My absolute favorite argument from people who support the Bible's veracity is this:
"Well then you are taking it out of context."
In the words of Gulliver: THIS is a straw man statement.
I'm not sure that you understand what a "straw man argument" is. Reading something out of context will often times lead to a misunderstanding of a given text. Not just the Bible.
"My ass...has been in more hands than a hooker's breasts!"
You misquoted me. This is not accidental, because you edited the entire sentence. Thus, not going to fly, son.
Context is of the utmost importance when trying to discern the actual intent of someone's words. It is ignorant to argue otherwise.
Warping my own statement to fit against itself will not work either, cuddles. I said people USE the context argument to make what they say to be truth, implying that anyone who disagrees with them is off the wall in terms of knowledge of whatever topic is being discussed. Nice try, but, again, no.
First of all, who in the living fuck made you the 'supreme translator droid' for mankind, to make such an egotistical, self-deluded defense of a manuscript, which, might I add, has been in more hands than a hooker's breasts?
The individuals aren't making a "supreme translator claim." What they are doing is, based on their belief about the Scriptures being inspired and inerrant, stating the obvious. If God's Word is inerrant then there can be no contradictions. It boils down to a different argument altogether.
Obvious to THEM
, and not to those they preach it towards. Thus, the straw man, and blatant ad nauseam rebuttals based on "their personal view", which, incidentally, is not physical reality, but their personal view. No.
Just so you know...what you have done here is a perfect example of a straw man argument.
Incorrect. Changing the wording of my post (by what I am reading here, totally at a random point in my response) to insinuate that, is about as transparent as one can get. Try again.
God didn't make Job's life a living hell. Satan did.
Cute, but no. Either shortsighted, or intentionally obtuse to stir up an emotional response. Either way, you will learn I am emotionless most of the time. God 'enabled' Satan to do it to Job, as a test of his faith, thus he is the responsible party. Splitting hairs is only right when those who support fallacies do it? Again, no.
Job 2:7 - "So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head."
So, Yes. You were taking it out of context, and as you said, "The words are plain as day."
Another attempt at misleading a reader. You intentionally leave out the entire passage you just defended. So that basically means, in total honesty, you support the Bible's Assertion of X item, but only quote the portion of X item which represents your winning argument. And yet again, no.
Hara Taiki, no one insulting you. There is no need for that.
And yet your quoted posts above this portion of my rebuttal clearly show an intent or desire on your part to basically cause me to look like a moron, by not only directly editing a quote of my own text, but then smugly attempting to dissect my every possible error, ad hominem, and then duck out. Hara's post was not an insult, it was a documentary.
This is a particular topic that I've always enjoyed studying. Something I've learned is that God never calls anyone to "blind faith." Faith is not "believing in God" as many people claim. You demonstrate your faith in things everyday. Faith is trust. Your legs when you walk, an airplane when you fly, your mind when you rationalize...all require you to take advantage of something at some point. The faith that the Bible talks about is faith that God is who He says He is and that He will do what He says He will do. Faith is trust. Faith is obedience.
Semantics do not alter physical reality. You say faith is a trust. What you are stating is in fact, the identically same thing, in both thought and action. Making it appear more flowery does not alter the reality that Faith is based on dogmatic belief in something, without anything to support it. Thinking through it would require more work than blindly adhering it. Thus, no.
No, it certainly isn't BS. Let us assume that in your mother's biography is a chapter about the day before you were born. The next chapter tells of the day you were born. Does this mean that her biography is not a true account of your birth?
Besides, no one is making that claim. It is much more complex than that. You are throwing grenades at the wrong fort, friend.
Classic example of again, distorting a post to reflect a stance. What was quoted, has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do, with what was responded with. This is a transparent attempt to make the poster that was responded to upset, or feel foolish and put on the spot. It will not work here. Again, no.
About the comic...I'm not going to be offended by anything that you say or do. It just isn't going to happen. You might find it to be humorous, but you know good and well that I will not. I would ask that you show at least a little respect and carry yourself with some dignity rather than stooping to meaningless insults and taking shots.
"Do as I say, not as a do." Is that what you are saying?