The Bible is the only TRUE religious text because

LowellGuy wrote:

It's not "Do you think so and why?" The question is worded properly for the intended audience.

I typed too quickly. Sorry about that. You're right.

DeepThinka wrote:

I've always found it odd when debating with a Christian over the validity of the bible, that they will give me scripture right out of the bible as "proof" of its validity.
This makes no sense.
That's like me saying "I believe Clinton is a liar"
and you respond with, "No he's not. I know this because Clinton said he wasn't."
You must have some independent data external to the subject we're debating over to prove your point or you're not really credible at all.

Great post! However, this never sinks in with the Fundies, because ALL they have is the Bible. They expect everyone to blindly believe it, as they do.

the answer to the question is "it isn't"

LowellGuy wrote:

It's not "Do you think so and why?" The question is worded properly for the intended audience.

I guess what I was really trying to say is, you did what we call in sales a presumptive close.

Your statement presumes something to be a fact, then takes a "poll" on it. The more accurate heading for the poll may have been, "You BELIEVE the bible is the only true religious text because..."

That's like me saying "George Bush is DEFINITELY Satan because..." and then taking a poll. The premise is skewed.

Tickedoffchick wrote:

<quoted text>
Great post! However, this never sinks in with the Fundies, because ALL they have is the Bible. They expect everyone to blindly believe it, as they do.

I know. It wouldn't be so bad if they advocated questions. But they discourage questions - which open the door for people like this...

http://bit.ly/dw5Kv

DeepThinka wrote:

<quoted text>
I know. It wouldn't be so bad if they advocated questions. But they discourage questions - which open the door for people like this...
http://bit.ly/dw5Kv

Good one!

Jammercolo wrote:

<quoted text>
Darrell J. Doughty, Professor of New Testament at Drew University, argues in favor of a &#8220;block interpolation in his paper, meaning that Tacitean passage is authentic with the exception of the two sentences that clearly mention &#8220;Christus&#8221; (or Christ) and the Christians. &#8212; This cannot be true because, even though this suggestion can work in modern English, it violates the Latin grammar. Stephen C. Carlson, another New Testament scholar, pointed out in his response to this assertion that,

YOU CUT THIS FROM A SITE THAT ARGUES FOR THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TACITEAN PASSAGE!

REGARDING THE ARGUMENT THAT NO EARLY CHRISTIAN CITED THIS PASSAGE THAT SITE SAYS:'Besides being an ineffective argument from silence, the fact is that citing this passage would have been practically pointless because it only would have served to confirm Jesus’ existence which was actually never questioned by early skeptics of Christianity.'

ABOUT CLAIMS THAT THE PASSAGE WAS A LATER INSERTION BY A CHRISTIAN THAT SITE SAYS:'Claims that this passage is an interpolation or was put through a Christian filter are disproven by it’s anti-Christian tone. in the text which describes Christians as “hated for their abominations,”“mischievous” and “evil.”— Later, in just a few sentences, the passage says:

'[The Christians were] convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.'

Not only is this inconsistent with what a Christian interpolator would have written, but it is historically consistent with the misinformation that was in circulation about the Christians in the first and second centuries.
— Also, the anti-Christian language used is another obvious reason why early Christian apologists wouldn’t have cited it.'

ABOUT DOUGHTY ARGUING IN FAVOR OF AN INCERTION THAT SITE SAYS:
Darrell J. Doughty, Professor of New Testament at Drew University, Doughty cannot propose something as simple block interpolation as the following, because the relative clause, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat, would then be missing its verb.

Basically, this means that the references to Christ and the Christian were most certainly intended to be in the text because it makes no grammatical sense in the Latin language to delete them.

down and out wrote:

These are a couple of links . There are tons of things to consider out there if one looks and I believe anyone will eventually come to the same conclusion many of us have if they look with an open mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

great videos DAO..thank you..