This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

"Angstheist" is an ugly, ill-conceived word.

#141TheRealJiraiyaPosted 2/8/2013 3:10:44 PM
JonWood007 posted...
How many Christians do you know avoid women because they're on their periods?


THIS is your argument?

Galatians 5, Acts 15, etc etc. We arent bound by OT Law any longer.

If you just said "I didnt mean authoritative, sorry, I meant to say that it isnt true", this conversation would be over. Stop trying to construe your word choice as correct, especially after youve already admitted it wasnt.

Swallow your pride, in other words. There is no need for this conversation to continue a single post longer than it takes you to end it.
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#142TheRealJiraiyaPosted 2/8/2013 3:11:38 PM
Even if it is only authoritative for one person's beliefs, that is still authoritative for SOMETHING
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#143JonWood007Posted 2/8/2013 3:15:34 PM
Hustle Kong posted...
Regardless, this is besides the point, in making claims about the world, it's not an authority at all, because its claims are unsubstantiated and/or wrong.


The problem is that you said it want an authority in anything. You were asked directly about this before being taken to task for it. And you've only admitted that you were wrong to say something so asinine in the most Saul-Goodman way.


Again, I'm mainly going by definition 1, which seems to imply the knowledge in the Bible is TRUE. You guys are missing the point totally.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#144TheRealJiraiyaPosted 2/8/2013 3:18:03 PM
JonWood007 posted...
Hustle Kong posted...
Regardless, this is besides the point, in making claims about the world, it's not an authority at all, because its claims are unsubstantiated and/or wrong.


The problem is that you said it want an authority in anything. You were asked directly about this before being taken to task for it. And you've only admitted that you were wrong to say something so asinine in the most Saul-Goodman way.


Again, I'm mainly going by definition 1, which seems to imply the knowledge in the Bible is TRUE. You guys are missing the point totally.


The Bible is true.. as a representation of sola scriptura theology. It is a true and accurate authoritative source on that topic. Whether it is true to reality or not is unknown, of course.

"For anything" is where you messed up, and it isnt defensible.
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#145fudrickPosted 2/8/2013 3:19:39 PM
Who doesn't avoid women when they're on their periods?

<.<
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#146OrangeWizardPosted 2/8/2013 3:23:42 PM
From: JonWood007 | #137
It's in the Bible, is it not?


A lot of things are in the bible. However, there are laws for Christians, and laws for Jews.

To say "If it's in the bible, a Christian must do it" is simply ignorant.
#147JonWood007Posted 2/8/2013 3:37:26 PM(edited)
TheRealJiraiya posted...
JonWood007 posted...
Hustle Kong posted...
Regardless, this is besides the point, in making claims about the world, it's not an authority at all, because its claims are unsubstantiated and/or wrong.


The problem is that you said it want an authority in anything. You were asked directly about this before being taken to task for it. And you've only admitted that you were wrong to say something so asinine in the most Saul-Goodman way.


Again, I'm mainly going by definition 1, which seems to imply the knowledge in the Bible is TRUE. You guys are missing the point totally.


The Bible is true.. as a representation of sola scriptura theology. It is a true and accurate authoritative source on that topic. Whether it is true to reality or not is unknown, of course.

"For anything" is where you messed up, and it isnt defensible.


Well that was the definition I went by. Definition 1, which referred to truth, and reliability. The truth is, it isn't reliable.

On cosmology, it isn't reliable because it contradicts everything we know.

On history, it isn't reliable for similar reasons.

On morality, it isn't reliable either, since most people would say at times it has poor advice, and at other times, it has good advice.

The fact is, I'm sure that it is safe to say that the Bible is not "able to be trusted as being accurate or true" (Oxford's definition) 100% of the time. Not even the sola scriptura folks follow it 100% of the time, considering how I don't know many of them who take sell everything they own and "hate" their families (in a Biblical sense). And even if they do (catholic priests and nuns may do something similar), such people often do not regard everything in the Bible as reliable and true. Going back to the catholic example, those guys accept evolution, for instance, therefore genesis is not "accurate or true".

It may be "authoritative" by definition 2 if people accept it, but not by definition 1, which was what I was getting at, which deals with truth claims.

So let me put it this way, is the Bible a reliable source of truth regarding any discipline of knowledge out there, save for religion itself, which is pretty much self validating? Because a far as the Bible's claims to TRUTH go, it really isn't authoritative on anything, or at least not very much.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#148TheRealJiraiyaPosted 2/8/2013 4:32:52 PM
Yeah, except you said for ANYTHING.

It is truthful and reliable as a source of certain branches of Christian theology.
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#149Hustle KongPosted 2/8/2013 5:09:52 PM
That's an awful lot of words for someone who "admitted he was wrong". Lol.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#150JonWood007Posted 2/8/2013 6:33:00 PM(edited)
TheRealJiraiya posted...
Yeah, except you said for ANYTHING.

It is truthful and reliable as a source of certain branches of Christian theology.


Which is incredibly circular. And even then, they don't accept the Bible as authority on everything.

Is it authoritative on the world in the areas in which it makes claims? No. It is not. It's wrong in most, if not all fields it attempts to comment on. You're basically trying to refute me by arguing it's authoritative on religions that recognize it as authoritative....that's circular, and while it falls into definition 2 of the word, it does not fall into definition 1, which was what I was trying to comment on. I was commenting on fields external to the Bible itself.

As I said, if you made a religion off of my posts, my posts would be authoritative by your definition, but does that mean it actually acts as an authority on some field of study? heck no. By definition 1, it is not authoritative on anything external to it that deals with knowledge or truth.

It all depends how you define the word. By some definitions, yes, it is authoritative on some things, but by definitions dealing with truth, or knowledge, it really isn't authoritative on anything. It's a book full of inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims.

Anyway guys, you're making a mountain out of a freaking molehill, my gosh.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768