- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: University of Arkansas hanging posters of the Ten Commandments around campus
Posted on 11/3/25 at 12:39 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 11/3/25 at 12:39 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
We believe God took on a human nature
lol
quote:
You should probably brush up on Christian doctrines about the nature and being of God before making statements like these.
Oh, I understand about the Cryptic Triptych, I just don't need a bunch of arcane Greek logic to try to rationalize Jesus as a god.
God said "No other" that includes humans masquerading as a god.
If "Christian doctrine" requires you to worship Jesus on Sunday, you are NOT worshiping God on the Sabbath as he commanded. Sorry you've been misled.
The Jews knew the name of God, and if it had been "Jesus" they would have recognized him as the Messiah. Apparently, it is not.
Maybe you should probably brush up on the Bible - the original one.
1
Posted on 11/4/25 at 7:59 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Are you going to backtrack on your statement that it is an irreconcilable contradiction? If you admit that my argument is plausible, then it isn’t bullcrap. If you don’t retract, you are admitting that this is more about your dogma than your false neutrality and fact-based approach, which is hardly so.
Sure, a bullshite explanation which I reject.
quote:Read it again. They are two different verses. God tells Moses to write these words (the new commands given including the milk one), and then in the next verse, it says he was there for 40 days and nights before “he” (the Lord) wrote the 10 commandments on the tablets. There is a clear literary break between verse 27 and verse 28, in that those were different events.
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.
I don’t recall using this argument, but another issue here is that there aren’t 10 distinct commands or groups of commands in chapter 34. There are more than 10, and all lists that divide them up into 10 have to arbitrarily group separate commands together or omit commands from the list.
So yes, your entire argument hinges on “he”.
quote:Glad you agree that what is in the text doesn’t constitute a logical contradiction. Now I would like you to say that you were wrong in saying it is irreconcilable.
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:The facts don’t show that at all. If that were true, it would be indisputable, yet it is disputable, because the facts must be interpreted.
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.
You have a bias against the Bible, so your interpretations always go in such a way that does the most damage to the Bible.
quote:You said it was an irreconcilable contradiction. If you admit the possibility that “he” refers to God, then it isn’t an irreconcilable contradiction at all. It is just your interpretation.
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
Posted on 11/4/25 at 8:20 am to Harry Boutte
quote:What is so funny? If God had not done this, then we would still be in our sins and guilty before Him. Only He could fulfill the requirements of the law. We can’t.quote:lol
We believe God took on a human nature
The OT lays it out: we need a messiah to save us; only God can save; the Messiah is the Lord; the Messiah is also from the seed of Eve and lineage of David; and the covenant that God has given requires a mediator (which sinful humans can’t be). Jesus is God who took on flesh after the seed of Eve and lineage of David who acts as our mediator between us as the Father.
quote:Based on your prior comments, it would appear that you don’t actually understand the Trinity. You think they are believed to be three separate gods. That is why I felt the need to explain it. Christians absolutely do not believe about God what you said. In fact there have been several ancient beliefs like that that have been outright condemned by the Church.
Oh, I understand about the Cryptic Triptych, I just don't need a bunch of arcane Greek logic to try to rationalize Jesus as a god.
quote:The Christian belief about God from the Bible is that there is only one God. At the end of Matthew, Jesus tells His disciples to preach the gospel and make disciples of the nations, baptizing in the one name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. There is only one God.
God said "No other" that includes humans masquerading as a god.
quote:That is a separate argument to be discussed. I would prefer to stick to the Trinity, but I’ll just say that if Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, He can establish the Sabbath based on His resurrection and the fulfillment of God’s rest in that. Christians receive eternal rest through Christ because of His resurrection on Sunday.
If "Christian doctrine" requires you to worship Jesus on Sunday, you are NOT worshiping God on the Sabbath as he commanded. Sorry you've been misled.
quote:The Jews did recognize Him as God, or at least many did. The leaders of the Jews who did not accept Him as the Messiah did understand that He was claiming to be Yahweh. It is why they tried to kill Him for blasphemy. He forgave sins and taught that He and the Father were one. His miracles proved His authority as God.
The Jews knew the name of God, and if it had been "Jesus" they would have recognized him as the Messiah. Apparently, it is not.
quote:If you are referring to the Old Testament, you are right. There is always more to learn and to understand. But Jesus taught that He was the Messiah from the Old Testament. The New Testament came after Jesus’ earthly ministry was complete. Jesus is the suffering servant from Isaiah 52 and 53, for instance.
Maybe you should probably brush up on the Bible - the original one.
Posted on 11/4/25 at 1:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
you going to backtrack on your statement that it is an irreconcilable contradiction?
Negative, chief
quote:
If you admit that my argument is plausible, then it isn’t bullcrap
Which is not something that I did…
quote:
If you don’t retract, you are admitting that this is more about your dogma than your false neutrality and fact-based approach, which is hardly so.
I am not retracting nor admitting any such thing.
quote:
Read it again. They are two different verses.
You know damn good and well there were no Bible verses when they were composed, edited, and redacted. You know that the Bible didn’t get verses attributed to them until the 16th century of the common era.
quote:
There is a clear literary break between verse 27 and verse 28, in that those were different events.
No, there isn’t. That’s what you wish they were though.
quote:
there aren’t 10 distinct commands or groups of commands in chapter 34
Neither is there in exodus 20.
quote:
So yes, your entire argument hinges on “he”
False.
quote:
Glad you agree that what is in the text doesn’t constitute a logical contradiction. Now I would like you to say that you were wrong in saying it is irreconcilable.
That’s not going to happen. They are still irreconcilable, just as the four canonical gospels have different numbers of Marys and men and angels at Jesus’ tomb. One says an angel, the other says two angels. One says a man, another says two men. Just because it is possible (not plausible) to say there were two men and two angels doesn’t mean they aren’t irreconcilable. We would have to imagine all four authors were completely incompetent dipshits as authors for the “possibility” to be true. But we know they were highly trained in Greek composition. Just because you can say something is not impossible doesn’t mean it is likely or even plausible.
quote:
The facts don’t show that at all. If that were true, it would be indisputable, yet it is disputable, because the facts must be interpreted.
A ma puts on a wig and says he’s a woman. You would say “it’s indisputable this fellow is a man in a wig, not a woman.” Yet the mentally insane person would say “but you are wrong. It is not indisputable. I am disputing it.” Yet the fact remains he’s a man. You’re on the losing side of that dispute. The Bible is filled with plagiarized ancient mythology and is filled with anachronisms such as the patriarchs riding around on camels before camels were domesticated. Abraham coming from Ur of the Chaldeans well over a thousand years before the Chaldeans captured and controlled Ur. The Flood from the epic of Gilgamesh which is a later version of two earlier Akkadian and Sumerian epics. Adam and Eve. Creation. We know with certainty none of that shite happened.
Posted on 11/4/25 at 1:35 pm to Stonehenge
People will downvote you. But I doubt there’s anyone working there who could tell you 3 of them from memory.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:17 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:So you don’t know what the word “irreconcilable” means then. Got it.quote:Negative, chief
you going to backtrack on your statement that it is an irreconcilable contradiction?
quote:You said, “I can say that it is possible “he” means Yahweh, but that it isn’t plausible, and that the likely reference is Moses.”quote:
If you admit that my argument is plausible, then it isn’t bullcrap
Which is not something that I did…
If you admit that it is possible “he” refers to God instead of Moses, then there is no irreconcilable contradiction. That is my point. If a contradiction isn’t necessary, you can’t claim it must be a contradiction.
quote:More evidence that you are not a serious person, but a troll who thrives on rejecting his creator and trying to get others to do the same.
I am not retracting nor admitting any such thing.
You said that it is possible that “he” refers to God rather than Moses. I don’t need your assessment of plausibility based on your own opinion and bias against the truth of Scripture. If it is possible, then it isn’t a necessary contradiction that can’t be reconciled.
quote:Oh I’m aware, but you were the one who said it was in the same verse. Instead of taking your corrective medicine, you try to make it seem like I wasn’t aware of the history of verse addition. Why are you deflecting?
You know damn good and well there were no Bible verses when they were composed, edited, and redacted. You know that the Bible didn’t get verses attributed to them until the 16th century of the common era.
quote:Verse 27 is a continuation of God’s words where He was commanding Moses to write down what was said to him. Verse 28 moves away from the long quotation to narration by the author to what Moses did afterwards. So yes, there is a transition in the text.quote:No, there isn’t. That’s what you wish they were though.
There is a clear literary break between verse 27 and verse 28, in that those were different events.
quote:There is, which is why they are referred to as the 10 commandments. The groupings used by Jews, early Christians, and Protestants have 10 distinct groupings. You can’t say that about the list in Ex. 34.
Neither is there in exodus 20.
quote:True. If “he” was replaced with “God”, there wouldn’t even be a discussion.quote:False.
So yes, your entire argument hinges on “he”
quote:You don’t even understand what is going on here. If you say a text is “irreconcilable”, then you are saying there is no possibility of harmonization. When you then say it is possible to harmonize, you are contradicting yourself. Just because you don’t believe that “he” refers to God doesn’t mean it can’t refer to God and therefore harmonize.
That’s not going to happen. They are still irreconcilable… Just because you can say something is not impossible doesn’t mean it is likely or even plausible.
As soon as you say it is possible the word refers to God, it is no longer irreconcilable. You just don’t like the way it could be reconciled. Whether you think the reconciliation of the verse is plausible or likely is your own assessment and is irrelevant to whether or not the verse can be reconciled.
quote:My point was that you argue as if everything you say is factual observation with no interpretation required. That simply isn’t true. The fact that we can have a valid argument means that there are competing viewpoints that can make use of the facts. Facts are not brute but require interpretation. Once you learn that, more people might think you are serious.
A ma puts on a wig and says he’s a woman. You would say “it’s indisputable this fellow is a man in a wig, not a woman.” Yet the mentally insane person would say “but you are wrong. It is not indisputable. I am disputing it.” Yet the fact remains he’s a man. You’re on the losing side of that dispute.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 5:54 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
So you don’t know what the word “irreconcilable” means then. Got it.
You and I would use it differently. For me, if the overwhelming evidence indicates two stories or two versions are saying objectively different or opposite things, or if a story contradicts objective facts of science, or if a story contradicts what is true of history beyond a reasonable doubt, then they are irreconcilable.
To you, nothing is irreconcilable, because you can gin anything up in your mind.
If one witness to a crime says a black guy drove away in a red car, and another says the perpetrator was a white guy in a white car, you could say that well it’s possible it was a half black- half white mixed race guy in a car painted like a candy cane. To you nothing is irreconcilable if you can invent a story that makes both stories true. But that’s not how normal people use that word.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 8:55 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:You created your own definition of an irreconcilable contradiction. You aren’t using it in the standard way, which is essentially a violation of the law of non-contradiction, but in your own way, which is a violation of your own opinion. I’m not allowing you to create your own definition here, because we have to be speaking the same language and using the same definitions in order to have a reasonable discussion. In this case, an irreconcilable contradiction is one where two truth claims cannot logically be true at the same time and in the same sense.
You and I would use it differently. For me, if the overwhelming evidence indicates two stories or two versions are saying objectively different or opposite things, or if a story contradicts objective facts of science, or if a story contradicts what is true of history beyond what a reasonable doubt, then they are irreconcilable.
To you, nothing is irreconcilable, because you can gin anything up in your mind.
If one witness to a crime says a black guy drove away in a red car, and another says the perpetrator was a white guy in a white car, you could say that well it’s possible it was a half black- half white mixed race guy in a car painted like a candy cane. To you nothing is irreconcilable if you can invent a story that makes both stories true. But that’s not how normal people use that word.
You said that “he” could possibly be either God or Moses, and that admission destroys your argument that it is an irreconcilable contradiction. The way to reconcile the text is to interpret “he” as referring to God rather than Moses, as I have been arguing.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 3:23 pm to j1897
quote:
god
Posted on 11/9/25 at 4:11 pm to CaliHorn
quote:
People will downvote you. But I doubt there’s anyone working there who could tell you 3 of them from memory.
Three from which version?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 6:08 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You created your own definition of an irreconcilable contradiction. You aren’t using it in the standard way,
quote:
You said that “he” could possibly be either God or Moses, and that admission destroys your argument that it is an irreconcilable contradiction.
I said it’s possible, but not plausible and definitely unlikely.
It’s you that aren’t using the word meaning correctly. To you, a contradiction doesn’t and can’t exist if you can imagine or gin up an explanation for something that isn’t plausible and isn’t in evidence.
quote:
The way to reconcile the text is to interpret “he” as referring to God rather than Moses, as I have been arguing.
Case in point. If you interpret it out of context, you can imagine a reconciliation.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If God had not done this, then we would still be in our sins and guilty before Him
So we don’t need to repent anymore? Sin and guilt is no longer?
quote:
Only He could fulfill the requirements of the law. We can’t.
I know you love Paul’s attitude towards the law and you hate Jesus’ own words - the words of the creator of the universe.
But damn, Jesus tells you he came NOT to abolished the Law, but fulfill the law. And the next sentence out of Jesus mouth he lays it out for you. Until heaven and earth pass away (did the pass away yet? Are we on the new remade perfect earth?) not the smallest letter (iota) and not the smallest stroke of a pen of the Law will come to an end. Why do you constantly ignore this verse? You WANT to be called “Least” in the kingdom of heaven, don’t you.
quote:
The OT lays it out: we need a messiah to save us
Actually most of the OT lays out the opposite. The messiah was the anointed priest-king. All those messiahs were evil filthy isolators. The writers who compiled and edited the Bible during the Persian period didn’t long for a Jewish messiah. They had Cyrus, their new messiah.
quote:
the Messiah is the Lord
Very good. In OT times they believed the priest-king of Jersusalem was the incarnation of Yahweh. Philo of Alexandria believed Yahweh was the Logos of God, and that the Logos/Kyrios had inhabited Hosea who Moses then renamed Yahushua, in Greek that would be Iesous, or in English we would say Joshua or Jesus.
quote:
the Messiah is also from the seed of Eve
The “sperma” of Eve? Hardly. Paul wrote Jesus was “made of woman”. There was another related Greek word that Paul used often that translates as “begotten” or “begat” or “born” but Paul didn’t use that word to describe how Jesus came into being.
quote:
and lineage of David
No, he doesn’t ever say that. He wrote that Jesus body was “made” (same word used in the OT for when Yahweh Elohim made Adam from clay) from the sperma of David. He could have been talking literal like how the Zoroastrian savior’s body was made from the sperm of Zoroaster. Or he could have been talking figuratively like how all baptized Christians are the sperma of Abraham, or like how James was Jesus’ brother in the sense that all baptized Christians are brothers of the Lord. At any rate, he did NOT say Jesus’ body was descended from or of the literal biological lineage of David.
quote:
At the end of Matthew, Jesus tells His disciples to preach the gospel and make disciples of the nations, baptizing in the one name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. There is only one God.
And good ole Eusebius in the 4th century quotes that verse as “go and make disciples of all nations in my name.” That was before the church invented the Trinity.
quote:
I would prefer to stick to the Trinity
You don’t like defending indefensible positions. I don’t blame you.
quote:
The Jews did recognize Him as God, or at least many did. The leaders of the Jews who did not accept Him as the Messiah did understand that He was claiming to be Yahweh.
I’m glad you understand that much. But Jesus in the gospels doesn’t claim to be ton Theos, the father. The Christians believed Jesus was Yahweh aka the Word who was a second tier deity who was subordinate to his Father “the God”.
quote:
taught that He and the Father were one
Yes, Jesus said he wanted his followers to be one with him JUST AS he is one with the Father.
quote:
But Jesus taught that He was the Messiah from the Old Testament
Very good.
quote:
The New Testament came after Jesus’ earthly ministry was complete
The earthly ministry never happened. Jesus was never on earth - a completely mythical character. But the writers of the NT certainly believed him to be real, just as God was, but he was a divine being doing things in the heavens. Mark even gives you the cipher in Mark 4:11. The very gospel itself was a parable for celestial “real” Jesus.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:07 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:So you don't deny that you're doing what I said you're doing?quote:
You created your own definition of an irreconcilable contradiction. You aren’t using it in the standard way
quote:That's merely your personal and biased assessment on whether it is plausible or likely, but I'm not interested in that. If "he" could even possibly be referring to God rather than Moses, then there is no "irreconcilable contradiction", as you wrongly asserted.
I said it’s possible, but not plausible and definitely unlikely.
quote:I didn't say that at all. I've only said that a contradiction is not necessary in this case. You're the one saying it is an "irreconcilable contradiction" when I provided a logical way for the text to not be a contradiction. Just because you don't like that it can be reconciled doesn't mean it's a necessary and irreconcilable contradiction.
It’s you that aren’t using the word meaning correctly. To you, a contradiction doesn’t and can’t exist if you can imagine or gin up an explanation for something that isn’t plausible and isn’t in evidence.
quote:You haven't shown that I've interpreted it outside of context. I've actually demonstrated that the larger context is in my favor when it comes to this interpretation. Not only does the same chapter say that God was going to write on the tablets, but another book of the Bible--which Jesus acknowledges as written by the same author--says that's exactly what happened.
Case in point. If you interpret it out of context, you can imagine a reconciliation.
You don't have any additional evidence that says that Moses was the one who wrote on the tablets. All you've got is the word "he", and that pronoun can grammatically refer to either God or Moses, so the only other context you have is your own bias.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:12 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:I'm not interested in another long discussion right now where you are shown your complete and utter ignorance of the truth of Scripture. You cherry-pick verses and then ask others to acknowledge that those verses out of context are contradictions to others verses or passages, when they aren't, but you just don't understand them, yourself.
Squirrelmeister
If you are really interested in knowing what it says, open up a commentary from Matthew Henry, John Calvin, or John Gill to start with.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 7:59 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You don't have any additional evidence that says that Moses was the one who wrote on the tablets. All you've got is the word "he", and that pronoun can grammatically refer to either God or Moses, so the only other context you have is your own bias.
Can we at least agree that whoever wrote, compiled, or redacted exodus 34 was incompetent?
You keep blatantly lying that “all I have is the word “he””. Three sentences before “he” wrote them, Yahweh tells Moses to write them - not any other commandments or anything else but “the 10 commandments”.
Don’t you think if an all powerful all knowing and loving God really inspired this writing and wanted it to be clearly comprehensible that it would have been done better, in a way that was easier to understand and with less “ambiguity” (contradictions)?
Posted on 11/11/25 at 12:02 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:No, we can't agree on that. Since I believe "he" is consistent with God writing the 10 commandments, there is nothing to point to incompetence. You only think so because you assume a contradiction and think that the word choice is stupid because it isn't clear due to the pronoun.
Can we at least agree that whoever wrote, compiled, or redacted exodus 34 was incompetent?
quote:Verse 27 is God commanded Moses to write the words that God gave him to write, which are found in the verses leading up to that.
You keep blatantly lying that “all I have is the word “he””. Three sentences before “he” wrote them, Yahweh tells Moses to write them - not any other commandments or anything else but “the 10 commandments”.
Verse 28 is God saying He wrote the 10 commandments from chapter 20, in accordance with verse 1, which says He was going to do that, Himself.
quote:First, ambiguity for us is not the same as a contradiction.
Don’t you think if an all powerful all knowing and loving God really inspired this writing and wanted it to be clearly comprehensible that it would have been done better, in a way that was easier to understand and with less “ambiguity” (contradictions)?
Second, it is entirely comprehensible and clear when understood within its context. You are the one making it seem contradictory or unclear because you are looking for it to be contradictory and unclear.
Neither the Jews nor the Christians understood chapter 34 to be a different set of 10 commandments. That's a recent invention due to critical scholarship which is skeptical of the Bible.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 1:30 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Verse 27 is God commanded Moses to write the words that God gave him to write, which are found in the verses leading up to that. Verse 28 is God saying He wrote the 10 commandments from chapter 20, in accordance with verse 1, which says He was going to do that, Himself.
Kickass Yurchenko double pike, man! You stuck it!
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:16 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:If you have nothing else to say about this passage and no more arguments to make, you can just say so. Seems like you’re giving up with responses like this.
Kickass Yurchenko double pike, man! You stuck it!
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News