Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 10-09-2002, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:


As Vanderzyden apparently does not have double-standards when it comes to ancient texts, and accuses others of double-standards, perhaps he can come up with a contradiction in the Quran, which can not be resolved by his own methods of resolving contradictions.

He never will, of course.

And, of course, he never did.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-10-2002, 03:13 AM

In this bizarre "he fell off the scaffold" theory, it's worth remembering that this supposedly happened after his death (quite a long time after, in fact).

How likely is it that the narrator would skip the actual death and still describe the fate of the corpse?

For instance, I don't recall whether the body of JFK was buried or creamated, but has any source used any phrase resembling "the Presidential motorcade drove through Dallas, then the President decomposed", or "the Presidential motorcade drove through Dallas, then the President burst into flames"?

Face it, Van: this is a blatant contradiction.

Benjamin Franklin · 10-10-2002, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


Bring em' on baby. We did about 10 "hard" ones in the last month, I thought. The score is 7 to 3 in favor of the Christians right now, if we are generous. Try to keep up. Come to think of it, only two were hard and this is one of them. Make that 7-2-1, Christians.

Radorth

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Radorth, do you believe that everything in the bible is absolutely accurate? If not, does it matter whehter is 1 or 1 million errors becuase one error is enough to discredit it as the Word of God.

BF

Baidarka · 10-10-2002, 05:25 AM

The two stories are internally consistent and mutually inconsistent.
In Mathew Judas Hangs himself (hanging is bloodless) at some unnamed location. The Priests buy the land with the Blood Money and the plot of Land that they buy is named Field of Blood after the Blood Money that it was purchased with.
In Luke Judas Purchases the Land himself, he falls and spills his guts on the land. The land is named Field of Blood after the blood Judas spilled on the Land.
In the two stories the land is named after details within the stories, details that are mutually exclusive! This is absolute Proof that the two writers had two totally different scenarios. Check mate!

MrDarwin · 10-10-2002, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:


Your policy of ignoring anyone who is even slightly caustic is no guaruantee that the posters who are left are the most reasonable, the most logical, the most intelligent or knowledgable. The screening process you so rigorously apply will only leave you the most polite people.

What I can't figure out is why Vanderzyden is apparently ignoring me, as I have not been rude, insulting, or profane. At worst I have been exasperated or perhaps slightly sarcastic.

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
Vanderzyden (or any other Christian here), is there is anything that you would consider contradictory within the Bible? That is, two things that are so different as to be irreconcilable, that one or the other cannot be true? If there is, can you give us an example?

And if there isn't, what would it take for you to admit to something being contradictory in the Bible? That is, can you give us a hypothetical example of things you would find so irreconcilable as to represent true contradictions, one or the other of which must not be true?

leonarde · 10-10-2002, 05:51 AM

Posted by BF:

Quote:

Radorth, do you believe that everything in the bible is absolutely accurate? If not, does it matter whehter is 1 or 1 million errors becuase one error is enough to discredit it as the Word of God.
BF

This, alas, doesn't seem to be a merely
idiosyncratic view here. Are you aware, BF, that
most theists are not inerrantists/
Biblical absolutists/total literalists????? One
can't help but speculate as to why, for you, it is
an either/or situation (ie one error=Bible isn't Word of God). That sounds like the black/white
dichotomy of the most primitive backwoods preacher.

Cheers!

Steven Carr · 10-10-2002, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baidarka:
The two stories are internally consistent and mutually inconsistent.
In Mathew Judas Hangs himself (hanging is bloodless) at some unnamed location. The Priests buy the land with the Blood Money and the plot of Land that they buy is named Field of Blood after the Blood Money that it was purchased with.
In Luke Judas Purchases the Land himself, he falls and spills his guts on the land. The land is named Field of Blood after the blood Judas spilled on the Land.
In the two stories the land is named after details within the stories, details that are mutually exclusive! This is absolute Proof that the two writers had two totally different scenarios. Check mate!

And Vandy thinks a decomposed body, decomposed enough for the neck to give way, spills out a lot of blood when opened.

Benjamin Franklin · 10-10-2002, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Posted by BF: This, alas, doesn't seem to be a merely
idiosyncratic view here. Are you aware, BF, that
most theists are not inerrantists/
Biblical absolutists/total literalists????? One
can't help but speculate as to why, for you, it is
an either/or situation (ie one error=Bible isn't Word of God). That sounds like the black/white
dichotomy of the most primitive backwoods preacher.

Cheers!

I am aware of the fact most theists are not inerrantists.

I apologise. I am not framing what I want to communicate accurately.

Suppose now that it is possible for the bible to have errors and still be divinely inspired.

Now that we have established tht there are errors in the bible, does it matter whether there are 10 or a million errors ? Why bother going through so much effort trying to harmonize contradictions in the bible. I can understand that for an inerrantist, there is a big difference betwen no errors and a couple of errors, but for a non-inerrantist why does it matter there are a few errors or many errors.

As for this absolutist view being backword, I guess I have to tell that to my numerous fundamentalists friends in UK and Singapore.

BF

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]

Baidarka · 10-10-2002, 06:33 AM

It is becoming obvious that Vanderzyden is not serious about this discussion. He seems to be incapable or unwilling to enter into this discussion.

MrDarwin:
“What I can't figure out is why Vanderzyden is apparently ignoring me, as I have not been rude, insulting, or profane. At worst I have been exasperated or perhaps slightly sarcastic.”
MrDarwin, Vanderzyden has been ignoring all of us. He ignores our arguments and complains that we are not nice. He ignores us because we have beaten him. He is totally confused and incapable of answering any of our arguments.
He is quite capable of arguing with the skeptical straw men that he constructs and demolishes in his opening statement but that is just a form of debating masturbation.

He should either attempt to answer our points or concede defeat!

leonarde · 10-10-2002, 06:40 AM

Posted by Benjamin Franklin:

Quote:

I can understand that for an inerrantist, there is a big difference betwen no errors and a couple of errors, but for a non-inerrantist why does it matter there are a few errors or many errors.

For me, it's not a matter of sheer numbers: it is a matter of the types of errors: some WOULD have an impact on theology (if they, the errors, could be established). Others, like the manner of Judas' death, don't really have any significance for the non-literalist (except insofar as they indicate a remoteness from the event described by the Evangelical author).

Cheers!

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

10-10-2002, 03:13 AM	#92
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	In this bizarre "he fell off the scaffold" theory, it's worth remembering that this supposedly happened after his death (quite a long time after, in fact). How likely is it that the narrator would skip the actual death and still describe the fate of the corpse? For instance, I don't recall whether the body of JFK was buried or creamated, but has any source used any phrase resembling "the Presidential motorcade drove through Dallas, then the President decomposed", or "the Presidential motorcade drove through Dallas, then the President burst into flames"? Face it, Van: this is a blatant contradiction.

10-10-2002, 05:25 AM	#94
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	The two stories are internally consistent and mutually inconsistent. In Mathew Judas Hangs himself (hanging is bloodless) at some unnamed location. The Priests buy the land with the Blood Money and the plot of Land that they buy is named Field of Blood after the Blood Money that it was purchased with. In Luke Judas Purchases the Land himself, he falls and spills his guts on the land. The land is named Field of Blood after the blood Judas spilled on the Land. In the two stories the land is named after details within the stories, details that are mutually exclusive! This is absolute Proof that the two writers had two totally different scenarios. Check mate!

10-10-2002, 06:33 AM	#99
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	It is becoming obvious that Vanderzyden is not serious about this discussion. He seems to be incapable or unwilling to enter into this discussion. MrDarwin: “What I can't figure out is why Vanderzyden is apparently ignoring me, as I have not been rude, insulting, or profane. At worst I have been exasperated or perhaps slightly sarcastic.” MrDarwin, Vanderzyden has been ignoring all of us. He ignores our arguments and complains that we are not nice. He ignores us because we have beaten him. He is totally confused and incapable of answering any of our arguments. He is quite capable of arguing with the skeptical straw men that he constructs and demolishes in his opening statement but that is just a form of debating masturbation. He should either attempt to answer our points or concede defeat!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.