Sly_Wizard

No. Just, no. :wall: You know, I figured my last post was pretty well constructed, but obviously not. So let's try this another way. I'll just adopt the Socratic was of arguing, in a manner. "By restricting marriage to one man and one woman, what groups are we "discriminating" against?" (And the answer isn't just "gays".) Except for the fact that marriages weren't being restricted based on whom they were trying to marry (Man or woman), but by the color of their skin (Man or woman and black or white). It'd be akin to allowing men to marry other men, but not letting white men marry black men. The latter would be discriminatory because it would take away a privilege from one set of men afforded to another set of men. The same goes for why miscegenation laws were struck down. Because it wasn't allowing one group of men and woman the privilege afforded another group of men and women. As no man nor woman is allotted the privilege to marry another man and woman, respectively, they are not being denied anything. No, on so many levels. Once again, no one is discriminating against gay people for being gay. Answer the question asked to you above, and you'll see why.

Considering the guy's a libertarian, that kind of statement doesn't surprise me. Once again, no, we're not discriminating against genetic differences. We are limiting who you can marry to man and woman, which thereby not only rules out same sex marriages, but any marriage not between a man and a woman (Of course, there are further limits but those are fine for the time being). Good luck arguing how you can have order without rule. So, your argument is effectively "Just you wait!"? Okay... Just because you say it's the same, doesn't make it the same. Yet again, you fail to realize that people are not discriminating against gay people for being gay. That is the fallacy here. We're "discriminating" based on who they are trying to marry. It would be an ENTIRELY different matter if we were discriminating based on the fact that they were gay and allowed all other groups to marry whomever they wish. But we don't.

The burden of proof for what? Okay. We're not "discriminating" on the basis of genetic differences, as that would mean that only one sex would be allowed to marry. We're "discriminating" on the basis of who you are marrying-- Nothing else. I perfectly well understand the concept of freedom. You don't understand that freedom does not mean "freedom to do whatever you want", as that is an anarchy and has never worked nor will ever work. ??? I can't offer up a response, 'cuz I have no idea what you're saying/what you're trying to get at. Yes. See first response.

There should be no law that people are made to obey by force or coercion??? Surely, you jest. I deny people without a driver's license the ability to operate a motor vehicle. That's just as bad as stoning them??? There's nothing to get, aside from the humor to be found in blatant melodrama. Nope. I'm African. We're one step ahead of black people. (Yes, I kid.)

A theocracy? No. But a Christian nation? Kind of hard to argue otherwise. So why can't I run for POTUS? How come 15 year-olds can't marry? Why can't people with driver's lisences legally operate a vehicle? I thought everyone was created equal? -.- I'm not so sure whether or not people understand that not only is everyone not created equal, but that *everyone* is "discriminated" against in some way, shape or form because of the nature of laws. Well, we could start stoning them. Then you could call us "non-peaceful". Melodrama ftw!

You left out how this Declaration was made to a primarily Muslim nation who was afraid the stronger U.S. would impose Christianity upon them. Treaties are meaningless. They are not laws, nor are they legally binding nor are they representative of the country. I cannot begin to tell you just how many treaties the U.S. has broken. Just ask the native Americans.

I know a couple of potheads and, well, let's just say they're not the most productive members of society.

And lol at your "contradiction". You picked one that even I can refute. Sweet! Notice the 'supposed' in Luke 3:23? This translates to the word "nomizo", which means "to hold by custom or usage, own as a custom or usage, to follow a custom or usage". This is important, because the lineage in Luke goes through Mary while the lineage in Matthew goes through Joseph (Heli was Mary's father). http://wespatterson.com/biblical/adam_to_jesus.html (Look at the chart.) The supposed here is to signal the customary 'adoption' of Jesus by Joseph, thus allowing him the heritage that came from being Joseph's biological son. Oh, and yes, I'm defending that guy. Like it or not, war is not morally wrong. (Sorry for breaking it up. Apparently TIF doesn't like special characters and whatnot.)

Typically, the argument against the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum is that it is mentioned nowhere else, not even by Origen who happened to cite a lesser known passage in which Josephus linked Jesus as being the brother of James the Just. However, few historians dispute Josephus' claim as James the Just being Jesus' brother BECAUSE Origen mentioned it in a few of his works during the 3rd century. I faily to see why you mentioned Hinduism in your post. Hinduism has no central figure who is claimed to be the founder. This analogy would work better for, say, Buddhism. Buddhism follows the teachings of the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), even though he didn't leave any writing for himself. Do you deny his existence, even though he lived about 500 years prior to Jesus? I highly doubt it. Why? Because it leaves too many question unanswered and raises many, many, many new ones. It's easier to claim that a man named Siddhartha Gautama did indeed exist and started a religion than it is to assert that he didn't exist and a group of people decided to conjure up a lie (A lie, mind you, nowhere near as big as the lie James, John and Peter would have had to conjure up). The reason your Odysseus blurb didn't warrant a serious response is because we know, once again, that a man named Odysseus existed. Do you not read up on your history? And I take it you didn't read the link I gave you, huh? Yes, it's to Wikipedia but it's got oodles and oodles of documented sources, which you would at the very least take time to read. But, apparently you didn't read it. If you had you would have noticed it says at the top, and I quote: Furthermore, your entire "it didn't link to any other historical sources other than the Gospels" is a flat out lie. You really haven't addressed anything. All you've done is stick your finger in your ear and proceed to ignore the absolutely overwhelming number of historians who do not dispute the fact that Jesus existed. Link to Richard Carrier all you like. He's in he minority. I could link to Kent Hovind all day long, but that doesn't make any of the things he says true or represent a majority. Honestly, I'm not gonna' toot my own horn, so to speak, but this isn't a pissing contest-- This is a me proving you wrong contest.

First of all, the Bible doesn't say that you will be punished for all eternity, seeing as how Hell as en eternal place of torment does not exist. Secondly, the notion that Luke is the only Gospel which could actually be called a historical document is wildly inaccurate. 1.) The Gospel of Luke was written after both the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the latter of which it borrowed heavily from. In fact, if I remember correctly, 72% of what can be found in Mark is also found in Luke. The only thing which differentiates Luke from Matthew or Mark is that it uses an unnamed third source whereas the previous two Gospels appear to ignored, which is why you see certain concepts of Jesus' divinity appear within Luke. The Gospel of Luke is not more or less historically accurate than any other Gospel (Though, it should be noted that I believe there's a dating error in Luke. It might be Mark. I can't remember atm). 2.) Furthermore, I'd like to know what, exactly was stolen from both Pythagoras and Empedocles. Pythagoras himself, believed in metempsychosis, which is equatable to the Hindu concept of reincarnation. As for Empedocles, well, the only thing I guess which could have been stolen from him was his concept of Love and Strife being the ultimate cosmic forces, but even that is a stretch. The label you proceed to place on those historians who do not support the "Jesus didn't exist" position is laughable. So, in other words, the majority of historians aren't really historians. Only that fringe group upon which you agree? Okay. Now, I know that the Illiad isn't a Holy Book and I feel the point of the comparison was lost upon you. We were talking about the New Testament versus other Classical Era literature, of which there are significantly more copies and are about 99.5% contextually pure. Furthermore, yes, the oldest extant manuscript available is called the Rylands Papyrus. However, because that it the oldest surviving manuscript we have doesn't mean that the Gospels weren't written until then, as there is significant evidence that the 4 Gospels were mostly-- If not wholely-- Written in the 1st century AD. Generally, the proposed written dates of the 4 Gospels are as follows: Mark: Somewhere between 57 - 73 AD Matthew: 80 - 85 AD Luke: 80 - 85 AD John: 90 - 100 AD Really, I wonder what the point of bringing this up was. Anyway, continuing on.

FF fanboys ftw! Oh well, I voted for Pikachu all the same.

1.) It's known that the word kill in the 10 Commandments is used in the context of murder. 2.) I don't know any commandment which commands people to murder gays. I do believe that if someone was caught engaging in homosexual acts, though, that they were to be stoned (But don't quote me on that) which is not murder, as it was punishment by the law and being killed under the law cannot be deemed as murder (Murder = Unlawful). 3.) Furthermore, I refer you to whatever I said in an earlier post to you about killing sinners.

Questions like these are highly ridiculous. They're akin to asking if you can be taller than yourself, or if any city can be the tallest in the world. They make little sense. I understand the proof well enough to know why it isn't applicable outside of the realm of mathematics without calling everything "a falsehood" and/or "unimportant". Yet again, it seems to me that you're playing a game semantics. That is, the Bible implies that it is infallible rather than not, it is fallible when, in fact, these are the same statements. I really don't see where the disagreement is coming from, aside from the fact that the Bible doesn't explicitly say "not fallible". Then you're not speaking of the Bible and Christianity, then. The syllogism is fine, as God did not create man imperfect. He created man perfect, who then later became imperfect.

No, I said the Bible doesn't say it's fallible and indeed insinuates it is infallible. The first premise notwithstanding, as it is completely untrue, we can focus on the second premise and the two conclusions that follow from it. The first, the conclusion "...in which case either the bible doesn't contain everything we need", is false because the Bible implies it's infallibility by claiming God is both perfect and the Divine Inspirer of the Bible. The second conclusion, that "...bible infallibility is unimportant and cannot be used to justify anything of importance" is false because, not only does the Bible insinuate it's infallibility as seem prior, but if Biblical infallibility is unimportant, then the Bible itself becomes unimportant and whether or not the Bible indeed mentions it's own infallibility therefore becomes unimportant, presupposing any need to ask whether or not the Bible speaks of its own infallibility or not. This is what I said initially. You just made me elaborate on it. Erm... They are both premises upon which the following conclusions are derives. Erm... They are premises. And no, the Bible doesn't. First of all, anyone claiming the statements too indirect would simply be playing Devil's Advocate, for the simple fact that we could set up a syllogism to show why the Bible is claimed to be infallible (God is without error. God Divinely Inspired the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is without error). Therefore, we do not need the first set of premises. Furthermore, since the Bible does insinuate it's infallibility, the second portion also becomes unneeded because it's stooped in the assumption that the Bible makes no mention of it's infallibility when, indeed, it does. This is why Godel's theory fails when trying to apply it here. If the Bible says it is infallible, it is saying that it is not fallible. The fact that it doesn't use the words "not fallible" and is therefore incomplete is a terrible game of semantics as, logically speaking, the two are the same. It seems to me that you're trying to act as if it's the same vein as saying, for example, "I'm black" and "I'm not white", whereas the first one means I'm black while the second means that I could be any color besides black. This isn't the same as the first statement, whereas there are only two choices: Fallible or infallible. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, though. Except that's not what I said. I said that the Bible doesn't say it is fallible and, indeed, insinuates that it is infallible.

Took me a while to think about this. I'm sorry, but the first assumption (Bolded) is patently untrue and can be thrown out, since we know the Bible doesn't contain a statement saying it's fallible. The second assumption (Underlined) is also untrue, because the Bible indirectly insinuates that it is infallible.

No idea what you're talking about with the poisoner and witch thing, but on the homosexuality thing I'm guessing you're on the whole "zimmah" vs. "tow`ebah" thing or arsenokoitai in the NT? Bah, I've had my fair share of arguments about that.

I'm fairly sure that's not true, as if you shrink the set enough Godel's theorem becomes irrelevant. Though, I fail to see how Godel's theory is relevant here, as as I said prior, since it's primarily used in mathematics. I'm fairly sure it doesn't, mainly because I don't see how you attribute it to anything which doesn't deal with mathematics as it would invariably cause everything to be, at some level, "untrue". This I realize. I swear I've had this argument before, but oh well. Moral relativism holds that all moral systems are valid. That is to say, none is more 'right' than another and none is more 'wrong' than another, as to label one system as 'wrong' and another as 'right' is to impose a standard of objectivity upon them. This is, in itself, problematic as holding all moral systems as equal will inevitably lead to a system in which conflicting moral beliefs clash with each other. For example, I'll just use the case of the rapist. If moral subjectivism is to be held as true, then him being a rapist would be deemed as "acceptable" by society at large. However, chances are that most people are not going to share his same sentiments, and will aim to suppress what he considers to be a morally valid position. Once this happens-- Where one system of morality imposes itself upon another-- Moral relativism ceases to exist as a recently valid position has now become invalid. And since this happens in every society, moral relativism doesn't exist. Of course, there's a chance that none of the above would happen and the rapist would be free to do it again and again, which amounts to moral anarchy, which I've never once seen. ...But, beyond that, moral relativism has lead to the whole "You can't legislate morality!" BS which I absolutely hate and think is idiotic. If morality wasn't legislated, people could do whatever they want, when they want without fear of retribution. And before you say it, universal morals do exist in every society. And, no, slavery has nothing to do with morality. It's a system of labor which was viable in the absence of industrialism. If all machines were to stop working today and we had to resort to manual labor for everything, I can assure you that slavery would return in 100 years. Edit: And I'm totally tired of arguing with Zierro so I'll just let you think you're right and pretend to care :P

The author's interpretations. And, just so you know, Protestants screwed themselves over with "sola scriptura", which is why there are infinitely more denominations of Protestantism than Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. At least in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, you have to actually study the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts, whereas in Protestantism all you do is pick up a Bible and read it <_< Well, I have a copy of the Tanakh in Hebrew. For the New Testament I just use an online lexicon =D (The one at http://www.blueletterbible.org works). Most of the Old Testament is written in Hebrew. The latter books of the prophets are written in Aramaic. The entire New Testament is written in Greek. So it's not really that big of a problem lol The KJV sucks, primarily because it's written in old English and most of the words have changed in context. The NIV is better than that one.

And that mistake was? You didn't answer my other four questions, nor made an effort to afterward. Hmmm... Nope lol. Don't trade near the Wilderness or be a greedy [cabbage] and you won't get lured. ...Plus Runescape is a game. Where does morality come in to play, here? OK. I'll copy and paste in case you missed it :mrgreen: : ...Okay. I seriously can't believe you're this daft. I didn't ask if you would accept my proof. I asked what kind of proof you would accept. You know. You, personally? And, to top if off, you still haven't explained as much. No. From now on, when you respond with a statement beginning as such, I'm just going to respond with a "Yes, that's what I'm saying, since you've already determined as much to be true. "Yes, that's what I'm saying, since you've already determined as much to be true." You DO realize that a large portion of scholarly and historical work done concerning Jesus is taken from the New Testament, right? You can't just discredit the New Testament and then ask people to prove something about Jesus to you. For as long as you're content to continue writing out responses which start on blatantly false assumptions (And in some cases blatantly false assumptions passed of as fact), then I'm just going to keep responding with a "Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I was unaware that the infallible label is placed on the Bible arbitrarily. It's not. There are people who have years of experiences in exegesis of the Scripture and (Still can't remember the name of the word) who have come to this conclusion, granted there are people who disagree with them, naturally. See above. No one is talking about slapping arbitrary labels on this just because it's fun.

Following Godel's theorem, nothing can be complete because it would have to contain everything. Not that it necessarily doesn't apply to all people. The Bible is claimed to contain everything which people need and need to ever know. That is, it's complete in the way humans need it. It's incomplete in the way that non-humans need it. Nope. That seems to have little to do with Godel's theorem as much as cultural subjectivity. ...What modern morality? Anywho, without a concrete standard of morality, which DOES exist, you fall into the trap of moral relativism (Waits for the vultures to descend on the mention of moral relativism).

Most people take it to mean that everything in there is true. But, in actuality, it's meant in the way that it's correct regarding the interpretations of God, Jesus and their promises. It does a couple of historical date inaccuracies, which would to be expected given the numerous author's of the Bible. No translation is contextually pure. The original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scrolls are, though. Which is why we have (Forgot name of it atm).

To which my response was that, even if you didn't have the time to see my other three responses, you saw the first two but decided to ignore the second one. Therefore, given the fact that you only chose to answer one question, it was logical to conclude that because you skipped over one which I definitely know you saw, you skipped over the other four. Understand? Except I make a concerted effort to answer any question directed towards me. You continue to assert that I owe you an apology. I'm still waiting for you to explain how. I do believe I asked what kind proof which you would accept. No, because you're STILL not answering the question I specifically asked you. Nope. But, oh, $20 says you're going to go and pull up the OT, to which I will respond to you that Christians are not bound, nor were ever bound, by those specific laws thanks to the New Covenant established by Jesus when he died on the cross. But, go ahead, amuse me :mrgreen: Ummm... Let's see here. How can I put this in a way you'll understand. Oh, I know! "No!" You seem to be under the delusion that invoking the New Testament as to why Jesus is the Son of God to be disingenuous, when almost everything about Jesus is contained within the New Testament. Disallowing the use of the New Testament to prove anything about Jesus would be disingenuous. Yes. Yes, that's exactly what I said. *Wonders why he bothers* Simply because man is fallible does not mean he cannot interpret an infallible work.

You were doing so well until P3 and beyond. P5 is just a ridiculous attempt at ridicule. Come on, now. Do you even understand logic?

Well this is a good one to refute, speaking as a mathematician. I'm not sure quite how to apply this, but Godel's Incompleteness theroem would probably be able to disprove this one. The Incompleteness Theorem which is proved by logic along essentially states that no system can be both complete and consistent. I would think this can be applied here, so i'll look into how to specifically apply it to "The Bible is infallible" statement. If nothing else, its a good mental exercise. I've heard this argument on more than one occasion. I've always found it to be funny, though, because it could, theoretically, be applied to anything, meaning nothing is true, which isn't the intended meaning of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The best way I can see the Incompleteness Theorem being applied to the Bible is in the way that it only speaks to humans in certain situations, not members of another species. Therefore, it's incomplete in that it doesn't contain everything regarding anything. But, really, that's another argument all together :P

There was no mistake. I said that you skipped my other four responses. I'd like to see the mistake there. (Funnily enough, to this point, you still haven't addressed the other four lol.) Yes, I said that. Where did I said I didn't? I believe I said you were the one arguing because you felt as if you were owed an apology. ...*Sigh* You're still being obtuse. See, I asked Ginger the same question. He actually responded with something specific. You, on the other hand, still haven't given anything specific even though you've been asked... A countless number of times. Yet again, it's REALLY not this hard to answer a simple question, you know? *Points to the homosexuality thread in which he specifically stated it's wrong because the Bible says so, but also that he doesn't care about gay people being gay* Incorrect. There is no evidence which you'll accept-- The evidence being the Gospels. To say it isn't "good" evidence is disingenuous, since the entire character of Jesus is derived from the New Testament. You can't ask someone to "prove" something regarding Jesus when I know and you know that you'll reject the source from which the evidence for Jesus mainly derives. But, see, I said this earlier and, true to form, you missed it. There has to be a question for there to be question TO avoid. ...Okay. This convinces me that you really don't understand the things you type out. When you make the (Highly idiotic) claim that religion is outside of the range of reason, you have to prove it. But, don't worry, I won't ask you to since you won't be able to, as your understanding of what it meant by the words "reason" and "logic" is abominable. Reason is the ability to engage in abstract thought. Logic is the tool which one uses to structure cohesive (Valid arguments). The following is both reasonable and logical: Man is fallible. The Bible is infallible. Because the Bible is infallible while man is fallible, it must have been divinely inspired. Since the Bible was divinely inspired, God exists. Good luck proving why this is neither reasonable nor logical. Ummm... Not only is the above not a proof, it's important to realize that the proof of 2 + 2 = 4 is really 2+0i + 2+0i = 4+0i, which by virtue of involving complex numbers is more complicated than what you'd first expect it to be. Just so you know :P