Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ron Garrett · 10-09-2002, 01:02 PM

Oh, fricking WAHHHHH! Vandy, you insult, demean, dismiss, provoke, and then have the cojones to whine and feign indignation when you get your own medicine. You're wasting everyone's time with your antics.

K · 10-09-2002, 01:14 PM

Vanderzyden:

By your standards, it would be impossible to prove any contradiction. I will demonstrate using an extreme example. I realize that it's ridiculous, but it's this exaggerated to prove a point.

One account says Joe was killed by a polar bear on an Arctic expedition in 1890.

Another account says that he was killed by a meteorite in 2002.

I would say that these are clearly contradictory despite the fact that they could simply be missing the details.

Joe's body was frozen in 1890 and discovered by a team of scientists in 1992 who took it back to the United States for study. An ultra secret branch of the military stole the body and wisked it to a top secret underground facilty where Joe was cloned for experimental reasons. Ironically, several years later, Joe managed to escape the facility only to be struck dead by a metorite.

Anything can be forced together with "details" not implied in the text. The only real question is whether they truly are missing details, or differences that require fundamentally different. I would contend that it would be extraordinary to call it a missing detail when someone describes a hanging as throwing oneself headlong onto the ground and spilling one's guts.

Jayhawker Soule · 10-09-2002, 01:31 PM

Your options are <ol type="1">[*]contradiction, or[*]a contrivance in which your "most historically meticulous of the NT writers" overlooks a suicide by hanging.[/list=a]Which do you find more plausible and why?

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

Vanderzyden · 10-09-2002, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vibr8gKiwi:
One says he hanged himself. The other says he fell off a cliff and smashed himself. The two accounts contradict. The other says he fell off a cliff and smashed himself.

Patently false.

This will be a very quick reply, for two good reasons:

1. Mr. "Vibrate" has also been insulting so far on this thread. I already provided a disclaimer for that.

2. This is by no means a refutation. It is in fact, an error. The text in Acts says nothing about "smashed" or "cliff".

3. "Headlong", which is a 14th century term, means :

a. HEADFIRST
b. without deliberation : RECKLESSLY

4. If the height it sufficient, a falling object (having no airfoil) will rotate such that the heavy end (e.g. torso) oriented downward.

Vanderzyden

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

Mageth · 10-09-2002, 02:04 PM

Patently false.

This will be a very quick reply, for two good reasons:

1. Mr. "Vibrate" has also been insulting so far on this thread. I already provided a disclaimer for that.

In the first place, the above quote was originally posted by me, not Vibr8gKiwi. And your disclaimer is nothing but a rather weak attempt to reconcile the contradiction.

2. This is by no means a refutation. It is in fact, an error. The text in Acts says nothing about "smashed" or "cliff".

We all know it says "there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

That sounds like "smashed" to me, and from where did he fall far enough to do such if not off a cliff?

Oh, and the text in Acts doesn't say he hanged himself either.

3. "Headlong", which is a 14th century term, means :

a. HEADFIRST
b. without deliberation : RECKLESSLY

Interesting that Young's Literal Translation used "headlong" as well. I would assume that was the original meaning of the verse, not just some 14th century word used in the KJV. And I think a) is the meaning implied here.

4. If the height it sufficient, a falling object (having no airfoil) will rotate such that the heavy end (e.g. torso) oriented downward.

Well, did he fall off a cliff or not? To have sufficient height to rotate that far when falling, you'd need to fall from a considerable height. That's not possible if his dead body fell from a rope on a tree (or some such) to the ground a few feet below.

So now the story has to be he hanged himself from a tree, apparently over the side of a precipice high enough for his body to rotate 180 degrees on the way to the ground. Why would he do such a thing, if he could have just flung himself from the cliff in the first place, or found a more convenient tree? Some time later, his body fell and rotated 180 degrees before being smashed on the rocks below.

None of which is accurately described in either account. Incredible.

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

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

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

Baidarka · 10-09-2002, 02:05 PM

V
To be persuasive, you must do more than claim a contradiction. You must demonstrate it. What is necessary from you, K, is a refutation of my argument. If you or anyone else cannot provide one, then it is reasonable to put this particular issue to rest, safely declaring that there is no contradiction.
B
The self declared winner! Vanderzyden !
V
You know, B, I am not trying to "prove" anything.
B
Yes you are your trying to prove that there is no contradiction. Remember!
V
However, I do observe that you have not made one single concession.
B
You have not convinced anyone of anything. You have simply denied the obvious. So there is no need for me to make a concession.
V
Nor have you provided any refutation.
B
I have refuted your every point. I didn’t just pick on a few of your points I addressed every issue you raised. You on the other hand seem to play by your own rules. You pick and choose which points you wish to argue.
V
At this point you appear highly biased and uncritical of your own position. Is this how you approach your search for wisdom and truth?
B
If you really made any kind of valid argument, I would concede the point. I am not tied to dogma. I can change my mind and position.

V
No, I don't think you take an interest in dialogue.
B
I have read and I understand all of your arguments. I have paid attention and I have addressed you point by point. You on the other hand simply self declare yourself the winner without demonstrating that you understand any of the arguments.
V
Rather your talent is ridicule and diversion.
B
“Oh, fricking WAHHHHH! Vandy, you insult, demean, dismiss, provoke, and then have the cojones to whine and feign indignation when you get your own medicine. You're wasting everyone's time with your antics.” Thanks Ron I couldn’t say it better.
V
If that is true, then kindly keep your comments to yourself, so that the others may discuss this matter without your distractions.
B
Please open your eyes when you read my posts, so that you can try to refute what I say point by point.
V
Thanks,
B
Thanks

Vanderzyden · 10-09-2002, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:

Incredible.

Indeed. I was expecting a more substantial challenge than has been received thus far. Tell me, Mageth, what in your post should I consider to be a salient refutation of the matter at hand?

Remember, the topic under consideration is not the innumerable things that could have happened. No, the topic is "Are the incredibly short Judas' death account in Matthew 27 and Acts 1contradictory?"

So far, there has been no refutation of the argument presented in the OP. Instead, I see much diversion and conjecture.

Vanderzyden

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-09-2002, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
1. Mr. "Vibrate" has also been insulting so far on this thread.

I've been insulting? Your initial post to this thread rambles on for a page slamming every skeptic out there, but people who explain where your arguments fail are the insulting ones? As I said before, if you think everyone that pokes holes in your arguments is "insulting", in time you'll be ignoring the entire board.

If you can't separate your identity from your arguments you're going to continue to be "insulted" every time someone disses your argument. And you'll continue to look like a whiner who can dish it out but can't take it.

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-09-2002, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Remember, the topic under consideration is not the innumerable things that could have happened. No, the topic is "Are the incredibly short Judas' death account in Matthew 27 and Acts 1contradictory?"

Holy moley Batman. One more time for the slow people. Taken on their own, each account seems to tell a tale of how Judas died. One account has Judas hanging himself, the other has Judas dying from a fall. Any child can see those are conflicting reports of how Judas� death occurred.

Now you can argue that one of them wasn't a precise account of his death but was a side detail of some sort--that either he didn't die by hanging, but by later falling; or that he didn't die by falling but by hanging and later he fell after he died... however that argument is the conjecture! That argument is the one that takes the two accounts, notices the different methods of death reported and then tries to manufacture a reconciliation event between them! What does it take to get you to admit that you are the one making the conjectures!?! Everyone can see that you are the one making the conjectures, and when you say the exact opposite of the obvious facts you appear to be a flat out troll or liar.

[ Edited to add... ]

Now I am going to be a bit insulting because you�ve driven me to a mini-rant. Every fucking thread from you that I read has you being a flat out obvious liar and/or hypocrite! What the fuck is wrong with you??? What is your damage, man?!

Probably I should grow up and start ignoring you.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]

Autonemesis · 10-09-2002, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Well, I am certain that you hold this particular belief unjustifiably.

What belief? That the Bible is boring and irrelevant? That's entirely justifiable.

Quote:

If we take your lack of substantive response in this particular matter to be support for your poor view of the Bible, then it is highly probable that you have not examined the basis which underlies your general claims.

The Bible is boring because it is poorly written, and irrelevant because the "self" does not survive death. Those are my claims.

However, for the sake of argument, I can assume another person's position, and argue from there. When I encounter a contradiction, the positon I assumed for the sake of argument will have been refuted.

What is your position on the status of the Bible? I will assume your position for the sake of argument. You up for that?

Quote:

Indeed, it is what it is. But, you've got to read it.

No, I don't have to read it. However, I did read it.

Quote:

If you maintain unwarranted presuppositions that prevent you from reading it and considering what might be true (instead of what you want to be true), then it is no surprise that you hold the views that you describe here.

I maintain no presuppositions. The Bible is ink on pages. There is no presupposition here. If I examine a Bible, I can clearly see that it is composed of ink on pages. Do you dispute this?

10-09-2002, 01:31 PM	#63
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Your options are <ol type="1">[]contradiction, or[]a contrivance in which your "most historically meticulous of the NT writers" overlooks a suicide by hanging.[/list=a]Which do you find more plausible and why? [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

10-09-2002, 02:04 PM	#65
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Patently false. This will be a very quick reply, for two good reasons: 1. Mr. "Vibrate" has also been insulting so far on this thread. I already provided a disclaimer for that. In the first place, the above quote was originally posted by me, not Vibr8gKiwi. And your disclaimer is nothing but a rather weak attempt to reconcile the contradiction. 2. This is by no means a refutation. It is in fact, an error. The text in Acts says nothing about "smashed" or "cliff". We all know it says "there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out." That sounds like "smashed" to me, and from where did he fall far enough to do such if not off a cliff? Oh, and the text in Acts doesn't say he hanged himself either. 3. "Headlong", which is a 14th century term, means : a. HEADFIRST b. without deliberation : RECKLESSLY Interesting that Young's Literal Translation used "headlong" as well. I would assume that was the original meaning of the verse, not just some 14th century word used in the KJV. And I think a) is the meaning implied here. 4. If the height it sufficient, a falling object (having no airfoil) will rotate such that the heavy end (e.g. torso) oriented downward. Well, did he fall off a cliff or not? To have sufficient height to rotate that far when falling, you'd need to fall from a considerable height. That's not possible if his dead body fell from a rope on a tree (or some such) to the ground a few feet below. So now the story has to be he hanged himself from a tree, apparently over the side of a precipice high enough for his body to rotate 180 degrees on the way to the ground. Why would he do such a thing, if he could have just flung himself from the cliff in the first place, or found a more convenient tree? Some time later, his body fell and rotated 180 degrees before being smashed on the rocks below. None of which is accurately described in either account. Incredible. [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ] [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ] [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

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

10-09-2002, 01:02 PM	#61
Ron Garrett Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: United States Posts: 1,657	Oh, fricking WAHHHHH! Vandy, you insult, demean, dismiss, provoke, and then have the cojones to whine and feign indignation when you get your own medicine. You're wasting everyone's time with your antics.

10-09-2002, 01:14 PM	#62
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Vanderzyden: By your standards, it would be impossible to prove any contradiction. I will demonstrate using an extreme example. I realize that it's ridiculous, but it's this exaggerated to prove a point. One account says Joe was killed by a polar bear on an Arctic expedition in 1890. Another account says that he was killed by a meteorite in 2002. I would say that these are clearly contradictory despite the fact that they could simply be missing the details. Joe's body was frozen in 1890 and discovered by a team of scientists in 1992 who took it back to the United States for study. An ultra secret branch of the military stole the body and wisked it to a top secret underground facilty where Joe was cloned for experimental reasons. Ironically, several years later, Joe managed to escape the facility only to be struck dead by a metorite. Anything can be forced together with "details" not implied in the text. The only real question is whether they truly are missing details, or differences that require fundamentally different. I would contend that it would be extraordinary to call it a missing detail when someone describes a hanging as throwing oneself headlong onto the ground and spilling one's guts.

10-09-2002, 02:05 PM	#66
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	V To be persuasive, you must do more than claim a contradiction. You must demonstrate it. What is necessary from you, K, is a refutation of my argument. If you or anyone else cannot provide one, then it is reasonable to put this particular issue to rest, safely declaring that there is no contradiction. B The self declared winner! Vanderzyden ! V You know, B, I am not trying to "prove" anything. B Yes you are your trying to prove that there is no contradiction. Remember! V However, I do observe that you have not made one single concession. B You have not convinced anyone of anything. You have simply denied the obvious. So there is no need for me to make a concession. V Nor have you provided any refutation. B I have refuted your every point. I didn’t just pick on a few of your points I addressed every issue you raised. You on the other hand seem to play by your own rules. You pick and choose which points you wish to argue. V At this point you appear highly biased and uncritical of your own position. Is this how you approach your search for wisdom and truth? B If you really made any kind of valid argument, I would concede the point. I am not tied to dogma. I can change my mind and position. V No, I don't think you take an interest in dialogue. B I have read and I understand all of your arguments. I have paid attention and I have addressed you point by point. You on the other hand simply self declare yourself the winner without demonstrating that you understand any of the arguments. V Rather your talent is ridicule and diversion. B “Oh, fricking WAHHHHH! Vandy, you insult, demean, dismiss, provoke, and then have the cojones to whine and feign indignation when you get your own medicine. You're wasting everyone's time with your antics.” Thanks Ron I couldn’t say it better. V If that is true, then kindly keep your comments to yourself, so that the others may discuss this matter without your distractions. B Please open your eyes when you read my posts, so that you can try to refute what I say point by point. V Thanks, B Thanks

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.