posted
Here's a question for you: Did God give us the commandments because they are morally correct, or are the commandments morally correct because God said them? After all, what God says goes. But why does he say it?
Well, I guess that's acutally two questions. Whatever. ------------------ It doesn't matter if you don't know what you're doing as long as you look good doing it.
[This message has been edited by fructose1 (edited April 28, 2001).]
posted
Ah, so I did switch the Abraham-sons. Oops.
Omega: You realize you're a dumbshit, right? As has been mentioned, I pointed out previously the whole Jesus-pedigree problem. You want people to find contradictions, but, when someone says "This is contradictory", you just say "No it isn't", and that's supposed to be valid?
The Matthew and Luke gospels give two different genealogies. Both claim to be through Joseph. You can't just say "Well, they meant to say 'Mary' in this one". If that's the case, no matter what anyone points out, you'll just say "Well, what they really meant to say is this...".
How about if we point out that Revelations mentions things like the "one thousand years" deal, even though 1000 years are long up? You'll claim "Well, that's just symbolism". Couldn't we then say that, in the entire rest of the bible, Yahweh himself is nothing but symbolic?
How can you claim that one thing is meant literally and another is not? How can you claim that the word "Joseph" actually means the word "Mary"? You didn't write these things. You have no idea what the authors meant. You simply reinterpret it to suit your own purposes. That's called "self-delusion".
------------------ "Although, from what I understand, having travelled around the Mid-west quite a bit, apparently Jesus is coming, so I guess the choice now is we should decide whether we should spit or swallow." -Maynard James Keenan
God gave the Hebrews the commandments because they were the best way of keeping them safe. It's a matter of maturity. They were effectively two year olds. You know, "Don't lie, or daddy'll spank you."
Tim:
How about if we point out that Revelations mentions things like the "one thousand years" deal, even though 1000 years are long up?
1000 years FROM THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. I'm pretty darned sure that he's not showed up, yet.
The Matthew and Luke gospels give two different genealogies. Both claim to be through Joseph.
They would. You have to understand the culture of the day. Matthew, writing to the Jews, would list the genealogy of Joseph, with a touch of Hebrew poetry thrown in. Luke, writing to the Greeks, and being a doctor, would list the genealogy of Mary. His writing style indicates that he'd do that: be as exact as possible. HOWEVER, he only lists males. Certainly there weren't only male biological relatives going up all the way to David. He listed HUSBANDS names as generations. Thus, he would have listed Joseph, not Mary.
------------------ "How do you define fool?" "I don't attempt it. I wait for demonstrations. They inevitably surpass my imagination." - CJ Cherryh, Invader
posted
I am leaving the argument (of which I was nver really involved in anyway) due to the fact that I think my head is going to explode. I'll watch from a safe distance. I'm STILL waiting on an alternate explanation on the genetics and the age of the Earth, though.
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm just watching the fur fly and eating popcorn. It's more entertaining than the XFL!
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 *** "I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.
posted
Listen to me Omega, there is no such thing as moral killing, even if you know that someone grows up to be the next Hitler, you are still not correct in killing them. You don't get to fuck around with life, it's just there. No matter what you do it is still taking one life to save another or many others, and the only thing that you can do is live with it after that, but I will never say that killing is moral, and I beleive only a F****d up psycho would
------------------ "Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"
Excuse me, but before we start bandying about terms like 'moral killing' and so on, shouldn't we first define 'moral'? A statement containing an undefined term tells one precisely nothing.
posted
Jeff, from what I gather, being more entertaining than the XFL wouldn't be that hard.
Still waiting for an internal contradiction...
------------------ "How do you define fool?" "I don't attempt it. I wait for demonstrations. They inevitably surpass my imagination." - CJ Cherryh, Invader
posted
Shouldn't we find a impartial judge to consider whether it is a contradiction or not. No offense, but your not exactly unbiased about this issue. Just doesn't seem likely that you'll turn around and say "Oh what do you know, your exactly right, I guess the Bible can have mistakes"
posted
Probably not. Even those who would like to believe themselves impartial are somehow biased. I like to think that I am, but I have very strong feelings about organized religion.
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
"And besides, the Excellency of Israel will not prove false, and He will NOT FEEL REGRETS, for He is not an earthling man so as to feel regrets" - 1 Samuel 15:29
"As for the Lord, he REGRETTED that he had made Saul king over Israel" - 1 Samuel 15:35
Sins of the Father?
"Fathers should not be put to death on account of children, and children should not be put to death on account of fathers. Each one should be put to death for his own sin" - Deuteronomy 24:16
"....because I the Lord your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, bringing punishment for the error of father upon sons" - Exodus 20:5
Rightousness?
"Little children, let no one mislead you, he who carries on righteousness is righteous, just as that one is righteous." - 1 John 3:7
"Just as it is written: There is not one righteous man, not even one." - Romans 3:10
Calling on the name of Christ
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" - Romans 10:13
"Not every one that say unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven" - Matthew 7:21
The Trinity
"I and my Father are one" - John 10:30 "I came from God and now I am here. I have not come on my own; but he has sent me" - John 8:42
You may be able to refute one, or many, but all? Please do try.
------------------ "A mass of tears have been transformed to stones now, sharpened on suffering and woven into slings" Zack de la Rocha Rage Against the Machine
"Luke, writing to the Greeks, and being a doctor, would list the genealogy of Mary. His writing style indicates that he'd do that: be as exact as possible. HOWEVER, he only lists males. Certainly there weren't only male biological relatives going up all the way to David. He listed HUSBANDS names as generations."
Well, regardless of what the bible does, you certainly contradict yourself. How can he be exact as possible, while listing men's names where their wives names should be?
------------------ "Although, from what I understand, having travelled around the Mid-west quite a bit, apparently Jesus is coming, so I guess the choice now is we should decide whether we should spit or swallow." -Maynard James Keenan
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic