| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Truth Hunter" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2003 12:44:10 PM |
| Object: |
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Next, you wish to state Jesus was a sacrifice. Now, if Jesus is god,
then a god can die. If a god can die, then another god needed to
resurrect him. Now, if you believe Jesus was a man sent by god...
What, EXACTLY does God say about human sacrifice in the TaNaCH? In
Deuteronomy 12:30-31, God calls Human sacrifice something that He
hates, and an abomination to Him, "for every abomination to the
Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even
their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their
gods. In Jeremiah 19:4-6, God tells us that Human sacrifice is so
horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind to
demand it from His creation, "They have built also the high places of
Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal,
which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." We
see the same thing in Psalm 106:37-38, and in Ezekiel 16.20. This
means that God would not accept Jesus's death on the cross as a blood
sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The very idea of that God would
accept a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is UnBiblical.
do realize that in the OT that no man can be held accontable for
anothers sins. Yet you have us believe god sent his "son" to die for
sin. You also realize that human sacrifice is an abomination to the
lord..how is it that Jesus could sacrifice himself?
That blood is required for atonement. How come the people of Ninevah,
in the Book of Jonah, received atonement without shedding blood? All
they did was repent.
Did you ever read Ezekiel Ch. 18? It is all about repentance and there
is no mention of blood. God requires NOT the sinner's death but,
rather, that he repent and live.
.
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 03:59:19 PM |
|
|
Your arguments are totally without merit.
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gt82sv4uqfghoc4vqi1v8vt7at6i3rh26p@4ax.com...
On 23 Nov 2003 10:44:10 -0800, (Truth Hunter) wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
TH, th, th - are you still out to embarrass yourself.
You're still in the OT part of the bible. You need to turn to the NT,
the part
about Jesus Christ our Messiah. Before Jesus died on the cross, there
was no
salvation to be had.
Next, you wish to state Jesus was a sacrifice. Now, if Jesus is god,
then a god can die. If a god can die, then another god needed to
resurrect him. Now, if you believe Jesus was a man sent by god...
Jesus the man died on the cross. Christ never involked his divinity or he
therefore would never be able to proclaim he was 100% man.
The rest of your post is snipped out of shear lack of understanding on
your
part.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 04:27:13 PM |
|
|
<relocated top-post>
In alt.atheism on Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:59:19 GMT, "Bill"
<wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gt82sv4uqfghoc4vqi1v8vt7at6i3rh26p@4ax.com...
On 23 Nov 2003 10:44:10 -0800, (Truth Hunter) wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
TH, th, th - are you still out to embarrass yourself.
You're still in the OT part of the bible. You need to turn to the NT,
the part
about Jesus Christ our Messiah. Before Jesus died on the cross, there
was no
salvation to be had.
Next, you wish to state Jesus was a sacrifice. Now, if Jesus is god,
then a god can die. If a god can die, then another god needed to
resurrect him. Now, if you believe Jesus was a man sent by god...
Jesus the man died on the cross. Christ never involked his divinity or he
therefore would never be able to proclaim he was 100% man.
The rest of your post is snipped out of shear lack of understanding on
your
part.
Your arguments are totally without merit.
The core of the sun is warm and somewhat dense.
What? This wasn't a "Who can make the biggest understatement"
contest?
;-)
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 04:40:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:59:19 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Your arguments are totally without merit.
My argument is the basis of Christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 05:38:39 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:40:47 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:59:19 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Your arguments are totally without merit.
My argument is the basis of Christianity.
Hmmmnn... Let's see. "A" + "B" = "C". Oh, *I* get it - +this+ is the
next logical step in the sequence:
"Therefore, Christianity is without merit."
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
24 Nov 2003 11:50:43 AM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2003, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> screwed up his face, groaned,
pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:vqd2svc9uahg9sm780r3po34isi8d4e9lr@4ax.com:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:59:19 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Your arguments are totally without merit.
My argument is the basis of Christianity.
QED.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
03 Dec 2003 06:32:52 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:40:47 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:59:19 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Your arguments are totally without merit.
My argument is the basis of Christianity.
Christianity is totally without merit.
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: TQOTM nominattion: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 04:52:49 PM |
|
|
Too good to pass up for unintentional theistic honesty, though it must
be read in context. Do I hear seconds?
In alt.atheism on Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:40:47 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:59:19 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Your arguments are totally without merit.
My argument is the basis of Christianity.
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM nominattion: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
23 Nov 2003 06:19:26 PM |
|
|
And it came to pass that (Bill, The Avender) did
write in alt.atheism, news:3fc63a40.26116482@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
Too good to pass up for unintentional theistic honesty, though it must
be read in context. Do I hear seconds?
In alt.atheism on Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:40:47 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:59:19 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Your arguments are totally without merit.
My argument is the basis of Christianity.
Seconded! I would have nominated it if you hadn't.
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM nominattion: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
25 Nov 2003 02:59:06 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns943D34B525CDwalkingonglasshotmai@195.92.193.157>,
Walking on Glass <walking_on_glass@hotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
And it came to pass that (Bill, The Avender) did
write in alt.atheism, news:3fc63a40.26116482@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
Too good to pass up for unintentional theistic honesty, though it must
be read in context. Do I hear seconds?
In alt.atheism on Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:40:47 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:59:19 GMT, "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Your arguments are totally without merit.
My argument is the basis of Christianity.
Seconded! I would have nominated it if you hadn't.
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Blast Femur" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
24 Nov 2003 12:33:44 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:gt82sv4uqfghoc4vqi1v8vt7at6i3rh26p@4ax.com:
On 23 Nov 2003 10:44:10 -0800, (Truth Hunter)
wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.First, in Exodus 32:30-35, Moses asks God to punish him for the
sin of the Golden Calf, committed by the people. God tells Moses that
the person who committed the sin is the person who must receive the
punishment. Then, in Deuteronomy 24:16, God simply states this as a
basic principle, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
This concept is repeated in the Prophets, in Ezekiel 18 "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die... the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
TH, th, th - are you still out to embarrass yourself.
You're still in the OT part of the bible. You need to turn to the
NT, the part about Jesus Christ our Messiah. Before Jesus died on
the cross, there was no salvation to be had.
It amazes me people still believe this crap.
--
Blast Femur
______________
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes
talking to people and guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-Paul Provenza
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "vince garcia" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 01:25:44 PM |
|
|
Truth Hunter wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.
bull. You have no idea what you are talking about.
2nd Samuel 21, when David executes Michal's innocent sons for Saul's
sin, their human deaths were accepted by God as atonement for the sins
of their grandfather, thus ending a Divine famine! Elsewhere in the
Tanakh, Job was required to intercede for his friends to avert God’s
wrath against them (Job 42:8), and earlier than that, (Job 1:5) he had
offered up sacrifices to atone for his children in the event they had
sinned. Moses likewise (Exodus 32:30) offered to make atonement for the
sins of Israel. Further, during the festival of Sukkhot, 70 bullocks
were
sacrificed for the sins of the (obviously unrepentant) Gentile nations.
We thus can clearly establish both in Scripture and the Talmud that the
death of one or more innocent human men can indeed be accepted by God as
atonement for the sins of their others, and/or that a man can offer
atonement for the sins of someone other than himself. Since Christians
believe that Jesus was the agent of Mankind’s creation, how much more
appropriate would His own sacrifice be to atone for the sins of the
children He had fathered than Job’s!
Now go away
.
|
|
|
| User: "CharliePFL" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
05 Jan 2004 11:37:15 AM |
|
|
"vince garcia" <vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
Truth Hunter wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
....and lots of men shall fall victims to cult crapola!
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.
bull. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Of course, your reply will be backed up by a book
which is a collection of ancient myths and fables.
From this totally outdated nonsense you'll construct your
argument.
2nd Samuel 21, when David executes Michal's innocent sons for Saul's
sin, their human deaths were accepted by God as atonement for the sins
of their grandfather, thus ending a Divine famine!
What an idiotic psycho your "God" is! Killing innocent people
because this "god's" blood lust must be appeased. Your God
really needs anger management counseling and a competent
therapist, and probably some medication as well.
Now go away
that dude may go away, I'm not!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
05 Jan 2004 01:26:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:37:15 GMT, "CharliePFL"
<CharliePFL@Ihatespam.com> wrote:
"vince garcia" <vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
Truth Hunter wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
...and lots of men shall fall victims to cult crapola!
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.
bull. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Of course, your reply will be backed up by a book
which is a collection of ancient myths and fables.
From this totally outdated nonsense you'll construct your
argument.
2nd Samuel 21, when David executes Michal's innocent sons for Saul's
sin, their human deaths were accepted by God as atonement for the sins
of their grandfather, thus ending a Divine famine!
What an idiotic psycho your "God" is! Killing innocent people
because this "god's" blood lust must be appeased. Your God
really needs anger management counseling and a competent
therapist, and probably some medication as well.
Now go away
that dude may go away, I'm not!
Then at least come up with some original trolling! All sorts of other
trolls are doing exactly what you are. I mean, really! How do you
plan to stand out from EvilEditor and at least make a name for
yourself here? There's only so much that can be said for repetition.
=)
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 03:09:29 PM |
|
|
In article <3FF86A74.8B5@ix.netcom.com>, wrote:
Truth Hunter wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.
bull. You have no idea what you are talking about.
2nd Samuel 21, when David executes Michal's innocent sons for Saul's
sin, their human deaths were accepted by God as atonement for the sins
of their grandfather, thus ending a Divine famine! Elsewhere in the
Tanakh, Job was required to intercede for his friends to avert God’s
wrath against them (Job 42:8), and earlier than that, (Job 1:5) he had
offered up sacrifices to atone for his children in the event they had
sinned. Moses likewise (Exodus 32:30) offered to make atonement for the
sins of Israel. Further, during the festival of Sukkhot, 70 bullocks
were
sacrificed for the sins of the (obviously unrepentant) Gentile nations.
We thus can clearly establish both in Scripture and the Talmud that the
death of one or more innocent human men can indeed be accepted by God as
atonement for the sins of their others, and/or that a man can offer
atonement for the sins of someone other than himself. Since Christians
believe that Jesus was the agent of Mankind’s creation, how much more
appropriate would His own sacrifice be to atone for the sins of the
children He had fathered than Job’s!
Now go away
I really do not see where you Fundamentalists get off on this nonsense.
The Bible - as my six your old son put it is a book of laws with legends
in it.
What you are doing is quoting one legend to justify the claim that another
is true history. This is just plain STUPID. Try not to be a dupe and a
dope all your life!
We know for a certainty that the entire book of Genesis is legend, that
Jonah and the whale is a legend, that much if not all of Exodus is legend
and we know the purpose of those legends, both collectively and
individually. They are to enhance the religious based laws and the
theology and nationalism of the Jewish people
There is no clear evidence to this day that David and Saul even existed.
What is certain is that the Kingdom of David as described in the Bible is
mythological. So are the stories that surround it.
Get real. Christianity cannot survive when you turn mythology into LIES
and then use those LIES as the basis of your religion.
Such a construct is a house built on sand. The correct foundations for
Christianity are obvious if you examine the words of Jesus in a rational
mannner and recognise that even he spoke in a time of much historical
ignorance
Your unspotted lamb slaughtered by his divine father for the sins of this
world as a human sacrifice is not just mythological and impossible - the
first century speaking in allegory to itself - it is downright repugnant.
Death sentences do not "atone" - that is nonsense. They kill - What is
alive becomes dead - That's it - That is all. Jesus is about far more
than the performance of a pagan human sacrificial rite to appease an angry
God.
You have created a Christianity based on Pauline and post Pauline
mythology surrounding his last days
In fact on the mythology and theology of Christianities WORST enemy in its
first few decades.
.
|
|
|
| User: "vince garcia" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 03:38:12 PM |
|
|
oz wrote:
In article <3FF86A74.8B5@ix.netcom.com>, wrote:
Truth Hunter wrote:
"Every man shall be put to death for his own sins."
One person cannot die for the sins of another. This means that the
guilt from the sins committed by one person cannot be wiped out by the
punishment given to another person. Jesus cannot wipe out the sins of
anyone.
bull. You have no idea what you are talking about.
2nd Samuel 21, when David executes Michal's innocent sons for Saul's
sin, their human deaths were accepted by God as atonement for the sins
of their grandfather, thus ending a Divine famine! Elsewhere in the
Tanakh, Job was required to intercede for his friends to avert God’s
wrath against them (Job 42:8), and earlier than that, (Job 1:5) he had
offered up sacrifices to atone for his children in the event they had
sinned. Moses likewise (Exodus 32:30) offered to make atonement for the
sins of Israel. Further, during the festival of Sukkhot, 70 bullocks
were
sacrificed for the sins of the (obviously unrepentant) Gentile nations.
We thus can clearly establish both in Scripture and the Talmud that the
death of one or more innocent human men can indeed be accepted by God as
atonement for the sins of their others, and/or that a man can offer
atonement for the sins of someone other than himself. Since Christians
believe that Jesus was the agent of Mankind’s creation, how much more
appropriate would His own sacrifice be to atone for the sins of the
children He had fathered than Job’s!
Now go away
I really do not see where you Fundamentalists get off on this nonsense.
The Bible - as my six your old son put it is a book of laws with legends
in it.
What you are doing is quoting one legend to justify the claim that another
is true history. This is just plain STUPID. Try not to be a dupe and a
dope all your life!
We know for a certainty that the entire book of Genesis is legend
we do? that's news to me. Prove to me noah's ark is a myth. My Armenian
ancestors believed throughout their recorded history it was there, and
I'd like to see specific proof that it never was.
While you're at it, I'd like to see scientific proof Jesus Christ did
not rise from the dead.
I want you to prove every negative hypothesis you have regarding what
the Bible asserts.
If you don't want to believe, be my guest, but you show your own
ignorance throughout your post, especially when you question David's
existence which is attested to by Israeli archeologists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CharliePF1" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
08 Jan 2004 10:07:03 PM |
|
|
"vince garcia" <vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:3FF88980.27A7@ix.netcom.com...
oz wrote:
I really do not see where you Fundamentalists get off on this nonsense.
The Bible - as my six your old son put it is a book of laws with legends
in it.
What you are doing is quoting one legend to justify the claim that another
is true history. This is just plain STUPID. Try not to be a dupe and a
dope all your life!
Most cults teach stupid, impossible stuff. That's what cults do.
Just as carpenters work with wood, cults work with human gullibility
and stupidity.
We know for a certainty that the entire book of Genesis is legend
we do? that's news to me.
Well, apparently you are not "we."
Prove to me noah's ark is a myth.
How about just using common sense?
My Armenian
ancestors believed throughout their recorded history it was there,
The Armenians have a very sad history, yet another page in the
chronical of human atrocities. However, just because your ancestors
believed it was there does not make it a fact. You'll need to find it.
and I'd like to see specific proof that it never was.
You cannot prove a negative.
While you're at it, I'd like to see scientific proof Jesus Christ did
not rise from the dead.
Why stop there? Why not a scientific proof that Santa Claus doesn't
fly around with reindeer?
I want you to prove every negative hypothesis you have regarding what
the Bible asserts.
If you knew anything about logic, you'd not write this crapola.
If you don't want to believe, be my guest, but you show your own
ignorance throughout your post, especially when you question David's
existence which is attested to by Israeli archeologists.
It's highly probable that there was a King David. He's a historical
figure. One doesn't need faith or belief for that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Church" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
09 Jan 2004 12:52:37 AM |
|
|
It's highly probable that there was a King David. He's a historical
figure. One doesn't need faith or belief for that.
No evidence for or of king David: Israel Finkelstein, chairman of
the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University.
February 07, 2001 Arguing among themselves about the meanings of
objects like pottery shards, animal bones and the foundations of
long-ruined buildings is something archaeologists usually do in the
privacy of their own profession. But when the argument is about who
wrote the Bible, why it was written and what, if any, of the
historical events described in the Old Testament are true -- and when
the archaeologist's excavations are conducted on some of the most
contested land in the world, the Middle East
-- the tempest is almost guaranteed to boil over the rim of the
teapot. No one knows this better than Israel Finkelstein, chairman of
the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, who, with
archaeology historian and journalist Neil Asher Silberman, has just
published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision
of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."
"The Bible Unearthed" is the latest salvo fired in a pitched battle
between those who consider the Old Testament to contain plenty of
reliable historical facts, and those who, at the opposite extreme, say
it's pure mythology. The debate reached the general population of
Israel, sending what one journalist called a "shiver" down the
nation's "collective spine," in late 1999, when another archaeologist
from Tel Aviv University, Ze'ev Herzog, wrote a cover story for the
weekend magazine of the national daily newspaper, Ha'aretz. In the
essay, Herzog laid out many of the theories Finkelstein and Silberman
present in their book: "the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not
wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a
military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of
Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that
the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a
regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom." The new theories
envision this modest chiefdom as based in a Jerusalem that was
essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire.
Although, as Herzog notes, some of these findings have been accepted
by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and
even decades, they are just now making a dent in the awareness of the
Israeli public -- a very painful dent. They challenge many of the Old
Testament stories central to Israeli beliefs about their own national
character and destiny, stories that have influenced much of Western
culture as well.
The tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others
--were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages
rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus,
one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation
in human history, also slipped from history to legend when
archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating
contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large
encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses
brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).
It is all myth and the facts prove it never happened. Herzog's
article led to a nationwide bout of soul-searching. After it
appeared, universities organized conferences where distressed citizens
could quiz experts on the details and meanings of this new and
not-so-new research; Israeli newspaper journalists wrote stories
casting the theories as blows against the cultural identity and even
the political legitimacy of Israel; and scholars who quarrel with the
ideas of archaeologists like Finkelstein wrote fiery letters and
editorials denouncing them, But the facts stand and the truth
is set free. The bible stories are myth.
Them's fightin' words. In this field, it seems, there are few worse
epithets to throw at a colleague than "minimalist." The moniker is
usually applied to a controversial group of European biblical
scholars, sometimes called the Copenhagen School, who have insisted
that since there is so little corroborative evidence supporting the
stories in the Old Testament, the scriptures should be regarded as a
collection of legends, and figures like David and Solomon considered
"no more historical than King Arthur." The inflammatory implication
behind the name "minimalist" (which Finkelstein and Silberman dismiss
as a canard invented by the group's "detractors") is that an
emotional, religious or political agenda, rather than a judicious
weighing of the facts, drives their research. Their most vehement
critics accuse the minimalists of being anti-Bible and anti-Israeli,
for to some any attack on the historical legitimacy of the Bible, with
its grand national myth of a people chosen by God to rule the world,
is a blow struck at the legitimacy of the current state of Israel.
But the facts remain. The bible is mostly myth and legends with
very little if any true history in it.
..
**************************
A preacher is the blind
leading the blind...
The Last Church
http://www.thelastchurch.org
michael@thelastchurch.org
alt.religion.thelastchurch
alt.religion.the-last-church
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
06 Jan 2004 03:40:33 PM |
|
|
I want you to prove every negative hypothesis you have regarding what
the Bible asserts.
That is not my obligation. I make NO claims. and posit no "negative
hypothesis". You make the claims you prove them
If you don't want to believe, be my guest, but you show your own
ignorance throughout your post, especially when you question David's
existence which is attested to by Israeli archeologists.
Actually you are horribly incorrect there. It is the Archaelogists based
in Israeli universities who are the first to admit that the evidence for
the existence of Davids kingdom in anything resembling the Biblical
account is slim indeed
It is they who most readily admit that there is a similar lack of evidence
for the Exodus story
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 11:49:13 PM |
|
|
In article <3FF88980.27A7@ix.netcom.com>, wrote:
we do? that's news to me. Prove to me noah's ark is a myth. My Armenian
ancestors believed throughout their recorded history it was there, and
I'd like to see specific proof that it never was.
You have reversed the burden of proof. It is for the person MAKING the
assertion to prove it and - of course you can't
What once was a "matter of faith is merely a matter of intelligence or stupidity
While you're at it, I'd like to see scientific proof Jesus Christ did
not rise from the dead.
Funnily enough I wouldn't. That there was an event regarded as the
Resurrection seems highly likely - but I have no doubt it has been
mythologised to provide the Pauline resuscitation of the body. That the
disciples saw Jesus as having somehow survived death seems highly likely
but that all the Bible expresses theological truths in allegory, metaphor
and myth seems equally indisputable
I want you to prove every negative hypothesis you have regarding what
the Bible asserts.
Fundamentalists have got away with this stupidity FAR too long and as in
the twentieth century pursuit of this idiocy is driving the world in the
direction of Fascism and Terrorism
YOU prove your own assertions - don't ask others to disprove what they
simply do not believe. By your reversal of the burden of evidence you
reverse the burden of proof making all guity until proven innocent
Which is the Fascist and Fundamentalist (and Bush) way of life
Get thee hence antichrist within the Church!
And may the people kick the rest of the Fundamentalist bums out too so we
can get some theological and religious and social progress.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you don't want to believe, be my guest, but you show your own
ignorance throughout your post, especially when you question David's
existence which is attested to by Israeli archeologists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
05 Jan 2004 12:54:34 AM |
|
|
If you don't want to believe, be my guest, but you show your own
ignorance throughout your post, especially when you question David's
existence which is attested to by Israeli archeologists.
Actually you are quite wrong there. So far there is still no evidence of
David's Kingdom as portrayed in the Bible
FROM THE WEB
King David was a nebbish
How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations.
By Laura Miller
- - - - - - - - - -
February 07, 2001 Arguing among themselves about the meanings of objects
like pottery shards, animal bones and the foundations of long-ruined
buildings is something archaeologists usually do in the privacy of their
own profession. But when the argument is about who wrote the Bible, why it
was written and what, if any, of the historical events described in the
Old Testament are true -- and when the archaeologist's excavations are
conducted on some of the most contested land in the world, the Middle East
-- the tempest is almost guaranteed to boil over the rim of the teapot. No
one knows this better than Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology
Department at Tel Aviv University, who, with archaeology historian and
journalist Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The
Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin
of Its Sacred Text."
"The Bible Unearthed" is the latest salvo fired in a pitched battle
between those who consider the Old Testament to contain plenty of reliable
historical facts, and those who, at the opposite extreme, say it's pure
mythology. The debate reached the general population of Israel, sending
what one journalist called a "shiver" down the nation's "collective
spine," in late 1999, when another archaeologist from Tel Aviv University,
Ze'ev Herzog, wrote a cover story for the weekend magazine of the national
daily newspaper, Ha'aretz. In the essay, Herzog laid out many of the
theories Finkelstein and Silberman present in their book: "the Israelites
were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the
land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the
twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that
the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a
regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom." The new theories
envision this modest chiefdom as based in a Jerusalem that was essentially
a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire.
Although, as Herzog notes, some of these findings have been accepted by
the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even
decades, they are just now making a dent in the awareness of the Israeli
public -- a very painful dent. They challenge many of the Old Testament
stories central to Israeli beliefs about their own national character and
destiny, stories that have influenced much of Western culture as well. The
tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were
the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with
anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the
most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human
history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no
longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and
the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the
wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through
the parted Red Sea).
Herzog's article led to a nationwide bout of soul-searching. After it
appeared, universities organized conferences where distressed citizens
could quiz experts on the details and meanings of this new and not-so-new
research; Israeli newspaper journalists wrote stories casting the theories
as blows against the cultural identity and even the political legitimacy
of Israel; and scholars who quarrel with the ideas of archaeologists like
Finkelstein wrote fiery letters and editorials denouncing them as
"biblical minimalists."
Them's fightin' words. In this field, it seems, there are few worse
epithets to throw at a colleague than "minimalist." The moniker is usually
applied to a controversial group of European biblical scholars, sometimes
called the Copenhagen School, who have insisted that since there is, to
their minds, so little corroborative evidence supporting the stories in
the Old Testament, the scriptures should be regarded as a collection of
legends, and figures like David and Solomon considered "no more historical
than King Arthur." The inflammatory implication behind the name
"minimalist" (which Finkelstein and Silberman dismiss as a canard invented
by the group's "detractors") is that an emotional, religious or political
agenda, rather than a judicious weighing of the facts, drives their
research. Their most vehement critics accuse the minimalists of being
anti-Bible and anti-Israeli, for to some any attack on the historical
legitimacy of the Bible, with its grand national myth of a people chosen
by God to rule in the Promised Land, is a blow struck at the legitimacy of
the current state of Israel.
++++++++++++++++++++
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Varicose Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 06:25:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:38:12 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
we do? that's news to me. Prove to me noah's ark is a myth. My Armenian
ancestors believed throughout their recorded history it was there, and
I'd like to see specific proof that it never was.
While you're at it, I'd like to see scientific proof Jesus Christ did
not rise from the dead.
I want you to prove every negative hypothesis you have regarding what
the Bible asserts.
I was told that the bible is a myth by little green leprechauns with
four heads. You don't believe me? PROVE ME WRONG!
See how stupid your request is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "vince garcia" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 07:49:20 PM |
|
|
Varicose Brain wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:38:12 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
we do? that's news to me. Prove to me noah's ark is a myth. My Armenian
ancestors believed throughout their recorded history it was there, and
I'd like to see specific proof that it never was.
While you're at it, I'd like to see scientific proof Jesus Christ did
not rise from the dead.
I want you to prove every negative hypothesis you have regarding what
the Bible asserts.
I was told that the bible is a myth by little green leprechauns with
four heads. You don't believe me? PROVE ME WRONG!
See how stupid your request is?
that's right, imbecile. You can't "prove" that assertion, yet the poster
made dogmatic statements like "we know for a fact genesis is myth".
No, he does NOT know that for a fact. he believes that and can offer as
support for that view sepculation, arguments from silence, and the
opinion of qualified historians who look at extant "evidence", interpret
that from their subjective world view and arrive at that conclusion
which he happens to support.
Other qualified people look at the "evidence" and arrive at a different
world view.
Neither side can "prove" their point in such a way that there can be no
debate, and that is my point
I would never claim I could "prove" noah's ark existed. To do that I
would have to dig the actual thing up.
He cannot "prove" it did NOT exist.
Neither side can "prove" their beliefs; they can only state the reason
they derive certain inferences from extant data which forms their world
view. That's not proof; that's arguments and speculation!
That notion is probably too hard for your brain to process, but try
.
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
05 Jan 2004 12:14:45 AM |
|
|
In article <3FF8C45D.7781@ix.netcom.com>, wrote:
that's right, imbecile. You can't "prove" that assertion, yet the poster
made dogmatic statements like "we know for a fact genesis is myth".
We do.
We know that the Creation stories are physically impossible and do not
conform with scientific understanding , including understanding of
astrophysics , geology and evolution
No, he does NOT know that for a fact. he believes that and can offer as
support for that view sepculation, arguments from silence, and the
opinion of qualified historians who look at extant "evidence", interpret
that from their subjective world view and arrive at that conclusion
which he happens to support.
Quite wrong old dear. That is NOT how scientists and historians view
either theories or facts. What they do is constantly seek new information
and test existing theories experimentally. No-one is happier than a
scientist or historian for a fresh insight.
The religious Fundamentalist is quite different. he is traumatised by the
discovery of information that overturns his world-view because he bases
his life and supposed superiority on that world view. Unlike the
scientist and historian he does NOT seek to remove himself and his
personal world view from the equation in order to reach the truth. The
scientist and historian ALWAYS does. Where he fails to do so he is simply
a lousy academic (for example a few Creationist "scientists" with their
noses in the religious funding trough - seeking their thirty pieces of
silver to betray God.
Your world view is not about truth it is about power. It's aim ios to
cower the gullible by manipulating their spirituality
They are the Antichrist in the Church- They fight progress and sharing
and redistribution of Gods material gifts to the planet and the people as
a whole. They are about racism and classism and cliquism and fascism
And it is time to kick the bums and their governement out and return to
social progress.
Other qualified people look at the "evidence" and arrive at a different
world view.
Neither side can "prove" their point in such a way that there can be no
debate, and that is my point
We understand your point. You are mad manipulative or just plain wrong.
In all three you are wasting your life and screwing up other peoples
lives. Fundamentalists aren't nice
Kick the bums out just as Jesus kicked out the bums and tricksters in the
Temple~!
I would never claim I could "prove" noah's ark existed. To do that I
would have to dig the actual thing up.
That is your first step in the direction of the truth - you are now forty
five years behind me
:-)
He cannot "prove" it did NOT exist.
Neither side can "prove" their beliefs; they can only state the reason
they derive certain inferences from extant data which forms their world
view. That's not proof; that's arguments and speculation!
Nope. _ They certainly did a good job on you
Don't fret too much - it is poised to fall apart of its own accord
And then you can reach for sanity and truth
(and progress)
"That notion is probably too hard for your brain to process, but DO try -
it makes it happen quicker"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 08:05:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:49:20 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Varicose Brain wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:38:12 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
we do? that's news to me. Prove to me noah's ark is a myth. My Armenian
ancestors believed throughout their recorded history it was there, and
I'd like to see specific proof that it never was.
While you're at it, I'd like to see scientific proof Jesus Christ did
not rise from the dead.
I want you to prove every negative hypothesis you have regarding what
the Bible asserts.
I was told that the bible is a myth by little green leprechauns with
four heads. You don't believe me? PROVE ME WRONG!
See how stupid your request is?
that's right, imbecile. You can't "prove" that assertion, yet the poster
What "assertion", liar?
made dogmatic statements like "we know for a fact genesis is myth".
It is. It describes things that don't happen, and is a rehash of
earlier Babylonian and Sumerian myths. Eg you can find the flood story
as part of the Gilgamesh epic. Of course it is not the wrath of an
angry god, but most of the details are the same.
No, he does NOT know that for a fact. he believes that and can offer as
Yes, he does. Even non-fundie Christians realise it.
As does everybody outside your religion. It is little different than
all the other creation myths, eg the ancient Greek one.
support for that view sepculation, arguments from silence, and the
What "speculation", liar?
What "arguments from silence", liar?
opinion of qualified historians who look at extant "evidence", interpret
that from their subjective world view and arrive at that conclusion
which he happens to support.
You mean like Rohl?
Other qualified people look at the "evidence" and arrive at a different
world view.
Nope.
An objective look at the evidence supports Jim Merritt's math. If it
is right then there was no flood. If it happened earlier as you
imagine, then the bible chronology is wrong. Because Jim's math is
impeccable.
Neither side can "prove" their point in such a way that there can be no
debate, and that is my point
Nope. It's not "both sides" of anything, and you're projecting your
own intellectual dishonesty onto everyone else.
I would never claim I could "prove" noah's ark existed. To do that I
would have to dig the actual thing up.
You couldn't. Because it didn't AS DESCRIBED IN THE SUPPOSEDLY
INERRANT BIBLE.
He cannot "prove" it did NOT exist.
Yes, he can. AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUPPOSEDLY INERRANT BIBLE.
You DID read the URL I gave you, with the awkward questions about the
flood?
Neither side can "prove" their beliefs; they can only state the reason
they derive certain inferences from extant data which forms their world
view. That's not proof; that's arguments and speculation!
Stop lying. It's not two sides of anything. It's intellectually
dishonest fundamentalists who claim an inerrant bible and lie about
others rather than addressing the difficulties. When nobody would give
a flying ***** abut the bible if you didn't bring it up.
And I suspect that's the reason you get upset: you imagine everybody
else should give a ***** about it.
That notion is probably too hard for your brain to process, but try
Oh, the irony.
.
|
|
|
| User: "vince garcia" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 08:30:21 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:49:20 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Varicose Brain wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:38:12 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
we do? that's news to me. Prove to me noah's ark is a myth. My Armenian
ancestors believed throughout their recorded history it was there, and
I'd like to see specific proof that it never was.
While you're at it, I'd like to see scientific proof Jesus Christ did
not rise from the dead.
I want you to prove every negative hypothesis you have regarding what
the Bible asserts.
I was told that the bible is a myth by little green leprechauns with
four heads. You don't believe me? PROVE ME WRONG!
See how stupid your request is?
that's right, imbecile. You can't "prove" that assertion, yet the poster
What "assertion", liar?
made dogmatic statements like "we know for a fact genesis is myth".
It is. It describes things that don't happen, and is a rehash of
earlier Babylonian and Sumerian myths. Eg you can find the flood story
as part of the Gilgamesh epic. Of course it is not the wrath of an
angry god, but most of the details are the same.
No, he does NOT know that for a fact. he believes that and can offer as
Yes, he does. Even non-fundie Christians realise it.
As does everybody outside your religion. It is little different than
all the other creation myths, eg the ancient Greek one.
support for that view sepculation, arguments from silence, and the
What "speculation", liar?
What "arguments from silence", liar?
opinion of qualified historians who look at extant "evidence", interpret
that from their subjective world view and arrive at that conclusion
which he happens to support.
You mean like Rohl?
Other qualified people look at the "evidence" and arrive at a different
world view.
Nope.
An objective look at the evidence supports Jim Merritt's math. If it
is right then there was no flood. If it happened earlier as you
imagine, then the bible chronology is wrong. Because Jim's math is
impeccable.
Neither side can "prove" their point in such a way that there can be no
debate, and that is my point
Nope. It's not "both sides" of anything, and you're projecting your
own intellectual dishonesty onto everyone else.
I would never claim I could "prove" noah's ark existed. To do that I
would have to dig the actual thing up.
You couldn't. Because it didn't AS DESCRIBED IN THE SUPPOSEDLY
INERRANT BIBLE.
He cannot "prove" it did NOT exist.
Yes, he can. AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUPPOSEDLY INERRANT BIBLE.
You DID read the URL I gave you, with the awkward questions about the
flood?
Neither side can "prove" their beliefs; they can only state the reason
they derive certain inferences from extant data which forms their world
view. That's not proof; that's arguments and speculation!
Stop lying. It's not two sides of anything. It's intellectually
dishonest fundamentalists who claim an inerrant bible and lie about
others rather than addressing the difficulties. When nobody would give
a flying ***** abut the bible if you didn't bring it up.
And I suspect that's the reason you get upset: you imagine everybody
else should give a ***** about it.
That notion is probably too hard for your brain to process, but try
Oh, the irony.
as i said in the other post, I've spent about all the time on this i
can, but I do have a question:
Are you as sure of all this you've posted here as you are that there is
"zero evidence that there even was a JEsus Christ"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
05 Jan 2004 12:23:24 AM |
|
|
In article <3FF8CDFA.2D4C@ix.netcom.com>, wrote:
Are you as sure of all this you've posted here as you are that there is
"zero evidence that there even was a JEsus Christ"?
I'd put it differently
There is very little evidence to suggest that the Jesus portrayed in the
Bible accurately portrays either the historical person on whom it is based
or the historical details of his alleged life and death
Furthermore it actually matters less than Fundamentalists think
But then they are swinging an autocratic political line - a lust for
tyranny in which they are counted as people of "virtue"
Instead of rightly being regarded as cranks and bullies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 08:54:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 02:30:21 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:49:20 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Varicose Brain wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:38:12 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
we do? that's news to me. Prove to me noah's ark is a myth. My Armenian
ancestors believed throughout their recorded history it was there, and
I'd like to see specific proof that it never was.
While you're at it, I'd like to see scientific proof Jesus Christ did
not rise from the dead.
I want you to prove every negative hypothesis you have regarding what
the Bible asserts.
I was told that the bible is a myth by little green leprechauns with
four heads. You don't believe me? PROVE ME WRONG!
See how stupid your request is?
that's right, imbecile. You can't "prove" that assertion, yet the poster
What "assertion", liar?
made dogmatic statements like "we know for a fact genesis is myth".
It is. It describes things that don't happen, and is a rehash of
earlier Babylonian and Sumerian myths. Eg you can find the flood story
as part of the Gilgamesh epic. Of course it is not the wrath of an
angry god, but most of the details are the same.
No, he does NOT know that for a fact. he believes that and can offer as
Yes, he does. Even non-fundie Christians realise it.
As does everybody outside your religion. It is little different than
all the other creation myths, eg the ancient Greek one.
support for that view sepculation, arguments from silence, and the
What "speculation", liar?
What "arguments from silence", liar?
opinion of qualified historians who look at extant "evidence", interpret
that from their subjective world view and arrive at that conclusion
which he happens to support.
You mean like Rohl?
Other qualified people look at the "evidence" and arrive at a different
world view.
Nope.
An objective look at the evidence supports Jim Merritt's math. If it
is right then there was no flood. If it happened earlier as you
imagine, then the bible chronology is wrong. Because Jim's math is
impeccable.
Neither side can "prove" their point in such a way that there can be no
debate, and that is my point
Nope. It's not "both sides" of anything, and you're projecting your
own intellectual dishonesty onto everyone else.
I would never claim I could "prove" noah's ark existed. To do that I
would have to dig the actual thing up.
You couldn't. Because it didn't AS DESCRIBED IN THE SUPPOSEDLY
INERRANT BIBLE.
He cannot "prove" it did NOT exist.
Yes, he can. AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUPPOSEDLY INERRANT BIBLE.
You DID read the URL I gave you, with the awkward questions about the
flood?
Neither side can "prove" their beliefs; they can only state the reason
they derive certain inferences from extant data which forms their world
view. That's not proof; that's arguments and speculation!
Stop lying. It's not two sides of anything. It's intellectually
dishonest fundamentalists who claim an inerrant bible and lie about
others rather than addressing the difficulties. When nobody would give
a flying ***** abut the bible if you didn't bring it up.
And I suspect that's the reason you get upset: you imagine everybody
else should give a ***** about it.
That notion is probably too hard for your brain to process, but try
Oh, the irony.
as i said in the other post, I've spent about all the time on this i
can, but I do have a question:
Translation: "I can't answer the objections"
Are you as sure of all this you've posted here as you are that there is
"zero evidence that there even was a JEsus Christ"?
So falsify this.
If you can.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Varicose Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
05 Jan 2004 01:17:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:49:20 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
that's right, imbecile. You can't "prove" that assertion, yet the poster
made dogmatic statements like "we know for a fact genesis is myth".
We know enough about our world that contradicts what is told in
Genesis, so why wouldn't it be a myth? We certainly know that snakes
can't talk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
06 Jan 2004 04:15:00 PM |
|
|
In article <8tdjvv0765cbuni1vrvdv3jc1qou464l5v@4ax.com>, Varicose Brain
<lacruiser@aol.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:49:20 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
that's right, imbecile. You can't "prove" that assertion, yet the poster
made dogmatic statements like "we know for a fact genesis is myth".
We know enough about our world that contradicts what is told in
Genesis, so why wouldn't it be a myth?
We certainly know that snakes
can't talk.
And that no remains of a structure corresponding to the description of the
Tower of Babel has been found.
That the relationships between languages are not as the Bible would have
it. The Bible does not record Chinese being up the tower by the way
That only two of each animal taken on the Ark would not have been enough
to preserve the variety of the presesent genetic pool.
That the bones of Australia's specific unique fauna have not been found on
the Afro Eurasian land mass and so they could not have been on the Ark
That the remains of the incinerated Sodom and Gomorrah have not been found
That there is no record of Joseph in Egyptian Archives
That the Prehistoric and Early Occupation of Canaan does not appear to
have been as described in the Bible
That women cannot be created using a man's rib unless Genisis is taken as
an indication that Cloning is the path of the Divine
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins." |
04 Jan 2004 03:55:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:38:12 GMT, vince garcia
<vggarciaXX@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
We know for a certainty that the entire book of Genesis is legend
we do? that's news to me. Prove to me noah's ark is a myth. My Armenian
ancestors believed throughout their recorded history it was there, and
I'd like to see specific proof that it never was.
Bwaaaaahahahahahaha......
Explain where all the water came from, and where it went to. Explain
why other civilisations kept continuous records and didn't even notice
they were supposed to be drowned under tens of thousands of feet of
water. Explain why buried Egyptian artifacts have never been
submerged. Explain why ice-core samples going back 100,000 years in
Greenland and Antarctica show there hasn't been such a flood. Etc.
Etc. Etc.
These are just the obvious difficulties. But Mark Isaac has produced a
list of hundreds of questions that ALL need to be answered:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
While you're at it, I'd like to see scientific proof Jesus Christ did
not rise from the dead.
Bwaaaahahahahaha...
Considering that there is zero evidence that there even was a JEsus
Christ.
The onus is on YOU to demonstrate that he actually did exist AND rose
from the dead. In other words that it is anything more than merely
your religious belief.
I want you to prove every negative hypothesis you have regarding what
the Bible asserts.
Bwaaaahahahahaha.....
Considering that is merely the irrelevant mythology of somebody else's
religion. Somebody who by the looks of it has a pre-existing belief in
its inerrancy that won't be shaken by any of the lists of
contradictions he could find on the web.
If you imagine it is inerrant it is up to YOU to demonstrate this. But
you can't. Even moderate Christians don't have any trouble finding
contradictions - and it only takes one to disprove inerrancy. On the
other hand you have to demonstrate that EVERYTHING in it is totally
accurate. But you can't as long as there are things in it like a
worldwide flood that never happened.
If you don't want to believe, be my guest, but you show your own
Why do you Liars For God imagine that "want" has anything to dith not
believing the mythology of somebody else's religion? It looks as
though the only one who "wants" anything is yourself.
ignorance throughout your post, especially when you question David's
existence which is attested to by Israeli archeologists.
Bwaaaaahahahaha. Which of course it isn't.
http://www.rense.com/general18/bible.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
