Lying - now on the banned list!

nns1400

Oh, I thought they used planes to crash into buildings when they bomb people armed with nothing.

__________________
This stuff is just crap...Hitchy

alienator

No, they also use F-16's, Predators, A-10's, and the odd Marine or Army patrol out to do some good ol' rapin' and killin'.

e0richt

I have to disagree with you on this one...

Crankyfeet

OK. I don't want to get into the age old question that plagues agnostic dyslexics with insomnia who lay awake all night wondering if there is a Dog.

I apologize for the thread digression but I just couldn't resist de-bait.

On the question of contradictions in the Bible - try putting together a coherent account of the Easter Story from the Gospels of the New Testament.

Christianity is, appropriately, named after Jesus the Christ. Jesus is the central character of Christian belief, since it is his sacrifice which permit believers to be "saved". Thus, the story of Jesus is central to Christianity, and even more importantly, the story of Easter.

Unfortunately, this story, as given to us by the group of four Bible books known as the "Gospels", is hopelessly contradictory. Here are some examples :

Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)


Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)


After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)


Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

So which one of these accounts is God's final word on the events of Jesus' death. Or is he deliberately confusing us to test our faith?

__________________

azul_fahrrad

I am a believer in Christ but I am reluctnat to call myself a Christian, I have spent a great deal of time pondering these questions. There is no one that I have known, talked to, read or heard speak that gives a true explanation of these accounts, only explanations that make you feel ok about them.

What is even more fun is when you start comparing the protestant bible to the Catholic bible.

Protestants want to believe that their bible is the complete unadulterated word of God. It is at best the a partial account of words inspired by God but what they don't want to know is that good ol' King James was in a desperate need to settle a political dispute to assert his authority and establish himself as a capable king. Like all politicians, he formed a committe. The committee sifted through all the competing versions of scripture, taking bits from each to form the King James Version. Depending on how litteraly you take scripture, ol' James was a blasphemer for doing so.

For someone to assert that there are no contradictions in the bible, particularly in this forum is a horrible disservice to the cause of Christianity as you have very eloquently demonstrated.

Anyone who makes such a claim either has not read enough of the bible to know it or has a far superior understanding than anyone else, in which case, the whole world is waiting with bated breath to hear them speak.

Cycler6n, you opened the door, we're all waiting now...

I am going to go ride my bike while we all wait.

e0richt

well, interestingly enough, Easter is not celebrated on the correct day if you really read the gospel and know something about the old testament dealing with passover...

nns1400

Dude, everyone already got all frothy-mouthed about this topic being on this thread. Go to the soap box - already quite a nice little debate happening there - -would love to take this on .

__________________
This stuff is just crap...Hitchy

nns1400

Let's talk about that. On the bloody soap box. King James is an interesting subject. Of course, since the 1300's there have been new translations from the original texts. King James was hardly the last word on the subject.

__________________
This stuff is just crap...Hitchy

Cycler6n

yeah, lets bring this in the bloody soap box, or is it already? Anyone got the link?

__________________
“(Training) doesn't get easier; you just get faster”
-Greg Lemond

azul_fahrrad

http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?t=416494&goto=newpost

Bob Ross

I presume everyone else sees the hysterical irony in that sentence...

__________________
Originally Posted by Don Quijote
You have an attitude that rubs me very bad, I do not like you, and I also wish you to banish from my thread.

Bob Ross

No! NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! This is categorically incorrect, and it's the same panty-waisted namby-pamby way of getting out of an argument that "believers" fall back on whenever they find their position woefully short of facts.

The existence of a creator, the divinity of Jesus, and any number of other religious and/or biblical myths absolutely CAN be proven or disproven...one simply has to be patient enough to gather the requisite evidence. The problem is not that these myths can or can't be disproven, it's that there's never enough evidence to convince the opposing side...mostly because their definitions of "evidence" are different.

I know I would be very interested in any evidence that could unequivocally support the existence of a creator. But note that *my* definition of "evidence" is the one that has been used by the scientific community for the past half dozen centuries or so: It would need to stand up to peer-review, it would need to be independently confirmable, and it would need to be substantiable via the application of other known laws and facts.

__________________
Originally Posted by Don Quijote
You have an attitude that rubs me very bad, I do not like you, and I also wish you to banish from my thread.

azul_fahrrad

Do you love you mother? Can you prove it?

Technically, gravity is still a theory but all of us can "prove" it.

In regard to this 600 years years of the scientific method, are you refering to the same group of people that used to teach us that maggots formed sponteously from within raw meat left in open air, that thought that to way to cure disease was to bleed the patient to death, that criminal behaviour was genetic and restricted to lower class people, people of lesser genes, the people that taught us that dark skinned people were physiologically different from fair skinned people and were less human, the people that are unable to properly define what a planet is?

This is not about your grasp of facts or reason but more your intent to buy your reason from the vendor on the other side of the street.

azul_fahrrad

http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?t=416494&goto=newpost

The conversation has left this forum and has continued at the link above. There is a lot more to discuss there.