Dustin Kesselberg's Beliefs - His Very Own Thread

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I see a teeny tiny First Amendment problem here. Anyone else?

Only if you live in the United States. BTW, I don't believe in a static constitution. I believe it should evolve and change.

Abducting innocents and brainwashing them into your cult. Charming.

Abducting? Are soup kitchens "abducting" people? Is inviting them to a voluntary bible lesson after they eat "brainwashing" them?

 

[noblecaboose]

The government.

The people who collect your taxes and distribute them for numerous purposes.

Which government? As in, what country's government? Or do you mean all governments?

Baptists, Evangelicals and that's it. Any protestant church. I'm not so sure about catholics though. Definitely not Muslims or Mormons. Not Jewish either unless they emphasize the importance of Jesus as lord and savior.

Episcopalians are protestants, as are other branches of Christianity who do are not evangelical and who do support church/state separation.
Also, I could be mistaken, but I don't think Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah. Well, except Jews for Jesus.

All of the above. Teaching the doctrines of the bible. Helping people who are vulnerable and then converting them.

Okay, so do you mean the doctrines of the OT or the NT?
Also, why do you think it is up to your government to support the spread of a particular religion? Isn't christianity strong enough to stand on its own without having to pick off the sick and vulnerable members of the herd?

 

[PixyMisa]

Only if you live in the United States.

I see other problems if you live in, say, Italy, or Iran, or India, or Ireland.

BTW, I don't believe in a static constitution. I believe it should evolve and change.

Yeah, starting with the First Amendment.

Abducting? Are soup kitchens "abducting" people?

Maybe. Okay, I'll be fair: No.

Is inviting them to a voluntary bible lesson after they eat "brainwashing" them?

Yes.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Which government? As in, what country's government? Or do you mean all governments?

All of them for their respective countries.

Episcopalians are protestants, as are other branches of Christianity who do are not evangelical and who do support church/state separation.
Also, I could be mistaken, but I don't think Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah. Well, except Jews for Jesus.

Well Episcopalians would be OK then.

Okay, so do you mean the doctrines of the OT or the NT?

NT.

Also, why do you think it is up to your government to support the spread of a particular religion? Isn't christianity strong enough to stand on its own without having to pick off the sick and vulnerable members of the herd?

No. Isn't that obvious?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yeah, starting with the First Amendment.

Indeed.

Maybe. Okay, I'll be fair: No.

Good.

Yes.

Well if educating people voluntarily about the word of our lord is "brainwashing" then brainwash away.

 

[noblecaboose]

No. Isn't that obvious?

Then let me rephrase, why do you believe christianity isn't strong enough to stand on its own merits without pushing it down people's throats?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then let me rephrase, why do you believe christianity isn't strong enough to stand on its own merits without pushing it down people's throats?

Personally, I blame Myspace and MTV.

 

[PixyMisa]

Indeed.

Just wanted to know where you stand.

Well if educating people voluntarily about the word of our lord is "brainwashing" then brainwash away.

What lord is that? Where is your evidence that any of what you are saying is actually true?

In a science class, you perform experiments right there to test the claims made in the textbook.

In a mathematics class, you are working in a self-contained but well-defined logical construct, but you are shown many testable cases of how it works in the real world.

History, real history, ties back to historical documents and physical evidence. When the documentary evidence conflicts with the physical, or with a larger body of documents, it is rejected.

That's education.

That's not what you are doing.

 

[PixyMisa]

Personally, I blame Myspace and MTV.

And the previous 2000 years?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And the previous 2000 years?

What about then? Christianity wasn't declining then.

 

[Solus]

What about then? Christianity wasn't declining then.

No, back then around 650 C.E. Islam was a rising religion as well.

 

[PixyMisa]

No measuring a second at all?

No.

But we need to measure something needed to get a second?

What? The definition of the second involves measurement and mathematics. That's true of any rigorous definition of term relating to the real world.

Perhaps because I'm not using mathematical terms...

THEN YOU CAN'T CONSTRUCT A PROOF.

Elaborate.

Already done.

 

[PixyMisa]

What about then? Christianity wasn't declining then.

So, why in that time was Christianity not strong enough to stand on its own merits without pushing it down people's throats?

Or if it was strong enough, why did it do so anyway?

And why, since the Enlightenment when this behaviour was at last curtailed, has Christianity been in decline (with intermittent and regional periods of revival, but in decline overall)?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What? The definition of the second involves measurement and mathematics. That's true of any rigorous definition of term relating to the real world.

You said no measurement was needed. But now "The definition of the second involves measurement and mathematics."?

THEN YOU CAN'T CONSTRUCT A PROOF.

evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Proof

By definition I can.

Already done.

Where? Please be specific. Stop dancing around every request for evidence.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So, why in that time was Christianity not strong enough to stand on its own merits without pushing it down people's throats?

Or if it was strong enough, why did it do so anyway?

And why, since the Enlightenment when this behaviour was at last curtailed, has Christianity been in decline (with intermittent and regional periods of revival, but in decline overall)?

Let me ask you: What is worse? Getting religion taught to you so you can convert or burning in hell for all eternity?


Though choice, huh?

 

[PixyMisa]

Let me ask you: What is worse? Getting religion taught to you so you can convert or burning in hell for all eternity?

Though choice, huh?

Not a choice at all.

If your God would leave people to burn in hell for all eternity simply because they had never heard of it, then it deserves nothing but contempt.

 

[PixyMisa]

You said no measurement was needed.

No. I said nothing of the sort.

But now "The definition of the second involves measurement and mathematics."?

Yes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Proof

By definition I can.

Nope. You lose.

Where? Please be specific. Stop dancing around every request for evidence.

I explained it to you many times, and provided numerous excerpts from related Wiki articles. (Albeit largely for my own amusement.)

You apparently missed all of this, even though you replied extensively to those posts.

Once more:

Pragmatism, as per the common dictionary definition, addresses the topic of utility.

The philosophical school of pragmatism, as per the Wiki article you linked to, is a collection of arguments about epistemology.

Why, exactly, do you think those are the same thing?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I explained it to you many times, and provided numerous excepts from related Wiki articles. You apparently missed all of this, even though you replied extensively to those posts.

Once more:

Pragmatism, as per the common dictionary definition, addresses the topic of utility.

The philosophical school of pragmatism, as per the Wiki article you linked to, is a collection of arguments about epistemology.

Why, exactly, do you think those are the same thing?

Most of the thinkers who describe themselves as pragmatists consider practical consequences or real effects to be vital components of both meaning and truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

1.character or conduct that emphasizes practicality. 2.a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pragmatism

 

[PixyMisa]

So what you're saying, I'm led to assume, is that you think they are the same thing because they both use the word "practical"?

Which is why you linked to a Wiki article you clearly hadn't read, and which had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, but contained the word you were interested in?

Thanks.

 

[Morrigan]

Personally, I blame Myspace and MTV.

So Christianity is so weak that it starts falling apart with the introduction of a TV channel and a website?

Interesting.