can’t speak about you personally to show your personal errors. That makes no sense at all, but I give you points for being creative in your failure.
You have written “So, back to your original claim, do you have any other evidence to back it, or does it remain an opinion?” Since you say “other evidence”, you have agreed I have already given evidence.
You have yet to show that I have not used facts. Please do so if you want to make that accusation.
This has plenty to do with my original point. I started by pointing out how your god does nothing. You have tried to claim it does things and have yet to demonstrate that to be true. Your accusations of a “gish gallop” are yet another false attempt to invent an excuse for why you fail to be able to show your god exists and does what it promises. I have given my opinion supported by facts.
LikeLike
You say, “Yep, that’s where I figured you go, trying to claim that your god doesn’t need to fulfill its promises by trying to claim that heaven is the “real” answer. How convenient that this god doesn’t have to do what it promises and christains never can show that heaven exists, or that their god does. Christians have baseless hope beyond this.”
All you have done here is to re-state your original claim using loaded language. There is no rebuttal in that post.
Your second post is quite long, and full of claims of what you think I’m trying to do, what you think I know and don’t know, rather than address my words.
Is there a point you are trying to make with your second post, or are we still back to you expressing an opinion?
LikeLike
Unsurprisngly, I didn’t do that at all. You have made excuses why your god does nothing, trying ot claim that this god doesn’t need to fulfill its promises. I have pointed out repeatedly that your bible doesn’t say that and you have made up all of this nonsene about how this god just gives people what it thinks they “need”. not sure what you are on about with referrencing a “rebuttal”.
It is also no surprise to me that now you are inventing more excuses, complaining about a long post when that wasn’t an issue before. I have addressed your words and it’s a shame you have chosen to lie about that. Show I’m wrong if you think that is the case. Otherwise, you have nothing.
LikeLike
I have answered all of your questions, see thread above. Your latest response includes an excess of loaded language and accusations. Does this mean you have no furhter evidence for your very first claim?
LikeLike
You have made excuses. Now do get on with it.
LikeLike
Nope. You unilaterally decided what God should do, then use instances of when he did not do what you expected as evidence that God failed. That is not proof of anything other than your presupposition was incorrect.
LikeLike
ROFL. Your god promises what it will do per your bible. Again, what am I to expect from a god thta promises to protect its follower from all foes, and provide all that they need to live? Not some nonsense of “well, he’ll get around to providing it when they are dead”.
LikeLike
You have re-stated your claim using loaded language, but gave no evidence. Your claim remains an opinion.
LikeLike
NIce false claims. Here is all of my evidence that your god does nothing and yet it promises to do things.
“22 Jesus answered them, ‘Have faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea”, and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” – Mark 11
“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’” Mark 16
“7 ‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” Matthew 7
“21 Jesus answered them, ‘Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, “Be lifted up and thrown into the sea”, it will be done. 22 Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.’” Matthew 21
“1 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.” John 14
“ 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. “ John 15
“13 Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. 14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.” James 5
Your god promises to protect people. Why does it fail? Jesus experienced suffering since the story has a god that failed in eden, failed to fix it for thousands of years and then decided it needed a human blood sacrifice by torture to give itself a loophole for laws it made up. Men did nothing.
The gospels don’t agree if jesus asked to avoid the fate or not. the gospel of john never has the scene in gesthemane. jesus has no problem with the sacrifice, and doesn’t even ask god/himself why he abandoned him.
Your god doesn’t walk with people through pain and hardship. Christians commit suicide too. Christians starve to death.
you have yet to explain why your god does nothing when your god makes these promises. Yu have offered excuses and are unable to answer my questions:
Why should I believe your version above all of the others?
Your god does nothing, and I expect your god to fulfill its promises. IF someonen is starving, I expect it to provide food. IF someone is being attacked, I expect this god to rescue the person by its actions.
what other actions should I be expecting in such situations?
Again, if your god prmoises to provide all that a believer needs and promises to protect them from all evil, what am I supposed to expect the god to provide other than food, clothes, shelter, defense, etc?
33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.”
funny how it says that all of this will be provided to his followers. That last sentence is quite notable: *all of these things* which includes food, shelter, clothing, etc. These are needs, dear.
Yep, the psalms are songs. That doesn’t change the promises in it, but do show how it supposedly does. Surely you can, right? Show how the meaning changes of these verses:
“Because he cleaves to me in love, I will deliver him;
I will protect him, because he knows my name.
15 When he calls to me, I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will rescue him and honor him.
16 With long life I will satisfy him,
and show him my salvation.”
Funny how that last sentence promises that this god will provide everything, the kingdom of god *and* “all of these things” e.g. being fed like the birds, being clothed like the grass. So your claim “This should make it clear that God is not promising to give you food and clothing but something much more.” Is completely false per your own bible. Why did you choose to try to lie about this?
Again, what am I to expect from a god thta promises to protect its follower from all foes, and provide all that they need to live? Not some nonsense of “well, he’ll get around to providing it when they are dead”.
LikeLike
You start by saying, “nice false claims.” I have made no false claims.
You also use lots of loaded language. This is nothing but a distraction, so I have to ask why you are using it if your arguments are so secure?
You followed with a Gish Gallop, most of which has already been addressed above. Let’s do this one at a time if you really want to discuss this.
What is our strongest point?
LikeLike
you have made false claims:
“In the same way, God walks with us through pain and hardship, providing strength and hope.”
no evidence of this and direct evidence against it: christians commit suicide.
“The first verse you present is Mark 11:22-24, in which Jesus speaks to His disciples about keeping their prayer within His will and having trust in His divine plan. It does not guarantee that any prayer will be answered exactly as asked, but it teaches the importance of faith, and aligning prayers with God’s will.”
the verses don’t say what you claim.
“You ask why Jews who were fishermen woiuld know Jewish teachings? The Jews were a religious/political power at this time. Of course they did. If they did not they would constantly be breaking the religious law and ending up in trouble.”
they weren’t.
“Again, God promises to provide all that a believer needs and promises to protect them from all evil. If you assume that this only includes giving them food, clothes, shelter, defense, etc., then you presuppose that this life is more important than anything to follow.”
curious how the bible says both will be provided.
“Nope, Matthew 6:28-33 does not guarantee that we will never go hungry. The context is clear, Matthew is speaking about those who worry about these things, but God will give us our NEEDS.”
christians starve to death.
“Any attack from a person may cause pain, suffering and death. That is what sin does. But no attacker can do anything beyond this to a person protected by God. You see only the body and the extremely little time we are in it. Christians see beyond this.”
funny how this god protected people in real time and left them alive per your bible. Why doesn’t it do this now?
and again, nice lies about “gish gallops” etc.
no idea what you are talking about when yuo ask “what is our strongest point?”
LikeLike
OK, let’s start with the first claim in your last post. Let’s discuss that, and then we can move on to the next point in your Gish Gallop.
You say that when I stated, “In the same way, God walks with us through pain and hardship, providing strength and hope,” I made a false claim.
As evidence of this alleged falsehood, you assert, “no evidence of this and direct evidence against it: Christians commit suicide.”
The first part of your statement, “no evidence of this…,” does not prove that I made a false claim. For that to be the case, one would have to argue that the absence of direct evidence constitutes proof that something did not happen. However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The second part of your statement, “…direct evidence against it: Christians commit suicide,” is flawed. In presenting this as evidence, one assumes that what is true of a subset must be true of the whole. This is a classic example of the fallacy of composition.
Before addressing the rest of your Gish Gallop, do you have anything else to add to support this claim I just refuted?
LikeLike
there is no gish gallop, but whatever. You made a false claim and you have yet to show that your god does anything at all.
A false claim is one without evidence. You can’t show it to be true. You claim your god walks with “us”, which is the whole of christianity. If it misses some of you, then it is not what you claim and that subset shows your god isn’t what you say it is.
A fallacy of composition is dependent on saying that the what is true of a member of the group is true of the whole group. It doesn’t apply here since it is your god we are talking about, not doing what *it* promises. I am not saying all christians commit suicide. I am saying this god does not do what it, and you, have promised.
LikeLike
You claim there is no gish gallop. The evidence you offer to show it is not a Gish Gallop is to say, “but whatever.” My evidence that it is a Gish Gallop is the post to which I was responding.
You stated, “You made a false claim, and you have yet to show that your god does anything at all.”
However, you have yet to demonstrate that my claim is false. That doesn’t prove my statement to be true, but it does not prove your statement true either. You went beyond expressing disbelief—you makde an assumption and presenting it as proof.
I never claimed to have proof of God beyond faith; faith that is a gift from God so that no one may boast. In fact, the Bible says faith is a Gift from God and not from our own works. If you wish to say you don’t believe, that’s fine—your statement of non-belief is accurate. But when you accuse others of lying or making false statements about things you cannot prove to be false, then you make an unsupported claim. If you believe that making an unprovable statement constitutes a false statement, then by your own standard, you are also guilty.
You said, “A false claim is one without evidence.” This is incorrect. I can’t prove to you what it feels like to have a broken bone unless you’ve experienced it too. Does that mean I don’t know what it feels like? Of course not. I can testify about a crime in court. My testimony is not false simply because I cannot prove it. You dismiss a posteriori knowledge as false, rather than merely unprovable. Additionally, your own assertion that my statement is false doesn’t meet your standard of requiring evidence.
You also said, “If it misses some of you, then it is not what you claim, and that subset shows your god isn’t what you say it is.” I’m unclear on the point you’re trying to make here—could you elaborate? Surely you are not smuggling in more ad hominem comments here. (I did not say ad hominem fallacy, so don’t accuse me of that please.)
You correctly defined the fallacy of composition as claiming that what is true of part of a group is true of the whole group. This aligns with the definition I provided earlier. You said some Christians commit suicide as evidence that God does not provide comfort. However, the fact that some do not turn to God for comfort does not mean that God does not offer it to all Christians. Your reasoning here constitutes a composition fallacy.
Finally, you said, “It doesn’t apply here since it is your god we are talking about, not doing what *it* promises.” The use of asterisks around “it” is an unnecessary use of loaded language rather than a substantive argument. What is its purpose in this context? Also, your sentence is yet another unprovable claim. By your own standard, it must be false.
So, do you have anything to substantiate your first claim in this apparent gish gallop, or shall we consider it unproven and move on to your next point?
LikeLike
You are amusing. Andyou have yet to show I’ve done a gish gallop “The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available.”
I’ve not presented an “excessive number of arguments”. I’ve presented about three: you have no evidence for your god and I have demonstrated this. Your god does nothing despite its promises, and I have cited the chapter and verse where your god promises to help living people and provide what the need. I have shown that your claims of context are false. I know my arguments are strong.
and dear, you have all the time you want to answer any of this.
You have yet to show your god does anything despite my asking for evidence. That makes your claim false. If you wish to provide evidence it does something, then provide it. You have claimed your bible as evidence, which is not just faith.
Pain can be determined by things like showing how much sweat is produced, the chemicals in that sweat, etc. Again, a false claim is one without evidence. IF you can’t provide evidence for your claim, the default is that it is not true. There is no reason to keep assuming well, maybe some millennium, you’ll have something.
Your god promises to take care of its followers. Not some of them, all of them. If it misses some of you, then it is lying. And again, nice to see you again get what an ad hominem is wrong. It’s hilarious that now you try to avoid being wrong by claiming it isn’t a fallacy you are referring to.
I know that I defined a fallacy of composition right. I know my fallacies. You do not. Your god prmises to provide comfort to every follower. If it does that, there would be no christains who commit suicide. Or isn’t this god the omnipotent and omniscient being Christians claim?
Then you try to blame the victim, how nice. How do you know they didn’t turn to this god, dear? You assume they didn’t to excuse your god’s failure. How typical. Again, no composition fallacy at all.
Your god is an it since christains can’t agree on what sex they want to pretend it is. The use of asterisks is to draw your notice to the fact that my argument is about your god, not its followers. You do like to read into things. You also make no sense at all since that sentence isn’t a claim, since I am indeed talking about your god.
Again, you have yet to show I’m wrong or that I’ve engaged in a gish gallop.
LikeLike
You didn’t answer my question. But OK, I’ll go through your latest post one claim at a time. Lots and lots of claims, but not a Gish Gallop, right?
Here goes:
You start with, “You are amusing…”
Irrelevant. Whether I am amusing or not has nothing to do with your claim or my claims. You are speaking ad hominem in this comment. It is only worth shining a light on, which I just did.
—
You continue with, “And you have yet to show I’ve done a gish gallop “The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available.”
Odd, in a post where you have lots and lots of claims and arguments with no apparent regard for their accuracy or strength, you say you are not using the Gish Gallop.
—
You say, “I’ve not presented an “excessive number of arguments”. I’ve presented about three…”
Nope, the thread above says otherwise, and the post to which you made this comment is evidence against that claim.
—
You say, “…you have no evidence for your god and I have demonstrated this.”
I never claimed to have evidence to prove there is a God. I even mentioned that faith in God is a gift from God; therefore, such an endeavour would be as fruitless as your attempts to prove there is no God.
—
You say, ” Your God does nothing despite its promises,….”
You have not proven this claim. This is your very first claim and you have not presented proof of it.
—
You then say, “…and I have cited the chapter and verse where your god promises to help living people and provide what the need.”
Yes, we both addressed this several times in this thread. God promises to help living people with their needs. He does not promise to provide living people with what you unilaterally decide are their needs. You even copy-pased a verse from Matthew that I posted that clearly says, “…Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?…” yet you insist that these are our real needs. This is the issue with your claim.
—
You say, ” I have shown that your claims of context are false.”
No, you did not. You claimed that the Apostles of Jesus would have been ignorant of Jewish scriptures, therefore Old Testiment would not be context, but gave no evidence for this premise of your claim.
—
You say, ” I know my arguments are strong. and dear, you have all the time you want to answer any of this.”
Saying your arguments are strong is not the same as having strong arguments. If they were strong, you would not need to use the Gish Gallop, loaded language, or ad hominem snipes.
—
You say, “You have yet to show your god does anything despite my asking for evidence. That makes your claim false.”
Nope. I pointed out that you assume you know what our needs are, then proclaim that since God did not supply what you decided, that there is no God. This is bad logic.
—
You said, “If you wish to provide evidence it does something, then provide it.”
Using “it” to describe God is loaded language that is worth being called out. Too, you are asking me to define what people’s needs are. I’m not God, so I wouldn’t know. If I don’t know what someone’s true needs are, how do you suggest I prove they were provided?
—
You say, “You have claimed your bible as evidence, which is not just faith.”
I have used the Bible as evidence when you make a claim that the Bible says something. I’m not sure what your point is here.
—
You say, “Pain can be determined by things like showing how much sweat is produced, the chemicals in that sweat, etc. ”
The presence of pain can be determined, yes. But I said nothing about whether or not pain was present. I said I can describe the pain of a broken bone, but you cannot know what it feels like without experiencing it. Those are two different things. You are arguing against the existence of A posteriori knowledge.
—
You say, “Again, a false claim is one without evidence. IF you can’t provide evidence for your claim, the default is that it is not true. There is no reason to keep assuming well, maybe some millennium, you’ll have something.””
Again, I can give testimony in court of something I witnessed, even though I cannot prove it. The fact that I can’t prove my testimony does not make it a false claim. I even pointed out above how your own posts don’t meet this standard.
—
You say, “Your god promises to take care of its followers. Not some of them, all of them.”
God says *He* will provide all of *His* children’s needs. We have already gone through this in your previous Gish Gallops.
—
You say, ” If it misses some of you, then it is lying.”
If *He” doesn’t give Christians what you say they need, that proves nothing. We have been through this before.
—
You say, “And again, nice to see you again get what an ad hominem is wrong.”
Nope. I pointed out areas where you have spoken ad hominem. It is literally, “speaking to the man.” and it is not always an ad hominem fallacy. It is what it is by definition.
—
You say, ” It’s hilarious that now you try to avoid being wrong by claiming it isn’t a fallacy you are referring to.”
Nope again. While “ad hominem” simply means “to the person” in Latin, an “ad hominem fallacy” refers to a logical fallacy where someone attacks the character or personal traits of the person making an argument, instead of addressing the actual argument itself, essentially discrediting the argument by attacking the person making it, rather than the content of their statement; making the personal attack irrelevant to the discussion at hand. When you make comments about me just because, you are speaking ad hominem by definition. Now, if your motive for doing so is to shed me in a negative light to deflect from your weak or lack of an argument, then it becomes a fallacy.
—
You say, “I know that I defined a fallacy of composition right. I know my fallacies. You do not.”
Whether or not I know something is irrelevant to whatever point you are trying to make on the topic. It is something you would not have to do if you had a legitimate point.
—
You say, ” Your god promises to provide comfort to every follower. If it does that, there would be no christians who commit suicide. Or isn’t this god the omnipotent and omniscient being Christians claim?”
We have already addressed this. You are either making a composition fallacy, or ruling out that a christian would fail to seek God’s comfort.
—
You say, “Then you try to blame the victim, how nice. How do you know they didn’t turn to this god, dear?”
I could ask you the same question. How do you know they did? It is your claim that this is the kill shot, so please present your evidence that they did.
—
You say, “You assume they didn’t to excuse your god’s failure.”
Nope. And speaking of assumption, here you assume to know my motives. Should I ask you, “how typical?”
—
You say, ” How typical. Again, no composition fallacy at all.”
Wrong, see evidence above.
—
You say, “Your god is an it since christains can’t agree on what sex they want to pretend it is.”
I find that explanation weak at best. But I don’t know your motivation or why you would refuse to use the pronouns used in both Greek and Hebrew texts: Masculine.
—
You say, ” The use of asterisks is to draw your notice to the fact that my argument is about your god, not its followers.”
It seems more likely it is loaded language and you are trying to get me to acknowledge it.
—
You say, ” You do like to read into things. You also make no sense at all since that sentence isn’t a claim, since I am indeed talking about your god.”
I think if I referred to your father as “it” and drew attention to calling your father “it” you may feel differently. That is, unless you think your father is an object.
—
You say, “Again, you have yet to show I’m wrong or that I’ve engaged in a gish gallop.”
Actually, I have. Scroll up.
—
The bottom line here is you are picking any interpretation that matches the outcome you want to see. This thread demonstrates this well. You can defeat any strawman you wish, but that does not mean your conclusions are correct.
I hope you found this as enjoyable as I have.
LikeLike
I have repeatedly answered your questions, including telling you to move on if you wish and that I have given my answers to you.
You have no idea what a gish gallop even is, dear. It’s “The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available.” Unsurprisihngly, you can’t show that I’ve done this at all. Your ignorance when it comes to things you accuse me of is amusing. You have no idea what an ad hominem argument fallacy is, and you have no idea what a gish gallop is. You have nothing to support your claims so you thrash about trying to find something to accuse me of to excuse your failure.
Then you whine about me calling you amusing, and still have no evidence for your claims. This is not an ad hominem argument, since you and your complete lack of evidence for your claims is indeed amusing to me. It’s notable you can’t show that my arguments are lacking in accuracy or strength. Show that they are, and then you may have reason to accuse me of a gish gallop.
Curious how you can’t show these many other arguments you accuse me of. Where are they? Surely you can show them, right?
You have claimed to have evidence for your god. You have also claimed “faith”. You have claimed the following as evidence for your god:
“In the same way, God walks with us through pain and hardship, providing strength and hope. “
“The answer is no, the Bible does not lie. But it is often misquoted, and context is often ignored.”
“One was crucified upside down, another beheaded, and others faced very unpleasant deaths before leaving this world to be with Jesus, but they died according to God’s will.”
Curious how I have proven that your god does nothing despite its promises. You have tried to claim that this god fulfills its promises after people are dead. That is not mentioned in your bible. You claimed ““In the same way, God walks with us through pain and hardship, providing strength and hope. “ and yet you can’t explain why Christians commit suicide other than blaming the victim. Why does your god fail?
Funny how your bible details those needs in the lilies speech, things to eat, things to wear, shelter. Psalm 91 details the needs for protection. You have made yet more false claims, intentionally lying about what your bible literally says. You again try to ignore that last sentence in that speech, the one that shows you are a failure: “ 31 Instead, strive for his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.”
I’m still waiting for evidence that jesus and the apostles merely existed, and still waiting for evidence that fishermen would know Jewish scriptures in depth. Why would they know that the fig is a representation of Israel? There is no evidence of any education from the temple other than telling the familiar stories in the torah.
Again, still waiting for you to show my arguments aren’t strong. If you can’t do that, your nonsense about me having to use what I haven’t fails miserably.
Again, you have not answered my question about what I should expect from a god that promises to provide all that we need, which does include food, shelter, and protection. What should I expect your god to do to fulfill his promises? You don’t see to know, and offer up the baseless claim that we somehow “need” something else, and that this god will provide that after we are dead. It’s just hilarious that you now claim that how dare I ask you for information on what this god should be providing since you aren’t this god. Per your bible, you can know what it should be providing as I have indicated above. Your attempts to claim you know your god is providing what we need, and then you claim that you can’t know what that would be is just ridiculous.
Calling your god an “it” is not loaded language, another common claim you make and cannot support. That you may not like a non-christian to refer to your god as an imaginary being and thus as an “it” doesn’t make it wrong. I also refer to other gods as “it” since they have no sexual attributes.
Yep, you have used the bible as evidence for your god, and claim that I am wrong in my interpretation. Unfortunately, you can’t show your interpretation to be the correct one.
And then we have you trying to backpedal your nonsense about pain. You claimed “ I can’t prove to you what it feels like to have a broken bone unless you’ve experienced it too. “ And I responded that one can determine pain and its intensity so one can prove what pain feels like. Do show where I’m arguing against knowledge based on experience. I am arguing that one doesn’t need personal experience to know that pain and the degree of pain happens.
Yes, you can give testimony, and without additional evidence, your testimony is worthless.
Yes, your god says that it will provide all of its children’s needs. All of its followers, not just some of them and those some can be Christians who commit suicide. Are you trying to claim that you and only you know who the TrueChristians™ are? If you are, then you have a no true Scotsman logical fallacy, where you declare that the only true Christians are those who don’t commit suicide which is false.
Do you think people who are considering suicide need something?
Curious how your claim that “ad hominem” means speaking to the man would encompass any communication to you and would not be only pointing out how your claims fail.
Again, you do choose to not add the important pieces of arguments when they show you are wrong. An ad hominem fallacy is adding things that are not relevant, not just pointing out how you are wrong.
there we go where you can’t show that I’ve committed a fallacy of composition, which is amusing since I did define it correctly. “Whether or not I know something is irrelevant to whatever point you are trying to make on the topic. It is something you would not have to do if you had a legitimate point.”
You again blame theh victim when you claim: “You are either making a composition fallacy, or ruling out that a christian would fail to seek God’s comfort.”
It’s not the suicidal person at fault here. They sought this god and this god wasn’t there. They are Christians, correct? Why wouldn’t they turn to god? Why wouldn’t this god help them without being begged? Is your god good or not?
It is very typical to see Christians make assumptions to excuse their god’s failure. I see that every day when Christians like you claim that this god doesn’t answer prayers for everyone, blames victims, claims that there is a “good reason” this god didn’t answer, etc. Why didn’t this god stop the terrorists on 9/11? The Christian answers are “he was punishing America”, “there is a good reason he didn’t but god is mysterious”, etc. No one simply admits it can’t.
Still no evidence of any composition fallacy.
I don’t care that you find an explanation weak when all you want to do is whine. Again, your god is an “it” to me since it has no sex. Or does your god have a penis and testes?
You are desperate to find an excuse to make, and yep, that “loaded language” is just part of that.
My father is a male, XY, with the appropriate genitalia. Your god is something Christians can’t agree on. So do refer to him as an it, if you want. That doesn’t change reality.
I’ve found this wonderfully enjoyable since it is just more evidence on how Christians have nothing to support their claims. Unsuprisingly, you’ve yet to show that I’ve used any strawmen either.
LikeLike
Your arguments continue to rely on misinterpretations and logical fallacies. Let me address some key points:
Gish Gallop and Ad Hominem: You misunderstand the application of these concepts. A Gish Gallop involves overwhelming with numerous weak arguments, which I have not done. Ad hominem refers to attacking the person rather than the argument, which you’ve engaged in by calling me “amusing” and questioning my knowledge.
Biblical Interpretation: You consistently misinterpret biblical passages by taking them out of context. For instance, the “lilies of the field” passage is about trusting God’s provision, not a literal promise of material goods. Your interpretation lacks nuance and understanding of biblical hermeneutics.
God’s Promises and Human Suffering: Your argument about Christian suicide commits the fallacy of composition. It assumes that if God promises comfort, no Christian would ever suffer. This ignores human free will and the complexity of mental health issues. It’s a simplistic view that doesn’t account for the nuances of faith and human experience.
Evidence and Faith: You demand empirical evidence for matters of faith, which assumes that Faith could not be a Gift from God. Faith, by definition, goes beyond empirical proof. Your insistence on scientific evidence for spiritual matters is a category error.
Use of Pronouns: Referring to God as “it” is indeed loaded language, as it deliberately depersonalizes a being that believers consider personal. It’s a rhetorical tactic, not a neutral choice of words.
Logical Fallacies: You accuse me of fallacies without fully understanding them. For example, pointing out your misuse of terms is not an ad hominem fallacy; it’s addressing the substance of your argument.
Your arguments often rely on misinterpretations, false equivalences, and a fundamental misunderstanding of theological concepts. I encourage you to approach these discussions with a more open mind and a willingness to understand different perspectives.
LikeLike
And you are wrong yet again.
You have yet to show my arguments to be weak. An ad hominem argument is when someone brings up something irrelevant and personal to the debate in order to try to devalue their opponent’s points. You try to lie that pointing out your points are wrong is somehow irrelevant. It is not. You are indeed amusing with your failed and baseless claims.
Again, pointing out how you are wrong and that y our knowledge is lacking is not an ad hominem argument. It is a fact. You are simply attempting to claim that any questioning of your claims is not allowed in this discussion.
You have yet to show the context that changes the meaning of the verses I have used, and you repeatedly claim that only your interpretation is the right one with no evidence to support that claim. The passage regarding the lilies of the field says this god will provide all that a follower needs, including both spiritual and physical needs. It does not say that one must trust that this god will provide, but that this god will definitely provide. You have invented “nuance” that is not there, and as all Christians will do, are claiming that only your “biblical hermeneutics” are the only right ones with the typical lack of evidence.
My argument about Christian suicide does not commit the fallacy of composition. You have no evidence of that at all. Your god promises that no Christian will come to harm and it will always support them. This is from an era where the concepts of mental health do not exist, and your bible claims there is no free will, so you fail on both counts. Again, you invent nuances that do not exist. Your bible is simplistic nonsense.
Again, this is what it promises and you have yet to show context that changes the meanings of these verses:
“13 No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it.” 1 corinthians 10
” 6 Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” Phillipians 4
“The Lord is near to the brokenhearted, and saves the crushed in spirit.” Psalms 34
I ask for empirical evidence for your claims, just as you demand from any other religion that you are sure isn’t true. There is nothing about requiring evidence for your nonsense that would make faith not a gift from your god. This is just one more excuse why you cannot produce evidence that your religion’s claims are true. It is not a category error at all since empirical evidence was supposedly provided by your god when asked per your bible. Moses, Gideon, Thomas, etc all asked for direct evidence and your god provided it. Why not now?
Calling your god an “it” is not loaded language. You would prefer me to speak like a Christian. I am not a Christian. I also call Allah an it, Brahman an it, Wakan Tanka an it, etc. There is no being to be personalized. You may consider it personal, I do not. Your god evidently doesn’t mind being called an it since it does nothing about that, so why are you so concerned my calling your god an it?
It’s great how you can’t show a single instance of where I have accused you of a logical fallacy without understanding what that fallacy is. You also seem to be claiming I accused you of using ad hominem fallacies, in your claim here: “Logical Fallacies: You accuse me of fallacies without fully understanding them. For example, pointing out your misuse of terms is not an ad hominem fallacy; it’s addressing the substance of your argument.” I have yet to see where I have in our conversation.
Again, you finish with the typical Christian claim that only your interpretations are valid, which you have yet to show. You have yet to show any false equivalences or any fundamental misunderstanding of theological concepts on my part. All you seem to have is a blizzard of false statements about me.
Then you try an attempt to lie yet again and accuse me of not having an open mind and claim I am not willing to understand different perspectives. I have an open mind and I have considered your claims. That I do not agree with your baseless claims doesn’t mean I do not understand them. Christians often seem to assume that everyone must agree with them no matter what and try to make false claims to excuse why their arguments fail.
I wonder, how open is your mind when it comes to other versions of christianity and other religions?
LikeLike
Your response contains several misconceptions and inaccuracies regarding biblical interpretation and Christian theology. Let’s address some key points.
Biblical interpretation is indeed complex, but this doesn’t mean Christians are “making up what they want.” Scholarly exegesis considers historical context, literary genre, and overall biblical narrative. Your assertion that Christians can’t agree on interpretations oversimplifies the nuanced discussions within biblical scholarship.
Regarding the fig tree incident (Mark 11), it’s crucial to understand its symbolic significance in Jewish tradition. The fig tree often represented Israel’s spiritual condition in Hebrew scriptures. Jesus’ action was likely a prophetic gesture, not mere frustration over a snack.
Your claim that the apostles were “complete idiots” misses the literary and theological purpose of their recording in the Gospels. Their gradual understanding shows how they grew in faith.
The connection between Old and New Testaments is a fundamental aspect of Christian theology. Christians don’t follow all Old Testament laws because Jesus fulfilled them. The law requres a sacrifice. Jesus was the sacrifice. There is continuity in God’s redemptive plan. This isn’t cherry-picking but part of a coherent theological framework.
Your interpretation of prayer promises (Mark 11:24, etc.) is lacking. These verses are understood within the broader context of aligning one’s will with God’s, not as guarantees for wish fulfillment the way we think they should be fulfilled. You cannot unilaterally decide what your need is. We have discussed this previously.
Regarding evidence for Jesus and the apostles, while you may dispute the historical claims, there is significant scholarly work supporting their historicity. Dismissing this entirely isn’t consistent with academic consensus in historical studies.
Your arguments often rely on literal interpretations of poetic or metaphorical language (e.g., Psalm 91). This approach doesn’t align with how these texts have been traditionally understood within Jewish and Christian traditions. You are doing exactly what you accuse Christians of doing.
While you’re entitled to your opinion, presenting it as definitive fact overlooks the complexity of historical and theological scholarship on these matters. You may wish to prove this as fact, but you must do so before claiming to have done it.
So, why are you trying so hard to prove the Bible false and that there is no God?
LikeLike
Unsurprisingly, TG, there are no misconceptions or inaccuracies in my post. I disagree with you and have evidence why I find my answers correct. You continue to have nthing and yet still try to claim only your version is the right one.
Bible interpretation isn’t complex. Christians have to claim that since they don’t agree on what it actually says, and thus have to invent all sorts of ways to “correctly” interpret it. This begs the question why would this god make understanding it difficult? It does indeed mean that humans make up what they want, since not one of you can show that your version is the right one, nor that there is any right one at all.
Christians can’t agree on interpretations. I can see that from the dozens and dozens of different versions of Christianity. It is not an “oversimplification” to know that. Your claims of “nuanced” discussions are amusing since Christians have simply murdered each other over these “nuances” through out Christian history. Your nuances are claims as the one and only truth by all of you.
The fig tree can be symbolic, and your claim that fisherman would know this is unsupported. The apostles are shown as complete idiots who never grasp what jesus is trying to teach them. The gospel of Mark is the most amusing for how stupid it makes the apostles who were told at least three times about the crucifixion and resurrection and still didn’t get it, which is nothing more than a literary technique to give exposition to the reader. Your problem is that they don’t gradually understand. They have no clue about the crucifiction or resurrection right up until the end of all of the gospels.
Curiosu how Christians often deny that the OT and NT are linked. Jesus says that *all* of his father’s/his laws are to be followed. Jesus did not say he fulfilled them as you claim. Let’s look at Matthew 5
“17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Abolish means “to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) : to completely do away with (something) “ Jesus says he did not come to do that. He came to fulfill the laws. Fulfill can mean different things but the only definition that makes sense here is “to put into effect “ Both definitions are from Merriam Webster dictionary. The earth and heavens are still here, so per jesus, *all* laws must be followed. You may argue that jesus interpreted them differently but that still doesn’t mean that the laws are to be ignored. Jesus didn’t say that the laws need a sacrifice. He said they need to be followed.
Then we have Paul saying that the laws don’t have to be followed, directly contradicting jesus, for his new audience.
Again, there is no context that says that prayers have to be within what this god already wants. This requirement would make prayer worthless. Jesus literally says “any” with offering no exception or excuses.
““22 Jesus answered them, ‘Have[b] faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea”, and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” – Mark 11
Jesus says “whatever”, no quibbling.
““7 ‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” Matthew 7”
Again, no quibbling, and he says directly you will get what you ask for, not something else.
““1 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in my name you ask me[e] for anything, I will do it.” John 14”
Again, jesus says “anything”. No exceptions.
““ 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. “ John 15”
Same here. At best, you can claim that perhaps the gospel of Matthew has the prayer being within what this god already wants since it does mention that in the lords prayer. But the others are in books without that prayer, and it is not in context. The gospels were written separately, for different audiences and were never meant to be read together.
There are claims tht the apostles existed. They are not historical figures since there is again, no evidence for them. There isn’t significant scholarly work, there is a lot of Christians claiming they existed with no evidence. But do show evidence they existed, TG. Not claims, but actual independent evidence. And again, consensus doesn’t mean something is automatically true.
Curious how Christians themselves can’t agree on what parts of the bible are to be claimed literal, metaphor, exaggeration, etc. So your complaint that I rely on the wrong interpretation is just a baseless opinion. Do show how Psalm 91 shouldn’t be taken literally as this god promising it will protect its followers. Christiains can’t agree on how the text were traditional understood since you have all been reinterpreting them for 2000+ years. I know that the interpretation is up for grabs and that’s why I consider them as they are written, not assuming that the parts I don’t like are somehow meaning something that can’t be supported.
I haven’t presented my opinion as fact. I have shown facts that support my opinion. You claim a complexity that only exists since Christians can’t agree on their claims.
I have shown that the bible is false and Christians can’t agree on their god, etc since your claims cause real harm.
LikeLike
Thank you for your detailed response. I’ll address your points respectfully as usual and point out problems with your argument.
Regarding biblical interpretation, it’s important to recognize that complexity doesn’t imply falsehood. Many fields of study, from science to law, involve complex interpretations, some of which are right or wrong, and some remian unclear. The existence of different interpretations doesn’t invalidate the text itself, but rather highlights the depth of its content.
You’ve made a hasty generalization by claiming that Christians “don’t agree on what it actually says.” While there are differences in interpretation, there’s significant agreement on core doctrines among mainstream Christian denominations.
Your argument about the fig tree incident overlooks the cultural and literary context. The apostles’ gradual understanding is a common narrative device in ancient literature, serving to illustrate character development and emphasize key teachings.
Regarding the Old and New Testament connection, you’ve presented a false dichotomy. The relationship between the two is more nuanced than simply “linked” or “not linked.” Jesus’ statement about fulfilling the law is understood in Christian theology as completing its purpose, not abolishing its moral principles.
Your interpretation of prayer promises doesn’t account for the broader biblical context. The Bible consistently teaches that prayer should align with God’s will (1 John 5:14-15). Interpreting these verses without context and with a pre-conceivied idea of what constitutes a need leads to a misunderstanding of the biblical teaching on prayer.
Concerning the apostles’ historicity, it’s important to distinguish between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. While you may find the historical evidence unconvincing, dismissing all scholarly work on the subject as “Christians claiming they existed with no evidence” is an oversimplification.
Your argument about Psalm 91 commits the fallacy of selective attention. Biblical interpretation requires considering genre, context, and the overall message of Scripture, not just isolated verses.
Lastly, your claim that Christian beliefs “cause real harm” is an oversimplification that ignores rival causal factors including historical, sociological, and ethical factors of each society. It’s important to avoid oversimplification of such complex topics.
This conversation would be a lot more productive if you could present one claim at a time.
Your original claim remains an opinion, not a proven fact as you have presented.
Your posts give the impression that you WANT the Christian position to be wrong. I understand that the idea of there being no God and the Christian perspective being wrong might feel preferable or even freeing in some way. But I would gently invite you to consider this: truth is not determined by what we wish to be true but by what actually is. If there is no God, then an honest search will lead you to that conclusion. But if God exists, and the Christian message holds truth about who He is and who we are, discovering that truth could profoundly shape your understanding of life, purpose, and hope. Seeking the truth, even when it challenges our desires or assumptions, is a courageous and worthwhile endeavor—and truth, when found, has the power to set us free. If Faith is a Gift from God so that no one may boast about how he or she came to the conclusion, then you will not find it by simple deduction. You will also fail in proving otherwise through deduction.
LikeLike