Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 10-09-2006, 10:09 AM

Message to rhutchin: Since your arguments depend upon the Bible being inerrant, what is your evidence that the Bible is inerrant?

Johnny Skeptic · 10-09-2006, 10:16 AM

Message to praxeus: Are you a Calvinist?

I noticed that you conveniently gave up in the thread that you started at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=152720. Would you care to debate the issue of plate tectonics further in that thread? No?, I didn't think so. As Diogenes the Cynic told you, ".......there is nothing 'pesky' about seashells on mountains. It would actually be a problem for plate tectonics if they WEREN'T there."

Johnny Skeptic · 10-09-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Granted, you were only quoting Richard Carrier and may not have much to say in support of his various assertions.

Just please tell us what evidence you have that the Bible is inerrant. If you cannot produce credible evidence that the Bible is inerrant, you have no business debating 2 Peter 3:9.

rhutchin · 10-09-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Just please tell us what evidence you have that the Bible is inerrant. If you cannot produce credible evidence that the Bible is inerrant, you have no business debating 2 Peter 3:9.

I think the conclusion we can draw from your use of 2 Peter 3 is that the cited verses have nothing to do with inerrancy or the inerrancy debate.

Toto · 10-09-2006, 11:22 AM

This forum does not assume that the Bible is inerrant.

This tread was moved here because it apparently concerned a particular verse, 2 Peter 3:9. But it has wandered from that. If it does not get back on topic, it may be moved.

rhutchin · 10-09-2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to praxeus: Are you a Calvinist?

I noticed that you conveniently gave up in the thread that you started at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=152720. Would you care to debate the issue of plate tectonics further in that thread? No?, I didn't think so. As Diogenes the Cynic told you, ".......there is nothing 'pesky' about seashells on mountains. It would actually be a problem for plate tectonics if they WEREN'T there."

Message to Johnny Skeptic: You get off target very easily. You seem to do this when you are losing, or have lost, an argument as you have done here. If you cannot address the issues presented in 2 Peter 3:9, let's move on. You can start a new thread to address any unrelated issues you have with praxeus.

aa5874 · 10-09-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It does not matter whether the Lord actually exists and does not require that a person believe that the Lord exists. The issue is to determine what one verse, in context with the surrounding verse, purports to say. It basically reduces to an exercise in grammatical analysis.

You don't care whether the Lord actually exist or not? Well look at John 1:1-2, 'In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the begining with God.

2 Peter 3:9 is meaningless if the Lord does not exist. You must demonstrate that God exist to fully understand the words of 2 Peter 3:9.

Johnny Skeptic · 10-09-2006, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Message to Johnny Skeptic: You get off target very easily. You seem to do this when you are losing, or have lost, an argument as you have done here. If you cannot address the issues presented in 2 Peter 3:9, let's move on. You can start a new thread to address any unrelated issues you have with praxeus.

Ok, let's get back on target. In the other thread, I told you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

But I do not really need to compare Scriptures that appear to many people to be for AND against predestination, even to many Christians. Even if the Bible clearly said that God does wish that some people perish, and never said anything different, you would still have to reasonably prove that the writers of those Scriptures were speaking for God and not for themselves. Where is your evidence that the Bible is inerrant?

No decent person could will himself to accept a God who endorses favoritism, a God who frequently reveals himself to people who never accept him, and frequently refuses to reveal himself to people who would accept him if they believed that he exists. If Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, surely some people would accept him who were not previously convinced. My word, it would not at all be difficult for some modern magicians to go to some remote jungle regions in Borneo and convince at least some natives that they had
supernatural powers, and were Gods.

rhutchin · 10-09-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Message to Johnny Skeptic: You get off target very easily. You seem to do this when you are losing, or have lost, an argument as you have done here. If you cannot address the issues presented in 2 Peter 3:9, let's move on. You can start a new thread to address any unrelated issues you have with praxeus.

Ok, let's get back on target. In the other thread, I told you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

But I do not really need to compare Scriptures that appear to many people to be for AND against predestination, even to many Christians. Even if the Bible clearly said that God does wish that some people perish, and never said anything different, you would still have to reasonably prove that the writers of those Scriptures were speaking for God and not for themselves. Where is your evidence that the Bible is inerrant?

No decent person could will himself to accept a God who endorses favoritism, a God who frequently reveals himself to people who never accept him, and frequently refuses to reveal himself to people who would accept him if they believed that he exists. If Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, surely some people would accept him who were not previously convinced. My word, it would not at all be difficult for some modern magicians to go to some remote jungle regions in Borneo and convince at least some natives that they had supernatural powers, and were Gods.

I agree. Let's get back on target. It seems you have nothing further to say about 2 Peter 3:9.

rhutchin · 10-09-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...look at John 1:1-2, 'In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in the begining with God.

2 Peter 3:9 is meaningless if the Lord does not exist. You must demonstrate that God exist to fully understand the words of 2 Peter 3:9.

Not really.

10-09-2006, 10:16 AM	#12
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	2 Peter 3:9 Message to praxeus: Are you a Calvinist? I noticed that you conveniently gave up in the thread that you started at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=152720. Would you care to debate the issue of plate tectonics further in that thread? No?, I didn't think so. As Diogenes the Cynic told you, ".......there is nothing 'pesky' about seashells on mountains. It would actually be a problem for plate tectonics if they WEREN'T there."

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

10-09-2006, 10:09 AM	#11
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to rhutchin: Since your arguments depend upon the Bible being inerrant, what is your evidence that the Bible is inerrant?

10-09-2006, 11:22 AM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This forum does not assume that the Bible is inerrant. This tread was moved here because it apparently concerned a particular verse, 2 Peter 3:9. But it has wandered from that. If it does not get back on topic, it may be moved.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.