Who Owns Truth Anyway ?

Originally posted by sonship
What about in threads where you trumpet the Jesus mythers that argue that Jesus may never have existed like Richard Carrier ?

What about them? How does that change the fact that you deliberately and maliciously in this thread implied that I had said something in THIS THREAD that I quite clearly DID NOT SAY.
If you wanted to discuss the contents of some other thread, say so. If you feel it has some relevance to this thread, then explain why.
The reality is you were dishonest, and I called you on it and now you are trying to weasel out of it rather than admit your bad behaviour.

Originally posted by sonship
You're despicable.
Yea close down the discussion on your side.
Strut and brag about winning on the way out.

My guess is that you are just so pissed at me that you are returning 'evil for evil' as you see it, and merely parroting my words even though they no longer make sense in context. I have not closed down discussion, I merely think your question was both irrelevant and malicious in context and that you knew full well that it was so.

Originally posted by sonship
I don't think so.

Let's take [b]"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

What is the scientific fact, undisputed and of mathematical certainty that proves that that statement is false ?

I think the clever fabrication is the wishing away one Jesus Christ did not say and do what He is recorded to have said and did - ACT like God as a man.[/b]

What is the scientific fact, undisputed and of mathematical certainty that proves that that statement is true? None whatsoever, just the scribblings of some prescientific politician. You hold these stories in such regard without any good reason, and think them grounds to consider yourself in possession of 'truth'. Take away your scripture and what actually remains of your religion?

-Removed-

Are you prepared to credit the originators of every single one of your Christian ideas/ideals?

Because I'm pretty sure that someone, somewhere had them before you did.

Are you prepared to let this rabid accreditation kick you're on get in the way of you presenting concepts representing your doctrinal choices you have made? Must everyone research their own dogma and find the first human to think the same ideas they espouse, so that they "get due credit"?

Or is all this just a convenient way for you to repeatedly kick him in the groin for presenting ideas you don't like? Good grief, man, even you admit that you don't even read most of his material. Seems like you're just "taking the piss", here.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Take away your scripture and what actually remains of your religion?

Well, duh.

Most Christians' dogma comes directly from the Bible (except for some outliers, like the JWs). It is not, as you continually maintain, merely the ramblings of a 'superstitious' mind. Scripture is at the core of nearly every single religion on earth. Most 'belief' inherently comes from some scripture. As others have said here, "it is what it is". A religion NOT based on scripture is eminently circumspect.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
What is the scientific fact, undisputed and of mathematical certainty that proves that that statement is true? None whatsoever, just the scribblings of some prescientific politician. You hold these stories in such regard without any good reason, and think them grounds to consider yourself in possession of 'truth'. Take away your scripture and what actually remains of your religion?

You don't know where everything came from, outside of God it is an answer-less question.
So scientific facts about everything came from nothing just are not there to rely on.

-Removed-

... start accrediting the giants who's shoulders you are standing on.

I have been all along and will continue.

The Christians continued steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles.

" And they continued steadfastly in the teaching and the fellowship of the apostles, in the breaking of bread and the prayers." (Acts 2:42)

I like also the Berean people who were "more noble" and double checked again and again the Scriptures to see if these things the servants of God were teaching we so.

" Now these people were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11)

See how they were "more noble" then the opposing people of Thessalonica? They received the word with eagerness. They went back to the Scriptures to compare teachings with Scriptures to see if they should stand upon those high shoulders of Paul and his co-workers.

Look. Some of the Greek women of high standing decided that what the apostles taught did indeed line up to the Scriptures. And some were persuaded from these noble people.

"Therefore many of them believed, and there were not a few Greek women of high standing and men." (v.12)

Credit - Acts 17:11,12 written by Luke - traveling companion of the Apostle Paul.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
... Take away your scripture and what actually remains of your religion?

Whatever it is that makes people invest in it?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, duh.

Most Christians' dogma comes directly from the Bible (except for some outliers, like the JWs). It is not, as you continually maintain, merely the ramblings of a 'superstitious' mind. Scripture is at the core of nearly every single religion on earth. Most 'belief' inherently comes from some scripture. As others have said here, "it is what i ...[text shortened]... question.
So scientific facts about everything came from nothing just are not there to rely on.

I will never understand how you are able to accord such weight to these stories. I have studied christian scripture alongside that of other religions and find it no more compelling or credible. To assert that a religion NOT based on scripture is 'circumspect' seems a rather odd tack to take. You think it more risky to base your faith on these old stories, selected and edited to make them palatable to empire? Why would that be a good thing? And to argue that not knowing the origin of the universe means one should believe some randomly selected ancient creation myth seem rather silly. Why pin your colours to that mast, or indeed, to any?

Originally posted by apathist
Whatever it is that makes people invest in it?

Without the stories, there wouldn't be anything to invest in.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Without the stories, there wouldn't be anything to invest in.

Let us get the facts correct, the Bible contains historical events testified to by archaeology, ethics and morality, laws and ordinances, religious principles, historical characters, it names places, times and dates, secular rulers, customs, cities that are still extant. To denigrate these to mere stories is biased in the extreme and little more than an expression of prejudice if I am honest. When we read scripture we attempt to extract the essence from a passage so as to form a principle that has a modern day application. In this way it becomes relevant and practical to a Christian. Is this your approach to reading verse? if not then is it any wonder than you leave taking nothing with you expect what you came in with?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Let us get the facts correct, the Bible contains historical events testified to by archaeology, ethics and morality, laws and ordinances, religious principles, historical characters, it names places, times and dates, secular rulers, customs, cities that are still extant. To denigrate these to mere stories is biased in the extreme and little more tha ...[text shortened]... f not then is it any wonder than you leave taking nothing with you expect what you came in with?

You and I have had this conversation before Robbie. Yes, many of the stories in the bible are set in the real world; so is the Iliad and the Odyssey, so is Beowulf, so are the Vedas, so is Hesiod's Theogony. There is no bias or prejudice involved in holding the bible in the same regard, it is in fact eminently reasonable. There is no such reason involved in elevating one particular set of ancient stories to such a level based solely on the fact that other men have done so before you.