Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Evangelists should study their Bible

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 5:06:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

You've never read Principia, have you?

What keeps the pertubations of the planets orbits from flinging the solar system apart, according to Newton's work?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 5:27:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 5:06:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

You've never read Principia, have you?

What keeps the pertubations of the planets orbits from flinging the solar system apart, according to Newton's work?

No, I have not read the original Principia as it was in Latin, however i have read and own a copy of, ' The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' translated by Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 5:38:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

So you'd be unable to scrutinize the Bible to see if it does or does not state that Jesus was Chinese?

Seems rather straightforward - to me.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 5:40:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 5:27:55 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:06:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

You've never read Principia, have you?

What keeps the pertubations of the planets orbits from flinging the solar system apart, according to Newton's work?

No, I have not read the original Principia as it was in Latin, however i have read and own a copy of, ' The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' translated by Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman.

So can you answer the question he asked you?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 5:43:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I can't claim to be a good Bible scholar, but I am a disbeliever, neutral and treat the Bible as text!

It's a tricky one to demonstrate that no passage or verse in the Bible supports X - it depends how much leeway one wants to give it. Of the 4 examples I would suggest that 3 is arguably supportable by Mark 7:18-19, where Jesus appears to ok the eating of unclean food:

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean' For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body."

I can't think of any passage to support the other 3 off the top of my head - I can believe there aren't any because a great deal of what people think is in the bible isn't there and vice-versa. Despite what is in every school nativity play, the shepherds and wise men didn't visit Jesus at the same time and there is no indication how wise men there were, and certainly not what their names are. All that stuff is all (much( later addition.

Most Christians have only a vague idea of what is in the Bible. I like surprising Christians by getting then to read from the the Song of Solomon :

" Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.
Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies. " (SoS 4:3-5).

It seems most Christians have never actually read past Genesis 1:1.

Even better SoS doesn't mention God anywhere (nor does the book of Esther) so they can be safely read by atheists with only a minimal risk of being converted :-) !
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 5:48:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 5:38:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

So you'd be unable to scrutinize the Bible to see if it does or does not state that Jesus was Chinese?

Seems rather straightforward - to me.

Harry.

Can you show me in the Bible where it states one way or the other if Jesus was Chinese?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 5:57:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 5:43:17 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I can't claim to be a good Bible scholar, but I am a disbeliever, neutral and treat the Bible as text!

It's a tricky one to demonstrate that no passage or verse in the Bible supports X - it depends how much leeway one wants to give it. Of the 4 examples I would suggest that 3 is arguably supportable by Mark 7:18-19, where Jesus appears to ok the eating of unclean food:

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean' For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body."

I can't think of any passage to support the other 3 off the top of my head - I can believe there aren't any because a great deal of what people think is in the bible isn't there and vice-versa. Despite what is in every school nativity play, the shepherds and wise men didn't visit Jesus at the same time and there is no indication how wise men there were, and certainly not what their names are. All that stuff is all (much( later addition.

Most Christians have only a vague idea of what is in the Bible. I like surprising Christians by getting then to read from the the Song of Solomon :

" Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.
Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies. " (SoS 4:3-5).

It seems most Christians have never actually read past Genesis 1:1.

Even better SoS doesn't mention God anywhere (nor does the book of Esther) so they can be safely read by atheists with only a minimal risk of being converted :-) !

That text is well known and often put forward by naive Evangelicals (and others) as proof that there's no longer any prohibition against unclean foods, but as I'm sure you'll agree it actually says no such thing. Just before that text you'll see that Christ was being questioned about the tradition of washing hands before eating and he reprimanded the elders for evaluating a person on this basis.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 5:58:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 5:48:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:38:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

So you'd be unable to scrutinize the Bible to see if it does or does not state that Jesus was Chinese?

Seems rather straightforward - to me.

Harry.

Can you show me in the Bible where it states one way or the other if Jesus was Chinese?

It doesn't state that - do you agree?

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 6:38:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 5:58:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:48:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:38:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

So you'd be unable to scrutinize the Bible to see if it does or does not state that Jesus was Chinese?

Seems rather straightforward - to me.

Harry.

Can you show me in the Bible where it states one way or the other if Jesus was Chinese?

It doesn't state that - do you agree?

Harry.

Nor, does it state he was Arab, or African or Native American. What's your point?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 6:51:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 5:40:41 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:27:55 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:06:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

You've never read Principia, have you?

What keeps the pertubations of the planets orbits from flinging the solar system apart, according to Newton's work?

No, I have not read the original Principia as it was in Latin, however i have read and own a copy of, ' The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' translated by Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman.

So can you answer the question he asked you?

And, what will that prove, that I can go out, buy a book and read it? You two are the masters of strawman fallacies.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 7:01:48 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 6:38:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:58:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:48:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:38:55 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

So you'd be unable to scrutinize the Bible to see if it does or does not state that Jesus was Chinese?

Seems rather straightforward - to me.

Harry.

Can you show me in the Bible where it states one way or the other if Jesus was Chinese?

It doesn't state that - do you agree?

Harry.

Nor, does it state he was Arab, or African or Native American. What's your point?

Dumb as always, my point - meat head - is that it's pretty easy to scrutinize the Bible text and see if it does or does not claim that Jesus is Chinese - remember? For some bizarre reason known only to you, you seem to believe that this isn't possible.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 7:03:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 6:51:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:40:41 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:27:55 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:06:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

You've never read Principia, have you?

What keeps the pertubations of the planets orbits from flinging the solar system apart, according to Newton's work?

No, I have not read the original Principia as it was in Latin, however i have read and own a copy of, ' The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' translated by Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman.

So can you answer the question he asked you?

And, what will that prove, that I can go out, buy a book and read it? You two are the masters of strawman fallacies.

What a puss, never willing - or able - to answer questions posed by an opponent, preferring to divert the subject and waffle, once again your trapped on the ropes.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 7:39:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 7:03:27 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 6:51:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:40:41 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:27:55 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:06:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

You've never read Principia, have you?

What keeps the pertubations of the planets orbits from flinging the solar system apart, according to Newton's work?

No, I have not read the original Principia as it was in Latin, however i have read and own a copy of, ' The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' translated by Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman.

So can you answer the question he asked you?

And, what will that prove, that I can go out, buy a book and read it? You two are the masters of strawman fallacies.

What a puss, never willing - or able - to answer questions posed by an opponent, preferring to divert the subject and waffle, once again your trapped on the ropes.

Harry.

LOL. Sure Harry, whatever you say. You do realize the Principia is online for anyone to read, even you. And, you do realize that Newton's laws are taught in school, right? Not only that, a simple search will provide that answer, hence the question and the answer prove nothing. Master of the strawman fallacy, you are.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 7:51:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 7:39:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 7:03:27 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 6:51:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:40:41 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:27:55 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:06:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

You've never read Principia, have you?

What keeps the pertubations of the planets orbits from flinging the solar system apart, according to Newton's work?

No, I have not read the original Principia as it was in Latin, however i have read and own a copy of, ' The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' translated by Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman.

So can you answer the question he asked you?

And, what will that prove, that I can go out, buy a book and read it? You two are the masters of strawman fallacies.

What a puss, never willing - or able - to answer questions posed by an opponent, preferring to divert the subject and waffle, once again your trapped on the ropes.

Harry.

LOL. Sure Harry, whatever you say. You do realize the Principia is online for anyone to read, even you. And, you do realize that Newton's laws are taught in school, right? Not only that, a simple search will provide that answer, hence the question and the answer prove nothing. Master of the strawman fallacy, you are.

You're becoming all confused again aren't you Dummel.

I said (if you recall) that examining text - any text - to see if it contains this or that assertion is an activity that's independent of the text.

You - quite predictably - became confused when I said this was as true of Principia as it was of the Bible - they're both just words written on paper and either of them can be scrutinized textually.

If you recall further, this line of discussion was itself the result of me disagreeing with you when you asserted that subjective "interpretation" was unavoidable when scrutinizing the Bible, this is patently false.

But in yet another bizarre outburst you decide to tell me that Principa is online (as is the Bible) as if this were somehow relevant or novel, I knew by the way.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 8:06:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 7:51:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 7:39:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 7:03:27 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 6:51:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:40:41 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:27:55 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:06:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

You've never read Principia, have you?

What keeps the pertubations of the planets orbits from flinging the solar system apart, according to Newton's work?

No, I have not read the original Principia as it was in Latin, however i have read and own a copy of, ' The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' translated by Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman.

So can you answer the question he asked you?

And, what will that prove, that I can go out, buy a book and read it? You two are the masters of strawman fallacies.

What a puss, never willing - or able - to answer questions posed by an opponent, preferring to divert the subject and waffle, once again your trapped on the ropes.

Harry.

LOL. Sure Harry, whatever you say. You do realize the Principia is online for anyone to read, even you. And, you do realize that Newton's laws are taught in school, right? Not only that, a simple search will provide that answer, hence the question and the answer prove nothing. Master of the strawman fallacy, you are.

You're becoming all confused again aren't you Dummel.

No, I'm just trying to deal with someone who is completely lost.

I said (if you recall) that examining text - any text - to see if it contains this or that assertion is an activity that's independent of the text.

You - quite predictably - became confused when I said this was as true of Principia as it was of the Bible - they're both just words written on paper and either of them can be scrutinized textually.

I already explained to you that you've conflated the two (if you recall).

If you recall further, this line of discussion was itself the result of me disagreeing with you when you asserted that subjective "interpretation" was unavoidable when scrutinizing the Bible, this is patently false.

Is that what I said, Harry? Putting words in my mouth, again?

But in yet another bizarre outburst you decide to tell me that Principa is online (as is the Bible) as if this were somehow relevant or novel, I knew by the way.

Harry.

Yeah, it was relevant to the question posed. Pay attention, Harry. You're quite lost.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 9:19:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 8:06:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 7:51:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 7:39:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 7:03:27 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 6:51:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:40:41 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:27:55 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:06:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

You've never read Principia, have you?

What keeps the pertubations of the planets orbits from flinging the solar system apart, according to Newton's work?

No, I have not read the original Principia as it was in Latin, however i have read and own a copy of, ' The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' translated by Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman.

So can you answer the question he asked you?

And, what will that prove, that I can go out, buy a book and read it? You two are the masters of strawman fallacies.

What a puss, never willing - or able - to answer questions posed by an opponent, preferring to divert the subject and waffle, once again your trapped on the ropes.

Harry.

LOL. Sure Harry, whatever you say. You do realize the Principia is online for anyone to read, even you. And, you do realize that Newton's laws are taught in school, right? Not only that, a simple search will provide that answer, hence the question and the answer prove nothing. Master of the strawman fallacy, you are.

You're becoming all confused again aren't you Dummel.

No, I'm just trying to deal with someone who is completely lost.

I said (if you recall) that examining text - any text - to see if it contains this or that assertion is an activity that's independent of the text.

You - quite predictably - became confused when I said this was as true of Principia as it was of the Bible - they're both just words written on paper and either of them can be scrutinized textually.

I already explained to you that you've conflated the two (if you recall).

If you recall further, this line of discussion was itself the result of me disagreeing with you when you asserted that subjective "interpretation" was unavoidable when scrutinizing the Bible, this is patently false.

Is that what I said, Harry? Putting words in my mouth, again?

But in yet another bizarre outburst you decide to tell me that Principa is online (as is the Bible) as if this were somehow relevant or novel, I knew by the way.

Harry.

Yeah, it was relevant to the question posed. Pay attention, Harry. You're quite lost.

So after all these posts you've contributed nothing to the discussion, introduced no ideas of your own, offered no evidence to support any of your claims and answered none of the direct questions put to you by me or others, still if it makes you feel better to waste your time like this then good for you.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 9:46:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 9:19:15 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 8:06:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 7:51:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 7:39:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 7:03:27 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 6:51:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:40:41 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:27:55 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 5:06:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:48:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:37:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:30:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:10:45 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:04:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/20/2016 4:01:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Some evangelists I've met recently seem to believe - truly believe - a host of concepts that are either unsupported or contrived - in the Bible. These include:

1. Eternal suffering and pain for the unsaved.
2. Abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
3. There's no compulsion to avoid unclean meats.
4. The trinity.
5. Christ died and rose in less than 24 * 3 hours (as do many Christians in fact).

For over 30 years I've looked into these and other points of doctrine using not only various translations of Bibles but also sometime digging into the Greek or Hebrew source text.

Every one of the beliefs is at best a contrivance with no clear support. Far too many of these individuals have no knowledge of ancient history, church history, exegesis, medieval influences, the early catholic church etc etc.

Harry.

The problem, Harry, is that believers think they all have the correct interpretation of the Bible, no matter how far off their interpretation is from the next believer who also thinks they have the correct interpretation.

In fact, your OP assumes the same thing.

I don't think I do assume that, instead I've scrutinized the text and found that certain beliefs are unsupported by the text.

If you claimed that Newton's Principia proves that gravity is a liquid, then you'll agree one can scrutinize the text and make a decision as to whether it does or does not.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, but you can't make a comparison between the Principia and the Bible, they aren't even related in the least. Perhaps, your comparisons should be with the Quran or some other holy book.

I disagree text is text, characters written on paper, ink strokes, pixels on a monitor.

I'm a software engineer Dummel and have written very complex things called compilers, among the most complex things in the world of software.

Compilers analyze text to see if the text conforms to certain rules of syntax.

If I claim that book X asserts Y then surely I can analyze that text to see if the assertion is true or false?

If I said the Bible asserts that Jesus was Chinese then surely you'd be able to scrutinize the text to see if it does or does not assert that?

Some of the best experts on the Bible are non-believers because they are neutral and can see text as just text.

Harry.

Harry, you're conflating words, text, pixels, etc. to the concepts and ideas those words represent. They are not the same thing. The Principia has ideas and concepts that are accountable, that can be verified. You can't do that with the Bible.

You've never read Principia, have you?

What keeps the pertubations of the planets orbits from flinging the solar system apart, according to Newton's work?

No, I have not read the original Principia as it was in Latin, however i have read and own a copy of, ' The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' translated by Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman.

So can you answer the question he asked you?

And, what will that prove, that I can go out, buy a book and read it? You two are the masters of strawman fallacies.

What a puss, never willing - or able - to answer questions posed by an opponent, preferring to divert the subject and waffle, once again your trapped on the ropes.

Harry.

LOL. Sure Harry, whatever you say. You do realize the Principia is online for anyone to read, even you. And, you do realize that Newton's laws are taught in school, right? Not only that, a simple search will provide that answer, hence the question and the answer prove nothing. Master of the strawman fallacy, you are.

You're becoming all confused again aren't you Dummel.

No, I'm just trying to deal with someone who is completely lost.

I said (if you recall) that examining text - any text - to see if it contains this or that assertion is an activity that's independent of the text.

You - quite predictably - became confused when I said this was as true of Principia as it was of the Bible - they're both just words written on paper and either of them can be scrutinized textually.

I already explained to you that you've conflated the two (if you recall).

If you recall further, this line of discussion was itself the result of me disagreeing with you when you asserted that subjective "interpretation" was unavoidable when scrutinizing the Bible, this is patently false.

Is that what I said, Harry? Putting words in my mouth, again?

But in yet another bizarre outburst you decide to tell me that Principa is online (as is the Bible) as if this were somehow relevant or novel, I knew by the way.

Harry.

Yeah, it was relevant to the question posed. Pay attention, Harry. You're quite lost.

So after all these posts you've contributed nothing to the discussion,

I pointed out that your interpretation of the Bible is no more or less valid than anyone else, surely you must have learned by now.

introduced no ideas of your own,

If I wanted to introduce ideas, I would start my own thread.

offered no evidence to support any of your claims

I never made any claims other than have read a book.

and answered none of the direct questions put to you

I have answered your questions, please don't lie.

by me or others, still if it makes you feel better to waste your time like this then good for you.

Wasting my time, Harry? Isn't that for me to decide and not you? Or, is that yet another of your excuses for not being able to form a coherent argument, Harry?

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 10:23:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 9:46:44 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Wasting my time, Harry? Isn't that for me to decide and not you? Or, is that yet another of your excuses for not being able to form a coherent argument, Harry?


Sorry DummelJeAsse but its almost 90F out here in Apache Junction with little humidity, I'm sipping a brew and enjoying my pool, far better than struggling to get something remotely intelligent out of you!

Have a nice day.

Harry.

PS. what's with that foreign sounding name of your's anyway?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 11:27:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 10:23:06 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/20/2016 9:46:44 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Wasting my time, Harry? Isn't that for me to decide and not you? Or, is that yet another of your excuses for not being able to form a coherent argument, Harry?


Sorry DummelJeAsse

You're so childish, Harry. Grow up dude.

but its almost 90F out here in Apache Junction

That explains a lot.

with little humidity, I'm sipping a brew and enjoying my pool, far better than struggling to get something remotely intelligent out of you!

Have a nice day.

Harry.

PS. what's with that foreign sounding name of your's anyway?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth