McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
The kettle/pot comment had nothing to do with you.So then what were you saying I was saying?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The kettle/pot comment had nothing to do with you.So then what were you saying I was saying?
Common sense tells me that there is no revealed revelation of God.
Contradicting revelations given to a handful of men that are meant for the billions of humans that have lived in the last 5 to 6 thousand years?
One would hope that if God wanted to truly speak to all of humanity, he/she/it simply would.
It's not the differences one should pay attention to, but the similarities.
Common sense tells me that there is no revealed revelation of God.
Contradicting revelations given to a handful of men that are meant for the billions of humans that have lived in the last 5 to 6 thousand years?
One would hope that if God wanted to truly speak to all of humanity, he/she/it simply would.
I don't agree with you.
The similarities demonstrate the overall societal ethics necessary for cooperative survival.
can you explain why?
So in another thread I'm doing called Biblical Contradictions I'm having quite a few people post that they don't believe the bible is God's inspired word. If you do believe it is why? And if you don't please also give a reason as to why not.
It makes no sense, its written by anonymous writers who were Greek, it was written much later after the events, contradicts, horrible stories, blasphemous, anti-women, insults prophets/messengers, immoral lessons and historical wrong on many issues.
Ps: i have a better book.
Actually, that is not at all clear. See here.Yes, I believe the Bible is God's inspired Word. The Bible itself affirms it is inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) ...
Yes, I believe the Bible is God's inspired Word. The Bible itself affirms it is inspired by God.
Parts of the Greek texts are anonymous. Parts were written by Paul. There are also parts that were written in Hebrew. It does make sense to anyone willing to spend the time with it, and it does precisely what it sets out to do: archive the Tradition of God's people.It makes no sense, its written by anonymous writers who were Greek, it was written much later after the events, contradicts, horrible stories, blasphemous, anti-women, insults prophets/messengers, immoral lessons and historical wrong on many issues.
Ps: i have a better book.
How do people not understand what a circular argument is? How can you not understand that this conversation is logically fallacious?
Person 1: Does God exist?
Person 2: Yes!
Person 1: How do you know?
Person 2: The Bible says so!
Person 1: How do you know the Bible is true?
Person 2: Because it says its the word of God!
This doesnt answer any questions
Yes, I believe the Bible is God's inspired Word. The Bible itself affirms it is inspired by God...
So in another thread I'm doing called Biblical Contradictions I'm having quite a few people post that they don't believe the bible is God's inspired word. If you do believe it is why? And if you don't please also give a reason as to why not.
How do people not understand what a circular argument is? How can you not understand that this conversation is logically fallacious?
Person 1: Does God exist?
Person 2: Yes!
Person 1: How do you know?
Person 2: The Bible says so!
Person 1: How do you know the Bible is true?
Person 2: Because it says its the word of God!
This doesnt answer any questions
It is, indeed, infuriating. It is not, however, characteristic of theism, and to mock theists in general by suggesting otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.How do people not understand what a circular argument is? How can you not understand that this conversation is logically fallacious? ...
This doesnt answer any questions
It is, indeed, infuriating. It is not, however, characteristic of theism, and to mock theists in general by suggesting otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.
OK ... therefore?Even so, the gist of the argument stands. It doesn't change the fact that it IS a circular argument.