Athiest Billboard

[Balloon guy 158]

BG, I get the prophesy thing, but really didn't the 4 guys or whoever they were simply just write a story, or a history after the fact to try and show these prophesies as coming true? Take Matthew 21-4 "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet" This was probably said in reference to Zechariah 9:9 where it is said that when the Messiah comes he will be riding an ass. So the Jews are still waiting this arrival and the Christians claim it already happened. It seems like they wrote it in order for the prophecy to be vindicated, and it is pretty odd.

The 4 Gospels were written by different authors for different readers. Matthew wrote to the Jews, therefore the majority of his book dealt with prophecies and things Jew like. Mark wrote to the Romans, John to the Christians, Luke to the Gentiles. Having few references to the OT prophecies in Luke's book was because the readers weren't going to care that much about that.

I mean in the process of writing them they don't seem to be able to agree on anything of importance. M and L dissagree on the virgin birth and genealogy of Jesus. Contradict each other on the "Flight into Egypt", Sermon on the Mount, the annointing of Jesus, the treachery of Judas, and Peter's denial.

The genealogy of Christ is 'different' because the Jews hold your lineage from your father, the Gentiles to the blood line. If I trace your lineage from your mother, it would be different that the one from your father, would they be contradictory?

There are the gnostic gospels which dissagree with almost all of this and in many ways are more credible, especially the part about the old testament being avoided, "ghastly emanation of sick minds". It's all like deranged science fiction with witch doctors, sorcerers, astrology and star-predicitons. There are so many contradictions that many scholars have wrote about and can be had at any library. Jesus living followers were illiterate, they wrote nothing down and certainly weren't Christian since the books they were to read to affirm belief didn't come until much later. They had no idea anyone would even found a church on his pronouncements or that he wanted to be the founder of it.

Gnosticism was the Scientology of its day. You think in 2,000 years people like you will be quoting Tom Cruise about how accurate he was about medicines?

The only thing the New Testament seems to be good for is that it proves it was all man-made. There is a ton of evidence that even verses have been tampered with due to their writing style. There are many illiteracies and botched translations as well. almah which is virgin was actually just "a young woman" etc.

Weird 'prophecy' : "When a young girl is pregnant, then Messiah is here"Bet that threw a few people off every day for a few hundred years till they figured out it probably didn't mean young girl.The Bible has been under scholarly attack for hundreds of years, and it has never been even remotely found to be 'tampered' with etc. Except by people who want to believe that before they look at facts.Every time a new copy of the NT is found, the current translation is found to be either near perfect, or better.Any tampered with 'translations' were from the Latin Vulgate during the dark ages when the local priest would take it upon themselves to translate the Bible with no schooling at all.We were able to bypass those when the Muslims attacked the city of Constantinople and the fleeing masses brought their more accurate versions of the Greek Bibles right at the same time as Tyndale and others were translating the Bible into English.If there was one place that your side should do everything to avoid talking about, its the accuracy of the Bible. Its about the single strongest defensible position on my side from a secularly defensible position, meaning I can use science that even you can't argue with.

[Balloon guy 158]

Let us turn to Matthew 10:23:Did the bolded statement happen, or did it not happen? No one ever said it was the "single" requirement for anything. Roll the Bones is asking, did it or did it not happen? Because it's extremely unlikely that there is a town in Israel that has zero awareness of the bible.

Probably one of the more hotly contested verses as to its meaning in light of other similar passages where the 'coming of the Son of Man' means strictly the beginning of the tribulation.The context here though is that Christ is sending out His 12 disciples to spread the news to the Jews, something that lasted only a few short weeks. During this time they were given special instructions directly related to the specific trip, things like not taking any money or even and extra shirt. Clearly we see that this chapter is a specific time and event, not a general declaration for all people at all times.Given that, what does it mean the 'coming of the Son of Man?'The Jews saw this phrase as a clear indicator that Messiah was to arrive. The problem is that in those days, the Messiah coming was interpreted as the Jewish nation being placed in charge of the entire world, they had warped their reading to the point that they were sure that God chose them because they were to lead the world from a position of power.Christ was in the process of changing their understanding to get them to grasp that Christ wasn't here to empower them, He was here to free them.The time of the coming of the Son of Man has a two folded meaning. On the one hand, Until He came and died for our sins, we couldn't be ready for the second coming. So the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus was stage one of this plan.Stage two is the second coming, the day when Christ returns to finish the battle with sin once and for all.So yes, Jesus was right and the Coming of the Son of Man had commenced in the time frame of His life, AND the Son of Man coming will be finished in the middle of the tribulation's 7 year stretch. Now its just a matter of reading the context to understand which time it is said does it refer to.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Must be nice to just make up whatever meaning you want.

[Roll the Bones 74]

The 4 Gospels were written by different authors for different readers. Matthew wrote to the Jews, therefore the majority of his book dealt with prophecies and things Jew like. Mark wrote to the Romans, John to the Christians, Luke to the Gentiles. Having few references to the OT prophecies in Luke's book was because the readers weren't going to care that much about that. The genealogy of Christ is 'different' because the Jews hold your lineage from your father, the Gentiles to the blood line. If I trace your lineage from your mother, it would be different that the one from your father, would they be contradictory?Gnosticism was the Scientology of its day. You think in 2,000 years people like you will be quoting Tom Cruise about how accurate he was about medicines?Weird 'prophecy' : "When a young girl is pregnant, then Messiah is here"Bet that threw a few people off every day for a few hundred years till they figured out it probably didn't mean young girl.The Bible has been under scholarly attack for hundreds of years, and it has never been even remotely found to be 'tampered' with etc. Except by people who want to believe that before they look at facts.Every time a new copy of the NT is found, the current translation is found to be either near perfect, or better.Any tampered with 'translations' were from the Latin Vulgate during the dark ages when the local priest would take it upon themselves to translate the Bible with no schooling at all.We were able to bypass those when the Muslims attacked the city of Constantinople and the fleeing masses brought their more accurate versions of the Greek Bibles right at the same time as Tyndale and others were translating the Bible into English.If there was one place that your side should do everything to avoid talking about, its the accuracy of the Bible. Its about the single strongest defensible position on my side from a secularly defensible position, meaning I can use science that even you can't argue with.

The 4 Gospels were written by different authors for different readers. Matthew wrote to the Jews, therefore the majority of his book dealt with prophecies and things Jew like. Mark wrote to the Romans, John to the Christians, Luke to the Gentiles. Having few references to the OT prophecies in Luke's book was because the readers weren't going to care that much about that.

We'll get to specifics later, but you are claiming that it's okay the stories are varied and contradictory because they were telling them to different people? It's okay for the Romans to think he wasn't born from a virgin but for the Gentiles to think he was or something? It's okay to rewrite history as long as it to different people? Isn't that kind of like saying, we will teach history to blacks that slavery never happened and to White people that it did?

The genealogy of Christ is 'different' because the Jews hold your lineage from your father, the Gentiles to the blood line. If I trace your lineage from your mother, it would be different that the one from your father, would they be contradictory?

Again, I'll have to look up specifics but as far as genealogy, saying Jesus had brothers, and didn't have brothers are pretty different from any lineage since Mary would have had to be included.

Gnosticism was the Scientology of its day. You think in 2,000 years people like you will be quoting Tom Cruise about how accurate he was about medicines?

So documents found and dated from the time that refer to these events and are pretty crazy are patently false simply because you have already accepted the other old documents that were pretty crazy found and dated from the time?

Weird 'prophecy' : "When a young girl is pregnant, then Messiah is here"Bet that threw a few people off every day for a few hundred years till they figured out it probably didn't mean young girl.

Aside from so many religons conjuring up the virgin birth scenario from Africa to South America and so on, doesn't it seem plausible that this was missconsrtued since the Virgin Birth didn't seem to come up till hundreds of years later, Jesus didn't seem to know anything about it nor his followers at the time, and then we find the word that was missinterpreted to justify the claim, it's just pretty far reaching, eh? Let alone all the different histories of Mary. I mean even if she did claim it, which there is no evidence of, then maybe she was just trying to avoid a good stoning.

The Bible has been under scholarly attack for hundreds of years, and it has never been even remotely found to be 'tampered' with etc. Except by people who want to believe that before they look at facts.

Again, something I have to look up, but I remember it was in John and by a biblical scholar.

If there was one place that your side should do everything to avoid talking about, its the accuracy of the Bible. Its about the single strongest defensible position on my side from a secularly defensible position, meaning I can use science that even you can't argue with.

Which is why it sounds fun and I am obviously not even a layperson at this stuff. So I can learn a thing or two I guess.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Probably one of the more hotly contested verses as to its meaning in light of other similar passages where the 'coming of the Son of Man' means strictly the beginning of the tribulation.The context here though is that Christ is sending out His 12 disciples to spread the news to the Jews, something that lasted only a few short weeks. During this time they were given special instructions directly related to the specific trip, things like not taking any money or even and extra shirt. Clearly we see that this chapter is a specific time and event, not a general declaration for all people at all times.Given that, what does it mean the 'coming of the Son of Man?'The Jews saw this phrase as a clear indicator that Messiah was to arrive. The problem is that in those days, the Messiah coming was interpreted as the Jewish nation being placed in charge of the entire world, they had warped their reading to the point that they were sure that God chose them because they were to lead the world from a position of power.Christ was in the process of changing their understanding to get them to grasp that Christ wasn't here to empower them, He was here to free them.The time of the coming of the Son of Man has a two folded meaning. On the one hand, Until He came and died for our sins, we couldn't be ready for the second coming. So the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus was stage one of this plan.Stage two is the second coming, the day when Christ returns to finish the battle with sin once and for all.So yes, Jesus was right and the Coming of the Son of Man had commenced in the time frame of His life, AND the Son of Man coming will be finished in the middle of the tribulation's 7 year stretch. Now its just a matter of reading the context to understand which time it is said does it refer to.

I kind of randomly picked a quote. Either I got lucky or the bible is full of contradictory passages. But for now I just want to comment on the bolded part. They warped their reading? Are you saying the old testament doesn't say they are the chosen people? The Christians and Muslims have been brutalizing these people for thousands of years simply because they missunderstood the bible in the Gentiles eyes? I mean, couldn't it have been that the Gentiles were a little pissed off that the Jews weren't buying into the new messiah and felt excluded from the "select" party and in turn began to wage a campaign of hatred against them? I'd be pissed at people that claimed they were the chosen people and I couln't be one, if I was living in a desert tribe during the Iron Age and didn't know any better, that is.

[Balloon guy 158]

We'll get to specifics later, but you are claiming that it's okay the stories are varied and contradictory because they were telling them to different people? It's okay for the Romans to think he wasn't born from a virgin but for the Gentiles to think he was or something? It's okay to rewrite history as long as it to different people? Isn't that kind of like saying, we will teach history to blacks that slavery never happened and to White people that it did?

They aren't contradictory, they are focusing on different things.The harmony of the four gospels has been explained for hundreds of years, and every now and then someone comes up with the same exact 'contridictions' that are answered over and over again, and they refuse to see this.

Again, I'll have to look up specifics but as far as genealogy, saying Jesus had brothers, and didn't have brothers are pretty different from any lineage since Mary would have had to be included.

Mary had children after giving birth to Christ, therefore He had brothers, who ever said He didn't have brothers?

So documents found and dated from the time that refer to these events and are pretty crazy are patently false simply because you have already accepted the other old documents that were pretty crazy found and dated from the time?

When you have 10,000 copies of the NT and then one comes along with major differences, why would you give much weight to the one that is different?It's so funny how quickly you guys want to say that the ones that we are using are bogus, but the other ones are so good. Especially when the ones we are using are based on 3-400 years of research, and the book of Thomas etc have all been found to be lacking enough backing to support their inclusion.

Aside from so many religons conjuring up the virgin birth scenario from Africa to South America and so on, doesn't it seem plausible that this was missconsrtued since the Virgin Birth didn't seem to come up till hundreds of years later, Jesus didn't seem to know anything about it nor his followers at the time, and then we find the word that was missinterpreted to justify the claim, it's just pretty far reaching, eh? Let alone all the different histories of Mary. I mean even if she did claim it, which there is no evidence of, then maybe she was just trying to avoid a good stoning.

So, you are totally comfortable thinking that in Africa, a place with very very few written historical documents, they discussed teh virgin birth thousands of years ago, but for Christ, who the whole thing was about, it couldn't have been known until hundreds of eyars later/Cause the early fishermen in Galilee were known travelers of exotic locals and well read on other countries religious beliefs and would much rather have stolen them from these places, rather than their own religion's ancient writings that pre-date those other ones by centuries if not millenniums?Next your going to say they only used the name Jesus after they focus group tested it during the Iron age for long term acceptability.

Which is why it sounds fun and I am obviously not even a layperson at this stuff. So I can learn a thing or two I guess.

Feel free, the story of how the Bible came to be written in English is an amazing story and its clear that God's hand was involved.

[Roll the Bones 74]

When you have 10,000 copies of the NT and then one comes along with major differences, why would you give much weight to the one that is different?It's so funny how quickly you guys want to say that the ones that we are using are bogus, but the other ones are so good. Especially when the ones we are using are based on 3-400 years of research, and the book of Thomas etc have all been found to be lacking enough backing to support their inclusion.

I'm not talking about the 10,000 ways everyone has bastardized the original texts, I'm talking about other original writings that were found from that time period, that seemed to corelate the other stories in places, but were vastly different in other areas. The gospel of Judas is a good example. His version was vastly different from say, Johns. BTW, why all the hate for Judas? If he hadn't turned Jesus in you guys might still be Pagan.

[Roll the Bones 74]

So, you are totally comfortable thinking that in Africa, a place with very very few written historical documents, they discussed teh virgin birth thousands of years ago, but for Christ, who the whole thing was about, it couldn't have been known until hundreds of eyars later/Cause the early fishermen in Galilee were known travelers of exotic locals and well read on other countries religious beliefs and would much rather have stolen them from these places, rather than their own religion's ancient writings that pre-date those other ones by centuries if not millenniums?Next your going to say they only used the name Jesus after they focus group tested it during the Iron age for long term acceptability.

No, I am talking about completely different religons and societies that have claimed to have "messiahs" and real people that were born from virgins, completely separate and with no knowledge of Christianity. How do you know this isn't a simple obvious ploy of man to elevate the spiritual leader to a higher status and gain acceptance. I mean really, is anyone going to get away with that in this day and age? Well, aside from North Korea and Jong klan.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Feel free, the story of how the Bible came to be written in English is an amazing story and its clear that God's hand was involved.

Oh, I read it. The English hunted down that Tynsdale (sp) dude and tortured and quartered him for writing it in English. I mean, they didn't want people actually reading it. In the past that led to all kinds of problems with people questioning it's contradictions and silliness. It's hard to keep people under the spell of faith if they go thinking for themselves and all.edit- I should have said, "they went all Calvin on his ass".

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm not talking about the 10,000 ways everyone has bastardized the original texts, I'm talking about other original writings that were found from that time period, that seemed to corelate the other stories in places, but were vastly different in other areas. The gospel of Judas is a good example. His version was vastly different from say, Johns. BTW, why all the hate for Judas? If he hadn't turned Jesus in you guys might still be Pagan.

Yea, Judas was a stumbling block for me early when I asked my pastor if Christ didn't in effect sacrifice him for the cause.The pastor said that Judas did what Judas did because he was Judas, not because he was forced. I get that and am comfortable with that explanation.

[Roll the Bones 74]

BAck to this.

They aren't contradictory, they are focusing on different things.The harmony of the four gospels has been explained for hundreds of years, and every now and then someone comes up with the same exact 'contridictions' that are answered over and over again, and they refuse to see this.

On the Flight into Egypt, Matthew says, "Joseph was warned in a dream" to make an immediate escape. Luke says that all three stayed in Bethlehem until Mary's "purification according to the laws of Moses" which would make it forty days, then went back to Nazareth via Jerusalem. And incidentally, if the mad dash from Herod's baby killing machines is actually true then it was a more amazing feat to take a blond haired-blue eyed baby to the Nile delta without attracting attention, rather than avoiding it!Back to the birthdate.Luke- Ceasar Augustus ordered a census while Herod reigned in Judaea and Quirinius was gov of Syria. (One of the closest things the bible does to actually nail down or triangulate a date). But Herod died in 4 BC and the gov of Syria wasn't Quirinius. There is no mention of an Augustan census in Roman history. A Jewish writer Josephus did mention a census, without anyone having to return to their birth place, 6 years after Jesus supposed birth.Now if John and Mary did have a child, being from Nazareth it was most likely there. But since the old testament said the messiah was born in the town of David, Bethlehem, they seemed to go to alot of work to make up stories to place him there in order for the prophecy to be true. Honestly, if I had written it, I would have simply said they were Bethlehem and been done with it. Whatever writing this all originally came from "Q" or whatever, as it got passed down it got messed up a bit.I am sure you can rationalize all this and I might be persuaded if weren't for that pesky John guy, who suggests that Jesus was neither born in Bethlehem orrrr descended from King David! I mean if the apostles can't agree, how the hell am I supposed to figure it out?It's pretty obvious that this is a writer who is throwing "facts" together as they were passed down word of mouth and made a garbled mess of it. I would think if it was the divine words of an omnipowerful God, that he could do better with his inspiration powers over Luke. John Madden was better at inspiration than this. As a side note, and to be fair, I do like the whole peasant birth thingy. It worked for Buddhism, Islam and alot of other religons so I would have went with it too. It helps them to identify with the poor and downtrodden and goes over big early on with the poor, uneducated and bewildered which forms a good Tea Party like base.

[Balloon guy 158]

No, I am talking about completely different religons and societies that have claimed to have "messiahs" and real people that were born from virgins, completely separate and with no knowledge of Christianity. How do you know this isn't a simple obvious ploy of man to elevate the spiritual leader to a higher status and gain acceptance. I mean really, is anyone going to get away with that in this day and age? Well, aside from North Korea and Jong klan.

The notion that the story of a virgin birth is all over the place seems far fetched ( although I must admit I have done no research into this )But having it in the older OT writings kind of gives me a comfort level that the back woods people in Judea weren't researching various religious writings from far away lands to see what they could steal for themselves.

[Balloon guy 158]

BAck to this.On the Flight into Egypt, Matthew says, "Joseph was warned in a dream" to make an immediate escape. Luke says that all three stayed in Bethlehem until Mary's "purification according to the laws of Moses" which would make it forty days, then went back to Nazareth via Jerusalem. And incidentally, if the mad dash from Herod's baby killing machines is actually true then it was a more amazing feat to take a blond haired-blue eyed baby to the Nile delta without attracting attention, rather than avoiding it!

Pretty sure Jesus was not blond haried and blue eyed except in paintings after the 1600s..

Back to the birthdate.Luke- Ceasar Augustus ordered a census while Herod reigned in Judaea and Quirinius was gov of Syria. (One of the closest things the bible does to actually nail down or triangulate a date). But Herod died in 4 BC and the gov of Syria wasn't Quirinius. There is no mention of an Augustan census in Roman history. A Jewish writer Josephus did mention a census, without anyone having to return to their birth place, 6 years after Jesus supposed birth.

Here's one explanationHonestly I haven't really looked at this issue before...mainly because I figured that things like this are all answered and the bokos I've read about 'contradictions' actually have the really hard ones and this isn't one of them.

Now if John and Mary did have a child, being from Nazareth it was most likely there. But since the old testament said the messiah was born in the town of David, Bethlehem, they seemed to go to alot of work to make up stories to place him there in order for the prophecy to be true. Honestly, if I had written it, I would have simply said they were Bethlehem and been done with it. Whatever writing this all originally came from "Q" or whatever, as it got passed down it got messed up a bit.I am sure you can rationalize all this and I might be persuaded if weren't for that pesky John guy, who suggests that Jesus was neither born in Bethlehem orrrr descended from King David! I mean if the apostles can't agree, how the hell am I supposed to figure it out?It's pretty obvious that this is a writer who is throwing "facts" together as they were passed down word of mouth and made a garbled mess of it. I would think if it was the divine words of an omnipowerful God, that he could do better with his inspiration powers over Luke. John Madden was better at inspiration than this.

When did John say Jesus was not a direct line of David?Side note, the Messiah's lineage was a majorly important part of the prophecy, and in the 60s when the Romans sacked the Temple ( which didn't have a solid gold roof, it had gold veneer like most major temples of their day ) the Romans destroyed all the books of family trees making it impossible for anyone to claim direct line of David for themselves ever again.

As a side note, and to be fair, I do like the whole peasant birth thingy. It worked for Buddhism, Islam and alot of other religons so I would have went with it too. It helps them to identify with the poor and downtrodden and goes over big early on with the poor, uneducated and bewildered which forms a good Tea Party like base.

Me too. The meek inheriting the earth is a nice touch, they've been having a hell of a time.

[Balloon guy 158]

Oh, I read it. The English hunted down that Tynsdale (sp) dude and tortured and quartered him for writing it in English. I mean, they didn't want people actually reading it. In the past that led to all kinds of problems with people questioning it's contradictions and silliness. It's hard to keep people under the spell of faith if they go thinking for themselves and all.edit- I should have said, "they went all Calvin on his ass".

The catholic church has some problems...But the Word of God is powerful.I ran into a Bible museum in the middle of AZ when I was going to a Wille Nelson / John Fogerty concert with the wife and they had English printed Bibles from before the King James. I bought a couple single pages, one the cover page for the Book of Galatians ( because this was the book that Martin Luther ( the racist ) used to base his doctrine of justified by faith alone on) which was written in the 1590s.Pretty cool to own pages from that old.They also had a page from the Gutenburg Bible..which was awesome to see.And they had the wife beater's version of the King James, which is where in the footnotes it suggests that sometimes you just got to beat your wife to keep her in line...

[Roll the Bones 74]

The notion that the story of a virgin birth is all over the place seems far fetched ( although I must admit I have done no research into this )But having it in the older OT writings kind of gives me a comfort level that the back woods people in Judea weren't researching various religious writings from far away lands to see what they could steal for themselves.

Well, it makes perfect sense if Saint Matthew was reading about King Ahaz in the old testament and saw the prediction (8 centuries earlier) of a virgin birth, "The lord will give you a sign; a virgin will concieve and bear son." On a side note, it encouraged Ahaz to believe he would win a war in which he got his ass kicked, but I digress..I the bible Jesus or Mary make no mention of the fact that Gabriel flew down and through a biological miracle allowed a mammal to spawn through parthogenesis. In fact, what would seem like a pretty big deal it didn't dawn on her what the hell this virgin boy was even doing, (Speedz mom's voice) "What's he doing talking to those Rabbi's in the temple?" Jesus- "Mommmmm, I am on my "father's business!" or was it bidness? You would have expected a little stronger maternal link especially one who was the only woman in the history of mankind to do this!But maybe Luke was right when he slipped and said, "the parents of Jesus" when they visited the temple, and they were simply Mary and Joe.

[BaseJester 1]

Interesting side note, when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 60 something AD, they burned the Temple. This caused the gold to melt running in between the rocks. They tore the entire structure down to get to this gold, not one stone was left on another...But this was Jesus talking about the future of that specific building. THIRTY YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENED!

What do we know that suggests the Gospel of Matthew predates the destruction of the temple? (Does Paul know about this prophesy? That would certainly help establish the prophecy itself (if not the gospel) as early.)

[vbnautilus 48]

The notion that the story of a virgin birth is all over the place seems far fetched ( although I must admit I have done no research into this )But having it in the older OT writings kind of gives me a comfort level that the back woods people in Judea weren't researching various religious writings from far away lands to see what they could steal for themselves.

He's right about virgin birth stories. It's a very popular myth.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Oh, I read it. The English hunted down that Tynsdale (sp) dude and tortured and quartered him for writing it in English. I mean, they didn't want people actually reading it. In the past that led to all kinds of problems with people questioning it's contradictions and silliness. It's hard to keep people under the spell of faith if they go thinking for themselves and all.edit- I should have said, "they went all Calvin on his ass".

The internet is making me stupid. I read this and my first reaction was to look for a "Like" button.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Must be nice to just make up whatever meaning you want.

Also nice to have something mean two different and contradictory things simultaneously. It's a miracle!

[Spademan 94]

What baffles me is how a person who uses logic, reason, critical thought and any semblance of empiricism can repeatedly, head smashing-smashing-against-brick-wall, argue different flavors of the same nonsense with such honest and patient vigor.Every single argument or discussion here goes thus:Man of superstition (MOS): A and B clearly lead to C. C does not follow A and B. A is D because D is B, and D is B magically. Not an Idiot (NAI): That makes no sense. You just contradicted yourself. If C does not follow A and B then A and B do not lead to C. I'll just leave the the second part alone because of the magic thing clearly being silly.MOS: No. Listen. A and B clearly lead to C because F says so, and F is always correct. If someone didn't believe in F then obviously C will not follow A and B. If F, then A and B lead to C. C does not follow A and B though. This is so obvious, don't be clouded by your blindfolds and closed mindedness. NAI: Ok, again, you're stating two irreconcilable things. First, that A and B lead to C. Second that C does not follow A and B. This simply doesn't make any sense. It is a violent contradiction. MOS: Sigh. Just believe in magic and it's obvious.NAI: Ok, let's look at it this way....And on and on, back and forth, on different topics, in different threads.Stop it. Stop validating the nonsense by pretending like there is an actual discussion going on.It should look like this:MOS: Fairies eat poo for strength in my garden. They can't be seen unless you believe in them, and once you believe in them you will be full of their poo and will live forever with gargoyles in space. Also, Fairies do not eat poo. Follow the poo eating Fairies, or you will live underwater with rocks and trolls. I saw all of this written on a piece of paper that could not have existed except by magic, therefore it is to be respected. Also, I feel it in my bones and when I sleep. So do some other people. NAI: You're an idiot.

[Roll the Bones 74]

What baffles me is how a person who uses logic, reason, critical thought and any semblance of empiricism can repeatedly, head smashing-smashing-against-brick-wall, argue different flavors of the same nonsense with such honest and patient vigor.Every single argument or discussion here goes thus:Man of superstition (MOS): A and B clearly lead to C. C does not follow A and B. A is D because D is B, and D is B magically. Not an Idiot (NAI): That makes no sense. You just contradicted yourself. If C does not follow A and B then A and B do not lead to C. I'll just leave the the second part alone because of the magic thing clearly being silly.MOS: No. Listen. A and B clearly lead to C because F says so, and F is always correct. If someone didn't believe in F then obviously C will not follow A and B. If F, then A and B lead to C. C does not follow A and B though. This is so obvious, don't be clouded by your blindfolds and closed mindedness. NAI: Ok, again, you're stating two irreconcilable things. First, that A and B lead to C. Second that C does not follow A and B. This simply doesn't make any sense. It is a violent contradiction. MOS: Sigh. Just believe in magic and it's obvious.NAI: Ok, let's look at it this way....And on and on, back and forth, on different topics, in different threads.Stop it. Stop validating the nonsense by pretending like there is an actual discussion going on.It should look like this:MOS: Fairies eat poo for strength in my garden. They can't be seen unless you believe in them, and once you believe in them you will be full of their poo and will live forever with gargoyles in space. Also, Fairies do not eat poo. Follow the poo eating Fairies, or you will live underwater with rocks and trolls. I saw all of this written on a piece of paper that could not have existed except by magic, therefore it is to be respected. Also, I feel it in my bones and when I sleep. So do some other people. NAI: You're an idiot.

I've heard this is a circular agrument forever but it's not. The concept of God is simply a failed hypothesis, just as the claims for the other 16,000 to 20,000 gods that have been proposed around the world and down through history are each a failed hypothesis.There's no circularity at all. If you start off life with no preconceived dogma infecting your brain, and take every hypothesis about the world as something that can either be established as true, proved false, or have no evidence one way or the other, then there's no need for circularity. We believe the things for which there is evidence, reject the things that are known to be false, and aren't very interested in things for which there can be no evidence.I have no evidence that Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot exists or doesn't exist, yet I'd wager a lot of money that there is no teapot orbiting the sun because it's inconsistent with many other things I know to be true based on evidence. That's how it is with God - I have no evidence, nor does anyone, for or against the existence of God. So why should I even consider it any further? It's just an ancient superstition that should be left behind.

[BaseJester 1]

One thing I think we can all agree on..women speaking less is a good thing

I think this is a joke, but I'm not sure. Is this an actual position?

[Roll the Bones 74]

The catholic church has some problems...But the Word of God is powerful.I ran into a Bible museum in the middle of AZ when I was going to a Wille Nelson / John Fogerty concert with the wife and they had English printed Bibles from before the King James. I bought a couple single pages, one the cover page for the Book of Galatians ( because this was the book that Martin Luther ( the racist ) used to base his doctrine of justified by faith alone on) which was written in the 1590s.Pretty cool to own pages from that old.They also had a page from the Gutenburg Bible..which was awesome to see.And they had the wife beater's version of the King James, which is where in the footnotes it suggests that sometimes you just got to beat your wife to keep her in line...

I got to admit I am pretty jealous of your collection.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I think this is a joke, but I'm not sure. Is this an actual position?

I'm sure he'll claim it as joke; but considering his views on slavery it is entirely possible that he seriously feels that way.

[Balloon guy 158]

I got to admit I am pretty jealous of your collection.

My greatest book is a late 1600s copy of The Christian in Complete Armour by William Gurnall.Almost all great Christians pastors for the last 4 hundred years have said that this is their favorite book, 1600 pages on 10 verses in Ephesians.Amazing book. Extreme old English like King James on steroids, but once you get the flow its very poetic.This only cost $400 so its not like I've spent a lot, I probably have less then $2,000 total invested.