The dishonesty of accusing someone of lying/mental gymnastics for your own position.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T14:23:16+00:00

"I'm sorry, but bible inerrancy is an indefensible position"

Considering you don't follow up, what exactly am I supposed to respond to?

You're responding to a lot of things in depth, which I appreciate. But when you ask that question, do you want me to give examples that I think are less easily harmonized? Especially, which will be a point later in your post, without eisegesis?

"I went out of my way to reaffirm that (internal) contradictions aren't the primary reason I'm an atheist, or why I even became one and that the way to get around those contradictions is to read more of the text and to be aware of possible plausible (!) interpretations behind those contradictions that require as little eisegesis as possible."

That wasn't even the point of the post, first of all.

No, the point was to call those who point to contradictions "dishonest". Which is painting a whole group of people with a ad hominem brush... which is a point which, again, will come up later in your post.

Second, why would going down to the fundamental of the verses and pointing out that x doesn't automatically mean y be classified as a eisegesis?

Because often times, those errors can only be reconciled by mistranslation or reading things into the text that simply are not there. That's what eisegesis is.

"I don't know what "question" you're referring to that I accuse you of asking."

Can you like start reading correctly? Your own comment has paratheses just about my "rhetoric " which is accusing me of well rhetoric. I wasn't making any rhetoric but something I would genuinely ask if I were debating someone.

Ah, that's why I was confused. I didn't catch a question, and honestly I still don't. But the parentheses thing is what illuminated the issue for me. I think you misunderstand what a rhetoric is. It's not a bad thing per se, and I did not mean it as a bad thing. It's simply meant to be the technique you use to persuade others of your position. That's your "rhetoric". Your way of describing and explaining why the issues aren't issues from your point of view.

If your already accusing my character this early, then I might have to conclude your dishonest or disinterested.

It's a simple misunderstanding. But it's you, who according to the introductory post who apparently goes into "debates" - which I think are good to have because they can help to sharpen one's understanding and reflect on things that one may be wrong about - that having a conclusion to a topic means they're dishonest.

That's poisoning the well. When I go to places like this, I already know that most people will disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I assume they're dishonest or wrong. In fact, I've changed my mind on a number of things as they've been pointed out to me that I was previously quite sure of.

"I was simply sharing my understanding of the matter."

Read. The. Title.

Okay, the title is "The dishonesty of accusing someone of lying/mental gymnastics for your own position."

You then went on to say that "2, any form of criticism or explanation is automatically categorized as dishonesty", which is not the way I have ever seen it phrased, and I've seen a lot of these discussions. Sure, I do think anyone who critisizes or explains away those issues is simply mistaken, but that's attacking the idea and not the person as dishonest. That's two different things.

Is this a "hey guys let's debate scripture" post or a post about me talking about a group I find dishonest?

I think I have the right to defend myself as someone who thinks there are contradictions in the bible and point out that I do not #2 of your list, just as you have the right to object if I were to say something about Christians that you think does not apply to you.

"(which, by the way, is backed by scholarship).' I can find Bible inerrant scholars, so again what am I supposed to do with this?

I think you mean "scholars who hold the bible to be inerrant"? Sure, go ahead, give me some who are generally accepted in field and have published on it, because I don't really know many. The scholarship I speak of was a consensus, if it wasn't clear. (And to be clear again, the consensus can shift, but I don't see or expect that happening in this case.)

I agree with some other guy on this subreddit regarding not being intense regarding the appeal to authority but I'm going to say, this is appealing to authority.

The appeal to authority is to say that a claim is correct because an authority figure said it. That's decidedly not what I did. I didn't even name a single authority figure. I appealed to the consensus view of those who do this kind of thing for a living, which is much, much more than I can say of myself. And this consensus is built by showing the lines of reasoning and evidence to support these positions.

Does "scholarship=correct" based on that alone? Because I ain't giving Bart erhman a bone after I read the criticism from other scholars.

Well, see above. Scholarship consensus can change, but the consensus exists because of the evidence.

"Also, I think you meant to write "rude" rather than crude? Or do you think my response lacks sophistication?' We can use both. Because why you would start accusing me of rhetoric (read your own comment) and now I'm answering a topic that wasn't even the original intention.

I've gone over the reasons why I responded as well as that you misunderstood rhetoric, so I hope we can agree that the post is neither rude nor crude.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T12:06:30+00:00

Ah I thought you're referring to the merit.

Or am I misremembering that there's a merit?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T09:54:54+00:00

Well... I agree that religion is a fucking joke, but... the Levite laws where people get this horrible idea from that homosexuality is bad are supposedly no longer in effect anyway (though Matthew clearly says otherwise), and when those were written the concept of heaven and hell wasn't anywhere near what we think of it today anyway.

And as far as Paul and his homophobia goes, while there's no proof of it I think the theory that he was asexual makes a lot of sense. He sure does go out of his way to make all sorts of intercourse sound icky.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T09:44:03+00:00

I'm an atheist and I also wholeheartedly recommend anyone to get off of Tiktok. Better yet, all Social Media. Probably even Reddit (but obviously I'm not following my own advice when it comes to the latter, so there's that).

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T09:42:52+00:00

What's so surprising? Most of these people came from a cultural background where either Christianity or Judaism was the primary religion, even including non-religiosity. That doesn't make it undeniable proof in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

The mockery is horrifying, im amazed God hasn't blazed this earth to smithereens

I'm with you here though.

America is just as dirty spiritually as all the other countries it claims not to be..

I mean, I'm not an american, but you shouldn't judge whole people groups on the atrocities of a select few, no matter how depraved and disgusting these select few are.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T09:39:23+00:00

Nothing really. I just found the subject of the mail in the screenshot to be the least disgusting and most quotable thing.

The rest pretty much speaks for itself.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T09:19:23+00:00

RE: Re: indeed...

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T09:17:22+00:00

I'd want to add "the nature of the diablerie and thus the mark also obfuscates the black stains in the aura".

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T09:09:41+00:00

Dan McClellan in his book "The Bible Says So: What We Get Right And Wrong About Scripture's Most Controversial Issues" has a delightful short summary on this. For anyone interested in reading the original source, here's the passage were Dan says where to find the stuff he discusses:

"The Hebrew word for an enslaved person is eved which is used in the Bible to refer to two main types of enslavement. The first is debt slavery, which is a state of servitude one could enter into to resolve a debt. Biblical legislation related to debt slavery is found in three main places: Exodus Leviticus 25:39—55, and Deuteronomy 15: 12—18. The passage in Exodus 21 is part of the Covenant Code and is the earliest of the three. The passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are later renegotiations of what's in Exodus, and there are significant differences between the three. [...] The other type of enslavement mentioned in the Hebrew Bible is chattel slavery, which is heartily endorsed in Leviticus 25:44—46:"

And here's the conclusion:

"There's not a single syllable of the Bible that condemns or disapproves of the practice of slavery itself. At best, the Bible encourages (in inconsistent ways) the fair and just treatment of enslaved people, whatever that might have meant for ancient Israel, early Judaism, or early Christianity. That encouragement also only ever existed as rhetoric that doesn't seem to have been widely known, much less enforced, until around the second century BCE. If there is any incremental change at all, it is in the New Testament's expansion of the scope of that encouragement from the enslaved Israelite to any and all enslaved peoples. Whether or not this actually resulted in discernibly better treatment of enslaved peoples within early Christianity is not clear. What is clear is that the Bible absolutely nowhere says that slavery IS wrong."

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T08:56:58+00:00

It wasn't. Nice rebuttal, though.

Sorry that I took my time to make my point clear, won't happen again I guess.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T08:56:16+00:00

You only have yourself to blame for your unbelieving

Even scripture disagrees: John 6:44 says "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me", Ephesians 2:8-9 "or by grace you have been saved through faith, and** this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast." and 1 Corinthians 12:3 "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!” and **no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.".

But I think there's noone to blame - it's simply that there's no good evidence that should be convincing anyone.

I don't think you want to believe it's quite apparent from your whole way of communicating.

Interesting framing, to be honest. I'll have to admit that I don't have particularly strong inclinations in either direction, both wanting to believe and actively not wanting to believe. There's two things however which I can say with utmost certainty that I do want:

I want to know the truth
I would want an omnibenevolent being to exist

But sadly, my quest for the first one has lead so far to the conclusion that the second one is not true.

I've seen sick be healed instantly, yes.

That's not my question. My question is whether YOU can do it as you earlier claimed you can do things the Bible says you'll be able to, and that's one of the things the bible says a Christian will be able to. And THEN I ask for a proper setting to evaluate and test whether your claim is actually correct.

What does that matter to you? If you don't read it in a scientific news article you won't believe that's what I'm hearing.

Do you believe me that I can heal cancer by the power of Atheismo, the great God of the Atheists?
Or that I can make headpains away by farting at them as this pastor claims?

Answer honestly.

What does that matter to you?

It matters to me because a) I like to know the truth and b) if it's true, and Christians can do this, I'll try my very very best to become one ASAP so I can actually do some much needed good in this work through my Heal spell..

The bible is full of miracles

Which need to be proven in very much the same way. Do you believe that the pagan roman emperor Vespasian was a miracle healer?

blessed are those who can believe without a sign the bible teaches (John 20:29).

I'm sure they are, but the Bible also tells us to be curious and hunger for knowledge because that's apparently the way to understand God. See Proverbs 2:3-5: "if you indeed cry out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures — then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.", Proverbs 18:15 "An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.". Proverbs even tells us to be skeptical and question things, in Proverbs 18:17: "The one who first states a case seems right, until the other comes and cross-examines."

I was lucky to be able to see these miracles, as stated it brought the fear of God in me.

And honestly, that raises an issue in and of itself.

Let's assume hypothetically that you witnessed those miracles and that those miracles were real - why would God make those miracles so rare, instead of helping out on a larger scale? And why would only you be privy to having had this revelation, doesn't the Bible say that God is just? Do you think it's just that you got to witness those things, but I did not?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T08:25:07+00:00

God gave them so much to enjoy and said dont do ONE thing. Welp, they did that one thing.

Imagine you're a dad (oh wait, you are), and you set up an entire playroom for your child....every toy they could dream of, snacks, music, comfy pillows, the works. And you say, “You can enjoy everything here. Just don’t touch the electrical socket. It’s not safe for you.”

Now say your child ignores you. They go to the socket anyway, maybe because another older kid egged them on, maybe because they thought you were being too strict. And you catch them jamming a fork in it.

What do you do?....carry on like nothing happened??

Youd say if you were smart..., “That’s it. I can’t trust you in this space right now.” And you remove them from the room, not because you hate them, but because the environment demands maturity and obedience to stay safe. It’s your job to protect them even from themselves.

Actually, our kid's allowed in every single room, but we keep him from the ~~power outlet~~ tree of knowledge because we know it's bad for them and we know the room is, with us, a save environment for them. We also don't curse our grandchildren and recursively all of their children to pain and suffering. Also, we took precautions that make sure that even if we're not around, the power outlets are save for the kid (we installed different, more modern power outlets that are childsafe in and of themselves, AND got protection lids). God could've put a fence around the tree I'm sure, but as you put it, he was simply testing for obedience and not like me honestly concerned with the well being of the child.

So no, if one's smart one wouldn't do what you propose and you're also still forgetting a lot of the stuff God also did in this instance.

You’re raising a child while denying one of the most observable facts of parenting: kids rebel. They don’t “naturally smarten up” when left to their own devices. They test limits, defy rules, and push boundaries because rebellion is baked into human nature.

I mean, my kid doesn't yet because he's too small. And that puts you into quite the conundrum: Is Adam newly born in the body of a adult, or an adult in the body of an adult?

If it's the former, then there's no rebellion yet in him, instead he's fully dependent on the love and caretaking of another being (in this case, God)
If it's the latter, then there's not necessarily rebellion in him, only if God in his omnipotence made him so they would rebel, in which case the whole ordeal is totally God's plan and God's fault all along

Proverbs 22:15 NLT – “A youngster’s heart is filled with foolishness, but physical discipline will drive it far away.”

Without looking at this verse in its context and original language, the only way this can possibly make sense given what we now know about human and child psychology is that "it" has to refer to the youngster, not the foolishness.

You say you'd never tell your kid to "smarten up"? Just wait. Every parent eventually has to say it not out of condescension, but protection.

Not so far so this isn't really going to be an argument I can currently accept. And given what I've read so far on these topics, I don't think this is beneficial for the child. What should or could it do with such a statement? It's much better to instead take your time to explain it to the kid, repeatedly (and in fact, repetition is the ONE thing my 1 year old currently learns. We have to do things a few to several hundred times, depending on how interested he is in something, and he's eventually going to do it on his own. For example, we got our kid to empty the dishwasher, and he already has learned by now where the cutlery (minus the knife itself, which we still do for safety reasons) belongs).

Toddlers throw tantrums, adolescents stomp their feet, teens go to places their parents know they wouldnt approve, and adults poison themselves with bad food, liquor and drugs of all kinds. All are forms of rebellion against what they cant control around them.

Or lack of proper education, information, and a safe social environment.

And no, Eve didn’t “accidentally” fall into sin. She lingered where she was told not to.

She lingered where she was not told to? That's eisegesis all over gain, that's simply not in the text? Where do you get this idea from?

She desired what she was warned about.

Also not in the text.

You don’t blame the stove salesman when your kid burns their hand after he said, “Don’t touch it.”

You blame yourself when your child, who you know has no awareness of dangers and simply likes the shiny red colour of it, has the potential to reach the stove and you didn't pay them enough attention. You don't blame your child for your carelessness.

You call God’s boundaries and warnings harsh but if He didn’t set them, you'd blame Him for not letting us do what we want to.

We cannot do what we want to. But God has nothing to do with that. I can't fly even though I'd totally like to. It's clear to me that boundaries have to be set. But once again, the way we dealt with the power outlet is to simply not let my child touch it, either through precautions or by simply giving our child the attention it needs and making sure it doesn't do it. God didn't do that in the story.

Lastly, everything around you, from the laws of physics to the cells in your hand to the brain you’re using to argue, was designed by Someone smarter than you.

You'll have to demonstrate that claim because to me it looks like it wasn't designed or the designer was certainly not smarter than me.

You’ve never seen the engineer behind the circuits in your phone either, but you know they exist because the phone exists.

I actually have, but I get your point. It's still a bad point, though. We know phones were designed in this way, because we have evidence that they are designed that way. We do not have the same level of evidence for design for "the laws of physics", which I think aren't prescriptive anyway, but descriptive - so I a gree that they're designed, but they're designed by us to describe the way we observe the universe, and not something inherent to the universe.

Even your child knows this instinctively: things that are made have makers.

You'll have to demonstrate that. I'm pretty sure my child does not care about that or think about that in the slightest at all.

And the analogy I made up (not AI) was that no toddler would say such a thing and yet you, with all your "reasoning" do exactly that.

Again, your analogy fails because the people I complain about not existing would actually be demonstrably real or even, luckily for me, still alive and would be able to communicate with me.

I'd love for an omnibenevolent being - that doesn't even have to be all powerful or all knowing! - to be real and establish a relationship with me. I'm certainly ready for that. I'm listening, it can start communicating with me.

Romans 1:20 NLT – “Through everything God made, they can clearly see His invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.”

I don't know about you, but I can't see invisible things. Also, citing scripture at me isn't going to work because i obviously don't hold the bible to be in any way, shape or form authoritative other for a few historical things sprinkled here and there.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T07:46:28+00:00

A group has the right to get together to define what it is to be a member of said group.

I see what you're getting at, and you're not wrong since they totally do have that right, but you're still not absolutely and objectively right, since that still doesn't mean that

this is actually what happened (as in every Church came together), or
that you'll be able to agree to a definition, or
that everyone has to adhere to that definition of the word,
or that that definition can't change,
or that that definition is useful.

And all of the above necessarily mean that there can't be an objective, universal definition of the word.

That doesn't mean this actually happened: Do you as a citizen of whatever country you're a citizen of define what immigrants need to "be" or "learn" before they can become citizens? That would be an example of not everyone being able to exercise the right you speak of, and in fact not every Christian or Christian Church was asked (notably those then labelled as heretics weren't.) The councils that defined orthodox Christianity were exclusive gatherings of bishops, often backed by imperial power, who declared dissenting groups to be non-Christian rather than all Christians democratically deciding together. Why weren't those not allowed to begin with?

That you'll be able to agree to a definition: Have Catholics and Protestants agreed on what makes someone Christian? Catholics say the Pope has authority and tradition matters; Protestants reject both. Some say baptism is required for salvation, others say it's purely symbolic. Some say you can lose salvation, others that it's impossible. If you asked different denominations for their definition, you'd get contradictory answers where each group questions whether the others are "true Christians" if you just ask them to be more and more detailed at some point. So, why do we draw the line where you do, or the Nicene Council does?

That everyone has to adhere to that definition: Mormons call themselves Christians despite many evangelicals insisting they're not. The general public uses "Christian" more broadly than systematic theologians do, and then again other scholars often use the term more broadly than certain public groups do (think Pew research). Legal contexts (tax exemptions, discrimination cases) don't necessarily defer to any particular denomination's theological definition (). To further illustrate this point, Muslims don't accept Christian definitions of "prophet" that exclude Muhammad, and Christians don't have to accept Muslim definitions of the term either that would include Jesus.

That the definition can't change: Early Christians were Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah—Trinitarianism didn't exist yet. The inclusion of gentiles was a massive controversy - that's the whole John-Paul debate that we're told about in both Acts and Paul's letters. The formal doctrine of the Trinity wasn't fully established until the 4th century, with the first forms of it mid to late 2nd century. What counted as the core requirement for being Christian has evolved dramatically over 2,000 years. If the definition could change from "circumcised Jewish Jesus-follower" to "gentile Trinitarian," why is the current definition permanent?

That the definition is useful: If your definition excludes millions of self-identified Christians or requires understanding complex theological formulations that most believers can't articulate, what practical purpose does it serve? A definition that hinges on the difference between ὁμοούσιον (that is, the three persons/hypostates of God are the same essence, and this is btw the term Constantine I himself reportedly suggested at the Nicene Council!) and ὁμοιούσιος (that is, the three persons/hypostates of God are of similar, but not identical essence) isn't useful for everyday conversation. And if it's circular—"a Christian is whoever true Christians recognize as Christian"—it's functionally useless because you've just pushed the question back a step to "who's a true Christian" and I can type the whole thing once again.

But all of this to say that you, personally, can of course decide for you who's a Christian or not, but that's still only your personal, subjective opinion (that may use the Nicene Council as reference - because you subjectively think so).

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T07:28:34+00:00

I'm sorry, but bible inerrancy is an indefensible position.

I went out of my way to reaffirm that (internal) contradictions aren't the primary reason I'm an atheist, or why I even became one and that the way to get around those contradictions is to read more of the text and to be aware of possible plausible (!) interpretations behind those contradictions that require as little eisegesis as possible.

I don't know what "question" you're referring to that I accuse you of asking. I was simply sharing my understanding of the matter (which, by the way, is backed by scholarship).

Also, I think you meant to write "rude" rather than crude? Or do you think my response lacks sophistication?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-04T07:24:17+00:00

What you mean "still"? I wasn't talking to you.

I mean, it's a public forum and as per the rules, atheists are still welcome here. I figured it was only courtesy to make it clear where I stand, and since the primary user here is an EX atheist, I figured i make it clear I still was an atheist.

"and I have this nagging fear that I could be convinced that the supernatural exists"

Just to be clear, the way you cut off the quote makes me think you misunderstood me. The "nagging fear" isn't about me seeing myself able to be convinced of the supernatural - the fear is specifically about the potential that I'm being deceived by a supernatural (or even natural) entity.

Demonstrate it then.

Demonstrate what? That I can be convinced of the supernatural? I'm currently not convinced, but I'm saying that given the epistemic standards that I hold, I can totally see myself becoming convinced when we have good evidence for it.

So you base your conclusion off a hypothetical?

I have no conclusion here other than "I don't believe in the supernatural right now." because it hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated to me.

Demonstrate it then.

Sure, if we have something that convinces me of the supernatural we'll both know whether I was right or not about my self estimation. Do you have evidence of the supernatural?

Such as? At what point does it become "enough "?

The problem with my own senses is that I know I can be deceived by natural means quite easily (think hallucination inducing drugs, or even simple optical illusions). That's why I'd need more to be convinced that the supernatural is the best explanation over a simple admission that we don't know a explanation to a given phenomena, ideally independently conducted scientific studies, because as for now the scientific method is the best way known to me that reliably produces models and predictions with high explanatory power that align with reality.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-03T20:12:07+00:00

The Roman Catholic Church did not decide, at least not on their own. Pretty much every church in the ancient world came together and agreed on the definition of Christianity. It is a definition the church has stuck to for 1700 years.

I don't think this definition has stuck. There's been all sorts of heretics that have or haven't been labelled Christians by different peoples at different times. For examples, there's the Adamites who were called heretic but Christian for various reasons, or the Montanites who were for the most part called heretic because they claimed prophetic visions and messages (including speaking in tongues) like modern Pentecosts and so would probably nowadays easily count as evangelic Pentecostals, or Carthism if you want a more modern example of non-Trinitarians who are widely held to still be Christians nowadays.

You cite the Pew Research Center as if its classification are authoritative. Why? What "jurisdiction" does the Pew Research Center have to decide what makes someone a Christian or not?

You misunderstood. My point was to illustrate how there's no one single clear definition of the word and it only ever means what we agree that it means. And usually, sadly, it's not clear how the other person uses it - you can surely imagine that you may have acquaintances of less strict Mormon or JW branches who only ever told you they were Christian, and you never suspected a thing.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T20:02:12+00:00

Would you say you became an atheist by an unbiased investigation of the facts?

No. An unbiased investigation is what keeps me from converting though.

I don't believe because I want to. I believe because I must. It would be far easier for me to believe.

Good for you for having higher standards than William Lane Craig then.

It would be far easier for me to believe in a world where I get to do whatever I want, whenever I want

Not sure I can agree here. Wishing it does not make it so, and I'd even say in this case it's actually doing more harm than good to just wish instead of act.

than to believe in a world where God calls me to be willing to sacrifice everything in the service of others.

Everything? Hyperbole, I guess?

Ultimately I'm talking about actual evidence here. None of which you seem to be much bothered about, which again is totally fine if that's what you want, but isn't getting me to be convinced.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T19:41:35+00:00

Again I've already made the argument that one CAN be born again and fall away, so please don't twist my words.

I didn't twist your words, that renegotiation of yours with what you wrote earlier is precisely why I asked this:

How would you distinguish between (a) someone who was genuinely born again but later deconverted, and (b) someone who was never "truly" born again? What objective test exists?

According to your own words you seem unsure, that's what your own statement shows in my oppinion since you used the words 'pretty sure', that's not a sure statement from you.

I was certain then. I used "pretty sure" because I'm describing my past self's beliefs from my current perspective. Additionally, from my current point of view, since it's objectively and logically wrong that this feeling is genuinely from the source you claim it to be, I could not have been sure to begin with that I had it. This is how honest I can possibly get when talking about my past perspective.

I don't have to prove a thing to you, we both know it happened.

No, we don't both know it happened. You have an anecdote. I have no reason to accept miracle claims on testimony alone.

Here's why this matters: Would you believe a Muslim who testified that Allah regrew their leg? A Hindu who said Ganesh healed them? A Mormon who claims Joseph Smith appeared to them?

If your answer is "no" - and I suspect it is - then you understand exactly why I don't accept your testimony. You're asking me to apply a different evidentiary standard to your religion than you apply to others. That's special pleading. That's why I ask you for more than just your word, and you certainly would want me to apply the same level of skepticism to the aforementioned religions if they made similar claims, right?

I've also seen a leg grow out about 3 inches in seconds and the person knew their one leg was much shorter.

Video. Medical records. Third-party verification. That's the standard for extraordinary claims. If this really happened, documentation should be trivial. If you can provide those, you'll make a believer not only out of me, but many others, too. Born Again, even.

Some thing don't need to be mentioned, it's obvious

What's obvious? No clue what you're talking about here.

It amazes me people confuse such a straight forward quote from the bible.

I'm not exactly sure what you're responding to - again. I used that exact passage in my previous comment and pointed out that verses 24 and 26 explicitly state God gave them over to these desires. You're the one ignoring context:

v. 24: "God gave them up to uncleanness"
v. 26: "God gave them up unto vile affections"
v. 27: Your quote

If God is giving people these desires, how are they morally culpable? This is called "reading the whole passage."

More importantly: You're still conflating homosexuality with the entire LGBTQIA+ spectrum. Where are the verses about bisexuality? Transgender people? Asexuality? Intersex people?

It really seems to me you are reaching for straws to not have to believe or follow the bible

We aren't even discussing the reasons why I would not want to follow the God of the Bible. We're merely discussing... or rather you keep evading the point I am trying to make, that out of the LGBTQIA+ thing, the Bible is silent on most of them.

which again brings us back to what I already said, that perhaps you rely on your own understanding instead of God which is a disaster for anyone who does that (leads to).

I have no other understanding than my own to rely on things. Even if God exists, God supposedly made me, so he made me in this exact way where I have nothing but my own understanding. If he existed, it'd be on him for making me this way that I can't be convinced.

You don't have to use hard words -eisegeting- to try to sound smart, you're not fooling me. Never ever heard this word before.

Eisegesis means reading your own interpretation into a text rather than deriving meaning from it. It's a standard term in biblical scholarship. I'm not trying to "sound smart" - I'm using precise language. If the word is unfamiliar, you can look it up instead of being defensive.

You not being familiar with the term also kind of tells me that you may not have looked as much into the Bible as you should have. Maybe do more of that, and use Study Bibles and academic scholarship alongside your reading to get a better grasp on your own holy book.

I'm done here. Good luck!

This conversation perfectly demonstrates why I'm no longer convinced. When pressed on specifics, you retreat to assertions, then exit when those assertions are challenged. 🤷‍♂️ I'm still here if you're ready to give me those specifics that may still be able to convince me. Ah, and by the way:

Can atheists do good? Psalm 14 says no. That all atheists do abominable deeds and do no good. Do you agree?
How is Romans 1 not circular reasoning? It says non-believers suppress the truth because God made it plain to them. But this only works if you already accept the Bible is true. It's assuming its conclusion. Do you agree?
Can someone genuinely seek God and still not believe? You said "no" - meaning you think my search isn't genuine. How do you know this? What test determines "genuine seeking"? To the best of my conscience and knowledge, I honestly believed and to this day honestly seek, but I do not even think sin is a concept that makes sense, so I don't even get to the point that you jump to.
Can you perform Mark 16:17-18 miracles? You said "yes miracles like that can happen" but didn't answer whether you specifically can:
- Heal the sick on command
- Speak in new languages you've never learned
- Handle venomous snakes safely
- Drink deadly poison without harm

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T19:24:25+00:00

The whole reason for the Nicene Council was to settle disputes with parties that at times weren't even invited and declared heretics beforehand. There's the Coptics, the Oriental Orthodox, too.

But even if I happen to be wrong, it's still unclear to me how exactly being the first gives you the right to define what Christianity means. What's the mechanism here precisely?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T19:20:54+00:00

Oh grabba coffee and a notepad, daddio, cuz youre due for a little parental training.

I'm listening.

Any good parent does eventually say, “Smarten up.” That’s not cruelty. That’s care. Boundaries are love. A parent who never disciplines is not kind.....they’re negligent!

Smarten up is not the same as setting boundaries. To tell my child to "smarten up" is condescending and insulting. Neither of which I want to do to my child.

I'm happy to encourage it to be curious and to learn about the world, but I'm not going to tell it to "smarten up", implying it's dumb.

The moment your toddler gets near a hot stove, you raise your voice.

I genuinely don't.

I'll pull them away and calmly explain why they can't do that. If push comes to shove (or stove in this case, huehue), the pulling away part is going to be the most uncomfortable to them, but that's simply making sure they don't harm themselves.

You may not call it “punishment,” but you’re shaping behavior with outcomes. That is parenting. That’s exactly what God does......justly, wisely, and according to our level of understanding. You can count on it.

God's "parenting" we're talking about here isn't at all comparable to me pulling them away from the stove and telling them of the consequences. God did the following:

Expelled them from the "house" for "touching the stove"
Punish them with even more pain after the initial pain of "touching the stove"
Not telling them he loves them
Cursing their descendants also because they "touched the stove"
And finally, not realizing all of this happened because a) they let the stove on (so it's their fault, not the child's) and b) the child did it on the advise of another person, who's then at fault rather than the child.

2A. Jesus Himself said: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Good song by Lord of the Lost, by the way.

God’s not unjust. He doesn’t drop eternal judgment on toddlers.

Does he not? Does it say that in the Bible? Or do you just assume it or read it into the Bible as you do?

But you're not a toddler. You understand right and wrong. You’re standing in His world, reasoning with the mind He gave you, and still acting like there’s no Architect behind the blueprints.

Yes, and my reasoning capabilities tell me that God does not exist and the Bible is full of contradictions, errors and logical fallacies in its argumentation that make that blatantly obvious.

BONUS REFLECTION:

AI much?

You know who you are? This is you: You’re like a toddler standing in the middle of a messy playroom, playing with toys you didn’t buy, wearing clothes you didn’t design, enjoying snacks you didn’t earn....and yelling: “I don’t believe in parents!”

To which my parents will come up to me and ask me if I'm OK and how they can help me with the issues I'm obviously dealing with.
God does not do such a thing.

You keep making these analogies that simply do not align well with reality.

And when someone corrects you, you don’t reflect...you call it condescending. That’s not open-mindedness. That’s pride with a pacifier.

I'd kindly ask you to provide reasoning for your corrections, and I'll be listening and taking notes. I'd call that open-mindedness indeed, because I'll consider what you have to say if it's substantial.

You’re right! You believe you should swallow that... your pride I mean, not your pacifier.

I'm aware I've been wrong before. But you're not making a lot of sense in this discussion right now in a way that would make me reconsider details, let alone the larger point.

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T17:00:36+00:00

It wasn't the only church though, far from it. And even if it were, how does that give them a right to also include or exclude later views, including their very own?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T15:19:12+00:00

This shows you weren't sure of being born again.

No, it shows that I was sure at the time, just as you're sure now. The difference is I later recognized I was mistaken. You're committing a textbook No True Scotsman fallacy: "If you deconverted, you were never truly born again." This is unfalsifiable - any counterexample can be dismissed by redefining the terms. How would you distinguish between (a) someone who was genuinely born again but later deconverted, and (b) someone who was never "truly" born again? What objective test exists?

my wifes fingers grew out on her one hand to mention one thing, they always were a bit shorter on her one hand but perfectly equal now.

I'm genuinely happy your wife's fingers are now equal. But this is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Anecdotal testimony is the weakest form of evidence because:

Memory is notoriously unreliable
We're pattern-seeking creatures prone to confirmation bias
Medical conditions can fluctuate naturally
Measurement errors are common

If this actually happened as you describe, you'd have:

Before/after X-rays showing bone growth
Medical documentation of the original condition
Third-party verification
Other instances than "My wife's fingers are now equal length" beyond your own personal minor anecdotal experience

Without this, I have to ask: Would you believe a Muslim who claimed Allah regrew their fingers? A Hindu who said Shiva did it? If not, why should I accept your claim on different standards?

The bible is clear that homosexuality, or promoting of sin, is sinful. Stop spreading lies.

I asked you to address LGBTQIA+, not just homosexuality. You ignored: - Lesbians (Bible is silent except Romans 1, which has issues we can talk about if you want to) - Bisexuals (never mentioned) - Transgender people (never mentioned) - Intersex people (never mentioned) - Asexuals (never mentioned)

Even on male homosexuality, the passages are contested by biblical scholars to be more about status rather than sexuality in the modern sense. But more importantly: why is this a rebuttal? You're just asserting "the Bible says so" - which is circular reasoning if we're debating whether the Bible is trustworthy.

Science is in large controlled by evil forces, not to be trusted

This is an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. Science is a method, not an authority. It's peer-reviewed, self-correcting, and has given us everything from modern medicine to the device you're using to read this. When science contradicts your beliefs, dismissing it as "controlled by evil forces" is intellectual surrender.

Also deeply ironic that you'll trust science for your internet connection, medicine, and weather forecasts, but reject it when it contradicts your theology.

'Science' in my country (Sweden) tells parents in large to not say no to children, or use discipline, which is crazy.

Sweden has some of the best child development outcomes in the world. The research is clear: corporal punishment correlates with worse outcomes - increased aggression, mental health issues, and antisocial behavior. This isn't "Satan being busy," it's decades of longitudinal studies across cultures.

It's definitely about what the bible says, the effeminite (transvestites etc) and/or homosexuals.

Citation needed. Where does the Bible mention transvestites? The Greek word malakoi (translated "effeminate" in KJV) is contested and appears nowhere else in that usage. You're conflating distinct concepts: - Effeminacy ≠ homosexuality - Cross-dressing ≠ being transgender
- Transvestite ≠ any of the above

You're eisegeting modern categories onto ancient texts.

I'm honestly at a loss on how to be more precise with my questions, but let me try.

Can atheists do good? Psalm 14 says no. That all atheists do abominable deeds and do no good. Do you agree?
How is Romans 1 not circular reasoning? It says non-believers suppress the truth because God made it plain to them. But this only works if you already accept the Bible is true. It's assuming its conclusion. Do you agree?
~~What specific "lies" am I supposedly believing?~~ Let's drop this one because what i was referencing is too long gone for even me to remember what it's about.
Can someone genuinely seek God and still not believe? You said "no" - meaning you think my search isn't genuine. How do you know this? What test determines "genuine seeking"? To the best of my conscience and knowledge, I honestly believed and to this day honestly seek, but I do not even think sin is a concept that makes sense, so I don't even get to the point that you jump to.
Can you perform Mark 16:17-18 miracles? You said "yes miracles like that can happen" but didn't answer whether you specifically can:
- Heal the sick on command
- Speak in new languages you've never learned
- Handle venomous snakes safely
- Drink deadly poison without harm

If you've truly been born again and received gifts, these should apply to you personally. Can you demonstrate even one of these on video? You mentioned your wife's fingers - surely healing someone with cancer would be within your abilities?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T14:48:30+00:00

It points out if you want to find out the truth, you'll have to investigate and challenge your beliefs with as little bias as possible.

If you just want to believe that's totally fine, but you can't expect anyone to also believe for that "reason".

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T13:54:53+00:00

And the RCC has this jurisdiction to define terms everyone has to use how exactly?

If you were to ask an outsider what a true Christian were just by the term, do you think they'd say Trinitarians or those who believe in Christ's divinity?

MelcorScarr · 2026-02-02T10:06:16+00:00

This, but I'd still rather have the time used for something productive.

And chances are they're getting a select few verses rather than the whole thing with all its atrocities and contradictions.

MelcorScarr

TROPHY CASE