Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 95 (8886 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-22-2019 6:18 PM
267 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, ooh-child, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx, WookieeB (6 members, 261 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 846,179 Year: 1,216/19,786 Month: 1,216/1,731 Week: 196/377 Day: 67/70 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Switching Over to Cloud Server


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Evidence For Belief
Phat
Member
Posts: 11916
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 31 of 46 (846250)
01-01-2019 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by GDR
01-01-2019 2:24 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
I agree with you and that is a good point. The Bible was written to chronicle a very important truth in the lives of the people of that day and time. It was written as a message to all of their descendants as well, in my opinion. That includes us today.

There are many reasons why these works could be criticized as they are by many modern scholars. There is no concrete evidence that the stories actually occurred, though I don't rely solely on evidence apart from my own internal subjectivity when it comes to belief. People ask me why I don't consider a spaghetti monster as equally probable...and I simply laugh. But they do have a point and it mystifies me. Then I realize that their disbelief is as incredulous to me as my belief must seem to them. They have valid reasons for rejecting the God they imagine to be the one in the book. They also have valid reasons for rejecting religion. My arguments are not so much to win a debate or convince anyone of anything, except perhaps my sanity. Of course, this being a debate site, my sanity is still on the table.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 2:24 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 01-01-2019 3:51 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 33 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 4:16 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 01-02-2019 2:46 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 32 of 46 (846252)
01-01-2019 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
01-01-2019 3:02 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
The Bible was written to chronicle a very important truth in the lives of the people of that day and time. It was written as a message to all of their descendants as well, in my opinion. That includes us today.

Aren’t all holy books intended as such?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 01-01-2019 3:02 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4735
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 33 of 46 (846255)
01-01-2019 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
01-01-2019 3:02 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
Phat writes:

People ask me why I don't consider a spaghetti monster as equally probable.

Dawkins came up with the FSM simply to ridicule religious belief. Even those who use the term recognize that there are no FSMians around but that there are millions of Christians.

I'd keep in mind that ridicule is not a convincing way to debate, and if anything demonstrates the lack of a cohesive argument for their position.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 01-01-2019 3:02 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6519
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 34 of 46 (846256)
01-01-2019 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by GDR
01-01-2019 2:08 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
GDR writes:

Quite possibly, but that doesn't tell us anything about the truth or falsehood of either belief

Oh but it does. It tells us that without further information, it's 50:50 whether your Christian or the Hindu belief is the 'truth'. And of course as there are many more claims to belief the odds worsen as we add them.

As it's obvious that humans have had an almost unlimitted number of beliefs it's clear that none of them are correct.

I would dispute the idea that there weren't people who studied the Scripture 300 years ago that couldn't have held my views but it isn't worth the time to argue about it.

As you say later, your views are Anglican, middle of the road CofE. They're the norm here in the UK. But the wide spread idea that non-Christians and even atheists - can also enter heaven is very modern amongst Christians. Religious ideas evolve, it's quite normal, if they didn't evolve to suit the culures they inhabit, they'd die. We can see that happening now with Catholicism in the developed world and with the extremist forms like Faith's and ICANT's that are nearing the end of their lives.

Certainly we are influenced by our cultures, but that doesn't mean that our conclusions are false.

The fact that the culture changes the belief should tell us something don't you think.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by special. I suppose as we are all "I" then we consider are selves special. Personally I think that all of creatures are created by God and are special in their own right. I'm certainly no more special than an atheistic Brit

Special, as in different from all the rest of 'god's' creations.
You keep ignoring the trillions of creatures that this god of yours has killed and the trillions more that will die in the future. Including billions of humans and pre-humans. You have yet to reconcile your loving god with these facts of our lives.

You balk at the thought of your god commanding murder, so much so that you - correctly in my view - dismiss those events in the OT as myth. But you accept the fact of evolution.

That should be an enormous problem for you but it seems not. I don't think you fully understand the enormity of that. Evolution - in the eyes of a moral person - is the ultimate evil. Forget Hitler's genocides, forget ethnic cleansing, forget mass murder of an entire generation of all species by flood.

Evolution is the process for the total extermination of repeated generations of all living things AFTER they've been able to provide a new generation of organisms so that it can kill those too.

This means that your creator created organisms so that he could torture and kill them indefinitely. Additionally, he created a system where each organism must fight with all others just to stay alive long enough to be tortured and die. Most must kill others in order to stay alive long enough to strugglefor life and eventually die themselves.

In the meantime - before dying, usually in pain - while they live, they must also suffer from disease, famine, injury and more pain.

This is the proces you accept that has - you say - agency. And that agent is a loving god. Well you could have fooled me.

I think I'd rather see the truth - there's no god here. The alernative is that if there is a god that designed all this, he's the epitome of evil.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 2:08 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 5:40 PM Tangle has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4735
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 35 of 46 (846257)
01-01-2019 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
01-01-2019 4:20 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
Tangle writes:

Oh but it does. It tells us that without further information, it's 50:50 whether your Christian or the Hindu belief is the 'truth'. And of course as there are many more claims to belief the odds worsen as we add them.

No. One could be 100% correct and the other 100% wrong, they could both be partly correct and they could both overlap which in fact they do.

Tangle writes:

As it's obvious that humans have had an almost unlimitted number of beliefs it's clear that none of them are correct.

That is your subjective belief.

Tangle writes:

As you say later, your views are Anglican, middle of the road CofE. They're the norm here in the UK. But the wide spread idea that non-Christians and even atheists - can also enter heaven is very modern amongst Christians. Religious ideas evolve, it's quite normal, if they didn't evolve to suit the culures they inhabit, they'd die. We can see that happening now with Catholicism in the developed world and with the extremist forms like Faith's and ICANT's that are nearing the end of their lives.

I've had maintained all along that our understanding of deity in general is a progressive revelation. As we interact with our neighbours either locally, in other cultures and religions or even here at EvC we gain understanding of our humanness which leads us to a closer understanding of God.

I believe that there is a modern reformation in the Christian church that is largely caused by going back into the world of Jesus and understanding Him from His historical context as fully man. The church has rejected that line of thinking for centuries I think partly because the church was afraid of it. In the end, you can't go wrong with the truth.

Tangle writes:

The fact that the culture changes the belief should tell us something don't you think.

Well for a start it should show that there is more to learn. I think in answered that in the last paragraph.

Tangle writes:

Special, as in different from all the rest of 'god's' creations.
You keep ignoring the trillions of creatures that this god of yours has killed and the trillions more that will die in the future. Including billions of humans and pre-humans. You have yet to reconcile your loving god with these facts of our lives.

You balk at the thought of your god commanding murder, so much so that you - correctly in my view - dismiss those events in the OT as myth. But you accept the fact of evolution.

That should be an enormous problem for you but it seems not. I don't think you fully understand the enormity of that. Evolution - in the eyes of a moral person - is the ultimate evil. Forget Hitler's genocides, forget ethnic cleansing, forget mass murder of an entire generation of all species by flood.

Evolution is the process for the total extermination of repeated generations of all living things AFTER they've been able to provide a new generation of organisms so that it can kill those too.

This means that your creator created organisms so that he could torture and kill them indefinitely. Additionally, he created a system where each organism must fight with all others just to stay alive long enough to be tortured and die. Most must kill others in order to stay alive long enough to strugglefor life and eventually die themselves.

In the meantime - before dying, usually in pain - while they live, they must also suffer from disease, famine, injury and more pain.

This is the proces you accept that has - you say - agency. And that agent is a loving god. Well you could have fooled me.

I think I'd rather see the truth - there's no god here. The alernative is that if there is a god that designed all this, he's the epitome of evil.

I have addressed this a number of times. I agree that as Christians it is the biggest problem we face. Those like Faith and ICANT address it easily, as there is no contradiction between suffering and a God that is prepared to command genocide. It is a much bigger issue for Christians like myself.

Yes, I have to rationalize suffering. I can partially answer it by the usual concept that we can not choose to have hearts that love, if we can't also have hearts that are all about the self. That explains suffering brought about by humans rejecting God's inner voice that calls us to follow the Golden Rule.

There is also the issue of creatures eating other creatures, suffering from natural disasters etc. (BTW, I do believe that as Christians we should be vegetarians but unfortunately that isn't happening in my life. )

The best I can do is this. Linear time for whatever reason has as a component;
entropy. The result of an entropic world is that natural disasters occur. God does though provide mankind with the motivation and the ability to mitigate the problems of those in distress from natural disasters.

As far as creatures eating creatures is concerned I have no answer except that ultimately the Bible says that the wolf will lay down with the lamb. Also as I said earlier I do believe that ultimately there will be perfect justice in a renewed creation. By faith I accept that things are the way they are because this is how it has to be. I realize that this isn't enough for you but I would like to add this.

Your rejection of a deity because of the suffering that exists in the world is more of a Christ like position than those who are prepared to accept a genocidal deity. I have to assume that as an atheist you also take the Christ like position of doing what you can to alleviate suffering.

Edited by GDR, : missed a word


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 01-01-2019 4:20 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 01-02-2019 4:00 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2019 7:08 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3649
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 36 of 46 (846259)
01-01-2019 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by GDR
01-01-2019 2:24 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
AZPaul3 writes:

I submit your books were written as fiction, allegory or delusion, and most certainly not as objective reporting.

GDR writes:

Fiction is quite differnt than allegory or delusion.

Oops. I need a proof reader. Left out a comma. It's supposed to be a take your pick: fiction, allegory, or delusion.

An allegory, like a Biblical parable, is a story that is truthful but not in a historical sense but that it represents a literal truth.

I challenge your view of allegory. Allegory often is just as abstract and figurative as fiction. The difference is that a fiction owns up to being fiction while an allegory often tries to hide it.

Whether written after being repeatedly embellished after decades of ponder intended to build on the myth, or, written as a figurative treatment/symbolical narrative intended to build on the myth, or, written by some religio-nutcase gone wacko wanting to show his own importance in the myth. These seem to be the most reasonable choices available.

The Gospels, as pointed out specifically by both Luke and John, were written to be accepted as truthful. That of course isn't evidence that they are historically accurate, but it is evidence that they were not written as fiction, but were written to convey an account of events, that were intended to be understood as historically accurate.

Ok, so, religio-nutcase gone wacko it is then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 2:24 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 7:36 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4735
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 37 of 46 (846262)
01-01-2019 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by AZPaul3
01-01-2019 6:29 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
AZPaul3 writes:

Ok, so, religio-nutcase gone wacko it is then.

There are a lot of us religio-nutcases gone wacko out there. Be very careful - we are watching you.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AZPaul3, posted 01-01-2019 6:29 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6519
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 38 of 46 (846265)
01-02-2019 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by GDR
01-01-2019 5:40 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
GDR writes:

No. One could be 100% correct and the other 100% wrong, they could both be partly correct and they could both overlap which in fact they do.

Realy? So the resurrection is no longer important for your belief?

That is your subjective belief.

How can it be subjective? If there are an unlimited number of beliefs the probability of any one being correct is reduced. Additionally, the fact that there ARE so many beliefs strongly suggests that beliefs are not founded on anything substantive. And the lack of any evidence supporting any of the beliefs clinches the matter beyond reasonable doubt.

I've had maintained all along that our understanding of deity in general is a progressive revelation. As we interact with our neighbours either locally, in other cultures and religions or even here at EvC we gain understanding of our humanness which leads us to a closer understanding of God.

Your 'progressive revelation' is a reaction to societal changes and nothing more. You have no further knowledge of god. This god of yours has made no further announcements. All you think you know of your god is in your book and that remains the same. In fact you have had to reject large chunks of your book because they no longer fit with our advancing civilisation.

I have addressed this a number of times. I agree that as Christians it is the biggest problem we face. Those like Faith and ICANT address it easily, as there is no contradiction between suffering and a God that is prepared to command genocide. It is a much bigger issue for Christians like myself.

Yes, if you believe in an evil god, the way we have been created is easily explained.

And similarly, if you believe in no god at all, the brutal processes of evolution are easily explained.

Yes, I have to rationalize suffering. I can partially answer it by the usual concept that we can not choose to have hearts that love, if we can't also have hearts that are all about the self. That explains suffering brought about by humans rejecting God's inner voice that calls us to follow the Golden Rule.

That is not an explanation. There's no requirement to obliterate every generation of organism on the earth every few years simply to have a few creatures that care for each other despite the death and destruction all around them. That's plain silly.

The best I can do is this. Linear time for whatever reason has as a component; entropy. The result of an entropic world is that natural disasters occur. God does though provide mankind with the motivation and the ability to mitigate the problems of those in distress from natural disasters.

Here we go, ICANTIsh pseudo-scientific bullshit. He's god, he didn't need to create things in this fashion.

As far as creatures eating creatures is concerned I have no answer except that ultimately the Bible says that the wolf will lay down with the lamb. Also as I said earlier I do believe that ultimately there will be perfect justice in a renewed creation. By faith I accept that things are the way they are because this is how it has to be. I realize that this isn't enough for you.

And it shouldn't be enough for you either.

It's not a small difficulty that can be shrugged off like that - it's fundamental and enormous. You've already dismissed the genocides and murders in the bible as not something a loving god would do. But put alongside the total annihilation of everything on earth every generation and the pain and suffering all organisms feel when they are alive, those genocides are nothing.

What's more, these atrocities are not just stories in a book, they're very, very real. You witness them personally everyday. Yet somehow that real knowledge is not enough to overturn a totally unevidenced beleif in an impossible resurrection 2,000 years ago on which everything you believe hangs. Don't you see the difficulty?

Your rejection of a deity because of the suffering that exists in the world is more of a Christ like position than those who are prepared to accept a genocidal deity. I have to assume that as an atheist you also take the Christ like position of doing what you can to alleviate suffering.

There's nothing Christ-like about it - it's simple pragmatism, everyone wants things to be better.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 5:40 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 39 of 46 (846266)
01-02-2019 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by GDR
01-01-2019 5:40 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
GD writes:

One could be 100% correct and the other 100% wrong, they could both be partly correct and they could both overlap which in fact they do.

On the resurrection specifically what is the verdict?
Christianity is right and all the others are wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 5:40 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16026
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 40 of 46 (846277)
01-02-2019 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by GDR
01-01-2019 2:24 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
GDR writes:

Fiction is quite differnt than allegory or delusion.


That isn't true. A century or so ago, authors of fiction went to great length to suggest that their stories were true. They found the manuscript in a bottle or they were told the story by somebody they met in a bar.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 01-01-2019 2:24 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16026
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 41 of 46 (846279)
01-02-2019 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
01-01-2019 3:02 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
Phat writes:

The Bible was written to chronicle a very important truth in the lives of the people of that day and time.


So was The Lord of the Rings.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 01-01-2019 3:02 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by AZPaul3, posted 01-02-2019 3:35 PM ringo has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3649
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 42 of 46 (846281)
01-02-2019 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ringo
01-02-2019 2:46 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
Phat writes:

The Bible was written to chronicle a very important truth in the lives of the people of that day and time.

ringo writes:

So was The Lord of the Rings.

Ok, it's one of those moments for me, ringo. I missed something. Would you elaborate on that, please?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 01-02-2019 2:46 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 01-02-2019 3:46 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16026
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 43 of 46 (846283)
01-02-2019 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by AZPaul3
01-02-2019 3:35 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
AZPaul3 writes:

Phat writes:

The Bible was written to chronicle a very important truth in the lives of the people of that day and time.


ringo writes:

So was The Lord of the Rings.


Ok, it's one of those moments for me, ringo. I missed something. Would you elaborate on that, please?

It seemed fairly straightforward to me. How does the Bible differ from The Lord of the Rings?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by AZPaul3, posted 01-02-2019 3:35 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 01-02-2019 3:56 PM ringo has responded
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 01-02-2019 5:03 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11916
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 44 of 46 (846285)
01-02-2019 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ringo
01-02-2019 3:46 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
How does the Bible differ from The Lord of the Rings?
Tolkien sat down and wrote a tale from scratch. Made up each and every character and defined their behaviors and tasks relating to the story.

In contrast, the writers of the Bible were recording events that actually happened around them and the reactions of others who encountered these same events. The Bible was not simply made up on the spot. You may have an argument regarding embellishing old tales to make them more palatable to the desired audience--at best.

A century or so ago, authors of fiction went to great length to suggest that their stories were true.
There is no evidence that the authors of the Bible were intentionally writing fiction. Thats my whole point. And it is most definitely the case with Jesus Christ.
I'll Eat A Page From My Bible If Jesus Didnt Exist
A good article. Speaking of Richard Carriers debunking, the author writes:
quote:
Almost no one believes Carrier - outside the circle of eager sceptics. Morris is simply wrong to refer to "many professional historians" who doubt the existence of Jesus. There is no "wave". There is, of course, a spectrum in "historical Jesus" studies, from hyper-sceptical to hyper-credulous (you see a similar spectrum in climate change discussions). Carrier is way down one end, and Christian apologists are at the other.

The remaining 90 per cent of working scholars - thousands of them in real universities around the world - couldn't care less about these margins. They aren't trying to debunk Christianity or prove it. They study the figure of Jesus the way historians study Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. And in the library of Macquarie University, home to the largest ancient history department in the country, there are probably as many tomes devoted to the historical Jesus as there are to Alexander and Caesar combined. The study of Jesus is a vast discipline, of which the head of Adelaide's atheist society appears to have no knowledge, beyond that of Carrier.(...)To repeat a challenge I've put out on social media several times before, I will eat a page of my Bible if someone can find me just one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited university somewhere in the world (there are thousands of names to choose from) who think Jesus never lived.

I don't deny that there are substantial questions that could be raised about the Christian faith, but the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth isn't one of them.


I agree with this assessmemnt.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 01-02-2019 3:46 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 01-02-2019 4:18 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16026
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 45 of 46 (846289)
01-02-2019 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Phat
01-02-2019 3:56 PM


Re: Subjectively understanding objective evidence.
Phat writes:

In contrast, the writers of the Bible were recording events that actually happened around them and the reactions of others who encountered these same events.


Were they? Was the author of Job at the board meeting where God and Satan agreed to torment Job? Was the author of Genesis in the Garden of Eden?

Phat writes:

The Bible was not simply made up on the spot.


It was made up on 66 or more spots.

Phat writes:

There is no evidence that the authors of the Bible were intentionally writing fiction.


There is no evidence that they weren't.

And since it IS fiction *cough* talking snake *cough* they were either intentionally writing fiction or they were intentionally lying or they were just plain wrong or....

Phat writes:

And it is most definitely the case with Jesus Christ.


Nope.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 01-02-2019 3:56 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019