Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dogfish · 01-09-2008, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

How about because, according to the Babble, it's a place of eternal torment? Why would I be pleased, after hearing, "god is love" and other tripe, and making his will as clear as mud, these were the only 2 options I had?

You can always act in your self-interest even with just two choices, neither of which is what you want.

YOu asked, "Shouldn't you be pleased...".

You didn't address the question.

Dogfish · 01-09-2008, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biblethumping

The gospel messages are post-Babel and can't be relied upon 100% because they are CONFOUNED. People will just have to have faith that parts of it are correct and others are not.

No, they don't. The only rational action is to suspect the whole damn thing.

Unless you have your pre-Babel Bible...

Dogfish · 01-09-2008, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since this thread is about inerrancy, if you can provide evidence that God inspired and preserved the Bible, we can look at it. You are an inerrantist. Inerrantists assert that the Bible is inerrant. It is up to them to reasonably prove that God inspired and preserved the Bible. Inerrancy is an absurd claim. It cannot be reasonably proven. Why would God want to provide Christians with an inerrant Bible? What is the Bible, the Protestant version, the Roman Catholic version, or some other version? Is the Gospel of Thomas part of the Bible or not?

The claim of inerrancy arises from the view that God is the author of that which we find in the Bible. It is based on such verses as--

2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1
21 ...prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

That is the evidence that God inspired the writings that have been collected and preserved in the Bible.

That which the church recognizes as the inspired writings are that which can be considered as the Bible. Both Catholics and Protestants agree on a common list of inspired writings so these can, at the least, be considered to comprise the inspired writings from God.

Surely you see the goofiness of saying the bible is the word of god because the bible is th word of god?

rhutchin · 01-09-2008, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Do you have any idea why it is frequently possible to predict where God will reveal himself to people who become Christians?

I think you can predict what religious education a child will receive by the religious preference of the parents and those parents generally will reflect their own parents religious preference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

You said that some parents are not nice. However, in 3500 B.C., how were parents who lived far away from Palestine supposed to know anything about the God of the Bible?

If we start from Noah and the dispersion of people from that point, then Noah's sons would educate their children who would then educate their children. What we might expect is a moderation of religious ties with each new generation and the appearance of variety in the stories about the creation and the flood. When God chose Abraham to be the father of the Jewish nation and then became to interact with the Jewish people, we might expect that the only way other people could learn about God was through the Jewish people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why wasn't God interested in telling anyone about his specific existence who lived far away from Palestine?

I guess that is His business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why geography and other secular factors determined how the Gospel message was spread.

If the God of the Bible did not exist, there would be no gospel message to spread as their would not have been a man called Jesus who did many miracles and died on a cross, and was resurrected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why do a much higher percentage of women in the U.S. become Christians than men?

What makes you think that the percentage is different?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why does God discriminate against men?

What makes you think that God discriminates against men?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why do a much smaller percentage of elderly skeptics become Christians?

Why would you think that an elderly skeptic would even want to become a Christian?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why does God discriminate against elderly skeptics?

What makes you think that God discriminates against elderly skeptics?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It is suspicious that the Gospel message was spread exactly the way that it would have been spread if the God of the Bible did not exist, meaning that no one would be able to hear the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, and that the Gospel message would be spread entirely by the secular means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period.

Why would you think that there would have been a message to spread if there was no God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you would oppose it. Why?, because your emotional self-interest has caused you to accept promises that you believe will ultimately benefit you, and reject promises that you believe will ultimately not benefit you. This proves that you are not as concerned with what the evidence IS as you are with what the evidence PROMISES. That does not make any sense. Obviously, it is not possible to become a fundamentalist Christian without completely disregarding logic, reason, and morality.

If the Bible says that God will send everyone to hell and you believe it to be true, how can you oppose the truth?

If you don't believe the Bible is true, why would you, or anyone, waste time opposing it?

Dogfish · 01-09-2008, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biblethumping

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

When you have faith that the Bable (Bible, Torah, Koran -- collectively) contains only nuggets of truth, it raises a question in my mind.

How do you know which parts, if any, are trustworthy?

You have to use your thinking. CONFOUNDATION basically means that the whole bible is confused but that doesn't mean it's false or untrustworthy. There are alot of stories in the bible that, well, tell stories. You are expected to learn from these stories even if they don't make 100% sense or are consistant. This was Gods plan after Babel. Otherwise you'd have this perfect little neat bible that skeptics couldn't tear apart. Actually God tried that with Moses but we failed him, yet again.

I just don't think (johnny) skeptics get it sometimes, you have to have faith in Gods works or the whole thing is comes tumbling down like a house of cards, but with faith YOU can move mountains.

Where is it told what god's plan after babel is? Is it spelled out?

Oh no, the old "Faith can move mountains" crap. Sometimes I think christianity had its origins in China, cause so many followers sound like fortune-cookies.

rhutchin · 01-09-2008, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The claim of inerrancy arises from the view that God is the author of that which we find in the Bible. It is based on such verses as--

2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1
21 ...prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

That is the evidence that God inspired the writings that have been collected and preserved in the Bible.

That which the church recognizes as the inspired writings are that which can be considered as the Bible. Both Catholics and Protestants agree on a common list of inspired writings so these can, at the least, be considered to comprise the inspired writings from God.

Surely you see the goofiness of saying the bible is the word of god because the bible is th word of god?

I don't think I understand your point. The Bible is the collection of writings of men who were closely associated with Jesus. They wrote of the things that they were taught and of their experiences. If these writers independently wrote that Scripture was inspired by God, I do not understand why that would necessarily be "goofy."

rhutchin · 01-09-2008, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

How about because, according to the Babble, it's a place of eternal torment? Why would I be pleased, after hearing, "god is love" and other tripe, and making his will as clear as mud, these were the only 2 options I had?

You can always act in your self-interest even with just two choices, neither of which is what you want.

YOu asked, "Shouldn't you be pleased...".

You didn't address the question.

OK. You don't have to be pleased. Despite your feelings, you can always act in your self-interest even with just two choices, neither of which pleases you.

Dogfish · 01-09-2008, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biblethumping

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

As for me being an angostic, I do not have the luxury of being a Christian, especially since the Bible contains lies, and since God unmercifully plans to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole, and withholds evidence that some skeptics would accept if they were aware of it.

Skeptics are always fond of anaolgies between God/man and Parent/child I think i'll offer up one of my own: Yesterday i was reading Roger Penroses' book The Road to Reality (or via: amazon.co.uk), i'm right in the middle of it reading on his negative views of the inflationary model when my smart little 3 year old came up to me and asks what i'm reading and i told him it's just a book. he looked like he wanted to know more (maybe he thought i was reading his favorite doctor sues), but i declined to tell him more. Now if i would have told him I was reading up on the inflationary model which includes some advanced mathmatics and then launch into the the whole explanation of the universe the poor little boy wouldn't understand .00001% of it.

Now surely telling my child about the origins of the universe is an important thing! Right up there with God. Was i wrong or did i lie to him? err not really.. Fact is it's way over his head, he much prefers Yurtle the Turtles explanation. My boy is still going to trust me and have FAITH in me, that is unless i'm a bad parent. That's how it works with God and the Bible, the stories don't have to be 100% correct and "the word of God" just as long as i understand them (and i do) i'll be headed to heaven in the next life.

Of course your child KNOWS you exist. He can have faith in you, based on definitive actions of the past. You just have faith in an old book.

Dogfish · 01-09-2008, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

Surely you see the goofiness of saying the bible is the word of god because the bible is th word of god?

I don't think I understand your point. The Bible is the collection of writings of men who were closely associated with Jesus. They wrote of the things that they were taught and of their experiences. If these writers independently wrote that Scripture was inspired by God, I do not understand why that would necessarily be "goofy."

Because there is nothing to support thier claims outside of their claims?

I think you understand. You just want to think otherwise.

Dogfish · 01-09-2008, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

YOu asked, "Shouldn't you be pleased...".

You didn't address the question.

OK. You don't have to be pleased. Despite your feelings, you can always act in your self-interest even with just two choices, neither of which pleases you.

So all that crap in the original post about "why should'nt you be happy with the choices" and such was just that - rhetorical crap?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.