God's infinite wisdom.

[alfalfafour]

If the question is 'what happens when a human being dies', then it seems that you are displaying woeful ignorance and/or obstinacy

If the question is something else, please (re?)post it

Ok, the question is what happens to a human soul when the body dies?

Please provide scientific experimental data and peer review of your conclusions.

[kerikiwi]

Ok, the question is what happens to a human soul when the body dies?

Please provide scientific experimental data and peer review of your conclusions.

First establish that a soul exists.

[six7s]

First establish that a soul exists.Indeed :)


skepdic.com From Abracadabra to Zombies: soul (spirit) (http://skepdic.com/soul.html)
A soul or spirit is a non-physical entity capable of perception and self-awareness. Souls are often believed to be immortal.

If ever there were an entity invented for human wish-fulfillment, the soul is that entity. As Thomas Hobbes pointed out, the concept of a non-substantial substance is a contradiction. <snip/>

It is a delusion to believe that the concept of soul is conceivable. <snip/>

Work done by philosophers and psychologists based on the assumption of a non-physical entity, which somehow inhabits and interacts with the human body, has not furthered human understanding of the working of the mind. Instead, it has furthered superstition and ignorance while hindering the development of any real and useful knowledge about the human mind. <snip/>

[Lonewulf]

Ok, the question is what happens to a human soul when the body dies?

Please provide scientific experimental data and peer review of your conclusions.

"Ok, the question is what happens to [invisible thing with no evidence that it exists] when the body dies?

Please provide scientific experimental data and peer review of your conclusions [of what happens to invisible elves when you die]"

Uh, yeah, sorry, no.

[Paulhoff]

we need Jesus in us to share that goodness(righteousness) with us.
No, you need a Jesus, who is dead and now can't do anything human to show that he is only human. You believe in stories about him, stories anyone can write to make anyone seem good, it is just PR (Public Relations). Dead people are great because them can't do anything more to disappoint followers who only write stories that they what to be true about them.

Paul

:) :) :)

You just don't see it do you, your idea of a so-called god is a poor one.

[Paulhoff]

If God exists, would you really expect to understand its reasoning?
Reasoning “The use of logical thinking in order to find results or draw conclusions”.

YES

Paul

:) :) :)

[Lonewulf]

I think that, if there are gods/is a God, Lovecraft had it better than any other religion in existence.

[alfalfafour]

First establish that a soul exists.


Good idea. Are you saying this is a "question which science cannot answer?"


That was my claim.

[Lonewulf]

Good idea. Are you saying this is a "question which science cannot answer?"


That was my claim.

Science also can't prove that there isn't an invisible dragon in my garage, or an invisible elf in my back yard, if I make up the variables that make up that dragon and/or elf. That does not increase the validity of belief in said elf/dragon.

We're perfectly capable of knowing that our brains cease to function at death, and thus our ability to think and ability to "be" essentially die off. Anything else is speculation and woo.

[alfalfafour]

Science also can't prove that there isn't an invisible dragon in my garage, or an invisible elf in my back yard, if I make up the variables that make up that dragon and/or elf. That does not increase the validity of belief in said elf/dragon.

We're perfectly capable of knowing that our brains cease to function at death, and thus our ability to think and ability to "be" essentially die off. Anything else is speculation and woo.

I made no other claim except that the Bible answers the question which science cannot, and that many people believe the answer.

If you would like to write a new book which answers the question about the dragon in your back yard; you are weldome to do so. you are welcome to claim it exists. You are welcome to find people who believe you.

Does the Bible answer the question about the soul for many people?

I claim nothing else. I do not even claim to believe that the Bible answered the question correctly.

[Lonewulf]

Then I'm not entirely sure what the point is. We all know what Christians believe, more or less. We all know what the majority believes the soul to be (and not just Christians or the Bible, no less).

I'm not sure what the point was?

[alfalfafour]

Then I'm not entirely sure what the point is. We all know what Christians believe, more or less. We all know what the majority believes the soul to be (and not just Christians or the Bible, no less).

I'm not sure what the point was?
Maybe six7's can tell you. I simply answered his question at the top of this page. Page #7. My own perception was at the bottom of page 6.

[six7s]

I made no other claim except that the Bible answers the question which science cannot, and that many people believe the answer.A stupendously facile and irrelevant claim then, no?

Of course the bible can answer such a question; its a work of fiction concocted and employed by gazillions of intellectual ostriches to fill - exactly and ever-so comfortably - the otherwise disconcerting void of ignorance

[alfalfafour]

A stupendously facile and irrelevant claim then, no?

Your post triggered it. Obviously you missed the stupendous explanation of a correct claim.



Of course the bible can answer such a question; its a work of fiction concocted and employed by gazillions of intellectual ostriches to fill - exactly and ever-so comfortably - the otherwise disconcerting void of ignorance

I proved my claim. Prove yours.

[Hokulele]

I made no other claim except that the Bible answers the question which science cannot, and that many people believe the answer.


So does Harry Potter.

[alfalfafour]

So does Harry Potter.

Oh, really? How many people believe Harry Potter?

[Lonewulf]

Oh, really? How many people believe Harry Potter?

Irrelevant. Believing something is true does not make it true.

[Hokulele]

Oh, really? How many people believe Harry Potter?


When it come to a discussion of souls and the afterlife, I would imagine quite a few. After all, it is the same level of proof as the bible.

[alfalfafour]

Irrelevant. Believing something is true does not make it true.

It is relevant to "the claim."

To investigate a "claim," you must first understand and comprehend the exact claim.

[Lonewulf]

When "the claim" is irrelevant and useless, I see no reason to do anything else besides smirk and move on. Not to mention that your claim often shifts and can't stay on a single subject.

[six7s]

A stupendously facile and irrelevant claim then, no?

Of course the bible can answer such a question; its a work of fiction concocted and employed by gazillions of intellectual ostriches to fill - exactly and ever-so comfortably - the otherwise disconcerting void of ignorance

Your post triggered it. Obviously you missed the stupendous explanation of a correct claim.Please note that, in communication, responsibility for comprehension rests not with the receiver but with the transmitter



I proved my claim.You might like to think believe so

Good luck with that


Prove yours.Which claim do you want/need me to prove? That 'the bible is a work of fiction'?

If so, please at least try to keep up with reality

The following might help get you started

BibleGateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/) (a "searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages")

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/)
Preface

For nearly two billion people, the Bible is a holy book containing the revealed word of God. It is the source of their religious beliefs. Yet few of those who believe in the Bible have actually read it.

<snip/>

...the few Bible-believers that survive to the bitter end of Revelation must continually face a disturbing dilemma: their faith tells them they should read the Bible, but by reading the Bible they endanger their faith.

<snip/>

The most popular solution to this problem is to leave the Bible reading to the clergy. The clergy then quote from the Bible in their writings and sermons, and explain its meaning to the others. Extreme care is taken, of course, to quote from the parts of the Bible that display the best side of God and to ignore those that don't. That this approach means that only a fraction of the Bible is ever referenced is not a great problem. Because although the Bible is not a very good book, it is a very long one.

But if so little of the Bible is actually used, then why isn't the rest deleted? Why aren't the repetitious passages -- which are often contradictory as well -- combined into single, consistent ones? Why aren't the hundreds of cruelties and absurdities eliminated? Why aren't the bad parts of the "Good Book" removed?

Such an approach would result in a much better, but much smaller book. To make it a truly good book, though, would require massive surgery, and little would remain. For nearly all passages in the Bible are objectionable in one way or another. But with a little luck and much careful editing, perhaps a small pamphlet could be produced from the Bible -- one that could honestly be called good.

<snip/>

The believer's defense of the Bible is assisted by those who publish it. They are invariably believers as well, and are interested in promoting and defending the Bible. They do so in many ways, but their efforts usually include at least some of the following:

Point out consistencies between the redundant passages, while never mentioning the contradictions.


Provide explanations and excuses for the absurdities, cruelties, vulgarities, and insults to women -- when they choose not to ignore them entirely.


Emphasize the relative few passages that present a decent image of God.


Attach footnotes to explain away any difficulties.


Millions of such Bibles are published and distributed each year by believers in their tireless and tiresome effort to propagate their beliefs. Consequently, nearly everyone, whether believer or skeptic, has at least one copy in his or her possession. Among these Bibles will be found many different versions, but all have one thing in common: all are believer-friendly editions that support, promote, and defend the Bible.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible attempts to remedy this imbalance. It includes the entire text of the King James Version of the Bible, but without the pro-Bible propaganda. Instead, passages are highlighted that are an embarrassment to the Bible-believer, and the parts of the Bible that are never read in any Church, Bible study group, or Sunday School class are emphasized. For it is these passages that test the claims of the Bible-believer. The contradictions and false prophecies show that the Bible is not inerrant; the cruelties, injustices, and insults to women, that it is neither good nor just.

The SAB will help those who believe in the Bible to honestly reconsider that belief. It will help those who are unfamiliar with the Bible to resist the temptation to believe. And it will help those who have already rejected the Bible defend their position.

It is time for us all to stop believing in, or pretending to believe in, a book that is so unworthy of belief.

[alfalfafour]

When "the claim" is irrelevant and useless, I see no reason to do anything else besides smirk and move on. Not to mention that your claim often shifts and can't stay on a single subject.

So smirk, and move on.

I surely don't wish for you to fight battles you cannot possibly win.

In this case, I don't happen to make an issue of whether you walk away with a smirk, a chuckle, a frown, or a scowl. I just recommend that you understand the claim which you argue against. It makes debate much more interesting when your opponents fully understand what is being debated.

It seemed such a simple claim (at the top of the page) for one who understands the difference between science and religion.

[Lonewulf]

I surely don't wish for you to fight battles you cannot possibly win.

LOL! :D

Pride comes before the fall, kid.

[alfalfafour]

LOL! :D

Pride comes before the fall, kid.

Perhaps next topic then?

Repent of your errors!! The Kingdom of Science is at hand!!

[six7s]

I surely don't wish for you to fight battles you cannot possibly win.I have a hunch that you have little or no idea what constitutes thinking - let alone critical thinking

I just recommend that you understand the claim which you argue against. It makes debate much more interesting when your opponents fully understand what is being debated.I just recommend that you consider that way you make claims can be seen as wishy-washy, absurd, facile, ignorant and vacuous

[alfalfafour]

I have a hunch that you have little or no idea what constitutes thinking - let alone critical thinking

I just recommend that you consider that way you make claims can be seen as wishy-washy, absurd, facile, ignorant and vacuous

Sir, I have another claim. Unfortunately it is NSFB.

[six7s]

Sir, I have another claim. Unfortunately it is NSFB.Do you (still?) claim that the bible isn't a work of fiction?

[alfalfafour]

I might have implied it. You must have inferred it.

You claimed it is. You haven't proven your claim.

What the bible is, is a collection of scrolls canonized by Bishops. Do you wish to revise your claim on specific scrolls? Do you wish to claim certain stories, and disregard others? How do you wish to proceed with the proof of your claim? Does one sentence destroy the entire work?

Is my NSFB claim allowable? I would say if I can. I notice you are not hesitant about making ad hominems.

[six7s]

Does one sentence destroy the entire work?Which part of 'the inerrant word of god' is beyond your grasp?

www.bible.org The Bible: The Inerrant Word of God (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=696)

By: J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. (Bio)
A Definition of Inerrancy

The word inerrancy means “freedom from error or untruths.” Synonyms inlcude “certainty, assuredness, objective certainty, infallibility.” But doesn’t the concept of inspiration automatically imply inerrancy? So we might ask the question, “Why this section on the inerrancy of the Bible?” Ryrie has an excellent explanation in answer to this question.

Formerly all that was necessary to affirm one’s belief in full inspiration was the statement, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.” But when some did not extend inspiration to the words of the text it became necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.” To counter the teaching that not all parts of the Bible were inspired, one had to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible.” Then because some did not want to ascribe total accuracy to the Bible, it was necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the Bible.” But then “infallible” and “inerrant” began to be limited to matters of faith only rather than also embracing all that the Bible records (including historical facts, genealogies, accounts of Creation, etc.), so it became necessary to add the concept of “unlimited inerrancy.” Each addition to the basic statement arose because of an erroneous teaching.52

Clarifying the definition of inerrancy has become necessary because many have, in very subtle ways, retained words like inspiration, infallible, and even inerrant in speaking about the Bible while denying its freedom from error.<snip/>

[alfalfafour]

Which part of 'the inerrant word of god' is beyond your grasp?

The part about assuming that this is my belief.

Is that person's statement what your are claiming as fiction?

Why didn't you say so? I agree. I know a lot of people who believe that the bible is inerrant, but I am not one of them.

Or in other words, what part of "alfalfafour" did you misunderstand as reading "Jim Bakker?" You see, if I was Jim Bakker, the name over on the left might actually say "Jim Bakker" not "Alfalfafour." Do you understand?

Of course, immediately after you realized that I was "Jim Bakker;" I probably would have told you that god said I need a million dollars, and that he asked me to tell you that you should send me some money.

[kerikiwi]

Scripture certainly does answer what science does not: it just gets it spectacularly wrong.
It also answers what science has already answered, and again gets it spectacularly wrong.

[six7s]

Do you understand?Tip: concentrate your efforts on being clear and concise - instead of being a smug git, which you have down pat

[Niggle]

Snipped a little to highlight the contradictions:

I feel a lot of my struggle is related to my past and the concequences of ungodly living. Now I know Jesus forgives me (snip) he will not count my sins against me. (snip) He is the one granting grace to redeem us!

So, your pain is the consequence of ungodly living, but Jesus/God forgives you and won't hold your sins against you. Then why are you being made to suffer for your past? Sounds like he's granting you pain, not grace. How can you NOT see the contradictions in that?

[alfalfafour]

Tip: concentrate your efforts on being clear and concise - instead of being a smug git, which you have down pat

Ain't this place a barrel of laughs? Send me a million dollars.

I clearly and concisely did NOT SAY that scripture was inerrant. Maybe you should pay attention to what I write, not what I DON'T WRITE.

I did pay attention to what you write, and you have a claim to prove.

Either that, or take a hike.

Something about ostriches, if i remember it right. Heads in the sand?

I hope it was nice clean sand that they manage to pull their heads out of.

[kerikiwi]

[QUOTE=alfalfafour;4489237]

I clearly and concisely did NOT SAY that scripture was inerrant. Maybe you should pay attention to what I write, not what I DON'T WRITE.

[QUOTE]

Just to clarify: did you or did you not say that scripture answers what science does not?

[alfalfafour]

I clearly and concisely did NOT SAY that scripture was inerrant. Maybe you should pay attention to what I write, not what I DON'T WRITE.



Just to clarify: did you or did you not say that scripture answers what science does not?


I clearly said that it answers, and that many people actually believe the answers. As in most literature, it pays to read context. Otherwise, you end up like an ostrich.

[kerikiwi]

I clearly said that it answers, and that many people actually believe the answers. As in most literature, it pays to read context. Otherwise, you end up like an ostrich.

Many people may believe the answers but the answers are still wrong.
So it makes no sense to say that scripture answers what science does not.
When people talk about whether or not a question is answered, they mean answered correctly.

[Hokulele]

I clearly said that it answers, and that many people actually believe the answers. As in most literature, it pays to read context. Otherwise, you end up like an ostrich.


So? The same can be said for any of Kevin Trudeau's books as well.

As with the Harry Potter example, what makes the bible any different?

[alfalfafour]

So? The same can be said for any of Kevin Trudeau's books as well.

As with the Harry Potter example, what makes the bible any different?


Age?

[Hokulele]

Age?


And that implies accuracy? There are still people who believe in the geocentric model of the solar system.

[alfalfafour]

And that implies accuracy? There are still people who believe in the geocentric model of the solar system.

Where did I assume any accuracy? Where did I imply any accuracy. Science argues accuracy of answers. Religion presumes and requires faith and belief to "assume" accuracy. Like I say, you have to know the difference and presume that I do know the difference prior to reading my "literature" in context.

I never claimed accuracy in the answers. Science presumes accuracy in magnitudes. Something can be 99.9% accurate in science, and be accepted as reasonably conclusive. Relgion seems to presume a far lower percentage of accuracy, wouldn't you say?

[kerikiwi]

Age?

You really are not being very clear. Clever perhaps, clear, no.
Do you mean that the bible stories are more likely to be true than the Harry Potter stories?

[Hokulele]

Where did I assume any accuracy? Where did I imply any accuracy. Science argues accuracy of answers. Religion presumes and requires faith and belief to "assume" accuracy. Like I say, you have to know the difference and presume that I do know the difference prior to reading my "literature" in context.

I never claimed accuracy in the answers. Science presumes accuracy in magnitudes. Something can be 99.9% accurate in science, and be accepted as reasonably conclusive. Relgion seems to presume a far lower percentage of accuracy, wouldn't you say?


In which case Harry Potter is as good a source for information on souls and the afterlife as the bible. After all, if you aren't requiring accuracy other than what you want to believe is true, who cares what brand name is used for the marketing?

[alfalfafour]

You really are not being very clear. Clever perhaps, clear, no.
Do you mean that the bible stories are more likely to be true than the Harry Potter stories?


I would pretty much say that the copyrights are older.

Sorry, I am a musician. I can't help myself. Did I pass the audition? Do I have to make new clear and concise statements, or can I stick with the ones I have already made?

[Paulhoff]

Please tell what the bible answers, how not to beat your slave, that women are dirty every month for a few days.

Paul

:) :) :)

[six7s]

I did pay attention to what you write, and you have a claim to prove.Which claim do you want/need to pretend that I have yet to prove? That the bible is a work of fiction? If so, your attention span is surpassed by that of the common carp

[kerikiwi]

I would pretty much say that the copyrights are older.

Sorry, I am a musician. I can't help myself. Did I pass the audition? Do I have to make new clear and concise statements, or can I stick with the ones I have already made?

You are actually what is known down this way as a smart-arse.
You are not making any point, you are just trying (and failing) to be clever.
Utterly boring.

[alfalfafour]

You are actually what is known down this way as a smart-arse.
You are not making any point, you are just trying (and failing) to be clever.
Utterly boring.

I proved my claim on the last page. Since proving the claim I have been repeatedly attacted with ad hominem remarks. I am the smart ass?

Look in the mirror, chump. I am more familiar with debate where a claim is made, then proven. No wonder you guys are bored.

You would prefer my opponents method:

Make a claim, then wait for someone to dispute it.

Then say that the dispute is a claim, and throw ad hominems.

[kerikiwi]

I proved my claim on the last page. Since proving the claim I have been repeatedly attacted with ad hominem remarks. I am the smart ass?

Look in the mirror, chump.

The claim that scripture answers questions that science does not?
You have not 'proved ' that claim.
If you think you have, can you refer me to said proof?

[alfalfafour]

The claim that scripture answers questions that science does not?
You have not 'proved ' that claim.
If you think you have, can you refer me to said proof?

I proved on the last page. I don't plan on rehashing until six7s provides at least one shred of evidence toward his claims, and retracts his ad hominems.

If we are going to debate, this playing field will be level.

[Hokulele]

I proved on the last page. I don't plan on rehashing until six7s provides at least one shred of evidence toward his claims, and retracts his ad hominems.

If we are going to debate, this playing field will be level.


I had already addressed the problem with your proof. Perhaps you missed it?

In which case Harry Potter is as good a source for information on souls and the afterlife as the bible. After all, if you aren't requiring accuracy other than what you want to believe is true, who cares what brand name is used for the marketing?

[kerikiwi]

I proved on the last page. I don't plan on rehashing until six7s provides at least one shred of evidence toward his claims, and retracts his ad hominems.

If we are going to debate, this playing field will be level.

On the previous page you asserted that scripture answers what science does not.
You offered not a hint of proof.
I agree that scripture gives answers. They are completely wrong, but they are answers.
What does a level playing field have to do with it?

[alfalfafour]

On the previous page you asserted that scripture answers what science does not.
You offered not a hint of proof.
I agree that scripture gives answers. They are completely wrong, but they are answers.
What does a level playing field have to do with it?

Perfect segue for my thoughts. Science is an art of critical thinking. Clams are "precisely made." For instance the claim is made that scripture answers questins that science doesn't, and that many people believe the answers that scripture gives. Critical thinker might look at this and say "Yes, this is true, but science gives more reliable answers." I would agree with such a critical thinker. I would tell just about anybody else that they have their head up their tushy.

[six7s]

You are actually what is known down this way as a smart-arse.Maybe up the winter-less North

Down here, where the lucerne is as high as a white elephant's eye, we're less prosaic

@alfalfafour: I guess you'd like to believe you're making a point

I don't

[alfalfafour]

Maybe up the winter-less North

Down here, where the lucerne is as high as a white elephant's eye, we're less prosaic

@alfalfafour: I guess you'd like to believe you're making a point

I don't


I guess you believe you know what a debate is about.

You don't.

[alfalfafour]

Edited for civility.

[Lonewulf]

You talk a lot about ad hominems, alfalfafour. Here's a suggestion: If decrying the alleged use of ad hominems, don't call someone a moron.

[alfalfafour]

You talk a lot about ad hominems, alfalfafour. Here's a suggestion: If decrying the alleged use of ad hominems, don't call someone a moron.


I have simple rule. Once, twice, three times. It's my turn!!!

If it continues beyond that: Meet iggie.

Does the concept of "a level playing field" reach the ears of the deaf now?

If the mods extend my tenure here, I can see a future of the regulars "counting secretly" as I wind up and get ready to throw. If not, wish me luck at finding a critical thinking forum.

[six7s]

@alfalfafour: I guess you'd like to believe you're making a point

I don'tI guess you believe you know what a debate is about.

You don't.OK...

So...

You're implying that you are making a point, huh?

If so, please do explain what your point is and then how that marries with the concept of a debate

If not, please STFU

Thank you in advance

[kerikiwi]

I still haven't figured out what just alfalfafour thinks s/he has proven or just what s/he is debating...

[alfalfafour]

I still haven't figured out what just alfalfafour thinks s/he has proven or just what s/he is debating...

Forget this. If you can't comprehend that a debate involves making and defending claims , and the mods choose to delete only my ad hominems and leave the other ones, then I am outtie, and you all are iggie.

Evidently, I was right, and critical stinking is what it is about.

[alfalfafour]

I just recommend that you consider that way you make claims can be seen as wishy-washy, absurd, facile, ignorant and vacuous

I do? Perhaps if you read them before you argued with them, you might have an intelligent reply?

[alfalfafour]

Tip: concentrate your efforts on being clear and concise - instead of being a smug git, which you have down pat

being a what?

[alfalfafour]

OK...

So...

You're implying that you are making a point, huh?

If so, please do explain what your point is and then how that marries with the concept of a debate

If not, please STFU

Thank you in advance


And what does STFU mean?

Can anybody tell us if this is "civil?"

[alfalfafour]

Tip: concentrate your efforts on being clear and concise - instead of being a smug git, which you have down pat

Say what? Did you actually say that with that "smug shot?" Can we address your claims yet?

Did you know that perception is part of reality?

Do you know what the purpose of silver nitrates in the eyes of a baby is?

Do you know what you get when you mix "Silver nitrate" clay with saliva, and put it in the eyes of a baby?

A cure for blindness that Jesus gave to the people.

So go ahead now and argue your fiction.

How about we cure a thousand babies with your fiction?

PS: Hell no!! I am not a Christian, but for god's sake, save the babies; but if you choose to do it for the sake of armchair scientists, do it for better than I have found here. If by chance you wish to distort the words of Jesus into fiction, do it on your own time. Maybe you can pass the plate and collect money after your sermon. As one of my Atheist friends used to say;" That's mighty Christian of you."

"Christian" it is. Fabricating an ideology based on those who perceive that they are following Jesus, or based on the pharisees who debated against him. Isn't that what Christians say they do? Believing that they understand the "fiction" that certain people perceive, and calling it "truth?" So; "What is truth?" Ask Pilate. Ask your god. Ask a scientist, but don't percieve an armchair scientist as god, or you can ask Al Gore and beat science and god with your "global warming" hockey stick and deny the real truth again. Sorry, but you just don't get it. It is not my fault.

[Lonewulf]

Say what? Did you actually say that with that "smug shot?" Can we address your claims yet?

Did you know that perception is part of reality?

Do you know what the purpose of silver nitrates in the eyes of a baby is?

Do you know what you get when you mix "Silver nitrate" clay with saliva, and put it in the eyes of a baby?

A cure for blindness that Jesus gave to the people.

So go ahead now and argue your fiction.

How about we cure a thousand babies with your fiction?

PS: Hell no!! I am not a Christian, but for god's sake, save the babies; but if you choose to do it for the sake of armchair scientists, do it for better than I have found here. If by chance you wish to distort the words of Jesus into fiction, do it on your own time. Maybe you can pass the plate and collect money after your sermon. As one of my Atheist friends used to say;" That's mighty Christian of you."

"Christian" it is. Fabricating an ideology based on those who perceive that they are following Jesus, or based on the pharisees who debated against him. Isn't that what Christians say they do? Believing that they understand the "fiction" that certain people perceive, and calling it "truth?" So; "What is truth?" Ask Pilate. Ask your god. Ask a scientist, but don't percieve an armchair scientist as god, or you can ask Al Gore and beat science and god with your "global warming" hockey stick and deny the real truth again. Sorry, but you just don't get it. It is not my fault.

"Cure a thousand babies with your fiction"? Totally random non sequitor about global warming?

Are you for real?

[alfalfafour]

"Cure a thousand babies with your fiction"? Totally random non sequitor about global warming?

Are you for real?

Did you research the topic of silver ntrites, or just toss it away off-hand?

The "global warming" might be non-sequitur to you, but if you have seen the "hockey stick" you would see the end of science as we know it.

Try google-ing the quoted words.

While these guys are taking pot shots at an Christian they see, common sense walks up behind them and hits them over the head with reality.


I just should have walked in here with an orange hunting jacket that says; "I am not a Christian" so I wouldn't be thrown all of the 'non sequitur' remarks about Christians relative to the difference between scripture and science.

You do understand that there are several religions that use the same scripture, and that Christianity is divided into several different parts?

Did you know that Christianity requires belief in the trinity? That means there are several religions which follow scripture which aren't even Christian.

That means that you might have actually run into a few "Critical Thinkers" who have read scripture.

Some of you might want to actually think about that before your ice caps melt.

So before you call back the referee, get an idea of who gives a puck.

[Lonewulf]

Did you research the topic of slver ntrites, or just toss it away off-hand?There's hardly any evidence that Jesus even existed, outside of the gospels of people that lived around a century or so after his death. I'm not sure that they were around to witness silver nitrate being placed in the eyes. Then there's the leprosy, the people were crippled physically, and various other nasty permanent ailments that he allegedly cured. Even if the silver nitrate were to work, it would be more or less meaningless to look up that small piece of data. I might as well speculate on how one of Harry Potter's spells might have actually worked.

The "global warming" might be non-sequitor to you, but if you have seen the "hockey stick" you would see the end of science as we know it.:boggled:

Whaaaat?

Try google-ing the quoted words.I did. I saw nothing that indicated "the end of Science as we know it".

Also, Al Gore didn't invent Global Warming. In fact, people in other nations were already feeling the effects of global warming far before Al Gore even ran for office, much less produced a film. In fact, there's a 1958 science film that suggested exactly what Al Gore did, called The Unchained Goddess (the goddess being, of course, Meteora).

While these guys are taking pot shots at an Christian they see, common sense walks up behind them and hits them over the head with reality.What on earth does global warming have to do with Christianity? Or are you suggesting that science takes "pot shots"?

Science has struck humanity over the head with reality far more than any religion.

I just should have walked in here with an orange hunting jacket that says; "I am not a Christian" so I wouldn't be thrown all of the 'non sequitor' remarks about Christians relative to the difference between scripture and science.You were the one that instigated all of the arguments. If you put more thought behind your words, you might find less things to actually debate about... or not get so irritated.

You do understand that there are several religions that use the same scripture, and that Christianity is divided into several different parts?Yes. Islam took (and changed) most of the scripture, especially the Old Testament, and they claim to have "perfected" it. Judaism is almost all Old Testament, with the Torah. Christianity's major split was between protestants and Catholics, but there were very many different groups. The main agreement behind almost all of the groups (outside of Deists, who don't really count as "Christians", I think, especially not Thomas Paine!) in Christianity is that Christ is Lord and Savior. Islam accepts him as a prophet, and nothing more, and the Jews rejected him as their messiah, for a few reasons.

Did you know that Christianity requires belief in the trinity?More or less, yes. I'm not sure if the Aryan Heretics would fall in with that belief, depending on what precisely you believe with the Trinity. But the Catholic church dealt with heresy much as it always did; strike out what they don't like, edit things to where they're useful, and change the rules as you go along. Purgatory, indulgences and the like exemplify that. Root out and "deal with" those who disagree or teach otherwise. Thank goodness they've changed since then.

That means there are several religions which follow scripture which aren't even Christian.Muslims reject the Trinity, as do the Jews, as Jesus is not the son of God in their eyes.

That means that you might have actually run into a few "Critical Thinkers" who have read scripture.

Okay.

What was your whole point here?

[Paulhoff]

Did you research the topic of slver ntrites, or just toss it away off-hand?

The "global warming" might be non-sequitor to you, but if you have seen the "hockey stick" you would see the end of science as we know it.
Silver-Nitrate, one whole thing from the bible, how can medical science hold up to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_nitrate

Global Warming, The End of Science and back to the dark ages again, what a great outlook from some christians. By the way, it is the christian idea that the earth is to be used anyway they want, not science.

Paul

:) :) :)

[alfalfafour]

Scripture certainly does answer what science does not: it just gets it spectacularly wrong.



That is a claim.

Do you understand the meaning of debate?

Would you like to prove that claim?

What happens to the soul after you die? What did scripture get "spectacularly wrong" about it?

[Lonewulf]

What happens to the soul after you die?Until the existence of the soul can be demonstrated, this question is moot. I might as well demand that you prove that invisible elves aren't pissing in my back yard.

What did scripture get "spectacularly wrong" about it?

Well, they got almost all information about the structure of the universe wrong (see how they thought the sky worked, for instance).

[alfalfafour]

Until the existence of the soul can be demonstrated, this question is moot. I might as well demand that you prove that invisible elves aren't pissing in my back yard.).

Maybe I will send some elves by to piss in your back yard when you die. I would rather know what will happen to my soul. Everybody is going to die, so the concept is not moot. Fertilizing your flowers is moot, unless you are referring to how scripture instructs us to dung our trees. Is that another spectacularly wrong concept?




Well, they got almost all information about the structure of the universe wrong (see how they thought the sky worked, for instance).

They did? Do you have actual scriptural translations, or are you depending on the Christian Bible for your answer?

[Safe-Keeper]

That is a claim.

Do you understand the meaning of debate?

Would you like to prove that claim?What do you want him to do, make a list of statements in the Bible and do a point-by-point comparison with how science deals with the same issues?

[Paulhoff]

I would rather know what will happen to my soul.
What soul, prove the soul and we can go on from there.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Safe-Keeper]

I would rather know what will happen to my soul. What I'd really like to know is, what happens to the solid-gold Telepathy Centre in my brain after I die?

[Lonewulf]

Maybe I will some elves by to piss in your back yard when you die.I hate to play "grammar nazi", but you're missing a predicate here, so I honestly have no clue what you're saying here...

I would rather know what will happen to my soul.I'd rather not worry about what doesn't exist.

Everybody is going to die,

For now.

so the concept is not moot.Yeah, death is a given, the soul is not.

So, basically, your argument is that because you want to know what's going to happen to your soul when you die, you're going to decide you have a soul and that something happens to it based on that.

This is not a very logical argument.


Fertilizing your flowers is moot, unless you are referring to how scripture instructs us to dung our trees. Is that another spectacularly wrong concept?Talk about entirely missing the point.

They did? Do you have actual scriptural translations, or are you depending of the Christian Bible for your answer?

Uh, please define "the Christian Bible"? Weren't you the one that noted there were many different sects and groups?

Either way, it was in the Old Testament. If you can show me an older version that makes no mention of the sky, I might be interested.

[Hokulele]

I would rather know what will happen to my soul.


That would depend on which scripture you believe. Most Jewish traditions state that people just die (no soul) and some may be resurrected. Some Christians feel that everyone will end up in either heaven or hell. Hindus believe the soul reincarnates until it ends up with Brahman. Buddhists have a similar tradition, but use the term Nibbana. Chinese and Japanese folk religion believes that certain people will come back as guardian spirits for their descendents. Or, you can follow the great literature of 'Ol Billy himself and follow the path of Banquo.

How do you know that the version you chose is correct?

[alfalfafour]

I hate to play "grammar nazi", but you're missing a predicate here, so I honestly have no clue what you're saying here....
I corrected it.


I'd rather not worry about what doesn't exist.....
I don't assume that things don't exist because I cannot prove that they don't exist. I leave myself open to the possibility that forces such as gravity, which I cannot see, might actually be proven to exist someday.





Yeah, death is a given, the soul is not.

Talk about entirely missing the point.....
Talk all you like. Do you think they will ever figure out why apples fall down, not up?




Uh, please define "the Christian Bible"? Weren't you the one that noted there were many different sects and groups?

Either way, it was in the Old Testament. If you can show me an older version that makes no mention of the sky, I might be interested.

Scripture was written onto scrolls in Ancient Greece. If you have anything else, it is probably a "Christian Bible." The Book of Mormon is an exception, and anything published by the Unitarian Universalists is likely an exception as well. The KJV is the most popular reference format for Christians. I prefer direct translations from the scrolls, or a reasonable discussion of the translation using a Strong's Concordance.


The word used here was "scripture," was it not?

[Lonewulf]

I don't assume that things don't exist because I cannot prove that they don't exist. I leave myself open to the possibility that forces such as gravity, which I cannot see, might actually be proven to exist someday.Gravity and the soul are not good analogous. The soul affects nothing, cannot be measured, and has no direct or indirect force on anything; if it existed, it might as well not exist, given that there's absolutely nothing to point to it.

You say that you don't assume that things don't exist, even if there's absolutely no evidence (as with the soul) to demonstrate its existence. I'm open to possibilities as well, but you assume the existence of the soul. You make a positive claim when you say, "I want to know what happens to my soul when I die".

Here's how it works:

A) I want to know what happens to my soul when I die.
B) Ergo, I study/believe in Bible (or whatever), instead of any other source.

Well, there's hidden presumptions here. A (let's call it A2) needs an A1. Ergo:

A1) The soul exists (otherwise, A2 makes no sense).
A2) I want to know what happens to my would when I die.
B1) The Bible is a better source than any other religious text on the soul (this goes presumed, since it's all you focus on).
B2) Ergo, I study/believe in the Bible (or whatever), instead of any other source.

Talk all you like. Do you think they will ever figure out why apples fall down, not up?Non Sequitor, and rather puzzling. :boggled:

Scripture was written onto scrolls in Ancient Greece. If you have anything else, it is probably a "Christian Bible." The Book of Mormon is an exception, and anything published by the Unitarian Universalists is likely an exception as well. The KJV is the most popular reference format for Christians. I prefer direct translations from the scrolls, or a reasonable discussion of the translation using a Strong's Concordance.Okay.

So you reject all of the writings that came from Israel, AKA, the Old Testament.

[alfalfafour]

Talked to a rather well-studied friend of mine on the subject. ...


Oh, the great appeal to an anonymous authority argument. Brilliant.

"I wrote a fantastic piece of documented science on the topic, but the dog ate my homework. By the way, teacher, that's a really pretty dress your wearing."

Get real.

[Lonewulf]

Oh, the great appeal to an anonymous authority argument. Brilliant.

I edited. I'm not sure you want to talk about fallacies, though, given that your post was nothing but.

I also notice you ignored the rest of my post. Are you willing to explain your hidden presumptions, or show how gravity and the soul are analogous?

Oh, and: I don't consider you an authority for anything, period. So you demanding that I take you at your word (which you do by not citing any kind of source at all, anonymous or not), isn't any more convincing than my "using an anonymous source".

[Paulhoff]

I don't assume that things don't exist because I cannot prove that they don't exist. I leave myself open to the possibility that forces such as gravity, which I cannot see, might actually be proven to exist someday.
So you assume something to exist, something you see the effects of all day, that's nice. And something you have not shown to have effects at all, like the so-called soul, we should assume it to exist too, no, it doesn't work that way, that is in no way equal.

Paul

:) :) :)

[alfalfafour]

So you assume something to exist, something you see the effects of all day, that's nice. And something you have not shown to have effects at all, like the so-called soul, we should assume it to exist too, no, it doesn't work that way, that is in no way equal.

Paul

:) :) :)

Can you read? I said that I do not assume that it does not exist because do not see it.

I feel it. I am different than you. It is in my soul. It affects me on a daily basis.

[Lonewulf]

So if you "feel" something, it must be real? Can our senses never be fooled?

[alfalfafour]

So if you "feel" something, it must be real? Can our senses never be fooled?

Did you just assume that I believe they cannot? Did I say that I was absolutely one hundred percent correct and that you were wrong?

I don't argue like that. I leave doors open. If I argued like that, I would appear as if I was an opinionated clown who doesn't know what "proof" is. I would simply state my opinions as fact, and not bother with silly details.

[Lonewulf]

Did you just assume that I believe they cannot?I posed a question.

Did I say that I was absolutely one hundred percent correct and that you were wrong?You've been making positive claims with no modifiers. I go off of what you communicate to me.

I don't argue like that. I leave doors open.As I demonstrated above with the presumptions behind your arguments, you have not communicated any kind of doubt.

If I argued like that, I would appear as if I was an opinionated clown who doesn't know what "proof" is. I would simply state my opinions as fact, and not bother with silly details.

Which is exactly what you have been doing, since your introduction into this thread.

[alfalfafour]

You've been making positive claims with no modifiers. I go off of what you communicate to me..

Quote them. I will make list of all of the claims made by my opponents. You can make a list of mine.

[alfalfafour]

What do you want him to do, make a list of statements in the Bible and do a point-by-point comparison with how science deals with the same issues?

How about respecting the fact that the scriptures were written before science was invented, and before Newton had his encounter with apples.

I believe that alchemy was actually very popular in those days.

Perhaps we can argue the comparison of the answers from science versus alchemy. Have you bled your illnesses away lately?

[Hokulele]

Quote them. I will make list of all of the claims made by my opponents. You can make a list of mine.


Regarding the claim that the bible is primarily a work of fiction is a pretty easy one to show. Here are two examples:

1) All four gospels describe Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. All four draw heavily on Zechariah for the details of that entry. Three of the four have the disciples fetch a young, male donkey (a "colt") for him to ride. However, Matthew invents "Rodeo Jesus" and strangely has the disciples fetch two donkeys and seats him on both (granted, he probably didn't literally sit on both at once). This is most likely due to how the original prophecy was written, relying on the poetic traditions of the time ("and riding on an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass"). Matthew took this literally in his interpretation. This pretty much shows that Matthew was matching his story to the prophecies, rather than the other way around.

2) Compare the descriptions of Saul/Paul in Acts with Paul's own letters. It is like they are talking about two completely different people, and Luke was supposedly the best historian of the gospel writers! If he/she wasn't making it up as he/she went along, I will eat my hat.

[Xulld]

Well, I didn't split the atom, discover the structure of DNA or travel to the moon, and I do not understand the idea of abiogenesis, or organic Chemistry at all.
Here I fixed it for you.

[alfalfafour]

Regarding the claim that the bible is primarily a work of fiction is a pretty easy one to show.

The claim was that the Bible was entirely fiction. The fact that several witnesses argue a similar story tends to refute the claim as much as your details aregue its fiction. I suppose that we can perhaps believe that the story is like a kernal of wheat which grows on a long stalk. When you go into the feild, you take out the whole stalk, and then you thresh the harvest. After the threshing, the seeds are left, and stalks and the seed hulls are gone. You have usable wheat. You can use the chaff as fuel for a fire.

[kerikiwi]

The claim was that the Bible was entirely fiction. The fact that several witnesses argue a similar story tends to refute the claim as much as your details aregue its fiction. I suppose that we can perhaps believe that the story is like a kernal of wheat which grows on a long stalk. When you go into the feild, you take out the whole stalk, and then you thresh the harvest. After the threshing, the seeds are left, and stalks and the seed hulls are gone. You have usable wheat. You can use the chaff as fuel for a fire.

And sometimes the crop fails and all you get is chaff.

[alfalfafour]

And sometimes the crop fails and all you get is chaff.

And sometimes you get a spec in your eye that say's "all fiction" and you can't remove the log of "inerrency" from your brother's eye.

[kerikiwi]

And sometimes you get a spec in your eye that say's "all fiction" and you can't remove the log of "inerrency" from your brother's eye.

So do you think at least parts of the bible are 'true'? Can you give an example of such a truth?
I still have not been able to find the place where you proved that scripture answers what science does not.

[alfalfafour]

So do you think at least parts of the bible are 'true'? Can you give an example of such a truth?
I still have not been able to find the place where you proved that scripture answers what science does not.
There is only one question that the bible has answered that science doesn'ty attempt. I am not saying that the bibles answer is correct.

At the bottom of page six, I posted the best ever reason that I can think of to believe and trust in some existence of the soul and the afterlife.

Belief and trust is my definition of faith. Belief without trust is not faith.

You do not have to believe. You can simply grieve. Read it, and weep.

[Safe-Keeper]

:raises hand:

Was there actually a place in this discussion in which someone claimed the Bible was entirely made up of fiction, or is that an alphafour strawman?

There is only one question that the bible has answered that science doesn't attempt. I am not saying that the bibles answer is correct.Well, therein lies the rub, doesn't it? Anyone can answer a question science can't answer - I could state, for example, that there definitely is life on a given planet astronomers currently haven't studied in detail yet. However, this statement of mine would be useless without some sort of backup.

Can you support the Bible's soul hypothesis, alphafour?

[six7s]

There is only one question that the bible has answered that science doesn'ty attempt. A question concerned with, for all we know, an entirely mythical concept: the soul
I am not saying that the bibles answer is correct.So you keep saying... Un debateur en masse?

Read it, and weep.Or laugh

[alfalfafour]

:raises hand:

Was there actually a place in this discussion in which someone claimed the Bible was entirely made up of fiction, or is that an alphafour strawman?
?


Unlike the best-selling fantasy compendium known as the scriptures,its a work of fiction concocted and employed by gazillions of intellectual ostriches to fill -

It's at best a wheat stalk man. There is at least a seed head there.

[six7s]

Was there actually a place in this discussion in which someone claimed the Bible was entirely made up of fiction, or is that an alphafour strawman?As far as I'm aware, no-one has suggested that the bible is/was entirely fictional; to do so would be both absurd and irrelevant

I think I was the first - in this current tangent - to mention the term fiction:Of course the bible can answer such a question; its a work of fiction concocted and employed by gazillions of intellectual ostriches to fill - exactly and ever-so comfortably - the otherwise disconcerting void of ignorance

[kerikiwi]

There is only one question that the bible has answered that science doesn'ty attempt. I am not saying that the bibles answer is correct.

At the bottom of page six, I posted the best ever reason that I can think of to believe and trust in some existence of the soul and the afterlife.

Belief and trust is my definition of faith. Belief without trust is not faith.

You do not have to believe. You can simply grieve. Read it, and weep.

What is the question which the bible has answered which science doesn't attempt?
How can you seriously say a question has been answered when you don't even think the answer is right?

Police officer to witness: What kind of car was it that left the scene of the robbery?
Witness: a Boeing 747.
Police officer: Thank you. That will be a great help with our enquiries.

You believe and trust, and that is your proof? Words fail me!

[alfalfafour]

What is the question which the bible has answered which science doesn't attempt?
How can you seriously say a question has been answered when you don't even think the answer is right?

Police officer to witness: What kind of car was it that left the scene of the robbery?
Witness: a Boeing 747.
Police officer: Thank you. That will be a great help with our enquiries.

You believe and trust, and that is your proof? Words fail me!

Yes they certainly do. Your answer, and presumably that of science is that what happens to the soul when you die?

What soul?

What car? What scene? I didn't see a car, so the robbery didn't happen.

There were four other witnesses, and their names were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who testified to the crime, and noted many of the details, but you didn't see a car, so the crime never happened.

[Safe-Keeper]

What car? What scene? I didn't see a car, so the robbery didn't happen.

There were four other witnesses, and their names were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who testified to the crime, and noted many the details, but you didn't see a car, so the crime never happened. Mark, Luke and John all saw a soul? Wow, how? What did it look like?

Or are you talking about the Mark, Luke, John and others who were told by some bearded proto-communist that a soul existed? How did He know? Did He see it? How? What did it look like?

What soul?We were kinda hoping you could answer that for us, since you brought it up and all;).

Ok, so a couple of people told others a soul existed because someone told them a soul existed. Is that it, or do you have some actual evidence?

[Lonewulf]

There were four other witnesses, and their names were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who testified to the crime, and noted many of the details, but you didn't see a car, so the crime never happened.

Uh, they "testified" a LONG time after Jesus. None of those four were even alive in Jesus' time.

Eye witness testimony is in itself notoriously unreliable, and you don't even have that. You have hearsay evidence at best.

[alfalfafour]

Mark, Luke and John all saw a soul? Wow, how? What did it look like?

Or are you talking about the Mark, Luke, John and others who were told by some bearded proto-communist that a soul existed? How did He know? Did He see it? How? What did it look like?

We were kinda hoping you could answer that for us, since you brought it up and all;).

Ok, so a couple of people told others a soul existed because someone told them a soul existed. Is that it, or do you have some actual evidence?

I was talking about the 747 getaway car analogy.

As far as seeing souls, it is a genetic trait among Jewish men to have visions. You don't have to believe. Those four thought they saw the same thing, and recorded in their separate memoirs.

[Lonewulf]

As far as seeing souls, it is a genetic trait among Jewish men to have visions. You don't have to believe. Those four thought they saw the same thing, and recorded in their separate memoirs.

What did they "see", hundreds of years after the incident? And it wasn't personal memoirs. They purposefully spread the "gospel" out, in multiple languages, over multiple lands; some into Greece, some into Latin-speaking areas, etc.

[kerikiwi]

Yes they certainly do. Your answer, and presumably that of science is that what happens to the soul when you die?

What soul?

What car? What scene? I didn't see a car, so the robbery didn't happen.

There were four other witnesses, and their names were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who testified to the crime, and noted many of the details, but you didn't see a car, so the crime never happened.

You totally missed the point, or you are playing silly games.
The question was valid,(what kind of car was it?) the answer was patently wrong.(boeing 747) but was accepted as correct.
You claimed that the bible answers questions that science does not. You also said you do not know if the answers are right.
My analogy points out the stupidity of that.

[kerikiwi]

As far as seeing souls, it is a genetic trait among Jewish men to have visions.

Again, words fail me so I am forced to resort to
:eye-poppi

[Lonewulf]

I think he means that the Bible attempts to answer what science does not. Like I said, he never uses modifiers, so it adds a lot of confusion to the discussion.

He's correct; the Bible does attempt to answer the question "What happens to my soul after I die?"

Just because an answer is provided, does not make it a correct answer.

[alfalfafour]

What did they "see", hundreds of years after the incident?

Read the book and find out who saw what, and when they saw it. Yes, the scrolls were written as an afterthought, by men who could actually write. Fishermen and villagers weren't particularly fluent in their writing skills at the time. Have you ever read the story? Of course, several years after the events, there might be a bit of deviation in the stories, and there certainly would be embellishments. These types of errors would naturally work their way in along the course of even say, a modern criminal trial.

It just happens to be different than saying that none of it ever happened, and it was all fiction. Just a tiny bit different. I am sorry for just sitting here and splitting hairs over such trifle as the stories and whether they are true, when the only thing in the whole book that actually makes a bit of difference to me, is whether or not the soul actually exists, and survives death.

When my wife passed of cancer at 48, I didn't believe. When she visited me at 51, I began to believe.

[kerikiwi]

When my wife passed of cancer at 48, I didn't believe. When she visited me at 51, I began to believe.

How did she visit you?

[Lonewulf]

Read the book and find out who saw what, and when they saw it.I did. There was nothing to indicate that there were any eyewitness accounts.

I also highly doubt that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Fishermen and villagers weren't particularly fluent in their writing skills at the time. Have you ever read the story? Of course, several years after the events, there might be a bit of deviation in the stories, and there certainly would be embellishments. These types of errors would naturally work their way in along the course of even say, a modern criminal trial.Of course there would be embellishments. That's what happens to a lot of "miraculous" people -- the story is embellished until people are told a miracle happened, and they believe it, even if the incident didn't occur. The Catholic Church has prayed on this idea in the canonizing of their "Saints".

It just happens to be different than saying that none of it ever
happened, and it was all fiction. Just a tiny bit different.

There's just so little evidence that anything in the Bible ever occurred. Even though the Romans were big on writing, there's hardly any other source that notes Jesus' existence -- the rabble-rouser that upset the emperor and the local Jewish temples? It's a tad hard to believe.

I am sorry for just sitting here and splitting hairs over such trifle as the stories and whether they are true, when the only thing in the whole book that actually makes a bit of difference to me, is whether or not the soul actually exists, and survives death.If a source is dubious to begin with, I find it hard to believe any of its content without an outside source.

When my wife passed of cancer at 48, I didn't believe. When she visited me at 51, I began to believe.

Not much I can say on this, I'm afraid. I'd rather keep that in the other thread where you talk about the spirits that talk to you.

[alfalfafour]

If a source is dubious to begin with, I find it hard to believe any of its content without an outside source.

As I demonstrated earlier, the parables are the wheat, and the rest is pretty much chaff.

[Lonewulf]

Actually, no, you've demonstrated no such thing. You merely asserted it. Do you realize the difference?

[six7s]

These types of errors would naturally work their way in along the course of even say, a modern criminal trial.So... you're not endorsing claims of biblical inerrancy, then.

OK

Fine

:confused:

So... to what end are you employing what I infer as your self-professed debating skills?


It just happens to be different than saying that none of it ever happened, and it was all fiction. Just a tiny bit different. Just a tiny bit different from what anyone in this thread is suggesting, yes


I am sorry for just sitting here and splitting hairs over such trifle as the stories and whether they are true, when the only thing in the whole book that actually makes a bit of differenceReally?

You're sorry?

One simple solution:

Stop splitting hairs, stop prevaricating, stop waffling



Start discussing, coherently and concisely, issues of relevance; for example" What is a soul?

[kurious_kathy]

So you assume something to exist, something you see the effects of all day, that's nice. And something you have not shown to have effects at all, like the so-called soul, we should assume it to exist too, no, it doesn't work that way, that is in no way equal.

Paul

:) :) :)
Okay Paul, tell me why I should believe the soul does not exist, do you have any proof?

[kurious_kathy]

So? The same can be said for any of Kevin Trudeau's books as well.

As with the Harry Potter example, what makes the bible any different?

Even Archeology has proven the Bible is true. They keep making new discoveries all the time that often validates scripture is true and accurate.

[Lonewulf]

Okay Paul, tell me why I should believe the soul does not exist, do you have any proof?

Logical Fallacy: Negative Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof).

Prove that there isn't an invisible elf in my back yard.

Also: See Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).

[six7s]

Okay Paul, tell me why I should believe the soul does not exist, do you have any proof?I think you'll find that, instead of seeking disproof of a negative, a more efficient and effective use of your time would be to (at least temporarily) forget all myths and legends (e.g. pink unicorns, leprechauns, souls, chocolate teapots orbiting Uranaus, liberal conservatives, fairies, etc) and concentrate on reality.

Once you have a grip on natural realities, you might then like to ponder the surreal, supernatural fantasies

HTH :)

[kerikiwi]

Even Archeology has proven the Bible is true. They keep making new discoveries all the time that often validates scripture is true and accurate.

Name one that validates the virgin birth or the raising of Lazarus or the walking on water or the burning bush or the ark .....

As for the non-existence of the soul: there is no evidence that such a thing exists. If you want to claim it exists, offer some evidence.

Why do you choose the bible and not any of the other sacred texts humanity has invented?

[six7s]

Even Archeology has proven the Bible is true. They keep making new discoveries all the time that often validates scripture is true and accurate.For those equipped only with hammers, evey problem looks like a nail

Please cite the archaeological proof of:

the resurrection


that Noah built an ark 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high, that everything on earth perished - other than the 'two of all living creatures, male and female' that Noah herded onto the ark in one day


that plants were made on the third day (before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes)

[MIKILLINI]

Even Archeology has proven the Bible is true. They keep making new discoveries all the time that often validates scripture is true and accurate.

Which parts of the bible has Archeology validated?

[Hokulele]

The claim was that the Bible was entirely fiction. The fact that several witnesses argue a similar story tends to refute the claim as much as your details aregue its fiction.


Er, no. My details show how the gospels were plagerized from the OT or complete fabrications. In other words, they were making stuff up.

[Hokulele]

Even Archeology has proven the Bible is true. They keep making new discoveries all the time that often validates scripture is true and accurate.


Nope. See my comments regarding Matthew's screw-up and Luke's fictionalizing. If you care to enter the fray, can you provide proof that Herod ordered the deaths of all male babies in Bethlehem? There is only one mention in one gospel, and most biblical scholars agree that Matthew got a little carried away with himself as a story-teller.

[kurious_kathy]

Which parts of the bible has Archeology validated?Well now I need to go buy an Archeology Bible to have to refer to you but they have tons of info documented on digs and finds in there. I know they have discovered in just the past two years several new places like the city of Jericho, writings on tablets about King David and his descendants, the bath pools where Jesus healed people and on and on. And what is your opinion about the great pyrimid,do you think humans built it? Seems like beings with extraordinary strength built it to me.

[alfalfafour]

Actually, no, you've demonstrated no such thing. You merely asserted it. Do you realize the difference?

Yes parables require demonstrations. Claims can asserted.

Do you know the difference?

[kurious_kathy]

Name one that validates the virgin birth or the raising of Lazarus or the walking on water or the burning bush or the ark .....

As for the non-existence of the soul: there is no evidence that such a thing exists. If you want to claim it exists, offer some evidence.

Why do you choose the bible and not any of the other sacred texts humanity has invented?I find it interesting that you would choose those topics. Only the ark is something they may or may not have found. The others take faith which I have. It is told in prophesy of Jesus's birth how he would be a descedant of David and on both the mother and father's side he fills the prophesy. I know Jesus so I know he was born of a virgin as he told us he would be. If you beleive in Christ you do not need proof of that, you just know! Again walking on water and the burning bush are things believers just know happened even though we were not there to see it ourselves. Evidence of the life of Moses is there too, the Jews were set free from egypt. Do you think if God had not done that the Jews would still be slaves today?

[alfalfafour]

Er, no. My details show how the gospels were plagerized from the OT or complete fabrications. In other words, they were making stuff up.


Regarding the claim that the bible is primarily a work of fiction is a pretty easy one to show. Here are two examples:

1) All four gospels describe Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. All four draw heavily on Zechariah for the details of that entry..

You mean because Jesus chose a donkey? I believe if I was planning on fulfilling the prophecy, I would be pretty stupid not to choose a donkey.




Compare the descriptions of Saul/Paul in Acts with Paul's own letters. .

Paul never met Jesus. He became an Apostle after first being sent out to attack and harass Christian after the death of Jesus and being blinded on his trip to Damascus. You might note difference btween Damascus and Jerusalem on a Map. You might note that Christianity must have already spread outside the borders of the Northern Kingdom prior to Paul's entry.

[Paulhoff]

Can you read? I said that I do not assume that it does not exist because do not see it.

I feel it. I am different than you. It is in my soul. It affects me on a daily basis.
What the hell does see have to do with anything, you can see air.

Feel what, a soul, sure, affects you, sure, it is called the brain, which is you, no soul needed.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Okay Paul, tell me why I should believe the soul does not exist, do you have any proof?
You say something exist, it is up to you to prove it, not me. Show me where it is needed to be alive.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Hokulele]

You mean because Jesus chose a donkey? I believe if I was planning on fulfilling the prophecy, I would be pretty stupid not to choose a donkey.


And you be even more stupid to screw up both the prophecy and the event you supposedly witnessed when documenting such a triumphant entry.

Paul never met Jesus. He became an Apostle after first being sent out to attack and harass Christian after the death of Jesus and being blinded on his trip to Damascus. You might note difference btween Damascus and Jerusalem on a Map. You might note that Christianity must have already spread outside the borders of the Northern Kingdom prior to Paul's entry.


And you might want to note the discrepencies between his account, the letters that were faked in his name, and Luke's account in Acts (assuming you are aware the same author wrote both the gospel according to Luke and Acts). And yes, the New Testament contains a number of faked epistles.

[Hokulele]

I find it interesting that you would choose those topics. Only the ark is something they may or may not have found. The others take faith which I have. It is told in prophesy of Jesus's birth how he would be a descedant of David and on both the mother and father's side he fills the prophesy. I know Jesus so I know he was born of a virgin as he told us he would be. If you beleive in Christ you do not need proof of that, you just know! Again walking on water and the burning bush are things believers just know happened even though we were not there to see it ourselves. Evidence of the life of Moses is there too, the Jews were set free from egypt. Do you think if God had not done that the Jews would still be slaves today?


There is evidence the London exists, many people truly believe in magic, and his chronicles include many valuable life lessons. Harry Potter must be true. I just know it!

[alfalfafour]

And you be even more stupid to screw up both the prophecy and the event you supposedly witnessed when documenting such a triumphant entry..

I will take another look, and see if you cites match your skepticism.




And you might want to note the discrepencies between his account, the letters that were faked in his name, and Luke's account in Acts (assuming you are aware the same author wrote both the gospel according to Luke and Acts). And yes, the New Testament contains a number of faked epistles.
I tend to disregard "The Acts" in my reading, but I will take you on your word that evidence exists that the authors are the same, or exhibit a similar style of writing. I actually focus on the words of Jesus, as in the parables I demonstrated. The level of intellect which wrote the parables has rarely been equalled in the history of men and philosophers since.

"The sower went out to sow the truth. Some of the truth fell into the hands superstitious yokels, and they thought they were visited by a god, and ran off praising and worshipping. Some of the truth fell into the hands of the established order, and they tried to kill everyone who had found the truth. Some of the truth fell into authors whom interlaced a few flamboyant stories so they would be percieved to be superstitious yokels and would not be killed. Some wise men found the truth, one invented the scientific method while translating the bible for superstitious yokels, and the truth flourished for centuries thereafter."

[Lonewulf]

The level of intellect which wrote the parables has rarely been equalled in the history of men and philosophers since.

Not really. Many people have said some of what Jesus said, but without the anger at figs. And there's many men I personally respect far more than Jesus, including Carl Sagan.

[alfalfafour]

Not really. Many people have said some of what Jesus said, but without the anger at figs. And there's many men I personally respect far more than Jesus, including Carl Sagan.

I suppose there are those who would have considered Sagan a god 2000 years ago. I don't really go much for Idol worship, but I eat Bacon.

I get a real kick out of his translation of the story of the beggar outside of the temple who is pretending to be a cripple. "Why do you lie?"

[Paulhoff]

WSzQC1zKesU

Paul

:) :) :)

[Lonewulf]

I suppose there are those who would have considered Sagan a god 2000 years ago.

Possibly.

I don't give a ****, personally.

It's possible to respect someone without worshiping them. Those that demand worship the most, deserve it the least.

[alfalfafour]

I also tend to get a serious expression when I think of Fisherman with biceps the size of the front legs of a bull elephant from pulling nets all day, walking up and threatening to "lay their hands on me" and cure my of my suspicions.

[Hokulele]

I will take another look, and see if you cites match your skepticism.


You may also want to run through the last 20 or so pages of the Scriptural Literacy thread in here for additional citations of the various passages showing the direct plagiarism of Jeremiah by the author of the gospel of Mark. Even Paul gets into the act by mimicking Ezekiel.

I tend to disregard "The Acts" in my reading, but I will take you on your word that evidence exists that the authors are the same, or exhibit a similar style of writing.


It is actually pretty well known amongst the biblical crowd. This Wiki stub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke-Acts) has a couple of citations you can follow. You can also Google and find a huge number of articles on the author.

I actually focus on the words of Jesus, as in the parables I demonstrated. The level of intellect which wrote the parables has rarely been equalled in the history of men and philosophers since.


Meh, pedestrian sludge, in my opinion. Read some Chuang Tzu for some personal philosophy that actually demonstrates a sense of humor. His parable of the Happy Fish is one of my favorites.

Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu were strolling along the dam of the Hao River when Chuang Tzu said, "See how the minnows come out and dart around where they please! That's what fish really enjoy!"

Hui Tzu said, "You're not a fish, how do you know what fish enjoy?"

Chuang Tzu said, "You're not I, so how do you know I don't know what fish enjoy?"

Hui Tzu said, "I'm not you, so I certainly don't know what you know. On the other hand, certainly you are not a fish-so that proves that you don't know what fish enjoy!"

Chuang Tzu said, "Let's go back to the original question, please. You asked me how I know what fish enjoy-so you already knew I knew it when you asked the question. I know it by standing here by the Hao."

[Ladewig]

Well now I need to go buy an Archeology Bible to have to refer to you but they have tons of info documented on digs and finds in there. I know they have discovered in just the past two years several new places like the city of Jericho, writings on tablets about King David and his descendants, the bath pools where Jesus healed people and on and on.

If you do furnish more archeological evidence, would you consider putting it in a new thread? There are many posters interested in this topic and they might not find it near the end of this off-topic thread.

And what is your opinion about the great pyramid, do you think humans built it?

Yes.

[Ladewig]

I suppose there are those who would have considered Sagan a god 2000 years ago. I don't really go much for Idol worship, but I eat Bacon.

I get a real kick out of his translation of the story of the beggar outside of the temple who is pretending to be a cripple. "Why do you lie?"

I don't recognize the passage, can you provide a citation or verse?

[alfalfafour]

"Are we having difficulty distinguishing truth from fiction?"

Said the Fisherman (with biceps the size of the front legs of a full grown Bull Elephant) to the Preist.

[Hokulele]

"Are we having difficulty distinguishing truth from fiction?"

Said the Fisherman (with biceps the size of the front legs of a full grown Bull Elephant) to the Preist.


http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/chuang/piss.html

NSFW - Naughty words.

[alfalfafour]

http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/chuang/piss.html

NSFW - Naughty words.

Naughty, but yet wise.

[Hokulele]

Naughty, but yet wise.


Like I said, the bible ain't got nuthin' on Chuang Tzu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuangzi

[alfalfafour]

Like I said, the bible ain't got nuthin' on Chuang Tzu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuangzi

If you understand wisdom, you do not berate the source.

[Hokulele]

If you understand wisdom, you do not berate the source.


http://www.taoistic.com/chuangtzu/chuangtzu-09.htm

[alfalfafour]

http://www.taoistic.com/chuangtzu/chuangtzu-09.htm

Without clicking the link:

(I will edit or add follwing the click)

I do not berate the source, but instead realize that that the birth of wisdom comes at the expense of a whore name "trial and tribulation"

I will now click your link.

[Hokulele]

Without clicking the link:

(I will edit or add follwing the click)

I do not berate the source, but instead realize that that the birth of wisdom comes at the expense of a whore name "trial and tribulation"

I will now click your link.


And I am quoting this for posterity to show you how badly you erred in judgement prior to reading that chapter.

[alfalfafour]

And I am quoting this for posterity to show you how badly you erred in judgement prior to reading that chapter.

I scanned it and found the embellishments tiresome, but bearable. Pretty equal with biblical verse. I don't carve idols.

[Hokulele]

I scanned it and found the embellishments tiresome, but bearable. Pretty equal with biblical verse. I don't carve idols.


My favorite translation (Feng/English) isn't on-line. This one isn't the best, but at least is readable and fairly true to the original.

But in terms of being equal to biblical verse and carving idols, I think you completely missed the point of the chapter.

[Akhenaten]

Well now I need to go buy an Archeology Bible to have to refer to you but they have tons of info documented on digs and finds in there. I know they have discovered in just the past two years several new places like the city of Jericho, writings on tablets about King David and his descendants, the bath pools where Jesus healed people and on and on. And what is your opinion about the great pyrimid,do you think humans built it? Seems like beings with extraordinary strength built it to me.


Yeah, that was Great-Grandpa. What a man!

[alfalfafour]

My favorite translation (Feng/English) isn't on-line. This one isn't the best, but at least is readable and fairly true to the original.

But in terms of being equal to biblical verse and carving idols, I think you completely missed the point of the chapter.
Maybe you can carve out the point and provide it without 1000 words to distract us. What is the point? Is it the same as that which I read in the scripture?

Does "truth" become the all powerfull force which must be understood?

Is "truth" that which is the beginning and the end?

[Hokulele]

Maybe you can carve out the point and provide it without 1000 words to distract us. What is the point? Is it the same as that which I read in the scripture?

Does "truth" become the all powerfull force which must be understood?

Is "truth" that which is the beginning and the end?


Neither. Truth for one person/being isn't necessary the same for all people/beings. Relativism has its place, so what is good and natural for the human isn't necessarily what is good and natural for the horse (clay, whatever). Whereas the bible condemns things as "good" or "evil", Taoism accepts that everything has its role in life (hence the "piss" quote).

In addition, Jesus assumes that man's nature is evil (as described by the Old Testament) and can only be salvaged by an outside source (God, which can only be reached through Jesus. See the gospel of John.). Taoism assumes that man's nature is fine as it is (Taoism tries to balance good and evil rather than suppressing either one), and outside forces tend to warp it rather than improve it.

Basically, according to Taoism, everything in the bible other than "love thy neighbor as thyself" (which is an OT commandment Jesus plagiarized) is a pantsload.

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

Evidence of the life of Moses is there too, the Jews were set free from egypt. Do you think if God had not done that the Jews would still be slaves today?


Where is this evidence of which you speak? A single reference made by the ancient Egyptians to any of the following will suffice:


Moses
Jews
Jewish slaves
A million Jewish slaves
A million Jewish slaves being set free
A million Jewish slaves escaping across the Red Sea
Pharaoh and his army being drowned while pursuing a million Jewish slaves escaping across the Red Sea


Thankh you.

[alfalfafour]

Neither. Truth for one person/being isn't necessary the same for all people/beings. Relativism has its place, so what is good and natural for the human isn't necessarily what is good and natural for the horse (clay, whatever). Whereas the bible condemns things as "good" or "evil", Taoism accepts that everything has its role in life (hence the "piss" quote).

In addition, Jesus assumes that man's nature is evil (as described by the Old Testament) and can only be salvaged by an outside source (God, which can only be reached through Jesus. See the gospel of John.). Taoism assumes that man's nature is fine as it is (Taoism tries to balance good and evil rather than suppressing either one), and outside forces tend to warp it rather than improve it.

Basically, according to Taoism, everything in the bible other than "love thy neighbor as thyself" (which is an OT commandment Jesus plagiarized) is a pantsload.

Relativism is a can of worms for people who don't believe in science and inductive reason.

Hit yourself over the head with a rock and tell me it doesn't hurt. Hit yourself hard enough and I will grieve your families loss.

[Hokulele]

Relativism is a can of worms for people who don't believe in science and inductive reason.


Einstein would disagree. As would chaos theorists.

[alfalfafour]

Einstein would disagree. As would chaos theorists.
Appeal to authority? Where are the spelling police?

[Hokulele]

Appeal to authority?


Not when you are talking about science and relativity. Appeal to authority happens when you cite a theologian on a topic dealing with particle physics.

Where are the spelling police?


Why? What was misspelled in that quote?


ETA: Grammatically speaking, there were sentence fragments. So shoot me.

[alfalfafour]

Why? What was misspelled in that quote?


ETA: Grammatically speaking, there were sentence fragments. So shoot me.


No, I just figure if you decided to bring in the authority figures, you might want to bring in the spelling police, the grammar nazis, Herman Goering, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler, Mark Twain, and a bunch of other folks who don't have anything to do with what we are discussing.

[Hokulele]

No, I just figure if you decided to bring in the authority figures, you might want to bring in the spelling police, the grammar nazis, Herman Goering, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler, Mark Twain, and a bunch of other folks who don't have anything to do with what we are discussing.


There is a difference between a reference to a genuine authority in the field under discussion and an appeal to authority fallacy. If you would rather, I can provide the original equations and discussion in either/both General Relativity or Special Relativity, as well as the mathematics underlying Chaos Theory.

So, with that out of the way, care to address the points I raised?

[alfalfafour]

There is a difference between a reference to a genuine authority in the field under discussion and an appeal to authority fallacy. If you would rather, I can provide the original equations and discussion in either/both General Relativity or Special Relativity, as well as the mathematics underlying Chaos Theory.

So, with that out of the way, care to address the points I raised?

Actually, If you and I are debating, and you agree with Einstien, you sentence should begin with: "In my opinion......"



That way, everybody knows it is opinon, and not factual, and doesn't assume that just because an authority said so; it doesn't make it a fact.

That is why experienced debaters call it an "appeal to authority."

[Hokulele]

Actually, If you and I are debating, and you agree with Einstien, you sentence should begin with: "In my opinion......"

That way, everybody knows it is opinon, and not factual, and doesn't assume that just because an authority said so; it doesn't make it a fact.

That is why experienced debaters call it an "appeal to authority."


No, experienced debators call it an appeal to authority when the person cited has expertise that is not in the realm of the topic under discussion. You are confusing this with the assumption that authorities are infallible, and some other fallacy I can't remember at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Relativism having a reliable place in science isn't simply my opinion.

ETA: This is the bit I was thinking of. It isn't exactly a fallacy, but a pointless exercise in mental masturbation as its own conclusion is subject to error.

A philosophy which denies and rejects harshly the existence of any authority, proof, disproof, or justification, even only with probability, and holds everything open to criticism, including observation (that is, it even rejects the inference "X was observed directly → X is necessarily true" as an appeal to authority), logics and its own very basic positions, such as criticism itself, is pancritical rationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancritical_rationalism). Without the need ever to appeal to authority for justification, the pancritical rationalist is able to hold his position with complete integrity, since he is not guilty of relativism or dogmatism.

[Akhenaten]

Appeal to authority? Where are the spelling police?


They're still looking into Post #405 where you demonstrate difficulty in understanding the difference between the plural "families" and the possessive "family's".

[alfalfafour]

They're still looking into Post #405 where you demonstrate difficulty in understanding the difference between the plural "families" and the possessive "family's".


hehehehehe

[alfalfafour]

No, experienced debators call it an appeal to authority when the person cited has expertise that is not in the realm of the topic under discussion. You are confusing this with the assumption that authorities are infallible, and some other fallacy I can't remember at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Relativism having a reliable place in science isn't simply my opinion.

ETA: This is the bit I was thinking of. It isn't exactly a fallacy, but a pointless exercise in mental masturbation as its own conclusion is subject to error.

Ok, those experienced in such might not have the experience I have with authorities, who think opinions are anything more than opinions even when expressed by other authorities.

[Hokulele]

Ok, those experienced in such might not have the experiece I have with pompous asses, who think opinions are anything more than opinions even when espressed by other pompus asses.


:whistling

[six7s]

so, with that out of the way, care to address the points i raised?actually, if you and i are debating, and you agree with einstien, you sentence should begin with: "in my opinion......"



that way, everybody knows it is opinon, and not factual, and doesn't assume that just because an authority said so; it doesn't make it a fact.

That is why experienced debaters call it an "appeal to authority."
no, i don't care to address the points that you raised
ftfy :)

[alfalfafour]

:whistling

Don't worry. You can always blame Einstein. At least you didn't say it was YOUR opinion. We only came for Einstein's thoughts. Your's don't matter.

[Hokulele]

Don't worry. You can always blame Einstein. At least you didn't say it was YOUR opinion. We only came for Einstein's thoughts. Your's don't matter.


Well, if you would like the relativity in science, here we go. Let's start with the textbook example of GR, no math, unless you need it to graph the motions discussed herein.

I am standing on a train platform car (no walls) heading north, bouncing a tennis ball off the floor. You are standing to the west, watching the train pass. To me, the ball is bouncing straight up and down, at least in vector notation. To you, the ball is describing a repeating parabola.

Who is right?

[six7s]

Who is right?The one with the biggest fleet of plague-dispensing sky-chariots?

[alfalfafour]

Well, if you would like the relativity in science, here we go. Let's start with the textbook example of GR, no math, unless you need it to graph the motions discussed herein.

I am standing on a train platform car (no walls) heading north, bouncing a tennis ball off the floor. You are standing to the west, watching the train pass. To me, the ball is bouncing straight up and down, at least in vector notation. To you, the ball is describing a repeating parabola.

Who is right?

Relativity is fine with respect to mathematical concepts and perception. The earth is spinning at a surface speed of 1000 miles per hour around the sun, and the Solar System is proceeding toward the Dark Rift at 2200 kilometers per second. Who gives a puck besides the global warming advocate with a hockey stick?

[Hokulele]

The one with the biggest fleet of plague-dispensing sky-chariots?


Yeah, well, God doesn't do so well against chariots.

Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.

[Hokulele]

Relativity is fine with respect to mathematical concepts and perception. The erath is spinning at a surface speed of 1000 miles per hour around the sun, and the Solar System is proceeding toward the Dark Rift at 2200 kilometers per second.


Ah, so relativism does have a place in science. Got it.

Who gives a puck besides the global warming advocate with a hockey stick?


Non sequitur.

[alfalfafour]

Ah, so relativism does have a place in science. Got it.




Non sequitur.

Truth is truth. If there were no truth, there would be no point in discovery of science. Is there any relativity involved in the actual truth?

[Hokulele]

Truth is truth. If there were no truth, there would be no point in discovery of science. Is there any relativity involved in the actual truth?


All the time. Which is the truth? Is the ball going straight up and down, making parabolas, or is it an even more complex path?

Acceptance of relativism itself can be a truth, no? Or did Chuang Tzu write in vain?

The horses cannot answer with the bits in their mouths.

[alfalfafour]

Which is the truth? .

"What is truth" ~ Pontius Pilate...... less than two days prior to the execution of Jesus.

[Hokulele]

"What is truth" ~ Pontius Pilate...... less than two days prior to the execution of Jesus.


Nah, that was a whitewash job by the gospel writers. Pilate was a dink.

John Carroll - Constantine's Sword

[alfalfafour]

Nah, that was a whitewash job by the gospel writers. Pilate was a dink.

John Carroll - Constantine's Sword

Appeal to authority, and denial of longstanding documentation.

[Hokulele]

Appeal to authority, and denial of longstanding documentation.


OK, then.

"What is truth?"

So, you prefer to opine that the bible promotes relativism?

Got it.

[six7s]

This is so much better than Reality TV

[alfalfafour]

OK, then.

"What is truth?"

So, you prefer to opine that the bible promotes relativism?

Got it.

Truth is something you should try to figure out before you bump your head too hard on a rock. I hope it is not to late.

[six7s]

Apart from the infomercials

[Hokulele]

Truth is something you should try to figure out before you bump your head too hard on a rock. I hope it is not to late.


So earlier when you were arguing that gravity was as likely to be false as the existence of souls, you understand that both can be trumped by the reality of a well-placed rock?

Maybe there is hope...

[six7s]

Maybe there is hope...Yep, both with (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=hope+little+rock&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&ei=HCiySfy7KMnUkAWzo_XJBA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title) and without (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=hope%20nelson%20nz&um=1&split=0&ei=HCiySfy7KMnUkAWzo_XJBA&resnum=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl) rocks

[Akhenaten]

The one with the biggest fleet of plague-dispensing sky-chariots?


Me! Me!


Plague dispensing chariots (probably) (http://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/metropolitan/pages/metropolitan_NY%20811.htm)


A plague dispenser can be seen projecting from the front of the chariot.

[Hokulele]

Yep, both with (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=hope+little+rock&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&ei=HCiySfy7KMnUkAWzo_XJBA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title) and without (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=hope%20nelson%20nz&um=1&split=0&ei=HCiySfy7KMnUkAWzo_XJBA&resnum=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl) rocks


*Bap*

Me! Me!


Plague dispensing chariots (probably) (http://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/metropolitan/pages/metropolitan_NY%20811.htm)


A plague dispenser can be seen projecting from the front of the chariot.


Yikes!


And with that, I will bid you all a fond aloha 'oe as the surf is supposed to be choice tomorrow morning.

[alfalfafour]

So earlier when you were arguing that gravity was as likely to be false as the existence of souls, you understand that both can be trumped by the reality of a well-placed rock?

Maybe there is hope...


Wrong.


What I argued is that the truth will out. I pretended that I hadn't known the studies of Newton and lived in the thirteenth century.


That is like living 1200 years after Jesus, right?

I could still even propose the fantasy of meeting Jesus in the clouds at that time.

[MIKILLINI]

Cue Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the sky"

[six7s]

Cue Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the sky"Is that on the b-side of this?
hnzHtm1jhL4

[MIKILLINI]

Is that on the b-side of this?
hnzHtm1jhL4

It makes complete sense.:)

[Paulhoff]

I should have bought the 45 for that song, the flip side was printed backward and played backward.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Lonewulf]

Has this discussion diverted from it's big waste of time-ality?

[Paulhoff]

Well, I'm still waiting for all this infinite wisdom, outside of just pointing to the bible and saying it is in there and not showing any.

You know, "The Jesus tell us" and then not quoting anything.

Paul

:) :) :)

[alfalfafour]

Well, I'm still waiting for all this infinite wisdom, outside of just pointing to the bible and saying it is in there and not showing any.



It is about as easy to find in the bible as it is in a Zen monastary or the Q'uran, but wisdom can be found there. Einstein had a few things to say about what is actually infinite. Wisdom wasn't one of them.

[Paulhoff]

It is about as easy to find in the bible as it is in a Zen monastary or the Q'uran, but wisdom can be found there. Einstein had a few things to say about what is actually infinite. Wisdom wasn't one of them.
Quote it, I'm waiting.

Paul

:) :) :)

[The Man]

I think it was...


"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein

[kurious_kathy]

Well, I'm still waiting for all this infinite wisdom, outside of just pointing to the bible and saying it is in there and not showing any.

You know, "The Jesus tell us" and then not quoting anything.

Paul

:) :) :)
I would like to post more scripture references but everytime I have done that in the past people yell at me and shoot it down as empty platitudes. Do you not have a Bible yourself to refer to?

[Lonewulf]

I would like to post more scripture references but everytime I have done that in the past people yell at me and shoot it down as empty platitudes. Do you not have a Bible yourself to refer to?

Yeah, see, circular logic is when you say, "What I say is proven in this book, which is reliable because it says it is".

[kurious_kathy]

Where is this evidence of which you speak? A single reference made by the ancient Egyptians to any of the following will suffice:


Moses
Jews
Jewish slaves
A million Jewish slaves
A million Jewish slaves being set free
A million Jewish slaves escaping across the Red Sea
Pharaoh and his army being drowned while pursuing a million Jewish slaves escaping across the Red Sea


Thankh you.
They have writings of old that historians have preserved plus the Egyptians themselves left writings in stones here and there they have found. I will have to dig a bit more for specifics but they are out there.

As for the parting of the Red Sea I have seen a couple documentaries done and they do claim there is evidence of the chariot wheels in the coral reeves and such discovered. Many scientists have made tons of startling discoveries but you must invistgate them for yourself to draw your own conclusion. I have faith so I do not require much scientific proof, but there are lots of Christians who have been in different fields of science that have done the work and I will try to find some more name and references for you if you would like?

[paximperium]

They have writings of old that historians have preserved plus the Egyptians themselves left writings in stones here and there they have found. I will have to dig a bit more for specifics but they are out there.
We're in for a very long wait.


As for the parting of the Red Sea I have seen a couple documentaries done and they do claim there is evidence of the chariot wheels in the coral reeves and such discovered.
It is a known fraud claimed by one nut who has claimed to have found Noah's Ark 4-5times so far. Even many evangelical Christians scholars think this is a lie.


Many scientists have made tons of starteling discoveries but you must investgate them for yourself to draw your own conclusion. I have faith so I do not require much scientific proof..."
So basically you accept claims that support your beliefs without thinking at all?

but there are lots of Christians who have been in differenct fields of science that have done the work and I will try to find some more name and references for you if you would like?
Please do.

[Paulhoff]

As for the parting of the Red Sea I have seen a couple documentaries done and they do claim there is evidence of the chariot wheels in the coral reeves and such discovered.
There are this things called boats, they can put stuff in them and ship them over water, they are known to sink.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

I would like to post more scripture references but everytime I have done that in the past people yell at me and shoot it down as empty platitudes. Do you not have a Bible yourself to refer to?
You keep telling us about all the great wisdom, let's hear it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Akhenaten]

They have writings of old that historians have preserved . . .

I'm sure they do. It may help your argument to share some of them with us.

. . . plus the Egyptians themselves left writings in stones here and there they have found.

This claim is difficult to believe. Can you point to any evidence of this alleged "writing"?


I will have to dig a bit more for specifics but they are out there.

That's what Howard Carter said just before he set off.


As for the parting of the Red Sea I have seen a couple documentaries done and they do claim there is evidence of the chariot wheels in the coral reeves and such discovered.

They should have used wood instead of coral to do their reeving, and then they wouldn't have lost so many chariots overboard to be later found embedded in coral reefs.


Many scientists have made tons of startling discoveries but you must invistgate them for yourself to draw your own conclusion.

How confident are you in guessing that I haven't already done so?


I have faith so I do not require much scientific proof, but there are lots of Christians who have been in different fields of science that have done the work and I will try to find some more name and references for you if you would like?

Sounds good. Just to remind you, these are the things for which I was seeking evidence in ancient Egypt:


Moses
Jews
Jewish slaves
A million Jewish slaves
A million Jewish slaves being set free
A million Jewish slaves escaping across the Red Sea
Pharaoh and his army being drowned while pursuing a million Jewish slaves escaping across the Red Sea


Please don't quote that silly book of fairytales.



Cheers,

Nepherkheperure Waenre

[Ladewig]

They have writings of old that historians have preserved plus the Egyptians themselves left writings in stones here and there they have found. I will have to dig a bit more for specifics but they are out there.

There is no reliable evidence that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, that Moses ever visited Egypt, or that any of the Ten Plagues occurred in Egypt. If you are of the opinion that there are writings supporting any of these claims, you are gravely mistaken. Still, we will be open minded about it, please present any evidence you can find.

In doing your research, please remember two important points. 1) You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible's truthfulness. 2) Some people believe that converting others to Christianity is so important that they are willing to lie in order to lead people to Jesus.

[Belz...]

Many scientists have made tons of startling discoveries but you must invistgate them for yourself to draw your own conclusion.

No, that's not how science works.

[six7s]

I would like to post more scripture references but everytime I have done that in the past people yell at me and shoot it down as empty platitudes. Do you not have a Bible yourself to refer to?You keep telling us about all the great wisdom, let's hear it.The silence is deafening

[Niggle]

I would like to post more scripture references but everytime I have done that in the past people yell at me and shoot it down as empty platitudes. Do you not have a Bible yourself to refer to?

Because it is empty platitudes, especially to people who don't believe it's anything more than a book of fairy tales. If you want to impress us, use sources we accept as valid. Quote some archeology textbooks that show the Egyptian hieroglyphs (their form of writing) that talk about the Jewish slaves in Egypt. Show some pictures of an archeology dig that's found the massive number of graves required to accommodate all the first-born killed at one time during the Ten Plagues.

And don't tell me you don't have any of these books. The internet is your friend. Wikipedia isn't the best source, but it's a place to start. You can also try looking on the National Geographic website; their magazines often cover archeological digs. Beyond that, start Googling relevant phrases, like "Ten Plagues archeological evidence" or some such.

THAT is how you will be able to get through to us. NOT by constantly bleating about how Jesus loves us and the Bible tells us so. CERTAINLY not by threats of eternal damnation; we don't believe in that, either.