Jump to content

Athiest Billboard


Recommended Posts

Okay, let me try to clarify. Jesus said to obey the commandments. Follow Moses and his laws. Well, except for the adultry thingy, everyone can go have sex all they want and you can't be judged by anyone unless they haven't sinned, even your husband. Given that everyone has sinned, because I don't know of anyone that hasn't "coveted" their neighbors possesions (or saw value in improving their own), then we can't judge people. So by not even asking if the charges were true, he missed a pretty big point of justice. How would you like to go to court and be assumed guilty? Was it fair of him to not offer up justice for the one that was harmed, the husband? I mean, what the hell is he trying to say here with regard to doctrine?And ultimately my point is that if no one was there to witness what happened when eveyone left, who the hell is telling the story?!All these points can only lead to the conclusion that since it's contradictory and baseless. This further evidenced by the fact that it isn't in any of the original texts, meaning someone took liberty and added it later. So, how much of this important religon doctrine was original and was falsified? How would God let his divinely inspired word be so wishy washy? Is this the best an omnipotent, omniprescient being can muster?
Jesus' point: You've missed it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 344
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, uproar today in the Nati, due to Ultrasound Jesus billboard.
They are discussing it on the radio and an article in the newspaper. Alot of it has been pretty funny making fun of the name Ultrasound Jesus and the halo over the baby, etc.
Hyperbole..not just for Thanksgiving
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
That's because they haven't been answered at all, except by Spademan's nicely-described combination of several mutually-exclusive assertions, followed by a bunch of things that don't make any sense at all, followed by "it's a miracle," followed by "obviously we've already answered this."One of the biggest issues between believers and skeptics is what is to be taken as literal and what must be "interpreted correctly" in order for it to be anything other than flat wrong. Skeptics take things like "weeks" and "generation" as literal and batshit crazy stories as metaphorical. Believers do just the opposite. Coming from the side I do, it seems to me that skeptics seem to be taking a pretty reasonable approach based on ordinary language usage and common sense. To wit:WeeksSkeptic: That means a week, seven days.Believer: No, silly! "A week" means seven years ... unless you're talking about Genesis, in which case it means 7,000 years, obviously. Duh. It means whatever it needs to mean for the math to work out right.This GenerationSkeptic: The people in front of me right now; when I say "this" pencil, I don't mean some unseen pencil way in the future.Believer: Unseen people a long long undetermined time from now.A beast, probably a dragon, with ten horns and seven heads, bear feet and lion mouthSkeptic: A metaphorical image of RomeBeliever: Nope -- literal freakin' truth. Gonna happen tomorrow, maybe next week.
Actually, I'm not 100% sure the Bible's make-up matters. I only say this because when Paul's letter stated that the scripture was the inerrant word of God... there was no Bible, so it's unclear what scripture he was referring to. Most certainly it included the OT, but who knows what NT books he was including.
According to scholars using linguistic and other evidence, Paul's letters are the earliest dated books of the NT, and conservatives like BG like to push the dating back even further than scholars do, so Paul cannot possibly be including anybooks of the NT (because they didn't yet exist, not even the three synoptic gospels and certainly not John, which is 2nd Century, kind of like one of us writing a book claiming to tell all about Thomas Jefferson because we know him personally). Paul is including only the OT -- the part you and BG say no longer applies. So the "inerrant word of God" business applies to absolutely nothing in the NT. You may think it does as an article of faith, but neither the verse itself nor anything else in the bible would back that up. That's my whole issue with whether or not the books of the bible could ever be changed. Actual first-century Christian congregations, Christians who believed that Jesus died for their sins, real Christians (not splinter groups), were using scriptures that included things like Thomas and Judas and Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache of the Apostles and so on. Modern fundamentalists talk a huge game about getting back to the "true" first-century church, but they have zero interest in actually knowing what that church read, believed, or practiced.
Link to post
Share on other sites
WeeksSkeptic: That means a week, seven days.Believer: No, silly! "A week" means seven years ... unless you're talking about Genesis, in which case it means 7,000 years, obviously. Duh. It means whatever it needs to mean for the math to work out right.
When a Hebrew word has more than one meaning, like day, you use context. Context for the 60 weeks of Daniel fits in perfectly for a 490+ prediction, hence the ability to use the context to see that the Hebrew word can mean 7 years.
This GenerationSkeptic: The people in front of me right now; when I say "this" pencil, I don't mean some unseen pencil way in the future.Believer: Unseen people a long long undetermined time from now.
Christ is talking specifically about the future, to the question: "When will X occur?" It is hardly a stretch to see that he was talking about the generation that was involved with the first part of the signs.
A beast, probably a dragon, with ten horns and seven heads, bear feet and lion mouthSkeptic: A metaphorical image of RomeBeliever: Nope -- literal freakin' truth. Gonna happen tomorrow, maybe next week.
Revelations is prophetic, which in the rest of the history of the Jewish writings is rife with metaphors.Demanding literalness is unrealistic.
According to scholars using linguistic and other evidence, Paul's letters are the earliest dated books of the NT, and conservatives like BG like to push the dating back even further than scholars do, so Paul cannot possibly be including anybooks of the NT (because they didn't yet exist, not even the three synoptic gospels and certainly not John, which is 2nd Century, kind of like one of us writing a book claiming to tell all about Thomas Jefferson because we know him personally). Paul is including only the OT -- the part you and BG say no longer applies. So the "inerrant word of God" business applies to absolutely nothing in the NT. You may think it does as an article of faith, but neither the verse itself nor anything else in the bible would back that up. That's my whole issue with whether or not the books of the bible could ever be changed. Actual first-century Christian congregations, Christians who believed that Jesus died for their sins, real Christians (not splinter groups), were using scriptures that included things like Thomas and Judas and Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache of the Apostles and so on. Modern fundamentalists talk a huge game about getting back to the "true" first-century church, but they have zero interest in actually knowing what that church read, believed, or practiced.
This is almost completely wrong.Textual criticism has clearly dated the NT pre 60 for the majority, pre 90 for some.Church father's letters give us much insight into this.Some of the letters you mention are good quality doctrinally fine letters. That doesn't mean they rise to the level of being included in the canon. For the main reason that they placed large reasonable requirements like needing an Apostle's authority behind it. None of these being left out ever change the meaning of the Bible, the problem of sin and the forgiveness through Christ anyway.Acts places Paul in the timeline you are trying to take him out of, which requires you to basically take full liberty to pick and choose what pats you want to apply. This is not an acceptable method of dating the Bible's books and authors now..is it?
Link to post
Share on other sites

This may sound a little strange coming from me, but I really don't see the point in these arguments anymore. You can point out biblical contradictions and inconsistancies until judgement day. Faithful, dug in chritsians aren't permitted to disbelive Doctrine. X can always= Y, if only you look hard enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of the letters you mention are good quality doctrinally fine letters. That doesn't mean they rise to the level of being included in the canon. For the main reason that they placed large reasonable requirements like needing an Apostle's authority behind it. None of these being left out ever change the meaning of the Bible, the problem of sin and the forgiveness through Christ anyway.
The letters she references are the Epistles of Paul (e.g., Romans), which are clearly in the bible canon. What are you talking about? :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
This may sound a little strange coming from me, but I really don't see the point in these arguments anymore. You can point out biblical contradictions and inconsistancies until judgement day. Faithful, dug in chritsians aren't permitted to disbelive Doctrine. X can always= Y, if only you look hard enough.
?Let me phrase it this way:People who disbelieve will look for anything to justify their lack of belief.See how a poisoned statement can work both ways?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The letters she references are the Epistles of Paul (e.g., Romans), which are clearly in the bible canon. What are you talking about? :club:
She is trying to date the books of the Bible by reversing their date using suspect reasoning like 'idioms' of speech from the first century.Do you really think we have a good enough understanding of regional dialect from 2,000 years ago to date letters accurately within a couple years?She read a book from an author that wouldn't have sold his book without 'proving' some new dating method that changes the whole religion of Christianity.I'm not worried about his book, one 'scholar' vs thousands
Link to post
Share on other sites
?Let me phrase it this way:People who disbelieve will look for anything to justify their lack of belief.See how a poisoned statement can work both ways?
I suppose they could, but its not at all the same thing. Disbelievers dont have an infaliable doctrine to uphold.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose they could, but its not at all the same thing. Disbelievers dont have an infaliable doctrine to uphold.
Oh really?Like Darwin's Origin of Species?
Link to post
Share on other sites
She is trying to date the books of the Bible by reversing their date using suspect reasoning like 'idioms' of speech from the first century.Do you really think we have a good enough understanding of regional dialect from 2,000 years ago to date letters accurately within a couple years?She read a book from an author that wouldn't have sold his book without 'proving' some new dating method that changes the whole religion of Christianity.I'm not worried about his book, one 'scholar' vs thousands
You can use this line of reasoning to attempt to assassinate anything.Your incredulity is not a valid argument.
Link to post
Share on other sites
TAccording to scholars using linguistic and other evidence, Paul's letters are the earliest dated books of the NT,
You can use this line of reasoning to attempt to assassinate anything.Your incredulity is not a valid argument.
When someone uses this particular excuse to justify their ability to confirm a date within a 10 year span over 2,000 years ago..you bet I am going to assassinate it. But not with hyperbole, with plain old common sense.The oldest parchments we have of the Bible are about 60+ years after they weer written, and that is only a fragment of a page, the oldest full Bible is probably a couple hundred years later.Do you think the single most important book in the world was lost while we have a treasure trove of written materials including pen pal letters and 13 year old girl's diaries to know the popular catch phrases of the day?SB tried to sneak that through, after someone passed this hogwash on her through a book that could never be considered authoritative, and I won't let it stand without shining a light of obviousness on it.You are once again deciding that I am saying things you don't agree with, so you will just discount it out of hand rather than face the truth that I am right.It's cool, on the issue of textual criticism of the New Testament, it is your only recourse.
Link to post
Share on other sites
When someone uses this particular excuse to justify their ability to confirm a date within a 10 year span over 2,000 years ago..you bet I am going to assassinate it. But not with hyperbole, with plain old common sense.The oldest parchments we have of the Bible are about 60+ years after they weer written, and that is only a fragment of a page, the oldest full Bible is probably a couple hundred years later.Do you think the single most important book in the world was lost while we have a treasure trove of written materials including pen pal letters and 13 year old girl's diaries to know the popular catch phrases of the day?SB tried to sneak that through, after someone passed this hogwash on her through a book that could never be considered authoritative, and I won't let it stand without shining a light of obviousness on it.You are once again deciding that I am saying things you don't agree with, so you will just discount it out of hand rather than face the truth that I am right.It's cool, on the issue of textual criticism of the New Testament, it is your only recourse.
I see what you did there..."Do you think the single most important book in the world was lost while we have a treasure trove of written materials including pen pal letters and 13 year old girl's diaries to know the popular catch phrases of the day?"This sort of thing... the "do you really believe" stuff.... not persuasive, not really useful at all
Link to post
Share on other sites
I see what you did there..."Do you think the single most important book in the world was lost while we have a treasure trove of written materials including pen pal letters and 13 year old girl's diaries to know the popular catch phrases of the day?"This sort of thing... the "do you really believe" stuff.... not persuasive, not really useful at all
But if said linguistic methods then you would just believe it willy nilly?
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's because they haven't been answered at all, except by Spademan's nicely-described combination of several mutually-exclusive assertions, followed by a bunch of things that don't make any sense at all, followed by "it's a miracle," followed by "obviously we've already answered this."One of the biggest issues between believers and skeptics is what is to be taken as literal and what must be "interpreted correctly" in order for it to be anything other than flat wrong. Skeptics take things like "weeks" and "generation" as literal and batshit crazy stories as metaphorical. Believers do just the opposite. Coming from the side I do, it seems to me that skeptics seem to be taking a pretty reasonable approach based on ordinary language usage and common sense. To wit:WeeksSkeptic: That means a week, seven days.Believer: No, silly! "A week" means seven years ... unless you're talking about Genesis, in which case it means 7,000 years, obviously. Duh. It means whatever it needs to mean for the math to work out right.This GenerationSkeptic: The people in front of me right now; when I say "this" pencil, I don't mean some unseen pencil way in the future.Believer: Unseen people a long long undetermined time from now.A beast, probably a dragon, with ten horns and seven heads, bear feet and lion mouthSkeptic: A metaphorical image of RomeBeliever: Nope -- literal freakin' truth. Gonna happen tomorrow, maybe next week.According to scholars using linguistic and other evidence, Paul's letters are the earliest dated books of the NT, and conservatives like BG like to push the dating back even further than scholars do, so Paul cannot possibly be including anybooks of the NT (because they didn't yet exist, not even the three synoptic gospels and certainly not John, which is 2nd Century, kind of like one of us writing a book claiming to tell all about Thomas Jefferson because we know him personally). Paul is including only the OT -- the part you and BG say no longer applies. So the "inerrant word of God" business applies to absolutely nothing in the NT. You may think it does as an article of faith, but neither the verse itself nor anything else in the bible would back that up. That's my whole issue with whether or not the books of the bible could ever be changed. Actual first-century Christian congregations, Christians who believed that Jesus died for their sins, real Christians (not splinter groups), were using scriptures that included things like Thomas and Judas and Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache of the Apostles and so on. Modern fundamentalists talk a huge game about getting back to the "true" first-century church, but they have zero interest in actually knowing what that church read, believed, or practiced.
tumblr_lcgyxre3Xj1qf4t52o1_500.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
She is trying to date the books of the Bible by reversing their date using suspect reasoning like 'idioms' of speech from the first century.
OK . . .What letters are you referring to as "good quality doctrinally fine letters"?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...