549
logic rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Taken from reddit
Self-signed certificates be like:
I don't think that's a very good comparison. Self signed certificates can be very good. In fact, they can be more secure, depending on your threat model, because you don't have to trust the root.
Yeah, you're right. It isn't a comparison, just that action of signing something yourself is quite funny when you look at it from end user's perspective.
True but this is what it seems like from end user's perspective
Joke's on you, I'm the only user of my PKI.
How to prove A:
Assume A, we know A=>A so A is true.
\s Christian logic be like.
Self-affirming argumentation, without leaving room for critical dissection and openness to error, is always doomed to become ignorant of the critical thought and will find extremist followers within the naive.
Ken Ham’s every argument during his debate with Bill Nye.
Holy shit, the HAM got on stage with Bill Nye!? I'm checking that out asap. Poor Bill is doing Gods work putting up with that guy lmao.
I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't say anything about itself given that it was compiled and written down a long time later.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)
Here's the verse that was always given to me to support "the Bible is the word of God and 100% infallible." Not that it's not circular, but it does exist.
Remember, the Bible has a lot more in it than folk tales and cultural laws. There are a lot passages that are prophecy, poetry, or theology - sometimes all three at once. It's just that the stories are a lot easier to remember and internalize.
Interesting. Thank you for the informative response.
I have to put my 25 years of religious education and devotion to use somehow now that I no longer go to church. I figure helping non-belivers better understand Christianity is a pretty worthwhile endeavour.
I'm glad you're out there. I just get really frustrated when I see people making sweeping assertions about Christianity without really knowing anything about theology.
Fire, thank you for using NIV, I learned on King James and find that using King James quotes over NIV lead to so much extra confusion like it isn't a translation from the 1600s.
I'm not Christian anymore, but the modern bible never "disowns" the old testament. Maybe there were books written around Jesus' time that got eradicated with the gnostics. There was a real debate over whether or not Jesus was a rebirth of God or just a manifestation of God though. I mean OT God is kind of a bastard, dude literally drowned almost every living thing on the planet, would tell parents to get on the verge of killing their children as "faith tests". In comparison, NT God and Jesus are far more loving than pretty much anything we see in the OT.
I grew up with the NIV, so it was just natural. It was also the default option when I went to biblegateway.com to copy the text, so I just rolled with it. I know there are some people who would be scandalized that I didn't use the KJV, but that's their problem, not mine.
I wouldn't argue that the modern BIble "disowns" the OT, but some NT authors were doing their best to sweep it under the rug to make their fledgling religion more palatable to the Greeks and Romans. Early Christianity was just a sect (some might say a heresy) of Judaism, so it wasn't inititally designed to appeal to Gentiles. With that lens, you can even argue that the apostle Paul is a more important figure in Christianity than Jesus - indeed, I've seen this argued a few times.
And you know what? These sorts of topics are a lot more interesting to me now that I don't feel compelled to believe the traditional interpretation of them. I became far more interested in the development of early Christian theology after I became an atheist, probably because while I was still a Christian I was afraid of what I would find out if I challenged my beliefs at all. Not an unfounded fear as it turned out, given the arc of my life.
This circular reasoning comes up a lot, I'm sure religious scholars are aware of it. They must have made some attempt to reason it out. Some kind of ontological rigormarole.
This is how we get our electricity at home.
Does it even say that to begin with? Like "Non-fiction Stories!" on the cover?
I used to be a part of a religion that was against fact checking it outside of the literature it provided.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/kr1I3mBojc0?si=8qWRsH3a-Ov5C8zd
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I'm pretty sure the bible says any Christian with faith of a mustard seed can do the same miracles Jesus did. So Christians can turn water into wine to demonstrate the veracity of the bible.
If they suggest that's metaphoric well the God breathed is also metaphoric for how all stuff on the world is made of star stuff, including ink on a page.
Also the rest of the bible is indecipherable surrealism. The real scripture is Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds by John Lennon.
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
549 points (100.0% liked)
196
16243 readers
3184 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS