Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mrunicycler · 09-12-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrunicycler

For someone who bitches about edits and context, you sure do alot of editing.<snip reiteration>

Friend, if you can't respond rationally, it is probably best not to respond irrationally as you have done.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sorry friend, but it's supremely rational for me to point out that you are being hypocritical.

If you don't want people to edit because you feel it changes contexts, then don't make superfluous edits.

If you want to edit, then don't complain when other's do, as well (or, allow the quote system to do it for them...I have to admit that, upon reflection, I may have deleted a section that I found unnecessary...I really can't say for sure and don't mind being honest about my uncertaintly).

As for my 'reiteration', I merely explained that I'll accept a person who dictated the books of the bible as the author, and asked you to supply evidence of who that person (or persons, as we're talking about many books) may be.

That you can't does not make me irrational.

Roger Pearse · 09-12-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

Well Roger, someone has to feed the dogs, so that they too can remember that they are dogs.

Woof!

DancesWithCoffeeCups · 09-12-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by DancesWithCoffeeCups

As I fail to see what is irrational about asking for authorship for the bible, I'll have to assume you can't provide it for me. Thanks for responding, though!

You might consider that you got into this undignified mess in the first place because you asserted, with the utmost arrogance and certainty, things of which you knew no more than that you found them convenient.

This is what I asserted. That the authorship of the OT and NT isn't known with the exception of a few NT authors. True or false?

I also asserted that there are contradictions to be found in the bible. True or false?

I also asserted that apologetics is a popular and profitable way to "explain" contradictions, for example. True or false?

I also asserted that the earliest writings come well after the claimed events. True or false?

I asserted that snakes don't talk. True or false?

I asserted that the flood never occurred. True or false?

I asserted that the exodus never occurred. True or false?

Quote:

Worse still, you chose to do it in a forum where there were people better educated than yourself. That was foolish, and you have been forced to resort to the lowest tactics to try to fend off a rebuke.

I've never claimed to be an expert in biblical criticism. That many experts happen to agree with my conclusions is nice, though. My tactics consist of stating the following:

That the authorship of the OT and NT isn't known with the exception of a few NT authors. (Also in my OP I also stated what I've recounted above).

That you consider them low isn't really my problem. I'll let the readers decide.

Quote:

Reducing atheists to snarling, barking wretches is amusing, if you are cynical; I merely find it a little sad to see. Yet here we are again, and you're again asserting things which you don't know, on the basis that they are convenient. Do you want to bark again?

I neither snarled nor barked. Now if you'd like to respond to the things I've claimed in my original post, which I've reasserted above, feel free to do so.

Quote:

We all get choices in this life. We can be honest with ourselves, and others, we can use whatever minds we have and acquire whatever education we can, and try to work out how things work and how to do the best for ourselves we can.

I agree wholeheartedly. That we draw different conclusions based on our education isn't that unusual so far as human nature goes.

Quote:

Or we can abandon intelligence and reason, follow what we imagine ignorantly to be convenient (for this means following the direction of others who ARE thinking), and deal with any queries by the equivalent of barking like a dog.

Still can't see where I barked. If I did, it would go like this: WOOF.

Quote:

I have no real interest in which you choose to do! Hey, go to hell if you wish. Or not.

Psst. Hell doesn't exist. But it's very Christian of you to allow me entrance there.

Quote:

You tell us that you are a religious renegade: that's your choice.

Nope. I've never uttered such words. I challenge you to find a post where I do so.

Quote:

But I'd do something more positive if I were you, than picking fights with strangers if it forces you to descend to this depth. Why is it worth it?

I've made a lot of claims. Challenge them if you like or ignore them. That's what this forum is for isn't it? Civil discourse?

Quote:

But this all seems somewhat OT.

Ya think?

Quote:

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Or go to hell, right?

Roger Pearse · 09-12-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DancesWithCoffeeCups

Until you respond rationally, and respond to what I wrote, not whatever you imagined, I'm afraid we're done.

DancesWithCoffeeCups · 09-12-2009, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by DancesWithCoffeeCups

Until you respond rationally, and respond to what I wrote, not whatever you imagined, I'm afraid we're done.

TTFN! :wave:

IBelieveInHymn · 09-12-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The word "miseo" in the Greek clearly means hate. If that is a "mistranslation" from the original (missing) Hebrew or Aramaic, who made that error? Certainly not modern atheists.

This passage in Greek has been part of the sacred Christian scripture for close to two millennia. Are you trying to tell us that Christians have been following a mistranslation for all this time? What else has been mistranslated?

Or do the mistranslations only clear up problems that modern readers have? How convenient.

Yes, You are correct. The word in the Greek translation is "Miseo". Since we have already stated that "Miseo" in Greek means "Hate". Jesus did not use the word Hate. He used the word "Sin'ah". In Hebrew, that means, "To love lesser than". It does not mean hatred.

Christians who study the bible and ancient Hebrew know what Jesus meant. But to the uneducated eye, "You must hate your parents" seems unreasonable and harsh, but that is not the message Jesus was sending.

He was simply telling his disciples to love God even more than their parents.

But the English translation says "we must hate our parents".

Atheists have argued this verse with me over and over.. until I show them the truth. And then they conveniently switch topics.

We all know Jesus didn't send a message of hatred and violence. And especially against our own parents.

That's just nonsensical, and barely worth discussion.

GenesisNemesis · 09-12-2009, 12:00 PM

Christians don't understand the Koran.

IBelieveInHymn · 09-12-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrunicycler

Seriously? You've created this entire argument based on suppositions and stereotyping?

It's not really an argument. It's more like the truth. But I wouldn't say I'm stereotyping atheists. It's the majority of them that I have met online. They seem very ignorant to the words of the Bible. They will always send me to a "Bible contradiction" website, and I read the problem, and then I search for the answers, and I always find them. Why can't they do the same? Are they hell-bent on believing the word of God is a lie?

Quote:

I don't know if it's more of a waste for you to write it, or me to read it...

I'm sorry if you feel that people are becoming atheist by misunderstanding the Bible a "waste of time."

GenesisNemesis · 09-12-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

It's the majority of them that I have met online. They seem very ignorant to the words of the Bible. They will always send me to a "Bible contradiction" website, and I read the problem, and then I search for the answers, and I always find them. Why can't they do the same? Are they hell-bent on believing the word of God is a lie?

Yes, they are indeed hell-bent. If there is a Hell, any atheist unforgiven by Christ would go to it.

Deus Ex · 09-12-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The word "miseo" in the Greek clearly means hate. If that is a "mistranslation" from the original (missing) Hebrew or Aramaic, who made that error? Certainly not modern atheists.

This passage in Greek has been part of the sacred Christian scripture for close to two millennia. Are you trying to tell us that Christians have been following a mistranslation for all this time? What else has been mistranslated?

Or do the mistranslations only clear up problems that modern readers have? How convenient.

Yes, You are correct. The word in the Greek translation is "Miseo". Since we have already stated that "Miseo" in Greek means "Hate". Jesus did not use the word Hate. He used the word "Sin'ah". In Hebrew, that means, "To love lesser than". It does not mean hatred.

Christians who study the bible and ancient Hebrew know what Jesus meant. But to the uneducated eye, "You must hate your parents" seems unreasonable and harsh, but that is not the message Jesus was sending.

He was simply telling his disciples to love God even more than their parents.

But the English translation says "we must hate our parents".

Atheists have argued this verse with me over and over.. until I show them the truth. And then they conveniently switch topics.

We all know Jesus didn't send a message of hatred and violence. And especially against our own parents.

That's just nonsensical, and barely worth discussion.

Considering that these words were originally written in Greek, then how do you know that Jesus spoke them in Hebrew?

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

09-12-2009, 12:00 PM	#47
GenesisNemesis Contributor Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A pale blue oblate spheroid. Posts: 20,351	Christians don't understand the Koran.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.