Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

#451
#451
Pretty much. I do take offense to the idea that I have to let a church outline my beliefs or how I view the bible. Religion is practiced as man makes it. My religion is as I make it.
 
#452
#452
milohimself said:
As for the thread, just reading and enjoying. I have no taste for theological debate. When done on the basis of logic, the person presenting the popular religion ends up debating in circular logic. It's missing the point.
Click to expand...

Is that so? And in all cases, the person presenting the popular religion ends in a circular cycle of logic? Didn't know that this was so certain and absolute.

Can you provide a couple of examples (of the likely thousands you can recall) of when you've witnessed this phenomena? What was the topic at issue, the point being attempted, etc? I'd like to know, so as to be aware of that tomfoolery when I see it.

I'm really learning a lot in this thread - thanks to everyone.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#453
#453
I usually get treated to 45 minutes or so of solid theological debate every afternoon at university.

Attending the liberal mecca that I do, more active and mobile religious persons and groups like to make their presence known.

At the very least, I've never personally witnessed any theological debate, especially considering wholly different religions, outside of a church that ended in one or both people taking each others ideas and learning from them.
 
#454
#454
rjd970 said:
I can respect somebody just saying "It's my belief, you aren't going to change my mind, I don't care about evidence or lack thereof." It is what it is.

But when evidence, history, and science is used to legitimize someone's religious belief, I like to jump in.
Click to expand...

I can see how you'd take offense at some religious person trying to use those things to prop up their fantasies.

But, just so I'm clear - you're saying that none of those things can be accurately applied in legitimizing someone's religious belief. Ever. In any case. Without exception. Is that right?

It does seem oddly convenient that a self-avowed atheist would oppose three of the primary means by which a religious believer may assert and support their beliefs or its claims. But I know that you're not doing it intentionally, you're just saying that its impossible for one of those to ever be used - so I'm just asking to clarify it for everyone else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#455
#455
milohimself said:
I usually get treated to 45 minutes or so of solid theological debate every afternoon at university.

Attending the liberal mecca that I do, more active and mobile religious persons and groups like to make their presence known.

At the very least, I've never personally witnessed any theological debate, especially considering wholly different religions, outside of a church that ended in one or both people taking each others ideas and learning from them.
Click to expand...

You attend a university? Would not have guessed - you must be really intelligent. Me, I wasn't nearly smart enough to attend one. Or at least a good one that anyone has heard of.

Did you provide an example of the circular logic which you earlier claimed to be so pervasive in the arguments presented by religious apologists?

Maybe I missed it amidst my zeal to congratulate you on your many academic achievements.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#456
#456
Tenacious D said:
You attend a university? Would not have guessed - you must be really intelligent. Me, I wasn't nearly smart enough to attend one. Or at least a good one that anyone has heard of.

Did you provide an example of the circular logic which you earlier claimed to be so pervasive in the arguments presented by religious apologists?

Maybe I missed it amidst my zeal to congratulate you on your many academic achievements.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Am I leading you around on a leash without realizing it? You're following me around a lot.

And yeah, this whole university gig is pretty sweet. Makes me smarter than everybody. I like that.

"(insert religious group here) wouldn't do (x) because said group doesn't do (x)."

Anybody reading, raise your hand if you've heard this ad lib before.
 
#457
#457
Jesus and Mohammed....

Who can guess what is to happen on the last day according to Islam?







Sorry, the correct answer is:


Jesus descends from heaven to judge the earth. When he's done with that he kills the Antichrist. (Google "Islam eschatology" to learn more...
 
Last edited:
#458
#458
gsvol said:
Lentulus' letter is presented an official report to the Emperor Tiberius. In his letter Lentulus describes the condemned man named Jesus of Nazareth as having: a noble and lively face, with fair and slightly wavy hair; black and strongly curving eyebrows, intense penetrating blue eyes and an expression of wondrous grace. His nose is rather long. His beard is almost blonde, although not very long. His hair is quite long, and has never seen a pair of scissors.....His neck is slightly inclined, so that he never appears to be bitter or arrogant. His tanned face is the color of ripe corn and well proportioned. It gives the impression of gravity and wisdom, sweetness and good, and is completely lacking in any sign of anger.
Click to expand...


Huh? Corn is a New World crop that didn't exist in the Old World until at least the Sixteenth century. How do you explain this reference to a plant not known to exist by over a thousand years?
 
#460
#460
Tenacious D said:
I can see how you'd take offense at some religious person trying to use those things to prop up their fantasies.

But, just so I'm clear - you're saying that none of those things can be accurately applied in legitimizing someone's religious belief. Ever. In any case. Without exception. Is that right?

It does seem oddly convenient that a self-avowed atheist would oppose three of the primary means by which a religious believer may assert and support their beliefs or its claims. But I know that you're not doing it intentionally, you're just saying that its impossible for one of those to ever be used - so I'm just asking to clarify it for everyone else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm saying if someone says "I believe the red sea parting was a divine miracle, so it needs no more explanation" then it makes much more sense then somebody going on about earthquakes or whatever else to try and logically prove it.

I'm sure people will use whatever means necessary (history, science, etc) to legitimize their beliefs...but given the nature of religious faith, it seems hypocritical to do so. It is like someone walking through a blizzard of faith and searching for some warm flame of data. It's why people attach themselves to water stains and grilled cheese that look like the virgin Mary. Whether they believe it or not, the human brain naturally looks for patterns and will find them whether they are there or not.

Just say its your faith and go about your business. Leave the data extrapolation to someone not searching for a pre-conceived answer.
 
#461
#461
IPorange said:
Huh? Corn is a New World crop that didn't exist in the Old World until at least the Sixteenth century. How do you explain this reference to a plant not known to exist by over a thousand years?
Click to expand...

Moses wrote about corn. His writing were around 1500 BC

Genesis 41:5
And he slept and dreamed the second time: and, behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good.

Genesis 41:35
And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the cities.


Deuteronomy 23:25
When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn

Joshua wrote about corn , his writing are dated late 1300-1400 BC.

Joshua 5:11
And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.

Corn is mentioned throughout the Bible.
 
#462
#462
Gramps said:
Moses wrote about corn. His writing were around 1500 BC

Genesis 41:5
And he slept and dreamed the second time: and, behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good.

Genesis 41:35
And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the cities.


Deuteronomy 23:25
When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn

Joshua wrote about corn , his writing are dated late 1300-1400 BC.

Joshua 5:11
And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.

Corn is mentioned throughout the Bible.
Click to expand...

Which says a lot about Biblical translation, doesn't it?

Look up any source you'd like, corn is only native to the Americas.

The History Of Corn
 
#463
#463
Seems contradictory earlier, but I just use any excuse I can to post the Carl Lewis national anthem.

I've heard a bit about this, the "corn" issue in the bible comes from the King James version. I asked an old English professor of mine about this, she said that "corn" was a general term used for grain in 16th/17th century England.
 
#464
#464
milohimself said:
Seems contradictory earlier, but I just use any excuse I can to post the Carl Lewis national anthem.

I've heard a bit about this, the "corn" issue in the bible comes from the King James version. I asked an old English professor of mine about this, she said that "corn" was a general term used for grain in 16th/17th century England.
Click to expand...

Right. But that letter of gsvol's would have been translated much later than the 16th century. I'm kind of skeptical.

That being said, replacing "corn" with another grain would make for a much more realistic color Jesus would be. :)
 
#465
#465
It would still be translated correct, I know that modern theologians still like to write in the style of the KJB.
 
#466
#466
IPorange said:
Which says a lot about Biblical translation, doesn't it?

Look up any source you'd like, corn is only native to the Americas.

The History Of Corn
Click to expand...

Explain how the early Bibilical writers knew how to describe corn and its use. Corn was written about and the plant and use described in detail 1500 BC.

I realize you try to descredit the Bible. This is one case I do not see how it can be discredited .

Here is your answer:
Maybe corn evolved into a rubbertree plant then after a few thousand years it evolved back into corn.... Geeez
 
#467
#467
IPorange said:
Right. But that letter of gsvol's would have been translated much later than the 16th century. I'm kind of skeptical.

That being said, replacing "corn" with another grain would make for a much more realistic color Jesus would be. :)
Click to expand...

What other grain does this describe?


Genesis 41:5
And he slept and dreamed the second time: and, behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good.

Deuteronomy 23:25
When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn
 
#468
#468
Gramps said:
What other grain does this describe?


Genesis 41:5
And he slept and dreamed the second time: and, behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good.

Deuteronomy 23:25
When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn
Click to expand...

The word "corn" does not appear once in the Catholic Bible (NAB), nor the Latin Vulgate.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#469
#469
milohimself said:
Am I leading you around on a leash without realizing it? You're following me around a lot.

And yeah, this whole university gig is pretty sweet. Makes me smarter than everybody. I like that.

"(insert religious group here) wouldn't do (x) because said group doesn't do (x)."

Anybody reading, raise your hand if you've heard this ad lib before.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that I was following you, but it's certainly possible, because I tend to gravitate to scholarly, intelligent and well-informed posters such as yourself, and those like you (e.g. Rex, UTVolPJ, Eric, UTGibbs, Neocon, et al.).

Your being a Mod proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're smarter than everyone else here (I assume that's how Freak picks you guys - equal parts intelligence and winning personalities), and your attending a university only furthers that self-evident truth. No argument from me on that one.

Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, my (very) limited intelligence prevents me from discerning your literative equation - I assume that's written in Greek - could you go ahead and fill in those blanks for me so that I and perhaps others have some hope of understanding it?

Also, could you keep us posted on the number of raised hands you counted - whcih I really thought was a clever way to interject some much-needed humor into this thread (you truly are a multi-talented person, Melo!).

P.S. - Oh, and if you could go ahead and mention a few of those examples of circular logic by religious types, that'd be great, too! Very anxious to see you expose their shenanigans.
 
#470
#470
milohimself said:
Seems contradictory earlier, but I just use any excuse I can to post the Carl Lewis national anthem.

I've heard a bit about this, the "corn" issue in the bible comes from the King James version. I asked an old English professor of mine about this, she said that "corn" was a general term used for grain in 16th/17th century England.
Click to expand...

You should have asked one of your science professors, instead. S/he could have used that errancy as a means to further disprove God's existence.

But you - like the dude from Limitless - probably already thought of that, and could forsee some reason why doing so would not have been best. So, of course, I defer to your superior intellect on this one.
 
#472
#472
Gramps said:
What other grain does this describe?


Genesis 41:5
And he slept and dreamed the second time: and, behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good.

Deuteronomy 23:25
When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn
Click to expand...

If you presuppose that its corn in the translation, then such would seem to require ears - but is corn the only grain that stands on a stalk?
 
#474
#474
the KJV is a really bad translation, it is pretty to read and quote, but in terms of context, it is botched in many places
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top