Reply to Re: Monarchs and Popes are stupid.
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Skull, I'm not getting worked up. I just think people are saying stupid things for the hell of it, I pointed that out and apparently people disagree.
I certainly haven't asked anyone to prove anything.
How am I to read this quote then?
I dare you to find any version of the Bible where Jesus doesn't warn his Apostles about future religious figures, beliefs and Christianity itself, which will use his name and teachings wrongly.
Sounds like you want someone (me, specifically) to find a version of the bible that does not contain a certain line of text. So apparently you want me to read the entire bible (which is kind of long I might add) just to find a single line of text you don't even bother to tell where it is. (Other than that it, apparently, is in the bible.) If I were to just say: 'Well it's not in the King James version.' Would you accept that? Or would you say: 'Well Meta, I don't think you've quite looked at it well enough, go try again.' You can't ask someone to show you that something is not there, it's not fair. Just because you only said 'I dare you' and not 'proof to me' doesn't change that.
EDIT: Also I can't see why when you accept certain books from a certain period of time covering a certain topic you'd also need to accept other books from the same period covering the same topics. If you believe what is written in a single book written between 1940 and 2000 covering UFOs, would you have to believe every book written between 1940 and 2000 covering UFOs? That'd probably make for a pretty twisted world view. I can see that you believe that non biblical early Christian writing contains very valuable historical information on the formation of Christianity. But saying Christians should believe a certain body of text just because it is from the same period and has the same topic is just as non sensible as believing every book about UFOs, even if they contradict.
As for Skurn: You're digging that hole deeper and deeper aren't you? First you claim a certain line is in the bible. Then you claim that you won't be able to find it if you were to try. And now you're again claiming that it is there and should be accepted as evidence. Really?
I certainly haven't asked anyone to prove anything.
How am I to read this quote then?
I dare you to find any version of the Bible where Jesus doesn't warn his Apostles about future religious figures, beliefs and Christianity itself, which will use his name and teachings wrongly.
Sounds like you want someone (me, specifically) to find a version of the bible that does not contain a certain line of text. So apparently you want me to read the entire bible (which is kind of long I might add) just to find a single line of text you don't even bother to tell where it is. (Other than that it, apparently, is in the bible.) If I were to just say: 'Well it's not in the King James version.' Would you accept that? Or would you say: 'Well Meta, I don't think you've quite looked at it well enough, go try again.' You can't ask someone to show you that something is not there, it's not fair. Just because you only said 'I dare you' and not 'proof to me' doesn't change that.
EDIT: Also I can't see why when you accept certain books from a certain period of time covering a certain topic you'd also need to accept other books from the same period covering the same topics. If you believe what is written in a single book written between 1940 and 2000 covering UFOs, would you have to believe every book written between 1940 and 2000 covering UFOs? That'd probably make for a pretty twisted world view. I can see that you believe that non biblical early Christian writing contains very valuable historical information on the formation of Christianity. But saying Christians should believe a certain body of text just because it is from the same period and has the same topic is just as non sensible as believing every book about UFOs, even if they contradict.
As for Skurn: You're digging that hole deeper and deeper aren't you? First you claim a certain line is in the bible. Then you claim that you won't be able to find it if you were to try. And now you're again claiming that it is there and should be accepted as evidence. Really?
