Jorge

I would be happy to comply, I really would, but be honest, regardless of what I provided to you wouldn't you just shrug it off? If not, are you then willing to publicly make a statement that you could very well be wrong regarding the Bible and God?

Jorge

Jorge

Thank you, ComestibleVenom, for providing such clear evidence of my main point.

Jorge

Jorge

Originally posted by Wayne Delia

What you're leaning on right now is the noted apologist Gleason Archer's recommended strategy: assume there are no contradictions, only that the apparent ones have not yet been explained. That is intellectually dishonest.

Of your lengthy (and interesting) post, WD, I wish to focus just on the part above. You end with "that is intellectually dishonest".

I must ask you to elaborate. Let me give you a hint as to why this point is much more significant than it appears to be.

The materialistic Naturalist assumes that everything may be explained in terms of natural mechanisms, processes and laws. But of course, as we all know, the present state of knowledge allows no such thing. When this point is brought up, we are in essence asked to have "faith", to "assume" that we have not yet discovered what all of those natural mechanisms, processes and laws are, but that in time we will.

Now, as per your own criterion, is that being "intellectually dishonest" also or do we have here yet another clear case of double standards applied to Christian apologetics?

Jorge

Jorge

Originally posted by Wayne Delia

Definitely. I was a born-again Christian for about a dozen years, read the Bible cover to cover five times, read the proposed contradictions, abandoned the idea that the Bible was inerrant (along with the rest of my faith, eventually) and I've honestly been happier than I was when I was trying to hold together a fragile theology and ignore the obvious contradictions.

Sad... very sad, WD.

If that's your final stance (and it plainly appears to be) then all I can say is make certain you enjoy the extremely short-lived "happiness" while you can. 'Cause after that, as Beetlejuice would say, "It's showtime!"

I pray that, with His help, you find your way back, WD.

Jorge

CX

Jorge, please check your private messages

Jorge

Originally posted by Wayne Delia

Perhaps you can enroll in those pre-K classes you think we need to be in!

I'm studying these subjects all the time, WD. In any event, pre-kinder is a relative position.

I understand perfectly well what you've posted here:

Naaah... your words indicate anything but an understanding.

you have presented (vaguely) what you believe, you have solicited contradictions which you have generally ignored, and you have condescended to anyone who does not agree with you. Christians like that, honestly, are a dime a dozen.

As I know all too well, the only being that knows the true state of a person's heart is God. I say this because you may or you may not have been what you thought you were (a born-again Christian) but only He knows what the truth is in that regards.

That very important point having been made, the more I read your posts, WD, the more it seems to me that you were actually just "testing the waters" with Christ but that your heart's inclination was to accept the truth of this world over His truth. All you needed was to gather sufficient intellectual arguments to justify your true faith.

BTW, I will emphasize that this is not a judgment on my part, just an observation. As I said earlier, only He has authority in such matters.

[b]Jorge[/u]

Spenser

That's great! I asked you for a definition of God and you gave me essentially nothing. If all I have is what the bible describes God to be then I need not argue against him, I've seen plenty of people here disprove him for me. I was asking for detail, would you define your God as being:

Personal
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnipresent
Omnibenevolent
Omnipresent
Omnisufficient (Thanks for the phrase Jobar)
Omnismurfy

WHAT?

Let's establish what it is we wish to attempt to prove or disprove. Without more meaning this debate is pointless, and I'd hate to see you go away convinced we couldn't disprove what you couldn't define...

Wayne Delia

Speculation on the possible reactions to evidence is no excuse for failing to produce the evidence. I am always happy to be corrected, and am always willing to modify my worldview in the face of undiscovered evidence or compelling logical arguments. So far, however, you have produced neither, and all you've brought to the table has been condescending and patronizing smokescreening and handwaving. Needless to say, they have been unpersuasive.

WMD

Wayne Delia

No, really, I'm quite happy about it. Sorry you aren't willing to take my word on it. I no longer have to compromise my intellectual integrity in order to hold together a contradictory belief system, and that's a good thing. I'm familiar with the empty death threats of weak apologists when their ammunition has run out (or, in your case, you didn't bring any ammunition to the gunfight at all!) It certainly does appear that the final argument is always a variation on "Worship my invisible sky-daddy, or He'll kick your ass!" As a result of several years of karate training, I have learned that the only threats I take seriously are those which can be demonstrated to exist.
Cool! That could be part of an objective test which can measure the effectiveness of prayer! How about you pray to God that, with His help, I find my way back to Christianity by the end of the month. "With God, all things are possible," or so the Bible says. If, by August 1, I'm still an atheist, would you accept that as evidence that your God either doesn't exist, or doesn't much care if I find my way back to Christianity or not? I'm guessing you wouldn't agree to that, and am eagerly awaiting your reasoning why.

WMD

Wayne Delia

First of all, you haven't demonstrated anything is a misconception, and it appears you're really not in a position to do that, as you're either unwilling or unable to do so. Second, have you asked yourself the same question? You have a sizable toolbox of your own misconceptions, and several different people have done you the courtesy of pointing out exactly where you're wrong. You've blown them off quite as if you don't want your 'belief system' to be upset. Sound familiar?

WMD