(January 1, 2014 at 11:35 pm)Aractus Wrote: PS: Does he "have the right" to tell people the same thing based on their race, or only based on their beliefs?

'Fraid so. It's called freedom of speech; the same thing that allows you the right to call him a lying sack of shit. It cuts in all directions. Of course, like all similar freedoms it's oretty much a self-regulating thing - views that are considered unpopular or even offensive will become increasingly marginalised and their proponents outcast from the group. Which is rather handy from a Mod point of view, as it can make our job so much easier to let the wolves do the work and just mop up the blood afterwards.

(January 2, 2014 at 12:08 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 1, 2014 at 11:35 pm)Aractus Wrote: PS: Does he "have the right" to tell people the same thing based on their race, or only based on their beliefs?

'Fraid so. It's called freedom of speech; the same thing that allows you the right to call him a lying sack of shit. It cuts in all directions. Of course, like all similar freedoms it's oretty much a self-regulating thing - views that are considered unpopular or even offensive will become increasingly marginalised and their proponents outcast from the group. Which is rather handy from a Mod point of view, as it can make our job so much easier to let the wolves do the work and just mop up the blood afterwards.

Well quite. It isn't me who resorts to obscene personal abuse and it isn't me who lurks on hostile sites picking fights.

Quote:The Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness. The Epistle of James is written by the brother of Jesus, another eyewitness. I don't expect either of those points to convince you, much less would I expect you to believe 1/2 Peter is written by Peter.

It doesn't even claim to have been written by an eye-witness you poor deluded schmuck.

These are anonymous writings which did not get their apostolic names until the late 2d century. Reality must be hard for you?

Bible= Harry potter, (insert pornography here), naked lunch, train spotting, Finnegans Wake.

In that order.

Quote:Who Wrote the Bible?
Students taking a college-level Bible course for the fi rst time
often find it surprising that we don’t know who wrote most of
the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don’t these
books all have the authors’ names attached to them? Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John?
How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn’t
this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul
while knowing full well that he wasn’t Paul—isn’t that lying? Can
Scripture contain lies?

When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the
onslaught on my faith by liberal biblical scholars who were going
to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative
circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like
Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of
liberals.

What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual
evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I
had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was
that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals
actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they
weren’t simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were
some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously,
only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not
write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were
written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren’t.
In this chapter I’d like to explain what that evidence is.

Jesus Interrupted...Bart Ehrman Page 101

You really have to put your fucking bible down and learn some stuff so you stop looking so stupid, Danny.

(January 2, 2014 at 12:31 am)Minimalist Wrote: It doesn't even claim to have been written by an eye-witness you poor deluded schmuck.

These are anonymous writings which did not get their apostolic names until the late 2d century. Reality must be hard for you?

So what? Every early manuscript we have of John with page 1 intact says "Gospel according to John". The earliest of which is late 2nd century (and we have two of them), so your claim is demonstrably false. I appreciate your POV being based on evidence Min, but your claim that they didn't get their apostolic names until then would mean that we have the two first copies made with "Gospel According to John" on them? And I posted images that show this clearly:

P66 and P75 represent two different early textual traditions for John, so significantly this divergence had to have occurred sometime in the past. You have to allow time for copying errors to manifest, they're introduced slowly with each copy - not all at once with just one. This means that the gospel has already been widely copied, this means you can't date their convergence any earlier than the mid second century, and convergence early second century is preferred. So we can reliably derive that the title dates to not later than the mid 2nd century.

(January 2, 2014 at 1:06 am)Aractus Wrote: ...So what?...

Anne frank: "the Germans are coming. So what?"
Bin laden: "I kill all walks of life. So what?"
Adolf Hitler: "I am lead the greatest operation involving eugenics and genocide.So what?"
Kent hovind: "I offer amateur arguments with extremely weak evidence to support the existence of God. So what?"
Christian: "I am just like kent Hovind. So what?"

According to the Scriptures and the Apostle's Creed, He existed.

Yeah...we know.

And Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader exist in Star Wars. Do you think that makes them real too?

I think Hobie is a sick sock puppet.