Comments on: Forget Pascal’s Wager, I’ve got one of my own http://colouroftelevision.com/2008/05/11/forget-pascals-wager-ive-got-one-of-my-own/ Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:40:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Neil http://colouroftelevision.com/2008/05/11/forget-pascals-wager-ive-got-one-of-my-own/#comment-350 Neil Tue, 26 Aug 2008 01:29:33 +0000 http://icarusone.wordpress.com/?p=79#comment-350 Hi Derek - you may hve missed the end of the thread. Sara said, "Look. We’re not going to agree on this. God and I have talked, and we understand each other. Presumably, you and God have talked and come to a decision also. Isn’t it great that God doesn’t force us to do anything, like agree?" I didn't catch any of her logic or compassion for the unborn. I just saw lots of logical fallacies and avoidance techniques. Hi Derek - you may hve missed the end of the thread. Sara said, “Look. We’re not going to agree on this. God and I have talked, and we understand each other. Presumably, you and God have talked and come to a decision also. Isn’t it great that God doesn’t force us to do anything, like agree?”

I didn’t catch any of her logic or compassion for the unborn. I just saw lots of logical fallacies and avoidance techniques.

]]> By: Derek http://colouroftelevision.com/2008/05/11/forget-pascals-wager-ive-got-one-of-my-own/#comment-349 Derek Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:30:44 +0000 http://icarusone.wordpress.com/?p=79#comment-349 Zing. Thanks for the comment Neil. I've been following Sara's comments re: abortion, and to the best of my knowledge, she hasn't said that God told her it was OK. She's been using logic, compassion and humanism. Much better tools than divine revelation, in my books. Zing. Thanks for the comment Neil.

I’ve been following Sara’s comments re: abortion, and to the best of my knowledge, she hasn’t said that God told her it was OK. She’s been using logic, compassion and humanism.

Much better tools than divine revelation, in my books.

]]> By: Neil http://colouroftelevision.com/2008/05/11/forget-pascals-wager-ive-got-one-of-my-own/#comment-348 Neil Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:28:14 +0000 http://icarusone.wordpress.com/?p=79#comment-348 Here's a good website for those wanting to investigate difficult Bible passages - http://www.tektonics.org/TK-A.html Or you could just ask Sara, who says God tells her things directly. At least he told her that abortion was ok. Here’s a good website for those wanting to investigate difficult Bible passages - http://www.tektonics.org/TK-A.html

Or you could just ask Sara, who says God tells her things directly. At least he told her that abortion was ok.

]]> By: Justin http://colouroftelevision.com/2008/05/11/forget-pascals-wager-ive-got-one-of-my-own/#comment-325 Justin Tue, 05 Aug 2008 05:06:42 +0000 http://icarusone.wordpress.com/?p=79#comment-325 The Bible contains all that God wants it to contain and it is completely sufficient. Sara, I forgive you, but I don't want to continue taking your belittling me and accusing me of not caring or not reading. I'm out for now. The Bible contains all that God wants it to contain and it is completely sufficient.

Sara, I forgive you, but I don’t want to continue taking your belittling me and accusing me of not caring or not reading. I’m out for now.

]]> By: Sara http://colouroftelevision.com/2008/05/11/forget-pascals-wager-ive-got-one-of-my-own/#comment-324 Sara Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:56:07 +0000 http://icarusone.wordpress.com/?p=79#comment-324 So, the Bible is incomplete, but <i>for a reason</i>, not because it's old and people suck at keeping things? Or because Matthew was confused or making stuff up or silly? You would still blindly swear that the Bible is perfect despite this glaring <b>flaw and/or omission</b>? I'm prepared to accept logical answers, honey, but I'm not prepared to have you ignore me forever. Oh, wait, I suppose I am prepared to accept it, as you've never treated anyone at this site or your own with respect whether they agreed with you or not. I am prepared, I just don't appreciate it. So, the Bible is incomplete, but for a reason, not because it’s old and people suck at keeping things? Or because Matthew was confused or making stuff up or silly? You would still blindly swear that the Bible is perfect despite this glaring flaw and/or omission?

I’m prepared to accept logical answers, honey, but I’m not prepared to have you ignore me forever. Oh, wait, I suppose I am prepared to accept it, as you’ve never treated anyone at this site or your own with respect whether they agreed with you or not. I am prepared, I just don’t appreciate it.

]]> By: Justin http://colouroftelevision.com/2008/05/11/forget-pascals-wager-ive-got-one-of-my-own/#comment-323 Justin Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:43:57 +0000 http://icarusone.wordpress.com/?p=79#comment-323 Matthew is not wrong, you just don't accept any potential answers. Matthew is not wrong, you just don’t accept any potential answers.

]]> By: Sara http://colouroftelevision.com/2008/05/11/forget-pascals-wager-ive-got-one-of-my-own/#comment-322 Sara Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:41:09 +0000 http://icarusone.wordpress.com/?p=79#comment-322 No, he could not have. Here's the problem: if Jeremiah prophesied what Matthew claimed, then it should be in the Bible, as it's referenced at a later date. If the reference isn't there, then the claim Matthew makes is false. Having no references doesn't excuse a claim from the call for them. If Jeremiah prophesied something <b>about Jesus</b>, one would assume it, like the other Messianic prophecies, would be included. Jeremiah makes no such prophecy. Neither does Zechariah. You claim that the Bible is inerrant and <b>makes no mistakes within its borders</b>, but the Matthew prophecy that doesn't exist <b>is a mistake within the contents of the Bible</b>. It doesn't even necessitate logical thought to see the mistake. <b>Matthew says X is prophesied</b> <b>X is not prophesied</b> <b>Therefore, Matthew is wrong</b> No, he could not have.

Here’s the problem: if Jeremiah prophesied what Matthew claimed, then it should be in the Bible, as it’s referenced at a later date. If the reference isn’t there, then the claim Matthew makes is false. Having no references doesn’t excuse a claim from the call for them. If Jeremiah prophesied something about Jesus, one would assume it, like the other Messianic prophecies, would be included.

Jeremiah makes no such prophecy.

Neither does Zechariah.

You claim that the Bible is inerrant and makes no mistakes within its borders, but the Matthew prophecy that doesn’t exist is a mistake within the contents of the Bible. It doesn’t even necessitate logical thought to see the mistake.

Matthew says X is prophesied
X is not prophesied
Therefore, Matthew is wrong

]]> By: Justin http://colouroftelevision.com/2008/05/11/forget-pascals-wager-ive-got-one-of-my-own/#comment-321 Justin Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:48:20 +0000 http://icarusone.wordpress.com/?p=79#comment-321 The verse in Matthew is not a mistake. Jeremiah could have prophesied it, either in the verses mentioned or out of them. This does not make the Bible incomplete. If that was the case, it would just mean not every single detail is included - which John mentions. It is, however, all that God wanted to say in His scripture. The verse in Matthew is not a mistake. Jeremiah could have prophesied it, either in the verses mentioned or out of them. This does not make the Bible incomplete. If that was the case, it would just mean not every single detail is included - which John mentions. It is, however, all that God wanted to say in His scripture.

]]> By: Sara http://colouroftelevision.com/2008/05/11/forget-pascals-wager-ive-got-one-of-my-own/#comment-320 Sara Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:11:48 +0000 http://icarusone.wordpress.com/?p=79#comment-320 So the Bible is incomplete, then? That's the implication and the conclusion of your first answer. An incomplete Bible is hardly a new idea, especially considering the fact that we already know it's incomplete for several reasons. One, the Bible itself mentions books we don't include in it. Enoch, etc. Two, a conscious choice was made by early church leaders to include some books and exclude others. Three, it's logical to assume that the Bible is incomplete, as it's a pretty old written version of very old oral stories. As for the Jeremiah passage you mention...um, it mentions a potter in the first verse. Other than that, I'm not seeing any prophecy here about thirty pieces of silver, so, yeah, the verse in Matthew is still a mistake. So the Bible is incomplete, then? That’s the implication and the conclusion of your first answer. An incomplete Bible is hardly a new idea, especially considering the fact that we already know it’s incomplete for several reasons. One, the Bible itself mentions books we don’t include in it. Enoch, etc. Two, a conscious choice was made by early church leaders to include some books and exclude others. Three, it’s logical to assume that the Bible is incomplete, as it’s a pretty old written version of very old oral stories.

As for the Jeremiah passage you mention…um, it mentions a potter in the first verse. Other than that, I’m not seeing any prophecy here about thirty pieces of silver, so, yeah, the verse in Matthew is still a mistake.

]]> By: Justin http://colouroftelevision.com/2008/05/11/forget-pascals-wager-ive-got-one-of-my-own/#comment-319 Justin Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:51:08 +0000 http://icarusone.wordpress.com/?p=79#comment-319 Plus, there is Jer. 19:1-13 in addition to the portion you pointed out in Jer. 32:6-9 Plus, there is Jer. 19:1-13 in addition to the portion you pointed out in Jer. 32:6-9

]]>