Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Godless Dave · 06-06-2003, 12:22 PM

And just FYI on a legal point: you are not required to swear on a Bible. Legally you have the option to either swear or affirm.

And if she thinks most of our laws are based on the Bible, I really, really hope she doesn't teach history.

bocajeff · 06-06-2003, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave
And if she thinks most of our laws are based on the Bible, I really, really hope she doesn't teach history.

Imhi-

I would say this would be your best point of attack. When it comes to contradictions, theists are like Mary Lou Retton. But when it comes to laws being based on the bible, you have a better leg to stand on. Point her to Leviticus or other passages where God recommends slaughter or other ridiculous things for infractions or "uncleanliness". Ask her why we don't have a law that unruly children are to be punished by stoning.

Passant · 06-06-2003, 04:27 PM

you really should have just pointed out that it's none of her business what you believe or why. She is being paid with taxpayers money, and has no right to impose her religious beliefs on you, and let it go at that. She will never see a contradiction, even if her rationalizations for why they are not there are totally bizarre.

Autonemesis · 06-06-2003, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by YHWHtruth
Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints.

Why did "God" "allow" this apparent discrepancy to creep into "His" "book" and lead us infidels astray? Doesn't "He" have access to any proofreaders? Or does "He" think it is not worth the trouble? After all, it's only our "souls" that are at stake.

Quote:

The second is written in order of topical importance.

I don't see any passage in Genesis that states this. How do you know it? Who told you that? Why do you trust their judgment, and not someone else's?

06-06-2003, 05:34 PM

I believe Auto lacks a clear understanding of several key issues about which we are speaking, and that makes it difficult to continue a discussion with him, unless he shows that he can accept correction on a number of significant points. Let me ask you to restate my view, because I do not believe you have properly understood many things I have said to this point. When and if you reply, I will immediately check those instances where I have asked you to restate my view, to see if in fact your restatement matches with the view with which you have previously taken issue. If I meet with five misstatements of my view, which would show, as I suspect, a severe lack of understanding, resulting in a significant waste of time, as I have had to explain, several times, in two lengthy replies to others on this board, the details about my view, then I will highlight these five misunderstandings, and end the discussion.

I have no problem going over these points with anyone, and I have also discussed many of these same issues in previous posts. There is a limit to how much time I will spend with someone who repeatedly misunderstands and miscommunicates my views, even though such a person may be a nice fellow, and pleasant in many other respects.

Max

pariah · 06-06-2003, 05:47 PM

ihmhi: as well as proving her wrong about the contradictions, prove her wrong from the begginning about the constitution being based on the bible. Do some research in enlightenment philosophy, primarily locke, although look into hobbes and jean jacke reassou (i KNOW that is spelled wrong) as well.

good lukc

Grumpy · 06-06-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ihmhi
I was tired, and she had broken down what few mental defenses I had ready at the moment.

Clearly, since you need not have explained yourself beyond "It is my right not to."

As for contradictions, my favorite is a meta-contradiction.

2 Timothy 3:16 is the main basis for establishing divine inspiration of the Bible: "All Scripture is God-breathed..."

Yet 1 Corinthians 14:33 says "God is not the author of confusion."

Given the variety of different (sometimes conflicting) interpretations of the Bible, it is plain that the text is intrinsically confusing. Which means God is not its author, per 1Cor. Yet 2Tim says God authored it. Which means the two verses directly contradict each other. Which is more confusing still!

I tend to steer away from examples of immorality in the Bible. They're interesting food for thought -- dashed babies, stoned stick-pickers, etc. -- but it's too easy to dismiss any Bible-endorsed action as moral by definition.

Grumpy · 06-06-2003, 05:49 PM

Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And "luck."

pariah · 06-06-2003, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumpy
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And "luck."

lol

im tired

stfu!!!

Benjamin Franklin · 06-06-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ihmhi

"But the majority of our law is based on the Bible," she stated.

[/B]

Has anyone written anything to refute this? I tried googling but all I got is a litany of essays from evangelical organizations affirming it.

BF

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

06-06-2003, 12:22 PM	#11
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	And just FYI on a legal point: you are not required to swear on a Bible. Legally you have the option to either swear or affirm. And if she thinks most of our laws are based on the Bible, I really, really hope she doesn't teach history.

06-06-2003, 04:27 PM	#13
Passant Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: 7th circle of hell Posts: 12	you really should have just pointed out that it's none of her business what you believe or why. She is being paid with taxpayers money, and has no right to impose her religious beliefs on you, and let it go at that. She will never see a contradiction, even if her rationalizations for why they are not there are totally bizarre.

06-06-2003, 05:34 PM	#15
YHWHtruth Guest Posts: n/a	I believe Auto lacks a clear understanding of several key issues about which we are speaking, and that makes it difficult to continue a discussion with him, unless he shows that he can accept correction on a number of significant points. Let me ask you to restate my view, because I do not believe you have properly understood many things I have said to this point. When and if you reply, I will immediately check those instances where I have asked you to restate my view, to see if in fact your restatement matches with the view with which you have previously taken issue. If I meet with five misstatements of my view, which would show, as I suspect, a severe lack of understanding, resulting in a significant waste of time, as I have had to explain, several times, in two lengthy replies to others on this board, the details about my view, then I will highlight these five misunderstandings, and end the discussion. I have no problem going over these points with anyone, and I have also discussed many of these same issues in previous posts. There is a limit to how much time I will spend with someone who repeatedly misunderstands and miscommunicates my views, even though such a person may be a nice fellow, and pleasant in many other respects. Max

06-06-2003, 05:47 PM	#16
pariah Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: الرياض Posts: 6,456	ihmhi: as well as proving her wrong about the contradictions, prove her wrong from the begginning about the constitution being based on the bible. Do some research in enlightenment philosophy, primarily locke, although look into hobbes and jean jacke reassou (i KNOW that is spelled wrong) as well. good lukc

06-06-2003, 05:49 PM	#18
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And "luck."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.