The Conservative Bible Project

[Henry Hawk]

good one....

[Exterminator]

If my last girlfriend taught me nothing else, I learned that there is no point in arguing with someone who is delusional.

[Henry Hawk]

If my last girlfriend taught me nothing else, I learned that there is no point in arguing with someone who is delusional.

it hasn't stopped you yet....

[Exterminator]

it hasn't stopped you yet....

Obviously but it's nice that you admit it.

[Locutus]

Well, there are documented accounts by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Peter....claiming that Jesus DID arise.......and even Paul, himself says "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.....that the physical body is not important to Christian theology...."

you are taking ONE scripture that is arguable and more than likely taken WAY out of content...and clinging to it.....for arguements sake..........funny, how you discredit scripture but you are NOW ready to grab onto something that fits YOUR ideology.

Uh, you may want to think again on that one.  From Wikipedia:

The traditional view is that the Gospel of Matthew was composed by Matthew, a disciple of Jesus.[2] However, 18th Century scholars increasingly questioned the traditional view of composition, and today most of modern critical scholarship hesitates to say that Matthew wrote this Gospel which bears his name, preferring instead to describe the author as an anonymous Jewish Christian, writing towards the end of the first century. They also believe that the Gospel was originally composed in Greek rather than being a translation from Aramaic or Hebrew.[3]

Not by Matthew, and not firsthand.  This was written some 100 years after the birth of Christ.

[Henry Hawk]

Who are these.....18th Century scholars ....and the most of modern critical scholarship ....that you have conveniently referred too? and have assumed it is THEY that are correct...because it fits YOUR agenda?

[Locutus]

^ a b c d e Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, p.43


Oxford University scholarly enough for you?   

[Locutus]

Graham Norman Stanton (1940–18 July 2009) was Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University. Stanton's special interests were in the Gospels, Paul's letters, and second century Christian writings.

^-- Also contributes to the article.

[Exterminator]

Who are these.....18th Century scholars ....and the most of modern critical scholarship ....that you have conveniently referred too? and have assumed it is THEY that are correct...because it fits YOUR agenda?

The pursuit of the truth is not an agenda; clinging to a fallacy in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is.

[Locutus]

More about Mr. Ehrman:

Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has written about how the original New Testament texts were frequently altered by scribes for a variety of reasons, and argues that these alterations affect the interpretation of the texts.

Why is scholarship always called into question by you HH?  Why is never good enough to satisfy what appears to be an innate belief that all scholars are wrong and you're right?  I just don't get it.   It's like me throwing a piece of white paper down in front of you and you arguing until you're blue in the face that I may be wrong about the fact that the paper is white.

[Exterminator]

Why is scholarship always called into question by you HH?  Why is never good enough to satisfy what appears to be an innate belief that all scholars are wrong and you're right?  I just don't get it.   It's like me throwing a piece of white paper down in front of you and you arguing until you're blue in the face that I may be wrong about the fact that the paper is white.

Must be a pretty shaky belief system that won't withstand scrutiny.

[Henry Hawk]

Why is scholarship always called into question by you HH?  Why is never good enough to satisfy what appears to be an innate belief that all scholars are wrong and you're right?  I just don't get it.   It's like me throwing a piece of white paper down in front of you and you arguing until you're blue in the face that I may be wrong about the fact that the paper is white.

I have no problem with scholars.......I can show you scholars who will defend EVERYTHING you throw at me....and PLEASE don't get me wrong and say that I believe that I am always right.....I just get defensive on these issues, because the first little whim of a story that MIGHT cast a shadow, it seems that YOUR crowd assumes that it is FACT.

It is just my perspective....

[Locutus]

Must be a pretty shaky belief system that won't withstand scrutiny.

But how do we fix it?  This kind of crap has ramifications for us all.  It filters down into:

1. Creation (now masked as ID) being taught in the schools.
2. Outright discrimination against homosexuals.
3. My God is better than your God and I'll go to war with you to prove it. 
4. Embryonic stem cell research
5. Prevention of HPV vaccination for young girls and sex education for children in general because of some fear it will cause 'em to fuck like rabbits.
6. The outright stifling of science at high levels of government in an attempt to cater to the religious right.

The list just goes on, and on, and on.   You put facts down in front of these people and they still can't or won't see.  They can't see why the absolute crap they believe in isn't any better than a shepherd circa 1500 BC who believed the sun was swallowed every evening by some god and regurgitated each morning at sunrise. 

[dan foster]

But how do we fix it?  This kind of crap has ramifications for us all.  It filters down into:

1. Creation (now masked as ID) being taught in the schools.
2. Outright discrimination against homosexuals.
3. My God is better than your God and I'll go to war with you to prove it. 
4. Embryonic stem cell research
5. Prevention of HPV vaccination for young girls and sex education for children in general because of some fear it will cause 'em to fuck like rabbits.
6. The outright stifling of science at high levels of government in an attempt to cater to the religious right.

The list just goes on, and on, and on.   You put facts down in front of these people and they still can't or won't see.  They can't see why the absolute crap they believe in isn't any better than a shepherd circa 1500 BC who believed the sun was swallowed every evening by some god and regurgitated each morning at sunrise.

That really is the crux of it, isn't it; no one really gives a shit about the mindless bowing their head at dinner, or playing butt sniffer at the mosques.  It's the fanatics, the evangelicals of all the religions that are just so fucking whacked.  I still suggest Price's book, A Reason Driven Life, if for nothing more but to point out the idiocy of the christian evangelicals.

Of course, the ones that murder their children (through prayer and outright negligence) need to go to jail the same way those who are constantly plotting to destroy, or makeover America.  They are all religious terrorists.

[awol]

seriously... i just gotta know.  what's the thought process that leads to this?

"unless we do something, some of these liberals might just make it into heaven on a technicality!"

that about sum it up?