Question about the flood

[Wakalix]

By 'my standards' [sic] then, is Christianity an example of diabolical plagiarism?

Certainly, except that you have defined it as not.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do not appear to know when to use [sic], where was my misspelling?

You called it 'my standards,' while they clearly aren't.

My standards include: The Bible says it, that settles it.

And though there is obvious plagiarism in the Bible, but I would not call it "diabolical".

Then your point can take a hike.

They clearly aren't 'my standards' [sic].

My standards basically say:

Christianity is it ... anything else is just fiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stop evading. You are being inconsistent when you claim that property X of Christianity proves its truth, while the same property X, when considered as part of a different religion, proves its untruth.

Like I said, if I don't start seeing a light bulb come on, I'm going to READ ONLY mode.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You called it 'my standards,' while they clearly aren't.

Clearly they were.

My standards include: The Bible says it, that settles it.

That is simply a claim that you always state but is contradicted by your posts.

Then your point can take a hike.

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong.

They clearly aren't 'my standards' [sic].

My standards basically say:

Christianity is it ... anything else is just fiction.

Oh, going back on what you stated earlier in the same post, what a pity.

Just as a person's actions speak louder than his words, here your responses to others speak louder than the claims you make about your standards.

Logic, it is a tool that you should learn how to use.

 

[AV1611VET]

Certainly, except that you have defined it as not.

Incidentally, did you know that Cat "Peace Train" Stevens spoke out in favor of the Ayatollah's fatwa on Salman Rushdie's life for writing Satanic Verses?

 

[Wakalix]

You called it 'my standards,' while they clearly aren't.

My standards include: The Bible says it, that settles it.

So what part of the Bible says that Islam is a religion of war? Which part of the Bible says that logic is a weapon and shield and not a tool to improve understanding? What about Biblical contradictions? What if the Bible told you to kill everyone - would you do that?

Why do you think that the Bible is necessarily true, anyway? Does the Bible even say that it itself is entirely factually correct?

Then your point can take a hike.

"I assert something strongly, ergo you are wrong."

They clearly aren't 'my standards' [sic].

My standards basically say:

Christianity is it ... anything else is just fiction.

That's not all of your standards, and what's more, standards don't prove anything.

 

[Wakalix]

Incidentally, did you know that Cat "Peace Train" Stevens spoke out in favor of the Ayatollah's fatwa on Salman Rushdie's life for writing Satanic Verses?

What do the actions of an institution or of individuals have to do with the existence of a particular God, anyway?

 

[Wakalix]

Like I said, if I don't start seeing a light bulb come on, I'm going to READ ONLY mode.

How rude. But if you don't feel like explaining yourself, I'd rather hear silence than smugness.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Incidentally, did you know that Cat "Peace Train" Stevens spoke out in favor of the Ayatollah's fatwa on Salman Rushdie's life for writing Satanic Verses?

No he didn't. He was a new Muslim and was asked "what is the punishment for blasphemy in the Qur'an?" He said "without repentance it is death". Which is true. As it is true in the Torah and the Bible. He never did nor has advocated violence. He was just new to a religion and wasn't as trained in the good PR spin or what is called apologetics as older or born into it religious people.

Read more here:Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie - Wikipedia

 

[AV1611VET]

No he didn't.

Right.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[Kylie]

If you don't like the way I post, it's nothing more than a mental diversion from the FACT that you cannot challenge me scientifically, historically or Scripturally. Your false assumption that I think Science is wrong is ridiculous since I support what I post with Scientific facts, which you have failed to refute. Perhaps you could go to the Evol Bible found in Talk Origins and find help. I've also refuted their foolishness, but they are too ignorant to understand. Amen?

I can challenge you, I just can't actually see what parts of your posts are actually YOURS.

Fix that and then we'll talk more.

I mean, seriously, no one else here has trouble with it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Okay, but how do you know that Kabbalah is a truth-preserving process (one that always outputs truth when truth is inputted)?

I don't know because the Kabbalah is an oral tradition, so you have to verify the validity of the teacher. In this case we are talking about Gerald Schroeder. After he got his Phd. from MIT then he began his study of Kabbalah. Schroeder and I agree that IF you want to study and understand what makes us human and what links us to the Universe then you are going to need MORE then just science. After he studied science then he studied people like Onkelos (150 ce), Rashi, Maimomides & Nahmanides (1194-1270). They have survived the test of time and they are not biased by modern science discoveries. They believe that a full understanding of the origins of the universe was contained in the Bible as received by Moses. We need only know how to interpret the Bible as we trust in the precision of the numerical value of the letters. This is where Schroeder discovered harmony between modern science and the Bible in his book: "Genesis and the Big Bang".

 

[joshua 1 9]

Right.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

I ran my son's DNA. Turns out my wife has a lot of Mongolian DNA in her also.

 

[Wakalix]

I don't know because the Kabbalah is an oral tradition, so you have to verify the validity of the teacher. In this case we are talking about Gerald Schroeder. After he got his Phd. from MIT then he began his study of Kabbalah.

The argument from authority is a fallacy. If I find a MIT graduate who says that Kabbalah is nonsense, have I refuted you?

Schroeder and I agree that IF you want to study and understand what makes us human and what links us to the Universe then you are going to need MORE then just science.

But what makes you think that? And what do you have that's more effective than science at finding truth?

After he studied science then he studied people like Onkelos (150 ce), Rashi, Maimomides & Nahmanides (1194-1270). They have survived the test of time and they are not biased by modern science discoveries.

You mean they didn't have access to as much information as we did - of course they said things that contradict modern science! This doesn't mean that modern science is biased.

They believe that a full understanding of the origins of the universe was contained in the Bible as received by Moses.

Why do they believe that? Why should I care, if nobody cares to explain why?

We need only know how to interpret the Bible as we trust in the precision of the numerical value of the letters. This is where Schroeder discovered harmony between modern science and the Bible in his book: "Genesis and the Big Bang".

Why do you trust that the letters are "numerically precise"? What makes you think that this is the case?

 

[joshua 1 9]

The argument from authority is a fallacy.

Swing and a miss, nice try though. The question was who has authority and who is dependable. My brother makes $500 and hour in a court of law because he is an authority. I would not consider $500 an hour a fallacy.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But what makes you think that?

Does not matter what I think, I am telling you what is in the book and what he teaches. Sort of a quick review for people that do not want to take the time or trouble to read or study it themselves.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why do you trust that the letters are "numerically precise"?

Yes I do.

What makes you think that this is the case?

I think this way because that is what the teaching of Kabbalah is all about. How old are you because people are not suppose to study Kabbalah until they are at least 30 or 40 years old.

"In Hebrew, each letter corresponds to a number. As a result, any word or name can become a series of numbers. Numbers can be taken one at a time or added together. There is significance when words include or add up to the same numbers; the meaning of the words that share numbers are thought to be deeply related or even identical."

The Ties between Letters, Words, and Numbers | II. Before there Was Time. 10. When Letters and Words Add Up | A Guide to the Hidden Wisdom of Kabbalah | Books | Michael Laitman | Kabbalah Library - Bnei Baruch Kabbalah Education & Research Institute

 

[Wakalix]

Yes I do.

I know that you do. I want to know why you do. Like I have already said, saying "I believe" is not an explanation for why you believe.

I think this way because that is what the teaching of Kabbalah is all about.

And why must something be true simply because it is what the teaching of Kabbalah is all about?

How old are you because people are not suppose to study Kabbalah until they are at least 30 or 40 years old.

Argument ad hominem - highly illogical.

"In Hebrew, each letter corresponds to a number. As a result, any word or name can become a series of numbers. Numbers can be taken one at a time or added together. There is significance when words include or add up to the same numbers; the meaning of the words that share numbers are thought to be deeply related or even identical."

The Ties between Letters, Words, and Numbers | II. Before there Was Time. 10. When Letters and Words Add Up | A Guide to the Hidden Wisdom of Kabbalah | Books | Michael Laitman | Kabbalah Library - Bnei Baruch Kabbalah Education & Research Institute

But why do you think that this works? I know that people think it works. But why and how?

 

[Wakalix]

Swing and a miss, nice try though. The question was who has authority and who is dependable. My brother makes $500 and hour in a court of law because he is an authority. I would not consider $500 an hour a fallacy.

It is a fallacy to say that your brother must be correct in all he says because he is a legal authority. And science/logic and law are very different in terms of what they consider to be evidence.

You still need to provide evidence for the claim that "if somebody has graduated from MIT then what they say must be correct," which underlies the flawed argument from authority you made.

 

[Wakalix]

Does not matter what I think, I am telling you what is in the book and what he teaches. Sort of a quick review for people that do not want to take the time or trouble to read or study it themselves.

Why does anybody think that? You can just spew opinions all day long, but nobody cares unless you can support them with reasoning or evidence.