- 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: The US govt has lost the right to forcibly tax us.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 2:49 pm to ChestRockwell
Posted on 1/3/26 at 2:49 pm to ChestRockwell
quote:Yes, with all my heart, mind, and soul.
You actually believe that crap about God?
quote:Why do you think that? I would say the opposite. Human sin is responsible for the evil that exists, but without God’s restraining hand, we would be much worse than we are.
If there was one, the world wouldn't be as fricked up as it is now.
Not to mention that the absence of God makes life objectively pointless and removes all sense of objective morality, which we assume everyday when we condemn the various atrocities that happen.
Without an objective law-giver (God), there is no objective moral law, and therefore there is no objective “right” and “wrong”, and we have no basis to meaningfully condemn things like the Holocaust, or child sex slavery. The best we can do is say that such things are unpleasant, but our opinions have no real moral weight.
1
Posted on 1/5/26 at 7:05 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Not to mention that the absence of God makes life objectively pointless and removes all sense of objective morality, which we assume everyday when we condemn the various atrocities that happen. Without an objective law-giver (God), there is no objective moral law, and therefore there is no objective “right” and “wrong”, and we have no basis to meaningfully condemn things like the Holocaust, or child sex slavery. The best we can do is say that such things are unpleasant, but our opinions have no real moral weight.
Why do you keep repeating these lies? I’ve refuted you time and time again.
How’s your Koine language learning coming along, Foo?
Have you done any study on the “airo” verb and how to conjugate it present tense - imperative - second person verses present tense - subjunctive - third person?
Have you learned about category negation of nouns both in plural and singular forms?
Hey you know what? Don’t worry about it. Stay ignorant and keep spamming the board with mindless drivel. Don’t ever learn anything new, Foo. Keep it up. That is your M.O.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 7:33 am to Squirrelmeister
Holy shite. Never, ever did I think a thread on taxation would be used as a platform for religious disagreement.
But the is the poly board and the righteous live here.
But the is the poly board and the righteous live here.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 8:22 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:You haven’t refuted anything of the sort. You can’t refute the logical reality of the problem of evil without an objective moral law-giver, because it is a logical problem, not one of mere data.
Why do you keep repeating these lies? I’ve refuted you time and time again.
When I have said this in the past, you have provided examples from the Bible that you think refute God being an objective law-giver. We go back and forth on why you think the examples are proof that He isn’t, and I show how you have totally butchered the context or the claim itself, and then you move on to something else. That is hardly a refutation.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 8:31 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Jesus said that we must give to the government (Caesar) what belongs to the government
Did He not leave that open for interpretation? What belongs to the government? How much? Whatever they say?
Posted on 1/5/26 at 8:55 am to This GUN for HIRE
quote:When it comes to taxes, I don’t think there is any other interpretation to have of the text unless you just ignore it and insert your own from outside of the text. Like I said previously, I’d be open to biblical arguments as to why Jesus’ words don’t mean what He says they mean.
Did He not leave that open for interpretation?
quote:When it comes to taxes, governments have historically reserved the right to levy whatever taxes they like, balancing the administrative needs of the empire/country with the desire for happy and obedient citizens. Some do better than others.
What belongs to the government? How much? Whatever they say?
So yes, I believe the Bible is clear that if the government says its citizens owe taxes, that taxes are actually owed, and no limit is put on that.
With that said, in our country, taxes are levied by representatives, so the people can be active in the political process to have taxes lowered if they believe they are too high.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 8:59 am to FooManChoo
If the gov't required 100% of your income?
Posted on 1/5/26 at 9:08 am to Cotten
quote:
Sure, Jesus dined with tax collectors and invited them to follow him because they were corrupt sinners in cahoots with Rome. He condemmed the practice of corruption, which is exactly what we see here.
I certainly don't believe Christians are obligated by God to pay taxes to a government funding mass abortions, literal sex trafficking of children, or over indulgence on junk food (food stamps) as just a handful of examples.
It's not that you don't have a good point (I could even agree)... but you may recall why tax collectors were so hated. In another setting, one of the Disciples should/ would-have killed another because of that hatred.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 9:36 am to This GUN for HIRE
quote:Theoretically, yes. Christians have lived under Communism and I believe this command applies to them, as well.
If the gov't required 100% of your income?
Jesus' family fled to Egypt to escape government oppression, so there is certainly warrant for Christians to flee from such oppression if they can, but in terms of paying what is required in taxes from the government, we still have to obey.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 5:08 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You haven’t refuted anything of the sort.
I have, at least a dozen times just with you.
quote:
You can’t refute the logical reality of the problem of evil without an objective moral law-giver, because it is a logical problem, not one of mere data.
Whether I can or can’t is moot. No such objective moral law giver exists, not in your holy book (where you do have a law giver, but not one that is objective), and not in our reality. And your fallacious assertions that logically there must be an objective law giver for evil to exist or whatever is not an argument for your specific magic man or the plethora of other magic men of other religions.
“Logically there must be a god, and therefore we know that one god exists and is God in three co-equal, consubstantial, and co-eternal persons and therefore we know the specific scriptures I hold to be authoritative and God-breathed are the Truth because the scriptures say they are…” isn’t a logical or evidence-based assertion and is quite fallacious.
quote:
When I have said this in the past, you have provided examples from the Bible that you think refute God being an objective law-giver.
I have provided you many objective irrefutable verses of “God” or someone speaking on behalf of “God” which contradict, not only between books but chapter to chapter. Objectively, there is no objective standard on morality within the Bible.
quote:
We go back and forth on why you think the examples are proof that He isn’t, and I show how you have totally butchered the context or the claim itself
All you show is yourself denying basic facts, vocabulary, and grammar.
quote:
then you move on to something else
I move on because you can’t admit anything truthful. Your baseless assertions assume as true the very things you try to “prove”. You don’t even understand you are incapable of convincing anyone of anything based on ginning up scenarios in your head that are not in evidence and are usually the least likely explanation.
This post was edited on 1/5/26 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 1/5/26 at 5:29 pm to Cotten
quote:
I certainly don't believe Christians are obligated by God to pay taxes to a government funding mass abortions, literal sex trafficking of children, or over indulgence on junk food (food stamps) as just a handful of examples.
To be fair, the governments back in the day of Jesus were up to funding similar debauchery.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 5:34 pm to sumtimeitbeslikedat
Taxation is not a right. It is a power.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:42 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:No, just the opposite. You make claims that are both antithetical to the text itself as well as to the understanding of learned Christian apologists for 2,000 years, who haven’t shied away from difficult passages. You just can’t possibly accept the responses you receive because your worldview and hardness of heart won’t allow it.
I have, at least a dozen times just with you.
quote:This is a particular example of what I just mentioned about you not refuting anything. You continue to claim that God is not an objective law-giver because He doesn’t exist (that’s an unproven assertion, not a refutation) and because He commands evil. The examples you’ve provided have been explained time and time again, but you don’t accept them, not because they don’t make sense, but because they don’t make sense TO YOU, because you cannot accept the reasons.
Whether I can or can’t is moot. No such objective moral law giver exists, not in your holy book (where you do have a law giver, but not one that is objective), and not in our reality.
When I say that God is an objective law-giver, I’m speaking in the logical sense, from the perspective of the human experience. For us, that which is subjective originates within the human mind, while that which is objective originates outside of the human mind and is applicable universally to all humans because of it. Laws of logic and mathematics are not subjective human conventions that could be different based on culture or time. God is this way, since He is unchanging in His nature, and His moral law (the 10 commandments) reflects His holy nature and character.
quote:It is an argument for God, because it comports with reality in a way atheism does not.
And your fallacious assertions that logically there must be an objective law giver for evil to exist or whatever is not an argument for your specific magic man or the plethora of other magic men of other religions.
In our experience, we know that that there are things we must and must not do in a moral sense, and those things are not merely fact-based observations or instinct-driven actions for survival. We recognize a moral oughtness that cannot exist in an atheistic context, where there are no “oughts” of any kind.
We all act as if this objective moral reality exists even if we deny it with our words, because as soon as someone steals from us, we understand that is wrong, and not just an unpleasant but morally-indifferent reality. We know that injustice is wrong, and oppression is wrong, even when such things may be technically legal in a particular culture.
quote:It is quite logical and evidence-based when the assertion is supported. You left out the supporting evidences and then claim that it isn’t evidence-based. I wonder why
“Logically there must be a god, and therefore we know that one god exists and is God in three co-equal, consubstantial, and co-eternal persons and therefore we know the specific scriptures I hold to be authoritative and God-breathed are the Truth because the scriptures say they are…” isn’t a logical or evidence-based assertion and is quite fallacious.
The issue is that you don’t accept the types of evidence that are presented. Your worldview can’t accept them.
quote:You haven’t done that at all. When you claim that something is objectively and irrefutably contradictory, you are speaking about the law of non-contradiction, which has a definition that you aren’t abiding by when you make your claim.
I have provided you many objective irrefutable verses of “God” or someone speaking on behalf of “God” which contradict, not only between books but chapter to chapter. Objectively, there is no objective standard on morality within the Bible.
A true contradiction occurs when A and Not-A exist at the same time and in the same sense or relationship. A married bachelor is a contradiction because a bachelor is by definition unmarried accordingly the law of identity.
What you mean by a contradiction is that you have a set understanding of a verse or passage that you don’t believe can be reconciled (and you don’t want it, either), even if it can be logically reconciled. Therefore, when I explain options for reconciliation, you reject them as not comporting with your fixed understanding, and then call it an irreconcilable contradiction. You don’t yet realize that, logically, I don’t have to prove any particular interpretation of the text is true, only that there are valid interpretations that do not necessitate a logical contradiction. You assume a particular interpretation that would be contradictory, and then go on to say it is contradictory.
quote:I could say the same thing about you. However, I’m not denying any basic anything, except your own perverted interpretations of the text. People who know the languages much better than you or me have provided explanatory commentary of how those alleged contradictions are not contradictions at all, but since you need them to be contradictory, you ignore them and say the contradiction persists regardless. And again, logically, in order to defeat an alleged contradiction, I don’t need to prove that a particular interpretation is correct, only that is it possibly correct.
All you show is yourself denying basic facts, vocabulary, and grammar.
quote:”Truthful” according to your own conclusions. If we have a disagreement on what the truth is, then me rejecting your explanations is not necessarily me rejecting the truth, but from my perspective, rejecting a false claim.
I move on because you can’t admit anything truthful.
quote:We both are doing that. That’s why you can’t accept logically possible explanations of an alleged contradiction, because you assume that there must be contradiction, because you assume the Bible is of human origin and inspiration. You presuppose the Bible is untrue from the start, and you interpret it in light of that assumption.
Your baseless assertions assume as true the very things you try to “prove”.
What I’m taking about isn’t even that the Bible must be infallible and interpret (though I believe it is those things), but that a logical contradiction is not necessary where you claim it exists.
quote:1) I don’t expect to convince a spiritually dead person like you that God’s Word is true. It is true and it’s spiritually discerned or understood, and it is foolishness to someone like you. My goal is merely to defend the truth, not make you believe it.
You don’t even understand you are incapable of convincing anyone of anything based on ginning up scenarios in your head that are not in evidence and are usually the least likely explanation.
2) The “ginning up scenarios in [my] head” is not what is happening. There is nothing original in what I say just like there is nothing original in your attacks. I’m only relating the same defenses that smarter men have put forth before I was even born. What I’m explaining to you is based on supporting context that you reject outright, which is why you say it isn’t in the evidence. We have a fundamental disagreement about that, but from my perspective, I’m saying things that are in the evidence.
3) What you think is likely or not is both untrue and irrelevant. What you think is likely is going to be based on your own presuppositions, which are antithetical to the Bible from the get-go; you have a bias against the Bible so of course any explanation that contradicts what you believe to be true is going to be interpreted as less likely or unlikely in your estimation. However, the likelihood is irrelevant when speaking about logical contradictions. All I have to show is a possible explanation existing to clear of up the alleged contradiction, and the contradiction doesn’t exist.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 12:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You make claims that are both antithetical to the text itself as well as to the understanding of learned Christian apologists for 2,000 years, who haven’t shied away from difficult passages.
Apologists can’t even agree. That’s why we have so many “heretics” in history who were important church fathers and that’s why there’s so many Christian sects today who disagree on historical and theological concepts.
It’s hilarious that you expect someone like me to just believe whatever the apologists assert. Apologists exist not to convince outsiders, but only to validate the people who already believe in something and who really want to believe in that thing. Why aren’t you convinced by Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu apologists, Foo?
quote:
You just can’t possibly accept the responses you receive because your worldview and hardness of heart won’t allow it.
Why don’t you accept the eyewitness accounts of Romulus or Mohammed being lifted up to heaven?
quote:
The examples you’ve provided have been explained time and time again, but you don’t accept them, not because they don’t make sense, but because they don’t make sense TO YOU, because you cannot accept the reasons.
I don’t accept your bullshite retarded excuses, that’s true.
I place more value over the text of the Bible over Foo’s imagination. Guilty!
quote:
His moral law (the 10 commandments) reflects His holy nature and character.
Is that the law that you reject, because Paul rejects it, but despite “Jesus” saying it must be followed to every dot and iota? That law?
Does that law include beating your slaves or selling your daughters into slavery or making your wife drink poison to see if her fetus will die? Don’t stop at the 10 commandments (either of the three versions
). Include the whole Law - the Torah, what the Jews call the Law. quote:
When you claim that something is objectively and irrefutably contradictory, you are speaking about the law of non-contradiction, which has a definition that you aren’t abiding by when you make your claim.
No, I’m not talking about laws on non contradiction. This is very basic, Foo. A four year old can understand it. Mark’s Jesus says to take a staff. Luke’s Jesus says not to take a staff (or not to take staffs - either way it is a denial that they should take any number of staffs so that the numerical number of staffs is taken is exactly zero). That’s a contradiction, regardless of your capacity or willingness to invent a story to attempt to reconcile them.
quote:
I don’t expect to convince a spiritually dead person like you that God’s Word is true.
The same excuse Paul used. Pathetic excuses from a pathetic person.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 11:02 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Apologists don't need to fully agree on every detail, but what you're doing is relying on interpretations that run counter to all apologists throughout history, precisely because they are apologists, not enemies, as you are. Apologists, by definition, seek to defend the truth of the Scriptures and of Christianity, not tear it apart, as you are seeking to do.
Apologists can’t even agree. That’s why we have so many “heretics” in history who were important church fathers and that’s why there’s so many Christian sects today who disagree on historical and theological concepts.
quote:I don't expect you to believe any apologist. I expect you to recognize that what you are claiming about the Bible has been addressed at length by experts in the Christian religion for 2,000 years, and yet you act as if your claims are novel and insurmountable. You don't have to accept the defenses of those "contradictions" as persuasive, but you can't dismiss them outright and claim there is no defense. There is.
It’s hilarious that you expect someone like me to just believe whatever the apologists assert. Apologists exist not to convince outsiders, but only to validate the people who already believe in something and who really want to believe in that thing. Why aren’t you convinced by Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu apologists, Foo?
quote:I look at the nature of the claims and the claims, themselves.
Why don’t you accept the eyewitness accounts of Romulus or Mohammed being lifted up to heaven?
The claims about Romulus are primarily sourced from Livy and Plutarch. Livy actually proposed an alternative event where Romulus was murdered, and Plutarch was skeptical, so neither were convinced of the claim that they, themselves, recount. Those accounts were also written 700-800 years after the supposed event. The New Testament accounts and claims about Jesus Christ and the resurrection go back to a time when there were eye-witnesses that were still alive.
Similarly for the ascent of Mohammed, there were no claimed eye-witnesses, and those that were Mohammed's companions actually debated the nature of his ascent, whether it was physical or spiritual.
quote:Ever heard that adage, "text without context is pretext"? You claim to value the text of the Bible at least somewhat but you ignore its own internal context, sometimes even within the same chapter. What you are doing is using the Bible as pretext for your claims that it has contradictions, and aren't actually trying to understand what it's saying. The words are not meaningless characters on a page that can be interpreted however someone wants, but are written with a purpose and audience in mind, and within a spiritual context. You have to take those things into account, otherwise you are a poor academic.
I don’t accept your bullshite retarded excuses, that’s true.
I place more value over the text of the Bible over Foo’s imagination. Guilty!
quote:1) Paul doesn't reject the law, but puts it in the post-crucifixion context. Jesus obeyed/fulfilled the law perfectly on our behalf, so to continue to strive to keep the law for our salvation is to seek to do what we can't do, and what has already been done for us, as to deny or undo what Jesus did. Paul didn't deny that Christians ought to keep the law at all, only that we do not do so to earn our justification before God. His letters are full of application and command to keep the law. I don't reject the law, but strive to obey it out of thankfulness to God for setting me free from its yoke.
Is that the law that you reject, because Paul rejects it, but despite “Jesus” saying it must be followed to every dot and iota? That law?
2. Jesus didn't say we had to keep every speck of the law for our justification until Heaven and Earth pass away. What He was saying was that God’s Law is divinely given, precise, and authoritative; that every part of it would reach its intended fulfillment; that nothing would be discarded from it prematurely; and that the Law would be upheld—not done away with—through His person and work. Jesus did that very thing in His ministry when He obeyed the law perfectly and became the perfect and spotless (without sin) sacrifice on the cross for the sins of His people. The moral law is reflected in the 10 commandments, and they do not pass away. The civil/judicial and ceremonial laws were applications of the moral law, and their purposes were fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding due to their particular applications. The 10 commandments are still binding as a summary of God's perfect character, but the guilt of breaking those commandments has been taken away through faith in Jesus.
quote:What you were mentioning were civil or ceremonial laws, which were particular applications of the 10 commandments. Those are not binding on the Christian because we do not live in the Old Testament theocracy of Israel (civil laws), and the ceremonial laws pointed to the future coming of Christ, which has now happened.
Does that law include beating your slaves or selling your daughters into slavery or making your wife drink poison to see if her fetus will die? Don’t stop at the 10 commandments (either of the three versions ). Include the whole Law - the Torah, what the Jews call the Law.
No, there are not three versions of the 10 commandments in the Bible, and we've gone through that one at length.
Maybe you should sit in on some Sunday School classes if you want to learn some of these basics of Christian theology.
quote:That's your interpretation of the text, which is incorrect. The English is not the original language, and the Greek allows for the difference between taking what you have, and acquiring something new. Given that distinction, the point Jesus was making of leaving immediately and not taking anything they don't need for the trip remains true. Even a child can understand that
No, I’m not talking about laws on non contradiction. This is very basic, Foo. A four year old can understand it. Mark’s Jesus says to take a staff. Luke’s Jesus says not to take a staff (or not to take staffs - either way it is a denial that they should take any number of staffs so that the numerical number of staffs is taken is exactly zero). That’s a contradiction, regardless of your capacity or willingness to invent a story to attempt to reconcile them.
quote:All you have are lies and insults. You don't care about the truth. You only care about destroying Christians, either their faith or their reputation. When you don't win a theological argument, you just call the other person names.
The same excuse Paul used. Pathetic excuses from a pathetic person.
As far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and call me any name in the book that you want. I don't want you to for your sake (it's a violation of the 9th commandment), but I'm not offended when you call me names. Frankly, it is an encouragement to me. When you think you've got an argument in hand, you focus more on the argument, itself. When you are getting frustrated due to your lies not working, you divert to name-calling. It's a sure sign that you are losing.
I'm not here to win arguments. I'm here to win your soul. I don't want you to die in your sins and be judged for them for eternity. I want you to turn away from your rebellion against God and trust in Jesus Christ to forgive you of your offenses and sins, so that you won't have to suffer. I want what is best for you, not to destroy you, but to save you.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Apologists don't need to fully agree on every detail
What it shows is that people who want to believe can’t agree on what to believe.
quote:
Apologists, by definition, seek to defend their version of Christianity and dogmas despite the literal and historical components of scripture and despite scientific evidence
FIFY
quote:
The New Testament accounts and claims about Jesus Christ and the resurrection go back to a time when there were eye-witnesses that were still alive.
And yet Paul is the only one to write “I saw the Lord” and none of the gospel authors claim to be eyewitnesses who wrote in a manner of first person omniscient theological narratives.
quote:
Similarly for the ascent of Mohammed, there were no claimed eye-witnesses, and those that were Mohammed's companions actually debated the nature of his ascent, whether it was physical or spiritual.
Weak man.
You reject Mohammed and Romulus’ eyewitness accounts for reasons that are applicable to Jesus. It’s called being a hypocrite, at which you excel. quote:
Paul doesn't reject the law
But yet he does, and specifically says Christians are no longer under that “curse”. Meanwhile, Matthew’s Jesus says one must follow every dot and iota to be saved.
quote:
Jesus didn't say we had to keep every speck of the law for our justification until Heaven and Earth pass away.
God damn Foo, that’s a blatant lie and you and I both know it. quote:
What He was saying was that God’s Law is divinely given, precise, and authoritative; that every part of it would reach its intended fulfillment; that nothing would be discarded from it prematurely; and that the Law would be upheld—not done away with—through His person and work
here we go - Foo’s imagination in action quote:
God's perfect character
All those evil babies deserved to die a torturous death, right? God’s so perfect, he can give conflicting commands that are identical in meaning, like making a married bachelor.
quote:
The English is not the original language, and the Greek allows for the difference between taking what you have, and acquiring something new
I think you know you’re full of shite because you keep bringing up language from Matthew and won’t address what I am saying is between Mark and Luke.
quote:
Given that distinction, the point Jesus was making of leaving immediately and not taking anything they don't need for the trip remains true. Even a child can understand that
Even a child knows a straw man fallacy when he sees it.
quote:
As far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and call me any name in the book that you want. I don't want you to for your sake (it's a violation of the 9th commandment), but I'm not offended when you call me names. Frankly, it is an encouragement to me.
Liar, fraud, and deluded.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 4:44 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Yeah, sinful natures get in the way of perfection.
What it shows is that people who want to believe can’t agree on what to believe.
Regardless, there are some fundamental beliefs that transcend differences, and one of the definitional characteristics of a Christian apologist is that they defend Christianity, not seek to deconstruct and destroy it.
quote:Nope, you messed up what I said.
FIFY
quote:Matthew, John, James, Paul, Jude, and Peter were all eye-witnesses to the resurrection Jesus.
And yet Paul is the only one to write “I saw the Lord” and none of the gospel authors claim to be eyewitnesses who wrote in a manner of first person omniscient theological narratives.
quote:Not applicable at all. The New Testament was written by eye-witnesses and those who were able to interview eye-witnesses. You have neither eye-witnesses nor information from eye-witnesses in either case for Romulus or Mohammed, and the Christian eye-witnesses didn't dispute over whether or not Jesus was physically resurrected.
Weak man. You reject Mohammed and Romulus’ eyewitness accounts for reasons that are applicable to Jesus. It’s called being a hypocrite, at which you excel.
quote:The law could never save anyone, which is why it was a curse. Our sinful nature prevent us from keeping the law, and original sin cuts us off from the start. Anyone who would try to be saved by the law would die in sin and be damned, which is why it is a curse.
But yet he does, and specifically says Christians are no longer under that “curse”. Meanwhile, Matthew’s Jesus says one must follow every dot and iota to be saved.
Jesus taught faith in Him for salvation. Jesus and Paul affirmed that good works (obedience to the law) was required evidence of salvation, not a required contributor to salvation.
quote:I'm explaining to you what Jesus taught. I'm sorry your understanding of the Bible is so poor that you only know what the skeptic websites tell you
that’s a blatant lie and you and I both know it.
quote:Not my imagination. It's the application of reading the entirety of the Bible combined with the belief that it doesn't contradict itself. In addition, it's the interpretation of Christian apologists beyond myself, many of whom died hundreds or thousands of years before I was born.
here we go - Foo’s imagination in action
You really need to stop accusing me of making stuff up when my comments are not novel to me. Either it makes you sound ignorant of general Christian teaching, or it makes you sound like you are lying about me. Either way, it doesn't help your "academic" pedigree that you seem to desirous to portray.
quote:Guilty doesn't mean evil, at least in the modern sense that we tend to use it. A good person (from our perspective) can have a bad day and break a law out of frustration or complacency and the fact that they've been otherwise a "good" person doesn't change that they broke a law.
All those evil babies deserved to die a torturous death, right?
Everyone is born in sin, including you. You are are also guilty of actual sins. You can try to appeal to emotion all you like, but when you stand before your maker, you will have to answer for all the actual sins you've committed in your life. Without Christ, that will be quite unpleasant for you.
quote:Nope. You only interpret it that way because you want God to contradict and therefore be untrustworthy.
God’s so perfect, he can give conflicting commands that are identical in meaning, like making a married bachelor.
quote:I already addressed this. Here's yet another link that can explain it better than me:
I think you know you’re full of shite because you keep bringing up language from Matthew and won’t address what I am saying is between Mark and Luke.
1. In Matthew, Jesus tells them to not 'make preparations'--the trip is too urgent to 'acquire belongings for the trip' (cf. Luke 17.31). No hesitation--start NOW with what you already have at your disposal!
2. In Mark, Jesus tells them to 'pick up the walking stick that is sitting beside them, start CARRYING it, and then to get moving!'...no hesitation--start walking NOW!
3. In Luke, Jesus tells them the same thing as in Matthew--do not 'make preparations', but Luke has to use a different word that Matthew. Although he uses the same word form as Mark does, the meanings are different--as can be seen from their independent uses of the same word-form. So Matthew's ktaomai equals Luke's airo (in this and in other passages), and Mark's airo equals Luke's bastazo (in this and other passages).
LINK
quote:I think you have proven time and time again that you don't know what logical fallacies are at play at any given time. Logic hasn't been your strong suit.
Even a child knows a straw man fallacy when he sees it
quote:The wicked plots against the righteous
Liar, fraud, and deluded.
and gnashes his teeth at him,
but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
for he sees that his day is coming.
-Psalm 37:12-13
Posted on 1/7/26 at 5:09 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Matthew, John, James, Paul, Jude, and Peter were all eye-witnesses to the resurrection Jesus.
The author of 2 Peter is a forgery from the mid to late second century, and the consensus of scholars place that book the very last of our canonical New Testament to be written.
The authors of Matthew, John, James, and Jude all make no mention of being an eyewitness to Jesus or any of the events they narrate in the first person omniscient. Sorry, you are making it up or just parroting apologists who have duped you.
quote:
The New Testament was written by eye-witnesses and those who were able to interview eye-witnesses.
Challenge: Besides the 2 Peter forgery and besides Paul, find a first hand eyewitness writing in the first person that “I” ate, drank, walked with, or saw Jesus.
Do you understand the different between a first hand eyewitness and a second or third hand claim of someone else being an eyewitness? If I told you my brother was abducted by aliens or ate lunch face to face with Bigfoot the same as when Abraham and Moses saw Yahweh face to face, would you believe me?
quote:
I'm explaining to you what Jesus taught. I'm sorry your understanding of the Bible is so poor that you only know what the skeptic websites tell you
Ridiculous, which is why you are deserving of ridicule. “Jesus” says one thing, and you argue he meant the opposite.
quote:
You really need to stop accusing me of making stuff up
Well… stop making stuff up.
quote:
1. In Matthew,
you straw manning son of a bitch you… quote:
2. In Mark, Jesus tells them to 'pick up the walking stick that is sitting beside them, start CARRYING it, and then to get moving!'...no hesitation--start walking NOW!
You made that up. That’s how that scene plays out in your head. He tells them to take nothing for their journey except a staff…. All that other shite you made up isn’t in evidence.
quote:
3. In Luke, Jesus tells them the same thing as in Matthew--do not 'make preparations', but Luke has to use a different word that Matthew. Although he uses the same word form as Mark does, the meanings are different--as can be seen from their independent uses of the same word-form.
More made up bullshite. Luke used mark as a literary source (he copied and edited) but kept the same exact Greek verb in the exact same parallel passage. The only difference is the conjugation. Mark is third person subjunctive “they shouldn’t take” verses Luke’s second person imperative “do not (you all) take”. Easy peazy Koine for a Greek scholar like you.
quote:
So Matthew's ktaomai
Seriously, you think “don’t take a staff on your journey” and “don’t go get a staff for your journey” mean totally different things. Everyone with sense understands them to be the same in this context, but I’m throwing out Matthew, and have been. I’m giving that to you, even though I think it’s retarded. Take that out of your argument, quit straw manning, and look at it apples to apples between Mark and Luke who both use the same verb for their versions of the same parallel story. Learn the Koine you’ve stated you are supposedly studying (whom I suspect to be another one of your lies).
This post was edited on 1/7/26 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 1/8/26 at 12:46 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Ah, OK. I'll just throw that one out, then.
The author of 2 Peter is a forgery from the mid to late second century, and the consensus of scholars place that book the very last of our canonical New Testament to be written.
Dismiss, skirt, and deflect. It's almost as if you are trying to tell Christians what to believe about their own religion based on "scholars" who are anti-Christian from the start.
No thanks.
Even so, 1 Peter also exists.
quote:John does claim to be an eye-witness (John 19:35). Paul claims to have been an eye-witness to the resurrected Jesus and to have been taught by Him through revelation (Gal. 1:12). Peter claimed to be an eye-witness (1 Pet. 5:1).
The authors of Matthew, John, James, and Jude all make no mention of being an eyewitness to Jesus or any of the events they narrate in the first person omniscient. Sorry, you are making it up or just parroting apologists who have duped you.
While James doesn't claim to be an eye-witness, he is said to be one in 1 Cor. 15:7. He also has apostolic authority (given to those who were discipled by Christ as an eye-witness) in Acts 15.
Matthew is claimed to be one of Jesus' disciples and was unanimously considered the author of the book of Matthew by the early Church fathers. There are also hints within the book that Matthew is the author, including mentioning himself as "Matthew" in chapter 9 instead of "Levi".
Jude, while also not specifically claiming eye-witness testimony in his letter, says he is the brother of James, who was Jesus' brother. It's essentially a claim of familial familiarly with Jesus, which, along with the rest of the testimony of the New Testament, is sufficient for him to be an eye-witness.
So yeah, the New Testament is nothing like Mohammad or Romulus.
quote:The context of the writing determines the meaning. Words are not written in a vacuum.
Ridiculous, which is why you are deserving of ridicule. “Jesus” says one thing, and you argue he meant the opposite.
Not only do you lack understanding of basic logic, but apparently you don't know how basic grammar works, either.
quote:I'm not. If you'd like to review some classic commentaries, I'll point you in those directions, but something tells me you're not interested in that. You'd rather just continue to lie about me making up stuff out of thin air.
Well… stop making stuff up.
quote:No straw man. The comparison is between all three narratives, which is why the author of the article I linked to addresses all three. You are free to ignore anything that you think isn't relevant. You're pretty good at ignoring things that are inconvenient to your positions, so I'm surprised you haven't taken this tactic here.
you straw manning son of a bitch you…
quote:Why are you addressing me when quoting the article? I didn't write it, but I support it. It's a common response. You seem to be frustrated that it doesn't work well with your assumptions. The article provides an interpretation based on the context, which you seem to still not understand.
You made that up. That’s how that scene plays out in your head. He tells them to take nothing for their journey except a staff…. All that other shite you made up isn’t in evidence.
quote:So you deny that the same word can be used differently? It happens all the time in Greek. All of the sudden, it doesn't happen when it's inconvenient to your argument
More made up bullshite. Luke used mark as a literary source (he copied and edited) but kept the same exact Greek verb in the exact same parallel passage. The only difference is the conjugation. Mark is third person subjunctive “they shouldn’t take” verses Luke’s second person imperative “do not (you all) take”. Easy peazy Koine for a Greek scholar like you.
I'm not a Greek scholar, but it's clear you aren't, either.
quote:I'm not lying about studying Koine, but I'm not an expert in it by any means. I know enough to know my way around and understand what the experts are explaining. So no, I'm not lying about that.
Seriously, you think “don’t take a staff on your journey” and “don’t go get a staff for your journey” mean totally different things. Everyone with sense understands them to be the same in this context, but I’m throwing out Matthew, and have been. I’m giving that to you, even though I think it’s retarded. Take that out of your argument, quit straw manning, and look at it apples to apples between Mark and Luke who both use the same verb for their versions of the same parallel story. Learn the Koine you’ve stated you are supposedly studying (whom I suspect to be another one of your lies).
But again, you're essentially saying that Mark and Luke are in contradiction because the English translation says so, and you don't accept that the Greek can actually mean two different things with the same word. The work sarx can mean flesh, like our bodies, or it can mean worldliness, or it can mean natural generation, among some other things. Kosmos can mean the world or universe, or it can mean all of the people in the world, or it can mean that which is opposed to God. I could go on, but words can mean different things depending on how they are used by their authors.
The article I linked to explains how Luke uses the word in different contexts. It seems you are ignoring that in favor of believing that a word always means one thing in Greek.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 12:18 pm to FooManChoo
quote:quote:Ah, OK. I'll just throw that one out, then.
The author of 2 Peter is a forgery from the mid to late second century, and the consensus of scholars place that book the very last of our canonical New Testament to be written.
You should. It’s a well known forgery written mid/late second century.
quote:
It's almost as if you are trying to tell Christians what to believe about their own religion based on "scholars" who are anti-Christian from the start.
It’s more about how to not be duped into a false reality. It’s for your benefit.
quote:
Even so, 1 Peter also exists.
I’m not sure what your point there is, Foo. 1 Peter is well known among scholarship to be a pre-gospel letter. There is no mention of the earthly Jesus at all. There’s no firsthand eyewitness claims of anyone seeing Jesus at all, much less on earth. Oh are you talking about 1 Peter 5:1? Yeah that word “witness” is the same word as “martyr” or “one who testifies” so that’s not an eyewitness claims… more like the use of the term Jehovah’s Witness in that the testify the Truth of Jehovah. 1 Peter has no mention of anyone walking, talking, or eating with Jesus, or anything of the sort. They did believe Jesus really existed and really suffered and really died in a real body made of flesh but none of that happened on earth.
quote:
John does claim to be an eye-witness (John 19:35)
Which John? The one who wrote the first ending (20:30) or the second ending (21:35)?
The authors of John write in the first person omniscient sense. They are telling a story from a godlike point of view. It’s not written like an eyewitness to something would have written. And in 19:35, he… well let me just quote it.
quote:
He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe.
So who is “he”???
I have the answer. And it’s just a couple chapters later. Chapter 21 verse 24…
quote:
This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
Let that sink in. “We” know “his” testimony is true. So whoever is writing chapter 21 is NOT the witness. So if you think the real John wrote chapter 21, then John can’t be the witness spoken of in the third person in chapter 19.
quote:
While James doesn't claim to be an eye-witness, he is said to be one in 1 Cor. 15:7
Paul makes a lot of claims, but we only really have one person claiming to be an eyewitness to Jesus and that is Paul himself.
quote:
Matthew is claimed to be one of Jesus' disciples and was unanimously considered the author of the book of Matthew by the early Church fathers.
You’re getting off track with irrelevant assertions. There is no first hand eyewitness claim of seeing Jesus in our gospel according to Matthew.
quote:
Jude, while also not specifically claiming eye-witness testimony in his letter, says he is the brother of James, who was Jesus' brother.
How may times do we have to go through this that all Christians were believed to be brothers in/with/of Christ and sons of God???
quote:
I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.
quote:
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
quote:
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
quote:
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.
quote:
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,
quote:
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
I could go on but there are dozens more passengers of Paul and other early christian writers using the terms brothers or brothers of the Lord or brothers in Christ in a figurative, theology manner and not literal biological brothers.
quote:
The context of the writing determines the meaning. Words are not written in a vacuum.
You are asserting Jesus meant the complete opposite of what is written that he literally said, which is absurd and ridiculous, and you ignore the context of what Jesus said right after that line which is all about how well and how stringent on keeping the commandments they must be.
quote:quote:Why are you addressing me when quoting the article? I didn't write it, but I support it. It's a common response.
You made that up. That’s how that scene plays out in your head. He tells them to take nothing for their journey except a staff…. All that other shite you made up isn’t in evidence.
I didn’t see any links or articles in your reply. You’re right it is a common response amongst apologists that Luke and Mark have different meanings for “airo”. I’ve seen it before - Mark means “take” and Luke means “acquire”. It’s stupid, and it’s not in evidence, and is just bad apologetics but there is no way this ca be reconciled so it just has to stay bad apologetics- well to be honest all apologetics are bad. But this one is very bad.
quote:
So you deny that the same word can be used differently? It happens all the time in Greek. All of the sudden, it doesn't happen when it's inconvenient to your argument
There’s your straw man again. No one is saying one word can’t be used differently. It’s not applicable here because Mark and Luke use the word “airo” in the exact same way or sense or meaning… “to take”. So I’ll back it up with evidence… go and look at all conjugations of that word in both Luke and Mark and they are all “take”. The apologetic argument that Luke uses “airo” to mean “to acquire” falls flat on its face when you look at all the English translations of Luke and that Greek word is translated as “take” and not “acquire”.
Luke’s Jesus says not to take a staff/staffs - using Koine category denial this means a numerical value of literally zero staffs. Mark’s Jesus says to take a staff. It’s a contradiction. Does it change the meaning of the parallel passages? Absolutely not. It’s a trivial detail from a story perspective and theological perspective… but it nevertheless is a contradiction.
It’s only in the last 100-150 or so years that biblical inerrancy even became a thing argued by apologists. This is a new invention by fundamentalists like you.
From Jerome:
quote:
The evangelists differ in the order of events and in the wording, but not in the truth of the events themselves.
Origen:
quote:
The careful reader will notice many discrepancies in the Gospel narratives, especially when comparing John with the other evangelists.
So keep being a jackass and stating pure fiction as fact, making up stories and passing them off as “the Truth”. You’ll never admit your faults and never quit lying.
This post was edited on 1/9/26 at 1:36 pm
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News