that is going to be hard to avoid since man wrote the bible, man translated the bible, man decided which books were left out of the bible,man put the bible together by a vote and man inturpets the meaning of what the bible says. which version of the ABSOLUTES ten laws should we follow? http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf
vhehn I'm from the same school of thought as Tradefox on this issue. The bible should be SHARED with those that it speaks to NOT beaten over your head. Jesus Christ did NOT run around trying to convince anybody that did NOT want to listen or follow. He spoke the word and the truth and it's up to YOU to CHOOSE if you want to believe him or not.
nothing wrong with that but dont make the mistake of thinking some of us have not studied the bible for years and come to a far different conclusion than you have about the inerrancy of the bible. it is just a collection of a few of the books written by primitive men to try to explain what they believed. dont forget these were men who thought thunder and lightening were god speaking to them. here is a more complete list of books of the bible including the ones that men by a vote decided to leave out. also dont forget that we have no original documents and the earliest copies we have date to the 3rd century. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
I know all about Jesus, I went to church for 18 years. I still think he liked to take it from behind.
Actually it is predictable. Mr. Crowley cant have a debate where he loses on this subject. If he gets boxed in, he denys that he screwed up, or he gets nasty. Typical of an immature or brittle personality. For me the lesson isnt about Jesus, but about trading. He put forth a crappy invalid argument, a loser from the word go, and just like a newbie trader, instead of cutting his losing position and adapting to the changing condition, he prefers to go down with the ship. THIS is why certain people can't trade. They can't adapt to a dynamic condition like the markets present. I couldn't care less about the subject of the argument, I just saw the signal to "go long" and jumped on it. If I were the loser, I would have said, "hey it looks like I am wrong here" and changed my position OR waited for another opportunity to win. For me, all this really shows us is how difficult it is to change from acting like a loser to acting like a winner. I want to put it into terms that show some respect, but there is a physical reality here that has to be acknowledged. Anyone catching this? Or are you all so much invested in the religious aspect that you can't see what I am saying? Good luck to all you "Religious Scholars". Steve
You know, it's pretty easy to declare ones self the winner. I can do it too. I am the winner. Childish indeed. I stand by my assertion that hardcore religous belief is a mental illness. By my definition they are the same and you cannot have one without the other. And I also easily showed that Billy Graham is a lunatic. Also, I don't hold onto any losing positions, my bots trade according to optimal bayesian inferance.
Yes Stephen we can see what you "stand behind" You have become an expert on mental health. Once again, could you find a mental health professional with credentials who will indicate that Billy Graham is mentally disturbed? If not, then I submit, and I am guessing others would agree with me, that you are full of shit. and your arguement is invalid. Also it looks increasingly obvious that your "delicate self-image" is destroyed is you are proved wrong. You may want to get into therapy now sweetheart because you are just minutes away from the inevitable. I am guessing that as your read this your head is throbbing a little bit, because really there isn't anywhere for you to hide on the subject. Let us know when you have a credentialed mental health professional to back you up champ! Steve Edit In his book "Fooled by Randomness" Taleb talks about using of argument like the one Mr. Crowley tried. Its just a sophomoric mistake that Mr. Crowley doesn't (at present) have the balls to admit. At some point he will have to admit it (to himself at the very least) and then who knows what will happen. Maybe he will "lose it" at the post office he works at, or he may decide to go outside and step on ants or try to run over a squirrel. ooooh!
He says God was punishing New Orleans. Anyone with the slightest bit of reasoning will realize he is delusional. You should learn to think for yourself sometime instead of turning to "professionals" for guidance. My head feels perfectly fine btw, but thanks for asking.
This is typical of you, you fucking incompetent. That was Pat Robertson.... "In the mind of Pat Robertson perhaps God is punishing New Orleans for its sinful ways - Bourbon Street, Mardi Gras. But sadder still, not only has this been ... the11thhour.blogspot.com/ 2005/08/pray-for-new-orleans.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages" Now back to the question. Where is the credentialed mental health professional who will say that Billy Graham is mentally disturbed? I will wait a little longer, and give you all the rope you need to hang yourself..... I bet your pulse is starting to race and your may be feeling a bit headachy. This must be your worst nightmare. Just keeps getting worse each time you try to type some stupid fucking excuse, you get bitchslapped...... Still waiting Einstein Steve Edit: and the funny part folks, is that his general premise has merit. In fact religious zealots and religious extemism are in large part responsible for a lot of violence and countless wasted lives. Unfortunately for Stephen, he is a bad (very bad) debater, and apparently cannot just fold his tent and learn from his mistake. Instead he has to hold on to his faulty logic like a bulldog with a chew toy. As we speak the poor bastard is feverishly combing throught the internet using google to try and find that one person who will say that Billy Graham is crazy. Yeehaw!!! for my next trick I am going to get him to go and wash his neighbor's car.....