[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The Qu’ran contradicts the bible in some cases, so you can’t accept both.[/quote]
That’s my point though. How can you justify accepting one and not the other?
Are you believing in the truth or simply what feels right?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why accept the Bible’s claims but not the Qu’ran for example?[/quote]
Or Hindu claims?
Or Mayan claims?
Or Ancient Greek claims?
Or Scientology claims?
Or Jain claims?
Or Buddhist claims?
Or Ancient Egyptian claims? (hey those guys liked cats almost as much as I do)
Or Mormon claims?
Accepting the claims people generally accept is an accident of birth compounded by lack of critical thought.[/quote]
Are you claiming anyone who believes your statement had an accident at birth or lacks critical thought?[/quote]
I wouldn’t say that. Some people are never presented with the facts and by the time they learn of them, they choose to dismiss them.
Just look at this thread. I presented the proof that gospels were written ~40 years after Jesus’s death by a non-eye witness and Pat flatly denied it even after I provided evidence.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I wouldn’t say that. Some people are never presented with the facts and by the time they learn of them, they choose to dismiss them.
[/quote]
Yeah, your “facts.”
You need more study on the authorship of the Gospels. BTW, it is irrelevant (and disputed) about the 40 year time line. If it is the case it really doesn’t matter.
Raj, you’re a pipsqueak on this Bible stuff; don’t parade around in here like you’re some kind of Bible scholar.
[/quote]
My “facts” are what’s being put forth by Bible scholars as I’ve shown.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Personally, I say to Hell with morals and instead approach each moment with a fresh outlook, unburdened by rigid, predefined rules of conduct. Reason and compassion is enough.
[/quote]
That’s been tried many times. Nothing new here.
[/quote]
Ironic, as Hitler believed he was following the will of the Christian God.
I suppose you are the one with much to learn, old man.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That’s been tried many times. Nothing new here.[/quote]
Winner. “Reason” - when used as a wholesale substitute for Providence - makes a path to the gallows and the gas chamber.[/quote]
Hmm. Pretty sure the word “compassion” showed up in there somewhere as well. Did you become momentarily illiterate for a second there?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Personally, I say to Hell with morals and instead approach each moment with a fresh outlook, unburdened by rigid, predefined rules of conduct. Reason and compassion is enough.
[/quote]
That’s been tried many times. Nothing new here.
[/quote]
Ironic, as Hitler believed he was following the will of the Christian God.
I suppose you are the one with much to learn, old man.[/quote]
You’re ignorant.[/quote]
You’re not good at debating.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Personally, I say to Hell with morals and instead approach each moment with a fresh outlook, unburdened by rigid, predefined rules of conduct. Reason and compassion is enough.
[/quote]
That’s been tried many times. Nothing new here.
[/quote]
Ironic, as Hitler believed he was following the will of the Christian God.
I suppose you are the one with much to learn, old man.[/quote]
Evil people have also claimed to follow no god. So are we all just doomed to be evil?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I wouldn’t say that. Some people are never presented with the facts and by the time they learn of them, they choose to dismiss them.
[/quote]
Yeah, your “facts.”
You need more study on the authorship of the Gospels. BTW, it is irrelevant (and disputed) about the 40 year time line. If it is the case it really doesn’t matter.
Raj, you’re a pipsqueak on this Bible stuff; don’t parade around in here like you’re some kind of Bible scholar.
[/quote]
My “facts” are what’s being put forth by Bible scholars as I’ve shown.
[/quote]
How exhaustive was your research? You spend way too much time on T-Nation to cause me to think you did any more than google around for about 5 minutes or so.
There are Bible scholars, damn good ones, who claim the Gospels WERE written by eye witnesses.[/quote]
I spent a couple hours researching this topic a while back in university.
Just now what I posted is from wikipedia with 10 sources cited you can all check for yourself. Also, If you go back to my original post, I listed that a few scholars think John had something to do with writing the Gospel but the majority do not. J.A.T. Robinson, F. F. Bruce, and Leon Morris all hold that John played a part in writing the Gospel of John.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Personally, I say to Hell with morals and instead approach each moment with a fresh outlook, unburdened by rigid, predefined rules of conduct. Reason and compassion is enough.
[/quote]
That’s been tried many times. Nothing new here.
[/quote]
Ironic, as Hitler believed he was following the will of the Christian God.
I suppose you are the one with much to learn, old man.[/quote]
You’re ignorant.[/quote]
You’re not good at debating. [/quote]
Not with teenagers whose balls just dropped a few moons ago.[/quote]
Oooo you sassy bitch, you. Did I strike a chord with you just now?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Personally, I say to Hell with morals and instead approach each moment with a fresh outlook, unburdened by rigid, predefined rules of conduct. Reason and compassion is enough.
[/quote]
That’s been tried many times. Nothing new here.
[/quote]
Ironic, as Hitler believed he was following the will of the Christian God.
I suppose you are the one with much to learn, old man.[/quote]
Evil people have also claimed to follow no god. So are we all just doomed to be evil?[/quote]
This isn’t a valid argument against me. Push tried to use someone he feels is like me (or something) as evidence that I am wrong. Me turning his example upside-down is just a debating tactic. It’s not an initial method I would use as I don’t rush out of the gate with logical fallacies to prove my points.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Personally, I say to Hell with morals and instead approach each moment with a fresh outlook, unburdened by rigid, predefined rules of conduct. Reason and compassion is enough.
[/quote]
That’s been tried many times. Nothing new here.
[/quote]
Ironic, as Hitler believed he was following the will of the Christian God.
I suppose you are the one with much to learn, old man.[/quote]
You’re ignorant.[/quote]
You’re not good at debating. [/quote]
Not with teenagers whose balls just dropped a few moons ago.[/quote]
Oooo you sassy bitch, you. Did I strike a chord with you just now?[/quote]
Absolutely. I just fully realized I was dealing with someone who is no more than a boy.[/quote]
You know, I think I’ve finally pegged your debating technique. It’s a Four step method and this conversation we’ve just had is a text-book example of your fallacy based approach.
-
Association fallacy [e.g. Hitler was amoral (not true, but w/e). Tiger is amoral (arguably true). Therefore, Tiger’s philosophy will have the same results as Hitler’s]
-
Red Herring [e.g. “you’re ignorant” with no justification given. You do things like this to bait your opponent into step 3.]
-
Abusive fallacy [this is were you’re no longer even pretending you know what you’re doing and just talk shit]
-
Rage quit [This is actually the only step in your technique that isn’t a logical fallacy. Kinda sad…]
If step 2 fails for any reason, you just start back at step 1. If this problem persists, use this repetitive discourse you’ve orchestrated as justification to jump to step 4 (with a quick stop at step 3 along the way).
Thank you for helping me with this case study of geezers who think being old = being intelligent.
Feel free to rage quit now.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Study up on Hitler, tig. Don’t let ignorance shackle you to where you’re marginalized on PWI.
In other words don’t grow up to be a Pitttbullll.[/quote]
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
You can argue that Hitler was secretly an atheist or whatever, but the fact remains, he used the moral code set out in the bible to gain German support in the extermination of Jews. That’s the real problem with rigid moral codes - long after the teacher is dead it becomes far too easy to twist their words to mean whatever you want.
Just look at all the stupid fights over how to interpret the edicts set out in the bible. If morality is objective and naturally picked up by certain parts of our brain (as I think Pat said a few pages back), then there’s no need to make an effort into it. Whatever moral behaviour God wants should follow naturally. Life is dynamic, shouldn’t God be dynamic too?