WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingflatonhisfaceagain,

Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.

You're getting really desperate now. Why are these any more or less "arbitrary redefinitions" of fairies than your "arbitrary redefinition" of a god?

Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.

Another category fuck on your part.

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.

If Leprechauns are bad news and you redefine them into God then what warrant do you have to say that God is bad news. Or even that Leprechauns are bad news?

Redefining terms in mid argument is never Good Hillside.........Perhaps that is what Leprechauns really are?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I feel the time has come for you to make up your mind Outrider.......do these mythical beasts have the ''ridiculous'' characteristics which make comparison to God a bad thing. Or do they not have them and they all including God become respectable suggestions?

Who knows? Are invisible unicorns pink before they become invisible? Do fairies have intangible wings? Are leprechauns living in 'spiritual' pots of gold? Does god count as having a beard because his avatar (which is him) does?

Yes but Outrider if unicorns are ever visible that renders them falsifiable since visibility is measurable.

If they are intangible how do we know they are wings?

Why is a spiritual pot of Gold ''ridiculous''?.

Unfortunately the divinity of Jesus is unfalsifiable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.

Not an untruth because (a) it might be true, and (b) even if it isn't they might genuinely believe it.

They can't support their statement adequately, so it is ultimately an opinion, but that's not lying by any stretch.

O.

It is an untruth if they state it as a fact and true, when it is only a belief.

But we can only really claim that something unfalsiable maybe untrue, You are claiming that it IS an untruth.

[Gordon]

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

How do you know your arbitrary definition is correct in the first place? In addition, how do you know that what you think of as being 'the' arbitrary definition isn't a redefinition?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingflatonhisfaceagain,

Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.

You're getting really desperate now. Why are these any more or less "arbitrary redefinitions" of fairies than your "arbitrary redefinition" of a god?

I've no need to be desperate at all since an arbitrary redefinition is the white flag being run up........so not desperate Hillside, the word is victorious.

[Outrider]

Yes but Outrider if unicorns are ever visible that renders them falsifiable since visibility is measurable.

Unless their pinkness is 'spiritual'.

If they are intangible how do we know they are wings?

It's one of the mysteries of fae-ology.

Why is a spiritual pot of Gold ''ridiculous''?.

Unfortunately the divinity of Jesus is unfalsifiable.

The purported divinity of Jesus is as unfalsifiable as the spiritual pinkness of the Invisible Pink Unicorns (not unicorns in general, they're white), or the mysterious intangible wings of fairies.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

How do you know your arbitrary definition is correct in the first place? In addition, how do you know that what you think of as being 'the' arbitrary definition isn't a redefinition?

That's the point Gordon since the redefinition is from the original definition of the mythical beasts which made them falsifiable to a redefinition to make them unfalsifiable. That is an admission of defeat.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes but Outrider if unicorns are ever visible that renders them falsifiable since visibility is measurable.

Unless their pinkness is 'spiritual'.

Sounds wonderful.........how is it ridiculous?

[Outrider]

Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.

And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?

Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.

No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?

Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.

How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?

If Leprechauns are bad news and you redefine them into God then what warrant do you have to say that God is bad news. Or even that Leprechauns are bad news?

We aren't judging the asserted qualities of the subject of the argument, we're judging the lack of quality of the argument itself.

Redefining terms in mid argument is never Good Hillside.........Perhaps that is what Leprechauns really are?

It's not good when those terms have meaning, when they're just made up stuff, though, it's not really a problem, it's just making up more stuff.

O.

[Outrider]

Yes but Outrider if unicorns are ever visible that renders them falsifiable since visibility is measurable.

Unless their pinkness is 'spiritual'.

Sounds wonderful.........how is it ridiculous?

Pink? Really? With golden hooves? In autumn, with the russets and fawns of the falling leaves?

You'll be suggesting she'd wear pearls next!

O.

[floo]

What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.

Not an untruth because (a) it might be true, and (b) even if it isn't they might genuinely believe it.

They can't support their statement adequately, so it is ultimately an opinion, but that's not lying by any stretch.

O.

It is an untruth if they state it as a fact and true, when it is only a belief.

But we can only really claim that something unfalsiable maybe untrue, You are claiming that it IS an untruth.

But surely if someone claims something to be true when they it is only matter of belief, they are telling an untruth because they don't know for a fact it is true, even if it did turn out to be so in the end.

[Outrider]

But surely if someone claims something to be true when they it is only matter of belief, they are telling an untruth because they don't know for a fact it is true, even if it did turn out to be so in the end.

It's only an untruth if they know that it's not true. If they accept that it might be untrue, but they believe it is true then they're stating an opinion. It might be considered slightly disengenuous, depending on the circumstances, but unless it's demonstrably untrue, and they know that, then it's not lying.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.

And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?

Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.

No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?

Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.

How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?

Prove fairies don't exist.

[Gordon]

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

How do you know your arbitrary definition is correct in the first place? In addition, how do you know that what you think of as being 'the' arbitrary definition isn't a redefinition?

That's the point Gordon since the redefinition is from the original definition of the mythical beasts which made them falsifiable to a redefinition to make them unfalsifiable. That is an admission of defeat.

No it isn't - it is a suggestion that you are making it up as you are going along since, in reality, your assertions about the God you imagine are no sounder than mine about the fairy who I imagine lives in my garden and keeps my motorcycle clean.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes but Outrider if unicorns are ever visible that renders them falsifiable since visibility is measurable.

Unless their pinkness is 'spiritual'.

Sounds wonderful.........how is it ridiculous?

Pink? Really? With golden hooves? In autumn, with the russets and fawns of the falling leaves?

You'll be suggesting she'd wear pearls next!

O.

Sorry did it suddenly change from being spiritual to being physical?.....just to try to make me look silly. It must be a slimy, antitheist unicorn.

[BeRational]

Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.

And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?

Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.

No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?

Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.

How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?

Prove fairies don't exist.

You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.

[Outrider]

Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.

And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?

Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.

No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?

Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.

How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?

Prove fairies don't exist.

I don't need to, my argument isn't reliant on them being real.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingstraightbackintothebearpit,

Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.

You can “accuse” all you like, but you’re still wrong about that. There are various depictions of leprechauns, of fairies and of gods alike – they may be wholly correct, partly correct or wholly wrong. No-one is “changing” anything – all that is being said is that the descriptions of these members of the set “supernatural somethings able at will to intervene with the material whenever they wish” may or may not be reliably described.

Secondly.

“Secondly”? Do you not think you should establish a “firstly” first?

You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.

Why “arbitrary”? If you believe in this “god”, why not tell us how you define the term as accurately as you think you are able?

Another category fuck on your part.

There’s no “another” and no it isn’t for reasons that have been explained you but you fail to grasp. And the only category “fuck” here has been your blundering attempt to compare the supernatural (fairies, gods etc) with the natural (penises, rubber ducks etc).

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

Presumably that meant something in your head when you wrote it? There’s no “re-defining” going on at all – there are some definitions of the inhabitants of the set “supernatural somethings able at will to intervene with the material whenever they wish” that may or not be accurate is all.

Your straw man is noted though.

Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.

Except there is no re-defining, so your “point” – whatever it is – fails.

If Leprechauns are bad news and you redefine them into God then what warrant do you have to say that God is bad news. Or even that Leprechauns are bad news?

You’re just using words randomly now. Who says that leprechauns are “bad news” exactly, and why on earth would you think that they have been “re-defined into god”?

Redefining terms in mid argument is never Good Hillside.........Perhaps that is what Leprechauns really are?

It probably wouldn’t be, no. As no-one has done though, we’ll let the straw man pass.

So anyway, back to where we were before you crashed off the rails again: do you now understand why an argument for a god that works equally well for a fairy is probably a bad argument?

Something?

Anything?

 
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

How do you know your arbitrary definition is correct in the first place? In addition, how do you know that what you think of as being 'the' arbitrary definition isn't a redefinition?

That's the point Gordon since the redefinition is from the original definition of the mythical beasts which made them falsifiable to a redefinition to make them unfalsifiable. That is an admission of defeat.

No it isn't - it is a suggestion that you are making it up as you are going along since, in reality, your assertions about the God you imagine are no sounder than mine about the fairy who I imagine lives in my garden and keeps my motorcycle clean.

Nope, it is members of your hominid offshoot who are making it up as they go along. They lose the argument because their definitions are material so they make them ''spiritual features'' the argument then collapses because they have run up the white flag...................

I bet You keep your machine clean with windolene applied on an old semmit.

[Outrider]

Sorry did it suddenly change from being spiritual to being physical?

It's both, don't worry, it's 'theology'.

.....just to try to make me look silly.

Oh, come now, no need to be modest. You don't need my help.

It must be a slimy, antitheist unicorn.

Heretic!!! It's just a moist anti-theist unicorn, it's not slimy, that's a degenerate idea held by just a few billion cultists.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vluderingintohisownridiculousness,

I've no need to be desperate at all since an arbitrary redefinition is the white flag being run up........so not desperate Hillside, the word is victorious.

You genuinely are that delusional aren't you.

Wow!

Naturally you'll be along any time now to demonstrate this "arbitrary redefinition" then won't you?

Won't you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.

And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?

Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.

No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?

Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.

How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?

Prove fairies don't exist.

You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.

er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.

[Outrider]

er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.

See, now you're just making it sound like people made all this shit up to cover up the fact that they made up a load of more simplistic shit in the first place...

O.

[BeRational]

Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.

And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?

Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.

No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.

An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.

And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?

Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.

How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?

Prove fairies don't exist.

You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.

er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.

How do you disprove the first kind?

Who says the second type isn't a fairy?

Just because you do not understand the deep mystery of what it is to be fairy, how can you declare them false.

Look, you are looking increasingly desperate and foolish. You cannot falsify lots of things, your god included.

You have no argument that works for your god, that does not just as easily work for things like fairies, leprechauns etc.

Why do you keep going when you have lost this?

[Gordon]

I bet You keep your machine clean with windolene applied on an old semmit.

Not me - tell you what though: every now and then, when I open the garage door, I notice that the bucket and sponge seems to have been moved - but not by me!