The Trial of Diddo97
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2014, 12:01 PM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(17-10-2014 03:05 PM)morondog Wrote:  So true Scotsmen who are truly Christian truly eat true haggis... Is their any consensus on what they truly wear under their true kilts?

Any consensus, or a true consensus?

My (true) guess would be that they don't truly wear anything under their kilts. Or is it that they wear truly nothing? I'm truly confused!


(17-10-2014 03:09 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  That's an easy one.

Your mother's lipstick.

I was so glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I got to that one. I involuntarily snorted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(20-10-2014 11:10 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-10-2014 08:11 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes, and you boil it down to YOUR interpretation vs many others interpretations.(many of which don't agree with you interpretation)

So your argument isn't boiled down to what the text says. it's down to what you say it says verse what john doe or the pope say it says... And there's no other rational or true justification you are giving to believe yours is more accurate.

Which argument is "mine"? I haven't made one yet! But you seem ready to dismiss it based on "many" possible interpretations.

If Jesus was an historical person, either he rose from the dead or didn't (2 interpretations). Either the Bible says saved by faith/trust, or by good deeds or a combination (3 interpretations). Etc. it isn't millions of possible interpretations.
He didn't. Glad I could clear that up for you.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(20-10-2014 12:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 11:10 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Which argument is "mine"? I haven't made one yet! But you seem ready to dismiss it based on "many" possible interpretations.

If Jesus was an historical person, either he rose from the dead or didn't (2 interpretations). Either the Bible says saved by faith/trust, or by good deeds or a combination (3 interpretations). Etc. it isn't millions of possible interpretations.
He didn't. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Did you now? You are claiming special knowledge plus using a materialist's biases to "refute" eyewitness and prophetical evidence laid down before you were born. You have nothing. I'm not trying to sound mean-spirited but I'd love to see some logic or reason used here rather than a dismissive insult to the faith of hundreds of millions, a faith based on facts, reason and illumination.

Anyway, going back to the point in contention. It is a myth/fallacy to keep claiming thousands and millions of Bible interpretations on the essentials, indeed on most of the scriptures. Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2014, 11:47 AM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(21-10-2014 11:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  He didn't. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Did you now? You are claiming special knowledge plus using a materialist's biases to "refute" eyewitness and prophetical evidence laid down before you were born. You have nothing. I'm not trying to sound mean-spirited but I'd love to see some logic or reason used here rather than a dismissive insult to the faith of hundreds of millions, a faith based on facts, reason and illumination.

Anyway, going back to the point in contention. It is a myth/fallacy to keep claiming thousands and millions of Bible interpretations on the essentials, indeed on most of the scriptures. Thanks.

There is no good reason to believe the Gospels are eyewitness accounts; Biblical scholarship shows that to be very unlikely.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(21-10-2014 11:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is no good reason to believe the Gospels are eyewitness accounts; Biblical scholarship shows that to be very unlikely.

That, and it's not like the authors of any of the Gospels even make that claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
22-10-2014, 09:23 AM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
I agree with this viewpoint that two of four accounts only were direct eyewitnesses:

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 09:36 AM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(22-10-2014 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I agree with this viewpoint that two of four accounts only were direct eyewitnesses:

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

That's nice, it is still wrong, no matter how much you like it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
22-10-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(22-10-2014 09:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I agree with this viewpoint that two of four accounts only were direct eyewitnesses:

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

Even if they were all eyewitnesses, these are biased and have a religious view to push. Why should we believe any of their claims about what Jesus did?

In the Gospel of Nicodemus the dead that rose up and walked the streets after Jesus died gave an eyewitness account of what they saw Jesus do in the afterlife, leading Adam and all of the patriarchs to heaven and consigning Satan to the room of Adam under Beelzebub's dominion. (Who is probably the Greek god of the underworld Hades)

Why not believe this gospel is every bit as true as the synoptic gospels? Because the bishops at the Nicean council voted against them as canon? They were written about the same time as the other gospels.......

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
22-10-2014, 09:42 AM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(16-10-2014 02:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

No True Scotsman is an informal fallacy. It's not the same as saying 2 = 35. To amplify, sometimes you can say "No True X is also Y" and you'd be correct. Example: "No true Shakespeare sonnet was penned by Homer".

There are hundreds of millions of Christians who believe as I do. There are hundreds of millions who don't. And? Either Jesus Christ rose from the grave, or He didn't or He never existed and is a myth. Three possibilities, two incorrect, one correct. Either a true Christian is a faith Christian or they are a faith and works Christian. Two possibilities.

If you want me to specify exactly what a Christian is then receive a No True Scotsman for my trouble, perhaps you won't mind specifying what an atheist is/believes? I see no lack of contention about THAT here.

In the immortal words of Gandalf, "Do not take me for some conjurer of cheap tricks. I'm trying to help you." I have no problem saying what a true Christian is or correct doctrine is.

Thanks.
Because you alone have a hotline to god apparently.

Atheist: One who lacks a belief in a deity.
How fucking complicated is that?

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Winterwolf00's post
22-10-2014, 09:43 AM
RE: The Trial of Diddo97
(21-10-2014 11:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  He didn't. Glad I could clear that up for you.

Did you now? You are claiming special knowledge plus using a materialist's biases to "refute" eyewitness and prophetical evidence laid down before you were born. You have nothing. I'm not trying to sound mean-spirited but I'd love to see some logic or reason used here rather than a dismissive insult to the faith of hundreds of millions, a faith based on facts, reason and illumination.

Laugh out loadLaughat

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Winterwolf00's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: