|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..6..9..12..15..16~17~18~19~20..30..39..48..57..64~65~66 [Next] | ||||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 15:22, acesover wrote: I believe that she exists, but I'm not a follower Was only pointing out the source that the notion came from. The validity of that source is up to the reader to determine.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 12:51, LobowolfXXX wrote: I don't know if he did or didn't, but if there is a Hell and he was sent there, then... dude. Come on. Dude.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
Quote:
Most of the Bible can easily be shown to be in error with known historical events and scientific facts. Actually I think the contrary is true. The more that archaeologists study the lands of the Bible, the better it looks. |
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 16:37, acesover wrote: Basic Errors The World is Round not flat as described in the Bible Bats are not Birds Insects have Six legs Not Four No known species of Birds have Four Legs Rabbits don’t chew their cud The moon doesn’t not produce its own light The sun doesn’t orbit the earth. Snakebite can’t be cured with a brass serpent on a pole Snails don’t melt Pi isn’t 3 These are all factual errors easily found in the Bible. Strange that if this were the word of a perfect god that it would make these rudimentary mistakes. There are many, many more to be found such as there is no extra biblical evidence to back up the stories of the great flood any of the events surrounding Moses, the tower of Babel the collapse of the walls of Jericho or the life of Christ.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Acesover-
Sorry you feel that I am not entitled to participate in this discussion and/or that I am a non-believer. How many times to I have to point out that I am a Deist? By the way, did you note the statistic on Deist in the list you posted: "Deity (Deist) 6,000 49,000 69,153 0.02% +717% " (Christianity only was up by 5%) But, then again, since when is truth decided by popular vote or an opinion poll? As I also pointed out previously, centuries ago nearly everyone believed the sun rotated around the earth. I'd point out that even the Catholic Church does not advocate the position that the Bible is completely and literally true. And it is quite adamant that it is not a book that should be interpreted individually by everyone. In fact, as late as the 19th Century, Catholics were not encouraged to read the Bible themselves at all. You requested 10 examples of where the Bible is literally or historically incorrect. I already suggested that you read Thomas Paine's (one of our Founding Fathers, I'd point out) "The Age of Reason." If you decide to read it you will discover hundreds of examples. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 17:18, Payne wrote: According to Einstein, this is as reasonable a position as saying that the earth orbits the sun. You weaken your argument when you include citations such as this. |
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 17:18, Payne wrote: You are going to hve to do better than that. I need passage numbers. I have no idea what you said is even in the bible or taken out of context if it is. You want me to believe you but you won't believe the bible. That would be quie a leap of faith for me that I am not ready to take just yet. I am just saying... Scientific evidence of world wide flood: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/......lood.htm I would not be surprised if yo udispute this evidence as I have said before your bias which inhibits "creaative thinking". In othher words you don't want it to be true so you discount it or look for ways to discount it but for sure never consider it a possibility. Whatever floats your ark.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 17:26, S2000magician wrote: Given that the original Church position, based on Scripture, was that the earth was the center of the universe, Einstein's relativistic observation is really irrelevant in the context of this discussion. |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 17:35, mastermindreader wrote: It is relevant to the extent that the geocentric model is held out as a factual error; there is nothing erroneous about the original church position, based on Scripture. |
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Payne,
Just another observation on the rabbit deal of yours. Explanation of which I am sure you will reject as you are biased and we know bias does not make one a critical thinker, and that is exactly what this needs, "critical thinking". rabbit deal of yours: http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Just curious here. How can one say that anything is or is not the center of the universe when the universe expanding so quickly and is so vast how would one determine where the center of the universe is. Not the center of a solar system, but the center of the universe.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 14:31, Slide wrote: But you CAN say, "People who are capable of procreating cannot enter into marriage in which they cannot procreate" (given the proscription on extramarital sex).
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 17:44, S2000magician wrote: Why, then, did the Church initially reject the Copernican model? The problem with the biblical version of geocentrism is that it held that the earth was the literal center of the universe. I don't believe Einstein believed that. Interestingly, though, many pagans would, but for a different reason. They hold the wonderful view that the universe may be represented by a circle with an infinite circumference whose center is everywhere. Einstein, though, didn't see the universe as infinite, so I guess he might have argued with that view. |
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 17:28, acesover wrote: Sorry, this is not scientific evidence as it hasn't been peer reviewed. Thus it's only opinion. Not only that but it's wrong. Why Polystrate Fossils are not evidence for a world wide flood http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html Why fossils of Sea Life are found on mountain tops http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html Most the rest of the paper debunked here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Payne,
I wontgo any furthher but here is soethingonyou rsnail deal also. I am strating to get like you and looking up things onthe internet whichInormallydo notdo.. Anyway here it is: http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20010624.htm
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 17:18, Payne wrote: The "bats/birds" distinction doesn't do much to advance your position, either, as it's a purely arbitrary definitional distinction (and wasnt written in English originally, anyway). Perhaps the equivalent for "birds" at the time meant "things that can fly," which isn't inherently wrong; we just have criteria that we find more salient now. It's a bit like laughing at Einstein and thinking he was an idiot because for his whole life, he thought Pluto was a planet.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 17:46, acesover wrote: Yes, I’ve seen this before and it's a reasonable argument. If we weren't talking about an all knowing being that, according to tradition, guided the hand of not only the writers of the Bible, but the translators as well. You think it might have said “Whoa there Moses! Go back and fix that previous sentence. Rabbits don’t chew their cud so they’re OK to eat. I made ‘em extra tasty too!”. But it didn’t. It allowed the error to stand. So now there’s a mistake in its perfect infallible book. Not so much a problem if one wasn’t all heckbent to take it as the inerrant factual word of god. But some people do. And when you find one of those niggling little errors they have to start tap dancing all around it. Thus the sad apologetics start up. “There wasn’t a word for it back then” “What it really means is”, “What they meant to say was” and every other excuse they can possibly come up with to keep from saying that the Bible is wrong on this particular point. It seems that the book is the literal word of god, until it isn’t. Then it becomes the interpreted word of god. One would think a manuscript written by a perfect infallible being would be a little more clear and easy to understand. We can split hares (pun intended) all we want. But in the end you’re going to finally have to admit that the Bible is too full of basic errors of fundamental knowledge to be divinely written. Don’t you find it odd that it contains not a single shred of information that wasn’t known at the time? How many lives could have been saved over the millennia had god told us about basic germ theory or given us a hint about antibiotics? How hard would it have been for it to tell his people about basic celestial mechanics or give them a mathematical system that could figure Pi.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 17:59, LobowolfXXX wrote: Like I said, arbitrary for mere mortals. But this is god(s) we're talking about. It would know better as it made the things and you really think it would have straightened out the matter, at least on any one of the multiple revisions of the text. But I'll give you the birds and the bee's. Getting the celestial mechanics completely wrong demonstrates that the Bible is not infallible and in fact contains many factual errors. But only if you take it literally.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-14 18:43, Payne wrote: That's part of the irony in this discussion. Acesover has stated that he is Catholic. Even the Catholic Church has long warned against a strictly literal interpretation of Scripture. In fact the faith is based equally on scripture, dogma and everything laid out in its catechism. (In which it plainly states that the big bang theory, evolution, science, etc. aren't incompatible with the faith.) That's why you don't often see Catholics engaging in arguments about Biblical literalism. That's mainly a modern fundamentalist Protestant argument. |
|||||||||
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 184 Posts |
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » A TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER.. (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..6..9..12..15..16~17~18~19~20..30..39..48..57..64~65~66 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |