Conquer Club

tzor wrote:

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote: What about the other stuff the bible left out? pulsars? the solar system? the periodic table? quantum theory? gravity?

THEY DON'T EXIST! STOP ADDING TO THE BIBLE!

...

What do you say? You up for it? Seriously, let's do this properly.

John 16:12-15 has the following words from Jesus, "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

John 21:25 also states: There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

I'm not a Christian, so I don't know, was someone following Jesus around all day writing everything he said on papyrus or something?

Backglass wrote:No thanks...sounds too much like a religion to me.

Coming from the Leprechaun Bible guy, that stings .

Juan_Bottom wrote:

tzor wrote:

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote: What about the other stuff the bible left out? pulsars? the solar system? the periodic table? quantum theory? gravity?

THEY DON'T EXIST! STOP ADDING TO THE BIBLE!

...

What do you say? You up for it? Seriously, let's do this properly.

John 16:12-15 has the following words from Jesus, "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

John 21:25 also states: There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

I'm not a Christian, so I don't know, was someone following Jesus around all day writing everything he said on papyrus or something?

No his words were passed from follower to follower ( each time perfectly ) until being written down about 100 years after the event. What then followed were perfect translations into greek and Latin and a compilation and edit by the Holy Roman church,which of course was based purely on the likely accuracy of various documents and gospels. There was no agenda followed whatsoever and absolutely no question of any inconvenient writings being ignored or discarded, the New Testament is 100% factual and all the sayings of Jesus are recorded with utter precision. Certain other documents were in existence which contradicted the accepted line but of course these were all fakes peddled by the various Gnostics and heretics ( basicly mercenaries of Satan ), sensibly these were burnt along with the demons who believed in them - good riddance !

Backglass wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, I cannot PROVE my beliefs, but you cannot DISPROVE them, either.

True...just as I cannot PROVE Leprechauns, you cannot DISPROVE them either.

You say this is insulting. I say...other than the number of followers, how is my TRUE religion any different from yours?

It is written in our ancient Leprechaun Bible "There will be those who try to temp you from our riches through mockery and hate. RESIST THEM, for they are the tools of the Chupacabra".

Turn from your wicked ways Goat-Sucker! Repent! I pray that someday you will open your heart and let it be filled with pots-o-gold. Learn to love them and when you die you will spend eternity at the end of the rainbow. I KNOW this to be true. I will pity you if you are left behind, but I will sleep well knowing I did all that I could do.

The main difference is that you don't really believe any of that and are plain and simply mocking those of us who do have serious beliefs.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Backglass wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, I cannot PROVE my beliefs, but you cannot DISPROVE them, either.

True...just as I cannot PROVE Leprechauns, you cannot DISPROVE them either.

You say this is insulting. I say...other than the number of followers, how is my TRUE religion any different from yours?

It is written in our ancient Leprechaun Bible "There will be those who try to temp you from our riches through mockery and hate. RESIST THEM, for they are the tools of the Chupacabra".

Turn from your wicked ways Goat-Sucker! Repent! I pray that someday you will open your heart and let it be filled with pots-o-gold. Learn to love them and when you die you will spend eternity at the end of the rainbow. I KNOW this to be true. I will pity you if you are left behind, but I will sleep well knowing I did all that I could do.

The main difference is that you don't really believe any of that and are plain and simply mocking those of us who do have serious beliefs.

I think his argument is in the mockery. You can't prove/disprove him wrong either. But that doesn't make it sound any less stupid to you.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Backglass wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, I cannot PROVE my beliefs, but you cannot DISPROVE them, either.

True...just as I cannot PROVE Leprechauns, you cannot DISPROVE them either.

You say this is insulting. I say...other than the number of followers, how is my TRUE religion any different from yours?

It is written in our ancient Leprechaun Bible "There will be those who try to temp you from our riches through mockery and hate. RESIST THEM, for they are the tools of the Chupacabra".

Turn from your wicked ways Goat-Sucker! Repent! I pray that someday you will open your heart and let it be filled with pots-o-gold. Learn to love them and when you die you will spend eternity at the end of the rainbow. I KNOW this to be true. I will pity you if you are left behind, but I will sleep well knowing I did all that I could do.

The main difference is that you don't really believe any of that and are plain and simply mocking those of us who do have serious beliefs.

I think his argument is in the mockery. You can't prove/disprove him wrong either. But that doesn't make it sound any less stupid to you.

The intelligent person is able to allow that even that which they do not believe might be true.

Or, to put it in other words: Usually you only attack that which threatens you.

I have said I don't agree with you, but I have not mocked you. Mockery is not argument, it is insult. Insult is beyond discussion, it is the realm of those who have no real backing to their arguments.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The intelligent person is able to allow that even that which they do not believe might be true.

Or, to put it in other words: Usually you only attack that which threatens you.

I have said I don't agree with you, but I have not mocked you. Mockery is not argument, it is insult. Insult is beyond discussion, it is the realm of those who have no real backing to their arguments.

Nuh Uh. It doesn't mean that his point is moot. Just that it is less tolerable to the ear. And I don't think he was attacking you, or Christianity. Mockery is diffferent, but I know you know that.

There is a contradiction in Xian thought. Well, more than one.
But here's one:

most Xians would say that Man is fallible.
And some Xians would say that the word of the Bible is Truth, or infallible.

And yet:

1) The Bible was written by men.
2) More importantly, the Bible was selected and edited by Men -the Catholic church threw out all the Books of the Bible they didn't like (eg the Gospel According to St. Thomas etc)

So how can the Bible be the truth?
Obviously, it ain't.

suggs wrote:There is a contradiction in Xian thought. Well, more than one.
But here's one:

most Xians would say that Man is fallible.
And some Xians would say that the word of the Bible is Truth, or infallible.

And yet:

1) The Bible was written by men.
2) More importantly, the Bible was selected and edited by Men -the Catholic church threw out all the Books of the Bible they didn't like (eg the Gospel According to St. Thomas etc)

So how can the Bible be the truth?
Obviously, it ain't.

The Bible is truth as it tells you what you need to know. But it's more like a map. Without it you would be lost, but wit it you can easily find the kindom of heaven.(I know I sound like some teacher in Sunday school).

william18 wrote:

suggs wrote:There is a contradiction in Xian thought. Well, more than one.
But here's one:

most Xians would say that Man is fallible.
And some Xians would say that the word of the Bible is Truth, or infallible.

And yet:

1) The Bible was written by men.
2) More importantly, the Bible was selected and edited by Men -the Catholic church threw out all the Books of the Bible they didn't like (eg the Gospel According to St. Thomas etc)

So how can the Bible be the truth?
Obviously, it ain't.

The Bible is truth as it tells you what you need to know. But it's more like a map. Without it you would be lost, but wit it you can easily find the kindom of heaven.(I know I sound like some teacher in Sunday school).

Seriously! What is it with all the metaphors, Christians???? It doesn't help your arguments, you know?


And didn't SUGGS just say that it wasn't truth? You just said the opposite of him, but without backing it up in any way.

And guess what? This Atheist isn't "lost."

Juan_Bottom wrote:

william18 wrote:

suggs wrote:There is a contradiction in Xian thought. Well, more than one.
But here's one:

most Xians would say that Man is fallible.
And some Xians would say that the word of the Bible is Truth, or infallible.

And yet:

1) The Bible was written by men.
2) More importantly, the Bible was selected and edited by Men -the Catholic church threw out all the Books of the Bible they didn't like (eg the Gospel According to St. Thomas etc)

So how can the Bible be the truth?
Obviously, it ain't.

The Bible is truth as it tells you what you need to know. But it's more like a map. Without it you would be lost, but wit it you can easily find the kindom of heaven.(I know I sound like some teacher in Sunday school).

Seriously! What is it with all the metaphors, Christians???? It doesn't help your arguments, you know?


And didn't SUGGS just say that it wasn't truth? You just said the opposite of him, but without backing it up in any way.

And guess what? This Atheist isn't "lost."

So let me see if I have this straight. SUGGS can post nonsense without backing it up and that's ok, yet if a Christian posts something it must immediately be dismissed?

Atheists are lost but they are not the only ones.

where am i

There was nothing nonsensical about my post Jay.
You may not agree with it, but it made sense.
The Bible was written by men, and selected by men.
Men are fallible.
Therefore: the Bible is fallible.

There may or may not be flaws in my argument, but it does make sense.

jay_a2j wrote:So let me see if I have this straight. SUGGS can post nonsense without backing it up and that's ok, yet if a Christian posts something it must immediately be dismissed?

Jay, it had nothing to do with Atheists VS Christians, I just want something to back up what you're saying, ya know?

suggs wrote:There may or may not be flaws in my argument, but it does make sense.

This is probably where you, or WILLIAM, should start....

suggs wrote:There was nothing nonsensical about my post Jay.
You may not agree with it, but it made sense.
The Bible was written by men, and selected by men.
Men are fallible.
Therefore: the Bible is fallible.

There may or may not be flaws in my argument, but it does make sense.

Except that the Bible isn't "fallible" because God himself chose who to write it down and what to write down. And I think that God is wise enough to choose men who wouldn't "mess it up".

Juan_Bottom wrote:

william18 wrote:

suggs wrote:There is a contradiction in Xian thought. Well, more than one.
But here's one:

most Xians would say that Man is fallible.
And some Xians would say that the word of the Bible is Truth, or infallible.

And yet:

1) The Bible was written by men.
2) More importantly, the Bible was selected and edited by Men -the Catholic church threw out all the Books of the Bible they didn't like (eg the Gospel According to St. Thomas etc)

So how can the Bible be the truth?
Obviously, it ain't.

The Bible is truth as it tells you what you need to know. But it's more like a map. Without it you would be lost, but wit it you can easily find the kindom of heaven.(I know I sound like some teacher in Sunday school).

Seriously! What is it with all the metaphors, Christians???? It doesn't help your arguments, you know?


And didn't SUGGS just say that it wasn't truth? You just said the opposite of him, but without backing it up in any way.

And guess what? This Atheist isn't "lost."

Metaphor's are everywhere in the bible.

jay_a2j wrote:

suggs wrote:There was nothing nonsensical about my post Jay.
You may not agree with it, but it made sense.
The Bible was written by men, and selected by men.
Men are fallible.
Therefore: the Bible is fallible.

There may or may not be flaws in my argument, but it does make sense.

Except that the Bible isn't "fallible" because God himself chose who to write it down and what to write down. And I think that God is wise enough to choose men who wouldn't "mess it up".

And yet he isn't wise enough to appreciate blaming us for his own mistakes?

By which I mean, sending us to hell, when he's the one who made us that way. I may only be human, but even I get that. I don't know if the Christian God is all that wise. 'God made man in his image, and man returned him in kind.'

william18 wrote:Metaphor's are everywhere in the bible.

And I hate it. It's like one big-fat-giant horoscope.

Juan_Bottom wrote: Jay, it had nothing to do with Atheists VS Christians, I just want something to back up what you're saying, ya know?

And I still don't see you asking the same of SUGGS.

jay_a2j wrote:

suggs wrote:There was nothing nonsensical about my post Jay.
You may not agree with it, but it made sense.
The Bible was written by men, and selected by men.
Men are fallible.
Therefore: the Bible is fallible.

There may or may not be flaws in my argument, but it does make sense.

Except that the Bible isn't "fallible" because God himself chose who to write it down and what to write down. And I think that God is wise enough to choose men who wouldn't "mess it up".

Thats the stuff Jay. Yes, that is a reasoned response to my argument.
Basically, you argue that the Bible is the word of God, and that the men who wrote it were under divine inspiration when they wrote it.
Likewise, I assume you would argue that the various Councils that chopped and changed what the Bible could have in it were divinely inspired, and thus, temporarily infallible.
Its a fair response.
My problems with the argument:

1)The obvious one of content. Chapters that denounce homsexuality, women priests, support slavery etc i find a little hard to believe were "divinely inspired".

2) Why did God keep changing his mind about what should be kept in the Bible?
The men that selected the initial bible were infallible.
But, since it was changed later on, turned out to be fallible.
So God seems confused.

suggs wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

suggs wrote:There was nothing nonsensical about my post Jay.
You may not agree with it, but it made sense.
The Bible was written by men, and selected by men.
Men are fallible.
Therefore: the Bible is fallible.

There may or may not be flaws in my argument, but it does make sense.

Except that the Bible isn't "fallible" because God himself chose who to write it down and what to write down. And I think that God is wise enough to choose men who wouldn't "mess it up".

Thats the stuff Jay. Yes, that is a reasoned response to my argument.
Basically, you argue that the Bible is the word of God, and that the men who wrote it were under divine inspiration when they wrote it.
Likewise, I assume you would argue that the various Councils that chopped and changed what the Bible could have in it were divinely inspired, and thus, temporarily infallible.
Its a fair response.
My problems with the argument:

1)The obvious one of content. Chapters that denounce homsexuality, women priests, support slavery etc i find a little hard to believe were "divinely inspired".

2) Why did God keep changing his mind about what should be kept in the Bible?
The men that selected the initial bible were infallible.
But, since it was changed later on, turned out to be fallible.
So God seems confused.

1) So you find these things hard to swallow that they were divinely inspired, so? They were.

2) As with God choosing the men who would write it, you can also assume he would have a hand in which books would be selected for it. Nothing was changed, what are you talking about?

I'm sure he did have a say in what books went in. After all, a text about Saul enslaving demons to build his temple didn't go in the book. (Which has been found) And neither did a legendary book about Jesus having an affair.

kagetora wrote: And neither did a legendary book about Jesus having an affair.

Yeah, I'm so sure.

Ever watch history channel?

kagetora wrote:Ever watch history channel?

I like to call it the Bible History Channel.