Uhm, OK, applied science..? What do you mean by that? We see life around us, there is a God, he told us that the OT was true as we have historically accurate accounts of Jesus written by his disciples that we have evidence for that too. So then, are we going to disregard what God tells us to be true?
Wheres your applied logic?
27 comments
I see life around me.
God never told me jack shit.
Logic, applied: life does not need a magic man in the sky.
You LOSE. You get NOTHING. Good DAY, sir!
1) How does the presence of life support the claim of there being a god?
2) The accounts of Jesus were written at least 35 years (for Matthew, the other gospels followed much later) after his death and by someone who didn't actually know him.
3) You fail!
... he told us that the OT was
Oh, sure, he would say that.
You know, I'd like to say that the testimony of the four gospels is sort of like someone using his ventriloquist dummy as an alibi (you Soap fans will remember that scene), but considering the gospels were all written from sources that are basically someone's best guess at the life of a decidedly murky historical figure who had died twenty years before the first of those sources were written, well, I can't.
"there is a God"
Applied logic - first you must prove there is a God.
Applied logic - After proving God exists, you must prove that he told us the OT was (or is) true.
Applied logic - you must prove that we have ANY historically accurate accounts of Jesus.
Applied logic - you must prove that the gospel accounts of Jesus were written by his disciples.
Applied logic - you must discount any assertion for which there is inadequate evidence, such as almost everything asserted in the Bible.
The Bible a historically accurate account? Windmill must have a different version to me.
Take the resurrection. The five accounts don't agree on how many women visited the tomb, who they were or what their motives were. Three Gospels say the tomb was already open, Matthew requires an earthquake and angel to open it. Neither do they agree on the number and appearance of the appearance of the messenger/s ( or even whether he/they were angelic or human), what he/they said or how the women answered. Only the Gospel of John mentions Jesus appearing to the women (an important point, you might think), Paul contradicts all four Gospels by saying Jesus first appeared to Peter.
The list of holes in the story goes on and on: I certainly wouldn't want to stand up in court and give an account like that.
One, the Gospels were not written by his disciples. It was written by people who surely didn't meet him personally(see Luke). God, what can I say, NEVER said that the OT was false. The guys who wrote it took for granted it was. Again, where do you apply logic?
"he told us that the OT was true as we have historically accurate accounts of Jesus written by his disciples that we have evidence for that too"
Jesus is the NT, you fucking idiot. You actually haven't read your own book have you?
Accurate accounts of Jesus? 4 different birthdates, 3 versions of the day he died, the ressurection story was added by the RCC after 400 years to be in line with 8 others similar stories with time differences of millenia.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
