Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 07-06-2006, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Even if there was an Exodus, so what? If there was an Exodus, we still need to know WHY there was an Exodus. Because of the ten plagues? Well, I would sure like to see Christians reasonably prove that there were ten plagues as described in the Bible. The key words are "as described in the Bible". In addition, I would like to see Christians reasonably prove that Moses was in Egypt when the plagues supposedly occurred.

Common'....be reasonable. Even if something had happened, no one could prove that...it was written down and must be believed by faith or not at all.

There are naturalistic explanations, but I think that takes God out of the equation. See, if there is a God, then he could do those things... Taking the supernatural out of the story makes the accounts much more difficult to reconcile. Of course atheists will have a hard time believing anything in the Bible, because they take out the main ingredient that makes everything work...God. :wave:

Johnny Skeptic · 07-06-2006, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Even if there was an Exodus, so what? If there was an Exodus, we still need to know WHY there was an Exodus. Because of the ten plagues? Well, I would sure like to see Christians reasonably prove that there were ten plagues as described in the Bible. The key words are "as described in the Bible". In addition, I would like to see Christians reasonably prove that Moses was in Egypt when the plagues supposedly occurred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Common'....be reasonable. Even if something had happened, no one could prove that...it was written down and must be believed by faith or not at all.

Why thank you for admitting that, but many fundamentalist Christians disagree with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

There are naturalistic explanations, but I think that takes God out of the equation. See, if there is a God, then he could do those things... Taking the supernatural out of the story makes the accounts much more difficult to reconcile. Of course atheists will have a hard time believing anything in the Bible, because they take out the main ingredient that makes everything work...God.

Unbelievers have plenty of good reasons for not trusting the Bible. In another thread, I made the following reply to Gamera:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If Christianity is ethical, then by necessity its founder, which if Christianity is true would have to be God, must be ethical as well. A "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy is not a valid concept for an ethical being to endorse, but that is exactly what the God of the Bible endorses.

You said that Old Testament Jews did not give the world anything nearly as ethical as Christianity is, but whose fault is that? How could the Jews have possibly given the world something that was not first given to them by God? Hebrews 8:6 says "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." If you had a better cure for cancer, and you were ethical, would you wait for thousands of years to give it to the world? Similarly, if God is ethical, would he allow hundreds of millions of people to die without having heard the Gospel message? Your bashful God wishes to show himself, but only his big toe. Actually, a toe nail would do quite nicely.

To what extent would an ethical God go in order to keep people from going to hell? Certainly an ethical God would do much more than the God of the Bible has done to keep people from going to hell. No Christian can rationally argue against this. If Jesus exists, if he made some more appearances today, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and lots of other historical characters attracted lots of follows based upon much less convincing evidence than the miracles that are attributed to Jesus, so surely my argument is valid.

If anything, the God of the Bible is apathetic, and apathy is not a character trait of an ethical God. Jefferson Davis was the President of the Southern Confederacy during the Civil War. He was a Christian, and he said that the Bible condones slavery. A brief appearance by God would easily have settled this issue, but your apathetic God would have none of that. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines the word "ethics" as "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation". Is ethics simply what God says it is, or does ethics transcend God? Are God's judgments legitimate simply because he has the ability to enforce them?

gregor · 07-06-2006, 06:29 AM

funny, I might assert that errors in the story about

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

. . ancient customs, names, detail in the stories, etc.

lends itself to being fiction. However, I vote we refrain from turning this into a Finkelstein, Dever, et al. (cross over into Daniel) rehash.

Haran · 07-06-2006, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Why thank you for admitting that, but many fundamentalist Christians disagree with you.

Hmm, I know quite a lot of fundamentalist Christians whom I doubt would think they could prove that the plagues happened. I just don't see how that's even possible.

Either way, I just want to point out that I'm not saying that evidence can't be provided for biblical accounts, just that it is nigh impossible to provide evidence of a series of plagues that happened thousands of years ago.

Quote:

Unbelievers have plenty of good reasons for not trusting the Bible. In another thread, I made the following reply to Gamera:

The main one being their lack of belief in God.

Haran · 07-06-2006, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

...lends itself to being fiction. However, I vote we refrain from turning this into a Finkelstein, Dever, et al. (cross over into Daniel) rehash.

Fine by me.

Just remember that there are also politics behind these archaeological fights as well. My point of view is that some of the supposed "mistakes and errors", whatever they may be, with respect to ancient customs, names, details in stories, etc., could very well be due to our being thousands of years removed from the events and misunderstanding them ourselves. Oh well, doubt I'll convince you, but I wouldn't put much stock in most of Finkelstein's analyses, for that matter, I'm not sure how much I agree with Dever either. Archaeology can tell us a lot about what is still in existence, but not much about what isn't. For that, one must rely on the ancient accounts.

gregor · 07-06-2006, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

. . . For that, one must rely on the ancient accounts.

I understand your presuppositions, and you mine.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-06-2006, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Unbelievers have plenty of good reasons for not trusting the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

The main one being their lack of belief in God.

Please tell us to what extent a loving God would go in order to keep people from going to hell?

Haran · 07-06-2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Please tell us to what extent a loving God would go in order to keep people from going to hell?

Sending his son, Jesus, to die on a cross for their wrong doings, such that if they believe (ie. have faith) in him they'll have eternal life. But you knew that already because it's the all-too-familiar John 3:16.

Sven · 07-06-2006, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Of course atheists will have a hard time believing anything in the Bible, because they take out the main ingredient that makes everything work...God. :wave:

Is this in any way different to: "Of course Christians will have a hard time believing anything in the Koran, because they take out the main ingredient that makes everything work...Allah. :wave:" ?

If no, why even introduce this "main ingredient" and not simply choose the simplest solutions: "That the bible is entirely man-made and contains just another invented god" ?

Haran · 07-06-2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Is this in any way different to: "Of course Christians will have a hard time believing anything in the Koran, because they take out the main ingredient that makes everything work...Allah. :wave:" ?

No, it's not. It is subjective and based on faith. I have investigated Islam and other religions. Christianity is the only God that I believe exists, and his existence makes the supernatural portions of the Bible work.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.