Is the Bible correct?

[Wiccan_Child]

I do not play those games, WC

A pity. Recreation might help loosen that stick in your butt.

When asked for proof, all you can muster is haughty arrogance, then try to flip the discussion, falsely claiming that the obligation is on me. Besides, even if I were able to "prove something to your satisfaction" your choice would still be unbelief, for it would then make you accountable to God.

I've heard argument before: the atheist disbelieves because he doesn't want to be held accountable for his actions. Appeals to ridicule are hardly at the forefront of debating tactics, JohnT.

I gave you a good definition of a cult: a group not adhering to the Nicene Creed. You deemed it insufficient.

No. I deemed your dismissal of cults to be thinly-veild attempt to define yourself into being right.

You bring up the differences between the Calvinists and Arminians. Guess what? BOTH agree with the Nicene and Apostles Creed.

Nevertheless, my point stands.

As far as the non trinitarians are concerned, they are by definition a cult because they do not hold to the Nicene Creed. Thus your distinction is absurd.

Perhaps you should read up on just what we were discussing. In fact, I'll just tell you: savedandhappy1 made the assertion that modern Christianity more accurately reflects the teachings of 'original' Christianity, and I was attempting to explain that this is not so. To that end, I made the point that there are a huge variety of denominations and traditions within Christianity, not all of which can be true (hence why I mentioned Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians, Calvanists and 'Free Will'-ers). This is not resolved even by arbitrarily excluding the non-Nicene Christians.

Absurdly, you make a gross generalization about the nature of the transmission and translation of the Bible, not knowing any details of it.

Argument ad lapidem. Justify your dismissal.

Absurdly you claim evolution is proved in technology.

I made no such claim. Quote me, or retract.

Absurdly, you posit an inaccurate definition of scientific. Try these on for size:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

Audio Help /ˌsaɪ

ənˈtɪf

ɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uh

n-tif-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.of or pertaining to science or the sciences: scientific studies. 2.occupied or concerned with science: scientific experts. 3.regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science: scientific procedures. 4.systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science.

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This scientific
adjective1. of or relating to the practice of science; "scientific journals" 2. conforming with the principles or methods used in science; "a scientific approach" [ant: unscientific]
​

Or perhaps you do not BELIEVE in these dictionaries, also?

I said that science is the acquisition of probabalistic knowledge. You only gave definitions if scientific, not science. Indeed, all your definitions are variations of the phrase "of or pertaining to science", which begs the question entirely.

Your hyperlink more describes genetic drift rather than a newly developed plant, and talks of hybridization. The work cited is 103 years old, hardly modern.

Forgive me, I meant to call it "observed instances of speciation". Evolution itself is a known fact.
In any case, I have the feeling you just looked at the first heading alone. If you simply scrolled down, you would see the speciations of a variety of animals (flies, beetles, worms, bacteria, etc).

I also think you misunderstand what speciation means. It is simply the evolution of a novel species from a pre-existing one. A population of fruit flies speciating into two non-interbreedable populations is the textbook example of speciation.

I'm also curious as to where you got the idea that the work is 103 years old. The article I cited is a meta-analysis of work ranging from 1905 to 1995. The oldest cited paper is from 1905, which would make it 103 years old, but the youngest is only 13 years.

Tell me: does supercentenarian work automatically become obselete in your eyes?

Finally, your last statement is the most absurd possible.

If you think that's the most absurd statement possible, you clearly have never been high.

You see, the existence of Jesus has NEVER been doubted; there are too many eye witness accounts.

According to whom?

As to his resurrection, a distinguished professor of Law at Harvard, who wrote the still-used Rules of Evidence for US Federal courts investigated the credibility of the evidence for Jesus resurrection. He found that the evidence presented exceeded the evidence required for a statement of fact. He is Simon Greenleaf, and you can buy his book on Amazon for under $5.00

I and many others are aware of Greenleaf's work. Nevertheless, there is considerable doubt as to whether Jesus resurrected. I'm rather partial to Richard Carrier's Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story.

Now, unless you are well educated in the US Rules of Evidence in Federal courts, you can whine or howl all you want, but your absurd position remains just that: absurd.

Simply because you accept Greenleaf's work at face value? He did exist almost two centuries ago: isn't that too old for you?

As to the games, mentioned pearler (sic), I do not play them, You have not provided a scintilla of evidence, except to keyboard statements having no basis in reality, and expect me to dignify them with a response to "prove" them, when your stated position is that you do not believe that Jesus existed. That, WC is an absurdity into which I will not delve.

Then write it off as off-topic. Citing an antiquated theologian as if it were the God-given truth is hardly abstaining from the topic.

Know this, WC, and I say it not as a threat, but as truth, and as compassionately as possible, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hand of an angry God. Your prideful arrogance not withstanding there wil be a time when every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Did you read that? EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW that includes you. The question is if your knee bowing to Jesus will be forced, or voluntary. The choice is yours. Jesus wants to be your Saviour; he died so that you could have eternal life with him, but again the choice is yours.

Also you have read the Gospel, so there is no excuse for you at judgment day.

Holy Spirit, work on the heart of WC, and help him to see the need he has for salvation through Jesus Christ, amen.

Oh noes, a prayer! I'm melting! Melting! Oh, what a world!

...

Jokes. In my three/four years here (I've lost count), I have had about one Christian a week saying they're going to pray for me, or threaten me with an afterlife I don't believe in, or

Oh, and 'probabalistic' was not misspelled. There's no need to amend it with 'sic'.
And it's 'Wicca', not "wiccanism (sic)".


Finally, I trust it hasn't escaped the notice of the lurkers and other watchers of our little tête-â-tête (of sorts), that his latest post was one long appeal to ridicule and argumentum ad lapidem. Make of that what you will.

 

[JohnT]

This is too far afield of the OP designed to discuss the original OP

WC has resorted to Latin phrases like ad lapidem to intimidate me. OOOH! I am in awe! absurdly state that it is I who have failed to prove that his absurdity of comparing evolution with technology refinement is indeed absurd.

He misuses a word, and I catch him, yet he calls my analysis ad lapidem.

He says "prove to me" but admits that a priori, he will not believe, no matter what.

He fails to take into account the HISTORICAL account that Jesus did indeed exist but bases the whole question of his existence on his own, egocentric belief: "I do not believe it, so Jesus never existed"

Finally, he scoffs at the prayer.

But what has this to do with the OP and the topic of this forum? NADA

It is impossible to deal rationally with specious, sophomoric rhetoric. In trying to deal with objective, provable things WC has as his final authority his own mind. I grant you it is a good mind, but not as great as mine.

Unfortunately, he has amply demon strated that his is a closed mind; a priori he has closed himself from the concept of a just, holy and loving God. Too bad, really.

Therefore, he is essentially ignoring the 600 pound gorilla on the couch as he dismisses out of hand the existence of God, and the historic FACT of Jesus. Continuance with such obdurate stubbornness is a waste of time and resources.

You do not win this debate WC. You fail, because you fail to refute my facts, except to say "I do not believe" --an appeal to one's self as authority. And you fail because you do not make any evidences to demonstrate my position is incorrect.

Based on that, I give you a C-

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is too far afield of the OP designed to discuss the original OP

How predictable: I refute your counter-arguments, and you just wave your hands and say "I don't want to talk about it anymore". I wonder what the Latin is for that...

WC has resorted to Latin phrases like ad lapidem to intimidate me.

I use it because it succicently describes the fallacy of your argument. Why shouldn't I use it?

OOOH! I am in awe!

It's just Latin. Get over it.

absurdly state that it is I who have failed to prove that his absurdity of comparing evolution with technology refinement is indeed absurd.

Again, quote me on this, or retract your accusation. If you do not comply, I will report the post. There are rules against such things, JohnT.

He misuses a word, and I catch him, yet he calls my analysis ad lapidem.

Naturally: you rejected my argument without giving a reason. This is an argumentum ad lapidem.

He says "prove to me" but admits that a priori, he will not believe, no matter what.

No, I did not. Quote me, or retract your accusation. Again, I will report you for lying.

He fails to take into account the HISTORICAL account that Jesus did indeed exist but bases the whole question of his existence on his own, egocentric belief: "I do not believe it, so Jesus never existed"

For the third time, I will report you for inaccurate quotations. Quote me, or I'll report you.

Finally, he scoffs at the prayer.

Naturally: the best way to deal with threats is to subject them to ridicule.

But what has this to do with the OP and the topic of this forum? NADA

Need you be reminded that it was you who hijacked a conversation I was having with someone else?

It is impossible to deal rationally with specious, sophomoric rhetoric.

Don't be ridiculous. If it was specious, then you would only need to highlight the fallacies .

In trying to deal with objective, provable things WC has as his final authority his own mind. I grant you it is a good mind, but not as great as mine.

Please, show us where I have ever appealed to my own authority. I think I would remember saying "I believe X. Therefore, X".

Unfortunately, he has amply demon strated that his is a closed mind; a priori he has closed himself from the concept of a just, holy and loving God. Too bad, really.

Once again, show us where I made such an assumption/claim, or retract this accusation.

The is the fourth time in a single post. Good gods.

Therefore, he is essentially ignoring the 600 pound gorilla on the couch as he dismisses out of hand the existence of God, and the historic FACT of Jesus.

You have provided no evidence for the existence of your god, nor for Jesus' existence. At best, you have appealed to a rather flimsy authority (Greenlead indeed). Why, then, do you lambast me for not believing?

Continuance with such obdurate stubbornness is a waste of time and resources.

Then cease this tirade of lies and misinformation. I am having a rather more interesting time with Phinehas2 and Jet_A_Jockey, so it's no skin off my nose.

You do not win this debate WC.

Of course not. Debates aren't about winning, they're about learning.

You fail, because you fail to refute my facts, except to say "I do not believe" --an appeal to one's self as authority.

...
Seriously? Gods, I don't know which part of that to correct first .

And you fail because you do not make any evidences to demonstrate my position is incorrect.

You position is that Jesus existed and resurrected, and that God exists. The burden of proof is, I think, is on you.


So that's four (or five) deliberate misquotations, a load of fallacious debate tactics, and a complete misunderstanding of just what is going on. I also love how every sentence was in need of correcting.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Moral legalism? Is that your idea?

Not mine. I was using it as shorthand for Jet_A_Jockey's notion that Christians are only required to love God's love for laws, not the laws themselves, nor are they required to obey them.

But that’s just it they are defined and has been demonstrated. Questions are only begged when one doesn’t accept what has been defined.

I disagree. Where have 'sexual immorality' and/or 'strange flesh' been defined in the Bible?

Sorry can you clarify, I know what the disciple of science is, but your alias is Wiccan_child not Scientific_Child I was interested in what Wicca recognises as truth.

Aha, good point. I'm not sure where the name 'Wiccan_Child' came from, but I chose the 'Wiccan' bit because I figured it would differentiate me from the atheists of this board (with whom I share many beliefs, and am often mistakenly grouped with).
Nevertheless, I am a scientist first, and a Wiccan second. I get truth by the scientific method first, and Wicca second. If something in Wicca contradicts reality, then I would rather reject that tenant of Wicca than reject reality.

But you asked what Wicca recognises as truth. I'm not sure I entirely understand the question; Wicca is a religion, not a methodology. Could you rephrase?

Ok well we believe Jesus is alive, He is the truth and the way and the life, and we believe His Biblical testimony. You are on a Christian forum.

Nevertheless, Jesus' existence is irrelevant to Wiccan theology, so there is no mention of it. It's the same reason why Islam makes no mention of Mithras (that I am aware of).

It can. How would two people of the same sex be suitable to raise children that only two people of the opposite sex can conceive and produce?

The suitability of a two-person parental unit to raise a child is not dependant on the gender pairing. That is, there is no evidence to suggest that same-sex parents are less suitable than opposite-sex parents.

Moreover, it should be pointed out that same-sex parents are natural: as demonstrated in the wild, male-male and female-female couples aid their society by adopting orphans and other organisms that would otherwise die (dogs adopt orphan kittens, gay penguins adopt discarded eggs, etc). Indeed, this is just one of the reasons that homosexuality is so widespread in social species.

It harms children when they do not have what is natural. Furthermore whatever sex a child is, it will have a female mother and a male father, except with a same-sex couple it doesn’t. Not good.

Why? We are talking about what harms a child, so what harm does same-sex parenting do? Do you also protest against single parents?

But let me ask you, you refer to ‘gay marriage’ but what does Wicca understand as marriage? Can anything be married? Can anything be married sexually?

The general consensus is that marriage is a public declaration of love and commitment. No more, no less. Typically, the government of a society bestows benefits and things to newly-weds. Since there is nothing in Wiccan theology to the contrary, gay marriage is 'permitted' by Wicca. Arguably, the only restriction is on those relationships that cause harm.

You see God created male and female, man and woman to be married (Gen 2 Matt 19 etc)

According to Christian theology, yes.

Moral is your addition not mine, for moral the Christian benchmark is God according to His Biblical testimony, What I am doing asking you what the Wican benchmark is.

I think I said this elsewhere: Wiccan morality is summed up as "An it harm none, do what ye will". If it doesn't hurt anyone, it's not immoral.

My personal moral code is: something is immoral if it infringes upon free will.

No that’s always been my position, God created man for woman its evident. The penis is designed for the vagina, one male and the other female. A good question for scientists is how come any other orafice such as the anus hasn’t similarly evolved for homosexuals.

Because evolution works by adapting pre-existing structures, and this is exactly what has happened: the anus and rectum of both males and females have evolved to accomodate penetration. This would not have occured it there were not some selective pressure.

But science recognises the biological nature of male and female and human reproduction that is why it classifies humans male or female and not heterosexual or homosexual.

It recognises that the human species exhibits sexual dimorphism, yes. But it also recognises the plethora of sexualities exhibited by said species: we have homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, fetishists, paedophilies, bestophiles, scatophiles, voraphiles, and many, many others.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

In what way is harm being done to the animal in your view?

It is possible the animal suffers mental trauma: it is unclear whether they have given consent, and it may suffer if it is raped. Again, this is unclear when it comes to non-human animals. Experiments to that effect would be most unethical.

We have experts to translate the Bible, and they have all come up with translations that give same-sex as error in the relevant passages.

If this were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The whole point is that there is disagreement as to whether the 'traditional' translations are accurate.

So some are evidently not experts.

You are defining yourself to be right: "Those scholars who disagree with me are obviously not experts".

If you have an issue with the translations please state what the issues are. But I have to ask if you don’t believe the Bible why would you be bothered about what it says, and is it just the passages that condemn and exclude same-sex sex that you don’t agree the translation for?

They are the only ones I have looked into in detail. I daresay I would find other peculiarities and debates elsewhere in the Bible.

I may not believe what the Bible says, but other people do. The legal recognition of gay marriage would have no effect on those who do not wish to marry someone of the same sex, but those who oppose such recognition do have an effect of such people. Straight people don't have to get gay marriages if they don't want to.

Sorry but a paedophile and a child or a man and a prostitute would have no affect on anyone else other than themselves yet they are not legal.

You are correct. However, paedophilia is illegal because of the harm it does to the child. I'm not entirely sure why prostitution is illegal, but it may have something to do with the prevention of STDs and harmful environments (though these are likely a product of prostitution's illegality itself).

Furthermore not all people who disagree with same-sex unions are Christians.

And not all people who agree with same-sex unions are non-Christians. No matter how you group people, there will be both pro-gay-marriage-ers and anti-gay-marriage-ers.

You certainly have a real issue and dislike of Christianity.

Not at all. It's just that, as you say, this is a Christian forum.

In a democracy laws are just as free to be based on Christian views of what is God’s purpose than Wiccan views of what harms.

I disagree. The whole point of seperation of Church and State is to ensure that the goverment is not unfairly favourable to any one religion. But that is another topic entirely.

Absolutely right same-sex marriage harms people and marriage is man and woman not same-sex or man and animal or any other dysfunctional combination.

The whole point of this international issue is to decide whether marriage is just between a man and a woman, or whether it can be extended to be between two men and two women. Ultimately, the UK does not derive its legislation from any religion, but rather from the people: this is, after all, a democracy. The majority of people backed gay marriage, and thus it was legalised (albiet in the form of civil unions).

they are free to express their love, its Same-sex unions we are referring to not same-love unions.

I'm not sure I understand the difference. The 'sex' in 'same-sex union' refers to gender (i.e., male-male, male-female, female-female), not sexual intercourse.

 

[BreadAlone]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mod Hat On​

​

Mod Hat Post:​

Thread Closed at the request of the OP.​

Mod Hat Off
-----------------------------------------------------------------------​