(June 30, 2014 at 11:47 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:(June 27, 2014 at 1:38 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Judaism doesn’t give a crap what Romans says, seeing as it’s part of the NT.Your question was why am I not a Jew.
(June 27, 2014 at 1:38 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: You said that the Bible was logically consistent internally (debatable). So is the Torah. You can’t use a part of your religion as “internally consistent” as then use it to invalidate another religion which doesn’t use that part at all.Christianity does not invalidate Judaism, but rather fulfills it.
(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: @ OrangeboxSomeone giving something to me is by definition external (it is an external entity operating upon me). If I were to give something to myself, that would be internal. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your definition of 'external', please define.
(1) You said:
What external confirmation do you have of that? Being "given belief" is an internal feeling and not an external confirmation. It is exactly what believers in other religions have. So why not Islam? Surely their internal confirmation is just as valid as yours. Your choice is cultural nothing more.
(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: (2) As for Biblical contradictions, there are whole articles devoted to that:There are whole books (Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Haley, John) and webslte articles (carm.org, apologeticspress.org, etc) devoted to debunking so-called Biblical contradictions.
[email]http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html[/email]
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/b...radictions
(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Read the Gospels side-by-side sometime. You'll find they don't agree. http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Shred...ospels.htmRead: One Perfect Life by John MacArthur. You'll find they do agree.
(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: What does that have to do with whether the Old Testament is largely negated by the New Testament?Not negated, fulfilled.
(June 27, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: (4) Lets try your syllogism again:You continue to misrepresent my argument by adding your own philosophical bias ("contain some internal contradictions') to my argument. I did not include this proposition in my argument. Please represent my argument accurately or if you don't understand it, ask for clarification.
A says there is a god and some of his truth is found in X.
B says there is a god and some of his truth is found in X.
A and B contain some internal contradictions and also sometimes contradict X.
X does not contradict itself.
Therefore X is true.
Better? It still doesn't follow logically.
I'm not going to bother debunking your argument, the whole conversation was about you saying 'The bible is right, therefore the christian god exists and christianity is right'
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you