Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

You want a pie chart? You're one ridiculous individual, maliagar and others have expressed that you're not worth arguing with -- your mind is like a steel trap and it's closed shut.

0 Replies

:wink:

You've read something in the last couple of days. Good, but you need to read more...

Cephus wrote:

It's a set of writings that were canonized at a later date...

Of course. First, Moses took the Israelites out of Egypt, then (later) someone wrote about it, and much later were the texts canonized. First Jesus lived, died, and resurrected. Then, people started to write about it. Much later were some texts canonized while others were not.

Quote:

...by groups of men who had a particular theological axe to grind.

Absolutely. The Bible did not fall from heaven. And the "particular" theological axe had to do with the right understanding of God as He revealed Himself to us. Jewish authorities canonized Hebrew scriptures over the centuries, and the One Catholic Church canonized Christian Scriptures over the centuries (Protestants who now accept the Bible as inspired are usually unaware of the fact that they are accepting a decision made by the One Catholic Church in the fourth century - Why would they accept the Bible as inspired and reject the authority of the body who declared it inspired in the first place? You tell me.).

Those who think that the Bible came first and believers afterwards have it wrong. First came the community (chosen people, the Church) and then the Bible. So the only way to make sense of the Bible is within the context it was written and canonized: The community of the believers (for Christians, the Church).

Quote:

Stories that supported their beliefs were added, those which did not were thrown away. Virtually nothing in the Bible can be objectively proven true and most of it can be objectively proven false.

Need to read more.

cephus wrote:

maliagar wrote:
Mistake # 3: The Bible's purpose is not to impress you to the point of faith.

Faith without basis is worthless. Only a fool believes when all the evidence points to a different conclusion.

Certainly, there is a basis for faith (not the Bible, though). However, you need to think about the difference between faith and empirical knowledge.

:wink:

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

You want a pie chart?

That would be great! (you'd have to be very creative if you were able to summarize your "evidence" in a pie chart!!!) Laughing

Quote:

You're one ridiculous individual, maliagar and others have expressed that you're not worth arguing with...

And I suppose that's the one and only reason why you're not bothering to provide the pie chart, right? (even though you do bother to reply...).

Don't worry: Everybody knows that you're perfectly capable of providing all the "evidence" in a heartbeat. You just "don't want to"... Laughing

Quote:

...your mind is like a steel trap and it's closed shut.

It's not right to make fun of me. My mind may not be as privileged as yours, Enlightened. But I'm still a human being, deserving of some education from my betters. The pie chart with the evidence is at the tip of your fingers, and you, out of selfishness, don't want to "enlighten" this slow soul... Laughing

You just want to "punish me". :wink:

Bye, LightWeight...

Laughing

0 Replies

The pie is a cyberspace pie with whip cream on top!
Duck!

0 Replies

turhth
Maliagar, what motivates you to be so obnoxious? Is it rage that others disagree with your views?

0 Replies

Pie charts seem to work very well for readers of USA Today....

0 Replies

Re: turhth

JLNobody wrote:

Maliagar, what motivates you to be so obnoxious? Is it rage that others disagree with your views?

Some people find it very obnoxious to be questioned about their evidence (especially when they think their beliefs ought to be evident for everyone).

But they don't have any problem taking advantage of every opportunity to question those on "the other side" about their evidence... :wink:

Double standard, it's called.

The funny thing is that they don't see to what extent their views are rooted in pure beliefs--and dare to criticize others who openly acknowledge being people of faith...

Lack of self-awareness, it's called.

:wink:

0 Replies

And I call that projection.

0 Replies

Demanding evidence of the opinion of others but offering no evidence of your opinion is a meager bait to debate. How long can a dog chase its tail?
It certainly give meaning to Shakespeare's "a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing." In addition, Shakespeare would not indulge in so much self-serving rant.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Demanding evidence of the opinion of others but offering no evidence of your opinion is a meager bait to debate.

Give me your pie chart, diagram, or whatever it is, and I'll discuss it. Seriously. :wink:

Quote:

Shakespeare would not indulge in so much self-serving rant.

Follow his example... and provide your summary about what's been "established" and the evidence supporting it.

(Unless, of course, you have nothing of that sort...)

:wink:

0 Replies

I was being tongue-in-cheek. If you are attempting the same, be warned not to bite your tongue.

0 Replies

I notice Maliagar is still ignoring arguments that show him to be way off base -- particularly the arguments I present to show how far off base he really is.

Hey -- I don't blame him.

No use taking a beating in one of these threads if you don't have to.

Boy do I love this. It's like a dream.

I am too fearsome for Maliagar.

Has the sound of a lyric.

Maybe someone will add a few lines -- and put it to music.

Wow!

I feel so powerful!

0 Replies

Frank, Just don't let it go to your head. LOL

0 Replies

No problemo, ci.

I shall continue to be my sweet, kind, considerate, shy, sensitive, altruistic, humble self.

That's a promise.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Of course. First, Moses took the Israelites out of Egypt, then (later) someone wrote about it, and much later were the texts canonized. First Jesus lived, died, and resurrected. Then, people started to write about it. Much later were some texts canonized while others were not.

Sorry, but there's no evidence that Moses even existed, much less did what the Bible reported. Moses was simply a mythic retelling of the Babylonian Mises myth which existed centuries before the Hebrews were even a distinct sect. Archaeological and anthropological evidence suggests that the Hebrews never left Egypt, they were never there; nor did they fight their way into Palestine, they developed there.

As for Jesus, virtually all of the story of Jesus was mythic retellings of pre-existing stories from other cultures. Jesus, if he existed at all, was only the merest kernel of truth at the center of a huge ball of myths and fantasies.

Quote:

Absolutely. The Bible did not fall from heaven. And the "particular" theological axe had to do with the right understanding of God as He revealed Himself to us. Jewish authorities canonized Hebrew scriptures over the centuries, and the One Catholic Church canonized Christian Scriptures over the centuries (Protestants who now accept the Bible as inspired are usually unaware of the fact that they are accepting a decision made by the One Catholic Church in the fourth century - Why would they accept the Bible as inspired and reject the authority of the body who declared it inspired in the first place? You tell me.).

That's a nice story, now back it up. For God revealing himself, he sure made a lot of mistakes in the Bible, didn't he? The RCC had, as I said, a particular theological point to make and chose books which supported that point. Many books were rejected, not because they weren't of the same caliber, but because they didn't match the religious dogma that they wished to include.

0 Replies

Glad Cephus joined A2K. The voice of reason.

0 Replies

Might point out here that The Council of Nicea, in the early Fourth Century, at which The Christian Bible first was codified and the Liturgy Of The Church was formalized, was called by the Emporer Constantine, primarily for the purpose of establishing Christianity as a State Religion. Quite a bit of lobbying went on, with Constantine himself (a non-Christian at the time) having the final say in what was and was not included. Political exigency was more the byword than theological probity. What became included fit with Constantine's aims for using Christianity to reconstruct The Empire.

Oh, and welcome Cephus. Good to see you here.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote: " Many books were rejected, not because they weren't of the same caliber, but because they didn't match the religious dogma that they wished to include."

A friend of mine told me about the existence of a 5th gospel, the gospel of Thomas (I think) in which some women were appointed by Jesus as apostles. Gee, wonder why THAT gospel wasn't included.

0 Replies

cause wimmen's are evil Wink

0 Replies

yeah, she talked Adam into eating the apple, and the whole world went to hell. Wink

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know