[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
Oh? What was your favorite translation and why? or least favorite…Mostly interested in the why…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
No, because you don’t know what your talking about.[/quote]
Really now? I’ve read the Bible from cover to cover on more than one occasion and am quite familiar in general with the greek and ancient hebrew translation of the ot. Perhaps you didn’t read James and don’t want to discuss it.
That’s okay I understand.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Fine Pat.[/quote]
Wow! All I want to know is the basis for the things you say and this is it?
You’ve made some bold claims, and this is all you have? I should just accept what you said because you said it?
I am very disappointed.
I warn my kids (the ones I teach) to be able to know what they believe, why they believe it, and to be able to defend it, because they will be challenged and they need to be ready.
So allow me to reassert. God did not create man to condemn him, man condemns himself by his own freewill.
All men of good intention, effort and purity of heart are pleasing to God.
Save for rare examples, you cannot postulate the demise of people simply because they do not believe as you do.
Christianity for the most part is a beacon of light in what is a rather dark world. It is far more important to do for them good things, then to condemn them for what circumstances they were dealt.
All people of good heart and will are pleasing to God, even if they know nothing of Christianity.
Christ is known through the needy. To know Christ only by name is the weakest form. To do right by the least of His people, is to do right by Christ and it doesn’t matter who does it.
The elect, those who know Christ by word and spirit are held to a higher standard, you better deliver.
You know why it’s true? Because it’s in the bible.
Christians aren’t the special-est, we’re the ones who have to work the hardest.
My wish for you is to grow in faith, to own it, to love it. You ain’t special, you have to give more because of what you were given. We all do. The more I do, the more selfish and pig headed I realize I am. I have to work harder, much harder, but I am so tired.
If I am wrong, you better come off with something better than ‘Catholics are evil’ or ‘Fine pat’.
You did not honestly think I would let you off that easy, did you?
Do better.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
No, because you don’t know what your talking about.[/quote]
Really now? I’ve read the Bible from cover to cover on more than one occasion and am quite familiar in general with the greek and ancient hebrew translation of the ot. Perhaps you didn’t read James and don’t want to discuss it.
That’s okay I understand.
[/quote]
ZEB, wrong guy. James is one of my favorites…I’d be happy to discuss it with you, if you want.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< If I am wrong, you better come off with something better than ‘Catholics are evil’ or ‘Fine pat’.
You did not honestly think I would let you off that easy, did you?
Do better.[/quote]I don’t even know how to begin to respond to this. Even Brother Chris, who disagrees on an avalanche of Catholic basis with at least 90% of everything I say, is not going to accuse me of not giving reasons for what I believe. He disagrees with almost all of them, but they have definitely been given. This Jake guy has been around here about a half hour and I guarantee you that HE will not accuse me of not having stated reasons for what I say. I have humongous, loooong posts with detailed scriptural reasons for everything I’ve said. So many and so long that I’ve resigned myself to the fact that most people won’t read them at all. (but I post em anyway jist in case and God knows who may be lurking, but not posting).
But here comes Pat with “when are ya gonna say sumthin dood?” I dunno, there must be a supernatural barrier keeping us from communicating or something. Also, once again your assessment of the Gospel in your list is a damnable lie. It is a reproach to Christ and powerless to save. I will not waste more of God’s time typing another long detailed biblical decimation of this lie only to have you ask me when I’m gonna say something.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< If I am wrong, you better come off with something better than ‘Catholics are evil’ or ‘Fine pat’.
You did not honestly think I would let you off that easy, did you?
Do better.[/quote]I don’t even know how to begin to respond to this. Even Brother Chris, who disagrees on an avalanche of Catholic basis with at least 90% of everything I say, is not going to accuse me of not giving reasons for what I believe. He disagrees with almost all of them, but they have definitely been given. This Jake guy has been around here about a half hour and I guarantee you that HE will not accuse me of not having stated reasons for what I say. I have humongous, loooong posts with detailed scriptural reasons for everything I’ve said. So many and so long that I’ve resigned myself to the fact that most people won’t read them at all. (but I post em anyway jist in case and God knows who may be lurking, but not posting).
But here comes Pat with “when are ya gonna say sumthin dood?” I dunno, there must be a supernatural barrier keeping us from communicating or something. Also, once again your assessment of the Gospel in your list is a damnable lie. It is a reproach to Christ and powerless to save. I will not waste more of God’s time typing another long detailed biblical decimation of this lie only to have you ask me when I’m gonna say something.
[/quote]
–sigh–
Can we continue?
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
Here’s the rub Trib… From your perspective any man acting of his own volition doing “good works” his actions will be found as filthy rags by God. Actually, I agree with that. But you will agree (I assume) that men do good works under the influence (grace) of God and that these works are attributable to God and thus not filthy rags. Now the difference we have is in how much the human person is involved in this. Certainly it isn’t nothing at all, but at the same time it is impossible for us to do anything truly good without God.
Here’s the thing then Trib, when you say our works are filthy rags what you are saying, translated from our end, is God’s works are filthy rags. [/quote]
[quote]Trib: You keep dangling yer toes in my water which I welcome BTW. Chris is behind a tree on the shore, but not daring to look and Pat is in a temper tantrum over the hill dying of thirst but refusing to even approach that living water. I’m at work. It’ll probably be tonight before I can answer.
Very very short holdover. ANY human effort, work or obedience whatsoever, offered to God as anything like a single particle’s contribution to one’s right standing with Him will get you a one way ticket to hell. All works offered in loving grateful submission to Him for having already saved us are precious in His site. Faith that does not work is no faith at all and works intended to recommend us to God are even worse. [/quote]
Along with what you mean by “works intended to recommend us to God”? I don’t want that to be the focus of this discussion. I am just curious what you meant by that. Mostly I want to continue along the topic we were on, faith, man, God, good works, grace, and their interplay (in both theory and practice).
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Do YOU understand the original Greek and Hebrew? I doubt it, but it doesn’t matter much either way because the given translations by those who speak these languages still show these contradictions. Unless you’re trying to say that “three” translates to “six” and “before” translates to “during/after”, the contradiction stands. There are Hebrew and Greek atheists mined you, if the bible if flawless in these languages then how do you account for these Greek and Hebrew atheist who base their atheism on the contradictions within a supposed perfect book?
[/quote]
I know a little bit. Why would you think I needed to, I am not part of the Magisterium. See you are not grasping my points. Yeah, like I said, you have to be guided by the Church. The greatest biblical scholars have difference of opinions when it comes to interpreting the Bible, what says you that you can understand it to those that have a Ph.D. in the matter and do not agree. Church’s doctrine, Church’s understanding.
I’ll ask my Muslims friends, but I am sure from talking to them they say that anyone can understand it in a certain manner.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
How do you know you don’t agree with the Bible unless you read it in its entirety? What would your liberal professors say if you decided to critique a book that you’ve never read?
Very poor logic my friend, very poor.
[/quote]
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
Great then tell us which version of the Bible does the Church hold to be inerrant.
Matthew 25:31-46: About doing works
"And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting."
James 2:18 “I will shew thee, by works, my faith.” Showing faith through works. James 2:24, “Do you see that by works a man is justified?” Justification by faith and works, not by faith only (24). Faith by itself is “dead” (2:17), “barren” (2:20), and has no power to “save” anyone (2:14). James rejects faith alone, very clearly. Yes, Paul does stress the importance of “justification by faith” and I whole heartedly believe what Paul says 100%, but no where does Paul say faith alone (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:15-16).
How do we reconcile Paul’s and James’ statements that seem contradictory, Paul is talking before baptism and James is talking about after baptism. Faith and works.
Phil 2:12, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Paul tells us to do works out our own salvation…what?
The Catechism has it right, we work out our own salvation by putting on the white garment, we put on Christ. “Called to beatitude but wounded by sin, man stands in need of salvation from God. Divine help comes to him in Christ through the law that guides him and the grace that sustains him” (CCC 1949).
“Thus at this hour, Saint Paul speaks to us with great immediacy. In the Letter to the Philippians, he says that, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, Christians should shine as lights in the world” (Pope Benedict XVI, Easter Vigil, 11 Apr. 09). Shine…sounds like doing something.
As I’ll state again, Sola Fide can only be true if it is open to Charity.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< Along with what you mean by “works intended to recommend us to God”? I don’t want that to be the focus of this discussion. I am just curious what you meant by that. Mostly I want to continue along the topic we were on, faith, man, God, good works, grace, and their interplay (in both theory and practice).[/quote]But that IS the issue. I gotta tell ya man. I am wearing out. Maybe I shouldn’t be, but I have lots to think about and I have typed my fingers bloody on every aspect of all this 20 times each already.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I’ll make ya a deal. You say you’ve read a lot of Calvinistic materials. You may have, but it sure doesn’t seem like you have a very solid understanding of that theology. I truly mean that as no offense, but you’re asking me questions that should have already been long answered to someone who’s even read a short pamphlet on the TULIP outline which you actually asked me about.
Here’s my deal if you’re really interested. Read at least several pages of that Van Til piece, but preferably the whole thing and we’ll talk from there. What he propounds there is the foundation of every firing of every synapse in my brain. However ,as he says, the unregenerate will not get it. That is precisely what the doctrines of sin and death and new life in the reformed tradition (yes, we have tradition, never have denied that) which is really just the simple pure gospel, is all about. Wadda ya say?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< As I’ll state again, Sola Fide can only be true if it is open to Charity >>>[/quote]I don’t even get a passing acknowledgment of my post on the previous page about all the charity we do? What does this even mean, “open to charity”? Charitable works are a major component in the Christian walk. Paul was concerned for the poor as well. However, charitable works seen as meritorious unto keeping you saved, demonstrate a heart yet enslaved to the law which will only bring death.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You wanted a claim from me. Here goes:
The existence of a thing disproves any claim (or at least one of a group of claims together) that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the thing is impossible.
Agree or disagree? [/quote]
Can you clarify what you are trying to say? I really don’t understand what you are saying. Then I can agree or disagree.[/quote]He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]
The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?[/quote]
Yes. If a red ball exists, the claim “No one has ever made a red ball” (lets assume that claim means a red ball cannot exist) is untrue.
If a red ball exists, a series of claims, such as “Only X material can be used to make balls, and X material does not exist in red” (leading necessarily to the conclusion that a red ball cannot exist), then one or more of the claims is wrong.
So, the universe exists. Therefore, one of your claims, which taken together make the universe impossible, is wrong.
If the law of thermodynamics and the A theory of time combine to form a conclusion that the universe cannot exist, one or more of those claims is wrong. [/quote]
Which claim have I made, make the universe impossible to exist?
Secondly, cannot actually prove the universe exists, the limited epistemology of the human mind simply prohibit it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means you are limited by your own humanity. You cannot prove that anything physical isn’t illusory. You can thank DesCarte for that one…[/quote]
All the claims that lead you to the conclusion of a Prime Mover that must exist outside our universe.
If all stuff comes from other stuff, then the first stuff can’t exist. But it does (I think the DesCarte bit is a little hyperphilosophical for the conversation, lets assume the universe exists).
So, either one or more of your claims is incorrect (That stuff always needs other stuff to make it, or that time acts in the way we see it, etc), or a being which can do the impossible (God) must exist, totally outside our time and space and reality.
Given the two options (God vs our understanding of the universe being flawed), I go with the latter. Consider how much has been “known” by past cultures that has turned out to be totally untrue.
Hell, for a while there “Bee’s shouldnt be able to fly, but they do” was proof of God to some. It was eventually explained, proving that the problem wasn’t “and impossible thing is happening!” but “we didn’t understand it yet”.
[/quote]
You must have misunderstood what I said. I didn’t say God exists out side the universe, I said by necessity he must exist out side the causal chain. As far as location, I don’t consider it a physical thing with a physical location. But I do not confirm or deny either possibility.
Our understanding of the universe does not preclude that God cannot exist. Quite the contrary, actually. There is evidence of causality every where, the is no evidence of randomness what so ever. While there is a possibility of eternal matter and energy, there is no evidence of that either. Time is irrelevant to the discussion as removing time does not remove dependencies.
The link I provided you and forlife covers all this stuff. I would recommend it so we don’t repeat arguments already made. [/quote]
In a bit of a hurry, cant read the link. Time isn’t irrelevant as we’re talking about what happened in the past. if time doesnt exist, there is no past and everything is eternal.
Your claim is God must exist outside the causual chain as we understand it. My claim is we simply don’t understand the causual chain.[/quote]
There’s really not much to causation. Philosophy simply breaks things down to their essential core. What makes something what it is.
David Hume wrote extensively on causation, it frustrated the shit out of him, but he was a genius. He’s an atheist, I recommend him.
If you do get a chance to read it, you’ll pretty much know how I’ll respond to things.[/quote]
The problem with your logic is that you fail to provide good reason we should conclude that “god made the universe” other than “We have no other explanation”.
If scientists proved, in every possible way, exactly what created our universe (all matter, space, movement, etc) and it had nothing to do with a supernatural being, would you stop believing in God? Or would your reaction be “Oh, well then how did _____ get there? Must have been God!”?
Just watched a short video of Bill O’Reilly defending god by constantly saying “The tide comes in, the tide goes out, never a miscommunication”… and when someone sends an email saying the tide is caused by the moon pulling on the oceans, he replies (mildly annoyed) “Then who made the moon?? Why dont other planets have it?”
You can ask why/how infinitely. Eventually the person you’re talking to has to say they dont know. Replying to that inevitable “I dont know” with “I do! It was my God, who can do anything! Its the only explanation!” proves nothing, especially when, given if that specific question is eventually answered, you can just go back into the why/how process to get another “I dont know”.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< The problem with your logic is that you fail to provide good reason we should conclude that “god made the universe” other than “We have no other explanation”. >>>[/quote]That’s a great point. Even from my perspective. The problem with his logic is that it’s built on the same foundation as your logic and is hence powerless in your mind. That’s what I’ve been saying. A purely logical presentation of vanilla theism leads exactly where you say it does.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< The problem with your logic is that you fail to provide good reason we should conclude that “god made the universe” other than “We have no other explanation”. >>>[/quote]That’s a great point. Even from my perspective. The problem with his logic is that it’s built on the same foundation as your logic and is hence powerless in your mind. That’s what I’ve been saying. A purely logical presentation of vanilla theism leads exactly where you say it does.
[/quote]
And your logic is that you had a personal experience that you have no other explanation for other than “god chose you”.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
No, because you don’t know what your talking about.[/quote]
How so? Be specific.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
How do you know you don’t agree with the Bible unless you read it in its entirety? What would your liberal professors say if you decided to critique a book that you’ve never read?
Very poor logic my friend, very poor.
[/quote]
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
What didn’t you like about the book of James? Come on that’s a great book.[/quote]
I find the entire bible to be fictitious. A novel from of entertainment at best.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
Oh? What was your favorite translation and why? or least favorite…Mostly interested in the why…[/quote]
Is this your best attempt at establishing that I don’t know the bible? Anyone could answer this question within 5 minutes via google.
I have a better idea, next time try to find an actual flaw in my arguement to establish my lack of biblical knowledge.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Do YOU understand the original Greek and Hebrew? I doubt it, but it doesn’t matter much either way because the given translations by those who speak these languages still show these contradictions. Unless you’re trying to say that “three” translates to “six” and “before” translates to “during/after”, the contradiction stands. There are Hebrew and Greek atheists mined you, if the bible if flawless in these languages then how do you account for these Greek and Hebrew atheist who base their atheism on the contradictions within a supposed perfect book?
[/quote]
I know a little bit. Why would you think I needed to, I am not part of the Magisterium. See you are not grasping my points. Yeah, like I said, you have to be guided by the Church. The greatest biblical scholars have difference of opinions when it comes to interpreting the Bible, what says you that you can understand it to those that have a Ph.D. in the matter and do not agree. Church’s doctrine, Church’s understanding.
I’ll ask my Muslims friends, but I am sure from talking to them they say that anyone can understand it in a certain manner.[/quote]
Wait wait wait, lemme get this straight… to be “properly” opposed to Christianity I need to be trilingual and have a Ph.D in theology, but to BE a Christian all I need is ignorance based obedience? “Well, I don’t understand this here Buy-bull, but that’s OKAY cuz MR. Priestman over here gets it. I’m too stoopid to understand it myself, but this priest man, who’s livelihood is based on the ignorance of men like me, says it all makes sense and that’s good enough for me!” ~ fool-proof logic…
… Yeah, I think I’m just about done here. Your arguments are getting worse by the post. If this is all you have left, there’s nothing left that needs to be established.
Your bible is flawed and you are a very ignorant man.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
How do you know you don’t agree with the Bible unless you read it in its entirety? What would your liberal professors say if you decided to critique a book that you’ve never read?
Very poor logic my friend, very poor.
[/quote]
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
Great then tell us which version of the Bible does the Church hold to be inerrant.[/quote]
Well that depends on which church, doesn’t it. Another strange thing about your religion, entire wars have been fought over how to interpret certain verses, yet God has made no effort to establish which interpretation is correct.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< And your logic is that you had a personal experience that you have no other explanation for other than “god chose you”.[/quote]And that is THEE most precious and glorious explanation of all. I do pray that you one day have that testimony. When you have feasted on His love and mercy and glimpsed His beautiful face it is more than crystal clear.