responding to common objections to bible

[total relism]

Your refusal to engage with my arguments in a previous thread, or Sugurd's



Variety of translation demonstrates variety of transmission, which invalidates the Bible as a final authority.



I direct you to the Council of Trent, the Council of Carthage (Provincial) and the 39 Articles of the Church of England, wherein you will find differences of opinion on what the "Bible" is.



Except that until about a hundred years ago the longer Mark was the more widely read. Only recently has that determination been made - for most of the last 1500 years most Christians having been working from a corrupt text.



Certain passages are so corrupt that they cannot be recovered from examination of dozens of anciant authorities. The Bible is broken, Thanks be to God.

i will ask again, please provide one specific place you are referring to.



not at all, unless your unwilling to learn or watch debates, and ignore what you dont want to hear, read op/watch debates posted on op.



so if i decide to write a book called the gospel of total relism, than that proves we dont have the original bible?


that may be true,does not refute what i said, we have all the original bible. if you read my op, you would see i said that.



please provide any evidence.

Why would I waste time debating someone who's major argument is that "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". That is what people with pathological delusions say.



Only that I never made the point that this generation was the most gullible.

So, you agree that a generation which is far in advance the most instructed of human history, taught to think for themselves, is the most gullible generation in history and that we believe anything we're told? More than when you had the whole continent worshipping an invisible man, and hundreds of thousands of soldiers willing to execute massacres and die in the name of something they never saw?

Magic belief strong than ever? Haha, you do not that the precise definition of magic is a force that does not exist right? Belief in whatever god was the required norm of Western societies. You think everyone is believing in aliens, or in witchcraft or in horoscopes, all of which have around the same level of proof of existance with your God (Only that supposedly alien ships have been sighted thousands of times throughout the world - far more times than any god - and in the age where you need to see something to believe it in, it obviously gives a greater cause for belief then your "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". The other two come from a placebo effect. Nevertheless, the simple fact that you are making such a statement based on a percentage of folks who believe in magical things to then claim it as a "whole generation that believes in magic" shows you have a pretty distorted view of reality. Which isn't surprising.



It's not a claim. A claim would be "I think I'm the smartest man alive.". The lack of proof in something unprovable is only a logical fact. A bothersome fact that ultimately contributed to the downfall of religion in parts of the world where people are not constrained by the tradition of forcing kids to believe in something.



Yes, I admit it. I have been indoctrinated by my own experience and self-meditation and arriving at my own metaphysical conclusions, without anyone else forcing their own visions, their own dogmas and their own gods down my throat.



The bible in itself has no value besides as an historical and philosophical document. The fact that the bible is mistranslated is just another nail in the coffin.



Never forget your position in relation to me. You're the one that is talking about invisible men here.



Nope, with or without my last post.



Are you seriously repeating the same fallacy as in the previous reply? There is no proof that it exists. Your proof consists of becoming crazy and needing to start imagining stuff, otherwise, I'll never be able to find that one god you're talking about.



Hahaha. A guy who consistently employs fallacies, quotes fallacies, and ultimately believes in an invisible man that only talks to those who believe in him, thinks I'm protecting my world view. :D As to your "we can't remember our own imagination", without even going into the semantics of it, it is wrong on a great many different levels.



Nah, you have your own God, that communicates to you because you believe in him. I have my magical fairies that help me out in my tasks in Valhalla, and I go there on my white diamond unicorn. You can also get a similar set if you accept them.

so i take that as a no, me thinks you know you just make claims and cant back them up, a 1v1 debate would show that clearly and you dont want that. But if my evidence and arguments are only what you say they are, why not debate me you could make us believers look so stupid with the kind of arguments you have assured me i will use.



I disagree 100%, i feel people are indoctrinated to the fullest, they are taught to spit back info they have been fed and not taught to think challenge etc, this has been the agenda of the liberals and atheist for decades and it is know installed. In fact i would love to show how you are a victim if you debate me 1v1. Ask for some info next post i will provide.


as i said people believe in forces that dont exist more than ever,ghost,aliens,horoscopes,mother earth etc etc many beliefs. the rest is great example of your faulty logic and indoctrination.

here is my offer, 1v1 debate on the evidence for god vs evidence for atheism. otherwise i will take as your own self admit ion you just say what you want and are not willing to back up as you cant, and you dont want to face evidence contrary to your own faith, and have your beliefs challenged. Of course you could just wait as it is future thread.



asumtions not backed up easily refuted [look to debate offer above] indoctrinated.



we will see if you debate me, if this is true than you should be able to defend your beliefs and have no internal contradictions.



based on your beliefs that are easily refutable [look to debate offer]


same again.



only if you ignore my last post.



lhmm, i repeated your false logic to show it false, im glad you can see it if another uses your own logic.




i think twice you have missed me using your logic to show it false, yet both times you see it as false when i use it.



ill debate that.

“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” So you are ignorant of the Councils of Latran followed by Trento (the series of).
From a quick research in internet: “According to the book The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, in a local Synod in France in the year 585 one or more bishops expressed the view that the word "homo" (meaning mankind) did not include the female gender, and that a woman is not an authentic person in the sense the male is. It was thought by some that she did not possess the divinely-imaged soul of her male counterpart. The belief goes back to the creation story in the Bible, as you described it (and other references in the Bible which indicate the female is not equal to the male).”
Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. "The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God." He reported. "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."

My usual sources are in French, so inaccessible for you, sorry.

instead of atheist site, could you please provide the Councils of Latran followed by Trento were it says what you say. The simple fact is i dont believe you unless you can provide original catholic source. If there is one, very much doubt it, i will refute biblical anyways.