Mary Magdalene.

[ippy]

Shakes,

Nowhere - it's just another Trollboy fiction. To the contrary, RD says that he wouldn't be without some aspects of Christianity in particular, specifically the cultural aspects. What he does say too though is that we should be less tolerant of the rights some religious arrogate to themselves in the public square - teaching faith beliefs as facts to children, sitting by right in the legislature etc - and I for one am with him on that.

Can't think where at the mo but I think Vlad has got this one right for a change, 'Our Lord Richard' on high, has said something like that somewhere I have either heard or read it somewhere.

I'll get on to it and If I do find it I'll post it.

To be fair to Vlad, even I can be wrong at times, difficult to believe I know.

ippy 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Ipster,

Well, I'd have thought it was Trollboy's job to provide a citation for his claim. Given RD's oft-stated comments about religion though I'd be surprised if he'd said we should be less tolerant of it rather than less tolerant of the rights and entitlements some claim in its name, which is an entirely different thing.

[ippy]

Ipster,

Well, I'd have thought it was Trollboy's job to provide a citation for his claim. Given RD's oft-stated comments about religion though I'd be surprised if he'd said we should be less tolerant of it rather than less tolerant of the rights and entitlements some claim in its name, which is an entirely different thing.

Can't remember where but I can clearly remember the thoughts of mine at the time was, he's giving religion quite a bit more elbow room than I would, the sentiments he was conveying were something like Vlad was saying he had.

Don't worry yourself about me too much blue, I know you do, but I'm not weakening in my resolve, I can't see myself ever taking up religion I never have seen anything that makes any sense that would make me want to take it up.   

ippy 

[Sassy]

Sass, the story doesn't appear in the Codex Sinaticus - which is the prime source for most Bible scholars and translators.  That isn't to say tht it hadn't been in oral currency, but it would appear that the initial authors of the Gospels didn't believe that it was worthy of inclusion - as is the case with a few other parts of the Gospels (each is prefaced with a statement to this effect in most editions of the Bible).

It appears much has been changed. The original Torah and manuscript of the books of Moses and the Prophets were not chapter and verse either. In fact there were no chapters and verses just scrolls which gave the teachings without chapter and verse.
The original scriptures and the teachings of Christ are most prominent in that the OT can be seen within them.

One gospel writes....

King James Version
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

In three years there was not one feeding of people. Not just the miracles within the bible.
It is clear that the bible is not just words and that clarification is not required when the person lives in the New Covenant.

When God said to Jeremiah.

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


We know that in Christ we find the way to God. A living way where the word of God is placed within the heart of the person.

2 Corinthians 3:4-6King James Version (KJV)

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.



When the law came then we died because it convicted us of our sin.
But we find that in Christ the Spirit is life. The same Spirit who had given the words to man through the Prophets even unto Christ. So no one who is in Christ who is a new person requires any man to teach them.

King James Bible
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


John 16:13 and Acts chapters 1-2.

The living words of God came from the Holy Spirit. "My Words are Spirit and they are life." jesus confirming Jeremiah 31:31-34.

The Holy Spirit is required by all believers and we are to heed him in our lives.


Sometimes too much store is put in worldly attributes about the bible.
Rather than the lessons the bible teaches. Every man needs his own oil he requires the presence of Gods Spirit to lead them and be with them. You see mans love for God means he will learn to put him first. Above all that he presently is, so he can become all the things God has ordained for him to receive and to do.

When it comes to the bible this is for the believer and so the unbeliever will have great difficulty trying to make sense.

[Sassy]

The Biblical deity is the worst sinner, ever, if it exists.

How can the creator of the world sin against himself?

[floo]

How can the creator of the world sin against himself?

It sins against humanity if the deeds attributed to it are true.

[ippy]

Sass do you ever think to yourself something like; those blasted non-believers have actually got something, but sod em, fingers in the ears close the eyes la la la la la la la la?

I say the above because I find it difficult to believe that anyone can so readly and almost willingly defy reason and logic on such a large scale, you don't even seem to be able to understand when Blue reminds you about your circular argument, you have never shown in any way that you can even understand exactly what it is Blue is saying.

Surly you're not that thick Sass?

ippy

[Sassy]

Sass do you ever think to yourself something like; those blasted non-believers have actually got something, but sod em, fingers in the ears close the eyes la la la la la la la la?

I say the above because I find it difficult to believe that anyone can so readly and almost willingly defy reason and logic on such a large scale, you don't even seem to be able to understand when Blue reminds you about your circular argument, you have never shown in any way that you can even understand exactly what it is Blue is saying.

Surly you're not that thick Sass?

ippy

You defy logic everyday with your astounding ignorance in the face of creation itself.
You have no logical reason in the face of science for why you or here exists.

The truth is there is no reason or logic for a person not to believe in God/creator.
Hence your post shows you deceive yourself and have no real educated reason for making such a statement.

I guess I am on the winning side when it comes to logic and what we have around us...

[floo]

You defy logic everyday with your astounding ignorance in the face of creation itself.
You have no logical reason in the face of science for why you or here exists.

The truth is there is no reason or logic for a person not to believe in God/creator.
Hence your post shows you deceive yourself and have no real educated reason for making such a statement.

I guess I am on the winning side when it comes to logic and what we have around us...

That is funny Sass, since when did your posts have anything to do with logic, LOL?

[Harrowby Hall]

You defy logic everyday with your astounding ignorance in the face of creation itself.
You have no logical reason in the face of science for why you or here exists.

Do you know what "logic" means?
What evidence is there for ignorance?
What is the face of creation?

The truth is there is no reason or logic for a person not to believe in God/creator.

Why?
Why have you used a double negative - if not for the purpose of adding linguistic confusion to your statement?

Hence your post shows you deceive yourself and have no real educated reason for making such a statement.

How does the post show self-deception? How does a real educated reason differ from an unreal educated reason?

I guess I am on the winning side when it comes to logic and what we have around us...

If it is only a guess then it is a poor one.

Quote mining does not imply intellectual rigor.

[ippy]

You defy logic everyday with your astounding ignorance in the face of creation itself.
You have no logical reason in the face of science for why you or here exists.

The truth is there is no reason or logic for a person not to believe in God/creator.
Hence your post shows you deceive yourself and have no real educated reason for making such a statement.

I guess I am on the winning side when it comes to logic and what we have around us...

Thanks for the response Sass, thing is Sass there is irrefutable evidence that we have evolved and no evidence that we were created, verifiable evidence puts anyone on the winning side, where's the verifiable evidence for creation Sass?

I know it's impossible for you to supply an answer, but, go on have a try, you know, evidence that would prove we were created?

You do know a double negative says the opposite of whatever it is you meant to say?

Things like saying" I aint got nuffing", actually means you have got something, think about it Sass.

ippy

[jeremyp]

Because you're fogetting the context; he has forgiven her, and only God can forgive her - so by forgiving her Jesus claims divinity.  Or are you saying that God can sin?

Why shouldn't God be able to sin? It's a pretty piss poor god that can't do something its followers seem to be unable to stop doing, by their own accounts.

Interesting that that is what I've been pointing out to you as to what you are doing.

I read into the text what it says. The problem is that your view of the Bible is so encrusted by years of desperate interpretation that what it really says is obscured to you.

[Hope]

Why shouldn't God be able to sin? It's a pretty piss poor god that can't do something its followers seem to be unable to stop doing, by their own accounts.

Had thought of responding to this, jeremy, but its such a daft comment that responding would seem pointless.

I read into the text what it says. The problem is that your view of the Bible is so encrusted by years of desperate interpretation that what it really says is obscured to you.

The problem with 'reading into the text what it says' is that there are a whole host of things that need to be taken into account whenever we take part in an conversation or debating exchange.  Not just in regard to the Bible, but in regard to just about every aspect of life.  For instance, what language are you using to work out what it says?  What cultural issues are you considering?  What are your presuppositions and prejudices that underlie your reading?

[Rhiannon]

And yet you don't apply cultural conditions when reading a handful of anti-gay verses, Hope. Although you do for the ones in slavery. Why?

[Hope]

Thanks for the response Sass, thing is Sass there is irrefutable evidence that we have evolved and no evidence that we were created, verifiable evidence puts anyone on the winning side, where's the verifiable evidence for creation Sass?

The problem with that argument, ippy, is that creation seeks to answer a different question to that which evolution deals with - purpose.  At the same time, there is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution but a great deal less for macro-evolution. 

I know it's impossible for you to supply an answer, but, go on have a try, you know, evidence that would prove we were created?

That's easy; the evidence is the same for creation as it is for evolution.  They just answer different questions that arise from that evidence.

You do know a double negative says the opposite of whatever it is you meant to say?

I've always wondered why you use the process so often.

[Shaker]

The problem with that argument, ippy, is that creation seeks to answer a different question to that which evolution deals with - purpose.  At the same time, there is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution but a great deal less for macro-evolution.

What do you think the difference between the two is? 

That's easy; the evidence is the same for creation as it is for evolution.

No it isn't. Evolution is a scientific matter, predicated on methodological naturalism and built up out of empirical observation, hypothesis framing, hypothesis testing (i.e. experiment) and other features of the scientific method. This "creation" of yours is anything but.

[Hope]

What do you think the difference between the two is? 

The latter is above the speci-al level.  In other words, its all about

major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

www.oxforddictionaries.com

On the other hand, the former is all about changes within species and small groups of organisms:

Evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.

(also oxforddictionaries)

No it isn't. Evolution is a scientific matter, predicated on methodological naturalism and built up out of empirical observation, hypothesis framing, hypothesis testing (i.e. experiment) and other features of the scientific method. This "creation" of yours is anything but.

But the investigation into concepts like purpose, which is very different to the concept of reason (in butterflies, for instance, it often has to do with not being seen by predators), requires the idea of creation.  The evidence, as I have said, is the same, but the two approaches ask different questions of that same evidence.

To tell the truth, I have no knowledge of whether you regard humanity and other species as having a purpose for their existence, or whether you believe that there is no such purpose for existence and that we are all simply purpose-less developments of life.

[Shaker]

The latter is above the speci-al level.  In other words, its all about www.oxforddictionaries.com

On the other hand, the former is all about changes within species and small groups of organisms: (also oxforddictionaries)

So you mean speciation, then?

The evidence, as I have said, is the same

Well yes, you've said it, but having said it again this is mere repetition. Bullshit the first time around becomes merely boring bullshit the second time.

but the two approaches ask different questions of that same evidence.

I know how my approach frames questions, tests them and sifts results into true and false answers. What's yours?

To tell the truth, I have no knowledge of whether you regard humanity and other species as having a purpose for their existence, or whether you believe that there is no such purpose for existence and that we are all simply purpose-less developments of life.

Probably because I've never mentioned it.

[Gordon]

But the investigation into concepts like purpose, which is very different to the concept of reason (in butterflies, for instance, it often has to do with not being seen by predators), requires the idea of creation.

No it doesn't, the TofE satisfactorily explains camoflage (if that is what you are alluding to): butterflies don't have a 'purpose' - you're just creating a spurious gap to drop your god into, again.

The evidence, as I have said, is the same, but the two approaches ask different questions of that same evidence.

Nonsense: you've been told this before, 'why' isn't always a valid question: your personal incredulity is getting in the way again.

To tell the truth, I have no knowledge of whether you regard humanity and other species as having a purpose for their existence, or whether you believe that there is no such purpose for existence and that we are all simply purpose-less developments of life.

Why would any sensible person think that any species involves a 'purpose' since there are no good reasons to think so - there are however bad ones, usually due to fallacious thinking and/or ignorance.

[Hope]

No it doesn't, the TofE satisfactorily explains camoflage (if that is what you are alluding to): butterflies don't have a 'purpose' - you're just creating a spurious gap to drop your god into, again.

Do you have evidence to prove that they don't have a purpose?  As I said, and you have reiterated, the TofE explains camoflage, but where is the evidence to show that not only butterflies, but human beings, sharks, bees and every species under the sun 'don't have a 'purpose'?

Nonsense: you've been told this before, 'why' isn't always a valid question: your personal incredulity is getting in the way again.

I know I've been told that before, but as an educated human being, I don't take everything I am told as 'gospel'.  If my 'personal incredulity is getting in the way again', its a situation that I share with just about every other human alive or who has lived.

Why would any sensible person think that any species involves a 'purpose' since there are no good reasons to think so - there are however bad ones, usually due to fallacious thinking and/or ignorance.

Again, do you have any evidence to support your assertion?  After all, millions of very sensible people think exactly what you have suggested they shouldn't.  Could it be that it is the 'non-sensible' people who think like you do? 

[Shaker]

Do you have evidence to prove that they don't have a purpose?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand we're back to the old NPF! Another one for the list.

I know I've been told that before, but as an educated human being

Cunningly concealed ...

After all, millions of very sensible people think exactly what you have suggested they shouldn't.  Could it be that it is the 'non-sensible' people who think like you do?

That's explained by the fact that lamentably large numbers of people have the same penchant for fallacy as you do.

[ippy]

Follow the evidence Hope.

ippy.

[Gordon]

Do you have evidence to prove that they don't have a purpose?

Negative proof fallacy, again - the burden of proof is yours, again.

As I said, and you have reiterated, the TofE explains camoflage, but where is the evidence to show that not only butterflies, but human beings, sharks, bees and every species under the sun 'don't have a 'purpose'?

Negative proof fallacy, again - the burden of proof is yours, again.

I know I've been told that before, but as an educated human being, I don't take everything I am told as 'gospel'.  If my 'personal incredulity is getting in the way again', its a situation that I share with just about every other human alive or who has lived.

No it isn't - you blunder into the same fallacies repeatedly whereas as others, here in this Forum at any rate, are far less inclined towards making the reasoning errors that you make.
 

Again, do you have any evidence to support your assertion?  After all, millions of very sensible people think exactly what you have suggested they shouldn't.  Could it be that it is the 'non-sensible' people who think like you do?

I've no idea regarding what these 'millions of very sensible people' think, and I suspect you don't either, but we're they to offer the same claims that you make here then it would be reasonable to consider they were susceptible to the same fallacies as yourself.

Do feel free to advance a good argument for 'purpose' - one that isn't readily exposed as fallacious.

[Shaker]

Leaving aside Hopeless's superhuman ability to reel out one logical fallacy after another, going back to the subject of camouflage, anybody educable who finds it interesting enough to chase up should look into Batesian and Müllerian mimicry. Absolutely fascinating.

[jeremyp]

Had thought of responding to this, jeremy, but its such a daft comment that responding would seem pointless.

No it isn't. It was put flippantly, but it is a serious point. Why wouldn't God be able to break his own rules? He's supposed to be omnipotent, remember.

The problem with 'reading into the text what it says' is that there are a whole host of things that need to be taken into account

No. The problem is that it doesn't say what you want it to say.