(April 27, 2013 at 6:30 pm)Tex Wrote: But the evidence isn't required. I've given examples and then they demand physical evidence when the topic is immateriality...

A thing which has no physical evidence cannot be considered more than imaginary. That which is "immaterial" can have any property anyone wishes even though contradictory and mutually exclusive. What is the point of such a topic when there is no definition of the topic?

---

(April 26, 2013 at 2:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(April 25, 2013 at 7:11 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Well said but it looks to me he is claiming Rube Goldberg reasoning trumps a bullshit call.

Rube Goldberg reasoning? Saying that two verses could be describing two different battles is hardly “Rube Goldberg Reasoning”. If you’re asking Christians to give up one of their central doctrines (the infallibility of scripture) you’d better present some actual internal contradictions in that source, to date I haven’t seen anything presented that even comes close to being a contradiction. You’re going to have to do better.

Perhaps Rube Goldberg is more credit than it deserves. It hardly just different battles. It is the more recent writing did not know of the older writing OR if divinely inspired that the confusion over the two was desired.

For me, contradictions are one of the clearest reasons to consider the stories were originally considered some sort of fiction as those who were around when they were written could clearly see the same contradictions and did not even comment them nor attempt to correct them. The entire believer approach appears to be that it was only in the 19th c. people got smart enough to notice the contradictions.

As I recall from RC religions classes the answer was, don't think about.

Quote:

Quote: The future is hypothetical. I do not choose to deal in hypotheticals.

So since you do not deal with the future science is now impossible since we cannot assume that what we observe taking place today will repeat under identical conditions in the future?

When you have the equations which predict human behavior into the future we can apply them and see what people will do in the future.

"A thing which has no physical evidence cannot be considered more than imaginary."

Where is your physical evidence? You have been operating on this principle that you can't prove for a while now. Prove it. Hurry up. I'm tired of your dogma. Right now, you're no better than a bad catholic.

(April 28, 2013 at 4:17 pm)Tex Wrote: "A thing which has no physical evidence cannot be considered more than imaginary."

Where is your physical evidence? You have been operating on this principle that you can't prove for a while now. Prove it. Hurry up. I'm tired of your dogma. Right now, you're no better than a bad catholic.

Sure. But first you must prove to my satisfaction that there are no unicorns anywhere in the universe.

I'm not claiming that. You cannot know that any more than "there are no aliens". Perhaps there is a skinny version of a rhino running around on some planet.

(April 28, 2013 at 4:17 pm)Tex Wrote: Tex Wrote: But the evidence isn't required. I've given examples and then they demand physical evidence when the topic is immateriality...

ME wrote "A thing which has no physical evidence cannot be considered more than imaginary."

Where is your physical evidence? You have been operating on this principle that you can't prove for a while now. Prove it. Hurry up. I'm tired of your dogma. Right now, you're no better than a bad catholic.

Physical evidence that there cannot be considered more than the non-existence of physical evidence. Do you have a definition of "immateriality" which is physical. If so would you care to post it?

Immateriality = having the quality of "immaterial".
Immaterial = non-physical, non-empirical

Dreams = Physical. Ideas = Physical. Memory = Physical. Body = Physical.

Quantity = Immaterial. Quality = Immaterial. Relation = Immaterial. Soul = Immaterial.

(April 23, 2013 at 3:53 pm)John V Wrote: What you miss is that the two passages are given at different points in the chronology, with the 800 at a later point than the 300. So, both could be accurate.

Personally I tend to think that the numerical differences are more likely due to copying errors which have no effect on doctrine. But in this case, you don't even have a solid numerical difference due to the time factor.

do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds that you have to dig so deep to try and defend a book that is so illogical and contradictory?

If you can doubt one number due to 'copying issues' don't you have to disregard the entire text? And isn't god all powerful ruler of the universe? Doesn't he hold the magical ability to prevent people from making typos?

(April 26, 2013 at 9:28 pm)Cinjin Wrote: You're real big on this 'assertion' thing aren't you. Everybody else is guilty of making baseless assertions while you yourself are the poster-child for finger pointing and blatant hypocrisy.

The fact that you think others are guilty of also being irrational is not proper justification for your own irrationality.

Quote: I was a faithful member of a fundamental Baptist church for 18 years. I attended Bob Jones University for 2 years and I was instructed and tutored in Evangelism for one year.

And?

Quote: You yourself make the baseless assertion that I don't even have a basic working knowledge of Biblical theology.

It’s not a baseless assertion at all, it is quite strongly supported by the fact that you misrepresent what Christians believe and what the Bible teaches whenever the opportunity presents itself, so either you do not know what you are talking about or you are intentionally distorting your opponent’s position. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was the former.

Quote: Yes, but supposedly your god is not fallible and yet he can't seem to overcome the abundant typos and miss-translations.

You just proved my point above! Here you are, claiming that you’re some sort of expert on Christian doctrine and Holy Scripture, and yet you completely misrepresent and distort the Christian doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. The doctrine does not teach that the future translations of scripture are inerrant, but that the original inspired texts are. Perhaps you skipped class the day they covered Biblical inerrancy at Bob Jones University?

Quote: I studied this horse shit for well-over three decades and the plain truth is, one has to close his eyes and ears, and fight to accept the stupidity that is the Bible.

That just proves that studying doesn’t always lead to learning.

Quote: As for that ridiculous remark about me being rude (from the rudest people on these forums): I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter.

You’re the only person who claims that I am rude on this forum, so I am just thinking you’re a very sensitive person.

(April 26, 2013 at 10:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Typical of your type, Waldork. One xtian asshole gets something wrong and you have your lips surgically attached to his ass because he was one of you.

Wrong, Martyr and Luke both support this fact, and they are both historical sources from that time period. You never bothered to even reference your sources so for all I know you’re getting your information from the movie Gladiator, I’ll take the word of the historical figures on this one over yours. I also find it rather amusing that you object to using Christian sources but you seem to have no problem using anti-Christen sources, a little bit of special pleading sprinkled on top.

Quote: But you are just an asshole and hardly worth bothering about. For the atheist types... and other intelligent people here then...

Calling me names does nothing to support your position.

Quote: What Waldork knows about is xtian fairy tales. He doesn't know shit about the Roman colonial administrative system...and neither did that fuckhead Justin. In fact, the first praefect of Judaea was a man named Coponius. Coponius reported to Quirinius, the Imperial Legate in Syria. But I understand that Waldork doesn't want facts. Facts fuck up his fairy tales. So he can just shove jesus up his ass and leave the adults to discuss things he doesn't understand.

Again you conveniently reference no sources. It’s quite amusing that you assert that someone of Roman descent and who lived in 2nd Century Rome knew less about the Roman system than you do living nearly 2,000 years later. That’s cute. Quirinius was a procurator in Judea before he was Governor of Syria, we know this. You were just blowing smoke, and I called you out on it, time to move along.

(April 28, 2013 at 4:04 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Perhaps Rube Goldberg is more credit than it deserves. It hardly just different battles. It is the more recent writing did not know of the older writing OR if divinely inspired that the confusion over the two was desired.

How do you know they’re the same battle? Additionally, are you really trying to suggest that someone can kill 800 men but not have killed 300 men? That’s absurd. It’s not a contradiction, find something else.

Quote: For me, contradictions are one of the clearest reasons to consider the stories were originally considered some sort of fiction as those who were around when they were written could clearly see the same contradictions and did not even comment them nor attempt to correct them. The entire believer approach appears to be that it was only in the 19th c. people got smart enough to notice the contradictions.

What contradictions? To date you haven’t been able to present a single internal logical contradiction. You’re going to have to do better than merely asserting these alleged contradictions really exist. Find “’A’ and ‘Not A’ at the same time and in the same relationship” in Holy Scripture. You cannot do it.

Quote:When you have the equations which predict human behavior into the future we can apply them and see what people will do in the future.

You’re not getting off that easy; you asserted that you do not deal with the future because it is hypothetical. Now you are asserting you do not deal with the future only when it applies to human behavior. Which is it?

(April 28, 2013 at 7:04 pm)iameatingjam Wrote: do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds that you have to dig so deep to try and defend a book that is so illogical and contradictory?

You should look up the term logical contradiction, it’s obvious it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

(April 29, 2013 at 6:52 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Wrong, Martyr and Luke both support this fact, and they are both historical sources from that time period. You never bothered to even reference your sources so for all I know you’re getting your information from the movie Gladiator, I’ll take the word of the historical figures on this one over yours. I also find it rather amusing that you object to using Christian sources but you seem to have no problem using anti-Christen sources, a little bit of special pleading sprinkled on top.

I'm pretty sure the Gladiator would be considered an authoritative source. I've seen it twice and enjoyed it both times. Apparently the afterlife is just behind a thin veil which you can only enter after you die. Your loved ones will be waiting for you there and the countryside looks just like what you had on earth. (I'm not sure if you'll be able to trade up or not.) And if your eye (or worse) gets poked out in this life it will indeed be waiting up in heaven with your wife.

Why? What kind of rot are they teaching against the Gladiator in seminary now?

(April 29, 2013 at 6:52 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What contradictions? To date you haven’t been able to present a single internal logical contradiction. You’re going to have to do better than merely asserting these alleged contradictions really exist. Find “’A’ and ‘Not A’ at the same time and in the same relationship” in Holy Scripture. You cannot do it.

I have been trying to avoid the yes it is/no it isn't kind of bickering you appear to enjoy. More surprising is discovering you are declare you are unaware of any contradictions whatsoever.

Yet by googling bible+contradictions the first hit is A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992) Jim Meritt is the first hit.


God good to all, or just a few?
War or Peace?
Who is the father of Joseph?
Who was at the Empty Tomb?
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
Which first, beasts or man?
How many stalls and horsemen?
Is it folly to be wise or not?
Human vs. ghostly impregnation
The sins of the father
Rabbits do not chew their cud
Fowl from waters or ground
Odd genetics
The shape of the earth
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
Earth supported?
Heaven supported too
The hydrological cycle
Order of creation
Moses' personality
Righteous live?
Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
Jesus' last words
Years of famine
Moved David to anger?
The genealogy of Jesus?
God be seen?
Cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious or kind, merciful, and good
Tempts?
Judas died how?
Ascend to heaven
What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
How many time did the cock crow?
How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount
Does every man sin?
Who bought potter's field?
Who prophesied the potter's field?
Who bears guilt?
Do you answer a fool?
How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
Marriage?
Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
How many apostles were in office between the resurrection and ascension?
Judging
Good deeds
For or against?
Whom did they see at the tomb?
God change?
Destruction of cities (what said was Jeremiah was Zechariah)
Who's sepulchers?
Strong drink?
When second coming?
Solomon's overseers
The mother of Abijah
When did Baasha die?
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah
What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
What did they give him to drink?
How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Is a list of the contradictions discussed.

This page addresses issues, contradictions and false logic with three of the most popular bible stories (Creation, Noah’s Ark and the Nativity Story), is the second google hit.

Perhaps in your spare time you could put together a website showing that these are all no real contradictions regardless of the words used.