[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2013, 01:16 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(21-01-2013 12:51 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 08:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...You expect us to go look at your fake Dr. McGrew...

Nope, I was only playing duelling URLS. Thats what I thought you wanted to play. Huh
And I'll do exactly the same thing everytime YOU post some wall of text at me instead of having a person-to-person dialogue.
Bullshit. Liar. YOU provided the link as a refutation to why the gospel inconsistencies were not really inconsistencies. I like how you rewrite the thread, and think no one will notice.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-01-2013, 01:21 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2013 09:05 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(21-01-2013 01:04 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(21-01-2013 01:03 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not madness. You clearly have no clue about history.
Tacitus, the Roman historian, had arguments with his contemporaries about what history really was, and how to accurately document it. Clearly you have never studied history...

One historian argues with another about why his historical methods are more valid than another of his contemporaries in the field.

WOW!

I never heard of that before.

Canonical exegesis is the method of viewing the text as part of a whole canon directed, not at one single audience locked in time, but at a wider future audience over time.
The New Testament writers felt they KNEW they were writing the Good News for all nations as part of a bigger picture and from Gods perspective. Thats why deliberately they staked/anchored the events in real human history, just as Old Testament events had historical markers.
The Gospel writers were not merely providing hymns to be sung by the choir among a closed group of existing believers. Unlike Judaism, Christianity was immersed in the theology of evangelism to the gentiles - all nations- because God wants everyone to hear the Good News.

Bullshit. Prove one word of it. Each of the gospels were written to a specific audience. There were huge fights over whether the whole world would be included. They had no clue who would read them in the future. Just more crap assertions with no evidence. How EXACTLY do you know they were writing for all nations ? You don't . You made that up because it sounds sentimental, and all fuzzy wuzzy. Scholars know what each of the specific intended audiences were for each gospel. That is in NO dispute among scholars. More evidence you have never studied the New Testament at a real school. I said you are to provide NO more assertions without evidence. There were many many gospels. The four that made it into the canon made it partly because Eseubius and Constantine wanted to cut down the number circulating, and he said there were 4 winds and 4 pilars the Earth stood on, and then they were VOTED into the canon, in the councils by NON-UNANIMOUS votes, by human beings. You call THAT "inspired" ? THAT is why they are in your f'ing canon. You have no clue what you are talking about. Go to school LRC. Learn something instead of bullshitiing us.
Prove one thing you say, with external evidence, Respond to ALL the prior objections. You can't even demonstrate, outside the gospels, that Jebus ever existed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE

Why is it, you don't believe in the Gospel of Thomas or Mary Magdalene, or Judas, or Secret Mark ? They were all used by the early church. What are the criteria you use to decide on a gospel ? All just more assertions. No evidence. No supporting documentation. No references. No proof of anything.

The word "gospel" is an English translation of the Greek "euangelion". The "good news". Not the "news". Not both the good news and the bad news. That's about as biased as one can get in terms of objectivity and history, if one starts out by saying one is going to deliver only one side of the story.

Here a real course on the New (and Old Testament) from a real scholar. You need one, badly.
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies

As far as St Paul goes, we have no clue about what to believe or not believe about him, as the statments in Acts concerning his travels contridict completely his staements in the letters about where he was, and when he went where, (see the Yale course above), etc. Also http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...s+St.+Paul

There are a great many reasons to doubt the gospels, as we know they were written with extreme bias, and from the below, we don't even know how they were assembled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

The faith statements of believers, then or today are 100% unreliable without corroboration and validation.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-01-2013, 02:20 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
I don't know what's more sad; the beating Bucky is giving LRC, or LRC's inability to notice said beating.

[Image: falcon-punch.jpg?1313239850]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
21-01-2013, 09:26 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Wait. This is still going?

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 09:31 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Apparently so, KC.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
This reminds me of Monty Python's "Holy Grail" where the knight gets all his arms and legs cut off and continues to challenge his attackers.

...it would rather be a man... [who] plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them with aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like guitar_nut's post
21-01-2013, 03:38 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
You mean this? Big Grin



"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vera's post
21-01-2013, 11:58 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(19-01-2013 11:26 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(19-01-2013 01:49 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  It sounds like you're dismissing it because of the source (ad hominem).

No. I didnt dismiss it. I responded.
Why would I dismiss someone elses arguments your arguments? I love reading that site's alleged contradictions.
I would have dismissed it if I thought it didnt warrant/deserve a reply. But it did deserve a response.


There is no ad hom. Bzzzzt! Sorry. Thanks for playing.
Next time dont belittle your own sources by automatically assuming they werent taken seriously. Cool


(19-01-2013 01:49 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  ...One could simply post links to "bible gateway" with the same scriptures. Do you also believe that the contradictions pointed out in the Skeptics' Annotated Qur'an and Book of Mormon are also bunk, too? Or did they just happen to get those ones right?

You'll have to show me. I've never looked at their islam or LDS stuff. You realise Christianity/Mormonism, Judaism and Islam are all part of the same Abrahamic monotheism right? Its a pretty big tent - all having differing theologies about the same One God.

I find the SAB folk have an unusual definition of the word contradiction. Eg. one person describing Jesus' robe as scarlet and someone else describing it as purple, doesnt seem like a contradiction to me - let alone an incisive counter-apologetic 'gotcha'.
...especially if the later was reporting the color of a robe stained by dried blood, seen later in the day than the person who saw a clean scarlet color.

Wow, I feel like I'm wading through a pool of sarcasm here. Are you arguing because of a need to "win" or because you actually want to correct what you feel are my errors?

I'm well-aware that the "big three" are all Abrahamic religions, but that doesn't make them "the same Abrahamic monotheism"... I imagine that you'd even agree with me that Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Evangelical Christians aren't even "the same monotheism". You recognize just as well as I do that they are separate religions, even if they are based on the same scripture (and they aren't... they merely share part of it, the Old Testament).

So what's your point about these religions? Did you just feel the need to make yourself look good at my expense by assuming that you knew something that I didn't? Or are you making a point against yourself, suggesting that the contradictions that I pointed out in Mormonism would be something else that you'd have to rationalize, as you feel it's part of "your same monotheism" that you feel has no contradictions?

And there are contradictions. You cherry-picked perhaps the weakest contradiction you could find with this robe color thing (although I do recall that it cited a specific scripture that mentioned both colors as different just to prove that it wasn't being as pedantic as you're accusing it of being). There are tougher contradictions to explain, such as:

1. Jesus being killed the day before the passover (in John) rather than the day after (the other gospels).

2. Differences in the account of Jesus' resurrection, including the visitors to the tomb telling "nobody" of the event (Mark) or "everybody" (Matthew), both of which are obviously mutually exclusive.

3. Jesus' last words, all of which were followed by either "a loud cry" or immediate death.

4. Judas' death by hanging (gospels) or by running headlong in a field and his intestines pouring out (Acts).

5. And my personal favorite, Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple the day of his arrival in Jerusalem (Luke), the day after (Matthew and Mark), or shortly after his first miracle (John). Note that John doesn't describe this event happening in the last week of his life.

The bible is so full of contradictions, every page is leaking with incredibly silly or incredibly obvious contradictions... not that you can't rationalize them. As I said before, the other religions do it just fine. There are even many Christians who have written off the bible as metaphor rather than literal truth as a result of all these mistakes.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
22-01-2013, 01:43 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2013 02:00 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(21-01-2013 12:51 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Nope, I was only playing duelling URLS. Thats what I thought you wanted to play. Huh
And I'll do exactly the same thing every time YOU post some wall of text at me instead of having a person-to-person dialogue.

(21-01-2013 01:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit. Liar. YOU provided the link as a refutation to why the gospel inconsistencies were not really inconsistencies. I like how you rewrite the thread, and think no one will notice.

See, NOW we are getting to the real advanced debate techniques. Drooling
Youve been shamed out of posting someone else’s YouTube to make up for your content deficiency and now youre opting for the slightly more laborious ....''bullshit liar.''

(I think you might have also been stung by the embarrassment of that whole....Jews didnt understand about all that history and writing stuff... blunder you made.) LOL
Writing/cuneiform was invented where? Mesopotamia? Ur of the Chaldees? Isnt that exactly where the Jewish patriarch Abraham grew up?

(21-01-2013 01:04 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  One historian argues with another about why his historical methods are more valid than another of his contemporaries in the field.

WOW!

I never heard of that before.

Canonical exegesis is the method of viewing the text as part of a whole canon directed, not at one single audience locked in time, but at a wider future audience over time.
The New Testament writers felt they KNEW they were writing the Good News for all nations as part of a bigger picture and from Gods perspective. Thats why deliberately they staked/anchored the events in real human history, just as Old Testament events had historical markers.
The Gospel writers were not merely providing hymns to be sung by the choir among a closed group of existing believers. Unlike Judaism, Christianity was immersed in the theology of evangelism to the gentiles - all nations- because God wants everyone to hear the Good News.

(21-01-2013 01:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit. Prove one word of it.
LOL.
Again with the gainsaying. I can prove the Gospel intent by its content which states over and over and over again.

...And this gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations;

See? ALL NATIONS.

...Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

See? BAPTISING! This is the Gospel you claimed was intended for liturgical singing by existing believers - already baptized.

...Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

All nations. Are you getting the gist?

...But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. And the Gospel must first be published among all nations.

One more for emphasis.....since you asked for proof. This one is for you. You are part of the Gospels universal target audience too!

...For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


(21-01-2013 01:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...Each of the gospels were written to a specific audience. There were huge fights over whether the whole world would be included.

Guess what? The ''whole world'' won the argument because God already had the Jews. Salvation comes from the Jews. (John 4) Now, there is neither Jew nor gentile, neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for we are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galations 3) The Gospels ARE written to a specific audience - individual single human beings each having a unique personal decision to make about what to do upon hearing Jesus' words of hope and life.

(21-01-2013 01:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...They had no clue who would read them in the future.

You just contradicted your own case.
You said they were written for specific audiences - intended for liturgical practices.
You can try to bluster your disagreement about the intent but you cant say they had no clue because it defeats your own argument.

Glad we are taking the time to discuss the important issue of motive. :-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 02:06 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
I'd say, it's pretty damned obvious that the "all the nations of the world thing" isn't quite working out.

the muslims certainly aint buying it, and the last few times the Christians attempted to "teach" their doctrine, they got their asses beat out. Several times.

Asians certainly aren't investing it either. Even the Western World is rapidly going, "Yeah, not buying it."

Not to mention the tribes in fuck-knows-where who have never been contacted, or have been avoided by the First World.


All the world, huh?


Lets just say: Napoleon Bonaparte vs. your god.

My money goes on Napoleon, he didn't conquer the whole world, but he certainly took a decent chunk of it.

And hell, at least Napoleon earned his right to fame, and earned his honour.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: