Hi, Warrick here!
Offline Hi guys,
I'm Warrick - I love Jesus because He first loved me.
I'm visiting this forum for several reasons. Most importantly I pray that Jesus use these forums and discussions to reveal the truth to all those who doubt and bring them to a place where they know without a doubt that the God of Israel, the creator of the universe, loves them and nothing can separate them from that love.
Another reason I'm here is because I find discussions with free thinkers revitalising. I'm intent on learning the Word of God and understanding it as best I possibly can and I find discussions with atheists a very challenging and effective way to learn. Mostly because really zealous atheists know more of the Word and seem to spend more time in it than your average Christian. Interesting.
I'm excited by open, honest frank discussion since there is no other way to get to the truth. And Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
No matter what is said in these discussions, Jesus loves each one of us. No doubt, blasphemy (even against the Holy Spirit) or profanity can change that. Thank you Jesus. In fact Jesus will leave the 99 sheep to find the one that is lost - so all you lost sheep Jesus is looking for you - knocking at the door of your heart waiting for you to let Him in.
God is not a respecter of men. He is the same yesterday, today and forever, And He loves you.
- Login to post comments
Offline I bet you work in a cherry orchard because you sound like you are an expert in picking and chosing at your whim.
One example of how wrong inference can go 
I find it funny that metaphor is used consistantly as a cop out when the skeptic points out the logical impossibility while other places in the bible seem to excape that scrutany.
Why is one claim metaphore and not literal while others are literal and not metaphore.
It is not unreasonable to claim that some things are metaphor when they clearly are. Jesus spoke in parables - those are metaphor. Jesus walked on water - that is literal.
Let me give you an example.
Malichi 2:3 "Behold I will coorupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces"
Is that litteral or metaphore?
Sounds literal to me.
I dont get it if you'd claim that to be metaphore. I mean, if god is willing to beat the crap out of you for eternity a parlor trick like spreading animal feces in your face should be a walk in the park to a god that claims it can do anything it wants.
NOW WAIT.....you say.....do I hear "mistranslation".....ok what version of bible do you read? Still wouldnt change my argument.
If god is capable of torturing you in hell for ever for not sucking up to him, then why would a simple magical slap on the wrist like litteraly spreading dung in your face be out of the relm of an all powerfull god's ability?
HE WOULDNT DO THAT........
He wouldnt? I am not talking about what claimed deity says it would or would not do. I am merely talking about capabability. To claim that god is all powerfull it must include being able to spread dung in your face litterally. If he cant do that litterally, why call him all powerfull?
None of this applies since it should be taken literally. He said it, He can do it and He does do it. We all know that.
If he can, why call him all loving?
He calls himself love. He said He is love. When parent discipline a child, are they exhibiting love? Love is not all cuddles and kisses. It is tough and uncompromising. The context of the Malachi scripture is God speaking to priests that claim to know Him and yet do not obey Him. That's a different kettle of fish. They are clearly disobedient to something they claim to believe in. Rather deny it and do as you please than claim that you believe it and then stuff around. This scripture shows the justice of God. God is just and God is love.
"Isiah 45:7"
"I create good, I create evil, I the lord do all these things"
Is this litteral or metaphore?
Literal.
If it is metaphore, why accept it as the word of god? Why not call it a fictional illistration?
N/A once again.
If it is literal then that means god creates pedeoplies and ecoli and cancer and aids. I'd call that evil, wouldnt you?
God created all physical things. He created the peadophile but He did not create the peadophilia. God loves the man not the behaviour. If the peadophile turns to God he will be healed. If he insists on living out his fanatsies he will meet with the justice of God.
Ecoli is not inherently bad. It's just bad for us. Stay clean, watch what you eat ad what you expose yourself to and you have no problem.
Turn to God and ecoli will not scare you.
HERE COMES THE "FALL OF MAN"
Really? So because Adam screwed up all the drama that followed on every human since is their fault and not the fault of Adam. Tell me, do you blame me personally for what happened to Native Americans and blacks simply because my white ansestors did those horrible things?
We are all personally responsible for our decisions. That's the point. I am here to tell you that Jesus is ready for you to have a relationship with Him. He can help you to turn away from behaviour that does not lead to life, but that leads to death. You choose not to hear that and make your own decision and you face the consequences of your dicision. You choose not to follow God. He is giving you a way out. A big sign saying, come with Me or there will be trouble. You say that's extortion I won't go with you. And He says come with Me, you'll be happy. No I won't you say.
Don't you see how simple this is. God has warned us all of the trouble that faces us without Him. We choose to accept Him or not. When the trouble comes no-one can say they weren't warned or given an opporunity. This is one of the many opporunities you will get to give Jesus a chance.
I could go on, but I am quite sure you'll give me more fallacies and contridictions when you respond to this. But, I do like to be proven wrong, so give it a shot.
Name the contradiction in my argument and I will address it.
Why would Malichi 2:3 or Isiah 45:7 be metaphore and not a spirit knocking up a girl? Why wouldnt a talking donkey be a litteral possibility and be in the relm of a god who can do anything?
They are all literal.
Maybe, just maybe you havent considered the obvious because you like what you believe. Maybe it is fiction you'd like to believe as fact. Because I cannot for the life of me buy claims of dung slingers anymore than I could believe that Harry Potter could really fly around on a broomstick.
Can you buy the fact that God loves you and is calling you into a relationship with Him? He is not calling you to follow blindly. He is not calling you to church. He is calling you to speak to Him. Spend time with Him. You can tell Him anything and He is there for you.
Believers of all labels are apt to create mental gymanstics and turn their inerpretations into ambigous ameobas(sp) which makes it convienant to dodge lack of evidence when they dont have it.
So tell Alex Tribec what catigory you'll take for double jeopardy, will it be metaphore, or litteral?
It's all literal. Hands writing on walls, dead reased to life, lepers cleansed, captives set free, sick healed, hungry fed. Your needs and ambitions can be met in Christ too. Just speak to Him.
- Login to post comments
Offline I didn't realize that's how it worked. I was once a child, but I am no longer. Does that mean I didn't have a childhood?
Thie thing here is though that the term Christian get's applied to so many different things that it no longer has any clear meaning. My definition of Christian is someone who is in a vital relationship with Christ. That the fruits of the Spirit of evident and that other people are compelled to call the person Christian, because they remind them of Christ. You are not Christian because you attend a church and read the Bible. You are Christian by the grace of God giving you an oppotunity to enter into relationship with Christ.
You are the one making the claim, you are the one who has to provide proof. I could claim that I have an invisible red crocoduck in my pocket that lays $100 bills. However, it would be up to me to provide proof of such a creature.
That's fine and I intend to present evidence as we go. My question though is yo those who are adamant that God does not exist. Why are they so adamant? Do they have proof of that? Why not rather question it and say, I'm not so sure that God exists. Rather the statement is "Your god is dead" or "There is no god". So where is the proof for these statements.
Without a well defined definition of God, it is impossible to refute your claim. Define God and while you're at it, feel free to provide evidence of your God's existance.
A well defined definition hey? God is defined in the Bible many times. Once again we are appealing to our severely limited mental capacity to defined a God who is beyond description. Suffice it to say God is love. Where there is love, God is there.
What's love you ask. Read your Bible it is clearly defined in 1 Cor 13: Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
The world around you is proof. You just don't accept it. So we'll continue to talk in the hope that at some point you will at least give the Spirit of God an opportunity to reveal the truth to you. You have to give Him the opporunity. It's your choice.
- Login to post comments
Offline Description of Appeal to Tradition
So you have your own "bible".
Description of Appeal to Emotion
Well, actually no. I would not consider the definitions of logical fallacies a 'bible'. I am not looking for a 'bible' anywhere, I was stating the tactics you were trying to use were fallacious and not convincing.
Once again quotes from some text you accept as authorative. I don't dispute that it may be correctm reasonable and accurate (this text of yours, but really you've side stepped the question.How do you apply logic to love? My point being, is logic and reason the only way to understand everything? Is it possible that logic reason have limits, boundaries? Are we not limiting our free thought, putting it into a little prison, by basing our every decision on logic and reason.
I'm interested to know your thoughts on this then. If God is Love (as the Bible says He is) and if He is not physical (which is true based on the fact that He existed before the physical universe did) then aren't we severely limiting our ability to understand Him by attempting to apply logic (love is not logical) and physical understanding (He is not physical)?
Love from a loved one can be inferrred. I know you do not like that word but that is exactly what is done when assesing anothers love for you. We look at their actions, we decide whether we trust them and we determine if love is implied by all of this.
I have never noticed, felt, inferred, deduced or sensed love from a diety.
- Login to post comments
Online Human flesh does not withstand rigor mortis. That is why it is so special that Jesus did it.
That is a claim, that is not evidence.
Again, show me the peer reveiwed medical evidence that JESUS completly lost all his blood from being speared in the side, suffered oxygen deprovation to the point of all organs dying and brain death as well, to have the blood later to settle at the lowest point of gravity, later to have bacteria decay his flesh ONLY TO LATER GET UP AND WALK AROUND AND TALK AS IF NOTHING EVER HAPPENED.
You do have peer reviewed medical evidence right? I am sure the American Medical Association can prove to me that Jesus did that right?
Nope, all you have is "God did it".
You claim it was special is not evidence of squat. It smacks of emotional appeal.
It is a work of fiction, nothing more. Claiming that a human named Jesus existed would be irrelivent in any case, even if I granted you that for argument's sake.
That would be like litterally believing that Harry Potter could litterally fly on a broomstick because the book and movie use London as a backdrop. That would be like litterally believing a human can fly like Superman because it uses New York city as a backdrop.
You have a claim, that is it.
If it were anything more than a claim it could be testable, repeatable and falsifiable, "Thats what makes it so special" Is you deluding yourself into believing in hocus pokus.
If Jesus could get up after being litterally dead for three days, then talking bushes should be just as possible to an all powerfull being. Please tell me you dont litterally believe that the foliage in front of your house has vocal cords like a human.
I am quite sure thet tenants of rubber room hiltons also claim they are Napolean. You dont believe them merely because Napolean was a real person? If you believe that Jesus's human flesh really did reconstitute itself why couldnt that person in the nutfarm merely be a persicuted Napolean who merely reincarnated himself but cant convince you he really is Napolean?
Jesus did not rise from the dead PERIOD! No one ever has. Perminant death is irreversable and no amount amount of "I want to believe this" is going to change that.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Love from a loved one can be inferrred. I know you do not like that word but that is exactly what is done when assesing anothers love for you. We look at their actions, we decide whether we trust them and we determine if love is implied by all of this.
It's not that I don't like it , it is just subject to error that's all. I'm looking for you to acknowledge that If you are using the actions of others to infer their love for you then you can be duped into believing they love you. Worse yet, some action they take (for instance disciplining a child) can be taken as not love at all and you can infer that someone who does love you does not.
The point being, the inference is error prone. So inference, as in the Bible is myth based on other mythology, does not substantiate your clai. So heavy reliance on inference is a mistake I believe. Let's get down to evidence rather.
I have never noticed, felt, inferred, deduced or sensed love from a diety.
Excellent! That's why we are talking. Nor did I until I made the decision to give Jesus a chance. And I'm here to tell you it is worth the while. If you have "tried" to be e believer then I'm interested to know what processyou followed.
- Login to post comments
Offline That is a claim, that is not evidence.
Yip. I wasn't claiming that to be evidence Just a statement.
Again, show me the peer reveiwed medical evidence that JESUS completly lost all his blood from being speared in the side, suffered oxygen deprovation to the point of all organs dying and brain death as well, to have the blood later to settle at the lowest point of gravity, later to have bacteria decay his flesh ONLY TO LATER GET UP AND WALK AROUND AND TALK AS IF NOTHING EVER HAPPENED.
You do have peer reviewed medical evidence right? I am sure the American Medical Association can prove to me that Jesus did that right?
No peer reviewed medical evidence, as you predicted.
Nope, all you have is "God did it".
No. I have the accounts of eye witnesses to rely on. No-one has presented any credible evidence to me that challenges the validity or reliability of those accounts.
I also have half a life time of personal experience with Jesus in my life. He is alive. He delivers on His promises. Give Him a chance.
You claim it was special is not evidence of squat. It smacks of emotional appeal.
Going by the definition of emotional appeal presented earlier in this thread I'd say this does not resemblean emotional appeal. YOu statement is an example of ill-considered atheist dogma. You see a statement, think back to some of the clever answers you've seen in the past and quickly flick back some thoughtless response. Think for yourself.
It is a work of fiction, nothing more.
Now you are making a claim without evidence. The Bible is a collection of writings from eye witnesses that you are basically discrediting without evidence. You were not there and you have no evidence to discredit these accounts because they are true accounts. You are making a claim, an assertion, back it up with evidence.
Claiming that a human named Jesus existed would be irrelivent in any case, even if I granted you that for argument's sake.
That would be like litterally believing that Harry Potter could litterally fly on a broomstick because the book and movie use London as a backdrop. That would be like litterally believing a human can fly like Superman because it uses New York city as a backdrop.
This doesn't really make sense. Again, we have eye witness accounts. A voice was heard from a burning bush. That is God speaking. He can do as He pleases.
Think on this for a moment - and please put some thought into this. Why would the witnesses of the day have attempted to convince people that Jesus was alive? What benefit was it to them? They all suffered for it. This is not like a modern day novel where ridiculous sums of money are likely to come flooding in.
These people knew that there eye witness account was going to get them into strife, yet they persisted. What could their motives possibly have been other than that they were telling the truth? There was not benefit to them telling people.
That in itself has to be compelling evidence that the accounts are true. We know for a fact that Christians were persecuted by the Romans. Why didn't they just renounce it if it was just a hoax?
It is true. It is all true. Give it a chance. Give Jesus a chance. He loves you.
- Login to post comments
Online This is no myth. There is enough evidence to to support the Bible to convince even the most adamant of resistance. You won't take the time to look at it honestly and you have no good, logical reason not to.
Jesus loves you.
If you watched Star Wars a billion times would you be stupid enough to believe Luke Skywalker could levitate object with his mind? Or would you merely see it for what it is, a work of fiction.
Still wating for that peer reviewed medical evidence that explains how Jesus exaped rigor mortis, cant wait to see it. I know you have it, you are just holding out on me.
And Thor loves you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline It's not that I don't like it , it is just subject to error that's all. I'm looking for you to acknowledge that If you are using the actions of others to infer their love for you then you can be duped into believing they love you. Worse yet, some action they take (for instance disciplining a child) can be taken as not love at all and you can infer that someone who does love you does not.
The point being, the inference is error prone. So inference, as in the Bible is myth based on other mythology, does not substantiate your clai. So heavy reliance on inference is a mistake I believe. Let's get down to evidence rather.
You are right inference is subject to error but I argue every minute of every day you, I, and almost every other person on this planet infer about our enviroment and reality. Because the water tasted like water every other time you took a drink, you infer it will taste like water the next time. Because the sun came up every other morning when you woke, you infer it will do the same tomorrow. Does this mean these things are guarunteed? No. It means you have reasonable cause to infer them.
From my study of other mythology, again, I infer the bible is the same genre of these other works. Could I be wrong, possibly. For now I can only hold true to what I infer from my experience.
Excellent! That's why we are talking. Nor did I until I made the decision to give Jesus a chance. And I'm here to tell you it is worth the while. If you have "tried" to be e believer then I'm interested to know what processyou followed.
I was raised catholic and I had many protestant fundy friends, but the issue is not the process.
I argue that you really have no valid reason to infer god/jesus exists or loves you. I am sure you will argue from emotion again and claim warm fuzzy feelings but this is not proof of anything or reason to infer anything. I can infer this discussion is headed in a direction where we are not going to see eye to eye.
- Login to post comments
Offline If you watched Star Wars a billion times would you be stupid enough to believe Luke Skywalker could levitate object with his mind? Or would you merely see it for what it is, a work of fiction.
What has this got to do with anything? I can;t see where this applies to any of this. The Bible contains eye witness accounts and I have not yet seen any sort of useful rebuttal from you. That means you don't have a good reason to doubt the stuff. You are just following the other real free thinkers and think it is cool to debate. Make your own choices, thin for yourself. Become a true free thinker.
Still wating for that peer reviewed medical evidence that explains how Jesus exaped rigor mortis, cant wait to see it. I know you have it, you are just holding out on me.
You clearly are not reading all the responses - is it worth getting into an intelligent discussion with someone that does not respond to what you say?
I do not have the peer reviewed medical evidence as you predicted. I do have credible eye witness accouns however and a life time of experience that tells me Jesus is well and truly alive.
- Login to post comments
Offline I can infer this discussion is headed in a direction where we are not going to see eye to eye.
Not sure if that is inference or prediction, but either way it is true! LOL
- Login to post comments
Online This doesn't really make sense. Again, we have eye witness accounts. This doesn't really make sense. Again, we have eye witness accounts. A voice was heard from a burning bush. That is God speaking. He can do as He pleases.
Where? In the bible?
So, if I write a letter that claims I Brian am richer than Bill Gates. I make 5,000 copies of it and burry it in the sand and 1,000 years from now someone digs those copies up, does that make me richer than Bill Gates? Or does that mean I made a story up?
The nearist outside the bible source of any mention of Jesus is second hand hearsay at best and way after his supposed death. Could it be that someone made up this fictional atribute about magically surviving death and conflated it?
God can do as he pleases? Ok, then why not have a bush with vocal cords? If god is all powerfull than that should be within his ability.
What better way to make a super hero story appealing than to have the main character cheat death. Horus died too and assended into heaven to sit at the right hand of Osirus. He also had his blindness cured by Thot, who spit in his eye to cure his blindness> That is where the modern Rx drugstore symbol comes from. The capital "R" is Thot spitting in the eye of horus the "X".
It never occurs to you that your myth is merely a mix of prior myths in which the details and names change.
I doubt you have done much, if any comparissons of polytheism prior to the Hebrews. BTW "Yahwey" is not original to the Hebrews, it was used by the Caananites prior.
And pleas give Thor a chance, he really loves you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline You are right inference is subject to error but I argue every minute of every day you, I, and almost every other person on this planet infer about our enviroment and reality. ... Does this mean these things are guarunteed? No. It means you have reasonable cause to infer them.
Fair enough. But inference is subject to error. We agree once more. So that means that your inference about the mythology of the Bible could be in error. Right? Although you have reasonable cause to infer it, you could be in error. I believe that becomes grounds for you to acknowledge the possibilit, not probability mind you, just the possibility, that the Bible is all true. What do you say?
From my study of other mythology, again, I infer the bible is the same genre of these other works. Could I be wrong, possibly. For now I can only hold true to what I infer from my experience.
Fair enough.
I was raised catholic and I had many protestant fundy friends, but the issue is not the process.
I argue that you really have no valid reason to infer god/jesus exists or loves you.
Yes I do. I have a credible historical document that describes God to me and it says that He loves me. It is full of fully consistent descriptions of how God's love is evident.
I am sure you will argue from emotion again
Show me where I argued from emotion. The only thing I may have said which you might claim is arguing from emotion is that love is not logical. I'd say that statement is perfectly reasonable. It is not a subjective or emotional argument. It is a fair and reasonable statement.
and claim warm fuzzy feelings but this is not proof of anything or reason to infer anything. I can infer this discussion is headed in a direction where we are not going to see eye to eye.
Whose claiming warm fuzzy feelings? Are you preparing to do a runner? I believe I have given you fair and reasonable responses to all your comments. What I am getting back is mostly dogma. I don't see an original thought anywhere in this thread.
Tell me why you object to living for Christ, really. If you just thought it was all myth you would most likely just ignore it and go on your way. So what really irks you about all this? Let's get away from whether the Bible is fallacy. Tell me what pisses you off when you think of religion and church.
- Login to post comments
Online
I do not have the peer reviewed medical evidence as you predicted.
That is the only logical and rational thing you have said in this entire thread.
So get back to me when you do have it. And dont worry, I wont hold my breath.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Welcome Warrick,
I believe in using logic and reason to learn about the world. I detest the suppression of knowledge, and scientific progress. I enjoy open debate and no topic is sacred or off limits. I believe the bible to be mythology and I have no GOOD reason to believe there is a god.
Welcome, Warrick!
Welcome Warrick.
I hope you find the discussions and debates here interesting. It sounds like you've already read through some of the forums so you know to be prepared to back up your assertions!
[edited for spelling error]
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
> I believe in using logic and reason to learn about the world.
Me too.
> I detest the suppression of knowledge, and scientific progress.
Fair enough. knowledge and scientific progress are good. No argument there.
> I enjoy open debate and no topic is sacred or off limits.
Excellent. I'm in good company then.
> I believe the bible to be mythology
This is where we part ways.
> and I have no GOOD reason to believe there is a god.
Fair enough.No point believing in something without reason. God does not call us to believe blind faith. On the contrary He has given us free choice and invites us to find Him. We have to use our intellect and reason to find Him. Faith is at first an intellectual decision. The spiritual aspect of faith comes afterward.
When I made a choice to say the sinners prayer and had some doubts but teh gospel had been presented to me clearly and succinctly and the only reasonable choice was to say that I wanted what Jesus has to offer. So I said the prayer.
Nothing changed for me immediately, or so it seemed. But over time my life began to change and I know today that Jesus is real and alive and well able to deliver on the promises He has made that are recorded in the Bible.
So my question to you is this - do you understand the Bible? Have you read it yourself and used logic and reason to dismiss it as myth?
> Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
Heh, heh. I have my opinions on evolution but I don't think a creation vs evolution debate can go anywhere useful. Besides that, from a purely scientific point of view the two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm hoping not to get to tangled up in an evolution discussion but these are my feelings anyway:
1.The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. When it is presented it should be clearly noted that it is a theory. It should definitely not be presented as fact as is the habit of almost all protagonists these days.
2. Therer may be heaps of circumstantial evidence to support the theory but that's the point, the evidence is circumstantial and there is still a big leap of interpretation and extrapolation to get to the full evolutionary cycle.
3. Even if we accept the evidence and think the leap reasonable we are really only talking about micro-evolution. The big problem is that there is absolutely no evidence to support macro evolutionary theory. Micro evolution is most certainly fact. Macro evolution is most certainly fiction.
4. The punctuated equlibrium theory is evidence that supporters of evolution can find no evidence to support their claims. It is a desperate attempt to find some hope. There is no evidence to support punctuated equilibrium. And the very reason for the postulation of the theory is that there is a lack of evidence to support the mother theory of evolution.
Most importantly, it is still just a theory and even if it is fact, it does not disprove the existence of God.
Now we could debate the merits of the theory but I believe it is pointless. I may be mistaken and some clear evidence may surface in time to come. So be it. That is not going to move me away from my faith in God and I don't think that my attempt to address any doubts you have about the validity and credibility of the Bible interferes in any way with what you may believe about the theory.
So, ultimately I agree. Creation vs evolution is a pointless debate. Let's reather move on to your reasons for doubting the validity of the Bible.
Hi Susan,
Yip. I expect there to be some tough challenges. Excellent. Challenge forces me to think through my faith and work it out. The more I am challenged, the more I have to delve into the Word, the more I have to think about what I believe and question it, the stronger my convictions become.
The faith decision is first an intellectual one. We are not called to blind faith in Jesus Christ.
Welcome. You do not believe in Zeus? You my friend will never get to Elysium.
> You do not believe in Zeus? You my friend will never get to Elysium.
Heh. Point taken. The thing is Jesus is real and if you give Him a chance He can deliver more than you can ever ask or hope for. He made you and knows exactly what is in your heart - what's missing, what you truly desire (since He gives you the desires of your heart).
Jesus knows what you need in your life to be truly content and full of joy. And you want that as does everyone else. If you give Him a chance He'll do it for you.
Have you made any effort to research the Bible and dismiss it as myth?
jesus doesn't love me because:
1) he isn't real
2) he's dead
3) he's never met me
4) he's dead
5) he's a fictional character
6) he's dead
7) he's too busy appearing as stains on napkins
9) dead, fictional, napkin stains aren't very loving
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
Did he force it on you, or did you give your concent?
Is Jesus good in bed?
I do not give concent for him to rape me. He still has though, with his "love".
Anyway jokes aside welcome to RRS.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
esus doesn't love me because:
1) he isn't real
How do you know He isn't real?
2) he's dead
If He isn't real how can He be dead?
3) he's never met me
He created you and He knew you from the foundation of the world and when you were in the womb. You have never met Him though.
4) he's dead
We covered this earlier I believe.
5) he's a fictional character
Do you know this for a fact? How?
6) he's dead
7) he's too busy appearing as stains on napkins
9) dead, fictional, napkin stains aren't very loving
No. They wouldn't be. But Jesus is.
Hey James. Thanks for making me welcome man.
No, He is gentle. Sometimes I wish He would force it, that would make it a lot easier.
Heh. Dangerous ground here but my thoughts would be that God made us as we are with our sexuality. In fact our sexuality is pretty central to who we are. So if anyone knows how sexual encounters can be ultimately blissful it would be God. That being said the love of God is real and beyond anything you can imagine. Sex can be really good - but it is temporal. You'll always need more some time later if that is what makes you happy. A bit like drugs or escapism really. The love of God is eternal and persistent and you really do want it. If you give it a chance you'll not regret it.
I'm not sure where you are going with this (even though it is said in jest).
Thanks.
your silly savior may have created you and been with you in the womb (in your delusional fantasies), but i had real, living parents and a single occupancy womb, thanks.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
The Word is actually that He knew me before I was in the womb. No fantasy, just referring to the Word that God has given us to understand Him by. Have you read it? Do you dismiss it or reject it based on assumption or do you actually understand it and reject it based on logic, reason and the application of knowledge and understanding?
If you give Jesus a chance you will not regret it. Don't just quote old atheist dogma and follow the others like a sheep. Make up your own mind and justify your decision. Doing anything else is just ignorance and you will pay the price in the end, no-one else.
You will not regret giving Jesus a chance. He is knocking at the door of your heart. Don't just fling back some ill considered response. Think about this and make a good decision based on knowledge, not bravado and assumption.
Jesus loves you. Always has, always will. Nothing you can say or do will change that, thank God. What is your understanding of the gospel message?
I have read it twice(while still trying to be a "believer"
, STRAIGHT through, no picking this verse or that verse. No jumping around. I ask, have you done the same?
I have used logic and reason to dismiss it as myth. It proved no different to me than norse mythology, greek mythology, pagan mythology, or egyptian mythology. I find no unique insight into the world or "god" in the bible. I do however find stories, told by men who barely understood the natural world, who hoped for an afterlife and used much wishful thinking. I am wholly convinced many of the stories and descriptions in the bible were stolen or retranslated from previous religions and mythologies...
Yes. Well, I'm busy on my second readin now. But I've been reading bits and bobs for years now so probably been through it all a few more times. But once straight through and busy on the second now.
A couple of things come to mind here. One is that the Bible cannot be entirely myth since much of it is verifiably historical and accurate. Another thing I'm thinking of are the Pharisees. They were religious and pious and knew the law better than anyone. They probably also read through the scriptures, even memorising much of them, and yet did not understand the message Jesus had to tell.
What do you understand, whether it be myth or not, was the message Jesus was giving us?
Most good fiction is based on reality. Is 'The DaVinci Code', a new gospel because it names real people and real places? No, it is still fiction.
I do not feel jesus is giving 'us' any message. I think there were people who descibed a 'character' and who made fantastical claims to support the hero of the story, the god-man. The character, jesus, is attributed with saying some nice things, some benign things, some asinine things and some downright 'evil' things. But then again the writers were scared men living caves trying to make sense of the world.
Heh. Point taken. The thing is Zeus is real and if you give Him a chance He can deliver more than you can ever ask or hope for. He made you and knows exactly what is in your heart - what's missing, what you truly desire (since He gives you the desires of your heart).
Zeus knows what you need in your life to be truly content and full of joy. And you want that as does everyone else. If you give Him a chance He'll do it for you.
Have you made any effort to research the Greek pantheon and dismiss it as myth?
Atheist Books
OK. So we agree the Bible is not entirely myth.
So with all the reading you've done you've not identified a theme or systematically disproved the claims of the Bible? Just as much as you might claim I have no evidence to support claims of the reality of Christ (which I dispute anyway) I claim you have no evidence to support your claims that it is all fantasy.
You claim to support free, independent thought and to use logic and reason to understand things but you seem to have abandoned all that in your criticism of the Bible. You make claims and assertions without any evidence. You stifle free thought in that you are attempt to force me to accept that Jesus is fantasy when in my freedom to think I have discovered that is not the case.
Your argument will never be consistent. It will always be ad-hoc and it is not credible. The Word of God has been around for many thousands of years. The written words of the Old Testament have not changed (verifiably) for at least a couple of thousand years. The words of the New Testamenthave not changed for at least a few hundred years.
With all the attempts (and there have been many strong challenges) the Bible stands as it is unchanged. No ad-hoc argument, no need for desperate defense.
Why? Because it is the Word of God and He said it stands forever.
Another question I have for you, remembering that Jesus loves you no matter what, how does logic relate to love? How do you apply logic and reasonto the relationships of love that you have - particularly with a spouse or partner? Did you use logic to fall in love?
Humn, God is NOT a respector of men? Wow! Hey all you other Christians out there GOD DOES NOT RESPECT MEN!
Actually based upon the claims of "all loving" that Christians make I'd as an atheist would have to agree if I believed such a claim.
So why would I suck up to someone who doesnt respect me?I dont love people I dont respect.
Show me 4 billion Christians and I'll show you 4 billion different gods.
Any other Christians want to tackle this claim that God does not respect men? I'll go grab a bucket of popcorn, this should be intresting.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hilarious - and effective debate technique too. Well at first it seems that way anyway.
The pantheon is rife with physical absurdities. For one thing the protogenoi are described as being elemental. Who created the elements then if they were the first born gods? There's no need to even go any further I'd say - since it is already proven a myth. In any case this is generally accepted to be myth. The Bible is not despite all efforts to push and shove free thinkers into that conviction.
The Bible says that in the beginning God was there. God is eternal. This is not a physical absurdity, in fact it makes perfect sense. Something had to have been there before the physical universe was there. Since our understanding is limited by physics that much makes sense.
What was there before God? God is not limited by physics. I know that this sounds like a side step, but in fact, with a little thought it makes perfect sense that the cause of the physical universe is not physical and is not limited by physics. To try apply physics to creation is ludicrous. To say that a non-physical cause had to have existed to bring the universe into effect is perfectly logical and reasonable. And so a non-physical cause is not limited by physics and is not limited by time. To God a day is as a thousand years and a thousands years as a day - He is eternal.
You are dead wrong. To appy the laws of physics to my invisable snarfwidget who makes kegs of beer for me is rediculous. You have no way of knowing the great black and tan he makes unless you sumit to believing in him. It is really good beer.
I do have to admit though the beer my snarfwidget makes does tend to indulge me so much that my utopia allows me to forget that the Redskins Cowboys game is on.
Don't let people like Sapeint sell you their false claim that physics doesnt apply to his claims of an almighty Mamailian. He will lead you down a dark path of distruction. The only way to salvation is to accept that THERE IS A SNARFWIDGET UNDER YOUR BED WHO MAKES KEGS OF BEER FOR YOU!
IT IS THE ONLY WAY.......Why dont you believe me. It would be so simple if you just accept the truth. Besides Brian would indoctrinate you into becoming an Eagles fan. (Shudders)
Oh, where was I.....yea, dont let a pesky thing like evidence get in the way of your warm fuzzy feelings. You keep on believing that human flesh can survive rigor mortis. THREE CHEERS FOR JESUS...OH I MENT SNARFWIDGET.....OH CRAP I MENT MAMIALIAN....
Humn, maybe Loki is the one true god....darn it...now I am so lost and confused....maybe if I had a hand up my back and had somebody pulling my strings all this thinking wouldnt give me such a headache.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Acts 10:34 - Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritis... (or God is not a respecter of persons or men). Black in white in the Word of God.
The meaning is clear in this translation where the word favouritism is used. So the point of that is God does not favour one man over another. He loves you, He loves me. He does not respond to us with love. He does not wait for us to be good guys. He does not wait for us to be Christians. He does not wait for us to pray. He does not wait.
He loved us while we were yet sinners. There is no need for you to change to go to God. He is waiting for you and loves you as you are. People that reject God or at least reject the gospel message do not understand it. God is not calling you to go sit in church every Sunday. He is not calling you to become a monk. He is not calling you to be anything other than who you really are. He made you as you are. Your zealous desire to be independent and think independently comes from God. He wants you to be independent.
Nothing promotes free thinking more than faith in Jesus Christ. He does not say subject yourself to ridiculous religious laws. He says break free of the law and come to Him. He will set you free. The truth will set you free. You don't know Him if you reject Him. If you reject something you don't understand you are not a free, independent thinker. You are acting out of ignorance.
He loves you.
Do you have any reasonable, logical argument or are you here just to have fun? Having fun is good. Go for it. But don't claim to be an intellectual free thinker and make claims that the Bible is not valid without justifying your argument.
You can do as you please but your claims are false and you have no way to justify them so your credibility is zero.
Even then, Jesus loves you and is inviting you into a relationship with Him. This is the sound of Jesus knocking at the door of your heart. Gently inviting you to join Him.
In the end it's your choice and you can look to no-one else to take responsibility for your choices.
Stop following the real thinkers like a sheep. Think for yourself.
i gave jesus a chance and common sense beat him like an 80 pound weakling. ever heard of religious dogma, quoting ridiculous scripture to support groundless arguments? there is no flock of sheep that can compare to sheer number of christian sheep. you shouldn't be telling ANYONE to make up their own mind when you're simply conveying word for word the spin of the christian propaganda machine, of which you are obviously yet another microscopic cog. if you think these hypocritical cliches are going to change any minds, you're sadly, deeply confused.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
Oh crap, I forgot, you have peer reviewed medical evidence of how human flesh withstands rigor mortis and pops up after 3 days and dances the Jig.
Nope, all you have is "God did it". Otherwise prove me wrong.
Quoting the bible is the same as quoting the Reg Vedas or Quran or Torrah. So what? All religions quote their holy books as evidence of their deity. It is called circular reasoning. You do it, Muslims do it, Sceintologists do it, Jews do it. But somehow you think you are special. If I had a nickle.
Yep, I am having fun and no, I dont bey or have wool, your club has plenty to compensate for the wool I shed a long time ago.
Get back to me when you can find the adinine, guanine,cytozine and thyomine of your deity. You dont have it, nor do Muslims or Hindus.
So spare me. You like believing your myth as fact. That is all that is going on here.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'd liek to hear more about your experience. What happened? How did you give Him a chance? What was the common sense that changed your mind?
This is all an example of atheist dogma. Repeating the same old objections. We are all sheep. We are all following something. You follow the atheist sheep, I follow the Christian sheep. You believe that you made up your own mind and I believe I made up my own mind. You are human with hurts, anxieties and issues, so am I. You have good times and bad. So do I.
You are not special, there are millions like you. Same with me.
Why are the hypocritical? Tell me, have you ever been hypocritical? Do you anyway that is not, or has not at sime time done a hypocritical thing?
I do not claim to be perfect. I don;t ask you to follow me. I'm, in the same sinking boat with you. I'm telling you I've found a way out. Don't follow me. Follow Jesus. I'll work my own way out with Him. YOu work your out. Leave me out of it.
I am a hopeless hypocrit and sinner. That's the point. So your argument is flat and pointless. Usual atheist dogma.
The Amazing Spiderman Issue #1 printed March 1963 clearly places Spiderman in New York City. Since New York City is clearly a real place, Spiderman is not entirely myth.
I'm going to skip your entire appeal to emotion as you still haven't presented evidence for the existence of your God.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Human flesh does not withstand rigor mortis. That is why it is so special that Jesus did it.
There is plenty of evidence. Mountains of it. You just won't accept it. Why is my question. Why do you resist it? Let's say for argument's sake you decided to try it out. Say the sinners prayer and hang in there to see what Jesus can do. What difference does it make to your life that you are so adamant to not try it?
In a way it is the same. We are all quoting from books that we believe to contain the wisdom of our God. There is a difference though. The Bible invites you to be free. It does not tell you to be subject to bunch of rules or else. It says dumpt he rules, they are a burden. Come to Jesus and He will set you free.
This is no myth. There is enough evidence to to support the Bible to convince even the most adamant of resistance. You won't take the time to look at it honestly and you have no good, logical reason not to.
Jesus loves you.
LOL
i'm not "with hurts, anxieties and issues", nor am i in the sinking boat that you've found yourself in.
i'm sorry that your life is apparently in such shambles, i'll try to be nicer. have you considered that this religion thing isn't working out, since things are going so badly for you?
i on the other hand have a great life, great job, wonderful marriage, awesome kids, i'm a good, honest politically active person who does good things in my community. i look forward to every day, i laugh regularly, and i'm optimistic about negatives in the world around me. i live a truly happy, fullfilling life, and i owe absolutely none of it to god, jesus, or any other mythical figure.
i hope your dire situation begins to improve.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
You are making the assumption that none of us were Christians before becoming atheists.
Before you can use the bible as proof of your God, you have to establish the bible as irrefutable evidence.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
This is the biggest deception. My life is just fine thank you. Married with 2 beautiful boys. Living in a great home in a quiet suburb, great job in programming. That does not exempt me from having various issues. Neither are you exempt. You claim to have absolutely no anxiety, no hurts and no issues in your life then that is the biggest issue that you have - denial (well acutally deception). The boat is sinking, you better look around and figure that out for yourself.
I'm note talking about religion. I'm talking about a relationship with Christ. It will not go against the fabric of your being to be in that relationship. When it happens you'll realise you're home. This is where you want to be.
Excellent. A close family is a great thing.
Why?
You owe it all to God (Jesus is God). He makes the rain to fall down on all of us.
Thanks. Me too. I hope your does too.
No assumption. If you cannot call yourself a Christian now, then I wonder if you ever really were one.
Well yes. Is there any such thing as irrefutable evidence? What irrefutable evidence do you have that God does not exist? Do you claim it is impossible that God exists? How can you make such a claim. The old atheist trick is to throw it all back at the Christian and say "Well you are trying to convince me so you prove it first". The thing is active atheist throw claims around as if they know all the answers.
Where do you get your proof that God does not exist? I'm fascinated to know since I know He does so let's see your evidence.
No, not entirely, just the supernatural claims that have no verification.
There are real elements in 'Bruce Almighty', real cities and real people. Does that mean god really gave powers to Jim Carrey for a week? Does it mean god is actually a black man who mops the floor? No, I would rather say it is fiction, god nor the character Jim Carrey portrays really exist.
I can infer it is mythology by reading other mythology. The burden of proof is not mine, rather yours. Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, I have read no outside references to show the bible is anything more than fantasy.
You asked what made me think it was mythology and I told you. I am not hindering your free thought, nor any one elses.
Your argument is nothing more than an 'appeal to tradition':
Description of Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.
This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.
It should not be assumed that new things must be better than old things (see the fallacy Appeal to Novelty) any more than it should be assumed that old things are better than new things. The age of something does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context). In the case of tradition, assuming that something is correct just because it is considered a tradition is poor reasoning. For example, if the belief that 1+1 = 56 were a tradition of a group of people it would hardly follow that it is true.
Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that aged wine would be better than brand new wine, he would not be committing an Appeal to Tradition. This is because, in such cases the age of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the age is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim.
One final issue that must be considered is the "test of time." In some cases people might be assuming that because something has lasted as a tradition or has been around a long time that it is true because it has "passed the test of time." If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. After all, as history has shown people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries.
However, if a person argues that the claim or thing in question has successfully stood up to challenges and tests for a long period of time then they would not be committing a fallacy. In such cases the claim would be backed by evidence. As an example, the theory that matter is made of subatomic particles has survived numerous tests and challenges over the years so there is a weight of evidence in its favor. The claim is reasonable to accept because of the weight of this evidence and not because the claim is old. Thus, a claim's surviving legitimate challenges and passing valid tests for a long period of time can justify the acceptance of a claim. But mere age or persistance does not warrant accepting a claim.
Again, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim and you have presented no such evidence.
And finally....... this is the favorite theistic argument. The argument from emotion.
Description of Appeal to Emotion
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.
This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.
It should be noted that in many cases it is not particularly obvious that the person committing the fallacy is attempting to support a claim. In many cases, the user of the fallacy will appear to be attempting to move people to take an action, such as buying a product or fighting in a war. However, it is possible to determine what sort of claim the person is actually attempting to support. In such cases one needs to ask "what sort of claim is this person attempting to get people to accept and act on?" Determining this claim (or claims) might take some work. However, in many cases it will be quite evident. For example, if a political leader is attempting to convince her followers to participate in certain acts of violence by the use of a hate speech, then her claim would be "you should participate in these acts of violence." In this case, the "evidence" would be the hatred evoked in the followers. This hatred would serve to make them favorable inclined towards the claim that they should engage in the acts of violence. As another example, a beer commercial might show happy, scantily clad men and women prancing about a beach, guzzling beer. In this case the claim would be "you should buy this beer." The "evidence" would be the excitement evoked by seeing the beautiful people guzzling the beer.
This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As many people have argued, peoples' emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. It is the power of this fallacy that explains its great popularity and wide usage. However, it is still a fallacy.
In all fairness it must be noted that the use of tactics to inspire emotions is an important skill. Without an appeal to peoples' emotions, it is often difficult to get them to take action or to perform at their best. For example, no good coach presents her team with syllogisms before the big game. Instead she inspires them with emotional terms and attempts to "fire" them up. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it is not any acceptable form of argumentation. As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what inspires emotions and what justifies a claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this fallacy.
As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an Appeal to Emotion from some other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be committed. For example, many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers reject the person's claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her character.
This fallacy is related to the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Despite the differences between these two fallacies, they are both united by the fact that they involve appeals to emotions. In both cases the fallacies aim at getting people to accept claims based on how they or others feel about the claims and not based on evidence for the claims.
I bet you work in a cherry orchard because you sound like you are an expert in picking and chosing at your whim.
I find it funny that metaphor is used consistantly as a cop out when the skeptic points out the logical impossibility while other places in the bible seem to excape that scrutany.
Why is one claim metaphore and not literal while others are literal and not metaphore.
Let me give you an example.
Malichi 2:3 "Behold I will coorupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces"
Is that litteral or metaphore?
I dont get it if you'd claim that to be metaphore. I mean, if god is willing to beat the crap out of you for eternity a parlor trick like spreading animal feces in your face should be a walk in the park to a god that claims it can do anything it wants.
NOW WAIT.....you say.....do I hear "mistranslation".....ok what version of bible do you read? Still wouldnt change my argument.
If god is capable of torturing you in hell for ever for not sucking up to him, then why would a simple magical slap on the wrist like litteraly spreading dung in your face be out of the relm of an all powerfull god's ability?
HE WOULDNT DO THAT........
He wouldnt? I am not talking about what claimed deity says it would or would not do. I am merely talking about capabability. To claim that god is all powerfull it must include being able to spread dung in your face litterally. If he cant do that litterally, why call him all powerfull?
If he can, why call him all loving?
"Isiah 45:7"
"I create good, I create evil, I the lord do all these things"
Is this litteral or metaphore?
If it is metaphore, why accept it as the word of god? Why not call it a fictional illistration?
If it is literal then that means god creates pedeoplies and ecoli and cancer and aids. I'd call that evil, wouldnt you?
HERE COMES THE "FALL OF MAN"
Really? So because Adam screwed up all the drama that followed on every human since is their fault and not the fault of Adam. Tell me, do you blame me personally for what happened to Native Americans and blacks simply because my white ansestors did those horrible things?
I could go on, but I am quite sure you'll give me more fallacies and contridictions when you respond to this. But, I do like to be proven wrong, so give it a shot.
Why would Malichi 2:3 or Isiah 45:7 be metaphore and not a spirit knocking up a girl? Why wouldnt a talking donkey be a litteral possibility and be in the relm of a god who can do anything?
Maybe, just maybe you havent considered the obvious because you like what you believe. Maybe it is fiction you'd like to believe as fact. Because I cannot for the life of me buy claims of dung slingers anymore than I could believe that Harry Potter could really fly around on a broomstick.
Believers of all labels are apt to create mental gymanstics and turn their inerpretations into ambigous ameobas(sp) which makes it convienant to dodge lack of evidence when they dont have it.
So tell Alex Tribec what catigory you'll take for double jeopardy, will it be metaphore, or litteral?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Fair enough. We do agree though, it's not entirely myth for sure. So that is established.
Well, it's a big jump from something that is obviously fiction (and was conceived entirely by people we can speak to today that would confirm that) to something that is not obviously fiction. As much as you have a point maybe the example is lacking.
Inference is dangerous. It's a little like intepretation. You infer based on premises and evidence but you inference is subject to errors in judgement. The Bible does not entirely mimic any other mythology. There may be aspects that are similar but none of it is exact. So that further increases the probability that errors can be made your inference.
Hmm. After a bit of thought I was a bit rash there I think. You are not stifling free thought.
So you have your own "bible".
Once again quotes from some text you accept as authorative. I don't dispute that it may be correctm reasonable and accurate (this text of yours, but really you've side stepped the question.
How do you apply logic to love? My point being, is logic and reason the only way to understand everything? Is it possible that logic reason have limits, boundaries? Are we not limiting our free thought, putting it into a little prison, by basing our every decision on logic and reason.
I'm interested to know your thoughts on this then. If God is Love (as the Bible says He is) and if He is not physical (which is true based on the fact that He existed before the physical universe did) then aren't we severely limiting our ability to understand Him by attempting to apply logic (love is not logical) and physical understanding (He is not physical)?
I didn't realize that's how it worked. I was once a child, but I am no longer. Does that mean I didn't have a childhood?
You are the one making the claim, you are the one who has to provide proof. I could claim that I have an invisible red crocoduck in my pocket that lays $100 bills. However, it would be up to me to provide proof of such a creature.
Without a well defined definition of God, it is impossible to refute your claim. Define God and while you're at it, feel free to provide evidence of your God's existance.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien