03 Jun 05
why would Jesus say that he is not God? It would be an obvious contradiction to everything else that was stated before. Do you actually think the authors of the Bible vere that foolish? I mean common, not even no1marauder would make that bigga mistake 😉 hey no1marauder, do you hate me or just my beliefs?
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by bobbob1056thExplain Matthew 24:36 (or have your Dad do it):
why would Jesus say that he is not God? It would be an obvious contradiction to everything else that was stated before. Do you actually think the authors of the Bible vere that foolish? I mean common, not even no1marauder would make that bigga mistake 😉 hey no1marauder, do you hate me or just my beliefs?
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.
How can Jesus, who is supposedly God, not know the day and hour of his own Second Coming?
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWould you please quote were Jesus says "don't call me good"?
You're a very stupid person. Someone saying don't call me good only God is good means they are good and God???????? LMFAO!!!
It is common knowledge that morons are resort to laughing in the face of superior reason to hide their embarrassment. The harder they laugh, the more they are trying to hide. Therefore you must be bordering on retarded.
One the other hand, those with superior minds merely wink and smile. 😉
03 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderContract interpretation ? Lawschoolhelp.com ?
Maybe this will help:
Where contract language is clear and explicit and does not lead to an absurd result, a court will ascertain contractual intent from the written provisions of the contract itself and go no further.
http://www.west.net/~smith/interpret.htm
No wonder you make such an incredible mess of reading and interpreting the Holy Scriptures. It is very sad to see you go astray in such a devastating way. You are one of the many sad examples of how unbelievably ignorant and blind intelligent people can be.
Please read:
Luke, chapter 18, 18-43
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=text&offset=4567117&textreg=0&query=Why+callest+thou+me+good
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiRead the passage. The rich guy calls him Good Teacher. Jesus objects to this asking why callest me good? None is good, but God. Even the dimmest wit can figure out that this is a denial of goodness; if Jesus was saying he WAS good, as you ridiculously claim, why would he have a problem with being called "good". Try thinking for a change; I don't believe you were predestined to be a complete fool like you are.
Would you please quote were Jesus says "don't call me good"?
It is common knowledge that morons are resort to laughing in the face of superior reason to hide their embarrassment. The harder they laugh, the more they are trying to hide. Therefore you must be bordering on retarded.
One the other hand, those with superior minds merely wink and smile. 😉
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe rules of legal interpretation are based on thousands of years of experience and logic. They predate your foolish superstition. If your Holy Book cannot be interpreted according to logic and rational rules that are used in every other field of human endeavor, then it is incomprehensible gibberish. You might has well fall back on the Secret Decoder Ring Defense the fundies use.
Contract interpretation ? Lawschoolhelp.com ?
No wonder you make such an incredible mess of reading and interpreting the Holy Scriptures. It is very sad to see you go astray in such a devastating way. You are one of the many sad examples of how unbelievably ignorant and blind intelligent people can be.
Please read:
Luke, chapter 18, 18-43
ht ...[text shortened]... ish/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=text&offset=4567117&textreg=0&query=Why+callest+thou+me+good
03 Jun 05
The theological question here concerns the Holy Trinity; that odd belief that God is subdivided into three parts which are, however, complete in and of themselves. No mention of such a concept is apparent in the Old Testament and the Trinity is rejected by the Jewish faith and by Islam. In early Christianity, the doctrine was highly debated, and was not made part of official Church doctrine until 325 AD at the Council of Nicea. This was in response to growing belief in Arianism, which denied that Jesus was God. While the Trinity is now a part of most Christian groups, it is still rejected by some notably Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians. As seen in this thread, to question the concept of the Trinity by Biblical reference brings out the beast in our conservative Christians. However, an explanation of the passages mentioned and of the fact that the Trinity is nowhere mentioned or suggested in the OT would be interesting to say the least.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYour whole argument comes down to this baseless assertion: Jesus is objecting to being called good. That is begging the question - you have not shown that Jesus has objected to anything. You must argue that the question clearly indicates an objection to being called good - and that is patently absurd.
Read the passage. The rich guy calls him Good Teacher. Jesus objects to this asking why callest me good? None is good, but God. Even the dimmest wit can figure out that this is a denial of goodness; if Jesus was saying he WAS good, as you ridiculously claim, why would he have a problem with being called "good". Try thinking for a change; I don't believe you were predestined to be a complete fool like you are.
Don't they require basic logic in law school? ... or maybe they wouldn't - it might make the job of obfuscation too difficult. Everyone knows that a good lawyer's main goal is to confuse and make illogical statements sound reasonable. You are a lawyer correct?
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiWhen somebody says "Why are you calling me a liar?" it is question in form, but an assertion of non-liarness in fact. If you are too stupid to realize that, then you might has well go back to discussing whether it was dinosaurs or dinosaur eggs on the Ark 4300 years ago. The meaning of the passage is clear; if it wasn't in the Bible but in normal conversation not even an idiot like you would assert otherwise.
Your whole argument comes down to this baseless assertion: Jesus is objecting to being called good. That is begging the question - you have not shown that Jesus has objected to anything. You must argue that the question clearly indicates an objection to being called good - and that is patently absurd.
Don't they require basic logic in law school? ... ...[text shortened]... in goal is to confuse and make illogical statements sound reasonable. You are a lawyer correct?
03 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNever read a poem or a novel, no1 ?
The rules of legal interpretation are based on thousands of years of experience and logic. They predate your foolish superstition. If your Holy Book cannot be interpreted according to logic and rational rules that are used in e ...[text shortened]... well fall back on the Secret Decoder Ring Defense the fundies use.
I hope the rules of legal interpretation who are based on thousands years of experience and logic, according to you, will help you to interprete them.
Man, I'm not surprised you present us with such moronic ET interpretations of the Holy Scriptures ....... unbelievable .......
EDIT: You can start by reading this:
A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics
Jasper, David
$19.95
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004
pp. xii + 148
Paperback
Subjects: Bible, Literature, Methods, Historical Approaches, History, Literary Approaches, Hermeneutics, History of Interpretation
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4246_4191.pdf
03 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderor he might be explaining this from,,,
When somebody says "Why are you calling me a liar?" it is question in form, but an assertion of non-liarness in fact. If you are too stupid to realize that, then you might has well go back to discussing whether it was dinosa ...[text shortened]... al conversation not even an idiot like you would assert otherwise.
Mark 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you are asserting that the Bible is a work of fiction like a poem or a novel, then yes there would be no need to apply the rules of interpretation that are used on all non-fictional documents to it. Is that what you are claiming, Ivanhoe?
Never read a poem or a novel, no1 ?
I hope the rules of legal interpretation who are based on thousands years of experience and logic, according to you, will help you to interprete them.
Man, I'm not surprised you present us with such moronic ET interpretations of the Holy Scriptures ....... unbelievable .......
EDIT: You can start by reading ...[text shortened]... es, Hermeneutics, History of Interpretation
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4246_4191.pdf
03 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWe were talking about the story of the Rich Young Ruler and what follows, especially the story of the beggar.
If you are asserting that the Bible is a work of fiction like a poem or a novel, then yes there would be no need to apply the rules of interpretation that are used on all non-fictional documents to it. Is that what you are claiming, Ivanhoe?
Read what I advised you to read, you moron.
Luke, chapter 18, 18-43
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religion/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=text&offset=4567117&textreg=0&query=Why+callest+thou+me+good
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is probably your only hope of convincing anyone to accept your fallacious argument - keep repeating it over and over.
When somebody says "Why are you calling me a liar?" it is question in form, but an assertion of non-liarness in fact. If you are too stupid to realize that, then you might has well go back to discussing whether it was dinosaurs or dinosaur eggs on the Ark 4300 years ago. The meaning of the passage is clear; if it wasn't in the Bible but in normal conversation not even an idiot like you would assert otherwise.
The reason you'd call someone a liar, is if in fact you think they are a liar. And when someone question a criticism - they just might be indicating that they disagree. But Jesus was complimented, not criticized. Your your example misses the mark.
If you call me intelligent (as you should), and I asked "why do you call me intelligent, only good arguers are smart" then I am seeking your confirmation that I am a good arguer - not denying I am smart. So you analogy is easily countered - and your rule (that questions always indicate denials) is simply the same assertion that you are trying to argue. And so again your assertion is begging the question.
03 Jun 05
Originally posted by Colettiaddress Mark 9 :37 and then assert that there's no support for no1's assertion.
That is probably your only hope of convincing anyone to accept your fallacious argument - keep repeating it over and over.
The reason you'd call someone a liar, is if in fact you think they are a liar. And when someone question a criticism - they just might be indicating that they disagree. But Jesus was complimented, not criticized. Your your ...[text shortened]... assertion that you are trying to argue. And so again your assertion is begging the question.
et tu Ivy