 |
|
|
|
April 24th, 2013
07:17 PM ET
Catholic ads in NY: Jesus was 'the original hipster'By Pallavi Reddy, CNN (CNN) - Ads around Brooklyn bring a new meaning to Joan Osborne's lyrics, “What if God was one of us?” In a new ad campaign launched by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn this month, people in the borough and neighboring Queens have a new way to view Jesus: “The Original Hipster.” The ads feature the bottom half of a man - meant to be Jesus - wearing robes with a pair of dirty red Converse sneakers peeking out from the bottom. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter In a news release, the diocese refers to Seth Meyers' joke on “Saturday Night Live” that Converse sneakers are why more Catholics are returning to the church, and says the marketing campaign is “showing a cooler and more welcoming side of the Catholic Church.”
Monsignor Kieran Harrington said he understood the importance of relating to the people of the area. “Jesus appears (in these ads) like people of the L train,” he said. “What is a hipster anyway? Someone who stands against the (mainstream) culture. Jesus stood against the culture.” CNN Belief: The Curious Case of the Christian Hipster Ten months ago, the conversation started about creating such a campaign to let people know there are a variety of different faces who attend the church. Harrington says these particular ads were a collaboration with the ad and PR agency Ruckus. Now they are found in places where the church doesn't usually advertise, including bus stands, restaurants and gyms. The ads have generated online buzz in Salon, the Gothamist and other sites, and traffic on the diocese's website has gone up 400%, Harrington said. As for what kind of ads to expect from the diocese next, the monsignor said: “It’s for you to find out.” CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
« Previous entryOpinion: The appeal of Islamic radicalism
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Brooklyn's Williamsburg neighborhood, near Queens, is considered to be the "unofficial East Coast birthplace of hipsterism," as a 
A song calling for Jesus, hipster or otherwise, to get off his ass and fix some things around here:
http://biffthuringer.bandcamp.com/track/please-jesus-be-real
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsknXsm2eHo
One thing is for sure, if they would just read the bible, non-believers would be shocked to discover what Jesus really said.
I have read the bible and I do not know what Jesus said. The bible was not written by anyone close to Jesus (if Jesus ever existed) and is therefore not reliable. Additionally, the four books of the NT were hand-picked for political reasons and heavily edited and interpreted. You are an idiot.
What did a gud editor cost in those dayz, O Wise One?? Did they have to pay SS, too?
Jesus didn't have an original philosophical thought,
Show me ONE philosophical thought He had, cheezie.
"1Cr 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"
@Ungodly Discipline "I have read the bible and I do not know what Jesus said. The bible was not written by anyone close to Jesus (if Jesus ever existed) and is therefore not reliable.
@Chad "the New Testament was written in large part by eye witnesses (Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, James, Jude all eye witnesses)
=====
@Ungodly Discipline "Additionally, the four books of the NT were hand-picked for political reasons and heavily edited and interpreted. "
@Chad "The NT actually has 27 books, not four.
– The oldest and most reliable of the ancient docs all dating from the first century were declared canonical.
– Please supply your evidence for any "editing"
– Of course they were interpreted, they were originally written in Greek..
=====
I have no choice on the basis of the lack of understanding you have demonstrated to conclude that you have never actually read the bible..
You arent going to get any education just searching for something to cut and paste from infidels.org..
@Cheesemakers "Jesus didn't have an original philosophical thought,"
=>if you would actually read the bible, you would be astonished at a great many things that Jesus did, and didnt do.
He came not as a philosopher of a social worker, He came not to make us better. He came to save us.
with all the time you spend criticizing it, one would think that you would be interested in thoroughly understanding what it actually says. Criticizing anything without understanding it just makes the one doing the criticizing look foolish.
Right?
Golly, in a way Paul is right – with this notion of God that man made up and then later made into a nicer dude, it did make foolish the wisdom of this world.
Chad, as always you are incorrect. And as usual, I know far more about your own beliefs than you do. You are an idiot.
Tryin' to be slippery, snake eyes? Watch out for the dust. It'll slow ya down.
When I first read the whole Bible, from end to end, I was so shocked that I lost all faith in God. Even Jesus says some truly awful things.
Not for sissies.
Chad
Well, Jesus didn't build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). He didn't gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6). He didn't begin an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4). He also didn't spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). All of these things were prophecies about the expected Jewish Messiah, and none of them were done by Jesus during his lifetime. Is it any wonder why Jews reject the claim that he was the guy?
Is it or it is??
Have you heard of ”the day of the Lord"?
I have experienced supernatural communication of the Holy Spirit. Stop doubting. Satan has no rights over your soul. He is in your head, but He doesn't have authority. Reject his unbelieving lies. You don't have to be imprisoned by unbelief.
Don't you need a concise definition of is?
Well for some reason you reminded me of the day of the Jackal, Austeen. Oh, maybe I was thinking jackass...
"imprisoned by unbelief" L M A O ! !
None of us are idiots.
"IS" must be one of them thar philosophically debatable words.
Chad
"He came to save us."
If that was his plan he did a cr@ppy job.
I understand what he said as well as you do.....your claims of understanding connot be demonstrated as being any better than anyone elses. Your arrogance of "understanding the message" is galling...to say the least. Jesus was no more a god than my cat.
Austin
How can we know that you're not an agent of Satan yourself? Surely the Lord of Lies could impersonate the Holy Spirit, and surely you are no more immune to his influence than anyone else, right? Isn't it possible that what you're trying to teach here is the real lie, or is your ego too big to consider you're being wrong?
Oh, wow...can't believe I left "No atheist has ever read the bible" off the Gospel of Chad list:
Gospel of Chad:
(Updated list derived from history of Chad conversations.)
Atheism:
1. All atheists agree with everything Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins say, even if it is unrelated to atheism. Hawking and Dawkins disagree on free will, however, but you should ignore this conflict or any atheist who says they disagree.
2. All atheists agree with one another on everything even if it has nothing to do with atheism. See #1 for models from which you can derive all their beliefs.
3. The definition of atheist includes anything that any atheist I disagree with believes or anything I feel like tossing in there. Ignore any definitions in pesky places like dictionaries and philosophical encyclopedias.
4. If one atheist somewhere on the internet said something, then, since all atheists agree with him/her, I can use that randomly selected example as an argument to address all other atheists.
5. The definition of atheism includes not just materialism but strict deterministic materialism. Non-believers who might be Buddhists, believe in probabilistic physics, see consciousness as prior to the physical world, believe in, say, witchcraft aren’t really atheists.
6. No atheist has ever read the bible. I mean, obviously, they’d be Christians if they had, right? OK, so a few have proven to me – OK, multiple times – that they have read the bible. See #11 (just lie).
Free will:
7. All people who use the term “free will” really mean the same exact thing by that term, which matches my personal use of the term “free will” (unless backed into a corner, then I just declare all other meanings irrelevant)
8. Fatalism and determinism are the same thing. It has been pointed out to me that historically these terms have been used with different meanings, but I find it more convenient to make up my own definitions, as with atheism and free will.
In fact, I brilliantly argued “If a person is a determinist, how in the world does deterrence even come into the picture? Determinists believe in an ever marching set of deterministic outcomes based on an existing set of antecedent conditions. Those conditions march back to the origin of the universe, no way to change the past, so no way to change the future. (On April 17, 2013 at 6:20 pm)
After reading a bit more about fatalism and determinism I decided to change my tune to a claim that determinism leads to fatalism (and to pretend this was what I was saying all along). I’m sticking to reading easy pop philosophers, though, and selective websites on the topic as anything more complex makes my head hurt. I have read snippets from a couple of websites now so that ought to put me on par with people who’ve read dozens of books on the topic, understand neurobiology and have written on both the philosophical and cultural aspects of free will and people’s belief in the topic. Oh, yeah, I know what I’m talking about!
9. A determinist cannot believe that humans can change. This would, of course, mean that nothing can change. Which would mean…oh…crud…better put my head back up my ass.
10. A determinist cannot believe in punishing people for crimes. This is because…well…it doesn’t matter. Just keep repeating it.
Telling lies:
11. It is ethical to lie so long as it promotes Christian beliefs.
12. Speaking of telling lies, a really good way to do this is to rephrase what your opponent says and then keep repeating the misquote in hopes that he or she will get bored and leave your lie as the last statement. Then you win. You can do this either by rewording as a supposed paraphrase or pulling lines out of context and reordering them. God really loves this and gives you extra endurance to sit at the computer all day and keep repeating it.
13. One way to use this super endurance to your advantage is to keep posting the same questions over and over again even after they’ve been answered 50 times. Just pretend they haven’t been answered and act self-righteous about it. It’s really cool if you can ask this same thing on multiple threads and then claim it was never answered forcing people to waste time on the same thing over and over and over.
14. In particular don’t forget that whatever someone says you can respond with “What investigation have you done into…”. Especially good is to ask what investigation was done into the truth of the God of Israel. When the non-Christian comes back to ask how much research you did to prove other gods aren’t real answer “I don’t need to do any because I proved the God of Israel is real and that negates all other gods”. When asked how you proved that repeat the words “empty tomb” over and over until divine light shines on the souls of the heathens.
15. When they refuse to play your game or you don’t like the answer add some sarcasm, but use an emoticon to soften it so they’ll know your snide remarks are all in good fun.
16. Consider asking completely nonsensical questions that can’t even be understood, let alone answered. Best yet include something the person didn’t say as a premise. For example, you might ask an atheist opponent “You say you like murdering small children on Wednesdays, could you explain how this fits with your beliefs about string theory?” Then when your question is ignored accuse the person of avoidance and make up wild hypotheses as to why they are avoiding you.
17. Above all else keep asking questions while avoiding answering any yourself.
Science, math and psychology:
18. If one scientist says something that backs me, then I can assume all scientists agree with that statement.
19. If atheist scientists say something, even if it is the view of the majority of people in that science, it should be ignored. See #11.
20. Atheists are ruled by confirmation bias. I am free of it – it’s just great luck that everything I read and all the “data” around me confirm my strong religious convictions. See #19 on ignoring anything else.
21. Infinity = all finite numbers according to the Chad. Thirty or forty years of constraint is the same as eternal torment.
22. Rehabilitation and deterrence are the same thing. Yep…convincing a drug addict not to use drugs in case they are shot dead and getting them off the addiction would be the same by my wondrous Chad logic.
General truths about the CNN belief blog:
23. All non-believers are, by definition, idiots so you can use illogical arguments and they’ll just fall for it.
24. If I post a quote that has a few key words in it from our discussion I can claim it backs my point even if it actually says the exact opposite thing from what I’m claiming. Atheists, as mentioned above, are too dumb to notice. Best yet is to post a link or reference a book which actually says the opposite of what I’m saying and just assume no one will look at it.
25. There is a huge mass of fence sitters out there who are eagerly reading CNN blog comments in order to decide whether or not to believe in God.
26. I will personally save all those mentioned in # 25 because I, Chad, am super smart. I know this because I get away with all the above mentioned lies and manipulations. Sometimes people think they are pointing these things out but they really aren’t. Or the stupid atheist masses aren’t reading them anyway.
27. Phrase everything as if it’s a lecture so you look like you know what you’re talking about. See #23 about atheists being idiots and #24 about people not reading anything you post you’ll see that the silly atheists will fall for it every time. In particular they won’t look back to the earlier part of the discussion to see how I’m contradicting myself. This is very well aided by another tactic:
28. As soon as you make an ass of yourself break the conversation into a new thread. That way all the newcomers (see #25 on how they are waiting to have their souls saved) will not bother to read back and see how ignorant you are.
29. If someone points out to you that citing Wikipedia is not an adequate source for the discussion at hand you can always find a good undergraduate philosophy paper to cite instead.
30. Never question another Christian no matter how incorrect or offensive their position.
31. Just remember that you can define a term any way you want and you are always right!
No Chad, claiming that people haven't read the bible because they don't agree with you interpretation of it makes you look foolish. To claim the books of the bible didn't change from the time they were originally written to the time the bible was compiled also makes you look foolish. For example why aren't the last verses of Mark found in the oldest known manuscripts? Until someone finds an earlier copy of Mark with Chapter 16 verses 9-20 in it I can only conclude that they were added at some point after it was first written.
I will take Chad's silence as a concession that parts of the bible were edited.
@Larry "Well, Jesus didn't build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). He didn't gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6). He didn't begin an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4). He also didn't spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). All of these things were prophecies about the expected Jewish Messiah, and none of them were done by Jesus during his lifetime. Is it any wonder why Jews reject the claim that he was the guy?"
@Chad "that is a really excellent question, exactly what a Jew who knew what he/she was talking about scripturally would ask.
the answer is that Jesus is coming back to establish his kingdom on this earth, the first time was for the forgiveness of sins. When Jesus said that the kingdom of God/heaven was near, everyone thought He was going establish the earthly kingdom.
However
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved John 3
@Pete "To claim the books of the bible didn't change from the time they were originally written to the time the bible was compiled also makes you look foolish. For example why aren't the last verses of Mark found in the oldest known manuscripts? Until someone finds an earlier copy of Mark with Chapter 16 verses 9-20 in it I can only conclude that they were added at some point after it was first written."
@Chad "Mark 16 19-20 MAY indeed have been added later, or not and we merely await finding an earlier manuscript. In either case the Gospel is unaffected.
The critical aspect of my point, and why you are incorrect in claiming it was "edited" (implying we dont have any confidence that what we have now is what was originally written), is that as the bible is the most heavily researched and scrutinized any and all occurrences of this type of thing have been identified.
The New Testament has been preserved in more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. Even if the original Greek versions were lost, the entire New Testament could still be as sembled from the translations.[106] In addition, there are so many quotes from the New Testament in early church docu ments and commentaries that the entire New Testament could also be a ssembled from these alone.[106] Not all biblical manuscripts come from orthodox Christian writers. For example, the Gnostic writings of Valentinus come from the 2nd century AD, and these Christians were regarded as heretics by the mainstream church.[107] The sheer number of witnesses presents unique difficulties, but it also gives scholars a better idea of how close modern Bibles are to the original versions.[107] On noting the large number of surviving ancient manuscripts, Bruce Metzger sums up the view on the issue by saying "The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original docu ment was like. The only way they'd agree would be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that represents the descent of the manuscripts.[106]
A similar type of textual criticism is applied to other ancient texts.[108] There are far fewer witnesses to cla ssical texts than to the Bible, and unlike the New Testament where the earliest witnesses are often within a couple decades of the original, the earliest existing manuscripts of most cla ssical texts were written about a millennium after their composition. For example, the earliest surviving copies of parts of the Roman historian Tacitus' main work, the Annals of Imperial Rome (written in 116 AD), come from a single manuscript written in 850 AD, although for other parts of his work, the earliest copies come from the 11th century, while other parts of his work have been lost.[106] The earliest copies of The Jewish War by Josephus (originally composed in the 1st century AD), in contrast, come from nine manuscripts written in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries.[106] After the Bible, the next best preserved ancient work is Homer's Iliad, with 650 copies originating about 1,000 years after the original copy.[106] Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War (written in the 50s BC) survives in nine copies written in the 8th century.[109] Thucydides' history of the Peloponesian War and Herodotus' history of the Persian War (both written in the 5th century BC) survives in about eight early copies, the oldest ones dating from the 10th century AD.[109] Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce has said "the evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of cla ssical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning...It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians."
@Chad
Looks like you're still unable to actually be honest. To bad, but I guess some people just care about what they believe rather than being intellectually honest.
@Chad ""He came to save us."
@Cheesemakers "If that was his plan he did a [poor] job."
@Chad "how do you figure?
Christian doctrine claims that salvation means reconciliation with God.
What evidence do you offer to claim that hasnt occurred for those that accept Jesus as Savior?
Chad you can believe whatever you want, but I have no reason to believe that the books of the bible were not changed between the time they were written and the time the bible was compiled some 200 years later. I don't believe any of the supernatural claims in the Illiad either. However, since nobody wants to make laws based on the Illiad I am not all that concerned with whether it is true or not.
And there goes Chad with the consistent, "I'm right until you can prove this untestable supernatural, pulled out of my ass claim wrong".
Pathetic, dishonest, and self-righteous as ever Chad.
@Chad,
"The critical aspect of my point, and why you are incorrect in claiming it was 'edited' (implying we dont have any confidence that what we have now is what was originally written), is that as the bible is the most heavily researched and scrutinized any and all occurrences of this type of thing have been identified."
I'm sorry, but it those verses were added later doesn't that mean precisely "that what we have now is what was originally written"?
[correction]
"I'm sorry, but if those verses were added later doesn't that mean precisely "that what we have now is [not] what was originally written"?
Science
Blessed are the Cheesemakers...........agree .................but what will Chad say about thee book of nasty ?
April 25, 2013 at 1:21 pm | Report abuse |
Not to mention they don't have the original manuscripts, so they will most likely never know if what is in the bible was what was originally written.
Chad
Q: Why is the bible more believable than all the other religious tomes?
Chad. Because the bible is true and accurate.
But when backed into a corner about genesis or the flood, Chad reverts too, they are only metaphors based on the stories of the time. How disingenuous can you get? BTW if their is no body in the cave it is not a tomb, just a cave.
Then you get to the NT where JC rambles on in parables so the ignorant goat herders of the times could understand and the Chad's of today can twist to their purpose. I know it is your game Chad but is kind of entertaining to see how far you will go in your deceit.
Well Chad....................maybe it is time to come out of the sand box ?
Surprising New Function for Small RNAs in Evolution.........time to pound sand maybe ?
Apr. 19, 2013 — An international research team in including Christian Schlötterer and Alistair McGregor of the Vetmeduni Vienna has discovered a completely new mechanism by which evolution can change the appearance of an organism. The researchers found that the number of hairs on flies' legs varies according to the level of activity of a so-called microRNA.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130419075909.htm
And dom't come up with the other BS.............CHAD !
It would be NICE......... but
Maybe they should not have created the wedge !!!
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Insti-tute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Insti-tute manifesto known as the Wedge Docu-ment,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic
convictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Peace
@paul "you can believe whatever you want, but I have no reason to believe that the books of the bible were not changed between the time they were written and the time the bible was compiled some 200 years later"
=>A. You claimed that they HAD been edited, now you are claiming that you have no reason to think they werent.. Two dramatically different statements
B. You certainly DO have excellent basis for knowing they have not been altered, claiming you dont just means you arent familiar with the existence of manuscripts and the work done.
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as additions of material, centuries after the gospel was written. These are called interpolations. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses, words and phrases being left out or marked as not original. According to Bart D. Ehrman, "These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries."[111] Most modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate pa ssages that have disputed source doc uments. Bible Commentaries also discuss these, sometimes in great detail. While many variations have been discovered between early copies of biblical texts, almost all have no importance, as they are variations in spelling, punctuation, or grammar. Also, many of these variants are so particular to the Greek language that they would not appear in translations into other languages. For example, order of words (i.e. "man bites dog" versus "dog bites man") often does not matter in Greek, so textual variants that flip the order of words often have no consequences.[106] Outside of these unimportant variants, there are a couple variants of some importance, although even these are minor and can be left out of modern Bibles without affecting any matter of theology or interpretation. The two most commonly cited examples are the last verses of the Gospel of Mark[112][113][114] and the story of the adulterous woman in the Gospel of John.[115][116][117] Many scholars and critics also believe that the Comma Johanneum reference supporting the Trinity doctrine in 1 John to have been a later addition.[118][119] According to Norman Geisler and William Nix, "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book—a form that is 99.5% pure"
@Science "Well Chad....................maybe it is time to come out of the sand box ? Surprising New Function for Small RNAs in Evolution.........time to pound sand maybe ?"
@Chad "actually, I believe that 🙂
Oh wait, is this another one of your:
1. Post a random science fact
2. Imply that I don’t believe in it
3. find out that I do believe in it
4. look a bit foolish because you either didn’t realize my position, or knew it and were just trying to sling some mud hoping something would stick?
@ME II "I'm sorry, but it those verses were added later doesn't that mean precisely "that what we have now is what was originally written"?"
@Chad "obviously there is a vast difference in knowing exactly what is the issue vs not-knowing what might be an issue.
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as additions of material, centuries after the gospel was written. These are called interpolations. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses, words and phrases being left out or marked as not original. According to Bart D. Ehrman (AGNOSTIC), "These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries."[111] Most modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate pa ssages that have disputed source doc uments. Bible Commentaries also discuss these, sometimes in great detail. While many variations have been discovered between early copies of biblical texts, almost all have no importance, as they are variations in spelling, punctuation, or grammar.
According to Norman Geisler and William Nix, "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book—a form that is 99.5% pure
@Chad
That's right, just continue to ignore everything and cut and paste only that which supports your position. That's the only thing you've ever been good at.
Chad, We know that the bible has been changed over time from the fact that the available documents have been studied and that also means omissions and from the fact that there have been several "standard" bibles – one wouldn't need a "standard" bible if they were all unchanged.
Wrong Chad, there is evidence to believe that things were added to books in the bible. Another example is the story in John when Jesus tells those without sin to cast the first stone. This story is not found in the oldest known manuscripts, but is found in the bible. So unless you can find a copy of John, or in the case of the previous example Mark, you can only admit the things have in fact been added to the bible. I am not interested in whether the bible as a whole has changed because for the most part it hasn't. I am, however, interested in whether the books contained in the bible changed over time, and it seems pretty obvious that they did.
Chad
You ducked the fact made both by myself and hawaiiguest have stated that you claim the bible is true and accurate but also state it is full of parables, metaphors and common gossip both in the OT and NT. You are a liar and coward and a fine christian example. Back to your empty cave.
JMEF: "Back to your empty cave."
* – daughters, wine, batteries & toys *not* included
"It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians.""
The Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).
It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.
"You ducked the fact made both by myself and hawaiiguest have stated that you claim the bible is true and accurate but also state it is full of parables, metaphors and common gossip both in the OT and NT. You are a liar and coward and a fine christian example."
See the section on Chad's lying under Saraswati post.
Chad's quoting wiki again so that means.....
29. If someone points out to you that citing Wikipedia is not an adequate source for the discussion at hand you can always find a good undergraduate philosophy paper to cite instead.
@Chad "You ducked the fact made both by myself and hawaiiguest have stated that you claim the bible is true and accurate but also state it is full of parables, metaphors "
=>You are claiming that a doc cant be true and accurate if it contains parables and metaphors?
"The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow contains all kinds of metaphors.. It isnt true?
Smithsonian
Good post but Chad will not easily give up his opinion that the bible is true and accurate, not the folk knowledge of the times based on earlier myths and the messiah stories. BTW messiahs at the time were as numerous as the evangelists are to day, JC one of many. So if Chad deems to answer it will be along the lines of, that is not what I said or meant to say, you do not understand, I do not understand, I am confused, you are confused, you have not interpreted,,,,etc....ad nauseum.
Chad
No Chad it is not "true" as scientific proven fact but speculation of two brilliant physicists of a theory that maybe an explanation of creation. Well at least you moved up a few decades and are not relying on Gould as much.
""The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow contains all kinds of metaphors.. It isnt true?"
LMAO – so Chad who here claimed that this was part of an historical book as you are claiming about the bible? And no it's not all true. LOL!
The problem is that the bible does not make clear what is metaphor and what isn't. It depends on the believer's level of comfort with the claim. A couple hundred years ago, what Christian would have claimed the genesis account was metaphor? Few to none. Now they are FORCED to call it metaphorical as they are forced to claim other passages are metaphorical because knowledge has increased.
It's always interesting that the Christian will never claim a verse is metaphor if it aligns with the current scientific theory. But let new evidence come to light that causes science to modify its modify its theory, and suddenly it's, "Oh, wait, yeah, that verse is metaphorical!!" Science thrives on change, religion is forced into it.
Chad is a trolling along aye ?
Have a great life Chad ....................as the twist continues !
The "bigger" Chad's head gets, the easier it is to crrrrruuusssSSHHH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eVJyYXailw
Chad
Slithered away, not unusual. See Saraswati 17. Above all else keep asking questions while avoiding answering any yourself. Just to point out, metaphors, parables and local color are most often found in fiction; it takes facts, direct quotes and depictions to rise to the level of non-fiction. The bible as true and accurate fails the test of credibility at all levels.
PS: Also posted on page 8 as a new thread.
Hi, I’m HeavenSent’s camel-toe. You might know me from such films as “Queefing You, Queefing Me”, “Insert Here” and “It’s a Bloody Sandwich”.
Today I want to talk to you about something really important; dead kittens. Dead kittens have become one of the leading causes of death among baby cats in this country and something must be done.
The Camel-Toe in your life needs your help. Please give, and…thanks.
Tippecanoe and Tyler Too
Fart is a language of love, I am proud to say I have mastered it
I like Ike??
I am DOG ism chasing s tail hoping to lick MY ASS with my own tongue like animals ism
Have you seen the oven mit smelly? Do you want to get high?
My irony detector is going off.
This from Fox News
FOUR YEARS LATER:George W. Bush Grows In Americans' Esteem
Over at Fox they are still concerned about the approval rating of the country's worst president. "W" = worst.
Ploy – fail: Do anything to keep delusion relevant.
If I don't believe in hipster's are they going to set me on fire too?
Jesus was “The Original Lobster.”
Achmed the Dead Terrorist Has a Son, his name is Mohammad A. Dar aka ISLAM FOUNDATION...., lives in Pakistan
http://youtu.be/IL357BrwK7c
http://youtu.be/YOXCAKL9ESc
show of hindu secular ism, pgnorant self center ism of hindu secular s, ignorant secular s, self centered by faith.
Father, what is "pgnorant"?
Make any thing one wants out of hinduism, fabrication , very easy to play with things borne out of of hindu secular ism, criminal self center ism, son of blessed Mary had nothing to do with hindu Mithra ism, racist savior ism, but every thing with truth absolute GOD.
The whore Mary, mother of Jesus is like my ass ism. Wrong and Perverted. ism.
It was not about your mother, hindu secular, ignorant self centered, no one is interested to know profession of mother of a hindu atheist, ignorant self centered.
It is better to keep them warm in there than in the oven.
Mama I can't reach the oven mit.
1. Hipsters wore Converse?
2. Jesus was anti-establishment > Jesus became the establishment > No more need for Jesus
Wonder if Bill Deacon was drooling over the story of which pope had the most expensive and stylish shoes; the hypocrisy of that lot, the RCC, has no boundaries. At least Franky the new guy washes feet rather than decorate his own.
PS: Really stupid story.
Maybe the shoes just have to be red like the last popes prada pumps, er, "comfortable shoes"...
23-SKIDOO!