| Talal said: Why are they implying that a Muslim would be biased against Jesus. Muslims are obliged to love Jesus after all. |
He's a scholar with a phd in multiple religions; he has written on other religions before; he was once christian and his wife is christian. Somehow I think fox news might just be ignorant and filled with bigots.
| ultima said:
Answer honestly: have you actually read the bible? The amount of contradiction within it is staggering. Not to mention the contradictions of the bible with reality and history. |
I have read nearly the whole thing bar a prophetic book or two and I believe Numbers. I have also read some aprocryphal text.
No, so far I have found the gospels do not contradict each other and when contradiction points are shown they are always highly debatable, for instance the genealogy of Jesus.
For such ancient texts, they hold up exceedingly well. I challenge you to find any other historical books that so strongly agree, being possibly without contradiction.
Good luck, get back to me when you find it.
@Addiekienen. No.
| Adinnieken said:
Wrong. Creationism believed the Earth was the center of the universe, and that everything, including the Sun revolved around it before science proved that the Earth orbitted the Sun, that our Solar system is not the center of the Universe, but instead a system in an arm of a galaxy that is far the center of the galaxy and further still from the center of the universe. Creationism does not account for plate techtonics. The Earth according to Creationism was is the same as it was when God formed it. Oh, and Creationism doesn't account for a planetoid body crashing into the Earth creating the Moon. Creationsim does not account for evolution. Revisionistic Creationism is cute, but I grew up prior to it and I'm well aware of what Creationism is. |
Bold 1 and bold 2 are simply untrue.
Geocentrism -> http://creation.com/geocentrism-and-creation
Plate techtonics -> http://creation.com/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-the-geophysical-context-of-the-genesis-flood
Two classic Fox News strategies in there:
1. If you cannot argue the content effectively, question the credibility of the author.
2. Conduct a conspiracy on why groups that you disagree with didn't do something you agree with, when in fact they did... (In this case, they asked why he never claimed he was a Muslim, when he in fact did it on several occasions. this coincides with their earlier report about the Boston bombings, asking why no Muslim group in America actually condemned this act, when in fact ALL of the major Muslim factors did). It's deliberate, and it's a subconscious form of "first-impressions".
Us uk folks aren't allowed to see the daily show interview.
PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.
Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?
| Ajescent said: Us uk folks aren't allowed to see the daily show interview. |
I had the same problem ;)
happydolphin said:
Bold 1 and bold 2 are simply untrue. Geocentrism -> http://creation.com/geocentrism-and-creation Plate techtonics -> http://creation.com/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-the-geophysical-context-of-the-genesis-flood |
It's a bit funny that your sources come from some site called creation.com
Also, I actually do think the bold 1 and 2 are correct to the extent that your links talk about the Bible itself while Creationism belongs to the people and many of them did believe those things. Just saying.
| MDMAlliance said:
It's a bit funny that your sources come from some site called creation.com |
What is funny about that? If you want to talk about the tenest of creationism, how does it not make sense to pull references from the major creationist outlet in the world?
@2. It's possible. Like evolution changed its tuned many times in the past, so has creation. It's based on scientific findings after all.
happydolphin said:
I have read nearly the whole thing bar a prophetic book or two and I believe Numbers. I have also read some aprocryphal text. No, so far I have found the gospels do not contradict each other and when contradiction points are shown they are always highly debatable, for instance the genealogy of Jesus. For such ancient texts, they hold up exceedingly well. I challenge you to find any other historical books that so strongly agree, being possibly without contradiction. Good luck, get back to me when you find it. @Addiekienen. No. |
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
You sure about that, bub?
My Console Library:
PS5, Switch, XSX
PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360
3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android
happydolphin said:
What is funny about that? If you want to talk about the tenest of creationism, how does it not make sense to pull references from the major creationist outlet in the world? @2. It's possible. Like evolution changed its tuned many times in the past, so has creation. It's based on scientific findings after all. |
It's funny because for arguments like this you usually would want to stray away from sources that obviously would be biased towards the topic at hand, and use other sources in addition for credibility.
For the second part, it was mostly for arguments sake, because the bolded was in past tense. Therefore, it was definitely (at some point) true.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
