2
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Texas getting it's own Sharia Law
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:03 pm to somethingdifferent
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:03 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
So you can prove that they weren't paying anything to Rome?
That's not my position.
Leave the discussion to Foo, you don't have the mental hardware for this conversation. Keep believing in Christianity, you need it like poor bowlers need bumpers. I don't want to try and convince you to bowl without bumpers.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:38 pm to Stinger_1066
quote:
It is ( “a fact that there are no facts”), but please attempt to prove me wrong.
Your argument is self-defeating. There’s no need for me to prove anything. I thought maybe you were going to clarify what you meant by that. I thought maybe I had misunderstood you. But no, you doubled down on your position: “it is a fact that there are no facts.“
quote:
The stories to which you refer exist in multiple forms.
How does that prove anything? Does a counterfeit bill negate the existence of the real one?
quote:
That is a fact
You did it again!
quote:quote:
The accuracy of those stories has never been proven to be factual.
Would you say that you consistently require the same burden of proof for Christianity as you would anything else?
quote:
Because the conditions necessary to sustain life on Earth are fleeting. Nature will eventually wipe us out.
I agree. Kinda.
quote:
Something will eventually kill us all, sooner rather than later, and we won't have it all figured out before then.
Again, I agree. Kinda. I’m more interested in why you’re convinced that material science won’t be able to discover how the universe came into existence. How soon do you expect this extinction event?
quote:
And neither you nor I will ever know
I disagree.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 8:43 pm to Azkiger
quote:
I'll form rebuttals when you offer something of substance.
Prove Balaam’s donkey didn’t talk to him.
Prove Joshua didn’t stop the sun.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:16 pm to Azkiger
quote:
I spent weeks looking into this 20 years ago and its why I stopped believing. Everything youre saying I've looked into and considered.
What made you approach your research actually trying to determine what is most likely verses approaching it from a dogmatic stance trying to gin up fantasies to make the contradiction go away?
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:07 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Prove Balaam’s donkey didn’t talk to him. Prove Joshua didn’t stop the sun
You are willing to accept that the universe, the laws of physics, and the information encoded in DNA all arose without an intelligent cause, yet you ridicule the idea that the Creator of such a universe could occasionally act within it.
If an eternal, transcendent mind created space, time, matter, energy, and the laws governing them, then a resurrection or a talking donkey isn’t the difficult part of the story.
To you it all sounds silly because you reject the idea of an intelligent Creator entirely. It’s not about the donkey or anything else you use to mock Christians.
You insist everything ultimately has a purely natural explanation despite not knowing what that explanation is, that’s a philosophical commitment to naturalism, not an established scientific conclusion. And this is what frustrates me most with people of your persuasion, the kind that loves to mock Christians and the Bible and tries their hardest to disprove every verse. YOU DON’T HAVE BETTER ANSWERS, just different ones that involve very similar amounts of BELIEF
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:28 pm to AUTigerking
quote:
You are willing to accept that the universe, the laws of physics, and the information encoded in DNA all arose without an intelligent cause
What’s the purpose of a black hole? What about other galaxies? Why did the intelligent creator create galaxies that are accelerating away from us and disappear from our visible universe as they move away from us at faster than light speed? Why create all that shite if he created it for humans? Do you know anything about DNA? Do you know how many junk genes and genetic material we have from ancient retroviruses on our chromosomes (much of which we share with chimps and to a lesser extent dogs and whales and to a lesser extent sharks)? DNA is hard evidence of a lack of an intelligent designer.
quote:
yet you ridicule the idea that the Creator of such a universe could occasionally act within it.
I’ll grant you the possibility of some kind of cosmic creator, and maybe he/she created life. Ok then, who created that intelligent designer? Try to not use special pleading.
quote:
You insist everything ultimately has a purely natural explanation despite not knowing what that explanation is
Well I surely don’t support “we don’t know how it happened therefore God did it!”
quote:
YOU DON’T HAVE BETTER ANSWERS
We’ll have to just agree to disagree.
quote:
just different ones that involve very similar amounts of BELIEF
No, this is projection and false equivalence. Me acknowledging facts of nature is not mere belief in the same sense that you believe things without evidence. Not believing in your deity is not belief. It’s a lack of belief. Saying a lack of belief is belief is simply lying to yourself.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:43 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
What made you approach your research actually trying to determine what is most likely verses approaching it from a dogmatic stance trying to gin up fantasies to make the contradiction go away?
Being open minded I guess.
When I was 18 I got into some religious debates with some guys on a mustang forum. They brought up some good points, but I knew I was on the right side (obviously) so I went to various Christian apologist websites (mostly CARM at the time) repeated the answers I read there, and still had lots of holes poked into my beliefs.
It took several months, but I eventually entertained the idea that my beliefs were wrong, kept looking into it, and eventually stopped believing.
So repeated failures in trying to defend my ex-faith, and being honest enough to recognize the answers I gave weren't good enough to justify Christianity.
I've done zero research into other religions, so maybe there is one out there that's air tight. I just spent so much effort and anguish looking into Christianity I was just content not believing in any religions at all.
I still have a healthy respect for Christianity, and other religions as well. I do think they're likely necessary for many societies. But I myself no longer believe.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 11:58 pm to Azkiger
quote:They were a vassal state under Roman rule and oversight at this time. They were not "independent", as Herod answered to Rome, and Rome could overrule anything the King did. They had some leeway to work without a tight grip from Rome, but that didn't mean they were independent.
Judea was an independent state
quote:It doesn't matter if it is peacetime or conditions of war. The census wasn't the problem with David, but his lack of submission to the Lord in how he did it. The Mosaic law demanded ransom money, and David didn't pay it. He took the census for his own pride, seeing the people as his people in that moment, rather than him being a steward over God's people. So, no, that wouldn't have mattered to this issue.
and Josephus wrote of riots during the 6AD census (peacetime census=no no, see King David)
In addition, that was an issue with a self-governing nation. Israel was not fully independent under Roman rule prior to 6 AD, but operated under Roman oversight. They had more independence and leeway to operate as a kingdom prior to the annexation and becoming a formal roman province, but they were not entirely independent. The loyalty census taken before Herod died wouldn't have been as big of a deal as the property tax census in 6 AD that led to a revolt. Josephus mentioning the one that led to a revolt makes sense, and it makes sense that he wouldn't have mentioned a census that was of little note otherwise. He didn't mention a lot of administrative acts that happened.
quote:Funny how that works. You make an argument as to why a contradiction isn't necessary, and the response is that it's pretzel-twisting. Perhaps the truth is more complicated than what you want it to be.
More twisting into pretzels.
I don't need to demonstrate what actually happened and why, but how there are possible ways to reconcile the texts. A contradiction only exists when there is no possible way to reconcile the texts. Just because you don't like the way the reconciliation could happen doesn't mean it's wrong.
quote:Again, I don't need to demonstrate that it happened, only that it could have happened. You using words like "unlikely" doesn't impact my argument one bit.
Would be a Roman first. They rotated governorships to prevent governors from building up too much power within a region. Even Quirinius being a ranking Syrian official directly before taking over the Governorship is extremely unlikely.
quote:It may not be convincing evidence to you, but that doesn't mean it's not evidence. Again, all I'm going for is possible ways to reconcile the texts. You not being convinced of them doesn't mean there is a necessary contradiction, as you think there is.
Not good evidence.
quote:"Most likely". Again, you doubt the interpretation, but it could very well be legitimately interpreted as a second term. Being unlikely (as you see it) doesn't mean it didn't happen, only that you aren't convinced of it. That's OK. I'm not actually trying to convince you of anything other than the text doesn't pose a necessary contradiction.
What you're referencing isn’t a double governorship, but an inscription that says something to the effect of "and again governor of Syria", which doesn't explicitly say Syria X2, and is most likely someone who served two separate regional governorships.
quote:You aren't convinced by it, but it doesn't mean "it's just not there". Not everyone is convinced of the truth. Squirrelmeister is convinced Jesus wasn't even a real and historical person, so it just goes to show that we all have faith in things, and not always the truth. By the way, the Bible teaches that those who do not believe in Jesus do not believe because they cannot believe on their own. They must be given "eyes" to see the truth and "ears" to hear it. You are no different. I hope you one day are able to believe the truth.
I spent weeks looking into this 20 years ago and its why I stopped believing. Everything youre saying I've looked into and considered.
It's just not there.
quote:I didn't notice it, but since you brought my attention to it, here you go for a possible explanation:
I noticed you didn't even attempt to explain the shitty fan-fic "they had to travel to their place of origin", clear as day author's hand, ridiculous addition to make shite line up.
Joseph went to Bethlehem as part of the enrollment (census) because that is where his historical and ancestral household was, as part of the Jewish custom of clan-lines rather than a Roman requirement.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 6:10 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
I’m more interested in why you’re convinced that material science won’t be able to discover how the universe came into existence. How soon do you expect this extinction event?
The best way for me to explain it is to us the Uncertainty Principle as an analogy.
We just won't ever be able to demonstrate or explain definitively how the universe came into existence.
My belief is that it has just always been there in one form or another. The form we see today, as a singularity, or something else. A never-ending cycle of contracting, exploding and expanding.
The presence of a supernatural being just adds to the complexity. Where did that supernatural being come from? There is just no need for that component other than for those people who "need" an explanation. I don't need an explanation. I'm only here for a very brief period of time.
As far as an extinction even goes, I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. I'm already 66. But it could. Some disease could be unleashed from a biolab tomorrow and that would be all she wrote.
I lean more toward a tectonic event that triggers a new ice age and eliminates our food supply. Could be 10K years, 100K years, a million years. I'll never find out.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 8:06 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
What’s the purpose of a black hole? What about other galaxies? Why did the intelligent creator create galaxies that are accelerating away from us and disappear from our visible universe as they move away from us at faster than light speed? Why create all that shite if he created it for humans?
I don't know. What does this have to do with anything?
quote:
DNA is hard evidence of a lack of an intelligent designer.
Well, that's a new one.
DNA is information, not just chemistry. Not only that, it's sequenced in a function specific order. You appear to take things quite literally, regardless of it's intent. You lean toward what "most likely" happened. You dismiss the Book of Acts because of miracles. What do you think the likelihood of a functional DNA sequence forming randomly without a designer is? If you say effectively zero, you'd be correct. Even over time...time doesn't create information. How did this ability arise in the first place? You emphasize observation and natural laws to explain your worldview. All of that goes out the window here.
quote:
I’ll grant you the possibility of some kind of cosmic creator, and maybe he/she created life. Ok then, who created that intelligent designer? Try to not use special pleading.
Nice!
And, He would be the Uncaused Cause. A Creator outside of space, time, and matter is a reasonable explanation when considering all aspects and details of our existence.
quote:
Well I surely don’t support “we don’t know how it happened therefore God did it!”
But you support "we don't know how it happened, therefore I'll go with the atheist flavor of the decade explanation!"
quote:
No, this is projection and false equivalence. Me acknowledging facts of nature is not mere belief in the same sense that you believe things without evidence. Not believing in your deity is not belief. It’s a lack of belief. Saying a lack of belief is belief is simply lying to yourself.
This is simply not true. You give explanations of things we don't know. A prerequisite of this is placing belief in something. Belief is not owned by religion. You believe there's a natural explanation for everything without proof. You can share the definition of belief if you'd like
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:13 am to FooManChoo
quote:
They were a vassal state under Roman rule and oversight at this time. They were not "independent", as Herod answered to Rome, and Rome could overrule anything the King did. They had some leeway to work without a tight grip from Rome, but that didn't mean they were independent.
Yes, vassal state. Their citizens weren't being counted for taxation purposes is what I was getting at.
quote:
The loyalty census taken before Herod died...
Herod died in 4BC and there are no historical records of a Roman census happening in Judea prior to the 6AD census.
Moreover, there are no records of a census requiring you to travel to your place of birth to be counted. That would be so disruptive for a society during that time its silly to suggest Rome, the super efficient empire it was, to want its taxable subjects displaced/not working for weeks, just so they could be counted. Thats not how censuses work and its clearly the hard of the author trying to make a prophecy fit.
quote:
Again, I don't need to demonstrate that it happened, only that it could have happened. You using words like "unlikely" doesn't impact my argument one bit.
If your argument is that the chance there is no contradiction is some number above zero then yeah, maybe Bigfoot created a time machine and hid the evidence of this other census. There's a chance that happened, however small. You can try and hang your hat on that tiny hook if you like.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:45 am to Stinger_1066
quote:
We just won't ever be able to demonstrate or explain definitively how the universe came into existence.
No offense, but that’s not an explanation- it’s an assertion. It doesn’t answer the question of why.
quote:
The form we see today, as a singularity, or something else. A never-ending cycle of contracting, exploding and expanding
I’m not opposed to that. I think it compliments the nature of an eternal God. But, it’s purely theoretical; with no evidential support. Like Multiverse theory, it appears to exist primarily as a means of escaping the obvious consequences of what all known data actually points to, which is that all space time, and matter had a beginning in the finite past. It’s just kicking the can down the road, without actually answering the question of existence and origins.
quote:
The presence of a supernatural being just adds to the complexity.
And oscillating universe theory doesn’t? Also, how does the God hypothesis add complexity- when it just as easily explains the complexity we see, without need for further explanation?
quote:
Where did that supernatural being come from? There is just no need for that component
Read up on Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, the Kalam Cosmological argument, and the concept of infinite regress. Origins don’t apply to the infinite. God is the ontologically necessary precondition for existence.
quote:
As far as an extinction even goes, I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. I'm already 66. But it could. Some disease could be unleashed from a biolab tomorrow and that would be all she wrote. I lean more toward a tectonic event that triggers a new ice age and eliminates our food supply.
So, you don’t really have a problem with adding complexity to explanations. You don’t really have a problem with speculation. You don’t even have the slightest problem with the concept of blind faith as the sole foundation of your worldview. You seem to just have a problem with the Christian God (as you understand Him).
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:57 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
No offense, but that’s not an explanation- it’s an assertion. It doesn’t answer the question of why.
Sorry, but if my Uncertainty Principal analogy doesn't do it for you, I'm out of ideas at the moment. I have much more important questions to ponder today, such as why did one of the sprinkler heads on my Clearstream septic system suddenly stop working, and can I identify the cause and resolve the issue without seeking professional help? (I think I can figure it out for myself)
quote:
I’m not opposed to that. I think it compliments the nature of an eternal God. But, it’s purely theoretical; with no evidential support.
No evidential support? Pretty much all astronomers agree that the universe is expanding. Expanding from where? The Big Bang is a theory, which as I've stated already, I don't think will ever be proven.
quote:
And oscillating universe theory doesn’t? Also, how does the God hypothesis add complexity- when it just as easily explains the complexity we see, without need for further explanation?
Read up on Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, the Kalam Cosmological argument, and the concept of infinite regress. Origins don’t apply to the infinite. God is the ontologically necessary precondition for existence.
The god hypothesis is a simplistic answer.
If you accept it, then you have to ask, where did that god come from? So it just replaces one question with another.
quote:
So, you don’t really have a problem with adding complexity to explanations. You don’t really have a problem with speculation. You don’t even have the slightest problem with the concept of blind faith as the sole foundation of your worldview. You seem to just have a problem with the Christian God (as you understand Him).
I don't have a problem with the "Christian" god. I have a problem with the concept of supernatural entities of any kind, regardless of which religion is pushing it, whether it be Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Sikhs, Shinto, Confucians, etc. Sorry if I left any religion out. Please don't be offended.
I don't believe in gods, angels, devils, demons, ghosts, spirit animals, witches, warlocks, wizards, elves, and on and on.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:02 am to Azkiger
quote:So you have nothing. Standard childishness when people's preconceptions get challenged. Let us know when you grow up and want to have an intellectual discussion like an adult
I'll form rebuttals when you offer something of substance
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:44 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Does God exist? You won't answer.
A miracle is the least likely - actually impossible
quote:Not exactly. A person recording things can interject their own personal beliefs and still be recording factual history otherwise.
A legit historian, without overwhelming evidence, cannot say that something that is impossible is most likely
quote:I have been telling you the exact same thing about the lies you've been told and just believed without any evidence, unlike Luke who recorded things that have been historically confirmed
the person has a dogma, a faith, not based on logic or evidence but a simple will to believe something that gives them comfort.
quote:Which doesn't make it unreliable if they actually happened but I get you have an emotional bias against it
a document filled with wild claims of miracles
quote:None of this is true
some material that conflicts with other known sources (Paul’s letters), plus known falsehoods such as the church starting as a unified body
quote:Except that we have and Luke is incredibly reliable historically
it’s difficult to separate the reality from the fantasy
quote:You still haven't listed a single person on this list. Not one
historians label Acts as being not historically reliable
quote:If only there were other accounts of Jesus from antiquity that we could use for comparison. Wouldn't that be something
that entire part about Jesus to me is suspect and is historically unreliable
quote:There are even non Christian "theologians" who don't have a problem calling Jesus "God." You have strange ideas about how academia actually works. Now if you meant to say secular historians, then what you're describing is merely the minimal facts. But the minimal facts do nothing to diminish Jesus' divinity but you knew that already didn't you? Did you know that there are "historians" at secular universities who are Christians?
A Christian theologian held to the same standard as a secular theologian can only go as far to say Jesus most likely existed as a historical man and likely was crucified under Pontius Pilate
quote:This is stupidly false
Once he starts saying that Acts is historically reliable, he is no longer a historian but a Christian apologist
quote:Did you notice that Bale did not even bother addressing the historical reliability of the text? If you want to play postmodern structuralism games, go right ahead but that doesn't do anything to diminish the visceral, empirical, tactile things that have been dug out of the dirt that corroborate Luke/Acts/the Bible, such as accurate political and local titles, physical inscriptions of key figures, fawless nautical and geographical logistics, etc. Archeology has repeatedly confirmed what he wrote and it takes incredible "dogma" to deny it. The literary critic can examine how a text signifies meaning rather than how it corresponds to reality, physical historical anchors. An author doesn't get dozens of hyper-specific, rapidly changing political titles, geographic configurations, and local legal customs right by accident or by simply copying Homer. The reliability of Luke's work remains entirely unbothered by this kind of literary deconstruction.
GENRE AND NARRATIVE COHERENCE IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
by
Alan Bale
Posted on 6/30/26 at 11:48 am to Azkiger
quote:I've asked you to prove ANYTHING from "your position" and what I get in response is a bunch wimpishness. And I gave you multiple scenarios from real, actual historical scholarship that respond to your stupid point and you didn't address any of it.
That's not my position
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:38 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
I've asked you to prove ANYTHING from "your position"
Herod died in 4BC. Judea leadership was split between his sons. They ran Judea poorly, at least from the Roman perspective. Rome decided to remove Judea's vassalship and make them part of the Roman Empire and added Judea to their Syrian Providence. Governor Quirinius was governor of Syria, so he was tasked with overseeing the Roman census of the newly added Judea territory. This occurred in 6AD.
The Bible both mentions Herod the Great (who died in 4BC) and the Roman census that occurred under Governor Quirinius in 6AD as events surrounding Jesus's birth.
All of the above are facts.
You need to come up with a Roman census of Judea prior to Herod the Great's death.
Have fun.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:44 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Family friends, the Furches, who we visited annually for 2-3 days per year in Justin, TX eldest daughter won a National Merit Scholarship from a graduating class of 6. The bible was used daily in classes. No library in that small town. She became a judge of the district court in Houston.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 1:00 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Given that the Bible has repeatedly been vindicated historically and archaeologically, what reason do you have to doubt the accounts? Do you have a contemporaneous counter narrative? Of course you don't. You just stupidly blanket reject miracles because you have a theological bias based on beliefs you can't prove.
Prove Balaam’s donkey didn’t talk to him. Prove Joshua didn’t stop the sun
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:33 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Herod died in 4BC. Judea leadership was split between his sons. They ran Judea poorly, at least from the Roman perspective. Rome decided to remove Judea's vassalship and make them part of the Roman Empire and added Judea to their Syrian Providence. Governor Quirinius was governor of Syria, so he was tasked with overseeing the Roman census of the newly added Judea territory. This occurred in 6AD. The Bible both mentions Herod the Great (who died in 4BC) and the Roman census that occurred under Governor Quirinius in 6AD as events surrounding Jesus's birth. All of the above are facts.
Yes but it’s possible there was this wormhole brought about by a rip in the space time continuum and when Jesus was born, he was born in both times at the same time. Or there could have been two Herod the Greats or two Quiriniuses or lots of other things are possible to reconcile that “apparent contradiction”. If we can gin up any idea to mesh them together, then we can say you cannot prove the contradiction and we win! Jesus is omnipotent so there isn’t anything he can’t do so we should take the word of the Bible as the truth!
I think I leaned enough on this forum to emulate a typical low-iq religious internet tough guy.
Page 12 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News