Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
August 3, 2011 at 10:33 am (This post was last modified: August 3, 2011 at 11:15 am by The Grand Nudger.)
What's convoluted about wishful thinking Frodo? I know that there is a line between what I wish were real, and what is real. I toe that line. Why is it convoluted for me to toe the line, and rational for you to overstep it? I'm also wondering why you feel that the material world is dross? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dross
Is there a slang usage for this word in Wales that I'm missing the nuance of? Something less derogatory? Whatever predisposition you have regarding the nuts and the bolts of the universe (the dross to you I'm assuming), is only subjective. This is true for me as well, the difference is that I admit it. You instead chose to invent an elaborate mythology so that the world around you agrees with your dispositions. That christianity provided you with the framework was only a formality or coincidence of your birth. Whether or not I can imagine that I am above the "dross" has absolutely no effect on whether or not I am. You show me that I am, that's your claim, not mine. Don't ask me to imagine it, show it to me.
Nevertheless, when you arent busy propping up your subjective judgements and values, you demonstrate the clear ability to discern the wheat from the chaff. I haven't heard you defending Amen Ra, or Tiamat, and you definitely didn't defend the Meso American pantheon I provided you with. Why is it that you have erected a wall between those obvious flights of imagination and your own. Do you honestly believe that you have an insight to the cosmos that these people did not, that you have been granted special knowledge? Or are you willing to concede that those gods, those myths, are as valid an expression of subjective truth as your own?
You see, the kind of god you argue for is a subjective one, in that you have effectively eliminated any objectivity by placing it beyond the reach of the material. With no evidence that god is anything in specific, there can be no evidence that he is not anything in specific. You argue for an objective truth with subjective reasoning, these two concepts are not equivalent. To say that god is true for you, or true for me, is saying nothing as to whether or not god is actually true.
Add arguments to your insults. It makes them more effective. You know, come to think of it, the very moment you provide any evidence for your assumptions, you will have completely blown me out of the water. You should probably just skip directly there.
After all, that's the ultimate fuck you, don't you agree?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Have you ever wondered why I don't accept scripture as evidence?
Because you don't care for the truth that it claims to, you only seek what satisfies you. I can discern difference in all things even to the point of ignorance but what is true will always be true. Do you know what is true? Do you know what is important?
You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is "true". It exists. That doesn't make it true. It has to have an independent source to prove it's credibility. And since there are no autographs extant to support one scripture contained therein, besides the fact that an alleged compilation of the "Words of god" were edited and elected to be bound and contained within what was determined to be a man made "closed canon", it is simply no more and no less than a book authored by at least 40 different authors who one can believe were "inspired" by god but since god has never been proven to exist, as all religions are a matter of faith, the one certain factor in that equation remains the authors were fallible humans. And as such so too is the book they contributed to authoring over a period of many years compiled from resources such as manuscripts, scrolls and papyrus.
Thus the Bible is not an original document, it's authors are in question to say the least, it contains as what is posited as "god's breath" and yet if a perfect supreme being, a holy spirit, inspired the Bible chapter and verse it would be impossible to then contain errors, contradictions, misrepresentations and outright lies. Especially when modern science can prove the errancy contained therein. And all of this can be proven as such. Thus, it is impossible for a perfect supreme being to humans, to "write" an errant book.
The work of Professor Bart Ehrman, and other Biblical scholars, prove the authors of the gospels are not those men who's names imply each of the apostle's for which each gospel book is written, was it's author. (As another thread in this forum outlines) The gospels can even be proven to have been written decades, between as much as 50 to 70 years after the mythical Jesus ascended unto Heaven.
Most of the new testament was written by Paul who was considered the apostle to the Gentiles. And much of what he wrote in letters and accounts of what he wanted to persuade the reader to be his personal experience of Jesus, when he never met the man in the flesh but instead through a hallucination after JC rose from the dead, was written in Greek. Most Jews in 1st century did not speak Greek.
Besides that, which can all be discounted as valid by the most committed Fundy, the Bible itself isn't a credible source for the word of god. You remember, right? So says...the Bible!
Maybe a Christian can help.
"(sic)...God's Word was, is, and always shall be with God. God created all things through his Word. His Word was spoken to the patriarchs. Moses said that the Word of God was in the hearts and mouths of the people of Israel; this same Word came to the prophets. God sent his Word to earth in the human form of his Son, Jesus Christ, who preached that Word and personified it, who lived in the flesh and died on the cross and was raised to life. That same Word of God now sits on the right hand of God and speaks in the hearts of Christ's followers and will judge all things. There is no scriptural basis for the claim that the Bible is the Word of God, for the scriptures do not exalt themselves, but they testify to Christ. From time immemorial people have tried to fit God into forms that they could touch, hold, study, classify, and finally control. People are still trying to do this by clinging to the unscriptural view that the Word of God is a book." (Source: Scriptural Evidence that the WORD OF GOD is not the Bible)
Saying he is using the Bible to prove the Bible is just committing equivocation.
Did you seriously just use Bart Ehrman as an authority on textual criticism? The atheistic skeptic who makes his living off of pushing his anti-biblical agenda? Or am I think of a different Bart Ehrman? Shucks, I didn't know we were allowed to use such biased sources.
(August 3, 2011 at 4:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The atheistic skeptic who makes his living off of pushing his anti-biblical agenda?
Again, sounds like good science to me. Any theory will eventually have to deal with these types of people, or be found lacking. On a related note, I don't think bias means what you think it does...lol.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(August 3, 2011 at 4:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The atheistic skeptic who makes his living off of pushing his anti-biblical agenda?
Again, sounds like good science to me. Any theory will eventually have to deal with these types of people, or be found lacking. On a related note, I don't think bias means what you think it does...lol.
It means to me what the dictionary says it means. Trust me, we (Christians) have addressed Bart, he got his panties handed to him in a debate I watched just yesterday. The society that hosted the debate should ask for their 5000 dollars back. The guy's arguments only stand in a vacuum.
August 3, 2011 at 4:36 pm (This post was last modified: August 3, 2011 at 4:38 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Oh, excellent, link me the debate. Fun fact, evidence has a well known bias in favor of reality.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(August 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Have you ever wondered why I don't accept scripture as evidence?
Because you don't care for the truth that it claims to, you only seek what satisfies you. I can discern difference in all things even to the point of ignorance but what is true will always be true. Do you know what is true? Do you know what is important?
You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is "true". It exists. That doesn't make it true. It has to have an independent source to prove it's credibility. And since there are no autographs extant to support one scripture contained therein, besides the fact that an alleged compilation of the "Words of god" were edited and elected to be bound and contained within what was determined to be a man made "closed canon", it is simply no more and no less than a book authored by at least 40 different authors who one can believe were "inspired" by god but since god has never been proven to exist, as all religions are a matter of faith, the one certain factor in that equation remains the authors were fallible humans. And as such so too is the book they contributed to authoring over a period of many years compiled from resources such as manuscripts, scrolls and papyrus.
Thus the Bible is not an original document, it's authors are in question to say the least, it contains as what is posited as "god's breath" and yet if a perfect supreme being, a holy spirit, inspired the Bible chapter and verse it would be impossible to then contain errors, contradictions, misrepresentations and outright lies. Especially when modern science can prove the errancy contained therein. And all of this can be proven as such. Thus, it is impossible for a perfect supreme being to humans, to "write" an errant book.
The work of Professor Bart Ehrman, and other Biblical scholars, prove the authors of the gospels are not those men who's names imply each of the apostle's for which each gospel book is written, was it's author. (As another thread in this forum outlines) The gospels can even be proven to have been written decades, between as much as 50 to 70 years after the mythical Jesus ascended unto Heaven.
Most of the new testament was written by Paul who was considered the apostle to the Gentiles. And much of what he wrote in letters and accounts of what he wanted to persuade the reader to be his personal experience of Jesus, when he never met the man in the flesh but instead through a hallucination after JC rose from the dead, was written in Greek. Most Jews in 1st century did not speak Greek.
Besides that, which can all be discounted as valid by the most committed Fundy, the Bible itself isn't a credible source for the word of god. You remember, right? So says...the Bible!
Maybe a Christian can help.
"(sic)...God's Word was, is, and always shall be with God. God created all things through his Word. His Word was spoken to the patriarchs. Moses said that the Word of God was in the hearts and mouths of the people of Israel; this same Word came to the prophets. God sent his Word to earth in the human form of his Son, Jesus Christ, who preached that Word and personified it, who lived in the flesh and died on the cross and was raised to life. That same Word of God now sits on the right hand of God and speaks in the hearts of Christ's followers and will judge all things. There is no scriptural basis for the claim that the Bible is the Word of God, for the scriptures do not exalt themselves, but they testify to Christ. From time immemorial people have tried to fit God into forms that they could touch, hold, study, classify, and finally control. People are still trying to do this by clinging to the unscriptural view that the Word of God is a book." (Source: Scriptural Evidence that the WORD OF GOD is not the Bible)
It gives claim to an important truth.
"Its not what your looking at that matters, its what you see." -Henry David Thoreau
♪Oh, I get lost in my mind Lost, I get lost I get Lost in my mind Lost in my Mind Yes, I get lost in my mind Lost, I get lost I get lost I get lost Oh, I get♪ -The Head and the Heart
"You are wise, witty and wonderful, but you spend too much time reading this sort of stuff.”- Frank Crane
August 3, 2011 at 4:40 pm (This post was last modified: August 3, 2011 at 4:41 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
No worries, I'll just rip it off the web, whats the name of the debate? Mormons make a claim to the truth as well, back to the drawing board CRod.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(August 3, 2011 at 4:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No worries, I'll just rip it off the web, whats the name of the debate? Mormons make a claim to the truth as well, back to the drawing board CRod.
It's Bart Ehrman Vs. James White
Arguing against the genuine by pointing to the counterfeit is fallacious, but I am sure you knew that before you did it Rhythm, you just didn't expect everyone else to.
How does it apply to an ideology that has never been shown to be genuine? You already know that right Statler, but since we're betting that no one else does, go ahead and explain that to the plebs.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
