Comments by "Coffeehouse Dialogue" (@coffeehousedialogue5684) on "Did the Gospels Copy Each Other?" video.

@vashsunglasses "MUH BIASED SCHOLARS." Translation: "They don't agree me, so I'll just preemptively dismiss them."
2
@Doktor_Jones Where's the strawman? Atheists flip flop between "MUH CONTRADICTIONS" and "It's verbatim, so it's not the perfect word of God" all the time.
2
@danielpaulson8838 Where's the problem in his answer?
2
@Doktor_Jones So, just because some fundies approach the Bible a particular way, it justifies holding two contradictory premises that cannot be reconciled? Cool story bro.
2
@Doktor_Jones Oh, now you care about context, huh? What a convenient coincidence. It doesn't seem to matter to you when it comes to the Bible. Any other double standards you want to defend? Except, there was no strawman. Just because the people you talk to might be different does not mean that the laws of logic allow for a contradiction of premises. It is either one or the other. Pick one and stick with it.
2
@Doktor_Jones What about secularism or "MUH LITERALISTS" suddenly makes logical contradictions magically become consistent and reconcilable?
2
@humanity600 Yeah, it's clear by now he's just wasting everyone's time. RFB doesn't even mention US fundamentalist camps by name. The closest he gets is the traditional view of synoptic authorship, which does not necessarily equate to fundamentalist thought. Even so, it has nothing to do with whether or not two sets of criteria go together.
2
Why would some hindu theologians impact the thinking of a Judean and Galilean? They would not even have that many chances to interact.
1
@noelmckinney9559 I don't know, and neither do you. If I were to guess, he was probably either in Egypt or in Galilee.
1
@noelmckinney9559 Cough 'em up.
1
@Doktor_Jones Who said man-made and God-inspired were mutually exclusive? Stop projecting your own diseased fundamentalism onto everyone else. Again, two contradictory premises do not suddenly become consistent just because somebody has a different approach to the Bible. "IT'S BOTH!" No, it's either one or the other, otherwise you render the whole thing unfalsifiable. And, weren't you the one that claimed such a contradiction of premises by you atheists was a strawman? Why admit now that it isn't a strawman and thereafter brand yourself a liar? "I gave up arguing seriously with fundies." If I were a fundy, do you think I'd be referring to them in third person? What are you smoking, kid?
1
@Doktor_Jones How much of an idiot do you have to be to think that someone's geographical origins are relevant to the discussion of New Testament textual criticism?
1
@Doktor_Jones I get you just fine. You are just butthurt that I keep the pressure on you to choose between one premise or the other so as to be consistent. The OP was not strawmanned, you even admitted such a contradiction by atheists exists. "Did you watch this video at all?" Yes, and RFB said nothing about secularism or "MUH LITERALISTS." You're the only one bringing either up. "It is worldly." Again, nobody is saying that man-made and God-inspired are mutually exclusive. "Live here in Europe and see how Christianity plays out." Or, you can stop pretending that where somebody is from matters in this discussion (despite how you try to represent what I say), and just answer the question: What about "MUH SECULARISM" or "MUH LITETALISTS" makes two contradictory statements magically become not contradictory?
1