Was Christopher Columbus obsessed with the Bible

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
If you believe in a God and a afterlife your going to be more willing to do very dangerous things.

Originally Posted by DOC
What do you think would have happened if the pope started to spout off about the Nazis while being surrounded.

Hmmm, I see your point. That might have been dangerous.

Even Christ walked away from life threatening situations because it wasn't his time yet. The pope lived to be praised by several Jewish leaders for his actions during WWII. And while Hitlers teeth (I believe) are in a vault in Russia the Vatican survived the war.

 

[DOC]

Has anyone else noticed that the things that DOC posts about never matter?

If that's the case then those people responsible for the 23,000 hits in the Jefferson thread really wasted their time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74960

 

[DOC]

Anyone? Would you care to try for "everyone"?

You've brought up the question that's asked in nearly every thread DOC starts, the question he never answers:

So what?

If Christopher Columbus was "obsessed with the Bible" -- so what?
If 94% of America's "founding era documents" (whatever that may mean) do mention the Bible -- so what?
If Elvis did sing Gospel music -- so what?
If America's schools did have "Christian roots" -- so what?
If Thomas Jefferson did support Christianity -- so what?

DOC -- SO WHAT?

(He'll never answer, of course.)

As I've said several times I'm just putting the info out there, what you do with it is your business.

And your statement that I've never answered a so what question is false. Ask joobz.

And I hope your not trying to trivialize a 23,000 hit thread like the Jefferson thread, because it you are, its a lost cause.

 

[bokonon]

Even Christ walked away from life threatening situations because it wasn't his time yet.

"B'gawk, b'gawk, I'm walking here..."

And while Hitlers teeth (I believe) are in a vault in Russia the Vatican survived the war.

And while the Pope was embalmed in a plastic bag with eleven secret herbs and spices, Germany survived the war.

 

[kmortis]

"B'gawk, b'gawk, I'm walking here..."
And while the Pope was embalmed in a plastic bag with eleven secret herbs and spices, Germany survived the war.

Kentucky Fried Pope? Does it come with a side of mashed mitre and baked sceptre?

 

[bokonon]

I don't think they fried him; hell is a myth.

What's interesting to me is that even popes and messiahs apparently understand that the best way to accomplish things is to remain in the material world where one's actions can still affect the course of events. "Walking away from life-threatening situations" suggests that even they realize that the afterlife doesn't mean you'll be invited to strategy sessions with the almighty, charting the course of history. If you have something to do, you'd better get it done on this side of the grave.

 

[joobz]

And your statement that I've never answered a so what question is false. Ask joobz.

This is very true. He has answered one of the "so what" questions. Turns out, my hypothesis was correct. DOC does wish to support the validity of chrisitianity through a series of irrelevant "facts".

Interestingly, DOC presented his answer to the "SO what" question to prove me wrong (which he did). But in so doing, he also proved that he lied when he claimed he wasn't trying to prove christianity valid.

DOC fails to realize that people love a train reck. His threads are the internet analog to reality Tv.

 

[DOC]

This is very true. He has answered one of the "so what" questions. Turns out, my hypothesis was correct. DOC does wish to support the validity of chrisitianity through a series of irrelevant "facts".

Interestingly, DOC presented his answer to the "SO what" question to prove me wrong (which he did). But in so doing, he also proved that he lied when he claimed he wasn't trying to prove christianity valid.

The statement in bold above is a false statement. I never claimed I wasn't trying to give evidence for the validity of Christiantianity. I just claimed I never gave "Proof" of Christianity as you wrongly said I did. Proof implies case closed, we have our answer -- I never said that. And this isn't a word game or semantics. The difference is large.

Similarly, science has never given "Proof" that a one celled organism can be created from non-living matter. They try to offer evidence, though, that this could happen. But there is No Proof.

 

[joobz]

The statement in bold above is a false statement. I never claimed I wasn't trying to give evidence for the validity of Christiantianity. I just claimed I never gave "Proof" of Christianity as you said I did. Proof implies case closed, we have our answer -- I never said that. And this isn't a word game or semantics. The difference is large.

You are quibbling between proof vs. "evidence to support the validity". this is the purest definition of arguing semantics.

Sorry, but I was completely correct in my thread that you were trying to prove the validity of christianity through a series of disjointed, irrelevant "facts".

 

[DOC]

Sorry, but I was completely correct in my thread that you were trying to prove the validity of christianity through a series of disjointed, irrelevant "facts".

There is a large difference in "trying to prove something" and having "Proof" of something.

You should have titled your thread

"Doc is trying to prove the validity of Christianity through..."

rather than

"Doc's Proof of Christianity through..."

_______________

Also I added this to my last post:

Similarly, science has never given "Proof" that a one celled organism can be created from non-living matter. They try to offer evidence, though, that this could happen. But there is No Proof.

 

[joobz]

There is a large difference in "trying to prove something" and having "Proof" of something.

You should have titled your thread

"Doc is trying to prove the validity of Christianity through..."

rather than

"Doc's Proof of Christianity through..."

This is a rather transparent attempt at avoiding admission of guilt. No where in the thread had you claimed even that much. You kept claiming "I'm only presenting information, what you do with it is up to you.." This is a far cry from your current claim that
you were trying to prove the validity of Christianity through vs. having proof.

It was obvious by the context of my post what the point was. and now that I had caught you red handed in your lie, you are claiming semantics. Sorry, but it doesn't work. You've had all this time to amit error and grow. Instead, you hide.

_______________

Also I added this to my last post:

Similarly, science has never given "Proof" that a one celled organism can be created from non-living matter. They try to offer evidence, though, that this could happen. But there is No Proof.

Had someone posted a series of threads along the lines,
"Cells are made up of smaller stuff"
"Elvis Likes cellular material"
"Jefferson was an admitted cell biologist...."
"small stuff is really neat"
with context in the threads making it sound like they were gathering support for abiogenesis, yet simultaneously never admitting as such (or only vaguely admitting it).
I would also have started a thread titled
"Proof of Abiogenesis through irrelevant fact attrition" and present my argument as such. The point of it being "proof" vs. "evidence in support of" is purely a semantic difference in thread title. And the point would be entirely clear in the context of the OP.


Stop evading the issue. You've been caught in a lie. Either:
a.) man up, admit it and start trying to gain some credibility back
or
b.) continue to avoid the truth, and remain baseless.

 

[DOC]

deleted

 

[joobz]

One minute you say I never claimed "I was trying to prove the validity of Christianity" and the next minute you say:

You can't have it both ways.

Do you actually think this is a clever or intelligent rebuttal?

I see you've chosen to remain baseless.

 

[DOC]

To joobz,

To simplify things -- you are of the opinion that it was correct to say "Doc's Proof of Christianity" and I am of the opinion that it is misleading (intentionally or unintentionally) to say Doc's Proof of Christianity" when I never said I have "Proof of Christianity" or have proved Christianity.

 

[Hokulele]

To joobz,

To simplify things -- you are of the opinion that it was correct to say "Doc's Proof of Christianity" and I am of the opinion that it is misleading (intentionally or unintentionally) to say Doc's Proof of Christianity" when I never said I offer "Proof of Christianity"

So if it isn't "proof of christianity", what do you think you are offering, and what do you think it is accomplishing? Most of your so-called facts have been proven to be lies. Do you believe that offering and re-offering proven lies gets you closer to your goal?

BTW, you keep referring to the number of "hits" some of your threads are receiving. Just for the record, a large percentage of these aren't real people, but Internet bots.

 

[joobz]

To joobz,

To simplify things -- you are of the opinion that it was correct to say "Doc's Proof of Christianity" and I am of the opinion that it is misleading (intentionally or unintentionally) to say Doc's Proof of Christianity" when I never said I offer "Proof of Christianity"

i must say that i find it extremely intresting (and telling) that the people I butt heads with the most are the ones who never admit error.

 

[Lonewulf]

I gotta admit, though, Christopher Columbus really was great.

Got his heading wrong, messed everything up, and only got to America because of the fortunate coincidence that America is a pretty darn hard continent to miss!

But he was great, no really. Besides the slavery, the incompetence, etc., he found a country, and that alone makes him a great man that obviously was correct in his religious beliefs!










Wait, no.

 

[kmortis]

I gotta admit, though, Christopher Columbus really was great.

Got his heading wrong, messed everything up, and only got to America because of the fortunate coincidence that America is a pretty darn hard continent to miss!

But he was great, no really. Besides the slavery, the incompetence, etc., he found a country, and that alone makes him a great man that obviously was correct in his religious beliefs!
Wait, no.

I used to like Columbus, back when I was in school and I got his day off. Now that I work for a living and I don't, I think he's a right bastard. Who said that you can't be selfish with your history.

 

[Taffer]

Wow, this thread is made of all kinds of fail.

DOC: Why does it matter if Columbus was christian? Why does it matter if anyone is christian? Are you trying to use this to somehow validate christianity?

 

[DOC]

So if it isn't "proof of christianity", what do you think you are offering

I am occasionally offering evidence that strengthens the case for Christianity. For example, when Christ says this in the book of Mathew chapter 16 verse 18:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

And then I offer this

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633&highlight=spent+years+Rome

and the largest Christian Church in the world is based in Rome. Then it is my opinion that this evidence strengthens the case for Christianity. But of course this one fact does not prove Christianity but it certainly is a factor in its favor.

Much like science. When those 2 scientists (through intelligent design) designed an experiment that when they passed some electricity through various elements thought to exist on earth in its early stages got some organic matter -- that was some evidence for the theory that life came from non-living chemicals. The "intelligently designed" experiment certainly wasn't proof that life came from non-living chemicals but it was a factor in its favor. Much like Peter "the Rock" being in Rome (in light of what Christ said) is a factor in favor of the case for Christianity.