(July 16, 2012 at 8:28 pm)jonb Wrote:

(July 16, 2012 at 7:49 pm)spockrates Wrote: I suppose we can agree to disagree, unless you have further evidence to present to me.

Oh, I did not realise this was the agenda, that we have to prove something to you, Top man you own us then do you Sherl O'Crap.

quote Sherlock Holmes, attribute it to Spock
announce you use Socratic questioning, but just make assertions.
demand evidence from others, but it must fit the criteria you demand, you restrict the conversation to what others provide without putting anything of yourself into it. And now you expect this all to be presented to you. You seem to lack Ethics, and yet you called us 'Fallen'.
Respect is a two way thing.

Spock attributes the quote to one of his ancestors, who were exploring outer space when ours were still living in caves. I'd say the Vulcans have a better claim to that bit of wisdom that our Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Don't you?

Ah yes. The old, "The bible is never wrong, except when it's wrong. Then it may be wrong, but it's not really 'wrong'."

(July 16, 2012 at 8:38 pm)apophenia Wrote:


Ah yes. The old, "The bible is never wrong, except when it's wrong. Then it may be wrong, but it's not really 'wrong'."

Honestly, I'm sincerely curios and seeking the truth about the topic.

(July 16, 2012 at 8:36 pm)spockrates Wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45cuzB6GZF4

---

(July 16, 2012 at 8:54 pm)spockrates Wrote: Honestly, I'm sincerely curios and seeking the truth about the topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDHSbrPZH...re=related

(July 16, 2012 at 4:44 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(July 16, 2012 at 4:32 pm)aleialoura Wrote: Maybe we can start a discussion based upon the contradictions cited here:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLE...dxpBxdbPaw

---

I'm ready when you are.

I'm having sound issues with this PC. Got any videos with subtitles?

How convenient.

A simple google search led me to this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/d...ncies.html

WOW! That's a long list, eh?

(July 16, 2012 at 9:06 pm)aleialoura Wrote: WOW! That's a long list, eh?

And all from a simple google search! You make this look so easy! Almost child's play!

(July 16, 2012 at 7:29 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(July 16, 2012 at 5:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: And if you could pay attention you would see that Matthew has Herod the Great alive when your godboy was born and Luke puts it a minimum of ten years later.

Herod and Quirinius are both historical figures. There is no way to reconcile the contradiction between these two passages.

If you'd quit trying to move the goalposts you would see that you have your one contradiction.

Deal with it.

Doesn't one have to comprehend something before she knows how to deal with it? If you are willing to take a closer look with me, perhaps I'll be able to see what you see. I will then tell everyone who has ears to hear that I once was blind, but Minimalist set me free!

At this point you seem completely incapable of understanding anything.

Quote:Rome required that everyone return to his place of residence, not his place of birth. That would mean that about 99.9% of the population was already where they had to be. Many - like traders - had more than one "legal" place of residence, so they could also stay where they were. Others - like soldiers and other employees of Rome - were exempt from returning to their places of residence for a census.

Now, from this we can deduce that you have never even read your own bullshit.

What Luke says is

Quote:2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

It is probably is well past time that you understand that we read this shit, too, precisely to combat the idiocies of nuts who show up here spouting bullshit. The difference is that we do not read them with the holy blinders on.

This, from a bunch of bullshit bible thumpers clearly shows that your fellow xtians are simply less dishonest....although no less wrong...than you.

Quote:Luke. 2:3 “So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.”

YLT: “and all were going to be enrolled, each to his proper city,”

Literal Meaning: “everyone to his own city” indicates that everyone returns to his registered ancestral home town.

Many foolish excuses have to be made to get "Joseph" from "Nazareth" to Bethlehem to fulfill an absurd prophecy which does not exist, either.

On such stupidities is xtianity based!

(July 16, 2012 at 3:57 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(July 16, 2012 at 1:28 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Quite simply, how do you explain all the references Mark makes to the OT? Another one for you: the words Jesus spoke on the cross are the exact same ones as Psalm 22:1. Why do all these supposedly historical facts reflect almost word for word verses in the OT? Remember, I'm not even bringing up prophetic verses in the OT but rather trivial verses that pop up in Mark's Gospel. Why?

Mark makes no reference to Hosea in chapter 11. When Mark does make a reference to an OT prophet, he names the prophet as the source. For example:

It is written in Isaiah the prophet:

2“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way” —
3 “a voice of one calling in the desert,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”

(Mark 1)

Why would the author name the prophet in the first chapter, but leave out the name of the prophet in the 11th chapter?

Jews that would hear Mark's Gospel would be able to pick up on the allegory. I'm assuming this because they had the oral tradition thus meaning that they would know when Mark explicitly references the OT word for word (e.g. Mark 1: what John was wearing, Mark 11: words of Jesus on the cross).

Mark is littered with these almost explicit parallels to the OT. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have done it on purpose. The question is why did the other two synoptics try and get rid of the allegories like I have shown you?

(July 16, 2012 at 8:54 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(July 16, 2012 at 8:38 pm)apophenia Wrote: Ah yes. The old, "The bible is never wrong, except when it's wrong. Then it may be wrong, but it's not really 'wrong'."

Honestly, I'm sincerely curios [sic] and seeking the truth about the topic.

This is a language game, pure and simple. Everybody tacitly knows the rules, and regardless of personal satisfaction, continues to fulfill them. The rules are never made explicit, and indeed, likely many would be outright denied. Atheists seem to be tireless players. I enjoy a tussle, too, but more often either scribble in the margins, try to better understand the rules, bend or break the rules to see what happens, or analyze the participants. Some people play the game exceedingly well, and watching them can be an enjoyable sport, a sort of verbal athleticism. Min is awesome to watch. You, too, are quite skillful. But I'm usually more interested in studying the game than actually playing it.

(And I did my due diligence in reading all the way through the "Is Christianity Illogical" thread, all the while knowing what I wanted to say. It fizzled out before I got there, but I had one word to say, and that is, "troll." For 12 years I've been a moderator on one of the most popular — and most frequently trolled — channels on EFNet, so this is not exactly unfamiliar ground for me. And you may not believe yourself to be a troll. But that's another topic, for another language game, and another set of players.)

Genesis 32:30: "I have seen the face of God."
John 1:18 and 4:12: "Nobody has seen the face of God."
Right there.