Less than half of Irish people consider themselves religious

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

And I gave you one and a half hours worth of spoken testimony from a noted biblical scolar to seriously question that reliability.

This is a discussion forum, and I'm happy to discuss this subject with you, but I'm not going to watch 1hr 30mins just to respond to your post. That's a fair expectation.

amadain17

philologos Lets start from the very start. The bible assumes the existence of god. Lets throw this out for a minute and start discussing the evidence for the existence of god. Once we establish that then we can discuss the bible more in depth. Does that sound fair to you?

Now can you define god first. Then present to me the evidence for the existence of god (any god really but I would prefer the evidence for the existence of your particular god)

Peer reviewed evidence would be nice

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

It's fair to say that if a poster wants to discuss something that I shouldn't have to watch 10 videos first. People would object if I told them to do that first.

I've conceded that John 8 and the end of Mark 16 weren't in the originals. These doubtful passages forms 0.4% of the entire text. Meaning 99.6% is as it was at first authorship which is the most authentic amongst ancient texts.

If anyone else has anything they can quote on thread I'm happy to consider it.

You know that that's only fair Sonics2ks.

Wll no Phil, that's not fair to say.

In previous debates you often make the claim that people quote section of the Bible out of context, and need to read what Jesus said. So you basically say that people need to read the entire Bible in the hopes they come up with the same opinion of it as you.

You asked for proof. You were given it, and then instantly dismissed it (as usual) in case it went against your opinion and showed your view is mistaken or just plain wrong.

So no, it's not fair to say.

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

Paul spearheaded the religion. There are no sources for the last supper, the crucifixion and the resurrection. The last supper supposedly had only 13 participants so do you really think that there could possibly be an accurate representation of what happened during it from sources outside of the event? The resurrection story differs in the 4 accounts in all 4 gospels and the gospels that didn't come out of Nicea victorously had everything from floating crucifixes to simply visions. There is no reliable data here. Nothing remarkable happened at the crucifixion (Matthew 27 is laughable - if zombies walked around among the living I'm sure the romans and their historians would have noticed.)

So read back what you said above. Pauls conversion acccount and hearsay from Paul leaves 7. There is nothing written from anybody with nothing to gain from this religion. Don't you think its unusual that someone doing miracles would go unnoticed by the worlds greatest military force? Jesus might have existed and he might have been the elvis of his time but he was no god. Since noone who ever met him wrote anything he ever said down the direct quotes from Jesus can be thrown out or credited to Pauls overactive imagination. How could Paul know what jesus said? He never met him and never heard of his deeds while he was alive. Pauls writing were in 54ad. Can you write down stories from 20 years ago in accurate detail about yourself nevermind about someone you never even met? The story of Jesus was embesllished so that he might meet the standards of the prophecies of the messiah. They wanted to deify jesus even if he wasn't the messiah.

A

It doesn't leave 7. There's also an Y variable left. Namely the time from when that describes to the writing of the text.

There's also the active history of the church from Jesus' departure to Paul's conversion.

The Gospel was already being taught long long before Paul's conversion. Indeed that is why he was persecuting Christians prior to His conversion.

Paul had nothing to gain from the Gospel. If you read his account in 2 Corinthians chapter 11 in particular you'll see that Paul was beaten and stoned nearly to death on quite a few occasions. Did Paul have much to gain in a hostile environment which persecuted him and other Christians heavily?

Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?

Paul wrote about the Last Supper, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection in his works long long before they were written.

The Gospel accounts that were chosen were all in the first century. The gnostic gospels came 200 - 300 years after Jesus. That's a good reason to reject them!

As for the alleged differences in the accounts. None of them are contradictions. Namely that one event logically excludes another. PDN on the Christianity forum posted about alleged contradictions and when they were examined, none of them held up. Take a look through this thread if you're interested.

Your argument isn't really holding together.

amadain17

It doesn't leave 7. There's also an Y variable left. Namely the time from when that describes to the writing of the text.

There's also the active history of the church from Jesus' departure to Paul's conversion.

The Gospel was already being taught long long before Paul's conversion. Indeed that is why he was persecuting Christians prior to His conversion.

There are no sources prior to Paul. Its hearsay. Paul deified Jesus. Prior to Paul Jesus was bedtime tales for the gullible. There probably was a rabii who was quotable called Jesus but the quotes were very probably misrepresented.

Paul wrote about the Last Supper, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection in his works long long before they were written.

Paul wrote about them. Paul was not there. Paul could not have the words of anybody at that alleged meal except from unnamed annonymous sources or he might even have made it all up.

Your argument isn't really holding together.

You have not addressed my argument at all and stating this does not change this fact. There are no witnesses to Jesus deeds or words that wrote a stroke down. Paul never met Jesus. None of Pauls sources have been vetted. It was never even put forward that Paul actaully had sources.

amadain17

amadain17 wrote: »

philologos Lets start from the very start. The bible assumes the existence of god. Lets throw this out for a minute and start discussing the evidence for the existence of god. Once we establish that then we can discuss the bible more in depth. Does that sound fair to you?

Now can you define god first. Then present to me the evidence for the existence of god (any god really but I would prefer the evidence for the existence of your particular god)

Peer reviewed evidence would be nice

I'll resend this one Philologos in case you didn't see it.

I'd love to have the foundation set for this debate.

Lets see if ANY of your arguments have a sound foundation

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

Wll no Phil, that's not fair to say.

In previous debates you often make the claim that people quote section of the Bible out of context, and need to read what Jesus said. So you basically say that people need to read the entire Bible in the hopes they come up with the same opinion of it as you.

You asked for proof. You were given it, and then instantly dismissed it (as usual) in case it went against your opinion and showed your view is mistaken or just plain wrong.

So no, it's not fair to say.

I really don't think it's fair for a poster to say watch 1hr 30mins of video as an alternative to discussing. If amadain17 is familiar, the arguments should be presented in thread. I could look up lots and lots of video material too, but I prefer to discuss it rather than link to a load of videos.

I say that people should read the Bible, but I never say that people should shut up unless they do. Often if I see someone misrepresenting Christian belief, I do point to the Bible and show them what it says. If I was discussing with someone in person and they were objecting to Christian belief, I'd ask them if I could do the same.

Quoting text inline in a post is still a lot quicker to read than watching 1hr 30mins worth of video.

If I asked people to watch 10 videos before replying to me, most people would rightfully tell me no.

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

There are no sources prior to Paul. Its hearsay. Paul deified Jesus. Prior to Paul Jesus was bedtime tales for the gullible. There probably was a rabii who was quotable called Jesus but the quotes were very probably misrepresented.

You're missing my point.

Galatians shows us the problem with the timescale that you're claiming it was dreamed up under. Galatians gives us the timescale of Paul's conversion. Paul backs up a number of details are in the Gospels. This means that before Paul, that these things were key Christian beliefs.

Although we don't have texts before Paul. If Paul posts about key details in the Gospel prior to their writing. We know these things were still Christian beliefs before they were written down.

That's the advantage of pointing to Paul. If Paul's letters didn't exist, then sure, yes we'd have a much bigger gap. Given the circumstances of Paul's conversion we have far far less of a gap.

amadain17 wrote: »

Paul wrote about them. Paul was not there. Paul could not have the words of anybody at that alleged meal except from unnamed annonymous sources or he might even have made it all up.

He met the Apostles in Jerusalem prior to writing 1 Corinthians. It is because Paul never met Jesus in person, and because Paul was a convert that this argument is a good one.

If Paul was a convert, and if Paul learned these teachings, then guess what? The teachings which Paul writes about which are also in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were believed by Christian communities before Paul's conversion.

amadain17 wrote: »

You have not addressed my argument at all and stating this does not change this fact. There are no witnesses to Jesus deeds or words that wrote a stroke down. Paul never met Jesus. None of Pauls sources have been vetted. It was never even put forward that Paul actaully had sources.

Yes I have. I've responded to every objection that you've made so far. What I haven't done is watch 1hr 30mins of video because I don't believe this is a reasonable expectation.

See above. I know Paul didn't meet Jesus personally. That's why the Galatians argument is useful. As for "vetted" I don't even know what you mean by that. Although in 2 Peter, Peter writes about Paul's letters and likens them to Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

amadain17

I really don't think it's fair for a poster to say watch 1hr 30mins of video as an alternative to discussing. If amadain17 is familiar, the arguments should be presented in thread. I could look up lots and lots of video material too, but I prefer to discuss it rather than link to a load of videos.

I don't know who you are and if you have any credentials or sources to back up what you are saying. The same goes for you with me. I could quote from the video stating each time the credentials of the speaker. Its easier to present the videos from a noted credible source and let him state his findings with sources. Do you doubt Ehrmans credentials? Are your credentials in the field of religious studies the same level? Have you actually seen and examined the documents you are arguing for? I haven't but Ehrman has.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

I really don't think it's fair for a poster to say watch 1hr 30mins of video as an alternative to discussing. If amadain17 is familiar, the arguments should be presented in thread. I could look up lots and lots of video material too, but I prefer to discuss it rather than link to a load of videos.

I say that people should read the Bible, but I never say that people should shut up unless they do. Often if I see someone misrepresenting Christian belief, I do point to the Bible and show them what it says. If I was discussing with someone in person and they were objecting to Christian belief, I'd ask them if I could do the same.

Quoting text inline in a post is still a lot quicker to read than watching 1hr 30mins worth of video.

If I asked people to watch 10 videos before replying to me, most people would rightfully tell me no.

Sorry, let's just clear this up. You mean misrepresenting your belief of Christianity. We've been over this.

The simple fact here is that you asked for evidence, and you then simply ignored it because you'd be required to pay attention to it.

Maybe this explains why in past debates you so easily ignore the studies and evidence you call for and simply carry on as normal. You just don't bother to read them or watch them.

So much for debate.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

Sorry, let's just clear this up. You mean misrepresenting your belief of Christianity. We've been over this.

The simple fact here is that you asked for evidence, and you then simply ignored it because you'd be required to pay attention to it.

Maybe this explains why in past debates you so easily ignore the studies and evidence you call for and simply carry on as normal. You just don't bother to read them or watch them.

So much for debate.

No, I mean Christianity in general. If someone claims something is in the Bible, and it isn't there. It's the right thing to do to clarify that conclusion. Realistically, I post here to provide some balance to the discussion. I think things are better when we have arguments and counterarguments for varying things.

Do you really want this place to be a forum where atheists just clap themselves on the back continually? Or do you want it to be a place where all can bring their justifications to the thread.

I could easily look up a load of videos for amadain17 to look at, and I'm fairly sure if I did that he'd have the same response as I do. I'm not going to watch 90 minutes of video just to respond to a post. It's a reasonable expectation that if you're going to post, you should be able to paraphrase and argue on the basis of what you know rather than making people watch that much video.

amadain17

As far a Galatians is concerned. No original of the letter is known to survive. The earliest reasonably complete version available to scholars today, named P, dates to approximately the year 200 AD, approximately 150 years after the original was presumably drafted. This fragmented papyrus, parts of which are missing, almost certainly contains errors introduced in the process of being copied from earlier manuscripts. Scholars generally date the original composition to c. 50-60 AD. Next Galatians is Pauls words. There is nothing to coroborate the events depicted here. You can not use this to bring a 20+ year gap down. In fact there are no credible scholars that bridge that gap

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

I don't know who you are and if you have any credentials or sources to back up what you are saying. The same goes for you with me. I could quote from the video stating each time the credentials of the speaker. Its easier to present the videos from a noted credible source and let him state his findings with sources. Do you doubt Ehrmans credentials? Are your credentials in the field of religious studies the same level? Have you actually seen and examined the documents you are arguing for? I haven't but Ehrman has.

I don't really care if you don't know who I am. I don't know who you are either. We're having a discussion.

I've discussed Bruce Metzger on this thread already. Norman Geisler and William Nix have come to similar conclusions from a quick look. If you're really interested the source most commonly cited to point to Metzger's work is A Textual Commentary on the New Testament, Second Edition, 1994, German Bible Society

There are many people in theology who disagree with the conclusion of Bart Ehrman. The question to ask you would be if there is anything you can present that wasn't in earlier manuscripts of the New Testament other than John 8, or Mark 16:9-20?

If so, I don't see what argument we're having. This is in full agreement with the work of Bruce Metzger that 99.6% of the New Testament is in the same form as when it was first written.

Daniel Wallace responds to Misquoting Jesus here. To claim that Bart Ehrman's claims are uncontested in Biblical scholarship is clearly not true. In fact, I don't think there are many people in agreement with him as to his claims about the New Testament.

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

As far a Galatians is concerned. No original of the letter is known to survive. The earliest reasonably complete version available to scholars today, named P, dates to approximately the year 200 AD, approximately 150 years after the original was presumably drafted. This fragmented papyrus, parts of which are missing, almost certainly contains errors introduced in the process of being copied from earlier manuscripts. Scholars generally date the original composition to c. 50-60 AD. Next Galatians is Pauls words. There is nothing to coroborate the events depicted here. You can not use this to bring a 20+ year gap down. In fact there are no credible scholars that bridge that gap

The same is true of all of the New Testaments texts. However, if the copies of Galatians are all consistent with eachother, this indicates that they came from a common source. And if there are copies throughout a longer history that are consistent with eachother, then it shows that there was little or no corruption to the text. The manuscript evidence really really helps in terms of determining authenticity. By the by, we're not using any standard which radically differs, we are using a standard which is used for assessing other ancient texts such as the works of Plato, Aristotle, Homer and so on.

Most theologians are in agreement that Galatians was written in 54AD. If you want to present a different conclusion be my guest, but you'll need good reason to justify such a difference.

If as agreed by most scholars, Galatians was written in 54AD, and if 1 Corinthians and other works written during a similar time period are true, then yes it's entirely valid to say that if Paul's work backs up details later written in the Gospels it is likely that these things were believed in the early church.

You're going to have to do much much better to show that the generally agreed date in Biblical scholarship for Galatians is wrong.

amadain17

If as agreed by most scholars, Galatians was written in 54AD, and if 1 Corinthians and other works written during a similar time period are true, then yes it's entirely valid to say that if Paul's work backs up details later written in the Gospels it is likely that these things were believed in the early church.

You're going to have to do much much better to show that the generally agreed date in Biblical scholarship for Galatians is wrong.

What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything about the date for galatians not being in the 50s. I said that galatians was written by paul about paul with nothing but pauls word to back it up. I also said that there was probably a rabbi called jesus that lived around the time specified bu there is nothing to say that the deeds and words of the rabbi were accurately reflected in any of the gospels given that they were all written on hearsay years after the alleged events. Do you understand the words that I'm saying? Also I note you are still ignoring my request for evidence for the existence of god - the foundation of all this. Is this more dishonesty from you?

amadain17

The same is true of all of the New Testaments texts. However, if the copies of Galatians are all consistent with eachother, this indicates that they came from a common source

This fragmented papyrus, parts of which are missing, almost certainly contains errors introduced in the process of being copied from earlier manuscripts

Do you intentially ignore half of my comments or is your attention span too low for 4 lines of text?

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything about the date for galatians not being in the 50s. I said that galatians was written by paul about paul with nothing but pauls word to back it up. I also said that there was probably a rabbi called jesus that lived around the time specified bu there is nothing to say that the deeds and words of the rabbi were accurately reflected in any of the gospels given that they were all written on hearsay years after the alleged events. Do you understand the words that I'm saying? Also I note you are still ignoring my request for evidence for the existence of god - the foundation of all this. Is this more dishonesty from you?

amadain17: I've treated you with nothing but respect in this issue. Yet, you're claiming that I'm dishonest for presenting what's simply true about the New Testament to you. That's just a little bit rude.

By the by, I'm more than happy to tell you a bit about why I believe in Christianity, but we have a lot to finish on here. Claiming that I'm lying / being dishonest without good basis isn't a good start. Let's do this with respect.

I don't think anyone would be in disagreement that Paul was a convert to Christianity, and I don't see any good reason to assume that Paul is lying about his conversion in Galatians. I don't see how it is a contested issue. Perhaps you can show me where people have contested that account. Or are you just assuming it's wrong because it's in the Bible? If so that's not a great assumption.

In my posts that I linked to you earlier:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79064805&postcount=115
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79461715&postcount=110

I consider some points that undermine the belief that the New Testament was written as clear fiction. If you're interested give them a read, if not don't.

In my position we're really left with two possibilities, one that the New Testament was written by those who were sincere but mistaken, or that the New Testament is true. There's simply not a good case that the New Testament was contrived as fiction, and there are a number of arguments against that conclusion.

amadain17

In my position we're really left with two possibilities, one that the New Testament was written by those who were sincere but mistaken, or that the New Testament is true. There's simply not a good case that the New Testament was contrived as fiction, and there are a number of arguments against that conclusion.

Actually theres a third possibility. The possibility that the New Testaments was written by some people who were sincere but mistaken, by some people who loved a good embellishment and by some who had some events correct.

The time difference between the writings and the alleged events alongside the different people in each event (the miracles were in different places and witnessed by different people allegedly. there was nobody there all along to document the stories as they happen. The early stories have absolutely nothing to back them up. Before the alleged 3 years Jesus was annonymous.) The possible some events correct might have been some of the stories told (I told you there might have been a rabbi with a good turn of phrase called Jesus around that time).

The fact that the roman army, which were in the district at the time, saw no use in a man who could raise dead generals, cure woulded soldiers and feed armies with no more than a few loaves and fishes makes the miralce claims very unlikely.

The fact that no Jesus contempory wrote a word about these marvellous deeds makes the miracle claims very unlikely.

amadain17

I don't think anyone would be in disagreement that Paul was a convert to Christianity, and I don't see any good reason to assume that Paul is lying about his conversion in Galatians. I don't see how it is a contested issue.

The fact that Paul converted is not contested by me. I doubt the validity of the miracle claims, the validity of the deity claims and the validity of the direct jesus quotes from the bible. I also doubt the story as told in the bible. I wonder if Jesus was deified during Pauls conversion or did Paul deify him when he took over the cult

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

Actually theres a third possibility. The possibility that the New Testaments was written by some people who were sincere but mistaken, by some people who loved a good embellishment and by some who had some events correct.

That would come under the fiction argument.

amadain17 wrote: »

The time difference between the writings and the alleged events alongside the different people in each event (the miracles were in different places and witnessed by different people allegedly. there was nobody there all along to document the stories as they happen. The early stories have absolutely nothing to back them up. Before the alleged 3 years Jesus was annonymous.) The possible some events correct might have been some of the stories told (I told you there might have been a rabbi with a good turn of phrase called Jesus around that time).

I've covered some of why I disagree with the argument for the time difference being significant. Particularly the fact that the New Testament presents so many details concerning individuals and places, and the Gospels are written within a lifetime of eyewitnesses that saw the events. Realistically people could have gone to Jerusalem and could have found the people in question if they wanted to prove Christianity wrong in the first century.

As for the miracles and different people argument, I don't even know what you're talking about there.

This is in addition to the Galatians argument.

amadain17 wrote: »

The fact that the roman army, which were in the district at the time, saw no use in a man who could raise dead generals, cure woulded soldiers and feed armies with no more than a few loaves and fishes makes the miralce claims very unlikely.

Whether or not people saw any use in Jesus is irrelevant. Most of the miracles within the Gospels, particularly Mark's Gospel very clearly aren't just miracles. They teach a fundamental truth about Christianity as well. For example the two healings of sight in Mark 8 and Blind Bartimaeus in Mark 10, and Peter proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ, and misunderstanding that Jesus claimed that He would be put to death and rise again.

Skepticism of miracle claims comes down to a deeper question. As a Christian and someone who clearly believes in a Creator, I have no issue whatsoever in believing that the Creator of the universe could manipulate His creation. Sure, if one is an atheist and automatically assumes that God doesn't exist, of course you're going to come the conclusion that miracles aren't possible.

amadain17 wrote: »

The fact that no Jesus contempory wrote a word about these marvellous deeds makes the miracle claims very unlikely.

Elaborate further.

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

The fact that Paul converted is not contested by me. I doubt the validity of the miracle claims, the validity of the deity claims and the validity of the direct jesus quotes from the bible. I also doubt the story as told in the bible. I wonder if Jesus was deified during Pauls conversion or did Paul deify him when he took over the cult

I'm talking about the account of Paul's conversion in Galatians 1 and the start of Galatians 2. That's what I was referring to in that post. As for what you think about miracles, that's another point altogether. By the by, there's no evidence that suggests that Jesus wasn't regarded as divine by early Christian communities. Again, the fact that the Gospels present Jesus as divine as well as Paul's writings would indicate that to be false.

amadain17

philologos: I'd be interested also in what you think of the old testament. Is this a true historical document? Do you discard some, none or all of it as historical? Is it a true moral depiction of the Biblical god? His views and actions?

amadain17

Originally Posted by amadain17 View Post
Actually theres a third possibility. The possibility that the New Testaments was written by some people who were sincere but mistaken, by some people who loved a good embellishment and by some who had some events correct.[/QOUTE]
That would come under the fiction argument.

So its either black or white - all correct or all mistaken. Where else in life is anything black or white? You are saying that something taken from hearsay at least 20 years afterwards has to be all absolutely correct or all absolutely false? Is that your serious view?

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

philologos: I'd be interested also in what you think of the old testament. Is this a true historical document? Do you discard some, none or all of it as historical? Is it a true moral depiction of the Biblical god? His views and actions?

Just to clarify - I'm going to come back to any other responses tomorrow.

There's a mixture of genres in Scripture. Some texts are legal / ceremonial (binding on the State of Israel), others are moral, others are poetric / allegorical, others are historical, and others are prophesy. The Old Testament is grouped into Torah, Historical, Poetic, and Prophets.

I posted about this quite recently on the Christianity forum:

philologos wrote: »

All Scripture is useful (1 Timothy 3:15-16).

Christians however read the Old Testament while considering what Jesus has done in the new. The New Testament has implication for how we read the old.

For example dietary laws are discussed in Leviticus 11. Dietary laws were fulfilled by Jesus Christ in Mark 7. This doesn't mean we ignore Leviticus 11, rather we consider the role that Leviticus 11 had in marking the Jews as distinct from the Gentiles, and we can begin to think about how we as Christians are meant to be distinct from the world (see 1 Peter for a lengthy discussion on that).

Another example, animal sacrifices - Jesus is the all sufficient sacrifice for sin, therefore why would I need to offer a sacrifice? (Hebrews 10).

Another example - death penalty - If Jesus has shown me mercy by His death on the cross, how can I expect death from another person? (See Matthew 18 for a parable concerning this).

There are many many more. Simply put, it is by reading the New Testament that we understand what has been fulfilled. Even the Old Testament tells us of a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and even the Torah implies it when it speaks about the Messiah in Deuteronomy 18 (around vs 18).

Non-believers who argue in the way that you've described are ignoring the fact that this is how Christians have read the Bible from the beginning. Paul shows us this in 2 Corinthians chapter 3.

I can still learn plenty from reading Leviticus or Deuteronomy though, I learn about a gracious and a faithful God who led His people out of slavery into freedom, much as King Jesus led us out of the slavery of sin into freedom through Him. I think the Torah in many ways is exemplary even to Christians in terms of conduct. I think people who go fishing for things out of context are ignoring the broader picture of the Jewish law in the Old Testament. It shows mostly that people aren't bothered to actually read what the Bible says, but need cannonfodder for the debate

See the thread here if you're interested.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056717420

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Realistically, I post here to provide some balance to the discussion. I think things are better when we have arguments and counterarguments for varying things.

Now that truely is bull! You are not interested in discussion and lots of people already know that you run away from it when it gets hard.

It only takes a couple of links to prove this by showing people the posts that debunked your position which you then ran away from, did not answer or give "counter arguments" and instead started pretending to put people on ignore.

You are the boards.ie master of AVOIDING balance and counter arguments. That you would sit here and pretend you are the exact opposite therefore is just egregious dishonesty.

philologos wrote: »

Yes everyone who disagrees with you must automatically be stupid?

I was wondering what thread you would crawl into having run away screaming from the Gay Megathread where your position was totally made to look foolish.

However I think this post from you is doubly ingenuous given that YOU are the one going around calling your position "common sense" all the time and "obvious" and so forth. You might deliberately avoid calling people stupid but your usual linguistic propaganda tricks allow you to very much imply it without actually saying it.

Dyr

Bambi wrote: »

Im not asking you to tell me, I'm asking you to prove it. It's an extraordinary claim given the scope and scale of human existence over the last few millenia that only one person has managed to avoid a certain set of circumstances. I want proof.

Just for fun: How about people who are born and live their lives in vegetative states, how are they going to sin? Do they require jesus as a saviour or can they ignore jesus and still go straight through those pearly gates when they die?


I don't care what Marks says Jesus says. If you're reduced to playing "simon says" in a rational debate, then you're bust.

Never realy got any response to this and all

Min

Bambi wrote: »

Never realy got any response to this and all

I will step in here.

Everyone is born with original sin in that Adam and Eve broke the convenant with God when they sinned against God, it is stated humans are made in the image of God who is immortal, the original sin committed by Adam and Eve was punished by everyone carrying their sin in that everyone now dies and that was that.
Now Jesus came into the world as the new Adam, Mary the new Eve, and through Jesus, death which came about through the original sin was defeated when he rose from the dead on the third day and through Jesus eternal life now exists.
That is the basic theology behind it.
So if someone was in a vegetative state, well they can be baptised. If someone never heard of Jesus or God (though God(s) or a different version of God seems quite universal even in past millenia) then it is God who judges and not us.

Cú Giobach

Min wrote: »

If someone never heard of Jesus or God (though God(s) or a different version of God seems quite universal even in past millenia) then it is God who judges and not us.

Buddhists believe there are gods but that they have no say in the matter of who reaches enlightenment and they are as much stuck in the cycle as we are, so would these people who think gods (or higher dimensional beings) exist but are irrelevant in the great scheme of things, be sent to heaven or get an eternity of punishment from the Abrahamic god?
I know you can't speak for your/a god, but I'm just curious as to what you might think on that issue in light of your post above.

.

hiram

Min wrote: »

Bambi wrote: »

Never realy got any response to this and all

I will step in here.

Everyone is born with original sin in that Adam and Eve broke the convenant with God when they sinned against God, it is stated humans are made in the image of God who is immortal, the original sin committed by Adam and Eve was punished by everyone carrying their sin in that everyone now dies and that was that.
Now Jesus came into the world as the new Adam, Mary the new Eve, and through Jesus, death which came about through the original sin was defeated when he rose from the dead on the third day and through Jesus eternal life now exists.
That is the basic theology behind it.
So if someone was in a vegetative state, well they can be baptised. If someone never heard of Jesus or God (though God(s) or a different version of God seems quite universal even in past millenia) then it is God who judges and not us.

I stepped out.

crazy cabbage

wow. There is alot of defensive people here.

Ignoring all else i prefer to base my life on my own spirtual experiences rather than the spirtual experiences of someone else that lived long ago.
Is that that hard to understand?

Min

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Buddhists believe there are gods but that they have no say in the matter of who reaches enlightenment and they are as much stuck in the cycle as we are, so would these people who think gods (or higher dimensional beings) exist but are irrelevant in the great scheme of things, be sent to heaven or get an eternity of punishment from the Abrahamic god?
I know you can't speak for your god, but I'm just curious as to what you might think on that issue in light of your post above.

Well I don't know, but it is also said in one of the gospels where Jesus spoke about being hungry, being naked and having no clothes, no shelter and no one did anything to help him, the apostles asked him when did they ever see him hungry, naked and with no home and did nothing, Jesus said when one does nothing to help what would be regarded the least in society he or she does it to him.
So I think people will also be judged on how they helped others, as for the outcome, well I leave that to the judge, because if we are made in God's image, then doing good for others surely must have some rewards. Obviously one must do the good not in the hope of some eternal reward as that would be superficial, but because one believes it is the right thing to do.

So I don't know, I don't believe Jews go to hell simply because they rejected Jesus, and I don't believe muslims who are suicide bombers and who believe in Jesus go to Heaven with 72 virigns.
I don't think the the Buddhist who strives for goodness for others ends up in hell.
But it is upto the judge to decide, as not every Christian is destined for a happy eternal life.

Cú Giobach

Min wrote: »

Well I don't know, but it is also said in one of the gospels where Jesus spoke about being hungry, being naked and having no clothes, no shelter and no one did anything to help him, the apostles asked him when did they ever see him hungry, naked and with no home and did nothing, Jesus said when one does nothing to help what would be regarded the least in society he or she does it to him.
So I think people will also be judged on how they helped others, as for the outcome, well I leave that to the judge, because if we are made in God's image, then doing good for others surely must have some rewards. Obviously one must do the good not in the hope of some eternal reward as that would be superficial, but because one believes it is the right thing to do.

So I don't know, I don't believe Jews go to hell simply because they rejected Jesus, and I don't believe muslims who are suicide bombers and who believe in Jesus go to Heaven with 72 virigns.
I don't think the the Buddhist who strives for goodness for others ends up in hell.
But it is upto the judge to decide, as not every Christian is destined for a happy eternal life.

Thanks for replying, cheers.
You have a "nicer" view of your god than many of your co believers have, one that seems more in line with an actual loving god.

Dyr

Min wrote: »

I will step in here.

Everyone is born with original sin in that Adam and Eve broke the convenant with God when they sinned against God, it is stated humans are made in the image of God who is immortal, the original sin committed by Adam and Eve was punished by everyone carrying their sin in that everyone now dies and that was that.
Now Jesus came into the world as the new Adam, Mary the new Eve, and through Jesus, death which came about through the original sin was defeated when he rose from the dead on the third day and through Jesus eternal life now exists.
That is the basic theology behind it.
So if someone was in a vegetative state, well they can be baptised. If someone never heard of Jesus or God (though God(s) or a different version of God seems quite universal even in past millenia) then it is God who judges and not us.

Eh no, you won't step in.

Our good friend phil claimed that humans are not born with original sin but rather inevitably sinned through the course of their life. It's nonsense but it's better than that original sin guff at least.

crazy cabbage

Can i ask a question that i have never really understood. Prehaps someone can shead some light on it.

Lets say that we buy into the whole adam and eve thing. Then they must have had at least 3 children (presuming that adam or eve dont **** there siblings) in order to increase population. These children would have had to have sex with eachother in order to continue this line. So for the next 200 odd years people would have had to **** there silblings/first or second cousins until 3rd and 4th cousins started to emerge.

Am i right in my thinging and the this is fundamently ****ed in the head or is my thinking flawed?

Cú Giobach

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Can i ask a question that i have never really understood. Prehaps someone can shead some light on it.

Lets say that we buy into the whole adam and eve thing. Then they must have had at least 3 children (presuming that adam or eve dont **** there siblings) in order to increase population. These children would have had to have sex with eachother in order to continue this line. So for the next 200 odd years people would have had to **** there silblings/first or second cousins until 3rd and 4th cousins started to emerge.

Am i right in my thinging and the this is fundamently ****ed in the head or is my thinking flawed?

Adam lived for a hell of a lot longer than people do today and with his lady friend had loads of sons and daughters, begating was quite popular between brothers and sisters at the time so voilà, the human race appears. That's what the Bible says.


**Disclaimer**
The above insestual story does not represent the beliefs of the author, and may not be a factual description of the start of the human race.

NotForResale

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I was wondering what thread you would crawl into having run away screaming from the Gay Megathread where your position was totally made to look foolish.

The purpose of that thread is to hide discussion on the subject.

nozzferrahhtoo

NotForResale wrote: »

The purpose of that thread is to hide discussion on the subject.

Or to hide FROM it it seems.

Ghost Buster

philologos wrote: »

The argument - why doesn't God intervene? - presumes God's existence. As a result we're assuming God exists for the purposes of that argument.
In offering possible reasons why God doesn't intervene in every situation, I have to assume His existence to properly answer that question. The question also presupposes that God has a burden to intervene in everything that goes wrong in Creation.

Not in the context in which most intend it I presume. the fact that apparently he helps cute irish females win gold olympic medals in boxing whilst allowing natural disasters, mass murder etc pretty much indicates that he doesnt exist.

philologos

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Not in the context in which most intend it I presume. the fact that apparently he helps cute irish females win gold olympic medals in boxing whilst allowing natural disasters, mass murder etc pretty much indicates that he doesnt exist.

In asking "Why doesn't God intervene?". The logical answer is to point to why God mightn't intervene in every case which I've done in the current thread.

For the record, I don't think God favours anyone in the ring. I do think that God has strengthened Katie as an individual, and that God has formed her character in such a way that she lives truly for Jesus Christ. That's praiseworthy. I think her faith as a catalyst for people to find out more about evangelical Christianity in particular, is great.

What Katie shows us is that no matter how much people might like to claim that faith is rotten or destructive, there are many many cases where that conclusion is wrong.

Halloran springs

philologos wrote: »

I do think that God has strengthened Katie as an individual

Would that not be all the exercise/dieting/training/etc she has been involved in over the last few years? Oh.. maybe you are referring to "mental" strength? I think it's a bit condescending to attribute individual traits in humans (such as physical/emotional strength) to "God" rather than the individuals discipline and efforts.

Halloran springs

philologos wrote: »

What Katie shows us is that no matter how much people might like to claim that faith is rotten or destructive

I don't think it's rotten or destructive, just as I don't think a child believing they can fly like superman or walk on water is rotten or destructive. A child - fair enough, their mind is still developing. Adults - I just feel sorry for any who believe in that nonsense.

amadain17

Min wrote: »

I will step in here.

Everyone is born with original sin in that Adam and Eve broke the convenant with God when they sinned against God, it is stated humans are made in the image of God who is immortal, the original sin committed by Adam and Eve was punished by everyone carrying their sin in that everyone now dies and that was that.
Now Jesus came into the world as the new Adam, Mary the new Eve, and through Jesus, death which came about through the original sin was defeated when he rose from the dead on the third day and through Jesus eternal life now exists.
That is the basic theology behind it.
So if someone was in a vegetative state, well they can be baptised. If someone never heard of Jesus or God (though God(s) or a different version of God seems quite universal even in past millenia) then it is God who judges and not us.

If my grandfather commits a crime it would be considered immoral in our society for me to be punished for it. I am not responsible. In the abovementioned god myth decendants are punished for the 'crime' of their ancestors. Funny crime though - the tree bestowed the knowledge of good and evil so they could not have known it was wrong to disobey the cosmic comindant before eating of the tree's fruit. Anyway the story shows the immorality, by todays standards, of the bible writing tribe and they created a god with that same immoral view.

This immorlity shows also in the verses like:

Happy is he who dasheth thy infants on the rocks." - Psalms 137:9

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - Numbers 31:17/18

And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons. Numbers - 31:40

All firstborn Israelites, "both man and beast", belong to God. He got them the day that he killed every Egyptian firstborn child and animal. Numbers - 8:17

The Israelites find a man picking up sticks on the sabbath. God commands them to kill him by throwing rocks at him. Numbers 15:32-36

The level of immorality in the bible points to a primitive tribe and their war god that christianity now reveres

A

amadain17

In asking "Why doesn't God intervene?". The logical answer is to point to why God mightn't intervene in every case which I've done in the current thread.

In all of history has there every been a case of god healing an amputee? I've never heard of one. Now THAT would be a miracle. Does god hate the paralympics? The god story is ridiculous and philologos you know that.

amadain17

The site http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ shows with linked quotes the absurdities in both the books of the new and old testament under the following headings:

Absurdities
Cruelty and Violence
Injustice
Intolerance
Women
Sex
Contradictions
Family Values
Good Stuff
Language
Interpretation
Science and History
Homosexuality
Politics

They are immoral books from an immoral time written by primitive people who created their god in the own image.

A

philologos

Halloran springs wrote: »

Would that not be all the exercise/dieting/training/etc she has been involved in over the last few years? Oh.. maybe you are referring to "mental" strength? I think it's a bit condescending to attribute individual traits in humans (such as physical/emotional strength) to "God" rather than the individuals discipline and efforts.

I mean strength of character, as an individual. If you asked me deep down, as to what I've done in my life, or what gifts or abilities that I might have. I can think of absolutely nothing that is just me. What intelligence I have has been given to me by God. I had no say in that much. What little gifts I have in any shape or form, ultimately have been given to me by God. I had little to no say in their formation. It is only by God's grace that I am who I am. It is only by God's grace that I can come to know Him even.

Indeed, I'd hold to the same position as Katie Taylor does in respect to God. I am absolutely nothing without Him. Literally, nothing. Without this creation, none of us would be here. Therefore, why shouldn't I praise His name? - Honestly, I don't do so nearly enough!

Halloran springs wrote: »

I don't think it's rotten or destructive, just as I don't think a child believing they can fly like superman or walk on water is rotten or destructive. A child - fair enough, their mind is still developing. Adults - I just feel sorry for any who believe in that nonsense.

Honestly, I couldn't care less if you feel sorry for me. From my perspective it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest because one holds to the position that there is an ultimate, final and intelligent cause to all creation that they believe something akin to superman.

amadain17 wrote: »

In all of history has there every been a case of god healing an amputee? I've never heard of one. Now THAT would be a miracle. Does god hate the paralympics? The god story is ridiculous and philologos you know that.

That video is built upon a logical fallacy. I've discussed that many many times in my time on boards.ie.

1. It assumes that because I have never seen God healing amputees, that it never happens.

2. It assumes that God is a vending machine and there is a burden on Him to heal amputees.

3. It presumes that there is no possibility for any purpose in suffering. Christianity is quite clear that suffering is inevitable and is not necessarily a bad thing in every case.

That's just a start.

I think criticisms of the class of "why God doesn't heal amputees?" are silly, and indeed they haven't even considered what the Bible actually says.

It seems that most people who criticise the Bible on this forum aren't the most familiar with it. How can one criticise something that they have never read?

Is it automatically that Christianity is wrong, or are you willing to listen and consider to what Christians have to say, or is it that you're not even willing to do that much?

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

The site http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ shows with linked quotes the absurdities in both the books of the new and old testament under the following headings:

Absurdities
Cruelty and Violence
Injustice
Intolerance
Women
Sex
Contradictions
Family Values
Good Stuff
Language
Interpretation
Science and History
Homosexuality
Politics

They are immoral books from an immoral time written by primitive people who created their god in the own image.

A

The funny thing is when non-believers link to sites like the Skeptics Annotated Bible in a thread, it shows that they have given up their own independent thinking on the subject, instead taking the testimony of others uncritically to copy-pasta into a thread to say "gotcha" to believers.

There's something very hollow and very unsatisfying about that in comparison to an informed debate which takes place with the respect and courtesy with which it deserves.

housetypeb

philologos wrote: »

The funny thing is when non-believers link to sites like the Skeptics Annotated Bible in a thread, it shows that they have given up their own independent thinking on the subject, instead taking the testimony of others uncritically ...

It's even funnier when believers link to the bible to prove god is real,it shows they have given up their own independent thinking on the subject,instead taking the testimony of others uncritically.

philologos

housetypeb wrote: »

It's even funnier when believers link to the bible to prove god is real,it shows they have given up their own independent thinking on the subject,instead taking the testimony of others uncritically.

Funnily enough, I know rather few Christians who actually think that the Bible in and of itself does prove that God is real.

amadain17

The funny thing is when non-believers link to sites like the Skeptics Annotated Bible in a thread, it shows that they have given up their own independent thinking on the subject, instead taking the testimony of others uncritically to copy-pasta into a thread to say "gotcha" to believers.

I'm just citing my sources. When I give you videos for the inaccuracy of the New Testament you refused to watch them When I give you sources for the errors and immorality in the bible you refuse to look at it. The site (Skeptics Annotated Bible) goes through every book of the new testament and old. The information is too much for me to type. From our previous discussion you never answered why nobody during Jesus's lifetime wrote any of his deeds down. You have answers for nothing. You avoid questions you don't like. You clearly know all of these problems and you choose to ignore them. I called you dishonest twice and you said that this was rude and disrespectful. Well I don't respect you. You are a deceitful liar and a dishonest con-man. This thread is about the Irish losing their religion. Most of the atheists here were indoctrinated and dispelled the ridiculous at a later age. We are now having children. My children were not baptised and will not be indoctrinated. This is the same for my friends' children. The next generation will have a better foundation. Its very important for children to learn skepticism and of the logical fallacies so that they can defend themselves against huxters like you. Now go an shout on a street corner you waste of space

amadain17

1. It assumes that because I have never seen God healing amputees, that it never happens

It doesn't. God is imaginary

2. It assumes that God is a vending machine and there is a burden on Him to heal amputees.

It doesn't. God is imaginary.

3. It presumes that there is no possibility for any purpose in suffering.

There isn't unless the suffering is imposed by a despot where the suffering of some, presided over by the despot, is used to keep others in line.

Christianity is quite clear that suffering is inevitable and is not necessarily a bad thing in every case.

Then christianity is the longing of masochists for the sting of a despotic whip. Have faith in your imagination.

That's just a start.

It is indeed

I think criticisms of the class of "why God doesn't heal amputees?" are silly, and indeed they haven't even considered what the Bible actually says.

Skeptics Annotated Bible will tell you what the bible actually says. Its a handbook for the immoral and a guidebook on how to be enslaved

It seems that most people who criticise the Bible on this forum aren't the most familiar with it. How can one criticise something that they have never read?

If you read it you would know of the problems within it and about it (see my earlier posts)

Is it automatically that Christianity is wrong, or are you willing to listen and consider to what Christians have to say, or is it that you're not even willing to do that much?

I'm willing to listen to what honest christians have to say. Do you know any?