Jump to content

If we stay up... Give us the family stand back.


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Did Jesus himself not say upon his rise 'let them roll back this here stone so that in years to come, we may roll as the same, dairy milk Easter eggs down that hill bit at Barshaw park'

Oran Kearney 3:16

Now THAT is f**king blasphemy right there!

It's supposed to be a hard boiled egg. Not a delicious chocolatey one.
 

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

Can someone explain the difference between "views" and "unique visitors" to this ^^^^^ idiot... 🤣

What a f**kwit you are.

If I thought it was "unique visitors" then I would have said "unique visitors".

The forum is pretty popular, and that is despite the presence of you, ya pompous c**t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

Well you are posting this on a thread that has had 15,000 views, so plenty obviously like the place.

Wouldn’t surprise me if 10,000 of the views where the same 5 people with multi aliases. 

 

Sorry if I offended you though 🤗 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mattman said:

Wouldn’t surprise me if 10,000 of the views where the same 5 people with multi aliases. 

 

Sorry if I offended you though 🤗 

No offence taken, I just don't think its true that the majority of St Mirren fans "slate" this website.

It has its problems, but as pointed out above it is a million times better than what you will find on facebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in Asda on Monday and passed the Easter Egg aisle on my way to get some other stuff.

The staff were frantically slapping new prices on the eggs as Easter had finished. Most £4 eggs were now £1 etc. One guy looked at the shelf, pointed at his wife, then stuck his thumb towards the door and simply said in the broadest weegie accent "Get a f**king trolley".

When I passed them 5 minutes later they had filled the trolley and both of them had their arms full as well. I heard him say to his wife "I don't even like Yorkie but a quid's a quid".

Brilliant. 🤣

Now I am not a religious person at all. I would shut down all organised religion if I was king.

BUT.

I think something of the magic of Easter has been lost along the way. 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kemp said:

What a f**kwit you are.

If I thought it was "unique visitors" then I would have said "unique visitors".

The forum is pretty popular, and that is despite the presence of you, ya pompous c**t.

That might have sounded more believable if you hadn't just used "views" as proof that plenty of people were still using the forum you utter bellend. 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oaksoft said:

I wonder if it was Baz's ancestors who wrote the King James?

Interesting fact (again) there is roughly a 1% chance it would have been one of my direct ancestor. If you go back over the generations, two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents etc, the numbers get so high that everyone alive today's ancestors overlap many times (if you go back far enough).

If you go back 20 generations that is over one million Great grandparent to the power of 18 for all of us. Now the King James was published about 400 years ago, if we assume a generation is about 25 years (would have been less as we go into history but let's not split hairs) that would mean I had circa  65,536 living direct ancestors at the time of publishing. The population of the UK at that time is estimated 6,500,000 meaning in the region of a 1% chance it was one of my (or any of our) direct ancestors. 

Now let's spend 25 pages ripping apart these figures, I'll start. Given my point on generations being shorter as we go further back in history, I likely had a few more generations alive at that team meaning the chances would be higher than 1% :lol:

Yes it's a slow work day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kemp said:

No offence taken, I just don't think its true that the majority of St Mirren fans "slate" this website.

It has its problems, but as pointed out above it is a million times better than what you will find on facebook.

Well I’d say the minority use this, I’ve been on and off this since 2003 (i think🤷‍♂️)  I personally don’t mind it especially during transfer season, some of the rumours are pretty spot on and some are just hilarious. But just about every thread gets personal, I’ve been reeled in a few times myself I must admit.  It’s hard to read through some good threads when it goes that way, that’s the point I’m getting at... but yes most people who I speak to at games seem to avoid this site like a plague due to the constant pish that’s posted. 

 

Anyway give the old firm one stand and make sure the cameras are on them all the time to start weeding out the fuds who they attract ☺️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mattman said:

Well I’d say the minority use this, I’ve been on and off this since 2003 (i think🤷‍♂️)  I personally don’t mind it especially during transfer season, some of the rumours are pretty spot on and some are just hilarious. But just about every thread gets personal, I’ve been reeled in a few times myself I must admit.  It’s hard to read through some good threads when it goes that way, that’s the point I’m getting at... but yes most people who I speak to at games seem to avoid this site like a plague due to the constant pish that’s posted. 

 

Anyway give the old firm one stand and make sure the cameras are on them all the time to start weeding out the fuds who they attract ☺️

I suppose now that I've got sucked in to replying to that fanny Oaksoft then I must admit you are probably right.

Could be a great forum, too many trolls still kicking about though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I imagine there may be elements that are accurate, people coming back to life, talking snakes, living inside whales and a tower creating multiple languages. Not so much :lol:

Maybe you should check up on the historian records of the day... they concur with loads of it... of course those who do not want to believe still try to discredit these secular historians too, but the evidence for much of it is unquestionable as it marries precisely with the Bible records (which sometimes are historical accounts but other genres too)...  if you don't believe in the miraculous - you should meet my brother - now a reverend - totally different person and he is truly helping so many people. There are plenty others too I am sure - was Mother Theresa a fool?

From what I have read of atheists who examine the evidence for the resurrection, and completely changed their opinion, it seems to me pretty incredible. I have no problem with people making a judgement when they have looked at the evidence provided by both sides - that is a balanced perspective, so long as their is a willingness to have an open mind. A closed mind won't be moved... 

I was once a witness in a court case - the one side were telling lies all through the trial and tripping themselves up - they lost of course, because their evidence had no basis of truth... a good trial finds out the truth...

So it is easy to take these throw away statements and do no investigation for yourself - but we all have freedom of choice right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

Maybe you should check up on the historian records of the day... they concur with loads of it... of course those who do not want to believe still try to discredit these secular historians too, but the evidence for much of it is unquestionable as it marries precisely with the Bible records (which sometimes are historical accounts but other genres too)...  if you don't believe in the miraculous - you should meet my brother - now a reverend - totally different person and he is truly helping so many people. There are plenty others too I am sure - was Mother Theresa a fool?

From what I have read of atheists who examine the evidence for the resurrection, and completely changed their opinion, it seems to me pretty incredible. I have no problem with people making a judgement when they have looked at the evidence provided by both sides - that is a balanced perspective, so long as their is a willingness to have an open mind. A closed mind won't be moved... 

I was once a witness in a court case - the one side were telling lies all through the trial and tripping themselves up - they lost of course, because their evidence had no basis of truth... a good trial finds out the truth...

So it is easy to take these throw away statements and do no investigation for yourself - but we all have freedom of choice right?

I think there is likely a lot of correlation between the non miraculous claims of the bible and history (nothing relating to miracles can be confirmed), there will also be a lot embellished or just down right wrong. The reality is we'll never know for sure and very little from that time can be called 'unquestionable.'

We are opening a can of worms regarding belief in the miracles of the bible but ultimately if you do, I'm not saying you are a fool or anyone else but it is based on zero evidence of the supernatural which is fundamental and contrary to much that's been proven false (practically all of genesis for example). Like I say, I wouldn't call someone a fool but in 2019 people believing in a 6,000 year old universe and that mankind came from Adam and Eve is baffling to me. 

As for the helping part, more power to them but I don't think religion needs to be related in the slightest to being good or doing good. I am completely opposed to religion if I'm honest but not because of individuals, it's people killing each other in the name of something that amounts only to blind faith. 

As for atheists that examine the resurrection and turn to god, they are very small numbers and the stories are often exaggerated (reality being someone looking to believe not being objective). We see overwhelming numbers that go the other way. There is direct correlation for example between education and losing faith. I would say, can you show any actual evidence by the definition of evidence for a person raising from the dead? Practically Every religion in history has witness to the miraculous as part of it, testimony from people that lived 2,000 years ago isn't even close to reliable evidence. 

Your court case point, surely a religion with over 30,000 denominations and dozens of different publication examples of its core text falls under that one side? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

(1. nothing relating to miracles can be confirmed), The reality is 2. we'll never know for sure and very little from that time can be called 'unquestionable.'

 3. to much been proven false (practically all of genesis). in 2019 people believing in a 6,000 year old universe and that 4. mankind came from Adam and Eve is baffling to me.     5. I am completely opposed to religion if I'm honest but not because of individuals, it's people killing each other in the name of something that amounts only to blind faith. 

6. As for atheists that examine the resurrection and turn to god, they are very small numbers and the stories are often exaggerated  7. We see overwhelming numbers that go the other way. There is 8. direct correlation for example between education and losing faith.  9. I would say, can you show any actual evidence by the definition of evidence for a person raising from the dead?  

10. Your court case point, surely a religion with over 30,000 denominations and dozens of different publication examples of its core text falls under that one side? 

Listen I am not trying to convince you in any way - I am just offering another viewpoint.

1. There are apparently modern day miracles that are witnessed AND doctors who are baffled after rescanning patients who claim to have been healed and for example their tumour has disappeared etc. 

2. If you take that tack, can you believe any historical record? Apparently there is more evidence that Jesus Christ existed and did what the Bible claims than for Caesar and his achievements - certainly far less written records by far, despite Caesar being much more recent.... 

3. I think that this is another of those throw away comments with nothing tangible to back it up. I guess you are having a go at the creation theory, but although evolution is hailed as the best account of reality - it is a theory with lots of suppositions and amazing faith is required for that one too. I don't know anyone who believes in a 6000 year old earth but there are plenty of folk who believe all kinds of folklore and crazy things like elfs and pixies, miraculous copper bracelets etc. Some people are just stupid.

4. I don't know much about this, but I did once watch a geneticist on TV state that everyone's DNA can be traced back to at worst a few, and perhaps only 2 originals… He was an atheist - so that is why it stuck in my mind...

5. I hate religion too. Interestingly in communist Russia, when ALL religion was banned - crime soared, productivity drastically reduced. i.e. there was more killing not in the name of religion at that time there. The blind faith thing is another throw away too - my brother would claim that his faith is far from blind - he has often quoted to me Hebrews 11:1 which apparently describes Christian faith as sure and certain - i.e. not something in peoples' heads, but something tangible and REAL. Now I am not sure what that is, but I have came across a few Christians who talk about it just like that too. Are they fools or have they discovered something truly - I don't know either way.

6. So who have you investigated on these terms to see that the stories were exaggerated? That was my point about evidence... have you ever examined any of the claims for yourself?

7. This is an interesting statement - again I wonder if you have checked the evidence of a statement like this or simply accepted someone's claim? I do think there are people who think they are Christian because they went to church at some point or had parents who claimed to be Christian, but they no longer believe - My brother would say that these things do not define being a Christian.

8. This is not true - this is the Science proves faith to be rubbish argument - it does not - both sides use science to back up their beliefs.

9. That was my point in investigating those atheists who had incredible turn arounds in their position.  Here are some if you are prepared to actually investigate -  Anthony Flew, C. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Sarah Stonebraker, J Warner Wallace. But there are many more... I know this because my brother argued against me in the same way...

10. I feel as if I am about to convert because of your arguments to the contrary. My understanding is that Christianity is the largest religion in the world by far. The fact that denominations started because of some disagreement purely shows human nature in two lights. One is that we are free to not believe everything that someone else tells us too, and the other which disagrees when evidence shows that we cannot agree with some claims people insist upon. As an example, I know that the Roman Catholic church believes that the wine they have at the Eucharist is the transubstantiated blood of Jesus Christ - I have never tried this, but I am very dubious about that. I know of a certain Martin Luther who "showed up" a lot of crazy and unbiblical practices and belief's too. Humans are good at putting their own slant or agendas on things. Not sure what your point in the texts is about - Christians, Jews and Muslims all have the same "Old Testament" texts - there are thousands of ancient copies of these.... one issue may be in translation. It is impossible to always convey the exact same meaning when translating from one language to another....

Anyway - this is not a thread on religion - I will not get into forum tennis on this - these thoughts are just meant to be of interest - I will certainly do a bit more investigation now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

Listen I am not trying to convince you in any way - I am just offering another viewpoint.

1. There are apparently modern day miracles that are witnessed AND doctors who are baffled after rescanning patients who claim to have been healed and for example their tumour has disappeared etc. 

2. If you take that tack, can you believe any historical record? Apparently there is more evidence that Jesus Christ existed and did what the Bible claims than for Caesar and his achievements - certainly far less written records by far, despite Caesar being much more recent.... 

3. I think that this is another of those throw away comments with nothing tangible to back it up. I guess you are having a go at the creation theory, but although evolution is hailed as the best account of reality - it is a theory with lots of suppositions and amazing faith is required for that one too. I don't know anyone who believes in a 6000 year old earth but there are plenty of folk who believe all kinds of folklore and crazy things like elfs and pixies, miraculous copper bracelets etc. Some people are just stupid.

4. I don't know much about this, but I did once watch a geneticist on TV state that everyone's DNA can be traced back to at worst a few, and perhaps only 2 originals… He was an atheist - so that is why it stuck in my mind...

5. I hate religion too. Interestingly in communist Russia, when ALL religion was banned - crime soared, productivity drastically reduced. i.e. there was more killing not in the name of religion at that time there. The blind faith thing is another throw away too - my brother would claim that his faith is far from blind - he has often quoted to me Hebrews 11:1 which apparently describes Christian faith as sure and certain - i.e. not something in peoples' heads, but something tangible and REAL. Now I am not sure what that is, but I have came across a few Christians who talk about it just like that too. Are they fools or have they discovered something truly - I don't know either way.

6. So who have you investigated on these terms to see that the stories were exaggerated? That was my point about evidence... have you ever examined any of the claims for yourself?

7. This is an interesting statement - again I wonder if you have checked the evidence of a statement like this or simply accepted someone's claim? I do think there are people who think they are Christian because they went to church at some point or had parents who claimed to be Christian, but they no longer believe - My brother would say that these things do not define being a Christian.

8. This is not true - this is the Science proves faith to be rubbish argument - it does not - both sides use science to back up their beliefs.

9. That was my point in investigating those atheists who had incredible turn arounds in their position.  Here are some if you are prepared to actually investigate -  Anthony Flew, C. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Sarah Stonebraker, J Warner Wallace. But there are many more... I know this because my brother argued against me in the same way...

10. I feel as if I am about to convert because of your arguments to the contrary. My understanding is that Christianity is the largest religion in the world by far. The fact that denominations started because of some disagreement purely shows human nature in two lights. One is that we are free to not believe everything that someone else tells us too, and the other which disagrees when evidence shows that we cannot agree with some claims people insist upon. As an example, I know that the Roman Catholic church believes that the wine they have at the Eucharist is the transubstantiated blood of Jesus Christ - I have never tried this, but I am very dubious about that. I know of a certain Martin Luther who "showed up" a lot of crazy and unbiblical practices and belief's too. Humans are good at putting their own slant or agendas on things. Not sure what your point in the texts is about - Christians, Jews and Muslims all have the same "Old Testament" texts - there are thousands of ancient copies of these.... one issue may be in translation. It is impossible to always convey the exact same meaning when translating from one language to another....

Anyway - this is not a thread on religion - I will not get into forum tennis on this - these thoughts are just meant to be of interest - I will certainly do a bit more investigation now...

I completely understand, I have had many of these debates and I know enough that I won't change religious views (often not always). I do enjoy them though. I would say:

1. There has never been one substantiated, not in recorded history, zero. To think the Christian ones have any weight in a time before proper recording where miracles were a dime a dozen over many faiths is IMO unrealistic. 

2. There is a difference between the assessment of historical evidence for the existence of people and those people being the son of god. I believe there is strong (not undoubted) evidence he existed. Some scholars actually believe his stories to be interpreted to different Jewish holy men. There is again zero evidence he was any more than a man though. 

3. It's not throwaway at all. The timeline for genesis clearly points at the universe creation within the last 6,000- 6,500 years. If any Christian doesn't believe this they are accepting the bible isn't accurate. This creates a problem, if the bible has inaccuracies it calls into question the fundamentals for the faith. 'A witness that does not lie' if god isn't this witness then any part of the bible can be falsified by its own writing. As for evolution it is a scientific theory which is a different expression from 'theory' It is backed with overwhelming evidence, everything we can observe regarding evolution is as expected including fossils in sediment layers, transitional species, extinct species, residual organs and DNA profiles. Even the majority of Christians in developed worlds accept this which presents the same problem I quoted. I'd also query where you draw the line on biblical accounts. Noah's Ark? Tower of Babel? Adam and Eve? I agree anyone believing in what you quoted at the end needs a word with themselves, it is human nature though, fortune tellers for false hope, superstition for tradition

4. This just isn't true, our DNA profile all points to common ancestry through the mammal lines. 

5. This isn't strictly true, religion wasn't banned it was replaced (attempted). The Lenin teachings of communism for example was that communism replaced religion, it was dogmatic. The troubles came because of peoples refusal to give up their faith and social issues based on a heavy reliance on an untested system that was not future proof. Communist Poland is some really good reading on this if you're interested. It's also a miss-conception that these deaths are not in the name of religion, no one is saying atheists/ people of no faith are flawless but someone killing someone because of their faith that doesn't have any is still killing over religion. If I walk up to a Muslim or Christian in the street and stabbed him because he believes in a religion, it is a killing linked to faith, if murder didn't exist in religion, I would have no issue for it. 

As for the blind faith, unless you or anyone else can show me something tangible, it is blind faith. If I say 'I am god' and offer no proof, would that not be blind faith if people believed it?

6. As I said I have had many of these debates, I have never once been presented with one single shred of evidence for the resurrection. If there was such a thing, surely these 'atheists' that found it would be sharing it? The stories all follow the same path, witnesses to it from the bible, these can't be substantiated and the stories were written decades to centuries after the supposed event. I had a staff night out at Christmas, I slept with four girls, people were telling me about it when I returned to work in January. Amazingly one was in Dubai at the time and I could have sworn I went home with my mate and kipped on his couch... It's amazing how stories can grow arms and legs in a matter of days never mind decades. Ever played Chinese whispers?

7. Before I go into this do you deny it? I think that is very interesting giving the number of churches that have closed, changes to giving weekly services and the number of people in the UK that claim to be Christian but don't believe some of the fundamental teachings, like not having sex before marriage, eating pork (yes that also isn't allowed under Christianity), eating shellfish, it being okay to stone innocent animals to death and circumstance exist where victims of sexual assault are made to marry their attackers if the attacker pays her father (yes it says this in the bible). But to answer your question, yes I have looked at many surveys, many independently achieved sources and there is a large number of people that lose their faith as they grow older.

8. Yes it is, there are many surveys on this, young people attending higher education are losing their faith. In USA for example a recent study showed 24% of people were religiously unaffiliated, that went to 38% of young adults who had attended higher education. To think where the world was 100 years ago where close to 0% of people were atheist it is massive.

Can you name one element of science that backs up any religious supernatural faith? 

9. The numbers are absolutely tiny compared to people of religion losing their faith or stopping conforming and it is often linked to life events. You just have to look at the masses not being in church on Sundays anymore to validate this. My point you appear to be quoting here is on people rising from the dead through supernatural causes though, I assure you none of these people have verifiable evidence of this, it would be the biggest discovery in human history if they did. 

10. I agree that it is very much human nature to slant and disagree. It does though present the problem I mentioned earlier. 'A witness that does not lie' When you breakdown the Christian religion and look at the many variations of the bible, one of it's biggest points is that it is a guide to god, it is the holy text and the gospel, if it was the word of god by its own quotes, there should be no dubiety in it. 

I'm glad you're going to read more and I do enjoy these debates, I've had them on many platforms, anything further you want to ask or know, go for it. All the stats and details on religious studies can be found with google with mountains more to boot. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I completely understand, I have had many of these debates and I know enough that I won't change religious views (often not always). I do enjoy them though. I would say:

1. There has never been one substantiated, not in recorded history, zero. To think the Christian ones have any weight in a time before proper recording where miracles were a dime a dozen over many faiths is IMO unrealistic. 

2. There is a difference between the assessment of historical evidence for the existence of people and those people being the son of god. I believe there is strong (not undoubted) evidence he existed. Some scholars actually believe his stories to be interpreted to different Jewish holy men. There is again zero evidence he was any more than a man though. 

3. It's not throwaway at all. The timeline for genesis clearly points at the universe creation within the last 6,000- 6,500 years. If any Christian doesn't believe this they are accepting the bible isn't accurate. This creates a problem, if the bible has inaccuracies it calls into question the fundamentals for the faith. 'A witness that does not lie' if god isn't this witness then any part of the bible can be falsified by its own writing. As for evolution it is a scientific theory which is a different expression from 'theory' It is backed with overwhelming evidence, everything we can observe regarding evolution is as expected including fossils in sediment layers, transitional species, extinct species, residual organs and DNA profiles. Even the majority of Christians in developed worlds accept this which presents the same problem I quoted. I'd also query where you draw the line on biblical accounts. Noah's Ark? Tower of Babel? Adam and Eve? I agree anyone believing in what you quoted at the end needs a word with themselves, it is human nature though, fortune tellers for false hope, superstition for tradition

4. This just isn't true, our DNA profile all points to common ancestry through the mammal lines. 

5. This isn't strictly true, religion wasn't banned it was replaced (attempted). The Lenin teachings of communism for example was that communism replaced religion, it was dogmatic. The troubles came because of peoples refusal to give up their faith and social issues based on a heavy reliance on an untested system that was not future proof. Communist Poland is some really good reading on this if you're interested. It's also a miss-conception that these deaths are not in the name of religion, no one is saying atheists/ people of no faith are flawless but someone killing someone because of their faith that doesn't have any is still killing over religion. If I walk up to a Muslim or Christian in the street and stabbed him because he believes in a religion, it is a killing linked to faith, if murder didn't exist in religion, I would have no issue for it. 

As for the blind faith, unless you or anyone else can show me something tangible, it is blind faith. If I say 'I am god' and offer no proof, would that not be blind faith if people believed it?

6. As I said I have had many of these debates, I have never once been presented with one single shred of evidence for the resurrection. If there was such a thing, surely these 'atheists' that found it would be sharing it? The stories all follow the same path, witnesses to it from the bible, these can't be substantiated and the stories were written decades to centuries after the supposed event. I had a staff night out at Christmas, I slept with four girls, people were telling me about it when I returned to work in January. Amazingly one was in Dubai at the time and I could have sworn I went home with my mate and kipped on his couch... It's amazing how stories can grow arms and legs in a matter of days never mind decades. Ever played Chinese whispers?

7. Before I go into this do you deny it? I think that is very interesting giving the number of churches that have closed, changes to giving weekly services and the number of people in the UK that claim to be Christian but don't believe some of the fundamental teachings, like not having sex before marriage, eating pork (yes that also isn't allowed under Christianity), eating shellfish, it being okay to stone innocent animals to death and circumstance exist where victims of sexual assault are made to marry their attackers if the attacker pays her father (yes it says this in the bible). But to answer your question, yes I have looked at many surveys, many independently achieved sources and there is a large number of people that lose their faith as they grow older.

8. Yes it is, there are many surveys on this, young people attending higher education are losing their faith. In USA for example a recent study showed 24% of people were religiously unaffiliated, that went to 38% of young adults who had attended higher education. To think where the world was 100 years ago where close to 0% of people were atheist it is massive.

Can you name one element of science that backs up any religious supernatural faith? 

9. The numbers are absolutely tiny compared to people of religion losing their faith or stopping conforming and it is often linked to life events. You just have to look at the masses not being in church on Sundays anymore to validate this. My point you appear to be quoting here is on people rising from the dead through supernatural causes though, I assure you none of these people have verifiable evidence of this, it would be the biggest discovery in human history if they did. 

10. I agree that it is very much human nature to slant and disagree. It does though present the problem I mentioned earlier. 'A witness that does not lie' When you breakdown the Christian religion and look at the many variations of the bible, one of it's biggest points is that it is a guide to god, it is the holy text and the gospel, if it was the word of god by its own quotes, there should be no dubiety in it. 

I'm glad you're going to read more and I do enjoy these debates, I've had them on many platforms, anything further you want to ask or know, go for it. All the stats and details on religious studies can be found with google with mountains more to boot. 

 

I did say I was not going to play forum  tennis with you on this - it is not because I don't want to, but I don't think the forum as a whole will enjoy it and I am not sure it will go anywhere.

You are posting plenty of your opinion but a lot of what you are saying is simply not true - but I understand you can read stuff like that and believe it. That is why the best way is for an individual to look for the evidence themselves - that way you go your journey and are not being coerced by anyone - everyone has an agenda...

Even my knowledge of the Bible genealogy and the Genesis records proves you have not actually looked at the arguments on both sides - the Genealogy in Genesis does not include everyone, but selective people I believe because they have further significance etc. I once sat through a preacher talking about the Genesis genealogy for about 45 minutes and I was completely gobsmacked that he could make a list of names so interesting and speak about why it was so significant - it was the one and only time I was ever in that building, but it still makes me think - take a look at the two other genealogies in the New Testament, which also are not a record of everyone but I believe have specific purposes and angles which the rest of the specific book is going in.... So the 6,000 yrs scenario is another of the propaganda issues based on a very small number of people....

There have been prominent historians who mocked Bible accounts for years of places like Jericho, Babel etc. One mocked the idea of the pool of Siloam as Jerusalem and I believe wrote a book majoring on how it was a myth... Jerusalem had been heavily built up and archaeologically investigated for decades with no shred of evidence - then in 2004 it was discovered... there are plenty other examples but I am not going to push these at you...

6. You wont find evidence if you don't look for it....

7. You missed my point claiming to be Christian is different from being a Christian - plenty folk are misguided on this - so just because they say they are Christian ain't necessarily true - Things like eating shellfish is NOT a fundamental belief and another red herring from the anti Christian propaganda brigade - again you need to understand the context in Judaism and the New Covenant Jesus offered to all people. My own parents have at times gone to church, they have good morals, but they are not Christians, though they think they are in a sense because they don't really understand what being a Christian is. Churches have plenty people in them like this... these folk are religious, but not Christians.

10. you are mixing up dubiety with translational differences - e.g. love in the New Testament in English is 3 different words in the Greek original which all mean more specific things but the English lumps them all together.

I am happy to look at stats - but there is an old adage that goes something like "there are lies, dam lies and then there are statistics" The point is for example the Tabaco industry produced plenty of statistics to create the illusion that Tabaco posed humans no harm... and we all know how that panned out. Who is presenting the statistics and why? So that is a caveat on all sides of any debate. Remember both sides on the Brexit fiasco... enough said.

Anyway - I am not trying to win over on any points - but we both have more things to investigate and to learn in life I am sure . . .  :cheers

Edited by Sweeper07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kemp said:

I suppose now that I've got sucked in to replying to that fanny Oaksoft then I must admit you are probably right.

Could be a great forum, too many trolls still kicking about though.

You can't complain about people being trolls on a thread where you have called another poster a c**t. 🤣

If you are trying to convince the rest of us that you have a functioning brain, I'm not sure that you are going the right way about it. 

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sweeper07 said:

I did say I was not going to play forum  tennis with you on this - it is not because I don't want to, but I don't think the forum as a whole will enjoy it and I am not sure it will go anywhere.

You are posting plenty of your opinion but a lot of what you are saying is simply not true - but I understand you can read stuff like that and believe it. That is why the best way is for an individual to look for the evidence themselves - that way you go your journey and are not being coerced by anyone - everyone has an agenda...

Even my knowledge of the Bible genealogy and the Genesis records proves you have not actually looked at the arguments on both sides - the Genealogy in Genesis does not include everyone, but selective people I believe because they have further significance etc. I once sat through a preacher talking about the Genesis genealogy for about 45 minutes and I was completely gobsmacked that he could make a list of names so interesting and speak about why it was so significant - it was the one and only time I was ever in that building, but it still makes me think - take a look at the two other genealogies in the New Testament, which also are not a record of everyone but I believe have specific purposes and angles which the rest of the specific book is going in.... So the 6,000 yrs scenario is another of the propaganda issues based on a very small number of people....

There have been prominent historians who mocked Bible accounts for years of places like Jericho, Babel etc. One mocked the idea of the pool of Siloam as Jerusalem and I believe wrote a book majoring on how it was a myth... Jerusalem had been heavily built up and archaeologically investigated for decades with no shred of evidence - then in 2004 it was discovered... there are plenty other examples but I am not going to push these at you...

6. You wont find evidence if you don't look for it....

7. You missed my point claiming to be Christian is different from being a Christian - plenty folk are misguided on this - so just because they say they are Christian ain't necessarily true - Things like eating shellfish is NOT a fundamental belief and another red herring from the anti Christian propaganda brigade - again you need to understand the context in Judaism and the New Covenant Jesus offered to all people. My own parents have at times gone to church, they have good morals, but they are not Christians, though they think they are in a sense because they don't really understand what being a Christian is. Churches have plenty people in them like this... these folk are religious, but not Christians.

10. you are mixing up dubiety with translational differences - e.g. love in the New Testament in English is 3 different words in the Greek original which all mean more specific things but the English lumps them all together.

I am happy to look at stats - but there is an old adage that goes something like "there are lies, dam lies and then there are statistics" The point is for example the Tabaco industry produced plenty of statistics to create the illusion that Tabaco posed humans no harm... and we all know how that panned out. Who is presenting the statistics and why? So that is a caveat on all sides of any debate. Remember both sides on the Brexit fiasco... enough said.

Anyway - I am not trying to win over on any points - but we both have more things to investigate and to learn in life I am sure . . .  :cheers

I’m happy for you to point out where I have said anything that isn’t true. I assure you any comment about the supernatural element of the bible being completely without evidence is categorically true. There is literally no looking at both sides on this, if there was a side that supported magic it would be worldwide news. 

As for the rest i will comment on a few but I won’t get into the back and forward because you’re right people won’t enjoy it & the nature of this debate is there will always be a comeback.

What I would say about your comments on the historical evidence of places/ people mentioned in the bible, it is completely unrelated to Christianity being a valid religion, you would need to prove the supernatural as above.

Also historians haven’t ‘scoffed’ at the existence of places, they simply go on evidence on a voyage of discovery. When evidence is discovered they take it on board. 

Finally your points on interpretations of biblical word & genealogy of the bible, it wasn’t an issue until science started to say ‘eh this is wrong’ creationists can spin words in the bible in many different ways to try show there are no errors or a different message is being presented. It again presents the issue to Christianity I mentioned in my first post. The bible is a book that eludes to bats being birds, mustard being the smallest seed, people can live inside a whale, stars are small enough to fall from the sky and that Pi is equal to 3. To believe in it in 2019 is staggering to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I’m happy for you to point out where I have said anything that isn’t true. I assure you any comment about the supernatural element of the bible being completely without evidence is categorically true. There is literally no looking at both sides on this, if there was a side that supported magic it would be worldwide news. 

As for the rest i will comment on a few but I won’t get into the back and forward because you’re right people won’t enjoy it & the nature of this debate is there will always be a comeback.

What I would say about your comments on the historical evidence of places/ people mentioned in the bible, it is completely unrelated to Christianity being a valid religion, (So is it not?) you would need to prove the supernatural as above. ( I don't need to prove anything - it is you who doubts without any credible investigations into these claims)

Also historians haven’t ‘scoffed’ at the existence of places, they simply go on evidence on a voyage of discovery. (A voyage of discovery = pushing your agenda that the Bible must be wrong for some of these so called experts - Richard Dawkins is a case in point - He is willing to believe in practically anything so long as it does not include their being a God)  When evidence is discovered they take it on board - (i.e. They adjust the theories to avoid looking like fools. )

Finally your points on interpretations of biblical word & genealogy of the bible, it wasn’t an issue until science started to say ‘eh this is wrong’ (in whose minds?) creationists can spin words (only creationists spin things right - agenda's point I have made a number of times?) in the bible in many different ways to try show there are no errors or a different message is being presented. It again presents the issue to Christianity I mentioned in my first post. The bible is a book that eludes to bats being birds, If you actually studied Hebrew you would find that the word "owph" TRANSLATED as birds in Leviticus 11 means "having wings" and comes from its root word meaning to fly. mustard being the smallest seed, that the people of that time in that place knew off)  people can live inside a whale, stars are small enough to fall from the sky and that Pi is equal to 3. (you have no credence quoting fractions of the Bible without any context - once more you are listening to one side without actually learning from the experts on both sides of the debate or the real linguistic issues) To believe in it in 2019 is staggering to me. Many people up to 2 billion of them might say the opposite.

It is clear that all your "evidence" comes from one side - that's fine - believe all these claims and "throw away comments" if you like and assume that "science has proved it all wrong", but that is naïve as anyone who has actually studied these things in higher education can tell you (much of it taught by atheists too)...many of the leading Scientists throughout time were Christians. That did not make them stupid nor unscientific, people like :- Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Pasteur, Francis Collins (DNA), Pinsent, Meitner, and Sir Francis Bacon who believed that science was a way to learn deeper truths about God, and once said "a little philosophy inclines man's mind to atheism, but DEEP in philosophy brings men's minds about to religion."  No one has proved their work to be wrong or their faith to be wrong either - by any scientific method. 

If you truly want to learn about Science and religion I would recommend Stanley Jakki's work -  one of his topics is "the spiritual dimension to reality" (This is a great way into learning about the supernatural - which you currently appear not to believe in) There are plenty others too like Joseph Murray, Peter Grunberg, Charles Townes, Allan Sandage whose scientific skills and intelligence have made ground breaking discoveries. Kenneth R Miller's investigation of Darwin is fabulous, Martin Nowak the evolutionary biologist, and many many more who not only are notable scientists but also notable for their Christian faith - some of whom only arrived there after "seeing God's thoughts after Him" (Kepler)

Others who are still leading scientists are Christians too - John T. Houghton, Joseph Taylor Jr., William Campbell, Antony Hewish, Brian Kobilka and Gerhart Erkl (Nobel prize winners), People like Frank Tipler and his Omega point (on resurrection of the dead)… I could go on, but I strongly suspect you won't do the investigation required - hope I am wrong for your sake alone...  Anyway I am out -   work to do etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...