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

Did Judas actually betray Jesus?

#91_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/23/2013 2:41:45 AM
Moorish_Idol posted...
I've always thought that deceiving someone about the specifics in order to make an unrelated point is an awfully low way to debate.

If you have a point, have the balls to say it and support it outright.


This is a message board. 'Having the balls to do something' or any form of bravery becomes a joke as soon as the antecedent of something is something to do with a message board. I wanted evidence for my claim, that's all.
---
DarkContractor
#92Moorish_IdolPosted 7/23/2013 3:06:02 AM
_Rasl3rX_ posted...
Moorish_Idol posted...
I've always thought that deceiving someone about the specifics in order to make an unrelated point is an awfully low way to debate.

If you have a point, have the balls to say it and support it outright.


This is a message board. 'Having the balls to do something' or any form of bravery becomes a joke as soon as the antecedent of something is something to do with a message board. I wanted evidence for my claim, that's all.

Why does this being a message board affect anything? This allows people with different worldviews from from all over the world to discuss religion. Why is that something that shouldn't be taken seriously, especially among regulars?

Anyway, I'm just curious why people opt for "gotcha!" instead of informing. Even if OW is notoriously difficult to work with, at least he doesn't outright lie in order to make you look bad. It just seemed so out of place seeing you post that.
#93_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/23/2013 1:20:31 PM
Why does this being a message board affect anything? This allows people with different worldviews from from all over the world to discuss religion. Why is that something that shouldn't be taken seriously, especially among regulars?


I will have a serious discussion as far as making my points and providing evidence for claims goes.

Anyway, I'm just curious why people opt for "gotcha!" instead of informing. Even if OW is notoriously difficult to work with, at least he doesn't outright lie in order to make you look bad. It just seemed so out of place seeing you post that.


Well, if I 'informed' OW that he didn't care about evidence and just wanted to rationalize all criticisms without actually knowing/caring what the criticisms are, he would just handwave it. Now I have proof! I'd do it again in a heartbeat, too.
---
DarkContractor
#94OrangeWizardPosted 7/23/2013 1:31:21 PM
Well, if I 'informed' OW that he didn't care about evidence


Lying to someone and seeing if they catch it does not show that one does not care about evidence.

It means that they trust you enough to assume that what you say is true, when you talk about subject that they are unfamiliar with.

So now you have proof that I trust you.

Well, you HAD proof that I USED to trust you.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#95Julian_CaesarPosted 7/23/2013 8:05:46 PM(edited)
OW:

Indeed.


EDIT: this was in reference to your very first post. I've tried as well, and found the same result.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#96OrangeWizardPosted 7/23/2013 8:51:14 PM
EDIT: this was in reference to your very first post. I've tried as well, and found the same result.


What specifically about my very first post are you referring to?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#97Julian_CaesarPosted 7/23/2013 9:32:10 PM(edited)
OrangeWizard posted...
EDIT: this was in reference to your very first post. I've tried as well, and found the same result.


What specifically about my very first post are you referring to?


A deaf ear to criticism. He has very elaborate examinations of Scripture that are very dependent on translations and specific wordings, mixed with his own interpretations. While I respect his opinions, I tried my best to tell him that he's making something out of nothing. I guess I don't know that he opposes criticism per se but he definitely isn't seeing the forest for the trees.

(technically it's your second post but it was part of the same response)

---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#98_Rasl3rX_Posted 7/24/2013 4:57:56 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
OrangeWizard posted...
EDIT: this was in reference to your very first post. I've tried as well, and found the same result.


What specifically about my very first post are you referring to?


A deaf ear to criticism. He has very elaborate examinations of Scripture that are very dependent on translations and specific wordings, mixed with his own interpretations. While I respect his opinions, I tried my best to tell him that he's making something out of nothing. I guess I don't know that he opposes criticism per se but he definitely isn't seeing the forest for the trees.

(technically it's your second post but it was part of the same response)


literally the only translation I use is NRSV (and NASB from time to time), which was put together by some of the best Biblical scholars in the world, the project was headed by Dr. Bruce Metzger who is pretty much unanimously considered the best textual critic of the 20th century. I don't use a pos like the KJV which is based on vastly inferior manuscripts from the later half of the first millennium or the NLT which is vastly written with a particular protestant theology in mind. The main goal of the NRSV was to just try as best as possible to recreate what the original text says with respect to the fact that the original RSV was written before the discovery of the DSS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRSV, and read the RSV's wikipage and look at the controversy section to see how they were truly trying to get the original text despite being blasted by pastors for not slanting things with a theological bias. (On an aside: This is partially why people feel like there's a real, multi-dimensional coherent message in the Bible, making it the Word of God. If your translation was made by people who firmly believe that and are willing to allow that to affect the decisions they make when translating, then well whaddya know.)

I'm open to other interpretations, but when the other interpertations are dumbass solo scripture eisengesis that hold no weight to them at all then I will pretty much handwave them unless you can actually back them up (and ftr, I apply this same standard to a lot of atheist interpretations. For example, I think all and all the Skeptics Annotated Bible is a pos. It has a few diamonds in the rough that make for fun ripostes when being preached to but all and all I don't think it's a good resource)

High Standards=/=Biased Standards

And in the topic I think you're referring to (the one about the Acts 17/Romans 1 contradiction) I said over and over that all I think is that Luke managed to get something wrong about what Paul said. I didn't see this as some major dichotomy of "WHAT THEOLOGY DO WE GO WITH?" I just think Luke made an error. This was always flat out ignored, pretty sure it didn't get acknowledged once.
---
DarkContractor
#99Julian_CaesarPosted 7/24/2013 8:31:16 PM
Oh hai DC. Didn't realize that was you.

_Rasl3rX_ posted...
And in the topic I think you're referring to (the one about the Acts 17/Romans 1 contradiction) I said over and over that all I think is that Luke managed to get something wrong about what Paul said. I didn't see this as some major dichotomy of "WHAT THEOLOGY DO WE GO WITH?" I just think Luke made an error. This was always flat out ignored, pretty sure it didn't get acknowledged once.


You created that topic and titled it A Theological Contradiction.

If your intent with that topic was really what you say, then you did a piss-poor job of conveying it.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#100DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 7/26/2013 4:53:50 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
Oh hai DC. Didn't realize that was you.

_Rasl3rX_ posted...
And in the topic I think you're referring to (the one about the Acts 17/Romans 1 contradiction) I said over and over that all I think is that Luke managed to get something wrong about what Paul said. I didn't see this as some major dichotomy of "WHAT THEOLOGY DO WE GO WITH?" I just think Luke made an error. This was always flat out ignored, pretty sure it didn't get acknowledged once.


You created that topic and titled it A Theological Contradiction.

If your intent with that topic was really what you say, then you did a piss-poor job of conveying it.


doesn't get anymore pisspoor than 'I think Luke made an error, that's all", right? The topic title is exactly what it is: The theology in Acts 17:31 is mutually exclusive with the theology of Romans 1:18-20. Doesn't mean that it doesn't have an easy answer.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.