Bible - Book of lies

[McBell]

Lie is untruthful statement.
If two statements contradict eachother, meaning that they can't be simultaniously true, then at least one of them must be untruthful.

A lie is any statement with the intention to deceive.
It is the intention of deception that makes a statement a lie, not the validity of the statement.

 

[McBell]

Atheism has to descend to fundamentalism to survive.

What a big load of bull ****.

Not to mention off topic and mere flame bait.

 

[Villager]

It's truly amazing. Not so long ago, atheists were mocking those they took to be Christians for taking Genesis literally, now they have to do the very same to get any sort of appearance of success.

 

[AdamEve]

Not quite. A "lie" is a deliberately untruthful statement. Just because something happens to be untrue does not make it a lie.

OK, I agree with you.
Instead of lie I should have used unthruts or something like that or simply contradictions.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's truly amazing. Not so long ago, atheists were mocking those they took to be Christians for taking Genesis literally, now they have to do the very same to get any sort of appearance of success.

You ought not lump us all together in this fashion.
We're a diverse bunch.....as are Xians.

 

[AdamEve]

And how about when priests talk about god creating earth and they only talk of the first version of it and FORGET to mention that there is another one comp,itely different.
What coul we call that?

 

[McBell]

It's truly amazing. Not so long ago, atheists were mocking those they took to be Christians for taking Genesis literally, now they have to do the very same to get any sort of appearance of success.

one wonders if your chosen deity is as fond of dishonesty as your two posts in this thread have shown you to be.

 

[McBell]

And how about when priests talk about god creating earth and they only talk of the first version of it and FORGET to mention that there is another one comp,itely different.
What coul we call that?

How do you know that the priest in question even knows about the other one?

 

[waitasec]

A lie is any statement with the intention to deceive.
It is the intention of deception that makes a statement a lie, not the validity of the statement.

i'm not so sure intent is the point though.
the term, "looks can be deceiving" doesn't mean the deception was intentional.
if one were to look to the bible for answers one would also need to take it with a truck load of salt.

 

[Villager]

'how about when priests talk'

There are no priests in Christianity. "Call no man Father."

 

[AdamEve]

How do you know that the priest in question even knows about the other one?

But if he did know would that be lying?

 

[AdamEve]

It's truly amazing. Not so long ago, atheists were mocking those they took to be Christians for taking Genesis literally, now they have to do the very same to get any sort of appearance of success.

At which point did I state that I take it literraly?
I just compared two stories to be contradictory without going innto disvussion if they are methaphors or literal.

 

[McBell]

i'm not so sure intent is the point though.
the term, "looks can be deceiving" doesn't mean the deception was intentional.

Thus the reason it is INTENT to deceive....

 

[McBell]

But if he did know would that be lying?

Don't know.

The problem here is your attempt to paint everything with the widest possible brush.
Is the priest intentionally trying to deceive with his omission of the second story?
If not then no, it is not a lie.
If so, then yes it is a lie.

 

[Quagmire]

At which point did I state that I take it literraly?
I just compared two stories to be contradictory without going innto disvussion if they are methaphors or literal.

Presenting the contractions as evidence of "lying" ie., intentional dishonesty, implies that both stories are in fact intended to be taken literally.

Unless you actually are approaching them that way, calling them "lies" makes as much sense as "Lord of the Rings---Book of lies".

 

[Quagmire]

But i am not talking about meaning of the descriptions here.

You might want to devote a little time to understanding the implied meaning of your own descriptions.

 

[outhouse]

it was written as allegory, not literally. Its not a lie

 

[Walkntune]

There are also many other people which call Bible the book of lies.
In order to get to that conclusion one only has to read the bible, no extra sources are necessary.
If we turn the bible on page one we will find two completely different descriptions of the same event - creation of earth.
In these descriptions order in which various things were created is completely different.
This is enough to conclude that one of these descriptions must be a lie.
So we have found first part of the bible which must be a lie.
Bible is full of completely different, mutually exclusive descriptions of the same event. Using the above resoning for each of these pairs of descriptions we can conclude that at least one of the descriptions must be a lie.
And this is how we can make conclusion that Bible is book of lies.

The Bible is the same thing spiritually as a mirror is physically. What you see in it is a reflection of your own soul!

 

[SageTree]

LOL.... welcome to RF duder.


I think you're going to LOVE it here!

LOL

 

[SageTree]

AdamEve, did you grow up in a Christian environment?