1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!! Does the Bible have a legitimate place in modern debate?

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by mattj, Aug 24, 2011.

?

Does the Bible have a legitimate place in modern debates when it has something to say

  1. Yes

    26.6%
  2. No

    65.1%
  3. Undecided

    8.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. darkjigglypuff

    darkjigglypuff Borderline Troll

    Are you so inept you need it to be spoonfed into your mouth?

    December 25th was a manufactured day, said the be the birth of Jesus "No-Show" Christ due to the fact that they'd be able to bandwagon some more Romans on if they could associate their 'pagan festival' with the birth of the 'Lord and Savior'.

    http://www.history.com/topics/christmas

    How about that one, too.
     
  2. Mewkachu

    Mewkachu Sexuality is a cult.

    That is awful. There are some good lessons in the book arguably though.
     
  3. paracelsus

    paracelsus Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately, it is fairly open to interpretation, and can be twisted easily by non-catholics. Conversely, the catholic church is structured in such a way that it is forced to hold to archaic, even disproven views.
     
  4. mattj

    mattj .

    lol right right
    a google article
    is not
    a
    historical
    source
    come on bro
    That's a cool idea. What historical source do you get it from? Or did you just make it up, or hear it from a friend, or read it on some random google site? If any of those, no one really cares what you have to say.
    History.com
    is not
    a historical
    source

    Sorry, strike 4, I'm done with you.

    [edit]
    Incase you didn't know, websites and modern books are not historical sources. The Bible is a historical source. Antiquities of the Jews is a historical source. Ceasar's letters and speeches are historical sources. I don't really care what some random anonymous editor at history.com or wherever has to say. Since we're discussing an ancient event, I'm most concerned with what ancient sources say.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  5. Dunning

    Dunning God's Soldier


    What do you mean by Jesus "No-Show" Christ
     
  6. Mewkachu

    Mewkachu Sexuality is a cult.

    Technically, it can be. Just because it is not put in a history book does not validate that it is an inaccurate source. Even history books can't tell what the Bible says, only those who have been to Heaven or have evidence that God or the Bible is telling the absolute truth can, and even they can't because they're probably dead.


    If God exists.
     
  7. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    I found a Wikipedia article about you guys are talking about. I don't see any other reason why Christmas would be on December 25.

    mattj: Would you mind calling a true on visitor messages? I would like to talk to you about Skyward Sword.
     
  8. darkjigglypuff

    darkjigglypuff Borderline Troll

    Sorry, I forgot that for a source to be considered accurate it had to be written by dozens of cave-dwelling individuals with no notable credentials over a course of hundreds of years, over a thousand years ago.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  9. Mewkachu

    Mewkachu Sexuality is a cult.

    ^ Agreed. An online source can be legitimate. (nobody replies to my posts o_o)
     
  10. mattj

    mattj .

    wat
    Of course we can know what the Bible says. Its a book. Pick it up and read it.

    That's cool that you don't see any other reason, but I read that article and it doesn't link to a single historical source that says "we did this for this reason". Unless you have such a source, you cannot, cannot, cannot say for certain what their intentions were. Its just your baseless speculation.[/quote]
    no
    I'd rather read an ancient historical source written by a cave dwelling twiddledumb than someone who wasn't there, is thousands of years removed, and has not a single historical source to back up any of their claims.

    Here's one: The Koran was written by a time traveling martian. Never mind how obviously ridiculous such a statement is. I don't need any historical sources. I read it somewhere online.

    That is how you look right now.
     
  11. Mewkachu

    Mewkachu Sexuality is a cult.

    no
    I'd rather read an ancient historical source written by a cave dwelling twiddledumb than someone who wasn't there, is thousands of years removed, and has not a single historical source to back up any of their claims.[/QUOTE]

    If it's just a book, how can we know it wasn't edited for change over a long period of time?
    ;360;
    [img139]http://i41.*******.com/1239ich.jpg[/img139]
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  12. mattj

    mattj .

    That's a completely valid question. Archeologists have uncovered literally thousands of Biblical Manuscripts from various places and various points throughout history. We can compare these thousands of pieces of the Bible to see if anyone did anything fishy during any point in history. After reviewing the issue myself I can't find a single instance of Biblical Revisionism beyond the evolution of language and culture.

    Oh, and it's [*img139][*/img139] to make your picture show up in this forum. Just so ya know. :3
     
  13. darkjigglypuff

    darkjigglypuff Borderline Troll

    no
    I'd rather read an ancient historical source written by a cave dwelling twiddledumb than someone who wasn't there, is thousands of years removed, and has not a single historical source to back up any of their claims.

    Here's one: The Koran was written by a time traveling martian. I don't need any historical sources. I read it somewhere online.[/QUOTE]

    So, unless I pull up a letter from Pope Julias I saying 'Well, the plan worked! Christmas now belongs to Jesus, not Saturn!', you won't believe me and automatically dismiss all my sources as either inaccurate or outright fabrications?

    Are you really so bold as to say that Saturnalia is some sort of relatively-recent conspiracy, fabricated to illegitimatize Christianity (not that it needs any help, it can do that to itself)? OR are you saying that it didn't fall on the winter solstice?

    Or are you just saying that these two religious, gift-giving, thanksgiving holidays made around the winter solstice from roughly the same region are completely and totally unrelated at all?
     
  14. mattj

    mattj .

    y
    e
    s

    Oh look. They both happened around the same time in the same area. Gee.

    If you don't have that letter, I don't really care about your conspiracy theories. Maybe you should start a baseless conspiracy theories thread!
     
  15. Dunning

    Dunning God's Soldier

    Everyone posting on here knows nothing is helping right. This has turned into more of a fight then a discussion. I thought people were just going to have a chance to voice their opinions and ask a question if they don't believe or are just wondering and keep it civilized. Fighting about this really isnt going to help anyone on either sides. All you are going to do is offend someone else on their beliefs, even if you are only upset with one person.

    I think the Bible is a good reference and I believe every blessed word. If you want to know why please PM me. God bless.
     
  16. darkjigglypuff

    darkjigglypuff Borderline Troll

    Oh, well at least you admit you're being totally unreasonable.

    LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE EVER ALLOWED FOR ANYTHING IS FIRST-HAND WRITTEN ACCOUNTS
     
  17. mattj

    mattj .

    Yes yes. If requiring historical sources in a debate about a historical event is being unreasonable then yes, I'm the most unreasonable man you'll ever meet. Let me know how that thread of yours goes.
     
  18. darkjigglypuff

    darkjigglypuff Borderline Troll

    It's more or less the fact that you handwave anything I put forth as hearsay because it disagrees with your views.

    Sometimes, it's possible to connect the dots. Christianity really isn't above stealing themes and principles, so it isn't a damn stretch to presume they MIGHT have stolen a holiday and slapped their label on it. If you find a child in the kitchen with an empty cookie jar with the lid open and a cookie in his mouth, you don't need a witness to tell you he probably took the cookie from the jar. Nor do you need his testimony that he did that.
     
  19. mattj

    mattj .

    I'm quite open to being shown that I'm wrong. However, in your case, instead of showing me how I'm wrong, you've simply said "this random site says this and this random person told me that". Why should I value your sources? None of them were there. None of them point to reliable historical sources to back up their claims. Why should your word and their word be more valuable than mine or others? Do you think of yourself more highly than me? Do you think of your opinion to be more important than mine? What makes you better than me? You've got a real superiority complex going on.
    I say it is a stretch.

    what

    now

    ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  20. darkjigglypuff

    darkjigglypuff Borderline Troll


    Historians and scholars: Making stuff up, probably just guessing and winging it
    Thousand year old book: Totally legit because THEY WERE THERE, MAN. THEY DON'T NEED TO CITE SOURCES FOR THEIR OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS AND WE CAN TAKE THEM AT FACE VALUE.

    The idea that people who research human history for a living are wrong simply because they themselves 'weren't there' is an immense stretch, come to think of it.

    If an archeologist digs up a vase with a handle, next to a water fountain or something, he might be able to assume that, yes, this was used to drink from! But how could he know, if might have been some sort of ornament that hung from the belt wit no real purpose! It's a 50/50 chance, then, because after all, he wasn't there.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page