(February 28, 2015 at 3:40 pm)jesus_wept Wrote:

(February 28, 2015 at 3:36 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: Zeus was gay, and he had 3 boyfriends. I heard that from a reliable source.

Were they the father, son and the holy spirit by any chance?

I don't know. That part seems a bit far-fetched.

---

(February 28, 2015 at 3:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: But you haven't provided any sources have you? You guys don't have a problem providing chapter and verse of the Bible when it suits you why then is it so hard to get a specific reference to your claim in the apocryphal books?

I think you answered your own question. Not that it's hard, just doesn't suit them, perhaps? I'd wager to say that you should prove once and for all that the J-man went stag! Show them Huggy!

(February 28, 2015 at 2:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

Quote:the author describes certain activities as contemporary Jewish customs that probably did not exist. For example, the work suggests there were consecrated temple virgins in Judaism, similar to the Vestal Virgins in pagan Rome, although this is unlikely to have been a practice in mainstream Judaism.

... So, is nobody going to note the irony of a christian dismissing a source because it contains things that did not exist?

Irony is way above their level.

(February 28, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 28, 2015 at 2:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

... So, is nobody going to note the irony of a christian dismissing a source because it contains things that did not exist?

The thing is, there is proof the above didn't exist, If you're claiming something in the Bible didn't exist, prove it.

(February 28, 2015 at 4:15 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The thing is, there is proof the above didn't exist, If you're claiming something in the Bible didn't exist, prove it.

If you're claiming anything described in the bible actually happened, prove it.
The default position is that it's not reliable. You're the one claiming it's the word of a supreme being. That's a pretty arrogant claim for someone who doesn't have any evidence of it.

Shall I prepare the circular reasoning graph?

(February 28, 2015 at 4:15 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 28, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ... So, is nobody going to note the irony of a christian dismissing a source because it contains things that did not exist?

The thing is, there is proof the above didn't exist, If you're claiming something in the Bible didn't exist, prove it.

Yeah, you shift that burden of proof like nobody will notice, Huggy!

How about a worldwide flood, since there's plenty of contradictory evidence, geologically speaking, for that? Oh, and the resurrection? No possible way that could happen! I mean, I'm not required to do this at all, given the aforementioned shifting of the burden of proof, but it is a relatively trivial question to answer.

(February 28, 2015 at 4:15 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 28, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ... So, is nobody going to note the irony of a christian dismissing a source because it contains things that did not exist?

The thing is, there is proof the above didn't exist, If you're claiming something in the Bible didn't exist, prove it.

What? You do realize that Its one thing to say that something can be read within the pages of the bible. And if you say the bible says something in it, all you have to do is produce the scripture, and I'll concede that it says what you said it did.

It's quite another thing to be under the impression that the things the bible says, actually happened, the people to which they refer actually existed, and that any of it was real.

Do you believe the trip to Mordor occurred, and that Frodo got the ring back into the fire?

If I show you the Tolken text from The Lord of the Rings, would that suffice as proof that it was written in the story or proof that it actually happened?

You are capable of making the distinction, right?

(February 28, 2015 at 4:26 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: You are capable of making the distinction, right?

Only when it's convenient for whatever position he's taken at the time.

(February 28, 2015 at 4:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, you shift that burden of proof like nobody will notice, Huggy!

I didn't start the thread buddy

(February 28, 2015 at 4:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How about a worldwide flood, since there's plenty of contradictory evidence, geologically speaking, for that?

You do realize that all it would take for the Earth to flood, is for the moon to shift closer in it's orbit, right?
http://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system...the-earth/

Quote: If the Moon got much closer, say 20 times closer, it would exert a gravitational force 400 times greater than what we are used to. A mighty tidal bulge would be created, hitting the land and causing great flooding, with cities such as London and New York disappearing under water.

(February 28, 2015 at 4:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, and the resurrection? No possible way that could happen!

According to who? Don't you believe life spontaneously created itself through Abiogenesis? But a dead person returning to life is all of the sudden beyond the realm of possibility?

(February 28, 2015 at 4:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 28, 2015 at 4:26 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: You are caoable of making the distinction, right?

Only when it's convenient for whatever position he's taken at the time.

I think that he doesn't understand.

If someone is claiming that something can be read in the bible, He's right to say that the burden is on them to prove it.

He then seems confused by the burden of proof when he says "You say something in the bible doesn't exist, you need to prove it"

---

(February 28, 2015 at 4:34 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: According to who? Don't you believe life spontaneously created itself through Abiogenesis? But a dead person returning to life is all of the sudden beyond the realm of possibility?

Oh...it's worse than I thought. Nevermind.