NationStates Jolt Archive

I cant believe people quote the bible as if it has any relevance to anything other than the work of people interested in myths and legends.

Congratulations on your unbiased poll :D

I normally have a very high limit regarding negative comments on religion and religious books, but I think you just crossed that line....

I cant believe people quote the bible as if it has any relevance to anything other than the work of people interested in myths and legends.

Nice unbiased poll there.

Time Magazine. Dec 18, 1995 has an interesting story noting those things in the bible which are historically accurate.

To state that the bible does not have any relevance means you are stating that the Roman empire did not exist, and the Babylonian empire, and the Medo-Persian empire, and the city states of Greece, and...

Seeing that evolutionists and creationists both agree that these empires existed and that historians are able to back up these beliefs with science means your statement about the bible not being relevant is incorrect.

Other information in the bible which is documented fact by BOTH evolutionists and creationists:
-King David existed
-there was a Jesus of Nazareth during 0AD to 30AD approx (obviously no proof of his miracles but that is not my point anyhow)
-seal belonging to Neriah who wrote down Jeremiah propehcies found
-repository for bones with inscription 'Joseph son of Caiaphas' the high priest that presided at Christ's trial by the Sanhedrin's
-seal of the son of King Jehoiakim found (this king existed during Jeremiah's life)
-1207BC dated pillars found of Egyptian Pharaohs which celebrate victories over Israel
...

There is lots of other stuff which I have missed. I suggest you read the bible for yourself to see what is true and what is not instead of just taking the little information some religious guy/girl tells you about the bible since most who talk about the bible do not know what they are talking about since most people nowadays do not read it.

Sorry which part of "other than the work of people interested in myths and legends" did you miss.

As an historical text its hardly The Doomsday book is it, or the work of a reliable historical scholar such as Josephus or Ceasar.

>>>>To state that the bible does not have any relevance means you are stating that the Roman empire did not exist, and the Babylonian empire, and the Medo-Persian empire, and the city states of Greece, and...

No it doesnt, dont be silly.


Next

Nice unbaised poll, eh? :cool: [/sarcasm]

woohooo! it's troll time :)

Sorry which part of "other than the work of people interested in myths and legends" did you miss.

As an historical text its hardly The Doomsday book is it, or the work of a reliable historical scholar such as Josephus or Ceasar.


Next

How is history the same as myths and legends? Or are you just choosing to ignore educational research to prove your own belief no matter what? *shakes head*

Also, not sure why you look to it to be a doomsday book. It gives you advice on how to live life in terms of what is healthy to eat, not to kill people,...it is a quite a practical book for today's modern era

Also, not sure why you look to it to be a doomsday book. It gives you advice on how to live life in terms of what is healthy to eat, not to kill people,...it is a quite a practical book for today's modern era

Yeah, very practical. Every day I stone people who wear clothes made from two or more kinds of fabrics. I don't know how I'd manage without the Bible. Not like there are better, modern books to teach you what not to eat, or not to kill people (unless you're stoning them and they are arbitrary sinners, which of course is OK because "Thou shalt not kill" has always been a soft issue with the Abrahamic religions) or those sorts of things. :rolleyes:

>How is history the same as myths and legends? Or are you just choosing to ignore educational research to prove your own belief no matter what? *shakes head*

Umm because it is, in an absence of authenticity historical analyses reverts to interpretion. Myths and Legends. The Bible has no such authenticity at the moment and until it does, it remains in the Myth and Legends category.


> Also, not sure why you look to it to be a doomsday book. It gives you advice on how to live life in terms of what is healthy to eat, not to kill people,...

Thats not what the doomsday book is, look it up *sigh*


> it is a quite a practical book for today's modern era

prove it

Yeah, very practical. Every day I stone people who wear clothes made from two or more kinds of fabrics. I don't know how I'd manage without the Bible. Not like there are better, modern books to teach you what not to eat, or not to kill people (unless you're stoning them and they are arbitrary sinners, which of course is OK because "Thou shalt not kill" has always been a soft issue with the Abrahamic religions) or those sorts of things. :rolleyes:

Fass, as a gay man and a homosexual, how good do you think the bible is as an actual historical document?

Yeah, very practical. Every day I stone people who wear clothes made from two or more kinds of fabrics. I don't know how I'd manage without the Bible. Not like there are better, modern books to teach you what not to eat, or not to kill people (unless you're stoning them and they are arbitrary sinners, which of course is OK because "Thou shalt not kill" has always been a soft issue with the Abrahamic religions) or those sorts of things. :rolleyes:

Your knowledge of the bible is rather inaccurate.

-first there is not any reference to someone being stoned because they wore two or more kinds of fabrics
-two I never said just read the bible alone however the foods the bible notes are good and and are not are proven in modern nutrition to be correct proving that it is a relevant book.

Remember the key to this original statement is that the individual noted the bible is irrelevant. You and I have both noted the bible is.

Your information about the stonings is incorrect. Just because a history text notes something does not mean it condones it (like the Nazi holocaust for instance). Likewise same with the bible. True there are things in the bible that one may find questionable, but the initial statement was in regards to the bible not being relevant. That statement is false since the bible IS relevant. If you think other books are more relevant that is your choice but that is not the issue that is being discussed here. If you do not like the bible that is your choice but again that is not the issue under discussion here.

PS: Might want to read up on the bible since your knowledge of it is rather inaccurate by the way.

How nice! Secularists ussually start attacking peoples faith, and then love to pass the blame on to them for defending themselves. Keep up the hypocrecy! Lucky for you, GOD is forgiving! So there is still hope for you.

Even atheists agree on the historical accuracy of the Bible. Miracles and creation? Hot topic. But history? Umm, no.

Fass, as a gay man and a homosexual, how good do you think the bible is as an actual historical document?

Contrary to popular belief, my gender and sexual orientation do not give me any special powers when it comes to doling out opinions - hence I fail to see the relevance of those.

Oh, and the Bible (and all the other religious texts) is not to be used as a historical document - that's the first thing you learn when religion studies start in Swedish schools. There are far better historical sources than the Bible, and using it as a historical reference is as silly and futile as using Shakespeare's Hamlet as a way of learning more about Denmark. You'll see that there are infinitely better sources of knowledge on Denmark than some play that just happened to use a real world location to tell a story. Same with the Bible.

>How is history the same as myths and legends? Or are you just choosing to ignore educational research to prove your own belief no matter what? *shakes head*

Umm because it is, in an absence of authenticity historical analyses reverts to interpretion. Myths and Legends. The Bible has no such authenticity at the moment and until it does, it remains in the Myth and Legends category.


> Also, not sure why you look to it to be a doomsday book. It gives you advice on how to live life in terms of what is healthy to eat, not to kill people,...

Thats not what the doomsday book is, look it up *sigh*


> it is a quite a practical book for today's modern era

prove it

If you state that the bible is a myth and legend then World War 2 and World War 1, by your definition, are myths and legends too.

The bible notes that nations of Egypt, Babylon, Persia, city states of Greece, Rome. You are telling me these are all myths and legends?

In relation to your statement about a doomsday book what specifically are you refering to? I assume the end of the world thing in the bible though again I have found assumptions are sometimes inaccurate so I wish to get further information before responding.

In terms of practical natures of the book:
-as humans we learn from history and there are numerous instances of history (both personal stories and national stories) in the book. Then again if you are one of those who believes that we do not learn from history then I guess you support the Iraq war and Bush's missile shield despite past historical mistakes such as Vietnam and the Maginot Line (in France) *shakes head*

-in terms of health there are numerous health principles in Leviticus which have been proven true of late in terms of what to eat, what is healthy etc.

Now I have a question for you. Do you ever plan to read the bible in parts? Not telling you to, just that with your inaccurate knowledge about it, plus your seeming disgust at it (I assume - here goes with me assuming - probably because right wing individuals who likewise do not know the bible state things to you you do not like) I would strongly suggest you read it for yourself. Again, not judging you, not telling you what to do (not that you would do it anyhow), just saying you seem hostile towards it and I assume that is cause you have a bunch of right wingers tell you their beliefs and try and shove it down your throat when that is not what the bible is about, hence why I note probably a good thing to see what it is actually about. You might be surprised.

I personally don't believe in the bible or believe that it has any more relevance for us today than any other book of legend or mythology, so I picked the second choice (which I would have done anyway had this actually been a fair poll). However, I object to this poll on the basis that it is completely biased, and excludes a large portion of the population who does feel it has some relevance in today's world (beyond whatever relevance can be accorded to myth and legend, that is).

In relation to your statement about a doomsday book what specifically are you refering to? I assume the end of the world thing in the bible though again I have found assumptions are sometimes inaccurate so I wish to get further information before responding.

The Doomsday Book is a historical document. It is a record of England shortly after William the Conqueror took over that nation in 1066, the intention was toacertain a tax system, so everybody (really EVERYBODY, from nobility to slave) got registered with a list of their possesion, they were chiefly concerned about the land. According to this record, a tax system was introduced and a law instated.

That's about roughly it, I think. Just to avoid further confussion.

...You'll see that there are infinitely better sources of knowledge on Denmark than some play that just happened to use a real world location to tell a story. Same with the Bible.

The original question was whether the bible is relevant. Therefore I noted that it is. Just cause there are other things more relevant to that specific topic does not make the bible NOT relevant.

That said, reading plays that are written from a location and a time can help you to understand that time/place a bit better than a play written in the future or in another location as they would possibly include more little details.

For instance if I wrote a story about Jamaica I would include someone eating curried goat, or boiled banana. There are little details that help with knowing the time and place that you won't find elsewhere. Again not stating that this is why you read the bible, just noting that it is relevant. Though there may be other things more relevant to a specific issue in your mind the bible is still relevant.

I personally don't believe in the bible or believe that it has any more relevance for us today than any other book of legend or mythology, so I picked the second choice (which I would have done anyway had this actually been a fair poll). However, I object to this poll on the basis that it is completely biased, and excludes a large portion of the population who does feel it has some relevance in today's world (beyond whatever relevance can be accorded to myth and legend, that is).

If I were to describe it, I would say it's a theosophical work of considerable depth. But that's just me...

Your knowledge of the bible is rather inaccurate.

-first there is not any reference to someone being stoned because they wore two or more kinds of fabrics

PS: Might want to read up on the bible since your knowledge of it is rather inaccurate by the way.

Oh, really?

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. Lev 19:19."

What does the Bible tell us to do with sinners? Oh, yes, stone them, or kill them in other ways! (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html) Wonderful book to let your children read, no?

The Doomsday Book is a historical document. It is a record of England shortly after William the Conqueror took over that nation in 1066, the intention was toacertain a tax system, so everybody (really EVERYBODY, from nobility to slave) got registered with a list of their possesion, they were chiefly concerned about the land. According to this record, a tax system was introduced and a law instated.

That's about roughly it, I think. Just to avoid further confussion.

Thanks :)

Now I got more reading to do cause my knowledge of that era of history is rather limited. :) I do honestly appreciate it as I love to learn! :)

Oh, and the Bible (and all the other religious texts) is not to be used as a historical document - that's the first thing you learn when religion studies start in Swedish schools. There are far better historical sources than the Bible, and using it as a historical reference is as silly and futile as using Shakespeare's Hamlet as a way of learning more about Denmark. You'll see that there are infinitely better sources of knowledge on Denmark than some play that just happened to use a real world location to tell a story. Same with the Bible.

Word.

Thanks :)

Now I got more reading to do cause my knowledge of that era of history is rather limited. :) I do honestly appreciate it as I love to learn! :)

You;ll find that era more than interesing if you like history. It's immensly active, a lot of changes taking place that influence English society to this day.
Actually, the Doomsday Book was used for reference for centuries after it was compiled, well into our millenium. If I remember correctly, until the 17th or 18th century.

The original question was whether the bible is relevant. Therefore I noted that it is. Just cause there are other things more relevant to that specific topic does not make the bible NOT relevant.

That said, reading plays that are written from a location and a time can help you to understand that time/place a bit better than a play written in the future or in another location as they would possibly include more little details.

For instance if I wrote a story about Jamaica I would include someone eating curried goat, or boiled banana. There are little details that help with knowing the time and place that you won't find elsewhere. Again not stating that this is why you read the bible, just noting that it is relevant. Though there may be other things more relevant to a specific issue in your mind the bible is still relevant.

You don't seem to understand what relevant means. Look! (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=relevant&x=0&y=0)

"1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand". None of the things you mention are significant, and are made even less so when you see how ridiculously useless they are when there are so many other, better sources, infinitely more detailed and better written, of knowledge on all the topics you seem to think make the Bible relevant.

Oh, really?

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. Lev 19:19."

What does the Bible tell us to do with sinners? Oh, yes, stone them, or kill them in other ways! (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html) Wonderful book to let your children read, no?

My initial statement towards the other individual was his direct statement which was incorrect

In terms of letting children read the bible, yes I do think it is a good book to read though I know you will disagree. It is quite graphic and some of the things the Israelites were told to do are questionable in our current 'modern' era. Even I question, though I find it better to raise a child on the overall standards of the bible which do not change (love of God, love of humankind) despite humans trying to change them, than the standards of the world which are constant flux in terms of what is correct and what is not.

I guess we agree to disagree though again I appreciate your viewpoint :)

The poll itself is irrelevant.
The fact is that bible IS relevant to millions and not relevant to millions of others.

... it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. – Thomas Jefferson

>If you state that the bible is a myth and legend then World War 2 and World War 1, by your definition, are myths and legends too.

How?

>The bible notes that nations of Egypt, Babylon, Persia, city states of Greece, Rome. You are telling me these are all myths and legends?

No

>In relation to your statement about a doomsday book what specifically are you refering to? I assume the end of the world thing in the bible though again I have found assumptions are sometimes inaccurate so I wish to get further information before responding.

The Doomsday book is an historical survey, I used it as a comparison of historical factual evidence as opposed to historical tales. You seem to have the wrong end of the stick here.

> as humans we learn from history and there are numerous instances of history (both personal stories and national stories) in the book. Then again if you are one of those who believes that we do not learn from history then I guess you support the Iraq war and Bush's missile shield despite past historical mistakes such as Vietnam and the Maginot Line (in France) *shakes head*

Yes humans learn from history, but this is Irrelevant to the current discussion.

>in terms of health there are numerous health principles in Leviticus which have been proven true of late in terms of what to eat, what is healthy etc.

So do cooking books.

>Now I have a question for you. Do you ever plan to read the bible in parts? Not telling you to, just that with your inaccurate knowledge about it, plus your seeming disgust at it (I assume - here goes with me assuming - probably because right wing individuals who likewise do not know the bible state things to you you do not like) I would strongly suggest you read it for yourself. Again, not judging you, not telling you what to do (not that you would do it anyhow), just saying you seem hostile towards it and I assume that is cause you have a bunch of right wingers tell you their beliefs and try and shove it down your throat when that is not what the bible is about, hence why I note probably a good thing to see what it is actually about. You might be surprised.

I have read the bible. I made no statements about the specific contents so you have no reason to question my knowledge of it. No it does not disgust me. No my opinion is formed independantly. I wasnt.

Time Magazine. Dec 18, 1995

Do you have a link. Just that some of us don't have the 10 years worth of Time magazines.

Also Time magazine is hardly a historical journal...

Other information in the bible which is documented fact by BOTH evolutionists and creationists:

How are scientists (or "scientists" in the case of creationists) appropriate authorities on judging the historical accuracy of a source.


-there was a Jesus of Nazareth during 0AD to 30AD approx (obviously no proof of his miracles but that is not my point anyhow)

There is actually no proof of the Jesus of Christianity in the war that there is proof of other historical figures such as Napoleon, Hitler, Henry VII (Tudor) etc.


Though then again there is more evidence for Christianity's Jesus than we have for accepted historical figures such as Alexander the Great ...

Even atheists agree on the historical accuracy of the Bible. Miracles and creation? Hot topic. But history? Umm, no.

Careful. Why would an Atheist have the authority to judge the historical accuracy of a book? Isn't that why we have historians?

Though careful on saying "historical accuracy" in the same breath as "Bible." For a lot of the time periods the Bible describes, there are no other historical sources that it can be checked against. Also there are historical inaccuracies in the Bible, as well as historical accuracies.

You don't seem to understand what relevant means. Look! (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=relevant&x=0&y=0)

"1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand". None of the things you mention are significant, and are made even less so when you see how ridiculously useless they are when there are so many other, better sources, infinitely more detailed and better written, of knowledge on all the topics you seem to think make the Bible relevant.

I do know what relevant means, just that you are I think differently. I view the bible as a roadmap to heaven. I view God as my guide in all things. You think that this is utter foolishness. God and the bible is relevant in my life, the teachings of it in Proverbs and the like are quite useful wisdom, the lessons learned from Jonah are great examples of how God loves us no matter what. Again all relevant to me because I believe, all irrelevant to you because you do not. Your choice, as well as mine. :)

Oh, really?

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. Lev 19:19."

What does the Bible tell us to do with sinners? Oh, yes, stone them, or kill them in other ways! (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html) Wonderful book to let your children read, no?




I wouldn't exactly cite that website, as anyone with common sense can resolve the issues stated on it ;)

I do know what relevant means, just that you are I think differently. I view the bible as a roadmap to heaven. I view God as my guide in all things. You think that this is utter foolishness. God and the bible is relevant in my life, the teachings of it in Proverbs and the like are quite useful wisdom, the lessons learned from Jonah are great examples of how God loves us no matter what. Again all relevant to me because I believe, all irrelevant to you because you do not. Your choice, as well as mine. :)

Meaning it is irrelevant to the topics you mentioned.

Do you have a link. Just that some of us don't have the 10 years worth of Time magazines.

Also Time magazine is hardly a historical journal...
-true but when someone writes an article for it that uses historical references...


How are scientists (or "scientists" in the case of creationists) appropriate authorities on judging the historical accuracy of a source.
-when they believe as evolutionist scientists do...



There is actually no proof of the Jesus of Christianity in the war that there is proof of other historical figures such as Napoleon, Hitler, Henry VII (Tudor) etc.
Incorrect according to the information in the article from Time noted earlier that is from historical findings...

Though then again there is more evidence for Christianity's Jesus than we have for accepted historical figures such as Alexander the Great ...



Careful. Why would an Atheist have the authority to judge the historical accuracy of a book? Isn't that why we have historians?

Though careful on saying "historical accuracy" in the same breath as "Bible." For a lot of the time periods the Bible describes, there are no other historical sources that it can be checked against. Also there are historical inaccuracies in the Bible, as well as historical accuracies.

Greetings,

Wish I could comment in more depth on these things but I honestly am starving and only planned to log onto NS for 5 minutes and have been here now for 2 hours lol. With the Time Dec 18/95 cover story you should be able to find it at any major library archieve though if not message me via my NS account (prefereably my nation of 'TROTSGRAD', I check that one the most).

Even I question, though I find it better to raise a child on the overall standards of the bible which do not change (love of God, love of humankind) despite humans trying to change them, than the standards of the world which are constant flux in terms of what is correct and what is not.

So the God-assisted mass murders of the Old Testament and orders to subjugate and slaughter unbelievers aren't part of those overall standards?

I wouldn't exactly cite that website, as anyone with common sense can resolve the issues stated on it ;)

Yes, anyone with common sense can see through the ridiculousness of the Bible. Nice to see you coming around.

Yes, anyone with common sense can see through the ridiculousness of the Bible. Nice to see you coming around.



:rolleyes: Here, let this resolve your issues: www.apologeticsindex.com

I wouldn't exactly cite that website, as anyone with common sense can resolve the issues stated on it ;)
Well then...

Resolve them ;)

Meaning it is irrelevant to the topics you mentioned.

No, it is quite relevant it adds to history by noting stories on the King of Persia which are hard to find elsewhere. It adds to history when looking at the 300 Sparta soldiers who killed the 55,000 Persians north of Athens and then realizing that this happened between chapters 1 and 2 of Esther.

It is quite relevant to health in their health principles.

It is extremely relevant to the other topics I just mentioned though again as I noted you and I disagree, we can sit here all day and talk and we will still disagree partially I believe because you have no interest in even contemplating the possibility that I might be right because for you I am not and you have no interest that I am.

I am starving so I apologize but I must go for now though I will look for this thread later to continue our conversation.

:rolleyes: Here, let this resolve your issues: www.apologeticsindex.com

Your incredible laziness is showing, sparky.

Your incredible laziness is showing, sparky.



Why do things myself when others who are specialists in the field can do it for me? :D

Yes, anyone with common sense can see through the ridiculousness of the Bible. Nice to see you coming around.

An over encompassing statement that fails to take into account all the good in the bible. Hence my earlier point. You have no interest in even considering anything in the bible as valid and you will read it in bits and parts.

Your choice.

Last question for you. Where did we come from then? IF not God then from another higher power or do you believe in evolution?

:rolleyes: Here, let this resolve your issues: www.apologeticsindex.com

That front page resolved none of them. Nor did several of the links.

Why do things myself when others who are specialists in the field can do it for me? :D

They haven't. That site has no entry for the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Last question for you. Where did we come from then? IF not God then from another higher power or do you believe in evolution?

Behold the bigoted creationist presenting evolution as the opposite of belief in God.

:rolleyes: Here, let this resolve your issues: www.apologeticsindex.com

Appreciate your insight, I am starving so may read it later. :)

No, it is quite relevant it adds to history by noting stories on the King of Persia which are hard to find elsewhere.

You know. There could be a reason for that...

It adds to history when looking at the 300 Sparta soldiers who killed the 55,000 Persians north of Athens and then realizing that this happened between chapters 1 and 2 of Esther.

You sure?

I'm no Biblical scholar but all I see is a king making his wife do a strip tease in front of his drunk mates :confused:

Still though. Whatever is described in between Chapter 1 & 2 is hardly relevent or significant when there are better sources else where.

Oh, really?

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. Lev 19:19."

What does the Bible tell us to do with sinners? Oh, yes, stone them, or kill them in other ways! (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html) Wonderful book to let your children read, no?

Of course. Stone them. Kill them heretics and non-believers alike. Don't associate with them, if not their sin and their ways would corrupt our clean ways. Kill them sinners I say. And by our good works we can all make it into heaven because God's level of righteousness is perfection. And that is what we must ALL achieve if not we're all joining the sinnners in the pit of hell.

Ahhh. The old testament and the perfect laws. Aren't they great? Thank God for Jesus btw. Redeem us from being judged by the law and into grace. :)

Behold the bigoted creationist presenting evolution as the opposite of belief in God.

Greetings,

I apologize if I offended you, just offering a few suggestions that if you disagree with that is fine, just asking what your belief is. :)

If you knew me in real life you would realize that I am not a bigot and to be honest I have never been called that before but then I guess you do not know me so namecalling is your way of saying hello? :D

An over encompassing statement that fails to take into account all the good in the bible. Hence my earlier point. You have no interest in even considering anything in the bible as valid and you will read it in bits and parts.

No, no I don't, as the Bible says I should be put to death because I am gay. I have no interest in entertaining such sillyness.

Last question for you. Where did we come from then? IF not God then from another higher power or do you believe in evolution?

No sky wizards. And evolution is not the opposite of faith. And, no, evolution is not abiogenesis - evolution doesn't deal with creation of life at all.

That front page resolved none of them. Nor did several of the links.



Use the alphabetical index.

Ahhh. The old testament and the perfect laws. Aren't they great? Thank God for Jesus btw. Redeem us from being judged by the law and into grace. :)

"It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations." Lev.23:14

You know. There could be a reason for that...

It adds to history when looking at the 300 Sparta soldiers who killed the 55,000 Persians north of Athens and then realizing that this happened between chapters 1 and 2 of Esther.

You sure?

I'm no Biblical scholar but all I see is a king making his wife do a strip tease in front of his drunk mates :confused:

Still though. Whatever is described in between Chapter 1 & 2 is hardly relevent or significant when there are better sources else where.[/QUOTE]

Between chapters 1 and 2 you have a number of years. The king comes back deflated. He has no more wife cause Queen Vashti disagreed with him, he just lost against 'barbaric rebels' - from his point of view of the Greek city states.

His glorious armies were in tatters. 55,000 Persian soldiers were killed by 300 Spartans. His 'superior' navy was crushed by a 'insignificant' Greek navy. He was broken. Again, study the history of the Greek city state of Sparta (not in the bible). Extremely interesting! You can piece parts of the bible and parts of history together to make a more detailed fit I have found which makes it awesome cause I love reading about the battles from this era (actually who am I kidding from all eras).

Hmm...Maybe you meant this?

http://www.apologeticsindex.com/b08.html

Lists of Bible Contradictions

Perhaps you have seen them -- those lists of alleged "Bible Contradictions".

They're frequently posted to mailing lists and other discussion forums, and various lists can be found on a number of web sites. Do they prove the Bible to be flawed? Do they present valid observations and arguments? And if so, what does that mean?

It is not surprising that non-Christians point out seeming contradictions in the Bible, nor is it wrong for them to do so. Even Christians who are thoroughly familiar with the Bible sometimes are stumped by what at first glance may look like inconsistencies.

Rather than ignore these issues, Christians should use them as opportunities to teach people about the Bible and its message. Though it appears that many of those who copy-and-paste lists of alleged contradictions have not themselves studied the issues they present, others are sincere in their quest for answers.

Seems you're the one who didn't read, Neo Rogolia. That part of the site offers no actual arguments, only advising in how to debate rather than arguments to use. Nice.

I apologize if I offended you, just offering a few suggestions that if you disagree with that is fine, just asking what your belief is.

big·ot One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Strangely, the belief that if some accepts evolution one is not a Christian qualifies totally for that definition. Evolution does not purport to explain the creation of the universe at all; while the action of a creator in that moment is not a rational scientific theory, religion is not rational anyway, and there are plenty of Christians and people of other faiths who acknowledge both a God or Gods and the existence of macroevolution and an ancient Earth.

Use the alphabetical index.
Since you seem to know where it is why not produce a direct link.


Otherwise I may as well present evidence are www.google.com, then tell people to "use the search feature." :rolleyes:

Use the alphabetical index.

Nope, still nothing.

Since you seem to know where it is why not produce a direct link.


Otherwise I may as well present evidence are www.google.com, then tell people to "use the search feature." :rolleyes:



He brought up multiple issues, no? What, do you expect me to link to every one of them?

He brought up multiple issues, no? What, do you expect me to link to every one of them?

Yes?

No, no I don't, as the Bible says I should be put to death because I am gay. I have no interest in entertaining such sillyness.



No sky wizards. And evolution is not the opposite of faith. And, no, evolution is not abiogenesis - evolution doesn't deal with creation of life at all.

I know, there is interventionism etc

However I view that when you get down to the main viewpoint we were either created by something or came to exist out of nothing.
----------------------------------
The thing about killing gays I don't recall the bible noting that. Homosexuality is noted as being sin within the bible though Lev 18:29 just notes that people are to be cast out (does it mention elsewhere to kill them? Obviously there is Sodom and Gomorraha but well I am not certain on why those two cities were taken out exactly). Obviously the bible notes that sinners will die but that is for all types of sin (then if that is what you mean by gays being put to death I understand your point of view).

Here is a nice article that deals with a lot of supposed contradictions: http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

He brought up multiple issues, no? What, do you expect me to link to every one of them?

Well it *is* good etiquette.

You can piece parts of the bible and parts of history together to make a more detailed fit

How does it make it more detailed?

This area of history is hardly my speciality, but it doesn't appear that there is anything particuarly significant in Esther.

Well it *is* good etiquette.



How does it make it more detailed?

This area of history is hardly my speciality, but it doesn't appear that there is anything particuarly significant in Esther.



Ok then, Fass if you would, please list each issue you have and I will do my best to find an article on it.

big·ot One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.



Thank you! I am not intolerant. I have friends who are gay, agnostic, buddhist, muslim, athiest etc

Since I am not intolerant I am therefore NOT a bigot, then again if you knew me you would know that already. As I said first time I have ever been called that so was quite surprised at the namecalling aspect and the name itself but then oh well you meet new people every day so oh well.

Behold the bigoted creationist presenting evolution as the opposite of belief in God.

By the way, how are you a moderator when you resort to namecalling in regards to someone who you know nothing about?

You call me a bigot when the very definition of it is what I am not and nothing of what I have said here notes me as. Just curious again cause the fact that you are a moderator of the NS forums confuses me in light of your remarks.

Here is a nice article that deals with a lot of supposed contradictions: http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

No it doesn't, is a classic case of circular reasoning. 'Because the Bible is divinely inspired all the contradictions must have other explainations, because God does not make mistakes.' Nowhere does he ever entertain that the vast number of contradictions, incorrect prophesies [such as the repeated statements that Armageddon would come within the lifetime of the disciples], historical inaccuracies and scientific impossibilties in The Bible could mean that the Bible is not correct, or at very least should be regarded with caution and not treated as absolutely factual as some treat it.

Thank you! I am not intolerant. I have friends who are gay, agnostic, buddhist, muslim, athiest etc

Which is totally irrelevant, because the issue was that you stated that you could not simultaneously accept evolution and be religious. Who you call your friends has no bearing on that.

EDIT: Perhaps you misunderstand. Your opinion appeared bigoted in light of your apparent opinion that nobody who accepts evolution believes in God. That statement does fit the description posted; I do not know you well enough to claim it describes your entire character. Believe me, if I was trying to insult you, it would be much more obvious and probebly include the word 'mutant' several times.

Okay to some up so far.

We are pretty much agreed the bible is irrelevent except to scholars concerned with mythological studies and to those cooking.

Is it possible to add "yes, but only for nutritionists" to the poll?

No it doesn't, is a classic case of circular reasoning. 'Because the Bible is divinely inspired all the contradictions must have other explainations, because God does not make mistakes.' Nowhere does he ever entertain that the vast number of contradictions, incorrect prophesies [such as the repeated statements that Armageddon would come within the lifetime of the disciples], historical inaccuracies and scientific impossibilties in The Bible could mean that the Bible is not correct, or at very least should be regarded with caution and not treated as absolutely factual as some treat it.



Which is totally irrelevant, because the issue was that you stated that you could not simultaneously accept evolution and be religious. Who you call your friends has no bearing on that.

EDIT: Perhaps you misunderstand. Your opinion appeared bigoted in light of your apparent opinion that nobody who accepts evolution believes in God. That statement does fit the description posted; I do not know you well enough to claim it describes your entire character. Believe me, if I was trying to insult you, it would be much more obvious and probebly include the word 'mutant' several times.

I never stated that one could not believe in evolution and be religious, you assumed this possibly due to my choices. I recognize there are many beliefs so therefore my speech was directed in the viewpoint of what I understand however I realize there are different ways of thinking out there.

In terms of the 'insult', I don't take it as such, I was just shocked cause the term is something I am not and just want to ensure you either knew that or that you don't care...plus wanted to know how you arrived at that inaccurate conclusion.

I appreciate the explanation though so cool. :)

Fass, as a gay man and a homosexual, how good do you think the bible is as an actual historical document?

This message brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

Okay to some up so far.

We are pretty much agreed the bible is irrelevent except to scholars concerned with mythological studies and to those cooking.

Is it possible to add "yes, but only for nutritionists" to the poll?

No, because the Bible has significant use for scholars concerned with HISTORICAL studies.

Okay to some up so far.

We are pretty much agreed the bible is irrelevent except to scholars concerned with mythological studies and to those cooking.

Is it possible to add "yes, but only for nutritionists" to the poll?

lol, no we are in agreement that we agree to disagree.

I view the bible as relevant on numerous issues though you disagree on this point.

...

I know, there is interventionism etc

However I view that when you get down to the main viewpoint we were either created by something or came to exist out of nothing.

Which is not only an incorrect simplification, but is also completely irrelevant to evolution.

The thing about killing gays I don't recall the bible noting that. Homosexuality is noted as being sin within the bible though Lev 18:29 just notes that people are to be cast out (does it mention elsewhere to kill them? Obviously there is Sodom and Gomorraha but well I am not certain on why those two cities were taken out exactly). Obviously the bible notes that sinners will die but that is for all types of sin (then if that is what you mean by gays being put to death I understand your point of view).

You need to read your Bible a bit closer: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Lev. 20:13

Okay to some up so far.

We are pretty much agreed the bible is irrelevent except to scholars concerned with mythological studies and to those cooking.

Do you wear blinkers?

There has been very little agreement.

Ok then, Fass if you would, please list each issue you have and I will do my best to find an article on it.

I never listed any issues. I linked to a biblical text, and made no allusions to anything else on that site. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

No, because the Bible has significant use for scholars concerned with HISTORICAL studies.

No, only those concerned with Mythology. I would question the authenticity of any historical text making reference to events in the bible as fact. As would any reasonable scholar, except as an addendum or as a note to lend weight to facts in an authenticated text.

No, only those concerned with Mythology. I would question the authenticity of any historical text making reference to events in the bible as fact.

Why?

Do you wear blinkers?

There has been very little agreement.

Yes but most of it is not relevant. I conceed the point that the Bible contains nutritional information as this is substantiated. I can see no other points of relevance so far.

No, only those concerned with Mythology. I would question the authenticity of any historical text making reference to events in the bible as fact. As would any reasonable scholar, except as an addendum or as a note to lend weight to facts in an authenticated text.

No, those concerned with history as well. Much of what the Bible contains is historically accurate. The Bible is the only contemporary source of information on the Roman Empire not created by a Roman. It is invaluable for its outsider's look on the greatest empire in anitiquity. You are simply blinded by your own arrogance and ignorance to admit the Bible has historical relevance.

Why?

Because it is not substantiated fact, or dated, and is written in the narritive, after events. It therefore contains the historical authenticy of oratory equivalents.

Yes but most of it is not relevant. I conceed the point that the Bible contains nutritional information as this is substantiated. I can see no other points of relevance so far.

So my question "Do you wear blinker?" Gets the reply, "yes."

There is historical accuracy in the Bible.

You just need to be careful, since there is also a lot of inaccuracy and places where the Bible is the sole source.

No, those concerned with history as well. Much of what the Bible contains is historically accurate. The Bible is the only contemporary source of information on the Roman Empire not created by a Roman. It is invaluable for its outsider's look on the greatest empire in anitiquity. You are simply blinded by your own arrogance and ignorance to admit the Bible has historical relevance.

>Much of what the Bible contains is historically accurate.

Whether it is or not is irrelevent. It is not substantiated.

> The Bible is the only contemporary source of information on the Roman Empire not created by a Roman.

No its not. Look them up.

>It is invaluable for its outsider's look on the greatest empire in anitiquity.

No its not, historical accounts do not rely upon it.

>You are simply blinded by your own arrogance and ignorance to admit the Bible has historical relevance.

Irrelevant

Sorry which part of "other than the work of people interested in myths and legends" did you miss.

As an historical text its hardly The Doomsday book is it, or the work of a reliable historical scholar such as Josephus or Ceasar.

>>>>To state that the bible does not have any relevance means you are stating that the Roman empire did not exist, and the Babylonian empire, and the Medo-Persian empire, and the city states of Greece, and...

No it doesnt, dont be silly.


Next


is it relevant? rofl. let's see here:

a)Most western laws are based on principles outlined in the Bible.

b)It contains the plan of salvation for mankind. Currently, about 2 billion people are at least occasional readers.

c)It has some poetic merit. Read Psalm 23 and 1 Corinthians 13.

d)with four different people outlining Jesus' life, we have gobs of info on how to emulate one of the greatest people in the history of the world. 2 billion (ish) people around the world have undertaken that as Christians, and probably even a lot of people who would not call themselves Christians recognize Jesus as one to emulate.

It's the most relevant book ever written... your insolence notwithstanding.

So my question "Do you wear blinker?" Gets the reply, "yes."

There is historical accuracy in the Bible.

You just need to be careful, since there is also a lot of inaccuracy and places where the Bible is the sole source.

See last post

Because it is not substantiated fact, or dated, and is written in the narritive, after events.

Plenty of authoritative work are written in the narrative. And aren't most things written after the event?

Is Antony Beevor's "Stalingrad" not reliable because it was written around 60 years after the fact?

There is also substantiated fact in the Bible. (Though it is as not full of it as some would like to believe)

It therefore contains the historical authenticy of oratory equivalents.

Are you a historian? or do you just fancy yourself as one?

The Atheist's Guide to NS


1. Join and declare war on Christianity.
2. Start a thread with the proof you found that proves without a doubt that Christianity is false.
3. Debunk the arguments of Christians to prove your mighty superiority as you just proved a 2000 year old religion to be nothing more than lies.
4. Repeat.



How original this thread is.

>Much of what the Bible contains is historically accurate.

Whether it is or not is irrelevent. It is not substantiated.

But it is.


>It is invaluable for its outsider's look on the greatest empire in anitiquity.

No its not, historical accounts do not rely upon it.

Depends on the accounts

>a)Most western laws are based on principles outlined in the Bible.

Proof?

>b)It contains the plan of salvation for mankind. Currently, about 2 billion people are at least occasional readers.

Irrelevent, people read Harry Potter books too.

>c)It has some poetic merit. Read Psalm 23 and 1 Corinthians 13.

Possibly. Willing to conceed this point.

>d)with four different people outlining Jesus' life, we have gobs of info on how to emulate one of the greatest people in the history of the world. 2 billion (ish) people around the world have undertaken that as Christians, and probably even a lot of people who would not call themselves Christians recognize Jesus as one to emulate.

I am a fish. Therefore I must have gills.
Irrelevent

>It's the most relevant book ever written... your insolence notwithstanding.

Irrelant


Can we add "Yes, but only for those interested in archaic poetry" to the poll

The Atheist's Guide to NS


1. Join and declare war on Christianity.
2. Start a thread with the proof you found that proves without a doubt that Christianity is false.
3. Debunk the arguments of Christians to prove your mighty superiority as you just proved a 2000 year old religion to be nothing more than lies.
4. Repeat.



How original this thread is.

:rolleyes:

The Atheist's Guide to NS


1. Join and declare war on Christianity.
2. Start a thread with the proof you found that proves without a doubt that Christianity is false.
3. Debunk the arguments of Christians to prove your mighty superiority as you just proved a 2000 year old religion to be nothing more than lies.
4. Repeat.



How original this thread is.

Why bother.

Whether it is or not is irrelevent. It is not substantiated.


Much of what is in the Bible IS substantiated by archeological and literary evidence from the empire itself.

No its not. Look them up.

Provide an example. Give an example of an outsider view of the Roman Empire.

And your claim that Josephus was a respected scholar is laughable. Josephus was a puppet.


No its not, historical accounts do not rely upon it.


But historians DO rely on it to form a more complete picture of what Roman rule was like.


Irrelevant

It's quite relevant. Your arrogance that you know more than anyone else is blinding you to the fact that the Bible does have a lot of secular value. Terse little one word responses just show your inferior debating style and knowledge on the subject. Show me something more, or shut up and leave this debate to the grown ups.

The Atheist's Guide to NS


1. Join and declare war on Christianity.
2. Start a thread with the proof you found that proves without a doubt that Christianity is false.
3. Debunk the arguments of Christians to prove your mighty superiority as you just proved a 2000 year old religion to be nothing more than lies.
4. Repeat.



How original this thread is.

You criticize someone else's originality while copy-pasting someone else's words to substitute for your own? Pot, meet kettle.

>But it is.

Proof?


>Depends on the accounts

By definition any such account is not historical, due to the lack of authenticity. These accounts are irelevant to the the discussion.

If you state that the bible is a myth and legend then World War 2 and World War 1, by your definition, are myths and legends too.

The bible notes that nations of Egypt, Babylon, Persia, city states of Greece, Rome. You are telling me these are all myths and legends?

In relation to your statement about a doomsday book what specifically are you refering to? I assume the end of the world thing in the bible though again I have found assumptions are sometimes inaccurate so I wish to get further information before responding.

In terms of practical natures of the book:
-as humans we learn from history and there are numerous instances of history (both personal stories and national stories) in the book. Then again if you are one of those who believes that we do not learn from history then I guess you support the Iraq war and Bush's missile shield despite past historical mistakes such as Vietnam and the Maginot Line (in France) *shakes head*

-in terms of health there are numerous health principles in Leviticus which have been proven true of late in terms of what to eat, what is healthy etc.

Now I have a question for you. Do you ever plan to read the bible in parts? Not telling you to, just that with your inaccurate knowledge about it, plus your seeming disgust at it (I assume - here goes with me assuming - probably because right wing individuals who likewise do not know the bible state things to you you do not like) I would strongly suggest you read it for yourself. Again, not judging you, not telling you what to do (not that you would do it anyhow), just saying you seem hostile towards it and I assume that is cause you have a bunch of right wingers tell you their beliefs and try and shove it down your throat when that is not what the bible is about, hence why I note probably a good thing to see what it is actually about. You might be surprised.

It's the Domesday Book (no, it's not "Doomsday")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_book

Look the only reason I started this poll is I am hungover, in work and I saw that stupid irrelevant Homosexuality thread.

Lets make a biased poll I thought.

I'm soooo tired

lol

>But it is.

Proof?

Look earlier in this thread for a start :rolleyes:

>Depends on the accounts


By definition any such account is not historical, due to the lack of authenticity. These accounts are irelevant to the the discussion.

In other words "I'll ignore anything I don't agree with" :rolleyes:

Are you a historian or do you just fancy yourself as one?

And yeah... i find it amusing to listen to people who obviously never (or hardly ever) read the Bible talking about it as if they do read it...

Would be akin to me trying to enter into a discussion on molecular biology.

Look the only reason I started this poll is I am hungover, in work and I saw that stupid irrelevant Homosexuality thread.

Lets make a biased poll I thought.

I'm soooo tired

lol

Ah, so you're a troll. Good. I'll go report you now.

How about a 'yes' option for those actually believe it's relevant?

Look the only reason I started this poll is I am hungover, in work and I saw that stupid irrelevant Homosexuality thread.

Lets make a biased poll I thought.

I'm soooo tired

lol

drink a bloody mary

>Plenty of authoritative work are written in the narrative. And aren't most things written after the event? Is Antony Beevor's "Stalingrad" not reliable because it was written around 60 years after the fact?

To serious scholarship yes it is unreliable.

>There is also substantiated fact in the Bible. (Though it is as not full of it as some would like to believe)

Proof?

>Are you a historian? or do you just fancy yourself as one?

Irrelevant

Ah, so you're a troll. Good. I'll go report you now.

You mean you didn't guess from his first post?:

Can we remove christians from the poll please, they are no longer relevant to the modern world, and any reference to their barbaric superstitious nonsense is a regression of society.

Thanks

Ah, so you're a troll. Good. I'll go report you now.

Whats a troll?

>Plenty of authoritative work are written in the narrative. And aren't most things written after the event? Is Antony Beevor's "Stalingrad" not reliable because it was written around 60 years after the fact?

To serious scholarship yes it is unreliable.

Howso?

The Bible or "Stalingrad?"

Do you expect thing to be written before the event?.

>There is also substantiated fact in the Bible. (Though it is as not full of it as some would like to believe)

Proof?

See above

>Are you a historian? or do you just fancy yourself as one?

Irrelevant

I'll take that as a no then.

How about a 'yes' option for those actually believe it's relevant?

No that would make the poll unbiased, and invalidate the results

Whats a troll?

http://www.finnmoller.dk/tr-norge/norge2002/t-troll.jpg

[QUOTE=Anarchic Conceptions]Howso?

>The Bible or "Stalingrad?"

Both

Do you expect thing to be written before the event?.

> No

http://www.finnmoller.dk/tr-norge/norge2002/t-troll.jpg

hehe

>The Bible or "Stalingrad?"

Both

Howso?

I'll admit I haven't actually read Stalingrad, just the first book to pop into my head.

Must have been because of "Peep Show"

Do you expect thing to be written before the event?.

> No

When do you expect things to be written then?

Sorry last post got mangled, and I'm too hungover to revisit.

>Howso?

Sorry, Which point is this refering to?

>I'll admit I haven't actually read Stalingrad, just the first book to pop into my head.

Its a good book.

>Must have been because of "Peep Show"

hehe


>When do you expect things to be written then?

After or during.

Sorry last post got mangled, and I'm too hungover to revisit.

>Howso?

Sorry, Which point is this refering to?

Is Antony Beevor's "Stalingrad" not reliable because it was written around 60 years after the fact?

To serious scholarship yes it is unreliable.

Howso?

The Bible or "Stalingrad?"

Both

ie. You claimed "Stalingrad" wasn't reliable, though AFAIK it was well recieved in the historical community.

>I'll admit I haven't actually read Stalingrad, just the first book to pop into my head.

Its a good book.

Now I'm confused :confused:

>Must have been because of "Peep Show"

hehe

:D

You can't be all that bad then :)


>When do you expect things to be written then?

After or during.

But you claimed the Bible is inaccurate because it was written after the event :confused:

>ie. You claimed "Stalingrad" wasn't reliable, though AFAIK it was well recieved in the historical community.

Yes, as a good read and within the confines of the historical account. You wouldnt rely on it however in a paper.

>You can't be all that bad then :)

Thanks.

>But you claimed the Bible is inaccurate because it was written after the event :confused:

No. I merely asserted it was written after the fact. I didnt claim it was inaccurate either.

>ie. You claimed "Stalingrad" wasn't reliable, though AFAIK it was well recieved in the historical community.

Yes, as a good read and within the confines of the historical account. You wouldnt rely on it however in a paper.


Meh, I wouldn't really on any one book for a paper.

Though Stalingrad is a bit outside of my areas of interest.

Sorry just saw this post.

>Much of what is in the Bible IS substantiated by archeological and literary evidence from the empire itself.

Irrelevent to the discussion. accuracy is beside the point.


>Provide an example. Give an example of an outsider view of the Roman Empire.

Look them up there are many.

>And your claim that Josephus was a respected scholar is laughable.

Nonsense


>But historians DO rely on it to form a more complete picture of what Roman rule was like.

Yes, as narrative, this point is accounted for in the poll


>It's quite relevant. Your arrogance that you know more than anyone else is blinding you to the fact that the Bible does have a lot of secular value. Terse little one word responses just show your inferior debating style and knowledge on the subject. Show me something more, or shut up and leave this debate to the grown ups.

Irrelevant

The question is whether or not the bible is relevant. True, the bible does mention many actual places and people. But that alone dosen't mean it's relevant. I could write "Rome" on apiece of paper, and it may or may not be relevant.

Just doing a cursory sweep, that's definitely a trollish intro. However, it looks as if people are keeping it civil and therefore you all (save Nihilist Krill) are to be commended.

Nihilist Krill, while I too know the temptation of acting on poorly thought-out drunken ideas (like drunken football), it's my recommendation to wait until you sober up or spend twice the time thinking about the consequences. Given that I remember the Atheist-Christian Wars of Winter '03 *shakes cane* we really don't need something this flamebaity on the forums.

Mind editing your behavior with that much in mind? I took the liberty of editing the poll for you.

Yes. The Bible is relevant to everyday life. It gives people pointers to leading a decent, moral life. Some of the 10 Commandments being a pretty good example of this - Thou shalt not kill. (Though some of these will obviously not be seen as such by other religions - Thou shalt not worship false gods)

Admittedly there are a few bits that aren't so good (stoning people for sinning, etc) but some of the stuff in the old testament is changed in the new. e.g. an eye for an eye in OT becomes turn the other cheek in NT.

However, in todays increasingly immoral society it may be seen as less relevant than it once was. Is this perhaps due to the degradation of society as a whole?

Yes. The Bible is relevant to everyday life. It gives people pointers to leading a decent, moral life. Some of the 10 Commandments being a pretty good example of this - Thou shalt not kill. (Though some of these will obviously not be seen as such by other religions - Thou shalt not worship false gods)

How are commandments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 relevent for leading a descent life is one does not subscribe to them?

However, in todays increasingly immoral society it may be seen as less relevant than it once was. Is this perhaps due to the degradation of society as a whole?

Meh, this "sky is falling" rhetoric is as old as time itself probably.

Just doing a cursory sweep, that's definitely a trollish intro. However, it looks as if people are keeping it civil and therefore you all (save Nihilist Krill) are to be commended.

I disagree. I remianed impersonal and impassioned despite some of the more personal denegrations received.

Nihilist Krill, while I too know the temptation of acting on poorly thought-out drunken ideas (like drunken football), it's my recommendation to wait until you sober up or spend twice the time thinking about the consequences. Given that I remember the Atheist-Christian Wars of Winter '03 *shakes cane* we really don't need something this flamebaity on the forums.

I said I was hungover not drunk. I was not here 2003, I was unaware that polls from this perspective is a no no. Agreed, given some peoples belief systems, the thread was flamebaity.


Mind editing your behavior with that much in mind? I took the liberty of editing the poll for you.

If the behaviour in question is creation of a poll of this content, then yes I will refrain from this behaviour on this forum.

I disagree with editing the poll however, it skews the results and invalidates the relevance of many of the posts. Much better to delete thread instead.

A "sort of" option on your poll would help so i'll vote no for now but the bible does seem to offer help in everyday life for some people others think its a load of crap