pajarito 0 #351 May 12, 2004 Quoteyes it is a social institution, and we wish to change that institution. Which is our/their right to do so, adn then the definition would be part of every US citizen. Slavery was also a social institution that changed, as were many others, Again, I see NO ill effects for the purveyors of 'normal' marriage should gay marriage be allowed. This is a free country and unless you can come up with something that is going to cause ill-harm to society, then we/they should be free to pursue it. not only in marriage, but in everything. We too often have to prove that something is 'safe' to do. TK Robert H. Knight says: Various social movements have succeeded because they were in accord with natural law and the basic precepts of the moral code. Homosexuality has never been considered morally good, and it is a quantum leap from ending slavery to saying that homosexuality must now be considered good, healthy and worthy of state-protected benefits. Homosexuals enjoy all the rights every other citizen already has -- they can vote, own property, etc.-- but they cannot claim special treatment beyond those rights. Anytime they achieve that, they threaten the civil rights of those who disagree with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #352 May 12, 2004 QuoteQuote What you do in your bedroom is not the government’s business. It is the government’s business who can legitimately enter into marriage. In some states there are sodomy laws still on the books that govern what people can do in their own bedrooms. Insane. Lindsey I agree totally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #353 May 12, 2004 I think Robert Knight's not the brightest bulb in the box.... or the sharpest knife in the drawer. Peace~ Lindsey QuoteQuoteyes it is a social institution, and we wish to change that institution. Which is our/their right to do so, adn then the definition would be part of every US citizen. Slavery was also a social institution that changed, as were many others, Again, I see NO ill effects for the purveyors of 'normal' marriage should gay marriage be allowed. This is a free country and unless you can come up with something that is going to cause ill-harm to society, then we/they should be free to pursue it. not only in marriage, but in everything. We too often have to prove that something is 'safe' to do. TK Robert H. Knight says: Various social movements have succeeded because they were in accord with natural law and the basic precepts of the moral code. Homosexuality has never been considered morally good, and it is a quantum leap from ending slavery to saying that homosexuality must now be considered good, healthy and worthy of state-protected benefits. Homosexuals enjoy all the rights every other citizen already has -- they can vote, own property, etc.-- but they cannot claim special treatment beyond those rights. Anytime they achieve that, they threaten the civil rights of those who disagree with them.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #354 May 12, 2004 QuoteIf that's the case, then you have no right to object if the US further defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman that produces no more than two children - for the good of the US, of course. Or if they say that a marriage is indissoluble, and that a woman must stay with a man who beats her. After all, that's in the vows, right? And by your own admission, the standards for marriage ARE everyone else's business. Either you believe that no one else can tell you or anyone else what to do with your wife, or you believe the government CAN tell two people how they can or can't marry. You can't have it both ways - have your rights 100% protected while denying another group (blacks, gays, jews, you name it) theirs. Apples and oranges Billvon. Just like your thing with abortion and babies who are killed in war. Establishing the social institution of marriage and defining it as the union between one man and one woman isn’t telling anyone what they can or can’t do in their bedrooms. Robert H. Knight: Marriage has been the foundation of civilization for thousands of years in cultures around the world. It is the single most important social institution, and it is the basis for the procreation of children and the heart of family life. Those who are trying to radically redefine it for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Ordinary people did not pick this fight. They are not the aggressors. They are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #355 May 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteYeah, sure, it fits together perfectly except for all the parts I've heard (and I'm admitting I have not read the bible) contradict each other. I do know about the little, er, problem it has explaining where the rest of the population came from if not as direct descendents of Adam and Eve (which would make a whole lot of people incestuous). I am so tempted to not respond to this because you haven’t even attempted, by your admission, to have read anything from the text in question. Yet, you fully reject it outright based on opinions that you’ve heard. Now, that’s taking something (or nothing, rather) on faith. I don’t get the impression that you’re approaching these questions with sincerity and, therefore, I’m probably wasting my time with you. For the benefit of others, however, here goes… No..., that's not taking something on "faith": I've read enough, and learned enough; when I was a kid I was dragged to catholic church, given religious instruction, took first communion; I have cracked a bible now and then and realized that probably 99.9% of people who claim to "read" the bible probably don't understand what the hell is written there because it's so cryptic and ridiculously written in stylistic nonsensical prose, and no two of them could read the same five pages and come away with the same understanding of it. I don't have to have read the bible to have been taught what the religion is about and rejected it wholesale as being a load of crap. That's how I feel about it. Of course, there was incest in the beginning in order for the human race to propagate. Children would have had to marry relatives in order to produce more children. At the time of Adam & Eve, however, the genetic line was pure (i.e. “brand new”). It wasn’t until later, at the time of Moses, when incest was forbidden. It wasn’t a problem then, but it is now. So again god shifted rules on humanity. If god can't be constant and consistent, what good is he? How long were Adam and Eve supposed to have been in Eden before they ate the apple (and as I understand it, even "APPLE" is a mis-translation, and that it wasn't actually an apple, even though your bible probably says it was)? I always got the sense that it was like the same day they appeared there that they got kicked out. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, to believe that all the people of the world descended from Adam and Eve... the idea that people actually believe that makes me giggle at them as intellectual curiousities. It, to me, is like if I came across an adult who still believed in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. QuoteQuoteUm, so if I wrote a book about life on earth and said that I wrote it with the divine inspiration of god, how do you propose to prove that I am not full of shit? What makes these thousands-of-years-ago, uninterrogatable people who supposedly wrote "god's word" any more credible than any whacko today who claims god talks to him? Multiple witnesses who all corroborate the story. Fulfilled prophesy. Miracles. Torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection of the key figure (Jesus). Torture, mostly crucifixion and death of the one’s closest to the key figure (Disciples) who refused to deny him even to the extent of losing their lives. You don’t have those kinds of credentials or backing. Oh, okay, so the bible corroborates itself and that's good enough for you. That's what you're saying when I ask you what proves that this bible was written by people who actually knew the word of god as opposed to say ME writing a bible and making the claim. What proof of this torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection of "the key figure" is there besides the claim made in the bible -- which is the article we're asking for proof of in the first place? It is logically invalid to use the article in question as proof of the veracity of the article in question, dude. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #356 May 12, 2004 QuoteOn what level? Religious? If you belong to the Order of the Big Dog, you should be able to proclaim any kind of union you want with your dog. Civil? Animals don't have civil rights. Legal? Animals don't have legal rights. So if you want to marry your dog, go right ahead. No one's stopping you. Since it is not a person there is no contract to be entered into, no legal standing to be altered. As any pet owner, you are still 100% responsible for the actions of your pet no matter what your relationship is - and the animal still has no civil rights. Sure they’re stopped from marrying their dog. Even if for religious reasons. That’s not legal. That’s just as ridiculous as two men or two women marrying each other. It’s not “marriage.” The dog might have civil rights if it was married to the person. It might then have additional legal rights if it was married to the person as well. A married dog might be of a higher order than your run of the mill hound dog. I’m being facetious to illustrate the silliness of what we’re arguing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #357 May 12, 2004 QuoteI prefer to believe in Grandmother Spider. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #358 May 12, 2004 QuoteI like beer. Me too. WFC 2004...Whoo..whoo!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #359 May 12, 2004 QuoteI think Robert Knight's not the brightest bulb in the box.... or the sharpest knife in the drawer. I absolutely love it how, if we don't agree with someone, we immediately go after their character, credibility, or intelligence. I think he makes some very good points and makes his arguments very intelligently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #360 May 12, 2004 I didn't attack his character, but I do believe the quote was absolutely stupid! What does he base that garbage talk on? There's nothing to back it up except his own thinking. I prefer my thinking over his, and I'm nowhere near as bright as many of my friends here. But I do think my lightbulb's got a few watts on his, so he must be pretty dim...lol. I don't see that homosexuals are immoral. I cannot for the life of me come to that conclusion by any well thought-out reasoning. Lscribblescribble-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Deuce 1 #361 May 12, 2004 It really doesn't seem all that vicious, actually. It makes me wonder, though, how Billvon invents stuff while he's typing, and what the hell Paja is really supposed to be doing at his computer all day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #362 May 12, 2004 QuoteNo..., that's not taking something on "faith": I've read enough, and learned enough; when I was a kid I was dragged to catholic church, given religious instruction, took first communion; I have cracked a bible now and then and realized that probably 99.9% of people who claim to "read" the bible probably don't understand what the hell is written there because it's so cryptic and ridiculously written in stylistic nonsensical prose, and no two of them could read the same five pages and come away with the same understanding of it. I don't have to have read the bible to have been taught what the religion is about and rejected it wholesale as being a load of crap. That's how I feel about it. Sounds like you might have needed to get a second opinion other than your particular church (i.e. possibly a different denomination)(not intended to be a hit on the Catholic Church). I agree that many people who claim to “read” the Bible don’t know enough about it. I include myself in that example. There is so much to learn and, more importantly, “learn to apply.” QuoteSo again god shifted rules on humanity. If god can't be constant and consistent, what good is he? Who are you to question what and how He does? Were you there and do you have a better plan? QuoteHow long were Adam and Eve supposed to have been in Eden before they ate the apple (and as I understand it, even "APPLE" is a mis-translation, and that it wasn't actually an apple, even though your bible probably says it was)? I always got the sense that it was like the same day they appeared there that they got kicked out. Maybe I'm wrong. The apple may, in fact, be figurative. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. They weren’t supposed to eat of the “tree of life.” In other words, they weren’t supposed to try and make themselves equal with God (i.e. Tower of Babble). Does it also really matter how long they were in the Garden of Eden? Who cares? Does that take away from the purpose of Genesis? QuoteAnyway, to believe that all the people of the world descended from Adam and Eve... the idea that people actually believe that makes me giggle at them as intellectual curiousities. It, to me, is like if I came across an adult who still believed in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. What an elementary way of looking at such a complex issue. QuoteOh, okay, so the bible corroborates itself and that's good enough for you. That's what you're saying when I ask you what proves that this bible was written by people who actually knew the word of god as opposed to say ME writing a bible and making the claim. What proof of this torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection of "the key figure" is there besides the claim made in the bible -- which is the article we're asking for proof of in the first place? It is logically invalid to use the article in question as proof of the veracity of the article in question, dude. The Bible first authenticates itself as a text by means of textual criticism and verifiable historical accuracy. Then its contents or internal evidence can be trusted including all that I’ve mentioned about corroborating witnesses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #363 May 12, 2004 QuoteI didn't attack his character, but I do believe the quote was absolutely stupid! What does he base that garbage talk on? There's nothing to back it up except his own thinking. I prefer my thinking over his, and I'm nowhere near as bright as many of my friends here. But I do think my lightbulb's got a few watts on his, so he must be pretty dim...lol. I don't see that homosexuals are immoral. I cannot for the life of me come to that conclusion by any well thought-out reasoning. Lscribblescribble Just because you don’t agree with it and think its stupid doesn’t necessarily invalidate what he’s saying. It certainly doesn’t necessarily mean that “not the brightest bulb in the box.... or the sharpest knife in the drawer.” And you’ve got nothing to back up what you’re saying except for your own thinking. Maybe you are smarter than he is. I doubt you’re smarter than 3ringheathen, though. I think that homosexuals are immoral based on religious beliefs. That doesn’t necessarily play into whether homosexuals fit into the “marriage” category. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #364 May 12, 2004 I only stated what I thought. I did not unequivocally state that he was stupid. I just said that I thought he might be....just my own self thinkin' (tongue firmly planted in cheek) I know this is a hot topic for you. I'm just kinda tryin' to lighten it up a bit because all this tension's gettin' to me....-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #365 May 12, 2004 a source, by definition, cannot validate itself. Validation comes from additional sources OUTSIDE the original. Should you have any such sources, I would be quite interested to see them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #366 May 12, 2004 Quotea source, by definition, cannot validate itself. Validation comes from additional sources OUTSIDE the original. Should you have any such sources, I would be quite interested to see them. The Bible is a collection of books. Just because it’s bound together doesn’t make it one work even though I usually speak of it as such. Therefore, John would be an “outside” source for Mathew. Luke would be an “outside” source for Mark, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #367 May 12, 2004 no, because you had a single group of people with a single motivation whose works on a single subject were bound into a single document. please show some kind of evidence from outside the bible... some kind of historical record, letter, or whatnot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #368 May 12, 2004 QuoteIt's much easier to buy into the notion that there is a higher, but highly disinterested, being that created the world and is now off drinking guiness in the celestial pub. and QuoteBecause any divine being up there has no involvement with events down on earth. and QuoteFollowing that, the notion that a greater being sits back idly but upon your death accepts you merely for believing in it is one of the least rational ones out there. Not sure what you are saying here, but I am gonna go with how I read it. I do not believe that God is disinterested. He takes a very active role in the events of the world just as I take a very active role in the lives of my children. He sets standards for our benefit as I do for my children. And just as my children have free will to do whatever they want so do I. Should I do the wrong things there are consequences, just as for my children. More importantly, because of free will I will not always intervene on behalf of my children to fix their mistakes, sometimes I let them suffer the consequences on their own, in the hopes that they will learn. God does the same. That does not mean He is disinterested. As far as attacking anyone outside my faith. I have done no such thing nor will I ever. In fact I "live *my* own life, treat other people as well as possible, and try to have as few regrets as possible." (to quote you) And I do it while living a life of faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #369 May 12, 2004 Quoteno, because you had a single group of people with a single motivation whose works on a single subject were bound into a single document. please show some kind of evidence from outside the bible... some kind of historical record, letter, or whatnot. What I gave you fit the requirement of your previous request. Now you’re putting specific conditions on your requirement so that what I gave you is invalid. What exactly are you trying to prove? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #370 May 12, 2004 the burden of proof isn't on me. I asked specifically for a source OUTSIDE the bible, and you have failed (twice) to provide one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #371 May 12, 2004 QuoteHey: I don't have any proof either, but you owe me $10,000. Pay up or suffer the consequences! -Josh You are right, you have no proof that I owe you 10,000 dollars because that proof does not exist. But the proof of God's existence in everywhere. Scriptures speak of events before they happened and speak of many more events to come. Miracles happen every day. People are healed, tragedies avoided, blessing incurred, often times without anyone realizing it, but many times in plain sight. But because people do not want to believe in God they see those miracles as some random chance or as the power of the human mind to heal, or because they smoked some herb, or because of luck, or whatever way people explain away miracles. It is easy to not believe because then you can do whatever you want without accountability. It requires something more of you to have faith. And not just blind faith, but faith that has been reasoned out, mulled over, and discovered. I by no means choose to come to faith blindly. I had to be convinced and I reasoned all the evidence and came to faith through the evidence. So as far as all the ability to question and reason that God gave us, He gave it to us so we would look for Him. Then come to faith through reasoning, not blindness. He even says in the scriptures "Come let us reason together." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #372 May 12, 2004 >Sure they’re stopped from marrying their dog. Even if for religious >reasons. That’s not legal. That’s just as ridiculous as two men or two > women marrying each other. It’s not “marriage.” You are making a circular argument. It's wrong because it's illegal, and it's illegal because it's wrong. >The dog might have civil rights if it was married to the person. Uh - no. Animals don't have civil rights. Period. They are property. If you want to get them civil rights, then go for it - but you'll get no support from me. And if you are really equating gays with dogs? Then the discussion is not worth continuing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #373 May 12, 2004 QuoteI agree that it could have happened that way and I also agree that the causality was from God for reason of design. Who's to say how long it took in reference to what time is to God. Who's also to say that God didn't use evolution in some way to create Adam & Eve (the first to Biblically be considered humans). I don't know and I don't think we will in this lifetime. OK, just to drag this back two pages evolution and the story of adam and eve cannot coexist. You can't say that evolution created adam and eve whos offspring then needed an incestuous relationship to further the human race. To be quite frank it shows a lack of understanding that pisses all over both explanations of the origin of the human race. Now thats over with, I like beer too.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #374 May 12, 2004 Quotethe burden of proof isn't on me. I asked specifically for a source OUTSIDE the bible, and you have failed (twice) to provide one. That wasn’t your question. Your original question: Quotea source, by definition, cannot validate itself. Validation comes from additional sources OUTSIDE the original. Should you have any such sources, I would be quite interested to see them. Matthew is an original. Mark is an original. John is an original. Luke may be a composite because it was written to tell a more complete history. Acts & Romans are each originals validating much in the Gospels. Mark is an outside source validating John and visa versa. I ask you again. What exactly are you trying to prove. You’re making it into a very loaded question. I’ll be back later tonight. My family and I are leaving. Hasta! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #375 May 12, 2004 the bible was written and compiled by a single group with a single goal. therefore, it is a single source. I simply requested an additional source. I have nothing to prove. I am not the one making any claims here. You are. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 15 of 17 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
pajarito 0 #359 May 12, 2004 QuoteI think Robert Knight's not the brightest bulb in the box.... or the sharpest knife in the drawer. I absolutely love it how, if we don't agree with someone, we immediately go after their character, credibility, or intelligence. I think he makes some very good points and makes his arguments very intelligently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #360 May 12, 2004 I didn't attack his character, but I do believe the quote was absolutely stupid! What does he base that garbage talk on? There's nothing to back it up except his own thinking. I prefer my thinking over his, and I'm nowhere near as bright as many of my friends here. But I do think my lightbulb's got a few watts on his, so he must be pretty dim...lol. I don't see that homosexuals are immoral. I cannot for the life of me come to that conclusion by any well thought-out reasoning. Lscribblescribble-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Deuce 1 #361 May 12, 2004 It really doesn't seem all that vicious, actually. It makes me wonder, though, how Billvon invents stuff while he's typing, and what the hell Paja is really supposed to be doing at his computer all day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #362 May 12, 2004 QuoteNo..., that's not taking something on "faith": I've read enough, and learned enough; when I was a kid I was dragged to catholic church, given religious instruction, took first communion; I have cracked a bible now and then and realized that probably 99.9% of people who claim to "read" the bible probably don't understand what the hell is written there because it's so cryptic and ridiculously written in stylistic nonsensical prose, and no two of them could read the same five pages and come away with the same understanding of it. I don't have to have read the bible to have been taught what the religion is about and rejected it wholesale as being a load of crap. That's how I feel about it. Sounds like you might have needed to get a second opinion other than your particular church (i.e. possibly a different denomination)(not intended to be a hit on the Catholic Church). I agree that many people who claim to “read” the Bible don’t know enough about it. I include myself in that example. There is so much to learn and, more importantly, “learn to apply.” QuoteSo again god shifted rules on humanity. If god can't be constant and consistent, what good is he? Who are you to question what and how He does? Were you there and do you have a better plan? QuoteHow long were Adam and Eve supposed to have been in Eden before they ate the apple (and as I understand it, even "APPLE" is a mis-translation, and that it wasn't actually an apple, even though your bible probably says it was)? I always got the sense that it was like the same day they appeared there that they got kicked out. Maybe I'm wrong. The apple may, in fact, be figurative. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. They weren’t supposed to eat of the “tree of life.” In other words, they weren’t supposed to try and make themselves equal with God (i.e. Tower of Babble). Does it also really matter how long they were in the Garden of Eden? Who cares? Does that take away from the purpose of Genesis? QuoteAnyway, to believe that all the people of the world descended from Adam and Eve... the idea that people actually believe that makes me giggle at them as intellectual curiousities. It, to me, is like if I came across an adult who still believed in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. What an elementary way of looking at such a complex issue. QuoteOh, okay, so the bible corroborates itself and that's good enough for you. That's what you're saying when I ask you what proves that this bible was written by people who actually knew the word of god as opposed to say ME writing a bible and making the claim. What proof of this torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection of "the key figure" is there besides the claim made in the bible -- which is the article we're asking for proof of in the first place? It is logically invalid to use the article in question as proof of the veracity of the article in question, dude. The Bible first authenticates itself as a text by means of textual criticism and verifiable historical accuracy. Then its contents or internal evidence can be trusted including all that I’ve mentioned about corroborating witnesses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #363 May 12, 2004 QuoteI didn't attack his character, but I do believe the quote was absolutely stupid! What does he base that garbage talk on? There's nothing to back it up except his own thinking. I prefer my thinking over his, and I'm nowhere near as bright as many of my friends here. But I do think my lightbulb's got a few watts on his, so he must be pretty dim...lol. I don't see that homosexuals are immoral. I cannot for the life of me come to that conclusion by any well thought-out reasoning. Lscribblescribble Just because you don’t agree with it and think its stupid doesn’t necessarily invalidate what he’s saying. It certainly doesn’t necessarily mean that “not the brightest bulb in the box.... or the sharpest knife in the drawer.” And you’ve got nothing to back up what you’re saying except for your own thinking. Maybe you are smarter than he is. I doubt you’re smarter than 3ringheathen, though. I think that homosexuals are immoral based on religious beliefs. That doesn’t necessarily play into whether homosexuals fit into the “marriage” category. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #364 May 12, 2004 I only stated what I thought. I did not unequivocally state that he was stupid. I just said that I thought he might be....just my own self thinkin' (tongue firmly planted in cheek) I know this is a hot topic for you. I'm just kinda tryin' to lighten it up a bit because all this tension's gettin' to me....-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #365 May 12, 2004 a source, by definition, cannot validate itself. Validation comes from additional sources OUTSIDE the original. Should you have any such sources, I would be quite interested to see them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #366 May 12, 2004 Quotea source, by definition, cannot validate itself. Validation comes from additional sources OUTSIDE the original. Should you have any such sources, I would be quite interested to see them. The Bible is a collection of books. Just because it’s bound together doesn’t make it one work even though I usually speak of it as such. Therefore, John would be an “outside” source for Mathew. Luke would be an “outside” source for Mark, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #367 May 12, 2004 no, because you had a single group of people with a single motivation whose works on a single subject were bound into a single document. please show some kind of evidence from outside the bible... some kind of historical record, letter, or whatnot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #368 May 12, 2004 QuoteIt's much easier to buy into the notion that there is a higher, but highly disinterested, being that created the world and is now off drinking guiness in the celestial pub. and QuoteBecause any divine being up there has no involvement with events down on earth. and QuoteFollowing that, the notion that a greater being sits back idly but upon your death accepts you merely for believing in it is one of the least rational ones out there. Not sure what you are saying here, but I am gonna go with how I read it. I do not believe that God is disinterested. He takes a very active role in the events of the world just as I take a very active role in the lives of my children. He sets standards for our benefit as I do for my children. And just as my children have free will to do whatever they want so do I. Should I do the wrong things there are consequences, just as for my children. More importantly, because of free will I will not always intervene on behalf of my children to fix their mistakes, sometimes I let them suffer the consequences on their own, in the hopes that they will learn. God does the same. That does not mean He is disinterested. As far as attacking anyone outside my faith. I have done no such thing nor will I ever. In fact I "live *my* own life, treat other people as well as possible, and try to have as few regrets as possible." (to quote you) And I do it while living a life of faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #369 May 12, 2004 Quoteno, because you had a single group of people with a single motivation whose works on a single subject were bound into a single document. please show some kind of evidence from outside the bible... some kind of historical record, letter, or whatnot. What I gave you fit the requirement of your previous request. Now you’re putting specific conditions on your requirement so that what I gave you is invalid. What exactly are you trying to prove? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #370 May 12, 2004 the burden of proof isn't on me. I asked specifically for a source OUTSIDE the bible, and you have failed (twice) to provide one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #371 May 12, 2004 QuoteHey: I don't have any proof either, but you owe me $10,000. Pay up or suffer the consequences! -Josh You are right, you have no proof that I owe you 10,000 dollars because that proof does not exist. But the proof of God's existence in everywhere. Scriptures speak of events before they happened and speak of many more events to come. Miracles happen every day. People are healed, tragedies avoided, blessing incurred, often times without anyone realizing it, but many times in plain sight. But because people do not want to believe in God they see those miracles as some random chance or as the power of the human mind to heal, or because they smoked some herb, or because of luck, or whatever way people explain away miracles. It is easy to not believe because then you can do whatever you want without accountability. It requires something more of you to have faith. And not just blind faith, but faith that has been reasoned out, mulled over, and discovered. I by no means choose to come to faith blindly. I had to be convinced and I reasoned all the evidence and came to faith through the evidence. So as far as all the ability to question and reason that God gave us, He gave it to us so we would look for Him. Then come to faith through reasoning, not blindness. He even says in the scriptures "Come let us reason together." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,435 #372 May 12, 2004 >Sure they’re stopped from marrying their dog. Even if for religious >reasons. That’s not legal. That’s just as ridiculous as two men or two > women marrying each other. It’s not “marriage.” You are making a circular argument. It's wrong because it's illegal, and it's illegal because it's wrong. >The dog might have civil rights if it was married to the person. Uh - no. Animals don't have civil rights. Period. They are property. If you want to get them civil rights, then go for it - but you'll get no support from me. And if you are really equating gays with dogs? Then the discussion is not worth continuing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #373 May 12, 2004 QuoteI agree that it could have happened that way and I also agree that the causality was from God for reason of design. Who's to say how long it took in reference to what time is to God. Who's also to say that God didn't use evolution in some way to create Adam & Eve (the first to Biblically be considered humans). I don't know and I don't think we will in this lifetime. OK, just to drag this back two pages evolution and the story of adam and eve cannot coexist. You can't say that evolution created adam and eve whos offspring then needed an incestuous relationship to further the human race. To be quite frank it shows a lack of understanding that pisses all over both explanations of the origin of the human race. Now thats over with, I like beer too.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #374 May 12, 2004 Quotethe burden of proof isn't on me. I asked specifically for a source OUTSIDE the bible, and you have failed (twice) to provide one. That wasn’t your question. Your original question: Quotea source, by definition, cannot validate itself. Validation comes from additional sources OUTSIDE the original. Should you have any such sources, I would be quite interested to see them. Matthew is an original. Mark is an original. John is an original. Luke may be a composite because it was written to tell a more complete history. Acts & Romans are each originals validating much in the Gospels. Mark is an outside source validating John and visa versa. I ask you again. What exactly are you trying to prove. You’re making it into a very loaded question. I’ll be back later tonight. My family and I are leaving. Hasta! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #375 May 12, 2004 the bible was written and compiled by a single group with a single goal. therefore, it is a single source. I simply requested an additional source. I have nothing to prove. I am not the one making any claims here. You are. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next Page 15 of 17 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Lindsey 0 #360 May 12, 2004 I didn't attack his character, but I do believe the quote was absolutely stupid! What does he base that garbage talk on? There's nothing to back it up except his own thinking. I prefer my thinking over his, and I'm nowhere near as bright as many of my friends here. But I do think my lightbulb's got a few watts on his, so he must be pretty dim...lol. I don't see that homosexuals are immoral. I cannot for the life of me come to that conclusion by any well thought-out reasoning. Lscribblescribble-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #361 May 12, 2004 It really doesn't seem all that vicious, actually. It makes me wonder, though, how Billvon invents stuff while he's typing, and what the hell Paja is really supposed to be doing at his computer all day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #362 May 12, 2004 QuoteNo..., that's not taking something on "faith": I've read enough, and learned enough; when I was a kid I was dragged to catholic church, given religious instruction, took first communion; I have cracked a bible now and then and realized that probably 99.9% of people who claim to "read" the bible probably don't understand what the hell is written there because it's so cryptic and ridiculously written in stylistic nonsensical prose, and no two of them could read the same five pages and come away with the same understanding of it. I don't have to have read the bible to have been taught what the religion is about and rejected it wholesale as being a load of crap. That's how I feel about it. Sounds like you might have needed to get a second opinion other than your particular church (i.e. possibly a different denomination)(not intended to be a hit on the Catholic Church). I agree that many people who claim to “read” the Bible don’t know enough about it. I include myself in that example. There is so much to learn and, more importantly, “learn to apply.” QuoteSo again god shifted rules on humanity. If god can't be constant and consistent, what good is he? Who are you to question what and how He does? Were you there and do you have a better plan? QuoteHow long were Adam and Eve supposed to have been in Eden before they ate the apple (and as I understand it, even "APPLE" is a mis-translation, and that it wasn't actually an apple, even though your bible probably says it was)? I always got the sense that it was like the same day they appeared there that they got kicked out. Maybe I'm wrong. The apple may, in fact, be figurative. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. They weren’t supposed to eat of the “tree of life.” In other words, they weren’t supposed to try and make themselves equal with God (i.e. Tower of Babble). Does it also really matter how long they were in the Garden of Eden? Who cares? Does that take away from the purpose of Genesis? QuoteAnyway, to believe that all the people of the world descended from Adam and Eve... the idea that people actually believe that makes me giggle at them as intellectual curiousities. It, to me, is like if I came across an adult who still believed in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. What an elementary way of looking at such a complex issue. QuoteOh, okay, so the bible corroborates itself and that's good enough for you. That's what you're saying when I ask you what proves that this bible was written by people who actually knew the word of god as opposed to say ME writing a bible and making the claim. What proof of this torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection of "the key figure" is there besides the claim made in the bible -- which is the article we're asking for proof of in the first place? It is logically invalid to use the article in question as proof of the veracity of the article in question, dude. The Bible first authenticates itself as a text by means of textual criticism and verifiable historical accuracy. Then its contents or internal evidence can be trusted including all that I’ve mentioned about corroborating witnesses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #363 May 12, 2004 QuoteI didn't attack his character, but I do believe the quote was absolutely stupid! What does he base that garbage talk on? There's nothing to back it up except his own thinking. I prefer my thinking over his, and I'm nowhere near as bright as many of my friends here. But I do think my lightbulb's got a few watts on his, so he must be pretty dim...lol. I don't see that homosexuals are immoral. I cannot for the life of me come to that conclusion by any well thought-out reasoning. Lscribblescribble Just because you don’t agree with it and think its stupid doesn’t necessarily invalidate what he’s saying. It certainly doesn’t necessarily mean that “not the brightest bulb in the box.... or the sharpest knife in the drawer.” And you’ve got nothing to back up what you’re saying except for your own thinking. Maybe you are smarter than he is. I doubt you’re smarter than 3ringheathen, though. I think that homosexuals are immoral based on religious beliefs. That doesn’t necessarily play into whether homosexuals fit into the “marriage” category. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #364 May 12, 2004 I only stated what I thought. I did not unequivocally state that he was stupid. I just said that I thought he might be....just my own self thinkin' (tongue firmly planted in cheek) I know this is a hot topic for you. I'm just kinda tryin' to lighten it up a bit because all this tension's gettin' to me....-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #365 May 12, 2004 a source, by definition, cannot validate itself. Validation comes from additional sources OUTSIDE the original. Should you have any such sources, I would be quite interested to see them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #366 May 12, 2004 Quotea source, by definition, cannot validate itself. Validation comes from additional sources OUTSIDE the original. Should you have any such sources, I would be quite interested to see them. The Bible is a collection of books. Just because it’s bound together doesn’t make it one work even though I usually speak of it as such. Therefore, John would be an “outside” source for Mathew. Luke would be an “outside” source for Mark, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #367 May 12, 2004 no, because you had a single group of people with a single motivation whose works on a single subject were bound into a single document. please show some kind of evidence from outside the bible... some kind of historical record, letter, or whatnot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #368 May 12, 2004 QuoteIt's much easier to buy into the notion that there is a higher, but highly disinterested, being that created the world and is now off drinking guiness in the celestial pub. and QuoteBecause any divine being up there has no involvement with events down on earth. and QuoteFollowing that, the notion that a greater being sits back idly but upon your death accepts you merely for believing in it is one of the least rational ones out there. Not sure what you are saying here, but I am gonna go with how I read it. I do not believe that God is disinterested. He takes a very active role in the events of the world just as I take a very active role in the lives of my children. He sets standards for our benefit as I do for my children. And just as my children have free will to do whatever they want so do I. Should I do the wrong things there are consequences, just as for my children. More importantly, because of free will I will not always intervene on behalf of my children to fix their mistakes, sometimes I let them suffer the consequences on their own, in the hopes that they will learn. God does the same. That does not mean He is disinterested. As far as attacking anyone outside my faith. I have done no such thing nor will I ever. In fact I "live *my* own life, treat other people as well as possible, and try to have as few regrets as possible." (to quote you) And I do it while living a life of faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #369 May 12, 2004 Quoteno, because you had a single group of people with a single motivation whose works on a single subject were bound into a single document. please show some kind of evidence from outside the bible... some kind of historical record, letter, or whatnot. What I gave you fit the requirement of your previous request. Now you’re putting specific conditions on your requirement so that what I gave you is invalid. What exactly are you trying to prove? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #370 May 12, 2004 the burden of proof isn't on me. I asked specifically for a source OUTSIDE the bible, and you have failed (twice) to provide one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #371 May 12, 2004 QuoteHey: I don't have any proof either, but you owe me $10,000. Pay up or suffer the consequences! -Josh You are right, you have no proof that I owe you 10,000 dollars because that proof does not exist. But the proof of God's existence in everywhere. Scriptures speak of events before they happened and speak of many more events to come. Miracles happen every day. People are healed, tragedies avoided, blessing incurred, often times without anyone realizing it, but many times in plain sight. But because people do not want to believe in God they see those miracles as some random chance or as the power of the human mind to heal, or because they smoked some herb, or because of luck, or whatever way people explain away miracles. It is easy to not believe because then you can do whatever you want without accountability. It requires something more of you to have faith. And not just blind faith, but faith that has been reasoned out, mulled over, and discovered. I by no means choose to come to faith blindly. I had to be convinced and I reasoned all the evidence and came to faith through the evidence. So as far as all the ability to question and reason that God gave us, He gave it to us so we would look for Him. Then come to faith through reasoning, not blindness. He even says in the scriptures "Come let us reason together." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #372 May 12, 2004 >Sure they’re stopped from marrying their dog. Even if for religious >reasons. That’s not legal. That’s just as ridiculous as two men or two > women marrying each other. It’s not “marriage.” You are making a circular argument. It's wrong because it's illegal, and it's illegal because it's wrong. >The dog might have civil rights if it was married to the person. Uh - no. Animals don't have civil rights. Period. They are property. If you want to get them civil rights, then go for it - but you'll get no support from me. And if you are really equating gays with dogs? Then the discussion is not worth continuing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #373 May 12, 2004 QuoteI agree that it could have happened that way and I also agree that the causality was from God for reason of design. Who's to say how long it took in reference to what time is to God. Who's also to say that God didn't use evolution in some way to create Adam & Eve (the first to Biblically be considered humans). I don't know and I don't think we will in this lifetime. OK, just to drag this back two pages evolution and the story of adam and eve cannot coexist. You can't say that evolution created adam and eve whos offspring then needed an incestuous relationship to further the human race. To be quite frank it shows a lack of understanding that pisses all over both explanations of the origin of the human race. Now thats over with, I like beer too.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #374 May 12, 2004 Quotethe burden of proof isn't on me. I asked specifically for a source OUTSIDE the bible, and you have failed (twice) to provide one. That wasn’t your question. Your original question: Quotea source, by definition, cannot validate itself. Validation comes from additional sources OUTSIDE the original. Should you have any such sources, I would be quite interested to see them. Matthew is an original. Mark is an original. John is an original. Luke may be a composite because it was written to tell a more complete history. Acts & Romans are each originals validating much in the Gospels. Mark is an outside source validating John and visa versa. I ask you again. What exactly are you trying to prove. You’re making it into a very loaded question. I’ll be back later tonight. My family and I are leaving. Hasta! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #375 May 12, 2004 the bible was written and compiled by a single group with a single goal. therefore, it is a single source. I simply requested an additional source. I have nothing to prove. I am not the one making any claims here. You are. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
