Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 17, 2024, 12:18 pm
Atheist Forums
›
Community
›
Religion
›
Christianity
For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus
For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus
Thread Rating:
|
For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus
|
That's why he used the word "supposedly". He could also have gone for "commonly held to be" and kept the context. Language matters.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 (February 11, 2013 at 10:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Lots of mistakes for a supposedly inerrant book, eh? He only thinks it's sorta kinda the Word of God. And he has magical Holy Ghost powers by which he can tell which parts are divine and which aren't.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too." ... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept "(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question" ... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist  (February 11, 2013 at 11:10 pm)Stimbo Wrote: That's why he used the word "supposedly". He could also have gone for "commonly held to be" and kept the context. Language matters. Yes, language matters. I was pointing out mistakes, so obviously I don't think it's inerrant, right? That's why it was a question. I want to know why he thinks it's "supposedly" inerrant. Did he (or you) take the word of someone else, or did he (or you) read it him/yourself? . 
People who bring up the Holy Spirit as a means of justifying why they hold the true understanding of the Bible are in fact using circular reasoning:
The Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to the Holy Spirit described in the Bible tells me that the Bible which describes the Holy Spirit means this according to... ad infinitum "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
RE: For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus
February 11, 2013 at 11:28 pm
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2013 at 11:29 pm by Cyberman.)
(February 11, 2013 at 11:19 pm)catfish Wrote: Yes, language matters. I was pointing out mistakes, so obviously I don't think it's inerrant, right? That's why it was a question. I want to know why he thinks it's "supposedly" inerrant. Did he (or you) take the word of someone else, or did he (or you) read it him/yourself? Well, I managed to get his meaning without even having to think about it. The first thing I spotted was that he was agreeing with you. You pointed out some mistakes and Min pointed out the irony inherent in what is generally believed to be an inerrant book. He didn't say that he believes it is inerrant, supposedly or not, and neither did I. Rather, he was pointing out that it is commonly held to be inerrant, not necessarily by any present company but as a general perception.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
And I'm fighting against that doctrine and when people propagate the lie, I have to point it out. Why do/did people call it inerrant when there's no reason to? I honestly don't think any logical person could ever read it for themself and come to that conclusion. I'm 99.9% sure that in every case it is because someone else convinced them.
.  (February 11, 2013 at 10:58 pm)catfish Wrote:(February 11, 2013 at 10:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Lots of mistakes for a supposedly inerrant book, eh? When you go to a football game do you assume the players in the huddle are talking about YOU? Bit of a neurotic aren't you. Try not to pretend that there are not plenty of xtian morons who think every word of that fucking bible is LITERALLY true. (February 11, 2013 at 11:23 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: People who bring up the Holy Spirit as a means of justifying why they hold the true understanding of the Bible are in fact using circular reasoning: I tell people that if their "holy spirit" is making them believe that evil is good and good is evil, then their "holy spirit" is in fact, a demon... ('cause Imma dick and all that...) . (February 11, 2013 at 11:48 pm)catfish Wrote:(February 11, 2013 at 11:23 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: People who bring up the Holy Spirit as a means of justifying why they hold the true understanding of the Bible are in fact using circular reasoning: I propose there is no such thing as a "Holy Spirit" for the same reasons that there aren't "personal revelations"; there's no evidence to support the claim that you're being contacted by anyone/anything. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Atheist Forums
›
Community
›
Religion
›
Christianity
For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus
For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus
Users browsing this thread: 22 Guest(s)
