Summations Only

Or you could just tell us what you're talking about - y'know, kinda like a discussion.

This recap is not a summary of any discussion that I participated in. I have no problem with you telling me that it is your current position. But as a recap, it stinks. It borders on dishonest.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't see any point to continuing this discussion. Was I unclear about that?

Again, feel free to tell us what you're talking about. Empty accusations don't add anything.My "position" has not changed. If you want to honestly discuss the issue, tell us what the hell your objections are and I'll try to clear up your misunderstanding.

it seems clear that you're running away from the false accusations that you made.

Yeah, well, not really. For example, if you conclude that the Gospel account is historical then that is something you accept on faith, not evidence. A concordance of corroborating historical data is simply absent, and science tells us that virgin births pre-IVF were impossible and that there is no evidence of any mechanism for impregnation by holy spirits nor even for the existence of holy spirits.One can tell oneself, as Faith does, that the Bible is conclusive evidence of the virgin birth, but the belief has no objective reality behind it. When Faith speaks she is usually telling us something that is true about her religious beliefs and inner convictions, but only rarely does she ever tell us anything true about the real world. That's because truth about the real world doesn't come from deciding what you believe in this book and reject from that book, but from studying the real world.Conclusions based upon religious beliefs, hopelessly entangled as they are upon hopes for an afterlife, answered prayers and divine blessings, are the least likely beliefs one can imagine having much support from real world observations. The Bible should be approached with as much skepticism as the Book of the Dead and any other book. Those who give the Bible greater credence do so because it is *their* religious book and not because it possesses any particular qualifications as objective evidence.--Percy

Most of that I agree with. However, that there is a conclusion called for indicates that the Gospel accounts constitute evidence. Without the Gospel accounts nobody would be having to conclude anything. As for the Holy Spirit I think that we would agree that there is such a thing as morality leading to an understanding of moral choices roughly based on the "Golden Rule". That is evidence of something and although I don't imagine that you would agree I suggest that the Holy Spirit is one possibility. No problem with that. I agree that the Bible should be read with scepticism but I would add that the we shouldn't give all books in the Bible equal credibility.Incidentally I'm, not a Christian of "hopes for an afterlife, answered prayers and divine blessings". I'm a Christian because I believe that it is essentially true and that the God that I see as incarnate in Jesus is a god worth serving.

I agree with everything, however, how do you get that rational conclusion. We don't know if John existed, we don't know who wrote about John. The gospel of John is riddled with contradiction and absurdity, no matter who wrote it. Some parts are thus highly suspect, to some level of rationality. So your conclusion is: we should conclude it's authentic until disproven? ( which is impossible). Is that what you say or no? How about we conclude it's not evidence at all and when evidence is presented it can be treated as evidence because it smells bad so far. :-)))

You kinda lost me there. What contradictions and absurdities do you find in John?

Yeas there is.The taste is pleasurable too you, therefor you find it a rewarding experience.What is irrational about that?

Well, if calling for conclusions (whatever that means) about the virgin birth means the Gospel accounts constitute evidence, then I guess calling for conclusions about elves means The Hobbit constitutes evidence. You're expending effort trying to justify a belief that your preferred holy book rates more serious consideration as evidence than other books. It doesn't. It merits such status only to extent that it can be successfully and seamlessly intermingled with the fabric already woven by other real-world evidence.When we want to understand the real world we observe and draw our evidence from the real world. We might instead draw that evidence by proxy from a book, a paper, a lecture, or a conversation, provided those sources themselves derive from observations and evidence from the real world.The Bible *can* serve as just this sort of proxy for evidence. Some portions of the Bible do reflect observations and evidence from the real world. Jerusalem is a real place. Herod was a real person.Other portions of the Bible are fantastic or miraculous. Lot's wife did not turn into a pillar of salt. Jonah did not spend three days in the belly of a whale. Mary was not impregnated by the holy spirit. In an age where we know that even strict adherence to the scientific method doesn't guarantee a successful understanding of the real world it makes no sense to argue that our favorite book of myths and revelation is positive evidence for things that studious attention to reality says are fanciful. To argue that the Bible is evidence for the Holy Spirit, and that morality is evidence for the Holy Spirit, you may as well argue "that there's something instead of nothing" is evidence for the Holy Spirit, too. At this point evidence is no longer a tool of understanding but a rhetorical device of obfuscation.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

ah, perhaps. But there is beer and lite beer, often there I cannot even tell a difference by taste.

From John
3:14. Jesus believes the stupid story of god getting snakes to bite people, because they complained about a lack of food ( From Numbers 21)5:17 God works on sabbath and so does Jesus ( Not according to Genesis 2:2-3)5:46 Claims Moses wrote about him ( Nope)11:42 Prays in public, in contradiction to Matt 6:5-6 where you don't do that14:13 Whatever you ask in my name I will do ( lol, that's a beauty!)6:53-57. Eat his flesh and drink his blood to be saved.There are lots more. I call it errors, or contradiction or absurd....one of those.

Maybe you are just showing your bias and ignorance again but that's certainly curable. Jesus constantly refers to stories the audience would find familiar when teaching, and had you been raised as a Jew those stories would be familiar to you as well. That is no different than someone today using a reference to stories or mythos that would be familiar to their audience nor does it mean the speaker thinks the reference is factual.In addition you make the classic mistake or thinking that the Bible is one book and not an anthology of anthologies. Just because something is said in one story does not imply other stories must agree. The contradictions you point to only exist if you, like the fundies, assume a single book with a single purpose and single theme.Part of Jesus teachings (remember the Talmud? ) is teaching reason. Remember the passages I posted earlier from the Talmud related to working on the Sabbath? Jews struggled with such concepts and remember that Jesus, John and the author of John were Jews, not Christians. Jesus asks simple questions related to working on the Sabbath...if you ass falls in a crack on the Sabbath do you wait until Sunday to pull it out?Also, remember the Gospel of John unlike the others portrays Jesus as a mystic and makes claims not found in the Synoptics.But none of these are errors or contradictions or even absurdities within the context of religious scripture. You call them errors, or contradiction or absurd but what you need to say is that YOU find them to be errors, or contradiction or absurd. It is not a matter of fact but just your knowledge and bias.Edited by TrueChristian, : fix sub-title

According to Genesis 2:2-3, God rested on the seventh day after creating everything. Where does it say that God did not work on any subsequent seventh day? There is no contradiction here. Not quite. The lesson in Matt 6:5-6 is about people who find value in being seen praying by their peers. It is possible to pray in public without show boating. That's not at all what the Bible says. Just what did they preach back when you were a Christian?There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible, but your list is not very impressive. At least half of it is BS.