Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I asked you to quote the verses. You obviously know more than me so go for it. I'm off to bed, will catch up with you tomorrow maybe.
Typical xian. I knew I wouldn't get an answer from you. Have somebody PM me when you feel you are able to post coherent thoughts. Until then, welcome to 'ignore', I've wasted enough time.
There is nothing 'profitable' about reading fiction, perhaps you would like to answer the questions for DW04? I won't be holding my breath.
Hmmm, seems as though pesky inconsitancies stop theist's postingPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
and thats where I would argue that the problems lie. Clear communication has two aspects. One is the state of the speaker and the other is the state of the receiver. I don't think there is any need for new and revised scriptures. On the contrary, I think we have more than enough on hand already.
Even if they are, the fact that they have been translated and re-translated, means there is an original basis, and also a reason for such actions. Otherwise what is the point of the bible, and other ancient religious scripture, which are essentially in agreement when it comes to God (by whatever name). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Jan.
Have they been translated and re-translated? If they have, do the translations hold the essential points of the original tales, or have they completely changed over the years? There is no reason to not believe the scripture holds essential truths based on the fact that they have been translated. That is my point. Jan.
The fact that they have been translated ad naseum simply means that someone is buying these texts, it does not bestow any basic truths (or reason for such actions if you prefer). I would further argue that there is no point to any ancient religious texts, they have been proven wrong/false too often. And I think your use of the term agreement is very broad.
I would say the fact that these fables have been proven false ( and defies the rules of logic) is reason enough to believe the scripture holds no truths, essental or otherwise. How can fairy tales hold truth enough to base a lifetime on?
Wouldn't you agree that in the Xian story, Belzebub is the only one who stands up for the right of man to have freedom? Free will to know right and wrong. Prior to that we were simply automatons knowing neither joy or pain. Just existing to ... what? Make good eye candy for God? I bet you an Belzebub have more in common than you know - don't read that trashy part gossip part propaganda mag compiled sometime in the 3ooCE. I mean gesh, what about Sophia? Remember when she told YWHA to go stuff himself and castrated him for being a piss-head? WHAT happened to THAT little ditty? (note: you'll still find Sophia in the Greek orthodox Bible). Regardless, you owe Belzebub for even being able to be snide in your response - as quoted above Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Can you be sure that an answer may not be beyond your comprehension. Logic is an inappropriate tool when dealing with the transcendent. You protest too much. I can tell you are a closet atheist. Don't fight your feelings ! Surrender your life to the Lord and understanding will follow !
Which fable have proven false? And in how does logic define the supernatural, or spiritual nature? Jan.
hmm, the answers of three days, two days and one and one half days sure are tricky but most anybody can understand that there are in conflict. I'm not a closet atheist- if there were a 12 step program for religion I'd have a fifty year pin. The bible fiction has never worked for me because my religious instructors could never answer my questions except to say "it's gods will". You can't seem to do any better. Logic is never an inappropriate tool, it works on all real (read not supernatural) objects. Your lord appears to bring only ignorance- not understanding. so I will remain an atheist.
snake river rufus, What do you mean by buying. You nor I can know what it bestows, which is why we are left with belief. This is my point. Please argue further, I would be interested to read what you have to say. The object of religious text is ultimately God. How can God be proven false? You're entitled to your opinion. Jan.
Pretty much all of them, from the garden of eden through the gospels to every failed prediction in the bible. One of the basic rules of formal logic is "thou shalt not default to the supernatural" So untill you can prove the existance of the supernatural or spiritual logic rules out their existance.
I can know what it does not bestow, a factual story. Belief is nothing without evidence to support that belief. The object of religious texts is a primitive people trying in vain to describe the physical world. Or to enforce social conventions that they believe in. Again god is indicated false by a total lack of evidence and proven false by logic.
