Is Dungeons and Dragons

[b said:
Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Mar. 30 2004,7:59)]pop unfortantely if you do not believe that the ENTIRE Bible that we have today is the inspired Word of God, and that God is big enough ( and smart enough) to make sure that He put everything that He wanted in there. then you are nothing like me.
Click to expand...
So because we disagree on one thing means we cant agree on another? Strange logic. And yeah I dont believe God controls everything.
 
So the Bible is true because verses in the Bible say it is? Ah, excellent...

Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows...

LionOfJudah
The ENTIRE Bible is the inspired word of God, eh? What do you mean by 'inspired word of God?' I take it you consider the Psalms, Songs of Solomon, Paul's letters to the early churches, etc to be the inspired word of God?

God must be pretty egotistical to have used (mosly) David to write wonderful things about himself. And Solomon's Erotic Love Stories? You're telling me that God Himself is responsible for that book? I shudder at the thought of Songs of Solomon being the work of an all powerful and knowing being.
 
He states in Exodus that He is a jealous God.  He wants to be praised, good for Him, and I for one am willing to do so.

It always amazes me about people's ideas about what the Bible says about love/sex/etc... If you actually read everything on it, not just selected parts that you interpret to your want to reject it, you would see that what the Bible says is a whole helluva lot different then what the world thinks it says. Lack of being informed is no excuse for ignorance.
 
How does that address anything I said?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]He states in Exodus that He is a jealous God.  He wants to be praised, good for Him, and I for one am willing to do so.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with that. I'm saying that taking stuff said in Psalms as the word of God seems strange to me since it's specifically creative works written by to express their ideas about the 'human condition' and to rejoice in God.

edit: And for sexuality, I was specifically refering to Songs of Solomon and verses like this:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Son 7:8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;
Click to expand...
 
And your point is what? I see nothing wrong with the Bible showing the benefits of a loving relationship between a man and a woman, something He created and intended to happen.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (mrpopdrinker @ Mar. 30 2004,8:02)]So because we disagree on one thing means we cant agree on another? Strange logic. And yeah I dont believe God controls everything.
Click to expand...
Depends on what two people disagree on as to if they can agree on something else. For instance, if you and I don't agree that there is a house 30 yards in front of us (I say there isn't, you say there is) , we won't agree on what color the house is and so on. This isn't strange logic.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And yeah I dont believe God controls everything.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you would like to start a new thread on this...

By the way, I'll respond to your argument against most of the Bible as the Word of God later. I have a lot of this stuff at my mom's house and I'm at school right now. I go on spring break Thursday, though.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Drelin @ Mar. 30 2004,8:50)]So the Bible is true because verses in the Bible say it is? Ah, excellent...

Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows...
Click to expand...
Only round because it is taken to be absolute authority. Any ultimate authority that one claims to hold can only be true on it's own basis. If it's true on another basis then the other basis is taken to be of higher authority and contradictions follow.

I showed this already in this thread.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (mrpopdrinker @ Mar. 29 2004,6:26)]What scripture did they have back then?! The Tanach!!!!! The Koran is also scripture you know.
Which was exactly my point. . .
Click to expand...
Paul identifies Scripture with being God breathed and being God's Words, chosen and appointed by God to be written.

Therefore your if the Bible is taken to be Scripture, then it is God breathed. Your argument about the Tanach is entirely irrelevant.

The Koran is believed to be Scripture you know
smile.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ] It wasent holding together anyway.
Click to expand...

*sigh* I can play this game too.

Yes, it was.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Paul called scripture (and he only meant the Tanach)
Click to expand...

You haven't shown this. This is pure exegesis. You haven't even shown this.

As I mentioned above, I'll post more the New Testament's claims to Scripture later.
Click to expand...
 
Miscellaneous, you haven't shown anything, you've contended something so esoteric and pointless that once I'd gotten you to carefully explain how Ivory Tower it was it was safe to abandon it as a subject of debate.

Eon
 
When we speak of the inerrancy of the Bible, we are referring to the Bible in it's original form. There is no question that down through the ages scribes added verses. Also many modern translations are more interpretive than literal translation. Some cults like Jehovah's Witnesses have taken Jesus Christ out of some verses and substituted Jehovah. Because men have erred in transcribing God's word doesn't take away from the truth of it's message which is all about God's creation, man's sin and God's salvation.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TastyWheat @ Mar. 30 2004,6:55)]Have you been reading up on the d.h. at all timor?
Click to expand...
I briefly checked out the sources you gave me, haven't had a chance to do any other research. Basically, it seems like its just saying that the Pentateuch is a collaboration of many writers' works, rather than the traditional Moses. I don't really see how this can help or support any particular Christian view, unless it is a super-flexible one. Could you enlighten me more, perhaps? I'll have to check out some other sources, too.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Narnia @ Mar. 30 2004,10:30)]When we speak of the inerrancy of the Bible, we are referring to the Bible in it's original form. There is no question that down through the ages scribes added verses. Also many modern translations are more interpretive than literal translation. Some cults like Jehovah's Witnesses have taken Jesus Christ out of some verses and substituted Jehovah. Because men have erred in transcribing God's word doesn't take away from the truth of it's message which is all about God's creation, man's sin and God's salvation.
Click to expand...
Never will I ever accept the "translation error" excuse as valid. This is an absolutely ridiculous claim. If the Bible is God's way of communicating with me, and if God really wants to save me, then he should at least take the time to proof read his best-seller.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And your point is what? I see nothing wrong with the Bible showing the benefits of a loving relationship between a man and a woman, something He created and intended to happen.
Click to expand...

My point is that Songs of Solomon and many other books in the bible are the word of man, not God. I'm not (here and now) saying that the message of Songs of Solomon is wrong, or that the disciples' letters to the early churches are wrong - but that they are the words of man.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Only round because it is taken to be absolute authority.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand you. Belief in the infallibility of the Bible on the basis that the Bible claims to be infallible is only round because the Bible is taken to be an absolute authority?

If we said the Bible was not an absolute authority then would the reasoning cease to be circular? I must be misunderstanding you; this doesn't make sense.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Any ultimate authority that one claims to hold can only be true on it's own basis. If it's true on another basis then the other basis is taken to be of higher authority and contradictions follow.
Click to expand...

Could you perchance explain this a bit more? I really don't understand what you're trying to say.
 
What I think he's trying to say is that any attempt to prove an ultimate authority correct by testing it against lesser authorities is pointless. If you find a discrepancy between the lesser authority and the greater authority then, by inference, it proves merely that the lesser authority is flawed since the ultimate authority is the ULTIMATE authority.

Therefore, he claims, if you decide to believe in an ultimate authority it must be on the basis of faith, rather than proof. And that once you have accepted an authority as ultimate then it's fruitless to attempt to prove or disprove it.

So I suppose a more pedantically correct question would be, why do YOU think the bible is the Ultimate Authority? If he answers, because it says so in the bible then you can sign him up for the DIY lobotomy and rubber wallpaper, because he won't be needing the power of thought ever again. ;)

Eon
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
So I suppose a more pedantically correct question would be, why do YOU think the bible is the Ultimate Authority? If he answers, because it says so in the bible then you can sign him up for the DIY lobotomy and rubber wallpaper, because he won't be needing the power of thought ever again. ;)
Click to expand...
Why do YOU believe in Odin and the other Norse gods? Because really, if you tell us to prove our religion, you need to prove your's too.
 
He has stated why. i may be wrong but

his "gods" are very human in there aspects, they have pride/ joy/ love ect, basicly a really Big human with some supernatural powers.
In the end there is going to be a big battle (ragnorark) and if you are one of the choosen few then you will get to help Odin to defend Val-halla both "gods" and men will die the final death here, but ultimately one side will win, either good or evil, and as far as i know eon is on the good side and wants to swing his mace to help out Odin and the others
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top