mdd344

Coleslaw,
The arguments are rejected because people do not like them. Thus they provide their souces to justify the rejection. Yet the source I gave originally, I believe, cannot be refuted in some key areas NO matter how many "scholars" who disbelieve God want to refute it.

It goes back, agian, to a "source vs. source." You have yours, I have mine. I think yours are off, you think mine are.

When it comes down to it the only one that decides what one will believe is the individual himself. What he decides determines his eternal home.

mdd344

The Evil one,
No faithful Christian has ever done such. You might call most religious person's 'Christians,' the Bible does not do any such thing.

Coleslaw

Well, yeah, alot of people don't like strawman arguments, arguments from assertion, special pleading, circular arguments, and other fallacious arguments. You are trying to blame your inability to prove your point on the audience that you are trying to convince.

How's that working for ya?

The Evil One

Oh please. Don't try to No True Scotsman me. It won't work, and it is irrelevent in this context anyway.

What you don't get is that it has nothing to do with who says it. It has to do with how good their argument is and what the evidence is.

For example. You are clearly a protestant extremist. And I disagree with you. I don't disagree with you because you're a protestant extremist, however. I disagree with you because you don't have the evidence to support your claims. I disagree with you because your arguments don't stack up.

We do not reject sources ebcause we disagree with their claims, we reject them because we find their arguments wanting.

Likewise, it doesn't go back, as you claim, to a "source vs. source." It goes back to how good the sources arguments are and whether they support their claims with evidence.

Please understand this and you will find debate here a much less frustrating experience.

mdd344

Coleslaw,
There you go. Source verses source. I have probably read at least 200 pages of material from 20 diff. sources over the last two days on the topics about which I posted.

The sources I posted I believe were right on target. You disagree. Fine. But it isn't the result of 'strawman, assertion, special pleading, or the like.' It was because you disagree to begin with.

What better example of 'special pleading' exists than claiming that since no archeological evidence has been found a certain thing cannot have existed, and thus the Bible is in error!

Source vs. Source.

mdd344

The evil one,
I am not even a protestant. So whatever name you gave me doesn't fit. I am a New Testament Christian. I wonder if you know what that is Biblically speaking?

I disagree on your statements. The things I gave are only a small part of the evidence. You disagree, so you don't accept it. It has nothing to do with the arguments at all. One set of souces says 'x' and the other says 'y.' You disagree with 'x' and so you take 'y.'

Debate here will always be frustrating, because of the bias that exists toward any 'dumb' and 'uneducated' person, defined as one who believes in God, by the majority.

The Aramaic argument alone demonstrates Daniel had to have been written in the 500's. But that is flatly rejected isn't it? The linguistic arguments are extremely good.

The Evil One

OK, here is your chance to prove your point. Demonstrate exactly what is wrong with that argument. Point out the logical gap. Demonstrate how a lack of archaeological evidence is compatible with your version of things. Go on.

So far all you have said on this topic is when you said to Sauron, "I am really surprised that you would really try and suggest that if no archeological evidence, or otherwise, exists, then the fact claimed is false. Really, trying to be kind, but that is absolutely absurd."

That is not a counterargument. That is an expression of personal incredulity. Personal incredulity is not evidence.

cjack

And here's the point of contention that you will not let go of...you believe that if for one second you consider the arguments of someone who isn't an innerantist, you endanger your soul, risking eternal damnation.

A powerful argument if you live your life in fear of such punishment, and when you get right down to it, you proobably shouldn't even be posting here, considering the eternal risks. As you said, you have your sources, and perhaps you should stick to them, and not risk your soul arguing with such misguided heathens.

(in other words, go away)

neilgodfrey

By throwing out generalizations like this that are guided mainly from within your belief system you are failing to understand or learn how "rationalists" and "scholars" really think. You are interpreting us all through your bible and church literature or church approved sources. Why not take the daring step of getting to know one to one some of those "rationalists" -- or are you forbidden by your belief system from investigating first hand how others really think? You might be surprised. I certainly was. What the bible and your church literature says about them is really one huge misleading straw man fit for relegation to the dust of antiquity.

Meanwhile, do check out the details of your Daniel 2 interpretation as suggested in post #109.


Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

The Evil One

you may not call yourself a protestant but you espouse beliefs that are restricted to the extremist wing of the protestant church, namely creationism and biblical inerrancy. if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... :huh:

You are projecting. But fair enough, if you genuinely believe that those are our motivations, I can see there is nothing I will say that will convince you otherwise.

I have one question though. If you genuinely believe that posters here do not decide their beliefs base don the arguments, then why did you even bother presenting arguments at all?

Perhaps you'd like to present them then. So far you haven't, you've just claimed without giving details that they prove your case.