OK, everyone, continuing our game of Logical Fallacy Bingo.

So far everyone should have checked off

Appeal to Authority
Poisoning the Well

Quote:I assumed since you do it, it was OK.

Beyond the fact that this is a false accusation, as we've already reviewed.

Announcer: "Tu Quoque"

Quote:Well do you admit you used two logical fallacies to make your theories work? Argument from silence and "false in one part false in all"?

Announcer: "Argumentum Ad Neuseum! Argumentum Ad Neuseum!"

Quote:Well sure if you want to die in your sins over "minutiae" like who rolled the stone away.

Announcer: "Appeal to Fear! Appeal to Fear!"

Quote:And I don't think any Gospel writer lied. I think they reported what they heard with integrity and I have no reason to think they did not. Did they hear wrong sometimes? No doubt.

Announcer: "Argument from Incredulity!"

Quote:No I just know that I have experienced what Jesus promised, after not a few stumbles, and being anything but a Christian seems childish and irrational to me now. Anyone who doubts the grace of the Christian God hasn't met me.

Announcer: "Appeal to Emotion! Appeal to Emotion!"

Quote:I think that is irrelevant. Having spoken in tongues and visited the third heaven (I believe0 without even seeking either, I know there is a God.

Announcer: "Appeal to batshittery! Appeal to Batshittery!"

Quote:Which does not mean they approved of it. Actually at the same time your man Voltaire was writing that slavery was necessary to the economy, many Quakers and most Methodists were condemning it.

Announcer: "Poisoning the Well" (already ticked off)

Quote:That's the proven problem with atheist beliefs. You have to have a police state to go with them because people have no other restraint, no internal policeman.

Announcer: "Appeal to Consequences! Appeal to Consequences!"

Anyone want to call "bingo" yet?

Quote:That's the proven problem with atheist beliefs.

What ignoramus said that?

Quote:Actually at the same time your man Voltaire was writing that slavery was necessary to the economy, many Quakers and most Methodists were condemning it.

Quote:Twenty years after the death of Luther there were more Catholics than when he was born. And twenty years after the death of Voltaire there were millions less than when he was born.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll

None of which changes the fact that many Quakers and most Methodists are fucking morons.

radorth, from the past few pages I've gathered that you wanted DeistPaladin to name a contradiction within scripture. I thought I would give this a go. I want to do this in a particular way though; by asking you a theological question. Here we go: is there an unforgivable sin?

radorth Wrote:Having spoken in tongues and visited the third heaven...

I know I am going to regret this, but what is the third heaven?

---

DeistPaladin Wrote:Announcer: "Appeal to batshittery! Appeal to Batshittery!"

Have you trademarked this yet?

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

A lot of things apparently, more confused OT translation bollocks.

I was right. I regretted that. But thanks anyway NMF.

(April 12, 2012 at 3:22 am)FallentoReason Wrote: radorth, from the past few pages I've gathered that you wanted DeistPaladin to name a contradiction within scripture. I thought I would give this a go. I want to do this in a particular way though; by asking you a theological question. Here we go: is there an unforgivable sin?

I think he was wanting contradictions in the earliest manuscripts we have of the NT. As in, "the NT was perfectly and faithfully preserved through the ages so we know exactly what Jesus said and did..." etc. As I said, I know of two great examples, the second edition of the resurrection account in Mark and the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story.

You're also correct that the Gospels and NT seemed to "get better" with each book published. Did you notice, for example, how John the Baptist gets down on his knees before Jesus more and more with each Gospel account?

Mark: JtB debases himself, announces himself as a mere forerunner of Jesus and then baptizes Jesus.
Matthew: JtB says "hey, shouldn't you be baptizing me?" Then baptizes Jesus after being ordered to.
John: JtB never baptizes Jesus at all but just recognizes him as the lamb of God.

Funny thing, the Mandaens, followers of JtB, continued to be rivals of the early Christians, insisting that JtB was the true Messiah and Jesus was a heretic. Odd how they never seemed to get the memo of their sacred leader, huh? But then, Christianity always uses the policy of assimilate what you can't destroy. It's an effective tactic. So effective, the Muslims would later use it on Jesus.

Quote:I think he was wanting contradictions in the earliest manuscripts we have of the NT.

The earliest "manuscript" we have is a postcard sized fragment of John which dates anywhere from 125-225 AD. It is a handful of lines from two different verses and doesn't tell us much of anything.


http://catholic-resources.org/John/Papyri.html

The general dating noted above indicates that xtianity became a going concern in the 2d century...not the first.

This means that all of their bullshit seriously post-dates the events they claim to describe. In any event, they can speculate about original texts but much like the tachyon no one has ever seen one!

(April 12, 2012 at 2:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I think he was wanting contradictions in the earliest manuscripts we have of the NT.

The earliest "manuscript" we have is a postcard sized fragment of John which dates anywhere from 125-225 AD. It is a handful of lines from two different verses and doesn't tell us much of anything.


http://catholic-resources.org/John/Papyri.html

The general dating noted above indicates that xtianity became a going concern in the 2d century...not the first.

This means that all of their bullshit seriously post-dates the events they claim to describe. In any event, they can speculate about original texts but much like the tachyon no one has ever seen one!

It's true that manuscripts found aren't dated any earlier than ~125A.D. but I'm pretty sure there's evidence to suggest that they were written before then.

Clement of Rome and Ignatus of Antioch regularly quoted the Gospels in their letters.
http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Fathers.htm

Could someone confirm this though? This is only the second source I've seen that claims this. The first was an apologetic book (back when I was a theist) that boldly claimed (amongst other assumptions) that it was known exactly how all 12 Apostles died. It was an extremely biased book..

---

DeistPaladin Wrote:I think he was wanting contradictions in the earliest manuscripts we have of the NT. As in, "the NT was perfectly and faithfully preserved through the ages so we know exactly what Jesus said and did..." etc. As I said, I know of two great examples, the second edition of the resurrection account in Mark and the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story.

So... Doesn't that mean I can choose anything within my Bible from the NT? Our english copies come directly from the earliest manuscripts. Or is that not the case?