<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

to JVH, from below.

April 21 2012 at 9:51 PM

Kate  (Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

I had no option on the post to respond to you. Either it's a glitch, the thread was too long, or we broke Mondo's board. Since there are options to respond on other posts, I don't think anything is irreparably broken.

If this wasn't a new turn, I wouldn't respond...but there is a little glimmer of something else, so why not? Can't be any worse than the rest of that thread =)

**************************************************************************************************************************

Response to Yes, that's right about where you came in...

K: The latest gospel, John, was completed about 60 years after his death, and the opening verses claim his deity.

JVH: The opening verses you refer to do not seem to claim the deity of the Jesus character, those opening verses do mention a "John" though (nice play on words eh? ).


Sorry, the play on words went right over my head...not sure what you are talking about.

And I don't know if we are looking at the same verses from the beginning of John. These are the verses I'm looking at:

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, This is the one I spoke about when I said, He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.


This passage states:
There was a being, existent from the beginning of everything, who was with God and who was God. This being is referred to as the Word.
All things were created through this being -- the Word.
In the Word was life that is the light of all mankind.
There was a man named John who came to testify about that light. Vs. 8: He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
When the Word, this light, came into the world, the world did not recognize or receive him.
This being, the Word, became a human being and lived on earth. Vs 14 the Word, became flesh and made his dwelling among us. The Word is referred to as the Son of God.
No one has ever seen God, but the Son (the Word) has made him known.

From the rest of the text of John, which is all about the life and ministry of Jesus -- who was frequently referred to as the Son of God -- it is clear that "the Word" is Jesus.

The Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Whether or not you believe this text, believe in God, or believe Jesus existed is irrelevant. This is what it states in the text.

JVH: As for "your" beliefs, they are not my call, they never were, since I realize that what you so lovingly like to call "your" beliefs aren't "your" beliefs at all, they are someone else's beliefs (you seem to be in agreement with for some reason or other) and have adapted as your own.

Yes, they are my beliefs...as much as anyone's beliefs about anything are their own. I suppose you could argue that every single thing anyone thinks or believes if they've heard anything like it ever before anywhere isn't "their" belief, but one they've adapted. Or adopted. Or both. "Adapt" usually means "to change", and "adopt" means "to accept". I would say that I have read and talked with a lot of people about their beliefs about God, adopted some of those beliefs, and adapted others so they made more sense to me.

If I adopted children, they were once someone else's, but they are mine now, hmm? And yes, I would "loving like to call" them my own. =D


 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Tim
(no login)

NETWORK54 only alows 100 pages

April 22 2012, 2:58 AM 

Which goes back to 2004 on this forum.

Perhaps network54.com/Forum/272761 is full to the limit of what they allow.

Perhaps it needs to be reduced to just a few pages instead of 100?

It is usually deeper problems that cause the symptoms in networks as well in people.

Bro Tim

 
 Respond to this message   

JVH say
(Login JVH)
Sufi

Hi there Kate

April 24 2012, 12:30 AM 

I tried to respond to the post in question and was succesful, so, no probs from this end.

18 verses that make up one-third of the whole (chapter) hardly counts as "opening" verses, do they now? wink.gif

Anyway, as you said ...that's right about where you came in... and when we look were I came in, in response to what, and what I posed ... what's your misconception then?




rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
[linked image]

CD: short for inevitability

 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

Opening verse:

April 24 2012, 4:41 AM 

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word.
And the Word was with God,
And the Word was God.

The Word refers to Jesus, as clearly shown in the rest of the text. John is not mentioned by name until verse 6, and he is mentioned as a witness to testify about the Word, who is the central figure in the passage.

The first 18 verses of the first chapter of John do constitute the opening verses of the book. There are 50 verses in John 1, and 21 chapters, 879 verses total in John - so yes, the first 18 are the opening verses, and a complete passage.

And they very strongly indicate the deity of Jesus Christ. There's much more, but that one passage is pretty clear - the Word was with God and the Word was God.

When you came in to the conversation, that is exactly what I was talking about - there are many passages in the Bible that indicate the deity of Jesus, and to say there is nothing written in the Bible that indicates that is incorrect.

You came in, changed the subject to the reliability of the Bible, or that it's hearsay (never the point I was discussing), and then told me for the rest of the thread that was not the topic at all, I'm not addressing the point, I'm not addressing the subject at hand, that I cannot figure out your point, cannot determine the "intrinsic value" of your point since cannot figure out what that point *is*, that I know what you're getting at but I just "won't have it", that if I don't know what "intrinsic value" means I should look it up, the "problem" lies in my "redefinition" of the word "discussion", that if a discussion isn't going my way then according to me it isn't a "real discussion"...etc,

I submit to you that I have stayed exactly on the original point; you changed the subject.

 
 Respond to this message   

JVH say
(Login JVH)
Sufi

Kate

April 24 2012, 6:19 AM 

 

... I wasn't addressing what Arthur posed, I addressed what you posed: "Do you know what he said?", to which I responded: "Nope ... and neither do you. wink.gif Interesting uh?", which you affirmed: "Obviously, no one knows for sure what someone said 2000 years ago, since there are no eyewitnesses and no recording equipment. And we don't even know for sure if Jesus actually existed, beyond the Bible record and a few anecdotal extra-Biblical accounts."

So, I did not 'change the subject', or at least I did not intent to, I merely responded to something you yourself posed. So, if the subject was changed, it was due to what you yourself posed I merely responded to and you affirmed. Now, why would you affirm something that has nothing to do with the subject at hand and would therefore qualify as "changing the subject"? Exactly, you wouldn't. Unless, of course, you would. wink.gif

In other words, within the discussion something came up to which I responded. That's all really, the rest went from thereon.

However, if you want to insist the subject was changed, then pin-point the instance where it happened, how, by whom and see what comes up?

 

P.S. Keep in mind it takes at least 2 participants to actually change the subject


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
[linked image]

CD: short for inevitability

 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

Post titles on chat boards...

April 24 2012, 11:59 AM 

....are often abbreviated or condensed, for the sake of space. I often do as I did on this post, and split the title in half, continuing the rest of the thought at the beginning of the post:

"Post titles on chat boards....are often abbreviated or condensed, for the sake of space."

In this case, you responded to the title of the post - not the content that continued the thought. The issue was never if we know or have proof of what Jesus "said", it was what is the written record of what he said, and what was written about him in the only substantial record of his life.

Art's contention, in many posts on various boards, has been something like, "why do Christians insist that Jesus is God? He never said that, and any suggestions to that effect were added to the Bible hundreds of years after it was written." At least, that is the message I've been reading, and Art has not seemed to be interested in discussing it further at this time.

If that is his contention, it is simply not true. The reasons for that belief are found in the text in many places, as I illustrated in the opening verses of John, above.

I never intended to discuss whether or not we know what Jesus "said" - by that same token we don't know what Charlemagne said, or what Plato said, or what Buddha said. All we have are the written records, and we have to decide for ourselves if we think the are authentic.

I have not had, and have no interest in, a discussion with an atheist about whether or not the Bible is reliable or true, for a few reasons:

1. These conversations go nowhere. Things that are accepted by believers as proof and authentication are almost invariably rejected by atheists. Sometimes for good reason - many "proofs" are flawed.
2. It's like arguing the existence/non-existence of God - no proof is accepted by both sides, and the discussions, again, go nowhere.
3. I do not hold the fundamentalist view that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, so I can't argue that point. I believe there are many things in the Bible that are true, inspired by God, and spiritually valuable...as well as many things that are not.









 
 Respond to this message   

JVH say
(Login JVH)
Sufi

You affirmed it

April 24 2012, 6:06 PM 

 

... nonetheless: "Obviously, no one knows for sure what someone said 2000 years ago, since there are no eyewitnesses and no recording equipment. And we don't even know for sure if Jesus actually existed, beyond the Bible record and a few anecdotal extra-Biblical accounts."




rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
[linked image]

CD: short for inevitability

 
 Respond to this message   
Tim
(no login)

Re: You affirmed it

April 25 2012, 12:56 AM 

"Obviously, no one knows for sure what someone said 2000 years ago, since there are no eyewitnesses and no recording equipment. And we don't even know for sure if Jesus actually existed, beyond the Bible record and a few anecdotal extra-Biblical accounts."
---------------------------------------------

Did Abraham Lincoln exist? How do we know????

Did Leonardo Deviancy exist? How do we know????

George Washington?

Jesus?

Moses?

Slave traders?

Noah and the Ark?

Can someone PLEASE provide live recordings or videos or at least an eye wittiness?!?!?! HELP!*#&%^#@ blahahahahaha!!!! wink.gif too funny




 
 Respond to this message   
Arthur Dent
(no login)

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof.

April 25 2012, 7:26 PM 

If it comes to a claim of Abraham Lincoln existing, or the second world war happening, you are free to ignore the evidence, you dont have your own account to satisfy yourself that it did happen, but to ignore the evidence of people who were there and the photos, you are going beyond pedantic to deny the existance of a mere man, or a changed world.

But when you are coping with things where amazing claims rather than mundane claims being made, then you need to be commensurately more convincing.

Believing in a man who could do magic so that he wont burn you forever is a silly claim backed up by a false book.


Could a book be wrong? Of course, most of them are.

Amazing claims, dodgy evidence, coercing you to believe with faith rather than knowing with evidence. Why? Because it cant be proved of course.

Leonardo Deviancy? I like that error Tim, he was queer so they say.

When there are much more believable claims available, it further weakens the legitimacy of faith being the evidence of the .... non existant.

Kate was bringing my name up, I didnt really need to go much further as I felt the case was made, JEsus did not say he was god, although some people pulled her method of trying to step by step build a case of interpreting the bible by saying this word was replacable by that word so that Jesus was the word and the word was god so therefore what the bible was saying was that ........ etc

Yes, people can make the bible or any book for that matter say whatever they like.

Why did the bible use euphemisms when the result is so predictable, misunderstandings.

As the bible clearly says....


very little.




 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

dissecting history.

April 25 2012, 10:57 PM 

The further back we go in time, the more of a puzzle history is, the harder it can be to find proof and evidence. There are people alive today who fought in World War II -- eyewitnesses. But even if we talk to them about what happened, their remembrances will be affected by their views, their beliefs, their personalities. You would get a very different recollection from a former Nazi soldier than from a Jew who lived in Poland, or from an American soldier who fought in Japan. But there are letters, photos, films, documents to examine.

Lincoln is even more distant in time from us, but left letters, documents, photographs, artifacts like his personal possessions.

Harder to find evidence about Shakespeare, or Henry VIII, etc. But the more well known and politically or culturally important a person was, the more wealth they had, the more influence they had when they lived, the more proof we have of their lives.

When Jesus was alive...I don't think he was all that important. He was an obscure rabbi with unconventional ideas, traveling and teaching, a Jew in an occupied country. He was, as far as we can tell, homeless. There were other rabbis contemporary with him who were wealthier, more influential, and more well known, and we have no proof of their existence either. He reportedly performed miracles, but they really were on a fairly small scale -- walking on water in front of a handful of his followers, changing water into wine at a wedding. He reportedly healed the sick and even raised the dead, but no one rich or famous, and often told people not to tell anyone what had happened. We don't have any possessions to examine, or anything written in his own hand, and no physical remains to examine. Very little was written about him outside of the New Testament record.

My only reason for bringing up your name at all -- since you've been pretty clear by not responding to my posts about this that you aren't interested in discussing the topic -- is that you have said many times that Jesus never claimed to be God and those claims were edited into the Bible hundreds of years later. That is not true. It's in the original text. I'm not asking or expecting you to believe what it says, or believe those claims, but they are in there, Art, and to deny that it is written in the text is incorrect.

John 1:1 is the clearest claim -- "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The rest of that opening passage, referring to the Word, says all things were made through him, he is the light and life of all mankind, to all who receive him he gives them the right to become the children of God, he is the one and only Son of God, he became flesh and lived here on earth among us. If the Word isn't referring to Jesus, who is the author talking about?

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login ArtieDent)

I dont know either, but by forcing the issue into abstractions

April 25 2012, 11:44 PM 

its hardly a clear statement that Jesus is god either.

Once again though, this is not Jesus clearly saying I am God.

Lots of people think he or she is god though, how many cults are out there?

Rev Moon, etc. How can you say the moonies are wrong when the proof there is also so poor.

When it comes to believing what you want, there will always be skeptics wondering how well you belif is based.

Its a hazard.

An atheist is usually a skeptic, shaking their head.


Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just band aids over bull sh!t.

Biblical Pitfalls http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/

 
 Respond to this message   
Tim
(no login)

Re: I dont know either, but by forcing the issue into abstractions

April 26 2012, 2:22 AM 

When Kate says;
"all things were made through him"

She's not understanding what is being said.
"all things were made through him".. not made BY him, because they were made by GOD the Father through the ideas of the Son Jesus. Jesus is co-designer of this place and a lot of it was made through Jesus ideas of what He wanted to see GOD create.

But anyway enough of the Roman Trinity stuff. It doesn't exist, there is Father/GOD and Son/Jesus. And GOD is the Holy Ghost and Jesus is the child of the Holy Ghost.

What is important for you Art, is that you think deeply about your decisions of faith. And I know your faith is based in mankind, but they will become extincted, and maybe somewhat to your surprise and maybe not surprising at all.

But its very important that you realize that you are wrong Art.
Not for me or ego or competition sake, but for you and your long term future or forever.

I'm not trying to win you, I'm trying to help you win something you don't understand.

Myself and Kate and the other Saints aren't here for our selves Art. Personally I'm glad Mondo is a cool dude, but this place is a breading grounds for disaster of souls. Kate and myself are just caretakers of the garden, and weeds keep sprouting everywhere. wink.gif sorry I have to laugh....


 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

I don't disagree with that, but...

April 25 2012, 4:03 AM 

...it was a tangent - at least for me - and not what I was talking about at all. I was talking about what is written in the text of the Bible that refers to the deity of Christ, texts like:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/message/1335291613/John+1

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/message/1335292219/John+14

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/message/1335294157/Who+is+the+Creator-

 
 Respond to this message   

JVH say
(Login JVH)
Sufi

I'm sure you don't

April 25 2012, 12:17 PM 


... otherwise you'd be disagreeing with your own words and you wouldn't want to do that, would you now? wink.gif

As for talking about what is written in the text of the Bible that refers to the deity of Christ; obviously, no one knows for sure what someone said 2000 years ago, since there are no eyewitnesses and no recording equipment and we don't even know for sure if Jesus actually existed, beyond the Bible record and a few anecdotal extra-Biblical accounts, wouldn't you agree? wink.gif




rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
[linked image]

CD: short for inevitability

 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

again, not the point.

April 25 2012, 10:26 PM 

As usual, we are talking about two entirely different things. =)

 
 Respond to this message   
Tim
(no login)

Re: again, not the point.

April 26 2012, 2:38 AM 

Kate's a Trinitarian, and that's OK, it just creates a little gray fog over Father Son identities. As if her Dad and his son are one in the same person. Or as if her and her Dad are one in the same person.

Jesus being one with GOD explained;
John 10:30
I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

They are one, because "the Father is in me, and I in him."

And that makes me one with God also as in; 1 John 4:15
Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

It's really pretty simple once you take it for what it says and delete the church brainwashing out of your head.


 
 Respond to this message   

JVH say
(Login JVH)
Sufi

You disagree then

April 26 2012, 2:48 AM 


Odd.

This is the thread that started it all, what is your point again?

Yet, as you pointed out; "Obviously, no one knows for sure what someone said 2000 years ago, since there are no eyewitnesses and no recording equipment. And we don't even know for sure if Jesus actually existed, beyond the Bible record and a few anecdotal extra-Biblical accounts."

Going by that, we cannot trust what's in the bible to be correct, right?

 

Edited to add hyperlink

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
[linked image]

CD: short for inevitability

 
 Respond to this message   
Tim
(no login)

Re: You disagree then

April 26 2012, 3:15 AM 

You don't need to pick on Kate JVH.

You need to pick on me wink.gif because your a buthead.

I will stand with Kate and defend her because she is my Sister in our Lord Jesus.

So, the Trinity/Deity is the issue.

I can tell you both, the Trinity doesn't exist. It's simply a Roman power play enforced in 325 AD to give Papal power over the earth.

However Jesus is the Son of GOD, created from WORDS GOD spoke.

Does that help clear things up?


 
 Respond to this message   

(no login)

I suspect the shoe is on the other hoof Tim

April 26 2012, 7:42 AM 

Kate's more than adequate in her defence of her beliefs, its a nice gesture on your part, but you are more than likely to hurt yourself (or maybe your dog) with your conversational style.

 
 Respond to this message   
Tim
(no login)

Re: I suspect the shoe is on the other hoof Tim

April 29 2012, 11:25 PM 

Kate's more than adequate in her defence of her beliefs, its a nice gesture on your part, but you are more than likely to hurt yourself (or maybe your dog) with your conversational style.
------------------------------------------

Your right Art, Kate's more than adequate in her defense of her beliefs.
But you and JVH aren't because your information is incorrect and that makes the conversation unfair.

If your information were somewhat reasonable then reasoning would be possible.
But at this point the believers and nonbelievers are just dodging each others darts.

wink.gif

 
 Respond to this message   
Arthur Dent
(no login)

Your opinions are yours, but your facts are wrong.

April 30 2012, 8:59 PM 

since your facts are based upon faith, a faith which denies facts if they are contrary to that faith, in other words your facts arent.

Kates slippery, I still dont know what she means half the time, Because Christians believe all sorts of things, she slips in and out of the shadows about what I think that Christians essentially think. There maybe no connecting factors.

Kate admits that she believes bits of the bible or not as she feels like, not surprising much of it is just plain wrong, so she picks and chooses. She thinks god cant be proved to exist (and there is no reason for believing if god has had any effect on the world at all) in ther same way that its impossible to prove he doesnt exist, which I doubt that you can understand.

Do you think that god has so little effect on the world that his fingerprint cant be spotted? I do, but just because there is no evidence of a god around, doesnt mean its impossible to prove him. Gods capable, if he exists, just not willing.... or is he incapable of manifesting a puff of real proof?

Pretty incredibly not there if you ask me.


 
 Respond to this message   
Tim
(no login)

Re: Your opinions are yours, but your facts are wrong.

May 1 2012, 1:29 AM 

Kate's Irish and she lives in Ireland.
And the Protestants and Catholics have been fighting there for hundreds of years.

And why do you suppose that is Art?.. Because they are all Christians? No.

Catholics are not Christians, they are Babylonians. Learn about history.

And I can't prove GOD exists Art. I can only testify.


 
 Respond to this message   
Arthur Dent
(no login)

I guess you are testifying about Catholics

May 1 2012, 5:21 PM 

because you certainly cant prove anything you say.

All protestants are just apostates anyway, after all.

They left the house of god years ago.

So they say.


 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

Small correction:

May 2 2012, 4:09 PM 

I'm American, and live in the US. I think we discussed this before, and I said I come from a mixed nationality background, but the one I'll claim is Irish =) I'm actually Irish, English, French, German, Prussian -- IOW, a typical American. =)

 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

Art, I try

May 2 2012, 12:51 PM 

I really do try to be upfront about what I believe - not "slippery" or in "shadows".

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/message/1334814699/okay%2C+Art...seriously-

Not all Christians think alike. Try asking a Baptist, a Catholic, a Pentecostal, and a Mennonite, "what must I do to be saved?" and you will get very different answers. And some might well tell you the other groups aren't "real Christians".

I'm always very upfront that I am comfortable discussing much of what is in the Bible, and can explain a lot of it - even if I do not believe all if it to be true or inspired. I used to be a Fundy, and remember the lessons I was taught. Because I do not accept the Bible as inerrant or infallible - and because of some of the other beliefs I do have - there are Christians who would not consider me a Christian at all.

 
 Respond to this message   

Kate
(Login kateothelamp)
Sufi

no, I don't disagree....

April 26 2012, 3:21 PM 

....it's just not what I'm talking about.

You could have said, "The sky is blue" or "chocolate is good", and I would agree...but still not what I was talking about.

I've stated numerous times what my point was, and we're kind of going in circles now, aren't we? I can provide links to what I've posted, but don't really think that's necessary.

Regarding the reliability of the Bible, I find it to be as reliable as any other ancient historical writings. Some of it is accurate, some of it is not. I addressed this here:http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/message/1334683044/it+isn%27t+one+book


 
 Respond to this message   

JVH say
(Login JVH)
Sufi

of course not

April 27 2012, 3:39 AM 

 

... you wouldn't disagree with something you yourself posed as fact(ual), would you now? ^_^

And all the while I was actually addressing the marvelous impudence of the "what I do not understand is not a meaningful proposition, because why don't I understand it then" attitude. wink.gif

oOo


 

 

If prayer really works, don't you think all those religionists would've prayed all wrongs gone already?

Edited to ...erm ... I forgot, silly uh?


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
[linked image]

CD: short for inevitability

 
 Respond to this message   
Tim
(no login)

Re: of course not

May 1 2012, 1:36 AM 

of course not you wouldn't disagree with something you yourself posed as fact(ual), would you now? ^_^
------------------------------------------------

More head and word games JVH?

JVH what if you debated with your great grandpa?

You know science changes all the time, I can imagine that debate.



 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - to JVH, from below.
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index