Is Dungeons and Dragons

[Miscellaneous]

Ah ok. I believe I understand. I mentioned earlier though, that what you are asking me to do is impossible. Not that my position is unprovable though. The proof, as I mentioned earlier, would have to be in an indirect form, such as "the impossibility of the contrary."

Let me explain the antithesis that I was talking about a little. I feel that I haven't did it enough justice so far.

If it were just an argument about how I, the Christian, claim that God were ultimate authority, and how the nonChristian claimed that it wasn't, or that himself was, there would be no point of argument, and there could be no discussion. However, my claim is that God and His Word is ultimate authority to all, and that the only way that the nonChristian can know anything is by being inconsistent with his epistemology.

This is why I wanted to attack Timor's worldview, showing that in his worldview there is no basis for knowledge. Yet, I believe he has knowledge. This is because I believe of his inconsistency.

Therefore, my position is not unprovable. It just requires to be proved in a transcendental fashion, because of who God is.

 

[Eon]

Thank you Miscellaneous, that was a stirring reply. However, whilst every answer is a reply not every reply is an answer...

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Lewanuva2003 @ Mar. 28 2004,6:41)]Have you ever thought that some Scientists have surrendered the fact that there is a God?

Have you ever thought that some preachers have become atheists?

Let's not appeal to authorities.

 

[timor]

Miscellaneous, I'm going to put this simply. If you refuse to even consider the possibility of the Bible's inadequacy, you are simply not worth talking to. That's not an insult, that's simply a fact - any discussion between us will remain forever fruitless.

 

[LionOfJudah]

timor then talking to 90% of the people here is fruitless because i believe the Bible to be 100% truth. i am pretty sure most Christians here do too, but are willing to listen to your arguments and show you how they are wrong.

 

[mrpopdrinker]

Quote[/b] (Miscellaneous @ Mar. 28 2004,10:57)]

Quote[/b] (mrpopdrinker @ Mar. 28 2004,6:59)]

Quote[/b] ]The Bible's claim:

It is the Word of God and must be taken as ultimate authority.  There is nothing higher of authority.

Oh really would you mind showing us where the Bible says this about itself?

Not at all.  

2 Timothy 3:16 should be used here to be sure, since Paul's claim for scripture to be useful for teaching because it is God breathed.  His reasoning -- because it is God breathed -- signifies the authority of God and his Word here.

Col. 2:3 tells us that in Christ is all wisdom and knowledge.  John 1:1 identifies Christ with the Word.

Psalm 12:6 calls the Word of God flawless.

Psalm 119:130 speaks of God's word giving light.

Just to name a few.

2 Timothy was not speaking of the Bible but the Tanach. John 1:1 identifies him as the word which makes that argument fall apart. Not that it had any ground anyway. For psalm 12:6 even with the way you took it out of context anyone can see plainly that it is speaking of God speaking. Also you cannot take modern teaching and use it in place of scripture. Or to say it another way, just because preachers,teachers, and pastors call the Bible the word of God doesent mean every time you see you term word of God you should comprehend "Bible". Psalm 119:130 is also speaking of God speaking not a book.

 

[LionOfJudah]

what you forget pop is that God breathed the Word of God, He alone inspired the people to write it, and He used prophets, and others to get His message across doesnt change the fact that He said it.

IE
Your mom tells you to tell your sister to take out the dog.

Then you tell your sister.

Who really told your Sister to do something? if she refused who is she disobeying?

 

[mrpopdrinker]

Quote[/b] ]what you forget pop is that God breathed the Word of God, He alone inspired the people to write it, and He used prophets, and others to get His message across doesnt change the fact that He said it.

Indeed he did. But I see no proof that the Bible is the word of God. Not to say I discredit the whole thing or anything like that. Indeed the Bible contains the words of God. However I ask for proof that the Bible itself is the word of God.

 

[Lewanuva2003]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Mar. 29 2004,3:00)]

Quote[/b] (Lewanuva2003 @ Mar. 28 2004,6:41)]Have you ever thought that some Scientists have surrendered the fact that there is a God?

Have you ever thought that some preachers have become atheists?

Let's not appeal to authorities.

Yeah, because they're idiots, how did EVERYTHING begin? What was before the Big Bang? want another question? WHY ARE WE HERE???!!!

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Lewanuva2003 @ Mar. 29 2004,6:13)]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Mar. 29 2004,3:00)]

Quote[/b] (Lewanuva2003 @ Mar. 28 2004,6:41)]Have you ever thought that some Scientists have surrendered the fact that there is a God?

Have you ever thought that some preachers have become atheists?

Let's not appeal to authorities.

Yeah, because they're idiots, how did EVERYTHING begin? What was before the Big Bang? want another question? WHY ARE WE HERE???!!!

Wow, you're a moron. I hope you're incapable of reproducing.

What was there before the Big Bang? Matter and energy, as always. Why are we here? If you're searching for purpose, I'm not sure you'll find it besides that which you assign to yourself. If you're asking for an explanation, get a science textbook -- its obvious that you need a lot more education than I can give you over a message board.

 

[LionOfJudah]

why would this "god" of yours pop allow the Bible to exist for so long, if it contained errors when the entire book is basicly solely about Him and His relationship with man kind.

 

[Miscellaneous]

Quote[/b] (mrpopdrinker @ Mar. 29 2004,4:47)]2 Timothy was not speaking of the Bible but the Tanach.

2 Timothy was speaking of "Scripture." The Bible is scripture.

Quote[/b] ]John 1:1 identifies him as the word which makes that argument fall apart.

Which was exactly my point. . .

I don't understand how this makes my argument fall apart.

Quote[/b] ] For psalm 12:6 even with the way you took it out of context anyone can see plainly that it is speaking of God speaking.

And Scripture is "God breathed."

Quote[/b] ]Psalm 119:130 is also speaking of God speaking not a book

It's actually probably speaking of the books of the Law, as they are considered the "word of God" throughout the Psalms. Regardless, as mentioned above, Scripture is not just a book, but the words of God because they were God breathed.

Your argument has no weight at all, man.

 

[mrpopdrinker]

Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Mar. 29 2004,7:00)]why would this "god" of yours pop allow the Bible to exist for so long, if it contained errors when the entire book is basicly solely about Him and His relationship with man kind.

Well for one thing God doesent control everything. Is christianity the only religeon that needs a infallible "Holy Book" in order to believe in its God(s)?

 

[TastyWheat]

I notice that a lot of the contradictions on that site you [timor] posted have been addressed by biblical scholars. More credance now is being given to the documentary hypothesis because of this. While the ultraconservatives are incredibly quick to joust that in order for the Bible to be an authority it has to be one solid, infallible work, I'm more of the persuasion that, despite what may be sloppy redaction (either in the sense of copying something incorrectly or putting more than one account of something in there), Scripture as a whole can still be used for building up and reproof, and thus is still the Word of God. I notice that none of the contradictions listed point out any worthwhile contradiction about God's character, either, which would be my main concern. I actually laughed when a read the ones under "Does God..."

Have you read anything on the documentary hypothesis timor? It's pretty interesting stuff, if you want I'll see if I have some time later to find a good online resource. In the meanwhile, I've gotta write a paper on the book of Numbers and a paper on Luther's polemics. Yay me.

 

[mrpopdrinker]

Quote[/b] ]2 Timothy was speaking of "Scripture."  The Bible is scripture.

What scripture did they have back then?! The Tanach!!!!! The Koran is also scripture you know.

Quote[/b] ]Which was exactly my point. . .

I don't understand how this makes my argument fall apart.

It wasent holding together anyway.  

Quote[/b] ]Your argument has no weight at all, man.

Oh and yours does? Paul called scripture (and he only meant the Tanach) infallible Paul later becomes scripture so he becomes infallible as does the rest of ther Bible because Paul was canonized in it. Verrrrry logical.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (TastyWheat @ Mar. 29 2004,7:23)]I notice that a lot of the contradictions on that site you [timor] posted have been addressed by biblical scholars. More credance now is being given to the documentary hypothesis because of this. While the ultraconservatives are incredibly quick to joust that in order for the Bible to be an authority it has to be one solid, infallible work, I'm more of the persuasion that, despite what may be sloppy redaction (either in the sense of copying something incorrectly or putting more than one account of something in there), Scripture as a whole can still be used for building up and reproof, and thus is still the Word of God. I notice that none of the contradictions listed point out any worthwhile contradiction about God's character, either, which would be my main concern. I actually laughed when a read the ones under "Does God..."

Have you read anything on the documentary hypothesis timor? It's pretty interesting stuff, if you want I'll see if I have some time later to find a good online resource. In the meanwhile, I've gotta write a paper on the book of Numbers and a paper on Luther's polemics. Yay me.

I've actually never heard of this documentary hypothesis of which you speak. Any information you could give me would be great! Thanks TastyWheat.

 

[LionOfJudah]

Yes pop as a Christian i say that only The Bible is the infalliable word of God. Jesus Christ was the Word and the Word was with God. you can find all that in the first part of John.

Pop what religion do you subscribe to, so that i can better understand your misdirection.

The koran was written by a man and those that choose to follow it are following the teachings of a man who was a genius who used religion to bring forth his empire ( for a modern good read on asuch an issue try dune).

No the Bible was put together in about 400 AD or so and i do believe that the people who put it together did very well, and the book/letters that are included in it are what God Himself wanted in there. By the way there is only One God, and no one knows His real name, but the Jews like to call him Yaweah. While the Christians call him Father, God, Aba or Jesus, because we all know that Jesus was God, and God is Jesus.

 

[TastyWheat]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Mar. 29 2004,1:36)]I've actually never heard of this documentary hypothesis of which you speak. Any information you could give me would be great! Thanks TastyWheat.

Oh, wow. Let me make a disclaimer, first. There are still problems with the d.h. when attempting to deal with certain discrepancies, but when I found out about it I was rather turned on to the whole notion. Also, the d.h. mainly is used to deal with the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible), but has been applied as of late to issues stemming from I and II Kings/I and II Chronicles. Really interesting stuff.

This is a good succinct summary of the d.h. There's also an amazing text out there by Umberto Cassuto, probably the most prolific Old Testament writer, entitled The Documentary Hypothesis. If you have a chance to read this text, I highly recommend it. This is a pdf-formatted succinct history of the development of the d.h. If you go here and scroll down and click on "ATLA Religion" under Humanities, you can search for journal articles on the subject. This stuff is definitely just the tip of the iceberg though.

 

[mrpopdrinker]

Quote[/b] ]Pop what religion do you subscribe to, so that i can better understand your misdirection.

That depends on how you look at things. One could call me a christian and another would call me something else. The specific religion/denomination would observant messianic Judaism.

Quote[/b] ]The koran was written by a man and those that choose to follow it are following the teachings of a man who was a genius who used religion to bring forth his empire ( for a modern good read on asuch an issue try dune).

The only point I was making is that if one believes Paul to be infallible and they also believe he meant all scripture than they have to accept all scripture.

Quote[/b] ]No the Bible was put together in about 400 AD or so and i do believe that the people who put it together did very well, and the book/letters that are included in it are what God Himself wanted in there.

I believe alot along that line. However I do not believe God controlled there every thought.

Quote[/b] ] By the way there is only One God, and no one knows His real name, but the Jews like to call him Yaweah. While the Christians call him Father, God, Aba or Jesus, because we all know that Jesus was God, and God is Jesus.

You forgot Yeshua,Yahoshua,Ha-Shem, and Adonai.  

 Yes like you I am a Trinitarian.

 

[LionOfJudah]

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.