Look at this for example. Strawman. Have you actually read the man? I read Pascal's Pensées, and it's nothing of this sort at all. Pascal was writing a work of apologetics, and so people in that day - like many today - say in protest to Christianity, "Oh well, if God actually existed, why doesn't he give a clear and undeniable sign? Why doesn't He speak with us? Where is He?". So naturally Pascal pointed out to what the Bible says - namely that God is hidden, and not obvious. So quite the contrary, their objection is actually in accordance with Christian scriptures and justifies Christianity, rather than condemn it.On the 'hidden god', and on the reasons for keeping himself thus hidden and never emerging more than half-way into the light of speech, no one has been more eloquent than Pascal a sign that he was never able to calm his mind on this matter: but his voice rings as confidently as if he had at one time sat behind the curtain with this hidden god. He sensed a piece of immorality in the 'deus absconditus'48 and was very fearful and ashamed of admitting it to himself: and thus, like one who is afraid, he talked as loudly as he could. — Beebert
:sAn international conference of Christian scholars concluded that Christ is heavily misquoted in the Bible. — Michael Ossipoff
What's the international conference? And how are they "Christian" scholars if they claim the Bible misquotes Jesus? And how the hell did they establish that the Bible misquotes Jesus? Presumably they have a separate source for what Jesus said with which they compare the Bible no? You're clearly bullshitting us most likely.I'll take that as agreement. — Michael Ossipoff
Yes.Does anyone really believe that God told Abraham to kill his son? — Michael Ossipoff
What's the international conference? — Agustino
And how are they "Christian" scholars if they claim the Bible misquotes Jesus?
And how the hell did they establish that the Bible misquotes Jesus?
Presumably they have a separate source for what Jesus said with which they compare the Bible no?
You're clearly bullshitting us most likely.
It was described in a newspaper article. No, I don't believe newspapers to be reliable about everything, but there almost surely really was that conference. There'd be no motive to make it up. It probably took place in 1983. I don't have more information about it. But no, I didn't make it up. — Michael Ossipoff
"Teacher, teacher the dog really ate my homework! I know I don't have any other evidence, but it was 19:31 and he actually ate it! I don't have more information about it. But no, I didn't make it up!" >:O >:O >:OThe article was brief, and was a long time ago. I couldn't tell you what the conferees' credentials were, though the article might have briefly mentioned them.. — Michael Ossipoff
Can you give examples of such quotes? And even if this were so (which by the way it isn't), this wouldn't mean that at least one of them must be false. That would presuppose a dogmatic adherence to the law of noncontradiction, and as it pertains at least to God and the transcendent, this would require some backing.Good question. I was wondering the same thing. Most likely there are mutual contractions among the Bible's quotes of Jesus. If different quotes in the Bible contradict eachother, then at least one of them must be false. — Michael Ossipoff
Again, you're speaking blatant lies here. These are entirely nonfactual claims.Maybe they compared the post-Nicea Bible to the pre-Nicea Bible. — Michael Ossipoff
Yes, you do have a reason to bullshit, which is to drive your anti-Church propaganda.No, I wouldn't make it up.I have no reason to bullshit. — Michael Ossipoff
What re-write? :sThe Nicea re-write of the Bible doesn't inspire confidence. — Michael Ossipoff
Yes.Then do you also believe that God told Joshua to perpetrate all those massacres in Canaan? — Michael Ossipoff
No, that's not what I'm saying.As for Abraham & Isaac, you're saying that God ordered a murder, to test someone's obedience regarding violence and murder.. — Michael Ossipoff
I doubt those authoritarian sources would have any reason to have God make such a demand.That doesn't sound like God. That sounds like some of those authoritarian authors. — Michael Ossipoff
Well, to begin with, it tells us that Christianity (or Judaism) for that matter is likely to be speaking the truth, since we notice from experience that God is hidden.What does it tell US about this God and in relation to what WE can understand and observe in history as sorry and suffering and tragical little human beings? — Beebert
You're wrong here. I do not reject the Law, all I do is diminish its sphere of application to creation, not Creator. Good isn't evil and evil isn't good - but those concepts can only be applied to creation (including nature), not to God. You are committing a category error when you apply them to God. — Agustino
The Law in my conception applies as harshly and with the same iron-like nature as the Law applies in your conception, only that mine is limited to Nature and creation in its application, while yours has been lifted even above God Himself - as if God's creation (the Law) can raise itself above its Creator! — Agustino
The relevance of that is that when the effects of sin disappear in the denial of the will, then you see the world aright. — Agustino
How quaint that I disagree the most with that man ;) — Agustino
Your child belongs to God first and foremost, and only then does he or she belong to you. Your reasoning of course fails because you and your child are both creatures under one and the same God, and are therefore on an equal footing. The child can absolutely question you, but you cannot question God. The gap between creature and Creator is of the essence. The relationship parent-child is only analogical with the relationship of man or woman with God. It is fallacious to apply the same kind of reasoning to both of them. — Agustino
Yeah, that may be true, if it was possible for God to break his Law in the first place. — Agustino
As corrupted by the Fall* — Agustino
I would also like to ask you one thing : What is it that makes you most attracted to Catholicism, rather that Orthodoxy for example? — Beebert
On this, we are very much in agreement. It creates a big problem for the East. My problems with Catholicism though is that it has had a very turbulent history with many committed atrocities that I find hard to accept, and I dont like that it has adjusted itself so much to modernity that it is nowdays hard to go somewhere and find the old mass in latin rite with gregorian chant... That they have almost abandoned that is a catastrophy IMO — Beebert
Are you saying that the repugnant things are suddenly no longer repugnant once sin goes away? Ugly and evil things just disappear? That would be an interesting claim to the extent that it suggests you are an annihilationist. — Thorongil
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.