cuchulain

I liken it to understanding observation. The scientific process and education in general follow repeatable patterns with repeatable conclusions. To an extent, there is a reason to believe that the same conditions and stimuli will reproduce those conclusions. It is the observation, hypothesis and testing that lead to theory(something the avg person think means what hypothesis actually means). For example, through the use of these principles, automobiles have been created. When i turn the ignition, and there are no breaks in the mechanics, it is reasonable to believe the car will start. Faith is believing in the hypothesis before any testing. Its like taking some drug because someone with no qualifications beyond having done so themselves told you its safe to do so. only neglected the instructions, or they werent clear. Perhaps that home made penicillum gets rid of your infection. Or maybe you get hives and don't realize that's not how it should work. or maybe you die from complications of appendicitis and they failed to properly diagnose you. You had faith but that's not as useful as knowledge, no matter how its communicated.

What i was saying is he DOES know...he chooses to deliberately aggravate and then play dumb. Which is baiting, and a clear violation of terms...that seems to be ignored for some reason. He does this on numerous subjects...but look at me preaching to the choir.

Sure dan. I would accept the point you were actually making, that the book was unchanged. There are lots of reasons i dont believe, so proving me wrong on one is just one step on a trail. See how the straw man works? Your point was that it was the same message, now its that i wouldnt be convinced to be christian if it was proven. Two different arguments that are moot anyway since you havent proven the originals match what we have.

Nobody can be so obtuse as to continually make the exact same mistake that just so happens to have been a trigger to a group, after having it pointed out numerous times...only to keep it up time and again. The mods dont care to notice this deliberate baiting or legitimately think its insane(doing the same thing but expecting different results). Its one or the other though.

Again...you cant provide proof so resort to an attack that i wouldnt accept it any way. Does this personal attack further your point or your ego?

First...that was a general observation not directed toward you. Its moronic to say in one breath atheists have no faith, then that they have too much. Last, not having an explanation isnt contradictory or any other negative thing. Its the truth. Now, settling for unproven explanations just to have one...THAT'S unintellectual at best. Having an explanation doesn't equal having a correct explanation.

Circular. You claim something unprovable, then decry some others for claiming something unprovable while saying its me that rejects the proof unfairly...then we do the definition game where you use erroneous definitions of proof and i point out the correct one. Then you claim the definition depends on things like context age and the individuals using it, but acede that you believe yours because of faith, which is believed without proof. I say you should prove up if you want me to believe, but you claim i reject all proof, which you also just agreed doesn't exist but then claim you have a different definition for...

I find the contradictory arguments of 'atheists believe nothing' and 'it takes too much faith to be an atheist' simply amazingly moronic...and usually because they're delivered by the same person who has no grasp that they contradict, like much of the bible.

Prove the kjv accurately preserved the original message by showing me the original message. Its not that i care when Catholic belief came into being. The point is to show that you have the same spotty evidence as they do but insist yours is better. Their interpretation of the same book is different than yours, just as unproven...but yours is better? Egocentric at best, dan.

And sometimes the word is used erroneously.

And you follow the kjv which was published...when? Not before roman catholocism, thats certain.

Do you know what the firmament is Dan? Or do you choose to define it differently so the bible looks less like it was written by superstitious middle easterners with no understanding of space? God didnt know that it wasnt a firm, fixed structure?

You still cant prove your faith is older, even if i concede that rcc wasnt founded at pentecost. You cant prove you follow the original teachings since you rely on spotty witnesses at best whos original texts were lost but you got copies of copies that have known translation and scribal errors... Biblical evidence is not evidence no matter how you parse it.

Sometimes context can alter meaning, sometimes the age the word was used in must be considered...and sometimes its misused.

You protest what I say because Roman Catholocism makes a claim that they cannot prove...and immediately follow up with a claim you cannot prove.

You remember recently in another thread where I used the word "Dome" and you specifically pointed out that word didn't appear in the bible? Now you call ME for nitpicking words? That's what you call hypocrisy. In any case, how many witches have you killed as your god and bible command, Dan?

Dan says he follows the kjv. He also says its not different than the originals nor the oldest surviving copies. Why follow the version from more than 1200 years since it was codified? Why not an earlier one? Why not 'the great bible' or 'the bishops'? I mean, they ARE all the same and english with no significant translation errors...but Dan insists on kjv instead of one of the numerous english translations. My best guess is the kjv closely resembles what he wants to be true...meaning its dan's choice, not gods.

What i wonder is dand head count. Hes been commanded by god and his translation to suffer not a sorcerer, ie witch to live. Watch out fellow witch board members.

Roman catholocism doesnt predate your faith? It traces back to Pentacost CE 30...i think you are wrong since you've stated multiple times you follow the kjv which clearly didnt exist till king james and fully published in the 1600's...

The original hebrew says sorceress...we were both incorrect on that simple cross check. It makes my point that it HAS changed.

Hard to sell a religion when they take the party away.

They want torture while afraid of it...what a basis for belief.

Conveniently not your religion...but definitely its predasessor. I get not wanting to admit years of your faiths history. And if YOU believe 9 28 04...why celebrate on a stolen date? You must acknowledge that complicity after the fact makes your religion just as guilty in the theft of that holiday...and validates my point that religious propaganda by christians has been met with the same from satanist but you cry foul because its against you.

Suffer not a poisoner to live. Or...suffer not a witch to live. But yeah, pretty insignificant. Unless you were burned for it. The bible has answers. But when i determine the validity i get hung up on that solid dome around the world on which the stars are affixed. Or...incorrect answers.

Its what people want to believe. I take that from a book titled 'wizards first rule'. Simplified, people are stupid and believe any nonsense because they want to or are afraid(hell) its true.