Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(24-03-2014 07:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 07:46 AM)Drich Wrote:  Laugh out load
there was a reason I left a link defining what primary source material was.

It's like you are willfully wanting to remain in a state of perpetual ignorance.

Restating a false statement does not make it true. No one needs the likes of you to tell them anything, you deluded fool.

Let me help you out since you either can read or simply won't read the info in the link i provided.

Bottom line, no matter the topic nor the validity of the topic wether it be mythos or history (in this time period) there is an orginal source or sources. Other wise we would not know what was believed or what happened.

This orginal source is called a primary source. a Primary source does not speak to how a subject is perceived. Only to the known facts about a given topic. Your buddy/hero 'mark' thinks/doesn't know any better, but to argue a tertiary source (3rd source/commentary, secondary sources are typically reference books that compile primary source material) against a primary source.

which means if a primary source says 'X' about a given topic, and a tertiary source says "y" about a topic then the primary source trumps what the tertiary says. Why? because if the primary is the orginal source of the known material being discussed then the tertiary at some point is also based off the primary with opinion and speculation accounting for the differences. If we are having a discussion about "X" then all "Y" material is useless as far as considering it a reliable source of information. The "y" material is just opinion bouncing off of Fact.

In a sense those who aregue tertiary material against primary source material are those of great faith. For they believe that their speculation and commentaries some how trump known fact (in this case) about Paul.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2014, 08:33 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
Grimm's Fairy Tales is a Primary Sorce proving the existence of giants and giant beanstalks.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
24-03-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(24-03-2014 08:26 AM)Drich Wrote:  Let me help you out since you either can read or simply won't read the info in the link i provided.

Bottom line, no matter the topic nor the validity of the topic wether it be mythos or history (in this time period) there is an orginal source or sources. Other wise we would not know what was believed or what happened.

This orginal source is called a primary source. a Primary source does not speak to how a subject is perceived. Only to the known facts about a given topic. Your buddy/hero 'mark' thinks/doesn't know any better, but to argue a tertiary source (3rd source/commentary, secondary sources are typically reference books that compile primary source material) against a primary source.

which means if a primary source says 'X' about a given topic, and a tertiary source says "y" about a topic then the primary source trumps what the tertiary says. Why? because if the primary is the orginal source of the known material being discussed then the tertiary at some point is also based off the primary with opinion and speculation accounting for the differences. If we are having a discussion about "X" then all "Y" material is useless as far as considering it a reliable source of information. The "y" material is just opinion bouncing off of Fact.

In a sense those who aregue tertiary material against primary source material are those of great faith. For they believe that their speculation and commentaries some how trump known fact (in this case) about Paul.

Oh, dear.

It appears you don't realize how stupid that is.

If one designates as a primary source anything which makes a claim or exists as a historical artifact, that is fair enough. If one presumes that all primary sources are accurate, then one must then accept everything they say.

Every single eyewitness account ever recorded is a primary source. Every single archaeological find is a primary source.

According to you, that means they must all be true and reliable!

Even the ones which are explicitly contradicting your own beliefs? What you just said above makes literally every other religion's foundational texts - by virtue of being primary sources - true.

Oh, dear.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 09:37 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(24-03-2014 08:26 AM)Drich Wrote:  which means if a primary source says 'X' about a given topic, and a tertiary source says "y" about a topic then the primary source trumps what the tertiary says. Why? because if the primary is the orginal source of the known material being discussed then the tertiary at some point is also based off the primary with opinion and speculation accounting for the differences. If we are having a discussion about "X" then all "Y" material is useless as far as considering it a reliable source of information. The "y" material is just opinion bouncing off of Fact.

So a primary source claiming the world rests on the back of a turtle trumps any future sources that challenges or revises this idea based on new knowledge?

(24-03-2014 08:26 AM)Drich Wrote:  In a sense those who aregue tertiary material against primary source material are those of great faith. For they believe that their speculation and commentaries some how trump known fact (in this case) about Paul.

So whoever wrote it first is right, na-na-nah-boo-boo. Excellent argument. I'm surprised this concept hasn't taken the academic world by storm. I'm going to write a book stating you're suffering from diminished mental capacity. Unfortunately for you, it will be true since any secondary or tertiary sources correcting my claim are simply desperate acts of faith.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
24-03-2014, 10:37 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
Quote:A primary source is an orginal source.

You have no original sources, Drippy. You have copies of copies of copies and copies and all subject to accidental or deliberate editing.

You holy books are crap.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
24-03-2014, 11:18 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(24-03-2014 08:26 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 07:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Restating a false statement does not make it true. No one needs the likes of you to tell them anything, you deluded fool.

Let me help you out since you either can read or simply won't read the info in the link i provided.

Bottom line, no matter the topic nor the validity of the topic wether it be mythos or history (in this time period) there is an orginal source or sources. Other wise we would not know what was believed or what happened.

This orginal source is called a primary source. a Primary source does not speak to how a subject is perceived. Only to the known facts about a given topic. Your buddy/hero 'mark' thinks/doesn't know any better, but to argue a tertiary source (3rd source/commentary, secondary sources are typically reference books that compile primary source material) against a primary source.

which means if a primary source says 'X' about a given topic, and a tertiary source says "y" about a topic then the primary source trumps what the tertiary says. Why? because if the primary is the orginal source of the known material being discussed then the tertiary at some point is also based off the primary with opinion and speculation accounting for the differences. If we are having a discussion about "X" then all "Y" material is useless as far as considering it a reliable source of information. The "y" material is just opinion bouncing off of Fact.

In a sense those who aregue tertiary material against primary source material are those of great faith. For they believe that their speculation and commentaries some how trump known fact (in this case) about Paul.

[Image: tumblr_ltc82wVuBt1r3k1m8o1_500.png]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-03-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(24-03-2014 10:37 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:A primary source is an orginal source.

You have no original sources, Drippy. You have copies of copies of copies and copies and all subject to accidental or deliberate editing.

You holy books are crap.

Which again makes whatever we do have a primary source. To quote anything other than primary source material in a situation that you just described is even more foolish than to quote what is known.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(24-03-2014 08:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, dear.

It appears you don't realize how stupid that is.

If one designates as a primary source anything which makes a claim or exists as a historical artifact, that is fair enough. If one presumes that all primary sources are accurate, then one must then accept everything they say.

Every single eyewitness account ever recorded is a primary source. Every single archaeological find is a primary source.

According to you, that means they must all be true and reliable!

Even the ones which are explicitly contradicting your own beliefs? What you just said above makes literally every other religion's foundational texts - by virtue of being primary sources - true.

Oh, dear.

Damn. How do I give you +18 rep?

To answer our last question, it's [reasons]. Some might call it Special Pleading, but rest assured: it's [reasons].
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2014, 01:37 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(24-03-2014 12:39 PM)Drich Wrote:  Which again makes whatever we do have a primary source. To quote anything other than primary source material in a situation that you just described is even more foolish than to quote what is known.

Are you seriously attempting to take the position that if primary sources do not explicitly contain their own refutation then they must be accepted at face value?

Because that's the position it seriously looks like you're attempting to take.

And that position is profoundly stupid and self-defeating.

The Quran is a primary source.

Accounts of first-hand alien abduction are primary sources.

Good luck with that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(24-03-2014 01:32 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  To answer our last question, it's [reasons]. Some might call it Special Pleading, but rest assured: it's [reasons].

Yeah, I really should have known.

[reasons] explain everything. How? [reasons]. NEVER YOU MIND.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: