What the Bible is Really About

Pinball1970 said:
COVID was fake? Please don't be an idiot, you were beginning to grow on me.
Click to expand...

Covid wasn't fake, it was planned. I knew about it months before it happened, and later I found out it was nothing new. In this post read the link "panics for profit" though, I'm afraid it will do no good for you. And I'm not here to grow on you, I'm here to tell the truth as I see it.
 
Last edited:
Pinball1970 said:
If a peer reviewed study is published in a respected journal I would read it.
Click to expand...

Wonderful. And if you read a peer reviewed study published in a respected journal saying the events that took place in the Bible were being performed by highly advanced extraterrestrial beings, would you believe what you read? If such a study were published concluding God is real I certainly wouldn't be impressed, in fact I wouldn't even waste my time to read it to point out where they got it wrong.
 
Revelation In Space said:
Wonderful. And if you read a peer reviewed study published in a respected journal saying the events that took place in the Bible were being performed by highly advanced extraterrestrial beings, would you believe what you read? If such a study were published concluding God is real I certainly wouldn't be impressed, in fact I wouldn't even waste my time to read it to point out where they got it wrong.
Click to expand...
Why just make stuff up? Has anything been published like that in "Nature?" "Cell?" "Science?" Ever?
Those respected journals published peer reviewed studies.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Why just make stuff up?
Click to expand...

What kind of question is that? Why would a peer reviewed study make things up? Why would the writers of the Bible?

Pinball1970 said:
Has anything been published like that in "Nature?" "Cell?" "Science?" Ever?
Those respected journals published peer reviewed studies.
Click to expand...

Captured. I talk to you of the Bible, to me the most important thing in the world, giving the only real hope for mankind, and most of what I tell you is how it has been misrepresented for lust for power and greed. Do you think anything else is impervious to that? Anything? Name it. Peer review doesn't mean anything real except for a tool to capture science and if you are so willing to negate your capacity for logical thought to that you might as well go back to your crazy Bible teachers. You've only replaced one religion with another.
 
Pinball1970 said:
No, I am asking you. What was the plan if it was planned?
Click to expand...

You're not listening to me. Read the links. Read the quote post and the links there. I'm not going to argue with you about Covid. I've been there, done that. You want to buy into it, you go right ahead. If you want the truth, it is right there.
 
Revelation In Space said:
You're not listening to me. Read the links. Read the quote post and the links there. I'm not going to argue with you about Covid. I've been there, done that. You want to buy into it, you go right ahead. If you want the truth, it is right there.
Click to expand...
So you cannot answer. Check.

Exactly the same answer I got from every other conspiracy theory person I spoke to. They screamed conspiracy but when asked what the actual conspiracy was in science, they gave completely different answers. Zero education in science, never set foot in a professional laboratory in their lives but suddenly became an immunology and epidemiology expert over night.

Do you realise how idiotic that sounds to an educated person?
 
Revelation In Space said:
You're not listening to me. Read the links. Read the quote post and the links there. I'm not going to argue with you about Covid. I've been there, done that. You want to buy into it, you go right ahead. If you want the truth, it is right there.
Click to expand...
It's not just idiotic it is also incredibly disrespectful. These guys are highly intelligent, professional published scientists and they worked tirelessly to work it out.
I have many friends and colleagues who work in the field and they had to put up with this garbage for two years.
Well until people suddenly stopped dying after they were vaccinated.
Weird that isn't it, a lethal disease comes along people get vaccinated then the death rate drops right down?
I can take you through the numbers if you want?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exercise in Contrasts

Revelation In Space said:
Whenever some theology is being puked at you and it has terminology like that, it means straight up bullshit. If it has the word theory in it, for example, or is some convoluted quasi-intellectual academia jargon not unlike economics, to distract and impress, it means the person puking it at you doesn't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

In two parts.

Part One:

R: The Bible is about the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.

T: No, it's not.

R: Yes it is.​

Part Two:

T: Ransom theory of Salvation is overly complicated and includes the implication that Jesus' mission is complete.

R: Exactly.​

Go ahead and say something about the other two sentences in #71↑, but they aren't helpful. What is asserted in #1↑ is "the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus", a description which has actual historical precedent.

The crucifixion is not a ransom. Sure, Ransom isnt a "theory" the way Evolution or Gravity are, but Christ as a "ransom sacrifice" is an overly complicated scheme that makes the Devil too powerful.

If it turns out you somehow really did miss all that and had no idea "ransom" has a history running back at least to Augustine, never really worked, and only gets close to functional if watered down and blended with two competing assertions (Recapitulation and Substitution), then now you know. Even Anselm, an icon of Christianist bullshit, said no to Ransom. In modern times, British theologian Keith Ward suggests not only does Ransom give too much power to the Devil over the will of a weak God, it also pretends God is a deceiver.

But do keep telling us about puke and bullshit.
 
Tiassa My response was quick and to the point because I'm pretty busy right now but more importantly the subject as you approached it isn't of particular interest to me. You disagree with my summation of vindication, you gave no reason for it, and that's fine, I responded in kind. I had given the OP with plenty of scriptural references but you took another approach, which I agreed with. The ransom theory as presented is nonsense. I wasn't going to refute that. Why would I? I agree. It isn't the terminology (i.e. theory) I object to. I object to the theological rather than Biblical approach. You had, in your original post, what? One Biblical reference, which had an interesting anecdotal aside, but otherwise your approach was theological with no Biblical support either way. And that's fine, if you are interested in Arius, Athanasius, Abelard, Socinianism, Nicaea, Unitarian, Blanco, that's fine, I'm not belittling or negating that sort of discussion, I'm just saying I have very little interest in it. Even Christian theology in general I'm disinterested in unless there is something there for me to work with scripturally.

If you had mentioned how any of those things came about from whatever scripture perspective, I would have responded to that. It's just a different kind of approach than I take. Now, I can tell you what I mean by ransom and how my perspective differs from what is termed Ransom theory etc. I could do that, but I assumed that you weren't interested in my approach or you would have taken that into consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top