| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Thom Madura
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: Re: PARTS of The Bible ARE Inspired by God. But *Not* ALL o |
 |
|
monkfish wrote:
| Quote: | Al Smith wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
In all my life, I have NEVER YET met any fellow Christian
who has the remotest CLUE about what we'll be doing throughout
eternity. So much for that passage having *anything* to do
with that.
Quilting. That's my guess. You can burn up an enormous number of
hours quilting.
-Al-
You don't seem to realize that
your guess will be with you for eternity.
Care to guess again?
Is there anything you would like to do
for eternity, other than sex, eating, or drinking?
You mean I don't get to change my mind? Well that sucks. If I had to
make a choice, I'd go for scholarly study. I'm doing that in this
life, anyway, so why swap horses in the middle of the time stream?
-Al-
Very good choice.
That might be why we are said
to be created in the image of God.
Incorrect - You have it backwards |
Gods are created by MAN in their image an likeness
AND - no religion teaches that you will have a choice in what you want
to do for all eternity either. No doubt because they don't have a clue
either. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
monkfish
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: Re: PARTS of The Bible ARE Inspired by God. But *Not* ALL o |
|
|
Thom Madura wrote:
| Quote: | monkfish wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
In all my life, I have NEVER YET met any fellow Christian
who has the remotest CLUE about what we'll be doing throughout
eternity. So much for that passage having *anything* to do
with that.
Quilting. That's my guess. You can burn up an enormous number of
hours quilting.
-Al-
You don't seem to realize that
your guess will be with you for eternity.
Care to guess again?
That is nonsense - what you are saying is that YOU decide what you will
be doing for eternity - based on your own guesses!
Even religion doesn't say that.
|
You are confused.
Each moment is eternity.
--
monkfish
* alt.atheism is removed from the groups header. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
monkfish
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: Re: PARTS of The Bible ARE Inspired by God. But *Not* ALL o |
|
|
Thom Madura wrote:
| Quote: | monkfish wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
In all my life, I have NEVER YET met any fellow Christian
who has the remotest CLUE about what we'll be doing throughout
eternity. So much for that passage having *anything* to do
with that.
Quilting. That's my guess. You can burn up an enormous number of
hours quilting.
-Al-
You don't seem to realize that
your guess will be with you for eternity.
Care to guess again?
Is there anything you would like to do
for eternity, other than sex, eating, or drinking?
You mean I don't get to change my mind? Well that sucks. If I had to
make a choice, I'd go for scholarly study. I'm doing that in this
life, anyway, so why swap horses in the middle of the time stream?
-Al-
Very good choice.
That might be why we are said
to be created in the image of God.
Incorrect - You have it backwards
Gods are created by MAN in their image an likeness
AND - no religion teaches that you will have a choice in what you want
to do for all eternity either. No doubt because they don't have a clue
either.
|
Each moment is eternity.
Do you have any idea
what kind of statement that is?
--
monkfish
* alt.atheism is removed from the groups header. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Al Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:08 am Post subject: Re: PARTS of The Bible ARE Inspired by God. But *Not* ALL o |
|
|
| Quote: | Thom Madura wrote:
Each moment is eternity.
Do you have any idea
what kind of statement that is?
-- monkfish
|
Makes perfect sense to me. What it means is that time is continuous,
and cannot be divided, any more than you can divide a circle yet
still call it a circle. Divisions of time are arbitrary and
illusory. Each "moment" is all of time. The part contains the whole,
because there is no part.
-Al- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
skeptic griggsy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: Fuck the contradictions. Let's consider the Bible for it |
|
|
On Jul 24, 11:02 pm, RedDog <cap...@budweiser.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jul 24, 3:40 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:03:12 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) --
Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!"
xanadu2...@mchsi.com> wrote:
: On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:05:07 -0400,: "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ .. ]
: > So waiting for you to decide:
:
: >* you can be honest and admit the one I addressed was not a
: >contradiction at all as was clearly explained, and we can
: >continue to other supposed "contradictions", or
: >* you can point out exactly what is wrong with what I pointed
: >out, and we can go from there in clarifying that supposed
: >contradiction.
:
: As soon as I have finished considering ebverything you said
: about that one, I WILL let you know.
Then when you're done considering and will give a response on
this, and I quote you: "real contradiction that is clear-cut
that no one will ever be able to explain them away" in the list
you provided, we can continue.
LOL. ya know, Gabby boy, you're absolutely right! The Bible never does
contradict the fact that your God is a lustful and bloodthirsty
asshole!  ..... For example:
"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every
firstborn--both men and animals--and I will bring judgment on all the
gods of Egypt. I am the LORD." (Exodus 12:12)
"At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the
firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the
prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the
livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians
got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for
there was not a house without someone dead." (Exodus 12:29)
The LORD said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the
Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."So twelve
thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were
supplied from the clans of Israel. They fought against Midian, as the
LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man.
They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as
all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the
people and animals, Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of
the community went to meet them outside the camp.
Moses was angry with the officers of the army--the commanders of
thousands and commanders of hundreds--who returned from the battle.
"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were
the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning
the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a
plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every
woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who
has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31)
And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through
the midst of Jerusalem....let not your eye spare, neither have ye
pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and
women...." (Ezekiel 9: 4-6)
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to
Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from
Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1Sam.15:2-3)
The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man
and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs. I said,
I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of
them to cease from among men (Deuteronomy 32:25)
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God:
they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces,
and their women with child shall be ripped up. (Hosea 13:16)
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the
voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they
have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father
and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of
his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the
elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will
not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men
of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou
put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
(Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his
father or mother, then his father and mother shall seize him and bring
him out to the elders of the city...then all the men of the city shall
stone him to death." Deut 21:18
"If anyone secretly entices you--even if it is your brother, your
father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the
wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend-- saying, "Let us go
worship other gods" you must not yield to or heed any such persons.
Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall
surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute
them, and then the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for
trying to turn you away from the Lord your God." Deut 13:6-10
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)
"A curse on him who is lax in doing the Lord's work! A curse on him
who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" Jer 48:10
"I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with
your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with your
flowing blood..." Ez 32/ 5,6
"Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and sons
shall eat their fathers...I will send famine and wild beasts against
you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and blood
shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you." Ez 5/
10,17
"Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare
and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and
maidens, little children and women..." Ez 9 / 5,6
"I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs; I will tear
open their breast, and there I will devour them like a lion, as a wild
beast would rend them." Hos 13:8
"I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they
could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in
making them offer by fire all their first born, that I might horrify
them; that they might know that I am the Lord. Ezekiel 20: 25-26
"...I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; I will
take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and
he shall lie with your wives in the light of this sun." 2 Sam 12/ 11
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall
it be in the end of this world ... And shall cast them into a furnace
of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. ... And shall
cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and
gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13)
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast
them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or
maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into
everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast
it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye,
rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. (Matthew
18:8-9)
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.
(Matthew 25:41)
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into
the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and
the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it
is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be
cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye
offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the
kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell
fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For
every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be
salted with salt. (Mark 9:43-49)
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they
are burned. (John 15:6)
The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured
out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be
tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels,
and in the presence of the Lamb. (Revelation 14:1)
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate
the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her
flesh, and burn her with fire. (Revelation 17:16)
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought
miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the
mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were
cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. (Revelation
19:20)
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into
the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15)
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,
and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall
have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)
----------------------------------
Ya see, Gabby, we honest folk don't give a flying fuck whether your
Bible contains contradictions or not. We judge it on quite *other*
merits, and those other "merits" show the "god" you worship ...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Red Dog , Fr. Leo Booth suggests that one should find meaningful
metaphors in those texts! I think that we should go after errancy as
being in the end just as faith-based as inerrancy. Notice how Bishop
John Shelby Spong so loves the Buy-bull even though he finds so much
horrid in it and states that we should have a humanist ethic. As the
Christian song says, almost persuaded- of reality,but still because of
the shield of faith , to irrationalism! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
James Riske
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:14 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:57:04 GMT
"(_`_._Craig Chilton_.___) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:43:06 -0400,
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
... we can continue.
|
Poor Craig, Gabriel soundly refuted you, it was ugly, and as predicted you weaved and dodged the facts and absolutely could not handle defeat.
And I'm certain this wont be the last time....
--
Frodo: "Why do you do that?"
Sam: "What?"
Frodo: "Call him names? Run him down all the time."
Sam: "Because that's what he is Mister Frodo. There's naught left in him
but lies and deceit. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:14:37 -0400,
James Riske <james.riske@hotmail.com> ...
... once again proved himself DELUSIONAL when he wrote
THIS absurd and totally dishonest sentence:
| Quote: | Poor Craig, Gabriel soundly refuted you, it was ugly, and as
predicted you weaved and dodged the facts and absolutely could
not handle defeat.
|
You really OUTDID yourself THIS time, loon. The entire
sentence you just wrote was a lie.
I trounced Gabriel, and proved to him that there were
contradictions in the Bible that NO one could explain away.
Least of all little self-rightious clowns like him.
Ever since I presented him with three of those that show
contractions in numbers and names cited in passages, there
hasn't been a peep out of him in response.
And -- FASCINATINGLY -- the very PRESENCE of contra-
dictions in the Bible is PROOF that only PART of it -- and NOT
*all* of it, could be Divinely-inspired by a perfect God.
Which MEANS that it is very LIKELY that passages which
seem to condemn homosexuality are injections of hatefulness
into their writings by bigoted authors.
(It is to the Bible's CREDIT, though, that not a single word
was spoken anywhere within it against abortion... it never
once defended RPEs (Reproductive-process entities) AS
people... ALL of the human life that it DOES defend has been
BORN... and it makes it very clear that BIRTH is the defining
point in the emphasis and importance it ascribes to BIRTH
Order, First-BORNS, and BIRTHrights.
So at least any bigotry that infests parts of the Bible
does NOT extend to women from the standpoint of abortion.)
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
James Riske
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: Re: Craig Chilton - humiliated liar |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:46:21 GMT
"(_`_._Craig Chilton_.___) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:14:37 -0400,
James Riske <james.riske@hotmail.com> ...
... once again proved himself DELUSIONAL when he wrote
THIS absurd and totally dishonest sentence:
Poor Craig, Gabriel soundly refuted you, it was ugly, and as
predicted you weaved and dodged the facts and absolutely could
not handle defeat.
You really OUTDID yourself THIS time, loon. The entire
sentence you just wrote was a lie.
I trounced Gabriel, and proved to him that there were
contradictions in the Bible that NO one could explain away.
Least of all little self-rightious clowns like him.
snip |
More lies by documented liar and noted bible revisionist Craig Chilton, and I am not at all surprised.
Gabriel soundly refuted your claims in Message-ID: <7f9f84p1ee2pj7ci3c69dhi8l39q05ae7t@4ax.com>, and you have been dodging and weaving ever since, I am not at all surprised to see you falsly claim victory even though the facts prove otherwise liar Chilton.
Gabriel murdered your argument and showed you to be a lying fool, plain and simple.
--
Frodo: "Why do you do that?"
Sam: "What?"
Frodo: "Call him names? Run him down all the time."
Sam: "Because that's what he is Mister Frodo. There's naught left in him
but lies and deceit. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
No One
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:04 am Post subject: Re: Craig Chilton - humiliated liar |
|
|
James Riske <james.riske@hotmail.com> writes:
| Quote: | On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:46:21 GMT
"(_`_._Craig Chilton_.___) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
I trounced Gabriel, and proved to him that there were
contradictions in the Bible that NO one could explain away.
Least of all little self-rightious clowns like him.
snip
Gabriel soundly refuted your claims in Message-ID:
7f9f84p1ee2pj7ci3c69dhi8l39q05ae7t@4ax.com>, and you have been
dodging and weaving ever since, I am not at all surprised to see you
falsly claim victory even though the facts prove otherwise liar
Chilton.
|
Gabriel did no such thing - he may have tried to refute something
Chilton said regarding contradictions in the Bible but failed. The
Bible does in fact have contradictions in it, and it's hardly
surprising given the number of independent authors and numerous
transcriptions over the years. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:43 pm Post subject: Re: Craig Chilton - humiliated liar |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:51:58 -0400,
James Riske <james.riske@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Craig Chilton -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
James Riske <james.riske@hotmail.com> ...
|
| Quote: | ... once again proved himself DELUSIONAL when he wrote
THIS absurd and totally dishonest sentence:
Poor Craig, Gabriel soundly refuted you, it was ugly, and as
predicted you weaved and dodged the facts and absolutely
could not handle defeat.
You really OUTDID yourself THIS time, loon. The entire
sentence you just wrote was a lie.
I trounced Gabriel, and proved to him that there were
contradictions in the Bible that NO one could explain away.
Least of all little self-rightious clowns like him.
Ever since I presented him with three of those that show
contractions in numbers and names cited in passages, there
hasn't been a peep out of him in response.
And -- FASCINATINGLY -- the very PRESENCE of contra-
dictions in the Bible is PROOF that only PART of it -- and NOT
*all* of it, could be Divinely-inspired by a perfect God.
Which MEANS that it is very LIKELY that passages which
seem to condemn homosexuality are injections of hatefulness
into their writings by bigoted authors.
(It is to the Bible's CREDIT, though, that not a single word
was spoken anywhere within it against abortion... it never
once defended RPEs (Reproductive-process entities) AS
people... ALL of the human life that it DOES defend has been
BORN... and it makes it very clear that BIRTH is the defining
point in the emphasis and importance it ascribes to BIRTH
Order, First-BORNS, and BIRTHrights.
So at least any bigotry that infests parts of the Bible
does NOT extend to women from the standpoint of abortion.)
More lies by documented liar and noted bible revisionist
Craig Chilton.
|
To the contrary. YOU just lied about me, since everything I said
above is 100% TRUE. (So it's no surprise that you OMITTED most
of it. But I've *restored* it, so everyone can easilu see how ludicrous
you are being.)
For a person to be a Bible "revisionist" (if such could even be
possible outside of book-publishing circles), he would have to
make claims about the Bible that are NOT tru.
However, **everything** I said about the Bible IS 100% true,
and neither you nor anyone else will be able to show otherwise.
(And why would you even WANT to? Do you have something
against FACTS? Oh. Yeah. That's right -- ALL bigots do.)
| Quote: | Gabriel soundly refuted your claims in Message-ID:
7f9f84p1ee2pj7ci3c69dhi8l39q05ae7t@4ax.com>, and you
have been dodging and weaving ever since.
|
Wrong. I accepted the possibility that ONE possible contradiction
that I presented him might be explainable. But SINCE then, he's
been unable to refute ANY of the OTHER ones I presented to him.
And since they deal with names and numbers, it is probable that
neither he, nor anyone else, EVER will be able to.
<LIE-flush, already refuted>
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Emerson Wainwright
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Jul 29, 7:46 pm, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's
Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!" <xanadu2...@mchsi.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:14:37 -0400,
James Riske <james.ri...@hotmail.com> ...
... once again proved himself DELUSIONAL when he wrote
THIS absurd and totally dishonest sentence:
Poor Craig, Gabriel soundly refuted you, it was ugly, and as
predicted you weaved and dodged the facts and absolutely could
not handle defeat.
You really OUTDID yourself THIS time, loon. The entire
sentence you just wrote was a lie.
I trounced Gabriel, and proved to him that there were
contradictions in the Bible that NO one could explain away.
Least of all little self-rightious clowns like him.
Ever since I presented him with three of those that show
contractions in numbers and names cited in passages, there
hasn't been a peep out of him in response.
And -- FASCINATINGLY -- the very PRESENCE of contra-
dictions in the Bible is PROOF that only PART of it -- and NOT
*all* of it, could be Divinely-inspired by a perfect God.
Which MEANS that it is very LIKELY that passages which
seem to condemn homosexuality are injections of hatefulness
into their writings by bigoted authors.
|
The passages regarding homosexuality are based on the culture of the
time and place whence those passages came. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gabriel
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:08:21 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) --
Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!"
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
: On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:33:44 -0400,
: "Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
: > Agendas: Extinction!"<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
:
: >>: (1) According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about
: >> bearing his own witness?
: >>
: >> If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true. (John 5:3 1)
: >>
: >> Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true. (John 8:14)
:
: > As usual, people look at two isolated phrases that seem to say
: > opposite things, and don't look at what was said before it and
: > after it to see what is really being said. Let's take a closer
: > look at the context around it so we can see what's being said:
: >
: > John 5:18 KJVR Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,
: > because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that
: > God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
: >
: > So in response to them wanting to kill him for saying that God
: > was his father, Jesus responds with many things, including the
: > verse you're referring to:
: >
: > Jesus said,
: > John 5:31-34 KJVR If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not
: > true. 32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I
: > know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. 33 Ye
: > sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. 34 But I
: > receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye
: > might be saved.
: >
: > Jesus is pointing out that according to their ways, there frail
: > human ways of trying to accept man's testimony being accepted on
: > the testimony alone, that If "I bear witness of myself, my
: > witness is not true". This is their way of supposedly
: > establishing truth, given that so many are slaves to sin and lie.
: >
: > So showing their hopeless method of establishing truth, a method
: >that God does not need (v34). So to give them what they "need":
: >to have their frail human method met, Jesus points out (v33) that
: >John bares Him witness.
: >
: >
: > Now compare this with John 8:14, which Jesus is now making much
: > more of a reference to Him really being the son of God:
: >
: > John 8:13-18 KJVR The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou
: > bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. 14 Jesus
: > answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet
: > my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go;
: > but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. 15 Ye judge
: > after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 And yet if I judge, my
: > judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that
: > sent me. 17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony
: > of two men is true. 18 I am one that bear witness of myself,
: > and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
: >
: > So again (v13) they are repeating their human method by pointing
: > out how Jesus is only bearing witness of Himself, which makes His
: > witness not true. Jesus responds at first in actual truth,
: > ignoring their frail human version of truth, being the son of God
: > He boldly claims "Although I bear record of myself, yet my record
: > is true" - claiming that although in their human frail way of
: > establishing truth, Jesus' testimony is true because He is the
: > son of God, and as such He is unique in not needing another
: > witness to satisfy man's weak version of establishing truth
: > amongst so many sinners (liars).
: >
: > As Jesus says, they "judge after the flesh" - judge in mere human
: > ways. But He does finish up right there by repeating their human
: > ways of judging by pointing out, repeating what He also was
: > saying in (5:31) "It is also written *in your law* (not God's
: > law), that the testimony of two men is true" - so He *is*
: > rightfully repeating what He stated in John 5:31, which is their
: > mere human way of judging truth.
: >
: > And finally using their frail human logic, but now repeating that
: > Jesus, being the Son of God, is true on His own testimony: Jesus
: > points to God this time as his second witness, not mentioning
: > John at all. This time Jesus is appealing directly to the fact
: > that He is the son of God, and that's why what He says is truth
: > and has no need for this weak human method of trying to determine
: > truth by only someone's testimony.
: >
: > So as you can see Jesus is pointing out the same thing in both
: > cases: their human law of nothing being true unless there be two
: > witnesses. But the second time Jesus is bolding showing how He
: > alone does not need the witness of another to validate His
: > testimony, for as we know He is the Son of God. There was no
: > contradiction at all.
:
: I'll accept this rationalization,
Ok then, let's back up and look at your original post at how it
was clear you did ignore the rationalization, and yet again you
throw a string of insults as if that makes you "right". Then
we'll take a look at what you've retreated to, all that's left,
really: the ones with numbers.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:43:07 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) --
Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!"
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
: On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:05:25 -0400,
: Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
: > Agendas: Extinction!"<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
:
:
: >> PARTS of The Bible ARE Inspired by God.
: >> But *Not* ALL of it.
: >> Its CONTRADICTIONS are Proof-Positive of That.
: >>
: >> There are MANY very REAL contradictions in the Bible. Ones
: >> that are so clear-cut that NO one will EVER be able to explain
: >> them away.
:
: > They've long been explained away - you just refuse to look at
: > them, which does not equate to them not being explained.
:
: You're either a blatant liar, or you're delusional. Because so
: MANY contradictions are OBVIOUS and irrefutable ones. Why can't
: you grow enough of a brain to simply ACCEPT that fact, rather
: than deluding yourself, or lying to everyone? Because as things
: stand now, you are a laughingstock having ZERO credibility.
So again, I pointed out that
* these have been explained away and that
* you refuse to look at them.
You called me a blatant liar or delusional, yet I showed exactly
what I said: the very first one in *your* list I looked at *was*
explained away, and you *did* refuse to look at the explanations,
since you accepted the common explanation *once I showed it to
you* to show it's not a contradiction at all. Clearly you never
looked for yourself to see exactly what I pointed out to you that
you accepted.
Question: Why are you claiming to have looked at them, when
really you have not? You said before that you never lie in your
posts, but you clearly did yet again right there.
Second question: Having not looked at them, but claimed you did,
why did you instead start throwing insults at me when you were in
fact lying?
Third question: And have you looked at the explanations for the
ones with numbers that you now fall back on? Be careful: remember
you said you never lie in your posts. (Which has been shown to be
incorrect)
: but that leaves hundreds of
: possible contradictions to go, some if which NO one will ever
: be able to refute, because they are so clear-cut.
:
: Like THESE, which deal with conflicts of NAMES and NUMBERS:
:
: (1) God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years
: of famine?
:
: Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
:
: Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
:
: (2) How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
:
: Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
:
: Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
:
: (3) How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
:
: Eighteen (2 Kings 24:
:
: Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
So if you claim to have looked at explanations for these, please
quote what the common explanation is, give a link, and then point
out in detail why they are wrong.
The reason I point all this out is to get you to realize the
beliefs you are following have you lying and throwing insults to
back them up, which if you are really intent about being honest
then this should be a wake-up call. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Emerson Wainwright
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Jul 30, 3:31 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:27:09 -0700 (PDT), Emerson Wainwright
emersonwainwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: On Jul 29, 7:46 pm, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's
: Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!" <xanadu2...@mchsi.com> wrote:
: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:14:37 -0400,
: > James Riske <james.ri...@hotmail.com> ...
:
: > ... once again proved himself DELUSIONAL when he wrote
: > THIS absurd and totally dishonest sentence:
:
: > > Poor Craig, Gabriel soundly refuted you, it was ugly, and as
: > > predicted you weaved and dodged the facts and absolutely could
: > > not handle defeat.
:
: > You really OUTDID yourself THIS time, loon. The entire
: > sentence you just wrote was a lie.
:
: > I trounced Gabriel, and proved to him that there were
: > contradictions in the Bible that NO one could explain away.
: > Least of all little self-rightious clowns like him.
:
: > Ever since I presented him with three of those that show
: > contractions in numbers and names cited in passages, there
: > hasn't been a peep out of him in response.
:
: > And -- FASCINATINGLY -- the very PRESENCE of contra-
: > dictions in the Bible is PROOF that only PART of it -- and NOT
: > *all* of it, could be Divinely-inspired by a perfect God.
:
: > Which MEANS that it is very LIKELY that passages which
: > seem to condemn homosexuality are injections of hatefulness
: > into their writings by bigoted authors.
:
: The passages regarding homosexuality are based on the culture of the
: time and place whence those passages came.
Sinning is not ok just because a "culture" accepts it or not as
"ok".
|
Of course it is. "Sin" is a cultural concept. You, somehow, think
that your Bible pre-dates the culture in which it was written!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:53:16 -0400,
Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction!"<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) "<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
|
[[[ To "Gabriel" -- Earlier this morning, I thought I wouldn't have
time until this evening to respond to this post. But some time
unexpctedly became available, so I did it sooner. Here it is. ]]]
| Quote: | (1) According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about
bearing his own witness?
If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true. (John 5:3 1)
Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true. (John 8:14)
As usual, people look at two isolated phrases that seem to say
opposite things, and don't look at what was said before it and
after it to see what is really being said. Let's take a closer
look at the context around it so we can see what's being said:
John 5:18 KJVR Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,
because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that
God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
So in response to them wanting to kill him for saying that God
was his father, Jesus responds with many things, including the
verse you're referring to:
Jesus said,
John 5:31-34 KJVR If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not
true. 32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I
know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. 33 Ye
sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. 34 But I
receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye
might be saved.
Jesus is pointing out that according to their ways, their frail
human ways of trying to accept man's testimony being accepted
on the testimony alone, that If "I bear witness of myself, my
witness is not true". This is their way of supposedly establishing
truth, given that so many are slaves to sin and lie.
So showing their hopeless method of establishing truth, a method
that God does not need (v34). So to give them what they "need":
to have their frail human method met, Jesus points out (v33) that
John bares Him witness.
Now compare this with John 8:14, which Jesus is now making much
more of a reference to Him really being the son of God:
John 8:13-18 KJVR The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou
bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. 14 Jesus
: > answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet
my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go;
but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. 15 Ye judge
after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 And yet if I judge, my
judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that
sent me. 17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony
of two men is true. 18 I am one that bear witness of myself,
and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
So again (v13) they are repeating their human method by pointing
out how Jesus is only bearing witness of Himself, which makes His
witness not true. Jesus responds at first in actual truth,
ignoring their frail human version of truth, being the son of God
He boldly claims "Although I bear record of myself, yet my record
is true" - claiming that although in their human frail way of
establishing truth, Jesus' testimony is true because He is the
son of God, and as such He is unique in not needing another
witness to satisfy man's weak version of establishing truth
amongst so many sinners (liars).
As Jesus says, they "judge after the flesh" - judge in mere human
ways. But He does finish up right there by repeating their human
ways of judging by pointing out, repeating what He also was
saying in (5:31) "It is also written *in your law* (not God's
law), that the testimony of two men is true" - so He *is*
rightfully repeating what He stated in John 5:31, which is their
mere human way of judging truth.
And finally using their frail human logic, but now repeating that
Jesus, being the Son of God, is true on His own testimony: Jesus
points to God this time as his second witness, not mentioning
John at all. This time Jesus is appealing directly to the fact
that He is the son of God, and that's why what He says is truth
and has no need for this weak human method of trying to determine
truth by only someone's testimony.
So as you can see Jesus is pointing out the same thing in both
cases: their human law of nothing being true unless there be two
witnesses. But the second time Jesus is bolding showing how He
alone does not need the witness of another to validate His
testimony, for as we know He is the Son of God. There was no
contradiction at all.
I'll accept this rationalization, ...
Ok then, let's back up and look at your original post at how it
was clear you did ignore the rationalization, and yet again you
throw a string of insults as if that makes you "right". Then
we'll take a look at what you've retreated to, all that's left,
really: the ones with numbers.
|
There are a LOT of them left, with AND without names and/or
numbers, as I pointed out before, but I'll respond to your thinking
that I "ignored" your rationalization, earlier, farther down.
| Quote: | On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:43:07 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) --
Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!"
xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
PARTS of The Bible ARE Inspired by God.
But *Not* ALL of it.
Its CONTRADICTIONS are Proof-Positive of That.
There are MANY very REAL contradictions in the Bible. Ones
that are so clear-cut that NO one will EVER be able to explain
them away.
They've long been explained away - you just refuse to look at
them, which does not equate to them not being explained.
You're either a blatant liar, or you're delusional. Because so
MANY contradictions are OBVIOUS and irrefutable ones. Why can't
you grow enough of a brain to simply ACCEPT that fact, rather
than deluding yourself, or lying to everyone? Because as things
stand now, you are a laughingstock having ZERO credibility.
So again, I pointed out that
* these have been explained away and that
* you refuse to look at them.
You called me a blatant liar or delusional, yet I showed exactly
what I said: the very first one in *your* list I looked at *was*
explained away, and you *did* refuse to look at the explanations...
|
Wrong! I DID look at those explanations, and on the face of them,
them made sense. I just wanted to take a little more time to examine
them before declaring to you that I accepted what you said as BEING
a reasonable explanation.
| Quote: | ...since you accepted the common explanation *once I showed it to
you* to show it's not a contradiction at all. Clearly you never
looked for yourself to see exactly what I pointed out to you that
you accepted.
Question: Why are you claiming to have looked at them, when
really you have not? You said before that you never lie in your
posts, but you clearly did yet again right there.
|
As I just now said, I HAD by then looked at them, and even was
almost ready to accept them, pending further purusal of them on my
part. I *could* have come right out and said that Jesus WAS weasel-
wording his way out of a tight spot (without actually lying), but also
that He was justified in doing so because THEY were employing weasel-
wording in an attempt to entrap him. And THAT is what caused me to
ultimately accept your explanation for that apparent contradiction.
| Quote: | Second question: Having not looked at them, ...
|
Wrong. I *did* look at them, as I just pointed out.
| Quote: | ...why did you instead start throwing insults at me?
|
Those "insults" were in response to your ludicrous claim that ALL
contradictions have been explained away. Since so MANY of those
contradictions are SO clear-cut (especially the ones dealing with
names and numbers) that they probably can NEVER be reasonably
explained away. By ANYone.
| Quote: | Third question: And have you looked at the explanations for the
ones with numbers that you now fall back on? Be careful: remember
you said you never lie in your posts. (Which has been shown to be
incorrect)
|
I have never claimed to have looked at ALL of the so-called
"explanations" for Biblical contradictions. YOU are the one who claims
it is possible to do so, so the onus is on YOU to prove that. If you find
those explanations by Googling or some other method than out of your
own head, that's fine. But UNLESS you can come up with ACTUAL
and REASONABLE explanations, the contradictions stand AS contra-
dictions, as far as our discussions are concerned. And the challenge
to you now stands with THESE three, that I presented before:
| Quote: | ...but that leaves hundreds of possible contradictions to go,
some if which NO one will ever be able to refute, because they
are so clear-cut.
Like THESE, which deal with conflicts of NAMES and NUMBERS:
(1) God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years
of famine?
Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
(2) How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
(3) How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
So if you claim to have looked at explanations for these, please
quote what the common explanation is, give a link, and then point
out in detail why they are wrong.
|
I have never claimed to have seen explanations for these contra-
dictions. If you can find any that hold water, then fine. But until then,
I will continue to REGARD them to be the very OBVIOUS contradictions
that they appear to be.
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gabriel
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:44:40 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) --
Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!"
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
: On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:53:16 -0400,
: Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
: > Agendas: Extinction!"<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
: >> "Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >>> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) "<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
:
:
: [[[ To "Gabriel" -- Earlier this morning, I thought I wouldn't have
: time until this evening to respond to this post. But some time
: unexpctedly became available, so I did it sooner. Here it is. ]]]
:
:
: >>>> (1) According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about
: >>>> bearing his own witness?
: >>>>
: >>>> If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true. (John 5:3 1)
: >>>>
: >>>> Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true. (John 8:14)
:
: >>> As usual, people look at two isolated phrases that seem to say
: >>> opposite things, and don't look at what was said before it and
: >>> after it to see what is really being said. Let's take a closer
: >>> look at the context around it so we can see what's being said:
: >>>
: >>> John 5:18 KJVR Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,
: >>> because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that
: >>> God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
: >>>
: >>> So in response to them wanting to kill him for saying that God
: >>> was his father, Jesus responds with many things, including the
: >>> verse you're referring to:
: >>>
: >>> Jesus said,
: >>> John 5:31-34 KJVR If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not
: >>> true. 32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I
: >>> know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. 33 Ye
: >>> sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. 34 But I
: >>> receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye
: >>> might be saved.
: >>>
: >>> Jesus is pointing out that according to their ways, their frail
: >>> human ways of trying to accept man's testimony being accepted
: >>> on the testimony alone, that If "I bear witness of myself, my
: >>> witness is not true". This is their way of supposedly establishing
: >>> truth, given that so many are slaves to sin and lie.
: >>>
: >>> So showing their hopeless method of establishing truth, a method
: >>>that God does not need (v34). So to give them what they "need":
: >>>to have their frail human method met, Jesus points out (v33) that
: >>>John bares Him witness.
: >>>
: >>>
: >>> Now compare this with John 8:14, which Jesus is now making much
: >>> more of a reference to Him really being the son of God:
: >>>
: >>> John 8:13-18 KJVR The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou
: >>> bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. 14 Jesus
: >: > answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet
: >>> my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go;
: >>> but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. 15 Ye judge
: >>> after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 And yet if I judge, my
: >>> judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that
: >>> sent me. 17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony
: >>> of two men is true. 18 I am one that bear witness of myself,
: >>> and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
: >>>
: >>> So again (v13) they are repeating their human method by pointing
: >>> out how Jesus is only bearing witness of Himself, which makes His
: >>> witness not true. Jesus responds at first in actual truth,
: >>> ignoring their frail human version of truth, being the son of God
: >>> He boldly claims "Although I bear record of myself, yet my record
: >>> is true" - claiming that although in their human frail way of
: >>> establishing truth, Jesus' testimony is true because He is the
: >>> son of God, and as such He is unique in not needing another
: >>> witness to satisfy man's weak version of establishing truth
: >>> amongst so many sinners (liars).
: >>>
: >>> As Jesus says, they "judge after the flesh" - judge in mere human
: >>> ways. But He does finish up right there by repeating their human
: >>> ways of judging by pointing out, repeating what He also was
: >>> saying in (5:31) "It is also written *in your law* (not God's
: >>> law), that the testimony of two men is true" - so He *is*
: >>> rightfully repeating what He stated in John 5:31, which is their
: >>> mere human way of judging truth.
: >>>
: >>> And finally using their frail human logic, but now repeating that
: >>>Jesus, being the Son of God, is true on His own testimony: Jesus
: >>> points to God this time as his second witness, not mentioning
: >>> John at all. This time Jesus is appealing directly to the fact
: >>> that He is the son of God, and that's why what He says is truth
: >>> and has no need for this weak human method of trying to determine
: >>> truth by only someone's testimony.
: >>>
: >>> So as you can see Jesus is pointing out the same thing in both
: >>> cases: their human law of nothing being true unless there be two
: >>> witnesses. But the second time Jesus is bolding showing how He
: >>> alone does not need the witness of another to validate His
: >>> testimony, for as we know He is the Son of God. There was no
: >>> contradiction at all.
:
: >> I'll accept this rationalization, ...
:
: > Ok then, let's back up and look at your original post at how it
: > was clear you did ignore the rationalization, and yet again you
: > throw a string of insults as if that makes you "right". Then
: > we'll take a look at what you've retreated to, all that's left,
: > really: the ones with numbers.
:
: There are a LOT of them left, with AND without names and/or
: numbers, as I pointed out before, but I'll respond to your thinking
: that I "ignored" your rationalization, earlier, farther down.
:
:
: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:43:07 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) --
: > Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas: Extinction!"
: > <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
: >> "Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >>> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
:
: >>>> PARTS of The Bible ARE Inspired by God.
: >>>> But *Not* ALL of it.
: >>>> Its CONTRADICTIONS are Proof-Positive of That.
: >>>>
: >>>> There are MANY very REAL contradictions in the Bible. Ones
: >>>> that are so clear-cut that NO one will EVER be able to explain
: >>>> them away.
:
: >>> They've long been explained away - you just refuse to look at
: >>> them, which does not equate to them not being explained.
:
: >> You're either a blatant liar, or you're delusional. Because so
: >> MANY contradictions are OBVIOUS and irrefutable ones. Why can't
: >> you grow enough of a brain to simply ACCEPT that fact, rather
: >> than deluding yourself, or lying to everyone? Because as things
: >> stand now, you are a laughingstock having ZERO credibility.
:
: > So again, I pointed out that
: >
: > * these have been explained away and that
: > * you refuse to look at them.
: >
: > You called me a blatant liar or delusional, yet I showed exactly
: > what I said: the very first one in *your* list I looked at *was*
: > explained away, and you *did* refuse to look at the explanations...
:
: Wrong! I DID look at those explanations,
No, you looked at *my* explanation *after I gave it to you*. You
didn't look at the link of a few hundred refutations I provided
you; The exact same explanations that have always been available
to you online that you've never looked at. I gave you the link
that has it:
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_6.htm
more specifically if you click on the link of the specific
refutation:
http://www.carm.org/diff/John8_14.htm
Out of my original list in this thread.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
http://usminc.org/FLASHGIFS/136BC.pdf
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_2.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_3.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_4.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_6.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_7.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_8.htm
and you dishonestly claimed they have never refuted all those
contradictions, and will never be refuted.
Before I gave you the refutation to the 1st one, I told you that
they had been explained away. I said:
"They've long been explained away - you just refuse to look at
them, which does not equate to them not being explained." Because
I know I gave you the link, and clearly you didn't look at the
refutation.
To which you replied:
"You're either a blatant liar, or you're delusional. Because so
MANY contradictions are OBVIOUS and irrefutable ones. Why can't
you grow enough of a brain to simply ACCEPT that fact, rather
than deluding yourself, or lying to everyone? Because as things
stand now, you are a laughingstock having ZERO credibility."
In response to this, I showed you the refutation of your first
claimed "contradiction". You agreed it did refute your
contradiction. Well then, since I provided a link to that exact
refutation and a few hundred other refutations, it became clearly
it's as I said: You don't look at the refutations.
So clearly you were lying when you said they are "irrefutable"
and calling me a liar when I said they have "long been explained
away - you just refuse to look at them". You *didn't* look at the
refutation before, because I gave you what you could effortlessly
find online.
So again, I pointed out that
* these have been explained away and that
* you refuse to look at them.
My questions still stand:
Question: Why are you claiming to have looked at them in the past
online, when really you have not? You said before that you never
lie in your posts, but you clearly did yet again right there as
you clearly didn't even look at the refutation that existed in
the links I provided.
Second question: Having not looked at them, but claimed you did,
why did you instead start throwing insults at me when you were in
fact lying?
Third question: And have you looked at the explanations for the
ones with numbers that you now fall back on? Be careful: remember
you said you never lie in your posts. (Which has been shown to be
incorrect) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
