The Stephen Fry problem

Originally posted by @apathist
I realize that you never investigated the bible and its history, its source, the parts left out, the translation issues. The politics involved in building for example a King James version. You are clueless, but just start researching, buddy, you can heal.

I should say cut-n-paste on stuff new to you looks really weak. We are supposed to know, or are trying to know, what we talk about.

Ah Lilith, so easily forgotten.



https://www.disclose.tv/lilith-was-adams-first-wife-not-eve-but-the-bible-kept-it-secret-315540

Originally posted by @romans1009
...

I know enough about how the Bible was put together and am much more interested in what’s in the Bible as the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and has changed countless lives for the better.

So you advocate slavery and know women should be subservient.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Ah Lilith, so easily forgotten.



https://www.disclose.tv/lilith-was-adams-first-wife-not-eve-but-the-bible-kept-it-secret-315540

The points in that article have already been debunked (and the debunking was not at all difficult.)

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Ah Lilith, so easily forgotten.



https://www.disclose.tv/lilith-was-adams-first-wife-not-eve-but-the-bible-kept-it-secret-315540[/b]

The first libber! Of course the church tries to ignore her, and plan B is to demonize her.

Originally posted by @apathist
So you advocate slavery and know women should be subservient.

We (meaning the forum) have already been through this on separate threads. Really not interested in rehashing it unless you can bring something new to the table.

Originally posted by @romans1009
The points in that article have already been debunked (and the debunking was not at all difficult.)

You have an inner skeptic! Try to nurture that and make it consistent.

Originally posted by @romans1009
We (meaning the forum) have already been through this on separate threads. Really not interested in rehashing it unless you can bring something new to the table.

I'm sorry that the inerrant word of god disturbs you?

Originally posted by @apathist
The first libber! Of course the church tries to ignore her, and plan B is to demonize her.

It’s interesting how one can ignore the overwhelming evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and yet latch onto a debunked myth as if it were the truth.

Sad!

Originally posted by @apathist
I'm sorry that the inerrant word of god disturbs you?

It doesn’t disturb me at all. I love the Bible. Just not interested in going over ground that’s already been covered.

Originally posted by @apathist
You have an inner skeptic! Try to nurture that and make it consistent.

I was very skeptical of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection before I became a Christian and did not believe it until I had spent months investigating the evidence for it.

I guess the difference between you and me is I actually looked into the evidence.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I was (mostly) kidding. Lighten up.

BTW, the Bible said atheists are fools. Who am I to argue with the Bible?

The bible isn't kidding and you refer to it as justification of your "mostly" kidding? Aren't aren't you as serious on this as the Bible?

Psalm 14 tells you how God will take care of the "strong atheist" and John 3:18 takes care of the rest of the non-believers. Let's not say it's kidding.

Originally posted by @js357
The bible isn't kidding and you refer to it as justification of your "mostly" kidding? Aren't aren't you as serious on this as the Bible?

Psalm 14 tells you how God will take care of the "strong atheist" and John 3:18 takes care of the rest of the non-believers. Let's not say it's kidding.

Nitpick much?

Originally posted by @apathist
So you advocate slavery and know women should be subservient.

Noted: romans did not deny either charge.

Originally posted by @apathist
Noted: romans did not deny either charge.

Yeah, I guess my ignoring of stupidity and redundancy means I agree wholeheartedly with the stupidity and redundancy

🙄

Originally posted by @romans1009
Truth is never corrupted. It may be modified, but then it is no longer truth.

As far as whether ideology is elevated, I suppose that depends on its prior state and how truth is applied (or misapplied) to it.

Can ideology be elevated, good?