Scientists try to ruin holloween
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
I haven't bathed in over a year and prefer the company of pre-op transexuals.
I hope you don't mind, but I'll go ahead and attribute that to you. What?? You're the one who said it!
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Since the Bible is typed, what do you have to say about that? It must be God's typing!! Who guards the divine typewriter?
I don't know of anybody who actually claimed that God wrote the Bible.
Red Stateler wrote:
I hope you don't mind, but I'll go ahead and attribute that to you. What?? You're the one who said it!
Ah, touche Mr. Stateler, touche.
Red Stateler wrote:
I don't know of anybody who actually claimed that God wrote the Bible.
But, but, it's HIS word, isn't it? Or IS it? So, what you're saying is that God had no input in the Bible then. So, when the manic preachers thump their Bibles and declare this "God's word", they're actually lying? But isn't that a sin?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I hope you don't mind, but I'll go ahead and attribute that to you. What?? You're the one who said it!
Ah, touche Mr. Stateler, touche.
Red Stateler wrote:
I don't know of anybody who actually claimed that God wrote the Bible.
But, but, it's HIS word, isn't it? Or IS it? So, what you're saying is that God had no input in the Bible then. So, when the manic preachers thump their Bibles and declare this "God's word", they're actually lying? But isn't that a sin?
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
But, but, it's HIS word, isn't it? Or IS it? So, what you're saying is that God had no input in the Bible then. So, when the manic preachers thump their Bibles and declare this "God's word", they're actually lying? But isn't that a sin?
No, lying isn't a sin. Bearing false witness is. Many chapters in the Bible are titled by their earthly author and I've never heard anybody say that God wrote the Bible. Stating that it's the "Word" of God does not denote, as you're trying to draw parallels to, that he opened His mouth and "said" everything in it. In fact, the New Testament is a series of eyewitness accounts and, except for the documented aspects that refer to the words that Jesus spoke, is not considered to be something that God stated, but rather what the apostles did...and stuff.
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
But, but, it's HIS word, isn't it? Or IS it? So, what you're saying is that God had no input in the Bible then. So, when the manic preachers thump their Bibles and declare this "God's word", they're actually lying? But isn't that a sin?
No, lying isn't a sin. Bearing false witness is. Many chapters in the Bible are titled by their earthly author and I've never heard anybody say that God wrote the Bible. Stating that it's the "Word" of God does not denote, as you're trying to draw parallels to, that he opened His mouth and "said" everything in it. In fact, the New Testament is a series of eyewitness accounts and, except for the documented aspects that refer to the words that Jesus spoke, is not considered to be something that God stated, but rather what the apostles did...and stuff.
Red Stateler wrote:
No, lying isn't a sin.
Oh goody! I didn't realize I had infinite credit. I guess priests really have nothing to fear then. Or, perhaps, the authors of the bible...
Red Stateler wrote:
In fact, the New Testament is a series of eyewitness accounts
Ah, so it's not actually divine then. I see. Also, in a court of law, do you think an account of an occurrence that happened over 200 years ago would qualify as admissible or do you think it would be considered flawed? I mean if something is written 200 years of more after an event that the author didn't even witness, can he actually be considered an "eyewitness", or just a chronicler?
Red Stateler wrote:
except for the documented aspects that refer to the words that Jesus spoke
ah, so it's not a literal transcript then? I see. We seem to be making some progress here.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
No, lying isn't a sin.
Oh goody! I didn't realize I had infinite credit. I guess priests really have nothing to fear then. Or, perhaps, the authors of the bible...
Red Stateler wrote:
In fact, the New Testament is a series of eyewitness accounts
Ah, so it's not actually divine then. I see. Also, in a court of law, do you think an account of an occurrence that happened over 200 years ago would qualify as admissible or do you think it would be considered flawed? I mean if something is written 200 years of more after an event that the author didn't even witness, can he actually be considered an "eyewitness", or just a chronicler?
Red Stateler wrote:
except for the documented aspects that refer to the words that Jesus spoke
ah, so it's not a literal transcript then? I see. We seem to be making some progress here.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Ah, so it's not actually divine then. I see. Also, in a court of law, do you think an account of an occurrence that happened over 200 years ago would qualify as admissible or do you think it would be considered flawed? I mean if something is written 200 years of more after an event that the author didn't even witness, can he actually be considered an "eyewitness", or just a chronicler?
Actually in a court of law, multiple corroborating witnesses is considered some of the strongest evidence there is. The four primary books of the New Testament were penned no later than 90 A.D. (all during the lifetimes of their respective authors), which is why they were included in the New Testament while others were excluded. It's considered divine because the authors are considered to have been compelled by the Holy Spirit during its authorship to guarantee accuracy. They were also in disparate regions during its authorship and the eyewitness accounts all coincide consistently.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
ah, so it's not a literal transcript then? I see. We seem to be making some progress here.
The topic (which you rather jokingly started), is whether I could be considered to have "said" something when I only typed it. Here I was referring to the "written" gospels have text that was "spoken" by Jesus whereas you claimed I "said" something that I only "typed". The non-spoken aspects of the New Testament coincide with both known historical accuracy and co-author accuracy. It's less likely that Socrates existed than Jesus' divinity, since we only have one author's account of him and his actions.
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Ah, so it's not actually divine then. I see. Also, in a court of law, do you think an account of an occurrence that happened over 200 years ago would qualify as admissible or do you think it would be considered flawed? I mean if something is written 200 years of more after an event that the author didn't even witness, can he actually be considered an "eyewitness", or just a chronicler?
Actually in a court of law, multiple corroborating witnesses is considered some of the strongest evidence there is. The four primary books of the New Testament were penned no later than 90 A.D. (all during the lifetimes of their respective authors), which is why they were included in the New Testament while others were excluded. It's considered divine because the authors are considered to have been compelled by the Holy Spirit during its authorship to guarantee accuracy. They were also in disparate regions during its authorship and the eyewitness accounts all coincide consistently.
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
ah, so it's not a literal transcript then? I see. We seem to be making some progress here.
The topic (which you rather jokingly started), is whether I could be considered to have "said" something when I only typed it. Here I was referring to the "written" gospels have text that was "spoken" by Jesus whereas you claimed I "said" something that I only "typed". The non-spoken aspects of the New Testament coincide with both known historical accuracy and co-author accuracy. It's less likely that Socrates existed than Jesus' divinity, since we only have one author's account of him and his actions.
Red Stateler wrote:
The topic (which you rather jokingly started), is whether I could be considered to have "said" something when I only typed it. Here I was referring to the "written" gospels have text that was "spoken" by Jesus whereas you claimed I "said" something that I only "typed". The non-spoken aspects of the New Testament coincide with both known historical accuracy and co-author accuracy. It's less likely that Socrates existed than Jesus' divinity, since we only have one author's account of him and his actions.
Ok, ok. I will stop busting your chops over the bible.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The topic (which you rather jokingly started), is whether I could be considered to have "said" something when I only typed it. Here I was referring to the "written" gospels have text that was "spoken" by Jesus whereas you claimed I "said" something that I only "typed". The non-spoken aspects of the New Testament coincide with both known historical accuracy and co-author accuracy. It's less likely that Socrates existed than Jesus' divinity, since we only have one author's account of him and his actions.
Ok, ok. I will stop busting your chops over the bible.
I don't mind. I should be able to defend my beliefs, otherwise I shouldn't have them. My chops only get busted when people tell me that I can't have beliefs merely by the virture of their disagreement with them.
-
I don't mind. I should be able to defend my beliefs, otherwise I shouldn't have them. My chops only get busted when people tell me that I can't have beliefs merely by the virture of their disagreement with them.
Red Stateler wrote:
I don't mind. I should be able to defend my beliefs, otherwise I shouldn't have them. My chops only get busted when people tell me that I can't have beliefs merely by the virture of their disagreement with them.
But really, you believe all that crap about Genesis, the flood, earth created in 7 days and Adam and Eve? Or do you just take the lessons from the Bible to heart? I mean, even I accept the moral lessons the Bible teaches but (for me anyways) you have to take what is written in there in context and not as a literal interpretation.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I don't mind. I should be able to defend my beliefs, otherwise I shouldn't have them. My chops only get busted when people tell me that I can't have beliefs merely by the virture of their disagreement with them.
But really, you believe all that crap about Genesis, the flood, earth created in 7 days and Adam and Eve? Or do you just take the lessons from the Bible to heart? I mean, even I accept the moral lessons the Bible teaches but (for me anyways) you have to take what is written in there in context and not as a literal interpretation.
The Catholic Church doesn't even take that as literal text. Genesis accepted as largely allegorical. There are numerous parts of the Old testament that are overtly labelled as allegorical or personal opinion (though Genesis is not). There are also numerous events in the Old Testament which have been verified (disregarding the supernatual) through archeology. I consider the New Testament to be factual accounts and accept the Old Testament as a primarily factual accounts with a fare share of allegory (like Adam and Eve), but the two are often distinguishable by the text.
-
The Catholic Church doesn't even take that as literal text. Genesis accepted as largely allegorical. There are numerous parts of the Old testament that are overtly labelled as allegorical or personal opinion (though Genesis is not). There are also numerous events in the Old Testament which have been verified (disregarding the supernatual) through archeology. I consider the New Testament to be factual accounts and accept the Old Testament as a primarily factual accounts with a fare share of allegory (like Adam and Eve), but the two are often distinguishable by the text.
Do you accept the Book of Revelation as "factual"?
-
Halloween.. Another day to celebrate.. I think most of us folks just do it for FUN (We get Candy) and do not think to seriously about it... Only Witch I ever saw was my grade school Math teacher! Why I'm so bad at MATH!
-
Do you accept the Book of Revelation as "factual"?
I don't place much weight on it since it's not considered (by me and many others) to really be a historical account. It's meaning is also not clear and open to interpretation and I can't make any sense of it. Basically it's neither here nor there as, whether factual or not, I have no idea what it's even talking about.
-
I don't place much weight on it since it's not considered (by me and many others) to really be a historical account. It's meaning is also not clear and open to interpretation and I can't make any sense of it. Basically it's neither here nor there as, whether factual or not, I have no idea what it's even talking about.
Red Stateler wrote:
I don't place much weight on it since it's not considered (by me and many others) to really be a historical account. It's meaning is also not clear and open to interpretation and I can't make any sense of it. Basically it's neither here nor there as, whether factual or not, I have no idea what it's even talking about.
Interesting. It appears we agree up to a point. For me, it stops with the existence of God. I don't accept that, nor do I accept the death and resurrection of Christ even if I accept his historical existence. In other words, I accept the Bible as a moral code, but I cannot accept the "divinity" of Christ or the existence of a God.