Shennanigans
PoeticVengeance
Shennanigans
PoeticVengeance
John Calvin
Shennanigans probably said that none of the contradictions at had are "at all important," because he does not want to deal with them. He may also have withdrew from dealing with them, since there are people in the world who have already dealt with the issues posed.
I mostly just wanted him to not do a one word response.
I myself can spot many of the issues in the list of contradictions.
I have no interest in debating how many troops fought on what side against which king in what year. That is beside the point, isn't it?
Then cite it as irrelevant.
Of course, then you'll need to justify it as irrelevant. Considering we're dealing with common misconceptions in Christianity, that includes so called contradictions.
Instead of claiming they aren't important, why not look at them critically and determine if they are?
If they are unimportant then show why they don't matter.
John Calvin put the effort in, why couldn't you?
I
did cite it as irrelevant.
And you also failed to say why.
Quote:
Next: it's clear that you're missing the thrust of my argument. I am not saying that Biblical contradictions are irrelevant to the discussion of misconceptions about the Bible. My argument is that those contradictions are not pertinent to the message of the Bible, and are therefore no basis for disbelieving the Bible.
Which is exactly what I was telling you to shut up about, because that is irrelevant.
Thanks for the go at reading comprehension, but you seem to have missed the mark.
Quote:
Furthermore, as one that spent four years in forensics, let me be the first to say that you are incorrect. Relevance is the burden of the one originally presenting the evidence.
In crime yes. In debate no.
Relevance and proof is entirely up to the one who makes the assertions.
Had you sat there and said, "Proof that this matters to this discussion or to the message of the Bible?" You would've been nicely golden.
But instead you made an assertion, which in turn opens you up to the Burden of Proof.
Forensics =/= debate.
KTHXBYE.
Quote:
Evidence must have
prima facie ("first look"
wink relevance to what it is proported to support. If it does not (as in this case), the burden is on the one offering the contradictions as evidence to prove that it matters.
Actually it did matter to the original debate, that you went off topic on.
Here is the original post that lead to the showing of the contradictions:
Taineyah
Kaskade Khaos
SukiKoi
Kaskade Khaos
SukiKoi
How do you know what god told them
wink Because how else would they know of God. All christians teach that. It's GOD! No, God just said, "Write whatever the ******** you want."
But you can't know that god said those exact words.
You can't know that god said anything.
What? You make no sense. It's in the bible. Oh yeah sure. Different people who knew nothing of eachother over a 1500 year period, just HAPPENED to write about the same thing, not contradicting itself. Yeah, that's a nice theory.
Except that the bible is riddled with internal contradictions. Try not to use ideas that are easily disproven as your proof, okay, sweetie?
Khaos, a complete idiot, decided to make the claim that absolutely no contradictions existed in the Bible. No admittedly Tay could of just told him to prove it, and he would've gone down like the Heisenberg. But she made the same mistake you did and made an assertion.
So with the burden of proof on her now, she stepped up to the plate and offered contradictions to show that biblical inerrancy through all translations is incorrect as an assumption.
Something you merely confirmed by pointing out that they don't matter because the Bible's overall message matters and not its little mistakes.
So, she already established relevance for her post in terms of the debate she was actually in.
You however, went off topic into a tangent about those contradictions with a pathetic one liner, that is not only against the rules of the ED but completely irrelevant to the debate she was engaged in.
Let me know at any time, how you planned on making that one sentence response a request for proof of relevancy or how it was relevant to her debate.
I can wait all day.
Quote:
Nevertheless:
Quote:
When I say that none of these contradictions matter, they do not pertain to the purpose of the Bible, which is to tell the story of the salvation of mankind and to contain the revelation of God to man. Your contradictions do not in any way place that message in doubt.
Irrelevant as she was not seeking to put that message into doubt.
You fail reading comprehension painfully here.
Feeling embarassed yet?
Quote:
So, instead of looking the fool, it may behoove you to
read my post and think about argumentation before you find fault with me.
Irony, excessive irony, especially considering I was completely right about your post.
Yes, lets.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Who cares how many stables King Solomon had? The Bible is neither a science text nor a history text. Over the course of the Bible, the Hebrews adapted to four different calenders, had contact with different counting systems, and was compiled over the course of a few thousand years. I daresay that it is the most internally consistent document that has been edited for the last four thousand years in existence.
So? One of the concepts that is very prevalent in Christianity is that the Scriptures are inerrant (both for simply the original translation, and overall. But the overall inerrancy doctrine is idiotic, since words like homosexuality and Hell didn't exist back then. So we'll stick with the original translation inerrancy doctrine).
Scriptural Inerrancy In the Original Writings is what was being called into question with the posting of the contradictions.
That not only makes it relevant (since this thread is a debate about what mainstream christianity is wrong or right about) but also makes it important.
I understand all of this. Again, missing the argument . . .
No not missing the argument at all. Tay posted those contradictions for the express purpose of showing that textual inerrency in Scripture is incorrect.
It is you that tangented. Not me.
Quote:
Actually, I am supporting the Nazarene view of inerrancy in this challenge: That the Bible is inerrant
in all things relating to salvation.
Which has nothing to do with the contradictions posted, none of your arguments do.
Nowhere was Tay attempting to use them to discredit the Bible overall or its message.
Quote:
Perhaps I should have included a preface about how not everyone has a strictly dogmatic view of inerrancy. My bad.
That would've helped, but still been irrelevant to the original discussion.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When I say that none of these contradictions matter, they do not pertain to the purpose of the Bible, which is to tell the story of the salvation of mankind and to contain the revelation of God to man.
Is this thread about the purpose of the bible?
No?
Then your bitching is irrelevant.
This thread is about misconceptions of mainstream Christians about the Scriptures and their religion.
It is not about the overall purpose of the Scriptures or of Christianity itself. If you think that a misconception exists within Christianity about the main purpose of the Bible, then by all means bring it up.
But no one here cares about it if there isn't a mistake being made to call on. Don't like it? Then make a thread about the purpose of the Scriptures and how contradictions don't matter and we can chat about it there.
You attack my claim that the contradictions are irrelevant as unsupported,
It was. You posted a one liner that was a tangent from the discussion and you expect me to consider it relevant?
You are digging yourself deeeeeeper and deeeeeper.
Quote:
and then want to categorically deny my line of argumentation as irrelevant?
It is unless you open another discussion. This can be done in the thread. But unless you actually say, "Hey lets talk about this, blah blah blah" instead of arguing a point that hadn't been brought up in the first place, and arguing it against someone that isn't opposing it, you look like a complete idiot AND derail the thread.
I also explained why, something you failed to do untill heavily prompted. So at least I'm putting the effort in.
Quote:
You can't have it both ways, silly.
Just showed you how. Silly.
Quote:
Since we are discussing a misconception about Christianity that centers on the Bible (which, incidentally, is of some importance to Christianity, lol.), discussion of the Bible is of course fair game.
Sure it is. However treating that discussion as a rebuttal to another post that has absolutely little to nothing to do with the topic you've brought up is massive massive Strawman.
How lucky for you its accidental in this case, but it still reflects very poorly on you. And makes you quite the hypocrite for stating that I can't read your posts.
Quote:
Not sure how/why you are misrepresenting this.
It isn't misrepresented. You were arguing with no one on a tangent. You want to start a discussion on whether biblical contradictions are relevant to the Scriptural message? Then do it without putting it all into an accidental strawman refutation targeted at another poster in the thread.
Thank you and good night.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your contradictions do not in any way place that message in doubt.
Note carefully, that I never once posted contradictions, nor did I ever show agreement with the post that contained them.
You fail reading comprehension if you even think I'm arguing on either side of the debate on whether contradictions take from the purpose of the Bible.
I'm just telling you to put your damn back into it and stop copping out by claiming irrelevancy. The rest of us are making the effort. Don't be lazy.
Actually, you're attacking me and making false accusations about my allegedly weak argumentation.
No, I'm dispelling your notions that I involved myself in a talk about contradictions. I'm also hounding you for copping out by claiming irrelevancy. That was admittedly incorrect.
You were in fact invoking the Strawman Fallacy against Tay although to be fair to you, it was accidently and due you not reading her posts to find out why she posted the contradictions.
Quote:
So read for understanding,
Hypocritical statement.
Quote:
and please don't post attacks without first understanding what was said.
Also hypocritical statement.
Quote:
If you ask politely, you'll find that the vast majority of folks here are more than willing to help clear things up.
I extend the same advice to you.
I will also give you the advice to not post a tangential line of discussion in response to another person's post and to read carefully their posts to avoid such a thing. You accidently caught yourself in a strawman and even managed to agree with Tay in the process.
Had you said, "I should mention as an aside that these contradictions don't take away from the overall message of the Bible blah blah blah" it would've opened up the new discussion for entry and not caused this massive argument.
How sad especially that we even agree on the idea that contradictions in Scripture do not take away from the overall message. How sad indeed.
100
200
200
![Rookherst[KOS]'s avatar](http://a2.cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/1c/32/2b1f6af436321c.png?t=1193918574_6.00_11)
