Originally Posted by alias

How come you never mentioned anything when foundit calls me ignorant and claims I have Alzheimers? Not too biased are you?

Originally Posted by foundit66

I'm pointing out WHY I don't believe in the Bible...
Because of Biblical contradictions.



And here you go again with calling me a "fool" and "dishonest".
You are the dishonest person here in not summarizing my statements accurately. Your position is dishonest in just ASSUMING that there is no contradiction by just ASSUMING that everything everybody says is true despite the contradiction. And then inserting words of an explanation in where they are contradicted by the passage in question, and where they are absent.

You can't explain to me, without ADDING WORDS THAT WERE NEVER THERE, how Jesus and his disciples were supposedly guiltless. You add new context to the Bible which just plain IS NOT there.

You claim David was guiltless, when Jesus EXPLICITLY says he is guilty "which was not lawful for him to eat".
I AM taking on an assumption that the Bible is accurately describing the situation. Ironically, you aren't. You're ignoring that phrase.

What I AM NOT assuming is that Jesus was telling the truth. I am not making that blind leap of faith which would ignore the whole question altogether.
YOU are the one who is trying to prove that the bible is telling the truth by assuming that Jesus is telling the truth.
And if anything is dishonesty, THAT is.

My "ass" has not been "handed to me".
There are NUMEROUS arguments that you still cannot counter. In fact, a shorter list would be the arguments you have tried to counter.

The bible DOES NOT say what you claim it says.
A question for you would be WHY you claim David was innocent when Jesus EXPLICITLY states that he broke the law?
Another question for you would be WHY you claim Jesus said that "hunger" was an out for violating this law, when Jesus NEVER SAID that. He just said that David "hungered", and then he talked about David being guilty of breaking the law.

And USE THE BIBLE VERSE to show where what you claim is said is supposedly said. Be able to point to the EXACT WORDS which you claim are saying what you claim.

Originally Posted by alias

It's easy to say you won an argument when you can just cop out and say "I don't believe what Jesus says".

Originally Posted by alias

I thought you were going to debate the bible, but actually you are not. I could use the same tactic with you and claim I won simply by saying I don't believe that part.

Originally Posted by alias

If you want to debate what the bible says, then do it. If you want to pick and choose the verses you believe in only, then find someone as dishonest as you.

Originally Posted by alias

That is dishonest to pick and choose only the verses you want to believe are true. You don't understand that do you?

Originally Posted by foundit66

Actually, it's easy for YOU to say you won an argument when you just cop out and say "I believe what Jesus says is unquestionable truth".

I am NOT just saying "I don't believe".
I am saying that there is NO REASON, unless you WANT to believe without a reason, what Jesus said was true.

THAT is how things are falling together, and you're too dishonest to admit that...



Don't believe what part?



Do you realize that if people are talking about CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible, then it is VERY PROBABLE that they're going to come to a situation where they have to see one verse as credible, and another as not?
It's the INHERENT NATURE of that type of discussion.

And I'm not just "picking and choosing" what verse. At least not without a REASON. And I have given that reason.
On one hand, you have the Mosaic law, handed down from Moses, and "enforced" by God in the desert.
On the other hand, you have Jesus who claims to be the Son of God.

The two are contradicting each other.
ONE of them is wrong.
And your solution is to blindly believe them both, and MAKE UP excuses which are contradicted by the bible verses, and NOT FOUND in the bible verses.



It's not "dishonest". I have a reason for not believing Jesus's statement.
It contradicts Mosaic law, and there is no given reason to believe Jesus when he claims they are "guiltless".

It is dishonest of YOU to just claim I am "picking and choosing" the verses without admitting that I have a REASON for believing one verse and not another.
THAT is dishonesty. Misrepresenting your opponents position is dishonesty.

Originally Posted by alias

He is God according to the bible. You want to attempt to debunk that one also?

Originally Posted by alias

Your reason for not believing one verse and not another is because you don't believe Jesus is God.

Originally Posted by alias

You want to prove to me Jesus isn't God? Why wouldn't I believe Jesus?

Originally Posted by alias

He is God according to the bible. You want to attempt to debunk that one also?

Originally Posted by foundit66

Alias, it's not an issue of "believing" a verse or not "believing" another.
I'm not disputing whether or not this exchange actually took place.

I'm disputing the validity of the WORDS SPOKEN at this event...

Do you understand the difference?

And it would be more accurate to say that I have not ASSUMED that Jesus is God.
You have. You have assumed he is God, and that everything he says is absolute truth.
I am approaching this objectively.
YOU are NOT.



You're asking nonsensical questions.

1) I don't care if you try to prove Jesus isn't god. I wouldn't expect you to...
2) I understand that you do believe Jesus. It's part and parcel of your religious beliefs to believe without question.
The point is that for OBJECTIVE people, who haven't blindly assumed that they must believe Jesus, then Jesus has given no reason to be believed...



If you're talking about the claims of the Bible and Christian dogma, I'm not going to argue the point. It is what the Bible says, and what Christians believe.
It opens up a whole different can of worms of "God and man" and how different Christian sects come to terms with that conundrum, but Christianity is already conflicted enough on that as it is...

Originally Posted by alias

You say humans wrote the bible and then you say humans lie. Then you say you are disputing the VALIDITY of the words spoken at the event. It looks like the only words you are disputing are the words of Jesus. You see no problem with that. I certainly do.

Originally Posted by alias

Either the account is true or it isn't. You can't state that you believe the words of the Pharisees and not the words of Jesus and be fair when discussing an event in the bible.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Now THERE is a shocker... <end sarcasm>
Look. YOU believe the words of Jesus to be absolute truth. Undisputable truth.
I don't.

And the key word in that is BELIEVE.
You can "believe" your way out of any contradiction.
But to put forth an objective position which can be understood and accepted WITHOUT blind belief? That is something significantly different.



Quit LYING.
I said nothing about "believing the words of the Pharisees".
In fact, I have REPEATEDLY stated that my argument has NOTHING to do with the Pharisees. Their statements are irrelevant and coincidental to my arguments.

I have NEVER used their statements in my arguments.
Yet again, you demonstrate blatant dishonesty in misrepresenting my position.

But on the flip side, doesn't your statement apply to YOU TOO???
Can YOU state that you believe the words of Jesus, and not the words of the Pharisees, and be fair when discussing an event in the bible???

Originally Posted by alias

Wrong. I do believe the words of the Pharisees and they were correct in their doctrine. They also didn't understand the law...

Originally Posted by alias

...just as you don't and you can't admit that.

Originally Posted by alias

I think the problem is your confusion. Take it verse by verse and tell me which verses you believe. Maybe that will help.....

Originally Posted by alias

Are you okay with verse 1 as being accurate? Yes or no?