The Bible Is Satan’s Masterpiece!

[Overitall]

No, he played up his struggles to strengthen his position. He went through the same perils anyone who traveled at he time would go through. So save me the straw man argument. I did not say he lied.

So you don't believe Trump is a liar. Just proned to exaggeration. Tell that one to the Democrats.

 

[Mulefoot]

No, he played up his struggles to strengthen his position. He went through the same perils anyone who traveled at he time would go through. So save me the straw man argument. I did not say he lied.

Source?

 

[Overitall]

Source?

@devildavid is the source.

 

[Daisy]

Well, he sure became a prominent figure in the new religion. You don't think he enjoyed that?

Yeah, he sure was prominent, alright...post #321...

 

[devildavid]

So you don't believe Trump is a liar. Just proned to exaggeration. Tell that one to the Democrats.

Most of what Trump did was carefully worded hyperbole and exaggeration. He used key qualifiers such as "I've heard", "experts say", "people say". But Trump was not committed to anything but stirring the pot and trolling for negative attention, a trick he learned while performing in the WWE. Trump rarely flat out denies something when lying would be necessary. At those times he just calls into question the honesty of his accusers and attackers. He is clever that way, like most con men and grifters are. They never really tell the flat out lie, they just get you to believe what they want you to believe to benefit themselves.

 

[Overitall]

Most of what Trump did was carefully worded hyperbole and exaggeration. He used key qualifiers such as "I've heard", "experts say", "people say". But Trump was not committed to anything but stirring the pot and trolling for negative attention, a trick he learned while performing in the WWE. Trump rarely flat out denies something when lying would be necessary. At those times he just calls into question the honesty of his accusers and attackers. He is clever that way, like most con men and grifters are. They never really tell the flat out lie, they just get you to believe what they want you to believe to benefit themselves.

That's nice, but I'm not persuaded by your argument. No matter how you cut it lying is taking place. Your rationalization sucks.

 

[devildavid]

Source?

The dangers Paul described had to do with travel, not preaching. Do you think he traveled alone or that others did not travel at the time and face the same risks? Paul's biblical claims are not a source that can be take at face value. They are just his claims. But if you expect them to be trusted, it makes little sense to assume that his problems traveling were unique to him.

 

[devildavid]

That's nice, but I'm not persuaded by your argument. No matter how you cut it lying is taking place. Your rationalization sucks.

That is because you want it to be that way.. My argument is sound, but your belief makes you insist that it must be about lying of the truth. Have you ever known of preachers who use religion to their own ends? Do they need to flat out lie to people about the positive effect of belief to do it? Or do they play into the weakness of people and offer them something which makes them willing to pay for what they have received?

 

[devildavid]

Yeah, he sure was prominent, alright...post #321...

Yes, he was one of the most important figures in the founding of Christianity and he knew it as well.

 

[Overitall]

That is because you want it to be that way.. My argument is sound, but your belief makes you insist that it must be about lying of the truth. Have you ever known of preachers who use religion to their own ends? Do they need to flat out lie to people about the positive effect of belief to do it? Or do they play into the weakness of people and offer them something which makes them willing to pay for what they have received?

This is really very simple. Either you believe the possibility that Paul first of all was a factual historical figure or you don't. But if you even entertain that he was and what he wrote was an autobiography, then either he lied about the injuries he received or he told the truth. If he told the truth and did indeed take/received all the beatings he spoke of then my original point remains more valid then yours.

 

[Mulefoot]

The dangers Paul described had to do with travel, not preaching. Do you think he traveled alone or that others did not travel at the time and face the same risks? Paul's biblical claims are not a source that can be take at face value. They are just his claims. But if you expect them to be trusted, it makes little sense to assume that his problems traveling were unique to him.

Common travelers' were typically not striped at the end of a whip, beaten with rods, or stoned. It's possible that he made up claims, but unlikely as those claims were written in letters for all to see and dispute.

Did you find any source that suggest these abuses would be common with travelers during that time and place?

 

[devildavid]

This is really very simple. Either you believe the possibility that Paul first of all was a factual historical figure or you don't. But if you even entertain that he was and what he wrote was an autobiography, then either he lied about the injuries he received or he told the truth. If he told the truth and did indeed take/received all the beatings he spoke of then my original point remains more valid then yours.

What Paul wrote was for the consumption of those he was trying to convert. He wrote letters to a specific audience. He was not writing an autobiography for posterity. He was preaching to them, not giving his life story because they wanted to know it.

You are hung up because there is this thing with some believers in which they think they have a "gothca" which proves that their beliefs are valid because "no one would die for a lie". It is is bad argument, because people have died for a lot of beliefs other than Christianity. All this demonstrates is how strongly a belief can be held by human beings, to the point where they will die for it. It tells us nothing about the validity of the belief.

 

[devildavid]

Common travelers' were typically not striped at the end of a whip, beaten with rods, or stoned. It's possible that he made up claims, but unlikely as those claims were written in letters for all to see and dispute.

Did you find any source that suggest these abuses would be common with travelers during that time and place?

They were if they wound up some place where the people did not like strangers.

 

[Daisy]

Yes, he was one of the most important figures in the founding of Christianity and he knew it as well.

Yes, and he reminded us over and over again, he was slaving for God, not men...here is what he had to say about prominence among men...

"But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again?" Galatians 4:9

 

[Overitall]

What Paul wrote was for the consumption of those he was trying to convert. He wrote letters to a specific audience. He was not writing an autobiography for posterity. He was preaching to them, not giving his life story because they wanted to know it.

You are hung up

Your problem is that you're hell bent on "winning" a debate and as a result you can't see that you're engaged in intellectual dishonesty.

because there is this thing with some believers in which they think they have a "gothca" which proves that their beliefs are valid because "no one would die for a lie". It is is bad argument, because people have died for a lot of beliefs other than Christianity. All this demonstrates is how strongly a belief can be held by human beings, to the point where they will die for it. It tells us nothing about the validity of the belief.

You have no valid counter to the point I raised. Thanks for your time and enjoy your day.

 

[American]

How can you prove the Bible isn’t the greatest deception Satan has ever unleashed upon mankind?

Satan: the greatest deceiver ever. Evil by definition.

Why is it not possible the Bible is a deception, the greatest deception ever, from Satan himself?


A book capable of dividing so many, even to the point of war against other men.

A book used to segregate, divide, coerce, incite, anger, subjugate, enslave, destroy, dominate….sure sounds like it could be the work of Satan.

How can you prove the greatest force working against god didn’t influence men to write a book that would be used for thousands of years to lead people in the wrong direction, all the while making men think it was what god wanted?

Prove the Devil isn’t responsible for the creation of the Bible.

Prove it’s NOT the greatest deception against mankind ever.

A book that never promised any of the shit you think it should. Your ridiculous standard is the deception. In fact you don't get to set the standard, at all. You get to live the standard or die according to God's judgment. Any other questions?

 

[Mulefoot]

They were if they wound up some place where the people did not like strangers.

Without a source, I can't really help you on that. My guess is that getting the hell beat out of you wasn't a common traveler experience.

Either way, you totally miss the point, which is Paul wasn't a stranger to the men who beat him.

It could be that you don't know enough about NT history on which to base wild accusations.

 

[devildavid]

Common travelers' were typically not striped at the end of a whip, beaten with rods, or stoned. It's possible that he made up claims, but unlikely as those claims were written in letters for all to see and dispute.

Did you find any source that suggest these abuses would be common with travelers during that time and place?

Did you find any source corroborating your seeming idea that Paul's experiences while traveling was unique to him?

 

[Mulefoot]

Did you find any source corroborating your seeming idea that Paul's experiences while traveling was unique to him?

Two things. One, I didn't make the claim. Second, common experience tells me that getting the hell beat out of you wasn't a common traveler experience. Of course, it's possible that getting flogged was not only common but expected as one would travel from town to town.

Just seemed an odd enough claim that it needed some citation.

 

[devildavid]

Without a source, I can't really help you on that. My guess is that getting the hell beat out of you wasn't a common traveler experience.

Either way, you totally miss the point, which is Paul wasn't a stranger to the men who beat him.

It could be that you don't know enough about NT history on which to base wild accusations.

With Paul's letter in the bible, you have nothing but his word. Paul was a stranger to every land he went to to convert people. They didn't have mass media back then announcing the arrival of the famous Paul the Christian preacher. I am not making any accusations, I am taking your slim bit of evidence and coming to reasonable conclusions. Paul made zero claims that his experience was unique or that he knew everyone in all the places he traveled to. How could he know them when he was on a mission to convert people to a new religion? Paul made zero claims that all his hardships were caused by his preaching or that he even traveled alone. You are reading things into Paul's letter that aren't even there because of your belief in your religion.

 

[devildavid]

Two things. One, I didn't make the claim. Second, common experience tells me that getting the hell beat out of you wasn't a common traveler experience. Of course, it's possible that getting flogged was not only common but expected as one would travel from town to town.

Just seemed an odd enough claim that it needed some citation.

You keep emphasizing the flogging and ignoring the common perils of travel, which made up the bulk of what Paul was talking about. But there is also plenty of other biblical evidence that those times included things like flogging and other public forms of punishment. Christians were not unique in receiving such treatment.

 

[Dragonfly]

A book that never promised any of the shit you think it should. Your ridiculous standard is the deception. In fact you don't get to set the standard, at all. You get to live the standard or die according to God's judgment. Any other questions?

Those with blind faith are the easiest to deceive.

You appear to be very easy.

 

[RAMOSS]

LOL. Just because some cultures believed in pagan mythology doesn't mean that Christianity borrowed it and that the resurrection of Jesus as Savior wasn't real.

So, unless you can show definitive evidence Christianity did borrow it, you've got NOTHING but your usual hot air claims.

why, in this case, yes it does. The authors of the Gospels were in the Roman culture, Mark allegedly lived in near Rome, and the exact lanaguage of the Cult of the Caesars was used, and even the same terminology. I do love how the goal posts has sifted from "no other religion has 'xyz' " to 'You can prove they actually borrowed xyz'.

 

[Logicman]

Unless you show definitive empirical evidence the resurrection was real, you've got nothing either. It's funny how you demand definitive evidence from someone, but fail (or refuse) to provide it yourself when challenged.

You've been provided enough evidence to save a thousand unbiased souls. You kick it all to the curb. Wise up.

 

[Gordy327]

You've been provided enough evidence to save a thousand unbiased souls. You kick it all to the curb. Wise up.

Nothing objective or empirical. Only some people making the same claims and passing it off as fact.