Apologies to BK. You were right about gay marriages.

[Thoth]

Quetzalcoatl.

Gotta like a deity who demands his followers rip the beating hearts out of their enemies.

Gods with balls FTW.

[N35t0r]

Quetzalcoatl didn't have many balls, though.

Feathers, OTOH, it had lots of

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry, but no you don't. You THINK, you STRONGLY SUSPECT, you BELIEVE, but you don't KNOW. I mean, were you there? Did you meet Jesus?

I mean, that's the argument you used for the Bible not being a work of fiction, right? Well, that argument works both ways, doesn't it?

Indeed it does.

Finally, I was hoping loin would ask this question. How do we know that scripture is true? In the end, we don't. It's a question of textual evidence given that there are no witnesses still alive here on earth.

We can be more certain that the text of scripture is more true and more accurate than any other ancient source from the time period. We have more, and older manuscripts, the oldest complete text dating to around 325 AD in the Codex Vaticanus. There is also the Codex Sinaiticus which dates to around the same period.

There are many partial manuscripts and fragments, some of which are even older, down to about 150 AD or so, about 50 years after the originals would have been written.

Then we have all the Vulgate original manuscripts which date from about 400 AD. These number at about 100 copies when you include all the different formats.

Compare this with Plato, where the oldest manuscript is from 900 AD, and they have a total of 7 copies. Thucicydes is about the same.

So we can be more sure about the bible being true than any other form of ancient history. So it's a choice. Accept both or neither.

[Ben Kenobi]

He has no idea what ethics are, all he knows is that he wants a monopoly on them.

Hi, I am loin. I have lost the argument so I'm going to piss and moan to others to gain sympathy. Why Ben Kenobi is so stupid that I can't even accurately transcribe his argument. Woe is me.

[Thoth]

Quetzalcoatl didn't have many balls, though.

Feathers, OTOH, it had lots of

Feathers or lead?

[N35t0r]

So we can be more sure about the bible being true than any other form of ancient history. So it's a choice. Accept both or neither.

No.

We can be more sure it is more likely to be closer to the original (also, not all of it, each section should be treated separately).

[Ming]

Hi, I am Ben Kenobi. I have lost the argument so I'm going to keep posting the same bad arguments over and over again hoping that somebody might be stupid enough to agree with one small amount of what I post. And if that doesn't work, I'll change what we are talking about and start all over again.
Why everybody is so stupid that I can't even accurately transcribe their correct arguments. Woe is me.

FIXED

[loinburger]

Hi, I am loin. I have lost the argument so I'm going to piss and moan to others to gain sympathy. Why Ben Kenobi is so stupid that I can't even accurately transcribe his argument. Woe is me.

The fact that you change definitions of what is "ethical" at the drop of a hat indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about - you just keep sculpting the definition to make it as exclusionary as possible.

Here's an easy self-test. How many times in the past year have you consulted somebody else on an ethical dilemma and, as a result, acted contrary to your intuition?

[David Floyd]

So we can be more sure about the bible being true than any other form of ancient history. So it's a choice. Accept both or neither.

Sorry but that argument fails, too. I'm easily able to accept the "people and places" of the Bible, just as you seem able to accept the "people and places" of Homer. Certainly, places like Babylon existed. Certainly, there was a Kingdom of Israel and Judea. Certainly, Troy existed. But the existence of Troy doesn't equal the existence of Zeus any more so than the existence of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem equals the existence of God.

[Riesstiu IV]

Hi, I am loin. I have lost the argument so I'm going to piss and moan to others to gain sympathy. Why Ben Kenobi is so stupid that I can't even accurately transcribe his argument. Woe is me.

I bet you $10 that every single forum regular thinks you're an idiot.

[Thoth]

I bet you $10 that every single forum regular thinks you're an idiot.

Sucker bet.

[BlackCat]

Indeed it does.

Finally, I was hoping loin would ask this question. How do we know that scripture is true? In the end, we don't. It's a question of textual evidence given that there are no witnesses still alive here on earth.

We can be more certain that the text of scripture is more true and more accurate than any other ancient source from the time period. We have more, and older manuscripts, the oldest complete text dating to around 325 AD in the Codex Vaticanus. There is also the Codex Sinaiticus which dates to around the same period.

There are many partial manuscripts and fragments, some of which are even older, down to about 150 AD or so, about 50 years after the originals would have been written.

Then we have all the Vulgate original manuscripts which date from about 400 AD. These number at about 100 copies when you include all the different formats.

Compare this with Plato, where the oldest manuscript is from 900 AD, and they have a total of 7 copies. Thucicydes is about the same.

So we can be more sure about the bible being true than any other form of ancient history. So it's a choice. Accept both or neither.

No, we can't in any way be sure that the content is true, just that there are evidence that someone has written something at a certain time.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry but that argument fails, too. I'm easily able to accept the "people and places" of the Bible, just as you seem able to accept the "people and places" of Homer. Certainly, places like Babylon existed. Certainly, there was a Kingdom of Israel and Judea. Certainly, Troy existed. But the existence of Troy doesn't equal the existence of Zeus any more so than the existence of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem equals the existence of God.

I'm not asking for that.

I'm asking for two things.

1, was there a person called Jesus of Nazareth?
2, did this Jesus of Nazareth die and return from the dead?

[Ben Kenobi]

The fact that you change definitions of what is "ethical" at the drop of a hat indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about

How have I switched the definition of ethics?

At least I had the temerity to define it. I'm looking really hard, and I can't see where you bothered to actually define or answer my question.

I'm going to ignore you until you answer my original question. How do you define 'ethics?'

Once again the ball is in your court Loin.

[BlackCat]

I'm not asking for that.

I'm asking for two things.

1, was there a person called Jesus of Nazareth?

Maybe.

2, did this Jesus of Nazareth die and return from the dead?

Certainly not.