Search results

We already have enough violent Bronze Age nonsense to get rid of without adding more 7th century violent nonsense to it as well.

Yep, I would as well, and it is an entirely self-defeating notion. I would like to add to that the idea of whether something atrocious, such as the murder of children, sex slavery or war crimes, is made morally good if commanded by God ...

I originally read it in a sourced, scholarly article on the New Testament but yes, I can read Ancient Greek. Your point about English is largely irrelevant. Sure we do. It's all geometry and angles which, you may be surprised to know, the Greeks and Egyptians knew rather a lot about. Sure...

Not unless proof is given, and I doubt it will be.

The idea of ignoring the other words of your holy book and THEN filling in the blanks is even funnier. What did you think of my idea of deism, anyway?

But of course. I think that the lines between atheism and agnosticism have been infinitely more blurred over the past twenty years as scientific understanding of the observable universe comes along in leaps and bounds. I think that, at this point, they are intrinsically linked concepts, really.

As I showed a page or two back, Christianity has, since the writing of the Gospels, been naturally unconcerned with the words of Christ, the historical and political realities of the day and other such concepts as long as it suits their agenda to ignore them. Why stop now?

You know Amanda? :P

Oh philosophy, such a whirlwind it is. You seem an intelligent guy. Thanks for the rep, by the way. You don't seem to be a theist, so my disagreement was you was really just one of semantics.

I see you're in Year 11 ... what are you planning on for Uni?

Yeah basically. He is not dealing in what the majority of Christians make up to justify their faith in a rational sense but rather what the Bible says, as am I. If people want to ignore, manipulate or excuse parts of the Bible to make up for the fact that a lot of it is nonsense then that is...

I agree with you to some extent, which is why it is a-theism and not a-deism, which is essentially what you are describing. Only a deistic God would hold the very vague, uncertain principles which naturally makes it an infinitely expanding tautology that is impossible to theoretically disprove...

Two points that need making: Atheism is the disbelief in theism. A-theism. It's embedded in the term itself that it is simply a lack of theistic persuasion due to the lack of evidence to suggest that any God exists. That is all. Your other definitions are no more than made up by you, as you...

I never in the slightest suggested this. Please do not put words in my mouth that are not there. There is no good reason to believe that there is a God because there is no evidence to do so, however that does not necessarily make belief in a higher celestial being irrational as science has not...

To assume that Christopher Hitchens somehow invented this paradox in religion is absurd. The fact that this is nonsense should be evident to any rational person who has a full understanding of the facts. In fact, if you'd really like to get into the nitty gritty, I had thought of such flaws...

I already provided evidence. Not only that but evolution is scientific fact; you can ignore it if you won't but don't try and say that you know better because you won't get away with it.

Well yes, that's what it means to me.

I expected this argument. The Ancient Greek word used to describe this relationship between Jesus and David via Joseph is literally "sperma" or "seed". It clearly refers to a very physical, biological connection, and not one by law. So even if these genealogies, once again, were included, they...

Not wrong at all. Virgin Birth: Matthew and Luke include genealogies of David's line to show that Jesus is related to David, as to account for the Old Testament prophecy that the messiah will be of the line of David. Think about it this way, however. If Joseph was, in no way at all, Jesus'...

Well quite frankly almost everything has been discussed before. That makes it neither pointless nor redundant.