- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Amazon Prime new cartoon retells the creation story
Posted on 1/31/24 at 6:54 pm to Liberator
Posted on 1/31/24 at 6:54 pm to Liberator
quote:
While this notion is not a matter of Salvation, our true Realm IS a matter of Truth
Sorry, but I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying here. I’m saying that Bible doesn’t explicitly teach that the earth, as a whole, is flat. I don’t disagree with the presumption that the Biblical authors believed that it was- but I also don’t think it matters. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. The Bible is special revelation of and from God to man. I feel like we probably agree on this. I’m wondering what your concern is, regarding flat or spherical earth. Do you currently believe that the earth is flat?
0
Posted on 2/1/24 at 11:49 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:quote:
And how does any of this disprove the existence of the Christian God?quote:
It doesn’tquote:
Your admission is refreshing.
PS,
It’s tough to disprove something for which no positive evidence exists. You are unable to disprove the existence of Odin, of Zeus, of Amun Ra, of Ahura Mazda, and of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
quote:quote:Can you say that for certain- in regard to all instances throughout all human history?
Blindness, lameness, sores and blisters are not caused by demonic possession.
Yes,
for sure. quote:
I see a pattern. It seems as though you expect the Bible to be a scientifically accurate textbook
I was always told the all powerful and all knowing creator of the universe inspired the text of the Bible and that it was accurate and correct, save for maybe a few translation issues and copying errors after they books were inspired. I would just expect it to not include a plethora of fallacies and falsehoods. Regardless, with no many things stated in the Bible - many of them alleged to come straight out of the mouth of Yahweh - to be patently false based on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, it wouldn’t be a stretch to claim that not only is it not scientifically accurate but also probably not accurate about much else either.
quote:
The Bible is a meta narrative
A collection of short stories later compiled, edited, and redacted.
quote:
66 cohesive books
Stop!
quote:
written by ~40 authors over thousands of years
Probably more than 40. Some of the very oldest material likely dates to the 9th century BCE with the vast majority compiled and written between 500BCE and 200BCE and with the NT epistles and gospels dating from 50-ish CE to 180-ish CE. That’s barely over 1000 years. But… if you count some of the source material such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish, and some old Akkadian, Egyptian, and Bronze Age Canaanite stories, I guess you can say thousands of years.
quote:
Again- this is not the gotcha you think it is. Just because I admit that the authors may have believed that the earth was flat, it has no bearing whatsoever on the intended purpose of the text.
Maybe so, but because the writers were completely ignorant of the natural world and filled the Bible with falsehoods, it makes it difficult to have faith in what they have written.
quote:
If only they had followed Jesus’ teachings more closely.
Isn’t Jesus supposed to “return” to judge the living and the dead and exterminate all the unbelievers? The church may have been just looking out for Galileo’s immortal soul.
quote:
The Church, IMHO, should have stayed in their lane.
They were right in their lane. Europe wasn’t exactly filled with limited government constitutional republics, but rather theocratic divine monarchies.
quote:
That said, it is unfair and unproductive to judge Christianity by those who suck at it.
Maybe it isn’t fair. But judging is a part of human nature ingrained into our DNA through evolution. And often times judging is the right thing. I’m going to judge the hell out of antifa, BLM, nazis and commies and more as they suck so their ideologies also must suck.
Posted on 2/1/24 at 11:57 pm to Liberator
quote:quote:You're ironically conflating the Bible with Babylonian mythology and their own version of "truth".
When you read “Lucifer” in your KJV Bible, realize the Hebrews were referencing a mythological god named Helel (a play on the Hebrew word for “shining”) who was the son of the dawn goddess Shahar.
Liberator,
I honestly don’t think you understood anything about what I wrote, nor did you attempt to read the Hebrew of the Isaiah verse I quoted. (You replied telling me to check Isaiah). I didn’t mention Babylonian mythology - rather Helel and Shahar were more ancient Israelite (pre-exile) and Canaanite deities.
Posted on 2/2/24 at 12:04 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Jesus sacrifice was intentionally paying the penalty of death for all mankind that deserved it. He paid the price for us, and only one without sin could pay that price as anyone else would be paying the price for their own sin, not the sins of all mankind, and so since God is sinless, only He could pay the price.
Mike,
Why did Jesus have to pay the penalty?
Why was there a penalty at all?
To whom was the penalty paid?
Why did the recipient of the penalty payment require such a thing?
Why couldn’t the recipient of the penalty payment take action without it?
Think about those things and ask yourself if your answers make any kind of logical sense.
Posted on 2/2/24 at 12:09 am to Squirrelmeister
real talk... would you agree that Christianity has been a net plus for mankind?... i. e . mankind is better off today - due, in large part to Christianity...
Posted on 2/2/24 at 12:36 am to Liberator
quote:
First Born HUMAN babies are sacrificed to MOLOCH.
No, firstborn human babies were sacrificed to Yahweh (and to Ba’al which was just an earlier Canaanite name for Yahweh).
Let me show you in 2 Sam 5:20!
quote:
And David came to Baal-perazim, and David defeated them there. And he said, “The LORD (Yahweh) has broken through my enemies before me like a breaking flood.” Therefore the name of that place is called Baal-perazim.
And Hosea 2:16
quote:
“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’
And Ezekiel 20:26
quote:
and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.
And exodus 22
quote:
29“You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. 30You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.
Now Liberator, don’t start quoting the parts of exodus about redeeming the firstborn, and the parts of Jeremiah with Yahweh saying he never even dreamed of receiving human sacrifice. I know they’re there. I realize they are contradictions but only because those parts were inserted by other scribes with theology with a distaste for child sacrifice. Regardless, it is an irrefutable verifiable fact that many, but not all, Israelites sacrificed their firstborn children to Yahweh/Ba’al as moloch offerings.
Secondly, let’s talk about moloch sacrifices. A moloch is a noun. It is a type of sacrifice - precisely when a firstborn child is passed through the fire. Even those molochs offered to Yahweh, which the Israelites were offering. You don’t tell your kids to quit picking their nose unless they are picking their nose. Similarly, there’s no reason to keep harping on “quit sacrificing your firstborns” if they weren’t sacrificing their firstborns to Yahweh.
Look at Leviticus 20:3
quote:
I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name.
Let’s analyze. “To moloch”. From Canaanite and Carthaginian inscriptions (they spoke the same language as Israelites) a moloch was definitely a noun and it was a firstborn burnt offering sacrifice. That’s easy. But in the Bible when it’s written “to moloch”, the Hebrew word rendered as “to” in English can also mean “as”, “towards”, “in order to”, and “because”. It’s not “to” in the sense of the act of giving towards, but rather to designate “quality of”. Also moloch is used with a definite article (like the English “the”) so that’s more evidence a moloch is a noun. The more proper rendering is “as moloch”. Essentially “quit giving your firstborns to me as the moloch offering.”
Half decent Wikipedia article on the subject
ETA: did you see the part about the moloch offering making Yahweh’s temple unclean? Just where was the moloch sacrifice offered? Inside Yahweh’s temple! Duh! That’s why it’s making Yahweh’s temple unclean, because it is offered to Yahweh in Yahweh’s name (therefore profaning Yahweh’s name).
This post was edited on 2/2/24 at 1:14 am
Posted on 2/2/24 at 12:59 am to Liberator
quote:
Gravity: A "natural" theory invented by Newton; he admitted to his own theory NOT being provable OR proven
You are screaming that you have never taken a science class. Look up the subject of scientific “proof” and “theory” and you will be shocked. In the scientific sense, science can’t “prove” anything but rather demonstrate repeatable evidence to show that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence makes it most likely that something is a fact. Once it is a scientific fact (but not a proof, because science doesn’t prove), it develops into a theory. The theory explains the facts. The theory of universal gravitation explains the fact of gravity and shows that we can predict that when released in the air, an apple will in all likelihood fall to the earth.
quote:
Cell Theory: (what about it?) It's a miracle that cannot be explained by material-world "Science"
What can’t be explained? Since there’s so characteristic about a cell that we can’t (yet) explain, therefore God did it? And not just any God, the Christian God! Very good example of the “God of the gaps” fallacy.
quote:
Biological Evolution: Darwinism is NOT proven. Not remotely. "Adaptation" yes.
If only you had a clue. I’m not even sure what “Darwinism” is. He was a dude that published a great book on biological evolution, before DNA was even discovered. Biological evolution of species is the strongest theory in all of science. quote:
NO mortal, earthy biological "life" is morphing into any "new" creature -- UNLESS that DNA is contaminated by non-human DNA (see Genesis 6, Fallen Angels / Giants / Women)
Evolution doesn’t claim an organism morphs into another species. Evolution is about population genetic change over many generations of procreation, not about a single crocodile turning into a duck.
quote:
Germ theory of disease: Keyword: THEORY
Christ… let me go ahead and post some actual scientific definitions on here. For the love of God please understand what a scientific theory is.
a scientific theory is not a guess, nor a hunch, nor a hair-brained idea. A scientific theory literally explains facts of our natural world. Science: An objective method of measurably or verifiably improving our understanding of physical nature in practical application or mathematics, through observation and experimentation with falsifiable hypotheses explaining a body of facts in a theoretical framework, to be subjected to a perpetual battery of critical analysis in peer review.
Fact: A point of objectively verifiable data.
Evidence: A body of facts which are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other.
Hypothesis: A potentially-falsifiable explanation one which includes predictions as to what different test results should imply about it.
Law [of nature]: A summary statement or mathematic equation which is always true under a given set of circumstances. Example: That “matter attracts matter” is a law of gravity.
Theory: A body of knowledge including all known facts, hypotheses, and natural laws relevant to a particular field of study. A proposed explanation of a set of related facts or a given phenomenon. Example: *How* “matter attracts matter” is the theory of gravity.
Proof: [legal sense, common vernacular] Something shown to be at least mostly true according to a preponderance of evidence. [scientific sense] Inapplicable except in the negative: It is only possible to dis-prove a hypothesis or theory. It isn’t possible to prove them positively.
Posted on 2/2/24 at 1:07 am to one and all
quote:
real talk... would you agree that Christianity has been a net plus for mankind?... i. e . mankind is better off today - due, in large part to Christianity...
Maybe in a way, possibly. It helped to civilize and sort of unite the European populations to kickstart civilization. But was it Christianity, or the simple fact that Europe sort of had the same religion? I think that was key. If it would’ve been Constantine legalizing and promoting some other paganism or Judaism or Islam (if Islam would have existed earlier) then I think the effect could have been the same. Look what Islam did from Hispania to North Africa to the Middle East. The Muslims were much stronger for a time than Christians and with better science and technology. Had Gengis Khan let them alone, you and I might be speaking Arabic while working on the moon or Mars by now.
Posted on 2/2/24 at 2:15 am to Liberator
Here are more.
Errors in the Bible?
Do Gospel differences or errors mean Christianity is false?
if there are errors in the Bible, is Christianity false?
Contradictions in the Bible? Sure? Watch THIS!
The Problem Of Contradictions In The Bible
Frank admits that the OT was edited...Why does he still trust it?
Should we read books that are not part of the Bible?
Errors in the Bible?
Do Gospel differences or errors mean Christianity is false?
if there are errors in the Bible, is Christianity false?
Contradictions in the Bible? Sure? Watch THIS!
The Problem Of Contradictions In The Bible
Frank admits that the OT was edited...Why does he still trust it?
Should we read books that are not part of the Bible?
Posted on 2/2/24 at 7:40 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
The Muslims were much stronger for a time than Christians and with better science and technology.
Technically it was the Persians(Persian empire) who were very advanced in science and technology. The muslims killed any further advancement. The arabs were very tribal and disunity which wouldn't haven't advanced much more accept what was coming from Persia.
quote:
Maybe in a way, possibly. It helped to civilize and sort of unite the European populations to kickstart civilization.
Not maybe or possibly, but after the fall of the Roman Empire the conversion of Clovis of France to Catholicism(496 AD) who then converted the pagans and eventually under Charlemagne united France and Europe and named Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Charlemagne was responsible for reforming government and law, stabilizing culture and religion, and advancing education.
ETA: Once the current modern anti-Christ(society) is defeated and assuming its not the 2nd coming(which I believe its not) it will take a leader under the banner of Christ to defeat the moderns and bring a unified religious world(spiritually).
This post was edited on 2/2/24 at 7:54 am
Posted on 2/2/24 at 11:31 am to Zephyrius
quote:
2nd coming
According to the canonical gospels, Jesus would have said something like “Truly I say to you, there are some of you standing here who will not taste death before you see the son of man and kingdom of God coming with power”. None of the gospels actually state that but it was my take on merging the same lines in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Point is that the second coming was supposed to be very soon in the lifetime of the persons Jesus was speaking with. It’s a failed prophecy. Either Jesus lied, or he didn’t know better and was wrong, or he didn’t even really exist.
Now if you read Paul’s epistles it isn’t a matter ever of the LORD returning. Paul doesn’t mention the LORD coming back, but instead it is always when the LORD “comes”. Paul never got to read the fabricated tales of a Jesus on earth healing the blind and sick by ridding them of evil demon spirits. Paul’s prophecy was also failed. He wrote:
quote:
Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
I’m pretty sure none of whomever Paul was writing to in Thessalonia is still alive today.
Posted on 2/2/24 at 11:47 am to Squirrelmeister
How the frick did a thread about Hazbin Hotel lead to a 13 page thread?
Posted on 2/2/24 at 12:35 pm to dchog
quote:
Here are more. Errors in the Bible? Do Gospel differences or errors mean Christianity is false? if there are errors in the Bible, is Christianity false? Contradictions in the Bible? Sure? Watch THIS! The Problem Of Contradictions In The Bible Frank admits that the OT was edited...Why does he still trust it? Should we read books that are not part of the Bible?
Frank Turek is a very good very professional liar. Maybe he is truly deluded. I think he knows better though. He’s trained in apologist arguments and excels at debating unprepared skeptics.
Here’s an example of a Frank Turek argument (made up by me, based on what I’ve heard Frank claim)
Skeptic: in Mark there’s a man in the tomb, in Matthew there’s two men, in Luke there’s an angel, and in John there’s two angels.
Frank: those are not contradictory, but complementary. See, there were actually two or three men AND two or three angels. It’s just a different perspective.
Skeptic: ok, but in Mark the two women run away in fear and tell no one about the resurrection, but in Matthew they run away and tell everyone!
Frank: that’s not a contradiction, because first they ran away and told no one, THEN they went and told everyone!
You can reconcile anything you want with enough mental gymnastics. If you are feeling brave, watch Dr. Ehrman destroy that type of weak argument that Frank uses. In 10 minutes you can get the gist but I’d recommend all you religious nuts watch this one hour video.
Bart Ehrman on gospel historical reliability
Posted on 2/2/24 at 12:44 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
quote:
2nd coming
According to the canonical gospels, Jesus would have said something like
This is not the place to argue Catholic teaching regarding the second coming.
Here's the link with the pertinent paragraphs regarding you argument if you are interested: From Thence He will come to Judge the living and the dead see Para. 675 - 677; also see the footnotes which support the teaching
I am more than willing to meet at Chimes in Covington to discuss. I'll buy your first couple of beers
The point of the response was for a definitive response of the influences of muslim science and advancements and my opinion of the correction to come. The whole Prime cartoon is an abomination of the truth of the creation story.
Posted on 2/2/24 at 7:32 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
If it would’ve been Constantine legalizing and promoting some other paganism or Judaism or Islam (if Islam would have existed earlier) then I think the effect could have been the same.
while it's interesting to play the "what if" game, any theories derived from such, are mere speculation.. we are able to review what occured & the results though..
early on I recognized two "stumbling blocks " involved with most religions.
1) an individual's religion was/is based on geography.. meaning the predominant faith of the region where you were born, would most likely be one:s said religion.
2) almost all major religions are exclusive, meaning if you don't follow that particular faith.. you'd be "punished" either here on earth or in the afterlife.
with these two facts being opposed, it caused me to question my beliefs & even my faith at times ( I have a hard time believing hell is full of Buddhist monks who forego all worldly pleasures & dedicate their entire existence to spiritual enlightenment loll)...... while struggling with these thoughts, I realized the bottom line was Christianity had/has "worked" (for lack of a better term.) it has been an overwhelming net plus for mankind.. it spring boarded mankind into the modern, civilized world we enjoy today.
Christianity wasn't the only factor - but it was the primary religion involved in getting us where we are today... it "worked", it was a success..... plenty of examples throughout history & it iis easily demonstrated what a significant factor it played in our development.
still today, I struggle with various doubts, questions, etc... - but the realization that Christianity "worked", that overall it was good for us.. - allowed my mind to relax somewhat.. i no longer felt the need to point out holes or faults in the Christian faith - - because the bottom line was it WORKED. it worked for all of us.... it's not perfect ( is anything? ) it's not without flaws, or even some ugly history.. but it worked..
just my experience & food for thought... enjoy reading your posts & appreciate the response
Posted on 2/2/24 at 8:37 pm to one and all
quote:
while it's interesting to play the "what if" game, any theories derived from such, are mere speculation..
Absolutely. Hey you basically asked me to speculate. While the Europeans did unite (sort of) under one religion, and the religion fostered education and literacy, it still suffered from punishment and thought crimes like what the church did to Galileo. The church promoted education but for the topics that were prohibited, there were harsh consequences and even torturous death sentences. The Bible is filled with scientifically disproven falsehoods about nature and reality, and if anyone in Europe challenged those scientific falsehoods they were executed.
Maybe if Alexander of Macedonia would have conquered Europe instead of the Mediterranean and Middle East, things might have been even better. Imagine instead of Latin, if our languages were directly based on classical or attic Greek and instead of reading Shakespeare in high school English we’d be reading Homer.
quote:
an individual's religion was/is based on geography.. meaning the predominant faith of the region where you were born, would most likely be one:s said religion.
Geography is correlation but not causation. The direct causative reason for a person’s religious faith is their parent’s faith. The parent’s faith will be based on their own indoctrination and also forces of their immediate culture, society, and laws. That’s true for 99% of people. Of course there are exceptions but you don’t see too many people converting to Christianity in Afghanistan nor converting to Islam in Brazil.
quote:
almost all major religions are exclusive, meaning if you don't follow that particular faith.. you'd be "punished" either here on earth or in the afterlife.
All the major ones with some sort of deity - yep. There’s about 30,000 religions too. For those who took the Pascal’s wager, their chances of ending up in heaven (picking the right religion out of all of them with no verifiable evidence) are statistically the same as me ending up in heaven.
quote:
I have a hard time believing hell is full of Buddhist monks who forego all worldly pleasures & dedicate their entire existence to spiritual enlightenment lol
Our Catholic priest has told our congregation many times all those Buddhist monks and even those Pentacostals and Presbyterians are hell bound.
quote:
i no longer felt the need to point out holes or faults in the Christian faith
I’m not quite there yet.
though I probably would never say much of anything on the subject if it weren’t for some acting so smug that they have it all figured out and that everyone else is wrong and/or idiots and people who don’t share their literal hallucinations and delusions will burn in hell. I had a coworker the other day start talking about Moses at lunch and it struck up a conversation. I corrected him on the biblical narrative and few times and he commented that I know the Bible well. He asked me if I was a Christian or a Catholic.
Only a few people know that I am an atheist and my high level of biblical literacy helps to hide it. Most religious Christians where I live find atheists to be more unfavorable than gays, trannies, Muslims, violent criminals, etc. I’m pretty good at keeping up with the charade and being one of the rare Catholics that knows the Bible.
Posted on 2/2/24 at 10:10 pm to Squirrelmeister
understood...... & yes knowitalls of all types are insufferable, but the ones that have it ALL figured out are especially unpleasant..
as to the religion based on geography - we're splitting hairs over the same thing... no doubt that parents/guardians of a child are the greatest influence - and their parents influenced them and so on, and so on.. eventually you trace it back to whatever the predominant religious belief was for an area or era being what most inhabitants of said area believe... i.e. why did someone's parents choose their own religion & then raise their children in the same order - essentially because that particular religion was the dominant one for that time & place..
regardless, I enjoy the debate, opposing viewpoints & spirited discussion put forth here.. there is much to be learned & little knowledge is gained in echo chambers.. just wanted to share a little of my own experience & wish you well on your own journey in the pursuit of understanding, spirituality, etc..
as to the religion based on geography - we're splitting hairs over the same thing... no doubt that parents/guardians of a child are the greatest influence - and their parents influenced them and so on, and so on.. eventually you trace it back to whatever the predominant religious belief was for an area or era being what most inhabitants of said area believe... i.e. why did someone's parents choose their own religion & then raise their children in the same order - essentially because that particular religion was the dominant one for that time & place..
regardless, I enjoy the debate, opposing viewpoints & spirited discussion put forth here.. there is much to be learned & little knowledge is gained in echo chambers.. just wanted to share a little of my own experience & wish you well on your own journey in the pursuit of understanding, spirituality, etc..
Posted on 2/3/24 at 9:14 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
That second problem only manifested itself after Paul was dead and the Christians of the second century inventing tales of a human flesh and blood Jesus walking the earth, which Paul and the earliest Christians had no concept of. Paul believed Jesus was a celestial being - who was exalted as the most precious archangel to God’s right hand only after he had been sacrificed (in heaven) and resurrected.
Advancing Marcion’s heresy is risky enough business. But your insistence there was no physical human Jesus, no bodily Crucifixion, death, burial, and Resurrection beyond what second century Christians allegedly made up is more suspect. Bart Ehrman would never go there. The gospels, Acts, other New Testament epistles besides Paul’s, Paul’s epistles, all thirteen or only the seven you admit, testify to what you advance is misguided and mistaken. I don’t believe that’s understating it.
It’s interesting you applaud the late Dr. Heisner’s ability to explain the supernatural world view of biblical authors but reject his scholarly treatment of the reality of the supernatural. J
I’m finally realizing you don’t actually believe any of the views you put forward. Heretical or Gnostic. Jesus a celestial being murdered in heaven and seated at God’s right hand as an exalted Archangel, and so forth.
Your main focus seems to be to “enlighten” or confuse Christians that what they believe is both incorrect and unfounded, lacking any Biblical, textual, historical, or archaeological support. Which is, of course, is inaccurate.
Like others here who have conversed with you, I continue to pray for you to know and serve the Lord Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Your intellect has unfortunately been hijacked, tortured, and put to unholy purposes, like one of the Nine Ringwraiths, enthralled, ensnared, betrayed, and maybe becoming perilously close to being ultimately bound to Sauron. Despite that, the hard Truth is you’re in Jesus’s hands, so I’ll remain hopeful and keep praying.
Posted on 2/3/24 at 9:22 am to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:
Your intellect has unfortunately been hijacked, tortured, and put to unholy purposes, like one of the Nine Ringwraiths, enthralled, ensnared, betrayed, and maybe becoming perilously close to being ultimately bound to Sauron.
Agreed, he needs to stop his descent into evil and get on board with the baby killer.
Posted on 2/3/24 at 12:30 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
It’s tough to disprove something for which no positive evidence exists
Evidence will never overcome obstinance.
Perhaps the weakest response to evidence of God’s existence is ignoring it: claiming “there is no evidence.” Closely related is the suggestion that a skeptic finds the evidence uncompelling. This kind of claim often comes with an ever-shifting threshold for proof. As happened with the Big Bang Theory, even when a position is effectively “proved,” the committed skeptic can always pivot to claim that this proof actually supports his fundamental views. Just as one person’s belief is not hard evidence regarding God’s existence, one person’s disbelief is not hard evidence of the opposite. This is especially true given that God’s existence touches on issues like personal morality and autonomy. Both in Scripture and in daily life, it’s common to see examples of those presented with more than enough evidence, yet who choose to stubbornly ignore it (Romans 1:18–20; Psalm 19:1; John 5:39–40; Luke 16:19–31; James 2:19).
quote:
You are unable to disprove the existence of Odin, of Zeus, of Amun Ra, of Ahura Mazda, and of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Red herring. No one is trying to prove the existence of any of these.
I’m still waiting for your most compelling argument(s) against the existence of God. I’m still waiting for your “evidence” that God does not exist. We really should focus on that first.
quote:
I would just expect it to not include a plethora of fallacies and falsehoods. Regardless, with no many things stated in the Bible - many of them alleged to come straight out of the mouth of Yahweh - to be patently false based on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence
That is a bold claim- with no evidence to support it.
quote:
A collection of short stories later compiled, edited, and redacted.
Yet another bold claim- with no evidence to support it.
quote:
Probably more than 40. Some of the very oldest material likely dates to the 9th century BCE with the vast majority compiled and written between 500BCE and 200BCE and with the NT epistles and gospels dating from 50-ish CE to 180-ish CE. That’s barely over 1000 years. But… if you count some of the source material such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish, and some old Akkadian, Egyptian, and Bronze Age Canaanite stories, I guess you can say thousands of years.
Evidence? I see a pattern here.
quote:
the writers were completely ignorant of the natural world and filled the Bible with falsehoods, it makes it difficult to have faith in what they have written.
Genetic fallacy. Please list these falsehoods. Preferably in a separate thread from your imminent thread for the evidence that God does not exist.
quote:
Isn’t Jesus supposed to “return” to judge the living and the dead and exterminate all the unbelievers? The church may have been just looking out for Galileo’s immortal soul.
Appeal to ridicule.
quote:
They were right in their lane. Europe wasn’t exactly filled with limited government constitutional republics, but rather theocratic divine monarchies.
Right on. As the rest of my quote goes- it is indefensible.
quote:
Maybe it isn’t fair. But judging is a part of human nature ingrained into our DNA through evolution. And often times judging is the right thing. I’m going to judge the hell out of antifa, BLM, nazis and commies and more as they suck so their ideologies also must suck.
Agreed, and I thank you for the latter- as we are in total agreement there. But this only serves to prove my point. The aforementioned groups are flawlessly executing their ideologies, which leads both of us to the conclusion that they do, indeed, suck. Conversely, the proponents of Christianity that have led you to this same conclusion, have only done so through their failure ( intentional or not) to understand and put into practice the most basic principles of the teachings of Christ.
Page 13 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News