1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
Why, you don't know these things, or you don't believe what anyone with any knowledge of history already knows?
You consider your authoritative statements above to be factual, Dex, while I regard them as grandiose and untenable opinion.
Which is kinda funny coming from a person who places absolute belief in a magical sky daddy without a scintilla of evidence.
I am always amazed that the Great Wish Granter is presented to us as a doting father and not as Mummy Dearest.
That merely confirms your general ignorance of history, science, medicine, and the way the world really is.
and you expect respect? Acceptance?
Civilization.ca - History of Canadian Medicare - 1914-1929 - Maternal and Infant Mortality
This took me all of 5 secs. You can google the rest yourself and get a fu cking education. There is no excuse for ignorance in this day and age.
My request for data supporting your assertions above has been met by ad hominem responses, Dex:
"...so you're just playing rhetorical games."
"If you look carefully..."
"Oh BS. That's a standard tactic of yours, I've seen you do it a dozen times. When you're challenged you..."
"...any reasonably intelligent and educated person..."
"You got my second assertion wrong..."
"That merely confirms your general ignorance of history, science, medicine, and the way the world really is."
My worldview does not pit biology against theology or reason against faith. Rather they are integrated and complimentary human pursuits and capacities:
"According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes, (a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000) reveals that 65.4% of Nobel Prizes Laureates have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
Last edited:
I was just looking for a thread already started (God knows we sure as hell don't need anymore) to comment on Bible Thumpers. Yesterday while taking my walk and minding my own business a guy named Darrel rides up on a bicycle and says "hello my name is Darrel and I'm from the Baptist Church and do you know where you are going after you die?" I said "no I don't and neither does anyone else". I managed to cut it pretty short after being asked if I ever told a lie or stolen anything. This guy didn't know me from a bale of hay. If there are any other Bible Thumpers paying attention perhaps someone might enlighten me as to why Darrel would want to know and why he wouldn't pick on someone a little more naive looking. I did manage to inform him that all lies and all theft aren't created equal. Are these guys perhaps in need of a shrink?
So, if I believe in the basic principles and tenets of science and have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I fall within your parameters of integrated and complimentary humans pursuits. Good to know. I was beginning to think I was delusional.
To my total lack of surprise, I see you don't understand what ad hominem means either. The data you've asked for should be part of the basic information in the head of any reasonably intelligent and educated layperson. If you don't know it, I'm not going to do your research for you. I don't agree about much with gerryh, but he correctly pointed out that there's no excuse for not knowing such things, and if you don't know them, you're ignorant. That's all ignorant means, not knowing. That's not ad hominem, that's just a fact.
So what? The number of people who believe something to be true has nothing to do with whether it's actually true, that's just another version of the argument from authority fallacy. Apart from that, without knowing what question they were asked that produced that statistic, with no information about the historical distribution of the responses, no information about the subject matter distribution--physics, chemistry, economics, peace, whatever--and considering that "religious preference" doesn't necessarily mean they believe it, that information is meaningless. You're grasping at straws.
Last edited:
I believe sunshine is nice and warm. Others, in great numbers, agree. Still I resist jumping to unsupported conclusions and patiently await scientific validation.
Yes I know what NASA stands for, my point is the billions and billions spent on exploring and thinking about space (thinking is the majority) could have solved the woes of the poor and the hungry around the world. I don't see that happenening but rather science (and scientists) are being used to enhance the lives of the elite and their choice workers. That's a few morals short in my book and if you lived in a poorer part of the world it would be yours also. Creating conditions for revolt means ways to prevent that over-throw and science is certainly used for that.
There you go accusing me of being in error when it is you that has the wrong 'impression'. Science is a tool so anybody involved in that 'profession' is also part of that tool and you are promoting them as being free and independent thinkers and doers. If that was true the phage medicine techniques would be openly endorsed rather than being suppressed as much as it can. It still holds true and 'big pharma' tries to fond wasy to introduce something they say cost billions to develop when it cost as much as it does to watch a series of petre dishes for areas that are clear of any growth. That makes the cost be in pennies per bacterial agent that has a safe and effective counter-measure. Unfortunately that means the 'cure' comes after the 'cause' exists so finding a prevention is like trying to predict evolution and head it off. It ain't going to happen part of the time let alone all of the time. Silver in band-aids is 'new' yet in the 'old days' every household made it's own collidial silver for just such events along with many other useful ways it could be used that benefited man. Going back means all the 'science' that took it away in the first place was 'bad science' and that is the kind that is still 'running the show'.
Notice how you avoided addressing the more important part of my post and singled out something to debate that wasn't even part of the original post by me. You use a version of that a lot of the time.
What is true in your mind is that you already have all the 'important information' there is to be had and anything else is of little importance and that is what the rest of the world is running on. Throw that condition in when Christianity is the topic (rather than science) and you don't change gears at all, you still have the attitude that you know all there is to know about it and anything else (or in conflict) is just something that cannot happen in your mind. When it does you resort to saying I don't have a clue about anything, let alone what the Bible is promoting in 'your opinion' which is why the discussions in the 'science realm' never go past the depth you went to in your post, zero.
If your condemnation about what I believed under the heading of 'God' means nothing to me how much do you think I feel when your query is about what NASA is in long-hand.
Insert one little dark cloud into that belief and the whole picture changes to sunshine allows you to observe the world around you (and the way it works)
Let's not jump to conclusions. While I am flushed with initial faith in my preliminary investigation into the niceness of sunshine I won't allow my unsupported suppositions to cloud my scientific approach.
With you it should be a matter of recall so how much more effort does that involve compared to 'having the time' to throw out a little dig and be able to call somebody stupid or ignorant. I don't see there being much difference so the rude comment is just part of a personality where the ego is about as fragile as it gets.
Sure there is, not coming across your version does not mean there is not a version that is different or superior to yours or gerry's, the only thing is neither of you seem capable of seeing that possibility let alone incorporate it into your current view as the ego makes it into a house of cards and if one part is wrong then the wold thing could be wrong. While being wrong in every area would be a superhuman feat just using the 'chance component' that you and gerry continuously run into people who 'know less than you two' it might be that is your preferred social methodology, seek out others that you see as being beneath you in order that you ego remains inflated because there should be no ego in either of you about the Bible based on the few actual words either of you pump out in those threads. (it certainly applies to other threads also)
That's true, 50M Evangelicans believe in a pre-trib rapture, doubling that number would not move it closer to being a reality. 2 people saying there is no rapture would not make their statement untrue, luckily that will be solved down the road and if there is a road doesn't have to be part of that short discussion although it could be but there would be many more pages to read before the topic was fully covered.
The Bible is a closed book so each question has an answer that can be found someplace in the same book. Science is a 'book in progress and if the world being round was only 'discovered' 500 years ago and the history of man is much older then science isn't very speedy is it? If it was wrong for 10X that 500 years whey should I believe it's record is now spotless as far as getting things wrong that are published as the truth and persecution will fall on all who do not believe. No information in meaningless, so just has more meaning.
Weird, ain't it? If there's an upside to this place, it's the fact that, over time, you can see good in folks you mostly disagree with. Finding common ground and all that. Maybe Congress and Parliament should take note.
I'll assume you are referencing the 600+ laws that the 12 Tribes were given in addition to the 10 Commandments. There were the laws that Jesus was to follow to show that sin was not part of being alive as a person. The cross was the final part of when those laws had meaning in that punishment followed the sin. Sacrifice for sin was forever changed and any blood sacrifice would be seen as an abomination by God.
Isa:66:3:
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man;
he that sacrificeth a lamb,
as if he cut off a dog's neck;
he that offereth an oblation,
as if he offered swine's blood;
he that burneth incense,
as if he blessed an idol.
Yea,
they have chosen their own ways,
and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
De:4:30 has a prophecy concerning a scattering and that took place in 70AD and rather than it being an exile like it was into Babylon this was a scattering that had a purpose, the Gospel was to be taken to the Gentiles by going out into the Nations with it rather than the Nations coming to Jerusalem to hear about God. The vision 3 1/2 years after the cross in Acts:10 gave Peter the permission to eat food that was previously unclean to the 12 Tribes. Gentile food is still not considered to be clean according to some Jews even today.
By changing the Law from the one that covered mankind until the last giant died God made it possible that the 2 bruises from Ge:3:15 could be fulfilled in a way that didn't prevent the new earth from being just the way it was originally intended to be. That final destination will even see the 10 Commandments 'retired' as the law given in Re:21 will come into force and that is the law that will govern all people in the new earth, for eternity. The dietary laws will change again as killing anything Adam was given dominion over would be considered to me murder so eating meat will never happen, animals and birds will be around because they make good companions and we feed them by creating new pastures. (Isaiah:65)
Ac:10:15:
And the voice spake unto him again the second time,
What God hath cleansed,
that call not thou common.
The punishment for breaking the 600+ laws was taken away by whom, Rabbis or Gentile Governments?