100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 08/08/08 06:29 AM
|
|
thus sayeth tribo: until you can prove to me that omni does not mean literally "all" there is no way to avoid my questions - a definition outside of christianity. one acceptable to all posting here on this subject- fair enough? Tribo... God is never once called "Omniscient" in the Bible. God is never once called "Omnipotent" in the Bible. There is one word used in the Bible, which is translated one time as "omnipotent", but it doesn't really mean that. It means ruler. Therefore to have a discussion that if the prefix "omni" (for some inexplicable reason ignoring the suffix) is applied to God, we must discuss if God can experiences all things, is just plain ridiculous. again you pick and choose, the word can also mean - all powerfull #5 meaning - thats why i state you guys want to exigis all the words thats fine, the only way i will accept your answers is if you use outside sources that all can look at and make a determination that we can all agree upon. - or - you use - "better quality lexicons" (like BDAG, Louw & Nida, and TDNT), which will list the specific Biblical texts which use a certain meaning. For instance, if the Greek word for love has three possible meanings, they will list underneath each of those meanings the passages which use the word love in that particular way, and they often give you the grammatical reasoning why they put that text under that particular meaning. That is not always an infallible guide, but it sure beats the guessing game that Strongs puts you into. your choice - strongs is not reliable as far as i'm concerned. What word are you talking about? How can you know which word I meant, when I didn't say what it was? EDIT: I use Strong's Concordance, Thayer's and Vine's. If you want to purchase and send to me any of the lexicons you mentioned, I would be happy to accept them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly wouldn’t shake a stick at the belief in reincarnation, sounds pretty good to me. I would rather hope I could return to the earth in some capacity, in animal or human form. Wouldn't it just be easier to believe you'll never die? Except that is ridiculous. Death is as much a part of life as eating and breathing.Cyclic and interwoven into the very fabric of our beings. Everything living, dies. I would prefer to actually live while I am here and enjoy the Earth. It seems a horrible waste of time and spirit to me to set around worrying about after death and what you will do then up in "heaven". Not all of us believe in that idea. Many take into account that "rebirth" is very likely to occur, much in the same way the earth regenerates itself through death (winter) and gives birth again in the Spring. You also dont see anyone requesting that "mother earth" pay a bunch of atonements to human priests.  However if one hypothesis' that Reincarnation is a valid explination for our existance on this earth - why life in a situation that is - for a lack of a better word - unpleasant. I would say that - even by an extremely conservative estimation - that 25 per cent of the population of America alone - lives in abject poverty. Given reincarnation as a viable truth - why aren't these people commiting suicide. Why would children with down syndrome be allowed to live - surely a better reincarnated life await them. It is easy to think of reincarnation as a viable truth when one lives a normal, secure life with a job, a home, good health... It starts to loose it's validity when those who have deformities, those incarcerated, or those in abject poverty enter the equation. This one slays me. Pardon the use of the Christian terminology.  The last time I looked, it was the Catholics who seem to feel that suicide is a sin (under any circumstance) so that would include all of the life circumstances that you have listed. That means, sir, if you are a practicing Catholic and you choose to take your own life, by the belief in this religion, you have doomed yourself to purgatory, or at least denied passage through the pearly gates presumably. So no sitting in clouds for all eternity with your godhead and no wearing wings, nor flowing gowns. Now lets clarify something else shall we, the belief in reincarnation is found throughout many religions worldwide. Not all pagans believe in it, yet many do. The specifics might vary. The word reincarnation itself means, "To be made flesh again". If we were to focus on Wicca in particular, generally there is a belief held in "rebirth" through the mother which would be the Earth or Gaia. She takes in all of her children at the time of their death, animal, human, insect, all living creatures. In a sense she "devours" them and then gives birth to them once again. It is an endless cycle. Now I have explained this using the most basic of terms. Just to clarify your preconceived notions and assumptions. I seek not to argue, simply to give you a better understanding. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo, spider started it. He just wasn't expecting it to backfire on him which such force. I guess anyway. What did I start and how did it backfire? Are you speaking of this thread? I think this thread is going quite well. I have noticed a great deal of frustration and taunting coming from the "Biblical contradictions" team, so I know which team they believe is winning. I was fascinated by the "Omni" argument which appeared yesterday. Such silliness coming from the minds of otherwise intelligent people. When someone feels cornered and threatened, that's when you see the true person. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Fri 08/08/08 07:08 AM
|
|
Well, I meant you had started this thread under the incorrect assumption that there could not possibly be any contradictions or discrepancies presented. Thus far, we have illustrated several and not a one has been successfully debated by the Christian fundamentalist side. I can not say that all of the folks instigating these debates are not Christian because some are. They just choose not to go along with the bible via blind faith and they question a lot of what is commonly accepted.
Also I do not see our side becoming upset in the slightest. It has been your team that has yelled, (used caps), name called, become emotional and irrational, compared me to an ex-wife and more. We have chosen to ignore it and move on. We are still waiting in many cases for your side to even debate in a cohesive manner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Fri 08/08/08 07:11 AM
|
|
"Hobbits have been living and farming in the four Frathing of the Shire for many hundreds of years, quite content to ignore and be ignored by the world of the Big Folk. Middle-Earth being, after all, full of strange creatures beyond count Hobbits must seem of little importance, being neither renowned as great warriors nor counted among the very wise. In fact it has been remarked by some that Hobbits' only real passion is for food. A rather unfair observation, as we have also developed a keen interest in the brewing of ales and the smoking of pipe-weed. But where our hearts truly lie is in peace and quiet and good tilled earth... For all Hobbits share a love of things that grow. And yes, no doubt to others, our ways seem quaint. But today of all days, it is brought home to me : it is not a bad thing to celebrate a simple life."
Shall we (lay down) the (throw down = sword) and all become hobbits of the shire to much everyones desire! Let us make truths and have juice to celeberate a new beginning and start singing. What say you! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I meant you had started this thread under the incorrect assumption that there could not possibly be any contradictions or discrepancies presented. Thus far, we have illustrated several and not a one has been successfully debated by the Christian fundamentalist side. I can not say that all of the folks instigating these debates are not Christian because some are. They just choose not to go along with the bible via blind faith and they question a lot of what is commonly accepted. Also I do not see our side becoming upset in the slightest. It has been your team that has yelled, (used caps), name called, become emotional and irrational, compared me to an ex-wife and more.We have chosen to ignore it and move on. We are still waiting in many cases for your side to even debate in a cohesive manner. I guess we see things differently.  I have yet to see a contradiction posted. So far, I have seen poorly developed arguments, which lack evidentiary support. I'm sorry, but the rules were very clear that the arguments must be supported by evidence. It's okay though, everybody sees the world differently, it's one of the things that makes life interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Fri 08/08/08 07:23 AM
|
|
Well, I meant you had started this thread under the incorrect assumption that there could not possibly be any contradictions or discrepancies presented. Thus far, we have illustrated several and not a one has been successfully debated by the Christian fundamentalist side. I can not say that all of the folks instigating these debates are not Christian because some are. They just choose not to go along with the bible via blind faith and they question a lot of what is commonly accepted. Also I do not see our side becoming upset in the slightest. It has been your team that has yelled, (used caps), name called, become emotional and irrational, compared me to an ex-wife and more.We have chosen to ignore it and move on. We are still waiting in many cases for your side to even debate in a cohesive manner. I guess we see things differently. I have yet to see a contradiction posted. So far, I have seen poorly developed arguments, which lack evidentiary support. I'm sorry, but the rules were very clear that the arguments must be supported by evidence. It's okay though, everybody sees the world differently, it's one of the things that makes life interesting. Scroll up spider, there have been several contradictions presented. What I have seen the Christian fundamentalist side give back is a lot of haughty and nasty commentary. One went so far as to refer to us as vipers. I think it’s obvious who is winning as it has been announced already. If you choose to argue with the judge, go ahead. You have already been told to appeal if you feel you have a case. The winning side can not be attacked merely because they were perceived to have brought forth the better argument. You have to also remember that you laid it in our laps to show these contradictions. All you had to do was sit back and debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I meant you had started this thread under the incorrect assumption that there could not possibly be any contradictions or discrepancies presented. Thus far, we have illustrated several and not a one has been successfully debated by the Christian fundamentalist side. I can not say that all of the folks instigating these debates are not Christian because some are. They just choose not to go along with the bible via blind faith and they question a lot of what is commonly accepted. Also I do not see our side becoming upset in the slightest. It has been your team that has yelled, (used caps), name called, become emotional and irrational, compared me to an ex-wife and more.We have chosen to ignore it and move on. We are still waiting in many cases for your side to even debate in a cohesive manner. I guess we see things differently. I have yet to see a contradiction posted. So far, I have seen poorly developed arguments, which lack evidentiary support. I'm sorry, but the rules were very clear that the arguments must be supported by evidence. It's okay though, everybody sees the world differently, it's one of the things that makes life interesting. Scroll up spider, there have been several contradictions presented. What I have seen the Christian fundamentalist side give back is a lot of haughty and nasty commentary. One went so far as to refer to us as vipers. I think it’s obvious who is winning as it has been announced already. If you choose to argue with the judge, go ahead. You have already been told to appeal if you feel you have a case. The winning side can not be attacked merely because they were perceived to have brought forth the better argument. You have to also remember that you laid it in our laps to show these contradictions. All you had to do was sit back and debate. I have seen arguments for contradictions, but I haven't seen anything which would convince a reasonable judge. Sorry, just my opinion. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I meant you had started this thread under the incorrect assumption that there could not possibly be any contradictions or discrepancies presented. Thus far, we have illustrated several and not a one has been successfully debated by the Christian fundamentalist side. I can not say that all of the folks instigating these debates are not Christian because some are. They just choose not to go along with the bible via blind faith and they question a lot of what is commonly accepted. Also I do not see our side becoming upset in the slightest. It has been your team that has yelled, (used caps), name called, become emotional and irrational, compared me to an ex-wife and more.We have chosen to ignore it and move on. We are still waiting in many cases for your side to even debate in a cohesive manner. I guess we see things differently. I have yet to see a contradiction posted. So far, I have seen poorly developed arguments, which lack evidentiary support. I'm sorry, but the rules were very clear that the arguments must be supported by evidence. It's okay though, everybody sees the world differently, it's one of the things that makes life interesting. Scroll up spider, there have been several contradictions presented. What I have seen the Christian fundamentalist side give back is a lot of haughty and nasty commentary. One went so far as to refer to us as vipers. I think it’s obvious who is winning as it has been announced already. If you choose to argue with the judge, go ahead. You have already been told to appeal if you feel you have a case. The winning side can not be attacked merely because they were perceived to have brought forth the better argument. You have to also remember that you laid it in our laps to show these contradictions. All you had to do was sit back and debate. I have seen arguments for contradictions, but I haven't seen anything which would convince a reasonable judge. Sorry, just my opinion. Well you are entitled to that opinion. I would simply disagree. I have the right to do that also. I think to some degree, people are going to want to believe things no matter what and you can’t change their minds because as much evidence as you present to them, if it won’t conform to their belief structure, they just won’t have it. It's like blinders on a horse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well you are entitled to that opinion. I would simply disagree. I have the right to do that also. I think to some degree, people are going to want to believe things no matter what and you can’t change their minds because as much evidence as you present to them, if it won’t conform to their belief structure, they just won’t have it. It's like blinders on a horse. The problem, in my opinion, is lack of evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well you are entitled to that opinion. I would simply disagree. I have the right to do that also. I think to some degree, people are going to want to believe things no matter what and you can’t change their minds because as much evidence as you present to them, if it won’t conform to their belief structure, they just won’t have it. It's like blinders on a horse. The problem, in my opinion, is lack of evidence. I would agree. Also I feel that some of us were using the actual scripture. We did not rely on a lot of "well what they are saying there is actually..." We just said here it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 08/08/08 08:09 AM
|
|
Well you are entitled to that opinion. I would simply disagree. I have the right to do that also. I think to some degree, people are going to want to believe things no matter what and you can’t change their minds because as much evidence as you present to them, if it won’t conform to their belief structure, they just won’t have it. It's like blinders on a horse. The problem, in my opinion, is lack of evidence. I would agree. Also I feel that some of us were using the actual scripture. We did not rely on a lot of "well what they are saying there is actually..." We just said here it is. That's not an issue. I'm sorry, but language translation is never 100%. You have to study this stuff to get the true meaning of the verse. You can look the verses up in a concordance / lexicon and see if the person is telling the truth. To stick to...say the KJV translation of a scripture and insist that each word was translated perfectly is crazy. English doesn't have every word that exists in Hebrew. For instance, in Hebrew, there is a word for an emotion experienced by God, which is translated to "jealous" in English. In Hebrew, the word literally means "possessive of what belongs to God" and is only used in reference to God. Now you have to admit that Jealous does not match that definition. It was "close enough" to the translators. That's where non-Christians fail in trying to interpret scriptures. They will look at the scripture, find something which they believe to be a contradiction and throw their hands up and cry "it doesn't make sense". In the same situation, a Christian will investigate the meanings of the words, the history of that time, etc. Because a non-Christian doesn't have a vested interest in understanding the Bible, any apparent contradiction will be assumed to be an actual contradiction. EDIT: Another issue to note is that KJV is over 400 years old. The meaning of words has changed a lot in the in past 400 years. 200 years ago, nice meant "stupid". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Eljay, if you would like to insult the people who simply disagree with you and only ask that you actually show proof to reinforce your conclusions, rather than ask that I buy into this blindly? How to you expect that to be received? I have been willing and able to bring forth several inconsistent passages and a couple actual contradictions to the table thus far. If you have read the bible from ear to ear, as you seem to be implying, shouldn’t you be able to debate me successfully? No slight intended of course. No slight was intended. But when known exegesis is brought to your attention - you say it doesn't make sense and then you bring reference to an isolated instance in scripture to determine the definition of a term - one that is used elsewhere, and contradicts your understanding. That was my point. That isn't an insult - it's a fact. You said so yourself, so I was just refering it to you. How you recieve it is beyond my control, as I don't know the specifics of your grasp of logic - or background to the subject at hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Fri 08/08/08 09:02 AM
|
|
You said it. I then responded to you and you never replied. Shouldnt the judges be making that call anyway? You are a Christian and always take the side of anything "pro-Christian" however based in emotion,the person's invented language, or nonsensical rhetoric or faith based wishful thinking. What judges? There are no judges on this thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said it. I then responded to you and you never replied. Shouldnt the judges be making that call anyway? You are a Christian and always take the side of anything "pro-Christian" however based in emotion,the person's invented language, or nonsensical rhetoric or faith based wishful thinking. What judges? There are no jusges on this thread. Spider has created an imaginary judge when he states that "in a court of law the judge would not agree..." ..but that is his opinion and his imaginary judge.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well since you are both going to attempt to “tag team" me now, there is no point in using quotations. Eljay, you know where I stand. You can scroll up and read where I have given supportive evidence for my definition of the word "unclean" as it was used in Leviticus. Not to mention that you never could even bring a substantial argument against any other issue raised in the verse. The word “unclean” you simply latched onto. The entire passage is quite direct in its intentions and what is now expected of these people and how birth is to be handled. Why was the time twice as long for atonement if she had given birth to a female child? Why was there now a cleansing ritual to be performed by a priest? Why was childbirth now to be considered a sin? Why were women unable to touch any "holy" objects until this ritual was completed (and paid for)? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...its probably an irate male god who does not wish to share the lime light with human women on Earth anymore due to the fact that he supposedly is the creator of all life now. Why would it surprise you that these early peoples would have questioned this? Why does it surprise you now that many of us question it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well you are entitled to that opinion. I would simply disagree. I have the right to do that also. I think to some degree, people are going to want to believe things no matter what and you can’t change their minds because as much evidence as you present to them, if it won’t conform to their belief structure, they just won’t have it. It's like blinders on a horse. The problem, in my opinion, is lack of evidence. I would agree. Also I feel that some of us were using the actual scripture. We did not rely on a lot of "well what they are saying there is actually..." We just said here it is. That's not an issue. I'm sorry, but language translation is never 100%. You have to study this stuff to get the true meaning of the verse. You can look the verses up in a concordance / lexicon and see if the person is telling the truth. To stick to...say the KJV translation of a scripture and insist that each word was translated perfectly is crazy. English doesn't have every word that exists in Hebrew. For instance, in Hebrew, there is a word for an emotion experienced by God, which is translated to "jealous" in English. In Hebrew, the word literally means "possessive of what belongs to God" and is only used in reference to God. Now you have to admit that Jealous does not match that definition. It was "close enough" to the translators. That's where non-Christians fail in trying to interpret scriptures. They will look at the scripture, find something which they believe to be a contradiction and throw their hands up and cry "it doesn't make sense". In the same situation, a Christian will investigate the meanings of the words, the history of that time, etc. Because a non-Christian doesn't have a vested interest in understanding the Bible, any apparent contradiction will be assumed to be an actual contradiction. EDIT: Another issue to note is that KJV is over 400 years old. The meaning of words has changed a lot in the in past 400 years. 200 years ago, nice meant "stupid". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But then as we know already, Spider makes up rules as he goes along.
I stated three obvious contradictions, and they were not knocked down by fact, conjecture was used. But when conjecture is used for the rebuttal, Spider throws out the argument. You really are better letting him win his little game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when i first got introduced into Christianity i was given a card that said MASTERCARD - and had the 4 spiritual laws printed on the back - it was a direct take off of the MasterCard credit card stating on the front - "put Christ in "charge" of you life. Well i read the 4 spiritual laws, accepted that Jesus was the on of god, that he died and rose and through his act had taken away my sins, i said the sinners prayer, and was told to not doubt what had happened not to go on what i was feeling but on the fact that because i was sorry and asked Jesus into my heart the i was saved - what i now know as "easy believism" after learning all i did in the next few years, i did not ever go door to door to try to get people to get saved or come to the church i was attending, yet once in awhile in my music ministry, someone would approach me and ask about Jesus and god, i knew then if that were to happen i would not pull out some MasterCard and tell them to read it with me and follow the prompts on the back side, what i told them to do is what i felt was the fair and obvious thing all Christians should do - lead them to the word - i would tell them to read the 4 gospels and anything else Christ said first - understand that this was not just some free trip to heaven that Jesus out of love was demanding your life in return!! you were not just accepting him as your savior, but as your LORD, and that as your lord he was demanding your life in return for the free gift of grace - they were told to "count the cost" before going forward for once you entered their was no turning back, you would have to , in time, give up your fleshly life for a new spiritual life, habits that took away from your witness had to go whatever they may be. it was a meant harsh look at what was reality into the kingdom of Christianity and the book. now why am i telling this? - because you here are trying to save people with easy believism let god do the work - your responsibility is to lead them to the book and let the spirit do the work of conversion. do not continue to do as was done with me, or it will not stick! This is one of the clearest and concise understandings of Christianity that I have ever seen on these threads by a professed unbeliever! Though Tribo does not claim the faith of a Christian - He knows what a christian believes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and Eljay, it’s an "isolated incident"? Come on now. What about your famous "virgin Mary" Why would it be so important for Mary to be considered a "virgin"? Because it implies that god had some kind of role in knocking her up. It would have been yucky and "unholy" for her to become pregnant in the traditional manner.
My guess is it wasn't Joseph. It was another man who impregnated her and it may have been rape. Joseph probably knew what would happen if this got out and became common knowledge. A stoning more than likely. So the two of them concocted this story to spare Mary's life and get out of dodge before those crazy villagers got wind of it. |
|
|
|
|
