Jump to content


Photo

Is There A God (part 1)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
74 replies to this topic

#61 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 08 May 2011 - 03:16 AM

God is not missing.

He is easily and very clearly seen by those to whom he chooses to reveal himself.

And who are these?

The people who study the supernatural?

No.

The people who try to figure him out philosiphically and logically?

No.

Surely the good people whose lives are dominated by good deeds?

No, not even these.

No one who goes looking for God can expect to find him. He comes looking for you, and whether or not you receive him in is up to you. But more importantly, how you choose to recieve him is vitally important, since, as Jesus put it "anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

And:

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

If then, it is God's expressed will and intention that only the mild, meek, poor in spirit and merciful will inherit his kingdom then what kind of wisdom do you expect to find in the Bible? The widsom of this world? The wisdom that attracts the wise? The wisdom that makes sense to shrewd people who scan the scriptures looking for excuses not to believe in him? Or would it be a wisdom understandable only to those who come to him with a broken spirit and who are willing to admit that they are wrong?

I think you will find the answer in 1 Corinthians:

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,

23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.

27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are,

29 so that no one may boast before him.

View Post

Good preaching! Jesus was born in a stable. Peter James and John were fishermen. Finding God comes out of need in my book. If you don't think you need God, then you won't reach for him. Trying to find God through philosophy, and our own understanding comes from pride. We think because we don't understand the details, that somehow justifies our unbelief. The first thing Satan did to Eve was ask a question. Unanswered questions are sometimes a seedbed for doubt. The just shall live by faith. Wait on God and He will show you what you NEED to know.

God is a Spirit and those that worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24 It didn't say we worship Him in "a lab," or by "statistical graphs," or by pondering over research that raises a doubt in our understanding. It says we experience God in worshiping Him in our spirit and in truth.

When we try to do it any other way, we are not really coming to Him, we want Him to come to us on our terms. Jesus told Peter to get out of the boat and come to Him. It was when Peter trusted and obeyed Christ that he walked on water.

#62 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 May 2011 - 06:14 PM

Reading through this thread, I was struck by one of Ventus's arguments:

It looks like Ventus's presence in this thread has tapered off, which is a shame because I was really curious to hear a solid response from Ron.  So let's set aside Ventus's numerous other points for a minute, and focus on the particular issue of whether we can easily improve the Bible.

View Post

Before we mire ourselves in the eisegetical misunderstandings, and correct contextual hermeneutics, I would ask if you read the OP. And would further ask you to answer the questions of the OP.

These questions are directed ONLY at those of the perspective of the questions. There are questions for those of the opposite perspective at: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3892

The Questions:

Do you believe there is “absolutely” NO God?

What evidence, or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?

View Post



#63 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 08 May 2011 - 09:05 PM

Before we mire ourselves in the eisegetical misunderstandings, and correct contextual hermeneutics, I would ask if you read the OP. And would further ask you to answer the questions of the OP.

Fair enough. (And thanks for introducing me to two fun new words :) )

I do believe that there is "absolutely" no God, as long as we're defining "God" as the God of the Bible taken literally. Given your previous post distinguishing God from god(s), I think this is fair.

My evidence for this is basically my previous post:
1. If the Bible is God's word made manifest, I shouldn't be able to improve His work significantly.
2. I can improve the Bible significantly.
3. Therefore, the Bible is not God's word made manifest.
4. The Bible says it is God's word made manifest, which is untrue, so the God it describes cannot be real. (He may be similar to whatever god does exist, but not identical)

Points 3 and 4 are just deductive logic, but my reasoning could be broken by arguing against points 1 or 2. Since God is supposed to be perfect, point 1 seems very difficult to disagree with. That's why in my previous post, I said your only options were to contradict point 2 or concede the argument. Whether you do either of these things or point out something else I'm missing, I'm interested to hear your reply.

(Side note: I had read the OP, and this entire thread, before posting; I just thought that since Ventus had brought up the argument in an on-topic context, it would be worthwhile to extract the argument and examine it on its own. I certainly don't mean to derail anything.)

#64 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 May 2011 - 04:41 AM

Fair enough.  (And thanks for introducing me to two fun new words :) )

View Post

And what “New Words” would those be?

I do believe that there is "absolutely" no God, as long as we're defining "God" as the God of the Bible taken literally.  Given your previous post distinguishing God from god(s), I think this is fair.

View Post


Many questions come to mind then:

1- How can one claim a Christian worldview and then turn around and say “there is ‘absolutely’ no God?” Given your purposed worldview (in this forum), this question is clearly fair, as the Bible itself (i.e. the Biblical eye witnesses of the Bible, and even Jesus Himself) make the claim that God of the Bible be taken literally, and you are claiming to be a "Christian".

2- Do you have Biblical contemporaneous evidences, proofs and facts that these witnesses and Jesus are incorrect in their statements?

3- Do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences that Jesus didn’t say He was God?

4- Do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences that the Jewish leadership of the time didn’t understand that Jesus said He was God? (Further, do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences that the Jewish leadership of the time didn’t (as the eye witnesses claimed) attempt to “do away with” Jesus for claiming He was God?)

5- Do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences to counter the literal eyewitnesses of the life, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry, then ascension, of Jesus Christ?

Keep in mind; I’m not requesting your “subjective opinion” I’m asking for “literal, factual evidence! And it is fair, since you are the one that injected “literal” into the conversation.

My evidence for this is basically my previous post:
1. If the Bible is God's word made manifest, I shouldn't be able to improve His work significantly.

View Post

The above statement is based upon “subjective opinion” and not “objective fact/evidence” and therefore falls far short the OP’s request for evidence.

2. I can improve the Bible significantly.

View Post


The above statement is based upon “subjective opinion” and not “objective fact/evidence” and therefore falls far short the OP’s request for evidence.

3. Therefore, the Bible is not God's word made manifest.

View Post


The above statement is based upon “subjective opinion” and not “objective fact/evidence” and therefore falls far short the OP’s request for evidence.


4. The Bible says it is God's word made manifest, which is untrue, so the God it describes cannot be real.  (He may be similar to whatever god does exist, but not identical)

View Post


The above statement is based upon “subjective opinion” and not “objective fact/evidence” and therefore falls far short the OP’s request for evidence.

Points 3 and 4 are just deductive logic, but my reasoning could be broken by arguing against points 1 or 2.  Since God is supposed to be perfect, point 1 seems very difficult to disagree with.  That's why in my previous post, I said your only options were to contradict point 2 or concede the argument.  Whether you do either of these things or point out something else I'm missing, I'm interested to hear your reply.

View Post


The above statement is based upon “subjective opinion” and not “objective fact/evidence” and therefore falls far short the OP’s request for evidence.

(Side note: I had read the OP, and this entire thread, before posting; I just thought that since Ventus had brought up the argument in an on-topic context, it would be worthwhile to extract the argument and examine it on its own.  I certainly don't mean to derail anything.)

View Post


Had you read the OP, you would have responded to the OP, and not the subjective opinions of Ventus, and his attempts to side track the thread due to his lack of actual response to said OP.

As I said, these statements Ventus had brought up were based upon “subjective opinion” and not “objective fact/evidence” as well; and therefore fell far short the OP’s request for evidence. His statements (as are yours) were/are analogues to the kid in the school yard playground saying “my dad can beat your dad up”. The problem is, until his dad actually beats the other kids dad up, his statement actually means nothing! Further, is this how open, honest dialogue proceeds? Do we actually use ‘subjective opinion’ as ‘fact’? I think not! It (the conversion by definition you are attempting) is the usual tactics employed by moral relativists, and Biblie Scoffers.


Further: although ‘evidence’ is defined as a “thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment”, the phenomena that has a great amount of supporting evidence (i.e. multiple eye witnesses etc…) requires a great(er) amount of counter-evidence to deconstruct/disprove/dismantle (etc…) said phenomena. Subjective opinion is not evidence, it is merely subjective opinion (in this context). And an opinion (in this context) is nothing more than a “view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment”. And your subjective opinions above are based solely on your opinions or feelings rather than on facts or evidence!

Why? Because evidence (from Latin e-, "out," and videre-, "to see") is information that helps form a conclusion. And evidence used as proof, is that “factual information” that verifies a conclusion. Therefore, if “subjective opinion” is used to verify a conclusion, that conclusion is no stronger than an opinion. But if said conclusion is based upon “objective” facts, especially multiple lines of objective facts (i.e. multiple eyewitnesses etc…), said conclusion is “actual evidence”, not mere opinion.

#65 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 09 May 2011 - 10:19 AM

And what “New Words” would those be?

"Eisegetical" and "hermeneutical". I hadn't heard either word before, and I had to look them up. Yay vocabulary.

How can one claim a Christian worldview and then turn around and say “there is ‘absolutely’ no God?”

I consider myself a Christian because I believe that Jesus was the son of God (not the exact God of the Bible), and that He showed us the way to salvation. I also believe that large parts of the Old Testament and some parts of the New Testament (including the part where Jesus said the Bible should be taken literally) are simply incorrect. If you don't consider this sufficient to be a Christian, that's reasonable. But I do, which is why I label myself as a Christian on this forum.

Do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences that ... <various claims>

I'll re-list and clarify my evidence below. It's contemporaneous because it references only the Bible, and the Bible is certainly contemporaneous with itself. It's factual because it applies sound logic and doesn't rely on subjective opinion (this is of course debatable, but I'll take extra care to justify why I think this is so). And it's literal because it doesn't rely on any metaphorical interpretations of the verses it quotes.

And for what it's worth, my evidence isn't directly against any of the parts of the story of Jesus you listed; in fact, I believe most of those parts of the Bible. My evidence is simply against the Bible as a whole being completely, literally true. It might be interesting to discuss which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't, but for the purposes of this discussion, it's sufficient to show that any part is not true.

Last thing before I get back into my evidence. I'm well aware that using subjective opinions as evidence is logically unsound and leads to bad decision-making. In future posts, if you can demonstrate that an argument I'm using is just opinion, you can consider it defeated, at least until I reword it or back it up. No need to waste words driving the point home or reminding me of the OP.

1. If the Bible is God's word made manifest, I shouldn't be able to improve His work significantly.
2. I can improve the Bible significantly.
3. Therefore, the Bible is not God's word made manifest.
4. The Bible says it is God's word made manifest, which is untrue, so the God it describes cannot be real. (He may be similar to whatever god does exist, but not identical)

We'll get back to point #2 in a moment, but the other three aren't subjective. I'll break down the logic as formally as I can, with premises labeled P and conclusions labeled C:

P1. If He exists, God, by His very nature, should be perfect.
P2. Every aspect of a perfect being is, by definition, perfect.
P3. Perfect things cannot be improved.
P4. The Bible can be improved. (this is point 2, which I'll justify below)
P5. One aspect of the God described in the Bible is that the Bible is His word made manifest.

C1. From P1 and P2: God's Word, if it exists, should be perfect.
C2. From C1: If the Bible is God's Word made manifest, it should be perfect.
C3. From P3 and C2: If the Bible is God's Word made manifest, it should not be improvable.
C4. From C3: If the Bible is improvable, it is not God's Word made manifest.
C5. Prom P4 and C4: The Bible is not God's Word made manifest.
C6. From P5 and C5: The God described in the Bible does not exist.

This is nothing but deductive reasoning from a set of premises. You could disrupt the reasoning by contradicting any one of the premises. However, P2 and P3 are really just definitions, while P1 and P5 seem very difficult to argue. (If you want to argue them, please do, but give an objection more specific than saying they're "subjective")

This leaves us with P4: The Bible can be improved. This statement certainly needs to be justified, which is what I've been trying to do since my first post. A reminder, since my original argument is a ways back in the thread:

So, how can I improve the Bible?...
1. Condemn slavery. First off, Ron said earlier that slavery is a post-fall thing, and just because man engaged in it doesn't mean God condoned it. In fact, the Bible does explicitly condone slavery in, for instance, Leviticus 25:44 :
"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
That's from the King James version; Merriam-Webster defines "bondmen/maids" as people bound to service without wages (ie. slaves), and newer translations just use the term "slaves" explicitly. In other words, it's ok to have slaves as long as they're heathens. Support of slavery can also be found in the New Testament (eg. Ephesians 6:5).

Even without that explicit condoning, though, what does it mean to not have an anti-slavery passage in the Bible? Ron is right that the Bible can't be expected to condemn every immoral act by name, but Leviticus makes a good effort to do so; it's mostly just a big list of God's rules for mankind. Chapter 11 is all about what you are and aren't allowed to eat, with several helpful examples. Chapter 18 is just a big index of S@xual taboos, and chapter 20 is another index of the same taboos but with the death penalty attached to most of them. In all of this laying-down-the-law, how is it that God neglected to condemn the appalling human rights violation that is slavery, but remembered to note that we can't eat rabbits because they "chew the cud"?

2. Get rid of Genesis 19:8, or at least modify it heavily. Again, Ron's response is that Lot offering his daughters to the rapists was an act of man, not an act of God. But Genesis 19 is not just a record of what happened one day in Sodom way back when. It's meant to teach a lesson; the Sodomites are punished because they've strayed too far from the righteous path, Lot is saved because he puts his trust in God, and Lot's wife is punished for even looking back to the cesspool of sin from which she was fleeing. Lot is clearly the protagonist in this story; his hospitality saves the travelers from the mob, and his faith saves him when the rest of the city burns. Why is it never discussed that by offering his daughters to the rapists, he is committing the second most immoral act in the chapter (right after the rapists themselves)? If the angles who saved him were really messengers of a good God, they would have at some point explained to him that his actions were despicable. And since Genesis 19 is a story about morality, this explanation should have made its way into the final draft.

I'll admit, this isn't irrefutable evidence that I could make the Bible "better", if only because there is no objective standard for what "better" means. It is, however, evidence that the Bible condones slavery and undervalues women. Because of this, I can only see four possibilities. Not just in the sense that "I think one of these things is true", but in the sense that given the evidence, I can see no other possibility.

1. I am misinterpreting the Bible, and there's something wrong with my evidence. Or,
2. My listed improvements are actually improvements. As per the logic above, this means the God of the Bible does not exist. Or,
3. The Bible is a better document because it condones slavery and undervalues women. There is nothing logically wrong with this viewpoint, but I find it morally abhorrent, and I hope you do, too. Or,
4. God intentionally wrote a document that seems obviously flawed at face value, but is actually perfect for reasons inscrutable to nonbelievers. This would seem tough to justify, since the "this whole book is literally true" clause leaves very little wiggle room for finding value in a seemingly bad passage.

When you reply, no matter what else you respond to and how, please pick one of these options (I suspect you'll go with option 1), or explicitly write out another option that I've overlooked. I've done all I can in response to broad accusations of subjectivity and requests for evidence on parts of the Bible I never intended to critique; to proceed, I really need to know what holes, if any, you find in my argument.

#66 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 May 2011 - 12:20 PM

I consider myself a Christian because I believe that Jesus was the son of God (not the exact God of the Bible), and that He showed us the way to salvation.  I also believe that large parts of the Old Testament and some parts of the New Testament (including the part where Jesus said the Bible should be taken literally) are simply incorrect.  If you don't consider this sufficient to be a Christian, that's reasonable.  But I do, which is why I label myself as a Christian on this forum.

View Post


Your considerations and beliefs notwithstanding (as they are not evidence, and therefor fail the OP), when you make an assertion, accusation, or statement, as if it were fact, it is incumbent upon you to provide the fact(s) to back up your words. Otherwise they (your posits) are nothing more than mere opinions.

As an aside, if you don't believe what Jesus said "should be taken literally", then how do you think He literally "showed us the way to salvation"? Bit of a logical bind you have there...

Therefore, I reiterate one (1) more time:


Many questions come to mind then:

1- How can one claim a Christian worldview and then turn around and say “there is ‘absolutely’ no God?” Given your purposed worldview (in this forum), this question is clearly fair, as the Bible itself (i.e. the Biblical eye witnesses of the Bible, and even Jesus Himself) make the claim that God of the Bible be taken literally, and you are claiming to be a "Christian".

2- Do you have Biblical contemporaneous evidences, proofs and facts that these witnesses and Jesus are incorrect in their statements?

3- Do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences that Jesus didn’t say He was God?

4- Do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences that the Jewish leadership of the time didn’t understand that Jesus said He was God? (Further, do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences that the Jewish leadership of the time didn’t (as the eye witnesses claimed) attempt to “do away with” Jesus for claiming He was God?)

5- Do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences to counter the literal eyewitnesses of the life, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry, then ascension, of Jesus Christ?

Keep in mind; I’m not requesting your “subjective opinion” I’m asking for “literal, factual evidence! And it is fair, since you are the one that injected “literal” into the conversation.

View Post


Until you have provided the actual facts(s), not opinions, to back up your assertions, you may as well not respond because your premises are faulty at their very base. For example: you assume/presuppose parts of the Old and New Testaments are incorrect, but you have not proven (i.e. provided any facts) they are incorrect. You assume/presuppose that what Jesus said was not to be taken literally, but you have not proven such (i.e. provided any facts). You also abuse the word “contemporaneous” as I have used (i.e. you have taken it out of context).

#67 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 09 May 2011 - 05:11 PM

That last post was very frustrating to read. In the first half of my previous post, before I got into the formal logic, I explained why I think I'm a Christian, and I tried to answer your five questions, even though they aren't pertinent to my argument. I am very aware that this first part contained no proper evidence, mainly because it had little or nothing to do with the issue I'm trying to discuss. You don't think I can call myself a Christian? Fine - for the purposes of this debate, I can be an atheist. Or pseudo-Christian. Or Scientologist. It really doesn't matter, since my actual argument makes no direct reference to my personal beliefs or the historicity of Jesus.

When you get right down to it, all five of your questions have largely the same form. They're all some variation on "Lots of sources, including the Bible, say that <insert claim about God>. Do you have evidence that suggest otherwise?" I do have such evidence, but I'm not sure it's the kind you're thinking of. I don't have any historical documents or testimonies or anything that tell me the Bible was wrong. What I do have is a chain of logic leading to the conclusion that it is impossible for the Bible to be completely, literally true. You keep trying to argue that I don't have historical evidence for this or that part of the Bible being untrue, but that doesn't matter here. My argument is based entirely on deductive reasoning, and formal logic doesn't get weaker no matter how much historically suggestive evidence you throw at it. To put it another way, I'm sure you have plenty of text, witnesses, etc. that collectively make a strong case for the literal truth of the Bible. But if it's logically impossible for the Bible to be literally true, you must just be misinterpreting all the evidence, because the conclusion you draw is wrong a priori.

In the second part of my previous post, after I get into the formal logic, that's where all of my evidence and proper argumentation is. I'm really curious to hear your response to that part. But like I said, your last post was very frustrating, because you quoted my explanation of what I believe, berated me for lacking evidence, and then stopped reading right before the part where I started using evidence. Next time you respond, please don't press me on how I can call myself a Christian, and please don't ask me for historical evidence that any particular part of the New Testament is inaccurate. Just answer my argument, by poking a hole in my logic at any level. The premises and conclusions are even labeled to make it easy to be specific with your criticism.

As an afterthought, I'm going to go ahead and answer your five questions as directly as I can. Keep in mind that this is not at the heart of my argument and that conceding any of these questions in no way makes my logic less sound.

How can one claim a Christian worldview and then turn around and say “there is ‘absolutely’ no God?” Given your purposed worldview (in this forum), this question is clearly fair, as the Bible itself (i.e. the Biblical eye witnesses of the Bible, and even Jesus Himself) make the claim that God of the Bible be taken literally, and you are claiming to be a "Christian".

I believe in a god similar to the God of the Bible, but I don't believe in the God of the Bible because I believe that the Bible is very wrong in many important ways. If you think that makes me a non-Christian, that's fine. But that's another topic for another thread.

Do you have Biblical contemporaneous evidences, proofs and facts that these witnesses and Jesus are incorrect in their statements?

I don't have "Biblical contemporaneous evidences". I have something better: logical proof. The Bible logically cannot be completely true, therefore at least some of the witnessings and quotations therein must be incorrect. If you believe the Bible can logically be completely true, please address my argument to the contrary.

Do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences that Jesus didn’t say He was God? ... Do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences that the Jewish leadership of the time didn’t understand that Jesus said He was God?

No and no. I believe that Jesus said He was God, and that the Jewish leadership of the time understood him.

Do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences to counter the literal eyewitnesses of the life, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry, then ascension, of Jesus Christ?

No. The only aspect of Jesus's life that I have evidence against is the part where he says that the Bible is the literal word of God. The Bible logically cannot be the literal word of God, so this part must be false. I believe that the rest is mostly true. (Not necessarily completely true, since the Bible as a whole cannot be completely true.)

#68 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 May 2011 - 05:37 PM

Do you have literal factual contemporaneous evidences to counter the literal eyewitnesses of the life, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry, then ascension, of Jesus Christ?

No. The only aspect of Jesus's life that I have evidence against is the part where he says that the Bible is the literal word of God. The Bible logically cannot be the literal word of God, so this part must be false. I believe that the rest is mostly true. (Not necessarily completely true, since the Bible as a whole cannot be completely true.)



Mod hat on: Warning.. Master Buffalax... if you are not going to adhere to the OP do not post replies.

#69 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 09 May 2011 - 06:05 PM

...ok, i'm a little confused now. I certainly don't want to get banned or anything, so this post will just ask for clarification. If you explain to me why I'm being off-topic, I can certainly start a new topic and repost my question.

The OP reads:

Do you believe there is “absolutely” NO God?

What evidence, or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?

I answered the first question in the affirmative. I believe in a god, but not the God of the literal Bible, and it seemed like that was ok for this thread.

As for the second question, I presented a careful chain of logical reasoning as my evidence.

How is this not in the spirit of the OP? Was the OP meant to read "Do you believe there is absolutely NO God and that no aspect of Jesus's life was historical?" Or maybe "What historical evidence or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?" If so, that's fine and I'll move my question. Barring that, though, why does my logical argument not count as evidence? Or why do I have to disprove every aspect of Jesus's life before I can argue that other parts of the Bible are wrong? Again, I'm not trying to be contrary or anything; I'm just baffled as to how I'm not being on-topic here.

#70 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 09 May 2011 - 07:19 PM

I answered the first question in the affirmative.  I believe in a god, but not the God of the literal Bible, and it seemed like that was ok for this thread.


View Post


If you dont believe in the God of the "literal" bible, then how can You be a Christian, which comes from the literal bible?

#71 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 09 May 2011 - 08:49 PM

If you dont believe in the God of the "literal" bible, then how can You be a Christian, which comes from the literal bible?

View Post

The short version is that I define "Christian" in a broader way than most people on this forum seem to. I'll post the long version if and when a moderator verifies for me that your question is on-topic, because it strikes me as clearly off-topic and I'm on a warning for such things.

#72 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 May 2011 - 03:27 AM

...ok, i'm a little confused now. I certainly don't want to get banned or anything, so this post will just ask for clarification. If you explain to me why I'm being off-topic, I can certainly start a new topic and repost my question.

View Post


What exactly does the OP ask for?

1- Evidence

2- Opinion

What did you give?

You are off topic because you are giving opinion and not facts, as the OP called for.
You are off topic because you are posting here under false pretense. You are attempting to call yourself Christian, and yet you are disparaging the words of Christ. Which begs the question; why would someone post under a false word-view in a Christian forum?

#73 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 10 May 2011 - 03:36 AM

If you dont believe in the God of the "literal" bible, then how can You be a Christian, which comes from the literal bible?

View Post


The short version is that I define "Christian" in a broader way than most people on this forum seem to.

View Post


Is your above statement "fact based" or "opinion based"?

There is no need for you to post a longer version unless it is "fact based".


I'll post the long version if and when a moderator verifies for me that your question is on-topic, because it strikes me as clearly off-topic and I'm on a warning for such things.

View Post


His statement is not off topic, because it is a direct refutation to your assertion that the words of Jesus cannot be taken literally. His statement can be verified via scriptural reference (i.e. the actual words of Jesus as verified by several contemporaneous eye witnesses, respected investigators/historians, and writers of the time period covering the first two hundred years of the church. Your statement cannot be verified at all, and is therefore presupposed opinion.

#74 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 October 2011 - 06:42 AM

Start a thread and list the contradictions you have a problem with in the Bible. You brought it up, so let's discuss it.


Isaac, he completely side stepped the issue at hand concerning this OP from the beginning. As do may atheists!

#75 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 January 2012 - 07:14 AM

The short version is that I define "Christian" in a broader way than most people on this forum seem to.


Which would be a total distortion on your part, as the "definition" for a "Christian" is set by Jesus in the New Testament. After all, it is after Him that Christianity is based. Therefore, any definition by you, which deviated from that definition, is nothing more than “conversion by definition” AND nothing more than a "Clear case of misrepresentation"...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users