Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Harry Bosch · 09-25-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

You can find them if your interested in truth.

Damn, that is funny. He makes a cocky statement: the Bible is truth and I can answer anything using it. Then he folds like a cheap suede suit after the first question! We need better competition. Is there any such thing as a fundamentalist Buddahist or maybe a shadow priest from the Tshitimiti tribe??!

spin · 09-25-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote:

the Tshitimiti tribe

Foul! You made that one up!

sinp

Harry Bosch · 09-25-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Foul! You made that one up!

sinp

You caught me! As an American Indian, I don't feel comfortable making fun of American Indian myths (of which there are many). And I think that its very ethnocentric for the creationists on this forum to always claim that their ancient myths are more valid or deserve to be taught more than the ancient myths of my people.

spin · 09-25-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

You caught me! As an American Indian, I don't feel comfortable making fun of American Indian myths (of which there are many). And I think that its very ethnocentric for the creationists on this forum to always claim that their ancient myths are more valid or deserve to be taught more than the ancient myths of my people.

Their ancient myths are only theirs by proxy. Somebody gulled them into adhering to an ancient religion which entails their acceptance of those ancient myths. but then they usually know very little about them, so it doesn't matter. They'll just foist them upon you unanalysed and you don't have to think about them either, just believe.

The thought and creativity of myth is extremely difficult to teach to people whose mythology these days is doom, star wars and stephen king.

spin

Avatar · 09-26-2005, 01:05 AM

Quote:

The evidence for the resurrection is strong as well as the evidence for the inerrancy of the Bible.

What evidence would that be? Kent Hovind's? Ron Wyatt's? The only source of evidence for the resurrection is the Bible's say-so. Strange how no other historian at the time of the story made a single note of it. As for inerrancy, the only "evidence" of it is the say-so of the evangelicals...people who have proven conclusively that their ignorance of history, science, and pretty much anything else outside their churchs' walls knows no bounds.

Dean Anderson · 09-26-2005, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But do they explain how a day and a half, from Friday evening to Sunday morning before dawn equals 3 days and 3 nights? I'm interested in the mathematics of how one and a half equals three. (If I could use the same principal in currency exchange I would be v-e-r-y happy.

He did this work over the Easter Holiday - so he was on double time...

Clivedurdle · 09-26-2005, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Let me consult my trusty copy of Udo Schnelle's The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, a good mainstream introduction to the NT that I heartily recommend. According to Schnelle, a recognized scholar and Christian, it's been argued since the 19th century that the Pastorals (1 & 2 Tim & Titus) are not Pauline in origin. F.C. Baur, the great critic of the Paulines who believed that they were second century, laid out the case initially, although issues were raised as early as the first decade of the 19th century. Holtzmann wrote the definitive work in 1880. Here are some of the arguments against Pauline authorship. :

1. The historical situation in the Pastorals cannot be reconciled with either the authentic Paulines or Acts. In 1 Tim 1 Timothy is staying in Ephesus while Paul gallops off to Macedonia -- with no indication of imprisonment. In Acts it is Paul who stays in Ephesus while Tim goes (thus three different historical pictures!). There is more, of course.... in 2 Tim, Paul is suffering as a prisoner and is near death (2 Tim 4) so why does he ask Tim to bring him the cloak and boots he left in Troas (2 Tim 4). In 2 Tim 1 and 4 everyone has abandoned Paul except Luke, but in 2 Tim 4 Paul sends greetings from four co-workers and "all the brothers" (!). Titus similarly has Paul going to Crete and wintering in Nicopolis, which the Paulines and Acts are silent on (in Acts Paul visits Crete briefly as a prisoner).

2. The Church organization is at least third generation and far more advanced than the letters of Paul.

Possibly off topic, but if scholars are using Acts to say Timothy is not written by Paul, isn't that a wee bit dangerous, relying on pulp fiction to establish somethings authenticity? Is it possible Timothy is the original and everything else fake? What happened to the idea that it is all made up?

jakejonesiv · 09-26-2005, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

The Bible says God brought the animals to Noah (maybe used their migration instincts, who knows?), he brought two of each kind

As long as you are willing to postulate miracle after miracle, you can rationalize anything. All you have done is postulate a God that can be called upon to perform any trick you can imagine.

Jake Jones

Clivedurdle · 09-26-2005, 06:44 AM

Of course, a very interesting few weeks discussion can be held on the topic of a

flat earth

Quote:

BBC Radio 4 UK has been transmitting a fascinating programme on major errors of thinking by Francis Wheen.

He interviewed a South London evangelical who is a flat earther and geocentric advocate, who criticised the creationists for not going far enough! The Bible is quite clear that the sun goes around the earth!

Aumgn · 09-26-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

He did this work over the Easter Holiday - so he was on double time...

Oh God that's funny.

:rolling:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.