Why are there so many threads/posts in the religion forum that trash/troll religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

...

You were asked for evidence as to why the quotes from matthew did not refer to the old testament, and you provided none but responded:

...

No. As was explained to you multiple times, the passage DOES refer to the Old Testament. Nobody said it “did not” refer to the OT. You were told this again and again.

To quote you: stop being dishonest.

Folks, this is the whole deliberately obtuse/dumb as a brick thong in action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...

You were asked for evidence as to why the quotes from matthew did not refer to the old testament, and you provided none but responded:

...

No. As was explained to you multiple times, the passage DOES refer to the Old Testament. Nobody said it “did not” refer to the OT. You were told this again and again.

To quote you: stop being dishonest.

Folks, this is the whole deliberately obtuse/dumb as a brick thong in action.

Well if it DOES refer to the old testament, then it DOES make the original point! This is unbelievable. A total gish gallop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there are the rhetorical games played by some (not all) atheists on this forum.

I’m not even thinking of the childish ad homonyms. Those are tedious but easily ignored.

As just one example, pretending to misunderstand empirically demonstrable things, like the words in bible passages. I’m thinking in particular of the recent “The Bible is immoral” thread, where someone posted a passage from Matthew about the New Testament relationship to supposedly “immoral” parts of the Old Testament. This particular atheist spent pages misinterpreting it and pretending not to understand it. Note: all anybody asked of her was to try her darndest to understand 4 simple sentences consisting of very short words—nobody expected her to believe it. Dumb as a brick or deliberately obtuse? You tell me.

Not only are you insulting again, you are lying - again.

You were asked for evidence as to why the quotes from matthew did not refer to the old testament, and you provided none but responded:

"It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this."

To help those not reading the whole thread, here is one of the important quotes:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

So, I guess we do agree. It IS obvious on it's face if you read it carefully.

Stop being dishonest.

I’m a different poster. I quoted an entire passage from Matthew on that thread. That’s the passage you pretended for pages to misunderstand. But obviously you couldn’t have done that if the passage wasn’t there in the first place.

You’re also quoting the “do not think...” passage, which btw was quoted *to follow up on the Matthew passage you claim wasn’t there (with the result that your post just now is a long non sequitur)* out of context. The context was explained to you in that thread, but are you also conveying that context here? No, you’re continuing to quote it out of context.

Who’s dishonest?

Nothing you quoted on that wall of text contradicted the original point, and you offered no explanation.

I recommend you bring this all back up on that thread and try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there are the rhetorical games played by some (not all) atheists on this forum.

I’m not even thinking of the childish ad homonyms. Those are tedious but easily ignored.

As just one example, pretending to misunderstand empirically demonstrable things, like the words in bible passages. I’m thinking in particular of the recent “The Bible is immoral” thread, where someone posted a passage from Matthew about the New Testament relationship to supposedly “immoral” parts of the Old Testament. This particular atheist spent pages misinterpreting it and pretending not to understand it. Note: all anybody asked of her was to try her darndest to understand 4 simple sentences consisting of very short words—nobody expected her to believe it. Dumb as a brick or deliberately obtuse? You tell me.

Not only are you insulting again, you are lying - again.

You were asked for evidence as to why the quotes from matthew did not refer to the old testament, and you provided none but responded:

"It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this."

To help those not reading the whole thread, here is one of the important quotes:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

So, I guess we do agree. It IS obvious on it's face if you read it carefully.

Stop being dishonest.

I’m a different poster. I quoted an entire passage from Matthew on that thread. That’s the passage you pretended for pages to misunderstand. But obviously you couldn’t have done that if the passage wasn’t there in the first place.

You’re also quoting the “do not think...” passage, which btw was quoted *to follow up on the Matthew passage you claim wasn’t there (with the result that your post just now is a long non sequitur)* out of context. The context was explained to you in that thread, but are you also conveying that context here? No, you’re continuing to quote it out of context.

Who’s dishonest?

Nothing you quoted on that wall of text contradicted the original point, and you offered no explanation.

I recommend you bring this all back up on that thread and try again.

You were given several explanations of that passage. I gave one of the explanations. Not to mention, the passage is clear on its face to anybody with a modicum of reading skills, which I’ll assume you have.

Not going back to your hate thread because the topic on this thread is your rhetorical dishonesty. And you’re doing a great job of proving that, over and over, on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there are the rhetorical games played by some (not all) atheists on this forum.

I’m not even thinking of the childish ad homonyms. Those are tedious but easily ignored.

As just one example, pretending to misunderstand empirically demonstrable things, like the words in bible passages. I’m thinking in particular of the recent “The Bible is immoral” thread, where someone posted a passage from Matthew about the New Testament relationship to supposedly “immoral” parts of the Old Testament. This particular atheist spent pages misinterpreting it and pretending not to understand it. Note: all anybody asked of her was to try her darndest to understand 4 simple sentences consisting of very short words—nobody expected her to believe it. Dumb as a brick or deliberately obtuse? You tell me.

Not only are you insulting again, you are lying - again.

You were asked for evidence as to why the quotes from matthew did not refer to the old testament, and you provided none but responded:

"It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this."

To help those not reading the whole thread, here is one of the important quotes:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

So, I guess we do agree. It IS obvious on it's face if you read it carefully.

Stop being dishonest.

I’m a different poster. I quoted an entire passage from Matthew on that thread. That’s the passage you pretended for pages to misunderstand. But obviously you couldn’t have done that if the passage wasn’t there in the first place.

You’re also quoting the “do not think...” passage, which btw was quoted *to follow up on the Matthew passage you claim wasn’t there (with the result that your post just now is a long non sequitur)* out of context. The context was explained to you in that thread, but are you also conveying that context here? No, you’re continuing to quote it out of context.

Who’s dishonest?

Nothing you quoted on that wall of text contradicted the original point, and you offered no explanation.

I recommend you bring this all back up on that thread and try again.

You were given several explanations of that passage. I gave one of the explanations. Not to mention, the passage is clear on its face to anybody with a modicum of reading skills, which I’ll assume you have.

Not going back to your hate thread because the topic on this thread is your rhetorical dishonesty. And you’re doing a great job of proving that, over and over, on this thread.

As I suspected, you got nothing, gish galloper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there are the rhetorical games played by some (not all) atheists on this forum.

I’m not even thinking of the childish ad homonyms. Those are tedious but easily ignored.

As just one example, pretending to misunderstand empirically demonstrable things, like the words in bible passages. I’m thinking in particular of the recent “The Bible is immoral” thread, where someone posted a passage from Matthew about the New Testament relationship to supposedly “immoral” parts of the Old Testament. This particular atheist spent pages misinterpreting it and pretending not to understand it. Note: all anybody asked of her was to try her darndest to understand 4 simple sentences consisting of very short words—nobody expected her to believe it. Dumb as a brick or deliberately obtuse? You tell me.

Not only are you insulting again, you are lying - again.

You were asked for evidence as to why the quotes from matthew did not refer to the old testament, and you provided none but responded:

"It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this."

To help those not reading the whole thread, here is one of the important quotes:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

So, I guess we do agree. It IS obvious on it's face if you read it carefully.

Stop being dishonest.

I’m a different poster. I quoted an entire passage from Matthew on that thread. That’s the passage you pretended for pages to misunderstand. But obviously you couldn’t have done that if the passage wasn’t there in the first place.

You’re also quoting the “do not think...” passage, which btw was quoted *to follow up on the Matthew passage you claim wasn’t there (with the result that your post just now is a long non sequitur)* out of context. The context was explained to you in that thread, but are you also conveying that context here? No, you’re continuing to quote it out of context.

Who’s dishonest?

Nothing you quoted on that wall of text contradicted the original point, and you offered no explanation.

I recommend you bring this all back up on that thread and try again.

You were given several explanations of that passage. I gave one of the explanations. Not to mention, the passage is clear on its face to anybody with a modicum of reading skills, which I’ll assume you have.

Not going back to your hate thread because the topic on this thread is your rhetorical dishonesty. And you’re doing a great job of proving that, over and over, on this thread.

As I suspected, you got nothing, gish galloper.

Reminding everybody here of their first grader’s pettiness when confronted by facts doesn’t do atheists in general any favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there are the rhetorical games played by some (not all) atheists on this forum.

I’m not even thinking of the childish ad homonyms. Those are tedious but easily ignored.

As just one example, pretending to misunderstand empirically demonstrable things, like the words in bible passages. I’m thinking in particular of the recent “The Bible is immoral” thread, where someone posted a passage from Matthew about the New Testament relationship to supposedly “immoral” parts of the Old Testament. This particular atheist spent pages misinterpreting it and pretending not to understand it. Note: all anybody asked of her was to try her darndest to understand 4 simple sentences consisting of very short words—nobody expected her to believe it. Dumb as a brick or deliberately obtuse? You tell me.

Not only are you insulting again, you are lying - again.

You were asked for evidence as to why the quotes from matthew did not refer to the old testament, and you provided none but responded:

"It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this."

To help those not reading the whole thread, here is one of the important quotes:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

So, I guess we do agree. It IS obvious on it's face if you read it carefully.

Stop being dishonest.

I’m a different poster. I quoted an entire passage from Matthew on that thread. That’s the passage you pretended for pages to misunderstand. But obviously you couldn’t have done that if the passage wasn’t there in the first place.

You’re also quoting the “do not think...” passage, which btw was quoted *to follow up on the Matthew passage you claim wasn’t there (with the result that your post just now is a long non sequitur)* out of context. The context was explained to you in that thread, but are you also conveying that context here? No, you’re continuing to quote it out of context.

Who’s dishonest?

Nothing you quoted on that wall of text contradicted the original point, and you offered no explanation.

I recommend you bring this all back up on that thread and try again.

You were given several explanations of that passage. I gave one of the explanations. Not to mention, the passage is clear on its face to anybody with a modicum of reading skills, which I’ll assume you have.

Not going back to your hate thread because the topic on this thread is your rhetorical dishonesty. And you’re doing a great job of proving that, over and over, on this thread.

As I suspected, you got nothing, gish galloper.

Reminding everybody here of their first grader’s pettiness when confronted by facts doesn’t do atheists in general any favors.

You have presented no facts.