bfniii

the bible claims it. why is it wrong?



none. do you need any more than that? what would that prove?



according to your misperception. do you have some specific verses that are puzzling you?



oh yeah? says who?



addressed in the other thread.



God, by definition, is the archetypal good. therefore, it's not that He has a right, but is.



as i have said, you couldn't prove it was God that showed up. how would you know if God showed up?



what's to explain? this verse merely reiterates that God created mankind.



not in this forum. it's irrelevant. the point is that you asked about God's shyness. i told you that some people believe they interact with God. you want evidence and i told you that they base their belief on the only evidence that really can exist, personal experience.



no it wouldn't. all the "evidence" you asked for can be faked.



i asked for some specific objections. if you don't have any and your position is non-committal, then you have nothing to add right now.



you didn't answer the question



i'm asking you. you're the one who asked for it so you should be able to explain why.



well, yes. the case of the 500 eyewitnesses.



let me try again. you asked for eyewitness testimony. the bible claims there were eyewitnesses. how can we know if the bible is correct?



yes. what source does the account come from?



no, you don't get it. this is a biblical criticism forum. the bible says what it says. you are the skeptic, so criticize. tell me why it is fraudulent.



since this statement isn't about biblical criticism, my position is that the easiest way for you to answer this question is to go to church. ask the parishioners



you are incorrect. they are part of the biblical accounts, but they are not the cornerstone of christianity.



prophecies, revelations, teleology, providence.



as i said, they are definitely part of christianity, but they aren't the cornerstone as you seem to be making them out to be.



why? some people didn't even believe them then. what gives you the idea they would be any more ecumenically convincing today? in fact, they would probably be less so due to the effects of technology.



you are deluded if you believe that. that would convince some people, but other people would think it was elaborate magic or that it was the result of aliens.



examples are irrelevant. the personal experience is paramount.



you are missing the point. for some people, that would lessen the mystery behind the miracle. the biblical account would be less mysterious. God would be less mysterious. you're still missing the point about miracles and God's presence.



you didn't answer the question of who the "most needy" are.



and i have told you more than once that christians believe they get these answers regarding suffering. you seem to need more but when you state what this more is, it is flawed.



how can i have done that? you stated "those most in need". there are no such people. every person needs hope, regardless of their current physical condition.



here you echo my point.



this is tangential to your point of those most in need and i have addressed this in the other thread.



i'm sure that there is at least one scientist that could pose a theory as to what would cause such a thing.



i guess that depends on personal experience.



this is a generalization. can you tell me specifically why it wasn't credible?



yes i can. especially if He has chosen to endow people with that knowledge.



let's take them one at a time. which one do you want to start with?



i haven't been convinced by skeptics otherwise.



he's the president of the united states. does he speak for all americans? in one sense yes, in another, no.



the example isn't analogous. prophets allegedly got their knowledge directly from God. bush governs by his best judgment.


biblical authors portray the prophets as divinely inspired. where did they get such an idea?



assume? i have already explained that it is unfair.



because He revealed that knowledge to people.



do you ask your parents to do magic tricks to prove they are your parents? do you ask the president to annex another country to prove he is president?



as far as we're concerned, it's irrelevant. my point is that you are questioning the nature of God with unfounded speculation.



the bible states it. is it wrong?



not only is this statement inappropriate because we aren't in a hindu forum, but it doesn't respond to the point. if God chose to reveal knowledge to people through the bible or personal revelation, then they can speak credibly for Him.



the power to abandon and the morality behind it are two different issues.



i guess to create a personal relationship with those people



the old convenant.



you have no response to my refutation. that's all you had to say.



yes it does.



irrelevant to your point.



not totally. morality and authority are also issues.



good for them



right. you have a choice. best of luck to you.



they are. do you have any specific questions that haven't already been addressed?



because the objections to it are weak, for one reason.

Johnny Skeptic

In my previous post I told you that I would like to save this thread for discussing the dating of the Tyre prophecy and other aspects of the Tyre prophecy, and that I will soon transfer and discuss the unrelated issues that we have discussed in this thread to the thread on Biblical errors. Please stay on topic. Please reply to my post #288.

bfniii

irrelevant. you stated you could invalidate the prophecy but your OP doesn't do that. at best it renders your position non-committal.




but your position doesn't invalidate the prophecy as you claim it does.

bfniii

what would be proof to you?



what verses would you be referring to?



verses?



some have been, some haven't been. there are good and bad agnostics too. what's your point?



blaming christianity for the ills done by christians is inherently flawed. those actions you mention were done outside of the mandates of christianity.



you are apparently unfamiliar with the bible.

bfniii

you're right. but people got the idea from somewhere. what gave them the idea it was composed prior to the event?



it does no such thing. the passing of time does not make historical events true or false. new information about those events might, however.



do you, or anyone else, have any evidence that anything in the bible is the result of revision?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: In one of your previous posts, you criticized my topic and opening post, but I have long since revised my topic and opening post.

I transferred our non-pertinent discussions in thread to the thread on Biblical errors, so please visit that thread and make a post.

Good. You have agreed that from 250 B.C. through to the present, everyone who believed and believes that the Tyre prophecy was divinely inspired has had to accept it by faith or not at all.

As far as I know, faith alone. Do you have any other ideas? Surely you accept numerous completely unverifiable claims based upon faith alone.

Only time travel could answer your question, and obviously that is impossible. I am not claiming that revisions occured. What I am asking you is why do you believe that revisions did not occur? My current position is that both sides have equally plausible arguments. How about you?

Why don't you ever defend any world views other than Christianity? In other words, why are you participating in a forum on Biblical criticism and history?

mata leao

the new polls show that 95% of people believe in God. If its all in the interpretation, then a fortiori, it would still seem that most folks interpret prophecies such as Tyre in favor of theism and in favor of a reliable Bible. Thus, you atheists aren't doing a very good job of convincing people otherwise.

Apikorus

Among leading scientists, belief in a "personal god" has diminished to 7%, according to this study. 93% are atheist or agnostic.

Johnny Skeptic

What you haven't told us is "why" anyone should believe that the Tyre prophecy was written before the events, and that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version.

You are appealing to the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum." In other words, "if the vast majority of people believe in something, it must be true." The vast majority of people used to believe that the earth was flat, and they were all wrong. You most certainly did not become a Christian because there were a lot Christians in the world, and you most certainly would not give up Christianity if another religion became larger, and people who became Christias is the first few centuries A.D. most certainly did not become Christians because there were a lot of Christians in the world. In case you haven't noticed, there is a higher percentage of atheists and agnostics in the U.S. than ever before. A gallup poll showed that in the age group category 18-29, 61% approve of same sex marriage. Physician assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland. Same ame sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Canada, Denmark, and possibly in the Netherlands. Fundamentalist Christians comprise a much smaller percentage of the population in Europe than in the U.S. Islam is growing faster than Christianity is. I has one billion followers, and Christianity had a 600 year head start. I am not appealing to numbers. I just wanted to show you that I could beat you at your own game.

For your information, a poll by the Barna Research Group, which is an evangelical Christian organization, showed that Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do. In Denmark, the divorce rate among heterosexuals is higher than among same sex couples.

Would you care to try again?

Djugashvillain

Argumentum ad populum. Please stop.