I just love it
-
My snide post was a trigger happy response to all kinds of crap being said in a thread further down. I was bored at work. :) But there's a grain of sincerity in my post. What makes Cameron's claim any less credible than the "official version"? Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
What makes Cameron's claim any less credible than the "official version"?
Several things. The thing I highlighted is, I am relying on eye witness accounts. Given their nature, they deserve some sort of examination, but, nevertheless, they are more likely to be true than the claims made 2000 years later, claims which pretty much belie any sort of actual proof.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known.
Sure - you're free to believe in pink unicorns, based on your faith alone. But, having faith in something intangible is different to claiming to find tangible proof of something. Cameron is doing the latter.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Inconsistencies and falsehoods? Where?
Not up to date on our biblical scholarship, are we? Well, I suppose faith makes you unquestioning...that's the entire point, right? There are alot of glaring inconsistencies, particularly between the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the gospel of John. The Gospel of John presents a much different picture of the life of Jesus than the synoptic gospels. These discrepancies lead to the Two-Source Hypothesis (if you are unfamiliar with it, you should read about it). If you believe the authorship of the gospels can be established (and by that I mean put an actual name to the authors other than "anonymous"), well then the Biblical Scholars are just waiting to hear from you right this moment. In fact, the descrepancies are so evident, biblical scholars believe the gospels are independent interpretations of an older document or documents - the "Q Document" is one proposal. It is thought that the sources of Matthew and Luke are Mark and the Q document. The implications are, of course, that the other two synoptic gospels are copies or individual interpretations of Mark and Q. This two document source idea for Matthew and Luke is just one of many solutions historians propose for the Synoptic problem. The point is that there are numerous discrepancies across the canonical gospels that aren't due to mistranslation. That's inherent inconsistency. That's a problem. Unfortunately for your argument, no such contradictions surround the other authors you quote: Plato, Plutarch, etc... But for biblical historians and scholars the problems I mentioned are large. These aren't conspiracy theories, but definitive problems that need to be addressed. The list is extensive and you can find many scholarly books on Amazon that treat these problems. I suggest you read them so that you don't just naively ask "What?, Where? How?". Anyways, my wife has suggested in no uncertain terms that I stop picking on the Christians and other religions for the evening. So, I will conclude my criticism and instead offer an olive branch and bid you good evening.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Not up to date on our biblical scholarship, are we? Well, I suppose faith makes you unquestioning...that's the entire point, right? There are alot of glaring inconsistencies, particularly between the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the gospel of John. The Gospel of John presents a much different picture of the life of Jesus than the synoptic gospels. These discrepancies lead to the Two-Source Hypothesis (if you are unfamiliar with it, you should read about it). If you believe the authorship of the gospels can be established (and by that I mean put an actual name to the authors other than "anonymous"), well then the Biblical Scholars are just waiting to hear from you right this moment. In fact, the descrepancies are so evident, biblical scholars believe the gospels are independent interpretations of an older document or documents - the "Q Document" is one proposal. It is thought that the sources of Matthew and Luke are Mark and the Q document. The implications are, of course, that the other two synoptic gospels are copies or individual interpretations of Mark and Q. This two document source idea for Matthew and Luke is just one of many solutions historians propose for the Synoptic problem. The point is that there are numerous discrepancies across the canonical gospels that aren't due to mistranslation. That's inherent inconsistency. That's a problem.
As I recall, a couple months ago I directed you to somewhere indicating that the gospels were all written in the apostles' lifetimes. You had previously claimed they were written in the 4th century. So you're clearly not a scholar on the subject and likely Googled this "Q document" today on some atheist web site. However, the gospels are not inconsistent in their account at all. The tone varies (especially that of Luke's), but not the witnessed events. In fact, they're more constitent with the accepted notion that they are each first-hand accounts. If you and I both witnessed the same event and wrote about it, we would describe the same event but in a different way depending on our individual perspective. Would that make either (or both) accounts incorrect? Or would that be the expected outcome of two different accounts?
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Unfortunately for your argument, no such contradictions surround the other authors you quote: Plato, Plutarch, etc... But for biblical historians and scholars the
-
Christian Graus wrote:
She believes it all, because it suits her.
And you keep thumping the bible because it somehow suits you in spite of the inconsistencies and contradictions. So what's your point?
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
Tim Craig wrote:
And you keep thumping the bible
Do I ? When ?
Tim Craig wrote:
in spite of the inconsistencies and contradictions
I love all the people who talk about all the 'inconsistencies and contradictions', it makes me laugh. Why ? Because most people can't list any, it's a truism. Or, they will google for a list, some of which will be right ( some dates may not line up, a number here or there is reported differently between books ). The Bible does not contradict itself on anything that it sets out to be an authority on.
Tim Craig wrote:
So what's your point?
That people will flock to this film, and regard it as absolute truth, because it supports their belief system. Other people will believe anything they are told that seems, to them, to support what they believe about the Bible. In both cases, you have groups of people taking in whatever source supports their world view. But, the athiests will be the ones more likely to be arrogant about it.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
There is no way his claim can be proven, and no reason to believe it, unless...
Are we talking about His existence or non-existence?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
*grin*
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Pfft, I'll take Monica Bellucci as Mary *any* day of the week over Jessica. I mean, don't get me wrong, Jessica is nice, but she's just a little battery powered Vespa compared to the Harley Davidson of Babeitude that is Monica Bellucci.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
Not unless she looks better in motion than she does in google image search.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
My snide post was a trigger happy response to all kinds of crap being said in a thread further down. I was bored at work. :) But there's a grain of sincerity in my post. What makes Cameron's claim any less credible than the "official version"? Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known.
Because Cameron is pretending to use "science" as his methodology. Claiming DNA testing as a way to verify this (what the hell is testing *against*????) pretends to use scientific methods to back up his claim. If he had simply said, look we found this tomb, we think this is where Jesus was buried, then that would be one thing. But to claim that DNA (and whatever other absurd "technology" is helping this along) is being used as a tool puts the burden on him. In other words, he is *not* asking you take his word as faith.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
-
CleaKO wrote:
Wacky packs, wacky packs, lalalalalalala!!!!! Anyway, yes those people existed and those people did what they did. The issue here is different. What we have from the Bible are stories written by people. Those people in some cases knew each other or knew of each other. Therefore they could communicate their stories with each other in order to have a somewhat same version. There may be evidence that a man named Jesus existed that exicted the people and was crucified. Does that mean that God exists or that he performed miracles? No.
See? I dispute one excuse and you come up with another. Your atheistic beliefs religious in nature. However, to your latest excuse, the Apostles obviously all knew eachother. However, after Jesus' death they spread out geographically. Peter, for example, went to and died in Rome. Interestingly their stories are not identical. They are first person accounts rather than the retelling of an identical tale (each has its own details but they are all consistent with one another). That's rare as historical accounts go. But you're welcome to discount all of history in order to make your dogma fit. I have no interest in converting you.
The funny thing is that I am Christian but I still believe the Bible is just a collection of stories written over a period of time. If someone is to believe in God/Jesus/whatever, they need to do it understanding that there is not much in factual evidence to backup that belief.
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School) -
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Faith is out of style these days?
Strawman!!!!!!!
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
My snide post was a trigger happy response to all kinds of crap being said in a thread further down. I was bored at work. :) But there's a grain of sincerity in my post. What makes Cameron's claim any less credible than the "official version"? Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
But there's a grain of sincerity in my post. What makes Cameron's claim any less credible than the "official version"? Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known.
But this isn't so. Christian faith does not (and never has) "allow[ed] for pretty much any argument" and certainly not "[r]egardless of what is known and not known." That you don't know what you're talking about, and apparently have no interest in knowing, doesn't change reality.
-
when religious people start waving their hands and shout "you have no proof!" I'm sure Cameron will produce much better fiction than the bible. From an entertainment point of view of course. :)
-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören
Archaelogists Criticize Cameron's Claim About Jesus[^]
Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said, "the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television."
'Nuff said. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: The Lord's Prayer in Aramaic song (audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
when religious people start waving their hands and shout "you have no proof!" I'm sure Cameron will produce much better fiction than the bible. From an entertainment point of view of course. :)
-- Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören Doch es darf nicht mir gehören Ich muss zerstören
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
religious people start waving their hands and shout "you have no proof!"
Talking of proof here are some interesting statistics[^]
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
religious people start waving their hands and shout "you have no proof!"
Talking of proof here are some interesting statistics[^]
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
But there's a grain of sincerity in my post. What makes Cameron's claim any less credible than the "official version"? Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known.
But this isn't so. Christian faith does not (and never has) "allow[ed] for pretty much any argument" and certainly not "[r]egardless of what is known and not known." That you don't know what you're talking about, and apparently have no interest in knowing, doesn't change reality.
You're missing the big picture. It's not christianity alone I have a beef with. It's faith in general. Faith is nothing but irrational beliefs. Beliefs that cannot be justified unless you want to believe. Christianity is just one loose set of irrational beliefs.
Ilíon wrote:
That you don't know what you're talking about, and apparently have no interest in knowing, doesn't change reality.
Oh, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
-- Smell-o-vision users, insert nostril tubes now
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
religious people start waving their hands and shout "you have no proof!"
Talking of proof here are some interesting statistics[^]
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
:sigh: I wish I could perform magic. :sigh:
-- Bender's humor by Microsoft Joke
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Strawman!!!!!!!
Which doubtless explains why he had to roll his eyes at what he himself had written.
I'm sure - but I owned him a strawman anyway.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
You're missing the big picture. It's not christianity alone I have a beef with. It's faith in general. Faith is nothing but irrational beliefs. Beliefs that cannot be justified unless you want to believe. Christianity is just one loose set of irrational beliefs.
Ilíon wrote:
That you don't know what you're talking about, and apparently have no interest in knowing, doesn't change reality.
Oh, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
-- Smell-o-vision users, insert nostril tubes now
The "big picture" is that you said: "Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known." and what you said is false. It doesn't apply to Christianity. Though, it clearly does apply to *your* religion. "It's not christianity alone I have a beef with." Of course. That's why any second now you're going to run out into the street and yell something like: "Mohammad is a big doodie-head!" Hell, I'd be surprised if you even have the guts to write "Islam" with a small "i." I'll bet you're even very punctual to write "Qur'an," as though that spelling were more correct (and less likely to cost you your head) than "Koran."
-
I'm sure - but I owned him a strawman anyway.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Tim Craig wrote:
And you keep thumping the bible
Do I ? When ?
Tim Craig wrote:
in spite of the inconsistencies and contradictions
I love all the people who talk about all the 'inconsistencies and contradictions', it makes me laugh. Why ? Because most people can't list any, it's a truism. Or, they will google for a list, some of which will be right ( some dates may not line up, a number here or there is reported differently between books ). The Bible does not contradict itself on anything that it sets out to be an authority on.
Tim Craig wrote:
So what's your point?
That people will flock to this film, and regard it as absolute truth, because it supports their belief system. Other people will believe anything they are told that seems, to them, to support what they believe about the Bible. In both cases, you have groups of people taking in whatever source supports their world view. But, the athiests will be the ones more likely to be arrogant about it.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
The "big picture" is that you said: "Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known." and what you said is false. It doesn't apply to Christianity. Though, it clearly does apply to *your* religion. "It's not christianity alone I have a beef with." Of course. That's why any second now you're going to run out into the street and yell something like: "Mohammad is a big doodie-head!" Hell, I'd be surprised if you even have the guts to write "Islam" with a small "i." I'll bet you're even very punctual to write "Qur'an," as though that spelling were more correct (and less likely to cost you your head) than "Koran."
Islam, mohammed, dillweed allah? And for your information, the quran is spelled koran in Swedish. You know, I couldn't care less about these superstitious figures.
Ilíon wrote:
and what you said is false. It doesn't apply to Christianity.
You're still not seeing the point. But that's ok. Your only box seem to be the one with a big cross on it. Life is shiny and happy inside that box of yours, and damn those who wants you to take a peek outside it...?
Ilíon wrote:
*your* religion
Go get a dictionary and lookup the word religion.
-- Fun for the whole family - except grandma and grandpa
-
The "big picture" is that you said: "Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known." and what you said is false. It doesn't apply to Christianity. Though, it clearly does apply to *your* religion. "It's not christianity alone I have a beef with." Of course. That's why any second now you're going to run out into the street and yell something like: "Mohammad is a big doodie-head!" Hell, I'd be surprised if you even have the guts to write "Islam" with a small "i." I'll bet you're even very punctual to write "Qur'an," as though that spelling were more correct (and less likely to cost you your head) than "Koran."
islam koran quoran mohammed was a big doodle head. Sorry, Joergen, I couldn't wait to jump on that one. :-D You sound like you're assuming Joergen is islamic. Talk about not paying attention. :laugh:
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.