Religious

[boxcar]

Off your meds today, Trot?

Boxcar

[Jay Trotter]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Off your meds today, Trot?

Boxcar

I only get a one sentence response? That hurts! And God was not referred to once -- what gives Boxguy?

You're off your game.

Trotman

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, are you TJ's spokesman. Has he employed your services? He cannot speak for himself?

I guess Ls was correct. You are a master of spineless ass clownery

And you should be the last one here to call anyone yellow, you spineless coward. Months ago I challenged you to take your three best shots at coming up with three internal contradictions in the bible. And what did you do? You kept coming up with past sins of the Church, e.g. Crusades, etc. So, keep your nose out of whatever TJ wants to do. You had your chance -- in fact many of them, for I was very patient with you. So, as Obama essentially told the Republicans once: Sit down at the back of the bus and shut up.

I did list a number of contradictions other than the varying interpretations of MEN. Only Overly answered a few. You were notably absent. And when you do answer and are questioned you lie about WHAT you did say JUST a few posts prior

But I will say this: No third party is necessary because the Law of Non-Contradiction is itself the third party. It's an air-tight law. It's easy enough to tell if a proposition violates it.

Of course a third party is necessary! Just look at your recent buffoonery in this thread.
You said this:

You just continue to weasel your way out by spinning away from your first thought of cussing, to a different emphasis. Now the main meaning in your new spin is a broader interpretation that in many ways is actually closer to what both TJ and I have mentioned.

TJ said:

I said:

You spin by throwing in "Taking the Lord's name in vain covers a wide spectrum of things"

" but mainly it's misusing his name, abusing his name, using his name in a dishonorable, disrespectful, irreverent manner"

Although the less sophisticated meanings like cussing may be disrespectful and crude, cussing is a lightweight "sin" as compared to raging self pride

Ironically, you do pretty much what your new spin/emphasis states. The key here is why would you misuse the name of God the way you do?. What's the payoff? And this is w hat you will never see. One must examine one's own psychology honestly. Your raging ego has VAINLY, co-opted God. Self pride has seriously affected as TJ says how "one [you] comports and represents oneself, publicly and privately"

Ok, I don't know how you are privately, but publicly you are an egomaniac.

PS it's me hcap

hcap

[boxcar]

First of all, I was "notably absent" in the exchanges between you and Overlay because I ain't Overlay!

Secondly, I specifically challenged you to give me up to three internal contradictions in the bible and you didn't. All you gave me was external stuff pertaining to the church in an attempt to point out the church's hypocrisy. But that wasn't what I asked you for, was it?

Now, regarding the 3rd commandment, my first response about using the Lord's name with which to cuss is the most common way people misuse and blaspheme his holy name. But, yes, there are other ways as well. It's not limited to just swearing by God's name or using his name as a cuss. As I later said using the Lord's name in any dishonoring, disrespectful, profane way would also violate the law. Certainly, even you can see that it would be disrespectful and dishonoring to God to use his name with which to cuss. Here's another way in which Jesus expanded on the meaning of that commandment:

Matt 6:7
7 "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition, as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.
NASB

A great example that comes to mind (among many that I could mention but won't) are Muslims when they chant, Allah is great, Allah is great, Allah is great, Allah is great, etc. These kinds of vain or meaningless repetitions in the Church would also violate the third commandment because it's abusing God's name and trifling with it in a vain way.

And just as an aside, this is one of the big reasons I'm not a big fan of most contemporary Christian music. Now...music isn't prayer. But music is used in worship service. Traditional hymns tend to use substantially less repetitiveness than do contemporary ones. This is not say that repetitiveness in music isn't legitimate, but some contemporary music goes way overboard, in my opinion. Repeating "Jesus Loves You" 15 times, for example, in my mind constitutes meaningless repetition. That kind of repetitiveness is overkill and I don't see how God is honored by that.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

First of all, I was "notably absent" in the exchanges between you and Overlay because I ain't Overlay!

Secondly, I specifically challenged you to give me up to three internal contradictions in the bible and you didn't. All you gave me was external stuff pertaining to the church in an attempt to point out the church's hypocrisy. But that wasn't what I asked you for, was it?

Now, regarding the 3rd commandment, my first response about using the Lord's name with which to cuss is the most common way people misuse and blaspheme his holy name. But, yes, there are other ways as well. It's not limited to just swearing by God's name or using his name as a cuss. As I later said using the Lord's name in any dishonoring, disrespectful, profane way would also violate the law. Certainly, even you can see that it would be disrespectful and dishonoring to God to use his name with which to cuss. Here's another way in which Jesus expanded on the meaning of that commandment:

Matt 6:7
7 "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition, as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.
NASB

A great example that comes to mind (among many that I could mention but won't) are Muslims when they chant, Allah is great, Allah is great, Allah is great, Allah is great, etc. These kinds of vain or meaningless repetitions in the Church would also violate the third commandment because it's abusing God's name and trifling with it in a vain way.

And just as an aside, this is one of the big reasons I'm not a big fan of most contemporary Christian music. Now...music isn't prayer. But music is used in worship service. Traditional hymns tend to use substantially less repetitiveness than do contemporary ones. This is not say that repetitiveness in music isn't legitimate, but some contemporary music goes way overboard, in my opinion. Repeating "Jesus Loves You" 15 times, for example, in my mind constitutes meaningless repetition. That kind of repetitiveness is overkill and I don't see how God is honored by that.

Boxcar

When you ask Hcap for 3 bible contradictions...are you testing his bible knowledge...or are you claiming that these contradictions don't exist?

Because I can give you more than three...and they have nothing to do with "external" stuff, pointing to the hypocrisy of the Church.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When you ask Hcap for 3 bible contradictions...are you testing his bible knowledge...

There's nothing there to test. What 'cap knows about the content of the bible would fit on top of a pinhead with room to spare.

...or are you claiming that these contradictions don't exist? Because I can give you more than three...and they have nothing to do with "external" stuff, pointing to the hypocrisy of the Church.

That's exactly what I am claiming for all propositional truth claims; therefore, minor scribal errors would not fall under that heading, e.g. minor textual discrepancies involving coins, etc.. Give me what you think would be your three best propositional truth claim shots. (I only have so much time.) Just remember: Arguments from silence, for which you seem to have a propensity, would not count. And also remember that your alleged contradictions must pass the Truth Serum Test, i.e. the Law of Non-Contradiction, which states:

A thing cannot be and not be at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense..

This 3-in-1 law is airtight. Go for it. But be prepared to suffer defeat.
The bible certainly has its share of difficulties, but these don't necessarily equate to contradictions.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There's nothing there to test. What 'cap knows about the content of the bible would fit on top of a pinhead with room to spare.



That's exactly what I am claiming for all propositional truth claims; therefore, minor scribal errors would not fall under that heading, e.g. minor textual discrepancies involving coins, etc.. Give me what you think would be your three best propositional truth claim shots. (I only have so much time.) Just remember: Arguments from silence, for which you seem to have a propensity, would not count. And also remember that your alleged contradictions must pass the Truth Serum Test, i.e. the Law of Non-Contradiction, which states:

A thing cannot be and not be at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense..

This 3-in-1 law is airtight. Go for it. But be prepared to suffer defeat.
The bible certainly has its share of difficulties, but these don't necessarily equate to contradictions.

Boxcar

1.) HOW DID JUDAS DIE?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)



2.) CAN GOD BE SEEN BY MAN?

YES: "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend" (EXO 33:11)

"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

NO: "No man hath seen God, at any time" (JOH 1:18)

"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)



3.) HAVE PEOPLE ASCENDED TO HEAVEN?

YES: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven". (2Kl 2:11)

NO: "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven...the Son of Man." (JOH 3:13)

[thaskalos]

HOW DO YOU ANSWER A FOOL?

PRO 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thy also be like unto him."

PRO 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

[boxcar]

Oh...those are real toughies, Thaskalos. I'm going to have to pull a Hcap and consult with the Wizard of Spin and get back to you.

I'll start work on those as time permits.

Boxcar

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

HOW DO YOU ANSWER A FOOL?

PRO 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thy also be like unto him."

PRO 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

This path is not worth it. Evangelicals learn by rote answers to these contradictions. Your first one he will say it is absolutely consistant because the rope broke and then he burst hitting the earth. The explanations they make become more and more convoluted until God becomes the deceiver and Satan a creator and Jesus' message is only for an elect few, themselves of course, and all others no matter what are doomed.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

This path is not worth it. Evangelicals learn by rote answers to these contradictions. Your first one he will say it is absolutely consistant because the rope broke and then he burst hitting the earth. The explanations they make become more and more convoluted until God becomes the deceiver and Satan a creator and Jesus' message is only for an elect few, themselves of course, and all others no matter what are doomed.

I know it's not worth it, Al...but I seem to have a little time on my hands today.

I know that there is no use arguing with overly religious people; they have all the angles covered.

I am reminded of some of the funerals that I have attended in my day...

If the deceased is a young person, then our priest cries out...his eyes welling with tears:

"When we see an early death like this, my good friends, it is only normal and human to ask...WHY? Why was our brother/sister here deprived of a full life...and was stricken down in his/her prime, like this.

We ask why because our vision is myopic...and lacks the clarity and penetration of the vision of God. Why was our friend here stricken in the prime of life?

The answer is obvious: Because our friend here was too good for this world...so God took him/her to a place much more worthy of a person of his/her stature."

Of cource...when the deceased is an "old" man...the sermon is decidedly different:

"He was a good man, my friends; a GREAT man, in fact...

And God blessed him with a long and fruitful life...

We should all be fortunate enough to have a life like his..."


A story for every customer...

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

A story for every customer...

Nothing wrong with that.

Rather than contradictions though, you should ask him on outright falacies. The census thingee that leads to Jesus' birth in Bethlehem is a historical falsehood. I understand why the story is there and what it means, as should you having read the works of the ancient Greeks, but he sure doesn't.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Nothing wrong with that.

Rather than contradictions though, you should ask him on outright falacies. The census thingee that leads to Jesus' birth in Bethlehem is a historical falsehood. I understand why the story is there and what it means, as should you having read the works of the ancient Greeks, but he sure doesn't.

You don't think I have tried?

To Boxcar...the religious documents of that era carry more weight than the historical ones.

I also told him that King Herod was not alive during the time of Jesus...but do you think that this made an impression on him?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

This path is not worth it. Evangelicals learn by rote answers to these contradictions. Your first one he will say it is absolutely consistant because the rope broke and then he burst hitting the earth. The explanations they make become more and more convoluted until God becomes the deceiver and Satan a creator and Jesus' message is only for an elect few, themselves of course, and all others no matter what are doomed.

The problem is not with Evangelicals but with Skeptics who eagerly want to see a Boogeyman in just about every passage of scripture, so that they will have an excuse to not believe God. And all too often, Skeptics make it all too easy for Christians to refute alleged contradictions. Take the Judas account: Coming right out of the chute we have two different writers recording an historical event from two different perspectives, so already the Skeptic is on shaky ground. All too often Skeptics fall into the trap of equating Differences with Contradictions.

Boxcar

[Jay Trotter]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...those are real toughies, Thaskalos. I'm going to have to pull a Hcap and consult with the Wizard of Spin and get back to you.

I'll start work on those as time permits.

Boxcar

Way to go Gus! You stumped the "sorcerer of sapience"! One would think a person of his infinate knowledge would have had the answers at his finger tips, but noooooooooooo.......he's got to go do some research.