Luc Solar Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 If I had to choose what is the single most stupid, annoying thing I've ever read, it would this: "the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself. Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof..." Oh and Cjais...the point you made by switching "Qur'an" with "Bible" is moot. As mr. Chick said: The Bible is the older authority. You can not criticize it unless you have first proven that the Qur'an is true, which it is not 'cause it has a scientifically proven error in it. You can not win, Cjais. Hahahaha! Chick ownz, he is teh man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 And the Bible has many historical inaccuracies - one easy one to spot is the Census that being held - this was in a part of the Roman Empire, which at the time was not holding a census, according to historical documents........ So, therefore we have proven the Bible to be false since the Romans did not hold a census at the time given, that would lead to Joseph and Mary needing to travel to Bethlahem, therefore Jesus (An interpreted word - not his actual name - Did not the Angel Gabriel name him Emmanuel? Then again in it's conversion to English no doubt there are many "inaccuracies" that exist) would not have been born there.... I could go on all day about them, but that would be a mute point, since one false piece of it disproves the rest.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 28, 2003 Author Share Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by Luc Solar Oh and Cjais...the point you made by switching "Qur'an" with "Bible" is moot. As mr. Chick said: The Bible is the older authority. You can not criticize it unless you have first proven that the Qur'an is true, which it is not 'cause it has a scientifically proven error in it. You can not win, Cjais. Jack Chick can go piss on electric fences for all I care. I'm just surprised that his definition of fanaticism and false evidence is so clear and true, yet he's completely unable to apply it to his own religion. And I'm surprised he's apparently read the Koran, but still haven't realized he's making hypocritical statements and false generalizations of it. Our gene pool would be better off without him. But that's social darwinism, and I doubt he believes in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by BCanr2d2 And the Bible has many historical inaccuracies - one easy one to spot is the Census that being held - this was in a part of the Roman Empire, which at the time was not holding a census, according to historical documents........ Show me the documentation before you say that. Post a link to something that confirms that. Originally posted by BCanr2d2 Jesus (An interpreted word - not his actual name - Did not the Angel Gabriel name him Emmanuel? Then again in it's conversion to English no doubt there are many "inaccuracies" that exist) would not have been born there.... Matthew 1:20-21: "But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save people from their sins." " Now regarding your Immanuel statement, Matthew 1:22-23: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" - which means, "God with us." " Immanuel fulfilled the phrophet and thats what the people would come to call him because they knew he was the Son of God. His real name was Jesus, Immanuel was a "nickname" from the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn One of the most dangerous and widespread of all those tools is his fantasy role playing game, Dungeons and Dragons. Just goes to show that this Chick character hasn't even studied the business... I wonder how he would react if he saw Vampire: The Masquerade? Oh and Cjais...the point you made by switching "Qur'an" with "Bible" is moot. Not at all. He wasn't trying to disprove Chick. He was trying to make a point about Christianity. Show me the documentation before you say that. Post a link to something that confirms that. He's saying that there was no census. Asking him to prove this is asking him to prove the negative, which, by the rules of logic, cannot be done. (And as a note on the side: Do you really expect the Romans to write in some record: "We are not going to make a census today?") Matthew hogwash: Which part of translation did you miss out? The guy who portrayed the Christian did it well, however. When it came the time to minister to someone, he did it. It is in response to this kind of post that I usually quote such institutions as the Inquisition, the KKK, the Crusades, ect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Not at all. He wasn't trying to disprove Chick. He was trying to make a point about Christianity. Ya I got that...but now I forgot what I was supposed to say. Oh well. I'll just improvise Chick?! Is that his real name? Jack Chick?!?! He must have had a troublesome childhood. That explains *a lot*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Hm. Why does the subject of the evils of Christianity still creep in to this topic, even when the Christians here can clearly tell you that this guy is a lunatic? He's a prime example of Christianity. Uh-uh. I don't think so. I find the fact that we're talking about a census in the Bible in a topic about Jack Chick amusing as well. I will only say one thing about the issue, referring to this: I could go on all day about them, but that would be a mute point, since one false piece of it disproves the rest.... An author made a mistake in recording the date of something that he didn't witness, and you say that disproves the entirety of the account, as well as the sixty-five other accounts made by different authors that have been compiled in the Bible? (Actually, I don't recall if Luke even knew Jesus; I know most of the stuff in his Gospel is a compilment of his friends' accounts. His primary thing was writing the book of Acts, so his Gospel to him would have been like a "prequel". In case you're wondering, yes the other Gospel writers witnessed most of what they wrote about) Reborn Outcast, here's your information: http://www.kchanson.com/PTJ/census.html > the census (yes, it existed, the argument is that it was sent several years before Luke said it was) http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/quirinius.htm > the argument presented in full http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html > reiteration of part of the above plus census info/explanation This is really a whole nuther debate...isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Nice link there Redwing, about how it is hard to read two stories that tell of the birth of Jesus, and neither of them agree. I was just using the Jack Chick way of making the Koran not accurate due to one minor historical mistake, and applying it to the Bible. Can I ask a simple question: With the nativity, why is this scene usually one of Jesus as a very young baby, not as that of a 2 year old, as he is by the time the 3 Magi arrive? Who's version of his birth is being used, since neither seem to explain it clearly. Why is the supposed most important event unable to be explained by his closest followers the same way? Here is an interesting link trying to work out who Jesus was as a human. It also states in regards to the census, and when one was taken in that region. Potentially the dates are wrong by approx 30 years in the Bible, but match up. (It is usually given that approx 4-6 years are unknown/unacconted for around the time of the birth of Jesus - not all the historical texts agree with everything there I assume) Nemrut Dag - Jesus as a human Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by BCanr2d2 [bCan I ask a simple question: With the nativity, why is this scene usually one of Jesus as a very young baby, not as that of a 2 year old, as he is by the time the 3 Magi arrive?[/b] Where do you get that he's 2 years old when they arrive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Pretty simple - Herod makes a decree to kill all male children under 2 years old, so Herod has no idea as to how old he is, so Jesus is at oldest 2 when they arrive. It's not like they could've jumped in a car and got there quickly. Since no dates are given, logical deduction of events described in the Bible have to be used. In Matthews Gospel, this is how it seems to be descirbed, when using the information from the link provided by redwing http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/quirinius.htm As to when the Magi arrived in Bethlehem, if we assume that Herod the Great is the person mentioned, and not his son, then it can all get historically messy!! His son was not King, since it was by then a Roman province, not the case in Herod The Greats time.. But then again, it depends on which of the two texts we use as being accurate...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Can I ask a simple question: With the nativity, why is this scene usually one of Jesus as a very young baby, not as that of a 2 year old, as he is by the time the 3 Magi arrive? You'll have to ask the guys who made the Jesus figurines. I agree with you. I know of this Jack Chick dude only because I'm interested in roleplaying (pen 'n paper, the real deal), and he is one of the ongoing jokes in that community. Why? Because he thinks roleplaying is satanic. He can't tell fiction from non-fiction. What about that Harry Potter crowd hey? I was damn near falling off my chair laughing while reading this bullsh*t he's now made. What do you think of this? I don't see what's funny about that cartoon. Its like he's never spoken to a Muslim in his life. I would say that he should do his research first. Again, what is the joke that I'm missing. Get rid of your double standards dude. Why do you judge me by the actions of televangelists and those guys that write stuff like that? *There is no minimum to buy etc etc, have your credit card ready etc etc, when you become a Christian all of your possessions belong to God, that includes your money, so please give me your money etc etc, you can never give me enough etc etc* I don't have a half an hour televangelist 5:30am slot so I can run infocommercials on for half of it. I have never even met him. Wouldn't it be wrong to do the same to Muslims as well [judging them by Osama]? I'm sure you wouldn't laugh at that. EDIT: As an aside with the Jesus figurines, if you interpret this passage as referring to Jesus [read on at http://www.biblegateway.com for the rest of the chapter] then it is likely that Jesus has nothing that would physically attract you to Him. Unlike all of the pictures which show smooth silky skin, a trimmed beard and wide open eyes. I dislike all of those pictures which non-Christians mock Christians for. So please don't talk about Christians in general, talk about televangelists and things like that specifically. The blonde man creationalist thing was a shocker, talk about subliminal advertising, thats what it is. Also, you see these televangists they start out soft then gradually get louder and put on an act. Did you know thats the same tactics Hitler used to whip crowds in a frenzy? Saddening. Isaiah 53 1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 31, 2003 Author Share Posted January 31, 2003 Originally posted by FunClown Again, what is the joke that I'm missing. Get rid of your double standards dude. The joke is that he's terrifyingly ignorant and believes in his own lies so much it has become his reality. The guy is a nutcase. He's mentally ill, if you judge him based on his views expressed on that page. I'm not kidding - he has attached himself from reality, and is now living in a fantasy world where rock music is satanic, where D&D is an occult ritual and where Jesus is The Saviour. You're right. It's not really funny. But I can't stop laughing at ignorance like that. And no, it's not just him - I laugh at ignorant Muslims as well, particularily Bin Laden because he obviously believes that what he does will bring good to the world. His fantasy world. Where is my double standards evident in this? I'd f*ckin' laugh my behind off if I met a person as delirious as this in my neighboorhood. And I'd recommend psychiatric treatment to at least help him communicate with the real world better. And I have no sympathy for those who choose to live in a world of their own lies - C'jais Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 The double standards I was getting at was laughing at stupidity like that because its branded Christianity. But you cleared that up in your last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Originally posted by Redwing Hm. Why does the subject of the evils of Christianity still creep in to this topic, even when the Christians here can clearly tell you that this guy is a lunatic? Because most people have a far too rosy picture of Christianity, for which there is no historical or present basis. Originally posted by Redwing Uh-uh. I don't think so. Crossref: Inquisition, Crusade, KKK, North Ireland, ect. Originally posted by Redwing I find the fact that we're talking about a census in the Bible in a topic about Jack Chick amusing as well. I will only say one thing about the issue, referring to this: An author made a mistake in recording the date of something that he didn't witness, and you say that disproves the entirety of the account, as well as the sixty-five other accounts made by different authors that have been compiled in the Bible? No. It disproves that it is infallible, which some (many) Christians seem to think. It disproves that it is the Word of God, which some (many) Christians seem to think. Or that God chose to lie to Humanity. Your pick. Why is the supposed most important event unable to be explained by his closest followers the same way? Because Paulus wrote and edited the Bible several decades after the actual events (read The Dead Sea Scroll Deciet). The blonde man creationalist thing was a shocker, talk about subliminal advertising, thats what it is. Also, you see these televangists they start out soft then gradually get louder and put on an act. Did you know thats the same tactics Hitler used to whip crowds in a frenzy? Saddening. Same tactic that the priest uses at church too, I might add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Can I ask a simple question: With the nativity, why is this scene usually one of Jesus as a very young baby, not as that of a 2 year old, as he is by the time the 3 Magi arrive? Who's version of his birth is being used, since neither seem to explain it clearly. My Nativity scene has three dudes dressed like pimps, an Ol' Joseph action figure, a topless Mary performing a donkey show, and Baby Jesus with an enormous erection. Oh, and various farm animals. And hay and stuff. So, who's version is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Gonna skip past alot of responses, but here's my little say the Dungeons and Dragons (the actual game) does have several satanic involvments (worship your "god" or "demon", call to it for help, blood sacrifice in-game, etc). It caused alot of people playing to lose concept of reality. People have killed over it, including themselves. I remember one isntance where 2 brother played it alot. The brother that was the Dungeon Master told his other brother to shoot him with a shotgun, to prove ti others it couldn't harm him. However, when it comes to RPGs like, eh... Dark Age of Camelot, EverQuest, Anarchy Online, or even a few board games... though some of it may have a satanic background (magic), I am mature enough to not let some stupid game alter my concept of reality. To me, EverQuest is a game, I play for fun. I don't start worshipping Tunare. I have never played board RPG games though, because many are dangerous (proven), and I just don't think it's worth the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 btw, do some research on Allah... he is what they said "And Cjais yes he is right about Islam... Allah is depicted 'as a severe judge and is not depicted as loving.' " that is correct, and not by a Christian source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod the Dungeons and Dragons (the actual game) does have several satanic involvments (worship your "god" or "demon", call to it for help, blood sacrifice in-game, etc). That's called a "game". People playing these games can distinguish between a fantasy world and the real one. Praying to Pelor the sun god is only acting in character - and this is encouraged. If you seriously think the people that play these games cannot make the distinction between their made-up characters and their own person, I'm really stunned beyond belief. Hvae you ever tried playing these games yourself? RPG's require you to think abstractly, promote teamwork and helps build up empathy (such as playing a character you would never sympathise with in reality). It caused alot of people playing to lose concept of reality. No, these people detached from reality before they started playing. It's the same story with Doom etc - it all boils down to that those people would have commited crimes regardless. And those people who do flip out and kill somebody are the extreme minority. Why should these rare cases the rest of us to enjoy RPG's? By the same token, I could say the exact same about the movie and religion industry - a few bad examples does not label the rest of the customers as unhealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod btw, do some research on Allah... he is what they said "And Cjais yes he is right about Islam... Allah is depicted 'as a severe judge and is not depicted as loving.' " that is correct, and not by a Christian source. Have actually you read the Koran? Sure, I'll play along and call Allah a "severe judge". But so is the Christian one. I'm thinking you should read up on your Bible a bit better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Yep, the Christian one is also a judge. A Just Judge that does love his people. Here's an example for ya http://www.digitracts.com/digitracts/forgiven.asp btw, most RPGs that people lose their concept of reality (and if you say it's untrue, you have NOT done research in D&D. I can pull up some stuff on it when I get home if you wish) are just components on excercising something that causes them to start "going weird". Yes, hundreds of people have died due to the D&D game. That's why it's so controversial now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod Yep, the Christian one is also a judge. A Just Judge that does love his people. A grotesque God that kills innocent women and children for not believing in him. btw, most RPGs that people lose their concept of reality (and if you say it's untrue, you have NOT done research in D&D. Dude. I play D&D. While I'm starting to feel certain you'll label me a satanic worshipper, I do function just fine in society. Once again, the "hundreds" of people the die because of this were already so mentally ill they'd end up in harm sooner or later. Just like the PC game "Doom". And the minority (and it truly is an insignificant minority, no matter what your websites will tell you) does not make the rest of us mad. Just as I won't go out and kill someone after watching "Psycho", but one in a million might. That doesn't mean the movie affected the rest of us. It means there was something wrong with the person who did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Never said D&D players are satanists (there you go again, putting words in other people's mouth)...I said it does have some satanic stuff in it. "A grotesque God that kills innocent women and children for not believing in him." God doesn't kill people for unbelieving. He gives everyone free will. However, sin does have a penalty, and THAT'S why people get...punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod Never said D&D players are satanists (there you go again, putting words in other people's mouth)...I said it does have some satanic stuff in it. Where? I've been into D&D as a hobby since I was 12. From my own point of view, it's merely a creative game. God doesn't kill people for unbelieving. He gives everyone free will. However, sin does have a penalty, and THAT'S why people get...punished. In life as well? I'm just taking this from the old testament. I don't if it's the standardized issue of the Bible, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Sure, I'll play along and call Allah a "severe judge". But so is the Christian one. I'm thinking you should read up on your Bible a bit better. Umm C'jais were'nt you the one that told me that you had only read a couple of versus in the Bible, specifically Genesis Chapter 1. All your other info you're getting is from that skeptics website that tries to show that the whole Bible is a contradiciton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Very true. Also, I have done alot of research in the occult, and there are several things in the D&D game that does have satanic backgrounds and rituals. You're "just a player", I'm someone who knows the big picture. If I can find my book I wrote in about it, I can post it if you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.