Raf

This, of course, has nothing to do with whether the Bible can contain errors or contradict itself. It has only to do with a prophet making a prediction that does or does not come to pass (for example, promising to return within the lifetimes of the people who hear him preach live and in person, but still not having returned nearly 2,000 years later. Just for example). So you can accept the verse in John and the verse in Deuteronomy without having to accept the premise of Biblical inerrancy, because neither verse addresses Biblical inerrancy. At all. Let's look again at the verse in John 10: Let's start with the obvious: The answer to Jesus' question is NO. It is NOT written in the law, "I said You Are Gods." So Jesus was wrong. It's written in Psalms, not in the Law. So as an example of a verse that establishes the Bible cannot contain errors or contradictions, you are pointing to a verse in which Jesus Christ himself makes an error. What does "the scripture cannot be broken" even mean? Does that mean it is without error or contradiction? Because then we have a problem, because the Old Testament is chock full of errors and contradictions. For example, it indicates a population of Hebrew slaves in Egypt that was way, way WAY higher than any such population could have been. There is as much evidence of a Nephite kingdom in pre-Colombian America as there is of widespread Hebrew slavery in pre-Moses Egypt. Heck, there's as much evidence of Nephites as there is of Moses. Which is to say, none. Does the Old Testament contradict itself? Sure it does. All over the place. Errors? Aplenty! So if "the scripture cannot be broken" means "it cannot contain errors or contradictions," then we have a serious problem, because the scripture objectively DOES contain oodles of errors and contradictions.

John 10:35 is not talking about the gospels, itself, Acts, the Epistles or Revelation. I'll check the other verse at a later time, at which point I will be gleefully happy to address the remainder of your post.

Really looking forward to Legends of Tomorrow. It looks like loads of fun.

The Burning Bedknobs and Broomsticks

Those responses are not mutually exclusive. A generation "in search of the truth" can be unusually gullible, especially when the group offering the truth is making an attractive case for its product. And one other thing: WELCOME TO THE GSC, TLC.

Gordon Gecko Henry Pym

The Elephant Man John Hurt Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

You had me at Kirk Lazarus. Robert Downey Jr. Nick Curran Oliver Rose Jack Colton Name the actor

Of course

And his whole family. It was DeBarge, not just El as a solo act. You're up (or you could be a sport and repost Hw/oB's). :)/>

Anyone and everyone can be rude about their beliefs. Sometimes it's impossible to even express an opinion without offending someone else, especially when it comes to religion. You can say "I believe in God," and I can respond "I used to, but I don't anymore," and neither of us is being rude. But the moment you say, "Well, the Bible says you're a fool and like a dog returning to its vomit," you're being rude. I don't care that the Bible actually does say those things. It's rude, whether you came up with it on your own or you're citing an Iron Age goatherder. And if I respond, "Well, you're a brainwashed irrational superstitious nitwit who believes in fairy tales," then I'm being rude. That's why it's imperative that we all check ourselves now and then.

1776 "Winning that ticket, Rose, was the best thing that ever happened to me... it brought me to you. And I'm thankful for that, Rose. I'm thankful. You must do me this honor. Promise me you'll survive. That you won't give up, no matter what happens, no matter how hopeless. Promise me now, Rose, and never let go of that promise." "I promise." "Never let go." "I'll never let go, Jack. I'll never let go."

You were not right.

"To the beat of the ..., dance until the morning light Forget about the worries on your mind, you can leave them all behind."

I should add: I'm really interested in what you mean by "associated with," because my response is taking it one way, while you may mean something else entirely. What I read: "Associated with" means if you're atheist, by extension you should also hold these beliefs/positions. THAT is specifically what I'm arguing against. In that regard, there are no dogmas "associated with" atheism in the A therefore B sense. What you could also mean: "Associated with" means there's a correlation between certain belief/belief systems and atheism. I would not argue with that at all. But a correlation is not an A therefore B proposition. I'll give some obvious examples. Evolution, abortion and life after death. There is nothing about being atheist that requires one to accept evolution. Nothing. At all. Throw in Big Bang cosmology (first proposed by a theist, by the way) and heliocentrism (the belief that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around). Atheism addresses none of these things. You can be an atheist who believes life doesn't evolve, the sun revolves around the earth and the universe has always existed in, pretty much, its present form. On the other hand, you can believe in evolution, the Big Bang and heliocentrism while still believing in God. Heck, some people believe in all those things AND believe in Yahweh! They're not mutually exclusive. BUT, if you were to tell me you're an atheist, I would bet dollars to donuts that you also believe in evolution et al. There's a correlation there. Similarly, there is a correlation between being a pro-lifer and being a theist. But would it surprise you to learn that there are pro-life atheists? There are. Many. What is it about atheism that precludes someone from believing that life begins at conception? Or that even if we quibble over the word "life," that a zygote or fetus is worthy of protection? Nothing in atheism says you can't believe an unborn child, whether conceived nine seconds or nine months ago, is worthy of legal protection. Here's one interesting article on it: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/28/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-why-i-fight-abortion/ But if you were to tell me you're an atheist, I would sooner predict you are pro-choice than pro-life. Finally, life after death. Atheism means you don't believe in gods. That doesn't mean you don't believe in souls or something like them that survive beyond out bodies. You can believe in ghosts, spirits, leprechauns, fairies, Spice Girls and astrology while still being an atheist because you don't believe in gods. Is there something in atheism that precludes someone from believing in reincarnation? Absolutely not. Atheism simply doesn't address any of those issues unless you expand the definition of the term. But once you expand the definition of atheism, you're no longer talking about it. You're talking about atheism AND... Whatever the AND represents. But if you were to tell me you were an atheist, I would predict you don't believe in ghosts or life after death. So, a correlation? Yeah, I'd agree with that. But a statement that atheism necessitates certain other beliefs? No. Atheism necessitates one answer to one question. Do you believe in God? If your answer is not "yes," you are an atheist. If your answer is "maybe," you're still an atheist, because your answer wasn't yes, but you might be more comfortable with the term "agnostic." Fine. If that makes you happy.

"One can't be a Republican." Ever hear of a guy named Christopher Hitchens? Ok, how's about... http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/06/16/yes-there-are-republican-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/ or http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0305/Young-conservative-and-atheist-A-test-for-the-GOP or http://thehumanist.com/commentary/wait-youre-an-atheist-and-a-conservative There are some atheists who are of the OPINION that being Republican is incompatible with being atheist. There are some black people who believe that being Republican is incompatible with being black, and gay people who believe being Republican is incompatible with being gay. Those are opinions, not facts. You can be atheist and Republican. Heck, you can be a gay, black, atheist Republican. The only thing required of atheism is, when someone asks you whether you believe in the existence of God, you must not answer "yes." That's it. You can be pro-choice or pro-life. You can be a communist or a Reaganomics capitalist. You can favor government spending or be a Rand Paul libertarian. Atheism requires no position on any of those issues. "People who believe in God can't be rational." That is, of course, a caricature of what many atheists really do think. But let's be real: theists can be rational. Most theists are. If theists were not capable of being rational, there would be no point in starting threads challenging theists on issues of morality or exploring the fact that scriptures contradict each other. Of COURSE theists can be rational! But the notion that atheists think theists cannot be rational makes an excellent strawman. Not only do I know that believers can be rational, I'm counting on it. I would not be initiating or participating in dialogue if I did not think believers could be rational. [added thought: One can also be atheist and bat-crap crazy/ utterly irrational. Atheism doesn't make you rational.]

"Associated with" is an interesting choice of words. Atheism means one thing and one thing only: I don't believe in God. It doesn't make me liberal or conservative. It does not make me moral or immoral. It does not make me reasonable or unreasonable. It does not make me angry or happy. There are NO assumptions "associated with" atheism. And there is certainly no dogma. However, because many atheists agree on certain issues, people assume that those issues are part of their atheism. They aren't. It's kind of the other way around. Those issues lead to atheism. They are not assumptions or dogma. Dogma is when something is true because someone says so. "Thus saith the Lord." Atheism doesn't have that. No one gets "because I said so" in atheism. So, yeah, let me just ask: What assumptions and dogma are "associated with" atheism? Evolution? Neither an assumption nor dogma. Naturalism? Neither an assumption nor dogma. Science? Neither an assumption nor dogma. Do tell, what assumptions and dogma are associated with atheism? This ought to be fun.

Nikita by Elton John. Free post.

No. More like, it depends on how you're defining "religion."

Raf is enjoying Christmas vacation. Patience or free post.

Sorry. Busy. Oh ... you will never know Anything about my home I'll never know how good it feels to hold you

No, seriously, do not even THINK of reading this thread unless you have seen the new Star Wars movie.

The second character's age, and closeness to retirement, is a recurring theme. His repeated line... "I'm too old for this $#!+"

Santa Claus. Though I should get credit for the previous answer. :)

"Away put your weapon! I mean you no harm!"