UN Bias Hurts The World

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:48 pm

Read the article, "this debating style is an effective way to win almost any argument". That's essentially it's purpose, to 'win'. Not to take views in to account, to discuss, it's aim is to allow you to 'win'. Socrates was not looking at the argument on its merits, his method was meant simply to try and shoot down an argument.
Your 'method' is designed to spotlight hypocrisy in a philosophical debate. Philosophy is quite different to politics. There is no context, there is no nuance, there is no background, there is nothing.
Philosophical debate essentially exists in the ether, there are absolutes, there are no specifics. Thus hypocrisy should not exist and should lead to re-evaluation of a view.
Political debate is much removed from philosophical debate. That is why the Socratic method is a method of 'philosophical argument' and not just a method of general argument. It's because it is targeted at philosophy. What may seem 'hypocritical' in a philosophical sense, when loaded with complexities, situations and backgrounds in a political sense, no longer has the same hypocrisy, because there are a maelstrom of different factors and details involved, and a view can change based on these.
Why are you using a method which is so inappropriate?
It allows you to 'win', but that is all.

As an example, take the killing of someone. A sniper shoots a person and kills them, that's murder and is wrong. But say that sniper had killed someone planning to blow himself up and kill many other people. It's the same act, it's still a killing. But it's also a whole new situation. The context is different, the background is different. The two situations are incomparable. To support one action and condemn the other can be called hypocrisy, that you support the killing of some and not others. But is it really hypocritical, given the context and the situation? No, there were so many factors involved.
And that is true of every real world, there are many factors to take in to account, pulling in all directions. No situation is simple, they are all complex. Suddenly a view is not so easily labeled 'hypocritical' because 2 situations can probably never be exactly the same. That is where trying to spot hypocrisy through a philosophical method falls down. The Socratic Method is designed to spot hypocrisy, but when no two situations can be precisely the same, it's hard to call different opinions on the two 'hypocritical'.

There's a reason the Socratic Method is a method of philosophical debate rarely used for political debate...
Last edited by Curiosity on Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:07 am, edited 3 times in total.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:59 pm

Could we just replace Curiosity with a broken record?

You keep saying there is no nuance in philosophy etc, which is debatable, but I see your point. However you never state how this disqualifies the Socratic Method from being used in areas that have context and nuance. Just repeating what you have said before doesn't change the fact that you have yet to make any connection between that statement and the viability of the Socratic Method in political discussions. And as I have said before much of what you keep calling nuance and context is simply an excuse for hypocrisy. History is full of examples of this.

The article actually reads, "this debating style is an effective way to win almost any argument with someone whose cognitive reasoning is slower than your own." That is quite the point. I use when I want to spotlight flaws in someone's argument. If they are sufficiently intellectual their arguments should stand the Socratic test. The Socratic Method does nothing to prove my points, so I use other methods to do that. If someone wants to use the Socratic Method on my arguments I welcome it. I am constantly testing my own ideas with the Socratic Method, but I am sure someone else doing it would be far superior.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:06 am

But it does not spotlight flaws in an argument! It can spotlight flaws in a philosophical argument because they exist irrespective of external factors. When an argument exists with a whole world of external factors, it is quite different.

I have said all along that you come up with bizarre points that no-one else raises. It's because you employ a bizarre method that no-one else (outside eccentric professors, apparently) uses.

While other people debate in the real world and argue about situations with a baseline of knowledge of the situation and understanding, you sweep in with this philosophical method which is suited to philosophical argument and where the sole purpose is to show that a view is inconsistent.

Use your destructive, strictly-philosophical methods for far more than they were designed for, if you must. It's not something I will support. Night night.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:21 am

I am glad you have crowned yourself King of Debate and all, but forgive me if I don't accept your rather poorly formulated objections to this method.

It is actually a very good method that is often used in political discussion and can be far more effective than any other method, because it relies on people finding their own logical missteps (as opposed to them being simply told they are wrong). People are more likely to accept their own faults if they find them themselves. I must confess that with you I generally don't take the time and use the energy to do the thing properly as experience has shown you don't tend to accept errors in your arguments and instead use the Socratic Method mainly to destroy your arguments best I can without any real thought to trying to get you to discover your arguments' flaws.

Here is a decent article describing the use of the Socratic Method in politics.


I am not going respond to any more of these attacks on me. I feel they are simply attempts to deflect attention from the sound of yet another argument of Curiosity falling flat on its face and feel no need to defend myself to Curiosity. I have responded thus far as an attempt to clear some things up, but in looking at there was no need to clear anything up.
ToRmEnToR
level5
level5
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:48 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby ToRmEnToR » Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:30 am

Well it still is a strange way to debate about politics.

The main goal in debates like these is finding a proper solution to a problem. Unfortunately there is no such solution that can make everyone happy. Someone will always lose something, and flaws will always exist.

The socratic method will point out these flaws but will not contribute to anything that can lead to a practical solution.

Furthermore, the definition of 'flaw' can change. Does a political move which will harm thousands in the near future and bring peace to bilions in the long run flawed? It is, from a certain point of view.

Politics, as apposed to the study of philosophy, are all about comming up with practical solutions.

*

Back to reality and the argument,

I havent noticed any socratic method being implemented successfuly (ie making someone change his mind even slightly about the main point behind this thread just by asking questions. <I didnt bother reading about the abortion arguemnt>) so I dont see what the fuss is all about...
meow
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:17 am

Nice article, the difference being he uses the method to learn and discuss and you use it to destroy and kill discussion, by your own admission. You have taken the method, scratched out the whole idea behind it and turned it in to a weapon. Good for you.

And your snide littler insults are ever-present. They are very annoying because you pass them off as if they are fact, when really they are you insulting me with little basis as usual.

"your rather poorly formulated objections"

"Curiosity falling flat on its face"

Funny how you never seem to fall. Or maybe it's because you lie, manipulate and deceive and when that doesn't work, swamp everything with confusion. Then claim someone else has lost and you have won. Pages of clear evidence that you lied repeatedly and you try every little trick to worm out of it. You did not respond to my post before my post on your Socratic method. You ignored it and moved on, when it pointed out yet more of your clear and omni-present lies. In fact the last post I made about the food situation warranted only two lines from you, refusing to discuss it anymore. Wow. Victory for you, right? You like to assert victory and failure like you assert many other things.

You are a liar, a deceiver, a manipulator and now a destroyer.
Why anyone should waste their time talking to you at all is beyond me. On a separate issue, do they have girls where you are?
Last edited by Curiosity on Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:04 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Banker: You seem to be taking a rather selective look at the religious texts and also seem to be equating the poor judgement of men (the Crusades, etc) with the religions themselves. The Bible is certainly full of death, but that is largely a product of the time it was written. The core religious sections are quite peaceful.


Uhm.. No, they're not.
But those are not my only reasons either, I could write you a list but I dont have a few hours to spare right now.. :lol:
And if you think they're so damn peaceful then you might want to ask yourself why those 3 religions are the biggest cause of wars in the world, both today and in the past. Both the crusades, witch processes, and whatever else dumbshit they've done, according to the Bible, there is nothing wrong with doing that, all of it had great support in the bible, hell, according to the law of Moses, which is where the ten commandments are from, you still have to stone "blasphemers" to death and kill gays.. :lol:


Oh and Curio, you only sound like this "waaah waah wahh!!!" to me now. You want some cheese to go with your whine maybe?
Oh, and I do think they have girls in New York.. :roll:
Me300 wrote:I love how Banker has the uncanny capability cussing all the time while making his arguments.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:26 pm

Actually nationalism is what has started nearly all wars. Even the Crusades were more about taking back land than converting people. Look at the last century. . . what wars were driven by religion? WWI? Nope, that was nationalism. WWII? Nope, nationalism again. Vietnam? Korea? Fauklins? Iraq? Hmm. . . all nationalism. People tend to want to be believe religion starts wars, but really it is almost always nationalism or some other political concern that fuels wars.

Nearly all the talk of violence in religous texts is political/historical. For instance the Torah speaks of violence in a historical context (giving the history of the Jewish people). Both the Torah and the Koran suffer from the fact that many of the prophets who speak through them are no simply religious/spiritual leaders like Jesus was, but are also political leaders. These were people who were incharge of keeping their group of people alive. In those days violence was needed in order to survive as a seperate people (as the Jews and the Muslims were). Jesus was unique in that he had no "people" to take care of and instead spread his message to people who were part of the Roman Empire. Thus he was free of the political considerations of other prophets. If you look at Christianity Jesus does not advocate violence and actually condemns killing ("Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"). Of all these three religions Christianity is the most explicity peaceful, but all three actually hold a very similar message.
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:00 pm

Peaceful yes, but many religious bodies are vengeful at heart as well. Christianity is just theoretically more forgiving :P

Did we ascertain if it was the guys job to send food to that country or not? If it was then he should be fired for being a dick. I'm sure he ignored a country because he was foaming about how all jews must die... and that that country is the world.
-- The GoldFish - member of former GIT and commander in chief of GALLAHAD. You could have done something, but it's been fixed. The end. Also, play bestgameever!
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:10 pm

Yes, I just think you have to seperate those who claim to follow a religion and the religion itself. The same can be said about science. Many people are anti-science because it produces things like the atom bomb, but you must seperate science from the various technologies that simply apply science. :)
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:40 pm

The GoldFish wrote:Did we ascertain if it was the guys job to send food to that country or not? If it was then he should be fired for being a dick. I'm sure he ignored a country because he was foaming about how all jews must die... and that that country is the world.


Well, the discussion kinda petered out after sbm claimed that the malnourishment rate was 51% then produced as evidence a study which used data collected by a palestinian university and still said it was only 22%, (the figure which the author stated the study found in numerous articles). Then I produced a UN Human Development Report which said it was 4%, lower than most other countries in the region and indeed the average of the Arab world as a whole, and much lower than African countries. Sbm claimed it used old data, I showed how his study must have used data collected well before August 2002 (when the study was finished) and the UN one used data from 2002. He then claimed I wasn't dealing with the issues or something and refused to talk about it anymore. Then later on he said he won. Fairly typical debate.

We ascertained it was the guys job to do lots of organising of co-operation to do with food situations. We ascertained that the food situation in the territories is a lot better than in much of the 3rd world. We ascertained that the guy has made lots of comments attacking Israel, and not as many on the problems of worse-off countries. Why he makes so many comments on Israel when the palestinian territories don't have a big food problem was never quite explained, except that he was in the UN so it was his job to criticise Israel (no kidding, that was an excuse given during this debate). And so actually, your comments (however sarcastic) were quite apt.

During the argument sbm tried a number of different tactics. He tried the old 'UN mandate' trick which fell down when he first claimed that the UN didn't do certain things it did, then that it needed permission to operate in countries, and I told him it had permission and it was doing the things he said it doesn't do. He tried to attack the source claiming it was simply pro-Israel and looking for anti-Israel bias. A check of its site showed 1/28 of its last speeches/statements was on that issue and that the majority were on a variety of issues around the world with nothing to do with Israel (Burma, Russia, Women's rights in various countries, religious freedom in China etc.) He also tried to make the palestinian food issue seem worse (as detailed above) but seemingly failed to make a case supported by data. His "51%" figure was never corroborated or backed up. I pointed out that the territories were not on any Food Emergency list, he pointed out that Food Emergency lists only dealt with sudden things like locusts and droughts and such. I pointed out that some countries on the list had 'economic problems' or 'refugees' as their reasons, both things that would easily qualify the territories, should they have a food situation bad enough. He also claimed it was for sudden, short-term things, I pointed out how some African countries had been on the lists for years and years. He ignored all that and did not respond. I was also accused of hypocrisy for using UN Human Development Report figures when I had previously accused the UN of anti-Israel bias. The fact that a political bias has nothing to do with them collating, totally unrelated, figures in to a table obviously passed sbm right by and apparently the hypocrisy was 'incredible'. Right...
Then apparently I lost and fell on my face and he won and was wonderful. It was news to me, because I hadn't noticed that happening. So, yeah, it was business as usual.

There was also that whole bit about abortion where he told lots of lies but claimed he didn't, it's all well documented. Among them he said "There have been less than 1 million abortions ever reported worldwide." I pointed out that there have been hundreds of millions of abortions reported worldwide (according to any statistical source), and then I provided the dictionary definition of abortion, which supports this. Apparently though, over 99% of abortions reported worldwide don't count as 'abortions reported worldwide' in his eyes. He's yet to respond to my latest point-out and dictionary definition. He did however try to swamp the whole issue in much confusion and claim I didn't understand (because, you know, I only read what he said and checked if it was true.)

Also included was a discussion on his "Socratic" method of argument. The Socratic method was originally used by Socrates (surprising, yes) for philosophical debates as a way of guiding his students to see the faults and inconsistencies in their own theories. Apparently though it is legitimate to use it for political debate (to find "hypocrisy") and that it is an absolutely allowable method to strip out the whole "teaching" element and use it as a weapon to try and destroy people's views. The fact that philosophical inconsistencies and complicated, nuanced political situations are completely different is apparently irrelevant. The fact that "hypocrisy" in political situations is very difficult to pinpoint due to the nuanced and different nature of every scenario is also apparently irrelevant. The fact that the method is apparently one that 'can be used to win virtually any argument' is apparently neither here nor there. I would contest that he doesn't 'use' the Socratic method so much as 'ABuse' it.

But, I'm sure he'll have much to say.
Last edited by Curiosity on Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:16 am

Sounds lovely. Something doesn't really add up there, really, I agree. I don't really mind if they pay more attention to Israel and Palestine, the two are somewhat bitter towards each other and it may be difficult to trust figures either way - it's their job to criticise every country, really.

But uh, I don't think a guy who fails to send supplies to countries with massive food problems when those supplies are ready and waiting, or at least requestable, should really have that job. It's that simple.

I don't think however that the claimed 'bias' against israel is definately responcible for this particular lack of someone with the ability to do their job, or that it's right to say that, because there are members of the UN biassed against israel, the world is being hurt. Bitch and whine all you want about a couple of countries with a synthetic problem, but don't let children, or anyone, starve when your say so can change that.

I'm fed up of seeing all this propaganda and bullshit pinned to stuff - it goes both ways though, not just from them, I agree that there seems to be more shit stirred up about Israel and Palestine than their ought to be. In your very first post, you talk about how this guy is not doing his job and INSTEAD is pursueing an anti-israeli campaign (as opposed to, he's a twat and he needs to be fired, and world would be a better place for it). Then you effectively pin the whole thing to the entire UN, which sounds pompous and inflated. I just get the feeling from whenever you post about this subject that you take the whole thing personally - and I rarely see you posting about anything else BUT this subject - I feel you often respond very bitterly and often unobjectively. I just get the impression that what you have a problem is the bias, not the fact that people have starved to death, hence my previous input to this thread. I really don't believe you would have posted that a lot of people have died because of this neglect if you couldn't have talked about the bias.

Seriously, whatever else, if you're right about him not doing his job (regardless of why) then the guy needs to be fired. Case closed, as far as I care.
-- The GoldFish - member of former GIT and commander in chief of GALLAHAD. You could have done something, but it's been fixed. The end. Also, play bestgameever!
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:37 am

The Goldfish:

If you actually look at the website of this guy's office you will find that they have released numerous statements about nearly every country on earth. This guy has only made something like 50 statements over the years he has held his post. Obviously making statements is not a huge part of his job.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:56 am

Stews, not getting started on all of those wars but here's some for you to think about.. The largest war ever and the most recent one that was very big. WW2..

"I honestly believe I am fighting for God and doing his work."
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.
(When relating to his hate for jews.)
Where does religion based (Christian based) hate of jews stem from? From the fact they killed Jesus. All organised hate of people with other religious views started with these 3 religions, just like the systematic opression of women, which the Bible clearly teaches are inferior in all ways to men (1 Timothy 2:11-15 for example) yay that. :lol:

"Gott Mitt Uns." (God with us)
-Written on german trooper belts during WW2.

About every country, in every war, has been fighting for their respective "gods", and kept saying shit like that.
"God Bless America" ring a bell?
Or "God grant us victory" maybe?

As for Jesus being oh so nice a person, and the idiocy of Christianity in general;

"When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" (Mark 4:10-12 NIV)

^ Jesus didnt want to "save" everyone anyways you know, so you might as well stop trying stews.. You're fucked.. :lol:

"For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."
(Matthew 10:35-36 NIV)

^ This however, is his mission statement.
Quite a peaceful and kind goal dont you agree? :roll:

Still wanna call yourself a Christian?
Well ok then, go speak in tongues and drive out Demons, oh and drink some poison while you're at it, otherwise you are not a true believer;

"He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." (Mark 16:15-18 NIV)

:lol:

Dont try to defend Christianity, it is an extremly dumb religion that contradicts itself in almost every chapter, whoever wrote the Bible must be both extremly stupid and lack any memory of what he already has written.

And it's not more forgiving either, I cant remember which chapter, but Jesus wants you to kill your children if they treat you bad, a nice and forgiving person indeed. :lol:

But to be honest, all those 3 religions are dumb, Christianity is just one of them.
Me300 wrote:I love how Banker has the uncanny capability cussing all the time while making his arguments.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:34 am

Banker wrote:Stews, not getting started on all of those wars but here's some for you to think about.. The largest war ever and the most recent one that was very big. WW2..

"I honestly believe I am fighting for God and doing his work."
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.


Hitler was not much of a Christian and referencing God does not make something religious. Is football or acting religious now simply because participants make an occasional mention of God?

Also lets look at other major bloodletting of the 20th Century. WWII left approximately 55 million dead. About 40 million died in Mao's Communist China. Under Mao's rule religion was effectively banned, so this is 40 million deaths in the near total absence of religion. Then there are the 8-20 million that died in Stalin's Communist Russia (again without religion). If you add in the Chinese and Soviet Civil Wars that figure eclipses the frigures for WWII. So it would seem an absence of religion is a far worse problem than any religion. In fact the conflicts that are actually about religion claim very few lives in comparison to these political conflicts.


(When relating to his hate for jews.)
Where does religion based (Christian based) hate of jews stem from? From the fact they killed Jesus. All organised hate of people with other religious views started with these 3 religions, just like the systematic opression of women, which the Bible clearly teaches are inferior in all ways to men (1 Timothy 2:11-15 for example) yay that. :lol:


Quite untrue. Anti-Jewish feelings existed long before Christ. The most anti-Semitic places are also generally the least Christian.


About every country, in every war, has been fighting for their respective "gods", and kept saying shit like that.
"God Bless America" ring a bell?
Or "God grant us victory" maybe?


That is not fighting for their god. . . These are cultural references to God and are not religious. WWII was not about religion, it was about nationalism. This is not simply my opinion, it is the nearly unanimous view of historians as well.


As for Jesus being oh so nice a person, and the idiocy of Christianity in general;

"When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" (Mark 4:10-12 NIV)

^ Jesus didnt want to "save" everyone anyways you know, so you might as well stop trying stews.. You're fucked.. :lol:


You don't seem to quite understand what Jesus is saying in this passage. He is simply saying not everyone is ready to hear the word of God. He believes people need to be ready to accept the word of God and act on it before they can be "saved". He is not permanently excluding anyone from being "saved", just saying not everyone is ready to be "saved".


"For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."
(Matthew 10:35-36 NIV)

^ This however, is his mission statement.
Quite a peaceful and kind goal dont you agree? :roll:


This is in reference to the divisions and persecution his teaching will inevitably cause. He is saying following him will cause conflict and may breakup families, but that his message will in the end result in true peace. He is basically saying that superficial peace is cheap when compared to the profound peace he is advocating. This is akin to the question of the US entering into WWII. Was it best to try to negotiate a self-serving peace with Germany and Japan or was it better to join the war in order to bring a greater peace?

Still wanna call yourself a Christian?
Well ok then, go speak in tongues and drive out Demons, oh and drink some poison while you're at it, otherwise you are not a true believer;


You obviously don't know much about the Christian faith, which is a shame. I would invite you to actually take a look and see what Christianity really is, what Jesus really teaches, what the Bible actually says. . .

"He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." (Mark 16:15-18 NIV)

:lol:


He is telling his Disciples to go out and preach his message. I don't see any problem with that.


Dont try to defend Christianity, it is an extremly dumb religion that contradicts itself in almost every chapter, whoever wrote the Bible must be both extremly stupid and lack any memory of what he already has written.


First the Bible is a creation of man, so it is certainly fallible. Second it was not written by one author. It is a collection of various texts written at different times, by people with differing views of Jesus's teachings. Yes, there are certainly some contradictions, but that does not diminish the overall message. Hell, scientists contradict each other all the time, should we dismiss all science simply because of that?

You obviously have your own views, but they seem to rooted in a deep ignorance.
Last edited by Stewsburntmonkey on Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests