Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[fr0d0]

The point of the red / Purple thing is not its significance, it's it's simplicity. An explanation with turn "red is not purple" into "red IS purple" is much harder to to accept than one which explains Timothy s letter as context based or misunderstood.

The problem you'll face there is that christian apologetics is the enemy of language, and as deeply wrong as "red and purple are the same color," sounds to you, it'll sound perfectly fine to an apologist or those willing to accept the word of one, simply because to them, words mean whatever they need to in order to preserve the bible.

This is just another one of those things that's only convincing if you let your views be shaped by the evidence, rather than shaping the evidence to fit your views.

And that works both ways of course.

No one has the upper hand on these questions, and nothing annoys me more that people on either side making unfounded claims of superiority.

[Mudhammam]

The problem you'll face there is that christian apologetics is the enemy of language, and as deeply wrong as "red and purple are the same color," sounds to you, it'll sound perfectly fine to an apologist or those willing to accept the word of one, simply because to them, words mean whatever they need to in order to preserve the bible.

This is just another one of those things that's only convincing if you let your views be shaped by the evidence, rather than shaping the evidence to fit your views.

And that works both ways of course.

No one has the upper hand on these questions, and nothing annoys me more that people on either side making unfounded claims of superiority.

I guess the sensible thing would be take the Gospels at face value instead of jumping through loops to say, "You see, when you combine ALL the Gospels together, we actually find that Jesus was wearing red AND purple...

"And his last words on the cross were actually a lot longer winded than any single Gospel portrays...

"And at his birth, Joseph took the holy family from Nazareth to Bethlehem to Jerusalem, then back to Bethlehem, followed by Egypt to tour the pyramids, and FINALLY only then did they returned home to Nazareth... See, no contradictions! They just each record the stories in fragmentary pieces that fit together like a puzzle! Same thing with the contradictory visits of the women to Jesus' tomb, of course, and everything else in the Bible that refutes itself."

[Jacob(smooth)]

No one has the upper hand on these questions, and nothing annoys me more that people on either side making unfounded claims of superiority.

What if your dick went green and dropped off after your GP made a freak error and accidentally injected you with domestos instead of tetanus vaccine?

[*Deidre*]

The problem you'll face there is that christian apologetics is the enemy of language, and as deeply wrong as "red and purple are the same color," sounds to you, it'll sound perfectly fine to an apologist or those willing to accept the word of one, simply because to them, words mean whatever they need to in order to preserve the bible.

This is just another one of those things that's only convincing if you let your views be shaped by the evidence, rather than shaping the evidence to fit your views.

And that works both ways of course.

No one has the upper hand on these questions, and nothing annoys me more that people on either side making unfounded claims of superiority.

Had religion never been ''invented'' these discussions would be non-existent. People would be content living like AS IT REALLY IS, and not wondering how it could/should/would be if there is a god. Inventing a god to fill in the gaps of what we don't understand has honestly done more to harm mankind in general, than simply not believing in a higher power at all.

[Belev2Know]

hmmmm

[fr0d0]

Inventing a god to fill in the gaps of what we don't understand has honestly done more to harm mankind in general, than simply not believing in a higher power at all.

God wasn't invented to fill any gaps. We want to force our materialist viewpoint onto it and make it that.

[*Deidre*]

Inventing a god to fill in the gaps of what we don't understand has honestly done more to harm mankind in general, than simply not believing in a higher power at all.

God wasn't invented to fill any gaps. We want to force our materialist viewpoint onto it and make it that.

Since God isn't 'evident'...he has manifested in and by man's imagination. We live ...EXIST...in a material world.

Man doesn't force a materialistic view on anyone, it exists. All around you.

[Mudhammam]

Inventing a god to fill in the gaps of what we don't understand has honestly done more to harm mankind in general, than simply not believing in a higher power at all.

God wasn't invented to fill any gaps. We want to force our materialist viewpoint onto it and make it that.

God wasn't invented.

He just co-evolved with human intelligence.

[fr0d0]

No one hand the upper hand on these questions, and nothing annoys me more that people on either side making unfounded claims of superiority.

What if your dick went green and dropped off after your GP made a freak error and accidentally injected you with domestos instead of tetanus vaccine?

Oh OK besides that

---

Since God isn't 'evident'...he has manifested in and by man's imagination. We live ...EXIST...in a material world.

Man doesn't force a materialistic view on anyone, it exists. All around you.

You can preach all you like, it doesn't make it true

We force our materialist understanding onto biblical text. That's our blindness showing. Science is wonderful and highly beneficial. Let's not abuse it.

[*Deidre*]

God wasn't invented to fill any gaps. We want to force our materialist viewpoint onto it and make it that.

God wasn't invented.

He just co-evolved with human intelligence.

not sure if serious

??