rhutchin

If I have the time, I will. Am I the only person who will give you the time of day?

rhutchin

Great!!

rhutchin

The Biblical writers stated that they were speaking for God. Since you have no evidence that they were lying, we can take them to be telling us the truth.

JPD

Oh no you can't (oh yes you can - he's behind you!) - just because someone writes that something is true (whether they actually believe it or not - but we'll take it that they do for whatever reason) doesn't make it true. That many people have taken it to be the truth over many centuries doesn't make it true. In stating that something for which no actual, real-world, evidence exists, the onus is not on those who do not believe it to provide evidence that demonstrates the impossibility or non-existence of the proposed entity (for which no evidence exists). Teapots teapots teapots rhutchin. That one cannot provide evidence that something, for which no actual evidence for its existence exists, doesn't strengthen the case - it lifts it not from its nothingness as an actuality or concept.

Katastrophikus

God just spoke to me, and he told me that you will be a pomegrante when you die. Since you have no evidence that I am lying, you can take me to be telling the truth.

I like the way this works.

JPD

In fact, the best that you will be able to achieve with this is that the writers really believed what they wrote. Well so what if they did? Perhaps they were level headed individuals, perhaps they were under the influence of someone or something. Perhaps we could create a matrix of possibilities. No, actually, I'm not quite that desperate for entertainment.



How would the textual output differ between:

A writer compelled by Biblegod to pronounce homosexuality as a sin.

A writer compelled by personal bias/experience/whatever to pronounce homosexuality to be a sin because he or she hates homosexuals.

A writer compelled by personal bias/experience/whatever to pronounce homosexuality to be a sin because he or she believes an all-powerful entity to exist (but which doesn't exist).

A writer compelled by personal bias/experience/whatever to pronounce homosexuality to be a sin because he or she believes an all-powerful entity to exist (but which does exist).


If you insist on whipping out Pascal's wager that will be a poor response.

Johnny Skeptic

But who said that they lied? Innocent but inaccurate, uncorroborated revelations are quite common in all religions. In addition, I do not need evidence that they were lying. I am happy with a Mexican standoff. Are you? Further, there is excellent evidence that the Bible is not inerrant, but you always refuse to discuss inerrancy even though most of your absurd arguments on various topics depend lock, stock, and barrel upon the Bible being inerrant. You are not a serious debater. You are a light workout at best.

daemonia

Burden of proof for the writers.... did god speak to them... or some other more common chemically induced delusion...

Also are you taking for granted that even if i speak for god that i am then infallible? I am inerrant and speak only truth? Even better is that i do not have to state proof. God is my proof.

Christians find homosexuality a sin (by their own guiding text, um bible) ... if not please say sorry to Sodom and Gomorrah. If you do not want homosexuality to be a sin, editing the bible is not going to help here. Too many people can read all the old versions of it.

Does christianity have anything to do with a homosexual of different faith? I sincerely hope not.

EarlOfLade

Isn't that like asking an accused killer "Did you do it?" and then take the answer for gold?

rhutchin

Without evidence to the contrary, what else can you do?