"There is a strong case to be made for a deistic God...."

Richard Dawkins, 2008. A noted atheist, when signing autographs.

Deists such as Dawkins are interesting. Having conceded the existence of coffee, they are fanatics in denying the existence of coffee with milk.

Any worst than the Democrat Party's current agenda? I think not

Unfortunately for the most part (atleast in the decades previous to this one) most Catholics do not pick up their Bibles, in fact they were discouraged from reading them.

I always inform them of the passage in Matthew that states, "Do not call anyone on this earth Rabbi or Father, for you have only one Father, that is your Spiritual Father in Heaven (paraphrase, I can't remember it exactly).

They are always astonished and ask, "How come the Priests want us to call them Father all the time, and why don't we ever hear that in Mass?"

There is also the verse that states that there is "no intercessor between man and God beside the one Jesus Christ." This is when they ask why they have been told to go to the Priests first and then pray to the saints.

As I have said, more predominantly in the decades previous to this one.

I would like to read this book. I think it will be interesting. I don't, however, see why Dawkins being an admittedly potential diest has anything to do witht his man saying the Bible is negative toward society.

This old guy seems to be having quite a bit of fun mocking what is often a staid, old, hypocritical church, especially in some parts of Europe.

I doubt it's the worse thing he ever did.

Crap. I thought this was about Obama.

KBM, even though I think you are most likely joking, I am sad to say that you probably represent a true feeling in a number of people who will read the headline. I am wondering if we will see someone knock obama for this because they did not read the description of the article, nor the article itself.

The possibility: High.

Misunderstandings abound in the minds of mere men.

""The Bible is a manual of bad morals (which) has a powerful influence on our culture and even our way of life. Without the Bible, we would be different, and probably better people," he was quoted as saying by the news agency Lusa."

Yep, love thy neighbor as thyself, the Beattitudes, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, etc...all bad stuff right there!! I can see why people would be better off without those teachings.

"Unfortunately for the most part (atleast in the decades previous to this one) most Catholics do not pick up their Bibles, in fact they were discouraged from reading them."

That, is a fact!!!

If they did, they would realize just how far from Scripture their practices are.

Yep, love thy neighbor as thyself, the Beattitudes, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, etc...all bad stuff right there!! I can see why people would be better off without those teachings.

#9 | Posted by lisa

And everybody certainly loves to get stoned in the Bible:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.

Leviticus 24:16

If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... stone them with stones, till they die.

Deuteronomy 17:2-5

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

Deuteronomy 13:5-10

Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.

(Might extend this one to Obama)

1 Kings 21:10

Another thread where the religious and non-religious alike can bash egos.

This guy is so wrong! The Bible is way too big of a book to be considered a "handbook."

LOL

Got anything to say about the NT, Zot???

I laugh when people criticize Christianity and use the OT to do it.

Christ wasn't even born yet. You know...the One whom Christianity was named after??

LOD:

This isn't about ego's...at least on my part it isn't. I'm not prideful, rather humble infact.

So Lisa, do you eschew the Old Testament entirely? The Bible is made up of both parts, yes?

But yeah, I see your point.

#10

A death penalty, imagine that. Why is it wrong, anthropologically speaking, to destroy what is harmful to your society?

P.S I like the, uh, imaginative cutting of those verses.

Prag:

The subject is the claim that people would be better off without the Bible.

The Bible includes the NT.

The people of the OT were under the law. Jesus changed that.

We live our lives according to the teaching of Christ that are spelled out in the NT.

It is extremely intellectually dishonest to constantly use OT situations, ignoring the NT and the teachings that we are under now since Christ, as a way to condemn Christianity.

I'm sorry if you and others can't see the difference.

It is extremely intellectually dishonest to constantly use OT situations, ignoring the NT and the teachings that we are under now since Christ, as a way to condemn Christianity.

To be fair, many Christians pick and choose when to follow the OT. Eye for an Eye is their support for Capitol Punishment even though Jesus changed that one. They use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality. They use Genesis to condemn evolution. If they can get it straight then those of us who watch them would.

"To be fair, many Christians pick and choose when to follow the OT. "

Kan:

Then the problem really isn't with the Bible now is it?

It's with peoples lack of understanding.

If they are truly Christians, they would be following the teachings of Christ....not of the law.

Got anything to say about the NT, Zot???

I laugh when people criticize Christianity and use the OT to do it.

#13 | Posted by Lisa

I "laugh" when Christians use the Bible to beat "non-believers" about the head and shoulders, yet seem to conveniently ignore or purposefully omit the OT, or rather, certain parts of it that are not palatable. Is not the Bible the Bible? Certainly the stuff about gays is applied with religious fervor. And the stuff in Genesis is accepted by many without question. Haven't heard of any stonings though for those specifically mentioned transgressions. Or any other punishments for a multitude of other transgressions.

Is not the Bible, for the True Believer, supposed to be read and followed and implemented without question in its entirety, NT and OT?

I for one wish the Christians would simply be honest, throw out the OT, and become only FNTs - Followers of the New Testament. The whole buffet bible religion - a'pickin' n' a'choosin' what be good and what be ignored - is a bit tiresome and dishonest.

I criticize much of christianity because that christianity is practiced only on Sundays and as long as it doesn't interfere with NFL Game Day. How pathetic is it that priests/pastors/parsons have to schedule services around games times to ensure that the flock is in full attendance. "You Shall Have No Other God Before Me" even if that other god's name is Brett Favre.

And there's nothing wrong with using Genesis to defend against evolution.

After all, it was the begining.

Then the problem really isn't with the Bible now is it?

Never said it was. I attack the faithful, not the faith. Of course, it was the faithful who wrote the Bible, so it is far from a perfect book. As I pray so often: Dear G-d, please protect me from your followers.

LOD:

This isn't about ego's...at least on my part it isn't. I'm not prideful, rather humble infact.

#13 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-10-20 10:50 AM

"The people of the OT were under the law. Jesus changed that"

Where?

Lisa, there are certain times where the teachings of Christ that supersede the old but they are specific. The old testament is not meant to be disregarded because of the new.

Is not the Bible, for the True Believer, supposed to be read and followed and implemented without question in its entirety, NT and OT?

#19 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-10-20 11:11 AM

"This isn't about ego's...at least on my part it isn't. I'm not prideful, rather humble infact."

When you say you are humble, you are no longer humble. That is the issue with humility.

Also: "bad morals" = oxymoron

"The people of the OT were under the law. Jesus changed that"

Where?

Posted by salamandagator

The Sermon on the Mount. I am Jewish and even I know that.

Lisa, there are certain times where the teachings of Christ that supersede the old but they are specific. The old testament is not meant to be disregarded because of the new.

#23 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-10-20 11:15 AM

"I "laugh" when Christians use the Bible to beat "non-believers" about the head and shoulders, yet seem to conveniently ignore or purposefully omit the OT, or rather, certain parts of it that are not palatable.

You clearly do not understand Christianity.

We read the OT but we are not under the laws of the OT. Jesus changed all of that.

"Is not the Bible the Bible?"

You tell me. You conviniently omit the teachings of the NT

Odd for you to say something like that when you went to refute me when I stated that we live our lives under the teachings of Christ...ignoring those latter teachings and only using the laws of the OT to condemn me, ignoring completely the NT.

"Is not the Bible, for the True Believer, supposed to be read and followed and implemented without question in its entirety, NT and OT?"

Again, you do not understand Christianity.

"I for one wish the Christians would simply be honest, throw out the OT, and become only FNTs"

Why? To suit you?? We have a right to have record of the history prior to Christ.

"ollowers of the New Testament. The whole buffet bible religion - a'pickin' n' a'choosin' what be good and what be ignored - is a bit tiresome and dishonest."

When one truly follows Christ, there is no picking and choosing. But you would rather condemn the entire religion rather than some of those who do not adhere to it completely.

"I criticize much of christianity because that christianity is practiced only on Sundays and as long as it doesn't interfere with NFL Game Day. How pathetic is it that priests/pastors/parsons have to schedule services around games times to ensure that the flock is in full attendance. "You Shall Have No Other God Before Me" even if that other god's name is Brett Favre."

THIS...is what is dishonest.

You blanket every Christian.

I don't know of one Christian church that works their services around football. That's ridiculous.

In my home, we practice our religion as a lifestyle.
God is in the foremost of our daily lives. You have no idea of what we are doing to help others, in following our teachings.

Maybe someday, I'll share that.

I don't know of one Christian church that works their services around football. That's ridiculous

#28 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-10-20 11:25 AM

No. It's just another good reason to stay away from church.

I've been reading your one liner insults Jerry. Is that all you're capable of?

I find that sad.

Let me know when you are able to have an entire conversation, I might be interested.

I'll be back later Prag to see if you have a response.

The NT specifically says not to stay bound to old law (i.e. OT). So, to answer your question, "no."

#24 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Is there a list then of what is to be disregarded in the OT?

Or is it the OT in its entirety?

Therein lies the problem: it is all subject to interpretation.

7th-Day Adventists, the Mennonites, the Amish, to mention a few, are all extreme in their interpretations and practice. The Mormons took a left turn (or was it a right?) and wrote their own addendum. Evangelicals with their glassy, glowy eyes are quite ardent and frankly a bit frightening, and many seem more intent on extorting money out of you to buy your way in Heaven. Blacks of the Baptist persuasion throw their own spin on it and turn into a sing-fest. The Hispanics have this gruesome, creepy christ image going with some death culture mixed in (leftover Aztec probably). The Catholics tossed woman off the altar a 1000 years ago and made them subservient to The Church - the stained-glass ceiling that will never be broken. The non-denominationals vary widely, each with their own flavor and spin and practices and sub-beliefs, some being quite gay indeed. All with varying applications of OT law.

Christianity is not a unified, monotheologic entity as it would purport to be. It has more spin-offs than Rambo. And each believe they are The One and True Way.

Is there a list then of what is to be disregarded in the OT?

Or is it the OT in its entirety?
#32 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-10-20 11:38 AM

Therein lies the problem: it is all subject to interpretation.
#32 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-10-20 11:38 AM

"The Sermon on the Mount. I am Jewish and even I know that."

Matthew 5:17-22 (King James Version)

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,

Right, the 10 Commandments stay, but the Sermon on the Mount nullified many of Leviticus' laws.

has more spin-offs than Rambo. And each believe they are The One and True Way.

#32 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-10-20 11:38 AM

There's some good stuff in the Bible. There's some bad stuff in the Bible. And there is total nonsense in the Bible.

Anyone who takes a position claiming the Bible is all one way is an idiot.

Zot,

I am sorry to say but the ultimate truth is not represented by those who are inferior to it. You cannot look at the people who are following something partially or incorrectly and say the whole intrinsic system is incorrect. If this was true, then you would have to throw out Evolution, as that is not a cohesive group representing the theory. You would have to throw out Athiests, since they are not cohesive in represnting their theory, you would have to throw out any kind of thought or fact as there are always multiple views of an issue.

It is summed up by Christ that the fullness of the law is observed by,
1. Loving your God with all your heart soul, mind and stength
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

In the N.T. it is clarified that certain things have changed.

1. The process of stoning for adultery or sins in general - thus stoning stopped

2. The food laws - they were there for a purpose, the purpose of the law, namely to show men that they could not fulfill the law

3. The Sacrificial system - as Christ was the final sacrifice.

There are many things that are repeated in the New Testament from the Old Testament, and this is why Christians follow those.

1. Jesus references himself to the second Adam. Making that something the NT backs up

2. Jesus reminds everyone that they must continue to look to him because they will fall and stumble along the way just as it was in the OT. REPENTANCE is key. The rest of the NT also backs this.

3. Homosexuality - Romans 1. It is not acceptable to burn with desire for another man. Chapters 1-3 of Romans is God's case against man in terms of sin and inability to save themselves. It also mentiones women as well

4. I believe it is Romans 12 or 13 that mentions that believers are to obey the governments so long as they are not inhibiting the following of Christ. "The governement does not wield the sword for no reason." is also mentioned backing capital punishment. Those who reference an eye for an eye are foolish and uninformed.

Yes, grace is preferred, however the punishment of death is just. God calls for mercy however when applicable. The governemental heads are put in their place by God and removed by God. Whether believers or not. Think back to Babylon and Assyria and the Chaldeans.

You are making a strawman case from things that you don't like, without taking the whole Biblical text into perspective. Things are clarified as to what is and is not holding over from the OT.

Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

Maybe Rcade can start a Bible Study thread, so atleast if those who do not believe address the Biblical understanding of something, they can address it correctly.

It will make conversations much more intellectual and meaningful rather than insult slinging mimicry (On both sides of the yard).

Or at least a no-nonsense thread, where serious questions are asked in a polite intellectual manner and serious answers are given in the same fashion.

Oh.. imagine if the world would see it worth their time to understand other people and their ideas before bashing them. It would be a much better place.

-Christianity is not a unified, monotheologic entity as it would purport to be.

And where, pray tell, does it purport to be that?

Saramago attacked "a cruel, jealous and unbearable God (who) exists only in our heads" and said he did not think his book would cause problems for the Catholic Church "because Catholics do not read the Bible.

"It might offend Jews, but that doesn't really matter to me," he added.

"Chip on his shoulder" flag.

Seriously, wot is that?

A butt-hurt former altar boy or wot?

Taken together Spud finds in both the OT and NT a lot of both wheat and chaff.

Dismissing the entire thing out of hand is as ludicrous a proposition to Spud as buying into every werd.

"Love thy neighbour" werks fer Spud.

"Do unto others..." is some pretty good stuff too.

Sermon on the mount, 10 Commandments?

Still hold up well if you disclude the whole existence of God thing or understand God to be a metaphor for Good.

Shiat about not eating shellfish or making werking onna Sabbath a crime punishable by death or any anti-gay gleanings can safely be tossed out by a any modern, moral man or woman.

Be Well.

/Nice find, Rein.
//As always.

You blanket every Christian.

#28 | Posted by Lisa

Hardly. In this short forum, I was bringing out some examples, even the NFL Game Day thing. They were not meant to be absolutes.

In a previous comment of mine: "Christianity is not a unified, monotheologic entity as it would purport to be." Islam is probably more true to its roots than Christianity.

So tell me, what is Christianity? I'll tell you what I think it is. It is not a religion per se. It is not a series of rites. It is not unswerving, unquestioning faith in an endless series of translations from ancient writings that are attributed to God or Jesus, none of which can be really be verified or validated. It is a mindset, a way of life, a set of moral guidelines, not a set of rock-hard rules that if violated you'll be condemned. The best you can do in life is not screw with people, do what you can to help, live and let live. Your experience, your life, will be taken back to God, not to be judged or condemned or rewarded or put on a shelf, but rather to be added to the Greater Whole, your experience, your essence.

We tend to have a very narrow view of what and who we are. We like to think we are all something special, each and everyone of us. Well, we are and we aren't. When viewed up close, we each have individuality. When viewed from afar, like from the top of a tall building for example, we are just another scurrying dot on the ground amid all the other scurrying dots. When viewed from the depths of interstellar space, for this too is God's creation, just another star amongst the billions. Each unique perhaps. But each to just a small part of the Greater Whole. You kinda get where I am with this?

"good" = O.E. god (with a long "o") "having the right or desirable quality,"

It is extremely intellectually dishonest to constantly use OT situations, ignoring the NT and the teachings that we are under now since Christ, as a way to condemn Christianity.
Especially when those that do so don't understand the differences/origins of the OT books. Some are simply a history of the Jewish nation, others give accounts of mans struggle to live according to GOD will, others pave the way for the Christ. Others are the law that the Jewish people at that time were living under. Others are hymnals/poetry.

So to attempt to build an argument against Christianity by either including the entire OT or none of it is either ignorant or deceitful.

Wow, third anti-Christian topic on the DR today? The tolerance and acceptance runs strong in the libtard world.

modern, moral man or woman - SPUD

Yeah, I don't think modern and moral go too far these days spudster. GOoD has always had GOD in it. Whether you believe it or not.

Christianity is not a unified, monotheologic entity as it would purport to be.

And where, pray tell, does it purport to be that?

#41 | Posted by Corky

It is inherent in the very name. But yet it is modified and mutated and evolved and stretched to include a thousand different sects and applications and beliefs and extremes.

How can so much diveristy come from one man's teachings? Is not the message the same for all?

If there is not God there is no objective good or bad. Only subjective good and bad.

I don't expect to see any athiestic arguements for good or bad from this point forward, as this is their position. Diests, they can talk about good or bad as long as they recognize absolutes would be necessitated by a diety beginning the universe.

Whether or not the Bible is full of "bad morals" depends on which parts of it you want to live your life by and which parts you'd rather not. In the end the choice is yours, and it has nothing to do with sky-faeries and ancient tomes.

Zot,

Christianity is not the name. Read the scripture, it will tell you.

First Centry Church: Called it The Way
Outside Non-believers: Called them Christians.

Those who believe in Christ should have never come around to calling themselves Christians.

We follow Christ. All those who are not following Christ are not Christ followers. It is that simply. Therefore, all those who are not following Christ, are not "christians."

So tell me, what is Christianity? I'll tell you what I think it is.

It is the belief that the Jesus of the NT is the incarnate of God while at the same time being a man. It is the belief that Jesus faced all of the same temptations that we all face. It is the belief that he never acted out of his own interest, but he always acted in the interest of God, therefore he never sinned. It is the belief that this Jesus was killed but rose from the dead 3 days later. It is the belief that man can never reconcile directly with GOD because of our imperfect nature and that Jesus is the reconciliation with a perfect creator. It is the belief that only through Jesus can this reconciliation occur. It is the belief that inspite of anything anyone has done, that can be reconciled to God through Jesus.

Christians are fable followers

If you want to know what a Christ follower is supposed to look like, look to Christ.

If you want to know what a "christian" is supposed to look like, look to Christ, don't look at other christians and then blanket them.

You look to the source, the primary example, not the mis-representations.

Christ Followers also need to do this in terms of addressing those who practise Islam, Jedeaism, Hinduism, Atheism, Deism and systems like Communism, Socialism, Authoritarianism, etc.

People are able to misrepresent the intrinsic properties of any system. It discounts the credibility of the people misrepresenting, not the credibility of the system.

-It is inherent in the very name.

You are swashbuckling now.

See #50

Jackass,

Anyone who acts on their own personal volition without taking the time to understand the background and facts of that which they are misrepresenting or not understanding follows fables.

If you do not have the ability to exert the integrity or honesty to research something without previous unbias because of personal leanings or learned anecdotal falsities (as much as possible), you are following a fable.

A lot of people follow fables.

You may not know it, Jackass, but you are well represented in the Bible.... in the story of Balaam's talking ass.

Don't know if he could type, though.

The bible was taken from ancient religions. It is a mish mash of pagan and Persian stories. Watch Religulous with Bill Maher if you don't believe me.

Thank you, Prof Jackass.

One might not have ever considered that possibility had it not been for you.

Deists such as Dawkins are interesting. Having conceded the existence of coffee, they are fanatics in denying the existence of coffee with milk.

No, they are fanatics in denying that adding milk to coffee makes it anything other than coffee.

Do you really not see how one can believe in a higher power but not believe in a higher power that plays an active role in day to day goings on Earth, even so far as intervening on an individuals behalf at random intervals? You don't see how one can believe in God but not all the add ons that were tacked on by his followers at various times in history?

"but the Sermon on the Mount nullified many of Leviticus' laws."

Exactly what are you referring to?
There is not anything in there that disqualifies any of the old laws but specifically reinforces them. If you are talking about the new covenant then you are talking about the difference between the sacrificial duties that were intended to cover sins but were not needed after Christ was sacrificed, that was fulfilled.

One might not have ever considered that possibility had it not been for you.
#58 | POSTED BY CORKY

Some people won't even look at the facts. Try telling Lisa or Nanc the bible is bogus and point out facts and see if you get a rational response.

Do you really not see how one can believe in a higher power but not believe in a higher power that plays an active role in day to day goings on Earth, even so far as intervening on an individuals behalf at random intervals? You don't see how one can believe in God but not all the add ons that were tacked on by his followers at various times in history?

Unless he has some disability that we're unaware of, Zed is capable of conceptualizing these things. Like anything that contradicts his beliefs, he automatically assumes that these positions are false.

#61 | Posted by jackass at 2009-10-20 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag: Breeze he felt was point going over his head at supersonic speeds

Thank you, Prof Jackass.

One might not have ever considered that possibility had it not been for you.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-20 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag

Yet you dismiss such a reality with no logic to back your dismissal

You are swashbuckling now.

See #50

#54 | Posted by Corky

Like "Arrrr, Matey!! I be a'piratin' fer Christ."?

Even Jesus was extorting money from the rich.

#64 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-20 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Prefers the Alien DNA Theory

If there really is a God, we won't have to hear all that Sitchin garbage yet again.

#66 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-20 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Wasted 10 years on a website dissing the Bible and never learned a damn thing from it.

The bible was taken from ancient religions. It is a mish mash of pagan and Persian stories.

Many religions are described/mentioned in the bible. Many Pagan societies and the Persian empire are mentioned consistently throughout the bible. The Bible is also consistent in the condemnation of the practices of these societies and the Persian empire because they don't acknowledge/respect/fear GOD.

Moses, David and Joshua were war criminals.

Even Jesus was extorting money from the rich.

#66 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-20 12:56 PM | Reply

The words of a ignorant person.

Moses, David and Joshua were war criminals.

#69 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-20 01:00 PM | Reply

You forgot to mention Sampson who killed over 1,000 with the jawbone of a Jackass.

Hey Jackass,

That point has already been addressed is a different thread. You are providing no new information for anyone.

I will repost my post here:

Nanc read this article

Similarities between Pagan and Christian practices

www.religioustolerance.org

The Bible is not original. The bible was created using previous religions.

#55 | Posted by jackass at 2009-10-19 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Jackass, theoretically and philosophically, all Christians are aware, claim, and know that the Bible is not original. Even the Bible declares iteself that it is the recording of the word of God which has bee existent from the beginning. It is also clear in the Bible that not all of the information available was provided in its covers as on two occasions information was not to be written down, and one occasion ingested in order that it was not known. (I am not making the case here that this actually happened, but rather using the source to show you that it is stated within this source what it is not original)

Also you must take into account that timespan that God was supposedly working with and through Man in relationship. It would begin at the foundation of human society. The scripture is clear that the Bible was written down later than that point. There are things that took place in the beginning in which we do not have a detailed account. This would include different perceptions of what God had said by different people ( as not all would follow and some would make up their own systems catered to them as the most important person to God)

If God did exist in a capacity similar to the Biblical description (whether the Bible is true or not) then it would only be natural for the intrinsic truth coming from God in the beginning to be distorted and changed depending on the peoples of the specific times. In this case you would get different religious systems with similarities as they had the same original source.

Some would be more accurate, some would be less accurate - completely incorrect.

Your argument does not rule out the possibility of the Bible to be authoritive (in the event that it is true, and accurate to the original proposed system from God's first relationship with man).

#71 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2009-10-19 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

This was in the circumcision thread.

#66 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-20 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Wasted 10 years on a website dissing the Bible and never learned a damn thing from it.
#67 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2009-10-20 01:00

Ray may be off on the economy but his webpage on the bible is spot on. Ray has more knowledge of the bible than 99% of the faux prophet followers out there today.

You chose not to reply to it last time. Are you going to do the same this time and believe what it is that you would like to believe?

There is logic as to how (even if the Bible is true intrinsically, which I am not making the case here) the Bible could have aspects of other religions and yet still be corrent and true seperate from those different religions.

You asked for logic, there is an example.

#66 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-20 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Wasted 10 years on a website dissing the Bible and never learned a damn thing from it.
#67 | Posted by Corky

I learned that it is a waste of time trying to reason with superstitutious people who can't and refuse to reason. Their beliefs are grounded on emotion, not logic, reason and facts. So rather than address my points which I can support, they change the topic with stupid come-backs.

Correction Jackass,

Ray has more knowledge about his pre-disposition to the Bible than 99% of the other prophet followers out there.

We call come to things with a pre-disposition and presupposition. They color the way we see things. In order to get around those we have to be able to evaluate arguments that come from a different presupposition, accepting that presupposition to understand the arguement.

If you are not intellectually integrous or honest enough to do that, you don't belong atributing authority to any one side or arguement.

There is logic and evidence on both sides and the conclusion is yet unsure. People take different positions on evidence all the time. Because we can never have 100% evidence.

Express the stories are too similar to previously recorded stories. Not a coincidence but blatant plagiarism of previous fairy tales.

"Moses, David and Joshua were war criminals."

What laws regarding the conduct of war at the time did they break?

That is not what I said. Interact with my post, do not put up foolish one liner mimicry that objectively and subjectively diverges from the topic at hand.

Learn to reason and focus on one subject, don't over simplify something and look for brownie points with those unwilling to think for themselves.

Jackass, again, read my post. It tell you logically why they might be very similar to a lot of different sources.

They are not exactly the same as a bunch of soureces, but they have similarities. That does not mean they are untrue.

They can:
1. Clarify other sources accounts
2. Provide additional information on top of previous sources
3. They can have changes that are more correct than other sources.
4. They can follow more closely to the one common original source of all the other sources, and thus why there is colors of many previous sources visual.

All religions have an aspect of truth in terms of God in them. However it is divergent at other points.

Just like evolutionist explain, textual understanding and stories also evolve, change, etc.

Some stay closer to the original source, some diverge more. The one that is closest to the original will include the most similarities of the previous sources.

#64 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-20 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Prefers the Alien DNA Theory

If there really is a God, we won't have to hear all that Sitchin garbage yet again.

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-20 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag

Well, DNA is a reality, and aliens crossing their DNA with theirs makes more sense than some god popping a man into existence and then cloning him to make his mate.

Any idea why your god let the world be a molten mass for about a billion years before he popped the first one celled organism into existence? Ever ask why your god kept popping all those dinosaurs into existence for about 140 million years without having any humans around to worship him?

Ever ask yourself why your god has made extinct 99% of all life forms that ever lived on this planet?

At least the alien DNA concept explains why there is no "missing link", and even though such a concept is such a long shot, with incredible odds against it, it still makes more sense than the biblical version.

First, one man, and his cloned mate would not make a viable population---simply not enough genetic material. How would all the races come from such a pairing? Then when the Flood came--the population was again reduced down to one family--again, not a viable population, and again, all the races would have to come from that single family. DNA tells us that your concept is wrong, but doesn't dismiss the alien DNA concept.

On another note--Sitchin merely translates what the ancient people said in their writings--the alien DNA concept comes from the ancients, not him.

A final note--even the biblical god can only be described as an alien. It certainly isn't human. It was not born on this planet. That is an alien.

Express so you agree the bible is garbage and Jeebus was a snake oil salesman that duped a lot of people.

#75 | Posted by jackass at 2009-10-20 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Jawbone of an ass.

Nice spin. You could work for the president. Still not buying it. Go to Ray's website if you need clarity.

There is logic and evidence on both sides and the conclusion is yet unsure. People take different positions on evidence all the time. Because we can never have 100% evidence.
#77 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

The middle ground is no ground; it is the absence of thought. All you are doing is expressing your limitiations at seeing through the fog of religion.

-Not a coincidence but blatant plagiarism of previous fairy tales.

In many cases, they are stories from different epochs describing the same occurrences from even earlier times, such as the flood or a virgin birth. And you don't have to go to Sumeria, as the story of Zeus is about the same.

But you see, there are no such things as miracles, so anyone who says there are is not an honest reporter because there are no such things as miracles and anyone who says they are is not an honest reporter because there all no such things as miracles.... ad infinitum.

What laws regarding the conduct of war at the time did they break?
#79 | Posted by sully

The Promised Land wasn't vacant; it was occupied by Canaanites.

Thou shallt not kill! (they attacked and destroyed villages and towns)

Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife! (they took virgins for themselves)

Thou shalt not steal! (they took anything of use they could carry)

Ray,

That is a nicely phrased sentence, however it is meaningless.

Explain from my post and previous posts as to why you believe that this is what I am doing. I will clarify what I can for you and admit to what is the truth on what you evaluated from my discussion.

Secondly, try to make sure you are taking it in the context of the discussion I am having with Jackass.

There is no scientific route to evaluate that the Bible is untrue simply because it has elements of other stories and is "unoriginal" in terms of subjective unoriginality. He cannot make that statement.

He is proposing a fallacy in terms of saying that "because the Bible has many elements of other stories, therefore it was composed after the fact taking pieces of each of those stories and therefore is unoriginal and therefore false."

Just because you can explain how something might have come to exist does not mean that makes it untrue.

You would think that someone with an anti-Bible website would know the difference between the Hebrew words for, "kill", and for "murder".

Or the difference between peacetime activity and warfare.

Guess we must expect too much, eh?

Ray you do not realize that when you are goign to discuss the concept of Biblical war crimes for the Hebrews, who were following what they presupposed as God's law and command to go into the promised land, you have to take the whole of the scripture into context.

You must take the whole of what the Canaanites did, had done, what their purpose was, how they interacted with God etc.

You are arguing and intrabiblical point from outside. You can't do that.

You must argue on the presupposition that God exists and commanded those actions there.

If the Canaanites were to be punished and God decided that was how it was goign to be done, how is that a war crime? Who sets up the rules for war in this situation? Would it not be God?

If the women were virgins, they were not any mans wife, as the marriage must be consumated (sic) before the marriage is actually a marriage.

Thus if the woman is still a virgin, they took no mans wife.
You should know this at least if you say you studied the Bible as hard as you claim.

Also, they took what the could because it is also not proper to waste is it? They were goign to make use of the materials of which they conquered. Again, who sets the standard here? God, or the Canaanites.

Once the Canaanites walk away from obeying God, they are at the mercy of his punishment.

You would think that someone with an anti-Bible website would know the difference between the Hebrew words for, "kill", and for "murder".

The Ten Commandments are repeatd three times, each one different. One says kill, the other says murder.

When it comes to wars of aggression, Corky's semantic defense shows his lack of moral conscience.

I would suggest not arguing points if you don't understand in what manner you have to argue them due to the context of which the arguement is presented and originates from.

Ray you do not realize that when you are goign to discuss the concept of Biblical war crimes for the Hebrews, who were following what they presupposed as God's law and command to go into the promised land, you have to take the whole of the scripture into context.

Then that gives a lie to the claim that God is benevolent. He was a ruthless murderous warmonger.

You are arguing and intrabiblical point from outside. You can't do that.

Oh yes I can. And I have.

Once the Canaanites walk away from obeying God, they are at the mercy of his punishment.

War and persecution is what separates polytheism from monotheism. The three great monotheist religions have been at war with each other to this day.

"When it comes to wars of aggression, Corky's semantic defense shows his lack of moral conscience."

Ahh, correcting a poor translation is now resorting to thin semantics as a defense. I will have to remember that.

Mental note: correct definitions are worthless semantics.

You must argue on the presupposition that God exists and commanded those actions there.

I don't argue by your rules. I arue by the rules of science, reason and logic. The priests were power hungry shamans.

I would suggest not arguing points if you don't understand in what manner you have to argue them due to the context of which the arguement is presented and originates from.
#92 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Then I would limit myself to ways of thinking that became obsolete with the Enlightment.

Mental note: correct definitions are worthless semantics.
#94 | Posted by salamandagator

Wars of aggression are criminal. What don't you understand?

-The Ten Commandments are repeatd three times, each one different. One says kill, the other says murder.

No, Ray. If your could read the original you would know that the author used the same word, the word for murder. Later translators liked a little variation is all.

-Then that gives a lie to the claim that God is benevolent. He was a ruthless murderous warmonger

Of course, from God's perspective, being with him is likely better than being earth-bound.

Some hope that there is a God, and some hope that there is not.

Those who say they can prove one thing or another, philosophically or scientifically, are talking out of a lower orifice. Ray.

Ray,

You are still not working under the presupposition that God is the facilitator (sic) of the objective truth of the universe.

You are trying to analyze God with something that God would have put in place in the event that he existed in the contextual capacity.

God would not be a murder. He is the one to whom the Canaanites are responsible. If you do not live up to the requirements placed on you, you are subject to the consequences of those requirements.

Are you evil for disciplining your child? If you are evil for disciplining your child, what right do you have to discipline that child? What objective truth states that you have any authority over the child to decide what is proper or inproper punishment for the child?

How do you discern what is good or bad without a moral agent? Science cannot discern what is objectively good or bad.

You are trying to play two sides of the fence.

You are putting your perspective in the current day, with current laws on the context at hand, and that was not the case in that contextual period.

That is intellectually dishonest.

"Later translators liked a little variation is all."

Well, so much for any claim it's the inerrant word of God.

"What don't you understand?"

The definition of criminal. I was always under the impression that a criminal broke existing laws. When the governing body decides it is not breaking the law then it is not a criminal act.

"Wars of aggression are criminal"

Says who? you? a global court? A deity?
You can believe it is wrong, i have no problem with that but for it to be a crime a sovereign governing body has to decide that. Was there a body that governed the two groups?

You should stop listening to TV evangelists who claim such things, Dan.

My fav is the admonition at the end of Revelations... you know, not to add or take away from this book.

Well, the book to which the author referred was the one he was writing, not "the Bible", which did not exist as of yet.

But that doesn't keep several generations of people from thinking that it referred to the whole book.

Besides, any compilation that the Hebrew God had anything to do with would never have 66 of anything, much less books.

"I don't argue by your rules. I arue by the rules of science, reason and logic."

"Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife! (they took virgins for themselves)"

Ouch!

"Later translators liked a little variation is all."

Well, so much for any claim it's the inerrant word of God.

#99 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-20 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Hey Dan,

Akin to what Corky stated, the innerancy and infallability of the word of God is found in the original autographs, not the current versions today. Most people who study anything about theology are aware of that.

First of all, we know that there are things that we do not have that would be considered canon. There are at least two letters to the church in Corinth that have not been recovered. There might be other documents that we simply have not found at this point, and may never found.

However, if they are there, they are still innerant, and infallable in the original documents.

The Bible is not necessarily closed, all things that fit the test of canon would be canon, whether in our possession right now or not.

If those two letters from Paul to Corinth show up, I would fight to get them into the canon.

You are another intellectually dishonest fisherman on this site.

-You are another intellectually dishonest fisherman on this site.

My experience is that Dan is posting what he thinks, not particularly trolling or trying to pass off some long held animus.... like certain other Profits of Doom I could mention (Ray).

No, Ray. If your could read the original you would know that the author used the same word, the word for murder. Later translators liked a little variation is all.

The semantics doesn't matter. Wars of aggression are killing and mass murder.

Ahh, correcting a poor translation is now resorting to thin semantics as a defense. I will have to remember that.

Mental note: correct definitions are worthless semantics.

#94 | Posted by salamandagator

But we all know by now that nothing matters unless Ray says it does.

You are still not working under the presupposition that God is the facilitator (sic) of the objective truth of the universe.

Exactly. The Bible was written by superstitutious men with little moral conscience.

How do you discern what is good or bad without a moral agent? Science cannot discern what is objectively good or bad.

Ethics is a philosophical issue.

That is intellectually dishonest.

You are trying to justify immoral acts on the false grounds that "god made them do it."

"The semantics doesn't matter. Wars of aggression are killing and mass murder."

Sorry off topic, i was just wondering how often you have to was the liner of the helmet your insurance company makes you wear?

"Wars of aggression are criminal"

Says who? you? a global court? A deity?
You can believe it is wrong, i have no problem with that but for it to be a crime a sovereign governing body has to decide that. Was there a body that governed the two groups?
#100 | Posted by salamandagator

Sovereign bodies have a history of justifying their crimes.

We we can't hold dishonesty, larceny and murder as universal moral truths, then we enable ourselves to commit any crime we decide to justify. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. The history books are filled with such bloodshed.

Sorry off topic, i was just wondering how often you have to was the liner of the helmet your insurance company makes you wear?
#108 | Posted by salamandagator

Stay on topic.

"Sovereign bodies have a history of justifying their crimes"

Wars can often be justified. Morality is subjective. Either way you still won't address the fact that their can be no crime committed without a governing authority. Don't play dumb, there were no war crimes, no laws existed, no laws were broken, that is all you need to know.

I have to go but before i do let me reiterate. A criminal is not merely one who violates your moral code but is instead one who breaks a law. As much as you would like to believe your code is not law. People may do the most disgusting and immoral things but not break any laws. If you continue to pretend that "war criminal" is an apt title you only prove your unwillingness to admit you are not the final say in what is right or lawful.

#112 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-10-20 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Lost in a sea of moral fog.

If you continue to pretend that "war criminal" is an apt title you only prove your unwillingness to admit you are not the final say in what is right or lawful.

Try that argument on war's victims.

Wars can often be justified. Morality is subjective. Either way you still won't address the fact that their can be no crime committed without a governing authority. Don't play dumb, there were no war crimes, no laws existed, no laws were broken, that is all you need to know.

#111 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-10-20 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

This is the uyltimate lie and a half. The Illegal Iraq War is a War of aggression. Making it a War Crime. Just because the United States is too chickenshit to prosecute itself they should. We as a Nation should be punished to the fullest extyent of the law. We should be held accountable just like we held those accountable for the War Crimes in WW2 and NAZI Germany. We have sunk to their level and I am afraid we won't pull ourselves out nor learn any lessons from this. My COuntry perpetrated a War Crime and Crimes against Humanity. That is the truth of the matter and those who support it don't want to face the fucking facts.

Larry

I'm sure I'm repeating the sentiment of many here:

What posters of such stories don't get. Who gives a flying crap what some novelist's opinion is of the Bible? The Bible stands on its own.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of God stands forever!"

" the innerancy and infallability of the word of God is found in the original autographs, not the current versions today. Most people who study anything about theology are aware of that."

#104 | Posted by Corky

And the cultural referents of the time(s) also must be known and understood.

A language is not merely a set of words to represent a given object, act, emotion, etc. Nor is a language a set of words that are simply swapped out with word in another language. Only approximations can be done.

Any language is a product of the people who live it.

One can learn the words, but the "street meaning" cannot be understood unless one is immersed on the culture/the people/the times.

When today's linguists translate ancient tongues, they must be very careful not to place modern interpretation on the words/phrases.

The Bible is the prime example of a book that has been translated and retranslated into thousands of different languages, dumbed down, smarted up, genericized, scrubbed of gender, done in pictures, done in braille (feel the Word of God), etc. how can the original meaning and intent of the authors be intact?

"the innerancy and infallability of the word of God is found in the original autographs, not the current versions today. Most people who study anything about theology are aware of that."

So how is it God didn't know the moon wasn't really a light, but instead just a reflector of light?

What's the deal here?

Depending on what parts of a religious text that you adhere to and how you interpret them, you can create a basis for "good morals" or a justification for monstrous acts. One book can give rise to selflessness or fanatical hatred depending on how you read it.

Some of the popular interpretations of religious texts are indeed disgusting, but a book is just a book. Take from it what is worthwhile and pitch the rest.

I can't find anything wrong with the Songs of Solomon. Of course, my Catholic school always seemed to skip that part.

Proverbs is cool.

I can't find anything wrong with the Songs of Solomon. Of course, my Catholic school always seemed to skip that part.

#119 | Posted by Petrous at 2009-10-20 03:25 PM

Skip it at your own peril.

Depending on what parts of a religious text that you adhere to and how you interpret them, you can create a basis for "good morals" or a justification for monstrous acts.

Just to be clear. If we have to be selective about the moral parts of the Bible, then it is worthless as a guide to moral living.

Take from it what is worthwhile and pitch the rest.

It's a guide to superstitutious living and morally repulsive. Pitch the whole thing.

-So how is it God didn't know the moon wasn't really a light, but instead just a reflector of light?

Oh, Gawd! Not that stupid shit argument again. This time it is semantics.

I take back all the nice things I said about you.

" the innerancy and infallability of the word of God is found in the original autographs, not the current versions today. Most people who study anything about theology are aware of that."

#104 | Posted by Corky

Nuh-uh. Posted by someone else.

-morally repulsive

Yeah, how could you love your neighbor when he might break into your bomb shelter and steal you gold horde?

Silly rabbit.

Danforth,

Does the moon help shed light on this planet?
Are there light particles coming from the moon to the earth?

What is your definition of a light?
Would not a reflection of light that brightens or lights an area simply be a lesser light than the main source of the light?

Does the light reflecting from the moon reach a different part of the world than the light of the sun?

Would it be darker at night if the moon were not reflecting light from the Sun?

Why does Corky always say stupid things?

"This is the uyltimate lie and a half. The Illegal Iraq War is a War of aggression."

I was unaware that the current war is taking place in cannan, oh well you learn something every day.

"Try that argument on war's victims."

So what, anytime someone kills another it is a crime?

War victims are viewing everything from the subjective understanding of the situation, not the intrinsically true and objective position of the situation.

Just because they feel bad, or feel as though it is a crime does not make it a crime or objective atrocity.

Try again. Personal experience is subjective and not indicative of the objective.

So what, anytime someone kills another it is a crime?
#127 | Posted by salamandagator

As a general rule:
Yes, when it is an act of aggression. No when it is done in defense against mortal threat. It is a commonly accepted universal moral truth that goes back to prehistory.

#128 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
#127 | Posted by salamandagator

You two are lost in some kind of fog that anything goes as long as we can justify it to ourselves or to a populace.

I have to go.

Woo hoo!!! Nothin' like a good ol' Christian bashing thread to get things moving here...LOL!

How many does that make today??

Hey Ray, guess what?

Without God you cannot have any objective universal moral truths.
or universal moral truths for that matter.

You have subjective preferencial truth.

You cannot say that it is bad unless there is an objective standard of good and bad. Without God there is no objective standard of good or bad

Your arguement is an arguement of fallacy.

Got anything to say about the NT, Zot???

LOD:

This isn't about ego's...at least on my part it isn't. I'm not prideful, rather humble infact.

#13 | Posted by Lisa

Lisa had to jump in here... (did you miss me?)

Did you ask your husband if it was ok to say that?

If not then you must sit down and STFU! Oh nvm! This is not church!

"34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor. 14).

Last I checked Corinthians was in the NT and written by Paul, the "rock" of the church.

Also according to you and the NT I should kill my kids.

15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. I am guessing that you will say that he does not mean literal death...you know it syas the same thing in about 3 places...when talking about death God should really be more specific...it's kind of final.

anyway...just a few stupid morals off the top of my head. I am sure there are more stupid NT morals...I am just a bit busy today to find them.

I continually hear Christians try and distance themselves from the laws of the OT.

Jesus did not.

Matthew 5:17

*
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He doesn't object to the cruelties of the Old Testament.

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who 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 practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Donnerboy,

If you are so blind as to see that this is speaking in terms of prophecy and tongues I would not see you fit to interpret anything else correctly either.

The whole chapter is in regard to how tongues and prophecy are to be observed during a service in the event that anyone has something of this nature to share. Also it has to do with the husband being the leader in the family and in the relationship back them. Also, the females would not have known because they were not involved in the schooling for the most part back then.

Take it for what you want though. I don't expect you to look at it in its literary context in regard to the chapter and book and also its cultural context.

Also in regard to the Matthew 15:4 quotation about the children.

Again, CONTEXT of the comment. Jesus is using this to show that the Pharisees have a false understanding of the law at hand. He is equating it to the disciples actions. They know that the law is not as strict as they try to make others follow.

Try harder next time. Find to time to bring up the other questionable morals, because these attempts failed.

"Does the moon help shed light on this planet?"

Yes, but it's not a second light, as stated in the Bible.

"Are there light particles coming from the moon to the earth?"

Yes, but it's the sun's rays. Nothing is originating from the moon. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as a New Moon.

"What is your definition of a light?"

The emanator, not the reflector. If you had one light bulb in a room, and brought in one mirror, you wouldn't claim you now had two lights.

"Would not a reflection of light that brightens or lights an area simply be a lesser light than the main source of the light?"

No, it would be a reflector of the main light. That's not what the Bible claims: it claims two lights.

"Does the light reflecting from the moon reach a different part of the world than the light of the sun?"

Doesn't matter. It's still one light, and one reflector. If the mirror lit an area not reached by the light bulb, you wouldn't suddenly claim there were two lights.

"Would it be darker at night if the moon were not reflecting light from the Sun?"

See? You just admitted it. The moon is merely reflecting the light originating and emanating from the Sun. In my example of the bulb and the mirror, if you actually believe it is two lights, remove one light -- the bulb -- and tell me how many lights are left.

Certainly God knew the difference, even if man writing a book back then didn't.

I continually hear Christians try and distance themselves from the laws of the OT.

Jesus did not.

Matthew 5:17

*
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He doesn't object to the cruelties of the Old Testament.

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who 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 practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

#134 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-10-20 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Look bud,

Either take the whole Bible in Context, or don't quote it at all.

Matthew 22: 34-35.
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

These two sum up the commandments.
The aspect about the Pharisees and being more righteous than them deals with following the law. The only way to be more righteous than them is to be in Christ and heir of his righteousness.

Come on man this is simple stuff.

"Either take the whole Bible in Context, or don't quote it at all."

No kidding!!

Also in regard to the moon. It is our interpretation that the verse is speaking about the moon. The scripture does not indicate the moon. It could be another great light that is visible in the night.

However I do not see the problem with the moon arguement either. It does cause light to be shed on a seperate part of the earth, and thus lights the earth, therefore being a light.

Although it is just a reflection, could it not still be a light unto someone path? It is not a reflection onto someones path. Light is being delivered. The moon takes on the role of a light.

"take the whole Bible in Context"

The "context", of course, being the whim of the interpreter.

Donner,

You and Ray seem to be incapable of understanding that if there is no God, there is no objective reality from which to grasp cruel or non cruel behavior.

It all depends on the definer of what is good and bad. There must be an agent to verify the objective good or bad, otherwise it is simply subjective good or bad and therefore not universal but personal.

In that event you cant morally say that rape is good or bad on an objective level, but only on a subjective personal experience level, which cannot be extended to all human beings because there is no intrinsic or objective standard.

So in regard to the OT. If God sets the standard, he sets the requirements and consequences of the standard.

You are looking at the situation from your perspective and subjective experience rather than the objective standard that exists in and only in God.

"Lisa had to jump in here... (did you miss me?)"

Of course! Even if you still try to twist Scripture to mean something other than it does to fit your own agenda. : )

"Did you ask your husband if it was ok to say that?"

*sigh*

You really need to stop Donner. To those of us who know better....you look so silly!!

Here's what cracks me up.....those of you who misquote or take Scripture out of context may further persuade non believers that what your claim may be true, but to Christians...you don't convince us of anything.

Now...where ya been?

"The "context", of course, being the whim of the interpreter."

The Bible interprets itself, Dan.

It's rather quite easy.

No Dan, the context being from the reading of the surrounding passage.

What is Paul discussing in the paragraph before the women comment, and the paragraph after the women comment?

What does he say before the honor comment and what does he say after the honor comment?

What does he say before the law coment and what does he say after the law comment?

You must look at it all. What else has he said. What does it mean?

You have to look at more than a couple verses. I know it is hard work, but that is what needs to be done.

You have to do it with historical writings, you have to do it with science, you have to do it with chemistry, you have to do it with philosophy. You cannot simply take pieces of anything and say it is the whole.

That is intellectually dishonest and lacking integrity and dilegence.

"The scripture does not indicate the moon. It could be another great light that is visible in the night."

Try not to run into anything when you're backpedaling that fast.

"It does cause light to be shed on a seperate part of the earth, and thus lights the earth, therefore being a light."

Sorry, there is already a definition of light, and reflector of light does NOT equal light. Merely claiming a mirror is "therefore a light" doesn't mean the mirror is a light. It's a reflector, nothing more. No light originates nor emanates from the mirror.

"Although it is just a reflection, could it not still be a light unto someone path?"

Sure it could, but that doesn't make it a light. That makes it a REFLECTOR of the original light. If it really were two lights, you could take one light away, and one would remain. Remove the light bulb, and there is no light left. According to your math, 2 - 1 = 0.

"The moon takes on the role of a light."

So does a mirror, but we don't call the mirror a light. We don't call a white wall a light. And we don't call a "fill card" on a photo shoot a light, despite the fact they all reflect the light from the original source. So you're correct only if you change the definition of light, and the definition of reflector. The mirror isn't a light. And the moon isn't a light. The Bible is clearly in error.

You must look at it all. What else has he said. What does it mean?

You have to look at more than a couple verses. I know it is hard work, but that is what needs to be done.

You have to do it with historical writings, you have to do it with science, you have to do it with chemistry, you have to do it with philosophy. You cannot simply take pieces of anything and say it is the whole.

That is intellectually dishonest and lacking integrity and dilegence.

Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2009-10-20 06:06 PM | Reply

Honestly, I wish more people took this stance with the bible. I'm serious.

"you have to do it with science"

That's a hoot, coming from a guy who wants to throw science out the window when it comes to a light, and a reflector of that light.

If it's two lights, how many lights would be left if we removed the sun?

Use science.

And math.

That is intellectually dishonest and lacking integrity and dilegence.

#144 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2009-10-20 06:06 PM

Not really just arrogance and fear.

DANFORTH stating that which reflects light is not a light is merely DANFORTH showing an unhealthy and very pedantic obsession.

If you can read by it when it's full, then the moon is a light.

"DANFORTH stating that which reflects light is not a light..."

A mirror is NOT A LIGHT. Remove the light bulb, and how many lights do you have? C'mon, Zed, you can do that simple math, can't you? If it's two lights, and you remove the originator of the light, how many lights do you have left in that dark room with a mirror?

"...is merely DANFORTH showing an unhealthy and very pedantic obsession."

Zed pretending the moon isn't merely a reflector of another source of light is merely an unhealthy need to pretend a book of errors contains no errors.

"If you can read by it when it's full, then the moon is a light."

It's not a SECOND light, like the Bible states.

Isn't one of the charges of the Bible not to Bear False Witness? You know very well the moon isn't a second light, merely a reflector of the first. Why do you feel you have to lie to defend what is obviously an error? Why, to stand by your point, do you have to embrace the foolish?

Danforth,

You do realize that the sun is also technically not a light then.

Light is produced from the reaction on the surface of the sun, however the sun is not just a concentration of light particles.

Define for me what light is. If the sun cooled, would it still be a light? Is it intrisically lit? Or is it particles that are giving off light cause by reactions, but not the base substance of the sun?

Please define light. And define reflection.

When speaking about the moon, take into account that a reflection is a lesser representation of the primary object.

So if the sun is a light, then the light reflecting of the moon would be a reflection of that, and therefore a lesser light than that coming directly from the Sun to the earth, and therefore two lights, one greater light causing day, and the lesser light causing night.

Is it possible that the explanation is speaking of the light's properties and not necessarily the bodies upon which they are produced?

Answer that honestly if possible.

Would that not satisfy greater and lesser light?

"If you can read by it when it's full, then the moon is a light."

And if it's a new moon, what then? Has the moon ceased to be a light?!?

Nothing worse than the willfully dumb, clinging to their stupidity because they have to defend the indefensible, 'cause their religion told them so.

You and Ray seem to be incapable of understanding that if there is no God, there is no objective reality from which to grasp cruel or non cruel behavior.

Do animals beleive in God?

They seem to know the difference between right and wrong without a God to tell them this.

Just as animals have built-in or hard wired morals so do we.

"Lisa I know I will never "convince" you of anything and I already told you why I know this is true."

Yes Donner, and once again if you have that kind of mind and heart reading ability, you waste your time here.

Perhaps a booth at your state fair would be better. : )

"You do realize that the sun is also technically not a light then. "

It emanates light. It is the original source. Not a reflector, the actual light.

"Light...blah, blah, blah...possible"

In that case, you're moving FURTHER away from what the Bible claims.

"Would that not satisfy greater and lesser light?"

Absolutely not.

Why won't you do the math equation? A dark room, a single light bulb, and one mirror. By your claims, TWO lights. Now, remove the light bulb. How many lights are left in that dark room with one mirror?

First day: God creates light ("Let there be light!")the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.

Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command) to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.

OOPS! The light got here before the Sun and the stars were created. Nice trick God. I guess that is why they call you God! It is so nice not to be bound by the laws of Physics that You made. I guess that proves we don't live in a "closed" system and that there is indeed something "outside" of this Universe.

Thanks for clearing that up for us silly humans.

"So if the sun is a light, then the light reflecting of the moon would be a reflection of that, and therefore a lesser light"

No, it wouldn't. It would be a reflection of the original light. Not a second light at all, any more than a mirror or a wall painted white. You would never call a white wall a light, why would you call any other object that merely reflects the original light a "second" light?

Oh...that's right....because you have to pretend that book never, EVER, made any mistakes. And if it did, you have to lie to the point of absurdity.

Why is bearing false witness less important than admitting something that isn't a light, isn't a light?

Yes Donner, and once again if you have that kind of mind and heart reading ability, you waste your time here.

ah shucks... is no worry LISA... I come here to "practice" my "dark arts".

Jackass, theoretically and philosophically, all Christians are aware, claim, and know that the Bible is not original. Even the Bible declares iteself that it is the recording of the word of God which has bee existent from the beginning. It is also clear in the Bible that not all of the information available was provided in its covers as on two occasions information was not to be written down, and one occasion ingested in order that it was not known. (I am not making the case here that this actually happened, but rather using the source to show you that it is stated within this source what it is not original)

Also you must take into account that timespan that God was supposedly working with and through Man in relationship. It would begin at the foundation of human society. The scripture is clear that the Bible was written down later than that point. There are things that took place in the beginning in which we do not have a detailed account. This would include different perceptions of what God had said by different people ( as not all would follow and some would make up their own systems catered to them as the most important person to God)

If God did exist in a capacity similar to the Biblical description (whether the Bible is true or not) then it would only be natural for the intrinsic truth coming from God in the beginning to be distorted and changed depending on the peoples of the specific times. In this case you would get different religious systems with similarities as they had the same original source.

Some would be more accurate, some would be less accurate - completely incorrect.

Your argument does not rule out the possibility of the Bible to be authoritive (in the event that it is true, and accurate to the original proposed system from God's first relationship with man).

This is from a post earlier in the thread in regard to as similar uninformed statement from Jackass

Also this from #81

Jackass, again, read my post. It tell you logically why they might be very similar to a lot of different sources.

They are not exactly the same as a bunch of soureces, but they have similarities. That does not mean they are untrue.

They can:
1. Clarify other sources accounts
2. Provide additional information on top of previous sources
3. They can have changes that are more correct than other sources.
4. They can follow more closely to the one common original source of all the other sources, and thus why there is colors of many previous sources visual.

All religions have an aspect of truth in terms of God in them. However it is divergent at other points.

Just like evolutionist explain, textual understanding and stories also evolve, change, etc.

Some stay closer to the original source, some diverge more. The one that is closest to the original will include the most similarities of the previous sources.

There is no problem with Hammarabi having the same kinds of things as Moses

BECAUSE IT IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

You are speaking in terms of subjective right and wrong in terms of the animals.

You are incapable of grasping the difference between objective and subjective.

How are you deciding the animals know what is right and wrong? What about animals killing their own young?

Is that right? Wrong? Without an Objective agent it doesnt matter, there is no right or wrong without and objective standard.

Was Hammurabi also inspired by the same God as Moses or was he just tired of chaos and trying to unite the (warring) tribes under (one law)?

First of all Donner,

The word that is mentioned in Genesis for the sun and the moon beginning to eminate light, can also be translated as revealed.

Thus it would be the first time (from the perspective of the surface of the earth) that the light was visible through the firmament.

Also, light in the universe in terms of particles in not solely dependant on our sun.

Think before you speak.

Also, don't blah blah blah something out because you don't want to accept it.

You don't know what the Bible meant with the light, it is evident. You think that just because ti says "God said, let there be light" that he is talking about the sun.

You obviously cannot read the scripture effectively yourself.

LOL Donner, it's all good!

BTW...It's by Grace that I believe. It's Amazing!

whats the matter donner, you do not want to read my post?

Cant hack it. Too much info?

Hammarabi received information from the same source as Moses. He does not have to be inspired, the inspiration comes in the fullness of the product, not the pieces.

We know that all religions have pieces of each other, which is commen when things come from a common source, is this not true?

Isn't that the whole premise of evolution? If it looks the same it must have either come from the previous or come from a common source?

I have noticed one thing interesting. Everytime I try to have some kind of discussion with donner, or danforth, the other shows up and tries to lead the discussion on a totally different course.

Both of you pick one discussion and stick with it. I will be happy to discuss with you. Iknow you are both childish enought to claim that I am avoiding the question if I don't answer immediatly. So it will be helpful if you stay on one discussion before you give yourself a falsely percieved technical victory.

There is no problem with Hammarabi having the same kinds of things as Moses

no problem for YOU!

BECAUSE IT IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

But this "Objective Truth", as you put is so well, was obtained not through the Spirit of a God of the Bible but through the mind of MAN. This man apparently worshiped a God that did not even exist (according to your philosophy) yet came to many just conclusions.

Although Hammurabi had good motives for writing his just but strict code of law, he based them all on his own human wisdom, which, just like the rest of us, becomes subject to fallacy and error.

You are speaking in terms of subjective right and wrong in terms of the animals.

You are incapable of grasping the difference between objective and subjective.

How are you deciding the animals know what is right and wrong? What about animals killing their own young?

Is that right? Wrong? Without an Objective agent it doesnt matter, there is no right or wrong without and objective standard.

Very Good!

Then it is possible for it to be Right to kill ones young under certain circumstances (i.e. in the animal world) because their "morals" are not the same as ours not being contaminated with the God meme. They do what they need to do but they do not do more than that. That does not mean they are wrong and so it follows that it does not mean we are necessarily Right either. You place a false importance on a God that may or may not exist as described in the bible. Remove that God from the equation and it is true that our "morals" may change as we would no longer have to consider anything in the bible as having any authority higher than man. Hammurabi was able to do this and so can we.

Imagine that!

John Lennon did.

Danforth,

You keep speaking of the physical bodies, not of the light in question.

The particles of light from the sun produces direct light, which would be greater light. When those particles are reflected from the moon over a larger distance (going from the sun to the moon, then the moon to the earth) they will be dispersed more and thus bring less light, and therefore being lesser light.

There could be two states of light from one physical body. I hope you can grasp this as well.

Also, don't claim to understand genesis, because Genesis has been propogated falsely in many different ways before.

Donner,

You are still speaking in terms of subjective morality, subjective good and bad, subjective truth.

Your premise is that there is no purpose or standard and yet something is below that non-existent standard.

I don't see how you find this more rational.

I am talking about the relationship between god and human morals...

Hammarabi received information from the same source as Moses.

I agree. It came from the mind of Man but was inspired by the Universe itself. You can call that God if you have to.

I don't need to.

The word that is mentioned in Genesis for the sun and the moon beginning to eminate light, can also be translated as revealed.

Thus it would be the first time (from the perspective of the surface of the earth) that the light was visible through the firmament.

Also, light in the universe in terms of particles in not solely dependant on our sun.

Think before you speak.

Ummm Bullshit. It clearly states that God created light. He divided the light into day and night.

Then several "days" later he created the source of that light which is divided into our day and night. He did not create Photons he created light for the Earth. It is just that he was very busy and didn't get around to the Sun until four days later. It's ok you don't have to try and baffle me with bullshit. Just say it. He is God He can do anything He wants..right?

You are full if it. God failed his own laws of physics. Or He is from outside the Universe and is therefore not subject to its laws.

Don't blah blah me with your bullshit. I can read as well as you. It is just that I have removed my "God filter"...and you haven't is all.

I take it you read the Hebrew yes? It would be important to the arguement.

The arguement does not end with the English translation of the Hebrew, but the original.

You like to look at contemporary situation and read them back to original situations as has been see in your arguements.

I am not giving you bull, I am giving you pieces of also potential and credible interpretation of what the Hebrew says.

You are not willing to take it there.

What is your presupposition in terms of God's existence?

I am also not talking about the Biblical God by the way, I am speaking of an intellegent being, designer or creator who does not necessarily have to be omniscient, omnipotent, etc.

What is your presupposition?

You cantinue to speak about the scripture, but refuse to speak from the supposition from wich the scripture is written.

And when you speak of outside the universe, seeing as science has found an abundance of reasonably conceived evidence that the universe had a beginning, meaning that time, space and matter had a beginning, that being that began it would have to be outside of time, space and matter, therefore would have to be transcendant (sic).

Yes if there is an originator to the universe, the originator must be outside of time, space and matter, therefore outside of our time/space universe.

I will admit that there is a great potential that I misrepresented (unintentionally) some of the information I have attempted to give due to the process of trying to speak to you and danforth on seperate issues.

However, instead of asking for clarification on issues, you would rather claim everything is bullshit and blah blah blah just because you do not understand what is being said fully.

I would rather you ask for clarification than continue to delude yourself into thinking it is bullshit just because you subjectively feel as though it is bullshit.

What is your presupposition?

The question [Do you believe in God?] has a peculiar structure. If I say no, do I mean I'm convinced God doesn't exist, or do I mean I'm not convinced he does exist? Those are two very different questions.

Carl Sagan

I believe that there are powers in the Universe Greater than Man. I do not "believe" in the God of the Bible but in something that is probably much greater. I do think Man is only now coming to understand his place in the Universe. Man (and all of life) IS the Universe that has risen up to take a look at itself.

MY Universe is calling me. I will try and check back later if it allows me!

enjo!

Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy. [Carl Sagan]

Ok Donner, all well and good.

Can you go back to before you decided to follow Sagan quotes as your own personal thougt process and tell me what you, without the influence of Sagan and Sagan's thoughts believe on the subject?

If it is the same, great. However I tend to question when someone starts of their thoughts with the thoughts of someone else.

"You know very well it (Moon) is not a second light..."

You know very well you engage in arid debates about semantics.

"It's sad to see people dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy...."

Carl Sagan I liked a lot. But there's evidence he lacked people skills. So, his dreaming is better than other people's dreaming, or is he trying to say he never dreamed?
Either way, silly statements made about things he might have understood had he spent as much time on them as astronomy.

"Belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe..."

The people I have met who convert into believers almost always have had experiences, not always dramatic but always profound, that bump them into belief--Occasionally kicking and screaming.

This only makes sense. A lot of us start off like Carl with a need for "evidence". And, strangely enough, evidence for we materialists is often provided. All the world as if some very intelligent and powerful being knew we needed some.

"Carl Sagan I liked a lot. But there's evidence he lacked people skills. "

What the fuck does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

#9 | Posted by lisa at 2009-10-20 10:26 AM
***"Yep, love thy neighbor as thyself, the Beattitudes, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, etc...all bad stuff right there!! I can see why people would be better off without those teachings."

If American Religion Incorporated practiced ANY of those teachings maybe religion wouldn't get such a bad rap. But, given their propensity toward hate, intolerance and arrogant piousness, I can understand the sentiment forwarded by this author. Christianity is by definition to be Christ-like, but unfortunately Christians have sold out to a higher power: money and influence...

***"If they did, they would realize just how far from Scripture their practices are"

Pssst, it's not only the Catholics...

You and Ray seem to be incapable of understanding that if there is no God, there is no objective reality from which to grasp cruel or non cruel behavior.
#141 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

What kind of gobbledygook is that? You're the one who is rationalizing killing, not me.

The idea of a deity is a human invention. Everything you know about the subject, including the Bible itself came from humans who have no evidence to prove their beliefs.

Without God you cannot have any objective universal moral truths.
or universal moral truths for that matter.

I previously named three that came out of the necessity for man to survive.

"Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man's?"

~F. Nietzsche

THAT is the most relevant question.

Ray, can't you understand that they are SUBJECTIVE.

Again, you are not understanding the difference between objective (intrinsic and universal regardless of personal experience) and subjective (experiencial and personal often times in opposition to or free from the intrinsic).

I am not rationalizing killing. I am trying to help you understand the point at which the definition of killing and atrocity lay. You refuse to acknowledge that.

Without an objective being dictating objective truths, your subjective truths are meaningless and personal. Killing is then not right or wrong, and therefore not horrible or wonderful.

And atrocity would lose its value as well.

"The "context", of course, being the whim of the interpreter."
The Bible interprets itself, Dan.
It's rather quite easy.
#143 | Posted by Lisa

In the interest of truth, Lisa. There is only one correct context - what the speaker intended to communicate. Whether spoken or in print, it is the only way we can communicate.

Theists have this false idea that they can interpret the Bible any way they want. There must be hundreds of sects and cults with a different interpretation. It's a regular Tower of Babel.

"there is no objective reality"

Well, duh.

Reality is a crutch.

Zara,

Man has a full capability to make a mistake apart from God.

Sounds like you and Friedrich don't like the idea of personal responsibility.

Zat likes quotes out of context I see.

Ray, can't you understand that they are SUBJECTIVE.

So what! It's universal in the sense of a commonly shared value.

Without an objective being dictating objective truths, your subjective truths are meaningless and personal. Killing is then not right or wrong, and therefore not horrible or wonderful.

The idea of God is entirely subjective. The worst crimes imaginable were done in the name of God.

Man has a full capability to make a mistake apart from God.

Ah yes. Ever since Adam ate that forbidden fruit on the first day after creation.

Sounds like you and Friedrich don't like the idea of personal responsibility.

When will theists stop blaming man for God's mistakes?

for the most part, modern interpretations of Christ's sacrific for humanity imply a morally depraved God, Universe and/or Society.

"If American Religion Incorporated practiced ANY of those teachings maybe religion wouldn't get such a bad rap. But, given their propensity toward hate, intolerance and arrogant piousness, I can understand the sentiment forwarded by this author. Christianity is by definition to be Christ-like, but unfortunately Christians have sold out to a higher power: money and influence..."

HI Capn:

I want you to take a look around at the threads that Christian bash. Read the comments.

Now, you tell me who are the hateful ones, the intolerant ones, the arrogant ones. Not many of us Christians resort to the name calling and insults at those who disagree with us, like we get from non believers. So please....don't fool yourself into thinking that it is the spiritual who hate.

There is no greater arrogance than to believe one knows without a doubt that there is no God, no after life when in fact none of these people have died to prove it.

We believe by faith.

There are people, believers and non believers who have done terrible things in their lives. We ALL are sinners. Jesus was the only perfect one that ever walked this earth. Jesus's very existance was because we sin.

And that is part of the problem... non believers expect believers to be perfect, without flaws, without sin. That is not the reality of the situation.

So what happens? When a person of faith sins, people are all too quick to criticize religion rather than the person committing the sin. It's easier for them that . It helps justify their beliefs that religion is "bad".

I don't take much stock in what the gentelman of this thread says. He obviously is like some here who only go by the OT and doesn't want to acknowledge the NT with the beautiful teachings of Christ.

Can't imagine why.

"Iknow(sic) you are both childish enought to claim that I am avoiding the question if I don't answer immediatly.(sic)"

Where have I claimed that? And why do you feel the need to charge me with something I've never done?

The american history text of the civil war would be classed as immoral by this novelist exept he won't do it because it doesn't comdemn his sins.'

People hate to be told they are perverts, they just don't like it. So they attack the messenger.

And this novelist is a pervert in my opinion...

The Bible is the only standard of morals.

Agree or not, doesn't matter to me, it's still the truth.

The american history text of the civil war would be classed as immoral by this novelist exept he won't do it because it doesn't comdemn his sins.'

People hate to be told they are perverts, they just don't like it. So they attack the messenger.

And this novelist is a pervert in my opinion...

The Bible is the only standard of morals.

Agree or not, doesn't matter to me, it's still the truth.

"Danforth, You keep speaking of the physical bodies, not of the light in question."

More backpedaling. If you get to interpret the Bible in new ways every time someone challenges you on the meaning, it becomes meaningless, doesn't it?

"The particles of light from the sun produces direct light, which would be greater light. When those particles are reflected from the moon over a larger distance (going from the sun to the moon, then the moon to the earth) they will be dispersed more and thus bring less light, and therefore being lesser light."

Big deal. That's not what the Bible claim, it claims TWO lights. Science tells us that's not true. Just like science tells us -- to the Bible's dismay -- that the universe is heliocentric, not geocentric.

"There could be two states of light from one physical body. I hope you can grasp this as well."

I can "grasp" it just fine. You're tap dancing around the definitions of light, reflection, one and two.

"Also, don't claim to understand genesis"

No shit.

"...because Genesis has been propogated falsely in many different ways before."

So you willingly admit the Bible isn't inerrant. Thanks for admitting that.

Lisa

In the interest of truth, I don't have to insult.

I've studied Jesus' sayings. I have a whole page where he is preaching fire and damnation to nonbelievers. If you read between the lines in the Beatitudes, Jesus was urging his listeners to stop thinking for themselves and obey. Jesus was very dogmatic and controlling. The Marxist, Obama has that characteristic.

Nobel prize winning authors can be perverts, no law against that.

Shows the Nobel prize winners can be wrong and still win prizes.

Why are you saying that God caused you to commit fallacius arguements Ray?

What is your view on the universe? Big bang, or big bounce or some other theory?

The Bible is the only standard of morals.
Agree or not, doesn't matter to me, it's still the truth.
#191 | Posted by richardrhine

Don't make me copy and paste some of the blood curdling vindictiveness the Bible is noted for.

No Dan, I did not say that.

I am admitting that people can mistranslate.

The Bible in its intrinsic or objective form is innerant. Our current translation is not innerant as is believed by 95% of all Christians in that innerancy lies in the original autographs.

regarding: "I have a whole page where he is preaching fire and damnation to nonbelievers."

Sorry you misrepresent.

Jesus is preaching damnation to child molestors, thieves robbers adulterers and people who beat children

and that is as it will be,
but you skip the important part,

you make the Bible sound like it just comdemns, it does not

Ezek 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
Ezek 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Ezek 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

God is warning you to stop being a pervert, and he wants you tl become a nice guy so you can live forever and be happy.

Child molesters will die.

Ray,

Understand this. You have no foundation or standard of objectivity to say that something is vindictive.

You keep repeating the genetic fallacy over and over again.

regarding: "I have a whole page where he is preaching fire and damnation to nonbelievers."

Sorry you misrepresent.

Jesus is preaching damnation to child molestors, thieves robbers adulterers and people who beat children

and that is as it will be,
but you skip the important part,

you make the Bible sound like it just comdemns, it does not

Ezek 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
Ezek 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Ezek 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

God is warning you to stop being a pervert, and he wants you tl become a nice guy so you can live forever and be happy.

Child molesters will die.

"you would rather claim everything is bullshit and blah blah blah just because you do not understand what is being said fully."

Spoken like someone who can't defend his position with either science or math, and has to rely on "you don't understand what I understand" as the fallback.

If you can prove your position using accepted standards, do it. The fact you keep retreating to "well, you don't get what I get" merely proves the weakness of your untenable position.

Why are you saying that God caused you to commit fallacius arguements Ray?

I've been saying from the beginning, the idea of God is a human creation. Read what I wrote more carefully: "When will theists stop blaming man for God's mistakes?"

What is your view on the universe? Big bang, or big bounce or some other theory?

The universal is eternal and infinite. Popular scientific theories are bunch of crap.

Jesus is preaching damnation to child molestors, thieves robbers adulterers and people who beat children

You left out Pharisees and pagans.

The whole Bible message is this:

1. Perverts will die
2. We are all perverts according to the Bible.
3. Jesus died and took the perverts punishment so you don't ahve to.
4. REPENT (stop doing pervert things) and every one of you can live forever, thanks to JEsus.

This is a good message.

Ignore it at your own peril.

If you do not accept Jesus' penalty paid for YOUR sins you will die.

Those who accept his penalty and CHANGE their LIFE with his help will live.

That is a good message.

The novelist is an unrepentant pervert and will eventually die if he does not repent.

so will you

your choice.

simple, even a child can grasp this.

'I am admitting that people can mistranslate."

Then the claims of the KJV are false. Period.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
John 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Understand this. You have no foundation or standard of objectivity to say that something is vindictive.
You keep repeating the genetic fallacy over and over again.
#200 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Then the word has no meaning to you.

1 a : disposed to seek revenge : vengeful b : intended for or involving revenge
2 : intended to cause anguish or hurt : spiteful

I can easily prove that if it is not evident to you.

Only an evil man would call those morals bad.

concerning: "'I am admitting that people can mistranslate."

THAT is only becaue you are ignorant.

King james built OXFORD UNIVERSITY for the sole pupose the verify the bible.
4700 COPIES from all over the world were compared. 99% were right on, a few had "ands "thes" missing.

self verified.

And God promised that his translators would be protected.

so 4700 DIFFERENT translators all matched from different parts of the world.

can't verify any better than that.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

"The Bible in its intrinsic or objective form is innerant(sic)."

Riiiiiiiiight. As long as you have elastic definitions for "light", "one" and "two".

And as long as you put apologism ahead of "thou shalt not bear false witness".

You know, as well as I, the moon is not a light. You know, as well as I, the moon is merely a reflector of the sun's light. You know, as well as I, the writers during Biblical times didn't know the difference. You, however, will bear false witness, just because you can't admit the truth without admitting it's the word of men, not the Word of God.

"99% were right on, a few had "ands "thes" missing. self verified."

Self-retorting.

concerning: "'I am admitting that people can mistranslate."

THAT is only becaue you are ignorant.

King james built OXFORD UNIVERSITY for the sole purpose the verify the bible.
4700 COPIES from all over the world were compared. 99% were right on, a few had "ands "the's" missing.

self verified.

And God promised that his translators would be protected.

so 4700 DIFFERENT translators all matched from different parts of the world.

can't verify any better than that.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

concerning: "'I am admitting that people can mistranslate."

THAT is only becaue you are ignorant.

King james built OXFORD UNIVERSITY for the sole purpose the verify the bible.
4700 COPIES from all over the world were compared. 99% were right on, a few had "ands "the's" missing.

self verified.

And God promised that his translators would be protected.

so 4700 DIFFERENT translators all matched from different parts of the world.

can't verify any better than that.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Let's parse what that means.

God hated the day when Adam didn't blindly obey his orders. In anger, he later killed almost every living thing in a flood. When that didn't work, he delegated the Jews to rule the world for him. When that didn't work, he had his son killed. But since he and the son are the same, it was a faked death.

Christians suffer from a refusal to think.

"so 4700 DIFFERENT translators all matched from different parts of the world."

What a pile of bullshit. There's a battle in the Bible where different translations differ in the number of dead by a factor of 10.

"4700 DIFFERENT translators all matched from different parts of the world."

So did all 4700 erroneously claim the moon is a light? That would make ALL 4700 wrong.

Where knowledge ends, religion begins.
-- Benjamin Disraeli

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-- Blaise Pascal

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-- Steven Weinberg

King james built OXFORD UNIVERSITY for the sole purpose the verify the bible.
4700 COPIES from all over the world were compared. 99% were right on, a few had "ands "the's" missing.

Right off the top of my head, I know that the last chapter of Mark was a later addition. The story about casting the first stone was added during Medieval times. And of course there is mistranslation of "virgin" for "young woman" in Isaiah.

"Christians suffer from a refusal to think..."

We just refuse to think your way. This is much easier than you might believe.

"Let's parse that statement..."

As opposed to accepting it for what it is. Sure.

Gee, where did all the apologists go? Once confronted with roadblocks like math, or science, the "inerrant Bible" defenders run like cockroaches fleeing light.

Not necessarily a mistranslation. It meant virgin or young woman, because on most occasions young women would be virgins.

Anyone who says the King James is innerant is being dishonest. especially if they put a 99% in front of it.

Also dan, I notice you don't respond to difficult posts until a few minutes after the person leaves. Interesting. Especially when you were the one claiming "blah blah blah bullshit... " and not asking for clarification. Also not answering the questions.

Then when something is presented that makes the case that a more dispersed light being reflected would be lesser light than upon its origin, you go on the blah blah blah... bulshit train again.

Also Ray, again, you are still arguing the genetic fallacy. A fallacy means your arguement is false. You cant come to truth with a false arguement.

You can keep telling me what is bad or good or vengeance or anything, however you have no standard to evaluate them by because everything you have is simply experiencial subjective rather than objectively true.

To claim there are universals means that there is objective truth and if there is objective truth there is a personal force behind that objectivity giving it purpose and intrinsic truth properties.

Nothing about a chance creation makes objective truths. Just chance subjective experience.

Just because a man defined something subjectively does not mean it is the objective definition.

Gee, where did all the apologists go? Once confronted with roadblocks like math, or science, the "inerrant Bible" defenders run like cockroaches fleeing light.

#222 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-20 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Really Dan?

This is great. You just proved the arguement I put forth in my last post. You wait until someone is gone for a period, post, wait and then claim premature victory...

Funny when people get caught in their schemes.

"But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion..."

The good Dr. Weinberg was never bothered to open a history book or newspapers. Liberal educations, as you know, are dangerous things.

223 posts of gibberish.

I'm Catholic.

I know virtually nothing about the bible.

In any case, it's obvious that after 223 posts and no blaming of Bush that is just isn't worth it.

Danforth you cannot seem to comprehend that you must be able to move from the subjective (the english translations) to the objective (the original language and textual record).

You also do not seem to understand that just because the english translators put a specific word down that it is right in interpretation.

However when someone follows your claim that they are incorrect, then you call them dishonest.

You, just like ray are also committing the genetic fallacy.

Congratulations, you two can have a party.

"Popular scientific theories are a bunch of crap...."

Because, you know, I'm as unwedded to the scientific method as theists are, but in a good way.

"We just refuse to think your way."

"Your way" being the way of provable science, or simple math.

No, no, no, they insist...who are you going to believe? Our book, or what's been proven time and again? Our way of not questioning, or some silly concept that welcomes every better answer? Our way of faith, or "their way" of science? Our belief all answers are already known, or their way. which presupposes we can still learn?

It is completely acceptable for athiests to commit logical fallacies and then place standards that are imaginary (in their view) on other people.

Danforth is using a small mind to paint a fantasy board with a broad brush.

The scripture never rejects science, nor does it ever tell any individual to reject science. That again would be a fallacy of man's teaching.

DANFORTH, you and RAY erect windmills you both tilt at. You wonder why others won't play and are suspicious of that.

Religous people aren't the way you paint them, and contain no more loons by percentage than are to be found among your atheist friends.

Jesus and the words of Jesus aren't the way RAY paints them. He's an interesting study in perversity, because he really does know better.

He wants to make people jump by saying outre things. After a bit, no one flinches and the outre things seem really not much worse than messages found in fortune cookies.

"Danforth you cannot seem to comprehend that you must be able to move from the subjective (the english translations) to the objective (the original language and textual record)."

It always comes down to that, doesn't it? That if someone doesn't believe provably incorrect bullshit, they simply don't fully understand, right? If that's the case, explain to me the translational problems of the words "light", "one" and "two".

"However when someone follows your claim that they are incorrect, then you call them dishonest. "

You're joking, right? You refuse to answer simple, honest questions about the number of lights in a room with a bulb and a mirror, and instead, call ME dishonest? It's shills like you who do more damage to the faith than good. Your insistence in defending the scientifically and mathematically indefensible cries out for disbelief. Concentrating instead on the beauty of the teachings would get folks a lot further than demanding people suspend belief in things already known, like the fact the moon is only a reflector of light, not a light itself. It undermines the greater lessons taught.

"Danforth is using a small mind to paint a fantasy board with a broad brush."

Translation: I can't answer the question of the light bulb and the mirror without admitting the Bible is wrong.

"The scripture never rejects science"

Is the moon a light? If not, the scripture rejects science.

Is the universe geocentric? If not, the scripture rejects science.

is it easier to lie than to admit the truth? If so, I've got several posters pegged.

"DANFORTH, you and RAY erect windmills you both tilt at."

Translation: I can't answer the light bulb and mirror question, either.

Again, any light that is more dispersed that another becomes a lesser light.

Greater light occurs during the day than during the night.

Therefore he created two lights, a greater light and a lesser light.

You also falsely claimed that the sun was the light source in the beginning, however that is not the case. Have you not ever made something that has a purpose, yet simply had not initiated or implimented that item towards its purpose yet?

You seem to be claiming that you have the right translation of the scripture. I am taking a more open position than even yourself. And yet you complain about it.

Yes if the moon is what is being discussed it is a reflector, which reflects light, causing the appearance of two sources of light.

However the light cast from the sun is a greater light, the light cast off the moon is a lesser light from the same source, and therefore there is two degrees of light, greater (less dispersed over lesser distance) and lesser (more dispersed over greater distance).

We simply cannot say whether the light is in regard to the physical bodies or the properties of the light. If you say that you can, you are reading into the text and therefore commiting an interprative fallacy.

"You wait until someone is gone for a period, post, wait and then claim premature victory...Funny when people get caught in their schemes."

Are you actually going to answer the riddle of the light bulb and the mirror, or are you going to continue to hide behind the lies?

No, it is not easier to lie than to admit the truth, however it is harder to search for the truth than it is to call someone a liar.

You refuse to look past what you have concluded. You refuse to distinguish between the subjective and the objective.

You refuse to think that the statements can mean something other than what the english interpretation states, at the same time as saying that the english interpretation is incorrect.

Make up your mind. Is the interpretation correct or not?

If so, how do you know? If not, how do you know?

Don't circle your logic by stating that it is true and therefore you are wrong about the moon and if the bible is wrong about the moon obviously it is against science and therefore wrong.

It is either right or wrong.

Not necessarily a mistranslation. It meant virgin or young woman, because on most occasions young women would be virgins.

It was taken literally by Christians and paraded it as a prophecy.

Also Ray, again, you are still arguing the genetic fallacy. A fallacy means your arguement is false. You cant come to truth with a false arguement.
To claim there are universals means that there is objective truth and if there is objective truth there is a personal force behind that objectivity giving it purpose and intrinsic truth properties.

You're arguing with me over what I mean by universal. Yes, values are subjective. By "universal" I mean common acceptance. That said, the vindictiveness in the Bible is blatant: believe or go to hell! Feel free to accept that conclusion as my subjective opinion.

Time to go.

"Again, any light that is more dispersed that another becomes a lesser light. "

But still not a second light. Therefore, the Bible is in error.

"Greater light occurs during the day than during the night. Therefore he created two lights, a greater light and a lesser light."

That's a lie. you're making up new definitions, simply because the real definitions prove the Bible incorrect.

"You also falsely claimed that the sun was the light source in the beginning"

Huh? Again, if you actually want to take that position, you're moving FURTHER AWAY from the claims of the Bible, not closer.

"You seem to be claiming that you have the right translation of the scripture."

Then correct me in the definitions of "light" "one", and "two". And if your position is these words are up for different interpretations, then my position is ALL words of the Bible should be up for different interpretations.

"I am taking a more open position than even yourself."

Exactly. My position included accepted definitions. Yours includes varying interpretations, based on what you need the outcome to be.

"And yet you complain about it."

Go figure. You want to make new definitions based on what you need, to make the Bible inerrant, and are okay if the definitions change from word to word. I believe that simply underscores the weakness of your position.

"Yes if the moon is what is being discussed it is a reflector, which reflects light, causing the appearance of two sources of light."

Very good. "Appearance". But God would know better, wouldn't He? That is, if the Bible really was the inerrant word of God. As it's obviously not, pretenders like you are easily exposed.

"However the light cast from the sun is a greater light, the light cast off the moon is a lesser light from the same source, and therefore there is two degrees of light"

Two degrees?!? Now you're moving the goalposts. The Bible says nothing about two degrees, it said two lights. And science has proven it wrong.

"We simply cannot say whether the light is in regard to the physical bodies or the properties of the light. If you say that you can, you are reading into the text and therefore commiting an interprative fallacy."

You've not moved into the "nothing means anything, really" realm. You're a bullshit apologist, painting yourself into a smaller and smaller corner with each post. We both know the moon is not a light, yet you feel some foolish need to bear false witness. Why?

"You refuse to distinguish between the subjective and the objective."

Says the guy who keeps insisting a reflector of light is an actual light.

"Make up your mind. Is the interpretation correct or not?"

You tell me. You're the one who keeps changing the meanings of "light", "one", and "two".

"You refuse to think that the statements can mean something other than what the english interpretation states"

Then explain how translations can mistranslate "light", "one", and "two", and you still believe the Bible is inerrant.

"Don't circle your logic"

Too funny. Let's get back to the basics:

1. If you had a dark room, and brought a lit light bulb into the room, how many lights would there be?

2. If you brought a mirror into that room, how many lights would be in that room?

3. If you left the mirror in the dark room, and removed the light bulb, how many lights would be in the room?

^^^^
Don't fall asleep folks. This important argument about moonlight will be followed by a debate taking a fresh look at how many angels can fit on a pin. After that, another round of GoatBooB vs. BuffaloBob.

"No, it is not easier to lie than to admit the truth"

It sure is for you.

"it is harder to search for the truth than it is to call someone a liar."

You've abandoned the search for the truth, and instead, are more than willing to lie, even about things you know aren't true. Every attempt at pretending the moon is this, or that, is just tap dancing because you know in your heart the moon isn't a light. But you're willing to bear false witness. Why, I wonder? Why is defending the indefensible more important than obeying a commandment?

"Greater light occurs during the day than during the night."

That's not two lights. That's one light, and a reflector of said light.

I'm done. Lie, and parse, all you want. It's your choice to bear false witness rather than admit the truth. The Bible claims two lights. The Bible is provable wrong.

provable = provably

Ok, I say it is errant in its current form. I have discussed how it could be correct. You choose not to accept that.

Light is not distinguished by the physical object from which it eminates. Light is that which is eminated.

If I have a light bulb, that does not make it light, it makes it a light bulb.

If you want to get really technical, every single photon is a different light.

You are unwilling to look at the situation from that which you currently understand. I have never taken the scripture in the fashion which you presuppose the scripture means.

Do not hold me to your lack of ability to examine all possibilities.

You can tell me I am bearing false witness, however in the event that I am not, you are unintentionally bearing false witness. And since you do not know if I am bearing false witness and you are claiming that I most definitely am, you are bearing false witness as well.

Your credibility then is less than that of mine.

I don't mind you continuing to talk about lights, dark rooms and mirrors.

You have a limited understanding of what the scripture says, means and allows from the original language. You are ruled by the subjective and unwilling to discuss from the objective. Not my problem.

There are two lights. One lesser and one greater. These two light eminate from the same source, yet impact different portions of the earth in different manners.

I am not placing the particles of light and its properties to the physical substance from which it eminates off of.

You are. And you are tied to that. I never tied myself to that theory, yet I agree that the scripture in its current form is errant.

However, the scripture, just because it is errant does not mean that it is untrue. Unless you are speaking objectively about everything, and completely objectively, everything is errant.

The truth of the scripture lies upon the Resurrection claim. If Christ is resurrected, then the scripture is more validated, and the God Christ serves is more validated and therefore the fact that God meant something other than what you are willing to undrstand from Genesis is more validated.

Don't read the Bible, instead read John Milton. Here is a tasty tidbit:

A Dungeon horrible, on all sides round
As one great Furnace flam'd, yet from those flames
No light, but rather darkness visible
Serv'd only to discover sights of woe,
Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace
And rest can never dwell, hope never comes
That comes to all; but torture without end
Still urges, and a fiery Deluge, fed
With ever-burning Sulphur unconsum'd:
Such place Eternal Justice had prepar'd
For those rebellious, here their Prison ordain'd
In utter darkness,

Too funny. Let's get back to the basics:

1. If you had a dark room, and brought a lit light bulb into the room, how many lights would there be?

If you brought a light bulb (which is only a source of light) into the room there would be one light.

2. If you brought a mirror into that room, how many lights would be in that room?

If you brought a lightbulb (a source of light) and a mirror, (which upon reflection becomes a second source of light by reflection) there would be two light sources in the room.

3. If you left the mirror in the dark room, and removed the light bulb, how many lights would be in the room?

If you left the mirror in the dark room and removed the light bulb, one light would be left in the room. The lesser light would be infinitely dispersing into the dark room until it were no longer visible.

1. If you had a dark room, and brought a lit light bulb into the room, how many lights would there be?

#250 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2009-10-20 10:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

What did You do soak it in lighter fluid and set a match to it??

I would say to you then Ray, upon your assertion that universal claims mean common acceptance that it is a universal truth that God exists, as there is a common subjective opinion that God exists.

Are you going to hold to some universals and not all?

It is the magic light from Genesis 1:3-5.

Oh the old Danforth the Moon isn't a light argument thang huh?? Boy that gets old fast. If it iluminates it's a light. May not be a light SOURCE but it's a light nontheless.

Larry

"I have discussed how it could be correct. You choose not to accept that."

No, I choose to not accept that based on little things like definitions and science. Silly me.

"Light is not distinguished by the physical object from which it eminates. Light is that which is eminated."

Then you completely disagree with what the Bible says in Genesis. Okay.

"If I have a light bulb, that does not make it light, it makes it a light bulb."

And herein we have the disagreement. You're actually pretending the source of the light, a lit light bulb, is not a light. If you really have to go there, what's the point of further discussion?

"If you want to get really technical, every single photon is a different light."

And if you really want to get technical, the moon produces NONE of those photons.

"You are unwilling to look at the situation from that which you currently understand. I have never taken the scripture in the fashion which you presuppose the scripture means."

WTF are you talking about? You initially balked when I suggested the Bible was inerrant.

"Do not hold me to your lack of ability to examine all possibilities."

Like the "possibility" that words don't mean their definitions? Good luck with that. Do you realize how ludicrous all of your other arguments sound when that's the first thing you state?

"You can tell me I am bearing false witness, however in the event that I am not, you are unintentionally bearing false witness."

Blow it out your ass. You've already admitted everything. You've backed away from things you can't prove, and admitted it may be translations, or understandings, so now to suggest I'm lying is nothing but bullshit.

"And since you do not know if I am bearing false witness and you are claiming that I most definitely am, you are bearing false witness as well."

You haven't answered the light bulb question. Forgive me if I'm interpreting that as the fact you can't directly address it without admitting you're wrong.

"Your credibility then is less than that of mine."

Gee...like I really believe that, from someone who can't or won't answer questions directly.

"I don't mind you continuing to talk about lights, dark rooms and mirrors."

I DO mind you continual avoidance of addressing the scientific aspects of your claims.

"You have a limited understanding of what the scripture says..."

Yeah...that's always the final stance of the untenable, isn't it?

"There are two lights. One lesser and one greater."

You're making up new definitions. Is the mirror a second light? Yes or no?

"These two light eminate from the same source"

Then that would be ONE light and one reflector.

"...yet impact different portions of the earth in different manners."

That's not the test. A mirror can reflect light into areas not lit by the light bulb. That doesn't mean there is a second light.

"I am not placing the particles of light and its properties to the physical substance from which it eminates off of. You are. And you are tied to that. I never tied myself to that theory"

Riiiiiiiiiiight. I'm "tied" to actual science, and you're "tied" to whatever The Book says.

"yet I agree that the scripture in its current form is errant."

Excellent, Einstein.

"However, the scripture, just because it is errant does not mean that it is untrue."

If it claims there are two lights, then it's untrue.

"Unless you are speaking objectively about everything, and completely objectively, everything is errant."

Again, try not to hit anything as you backpedal that fast.

"The truth of the scripture lies upon the Resurrection claim."

Are the goalposts heavy when you move them that far?

"May not be a light SOURCE but it's a light nontheless."

If it's not a source of light, it's not a light.

Is a mirror a light, or not?

2. If you brought a mirror into that room, how many lights would be in that room?
"If you brought a lightbulb (a source of light) and a mirror, (which upon reflection becomes a second source of light by reflection) there would be two light sources in the room."

What a putz. Now, he has to change the definition of the word "source".

Wrong, apologist. There would only be ONE light in the room, and one reflector of that light.

3. If you left the mirror in the dark room, and removed the light bulb, how many lights would be in the room?

"If you left the mirror in the dark room and removed the light bulb, one light would be left in the room. The lesser light would be infinitely dispersing into the dark room until it were no longer visible."

OMG...you're a moron.

Also Dan, because you claimed that I did not answer your question, when I had already answered your question before you posted, you were bearing false witness again.

Is that one or two instances of false witness?

They came from the same source, but the impacted two different instances of time. Ah, thats two instances.

As Larry has said, if it luminates, it is light.

Does the moon luminate? how many lumins does the moon give off? Would that make it a light?

Also, try to look at the objective and not the subjective.

Dont get all worked up Dan.

You don't accept the claim that the scripture rests upon the resurrection?

Also, I never balked at your claim that the scripture was errant. Again, that is bearing false witness.

I admitted that it is errant. You were always speaking of its current translation. You never specified the original autographs.

3rd times the charm for bearing false witness.

"Also Dan, because you claimed that I did not answer your question, when I had already answered your question before you posted, you were bearing false witness again."

You're a liar. You didn't address it directly until post #250.

"They came from the same source, but the impacted two different instances of time. Ah, thats two instances."

If they came from the same source, you're admitting there is only ONE light.

"As Larry has said, if it luminates, it is light."

You can line up 100 people who are wrong. That doesn't make it right. Larry, and you, are dead wrong.

"Does the moon luminate? "

No, it reflects.

"how many lumins does the moon give off? Would that make it a light?"

NO, it would make it a reflector of light.

"Also, try to look at the objective and not the subjective."

You're tapping more than Larry Craig. Objectively, you're completely wrong. The moon is not a light, it's merely a reflector of light, just like a mirror or a wall painted white.

It's impossible for the bible to have bad morals, Satanists, and non believers in God have bad morals.
Their morals is against Gods righteous Commandments of love.
Their Morals is opposite of God's love, and laws, such as evil, hate, greed, lust, murder, lies, cheat, steal, vanity, slander, ect.

If Gods morals are followed It produces good results for everyone to live in peace, truth, love, prosperity, good health, and happiness for all.

"3rd times the charm for bearing false witness."

That would make you ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra-
charming. You keep claiming, though you know it to be a lie, that the moon is a light. It's not, any more than a mirror is a light.

Lie away, if you need.

G'night.

#189 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-10-20 08:27 PM

Hey Lisa,

I don't judge Christians, I judge the religious movement in this country. And, to say that the religious movement in America is: tolerant, loving, forgiving and righteous is really disingenuous...

I have been exposed to Christians all my life, most are arrogant and self serving. I don't expect anyone to be perfect, nor do I judge someone for imperfection. I do, however, find repugnant the people who profess a faith in Jesus Christ while judging others for their short comings. These people are not Christians, they are opportunists. They feel that because they "believe" that they are somehow anointed, and in that anointing, they believe, they are somehow superior and have the right to judge others...

If Jesus died on the cross to save all of human kind from sin, giving his life so that we (all of humanity) could be saved, that should make us all even. And, that is what we are, from the preacher to the prophet to the drunk in the gutter; even. All of us are equally eligible for salvation. So, for a person who professes to be saved, to judge another, is absurd in that, but for the blood of Christ they, you, me are absolutely no better. So, when I hear "Christians" railing against homosexuals as perverts, and I hear "Christians" judging women for abortion, and I hear "Christians" going off about political agendas to legislate morality, and I hear the self righteous tone of the "family values" crowd that professes to be the voice of Jesus in America, I get a tad pukey. Because no matter how much you think that God loves you, he loves all of those people you regard as sinners and unworthy just as much. God wants them to be saved just as much as he wants you to be saved...

So, when "Christians" spout off about sinners and immorality they are met with the indignation of those that realize most "Christians" are not "Christ-like"; most aren't even trying to be. And, most "Christians" are only "Christians" so that they can repackage their intolerance and hate with the name of Jesus Christ so that they can feel justified in said intolerance and hate. And, American Religion Incorporated gives them all a place to call home. If Christians as a body came out against this, ever, maybe then it wouldn't be so darn difficult to take them seriously.

So, if one is going to espouse faith in something, and base one's moral judgment of others upon said faith, one shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when one's life doesn't exemplify the very tenets that their faith is derived from

Danforth,

Thank you for not asking what the objective postition I was urging you to take was.

"You do not recieve for you do not ask".

You never intended to understand my arguement, you simply wanted to propigate your false witness and try to trap someone in your falsity.

You never asked to understand the arguement. Not my fault. You proved your purpose by failing to ask about the objectivity of which I spoke.

The position at which the text is speaking is from the perspective of the earth, not the perspective of God and the objective truth of the moon and sun relationship. From the perspective of the earth, there is two lights. In the objective case there is one light. They are both true statements, however they take place on two seperate plains of undertanding. You failed to inquire about the relationship between the objective and subjective truth of the statements in the scripture.

The perspective of the text when the sun and moon are said to govern the day and night is from the earth. Looking from the earth there is subjectively two lights. They are two great lights because in reference to the other stars they are closer and brighter. The sun is the greater light of the two great lights because it shines directly on the sun during the day, governing the day. The moon shine lesser light on the earth because it reflects the suns light at night, governing the night.

You can take this further and also so that there are two great lights in terms of bright lights in comparison to the stars. The sun shines in two different areas, both brighter than the other lights in the expanse (the stars) shine.

You failed to ask about the objectivity subjectivity reference.

That is your problem, and your inability to search out the wholeness of the arguement.

Then without searching out the whole of the arguement you claimed superiority, which would be bearing false witness.

Also, when you say I didn't address the light bulb question directly until post #250, you still bear false witness,
1. because you are saying that I did not address it before you bore false witness again

2. because you accuse me of still not answering the question directly in #254. Which is bearing false witness since I addressed it in #250.

Capt,

I can understand your post, but you must also understand that a large portion of coming to Christ is realizing the need for Christs redemptive gift.

Most of the world does not believe they are in need of redemption. Sometimes Christians fulfilling their responsibility to warn their brothers and sisters about the potential dispair in their future is taken as an attack or a judgement.

You have to understand that there is wonton misunderstanding on both sides.

#264
Your entire post is moronic doublespeak. You can't directly address the scientific issues, so you babble about subjectivity, when the Bible is presumably about Universal Truth, therefore Objective Views. You lose as soon as you need to blather on about bullshit rather than address the actual issues.

"You failed to ask about the objectivity subjectivity reference."

I'm going to save that classic example of Drudge Doublespeak, and laugh about it for at least a day.

"you accuse me of still not answering the question directly in #254."

Larry posted #254, idiot.

BTW, Exprsredemption, how old are you? You seem to be a middle school or high school student.

Ok, lets make it worse Dan you bore false witness not in #254 but rather 255.

Also, again you bore false witness because you said that you would allow me to continue to "lie away if I need" and then ended the conversation with goodnight.

so either 1. You bore false witness about allowing me to "lie away if I need", because you are not letting me lie away, rather you continue to respond

2. You state that I am lying, and yet you do not mean that I am "lying away" therefore you continue to respond

3. Your goodnight was untrue.

Which is it?

Also, you have no case to get angry at me because you did not see the subjective truth (due to the context of mans understanding and the perspective of earth) and the objective truth that even though God presented stated it from mans perspective at that time, He knew the intrinsic objective truth.

I dont know if it is because you hate to be wrong, you like to misrepresent people/situations/arguments, or you like to bear false witness.

How old are you, Expsredemption? I feel like I'm debating with a child.

Now you also feel the need to mischaracterize my arguements, knowing that I most likely will not post my personal information on this site, you put a false characterization of my age being around middle school, high school as you assumption.

"you put a false characterization of my age being around middle school"

Then just give me a number. That's hardly posting "personal information"

"...high school as you assumption."

Like I said....

Danforth,

I am glad that you stated that you feel as though you are debating with a child, as I have simply been mirroring your past propigation of bearing false witness back at you.

I would be a second source of that arguement, even though I am simply reflecting your arguement.

"Ok, lets make it worse Dan you bore false witness not in #254 but rather 255."

Um, that would mean YOU bore false witness. What's so difficult about admitting that?

Due to the fact that someone has spelled a word incorrectly, you automatically assume that they are of a younger age?

I am not so worried about what people think of me to feel the necessity to check each and every one of the characters I type for grammatical accuracy.

"I am glad that you stated that you feel as though you are debating with a child, as I have simply been mirroring your past propigation(sic) of bearing false witness back at you. I would be a second source of that arguement(sic), even though I am simply reflecting your arguement(sic).

Are you drunk, or a kid? Or both?

"Due to the fact that someone has spelled a word incorrectly, you automatically assume that they are of a younger age?"

Translation: Busted.

Are you equating a mistake in key input as bearing false witness?

If you are, then I repent from bearing false witness by typing the incorrect number.

Are you ready to repent from your false witness?

False witness again in 276 huh Dan?

"Are you ready to repent from your false witness?"

You've yet to prove any false witness on my part.

Now...how old are you? You're either a kid trying to fake his way through with some big words, or a phenomenally undereducated adult.

Which is it?

"False witness again in 276 huh Dan?"

No, moron.

And your age?

Interesting. Everyone elses credibility is minimalized when they supposedly bear false witness, however when there is direct proof that you have done so on at least two occasions, it is of no importance?

My age can be deducted from a careful reading of post #23.

"Due to the fact that someone has spelled a word incorrectly, you automatically assume that they are of a younger age?"

Heck no. It's a combination of misspelling, ludicrous logic, and a moronic clinging to what's clearly, provably wrong. Only a child, or an adult with some seriously arrested development would write what you post.

When you deduct that age, it will also bring you to the deduction that you bore false witness in post # 276

My age can be deducted from a careful reading of post #23.

"The people of the OT were under the law. Jesus changed that"
Where? Lisa, there are certain times where the teachings of Christ that supersede the old but they are specific. The old testament is not meant to be disregarded because of the new. #23 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Once again, it seems we're dealing with an idiot who can't seem to count.

Well, you will have to take up your conclusions found in post 283 with Skizziks

He has informed all here on the drudge retort that this is a "fantasy world of neurotic persona".

So therefore anything I say here can be equated to a non fiction story.

"When you deduct that age"

How would I deduct your age via post #23?

"Well, you will have to take up your conclusions found in post 283 with Skizziks"

What a pussy. You've been exposed, and are now running from a simple question.

"anything I say here can be equated to a non fiction story."

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

No Danforth, I would say that your post number 285 is a testament to your inability to reason, and your tendancy to assume false information, and then present that false information as your witness.

You figure it out Dan. You can deduct my age from the post I stated.

You are supposedly the one who understands everything correctly. I would imagine you could deduct something such as this from a post such as that.

Is it the fact that it takes work for you to figure it out what is causing you to appear as though you are giving up before you start?

Show me your superior skills of deduction Dan. Maybe if you ask for specific clarifications you will be able to figure it out more easily. Remember that is what caused the problem before?

You do not seek to understand, you simply react and assume.

"You can deduct my age from the post I stated"

From post #23? WTF are you talking about?

"You are supposedly the one who understands everything correctly"

Who ever said that?

"I would imagine you could deduct something such as this from a post such as that."

No, you're just going to have to answer the question directly. I realize you have a problem with that, but try: how old are you?

I am waiting for you to deduce my age here Dan. Come on interact with the discussion. This should be a no brainer.

"Is it the fact that it takes work for you to figure it out what is causing you to appear as though you are giving up before you start?"

Now what would that be if you translated that into English?

Numbers 15:32-36 - The Sabbath-Breaker Put to Death
32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day.
33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly,
34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him.
35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp."
36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Matthew 18:7-9
7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!
8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.
9 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Matthew 6:5-6
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth shall reward thee openly.

The Drudge-pious had better look out! Apparently, Jeebus is coming back...and he's gonna be PISSED OFF!

"Maybe if you ask for specific clarifications you will be able to figure it out more easily. "

Okay.

How old are you?

Dan, what are you looking for in terms of my age? Clarify that for me? Maybe this will help you figure out my age from the post stated.

I am as old as the stated post states that I am.

"Dan, what are you looking for in terms of my age?"

The number.

I already told you that you will have to deduce. You acting on the terms, indicates that you accepted the terms initially. You went and looked at the post in hopes to deduce.

Start asking better questions.

"I am as old as the stated post states that I am."

Not playing that game.

Good. Now what is your answer.

"You acting on the terms, indicates that you accepted the terms initially."

It meant nothing of the sort. Answer, or go fuck yourself.

You have all the information you need to deduce my age from the stated post.

give me your last guess and then I will tell you.

I really hope you can deduce this. It is fairly easy in terms of logic.

So, how many of our allegedly "sanctimonious" Christians are bound for the flame?

The one about praying in the closet, as opposed to the street-corner, ought to take care of most of them.

Apparently, Jesus wouldn't have been caught dead blogging about his faith! That alone eliminates 90% of the so-called "Christians" here on DR.

So, who among you has *TRUE* faith? Stand up and give me a hallelujah, thank y'lawd!

Zarathustra, see if you can help Dan out here. He wants to know my age. I told him it can be deduced from post #23.

Can you deduce my age before Danforth does?
Give it a go.

Holy Hellfire! It's done been only a minute yet all the devils are out in a-force, posting like madmen to this thread!

12 posts in under 7 minutes.

I need a preemptive exorcism for the Drudge Retort Gerbil. So as'n to prevent Satan from grapplin' a'hold 'a him.

Can I get an AMEN??!?

Come on Zara, play the game. See if you can out deduce the Danforth.

"Can you deduce my age before Danforth does?"

46.4311212121 yrs old.

Jeeeesus has spoken to me!

Go, Lawd, GO!!!!

Keep trying. It must be deduced from post #23.

Now, can you divine MY age?

3 strikes, I'll give you feedback... "hot" vs "cold"....GO!

You failed. I am not to have any interaction with you. Since you prophesied and your prophecy was wrong, I now have to stone you Zara. Sorry, can't guess your age.

Danforth, have you given up? You are only one guess away from having me answer. You do not want to know I take it. That sucks. Zara is going to get it before you do.

"I now have to stone you Zara"

Too late...I'm already...stoned...LOL!

I still think you're roughly 46.3212121211212211212 years old, though.

"You do not want to know I take it."

I couldn't give less of a fuck. You're a poseur, nothing more. Answer, or don't.

Danforth, just guess. I mean I thougt you would be able to get it. You have all the information you need.

Zara, still a false prophet. Wont you repent from your wiley ways?

You carried your attempt to deduce to the point of trying to deduce, however once you failed to figure it out, you seemed to give up. Why is that? You can get your answer if you look in terms of what you criteria are. And if you are wrong, I will tell you the true answer anyway.

Danforth, come on. Show me your superior logical abilities. You have unlocked all the clues necessary. Now DEDUCE!

I DO repent! Forgive me for mah' wiley ways! I didn't MEAN to be a false prophet, Jeebus! Forgive meh! You are the one and only Holey(sic)ness, Lawd! Do Forgive meh! Ah didn't mean to idolize aneh' false idols, Lawd! Holy, holy! Please let me repent!

Or whatever.

No, thanks, I'll stick to my "wiley ways".

"Man is something which ought to be overcome"

Damn, that sounds all Biblical and whatnot. I guess I'll be waiting for the uebermensch alone.

Tell the him that Krypton misses him when he arrives please. Oh and they have not forgiven him is college loans.

Danforth, have your assumptions blinded you to the point that you cannot deduce the clear and logical conclusion in regard to the object of deduction and your criteria of inquiry?

Oh well. I guess you have born false witness of your logical cognitive ability to one degree or another.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you're 10 or 110. You've been exposed as a poseur, unable to engage in a serious debate with the adults. Post #264 will stand forever as a monument to moronic doublespeak. Time to secretly change your handle, lest you be forever haunted by rank stupidity. Answer the question, or don't answer the question; I don't care.

"you simply wanted to propigate(sic) your false witness..."

"You never asked to understand the arguement(sic)"

"The position at which the text is speaking is from the perspective of the earth, not the perspective of God and......."

Oh, shit, it's an argument about the Bilebull(sic). Nevermind. I'm outta here.

Danforth, use your superior wisdom. Are you afraid of being wrong? You have all information to logically conclude the answer, and easily do so.

Give me an answer.

1.

2

3

4

5...

I guess it was too hard of a challenge. I really thought you could handle it. I see that you can't. Now it makes sense why the other concepts were so hard for you to grasp.

Tell the him that Krypton misses him when he arrives please. Oh and they have not forgiven him is college loans.

"I guess it was too hard of a challenge."

No. Just too worthless of a challenge. Who cares? Regardless the age, you're in over your head.

I am in over my head, but you have shown that you cannot deduce the age of an individual when you have all the information there to deduce, and object to decude from, and clarified criteria of which to further your deductive potential.

That seemsto bode ill for you. Not me.

You must find the challenge somewhat worthwhile, because you continue in it, and made efforts to fulfill the challenge, even asking for clarification and complaining that the information was not suffcient for a deduction.

Either the challenge was too difficult, or you are bearing false witness again. Atleast that is what one would deduce from your persistence with the challange.

3. If you left the mirror in the dark room, and removed the light bulb, how many lights would be in the room?

If you left the mirror in the dark room and removed the light bulb, one light would be left in the room. The lesser light would be infinitely dispersing into the dark room until it were no longer visible.

#250 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2009-10-20 10:56 PM | Reply | Flag

If you think mirrors are sources of light, have you eliminated all the light bubs in your house and used mirrors to see your way around at night?

The moon spends about half its time roaming around the sky during the daylight hours. That's the perspective from Earth. To argue that the moon is a light source is ridiculous--almost as ridiculous as to argue that mirrors are a light source. How about the shiny side of aluminum foil? Is that a light source to you also?

Bob,

Do you think you could have arrived to this conversation any later? Have you read the whole thing already? Analyzed it? Congratulations! you just wasted your time.

However, since Danforth dislikes you so much (I would say hates you, at least it seems that way), why don't you see if you can deduce this simple logic puzzle before Danforth does. Here it is.

Danforth assumed my age, he was incorrect, bearing false witness. I informed him of this, and he bore false witness again. He then asked my age.

I told Danforth that my age could be deduced from post #23. Danforth looked and complained and bore false witness again.

Danforth then revealed in what criteria he was lookin for an answer. Danforth wanted a numerical value for the age.

So...
Goal: Find my age through deduction.
Object of deduction: Post #23
Criteria of inquiry: Numerical Age.

There is all the information that Dan had, Give it a go Bob. I know you will get it quicker than Danforth.

It has taken Danforth 14 posts and three verified bearings of false witness thus far, and he has not been able to answer the question of age.

Can you do better than Danforths logical and reasoned abilities?

33

No Bob. Thats one post for you.

look at the factors of the challange again.

Man... I have to get sleep before work in the morning. I will check back later this morning. Someone has to get it. Almost garunteed to get it before Danforth.

expsredemption

Then I guve up. I doubt many are really interested. How about dazzling those remaining with your logic and explain how to deduct your age from what is written in post #23. I guessed 33 because that is the age Jesus was when he was crucified. But show us your logic, so that we may be properly humbled, and recognise your superior thought processes.

"The people of the OT were under the law. Jesus changed that"

Where?

Lisa, there are certain times where the teachings of Christ that supersede the old but they are specific. The old testament is not meant to be disregarded because of the new.

#23 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-10-20 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Headed for comment stratosphere.

It was a pretty good manual for Jews living in the first millenium B.C.

** Novelist Calls Bible 'Manual of Bad Morals' **

......he must be a witch !!......

.....Burn the Witch !!!!............

I am not claiming superior logic. This logical issue is so simple it would not indicate any form of superiority. It is satire upon Danforth that he was unable to come up with the answer with his reasoned logic he mentioned before.

The key lies in the fact that

1. My age is the thing attempted to be deduced
2. You can Deduce my age from post #23
3. Danforth was looking for a Numerical Value (i.e. 1, 2, 3... etc.)

This should be clear to everyone from this point forward. Atleast one simple logically deduction should be evident. Please look at all of the numbered points listed. review them, top to bottom, then bottom to top.

It's really not that hard. Skizz, give it a try.

"I can't get that light bulb and mirror question either...."

DANFORTH, how many years does someone have to argue with you about smoke, er, light and mirrors before you're tired of it?

You see this as some sort of momentous point about science I see it as a silly point about language.

Taking what you yourself have stated several times, at whatever point a majority of people begin to refer the Moon a light, the Bible is validated.

It's a silly debate, akin to RAY when he says Jesus extorted people.

RAY is an interesting fellow in regards to theory of religion. For months Christ is an allusion to sunlight from his point of view. Then suddenly the Man appears in the flesh as a petty criminal. Go figure.

There is only one correct context - what the speaker intended to communicate. Whether spoken or in print, it is the only way we can communicate.

If we put aside the issue that discerning intention is always an act of critical interpretion fraught with lots of thorny issues itself, then we are still left with the fundamental (pun intended) misunderstanding of the Bible as a single text with a single intention.

Apparently, this nobel prize winning author doesn't understand that the Bible is not a merely manual of morals--a simple prescription of required behavior. (If it was meant to be that then only one brief text containing the "rules" would be the Bible.)

Taken together, the various texts (some historical, some mythic, some poetical, some legal, etc.) that have been compiled to form what we know to be the Bible reprsent humanity's search for establishing a relationship with the divine and coming to an understanding of what that relationship means.

While it contains insight an understanding, it needs to be seen in its entirety, not as a static presentation of the truth, but as a dynamic record of the search for that spiritual truth.

Consider this analogy:

Imagine if you had kept a diary of your life from your earliest childhood into adulthood that recounted your relationship with your parents as filtered through your growing understanding of the world around you.

Your adult relationship with your parents would be dependent or rooted to a certain degree on the past (a foundation of shared experience, history and tradition as recorded in your diary) but it could not remain in the past. Understanding your relationship with them as well as the world and what each expects of you changes continually. Understanding your past relationships helps you navigate your future one. (Similarly, that is the purpose of Biblical texts.)

All viable relationships need to understand the past, but be flexible and dynamic to embrace the future.

How else would it grow?

PAX

Zed, why don't you show these gentleman how to deduce my age in this little logical challenge (simple logical challenge)

That challenge is as stated in Post 354.

I have a feeling you will be able to get it.

"Taking what you yourself have stated several times, at whatever point a majority of people begin to refer the Moon a light, the Bible is validated."

Nonsense. It's invalidated. Folks can call the moon a light all they want, but it's no more a light than a mirror in a dark room. Anyone claiming the Bible is inerrant is errant.

Using your logic, at whatever point a majority of people began to refer to the Earth as flat, it was flat.

The problem comes when religionists can't admit the Bible was written by men, with the limited knowledge they had at the time. It's no crime that the Bible has provable errors. That doesn't diminish it one bit, except in the minds of those whose faith would seemingly be shattered if they had to admit errancy.

Would you rather the argument be about geocentricity?

I would like to see your case for the geocentric view proposed in the Bible.

After you show that you have deductive capabilities by deducing my age from post #23

"It is satire upon Danforth that he was unable to come up with the answer with his reasoned logic he mentioned before."

I never tried to come up with a number. You're immature, regardless of the number. And your debate arguments suck.

Danforth,

Due to your inability to deduce a simple logic problem I have no basis on which to believe you are capable of yet greater deduction that that simple logical deduction.

Most individuals who close with, "And your debate arguments suck", don't truly understand the arguments presented from the counterpart of the debate.

Now you are backpeddling and saying that you have not tried to come up with a number at all, when in fact this challenge resulted from your attempts at guessing my age with your fallacious logical deduction.

You are bearing false witness again.

Also, your attempts at deducing the number of my age from post # 23 show that you did in fact try to come up with a number, otherwise you would not protest that there was no way that you could deduce a numerical value of my age from post #23.

Again, false witness, and false logical deduction.

"Due to your inability to deduce a simple logic problem"

You're confusing inability with apathy.

FF for Dan

-Certainly God knew the difference, even if man writing a book back then didn't.

God wasn't writing the book, Moses was, and it wasn't dictation. And to him, a light was a light was a light.

Context is not a river in Egypt.

Danforth, you displayed no apathy. You tried, asked for clarification, tried again, complained, bore false witness, then tried to make an apathy arguement, although if you were apathetic you would have left it be.

Yet, here you are, still continuing to try to justify it, and again, bearing false witness.