Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 10-25-2003, 08:53 PM

I meant Pentateuch, not chapter. Sorry...

Doctor X · 10-26-2003, 01:07 AM

Actually, it is a book of the Pentateuch!

Tee! Hee!

--J.D.

Magus55 · 10-26-2003, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
Absolutely on topic. Exodus is a chapter purporting to explain history. The credibility of the Ark and the flood story is disparaged with impeachments elsewhere in the same text.

One impeachment of specific testimony may not be enough to impeach the witness as a whole. But you are in a very tough spot, my friend, if we go further with this line of inquiry. The whole chapter is at risk.

I think you should plea bargain. Give up the Ark and I'll call off the dogs.

No thanks.

rlogan · 10-26-2003, 11:59 AM

OK, my friend. Then we have to pursue this point.

Is the statement that God wrote down the same words on the second set of tablets true?

Thank you in advance.

Doctor X · 10-26-2003, 12:31 PM

Does this mean that Magus does not wish to take me up on my friendly challenge?

--J.D.

MrDarwin · 10-26-2003, 01:18 PM

I'd be happy if Magus would just explain how the two chapters regarding two radically different versions of the ten commandments are both consistent and sensible to him when the inconsistency and non-sense are not just matters of opinion to us foolish atheists, but are right there, written as plain as can be in his own book, for all the world to see.

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
The only ones who really see inconsistancies are atheists and since when does their opinion on the Bible make a bit a difference?
The Bible and things of God are foolishness to those that are perishing. It will never make sense to atheists. It makes sense to Christians.

Biff the unclean · 10-26-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin
I'd be happy if Magus would just explain how the two chapters regarding two radically different versions of the ten commandments are both consistent and sensible to him when the inconsistency and non-sense are not just matters of opinion to us foolish atheists, but are right there, written as plain as can be in his own book, for all the world to see.

Why it's good old "willful ignorance."
Odd how much he hates being told that he is willfully ignorant. He doesn't hate forceing himself to ignore things. He just hates other people noticing that he is doing it.

So the X commandment really is about not eating a calf boiled in it's own mothers milk?

Doctor X · 10-26-2003, 03:05 PM

Quote:

So the X commandment really is about not eating a calf boiled in it's own mothers milk?

Actually it is that ye shalt give a tenth of your income to me . . . for some reason many of ye are behind in your tribute. . . .

Seriously, this is why I issued a Challenge--not to ridicucle him, but to have him respond to the evidence. As I often use as an example, I dislike Einstein because it prevents my dream of visiting Ripley's Pleasure Planet. Well, if I wish to "defeat" relativity, I have to argue it rather than stating that "modern physics is wrong," or that "no evidence supports modern physics."

This is a variation of the "they laughed at Edison"--to which methinks Sagan responded, "they laughed at Bozo!" Because Edison was wrong in many things--such as the feasibility of concrete home does not make my crack-pot theories any more correct. Similarly, that Edison was right about some things does not make my crack-pot theories correct either.

There are scholars who refuse to recognize the existence of Q [A "saying source" used by Mt and Lk.--Ed.] While I do not think they prove their case, they do tend to address the evidence for the existence of Q. If, after reading the book, Magus continues to deny multi-authorship, at least he would be arguing the evidence. I do not think he will do so successfully, but I am willing to be proven wrong.

--J.D.

Calzaer · 10-26-2003, 03:58 PM

Any evidence that contradicts Magus's priest's worldview is, by definition, invalid.

Magus55 · 10-26-2003, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Calzaer
Any evidence that contradicts Magus's priest's worldview is, by definition, invalid.

What priest? And by the same token, any evidence against your worldview is invalid.

10-25-2003, 08:53 PM	#251
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Pentateuch, not chapter I meant Pentateuch, not chapter. Sorry...

10-26-2003, 11:59 AM	#254
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Then we go to trial. OK, my friend. Then we have to pursue this point. Is the statement that God wrote down the same words on the second set of tablets true? Thank you in advance.

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

10-26-2003, 01:07 AM	#252
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Actually, it is a book of the Pentateuch! Tee! Hee! --J.D.

10-26-2003, 12:31 PM	#255
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Does this mean that Magus does not wish to take me up on my friendly challenge? --J.D.

10-26-2003, 03:58 PM	#259
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	Any evidence that contradicts Magus's priest's worldview is, by definition, invalid.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.