Re: OT of OT: Rating Fyron -- no longer possible
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruatha:
About that majority thing.
Yes, the Christians aren't in any majority of the population.
But remember that today more people lives than there has ever existed in all of mankinds history , added up in atotal over time!
|
Actually, that is not true.
Quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You and Rags have shown no evidence of these supposed predictions. All that Rags ever did was to say that the Bible predicted some events. Him just saying that does not make it true. I am still waiting on some actual evidence to be shown here.
And again, neither of you has given any convincing reasons on why
|
I have not tried to make any statements about particular predictions, in fact I have not posted to this thread before. I am merely pointing out that you continually insist that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact, yet you show no evidence of that.
Please reread my post. I never said you provided any evidence. I only spoke of the evidence that Rags provided.
Quote:
|
As to the percentage of people who are Christian, I do not have information about that for all people who have ever lived thoughout time, but I do have information for the current day (or at least 2000) and you might be surprised. According to ReligiousTolerance.org about 33% of the population of the earth claim Christianity. I actually did not make a statement about the correctness or incorrectness of anyone's religious beliefs, but you certainly have
|
That is still 67% of the people on the planet that get to go to Hell because they are not Christians.
Before somewhere around 1 AD (which is an innacurate date anyways, so an exact value is irrelevant and also not very possible), there were 0 Christians. So, all the people that lived and died before that time got to go to Hell, according to Christianity.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarok:
quote:
You and Rags have shown no evidence of these supposed predictions. All that Rags ever did was to say that the Bible predicted some events. Him just saying that does not make it true. I am still waiting on some actual evidence to be shown here.
|
Fyron, this contridicts all arguments you provided against me. By you saying this, you say that your arguments are no good either. As you have provided no proof as of yet. Therefore, I would suggest that you refrain from saying that I am wrong just because you say so until you provide solid evidence.
If I get some extra free time, I will pull up some dates for you to prove that events were indeed written in advance. But that is providing I get the time to do so.
Quote:
Originally posted by DavidG:
quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I have not tried to make any statements about particular predictions, in fact I have not posted to this thread before. I am merely pointing out that you continually insist that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact, yet you show no evidence of that.
|
Ture but some have.  I would think that if someone makes the bold claim the bible predicts the future then they should be the ones to provide some evidence. Otherwise I could make all kinds of wild statements and then defend them with "well you can't prove me wrong..."?
What DavidG just said pretty much sums up what I would have said. Saying it again would be redundant.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ragnarok:
Fyron, also going back to this... quote:
quote:
Fyron, the only reason I kept coming back to offer counter arguments was because you were putting words in my mouth, or computer in this case.
|
No I did not. Again, you are wrong. bwhahahah.
Actually you did. Thus you are wrong. You said towards the end of the Last thread that as a Christian I only accept only the New testiment as true. That is totally not the case. 2nd Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is inspired of God and benificial." Therefore, I take the whole Bible seriously.
I will work on those dates sometime whenever I have the free time.
No I did not. I said that the New Testament was the important part of the Bible to Christians. I never once said that Christians do not accept the Old Testament at all.
Quote:
|
2nd Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is inspired of God and benificial." Therefore, I take the whole Bible seriously.
|
This is very circular reasoning. You can not use something to define or defend itself.
Quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
quote:
Originally posted by DavidG:
quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I have not tried to make any statements about particular predictions, in fact I have not posted to this thread before. I am merely pointing out that you continually insist that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact, yet you show no evidence of that.
|
Ture but some have. I would think that if someone makes the bold claim the bible predicts the future then they should be the ones to provide some evidence. Otherwise I could make all kinds of wild statements and then defend them with "well you can't prove me wrong..."?
I only (and reluctantly) started posting to this thread because of the fact that Fyron insisted on arguing without proof that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact. I accept his right to believe that, but I have a problem with his insistance that there is no possibility that another point of view could be correct. You are welcome to make any wild statements you want. I will only refute them if I have evidence to the contrary. 
A look at the historical timeline is all the evidence I need to tell you that the Bible was written after the historical events it supposedly predicts. How many times must I repeat this before you will start noticing it? 50? 100? My evidence is basic historical facts.
Quote:
Originally posted by Puke:
Fyron's a good guy. opinionated, argumentative, and so full of himself that he had to start a thread about his own frickin reputation.. but a good guy.
Ratings are stupid. most of what i say is stupid, so i continually ask people to rate me at a 1, so that newbies wont make the mistake of taking me seriously.
and thats most peoples problem. they take themselves to seriously. nothing you say or do is that significant, that you should lose any sleep over it. nothing someone says to you is that important. peoples beliefs are not that important. agree to disagree. agrue your point, but dont think everyone else should feel the same way.
diversity is the spice of life. lighten up.
|
My point is that Rags is wrong about the predictive capabilities of the Bible. That is what I have been arguing. 
Quote:
Originally posted by TerranC:
It would seem that Fyron has become Atheism's first preacher.
How can you turn a religionless belief into a religion? 
|
No. Preachers use divine revelation when they preach to people, not logical argument. I have done no preaching.
Quote:
Originally posted by jimbob:
Fyron: As to whether or not a person is willing to accept the claim that the writers of scripture were predicting (or more accurately from a Judeo-Christian-Islamic perspective were given knowledge of) the future:
Many ask that proof be provided to show that the predictions were written down prior to the unfolding of events, and may insist that this is the only way of validating that the prediction event occurred. Unfortunately this demand of proof is (IMHO, in the humble opinion of western legal process, in the humble opinion of scientific method) to be borne not by the author, but rather the critics of the author must bear the burden of proof. That is to say, unless you have a good/solid reason to claim the author was fraudulent, you just can't call him a liar! (i.e. if the scripture in question was written three decades ago as proven by carbon dating, but claims to profess an event that happened 1000 years ago, then you can claim that the scripture is fraudulent - or is a copy of an earlier document).
Then, to impose that a document meets todays' standards of veracity is unfair and somewhat modernist/arrogant. The reality is that most ancient documents were not immediately transcribed, but were often (in most cases?) carried by oral tradition for centuries with incredible accuracy. Have you read the Odessy? Iliad? These were regularily recited verbatim and in their entirety from memory by Greek performers, sans mistakes, due to i) good memories that didn't use print as a crutch, ii) poetic mechanisms and meters that were self correcting, and iii) a public knowledge of the material that would correct any luckless bard who was unfortunate enough to mess up on the story during a public performance. Written copies of these plays were created, but the written word was not the repository of knowledge - peoples brains and corrective devices were!!!
just my couple of cents
|
I know perfectly well about oral narration in the ancient world. Historians have ideas about when such stories started being told. The stories of the Bible were not being told before the historical events the Bible supposedly predicts, but afterwards.
Quote:
|
Unfortunately this demand of proof is (IMHO, in the humble opinion of western legal process, in the humble opinion of scientific method) to be borne not by the author, but rather the critics of the author must bear the burden of proof.
|
If you write something down that makes claims, you have to back those claims up for them to be credible. Otherwise, anyone is fully within their rights (even many millennia ago) to call the author a liar/fraud/whatever.
[ March 06, 2003, 00:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |