Peter Kirby

The original post set the tone for the rest of the thread, and I see no substantive discussion of BC&H on the horizon. I am moving this to elsewhere, with the understanding that Jorge is welcome to start a new thread or to participate in the existing discussions of BC&H in a constructive way.

best,
Peter Kirby

Mageth

Does the term, "not even close' suggest anything, Cretinist?

I'll try...is it the answer to the question, "Has Jorge said anything that could be called "good philosophical discussion" on this thread?"

Jorge

ex---ex---ex---ex---ex---xian,

I have made the point, more than once, and at the request of the moderator even boiled it down to the essence. Here it is again:

"Sure, I can comply. The essence of my message is that many people offer up what they consider to be Bible "contradictions/errors" as evidence of its unworthiness without actually knowing what they are talking about.

This is not meant as an insult but rather as pointing to the fact that this is a vast subject that has consumed many lifetimes of study. I am merely suggesting that it would be much wiser to not play the part of the fool and, in ignorance, condemn the Bible as "unworthy".

That's it."

As for that ad hominem nonsense, that's been asked and answered. You do realize, I hope, that continuously accusing a person of a falsehood is an ad hominem in itself (or at least an attempt at it)?

Jorge

Roland

Jorge -

Were there ELEVEN apostles present at Jesus' first post-resurrection appearance to his disciples (as stated in Luke 24:33-53) or TEN (as stated in John 9:19-24)?

Just curious.

Jorge

Just one question...

Is this "constructive way" the objective definition of "constructive" or the materialist-minded definition that is adopted when faced with strong opposition from a bold Christian apologist?

My question is sincere... thanks in advance and 'best' to you also, Peter Kirby.

Jorge

ex-xian

If you really believe that you haven't engaged in personal attacks in this thread, then I'm not surprised that you're still able to justify all the rubbish in the bible.

Since this thread has been banished to ~E~, I won't bother to try to debate the bible here. If you really want to have a serious discussion, try again, without all the perjorative comments.

Unless of course, this is how you get your jollies. Back when I was still brain-washed (ie, saved), I would occassionally pop into the "den of satan" to demonstrate why they were all wrong. I had all my apologetic ducks in a row, ready for a fight. The problem is that people like you and me (or before I became an "ex") are a dime a dozen.

You accuse us of reading the bible with wrong motives, why don't you do the same with the koran or the book of mormom; the same arguments (if you can call them that) you're using for your religion are used by every other mytholoy in identical ways. Wait...here's a radical idea, try reading some serious criticisms of the bible with an open mind. I'm sure you're god is big enough to withstand some questioning.

BTW, no one gives a shit how long you've studied or who you've read...try making actual points. From you're posts, you sound like you're in your mid-teens to mid-twenties. Unless you've you've been reading the bible longer than you've been alive, you havent' been reading it longer than me. And, once again, you're arguments from authority are worthless. For every bible scholar you cite, I can cite one who disagrees.

I was a fundy, YEC'er once too. I'm a lot happier, more content, and more secure now.

viscousmemories

Hey Jorge, I don't claim to know anything at all about biblical history, but if you have compiled a list of over 30,000 discrepancies that you have personally found in the bible, and the study of those discrepancies actually strengthened your faith, are you going to share that list with us?
Wait a second... you said "I don't do ad hominem", then you did ad hominem, repeatedly, and when accused of it, you reply "that has been asked and answered"? Is that supposed to make some kind of sense?

vm

Peter Kirby

I mean that you focus on the issues of the text and history with an aim to establish a proposition rather than focus on people today with the message "Listen up, you don't know squat so I'm here to knock some sense into you." For example, it would be fine to argue boldly that the resurrection accounts are clearly in harmony, but it would not be fine to say that any possible opponents on the question must be ignorant and have no right to be speaking on the question.

If you have further questions about moderator policy, please direct them to "Bugs, Problems, & Complaints."

best,
Peter Kirby

enrious

My guess is even he didn't study enough, huh Jorge?

Godot

Arguments from authority, ad hominems, poisoning the well, begging the question (amongst others) are not well received arguments here. From what I have seen, you have made some bold claims regarding bible inerrancy and have been soundly refuted. Shifting the goalposts and wearing blinders are no excuse. If we were playing logical fallacy bingo in this thread, we would have been fighting over who won long ago.

You insinuate yourself into a long list of scholars that have devoted countless years to studying the bible and claim that your POV is more valid than ours because it is required by your ego. Would you be kind enough to name a few of these scholars that you agree with? Or perhaps even tell us upon which particular point of theology you aggree with them on?