LOL. No more laughable than atheistic/Satanic/muslim pieces of shit like you claiming bible is filled with contradictions without any actual proof whatso****ing ever.
"Whoa". LMFAO. Read it or shut the **** up troll. Mad that I destroyed your illusion that bible is filled with contradictictions? What a shocker, you muslim supporting p-o-s.
You know what, I've had enough of your trolling and attacking Christianity. Before, I"ve only ignored u in certain threads but now I will actually
use the convenient ignore function so I won't have to read ANY of your troll posts anymore.
Nice knowing ya (though not really) . We will never speak again.
Star, your overly aggressive responses to disagreement are becoming an increasing problem. You must tone down that hostility. Most certainly, don't make baseless trolling accusations.
Also- this goes for all posters- if you use the 'ignore' function in future, do it quietly. Don't tout it around as some sort of achievement.
Originally posted by Star428
For those who think the Bible is filled with contradictions:https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/689-does-the-bible-contain-contradictions
http://christiananswers.net/q-comfort/contradictions-bible.html
Interesting articles. I have to point out they are not exhausting the subject, and since we are looking for an absolute truth, every instance of a noticeable difference must be analized individually to consider we have proof of consistency.
Also the methodology of supplementation provided by the first writer implies that each of the books on the Bible can be false if read individually. Which would mean that the Bible could only be literal truth if read as a unit. I'm not sure I agree with that method for every distinction between the books.
Originally posted by Bentley
Interesting articles. I have to point out they are not exhausting the subject, and since we are looking for an absolute truth, every instance of a noticeable difference must be analized individually to consider we have proof of consistency.Also the methodology of supplementation provided by the first writer implies that each of the books on the Bible can be false if read individually. Which would mean that the Bible could only be literal truth if read as a unit. I'm not sure I agree with that method for every distinction between the books.
Bentley, context is always important. As someone who frequently debates in the CBvF, you should be well aware of that.
I didn't see where the author implied that whole books of the bible are false though if taken as individual books. Pretty sure he/she was referring to individual verses in the bible taken out-of-context.
Originally posted by Star428
Bentley, context is always important. As someone who frequently debates in the CBvF, you should be well aware of that.
Indeed, context is one of the reasons that makes an exhaustive answer a more reliable one, you need to consider everything integral to a particular diference on passages to properly judge it.
Originally posted by Star428
I didn't see where the author implied that whole books of the bible are false though if taken as individual books. Pretty sure he/she was referring to individual verses in the bible taken out-of-context.
I don't mean it as "books become totally invalid" kind of falsehood, but they really become unreliable "sources of literal truth".
Take the very example cited in the second page. If we read a gospel that says the cross had the tag "King of Jews" there is literaly no way we can assume that the entire tag was physically, actually "Jesus of Nazareth, King of Jews". The only proper way to fetch that information is another gospel. Admitting this summation method is like saying we cannot rely in particular books on the Bible for several purposes and for me it doesn't sit particularly well. It's like establishing a hierarchy of books, which in my opinion is besides the point.
Again, I'm mostly talking about the methods implied or shown by the articles, it can be ludicrous to assume they should be widely used to understand Scripture, because analytical method themselves are not tools from Godly inspiration to begin with and aren't meant to "solve" the Bible.
Originally posted by Bentley
Indeed, context is one of the reasons that makes an exhaustive answer a more reliable one, you need to consider everything integral to a particular diference on passages to properly judge it.I don't mean it as "books become totally invalid" kind of falsehood, but they really become unreliable "sources of literal truth".
Take the very example cited in the second page. If we read a gospel that says the cross had the tag "King of Jews" there is literaly no way we can assume that the entire tag was physically, actually "Jesus of Nazareth, King of Jews". The only proper way to fetch that information is another gospel. Admitting this summation method is like saying we cannot rely in particular books on the Bible for several purposes and for me it doesn't sit particularly well. It's like establishing a hierarchy of books, which in my opinion is besides the point.
Again, I'm mostly talking about the methods implied or shown by the articles, it can be ludicrous to assume they should be widely used to understand Scripture, because analytical method themselves are not tools from Godly inspiration to begin with and aren't meant to "solve" the Bible.
OK. I see what you're saying now.
Originally posted by Star428
LOL. No more laughable than atheistic/Satanic/muslim pieces of shit like you claiming bible is filled with contradictions without any actual proof whatso****ing ever."Whoa". LMFAO. Read it or shut the **** up troll. Mad that I destroyed your illusion that bible is filled with contradictictions? What a shocker, you muslim supporting p-o-s.
You know what, I've had enough of your trolling and attacking Christianity. Before, I"ve only ignored u in certain threads but now I will actually
use the convenient ignore function so I won't have to read ANY of your troll posts anymore.Nice knowing ya (though not really) . We will never speak again.
Implying I care that a mentally disabled person wants to talk to me or not.
Go ahead and add another person to your ignore list, basket case, soon you'll only be circle-jerking it with TI and longpig 👆
Originally posted by Star428
Because Islam is the "religion of peace". 🙄
But other than that, its pretty peaceful.
Originally posted by long pig
Back to the destruction of European countries by harboring islamofacists....Rise of attacks on non Muslims by Muslims are up 500% so far this year. I wonder why?
Lmao if you think migration, even if it works like you think it works (it doesn't), would cause the destruction of even one European country.
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Lmao if you think migration, even if it works like you think it works (it doesn't), would cause the destruction of even one European country.
When groups of outsiders who are against you enter your country legally or otherwise, and start tearing it down, Its then called an invasion.
The Western Roman Empire was destroyed for a plethora of reasons, mostly due to it's own incompetence, it was basically half dead by the time Attila the Hun showed up, don't make the claim it was merely migrations that destroyed it.
That's nice. If that scenario happened, eventually some 9/11-level tragedy would occur, people would rally around nationalism, and then there'd be a wave of violence we haven't seen since WW2. A tragedy, but not "The end of Europe" like what a lot of the bigots are freaking out over right now think.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://aclj.org/religious-liberty/more-islamic-indoctrination-in-our-public-schools
http://conservativetribune.com/states-schools-made-sick-move/
LOL. I think this sums it up pretty nicely:
https://twitter.com/DrMartyFox/status/651883506914721792
https://twitter.com/bentualdepineut/status/651885488584937473
😆 😆