Conquer Club

john9blue wrote:If Jesus is God and God wrote the Bible, then Jesus wrote. Syllogism, morons. How is this even up for debate?

I thought the bible was supposed to be Jesus' teaching's written down by the apostles?

AAFitz wrote:I do however think that most of the preaching of Jesus are actually pretty solid morals to live by. My own moral ideas are based on them completely, and the fact that I dont happen to believe he is God, does not make me question the morals that seem to be self evident.

This is precisely my view of things.

jay_a2j wrote:

tzor wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Scripture = Word of God, inspired by God

Jesus IS the word and the Word was God
God authored the Bible
Jesus is God
HENCE
Jesus wrote

There is a logical error in your argument. In line one Scripture (another term for the Bible) is "inspired" by God, in line 3 it was "authored" by God. Which is it? You do realize that the only words written by God, the Father, (which by the way was limited to exactly ten, although he did rewrite them so it comes up to twenty) are also not recorded anywhere in the Bible. Odd, isn't it?
P.S. Scripture was inspired by God, through the person of the Spirit, not the Son, so double fail.

The logical error in your statement is.... "In the BEGINNING was the Word and the Word was God" Beginning, before man. Gods Word had already existed. Those words Moses and the others wrote down for you and me were given to him by God! So, God wrote the Bible.
So triple fail.

The Bible is God's word because the Bible says that the Bible is God's word. That is fucking BRILLIANT! I don't know how nobody else can see how this is just prime logic on your part.

I find your capacity to create and contest arguments quite good. You all have a great general knowledge and are always prompt to express your points and hold them and fight for them, unwilling to take a no for an answer until your are thoroughly proven wrong. That's excellent since people like you are the basis and the guardians of good working democracies, to a certain extent.

However, I consider that in this particular topic you keep beating around the bushes. There's a lot of ways to aboard these topics, and one way that always produces interesting results is asking oneself cui bono.

Who benefits from a religion with female virtues as a moral code? The rulers.

Who benefits from atheism? Psychiatrists.

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

tzor wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Scripture = Word of God, inspired by God

Jesus IS the word and the Word was God
God authored the Bible
Jesus is God
HENCE
Jesus wrote

There is a logical error in your argument. In line one Scripture (another term for the Bible) is "inspired" by God, in line 3 it was "authored" by God. Which is it? You do realize that the only words written by God, the Father, (which by the way was limited to exactly ten, although he did rewrite them so it comes up to twenty) are also not recorded anywhere in the Bible. Odd, isn't it?
P.S. Scripture was inspired by God, through the person of the Spirit, not the Son, so double fail.

The logical error in your statement is.... "In the BEGINNING was the Word and the Word was God" Beginning, before man. Gods Word had already existed. Those words Moses and the others wrote down for you and me were given to him by God! So, God wrote the Bible.
So triple fail.

The Bible is God's word because the Bible says that the Bible is God's word. That is fucking BRILLIANT! I don't know how nobody else can see how this is just prime logic on your part.

As an unbeliever you will continue to "not get it".

AAFitz wrote:I do however think that most of the preaching of Jesus are actually pretty solid morals to live by. My own moral ideas are based on them completely, and the fact that I dont happen to believe he is God, does not make me question the morals that seem to be self evident.

I'm assuming you mean more of "loosely inspired by his morals" than really based on them.

For instance what's your take on "turning the other cheek"? Punishing an individual for behavior that's damaging to a society seems to me like one of the fundamental pillars of civilization.

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
The Bible is God's word because the Bible says that the Bible is God's word. That is fucking BRILLIANT! I don't know how nobody else can see how this is just prime logic on your part.

As an unbeliever you will continue to "not get it".

As a believer, you will continue to be considered clinically insane.


(My apologies to all of the believers with a modicum of logic.)

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

AAFitz wrote:I do however think that most of the preaching of Jesus are actually pretty solid morals to live by. My own moral ideas are based on them completely, and the fact that I dont happen to believe he is God, does not make me question the morals that seem to be self evident.

I'm assuming you mean more of "loosely inspired by his morals" than really based on them.

For instance what's your take on "turning the other cheek"? Punishing an individual for behavior that's damaging to a society seems to me like one of the fundamental pillars of civilization.

Civilization has nothing to do with it, if he (like I) was speaking of PERSONAL moral ideas. An individual can easily turn the other cheek without causing any problem whatsoever for society.

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

tzor wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Scripture = Word of God, inspired by God

Jesus IS the word and the Word was God
God authored the Bible
Jesus is God
HENCE
Jesus wrote

There is a logical error in your argument. In line one Scripture (another term for the Bible) is "inspired" by God, in line 3 it was "authored" by God. Which is it? You do realize that the only words written by God, the Father, (which by the way was limited to exactly ten, although he did rewrite them so it comes up to twenty) are also not recorded anywhere in the Bible. Odd, isn't it?
P.S. Scripture was inspired by God, through the person of the Spirit, not the Son, so double fail.

The logical error in your statement is.... "In the BEGINNING was the Word and the Word was God" Beginning, before man. Gods Word had already existed. Those words Moses and the others wrote down for you and me were given to him by God! So, God wrote the Bible.
So triple fail.

The Bible is God's word because the Bible says that the Bible is God's word. That is fucking BRILLIANT! I don't know how nobody else can see how this is just prime logic on your part.

As an unbeliever you will continue to "not get it".

Because, obviously, blind faith is always essential to understand a logical position which depends upon reason.

jonesthecurl wrote:Because, obviously, blind faith is always essential to understand a logical position which depends upon reason.

No Jones, it's actually a lot cleverer than that. You see, Jay is winding up for the 'Grand Smash' of forum debating tactics and is about to decry everyboy in this thread who doesn't agree with him (regardless of the quality of preceeding arguments) as an idiot, then claim that they do not understand (notwithstanding their previously demonstrated understanding of the subject).

Woodruff wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

AAFitz wrote:I do however think that most of the preaching of Jesus are actually pretty solid morals to live by. My own moral ideas are based on them completely, and the fact that I dont happen to believe he is God, does not make me question the morals that seem to be self evident.

I'm assuming you mean more of "loosely inspired by his morals" than really based on them.

For instance what's your take on "turning the other cheek"? Punishing an individual for behavior that's damaging to a society seems to me like one of the fundamental pillars of civilization.

Civilization has nothing to do with it, if he (like I) was speaking of PERSONAL moral ideas. An individual can easily turn the other cheek without causing any problem whatsoever for society.

Hmm, you're probably talking about small day to day situations, and in such cases yes, it's probably correct. No real point in "getting revenge" on the guy who cut you off or whatever.
But if you don't draw the line somewhere(as you undoubtedly do), then it would affect society. For instance, would you report a murder? or forgive him?

This may seem like I'm just grasping at straws cause i don't like the guy or whatever, it's not that at all, i just strive for logical consistency in matters such as this, and afaik, Jesus didn't say anything like: Turn the other cheek, as long as the offense is lesser than assault with a deadly weapon.

That's why i think the morals exposed by Jesus are a little simplistic, you need a bit more flexibility to cover all the cases and remain consistent.

King Doctor wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Because, obviously, blind faith is always essential to understand a logical position which depends upon reason.

No Jones, it's actually a lot cleverer than that. You see, Jay is winding up for the 'Grand Smash' of forum debating tactics and is about to decry everyboy in this thread who doesn't agree with him (regardless of the quality of preceeding arguments) as an idiot, then claim that they do not understand (notwithstanding their previously demonstrated understanding of the subject).

Well, of course, That's why the debate is over.

nietzsche wrote:
Who benefits from a religion with female virtues as a moral code? The rulers.
.

Your idea of "female virtues" is extremely distorted.
Christianity, in practice is a highly patriarchial religion. While I absolutely argue that this is a distortion, the idea that female=weak is also a great distortion, and shows your heavy bias toward having been educated in a society that simply accepts physical & direct domination as "superior". In fact, that is itself a tag given by the rulers to appease and keep people under control.

jonesthecurl wrote:Well, of course, That's why the debate is over.

The debate which I WON.

There were many others involved.
It was a mass debate.
Jay is a frequent mass debater.

I'm pretty sure that Jay regards engaging in that particular activity as sinful.




Which is exactly why he likes it.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

AAFitz wrote:I do however think that most of the preaching of Jesus are actually pretty solid morals to live by. My own moral ideas are based on them completely, and the fact that I dont happen to believe he is God, does not make me question the morals that seem to be self evident.

I'm assuming you mean more of "loosely inspired by his morals" than really based on them.

For instance what's your take on "turning the other cheek"? Punishing an individual for behavior that's damaging to a society seems to me like one of the fundamental pillars of civilization.

Yes, war, revenge and domination... all "fundamental pillars of civilization" Exactly what Al-Qaeda is saying right now!

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

AAFitz wrote:I do however think that most of the preaching of Jesus are actually pretty solid morals to live by. My own moral ideas are based on them completely, and the fact that I dont happen to believe he is God, does not make me question the morals that seem to be self evident.

I'm assuming you mean more of "loosely inspired by his morals" than really based on them.

For instance what's your take on "turning the other cheek"? Punishing an individual for behavior that's damaging to a society seems to me like one of the fundamental pillars of civilization.

Civilization has nothing to do with it, if he (like I) was speaking of PERSONAL moral ideas. An individual can easily turn the other cheek without causing any problem whatsoever for society.

Hmm, you're probably talking about small day to day situations, and in such cases yes, it's probably correct. No real point in "getting revenge" on the guy who cut you off or whatever.
But if you don't draw the line somewhere(as you undoubtedly do), then it would affect society. For instance, would you report a murder? or forgive him?

You say this as if they are mutually exclusive ideas, but they are not. One of Jesus' tenets was that we bow to government rule. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and all that rot. So of course I would report an illegal activity. I'm also pretty sure that Jesus was against killing, so finding punishment for such a person would still fit into that scheme.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:This may seem like I'm just grasping at straws cause i don't like the guy or whatever, it's not that at all, i just strive for logical consistency in matters such as this, and afaik, Jesus didn't say anything like: Turn the other cheek, as long as the offense is lesser than assault with a deadly weapon.

It's perfectly consistent from a logical standpoint.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:That's why i think the morals exposed by Jesus are a little simplistic, you need a bit more flexibility to cover all the cases and remain consistent.

Not if you have an actual grasp of Jesus' teachings.

King Doctor wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Because, obviously, blind faith is always essential to understand a logical position which depends upon reason.

No Jones, it's actually a lot cleverer than that. You see, Jay is winding up for the 'Grand Smash' of forum debating tactics and is about to decry everyboy in this thread who doesn't agree with him (regardless of the quality of preceeding arguments) as an idiot, then claim that they do not understand (notwithstanding their previously demonstrated understanding of the subject).

I'm sure Jay will agree that

"The collected thoughts and opinions of many fools is still nothing more than the braying of fools" - Karl Marx

mmm baseless opinions of others' intelligence are nice, aren't they doc?

john9blue wrote:mmm baseless opinions of others' intelligence are nice, aren't they doc?

You will have to take that up with Mr Marx.


I could not possibly comment upon his state of mind as regards your, seemingly diminutive, intelligence.

King Doctor wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Well, of course, That's why the debate is over.

The debate which I WON.

On Bumpage everyone's a winner!

You also get ...

• A year's supply of Rice A Roni, the San Francisco Treat
• The Bumpage Board game, so you can play at home.
• The Voice of Saxitoxin on your answering machine.

jonesthecurl wrote:
Because, obviously, blind faith is always essential to understand a logical position which depends upon reason.

I myself do not possess blind faith. Which is a belief in something without the benefit of concrete evidence that the belief is true. I have plenty, dare I say a plethora, of evidence.

jay_a2j wrote:I myself do not possess blind faith. Which is a belief in something without the benefit of concrete evidence that the belief is true. I have plenty, dare I say a plethora, of evidence.

And that is where we differ. I, personally, believe that there is intelligence somewhere on Bumpage, even though there is no concrete evidence of it whatsoever. It's a blind faith, but at least it's not deaf to reason.

tzor wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:I myself do not possess blind faith. Which is a belief in something without the benefit of concrete evidence that the belief is true. I have plenty, dare I say a plethora, of evidence.

And that is where we differ. I, personally, believe that there is intelligence somewhere on Bumpage, even though there is no concrete evidence of it whatsoever. It's a blind faith, but at least it's not deaf to reason.

"You say that you believe in God? Good! Even demons know there is a God and tremble!" (James 2:19)


Belief in God does nothing for the soul unless there is faith.

What is faith?

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Heb 11:1)

Mmmm, all you can eat at the Big Buffet Of Crazy...

jay_a2j wrote:I myself do not possess blind faith.

jay_a2j wrote:Belief in God does nothing for the soul unless there is faith.

Yeah, sounds, um... 'coherent'.


Now, what's for the second course?

jay_a2j wrote:I myself do not possess blind faith ... I have plenty, dare I say a plethora, of evidence.

jay_a2j wrote:Belief in God does nothing for the soul unless there is faith.

What is faith?

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Heb 11:1)

Oh yeah... that's the stuff, pure unadulterated confusion, fresh from the crazy's mouth.

MmmmmHmmmm. Yummy yum yum.