OT of OT: Rating Fyron -- no longer possible

[tesco samoa]

It's the concept.

2 sides to a coin.

Your on one I am on the other.

There is no inbetween.

I see it all the time everywhere else. I do not want that to take over here.

This is my fav. part of the internet. Where I can chat with people about games, books, movies and sweet tea. Dicussions always involved learning new ideas.

I do believe that the Politiks , etc... should be in another forum if their just back and forth arguements. I am not learning anything except that I do not want to get involved. Both sides are entrenched. So they become like a stagnic pond. There is no flow.

Look at the recent threads.... There all the same.

They start off as an open ended converstation and then divide into two sides with no movement. It's like a broken record.

Sorry it's how I feel.

And the great thing about here is that I can post it.

[Ragnarok]

Tesco, I would tend to agree. From here on out I think I'm going to agree to disagree.
There is going ot be no changing of minds in this discussion so what is the point of it all? I strongly believe the way that I have stated and nothing will change my mind. There is no hard evidence to Fyrons arguments to defer my beliefs. So from here on out do not expect me to partake in any conversations on this matter, as it will just lead to chaos.
But Fyron, for my closing statements I would like to ask that you not assume that just because I am christian, that I believe certain ways. You don't know at all, or even remotely close to how I believe.

Now, how about them Pacers?!

[Fyron]

There are basic ideals that define Christianity Rags. I am just going along with those.

If you really want to believe that the Bible predicted events that happened before it was written, I guess there is not a whole lot I can do to convince you otherwise. You have no hard evidence to support your claims, so their is not much to argue against there.

[Captain Kwok]

Judge from the Simpsons:
Religion must stay 500 yards away from science at all times

I agree!

[ March 06, 2003, 02:13: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

[Ragnarok]

There are basic ideals that define Christianity Rags. I am just going along with those.

In general Christianity these are the beliefs. But I'm not a general Christian.

You have no hard evidence to support your claims, so their is not much to argue against there.

Nope guess not. But not much to argue against you either as you have no hard evidence to show me. You claim you have, just as I have claimed. But claims alone are not enough.

But now that this is over. At least for me... I notice you took your rating system off.

[jimbob]

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.

I'd like to see one of these historical "facts". I'd be very surprised that anyone on earth could make an accurate claim on when any ancient text was originally put to paper. Certainly historians can carbon date the earliest document found to date, but this simply does not rule out the existance of an earlier document. That said, I personally believe that the oral tradition is as good as the written tradition in many cultures. If you want, I'll dig up some "expert opinions" from the Classics department that agree. We have very few contemporary documents regarding Julius Ceasar or Alexander, yet the transcripts that exist are 1) widely regarded as being resonably accurate (even though the earliest surviving documents are easily 200 years post-Julius or post-Alexander) and 2) often passed down originally by oral tradition prior to their "codification".

My point is that Rags is wrong about the predictive capabilities of the Bible. That is what I have been arguing.

It seems this is so only because you have already decided that this is so. If you believe that accurate prediction is impossible, then we're already done here. But not on the basis that we have reason to doubt what happened a few thousand years ago, but because you have a world view that excludes the possibility that the writers were not lying.

The stories of the Bible were not being told before the historical events the Bible supposedly predicts, but afterwards.

But why do you believe this? If it's because of an expert opinion, please, for your own sake, check your source(s). If you have some good sources (or if you're a historian yourself) then please, share and enlighten us all!! If it's because you believe that anything supernatural is impossible, then it really isn't about the authorship at all.

[Fyron]

When you are talking about centuries to millennia of time difference, a few years (even decades) do not matter.

Don't be so literal. Would you prefer if I used the term "composed" instead of "written"? I was not necessarily refering to the actual act of writing them down, but when they were created.

It seems this is so only because you have already decided that this is so. If you believe that accurate prediction is impossible, then we're already done here. But not on the basis that we have reason to doubt what happened a few thousand years ago, but because you have a world view that excludes the possibility that the writers were not lying.

They were not necessarily lying, so much as distorting the facts just enough to get their message across.

I have seen 0 evidence that the stories were (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) before the events took place, and plenty of evidence that they were (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) after they took place.

But why do you believe this? If it's because of an expert opinion, please, for your own sake, check your source(s). If you have some good sources (or if you're a historian yourself) then please, share and enlighten us all!! If it's because you believe that anything supernatural is impossible, then it really isn't about the authorship at all.

As I already said, I am not a historian, and I do not have any history books at present. So, I can not at present cite you sources that will prove what I am saying about when these things occured. I am certain that if I spent the time to find them, I could find more of them than you ever wanted to see.

I know this because I have learned enough about ancient history to be able to place things in a relative timeline, and the (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) of the stories/books of the Bible happened well after the events that Rags posted in the original thread that the Bible supposedly predicted.

quote:

---

You have no hard evidence to support your claims, so their is not much to argue against there.

Nope guess not. But not much to argue against you either as you have no hard evidence to show me. You claim you have, just as I have claimed. But claims alone are not enough.

---

The difference is that if I wanted to, I could find enough hard evidence to support my statements from reliable sources, as they are factual. You, on the other hand, would not be able to because your claims are not factual. I am sure you could find sources that make the same claims you have, but you could find sources making just about any claim you can think of.

But now that this is over. At least for me... I notice you took your rating system off.

If you want to stop the debate, stop posting things that require responses.

Only one person that gave me a 1 rating fessed up to it. The other people have remained silent. If they are too cowardly to come forth, then there is no point in giving them the satisfaction of seeing my rating drop. Actually, it would probably be best if the rating system was disabled entirely. It serves no real purpose, except as a cheap shot for petty people that don't like people disagreeing with them.