Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(05-04-2013 02:35 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There is something specious about the Noble Qu'ran, after all, not only wasn't it written directly by the illiterate eyewitness Muhammed, but there was one eyewitness only. Compare with the Torah's admonition to confirm each fact on the basis of two or more witnesses. I'm confident in the Bible.

I find the Qu'ran much more believable than the bible. The prophecies, for one, are incredibly accurate:

"And when various people are brought together." (81:8) - The Internet
"They will alter Allah's creation." (4:120) - Genetics
"And by the heaven full of tracks" (51:8) - Air travel

Muhammed (ah... may Allah honor him and grant him peace) was illiterate, yet this incredible work originated from him. That event is not possible without Allah. The rapid spread of Islam cannot be disputed. Until proven otherwise, the Bible is second fiddle to the Qu'ran.

Now, if you'd like to disprove all that, simply show us this 'proof' of your god. Evil_monster

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
[+] 3 users Like guitar_nut's post
05-04-2013, 11:08 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(05-04-2013 03:26 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  About the only difference there is that Homer actually told people he wrote a work of fiction.

Not certain of this. AFAIK (without checking on wikipedia) Homer and the story cycles surrounding and connected to him were regarded as factual history by most Greeks of the BCE period.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 04:34 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
PleaseJesus, please watch this video.
http://youtu.be/HhGuXCuDb1U

You can argue with logic all you want, but if you put faulty data in to start with then you get a faulty answer. No matter how logically you agrue it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 09:22 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I'm starting to think that your obvious plan is to use whatever devious proof someone comes up with as your proof of God. It would also explain why you reject the weak attempts - you know that if you tried to substitute God for Dog you'd get nowhere with convincing us.

However as I said before, what makes *you* the one who decides if something has been proven or not ? You refused to accept it when I said I had proved that I exist, to my satisfaction. Justify why you should be the one who decides.

As far as I'm concerned, I've already satisfied your condition and you have broken your promise to reveal your proof.

1. Interesting concept, hadn’t thought of that actually. The issue with God as dog (which fallacy was provided on another thread this week) is that what you’re really proposing is a hypothetical false Messiah who did the same things as Christ! Wink Remember, Jesus warned in a prophecy (Matthew 24) that false Messiahs would arrive in his name. Indeed, this has come true…

However, what you’re really doing is a fallacy. Are you really saying your dog has a 2,000-page book, a collection of 66 documents, written about Him? Are you saying we can find a thread demonstrating most scholars, liberal and conservative, believe your dog lived in Judea 2,000 years ago, was baptized and crucified, etc?

2. What makes *me* the decider? Simple, Your proving that you exist to *your* satisfaction only accomplishes that one proof to one person, if, of course, you do exist. Reverse it now and tell me whose proof you’d accept that *I* exist, my evidence or yours? And if you say I have to accept *your* evidence on its face without empirical anything as evidence, how can you *possibly* reject God’s demand that you believe in and trust in Him? Smile

3. Yes, as far as *you’re concerned* IF you exist at all and aren’t a figment of my imagination.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 09:24 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Muhammed (ah... may Allah honor him and grant him peace) was illiterate, yet this incredible work originated from him. That event is not possible without Allah. The rapid spread of Islam cannot be disputed. Until proven otherwise, the Bible is second fiddle to the Qu'ran.

Now, if you'd like to disprove all that, simply show us this 'proof' of your god.
An exceptionally weak argument today. Disproving Muhammed's alleged encounters with a god who was in any way logical is simple and does not require a display of proof of the true divinity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 09:25 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I wouldn't be surprised if he had half of us muted.
Not at all. I have no one here on ignore. I merely have limited desire and resources to respond to every childing post. So glad you're all anxious for my attention. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PleaseJesus's post
08-04-2013, 09:27 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Of course it did, AFTER SAUL of Tarsus stole the idea from Zoroastrianism, via Mithraism. Tarsus was a hotbed of Mithraism. THAT is not anything like the Hebrew concept of atonement. Personal "purification" is a completely differrent concept. You can quote WHAT THE AUTHORS WROTE IN AS HAVING BEEN "PLACED in JEBUS" mouth all you like. It proves absolutely NOTHING, and does not mean he actually said anything of the sort. Have you ever thought of studying this subject, SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJoke ?
For the (10th?) time, BB, 1) What is your empirical evidence, not "textual analysis", that dates Paul's writings to after the gospels? I thought all your liberals love late dates for the gospels. Smile

For the (20th?) time, BB, what is your empirical evidence that words were placed in Jesus's mouth by the authors? Do you have samples of before-and-after gospels and epistles to show to us? Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2013 10:23 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(08-04-2013 09:27 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Of course it did, AFTER SAUL of Tarsus stole the idea from Zoroastrianism, via Mithraism. Tarsus was a hotbed of Mithraism. THAT is not anything like the Hebrew concept of atonement. Personal "purification" is a completely differrent concept. You can quote WHAT THE AUTHORS WROTE IN AS HAVING BEEN "PLACED in JEBUS" mouth all you like. It proves absolutely NOTHING, and does not mean he actually said anything of the sort. Have you ever thought of studying this subject, SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJoke ?
For the (10th?) time, BB, 1) What is your empirical evidence, not "textual analysis", that dates Paul's writings to after the gospels? I thought all your liberals love late dates for the gospels. Smile

For the (20th?) time, BB, what is your empirical evidence that words were placed in Jesus's mouth by the authors? Do you have samples of before-and-after gospels and epistles to show to us? Thanks.

There are many examples where the authors have Jebus saying something that he obviously never could have said, ie the "words, placed in his mouth".
For example the business to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church". The word "ecclesia" he would never have used, and there was no such thing as a churchat the time.

But actually the burden is on YOU. They were written so many years later, no one could possibly actually remember what someone said, exactly, evern 40 years later. It's impossible. YOU would have to prove they had a culture where exact transmission of text was verbally done. The Hebrew did not do that, and had no function, (as the Muslims did) for exact verbal transmission.

Paul cooked up "salvation" His letters were written BEFORE the gospels. Duh. Your question is nonsensical.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2013, 09:54 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(08-04-2013 09:24 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Muhammed (ah... may Allah honor him and grant him peace) was illiterate, yet this incredible work originated from him. That event is not possible without Allah. The rapid spread of Islam cannot be disputed. Until proven otherwise, the Bible is second fiddle to the Qu'ran.

Now, if you'd like to disprove all that, simply show us this 'proof' of your god.
An exceptionally weak argument today. Disproving Muhammed's alleged encounters with a god who was in any way logical is simple and does not require a display of proof of the true divinity.

You've offered nothing in any of your posts that I cannot find in Islam. An exceptional display of cognitive dissonance today. Drinking Beverage

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
08-04-2013, 10:23 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(08-04-2013 09:22 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  how can you *possibly* reject God’s demand that you believe in and trust in Him? Smile

The point is, if *you* decide, then what's to stop your proof being simply assertion "God exists" after all - you're the one who decides. Unless we agree on what constitutes proof of existence, unless I have a say in that, then any proof offered by you suffers the weakness that it potentially only works as proof for you. So if *you* want to prove something *to me*, you have to use a standard of proof that I will accept.

Since you are arguing with me I assume you don't think I'm a figment of your imagination Wink

And God's demand is communicated to me through you. I don't trust *you*, so why would I accept this as proof ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: