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. Mewkachu

    Mewkachu Sexuality is a cult.

    Whilst I believe with the first part, I question the second part. Why are you Christian, I wonder? [edit] Is it because you were convinced or told by someone?
     
  2. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    I wish you'd quit lulzspeaking to your opponents and and moving the goalposts pertaining to what kind of proof your opponent has to provide to satisfy you. First it has to be a source, then it has to be more than a 'Google article' (even though you're fond of telling people to look it up on Google), then it has to be a historical source (what else do you think History.com is even talking about?!) and then when we talk about Saturnalia...big deal, so it happened around the same time in the same area. I continuously wonder what incentive people even have to post in this thread unless their answer is 'yes'.
     
  3. mattj

    mattj .

    A perfect example!!

    I remember watching this lolworthy history channel documentary on an archaeological dig in the dead sea caves. The host, who obviously had no idea what he was talking about was going on about some rope that led down this slope to a hole in the cave. He was going on about how it could be this and it could be that and it could symbolize this and it could have been where they held this ritual or that.

    By the end of the documentary they realized it was just a rope that lead to a hole that they all pee'd in and threw their trash in. How did they know? They found feces and trash. Physical evidence.

    I don't give a hoot what random anonymous editors at history.com or wikipedia or wherehaveyou have to say about ancient events. Either you have some kind of ancient historical evidence to back up your claims or you're pulling stuff out of your butt.


    Could you show us all where I moved the goalpost? Like, quote me. I'd love to see it. Or did you just come here to troll like usual.

    get

    out
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  4. Mewkachu

    Mewkachu Sexuality is a cult.

    Even if their correction is in fact correct how do they know they are actually right and that their first idea is not? Physical evidence does not prove anything
     
  5. UnovaMaster

    UnovaMaster Well-Known Member

    The Bible has been copied over for thousands of years, so unless you can find the original Bible, then based on your logic, it is also not a legitimate source.
     
  6. darkjigglypuff

    darkjigglypuff Borderline Troll

    And Paul, John, Luke and whoever are more credible because they lived at roughly around the time the bible takes place at, so it's okay to just take their word for it? They don't need to be cited, or to provide proof that these things happened? Where is the HISTORICAL proof of Genesis, besides the bible? I want to see some first hand, written accounts, verified in the hand-writing of Adam!
     
  7. mattj

    mattj .

    It really is difficult to determine anything precisely about ancient events. But with some kind of historical evidence, (archeology, manuscripts, geology, anything) you at least have something physical, something solid that you can hold in your hand and say "This is why I believe this". Unlike many of these posters who link to random google sites and say "SEE! THIS GUY SAYS THIS!" Physical evidence of whatever sort may not lead us to the correct conclusion but it is always worlds better than making up stuff with no evidence whatsoever.

    You don't like to follow the thread much do you?
    First hand written accounts of an event that occurred before the foundation of writing. Sounds reasonable.

    [edit]
    Just so that it has been plainly said, I really don't care about the origins of Christmas. What we celebrate today is not Biblical by any definition. The date, the events, what we do, nothing. It is a celebration that was formed for unkown reasons by people hundreds of years after the Bible had been completed. It has changed numerous times throughout history. I really don't care about it.

    What I do care about is sources. I'm dumbfounded that so many people here could scoff at using the Bible as a relevant source in a modern debate, but in the same breath site so many sources that have nothing whatsoever to support their claims. Nothing physical. Nothing archeological. Nothing textual. Just nothing.

    But its better than the Bible ofcourseyeahofcourse.

    Case in point. You claim that Christmas is a hijacking of the celebration of Saturnalia. You provide no historical sources.

    Well I SAY Saturnalia was a hijacking of Christmas. Why should I have to care about historical sources. Give me 10 minutes and I'll go edit wikipedia and link to it. Sound good?

    Obviously not.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  8. darkjigglypuff

    darkjigglypuff Borderline Troll

    That is what Christians do, except instead of scholars and historians they substitute it with 'some guys who lived a long time ago, so it's probably legit'. Listen, you're right. there's no absolute black and white confession I can find, written by Pope Julias I or anyone else that says, directly "We stole this holiday", but it can be inferred. Historical evidence is not the end-all-be-all of evidence.

    Tell me what makes the bible historical evidence of anything, other than the fact that it was written a really long time ago. Because Odyssey was written a really long time ago, even further back than the bible, and Odysseus isn't exactly regarded as historical fact by most mainstream historians.

    Because theories are only theories, and unless you have eyewitness testimony, you can't really prove anything. What, making an educated guess that's most likely correct because all the evidence seems to point that way? Pfft.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  9. ChedWick

    ChedWick Well-Known Member

    I'm so glad your ban taught you something. I must ask, do you even realize who you were responding to? I mean seriously, Sunny, trolling....


    To remain somewhat relevant... It is painfully obvious that there are both non-religious folk, and religious folk who have little to no idea what the bible really says. How many convert to atheist or agnostic because they are aware of what is in the bible verses how many just stick to what the bible says because that's what they've been spoon fed from birth? In my experiences, those who have parted ways with their religion have done so, not out of ignorance of what is in the bible but because they became more aware of what was in the bible. Do others share these experiences?
     
  10. Arty-Kun

    Arty-Kun Kill it with weather

    The celebration of Christ's birth was usually lumped in with Epiphany, one of the church's earliest established feasts held on January 6th. And it's not like Christains didn't have other dates in mind for Christmas. March 21st, March 25th, April 18th, April 19th, May 20th, May 28th, November 17th, and November 20th were all considered for different reasons. December 25th was picked because of Origen Adamantius's concern about pagan gods and the church's identification of God's son with the celestial sun. December 25 already hosted two other related festivals: Natalis Solis Invicti (latin for "the birth of the unconquered sun"), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian "Sun of Righteousness" whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. It was put on December 25th for that reason, that the Romans would see the true Son was born on that holiday, but not the kind of sun they worshiped. You could argue that we "stole" Saturnalia and covered it in Christianity, but practiced the same things. We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but of Him who made it. The Chruch viewed efforts to reshape culture positively.
     
  11. mattj

    mattj .

    Odd. I think in psychology they call what you're doing "projecting". See, I'm the one who presents historical evidence in this thread. You're the one who links to random sites. I'm bringing evidence. You're not.
    I couldn't argue to the historical validity of the Odyssey. The earliest manuscript we have comes from over 500 years after it was "supposedly" authored.

    good god
    what
    evidence
    You have not provided one historical source. Not one! Do you really imagine that you have some evidence to back up your claims? Are you hallucinating?

    GOTTA REMIND MATTJ HE WAS BANNED YEAH!
    you are a waste of space here
    leave
    What's this that you always say about anecdotal evidence? Oh yeah. It only applies to me.
     
  12. Grei

    Grei not the color

    I still don't think the bible has a legitimate place in a debate. I just remembered that nobody ever proved my point wrong.

    And no, mattj. Before you say it, I will not get out just because I don't agree with you. You are the one arguing that the bible has a legitimate place in modern debate. When you are trying to prove something, you need to offer evidence, not the other way around.
     
  13. mattj

    mattj .

    Could you please show us all where I told someone to get out because I didn't agree with them? Or would you like to show us some evidence to back up your claim that the Bible has no legitimate place in modern debate?

    ?

    Oh, don't worry I won't hold you to the same standard of evidence that you hold me to. That would be unfair. Its alright.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  14. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    No way, mattj, I'll match the respect I give you with the respect you give me.

    I have no doubt Grei provided evidence of his views, especially seeing the cycle of how you dealt with darkjigglypuff's case. Perhaps it is harsh to call it moving the goalposts, but the fact is you went from asking for evidence to narrowing your definition of what you wanted until darkjigglypuff couldn't give it to you anymore, and then acted like you had achieved something. Then even better, you went back and edited a past post to 'make it clear' that Christmas was changed many times and concluded by saying that it is impossible to know when or how or any details - it's impossible, unknowable, etc, which going on past experience, tends to be your last resort: when you can't prove your opponent wrong, you insist instead that nobody can ever know anything for certain about the subject and that you never cared anyway.
     
  15. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    You're just going to simply dismiss the fact that Christmas is on the same day as the birthday of several pagan sun gods as a mere coincidence? Why are you even debating this issue? So what if early Christians thought it would be a good idea to adopt some pagan cultures to score a few more conversions? It's not important.

    Look at your post to SunnC and also your previous post.


    Back to the matter at hand. You don't accept articles found on Google as valid, yet you think everyone should accept an ancient compilation of books. Don't you find some irony in that?
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  16. mattj

    mattj .

    The first time i spoke to him i asked specifically for a "historical source".

    Again.

    Could you show us where I moved the goalpost? You made the claim. Can you provide a source? Or am I the only one who should be held to such a standard?

    @marioguy:
    1) post 803. Try and keep up.
    2) Would you mind showing us how my reply to Sunny C was an example of me telling someone to leave because I disagree with them? I expect you'll dodge this question like you've dodged every question I've asked you so far.
    3) Concerning ancient events like the one we're discussing here, ancient historical sources are always, always, always more useful than modern, unsubtantiated websites. Thats just reality. I fail to see the irony you so mockingly mention.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  17. ChedWick

    ChedWick Well-Known Member

    I think a good counter argument here would have to be, NOU!!!!

    Yea, I like it.


    Could you please show me where I talk about anecdotal evidence and its relevancy. Better yet, show me where in my post I was making a factual claim that applies to all. Because, you know since I'm so stupid and a waste of forum space I clearly don't recall what I posted such a short time ago. Here I thought I was just presenting an interesting series of questions and asking for others take on them in comparison to their own.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  18. mattj

    mattj .

    dude... pass the blunt
    post 247
    gg

    [edit]
    oh looks like you moved the goalpost
    hmmmm...
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  19. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    That's right, mattj: I think you're the only one who needs to be held to a higher standard. I love double standards, and I'm out to persecute you with unfairness and troll your thread.

    No. Forget it, I spoke too soon to attribute it to a fallacy. It was just simply your conduct. That's why I said: 'Perhaps it is too harsh to call it moving the goalposts'. There are several types of historical sources - what you meant to have asked for was a primary historical source, while darkjigglypuff gave you secondary/tertiary historical sources. The sources darkjigglypuff gave you were historical sources.
     
  20. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    Okay then, hot shot. I'd like to see you prove this other than your own assertion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page