Hmm...

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well I'm glad that works for you. Personally, I can't swallow the bible as an accurate historical account, and that wrecks the argument in my mind. The way I see it, people are so easily fooled, and others so eager to fool and take advantage of this gullibility for their own ends, that I would need to be a lot closer to a miracle than the bible tak ...[text shortened]... accept it as a reality. My Jewish ancestry doesn't seem to get in the way of my scepticism!

With all due respect to both you and Freaky and to the overall flow of this public forum conversation, the crux issue isn't whether or not you, Freaky or I (within the self limiting contexts of our own individual early childhood training, years of angry academic rebellion, present frame of reference and congealed cultural bias) buy into the plenary verbal inspiration and authenticity of the Canon of OT and NT Scripture, at the outset, as one of Eternal God's several supernatural revelations of Himself to mankind.

Fact that He has done so for the express purpose of reconciliation of the creature to the creator through the free excercise of volition, with the certain irrevocable permanent result of regeneration (second birth) through the common and efficacious grace ministry of God the Holy Spirit (instantly changing us from dichotomous to trichotomous, i.e., body and soul to body, soul and human spirit and ipso facto spiritually alive) is technical in nature and yet to be appreciated and, therefore, not the crux issue either.

No, Avalanchethecat, not by a long shot. Only crux issue and most important life decision there's ever been for every mother's son and daughter on this spinning planet earth is to individually answer the simple question: "What think ye of Christ." We all possess three cognitive functions or means of perception and learning, of knowing and informing our decision process for the purpose of self determination: experiential (see, touch, taste it); rationalism (figure it out), both of which confer human merit.

Third one is Einstein's quantum leap of faith (a priori confidence in the invisible and before the fact) which we've all been steadiliy using from early childhood and since in university, authors, etc, in accepting accurate/factual reality from many and various sources (parents, coaches, professors, other persons whose authority we've chosen to accept). There's zero human merit in faith.

We all accept information, buy in and place our absolute confidence in propositions using this third means of perception. I've never been to Austrailia but in third grade Mrs Keefe told us about the place and to this day I believe it's a real place with interesting animals and great grub & beer. That's the mode of perception in play. God gets the credit (glory) and we receieve His unspeakable gift of everlasting life, relationship with Him and sharing his exquisite happiness in time and for all eternity.

Only one crux issue: What do you think of the Lord Jesus Christ? Clearly, we all have the option of flat out rejection. He says, "Okay, Pal. We'll do it your way." Consequence: You go it alone, separated from Him in both time and for all eternity.




.....................................................................

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
With all due respect to both you and Freaky and to the overall flow of this public forum conversation, the crux issue isn't whether or not you, Freaky or I (within the self limiting contexts of our own individual early childhood training, years of angry academic rebellion, present frame of reference and congealed cultural bias) buy into the plenary verb ...[text shortened]... .




.....................................................................

Elegantly put, if perhaps a little long-winded. For me, though, entirely unacceptable as an ideology. I'm not an atheist per se, as I don't disbelieve in the existence of some sort of God, but I cannot, and do not wish to, believe in a god which requires unreasoned acceptance of unverifiable ancient scripture as qualification for reward, and which promises damnation to it's creations should they choose to employ the critical faculties with which it endowed them.

John 3;16....John3;36....Acts 16;31....Ephesians2;8.9 accept or reject ...rejoice or weep. God gave us free will and demands an answer. No answer is a "no' answer.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What it would take to construct the cohesion viewed within Scripture, establish a nation, inspire countless millions of people to follow--- and et cetera--- brings the necessity of its one premise, i.e., that the God to which it all points actually exists, to the forefront of all options.

sure and with reference to converting millions, making one nation and all that, Mohammed is his prophet.

Originally posted by finnegan
sure and with reference to converting millions, making one nation and all that, Mohammed is his prophet.

Simple as that.... hmm? 'Things should be kept as simple as possible but no simpler.' ~Albert

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
But back then? There wasn't a single person who didn't accept the events as facts.

Or so you claim. But for anyone who doesn't already believe in Gods existence, a far more reasonable explanation is that the history itself is not factual.
Any document describing extraordinary events needs extraordinary evidence to back it up or the document itself should be suspect.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Or so you claim. But for anyone who doesn't already believe in Gods existence, a far more reasonable explanation is that the history itself is not factual.
Any document describing extraordinary events needs extraordinary evidence to back it up or the document itself should be suspect.

That particular path is rather well-tread, don't you think?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That particular path is rather well-tread, don't you think?

Well the path is indeed well tread and for that reason it is increasingly hard to accept the honesty of people who persistently refuse to deal with the evidence. Indeed, one begins to ask interesting questions like - I wonder who benefits from this refusal?

Originally posted by finnegan
Well the path is indeed well tread and for that reason it is increasingly hard to accept the honesty of people who persistently refuse to deal with the evidence. Indeed, one begins to ask interesting questions like - I wonder who benefits from this refusal?

What is this evidence of which you speak, exactly? By all means, show it to reasonable people and let them have their say.

Wait a tic: the emperor has no clothes! You arrogantly assume to declare that the overwhelming choice when viewing the "evidence" is that the Bible is somehow unfit as an authority on life and spiritual matters. You are a rube of the lowest order, using your education as a shield and weapon, wielding it against the unsuspecting in the vain attempt to ensnare them in the same pit in which you now sit. Sit there alone and leave others to find their way without your interference. Isn't it bad enough to have lost your own way, that you should want others to lose theirs?

Shame on you.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Hmm...



What if chess is slightly more than a game, earth merely the parenthetical prelude and the Bible is absolutely true?[/b]

If the Bible is absolutely true then I am mad, because my current mind tells me that it would be illogical for the Bible to be absolutely true.
For a start, such a claim ignores some very basic problems:
1. 'the Bible' doesn't exist as an object with a single message. It refers to a whole collection of books whose various copies and translations differ from each other - hence ruling out the possibility that they can all be true.
2. Language is inherently imprecise and thus to claim any statement is 'absolutely true' is ridiculous unless what you mean is 'a particular interpretation of that statement is absolutely true' - in which case I concede that the Bible is absolutely true as it is presumably possible to interpret it in at least one way that turns out to be 'true'. For example if we interpret it as fiction then it is presumably true - if such a word still holds meaning at that point.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What is this evidence of which you speak, exactly? By all means, show it to reasonable people and let them have their say.

Wait a tic: the emperor has no clothes! You arrogantly assume to declare that the overwhelming choice when viewing the "evidence" is that the Bible is somehow unfit as an authority on life and spiritual matters. You are a rube of ...[text shortened]... nough to have lost your own way, that you should want others to lose theirs?

Shame on you.

My, my, more breathtaking hypocrisy and spiritual halitosis from the preacher man.

You're qualified to say finnegan's lost his way?

STFU, preacher man.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What is this evidence of which you speak, exactly? By all means, show it to reasonable people and let them have their say.

Wait a tic: the emperor has no clothes! You arrogantly assume to declare that the overwhelming choice when viewing the "evidence" is that the Bible is somehow unfit as an authority on life and spiritual matters. You are a rube of ...[text shortened]... nough to have lost your own way, that you should want others to lose theirs?

Shame on you.

Am I to understand that it is arrogant to use my education in order to study, debate and explore a range of topics in which you, like Jaywill, have already made up their minds? Would it be more humble (presumably the appropriate mindset in your view) to set aside all my education (such as it might be) and listen uncritically to whatever I am told by wiser souls? And is that a category to which you are assigned by virtue of endlessly reading and re-reading the same two thousand year old source book?

Is it also the case that people of your mind set use a debating forum for a purpose that does not include hearing from those like myself (and of course I am not sad and lonely as you appear to wish, seeking out some personal insecurity as a tool of social pressure and using it like a hex).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
My, my, more breathtaking hypocrisy and spiritual halitosis from the preacher man.

You're qualified to say finnegan's lost his way?

STFU, preacher man.

You first, angry man.

Originally posted by finnegan
Am I to understand that it is arrogant to use my education in order to study, debate and explore a range of topics in which you, like Jaywill, have already made up their minds? Would it be more humble (presumably the appropriate mindset in your view) to set aside all my education (such as it might be) and listen uncritically to whatever I am told by wiser ...[text shortened]... ish, seeking out some personal insecurity as a tool of social pressure and using it like a hex).

Am I to understand that it is arrogant to use my education in order to study, debate and explore a range of topics in which you, like Jaywill, have already made up their minds?
This is what you come up with in summary? That I am anti-education? On the basis of what, again? And inexplicably, it is wrong to come to a conclusion on matters--- insofar as that conclusion is the one you're not beholden to currently? You have made clear that at some point or another, your mind was made up contrary to your current position on the subjects at hand: wrong then or wrong now?

And is that a category to which you are assigned by virtue of endlessly reading and re-reading the same two thousand year old source book?
I don't claim any special form of wisdom, and while I would love to declare that my sole exposure to knowledge was only the Bible, such is not the case. One such informed is in a better position to dispense wisdom, to be certain. Consider the education of the Lord Jesus Christ, by way of example.

Is it also the case that people of your mind set...
What do you mean "you people?" Your condescending tone is so cute. Can you try it in a British accent?

... and of course I am not sad and lonely as you appear to wish, seeking out some personal insecurity as a tool of social pressure and using it like a hex
Well, of course you're not. Of course.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You first, angry man.

I'll quit posting here for a month if you agree to do the same. If that works, the period can be extended for longer. Reply with 'I agree' and it's on.