Spirituality
11 May 05
11 May 05
I find it interesting that whenever I am debating about any Biblical events and issues - the first rules seems to be - pretend like God does not exist.
Now I can understand this with my opponents. I mean, with God on my side, I have an advantage. God is by definition a supernatural being, who supersedes the laws of nature. Nothing is impossible for God.
But why should I deny God when I am debating things like the flood, or a 6-day creation. Wouldn't that be the supreme example of absurdity to argue about acts of God by first assuming God is not God?
So all you who wish to argue about the contents of the Bible - please explain why you think it is reasonable to first pretend like God does not exist? Is there any reason that is not the following: it gives the Christian theist an unfair advantage?
11 May 05
Originally posted by Colettihow can you pretend he doesn't exist, when in fact he do exist.
I find it interesting that whenever I am debating about any Biblical events and issues - the first rules seems to be - pretend like God does not exist.
Now I can understand this with my opponents. I mean, with God on my side, I have an advantage. God is by definition a supernatural being, who supersedes the laws of nature. Nothing is impossible for God ...[text shortened]... s there any reason that is not the following: it gives the Christian theist an unfair advantage?
11 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiNo one is asking you to suspend your belief in a Supreme Being.
I find it interesting that whenever I am debating about any Biblical events and issues - the first rules seems to be - pretend like God does not exist.
Now I can understand this with my opponents. I mean, with God on my side, I have an advantage. God is by definition a supernatural being, who supersedes the laws of nature. Nothing is impossible for God ...[text shortened]... s there any reason that is not the following: it gives the Christian theist an unfair advantage?
They are asking you to critically evaluate what you believe.
For example, in order to believe that Creation took place 6k years ago,
you have to deny about 20 different branches of science. In order to
disbelieve it, you have to reject a literaly reading of a book written
3000 years ago, a book that was taken figuratively when it was written
in the first place.
Which is more reasonable?
Nemesio
11 May 05
Originally posted by NemesioI hope the day does not come when you stand in judgement, and all you can say is "Contadictions, what about those Contradictins." And the LORD says, "Contradictions,there were no contradictions, you just used that as an excuse, not to accept The Salvation that I offered."
Just do the same thing you do when you pretend that there are no
literal contradictions in the Bible.
Nemesio
11 May 05
Originally posted by NemesioThere are no contradictions in the Bible, you are a human that is why you do not understand it, God MUST reveal the truth of it to you to understand it.
Just do the same thing you do when you pretend that there are no
literal contradictions in the Bible.
Nemesio
Romans 10:17
11 May 05
Originally posted by NemesioI would like you to list those 20 branches of science and then give tell me how the scientists in those branches have become the source of absolute truth..
No one is asking you to suspend your belief in a Supreme Being.
They are asking you to critically evaluate what you believe.
For example, in order to believe that Creation took place 6k years ago,
you have to deny about 20 different branches of science. In order to
disbelieve it, you have to reject a literaly reading of a book written
3000 years ag ...[text shortened]... en figuratively when it was written
in the first place.
Which is more reasonable?
Nemesio
11 May 05
Originally posted by blindfaith101Praise God! the best quote I heard all day.
I hope the day does not come when you stand in judgement, and all you can say is "Contadictions, what about those Contradictins." And the LORD says, "Contradictions,there were no contradictions, you just used that as an excuse, not to accept The Salvation that I offered."
11 May 05
Originally posted by Colettinot that i go around trying to pick fights about the bible, but i find it very difficult to take seriously most arguments that are in favor of the bible. invariably, to me, the argument in favor of the bible seems to boil down to stating that the bible is right because it is the bible -- in as much as it was written by men, but breathed by god.
I find it interesting that whenever I am debating about any Biblical events and issues - the first rules seems to be - pretend like God does not exist.
Now I can understand this with my opponents. I mean, with God on my side, I have an advantage. God is by definition a supernatural being, who supersedes the laws of nature. Nothing is impossible for God ...[text shortened]... s there any reason that is not the following: it gives the Christian theist an unfair advantage?
this argument is in my opinion virtually content-free. and the natural question to ask to such an argument is 'yeah, but what if god doesn't exist' -- then the argument in favor of the bible completely crumbles. this doesn't show that the bible is false -- it only shows that you cannot prove the existence of something that is based on faith.
i agree with you that in such debates it is not fair to start by saying 'let's first assume god doesn't exist.' but a natural (and different) starting place is to ask what happens to the theist's argument when the assumption that god exists breaks down. invariably, i find these questions are not satisfactorily answered by the theist (how could they be, given that he has faith, not proof?).
11 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloIts far more unfair to have a debate with one side having a wild card to trump any argument it's losing on the merits
not that i go around trying to pick fights about the bible, but i find it very difficult to take seriously most arguments that are in favor of the bible. invariably, to me, the argument in favor of the bible seems to boil down to stating that [b]the bible is right because it is the bible -- in as much as it was written by men, but breathed by god.
...[text shortened]... isfactorily answered by the theist (how could they be, given that he has faith, not proof?).
[/b]
11 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI agree with you if I were trying to prove the existence of God - I do not. And I think ultimately the authority of the Bible is founded on faith. But I have not found any argument that really counters the justification of this faith except by those who presume something that axiomatically invalidate that faith - in fact, it is only by faith that anyone bases any counter arguments against the Bible - faith in science, faith in interpretations of empirical data that presume that there is no God or the Bible is not God's Word. The final position comes down to this - wherein lies your faith.
...i agree with you that in such debates it is not fair to start by saying 'let's first assume god doesn't exist.' but a natural (and different) starting place is to ask what happens to the theist's argument when the assumption that god exists breaks down. invariably, i find these questions are not satisfactorily answered by the theist (how could they be, given that he has faith, not proof?).