Is Pope Francis the false prophet?

#226
#226
landscapingvol said:
It’s very simple. You either believe the Bible contradicts itself or you don’t. You either believe Revelation was written for a persecuted group of Christians at the time or it was written for some unknown civilization 2-3k years into the future. You either take the Bible as a whole or you pull out one book in the Bible and take it completely out of context.
Click to expand...
One can believe in Armageddon and the Bible not contradict itself.

Why would I believe the Bible was written only for unknown civilizations thousands of years ago? You seem to have a habit of introducing claims without establishing them.

One can believe in Armageddon and take the Bible as a whole. As a matter of fact, much of the doctrine on the subject comes from the Old Testament. I'm starting to think you haven't studied what you think you've disproved.

Your argument so far has been that there's no Biblical evidence for the last battle, etc... But that we have to take the evidence for it figuratively. That seems a contradictory argument.

Revelation 16:13-16 literally mentions and describes Armageddon. You've said we have to take that figuratively while claiming it doesn't say that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#230
#230
Ashevolle said:
I blame you for trying to redefine the word premise more narrowly than the dictionary.
Click to expand...
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

Go back and reread the post it was in response to.

"No sex before marriage" isn't a premise of the Bible. It's a conclusion from the Bible. To claim it as a premise (the reason that you won't follow the Bible) is to eschew the idea of truth for the idea of hedonistic pleasure-seeking.

I'm not sure that's the logic you were going for, since "premise" is a specific logical construct with a specific logical meaning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#233
#233
Orange_Crush said:
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

Go back and reread the post it was in response to.

"No sex before marriage" isn't a premise of the Bible. It's a conclusion from the Bible. To claim it as a premise (the reason that you won't follow the Bible) is to eschew the idea of truth for the idea of hedonistic pleasure-seeking.

I'm not sure that's the logic you were going for, since "premise" is a specific logical construct with a specific logical meaning.
Click to expand...
Premise also has a colloquial definition beyond that of formal logic which means "generally assumed as true". The statement was that sex outside of marriage is a sin. It was stated as a truism.

The Bible doesn't engage in formal logic. It hands out dogmatic edicts that are not to be questioned and are to be obeyed under penalty of damnation. Not a particularly fertile ground for logic.
 
#234
#234
Ashevolle said:
Premise also has a colloquial definition beyond that of formal logic which means "generally assumed as true". The statement was that sex outside of marriage is a sin. It was stated as a truism.
Click to expand...

No. It was stated as a conclusion from the Bible in a thread about the Bible.

Ashevolle said:
The Bible doesn't engage in formal logic. It hands out dogmatic edicts that are not to be questioned and are to be obeyed under penalty of damnation. Not a particularly fertile ground for logic.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
 
#235
#235
Orange_Crush said:
No. It was stated as a conclusion from the Bible in a thread about the Bible.



Prove it.
Click to expand...
You obviously enjoy playing the pedant. But this game bores me. Prove there's a god first and then I might bother to seriously discuss a book purporting to be written by said god.
 
#236
#236
Ashevolle said:
You obviously enjoy playing the pedant. But this game bores me. Prove there's a god first and then I might bother to seriously discuss a book purporting to be written by said god.
Click to expand...
No. I don't think I'll cast my pearls.

You made a claim that:

The Bible doesn't engage in formal logic. It hands out dogmatic edicts that are not to be questioned and are to be obeyed under penalty of damnation. Not a particularly fertile ground for logic.
Click to expand...

Either prove that negative, or you're engaging in dogmatic claims...which, in context, I'd say is a pretty poor look.

Just off the top of my head, I could take you to at least a half-dozen logical arguments in scripture, but I don't feel the need to do your job for you. I'd MUCH rather see you list and commentate on every word of scripture, which is what you'd need to do to support your ignorant claim.

So... Go.
 
#237
#237
Orange_Crush said:
No. I don't think I'll cast my pearls.

You made a claim that:



Either prove that negative, or you're engaging in dogmatic claims...which, in context, I'd say is a pretty poor look.

Just off the top of my head, I could take you to at least a half-dozen logical arguments in scripture, but I don't feel the need to do your job for you. I'd MUCH rather see you list and commentate on every word of scripture, which is what you'd need to do to support your ignorant claim.

So... Go.
Click to expand...
For someone so committed to formal logic, I find it fascinating that you believe in magic.
 
#238
#238
Ashevolle said:
For someone so committed to formal logic, I find it fascinating that you believe in magic.
Click to expand...
Oh, an ad hominem attempt to change the subject. Wonderful.

So, moving on from that particular embarrassment... As you attempt to escape the appearances of your dogmatic assertions, when can I expect that 66 volume, verse by verse, expository commentary on the Bible that will fail to prove that the Bible didn't make logical arguments?

The Bible doesn't engage in formal logic. It hands out dogmatic edicts that are not to be questioned and are to be obeyed under penalty of damnation. Not a particularly fertile ground for logic.
Click to expand...

I think what you'll find is that the Bible repeatedly engages in logical discourse, it invites questions and debate, and it promises blessings/forgiveness/relationship/salvation independent of obedience.

This will be fun. When do you think you'll be reporting back with your findings?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#239
#239
landscapingvol said:
That is complete nonsense conjured up by John Hagee and other Armageddon fear mongers like yourself who fixate on a book that is symbolic in nature and nothing more. So tell me Bible “scholar”, is John contradicting himself in the very first verse of Revelation? Was Jesus lying when he himself said that “no one knows the day nor the hour not even himself or the angels in Heaven”? Will a large beast be emerging from the sea any day now? What modern day technology do the “locusts” represent now? Is it still Apache helicopters? What person embodies the “mark of the beast” now since Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are all dead now? You should try reading the Bible every now and then and put down Left Behind.
Click to expand...

Well, you've obviously not read the Bible or did any studying. Ignorant post.
 
#240
#240
Ashevolle said:
Thanks for making a straightforward argument against following the Bible. The very idea that I should never experience sex until I get married is a laughable premise and I feel sorry for anyone duped into accepting it.
Click to expand...

The fact if people waited until marriage,, you have less disease, abortions, divorce. You enjoying wallowing in immorality, thats on you.
 
#241
#241
Orange_Crush said:
Oh, an ad hominem attempt to change the subject. Wonderful.

So, moving on from that particular embarrassment... As you attempt to escape the appearances of your dogmatic assertions, when can I expect that 66 volume, verse by verse, expository commentary on the Bible that will fail to prove that the Bible didn't make logical arguments?



I think what you'll find is that the Bible repeatedly engages in logical discourse, it invites questions and debate, and it promises blessings/forgiveness/relationship/salvation independent of obedience.

This will be fun. When do you think you'll be reporting back with your findings?
Click to expand...
That wasn't an ad hominem attack. Do you or do you not believe in the magic that the Bible claims occurred?

I will concede there is likely some feeble attempts within the Bible to use logic. I mean it has a lot of characters, different stories etc, so I clearly misspoke by saying the Bible as a whole.

Now about magic, do you believe in it?
 
Last edited:
#242
#242
Ashevolle said:
that wasn't an ad hominem attack. Do you or do you not believe in the magic that the Bible claims occurred?
Click to expand...
Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Click to expand...

Nice try.

We'll discuss miracles after you deal with the corner you've mopped yourself into.

It'd be too easy to let you change the subject.
 
#243
#243
Orange_Crush said:
Nice try.

We'll discuss miracles after you deal with the corner you've mopped yourself into.

It'd be too easy to let you change the subject.
Click to expand...
How did I attack you? If you believe the Bible, then you would proudly believe in the magic it claims happened.
 
#244
#244
Ashevolle said:
How did I attack you? If you believe the Bible, then you would proudly believe in the magic it claims happened.
Click to expand...

You don't know what an ad hominem is. Funny.

Of course I believe in miracles. I'm just not willing to let you wriggle off the hook you've put yourself on. I'm not willing to give you the convenience of a changed subject.

When can I expect the output on your earlier ignorance?
 
#245
#245
Orange_Crush said:
You don't know what an ad hominem is. Funny.

Of course I believe in miracles. I'm just not willing to let you wriggle off the hook you've put yourself on. I'm not willing to give you the convenience of a changed subject.

When can I expect the output on your earlier ignorance?
Click to expand...
I already conceded the point, so what's left to discuss?
 
#247
#247
Orange_Crush said:
Where? I'm sorry I missed that. Quote it for me?
Click to expand...
"I will concede there is likely some feeble attempts within the Bible to use logic. I mean it has a lot of characters, different stories etc, so I clearly misspoke by saying the Bible as a whole."
 
#248
#248
Ashevolle said:
That wasn't an ad hominem attack. Do you or do you not believe in the magic that the Bible claims occurred?

I will concede there is likely some feeble attempts within the Bible to use logic. I mean it has a lot of characters, different stories etc, so I clearly misspoke by saying the Bible as a whole.

Now about magic, do you believe in it?
Click to expand...
Oh, you edited.

Feeble attempts? Likely? You're still doubling down on showing your ignorance? So, you'll come back here with a 66 volume commentary on the Bible and grade the logic attempts of the Bible?

One would think you'd get tired of displaying your unabashed ignorance on the subject.
 
#249
#249
Ashevolle said:
"I will concede there is likely some feeble attempts within the Bible to use logic. I mean it has a lot of characters, different stories etc, so I clearly misspoke by saying the Bible as a whole."
Click to expand...

Yes. I just saw you edit.

Orange_Crush said:
Oh, you edited.

Feeble attempts? Likely? You're still doubling down on showing your ignorance? So, you'll come back here with a 66 volume commentary on the Bible and grade the logic attempts of the Bible?

One would think you'd get tired of displaying your unabashed ignorance on the subject.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top