Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Mar 2000 15:27:51 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@ANTISPAMnovera.com
|
Viewed:
|
1207 times
|
| |
|
|
Peter Callaway wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Oh stop. Give up will you?
>
> Why should I? This is something I strongly believe in which is being
> challenged in a civil discussion, so lugnet.off-topic.debate T&C's
> notwithstanding, I'm entitled to speak.
Yes indeed you are, but you're wrong and it's not just me thats
disagreeing with you. You're just repeating your arguments over and over
but they've been discredited.
> You're bored with it? Don't read it.
>
> > You don't know for sure what Jesus did or didn't do or what he did or
> > didn't say. You can only take the word of people dead almost 2000 years
> > now, who recorded things in languages many translations removed from the
> > one you're referring to.
>
> Not true, at Bible college language classes in Greek and Hebrew use copies of
> the original texts and translate them directly. So Greek-English and Hebrew-
> English is not "many translations removed".
How do you know these are copies of the original texts? How do you know
that errors haven't crept in over the years? How do you know the meaning
of the language hasn't changed? You can't answer any of these questions
satisfactorily without leaning on revealed truth, or on additional
eyewitness accounts.
> And once again, the accounts of Jesus' life in the four gospels are eyewitness
> accounts (except for Luke, although he wrote on behalf of eyewitnesses because
> he was educated - a Doctor I think - and could write), and are just as
> credible as any other eyewitness account of any historical event in .... well,
> history. Just because it involves something YOU don't or won't believe doesn't
> make it any less credible.
But they're inconsistent. You can't stand there and claim that the bible
is literal truth when it contains significant internal inconsistencies.
We've been over this before. Those that claim that the bible has
something important to teach us in its allegories and that it's not
critical that we accept it word for word are going to get a lot farther
with most intelligent people than those who insist that we accept a
document with no tracability and no mechanism for proving or disproving
it as revealed truth. That's for the gullible.
See, when you're dealing with eyewitness accounts, there's no way to
prove them one way or another. You can only look for inconsistencies or
congruences and you can never be 100% sure of their veracity. You also
can't use them to predict anything meaningful. Unlike, say, an assertion
about what the atomic weight of carbon is, which can be tested,
verified, and used to make predictions that affect things in this
reality.
I'm not going to get dragged into this again. Go review what was said
before. But know this, while you're welcome to believe what you want,
and under the current T&C you're welcome to say what you want here,
you're not getting any traction with me as long as you stick to your
current line.
I've got you pegged as an inflexible fundamentalist. Probably not a fair
characterization but you did it to yourself, based on what you've been
saying. Go read some C.S. Lewis if you want to see how to convert the
unbelievers, he does a far better job at it than just making bald
unsupportable assertions.
An easy way to silence me is to say "Yes, the bible is not literally
word for word correct and it does have inconsistencies in it, but it's
still important and there is still stuff to learn from it."
Say that and I'm done. But if my pegging is right, you won't be able to.
Prove me wrong.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) One of the arguments that has been repeated over and over here is the issue of the gender of God, and how to address God, which I think we'll all have to agree to dissagree on. I've stated my case on what I have researched and believe. You (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Why should I? This is something I strongly believe in which is being challenged in a civil discussion, so lugnet.off-topic.debate T&C's notwithstanding, I'm entitled to speak. You're bored with it? Don't read it. (...) Not true, at Bible (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
