bfniii

this isn't about the koran or hindu or buddhism. it's about the bible and you didn't answer the question.



and since people disagree, who gets to decide who is rational and compassionate?



no less evidence than the argument that there is no God. there are several philosophical arguments for theistic creation; telelogical, anthropological, cosmoglogical, et al.



you're right. but that's not all that christianity claims.



i asked about the tyre prophecy, not why they think the bible is or isn't appealing. it's not nice to misrepresent my posts.



because personal experience is not debatable. i cannot debate what you saw, or how you felt regarding a certain event. there's no point to such a debate.



i don't understand how you aren't grasping this but, i'm not interested in discussing my personal experiences in this forum



i did state what that evidence is. i'm sorry you don't like it.



it's not difficult at all.



i have said several times, this is a biblical criticism forum, not an evangelical forum.



define torture



you are correct in that paul does not say he was present during the appearance to the 500. however, he does claim to be a first-hand witness. furthermore, he states that most of the 500 were still alive implying his claim could be verified.



1cor 15:14, rom 10:9



all of them. any of them.



i believe that should be in the philosophy forum



because something had to have happened. the question is, what happened?



this doesn't really answer the point which was your example was not convincing.



and you can answer your own question by finding out when that day occurs.



you are mistaking temporary fame with the supernatural mystery i am referring to



as i said before, you have no right to declare that these people are the ones who are most needy. are they needy? without a doubt. every person is needy in one way or another. pain is relative to the individual. no one person can claim one kind of pain is worse than another, and that includes you. you have no standard with which to make such a claim. therefore, your example is meaningless.



i have repeatedly said there aren't "kinds" of suffering. there just is suffering. you can cite physical or emotional suffering, but it's still suffering. it's all pain.



that's not the point i was making. the point is that God has chosen for humans to know about Him. He has revealed Himself to us in multiple ways.



there are people, mainly christians, who disagree with you.



the bible states ways that false prophets can be known. google "false prophets" and "bible" if you don't know them.



untrue. i cited the ontological argument.



and i answered it.



my answer was incomplete. the old convenant and jeremiah 31:33



that is not a fact. it is an opinion, and a flawed one at that.



not entirely. as i said, morality is a factor as well.



let's say for the sake of argument that atheism is untrue and theism is true. the person follows the evidence and it leads to that person becoming a theist. but now the person is no longer free according to your statement. so what you are really saying is that you have a hidden qualification; that being a non-christian person is free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, as long as it doesn't lead to theism.



sure they can.



i agree totally. christian skeptics want "more" evidence. i have been asking all along why do they want more evidence and what kind?



having been there or seen it is not necessary to know that it exists.



christians believe that He has

TomboyMom

[I aplogize in advance if I go over old ground; I'm not going to read the whole thread before jumping in.] The point is that there is no more reason to believe or accept the bible than these sources. You need to make a useful, reliable distinction, or accept them all.

Well, let's see what we can agree on. Do you agree that slaughtering innocent babies, just because their parents are not Christian, is not rational or compassionate? Can we agree that helping other people is compassionate, and murdering them is not? Is any of that controversial to you?

But the problem is that asserting the existence of something does require evidence, and witholding acceptance of same does not.

The problem is that, whatever it claims, it has to deal with its gory descriptions of its God ordering the slaughter of innocents.

The experience is not debatable, but the question of what conclusion we should draw from it is. The answer is: none. It is not evidence of anything.

Then why bring them up?

IIf the evidence is your personal experience, then no, apparently you want to claim it without describing it. Let's just agree that it's not evidence of anything and drop it, O.K.?

Isn't it appropriate in this forum to debate the truth or falsity of a biblical prophecy?

more later, I hope.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Why won't you answer the question?
Then you obviously don't know much about other religions.
Then why are you doing so?
No, you have avoided debating the issue of Flood dating on many, many occasions. I can quote them.

bfniii

that's not the point of this thread or this forum. it's biblical criticism, not comparative religions. points should be able to be made without bringing other religions into the issue.



no, we're talking about the bible or christianity on it's own merits independent of other religions



this response doesn't really address the question, but i will reply anyway. i would answer your first question with i agree. it is not rational or compassionate. i agree with your second question. are they "controversial"? i guess that depends on if someone disagrees with the particular instance.



i agree that "witholding acceptance" is different than denying in most cases. however, there is little difference spiritually. they are both a choice to "not accept" regardless of degree. there is either full acceptance, or there is not.



verses?



the conclusion cannot be separated from the experience. otherwise, the experience is something else altogether.



incorrect. it is evidence that someone had that experience.



i only did so in response to a point made by johnny. i have also elborated that if he needs more info than that (i.e., why christians believe what they believe), he can easily find that at the nearest church. this isn't an evangelical forum.



that's because the details of the experience are irrelevant. the experience itself is what it is.



i think it's clear from my responses that i don't agree with that. but we can certainly drop it.



certain aspects of prophecy, yes. divine inspiration, no.

bfniii

i am



i didn't say "other religions". i said myths. there is a difference and you know what i am talking about.



you said that i avoided discussing the flood. i did not avoid it. i stated my position on the issue. i'm sorry you don't like it. stating that i avoided it is lying.



be my guest. if you quote instances of me "avoiding" the issue, you will be quoting instances of me responding to the subject.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: I am still waiting for you to state your ontology argument. When I brought up the issue of the nature of God months ago, you mentioned the ontology argument, but you didn't state your argument or quote any sources. I have asked you on a number of occasions to state your ontology argument, but you have always refused to state it or quote any of your sources. This is simply not done in debates, at least among polite people. I assume that you are not confident in your sources, or that you know that you don't know very much about ontology. Thanks very much for helping to build my confidence.

Do you not believe that defending the nature of God is important enough to spend a small of time replying to my questions? If God's nature is suspect, it doesn't matter at all how powerful he is, including his supposed ability to predict the future. The nature of God is possibly the chief reason why so many people have rejected Christianity. Hurricane Katrina is a good example. We definitely need to debate the nature of God, but you have probably embarrassed yourself in past years. If that is the case, then I understand your reluctance to get into a detailed debate with me and other skeptics.

You have stated that personal experience is an important part of your religious beliefs. I have asked you on numerous occasions for some evidence, but you have always refused to provide any except to tell me to go looking on the Internet for evidence. What I need are specific examples. I assume that you do not have confidence in your personal tangible experiences or anyone elses' personal tangible experiences, or that you do not believe that defending personal experience is important enough to answer my questions.

I have learned that you are quite content to discuss many topics at great length, but whenever you know that you are in trouble, you become quite evasive and ask skeptics to do your homework for you. I assure you that I will not do your homework for you. I will let readers decide for themselves whether or not you are evasive and rude. I would never refuse to restate or requote any of my arguments if you or anyone else asked me too.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Nope, no answer there. Do you believe the myths regarding Zeus and Merlin, or do you not? If we apply the usual historical criteria (which is what you appear to be suggesting), we should regard the resurrection and the burning bush as being just as mythical as those other claims. Is this some sort of coded admission from you?
...No difference that I can see. Sure, not ALL myths are religious: but the Bible, like most other "holy books" of other religions, is a book of myths. And the myths of various other religions "purport to be a guide to personal salvation" (or whatever the local equivalent is: getting to Valhalla, achieving Nirvana, being reincarnated as a Brahmin, etc).
Your statement, that the Flood "could not be dated" from the Bible, was false. I pointed this out to you (many times). I invited you to discuss your claim. I created a thread specifically to discuss your claim. You avoided it, despite MANY prompts. The issue was discussed by others in your absence: your claim remains false.

bfniii

i thought we agreed that it would be best in the philosophy forum. i will remind you that i told you before that i will join such a debate if i have the time and if you present something new or noteworthy to the venerable issue.



but i have, on more than one occasion, shown you how to reference them.


it's not nice to lie.



impolite is when someone repeatedly asks questions that have been repeatedly answered. impolite is when someone says things that aren't true, like you are doing now. impolite is asking someone to repeat things over and over, like you have done in this thread and are doing again right now. impolite is asking someone to go fetch information so you don't have to.



let me tell you what i am confident of. i am confident, at this point, that you have nothing new to add to the traditional ontological argument because if you did, you would have done so already. i don't know why you feel like you have to wait for someone else to begin, but you claim to have seen some variations of them. if that's the case, why haven't you tried to refute them? since you haven't, i can only surmise that you have no response or refutation of them.



repeatedly, no. i'll respond two or three times. you know that saying fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?



funny. apparently you have a very, very short memory. if you will read back through this thread (not gonna happen, you'll just keep bugging me to restate my posts), you will see that i have not only addressed the nature of God, but earthly suffering as well.



no, what i told you is that personal experience is not debatable. if i tell you that roses are repulsive to me, you can't tell me that i'm wrong. all you can say is that your experience is similar or different. why have a thread on that subject in a biblical criticism forum at the infidels website? it wouldn't be appropos.



go to a church. google "miracles". you'll get more than you can handle.



i just responded to this point, again.



whatever.



that's good. i wouldn't want that, if your behavior here is any indication. i'll handle my own homework.



that's the spirit!



good for you

bfniii

i believe that they are myths.



i don't know who "we" is, but it sure doesn't include everyone.



since christianity can be corroborated in multiple ways on multiple levels, then i admit it's not a myth.



i'm not talking about "holy books". that is the point i have been making repeatedly. i am talking about odysseus, arthur, robin hood, etc. those myths don't purport to offer personal salvation. anything else you are trying to bring into the discussion is another religion and that is beside the point. either christianity/the bible is true on it's own merits, regardless of other religions, or it is not. that's the discussion. you can start a comparative religions discussion down the hall.



i guess the people who have alternate theories about the dating are just all wrong because you say so. another productive discussion.



you can point it out until infinity. people disagree with you. deal with that.



i did.



so what?



no i didn't. i told you why such a discussion is presumptuous at this point.

how do you know that i didn't read that thread and didn't see anything new or unique to discuss?



good for them



after having interacted with you for some time know, i'm starting to believe that if you say it's false, it's actually true. you can't prove your statement any more than you can show the opposite is false.

guess what? just because you discussed something doesn't mean that your view is correct, even if other people were there to agree with you. did you know that?

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Why?
It includes everyone who applies the usual historical criteria.

If you disagree: find a historian who was converted by the "historical evidence", and let's see his argument.
Since this claim is itself a myth, we are no further forward.

Christianity (of the inerrantist variety, at least) can, however, be disproved in multiple ways on multiple levels.
So, your statement was false: there ARE other books of myths that offer the equivalent of "personal salvation", but now you wish to exclude them from the discussion. Your "argument" now becomes: there are no other myths that offer personal salvation, except for the others that do so.

Another bfniii classic! :rolling:
They are ignorant or deluded. Wilfully so, in many cases. There, dealt with.
So you agree with our conclusions, and admit that you were mistaken?

Of are you admitting that you reject the conclusion on the grounds of religious dogma only, and have no actual argument?
Guess what? By deliberately avoiding the issue, you have lost this argument by default (and also proved that the charges of "evasion" were accurate, despite your denials). Did you know that?