re: University of Arkansas hanging posters of the Ten Commandments around campus

quote:

---

You know regardless of religious beliefs if everyone followed those 10 rules the world would be a much better place

---

I fail to see how…

1. Not making agreements with other people groups.

2. Destroying others’ places of worship and religious relics.

3. Not worshipping other gods in favor of the jealous psychopathic Yahweh whose name is Jealous…

4. Not making images or sculptures of other gods or even Yahweh

5. Keeping the feast of unleavened bread.

6. Sacrificing (killing, on an altar, draining the blood, setting it on fire) the firstborn of animals, and killing a poor animal in place of a human newborn

7. Not working on Saturday

8. Keeping more feasts/festivals (weeks, ingathering)

9. Having all males three times per year see the face of Yahweh, the god of Israel

10. Not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk…

Any of that would make the world a better place.

quote:

---

But I'm the troll...

---

Well, it's either that or you just aren't very bright.

I was trying to be charitable.

I was even trying to be charitable in the very last post. I could have explained that your last post was an example of argument from fallacy (at best...even that analysis would have been charitable).

quote:

---

I wonder if this will get people to actually remember the Sabbath. Then maybe they can start keeping it Holy again.

---

Christians simply reject all the commandments inconvenient to them and cherry pick the ones they want to practice.

They want to claim “the Law is a curse” as Paul puts it, and that salvation doesn’t come from works of the Law, yet they want to plaster the 10 commandments from exodus 20 (ignoring the other version of exodus 34) and then breaking the ones they plaster in the schools and courthouses.

Not only do they not keep the sabbath holy but they break the idolatry commandment by making sculptures, drawings, and paintings of Mary and Jesus and for that matter many break the first commandment praying to Mary and the Saints.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses actually follow the 10 commandments and correctly interpret the Greek of John 1:1 into English and most Christians claim the JWs are not Christians.

quote:

---

The Jehovah’s Witnesses actually follow the 10 commandments

---

Yep, they actually worship God.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Jehovah’s Witnesses actually follow the 10 commandments

---

Yep, they actually worship God.

---

If they aren't worshipping the trinity--Father, Son, and Spirit--then they aren't worshipping God, but a god of their own invention.

quote:

---

It's generally taught that that passage is about moderation and compassion. I don't know why that's so intriguing to you.

---

You can own people as property - chattel slavery - and give them to your sons as inherited property, and you can beat your slaves, and rape them, but don’t eat a mother bird because it’s all about compassion.

quote:

---

What attacks? I’m not attacking anything. Just stating the obvious that exodus 34 is an irreconcilable contradiction of exodus 22, in a very minor way (Moses physically wrote the second set) but in a major way too (the second set, called a replacement or duplicate of the first set, doesn’t remotely match the first set).

---

I explained to you what is going on here. Your entire argument hinges on the ambiguous "he". It doesn't say "Moses". If it said "Moses", that would be an irreconcilable contradiction. Using the word "he" means it could be either Moses or God, and the rest of the context helps us understand who "he" is.

Even with this statement, you are being deceptive. At best, the verse is ambiguous, and yet you call it an "irreconcilable contradiction". I don't think you know what that means.

quote:

---

There are no problems for me. You have a dogma that you need to defend. I don’t.

---

Yes, you do have a problem. You don't want the Bible to be true, because if it is, you are lost. You do hate God and you go out of your way to show that His revelation is false. It's borderline obsessive at this point.

Your dogma prevents you from listening to reason, just as much as what you accuse me of. You can't even take a neutral position on this particular grammatical argument, that at best the word is ambiguous with two possible options. Your dogma prevents you from seeing the alternative.

quote:

---

The opposite is the Truth. Critics have written books, based on evidence and facts, and have published them and passed peer review. Dr. Richard Carrier had a presupposition that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. When he wrote some of his peer reviewed critical scholarship, he countered his original presupposition because he did research and and gathered evidence and historical and textual facts and published based on his findings. No one writes critical scholarly works based solely on presuppositions.

---

The presuppositions feed into the interpretations of the evidence. No one is neutral. You are deceiving yourself if you think otherwise.

quote:

---

There you go again ginning up things in your head based on the remote possibility, though such a thing is implausible and extremely unlikely

---

This statement proves my point.

quote:

---

I haven’t given up on any argument, and my arguments are based on what is most likely, not based on what is not completely impossible.

---

It seems you have given up on your argument, since you stopped arguing it and started focusing on an alternative author hypothesis. You didn't even address my hypothetical agreement, because your argument is bad and you can't seriously defend it. The best you have is that the word "he" is ambiguous and could be either Moses or God. Instead, you claim it's an "irreconcilable contradiction".

Which version of the Ten Commandments are being displayed?

quote:

---

I explained to you what is going on here

---

Sure, a bullshite explanation which I reject.

quote:

---

Your entire argument hinges on the ambiguous "he"

---

I don’t even completely remember what the original argument was. But your statement is also full of shite. Part of it relies on the fact that in that same verse, Yahweh tells Moses to write down those words and calls them “the” 10 commandments.

quote:

---

It doesn't say "Moses". If it said "Moses", that would be an irreconcilable contradiction.

---

It surely would be… for a rational, sane person. You would come up with some excuse though like “Moses and God both wrote it”.

quote:

---

Using the word "he" means it could be either Moses or God, and the rest of the context helps us understand who "he" is.

---

Completely agree. And the context is that Yahweh, two sentences before “he” wrote them, commanded Moses to write them.

quote:

---

Even with this statement, you are being deceptive

---

You are projecting.

quote:

---

Yes, you do have a problem

---

If I have a problem, it is your steady stream of falsehoods.

quote:

---

You don't want the Bible to be true, because if it is, you are lost

---

I neither want it nor not want it to be true. The facts are what the evidence shows, and they show that the Bible is full of ancient borrowed mythology, anachronisms, and falsehoods.

quote:

---

You do hate God

---

Idiot

quote:

---

Your dogma prevents you from listening to reason

---

More projection

quote:

---

You can't even take a neutral position on this particular grammatical argument, that at best the word is ambiguous with two possible options. Your dogma prevents you from seeing the alternative.

---

More projection. I can say that it is possible “he” means Yahweh, but that it isn’t plausible, and that the likely reference is Moses. You on the other hand can’t see the alternative and you won’t even admit that the alternative is even possible. You are the close minded one, not me.