If that's where said believer claims to have found christ.....................

(December 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm)catfish Wrote: So, you're saying that the Bible shouldn't be used to determine who's a Christian then? I suppose we should use a math book for that then???

I don't care about determining true 'Christians'. There is no one Christianity. There are only Christianities (pl. - with massive variances and endless disagreements amidst the sects) - just like Islam.

What I'm concerned with is WHY anyone would lower their standards of evidence, become gullible, and believe this nonsense.

(December 13, 2012 at 10:22 am)Darkstar Wrote: My last post was on biblical infalliability. I'm not going to be here for the rest of the day, but I'll respond properly when I can.

Or not. I have rather suddenly lost interest in this topic*, but I hadn't really argued much in that way anyway. It isn't even my fight, really. And, as I said before (I did say this...right?), it would be difficult to prove the bible didn't claim itself infalliable, rather than that it did, unless of course it was by successfully dismantling all claims that it did. I would not know where to look for these claims, and if I planned on a hasty google search, I would have just resupplied the link from my previous post. It isn't that you aren't worth my time; I just don't care for the topic.

*biblical infalliability


On a side note, if you acknowledge that the bible is not completely true, then why do you think any of it is? If you are willing to reject some supernatural claims from your own religion, I would think you would not be afraid to reject them all, unless you somehow claimed there was genuine evidence for some of the supernatural claims. Although, that is admittably off-topic...I guess you don't need to explain it here if you don't want to.

(December 14, 2012 at 1:33 am)median Wrote:

(December 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm)catfish Wrote: So, you're saying that the Bible shouldn't be used to determine who's a Christian then? I suppose we should use a math book for that then???

I don't care about determining true 'Christians'. There is no one Christianity. There are only Christianities (pl. - with massive variances and endless disagreements amidst the sects) - just like Islam.

What I'm concerned with is WHY anyone would lower their standards of evidence, become gullible, and believe this nonsense.

You said:
"It doesn't make one bit of difference what the bible says, because you haven't demonstrated why anyone should take it as an authority on ANY subject, let alone who are the "true" followers and who is not."

I am pretty damn sure that the Bible should be taken as an authority to determine who is a Christian, but I'm sure you'll claim it's irrelevant instead of conceding that point...
You're dismissed...
.

---

(December 14, 2012 at 12:35 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(December 13, 2012 at 10:22 am)Darkstar Wrote: My last post was on biblical infalliability. I'm not going to be here for the rest of the day, but I'll respond properly when I can.

Or not. I have rather suddenly lost interest in this topic*, but I hadn't really argued much in that way anyway. It isn't even my fight, really. And, as I said before (I did say this...right?), it would be difficult to prove the bible didn't claim itself infalliable, rather than that it did, unless of course it was by successfully dismantling all claims that it did. I would not know where to look for these claims, and if I planned on a hasty google search, I would have just resupplied the link from my previous post. It isn't that you aren't worth my time; I just don't care for the topic.

*biblical infalliability


On a side note, if you acknowledge that the bible is not completely true, then why do you think any of it is? If you are willing to reject some supernatural claims from your own religion, I would think you would not be afraid to reject them all, unless you somehow claimed there was genuine evidence for some of the supernatural claims. Although, that is admittably off-topic...I guess you don't need to explain it here if you don't want to.

So, you're afraid to state your own opinion of the word "eternal"???
.

(December 16, 2012 at 3:20 am)catfish Wrote: You said:
"It doesn't make one bit of difference what the bible says, because you haven't demonstrated why anyone should take it as an authority on ANY subject, let alone who are the "true" followers and who is not."

I am pretty damn sure that the Bible should be taken as an authority to determine who is a Christian, but I'm sure you'll claim it's irrelevant instead of conceding that point...
You're dismissed...

LMAO. Well first, since you didn't invite me (and you have no authority over where I go or what I do) your bullshit "your dismissed" comment has no value and no weight. Second, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me. You first need to demonstrate that there is such a thing as "true Christianity" and then show who would be included in those confines. But since your first job hasn't even gotten off the ground, we can dismiss the second (as it is putting the cart before the horse) - quite pointless.

--------------------------
There are no true Christians (just like there are no true Muslims) because these religions are false. At best, you have followers who give themselves arbitrary titles based upon their assumed interpretations of their texts. Why should we listen to your interpretation when you haven't demonstrated that ANY interpretation is based in reality?

Damn, you're fucking predictable too...
.

(December 16, 2012 at 10:28 am)catfish Wrote: Damn, you're fucking predictable too...
.

As if that matters to the subject. Nice dodge. Except, of course, we've heard all of the theist attempts to argue for your deity. And they all fail. Now, whose predictable? "He was predicted"? NOPE.

You're predictable, I wrote it, you fulfilled it, deal with it...

So, two direct questions to YOU, median. Should the bible be the standard one should use when determining for oneself whether another is a Christian or not? If no, what should be used?

*I predict more deflection, an ad-hom, and possibly some goalpost shifting*

---

And for the record, he's NOT my deity. I never said he was. I argue about what is actually written in the scriptures, if you can't deal with that, it's best to avoid confrontation with me...
.

(December 17, 2012 at 8:42 am)catfish Wrote: You're predictable, I wrote it, you fulfilled it, deal with it...

So, two direct questions to YOU, median. Should the bible be the standard one should use when determining for oneself whether another is a Christian or not? If no, what should be used?

*I predict more deflection, an ad-hom, and possibly some goalpost shifting*

---

And for the record, he's NOT my deity. I never said he was. I argue about what is actually written in the scriptures, if you can't deal with that, it's best to avoid confrontation with me...
.

Since anyone who actually lived by the rules promogulated in the bible would end up in jail for an extended period it is not the yardstick that you think it is.

(December 17, 2012 at 8:46 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 8:42 am)catfish Wrote: You're predictable, I wrote it, you fulfilled it, deal with it...

So, two direct questions to YOU, median. Should the bible be the standard one should use when determining for oneself whether another is a Christian or not? If no, what should be used?

*I predict more deflection, an ad-hom, and possibly some goalpost shifting*

---

And for the record, he's NOT my deity. I never said he was. I argue about what is actually written in the scriptures, if you can't deal with that, it's best to avoid confrontation with me...
.

Since anyone who actually lived by the rules promogulated in the bible would end up in jail for an extended period it is not the yardstick that you think it is.

Do you care to explain your reasoning behind that positive claim? Would such a person be considered a "Christian"?
.