Originally posted by C Hess Yeah, I'd say that's a solid all right. I mean that book is a straight line between god's thoughts and your mind, is what that is. No interference whatsoever. Nope.
If it (the Word of God) were anything else nothing would exist.
Originally posted by C Hess If it (the great green Arkleseizure's sneeze) had not happened, nothing would exist.
You see? Your replies are indicative of a mindset that's has no basis on which it rests in any truth.
In addition to that your reply is a childish ploy designed to establish in your own mind that you know more than anyone, to cover for some insecurity, and makes you the authority.
No two ways about it Hess. You either recognize that there are absolute truths that exist independent of human origins, or you must be ready to prove that YOU are the final authority on topics such as the origin of the universe.
Originally posted by josephw You see? Your replies are indicative of a mindset that's has no basis on which it rests in any truth.
In addition to that your reply is a childish ploy designed to establish in your own mind that you know more than anyone, to cover for some insecurity, and makes you the authority.
No two ways about it Hess. You either recognize that there are absolute ...[text shortened]... be ready to prove that YOU are the final authority on topics such as the origin of the universe.
Surely, whether or not some absolute truths exist independent of human origins (whatever that means), cannot be determined by poorly translated and filtered set of sheep herder stories? But even if you could argue that case, you still have to own up to the fact that what remains of the original scriptures shows your bible is an ill representation of the originals, and in doing so ask yourself how reliable the rest of your bible can be. I need only sit back and be mused, thank you very much.
In case it wasn't clear, my using the hitchhiker's guide, was an attempt to demonstrate that the book you say is truth cannot itself be held up as evidence for its' truth. That would be silly, is what I was saying.
Originally posted by josephw You see? Your replies are indicative of a mindset that's has no basis on which it rests in any truth.
In addition to that your reply is a childish ploy designed to establish in your own mind that you know more than anyone, to cover for some insecurity, and makes you the authority.
No two ways about it Hess. You either recognize that there are absolute ...[text shortened]... be ready to prove that YOU are the final authority on topics such as the origin of the universe.
sorry mate but that is twaddle your truth is just that, just because you say its true don't make it so, it would be nice to live in your fantasy world,but lets face it if we are created in gods image he did a piss poor job of it with all the so called religious wars raging from time immemorial.
Originally posted by C Hess Surely, whether or not some absolute truths exist independent of human origins (whatever that means), cannot be determined by poorly translated and filtered set of sheep herder stories? But even if you could argue that case, you still have to own up to the fact that what remains of the original scriptures shows your bible is an ill representation of the origi ...[text shortened]... cannot itself be held up as evidence for its' truth. That would be silly, is what I was saying.
wow, you keep showing increasing levels of stupidity.
Originally posted by C Hess You might wish to state exactly what about that post was so stupid. Or have I hit a nerve in you, you poor schmuck?
The reliability of the Holy Bible has already been tested by scholars and determined to be highly reliable. So it is stupid for one, such as you, with no training or understanding to even suggest the Holy Bibile is not reliable. Check this website for reasons why the Holy Bible is considered by scholars to be reliable.
Originally posted by RJHinds The reliability of the Holy Bible has already been tested by scholars and determined to be highly reliable. So it is stupid for one, such as you, with no training or understanding to even suggest the Holy Bibile is not reliable. Check this website for reasons why the Holy Bible is considered by scholars to be reliable.
Of all the hundreds of ancient manuscripts that support the reliability of the Bible as we now know it, how many
of those documents are not in themselves part of the Bible as well? How many come from outside sources?
Originally posted by RJHinds The reliability of the Holy Bible has already been tested by scholars and determined to be highly reliable. So it is stupid for one, such as you, with no training or understanding to even suggest the Holy Bibile is not reliable. Check this website for reasons why the Holy Bible is considered by scholars to be reliable.
And while it is true that "there are no known extent (currently existing) original manuscripts of the Bible, the abundance of manuscript copies make it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy."
That's like saying, we have lost the originals, but thanks to the sheer number of copies upon copies made, that only differ from these originals to an unspecified extent, we can be certain that this book is almost completely accurate.
For any other type of work, virtually complete is fine, but this is supposed to be the word of the most perfect being imaginable addressing her creation. You'd think that a god who thinks it's important that her special creation knows her through her word, would put some effort in there to make sure that her word was not just virtually, but absolutely complete. Me thinks therefore that this god of the bible does not in fact exist, since her word has been (even if only a little) corrupted.
21 Aug '14 10:32
Life from nothing
Back to Top