Who Owns Truth Anyway ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea, I hear that scientist agree about a lot of things from weather to dates.

Is this supposed to be one of the clincher debating points that your religion has equipped you with?

Originally posted by FMF
If you contend that they are inspired, then the burden of proof is on you. Until you do, they are just texts.

What is it about 'I am not contending if they are inspired or not', that yet fails you?

Was it in English or a foreign language? perhaps it was flowery and verbose? in a coded message written with invisible ink? perhaps it was encrypted using 128 data bits and you don't have the public or private key? Perhaps it was written in hieroglyphics or ancient Sumerian? If I write it again and put the text in bold do you think that will help? Perhaps you are simply incapable of assimilating the text so as put the constituent parts together so as to form a whole? who can tell? Here let me try this.

I am not contending whether they [the Biblical scriptures] are actually inspired or not.
Is that helping any?

Originally posted by FMF
But you do believe - and have contended here umpteen times - that they are divinely inspired, robbie. So any request from you for proof - or a reason why - they are [b]not divinely inspired is a logical fallacy.[/b]

let me repeat this and lets see if you can grasp it this time.

'I am not contending whether they are inspired or not'. - robbie carrobie

Perhaps if you print it out and sit it in front of your monitor you may do better.? make coloured cards and hang them on your fridge or put them at convenient spots around the house to remind yourself when passing.

Originally posted by FMF
If you contend that they are inspired, then the burden of proof is on you. Until you do, they are just texts.

oh dear it seems that it really is beyond you.

I don't think I will repeat it any more clearly its a waste of time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'I am not contending whether they are inspired or not'. - robbie carrobie

If you do not contend that the scriptures are divinely inspired then there is no issue for avalanchethecat to address.

Originally posted by FMF
If you do not contend that the scriptures are divinely inspired then there is no issue for avalanchethecat to address.

Read the text and try to assimilate it instead of prattling on with your inane babel about a position I have not taken and have explicitly stated that I have not taken possibly three or more times.

Actually there is, I would like to know why he does not think they are inspired. I have provided reasons myself why they might not be considered inspired and I don't need to make a stance either way to ask this question.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Read the text and try to assimilate it instead of prattling on with your inane babel about a position I have not taken and have explicitly stated that I have not taken.

If you don't have the courage of your convictions to assert that the scriptures are divinely inspired and you don't have any evidence that they are either, then there is no burden of proof on avalanchethecat.

Originally posted by FMF
If you don't have the courage of your convictions to assert that the scriptures are divinely inspired and you don't have any evidence that they are either, then there is no burden of proof on avalanchethecat.

it has nothing to do with courage or convictions and your vain attempt to make it so does nothing for your argument, sorry its just the usual FMF bilgewater attempt to make debate personal rubbish that you churn out here on this forum on a daily basis being bereft of anything else.

Here is the question its rather straightforward and clear. Why don't you think the scriptures are inspired. I am not asking him to prove anything, I am asking him for his opinion. You have repeatedly stressed that the forum is a place for people to express their opinion have you not? well now I am asking him and anyone else that might be interested hwy they do not think that the scriptures are inspired. I have even provided some plausible reasons myself!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Here is the question its rather straightforward and clear. Why don't you think the scriptures are inspired.

But who is suggesting that they are divinely inspired?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually that would only make sense if i was contesting whether they were actually inspired or not, but I am not. What I am asking is why he doubts or denies their inspiration. It seems to me to be a valid question. For example he might cite fictional events or characters. Glaring inconsistencies. Plagiarism from other sources. Things like that.

None of the content of the bible suggests that it is divinely inspired. There is no evidence outside the bible that the god or gods therein described even exist. To hold the position that it or they do, and that they have divinely inspired the writing of this particular set of ancient texts based only on the content of this particular set of ancient texts is not a reasonable position to take.

Originally posted by FMF
But who is suggesting that they [b]are divinely inspired?[/b]

what does it matter who?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what does it matter who?

Well, whoever it is, what evidence have they presented?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
None of the content of the bible suggests that it is divinely inspired. There is no evidence outside the bible that the god or gods therein described even exist. To hold the position that it or they do, and that they have divinely inspired the writing of this particular set of ancient texts based only on the content of this particular set of ancient texts is not a reasonable position to take.

Yes I understand that but you claim some kind of lack of evidence outside the Bible itself. This is an appeal to ignorance. Surely if you are asked to comment on why you feel the Bible is not inspired you might make reference to what is actually written in it rather than what is not? None of the content suggests that it is divinely inspired? Perhaps you could be more specific?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, whoever it is, what evidence have they presented?

why don't you ask those who are trying to prove that its inspired? That would not be me as I have repeatedly stated ad nauseum.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
None of the content suggests that it is divinely inspired? Perhaps you could be more specific?

Surely, if you believe it is clear evidence that it is divinely inspired, you can make the case?