26 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999I have a sideline here talking Indonesian friends out of internet scams. Nannies wanted in Britain. Sponsor my visa. Send me a sample. Nigerian generals. I have averted disater in at least 4 cases. The power to believe just about anything when one really really wants to believe, shreds almost all intellectual dignity and makes a fool out of well-meaning and otherwise sensible people.
Actually I am seeing some of those from Indonesia as well 🙂
26 Feb 09
Originally posted by Ed TThe original question on this thread was not well intentioned and it surely wasn't intelligent!!!! You've got to be kidding me!!!
Why is it that so many discussions start out well intentioned and intelligent and then somewhere along the way melt down into circular name calling?
26 Feb 09
Originally posted by FMFI had a friend who communicated with one of those Nigerians. We all thought it was hilarious because my friend didn't have any money worth scamming off him.
I have a sideline here talking Indonesian friends out of internet scams. Nannies wanted in Britain. Sponsor my visa. Send me a sample. Nigerian generals. I have averted disater in at least 4 cases. The power to believe just about anything when one really really [b]wants to believe, shreds almost all intellectual dignity and makes a fool out of well-meaning and otherwise sensible people.[/b]
04 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayerOne only has to read the Book Of Revelations, and understand the history of its inclusion in the New Testament, to realise that it's fake. Meanwhile the likes of jaywill argue that the Book is genuine because, in the Book itself, it asserts that it is genuine. Backing this with quotes from the Book itself is not 'presenting evidence'. Its inclusion was a political move - this is not even disputed by objective historians, and can be easily looked up - and it was against the wishes of Constantinople and the whole Eastern Church. But Rome prevailed. This occurred 400 years after Jesus' death, when an ecclesiastic political powerplay necessitated it. The burden of proof lies with the intellectually autistic likes of jaywill. Remember, they can always fall back on the 'it was divinely inspired' argument, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The burden of proof vis a vis the Book does not lie with me. Quoting from the Book itself, and only from the Book itself, cannot possibly amount to a defence of its veracity. Of course the Book interlocks with the rest of the scriptures! Do we really think that the people who put the Book together - for the obvious reasons that they did - were stupid?
This thread is eight pages long, and our friend FMF never gave even ONE piece of evidence that ANYTHING in his rants were in fact true.
On the other hand, I found Jaywills detailed responses to be very well thought-out.
Here's a little exchange from another thread. It gets to the heart of the matter:
Originally posted by epiphinehas
The reliability of the Synoptic documents are unsurpassed by all standards compared to all other ancient writings and cannot be disparaged as easily as you would like without betraying a personal bias or a lack of scholarship, or both.
Originally posted by twhitehead
You don't seriously believe that do you? They don't even agree with each other without even having to bring in anything else. As for 'biblical scholarship' and 'archeological findings' I think you will find them seriously lacking in any actual evidence.
Epiphinehas, of course, is wrong. And twhitehead is right. The Book Of Revelations cannot be "justified" as easily as the likes of Epiphinehas and jawill would like, without betraying their personal bias or a lack of genuine, objective scholarship, or both
Ok, then. Without quoting from the Book Of Revelations, what evidence is there that Christ was the "source" for the Book Of Revelations?
04 Mar 09
Originally posted by FMFAs a side note—
One only has to read the Book Of Revelations, and understand the history of its inclusion in the New Testament, to realise that it's fake. Meanwhile the likes of jaywill argue that the Book is genuine because, in the Book itself, it asserts that it is genuine. Backing this with quotes from the Book itself is not 'presenting evidence'. Its inclusion was a politic ...[text shortened]... hat evidence is there that Christ was the "source" for the Book Of Revelations?
One interesting thing I’ve observed among certain Protestants is the claim that the Holy Spirit guided the “fathers” in determining the canon, but deny those “fathers” the same guidance when it comes to how they read/interpreted that canon—else they might have to affirm the theologies of such as St. Gregory of Nyssa. (Also, most Protestants do not seem to include the so-called deutero-canonical—“second canon”—books that were originally included.) And, although the determining of the canon is part and parcel of what both Rome and the Eastern Orthodox churches call “tradition”, the rest of that tradition is also eschewed (sola scriptura)—else they might have to affirm the Christology of the likes of Justin Martyr, or even Augustin of Hippo (who tends to be more affirmed in the west).
04 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFThat is because you don't know scripture. In fact, there is nothing really new in Revelation that you cannot find bits and peices of in the prophetic works of Daniel and company. For example, the beast in Revelation was spoken about in Daniel as it is in Revelation. What about the 1000 millinium? It is covered in both Revelation and the OT prophesies etc.
[b]One only has to read the Book Of Revelations, and understand the history of its inclusion in the New Testament, to realise that it's fake.
People may not agree that Revelations is an accurate interpretation but an interpretation it definitely is. Considering such facts, who cares when it was written?
04 Mar 09
Originally posted by whodeyAnd this proves what exactly?
there is nothing really new in Revelation that you cannot find bits and peices of in the prophetic works of Daniel and company. For example, the beast in Revelation was spoken about in Daniel as it is in Revelation. What about the 1000 millinium? It is covered in both Revelation and the OT prophesies etc.
04 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFThis thread is eight pages long, and our friend FMF still has not given even ONE piece of evidence that ANYTHING in his rants is in fact true.
One only has to read the Book Of Revelations, and understand the history of its inclusion in the New Testament, to realise that it's fake. Meanwhile the likes of jaywill argue that the Book is genuine because, in the Book itself, it asserts that it is genuine. Backing this with quotes from the Book itself is not 'presenting evidence'. Its inclusion was a politic hat evidence is there that Christ was the "source" for the Book Of Revelations?
04 Mar 09
Originally posted by whodeyI asked before but I don't think I got an answer from you: do you care when it was written? If I presented you with a book written in 1900 would you go through it and accept it as part of the Bible if it was as good a fit as you claim Revelations is? If not then why not?
People may not agree that Revelations is an accurate interpretation but an interpretation it definitely is. Considering such facts, who cares when it was written?
04 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadi care when it was written, and what is more it absolutely refutes the drivel and half boiled cabbage that our fiend FMF seems so adamant to dish up again and again.
I asked before but I don't think I got an answer from you: do you care when it was written? If I presented you with a book written in 1900 would you go through it and accept it as part of the Bible if it was as good a fit as you claim Revelations is? If not then why not?