Why the Bible is Pretty Much Completely Unreliable
Budikka666
Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them. You
can't access this at the www.discovermagazine.com web site of course
because it's current, but you can read articles online about these
topics. For example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
and
http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
www.wikipedia.org probably has some good information on it, too.
To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
modified. It turns out that even the simple act of recalling a memory
actually modifies the memory. The more it's recalled, the more it's
modified. eventually, it could well get to a point where the memory
bears little or no resemblance to the thing which was supposed to have
been remembered.
Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for doubting the
Bible:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/inspiration_of_bible.html
but the main one would appear to be that the stories were not written
as they happened. They were written from memory of tradition.
Before they were written, these stories were passed along person-to-
person, being recalled and told, recalled and told, understood by the
teller to be one thing, and by the listener to be something else, and
this went on for an unknown number of years before anything was
committed to writing.
There are people who disagree that the stories were an oral tradition,
but look at it this way: if we pretend for a minute that Adam lived
around 6,000BC, and compare that with the Babylonian captivity circa
600BC when the Bible was first written down in any sort of order, even
the fundies have to admit that there were well over 5,000 years of
these oral traditions being passed on before they ever got down on
parchment or papyrus or whatever they were first written on.
Yes, no doubt there were some things written before then, but only the
most gullible fundie will try to pretend we've had written documents
ever since Adam. So NO, we *don't* have the original documents. NO,
the forefathers *didn't* write any of this down. It all came from
tradition, stories and oral history originally.
So tell me - given the *fact* that our memories are notoriously
unreliable, why should the Bible be any more reliable than the
memories of the people who wrote it?
Budikka
magicus
<budi...@netscape.net> typed:
Thanks for the update and links!
ciao,
f
--
"The aliens will visit us when they can make money by doing so."
-- David Byrne
AZ Nomad
>There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
>Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them. You
>can't access this at the www.discovermagazine.com web site of course
>because it's current, but you can read articles online about these
It is completely reliable --
reliable in providing justification for any behavior no matter how
bizarre or heinous. Has has worked fabulously well for supporting
racism, genocide, slavery, male domination, etc. It helps keep the
lower classes subjugated into providing benefits for the ruling
classes in exchange for nothing but feel good lies.
gabriel
posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
attempts to undermine God's Word]
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:21:44 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
: There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
Good question. There are a couple of very important reasons why
we can completely trust the Bible.
For starters, the Word of God was given by inspiration of God.
2 Timothy 3:16 KJVR
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness:
The Bible *is* God's Word. God's abilities clearly override
whatever doubts we may have about mankind's memory ability in
general, or any of mankind's failings that might lead to the
corruption of God's Word, intentionally or otherwise.
And even Jesus said,
John 14:25-26 KJVR
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with
you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
It's the spirit of God that brought to remembrance all things,
whatsoever Jesus had said unto them. So it's not just fallible
mankind that was responsible for "remembering" God's Word.
Jesus also said,
John 10:35 KJVR
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
the Scripture cannot be broken;
Jesus himself said the scripture cannot be broken / dissolved /
loosened. This would include not being broken / dissolved /
loosened from any belief about mankind's memory and it's claimed
effect on God's Word.
And for God, being powerful enough to create the universe and all
life, it would certainly be trivial to make sure mankind would
not destroy an accurate version of His Word, either intentionally
(which has been attempted many times and always failed) or
unintentionally as some might want to believe.
Even the dead sea scrolls being found recently, which outdated
our oldest texts, still matched up with what we had at the time.
So in the end, it comes down to faith. Those that believe in God,
and believe in what He can do, can know and trust what He tells
us about His Word. Those who don't want to hear what God has to
say will only come up with more ways to discredit it, as if God
is not powerful enough to deal with any reasons they claim God's
Word cannot be trusted. It's the oldest lie of Satan: that what
God said cannot be trusted, or that God didn't really say that,
and so on.
Genesis 3:1-5 KJVR
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea,
hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit
of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye
touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your
eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and
evil.
And after thousands of years, we can see Satan is alive and well
trying to convince others that we can't trust everything about
what God says. But the truth is always the same: Satan is the
father of lies, and there is no truth in Him - but God is all
powerful.
All glory and honor to God the Father of our Lord and Savior,
Jesus Christ!
Christopher A. Lee
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
>posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
>attempts to undermine God's Word]
What a fucking moron.
Check the headers.
And nobody is "undermining" anything, liar.
So why lie about that, liar?
Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical God before saying it has a
word?
Let alone one to "undermine"?
Until you do that it remains merely your religious belief that you are
too stupid and discourteous to keep where it is appropriate.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
> memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> modified.
Then everything ever written that is based on memory (in other words,
almost everything ever written that purports to be historical) is
similarly "unreliable". A far better reason to consider many of the
stories in the Bible unreliable is simply that they are absurd on
their face.
Onward � Morons
coast how many prayed to jesus not to die BUTT, well, if your halfway smart
you get it...
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:9a4c03d7-3042-48e7...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
<snippy>
> So tell me - given the *fact* that our memories are notoriously
> unreliable, why should the Bible be any more reliable than the
> memories of the people who wrote it?
'cause the bible sez so! </fundie>
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication
aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder.
Smiler
Using the bible to 'verify' the bible is circular reasoning.
Every (well) forged banknote looks very much like it is real.
Do you accept it *is* real without first checking?
Or do you also look at a real one and compare the two (question the veracity
of it from an outside source)?
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
raven1
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[removed alt.atheism,
Obviously not.
Richo
<snip>
> So tell me - given the *fact* that our memories are notoriously
> unreliable, why should the Bible be any more reliable than the
> memories of the people who wrote it?
>
> Budikka
I think this is the least of the Bibles problems.
There is simply the fact that the stories are on their face absurd,
impossible and/or self contradictory.
If a man insists he is the emperor Napoleon reincarnated and has been
appointed Ruler of the World by the High Venusian Council - then I
don't think his *memory* is the problem.
In ancient times people who we would today see as mentally ill were
then likely to be regarded as prophets "blessed" by visions.
Mark.
� Reality Check� �
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:9a4c03d7-3042-48e7...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
KKKill-4-KKKhrist
> <snip>
>> So tell me - given the *fact* that our memories are notoriously
>> unreliable, why should the Bible be any more reliable than the
>> memories of the people who wrote it?
No *one* wrote "it" ... THEE Blabball is nothing but a collection of
man-made FISH stories (how apropos) based on wild imaginations of people who
could actually write something legible that *ALL* had to be rewritten to make
more sense ... well, I know, the canon never make "sense" lol
There are more stories left out of THEE Blabball that were put in it, the
stories that were left out were just too unbelievable - lol
OK-OK, I know, they could have put any of the embellished stories into the
canon and shooting the shit to this day would have still been just ass
absurd, no matter rewritten or not...
>> BudiKKKa
--
THEE American Military WANTS YOU!!!
~: O
_ //
//
<>[]()X()[]>> ><>><>><>>><>><> KKKill-4-KKKhrist ><>><>><>>><>><>
_\\
\\
~: O
https://www.cafepress.com/YbeLIEve
https://www.cafepress.com/FreeDumbOf
https://www.cafepress.com/FreeDumbFrom
Got Conscience?
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> attempts to undermine God's Word]
Funny, how you claim to have removed our group, a valient effort, indeed,
but have failed completely to do so. :-)
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:21:44 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>: There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
>: Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them.
>: You can't access this at the www.discovermagazine.com web site of
>: course because it's current, but you can read articles online about
>: these topics. For example:
>: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
>: and
>: http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
>:
>: www.wikipedia.org probably has some good information on it, too.
>:
>: To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
>: memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
>: modified. It turns out that even the simple act of recalling a
>: memory actually modifies the memory. The more it's recalled, the
>: more it's modified. eventually, it could well get to a point where
>: the memory bears little or no resemblance to the thing which was
>: supposed to have been remembered.
>:
>: Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for doubting
>: the Bible:
>: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/inspiratio
>: n_of_bible.html but the main one would appear to be that the stories
Now all you have to do is give an iota of evidence that proves your
"god" exists. Don't worry, we know you can't. And don't forget, bible
quotes, no matter how much you believe it, don't do diddly, since the
only place this "god" of yours seems to exist is within the stories that
eminate from the bible. The bible contains stories about a whole lot of
impossible nonsense, so we know it isn't the word of any creator of this
world. And since the believers in this "god" tend to give it properties
that contradict reality, I'll have to conclude your words are bullshit.
<snip>
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
Alex W.
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in message
news:YwDZl.5454$mh5....@newsfe01.ams2...
> Every (well) forged banknote looks very much like it is
> real.
> Do you accept it *is* real without first checking?
> Or do you also look at a real one and compare the two
> (question the veracity of it from an outside source)?
It is sensible and good to firmly believe that such a fake
is the real thing until you manage to dispose of it with
some unsuspecting shopkeeper....
;-)
JTEM
> Before they were written, these stories were passed along
> person-to- person, being recalled and told, recalled and
> told, understood by the teller to be one thing, and by the
> listener to be something else, and this went on for an
> unknown number of years before anything was committed
> to writing.
there's a couple of problems with this.
The first is that there is absolutely no evidence for it. In fact,
the "Oral Tradition" could very well be a somewhat modern
invention, used to explain the lack of bible-culture in archaeology.
Another rather obvious problem is that the culture which produced
the bible valued the written word, including within the bible itself.
"The Ten Commandments," say. But there's also a tradition that
the bible -- written out -- is the name of God.
Finally, there's no shortage of text. You're right, there's no bible,
but there's no shortage of text that would eventually find it's way
into the bible... all of it distinctly Pagan. Which, yeah, would be
my guess for the invention of the "Oral Tradition."
Instead of saying that the inhabitants of the southern Levant
EVOLVED a monotheistic religion... that their gods morphed
into the one... their traditions adapted to the cultural changes,
you explain it's lack of historical existence by pretending that,
despite all facts, it must have been orally transmitted.
I don't buy it. It's no different from Fundy-think, trying to
shoehorn in a literally true bible...
duke
wrote:
>Before they were written, these stories were passed along person-to-
>person, being recalled and told, recalled and told, understood by the
>teller to be one thing, and by the listener to be something else, and
>this went on for an unknown number of years before anything was
>committed to writing.
True for the OT which prophesies the coming of the Messiah.
In the Christian New Testament, we have the summarized written word coming from
the words, actions, and especially the RELIGIOUS PRACTICES of the whole new
Christian people.
Better luck next time.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
Idiot sites.
duke
>Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Before they were written, these stories were passed along
>> person-to- person, being recalled and told, recalled and
>> told, understood by the teller to be one thing, and by the
>> listener to be something else, and this went on for an
>> unknown number of years before anything was committed
>> to writing.
>
>there's a couple of problems with this.
>
>The first is that there is absolutely no evidence for it.
That's just your way of saying YOU'RE not convinced with the plethora of
evidence to be found.
Jimbo
> [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> attempts to undermine God's Word]
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:21:44 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>
>
> : There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
> : Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them. You
> : because it's current, but you can read articles online about these
> : topics. For example:
> :http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
> : and
> :http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
> :
> :
> : To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
> : memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> : modified. It turns out that even the simple act of recalling a memory
> : actually modifies the memory. The more it's recalled, the more it's
> : modified. eventually, it could well get to a point where the memory
> : bears little or no resemblance to the thing which was supposed to have
> : been remembered.
> :
> : Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for doubting the
> : Bible:
Prove it. (No, proof of the Bible by using the Bible is not adequate
proof)
Jimbo
wrote:
Well, a lot of what is written has been unreliable... A lot of
times, people do go back after the fact and examine the evidence and
this may change our perspective on what was written. This also does
not take into consideration that the Old Testament and New Testament
was written by people, and people always have a vested interest in
putting themselves in the best possible light. I know, I know, "But
it is the inspired word of God! Well, how do we know that? Well,
the Bible says so!" How they can even say that with a straight face
is a mystery to me.
Jimbo
> gabriel wrote:
> > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> > attempts to undermine God's Word]
>
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:21:44 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> > <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
> >> Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them.
> >> course because it's current, but you can read articles online about
> >> these topics. For example:
> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
> >> and
> >>http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
>
>
> >> To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
> >> memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> >> modified. It turns out that even the simple act of recalling a
> >> memory actually modifies the memory. The more it's recalled, the
> >> more it's modified. eventually, it could well get to a point where
> >> the memory bears little or no resemblance to the thing which was
> >> supposed to have been remembered.
>
> >> Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for doubting
> >> the Bible:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sure! It, after all, proclaims itself to be legal tender. :D
Mr. B
> Every (well) forged banknote looks very much like it is real.
> Do you accept it *is* real without first checking?
> Or do you also look at a real one and compare the two (question the
> veracity of it from an outside source)?
Gabriel's response was intended for an audience of believers, not for people
who have already given up their beliefs. He wanted to prevent people who
were just beginning to have doubts from giving up their beliefs.
-- B
Christopher A. Lee
Then why did he post it here, imbecile?
>-- B
Mr. B
That's a good question. I would imagine it is because he changed his mind
shortly after posting it, and decided to annoy us.
-- B
Christopher A. Lee
Then why try to make excuses for him?
>-- B
thomas p.
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:v3rd35p34b1ba7te2...@4ax.com...
> [removed alt.atheism,
No idiot you did not.
snip of babbling insanity.
Alex W.
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:9a4c03d7-3042-48e7...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for
> doubting the
> Bible:
> http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/inspiration_of_bible.html
> but the main one would appear to be that the stories were
> not written
> as they happened. They were written from memory of
> tradition.
>
> Before they were written, these stories were passed along
> person-to-
> person, being recalled and told, recalled and told,
> understood by the
> teller to be one thing, and by the listener to be
> something else, and
> this went on for an unknown number of years before
> anything was
> committed to writing.
While I agree with the general idea and the conclusions, I
would add a note of caution.
Anthropological research strongly suggests that the memories
of people living in an oral tradition work differently and
much, MUCH better than ours. Some reports I have read refer
explicitly to "perfect recall", although I am not aware that
this has been confirmed by specialists. If this is so, then
we would have to give more weight to other causes for the
distortions, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the bible
rather than blaming it on the "innocent" human failing of
bad memory.
Alex W.
"Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:27f6ef19-51c5-436c...@u9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Sure! It, after all, proclaims itself to be legal tender.
:D
==================
Can legal tender be hard currency?
Hatter
> One fine day in alt.atheism, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> > attempts to undermine God's Word]
>
> Funny, how you claim to have removed our group, a valient effort, indeed,
> but have failed completely to do so. :-)
>
could he be, defending the fairietale of Christianity?
Hatter
Budikka
> [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> attempts to undermine God's Word]
Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
support your ridiculous claims).
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:21:44 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>
> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> : There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
> : Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them. You
> : can't access this at thewww.discovermagazine.comweb site of course
> : because it's current, but you can read articles online about these
> : topics. For example:
> :http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
> : and
> :http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
> :
> :www.wikipedia.orgprobably has some good information on it, too.
> :
> : To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
> : memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> : modified. It turns out that even the simple act of recalling a memory
> : actually modifies the memory. The more it's recalled, the more it's
> : modified. eventually, it could well get to a point where the memory
> : bears little or no resemblance to the thing which was supposed to have
> : been remembered.
> :
> : Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for doubting the
> : Bible:
> :http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/inspirati...
> : but the main one would appear to be that the stories were not written
> : as they happened. They were written from memory of tradition.
> :
> : Before they were written, these stories were passed along person-to-
> : person, being recalled and told, recalled and told, understood by the
> : teller to be one thing, and by the listener to be something else, and
> : this went on for an unknown number of years before anything was
> : committed to writing.
> :
> : There are people who disagree that the stories were an oral tradition,
> : but look at it this way: if we pretend for a minute that Adam lived
> : around 6,000BC, and compare that with the Babylonian captivity circa
> : 600BC when the Bible was first written down in any sort of order, even
> : the fundies have to admit that there were well over 5,000 years of
> : these oral traditions being passed on before they ever got down on
> : parchment or papyrus or whatever they were first written on.
> :
> : Yes, no doubt there were some things written before then, but only the
> : most gullible fundie will try to pretend we've had written documents
> : ever since Adam. So NO, we *don't* have the original documents. NO,
> : the forefathers *didn't* write any of this down. It all came from
> : tradition, stories and oral history originally.
> :
> : So tell me - given the *fact* that our memories are notoriously
> : unreliable, why should the Bible be any more reliable than the
> : memories of the people who wrote it?
> :
> : Budikka
>
> Good question. There are a couple of very important reasons why
> we can completely trust the Bible.
>
> For starters, the Word of God was given by inspiration of God.
Prove it or you're nothing but a LIAR as you've always proven to be in
the past.
[absurd Bible quotes flushed where they belong]
Budikka
Budikka
> > memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> > modified.
>
> almost everything ever written that purports to be historical) is
> similarly "unreliable".
Where did I say it wasn't? The difference is that we can
independently verify some things, including some things in the Bible.
T*However*, there is no independent verification that some god had a
close relationship with the Israelites (or any other people).
A far better reason to consider many of the
> stories in the Bible unreliable is simply that they are absurd on
> their face.
Agreed. But that doesn;t rob me of the point I made.
Budikka
Budikka
> gabriel wrote:
> > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> > attempts to undermine God's Word]
>
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:21:44 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> > <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
> >> Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them.
> >> course because it's current, but you can read articles online about
> >> these topics. For example:
> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
> >> and
> >>http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
>
>
> >> To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
> >> memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> >> modified. It turns out that even the simple act of recalling a
> >> memory actually modifies the memory. The more it's recalled, the
> >> more it's modified. eventually, it could well get to a point where
> >> the memory bears little or no resemblance to the thing which was
> >> supposed to have been remembered.
>
> >> Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for doubting
> >> the Bible:
Not if you're a fundie!! If you're a fundie, then using circular
"reasoning" is "objective", "scientific", "rational", etc!
Budikka
Budikka
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:06:17 -0400, gabriel
>
Gabriel supplies us with yet another proof of his monumental cowardice
*and* his laughable ineptitude in one fell swoop! LoL!
Budikka
Budikka
No argument from me! I've often asked theists this question: If you'd
never heard of the Bible, never seen it or read it, and someone you
didn't know came up to you today and began to relate those *exact*
stories from the Bible, would you believe it? I seriously doubt it.
So why then do you believe it when it's written by that same stranger
but removed from you by an ancient language and 2,000 or more years?
They have no answer. No surprises there!
Budikka
Budikka
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Before they were written, these stories were passed along
> > person-to- person, being recalled and told, recalled and
> > told, understood by the teller to be one thing, and by the
> > listener to be something else, and this went on for an
> > unknown number of years before anything was committed
> > to writing.
>
> there's a couple of problems with this.
>
> The first is that there is absolutely no evidence for it. In fact,
> the "Oral Tradition" could very well be a somewhat modern
> invention, used to explain the lack of bible-culture in archaeology.
I've heard that claim, but I don't buy it; it makes no sense, not even
if you confine yourself to the Biblical context. I tried to touch on
this int he openign message, but obviously didn't do an exactly
sterling job. Look at it this way (Budikka leans sharply to the left
and squints - just kidding!).
Seriously, look at it like this: if the stories are true, then we have
this god creating everything and ending up with the disastrous duo of
Adam and Eve. Did they write down everything which happened as it
happened? There's nothing in the Bible to indicate that they did.
The next big event is Noah. Did he write anything down? Again, the
Bible doesn't say he did and he was rather busy in those days leading
up to the flood.
What about Abram? What about Jacob? The bible doesn't say they wrote
it down either. The tradition (rightly or wrongly) is that Moses
wrote the Pentateuch. Many of the people in these stories,
particularly the earliest ones, were illiterate. All they had was
stories. We know for a fact that there *is* oral tradition in
societies, so whence the basis for arbitrarily claiming that the
ancient Hebrews had no such thing - that they wrote everything down as
it happened?
If they didn't write it at the time, and they didn't write it later
from recollection, then this makes the position even *worse*!
> Another rather obvious problem is that the culture which produced
> the bible valued the written word, including within the bible itself.
They valued it after it was written. But what's the provenance
*before* it was written? Unless they wrote it as it happened, it
*had* to be from memory. We know for a fact that two of the major
stories - the creation and the flood - were purloined (to put it
politely) from earlier tales that weren't even Hebrew.
> "The Ten Commandments," say. But there's also a tradition that
> the bible -- written out -- is the name of God.
LoL!
> Finally, there's no shortage of text. You're right, there's no bible,
> but there's no shortage of text that would eventually find it's way
> into the bible... all of it distinctly Pagan. Which, yeah, would be
> my guess for the invention of the "Oral Tradition."
No matter what texts were used, unless *those* texts were written down
as the events happened, or very shortly afterwards, and then
translated and transcribed word-for-word, then *they* are suspect -
especially where they relate supernatural events which were well out
of the experience of your average Israelite.
> Instead of saying that the inhabitants of the southern Levant
> EVOLVED a monotheistic religion... that their gods morphed
> into the one... their traditions adapted to the cultural changes,
> you explain it's lack of historical existence by pretending that,
> despite all facts, it must have been orally transmitted.
>
> I don't buy it. It's no different from Fundy-think, trying to
> shoehorn in a literally true bible...
Whenever you can make a good case for the argument that they were
written down as they happened, I'll come over to your side, but until
then, I'm sorry, but oral tradition is it.
Budikka
Budikka
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:21:44 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Before they were written, these stories were passed along person-to-
> >person, being recalled and told, recalled and told, understood by the
> >teller to be one thing, and by the listener to be something else, and
> >this went on for an unknown number of years before anything was
> >committed to writing.
>
> True for the OT which prophesies the coming of the Messiah.
When you get your minuscule brain around the various forms of
"prophecy" maybe I'll quit laughing at how illiterate y and pathetic
you are.
But the *fact* is that I said nothing about the pathetic OT (non-)
prophecies
> In the Christian New Testament, we have the summarized written word coming from
> the words, actions, and especially the RELIGIOUS PRACTICES of the whole new
> Christian people.
Here's where your attempt at moron of the Year comes in. Let's look
at just one NT gospel and see what it reveals. Let's look at "Luke".
Here's how that gospel begins: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand
to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most
surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which
from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It
seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things
from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent
Theophilus" (Luke 1: 1:3)"
Note the key word "believed' - not known or proven or factual, but
*believed*.
In short, "Luke" *wasn't* an eye witness, but states clearly that he
got the story second-hand from people who *claimed* to be eye
witnesses, and this was some 30 years after events. How good was
*their* memory?!!
In short, the gospels are guilty of *precisely* the issues I raised in
my opening message. In fact, "Luke" was so limited in his so-called
"eye-witness" information that he was forced to rip off "Mark".
That's how unreliable the gospels are. One classic example is the
prophecy that Jesus would return before those alive in his time had
died. Obviously that's either a LIE if Jesus said it, or it's a LIE
if Jesus didn't say it but "Luke" claimed he did. So who LIED? Since
there's no objective evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of a god, we're forced to the conclusion that
"Luke" simply LIED.
End of story. Case closed. You can go now, I'm done with you until
the next time I deign to kick your incredibly stupid ass.
Budikka
Budikka
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:9a4c03d7-3042-48e7...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for
> > doubting the
> > Bible:
> > but the main one would appear to be that the stories were
> > not written
> > as they happened. They were written from memory of
> > tradition.
>
> > Before they were written, these stories were passed along
> > person-to-
> > person, being recalled and told, recalled and told,
> > understood by the
> > teller to be one thing, and by the listener to be
> > something else, and
> > this went on for an unknown number of years before
> > anything was
> > committed to writing.
>
> While I agree with the general idea and the conclusions, I
> would add a note of caution.
>
> Anthropological research strongly suggests that the memories
> of people living in an oral tradition work differently and
> much, MUCH better than ours. Some reports I have read refer
> explicitly to "perfect recall", although I am not aware that
> this has been confirmed by specialists. If this is so, then
> we would have to give more weight to other causes for the
> distortions, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the bible
> rather than blaming it on the "innocent" human failing of
> bad memory.
Good point. Now all we need determine is how reliable the Hebrews
were at passing along stories, and I'd argue that we really have to
conclude "not very", given that they were known for ripping off
stories from other cultures and changing them - the creation story and
the flood story leap to mind!
Even the NT isn't free of plagiarism - both Matthew and Luke ripped-
off Mark and at least one other source. If the events regarding Jesus
had been real, no one would have had to rip-off anyone. This is one
reason why I'm convinced that the Jesus story isn't real.
Budikka
Mike Jones
[...]
> Good question. There are a couple of very important reasons why we can
> completely trust the Bible.
>
> For starters, the Word of God was given by inspiration of God.
>
> 2 Timothy 3:16 KJVR
> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
So, you can trust it, /because it says you can/?
Scuze moi while I fold up laughing.
Seriously! Best laugh I've had all day! 8)
You're talking about this one I guess...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/19763 might also be of interest here.
Or this one...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm
etc. etc. etc.
Keep 'em comin' dude! We need humour in this world. :)
--
*===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
*===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
*===( http://www.slackware.com/
Brian E. Clark
ing...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> Can legal tender be hard currency?
After a bank robbery, is the hot money still cold, hard
cash?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Mike Jones
Huh? Prevent people from thinking for themselves?
We know a song about that, don't we children!
Oh, and that phrase "/their/ beliefs"? Kinda loaded up that one, yeah?
Thats like saying "/your/ case of herpes" instead of just "herpes".
Hey! Dudes with "shakey faith" ! Go watch this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_3:_Marauder
...and read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
...and piss off this Gabriel moron and his bunch 'a cults!
Christopher A. Lee
>Responding to Mr. B:
>
>>> Using the bible to 'verify' the bible is circular reasoning. Every
>>> (well) forged banknote looks very much like it is real. Do you accept
>>> it *is* real without first checking? Or do you also look at a real one
>>> and compare the two (question the veracity of it from an outside
>>> source)?
>>
>> Gabriel's response was intended for an audience of believers, not for
>> people who have already given up their beliefs. He wanted to prevent
>> people who were just beginning to have doubts from giving up their
>> beliefs.
>>
>> -- B
>
>
>Huh? Prevent people from thinking for themselves?
It was only posted to alt.atheism.
So the loonie was just being stupid.
Smiler
> "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote in message
> news:YwDZl.5454$mh5....@newsfe01.ams2...
>
>
>> Every (well) forged banknote looks very much like it is
>> real.
>> Do you accept it *is* real without first checking?
>> Or do you also look at a real one and compare the two
>> (question the veracity of it from an outside source)?
>
> is the real thing until you manage to dispose of it with
> some unsuspecting shopkeeper....
> ;-)
Self-scan checkout at the supermarket?
Smiler
Yep. But they end up going in ever decreasing circles, finally to disappear
with a loud 'plop' up their own fundements.
Smiler
My point precisely!
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> On Jun 15, 8:32 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 4:21 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
> > > memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> > > modified.
>
> > Then everything ever written that is based on memory (in other words,
> > almost everything ever written that purports to be historical) is
> > similarly "unreliable".
>
> Where did I say it wasn't? The difference is that we can
> independently verify some things, including some things in the Bible.
> T*However*, there is no independent verification that some god had a
> close relationship with the Israelites (or any other people).
>
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with memory.
> A far better reason to consider many of the
>
> > stories in the Bible unreliable is simply that they are absurd on
> > their face.
>
> Agreed. But that doesn;t rob me of the point I made.
>
The point is trivial.
Davej
> we can completely trust the Bible.
>
> For starters, the Word of God was given by inspiration of God.
> The Bible *is* God's Word. [...]
Yes, let us go straight to the directly quoted words of GOD Himself...
Exodus 20:22 "And the LORD said unto Moses..."
And just KEEP READING EVERY SINGLE INSPIRED GODLY WORD until you
eventually get to...
Exodus 31:18 where God finally, finally, finally shuts His big stupid
mouth.
Read it all several times. It is utterly impossible to believe that
God, the grand Creator of the entire universe, would say all these
idiotic, trivial, stupid things, these idiotic and crude rules for
slaves and pits and oxen. The childish little demands for gold and
silver and pretty carvings, colored stones, fine linen, blue lace and
pomegranates. It is all utterly unbelievable.
Yes it is absurd, and the BIG, BIG HINT is right at the beginning...
Exodus 20:18: And all the people saw the thunderings, and the
lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking:
and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. 20:19:
And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but
let not God speak with us, lest we die. 20:20: And Moses said unto the
people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may
be before your faces, that ye sin not. 20:21: And the people stood
afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
SO ONLY THE LIAR MOSES HEARD WHAT GOD SAID OR DIDN'T SAY AND ALMOST
CERTAINLY MOSES MADE ALL OF THIS RUBBISH UP HIMSELF.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvExod.html
Stan-O
<brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>In article <79q3eqF...@mid.individual.net>,
>ing...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
>> Can legal tender be hard currency?
>
>After a bank robbery, is the hot money still cold, hard
>cash?
It is until the dye pack explodes...
Yap
> There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
> Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them. You
> can't access this at thewww.discovermagazine.comweb site of course
> because it's current, but you can read articles online about these
> topics. For example:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
>
> www.wikipedia.orgprobably has some good information on it, too.
>
> memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
Yes, the degrading nature of memory has been long long recognized.
A story, an event or a fact when not being recorded immediately will
generally be distorted or twisted, from one person to another.
Yap
> > memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> > modified.
>
> almost everything ever written that purports to be historical) is
> stories in the Bible unreliable is simply that they are absurd on
> their face.
Yes.
Common sense and our analytical minds will always remind us that the
scripture stories were the work of cons.
There is never a doubt at all.
But loons like Gabriel never have the common sense and analytical
minds, do they?
Yap
> Too bad we cannot ask anyone from Flight 447 that just crashed off the Brazil
> coast how many prayed to jesus not to die BUTT, well, if your halfway smart
> you get it...
Yes, so much of the god, god, god.......
But alas, not such thing.
Yap
> gabriel wrote:
> > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> > attempts to undermine God's Word]
>
> > <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
> >> Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them.
> >> You can't access this at thewww.discovermagazine.comweb site of
> >> course because it's current, but you can read articles online about
> >> these topics. For example:
> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
> >> and
> >>http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
>
> >>www.wikipedia.orgprobably has some good information on it, too.
>
> >> memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> > we can completely trust the Bible.
>
> > For starters, the Word of God was given by inspiration of God.
>
is supposed to be real.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> On Jun 16, 9:32 am, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 4:21 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
> > > memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> > > modified.
>
> > Then everything ever written that is based on memory (in other words,
> > almost everything ever written that purports to be historical) is
> > similarly "unreliable". A far better reason to consider many of the
> > stories in the Bible unreliable is simply that they are absurd on
> > their face.
>
> Yes.
> Common sense and our analytical minds will always remind us that the
> scripture stories were the work of cons.
I wouldn't call them "cons", either. We don't need to invoke faulty
memory or fraudulent motive where simpler explanations will do.
Yap
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:21:44 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Before they were written, these stories were passed along person-to-
> >person, being recalled and told, recalled and told, understood by the
> >teller to be one thing, and by the listener to be something else, and
> >this went on for an unknown number of years before anything was
> >committed to writing.
>
>
> the words, actions, and especially the RELIGIOUS PRACTICES of the whole new
> Christian people.
2). Who had the authority to re-write the words of your god?
3). Shouldn't the Religious Practices be derived from OT?
I am curious, but am not holding my breath for any satisfactory
answers.
>
> Better luck next time.
>
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Yap
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:46:17 -0400, magicus <magicu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mon Jun 15 2009 19:21:44 GMT-0400 (EDT) Budikka666
> ><budik...@netscape.net> typed:
> >> There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
> >> Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them. You
> >> can't access this at thewww.discovermagazine.comweb site of course
> >> because it's current, but you can read articles online about these
> >> topics. For example:
> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
> >> and
> >>http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
>
> >>www.wikipedia.orgprobably has some good information on it, too.
>
> >> memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> >> actually modifies the memory. The more it's recalled, the more it's
> >> modified. eventually, it could well get to a point where the memory
> >> bears little or no resemblance to the thing which was supposed to have
> >> been remembered.
>
> >> Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for doubting the
> >> Bible:
> >>http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/inspirati...
> >> but the main one would appear to be that the stories were not written
> >> as they happened. They were written from memory of tradition.
>
> >> person, being recalled and told, recalled and told, understood by the
> >> teller to be one thing, and by the listener to be something else, and
> >> this went on for an unknown number of years before anything was
> >> committed to writing.
>
> >> but look at it this way: if we pretend for a minute that Adam lived
> >> around 6,000BC, and compare that with the Babylonian captivity circa
> >> 600BC when the Bible was first written down in any sort of order, even
> >> the fundies have to admit that there were well over 5,000 years of
> >> these oral traditions being passed on before they ever got down on
> >> parchment or papyrus or whatever they were first written on.
>
> >> Yes, no doubt there were some things written before then, but only the
> >> most gullible fundie will try to pretend we've had written documents
> >> ever since Adam. So NO, we *don't* have the original documents. NO,
> >> the forefathers *didn't* write any of this down. It all came from
> >> tradition, stories and oral history originally.
>
> >> So tell me - given the *fact* that our memories are notoriously
> >> unreliable, why should the Bible be any more reliable than the
> >> memories of the people who wrote it?
>
> >> Budikka
>
>
> Idiot sites.
Well, your loony mind preventing you from seeking the truth?
Are you fearing that your religion was built on falsehood and lies?
Any way, your jesus said that the jews were the chosen people, are you
jew?
Yap
> On Jun 15, 10:34 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > gabriel wrote:
> > > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> > > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> > > attempts to undermine God's Word]
>
> > >> Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them.
> > >> course because it's current, but you can read articles online about
> > >> these topics. For example:
> > >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
> > >> and
> > >>http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
>
> > Smiler,
> > The godless one
> > a.a.# 2279
> > All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sure! It, after all, proclaims itself to be legal tender. :D
Oh yes, it did.
The fake, like the bible, do indicate it is a legal tender.
See, our Gabriel and duke are using fakes all the time (and they
pretend them to be rightfully legal tender).
Yap
> > Using the bible to 'verify' the bible is circular reasoning.
> > Every (well) forged banknote looks very much like it is real.
> > Do you accept it *is* real without first checking?
> > Or do you also look at a real one and compare the two (question the
> > veracity of it from an outside source)?
>
> who have already given up their beliefs. He wanted to prevent people who
> were just beginning to have doubts from giving up their beliefs.
>
> -- B
Wouldn't intelligent person know that using words in the bible to
prove authenticity of the bible is like giving
approved verification to the truth of a fiction book?
So, the Harry Potter stories are true then?
Yap
One very glaring mistake we have not been asking:
"If the god was the inspiring words of the bible during the bronze
age, where are the inspiring words
for the digital age?"
Or any other inspiring words along the way for the past 2000+ years?
Read carefully from the bible, and we know how little it had known any
other places outside the Red Sea area.
Yap
the likes to this?
My bet, they keep silent.
>
> http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvExod.html
Yap
OK, ancient recorders might possibly an innocent party.
But our current loony packs are certainly being conned by those
stories, right?
JTEM
> Seriously, look at it like this: if the stories are true, then
> we have this god creating everything and ending up with
> the disastrous duo of Adam and Eve. Did they write
> down everything which happened as it happened?
> There's nothing in the Bible to indicate that they did.
I don't believe the stories are true. All I'm saying is that the
bible doesn't result from an oral tradition.
But if it'll make you feel any better, the story of Eden
appears to borrow heavily from a Sumerian creation
myth.
> The next big event is Noah.
Borrowing heavily from Gilgamesh.
> What about Abram?
There's elements to the story that clearly date it more
than 1,400 years later than attributed to it. The camels,
for example. The "Camel Culture" just plain hadn't
reached Egypt and the Levant yet, and wouldn't until
after about 600 BC... roughly 400 years AFTER the
time attributed to David... who was supposed to be
about 1,000 years after Abraham.
In all of the Mediterranean -- searching from Egypt, to
Greece and all the way into Syria -- there's all of, what,
six depictions of camels as pack animals, and not a
single one unambiguous? That is, up until about a
thousand years or more AFTER the supposed time of
Abraham.
Anyhow, ambiguous nature of the images suggests that
the artists were anything but familiar their the animals.
They were THAT rare. Yet, the bible not only has Abraham
tromping through the Levant with Camels, but has the
king of Egypt lavishing him with the animals. According to
the story of Abraham, the Camel culture had already
arrived, they were already a measure of wealth and/or
status in Egypt.
> What about Jacob?
He arrived in Egypt by way of Camel as well.
> If they didn't write it at the time, and they didn't
> write it later from recollection, then this makes
> the position even *worse*!
Of course.
> > "The Ten Commandments," say. But there's also a
> > tradition that the bible -- written out -- is the name of God.
>
> LoL!
Some cultures valued the written word, some didn't.
> No matter what texts were used, unless *those* texts
> were written down as the events happened,
You misunderstand.
The tales were written down for a purpose, and ONLY the
lunatic fundies believe that purpose was to record the
dry historical facts in exacting detail.
The bible is a lot closer to Aesop's Fables than USAToday,
though it's also a rule book.
> Whenever you can make a good case for the argument
> that they were written down as they happened, I'll come
> over to your side,
They didn't happen. At all.
thomas p.
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:cfVZl.65954$M72....@newsfe29.ams2...
Perhaps that is what is meant by "The Rapture".
Masked Avenger
On 17-Jun-2009, "Mr. B" <n...@supplied.com> wrote:
> > Then why did he post it here, imbecile?
>
> That's a good question. I would imagine it is because he changed his mind
>
> shortly after posting it, and decided to annoy us.
never ascribe to deviousness that which can be explained by
incompetence.................
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity .............
and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
Does Schr�dinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
Masked Avenger
On 17-Jun-2009, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >Huh? Prevent people from thinking for themselves?
>
> It was only posted to alt.atheism.
>
> So the loonie was just being stupid.
my newsreader says he posted it to alt.bible as well ....... my vote is for
stupidity .....
Andrew W
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:46:17 -0400, magicus <magi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon Jun 15 2009 19:21:44 GMT-0400 (EDT) Budikka666
>>> There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
>>> Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them.
>>> course because it's current, but you can read articles online about
>>> these topics. For example:
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
>>> and
>>> http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
>>>
>>>
>>> To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
>>> memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
>>> modified. It turns out that even the simple act of recalling a
>>> memory actually modifies the memory. The more it's recalled, the
>>> more it's modified. eventually, it could well get to a point where
>>> the memory bears little or no resemblance to the thing which was
>>> supposed to have been remembered.
>>>
>>> Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for doubting
>>> the Bible:
>
> Idiot sites.
>
I bet you never even clicked on the sites.
--
Andrew W.
When a brother acts insanely, he is offering you an
opportunity to bless him. His need is YOURS. You NEED the
blessing you can offer him. There is no way for you to have it
EXCEPT by giving it.
~ A Course in Miracles
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Links page -
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner/links.htm
Alex W.
"Stan-O" <bnds...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c6hg351t0rsj7qijl...@4ax.com...
Then the robber will curse a blue streak ....
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>> Seriously, look at it like this: if the stories are true, then
>> we have this god creating everything and ending up with
>> the disastrous duo of Adam and Eve. �Did they write
>> down everything which happened as it happened?
>> �There's nothing in the Bible to indicate that they did.
>
> I don't believe the stories are true. All I'm saying is that the
> bible doesn't result from an oral tradition.
I believe them all. And yes, the Bible does result
from an oral tradition, from before every book
was written down. But it's not the same as the
God haters try to make it out to be, using, for
example, "the telephone game" to supposedly
"prove" that it is unreliable. Rather, we're talking
about people who were raised from birth to tell
the stories of the Bible and memorize them word
for word, literally forward and backward, even
know how many letters were in a book, etc..
It's a whole different ball game than what these
dishonest people who already know this try to
claim. And they do know this and have been
shown this. And each time they are shown it
again, they run away from the thread, wait just
a bit and then go into another thread and make
the same claim again.
Anyone who wastes time on these idiots, is doing
just that. Wasting their time. They simply do not
care and have zero integrity.
And I know this idiot Budikka, whom I have kill filed
since a long time ago for his dishonesty, will tell lies
about me and claim he proved macroevolution to me,
blah, blah, blah and paste in links to responses he
wrote in which he manipulated my actual words,
as he always does, every time he is caught lying.
But the truth is, he tried to bury me in hundreds
of supposed examples and I took three at random
and proved to him that he was just giving examples
of microevolution and pasting in examples that
I had already dealt with before with him.
But that's how these people are. They're liars.
So don't waste your time.
> Borrowing heavily from Gilgamesh.
According to you and other liberals.
>> What about Abram?
>
> There's elements to the story that clearly date it more
> than 1,400 years later than attributed to it.
According to you, having read leftist liberal dating,
that has been rejected, but I guess old information
is preferable to you.
But you see, I don't argue with people like you at all,
because you're the worst kind of all. You think that
you appear to be some kind of expert by making a
bunch of claims and then when someone calls you on it,
try to pretend that you're being intelligent and scholarly
by deceptively trying to put the burden of proof on the
other person, when it's your claims that they're calling
you on.
And then, you'll even get dumb enough to tell them
that they have to prove a negative. That's it's NOT so,
all the while, never proving your claims and thinking
that pasting in a web link that consists of someone
else doing nothing more than you did, which is
claiming it is so, is somehow proof.
Yea, you usenet self proclaimed geniuses are quite
the bunch! You actually think that being able to
pull up web links means that you're educated and
a scholarly type!
<chuckle>
In reality, it just means that you know nothing except
what you read on some God hater's web page, which
you won't even question at all, because it's what you
WANT to hear and you hope that you can get away
with your deceptive attempts to appear knowledgeable.
But then when someone knowledgeable does come along,
you get upset and the name calling starts and the games
in which you tell lies and start to attack on a personal
level and then run away, knowing now what's really what
and yet, what do you do? Well, you disappear for just
a bit and then go into another thread and start all over
again, making the same original false claims that you
know were already disproved! And then when the other
person happens to see you doing it and points that out
and pastes in the discussion in this new thread, well,
off you go again, hoping to get to a thread in which
he/she doesn't see you and you can lie without any
interference! After all, you can't have a silly little thing
like truth get in the way of spreading your lies, can you?
And so, with that, I say goodbye right now.
You may now proceed to pretend that I ran away
and that I didn't hit the nail on the head with you.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating sig file
and not part of the message above.
A clear conscience makes a soft pillow.
Christopher A. Lee
<coot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 17-Jun-2009, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> >Huh? Prevent people from thinking for themselves?
>>
>> It was only posted to alt.atheism.
>>
>> So the loonie was just being stupid.
>
>my newsreader says he posted it to alt.bible as well ....... my vote is for
>stupidity .....
I just re-checked the header. He changed the followup. Which in the
days when posters showed intelligence and courtey he would have
pointed out.
JTEM
> I believe them all. And yes, the Bible does result
> from an oral tradition,
It can't.
A thousand years before the LXX was compiled the
biblical psalms were already starting to appear within
the native culture.... a purely Pagan culture with
absolutely no similarity to the culture as depicted in
the bible. And, yeah, we're talking about written
text.
> Rather, we're talking about people who were
> raised from birth to tell the stories of the Bible
> and memorize them word for word, literally
> forward and backward, even know how many
> letters were in a book, etc..
That's a nice fantasy, but that's all it is. Not only
is there not one iota of evidence to support such
a myth, but there's no motive. None.
There's absolutely no reason for anybody to do this.
They had writing, they valued the written word, and
their religious law is based entirely on the written
word -- "The Ten Commandments" -- so there's absolutely
no reason why they would resort to an oral tradition.
None.
No motive, no evidence.... nothing.
You might as well claim that the Easter Bunny spelled
out the stories for them using jelly beans.
gabriel
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
: On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
: > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
: > attempts to undermine God's Word]
:
: Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
: your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
: support your ridiculous claims).
Well since "objective" evidence is defined for you as only that
which *you* will accept, you've conveniently made it impossible
to address your own definition. But be that as it may, I've
offered you all the evidence (the evidence being right under all
our noses: Creation itself and the life of Jesus Christ), and
you've snipped it out, as you've always done, and limited
"evidence" to your version of "objective", following by a string
of insults as always.
The just shall live by faith. If you want God to jump through
hoops for you, it will not happen
Matthew 13:58 KJVR
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their
unbelief.
Matthew 12:38-39 KJVR
38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered,
saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous
generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given
to it
so God allows you to continue to deny Him while ignoring the
logically undeniable fact that we were Created.
Habakkuk 2:4 KJVR
4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but
the just shall live by his faith.
Romans 1:17 KJVR
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3:11 KJVR
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God,
it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Hebrews 10:38 KJVR
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back,
my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
The evidence is much more than bible verses, but you were in such
a hurry to delete it all, you didn't notice. Here it is again -
meanwhile creation itself and life itself is proof of God.
Romans 1:17-23 KJVR
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image
made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
beasts, and creeping things.
The Word of God was given by inspiration of God.
gabriel
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
: On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
: > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
: > attempts to undermine God's Word]
:
: Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
: your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
: support your ridiculous claims).
Here's some more evidence for you for God's existance:
Creation itself bears witness to the Creator, God. Does a
building prove a builder exists? Yes. What if you were left on an
island with that one building and no literature of any kind for
your lifetime - would that building still prove a builder exists?
Yes. Even though you never saw anyone build a building? Yes. Even
though you don't know how the building was built? Yes. To a
person in that situation who wants you to prove a builder exists,
they wouldn't believe a word you said, but it wouldn�t change the
fact that the building is proof of a builder.
In the same way, creation speaks for God, our Creator.
Romans 1:17-22 KJVR
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from
faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in
them; for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him
not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
But the evidence does not stop there. There is much
objective evidence that is rejected by those who look at it
through the glasses of refusing to believe God even exists, and
hence because of their inability to be objective, cannot clearly
see the evidence for what it is.
- The life of Jesus Christ, who we know lived, and
pointed to the scriptures as the Word of God, and His amazing
willingness to suffer and die on the cross for our sins;
- Hundreds of specific prophecies of the Bible all
fulfilled hundreds of years later by Jesus Christ � a
statistically impossible to have happened by coincidence
- Life itself - the impossibility of it just coming into
existence from dead matter by natural chance � and their attempts
to create the claimed �precursors� of life in the lab only shows
that it takes intelligence to even make what they only *believe*
is what�s needed to create life;
- Consciousness � that a person is conscious of their own
existence, and how there�s no way such an inexplicable miraculous
thing can just come about by natural chance, let alone be
explained or understood as to what it even is.
- Conscience;
- Sight, which is irreducibly complex;
- Intelligence; Even humans, which are intelligent,
cannot make intelligence. And even if they did, it proves you
need intelligence to create intelligence. And even then, you
cannot create intelligence more intelligent than yourself; hence
it�s proof that our Creator is more intelligent than even we are,
which we already knew.
- Love of human beings;
- The ability of sexual reproduction; such a miraculous
thing as creating a brand new human life, a brand new soul, a new
human with their own consciousness. Miraculously unexplainable.
- That mutations or any single mutation cannot create
brand new information, but instead only lose information or
shuffle the order of the same information; leaving the great
problem of where does this near infinite information ever come
from?
- The amazing amount of information in the DNA, and the
amazing ability for it to be read, processed and acted upon, and
how intelligence is required to make information;
- How we cannot recreate the genius of how the mind works
even though we are intelligent, and compare that to the
ridiculous thought that the mind can instead just come about
randomly. Would be just like believing computers (infinitely less
complex than the human mind) could come about by random chance
when we know even a minute case by comparison is also impossible
to come about by chance � that only intelligent direction can do
such a feat.
- Perfect conditions for life to even be possible, any of
which if they were barely any different sustained life would be
impossible. For example: Get the sun closer to the earth or
further away, and life would no longer be possible. No
atmosphere? Life not possible. No water? Life not possible. No
air? Life not possible. No sunlight? Life not possible. No
gravity? Life not possible. Too much gravity? Life not possible.
And the list goes on.
- The existence of orderly laws of nature; Did the big
bang create them too? Of course not. Yet they want to ignore
where the laws of nature came from. Another inexplicable miracle
of the universe.
- The infinite, irreducible complexity of a cell; that a
cell is more complex than the entire universe is compared to a
human being.
- That we hurdle through space at such insane speeds, yet
remain perfectly intact and alive here on this planet; another
miraculous physical event that doesn�t interfere with our ability
to live.
- That the sun is critical to us remaining alive, and
we're the perfect distance from it to provide exactly the right
temperatures; any closer or further away, life would be
impossible.
- That matter exists at all, as opposed to just believing
it always existed and was never created. That it was just there
waiting to be used by some supposed big bang that created our
perfect set of conditions to live. Yet again, statistically
impossible coincidence.
- Miraculous healing of people who had cancers and other
deadly diseases, where their sickness that was not suppose to
ever be cured suddenly vanishes.
- People falling from heights that would easily kill
anyone, yet sometimes miraculously living; yet another
inexplicable random miracle of life.
- The instantaneous changes in people from the inside out
when they profess Christ as
their Lord and Savior, moreso when they were not seeking God to
change, and yet the change happens instantly.
- How the Bible makes no sense before you know Christ,
but once saved the bible starts making perfect sense when you
read it to yourself without someone there explaining it to you,
and is clearly a work of the genius of God.
1 Corinthians 2:9-14 KJVR
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God
hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for
the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the
spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth
no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world,
but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things
that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
- Evidence for a global flood
www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/flood.asp
1 Corinthians 2:12-14 KJVR
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but
the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that
are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
And more..
The evidence is there. Allow yourself to be objective on
the possibility of what it all points to if you�re honestly
seeking truth rather than to just be �right� in your personal
beliefs, and the truth of God can be seen.
Christopher A. Lee
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
><budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>: On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
>: > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
>: > attempts to undermine God's Word]
>:
>: Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
>: your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
>: support your ridiculous claims).
>
>Well since "objective" evidence is defined for you as only that
Liar.
>which *you* will accept, you've conveniently made it impossible
>to address your own definition.
Liar.
> But be that as it may, I've
>offered you all the evidence (the evidence being right under all
You have offered none, liar.
>our noses: Creation itself and the life of Jesus Christ), and
Liar.
>you've snipped it out, as you've always done, and limited
>"evidence" to your version of "objective",
Liar.
> following by a string
>of insults as always.
Liar.
>The just shall live by faith. If you want God to jump through
>hoops for you, it will not happen
Nobody wants what is obviously a figment of your deluded imagination
to do anything, liar.
Just for you to either put up or shut up.
[irrelevant Bible quotes rudely and stupidly posted to atheists as
though they actually meant anything, deleted[
>so God allows you to continue to deny Him while ignoring the
>logically undeniable fact that we were Created.
Liar.
[more irrelevant Bible quotes deleted]
>The evidence is much more than bible verses, but you were in such
What "evidence", liar?
>a hurry to delete it all, you didn't notice. Here it is again -
Nobody has deleted any evidence, liar.
>meanwhile creation itself and life itself is proof of God.
Liar.
[more cherry picked Bible nastiness deleted]
>The Word of God was given by inspiration of God.
Liar.
[more Bible irrelevance deleted]
>The Bible *is* God's Word.
Liar.
> God's abilities clearly override
Liar.
>whatever doubts we may have about mankind's memory ability in
>general, or any of mankind's failings that might lead to the
>corruption of God's Word, intentionally or otherwise.
Liar.
>And even Jesus said,
Figments of your deluded imagination don't say anything, liar.
[more irrelevant Bible bullshit deleted]
>It's the spirit of God that brought to remembrance all things,
>whatsoever Jesus had said unto them. So it's not just fallible
>mankind that was responsible for "remembering" God's Word.
Liar.
>Jesus also said,
Figments of your deluded imagination can't say anything,imbecile.
[more irrelevant Bible fairy tales deleted]
>Jesus himself said the scripture cannot be broken / dissolved /
Figments of your deluded imagination can't say anything, moron.
>loosened. This would include not being broken / dissolved /
>loosened from any belief about mankind's memory and it's claimed
>effect on God's Word.
What "God's Word", liar?
>And for God, being powerful enough to create the universe and all
>life, it would certainly be trivial to make sure mankind would
>not destroy an accurate version of His Word, either intentionally
>(which has been attempted many times and always failed) or
>unintentionally as some might want to believe.
Good thing it's just your deluded fantasy then, isn't it, moron?
>Even the dead sea scrolls being found recently, which outdated
>our oldest texts, still matched up with what we had at the time.
Prove it, liar.
>So in the end, it comes down to faith.
Which is a worthless excuse for the deluded to believe when there is
no reason to.
> Those that believe in God,
>and believe in what He can do, can know and trust what He tells
>us about His Word.
No liar, they only believe it.
> Those who don't want to hear what God has to
Liar.
>say will only come up with more ways to discredit it, as if God
Liar.
>is not powerful enough to deal with any reasons they claim God's
Figments of your deluded imagination can't do anything, imbecile.
>Word cannot be trusted. It's the oldest lie of Satan: that what
Liar.
>God said cannot be trusted, or that God didn't really say that,
>and so on.
Liar.
[more irrelevant Bible drivel rudely and stupidly posted as though it
should mean anything]
>And after thousands of years, we can see Satan is alive and well
Liar.
>trying to convince others that we can't trust everything about
>what God says. But the truth is always the same: Satan is the
>father of lies, and there is no truth in Him - but God is all
>powerful.
Liar.
>All glory and honor to God the Father of our Lord and Savior,
>Jesus Christ!
What a fucking moron.
Christopher A. Lee
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
><budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>: On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
>: > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
>: > attempts to undermine God's Word]
>:
>: Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
>: your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
>: support your ridiculous claims).
>
>Here's some more evidence for you for God's existance:
>
> Creation itself bears witness to the Creator, God. Does a
Liar.
Christopher A. Lee
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
I wish you wouldn't keep changing your id - I have a domain killfile
on messages coming from google, with specific exceptions. It means I
stop seeing your messages until I spot somebody's reply to you and I
put your new ID in the override list.
You are one of the rare posters whose articles are almost always worth
reading.
>On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
>> posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
>> attempts to undermine God's Word]
More personal lies from the imbecilic psychopath.
>> Good question. There are a couple of very important reasons why
>> we can completely trust the Bible.
>>
>> For starters, the Word of God was given by inspiration of God.
>
>Prove it or you're nothing but a LIAR as you've always proven to be in
>the past.
>[absurd Bible quotes flushed where they belong]
I don't understand these idiots. They're obviously clinically insane.
How the heck do they imagine this fools anybody with more than two
neurons to rub together?
Especially if they're not any kind of Christian and therefore the
Bible cannot be authoritative to them any more than eg the Hindu
scriptures are to Christians?
Stupid, imbecile and insane are too generous terms. It takes a major
degree of mental retardation.
Especially when they amateur-psychologise personally nasty lies as
"reasons" we recognise their bullshit for what it is.
>Budikka
raven1
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
><budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>: On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
>: > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
>: > attempts to undermine God's Word]
>:
>: Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
>: your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
>: support your ridiculous claims).
>
>Well since "objective" evidence is defined for you as only that
>which *you* will accept,
IOW, you know you've got nothing.
> you've conveniently made it impossible
>to address your own definition. But be that as it may, I've
>offered you all the evidence (the evidence being right under all
>our noses: Creation itself
Where's your objective evidence for Creation?
> and the life of Jesus Christ),
The"life of Jesus Christ" is dubious at best. Four hearsay (and often
contradictory) accounts by unknown authors, writing decades after he
supposedly lived, hardly constitutes objective evidence for anything.
> and
>you've snipped it out, as you've always done, and limited
>"evidence" to your version of "objective", following by a string
>of insults as always.
>
>The just shall live by faith.
Spoken like someone who knows he has no actual evidence to present.
> If you want God to jump through
>hoops for you, it will not happen
>
>Matthew 13:58 KJVR
>58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their
>unbelief.
>
>Matthew 12:38-39 KJVR
>38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered,
>saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
>39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous
>generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given
>to it
>
>so God allows you to continue to deny Him while ignoring the
>logically undeniable fact that we were Created.
You misspelled "unsupported assertion".
>
>Habakkuk 2:4 KJVR
>4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but
>the just shall live by his faith.
>
>Romans 1:17 KJVR
>17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
>to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
>
>Galatians 3:11 KJVR
>11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God,
>it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
>
>Hebrews 10:38 KJVR
>38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back,
>my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
>
>
>The evidence is much more than bible verses, but you were in such
>a hurry to delete it all, you didn't notice. Here it is again -
>meanwhile creation itself and life itself is proof of God.
How?
>Romans 1:17-23 KJVR
>17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
>to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
>18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
>ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
>unrighteousness;
>19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
>for God hath showed it unto them.
>20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
>world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
>made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
>without excuse:
>21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as
>God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
>imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
>22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
>23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image
>made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
>beasts, and creeping things.
>
>The Word of God was given by inspiration of God.
>
>2 Timothy 3:16 KJVR
>16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
>profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
>instruction in righteousness:
Using the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible is the logical fallacy
of circulus in demonstrando.
>The Bible *is* God's Word.
We should believe this why? Because it says so?
>God's abilities clearly override
>whatever doubts we may have about mankind's memory ability in
>general, or any of mankind's failings that might lead to the
>corruption of God's Word, intentionally or otherwise.
What exactly is that supposed to mean?
Which is completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the claims
contained within.
>So in the end, it comes down to faith.
Thanks for clarifying that. You certainly don't have any evidence to
present, so faith is all you've got.
> Those that believe in God,
>and believe in what He can do, can know and trust what He tells
>us about His Word.
Again, you've offered no more reason to think that the Bible is "God's
Word" than the fact that it says so in the Bible. Circulus in
demonstrando.
> Those who don't want to hear what God has to
>say will only come up with more ways to discredit it, as if God
>is not powerful enough to deal with any reasons they claim God's
>Word cannot be trusted. It's the oldest lie of Satan: that what
>God said cannot be trusted, or that God didn't really say that,
>and so on.
And you know this how? Oh, of course, because the Bible says so. More
CID.
>Genesis 3:1-5 KJVR
>1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
>which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea,
>hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
>2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit
>of the trees of the garden:
>3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
>garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye
>touch it, lest ye die.
>4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
>5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your
>eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and
>evil.
>
>And after thousands of years, we can see Satan is alive and well
>trying to convince others that we can't trust everything about
>what God says. But the truth is always the same: Satan is the
>father of lies, and there is no truth in Him - but God is all
>powerful.
And so we wind up back where we started. Got any objective evidence
that God or Satan exist, or that the Bible is "God's Word"?
Andres64
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:44:08 -0400, gabriel
>
lol. Sorry. I love it. It's like arguing with a brick wall about the
existence of fairies.
Syd
Yep.
That's exactly what trying to argue with you is like.
PDW
Andres64
Uhhhh....what?
raven1
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
><budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>: On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
>: > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
>: > attempts to undermine God's Word]
>:
>: Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
>: your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
>: support your ridiculous claims).
>
>Here's some more evidence for you for God's existance:
>
> Creation itself bears witness to the Creator, God. Does a
>building prove a builder exists? Yes. What if you were left on an
>island with that one building and no literature of any kind for
>your lifetime - would that building still prove a builder exists?
You've just shot your own argument in the foot. We know that buildings
are built by humans, so we would conclude that yes, there was a
builder. But no one would ask "who built the island?". We recognize
that natural forces were responsible.
>Yes. Even though you never saw anyone build a building? Yes. Even
>though you don't know how the building was built? Yes. To a
>person in that situation who wants you to prove a builder exists,
>they wouldn't believe a word you said, but it wouldn�t change the
>fact that the building is proof of a builder.
>
> In the same way, creation speaks for God, our Creator.
Nope. You just demolished that analogy above. Moreover, you're begging
the question "who created God?". If your reply is that God didn't need
a creator, it begs the question of why the universe does, as well as
falling into a special pleading fallacy.
> Romans 1:17-22 KJVR
> 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from
>faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
> 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
>all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
>unrighteousness;
> 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in
>them; for God hath showed it unto them.
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of
>the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
>are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
>without excuse:
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him
>not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
>imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
>
> But the evidence does not stop there.
Quoting the Bible is the fallacy of invalid appeal to authority.
>There is much
>objective evidence that is rejected by those who look at it
>through the glasses of refusing to believe God even exists, and
>hence because of their inability to be objective, cannot clearly
>see the evidence for what it is.
Such as?
>
> - The life of Jesus Christ, who we know lived,
That's far from certain.
> and
>pointed to the scriptures as the Word of God, and His amazing
>willingness to suffer and die on the cross for our sins;
> - Hundreds of specific prophecies of the Bible all
>fulfilled hundreds of years later by Jesus Christ � a
>statistically impossible to have happened by coincidence
You seem inordinately fond of the fallacy of circulus in demonstrando.
Once again, you're trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible. That
wouldn't pass muster on the first day of Logic 101.
> - Life itself - the impossibility of it just coming into
>existence from dead matter by natural chance
Chemical reactions are not based on chance.
> � and their attempts
>to create the claimed �precursors� of life in the lab only shows
>that it takes intelligence to even make what they only *believe*
>is what�s needed to create life;
> - Consciousness � that a person is conscious of their own
>existence, and how there�s no way such an inexplicable miraculous
>thing can just come about by natural chance, let alone be
>explained or understood as to what it even is.
"We don't understand it, therefore, goddidit". Argument from personal
incredulity mixed with argument from ignorance.
> - Conscience;
Explainable through empathy.
> - Sight, which is irreducibly complex;
Darwin proposed, and refuted, that idea in OOS.
> - Intelligence; Even humans, which are intelligent,
>cannot make intelligence.
Wrong.
> And even if they did, it proves you
>need intelligence to create intelligence.
Non sequitur.
> And even then, you
>cannot create intelligence more intelligent than yourself;
How do you know that?
>hence
>it�s proof that our Creator is more intelligent than even we are,
>which we already knew.
GIGO
> - Love of human beings;
> - The ability of sexual reproduction; such a miraculous
>thing as creating a brand new human life, a brand new soul, a new
>human with their own consciousness. Miraculously unexplainable.
It's already obvious that you've never cracked a Logic textbook;
thanks for letting us know that you've never read a Biology or
Psychology textbook either.
> - That mutations or any single mutation cannot create
>brand new information,
Wrong.
> but instead only lose information or
>shuffle the order of the same information;
Shuffling the order of proteins can lead to significant changes.
> leaving the great
>problem of where does this near infinite information ever come
>from?
"Near infinite"? What are you smoking?
> - The amazing amount of information in the DNA, and the
>amazing ability for it to be read, processed and acted upon,
Why is it amazing?
> and
>how intelligence is required to make information;
No, it isn't.
> - How we cannot recreate the genius of how the mind works
>even though we are intelligent,
You sound like someone from 1900 claiming it's impossible that we'll
ever land on the moon.
> and compare that to the
>ridiculous thought that the mind can instead just come about
>randomly.
Please define "randomly". I do not think it means what you think it
means.
> Would be just like believing computers (infinitely less
>complex than the human mind) could come about by random chance
>when we know even a minute case by comparison is also impossible
>to come about by chance � that only intelligent direction can do
>such a feat.
The above is close to word salad. Could you rephrase it coherently?
> - Perfect conditions for life to even be possible, any of
>which if they were barely any different sustained life would be
>impossible. For example: Get the sun closer to the earth or
>further away, and life would no longer be possible. No
>atmosphere? Life not possible. No water? Life not possible. No
>air? Life not possible. No sunlight? Life not possible. No
>gravity? Life not possible. Too much gravity? Life not possible.
>And the list goes on.
There are billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars.
Statistically, it would seem likely that conditions suitable for life
are fairly common, not miraculous.
> - The existence of orderly laws of nature; Did the big
>bang create them too? Of course not. Yet they want to ignore
>where the laws of nature came from.
"Laws of nature" are observations about how the universe works, not
rules handed down by a lawgiver.
> Another inexplicable miracle
>of the universe.
> - The infinite, irreducible complexity of a cell;
"Irreducible complexity" is just an argument from personal incredulity
dressed up in a lab coat.
> that a
>cell is more complex than the entire universe is compared to a
>human being.
What metric are you using to measure complexity?
> - That we hurdle through space at such insane speeds, yet
>remain perfectly intact and alive here on this planet; another
>miraculous physical event that doesn�t interfere with our ability
>to live.
Exactly how is this miraculous? Do you understand anything about
anything?
> - That the sun is critical to us remaining alive, and
>we're the perfect distance from it to provide exactly the right
>temperatures; any closer or further away, life would be
>impossible.
Already addressed above.
> - That matter exists at all, as opposed to just believing
>it always existed and was never created. That it was just there
>waiting to be used by some supposed big bang that created our
>perfect set of conditions to live. Yet again, statistically
>impossible coincidence.
You're badly confused. There was no matter prior to the big bang.
> - Miraculous healing of people who had cancers and other
>deadly diseases, where their sickness that was not suppose to
>ever be cured suddenly vanishes.
Yet no one has ever regenerated a lost limb. Show me that, and I'll
grant you might have a case.
> - People falling from heights that would easily kill
>anyone, yet sometimes miraculously living; yet another
>inexplicable random miracle of life.
You can slip in the shower and kill yourself, or you can fall 100 feet
and survive. Much of it has to do with how you land, and what you land
on.
> - The instantaneous changes in people from the inside out
>when they profess Christ as
>their Lord and Savior, moreso when they were not seeking God to
>change, and yet the change happens instantly.
Generally, it makes them smug and self-righteous, from my experience
with them.
> - How the Bible makes no sense before you know Christ,
>but once saved the bible starts making perfect sense when you
>read it to yourself without someone there explaining it to you,
>and is clearly a work of the genius of God.
How do you know you're understanding it properly?
>
> 1 Corinthians 2:9-14 KJVR
> 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
>neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God
>hath prepared for them that love him.
> 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for
>the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
> 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the
>spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth
>no man, but the Spirit of God.
> 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world,
>but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things
>that are freely given to us of God.
> 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which
>man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
>comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
> 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the
>Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he
>know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
>
> - Evidence for a global flood
>www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/flood.asp
AIG is a very poor source for any information about, well, pretty much
anything.
>
> 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 KJVR
> 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but
>the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that
>are freely given to us of God.
> 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which
>man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
>comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
> 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the
>Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he
>know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
>
>And more..
>
> The evidence is there. Allow yourself to be objective on
>the possibility of what it all points to if you�re honestly
>seeking truth rather than to just be �right� in your personal
>beliefs, and the truth of God can be seen.
Your "evidence" is entirely composed of assertions, and logical
fallacies.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
"Conned" should be saved for indubitable cases of fraud, such as the
more egregious television evangelists. The Bible consists of hundreds
of different texts composed for a great many different reasons and I
doubt that outright fraud accounts for any substantial portion of it.
Really, we don't need to heap inapplicable pejoratives on these
stories.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Err....
Andres64 is one of us. He was describing arguing with Andrew.
duke
>On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
><budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>: On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
>: > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
>: > attempts to undermine God's Word]
>:
>: Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
>: your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
>: support your ridiculous claims).
>
>Well since "objective" evidence is defined for you as only that
>which *you* will accept, you've conveniently made it impossible
>to address your own definition.
Bud the dud can't even provide proof that she has thoughts.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>On Jun 16, 8:25�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:21:44 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Before they were written, these stories were passed along person-to-
>> >person, being recalled and told, recalled and told, understood by the
>> >teller to be one thing, and by the listener to be something else, and
>> >this went on for an unknown number of years before anything was
>> >committed to writing.
>>
>> True for the OT which prophesies the coming of the Messiah.
>>
>> In the Christian New Testament, we have the summarized written word coming from
>> the words, actions, and especially the RELIGIOUS PRACTICES of the whole new
>> Christian people.
>1). Why would the OT be revised or transformed into NT?
???? It wasn't.
>2). Who had the authority to re-write the words of your god?
???? Nobody did.
>3). Shouldn't the Religious Practices be derived from OT?
No. God became man in the "New Testament".
>I am curious, but am not holding my breath for any satisfactory
>answers.
Based on the suspect nature of your question, I see you don't even understand
the basics.
thomas p.
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:23sh351h8hc9snvn2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> : On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> : > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> : > attempts to undermine God's Word]
> :
> : Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
> : your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
> : support your ridiculous claims).
>
> Well since "objective" evidence is defined for you as only that
> which *you* will accept,
The above is a lie. You are bearing false witness. Isn't that forbidden by
what you call "God's Word"? Please tell us how you justify going against
the "Word".
you've conveniently made it impossible
> to address your own definition. But be that as it may, I've
> offered you all the evidence (the evidence being right under all
> our noses: Creation itself and the life of Jesus Christ), and
> you've snipped it out, as you've always done, and limited
> "evidence" to your version of "objective", following by a string
> of insults as always.
The above is yet another example of circular reasoning. Why do you continue
to use such invalid arguments?
Clip of more Bible quotes, because (pay attention now) it is absurd to use
the Bible to prove that the Bible is the word of any god or to prove that
any god exists. Come on Gabriel, surely you understand this.
Syd
Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall.
PDW
Syd
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:28:04 -0700 (PDT), Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com>
Oooops.
Sorry, Andrew. I guessed I mistook him for that other Andrew.
Sorry again.
PDW
Syd
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:44:08 -0400, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
> ><budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >: On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >: > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> >: > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> >: > attempts to undermine God's Word]
> >:
> >: Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
> >: your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
> >: support your ridiculous claims).
>
> >Well since "objective" evidence is defined for you as only that
> >which *you* will accept, you've conveniently made it impossible
> >to address your own definition.
>
> Bud the dud can't even provide proof that she has thoughts.
>
She can provide more proof then you have ever been able to.
PDW
Smiler
> On Jun 16, 10:34 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
>> gabriel wrote:
>>> [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
>>> posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
>>> attempts to undermine God's Word]
>>
>>>> Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them.
>>>> course because it's current, but you can read articles online about
>>>> these topics. For example:
>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
>>>> and
>>>> http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
>>
>>
>>>> To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
>>>> memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
>>>> memory actually modifies the memory. The more it's recalled, the
>>>> more it's modified. eventually, it could well get to a point where
>>>> the memory bears little or no resemblance to the thing which was
>>>> supposed to have been remembered.
>>
>>>> Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for doubting
>>>> the Bible:
>>>> but the main one would appear to be that the stories were not
>>>> written as they happened. They were written from memory of
>>>> tradition.
>>
>>>> person-to- person, being recalled and told, recalled and told,
>>>> understood by the teller to be one thing, and by the listener to
>>>> be something else, and this went on for an unknown number of years
>>>> before anything was committed to writing.
>>
>>>> tradition, but look at it this way: if we pretend for a minute that
>>>> Adam lived around 6,000BC, and compare that with the Babylonian
>>>> captivity circa 600BC when the Bible was first written down in any
>>>> sort of order, even the fundies have to admit that there were well
>>>> over 5,000 years of these oral traditions being passed on before
>>>> they ever got down on parchment or papyrus or whatever they were
>>>> first written on.
>>
>>>> Yes, no doubt there were some things written before then, but only
>>>> the most gullible fundie will try to pretend we've had written
>>>> documents ever since Adam. So NO, we *don't* have the original
>>>> documents. NO, the forefathers *didn't* write any of this down. It
>>>> all came from tradition, stories and oral history originally.
>>
>>>> So tell me - given the *fact* that our memories are notoriously
>>>> unreliable, why should the Bible be any more reliable than the
>>>> memories of the people who wrote it?
>>
>>>> Budikka
>>
>>> we can completely trust the Bible.
>>
>>
>>> 2 Timothy 3:16 KJVR
>>> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
>>> profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
>>> instruction in righteousness:
>>
>>> whatever doubts we may have about mankind's memory ability in
>>> general, or any of mankind's failings that might lead to the
>>> corruption of God's Word, intentionally or otherwise.
>>
>>> John 14:25-26 KJVR
>>> 25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with
>>> you.
>>> 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
>>> will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
>>> all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
>>
>>> whatsoever Jesus had said unto them. So it's not just fallible
>>> mankind that was responsible for "remembering" God's Word.
>>
>>> John 10:35 KJVR
>>> 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
>>> the Scripture cannot be broken;
>>
>>> loosened from any belief about mankind's memory and it's claimed
>>> effect on God's Word.
>>
>>> life, it would certainly be trivial to make sure mankind would
>>> not destroy an accurate version of His Word, either intentionally
>>> (which has been attempted many times and always failed) or
>>> unintentionally as some might want to believe.
>>
>>> our oldest texts, still matched up with what we had at the time.
>>
>>> and believe in what He can do, can know and trust what He tells
>>> say will only come up with more ways to discredit it, as if God
>>> and so on.
>>
>>> 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
>>> which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea,
>>> hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
>>> 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit
>>> of the trees of the garden:
>>> 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
>>> garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye
>>> touch it, lest ye die.
>>> 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
>>> 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your
>>> eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and
>>> evil.
>>
>>> what God says. But the truth is always the same: Satan is the
>>> father of lies, and there is no truth in Him - but God is all
>>> powerful.
>>
>>> Jesus Christ!
>>
>> Every (well) forged banknote looks very much like it is real.
>> Do you accept it *is* real without first checking?
>> Or do you also look at a real one and compare the two (question the
>> veracity of it from an outside source)?
> If one can use the bible to verify the bible, any fiction story book
> is supposed to be real.
As I explained to my friends Bilbo Baggins and Harry Potter only the other
day :-)
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
Smiler
>> we can completely trust the Bible.
>>
>> For starters, the Word of God was given by inspiration of God.
>> The Bible *is* God's Word. [...]
>
> Yes, let us go straight to the directly quoted words of GOD Himself...
> Exodus 20:22 "And the LORD said unto Moses..."
> And just KEEP READING EVERY SINGLE INSPIRED GODLY WORD until you
> eventually get to...
> Exodus 31:18 where God finally, finally, finally shuts His big stupid
> mouth.
>
> Read it all several times. It is utterly impossible to believe that
> God, the grand Creator of the entire universe, would say all these
> idiotic, trivial, stupid things, these idiotic and crude rules for
> slaves and pits and oxen. The childish little demands for gold and
> silver and pretty carvings, colored stones, fine linen, blue lace and
> pomegranates. It is all utterly unbelievable.
>
> Yes it is absurd, and the BIG, BIG HINT is right at the beginning...
>
> Exodus 20:18: And all the people saw the thunderings, and the
> lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking:
> and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. 20:19:
> And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but
> let not God speak with us, lest we die. 20:20: And Moses said unto the
> people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may
> be before your faces, that ye sin not. 20:21: And the people stood
> afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
>
> SO ONLY THE LIAR MOSES HEARD WHAT GOD SAID OR DIDN'T SAY AND ALMOST
> CERTAINLY MOSES MADE ALL OF THIS RUBBISH UP HIMSELF.
>
> http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvExod.html
Assuming, of course, that Moses wasn't just another of the fictional
characters in the bible.
No theist has been able to answer my question as to how Moses was able to
finish writing his 5th book after he had died.
Budikka
snipped objective evidence from you since you have **NEVER** provided
any as I shall demonstrate right here.
That will prove you a LIAR. Shortly I shall also prove you're either
confoundedly ignorant or a complete moron, as well. Read on.
On Jun 17, 8:44 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
>
> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> : On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> : > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> : > attempts to undermine God's Word]
> :
> : Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
> : your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
> : support your ridiculous claims).
>
> Well since "objective" evidence is defined for you as only that
> which *you* will accept, you've conveniently made it impossible
> to address your own definition.
If you'd actually presented any **OBJECTIVE** evidence, then no, I
wouldn't have ignored it, I would have met it head on as I've met you
head on ever since you made the risible mistake of thinking you could
render me as blind and gullible as you've quite evidently made
yourself.
The problem is not me not addressing the evidence, but YOU not
providing any, as you've proven here, *once again*.
Everyone please note (you can see it in the portion Chicken Gabriel
quoted back to me above) that I specifically requested, regarding the
Bible, "objective evidence that it's any god's word".
So what does Chicken Gabriel do? Does he provide **objective**
evidence?
Nope, he turns right around and quotes from the very book that's in
question!
That proves either that Chicken Gabriel truly is a moron, or that he
has no clue whatsoever what the word "objective" means in this
context.
Chicken Gabriel, go to www.dictionary.com and look up "objective".
Here's the definition that's relevant:
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or
prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
Here's another:
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something
that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of
thought or an observer as part of reality.
Note the "existing independent of...an observer". This will be
relevant shortly.
Now if the question to be resolved is whether the Bible is as I
stated, "any god's word", and I ask you to provide **OBJECTIVE**
evidence, what bottom-of-the-barrel stupidity possessed you to quote
from the very book that's in question?
Seriously?
Are you really that much of an imbecile? How does quoting from the
book in question in any way, shape, or form constitute *independent*
(i.e. objective) evidence?
> But be that as it may, I've
> offered you all the evidence (the evidence being right under all
> our noses: Creation itself
You've provided no **OBJECTIVE** or *scientific* evidence for a
creator let alone a creation.
> and the life of Jesus Christ), and
You've provided no **OBJECTIVE** or *scientific* evidence for any
Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god. You've provided no
**OBJECTIVE** or *scientific* evidence for any god.
> you've snipped it out, as you've always done, and limited
> "evidence" to your version of "objective", following by a string
> of insults as always.
So let me see if I have this straight. Supposing I were to say "There
flat-out is no god, it;'s a fact" and you demanded that I provide
*objective* evidence that what I said is true, and I simply repeated
my statement, you'd consider that to be objective evidence?
Because if you wouldn't, then what kind of a hypocrite does it make
you that I question the divine origin of the Bible and you use that
very same Bible to support your claim and insist that your evidence is
objective?
Clearly your mentality is this: I make a statement, you OBJECT, and
then you insist you've provided OBJECT-ive evidence. LoL! You have
to be a fundamental retard to be of that frame of mind, Gabriel. I'm
sorry, but you do.
> The just shall live by faith. If you want God to jump through
> hoops for you, it will not happen
Why not? Did god tell you this? if not, how do you know? Does it
state in the Bible that your god will not jump thru hoops? If not,
from whence this claim? Doesn't the Bible state unconditionally that
whatever you ask for in prayer in Jesus's name, you will receive? If
not, then that's another LIE right out of this Holy book you claim is
objective evidence of the holiness of the book! LoL!
> Matthew 13:58 KJVR
> 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their
> unbelief.
>
> Matthew 12:38-39 KJVR
> 38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered,
> saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
> 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous
> generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given
> to it
>
> so God allows you to continue to deny Him while ignoring the
> logically undeniable fact that we were Created.
"Matthew" is a LIAR and a plagiarist. Why should I believe him? You
can't even tell me who wrote "Matthew" or what veracity the author
had. What *****OBJECTIVE***** evidence (I.E. INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE NOT
IN THE BIBLE) do you have that "Matthew" is reliable when it comes to
discussing supernatural matters?
> Habakkuk 2:4 KJVR
> 4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but
> the just shall live by his faith.
Do you know who wrote Habakkuk? Do you have some independent evidence
to testify to the veracity and reliability of the author? if not,
then why should I believe it?
> Romans 1:17 KJVR
> 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
> to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
How does this constitute **OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the Bible)
evidence for the Bible being the word of any god?
> Galatians 3:11 KJVR
> 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God,
> it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
How does this constitute **OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the Bible)
evidence for the Bible being the word of any god?
> Hebrews 10:38 KJVR
> 38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back,
> my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
How does this constitute **OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the Bible)
evidence for the Bible being the word of any god?
> The evidence is much more than bible verses, but you were in such
> a hurry to delete it all, you didn't notice. Here it is again -
> meanwhile creation itself and life itself is proof of God.
I haven't deleted a thing, Chicken Gabriel, but nowhere so far have
you prove4ed even one word of **OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the
Bible) evidence for the Bible being the word of any god.
I'm still waiting.
> Romans 1:17-23 KJVR
> 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
> to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
> 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
> ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
> unrighteousness;
> 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
> for God hath showed it unto them.
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
> world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
> made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
> without excuse:
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as
> God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
> imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image
> made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
> beasts, and creeping things.
>
> The Word of God was given by inspiration of God.
How does this constitute **OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the Bible)
evidence for the Bible being the word of any god?
> 2 Timothy 3:16 KJVR
> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
> profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
> instruction in righteousness:
>
> The Bible *is* God's Word. God's abilities clearly override
> whatever doubts we may have about mankind's memory ability in
> general, or any of mankind's failings that might lead to the
> corruption of God's Word, intentionally or otherwise.
How does this constitute **OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the Bible)
evidence for the Bible being the word of any god?
> And even Jesus said,
> John 14:25-26 KJVR
> 25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with
> you.
> 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
> will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
> all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
>
> It's the spirit of God that brought to remembrance all things,
> whatsoever Jesus had said unto them. So it's not just fallible
> mankind that was responsible for "remembering" God's Word.
>
> Jesus also said,
> John 10:35 KJVR
> 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
> the Scripture cannot be broken;
>
> Jesus himself said the scripture cannot be broken / dissolved /
> loosened. This would include not being broken / dissolved /
> loosened from any belief about mankind's memory and it's claimed
> effect on God's Word.
What **OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the Bible) evidence do you have
that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god?
What **OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the Bible) evidence do you have
that there ever was any god?
What **OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the Bible) evidence do you have
that any god had anything to do with the Bible (other than that the
blind believers who plagiarized and cobbled together the scriptures
*claimed* it was all done for their god?
> And for God, being powerful enough to create the universe and all
> life, it would certainly be trivial to make sure mankind would
> not destroy an accurate version of His Word, either intentionally
> (which has been attempted many times and always failed) or
> unintentionally as some might want to believe.
What **OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the Bible) evidence do you have
that there ever was any god?
What **OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the Bible) evidence do you have
that this god created *anything*?
So, back to proving you a LIAR. I haven't deleted a thing, Chicken
Gabriel, but nowhere so far have you provided even one word of
**OBJECTIVE** (i.e independent of the Bible) evidence for the Bible
being the word of any god.
In short, you're a LIAR and your;e either a moron or one of the most
tragically ignorant people on Usenet.
Case proven. End of story.
I'm still waiting on your *****OBJECTIVE***** (i.e independent of the
Bible) evidence for the Bible being the word of any god.
Budikka
Budikka
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
>
>
> : On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
> : > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
> : > attempts to undermine God's Word]
> :
> : Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
> : your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
> : support your ridiculous claims).
>
> Here's some more evidence for you for God's existance:
Once again you've proven that reading for comprehension is a non-
starter for you isn't it Chicken Gabriel? Actually, profound
ignorance, pathological LYING, risible hypocrisy, shameful cowardice,
and laughable stupidity and vacuity seem to be endemic amongst the
fundie/creationist crowd, and you're definitely no exception to the
rule.
Please note this and do try to understand it now. It's OK to get an
adult to help you Gabbers: Note carefully that I didn't ask for
"evidence", - I asked for ***OBJECTIVE*** evidence.
Are you too profoundly ill-educated to grasp the difference?
Your blind, gullible, ignorant, vacuous, ridiculous, pathetic
*opinion* doesn't constitute evidence (either objective or otherwise)
for *anything*.
If you want to provide evidence for me, then it needs to be
independently verifiable - meaning it cannot come from the Bible
because the Bible is the very thing that needs to be confirmed. Can
you grasp that simple FACT, Chicken Gabriel?
> Creation itself bears witness to the Creator, God.
Why? because you say so? In order to claim your god created, you
need to do two things:
1. Provide ***OBJECTIVE** (i.e. independent of the Bible) evidence
that this god exists
2. Provide ***OBJECTIVE** (i.e. independent of the Bible) evidence
that this god is indeed capable of creating a universe.
3. Provide ***OBJECTIVE** (i.e. independent of the Bible) evidence
that this god did indeed create.
Can you grasp that Chicken G?
Does a
> building prove a builder exists? Yes.
So your;e saying human architects and engineers created the universe?
Because that's what this "logic" (for want of a better word)
"demonstrates". If your "logic" is that something built requires a
builder and the only examples you can provide are things we know, a
priori, to have been built by humans, then your argument can only be
that the universe was built by humans.
Is that what you're saying: your god is a human?
If not, then in order to demonstrate that your god created a universe,
you need to show us a universe which we already **KNOW** a priori was
created by a god so that we can compare it with this one and see if
they look like they were built by the same being.
Do you have another universe which we know was created by a god with
which we can compare our universe?
Do you?
Really?
> What if you were left on an
> island with that one building and no literature of any kind for
> your lifetime - would that building still prove a builder exists?
Yes - it would prove a HUMAN builder exists. Why do you think this
has *anything* to do with providing ***OBJECTIVE*** evidence that a
*divine* builder exists? Only a complete imbecile would try to employ
"logic" like that - and only a monstrous imbecile would then try to
pass off that inane logic as *objective* evidence!
> Yes. Even though you never saw anyone build a building? Yes.
Why is that Gabbers? How is it that we **know* when we see a building
that a human builder built it even when we haven't seen the builder
build it?
Let me answer for you because I can see you're really struggling under
the absurdly oppressive weight of your ignorance here: it's because we
*know*, a priori, that humans build buildings. We *know* a priori,
that gods don't. We *know* a priori that buildings don't arise from
miracles.
So what you've "proven" here is that if we see something that's been
built it *has* to have been built by a human. I see nothing so far
about gods and universes (and nothing, so far, that's objective).
Unless you want to prove that humans built the universe, since it's
something that was built - according to you.
But here's another fallacy in your "logic" Chicken Gabbers - you're
making the leap from something we *know* was built (a building) to
something we don't *know* was built (the universe) - we know the
skyscraper down town was built. We **DON'T** know the universe was
built.
But you don't want to do this logically do you Gabbers? You want to
make that "logical" argument and then miraculously leap from that to
"If a human built a building then a god *must* have built the
universe".
Do you *seriously* think that's logic? Do you think it's intelligent
to leap from human-made objects to divine made ones without showing
any sort of progression, link, or objective support?
Do you think it's logical to make the a priori assumption the very
thing that's in question: that if *unnatural* houses are *built*, then
so must be *natural* universes? Worse, do you seriously think that
you've provided *objective* evidence with that pathetic excuse for
rationale?
> Even
> though you don't know how the building was built? Yes.
We *do* know how it was built because we've seen similar things being
built. Even if we don't see a specific one being built, we can safely
assume it wasn't put up by miracles or gods. Or is that what you're
arguing - that anything we know to be built but haven't *seen* being
built is the work of gods? So the houses down the road from me -
which arose out of my sight - are the work of this god of yours for no
other reason than that I never saw them actually being built?!!!!
LoL!
Now since my request was for **OBJECTIVE** evidence and since you've
failed *again* to provided it, and since I addressed every section of
your other message and showed it to be LIES, fallacy, and fraud, then
you'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I flush the rest of your claptrap
where it belongs, because not a shred of it is what I asked for:
OBJECTIVE evidence. It isn't even rational.
Now would you care to try again? And this time instead of using the
very thing that's in question (the Bible) to argue for itself, and
instead of using the most pathetic "logic" imaginable, do you think
you could stir yourself and actually provide what I asked for:
OBJECTIVE evidence (not Bible quotes - since it's the Bible which is
in question here -and inane "logic" - since I asked not for rationale,
but for objective evidence) to make your case?
I'm betting not, but I'm more than happy to give you (or any other
creationist/fundie) another chance, because every message you post
makes my case stronger and yours more ridiculous.
Budikka
Budikka
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
>
>
> I wish you wouldn't keep changing your id - I have a domain killfile
> on messages coming from google, with specific exceptions. It means I
> stop seeing your messages until I spot somebody's reply to you and I
> put your new ID in the override list.
>
> You are one of the rare posters whose articles are almost always worth
> reading.
I 'm not sure what you mean by that! I actually don't change
anything. I think Google does it - it's not the most reliable of news
readers, but since I don't post that much, I don't bother finding
anything truly sterling. or it's possibly the router in here which
changes IDs depending on what's available.
But thanks for the compliment!
[snipped rest of pungent observations on Chicken Gabbers since I don't
disagree with any of them and couldn't have put it better myself!]
Budikka
thomas p.
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:R_d_l.20103$7O1....@newsfe06.ams2...
> Yap wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 10:34 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
>>> gabriel wrote:
>>>> [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
>>>> posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
>>>> attempts to undermine God's Word]
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:21:44 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>>>> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>> And after thousands of years, we can see Satan is alive and well
>>>> trying to convince others that we can't trust everything about
>>>> what God says. But the truth is always the same: Satan is the
>>>> father of lies, and there is no truth in Him - but God is all
>>>> powerful.
>>>
>>>> All glory and honor to God the Father of our Lord and Savior,
>>>> Jesus Christ!
>>>
>>> Using the bible to 'verify' the bible is circular reasoning.
>>> Every (well) forged banknote looks very much like it is real.
>>> Do you accept it *is* real without first checking?
>>> Or do you also look at a real one and compare the two (question the
>>> veracity of it from an outside source)?
>> If one can use the bible to verify the bible, any fiction story book
>> is supposed to be real.
>
> As I explained to my friends Bilbo Baggins and Harry Potter only the other
> day :-)
Gabriel will, no doubt, explain that the Bible can be so used because it is
the "Word of God".
thomas p.
He had it ghost written.
thomas p.
"Budikka" <budi...@netscape.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:91393ef5-3f14-413c...@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 17, 8:47 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
>>
>> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> : On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> : > [removed alt.atheism, as they have no interest in God, but
>> : > posting here so others can see one possible way to address such
>> : > attempts to undermine God's Word]
>> :
>> : Where's your objective evidence that it's any god's word? (Hint, that
>> : your cue to run away Chicken Gabriel, like you always do when asked to
>> : support your ridiculous claims).
>>
>> Here's some more evidence for you for God's existance:
>
> Once again you've proven that reading for comprehension is a non-
> starter for you isn't it Chicken Gabriel? Actually, profound
> ignorance, pathological LYING, risible hypocrisy, shameful cowardice,
> and laughable stupidity and vacuity seem to be endemic amongst the
> fundie/creationist crowd, and you're definitely no exception to the
> rule.
On the other hand he is exceptional.
>
> Please note this and do try to understand it now. It's OK to get an
> adult to help you Gabbers: Note carefully that I didn't ask for
> "evidence", - I asked for ***OBJECTIVE*** evidence.
>
> Are you too profoundly ill-educated to grasp the difference?
>
> Your blind, gullible, ignorant, vacuous, ridiculous, pathetic
> *opinion* doesn't constitute evidence (either objective or otherwise)
> for *anything*.
>
> If you want to provide evidence for me, then it needs to be
> independently verifiable - meaning it cannot come from the Bible
> because the Bible is the very thing that needs to be confirmed. Can
> you grasp that simple FACT, Chicken Gabriel?
>
>> Creation itself bears witness to the Creator, God.
>
> Why? because you say so? In order to claim your god created, you
> need to do two things:
> 1. Provide ***OBJECTIVE** (i.e. independent of the Bible) evidence
> that this god exists
> 2. Provide ***OBJECTIVE** (i.e. independent of the Bible) evidence
> that this god is indeed capable of creating a universe.
> 3. Provide ***OBJECTIVE** (i.e. independent of the Bible) evidence
> that this god did indeed create.
>
> Can you grasp that Chicken G?
Well no, he cannot grasp that.
snip
Masked Avenger
On 17-Jun-2009, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:21:51 GMT, "Masked Avenger"
> <coot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On 17-Jun-2009, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >Huh? Prevent people from thinking for themselves?
> >>
> >> It was only posted to alt.atheism.
> >>
> >> So the loonie was just being stupid.
> >
> >my newsreader says he posted it to alt.bible as well ....... my vote is
> >for
> >stupidity .....
>
> I just re-checked the header. He changed the followup. Which in the
> days when posters showed intelligence and courtey he would have
> pointed out.
Yes, there is no doubt the lying prick doesn't have an ounce of intelligence
or courtesy .........
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity .............
and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
Does Schr�dinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
duke
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:46:17 -0400, magicus <magi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon Jun 15 2009 19:21:44 GMT-0400 (EDT) Budikka666
>>> <budi...@netscape.net> typed:
>>>> There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
>>>> Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them.
>>>> You can't access this at the www.discovermagazine.com web site of
>>>> course because it's current, but you can read articles online about
>>>> these topics. For example:
>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
>>>> and
>>>> http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
>>>>
>>>> www.wikipedia.org probably has some good information on it, too.
>>>>
>>>> To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
>>>> memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
>>>> modified. It turns out that even the simple act of recalling a
>>>> memory actually modifies the memory. The more it's recalled, the
>>>> more it's modified. eventually, it could well get to a point where
>>>> the memory bears little or no resemblance to the thing which was
>>>> supposed to have been remembered.
>>>>
>>>> Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for doubting
>>>> the Bible:
>>>> http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/inspiration_of_bible.html
>>> Thanks for the update and links!
>>
>> Idiot sites.
>>
>
>I bet you never even clicked on the sites.
Did one.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:10:35 -0400, Brian E. Clark
>
> <brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <79q3eqF1r368...@mid.individual.net>,
> >ing...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
> >> Can legal tender be hard currency?
>
> >After a bank robbery, is the hot money still cold, hard
> >cash?
>
> It is until the dye pack explodes...
I hate it when that happens. :D
Syd
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:31:19 +1000, "Andrew W"
>
>
>
> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> >duke wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon Jun 15 2009 19:21:44 GMT-0400 (EDT) Budikka666
> >>>> There's an article in the July/August 2009 edition of _Discover)_
> >>>> Magazine which discusses memory - how we make them and keep them.
> >>>> course because it's current, but you can read articles online about
> >>>> these topics. For example:
> >>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm
> >>>> and
> >>>>http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/38/12/nader/
>
>
> >>>> To cut a long story short, the _Discover_ article discussed how our
> >>>> memories are stored, retrieved, and modified - and yes, they *are*
> >>>> modified. It turns out that even the simple act of recalling a
> >>>> memory actually modifies the memory. The more it's recalled, the
> >>>> more it's modified. eventually, it could well get to a point where
> >>>> the memory bears little or no resemblance to the thing which was
> >>>> supposed to have been remembered.
>
> >>>> Which brings us to scripture. There are many reasons for doubting
> >>>> the Bible:
Then you didn't bother to read it.
Must have been the big words, huh, Dork?
PDW
Smiler
That the bible is the "Word of God" is also in the bible.
More circular 'reasoning'. I doubt if he has the wherewithall to reply
intelligently.