The Bible

[none]

Ha, seriously the verse said honor so you can live a long time, didn't account for a parents conduct.
Where in the verse does it say "under these conditions honor"?
you got half a brain use it.
here read it, it doesn't matter the instruction for the parent in the context of the verse
Exodus 20:12 - Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
so what if parents have rules to follow, that isn't the point of the verse.
the verse stands upon it's own merits, your verse choice Colossians 3:21 doesn't change Exodus 20:12 which can get a child killed.
The best thing you could say to stay true to the verse is "the child was supposed to die, God's will/mystery occurred"

Wow. I mean, I don't know what kind of experiences you may have witnessed in your world, but the verse you give is pretty much the way to go when it comes to parents and their children. For the good of the children. That isn't a theist exclusive principle, it's a human one.

it could be that following the scripture leads to death, something you do not acknowledge... which is fine, if you want to deny the obvious then go for it, doesn't mean you are honest though.

 

[ideologyhunter]

"Whence comes the impulse to proselytize?...The missionary zeal seems rather an impulse of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have. It is a search for the final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others."
The True Believer, Eric Hoffer (Section 88)

 

[James Brown]

No. Since your scripture is the source of your claim, we need something else to verify it. Something that would confirm the truth of your claim even by someone who has not read your scripture.

When Galileo wrote down that the moon was pocked with craters, others did not confirm that by reading what Galileo wrote down. Even if Galileo wrote down that claim in two different books, that wouldn't verify the original claim. Something else--something independent--was needed.

Otherwise it would have been just an unverifiable claim.

Then it's an unverifiable claim. But you knew that, didn't you.

Well, I suspected it, yes.

But if it's an unverifiable claim, then I can't be expected to accept it. For all I know, you're retelling the plot of a work of fiction. It might be an interesting work of fiction, but that's all it appears to be.

Oh well.

 

[James Brown]

So no independent support that Jehovah God created Michael and Jehovah through Michael created the heavens?

Nope. Who's going to support it, Michael? There was Jehovah and there was Michael. Jehovah said it was true and Michael said it was true. Do you think that Richard Carrier could support it? Do you think that I give a fuck if he had? You get that?

Ah, you're attitude has descended into hand-waving and aggression. I thought this might be an interesting discussion, but you've spoiled it for me.

 

[Sarpedon]

You have to ask yourself why that was done. As I posted elsewhere it was done to establish a people of an imperfect law that foreshadowed a more perfect law and to provide the Messiah who would bring that perfect law about. In the course of events that opportunity was broadened to all people of all nations.

Unsurprisingly, you miss my point. My point is not just that the old law is flawed. My point is that the entire thing, front to back, is far, far too small to have come from a mind capable of embracing the vastness of the universe, and is obviously the product of man, who is petty and small minded. Frankly, if I were religious, I would consider attributing such pettiness to God as the height of blasphemy.

 

[James Brown]

Joshua 10:12-13. Joshua sees the small bright sun stop orbiting the large, stationary Earth for a while. (See also Isaiah 20:11, I Chronicles 16:30, Job 9:7, Isaiah 38:8, Joel 2:10, Joel 2:31, Amos 8:9, Habakkuk 3:11, Acts 2:20, Revelation 6:12-14 for other markers of Geocentrism.)

Of course, Geocentrism has been sufficiently disproven.

You think that those scriptures or any other support Geocentrism just because Thomas Aquinas and the Church did during the time of Galileo?

I would like for you to go through each one of them and explain why you think that.

I think your argument is backwards. The references don't support Geocentrism because Aquinas and the Church did. Aquinas and the Church supported Geocentrism because of the scriptural references.

The Joshua passage is enough. Joshua commanded the sun to stay stationary in the sky so that he could have more daylight hours to slaughter his enemies. This makes perfect sense if A) the Earth is large and stationary and B) the sun is small and orbits the Earth. That's Geocentrism, and it was the leading idea until the 16th and 17th centuries. However, in reality, it is the Earth that's small and orbits a (relatively) stationary sun. The only way this event could have happened as described in the Bible is if the Earth ceased rotating on its axis for a couple of hours.

Even if we presume that Joshua was fooled by an optical illusion--confusing a rotating Earth for an orbiting sun--such an event would have been too remarkable to go unnoticed. Near Gibeon, where the battle took place, the Earth rotates at almost 1,000 miles per hour. Were the Earth to stop, the atmosphere would have continued to rotate due to inertia, resulting in winds many times greater than the strongest hurricane, destroying every structure and forest around the world. The heat generated from braking a 1.6 septillion ton planet would have boiled away the oceans. And even if God used more miracles to mitigate the side-effects of the first miracle, he couldn't have kept the other nations from observing that the sun didn't 'rise' or 'set' on schedule. There is no legitimate record from any other culture describing this inexplicable lack of motion of the sun. And this is during an era where the mere presence of a comet in the sky caused people to think the world was coming to an end.

You asked for one instance where a Biblical author got it wrong, and that one instance is sufficient. The other passages show that the Biblical writers thought as everyone else did in that age--that the god or gods move the sun around the Earth.

 

[Kharakov]

Unsurprisingly, you miss my point. My point is not just that the old law is flawed. My point is that the entire thing, front to back, is far, far too small to have come from a mind capable of embracing the vastness of the universe, and is obviously the product of man, who is petty and small minded.

Unless a quick course in small minded pettiness makes man aware of his small minded pettiness... followed by a second course of how to treat and grow with your small minded, petty peers. Might even be a bit Machiavellian....

 

[James Brown]

Yes, there is no behavior, up to and including genocide, that can't be considered a part of a long game.

 

[Kharakov]

You think that those scriptures or any other support Geocentrism just because Thomas Aquinas and the Church did during the time of Galileo?

I would like for you to go through each one of them and explain why you think that.

I think your argument is backwards. The references don't support Geocentrism because Aquinas and the Church did. Aquinas and the Church supported Geocentrism because of the scriptural references.

The Joshua passage is enough. Joshua commanded the sun to stay stationary in the sky so that he could have more daylight hours to slaughter his enemies. This makes perfect sense if A) the Earth is large and stationary and B) the sun is small and orbits the Earth. That's Geocentrism, and it was the leading idea until the 16th and 17th centuries. However, in reality, it is the Earth that's small and orbits a (relatively) stationary sun. The only way this event could have happened as described in the Bible is if the Earth ceased rotating on its axis for a couple of hours.

Do you believe that someone can't write a script in a modern game that temporarily works around certain aspects of the physics engine of the game?

In a created universe, one can control various variables locally, if one has the mathematical know-how. The whole geocentric portion of the Bible could have been completely accurate at the time it was written, assuming updates to the universe occurred at later dates (expansion packs, with continuity integrated).

 

[James Brown]

Sounds like Last Thursdayism. Not a compelling argument.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Sounds like Last Thursdayism. Not a compelling argument.

Well, that sounds like a rebuttal that you could have provided last Wednesday. Why didn't you do that?

Oh ya, it's because you didn't exist yet.

Boom.

Tom Sawyer - 1
James Brown - 0

 

[Kharakov]

I think your argument is backwards. The references don't support Geocentrism because Aquinas and the Church did. Aquinas and the Church supported Geocentrism because of the scriptural references.

The Joshua passage is enough. Joshua commanded the sun to stay stationary in the sky so that he could have more daylight hours to slaughter his enemies. This makes perfect sense if A) the Earth is large and stationary and B) the sun is small and orbits the Earth. That's Geocentrism, and it was the leading idea until the 16th and 17th centuries. However, in reality, it is the Earth that's small and orbits a (relatively) stationary sun. The only way this event could have happened as described in the Bible is if the Earth ceased rotating on its axis for a couple of hours.

Do you believe that someone can't write a script in a modern game that temporarily works around certain aspects of the physics engine of the game?

In a created universe, one can control various variables locally, if one has the mathematical know-how. The whole geocentric portion of the Bible could have been completely accurate at the time it was written, assuming updates to the universe occurred at later dates (expansion packs, with continuity integrated).

Sounds like Last Thursdayism. Not a compelling argument.

If the universe was geocentric in a simpler implementation, prior to an update, the bereshit is correct.

You know the old line: bereshit genesis = gene sis bullshit (the short rib being the stubby ass Why? chromosome).