Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
paximperium said:
So why prop up faith with lies and a facade of rationality when in fact it is basically irrational nonsense? I guess even theist are embarrassed by their "faith".

No.
Click to expand...

Doc's point is valid, if you believe one set of ancient texts why not the next, given you can not qualify either and you are forming an opinion based on the veracity you place in the transcription.
 
sonofgloin said:
Doc's point is valid, if you believe one set of ancient texts why not the next, given you can not qualify either and you are forming an opinion based on the veracity you place in the transcription.
Click to expand...


Because some ancient texts do not document things that violate the laws of physics as we know them. DOC is basically asking us to accept everything in the bible as being true because some things in the bible are true. Logic doesn't work like that.
 
Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? Half of it's useless to the point of being dangerous. It's like Mother Teresa - everyone 'knows' that she was a saintly old women who helped the sick and poor in India, but stratch the surface and you find something vile that shows exactly what is wrong with the religious dogma that she followed. Everyone 'knows' that Jesus was a saintly, turn-other-check dispenser of god's wisdom - yet how many have read the bit where he throws a tantrum and kills a tree. Don't get me started on the demons into pigs thing.
 
Hokulele said:
Not if it means allowing a good deal of undesirable behavior and outlawing a bunch of harmless behavior.
Click to expand...

Hok could you explain to me how lying stealing and murder equate to negating personal freedoms. It's the PC lobby that are white anting away at that.
 
sonofgloin said:
Hok could you explain to me how lying stealing and murder equate to negating personal freedoms.
Click to expand...


Considering I never said anything resembling this, I have no idea what it is you need explained. Outlawing blasephemy does negate personal freedoms, wouldn't you agree?

It's the PC lobby that are white anting away at that.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what this means.
 
Hokulele said:
Because some ancient texts do not document things that violate the laws of physics as we know them. DOC is basically asking us to accept everything in the bible as being true because some things in the bible are true. Logic doesn't work like that.
Click to expand...

Hok I have not commited to a stance on religion on this forum, it would serve no purpose but to tag my thoughts as to being on one side of the fence or the other. Being myopic is a human trait, we like to be on teams, I hate teams.
 
Hokulele said:
Considering I never said anything resembling this, I have no idea what it is you need explained. Outlawing blasephemy does negate personal freedoms, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, but from the outset I have focussed on the commandments that do not mention god.
 
sonofgloin said:
Yes I agree, but from the outset I have focussed on the commandments that do not mention god.
Click to expand...


No, from the outset you declared that "the ten commandments are gems". Later, you claimed, "Society is based on trust and fidelity, and these are the things we betray when we break the seven social commandments of the ten." If you would like to drop that down to three, you might have a point.

Might.
 
sonofgloin said:
Hok I have not commited to a stance on religion on this forum, it would serve no purpose but to tag my thoughts as to being on one side of the fence or the other. Being myopic is a human trait, we like to be on teams, I hate teams.
Click to expand...
You don't need to be on a team, but you got to at least know the rules of the game. Here, it's logic. If you can't defend a view logically, then you lose.
 
Hokulele said:
No, from the outset you declared that "the ten commandments are gems". Later, you claimed, "Society is based on trust and fidelity, and these are the things we betray when we break the seven social commandments of the ten." If you would like to drop that down to three, you might have a point.

Might.
Click to expand...

Hok you are right,the gems pertain to half of them in regard to social stability and interaction, which was my point.
 
sonofgloin said:
Doc's point is valid, if you believe one set of ancient texts why not the next, given you can not qualify either and you are forming an opinion based on the veracity you place in the transcription.
Click to expand...


Oh dear.


Circular4.gif
 
sonofgloin said:
Hok you are right,the gems pertain to half of them in regard to social stability and interaction, which was my point.
Click to expand...

But...what's so special about them being in this particular list? We (human-kind) had these values before the Ten Commandments and people who don't adhere (or have never even heard of) to this list after they were codified have these same values.

So, why should we attach any extra special weight to these passages (and thereby to the bible as well) when every Nation/society (not all societies are identified by their respective Nation - think Amazonian/Island tribes) has laws or codes (or whatever you want to call them) that promote these values?
 
joobz said:
You don't need to be on a team, but you got to at least know the rules of the game. Here, it's logic. If you can't defend a view logically, then you lose.
Click to expand...

Yes a sound observation indeed. The motive for my initial reply to the thread was the fact that an empirical statement was tendered to address an empirical question.

It is the self surety of being right that Hok mentioned to me in relation to Doc's stance in this forum. Given the subject matter and it's etherial and divine nature how can logic play a part in it, so it gets down to picking away at the validity of the text as an authority and that has been going on for 2000 years. So rather than defend or detract I question the reasoning of the statements made rather than the statement. Given we have discussed it for 2000 years with resolution nought the discusion has become a tennis match with no outcome envisioned by either side.

No there is no place for logic in a theological debate, it's gotta come from the psyche.
 
sonofgloin said:
<snip> Given the subject matter and it's etherial and divine nature how can logic play a part in it, so it gets down to picking away at the validity of the text as an authority and that has been going on for 2000 years.
Click to expand...


Considering the title of this thread, this seems to be a rather strange place to address this by rebuking those of us who are skeptical that there is any empirical evidence for the New Testament being true.

So rather than defend or detract I question the reasoning of the statements made rather than the statement. Given we have discussed it for 2000 years with resolution nought the discusion has become a tennis match with no outcome envisioned by either side.
Click to expand...


Again, this is the very premise of the thread. If you have an issue with the premise, it would make more sense to address your comments to the person who composed the original post and title rather than those who are discussing things as they have been framed.

No there is no place for logic in a theological debate, it's gotta come from the psyche.
Click to expand...


Well, I will disagree with this bit. Saying that there is no place for logic in such a debate renders the entire idea of a debate moot.
 
Hokulele said:
Considering the title of this thread, this seems to be a rather strange place to address this by rebuking those of us who are skeptical that there is any empirical evidence for the New Testament being true.

Again, this is the very premise of the thread. If you have an issue with the premise, it would make more sense to address your comments to the person who composed the original post and title rather than those who are discussing things as they have been framed.

Well, I will disagree with this bit. Saying that there is no place for logic in such a debate renders the entire idea of a debate moot.
Click to expand...
There you go...being all logicalistical and stuff again...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom