22 Sep 14
Originally posted by divegeesterReally? Is that what I said? Or is that how you interpreted what I said? Where do you see me (literally) saying the Bible is not the word of God?
I'm only going where you have led lemon lime.
You have said that you do not accept that the Bible is the word of God and is therefore not reliable evidence supporting the Christian claims based upon it's contents.
I am curious then what your faith is actually based on - other than "seek and you will find"?
You also said that "what the Bible co ...[text shortened]... e" do you have that it is "important", if you don't accept the evidence of the words themselves?
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by lemon limeHave you ever met any other people who self-identify as Christians and yet do not accept the Bible as evidence to support Christian doctrine?
Look at my last message to dive. What I said to him applies to you as well.
There are some questions I will not be answering here. It would not help you to understand why I believe God, so there's really no point in setting myself up for more of your *questions*. You appear to be asking questions only for the purpose of asking more questions... it's be ...[text shortened]... question*
*Question: how difficult can this be? Answer: as difficult as you wish to make it.
22 Sep 14
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYou are telling on yourself a bit when you say things like "self-identify", but there's really no point in getting into this aspect of our conversation, so...
Have you ever met any other people who self-identify as Christians and yet do not accept the Bible as evidence to support Christian doctrine?
Sorry, but I cannot give you a definitive answer to that question until you explain just what exactly you mean by the word "evidence". There are too many shades of meaning for me to try guessing how you might happen to define it. For all I know your motivation for asking so many questions could simply be to wait until I guess wrong, so you can then invite me to follow you down yet another rabbit hole leading to yet another dead end. Is there some actual destination that can or possibly be reached?
The main problem I have when talking to atheists or agnostics or people who self-identify as theists (but neglect to identify exactly what that means) is whenever they're talking about a God they do not believe exists. Whether you choose to believe this or not, I was an atheist at one time. So I know that whenever someone who does not believe in God asks me if I believe the Bible is the word of God, they are not asking because they believe the Bible is the word of God.
So don't dance around this and just tell me... do you believe the Bible is the word of God? But more to the point, since you have already answered that question, what exactly does it mean when you say you are a theist?
Dive also identifies himself as a theist, but I have yet to see any difference between what theists and atheists believe. So what's the difference? And by the way, if you want me to answer any more of your questions, then now is the time to start answering my questions.
So what's it going to be? Is this just going to be more of the same old thing... or what?
22 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWow, that sounds a lot like something I might have said after converting to agnosticism.
It's a source of mild amusement to me how flamey this forum is even between the believers allegedly in the same faith. There's a book by a guy called William Keith Chambers Guthrie called The Greek Philosophers (from Thales to Aristotle, 1950), which is based on a lecture course he gave for non-Classicists, and I'd heartily recommend it if you are inter ...[text shortened]... can both give arguments the other will understand but not accept and never the twain shall meet.
I understood the folly of saying God cannot be proven, whereas atheists will generally not see how that same argument can be turned around and used against them. I was of the opinion at that time that it was better to be an agnostic, because agnostics were generally more intelligent than atheists. Then later, because of my greatly enhance self-identified intelligence I was able to surmise that I was not actually a true agnostic... I was simply an above average and reasonably cautious (albeit unusually intelligent) atheist.
ah yup
22 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI don't think so (and Oxford / Merriam-Webster back me up on this one) lying is the act of saying something false WITH the intent to deceive. I acknowledge the distinction between wilful and negligent lying you put forward, but no such distinction is necessary - unknowingly conveying information that is false is essentially to make a mistake.
If one tells a falsehood then that is lying. If one deliberately tells a falsehood then that is wilful lying. If one inadvertently tells a lie then it is still lying, although morally less serious the difference being that between intent and negligence. Most people distinguish between the two things as it is easy to be misinformed. In the UK parliame ...[text shortened]... if the lie is inadvertent. Parliament is a court so in wilful cases it's up there with perjury.
Indeed, if we were to accept your definition here then children who get their maths homework wrong could all be said to be liars (and in many cases compulsive liars) on account that their answers to various questions are conveying false information.
What I said to lemon-lime was valid.
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by AgergWould what you said to me still be valid if it's not true?
I don't think so (and Oxford / Merriam-Webster back me up on this one) lying is the act of saying something false [b]WITH the intent to deceive. I acknowledge the distinction between wilful and negligent lying you put forward, but no such distinction is necessary - unknowingly conveying information that is false is essentially to make a mistake.
Indeed ...[text shortened]... to various questions are conveying false information.
What I said to lemon-lime was valid.[/b]
Were you telling me a valid lie?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117376
22 Sep 14
Originally posted by lemon limeOK
How I answer would depend on what you mean by "the Word of God". My answer could be yes or no, but until I understand how you personally interpret what that means I cannot give you a definitive answer.
You also said that "what the Bible communicates is important" - so I'm asking you what do you think the bible "communicates" that is "important" and what "evidence" do you have that it is "important", if you don't accept the evidence of the words themselves?
22 Sep 14
3 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeIF(and that's a big if) it were not true, and I did not intend to convey information that was false, it would be a mistake ... as I said in the post you responded to. Indeed, I said:
Would what you said to me still be valid if it's not true?
Were you telling me a valid lie?
unknowingly conveying information that is false is essentially to make a mistake.
Further, the statement I made that what I said to [you] was valid, refers to the response I made to your insipid crack at forum-ridicule* which failed on account of you making ... get this ... a mistake!
------
* though I fail to see how you can justify that behaviour, you're in the same league as josephw, and he thinks he's smart too :]
22 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeOK, I'll put it this way instead: Have you ever met any other people who told you they self-identify as Christians and yet claimed that they did not accept the Bible as evidence to support Christian doctrine?
Sorry, but I cannot give you a definitive answer to that question until you explain just what exactly you mean by the word "evidence". There are too many shades of meaning for me to try guessing how you might happen to define it. For all I know your motivation for asking so many questions could simply be to wait until I guess wrong, so you can then ...[text shortened]... o yet another dead end. Is there some actual destination that can or possibly be reached?
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by lemon limeDivegeester is a Christian. It's baffling that you seem unaware of this.
Dive also identifies himself as a theist, but I have yet to see any difference between what theists and atheists believe. So what's the difference? And by the way, if you want me to answer any more of your questions, then now is the time to start answering my questions.
23 Sep 14
Originally posted by lemon limeSo don't dance around this and just tell me... do you believe the Bible is the word of God?
No. I am not a Christian. I do not believe the Bible ~ or the Koran or the Torah, for that matter ~ is "the word of God". Unlike me, you call yourself a Christian and yet you have indicated that you do not accept the Bible as evidence to support Christian doctrine. If you don't think the evidence about Christ's life laid out in the Bible supports Christian doctrine, where do you get your Christian doctrine from?
what exactly does it mean when you say you are a theist?
I already answered this question on page 14 but you ignored it. I am a theist out of instinct but I have seen no convincing evidence that God has revealed Himself explicitly or issued instructions to anyone ~ and certainly not to me. I have no religious beliefs that I seek or am able to proselytise.