Separation of Church and State

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
riddled with errors and inconsistencies[/quote]

Proof[/quote]

He’s not the one making outrageous claims of infallibility. Burden of proof has always and will always lie with you.[/quote]

I can’t prove a there is not a mistake, because that would require me of proving every letter of the Bible. Please learn how burden of proof works.[/quote]

If you want to claim the Bible is infallible, you had better be able to prove it. Your claim, your proof.[/quote]

Except I didn’t make that claim, he made the claim that it is riddled with errors and inconsistencies. The burden of proof is on him since he is the only one that made a claim.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
riddled with errors and inconsistencies[/quote]

Proof[/quote]

He’s not the one making outrageous claims of infallibility. Burden of proof has always and will always lie with you.[/quote]

I can’t prove a there is not a mistake, because that would require me of proving every letter of the Bible. Please learn how burden of proof works.[/quote]

Ah, in that case:

What happened the day Jesus died, and in what exact order?

Did John know Jesus was the Messiah or did he not?

What was Josephs exact geneology?

When exactly did the last supper take place?

How did Judas die? Did he die at all?
[/quote]

I don’t get it.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
riddled with errors and inconsistencies[/quote]

Proof[/quote]

He’s not the one making outrageous claims of infallibility. Burden of proof has always and will always lie with you.[/quote]

I can’t prove a there is not a mistake, because that would require me of proving every letter of the Bible. Please learn how burden of proof works.[/quote]

Ah, in that case:

What happened the day Jesus died, and in what exact order?

Did John know Jesus was the Messiah or did he not?

What was Josephs exact geneology?

When exactly did the last supper take place?

How did Judas die? Did he die at all?
[/quote]

I don’t get it.[/quote]

In each of these cases the four official versions contradict each other.

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Another one: Noah survives the flood and manages to repopulate the Earth with all it’s genetic diversity from the contents of his boat, how does that work? Even a child would reject that story as ludicrous.[/quote]

Noah and his son’s world could very well have been just the area they lived in. Again, you’re taking the story in the wrong direction, being critical of the wrong part.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
riddled with errors and inconsistencies[/quote]

Proof[/quote]

He’s not the one making outrageous claims of infallibility. Burden of proof has always and will always lie with you.[/quote]

I can’t prove a there is not a mistake, because that would require me of proving every letter of the Bible. Please learn how burden of proof works.[/quote]

Ah, in that case:

What happened the day Jesus died, and in what exact order?

Did John know Jesus was the Messiah or did he not?

What was Josephs exact geneology?

When exactly did the last supper take place?

How did Judas die? Did he die at all?
[/quote]

Listen, don’t bother with technical inaccuraces or things like that. Want to disprove the bible? Here’s one: snakes don’t fucking talk and water has never and will never suddenly defy physics because a man raised a staff in front of it. Period, end.[/quote]

Of course water won’t defy physics because a man raised a staff in front of it. God made the water defy physics.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
riddled with errors and inconsistencies[/quote]

Proof[/quote]

He’s not the one making outrageous claims of infallibility. Burden of proof has always and will always lie with you.[/quote]

I can’t prove a there is not a mistake, because that would require me of proving every letter of the Bible. Please learn how burden of proof works.[/quote]

Ah, in that case:

What happened the day Jesus died, and in what exact order?

Did John know Jesus was the Messiah or did he not?

What was Josephs exact geneology?

When exactly did the last supper take place?

How did Judas die? Did he die at all?
[/quote]

Listen, don’t bother with technical inaccuraces or things like that. Want to disprove the bible? Here’s one: snakes don’t fucking talk and water has never and will never suddenly defy physics because a man raised a staff in front of it. Period, end.[/quote]

That does not work, because God can do anything.

There is no need to attack the bible when it comes to historical innacuracies, it contradicts itself repeatedly.

The last supper was either on the first day of the Pessach fest or one day before.
[/quote]

The last supper was a passover meal.

Don’t know.

He was in a tomb by himself.

See you have to specify what John you’re talking about, because now that you say the Baptist I can definitely tell you that John the Baptist knew that Jesus was the Messiah, but he was also sending his (John’s) disciples to follow Jesus.

Possibly. Like the Judas one, did he hang himself or spill his guts. I don’t see how one would contradict the other.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Ah, in that case:

What happened the day Jesus died, and in what exact order?
[/quote]

http://focusonjerusalem.com/thedayJesusdied.html

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/when-did-john-find-out-jesus-was-messiah

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3

You’re probably referring to the “contradictory” statements of Mark 14:12 and John 19:14. In that case the Jewish day starts at 6pm of what we would call the day before. In other words the Sabbath begins Friday night at 6pm and ends Saturday night at 6pm. So Jesus and His disciples could and would have more than likely have had the last supper the same day of Jesus crucifixion. He had the supper in the evening, and than was crucified the next morning as long as the supper was 6pm or later and His death was before 6pm of what we would call the following day, according to the Jewish Calendar/Law it is the same day.

[quoteHow did Judas die? Did he die at all?[/quote]

You are probably referring to Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:16-19, where Matthew says he hangs himself and Acts says that he falls headlong and all his bowels gushed out. There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. In fact, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.

Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.

And yes I did direct you to some websites instead of addressing them myself because I myself didn’t know the answer. None the less it doesn’t matter as the contradictions were addressed. Thought I’d point that out before someone says “well all you did was spew off crap from websites”
[/quote]

I’m shocked.[/quote]

Nonono.

-Was Jesus first brought to the High Priest or to Annas, his father in law.

When did the scribes and the priests meet, the day before, that day, the day after or not at all?

Who did plave the robe on Jesus shoulder and when? Herod or the Roman soldiers?

Did other people rise from the dead when Jesus died?

-I thibk your second link indicates that John was less interested in hoistorical accuracy but in presenting Jesus as the son of God. Yeah well, if it is fiction we are talking about here, fine, but that pretty much makes the innerant claim obsolete.

  • You are saying that the writers of the bible did not know about the Sabbath? It also does not matter because it was either on the day of the Pessach fest or one day before, no matter how you count your days.

  • It is not even clear whether Judas dies at all, because Jesus presented himself to all twelve apostles when he came back.

  • Funny, neither Matthew nor Luke mention Mary, they both give a clear account of Josefs lineage though. In some points they match, in others they dont. I would also point you to the fact that Marys parents were Joachim and Anna, so if they actually desacribed Marys lineage, which they clearly did not, I assume that they would at least have gotten her father right.

[/quote]

Just so everyone is clear the only inerrant “Bible” is the original Hebrew and Greek that was inspired by the Holy Ghost. Copies don’t count as they are not inspired, they are just copies.

[quote]orion wrote:
I would also like to point out that EVEN IF one was Marys lineage, one account goes back 28 generations to David and the other 44.

So, unless Josef and Mary lived in alternate universes, I would at least expect the number of generations to match, give or take one or two.

[/quote]

Why would you?

“More than a dozen solutions have been proposed to harmonize them (the two genealogies). At the very least, it should be recognized that gaps are a common feature in genealogical registries from antiquity. There are also many examples in Scripture of one person having more than one name - a fact that must be considered when attempting to identify the ancestors of Jesus (Solomon/Jedidiah).” - Dr. Hahn.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
riddled with errors and inconsistencies[/quote]

Proof[/quote]

He’s not the one making outrageous claims of infallibility. Burden of proof has always and will always lie with you.[/quote]

I can’t prove a there is not a mistake, because that would require me of proving every letter of the Bible. Please learn how burden of proof works.[/quote]

If you want to claim the Bible is infallible, you had better be able to prove it. Your claim, your proof.[/quote]

Except I didn’t make that claim, he made the claim that it is riddled with errors and inconsistencies. The burden of proof is on him since he is the only one that made a claim.[/quote]

If I make a claim and someone calls bullshit on that claim, burden of proof lies with me. The original underlying claim here is Biblical accuracy, and if you make this claim and someone calls bullshit, you are saddled with the burden of proof.

Although it’s cute that you’re trying to dodge responsibility.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Okay…and I know this.[/quote]

If it’s just a completely unfounded concept how does it hold any legitimacy? W[/quote]

What do you mean unfounded concept? Maybe I’m just not connecting something to understand what you’re getting at.

P.S. Sorry for my ignorance just been a late night of work.[/quote]

There’s no legitimacy to claims of an afterlife, it just dates back to an ancient civilization’s mythology. Judgment of the soul isn’t exclusive to Christianity, to my knowledge it originated in ancient Egypt. If it’d no factual basis then how did it gain one at a later time?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Bullmoose33 wrote:
Kennedy had the right idea.[/quote]

You mean the magic book about men making large bodies of water suddenly defy all known laws of physics SHOULDNT be what our entire legal system is based on?

How dare you. You’ll be set on fire for all eternity when you die - lets hope preying on your fear of the unknown will terrorize you to my way of thinking![/quote]You just may get it one day, but not today.
[/quote]

You are the worst condescending asshole on T-Nation. Never ask me what problem I have with christians, ever.[/quote]

Sooooooooo, what’s you problems with Christians? Is it just Christians you hate?

I am 1000000% for separation of church and state, btw. It has never worked for the greater good.[/quote]

Hey Pat, we agree! Perhaps this may seem ironic, but my belief in a strict separation of church and state was formed not as a skeptic/agnostic but as a Catholic growing up in the South. Let’s be honest here - Southern Baptists don’t really like Catholics. Lots of Protestants don’t. I sure as hell didn’t want to be required to disclose my religion to a group who may or may not have been sympathetic. And let’s face the facts: different denominations practice a different form of Christianity and each one of them thinks that they are “right.”

My advice to those who want this to be a “Christian nation” is this: be careful what you wish for. Right now, the religious right goes nuts when an atheist group sues over a Christmas display (which I personally think is a bit silly; I like Christmas, but I recognize its origins in pagan celebrations of the winter solstice). But these suits are nothing compared to what will happen if we start allowing religion to pervade society. Watch the Fundamentalists go ape shit if a Catholic teacher decides to display a picture of the Pope in a classroom. Watch the Catholics freak when a group of progressive Christians (yes, they exist) decide that educating teenagers about birth control is a smart thing to do. And the battle between the idiots who believe in the creation myth and those Christians who accept evolution as sound science will continue to wage on. Lawsuits will multiply way beyond what the atheist groups ever would have filed. Eventually, some government official will be required to step in and say, “Okay, the picture of the Pope has to go, birth control education has to go, but evolution can stay.” Guess what? The government just “established” a religion. Although it may be “Christian,” it is not the “right” kind of Christianity for some.

Be careful what you wish for.

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Separation of church and state is the most abused quote attributed to somewhere from which it did not come.
[/quote]

disagree, I imagine our for fathers had the same problems with that as we do

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Bullmoose33 wrote:
Kennedy had the right idea.[/quote]

You mean the magic book about men making large bodies of water suddenly defy all known laws of physics SHOULDNT be what our entire legal system is based on?

How dare you. You’ll be set on fire for all eternity when you die - lets hope preying on your fear of the unknown will terrorize you to my way of thinking![/quote]You just may get it one day, but not today.
[/quote]

You are the worst condescending asshole on T-Nation. Never ask me what problem I have with christians, ever.[/quote]

Sooooooooo, what’s you problems with Christians? Is it just Christians you hate?

I am 1000000% for separation of church and state, btw. It has never worked for the greater good.[/quote]

Hey Pat, we agree! Perhaps this may seem ironic, but my belief in a strict separation of church and state was formed not as a skeptic/agnostic but as a Catholic growing up in the South. Let’s be honest here - Southern Baptists don’t really like Catholics. Lots of Protestants don’t. I sure as hell didn’t want to be required to disclose my religion to a group who may or may not have been sympathetic. And let’s face the facts: different denominations practice a different form of Christianity and each one of them thinks that they are “right.”

My advice to those who want this to be a “Christian nation” is this: be careful what you wish for. Right now, the religious right goes nuts when an atheist group sues over a Christmas display (which I personally think is a bit silly; I like Christmas, but I recognize its origins in pagan celebrations of the winter solstice). But these suits are nothing compared to what will happen if we start allowing religion to pervade society. Watch the Fundamentalists go ape shit if a Catholic teacher decides to display a picture of the Pope in a classroom. Watch the Catholics freak when a group of progressive Christians (yes, they exist) decide that educating teenagers about birth control is a smart thing to do. And the battle between the idiots who believe in the creation myth and those Christians who accept evolution as sound science will continue to wage on. Lawsuits will multiply way beyond what the atheist groups ever would have filed. Eventually, some government official will be required to step in and say, “Okay, the picture of the Pope has to go, birth control education has to go, but evolution can stay.” Guess what? The government just “established” a religion. Although it may be “Christian,” it is not the “right” kind of Christianity for some.

Be careful what you wish for.[/quote]

I basically believe that God gave us freewill and no government has the right to take that away, for better or worse.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Of course water won’t defy physics because a man raised a staff in front of it. God made the water defy physics.[/quote]

gee… that makes perfect sense

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
riddled with errors and inconsistencies[/quote]

Proof[/quote]

He’s not the one making outrageous claims of infallibility. Burden of proof has always and will always lie with you.[/quote]

I can’t prove a there is not a mistake, because that would require me of proving every letter of the Bible. Please learn how burden of proof works.[/quote]

If you want to claim the Bible is infallible, you had better be able to prove it. Your claim, your proof.[/quote]

Except I didn’t make that claim, he made the claim that it is riddled with errors and inconsistencies. The burden of proof is on him since he is the only one that made a claim.[/quote]

If I make a claim and someone calls bullshit on that claim, burden of proof lies with me. The original underlying claim here is Biblical accuracy, and if you make this claim and someone calls bullshit, you are saddled with the burden of proof.

Although it’s cute that you’re trying to dodge responsibility.[/quote]

So, what you’re saying is because he said the Bible is riddled with errors and contradictions and I asked for proof of those errors and contradictions that the burden of proof is on him. Okay.

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Okay…and I know this.[/quote]

If it’s just a completely unfounded concept how does it hold any legitimacy? W[/quote]

What do you mean unfounded concept? Maybe I’m just not connecting something to understand what you’re getting at.

P.S. Sorry for my ignorance just been a late night of work.[/quote]

There’s no legitimacy to claims of an afterlife, it just dates back to an ancient civilization’s mythology. Judgment of the soul isn’t exclusive to Christianity, to my knowledge it originated in ancient Egypt. If it’d no factual basis then how did it gain one at a later time?

[/quote]

It matters what you mean by factual. There is theological facts, philosophical facts, &c. Or are you talking about, “since I can’t see it or replicate it, it is, therefore, not fact.”

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Of course water won’t defy physics because a man raised a staff in front of it. God made the water defy physics.[/quote]

gee… that makes perfect sense[/quote]

Does to me. If God is omnipotent, he can separate waters infinitely easy.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Okay…and I know this.[/quote]

If it’s just a completely unfounded concept how does it hold any legitimacy? W[/quote]

What do you mean unfounded concept? Maybe I’m just not connecting something to understand what you’re getting at.

P.S. Sorry for my ignorance just been a late night of work.[/quote]

There’s no legitimacy to claims of an afterlife, it just dates back to an ancient civilization’s mythology. Judgment of the soul isn’t exclusive to Christianity, to my knowledge it originated in ancient Egypt. If it’d no factual basis then how did it gain one at a later time?

[/quote]

It matters what you mean by factual. There is theological facts, philosophical facts, &c. Or are you talking about, “since I can’t see it or replicate it, it is, therefore, not fact.”[/quote]

How’s something a theological fact or philosophical fact? Theology and philosophy are subjective. I see where you’re going with this though.

By factual I mean something that has a shred of credibility. The after life, like tales of El Cuco, are just things which were created by a society then perpetuated by it. There’s no factual basis for it.

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Okay…and I know this.[/quote]

If it’s just a completely unfounded concept how does it hold any legitimacy? W[/quote]

What do you mean unfounded concept? Maybe I’m just not connecting something to understand what you’re getting at.

P.S. Sorry for my ignorance just been a late night of work.[/quote]

There’s no legitimacy to claims of an afterlife, it just dates back to an ancient civilization’s mythology. Judgment of the soul isn’t exclusive to Christianity, to my knowledge it originated in ancient Egypt. If it’d no factual basis then how did it gain one at a later time?

[/quote]

It matters what you mean by factual. There is theological facts, philosophical facts, &c. Or are you talking about, “since I can’t see it or replicate it, it is, therefore, not fact.”[/quote]

How’s something a theological fact or philosophical fact? Theology and philosophy are subjective. I see where you’re going with this though.

By factual I mean something that has a shred of credibility. The after life, like tales of El Cuco, are just things which were created by a society then perpetuated by it. There’s no factual basis for it.[/quote]

I’m a historical/economic person, as I have stated before. The shred of credibility comes from Jesus and if he is telling the truth.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Okay…and I know this.[/quote]

If it’s just a completely unfounded concept how does it hold any legitimacy? W[/quote]

What do you mean unfounded concept? Maybe I’m just not connecting something to understand what you’re getting at.

P.S. Sorry for my ignorance just been a late night of work.[/quote]

There’s no legitimacy to claims of an afterlife, it just dates back to an ancient civilization’s mythology. Judgment of the soul isn’t exclusive to Christianity, to my knowledge it originated in ancient Egypt. If it’d no factual basis then how did it gain one at a later time?

[/quote]

It matters what you mean by factual. There is theological facts, philosophical facts, &c. Or are you talking about, “since I can’t see it or replicate it, it is, therefore, not fact.”[/quote]

How’s something a theological fact or philosophical fact? Theology and philosophy are subjective. I see where you’re going with this though.

By factual I mean something that has a shred of credibility. The after life, like tales of El Cuco, are just things which were created by a society then perpetuated by it. There’s no factual basis for it.[/quote]

I’m a historical/economic person, as I have stated before. The shred of credibility comes from Jesus and if he is telling the truth.[/quote]

“and if he is telling the truth.” That’s the real question.