Testing The Christian Apologists

Phat writes: I know that when any evidence is presented which refute my beliefs, I will and do often ignore it, justifying that the demons have somne powerful weapons to sway the minds on this planet. My belief, in fact, is valued (in conjunction with my feelings) as stronger than any possible evidence.

And Faith does the same but doubled in spades.

Surely you can see that when something like the Flood can be shown to be a flat out falsehood beyond all possible doubt, then it's just wrong and you have to adapt your belief to accommodate it? Otherwise you're just plain mad?

Personally, I think you're better off like GDR our flexible friend, who can hang on to a nice woolly, bendable belief that can absorb most challenges.

But not all of course - you can't square a loving god with the reality of suffering so that final hurdle is never jumped, simply put off to another day and then forgotten until an impertinent atheist drags it out again and watches the believer swerve off sideways again.

I know you can't believe it but following evidence and reality wherever it leads is far less troubling to the mind that trying to maintain a delusion.

ringo writes: The book says what it says whether it was written in God's own handwriting or by a bunch of goat herders. If it was inspired by God, why do you have so little regard for the words He chose? Why would He need apologists to explain to you what it really, really, really means? Why do you portray Him as incapable of communicating for Himself?

Because I'm wise enough to know that God does not lie. I'm also wise enough to know that God is nowhere near as insecure as jar portrays the character as being. Granted, jar is simply reinforcing his position that the book was written by and through humans. Both of you are nauseatingly repetitive emphasizing that the book says what it says. I too will argue this point when the scripture supports what I want it to say. If, in fact the book was written entirely by God, it is a huge case of cognitive dissonance for me. It simply does not say what my inner unction tells me it *should* say. I turn to the apologists rather than a bunch of critically thinking atheists because I need people who also believe that God speaks to them rather than a bunch of non-believers who are nearly universally certain that God does not speak at all.

Furthermore, I turn to prayer. I am quite certain I will get better answers there than I would here or from any apologists either.

Phat writes: It simply does not say what my inner unction tells me it *should* say.

Correct. So the next step is to ask why it simply does not say what my inner unction tells me it *should* say?

Reality Phat.

The Bible does say what is actually written in the stories.

Why is the God in Genesis 1 totally aloof and removed from any interaction with what was created?

Why does the God in Genesis 2&3 lie while the serpent tells the truth?

Simply denying reality like all the Apologists is not the reasonable procedure.

Once you answer those questions you can move on to the next step. Why did the people who where selecting which stories should be included and excluded select those two stories for inclusions, and further, why did they put the newer tale first with the older tale second? Why are those two books included in ALL of the Abrahamic religions; in all of the various Christian Canons, in the TaNaKh and the Glorious Qur'an?

There are reasons and we have discussed them in the past, and not just once or twice.

Stop trying to create the God and Bible in YOUR image and look at what is actually there.

Phat writes: Because I'm wise enough to know that God does not lie.

So you're wiser than the people who wrote the Book?

Phat writes: Both of you are nauseatingly repetitive emphasizing that the book says what it says.

And you're nauseatingly repetitive in denying that the book says what it says. if you can't understand a simple tautology, why would anybody think you're wiser than the authors who wrote what they wrote?

Phat writes: I too will argue this point when the scripture supports what I want it to say.

But when? When will you actually argue a point instead of just asserting opinions?

Phat writes: I turn to the apologists rather than a bunch of critically thinking atheists...

As long as you continue to scoff at critical thinking, you have no claim to being wise.

And until you actually present an apologist argument, we have no reason to think you even understand them.

Phat writes: ... because I need people who also believe that God speaks to them rather than a bunch of non-believers who are nearly universally certain that God does not speak at all.

So the truth doesn't matter to you at all. All that matters is what you want to hear.

Faith writes: Meekness is the spirit of submission to God.

Not really. Most of the Biblical references to meekness seem to be about interpersonal relationships, e.g.:

quote:

---

Titus 3:1-2 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

---

It may be submission to God that causes it but it is demonstrated "unto all men".

So you're wiser than the people who wrote the Book?

In some ways yes. I know more about reality than they do. How wise can a goat herder be? The God they encountered will be the one I encounter, however. I too can write a book. In my book, the Holy Spirit will be with the believers. The skeptics and those who demand evidence to prove belief will be left in the dust. You likely will say that it will be the other way around and that those of us who accept God without evidence are delusional.

Sure sounds like you want us nonbelievers to be punished. Do you think believers should be able to punish nonbelievers?

Because I'm wise enough to know that God does not lie.

People pretending to be speaking on God's behalf certainly can lie and have lied -- lest you believe the teachings of Mohammed actually come from the non-lying mind of Allah. That's the problem, Phat. Lots and lots of people have lied or at least were horribly deluded claiming that God speaks to them. How can you certify that anything in the bible, written by many different authors, were not corrupted by the vagaries of men?

I'm also wise enough to know that God is nowhere near as insecure as jar portrays the character as being.

The bible itself depicts God with human insecurities like jealousy... anger... and prone to what can only be described as temper tantrums.

Granted, jar is simply reinforcing his position that the book was written by and through humans.

And rightfully so because it was, objectively. We can argue whether or not it was divinely inspired but what isn't really contestable was that it was physically penned by man.

I need people who also believe that God speaks to them rather than a bunch of non-believers who are nearly universally certain that God does not speak at all. Furthermore, I turn to prayer. I am quite certain I will get better answers there than I would here or from any apologists either.

You'll get the answers that you want to hear if you shove aside disconfirming evidence. Staunch atheism is just as objectionable to me as staunch faith because either way it relies on a measure of just that -- faith. I cannot know that God doesn't exist. I just don't have any good reasons to assume he does.

The bible itself depicts God with human insecurities like jealousy... anger... and prone to what can only be described as temper tantrums.

Ugh. It sets my teeth on edge to see such blasphemous statements that reduce God to the human level. No that is NOT how the Bible "depicts" God at all, you are reading your own views into those words. Ugh.

Theodoric writes: Do you think believers should be able to punish nonbelievers?

Nope. Remember the woman caught in adultery?

John8:7 ESV writes: And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

None of us are worthy to discipline you. I believe that before 30 more years have passed you will see enough to confirm God's possible existence. That's about all I can guess.

No that is NOT how the Bible "depicts" God at all, you are reading your own views into those words.

"The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies." -- Nahum 1:2

Faith writes: Ugh. It sets my teeth on edge to see such blasphemous statements that reduce God to the human level. No that is NOT how the Bible "depicts" God at all, you are reading your own views into those words. Ugh.

No Faith, that is exactly how the people who wrote the Bible stories saw, believed and depicted God.

That may well conflict with the God and Bible that you and the Apologists create but it is what exists in reality.

Phat writes: I know more about reality than they do.

You may know more about driving cars and operating computers but what makes you think you know more about God?

Phat writes: The God they encountered will be the one I encounter, however.

So there you go. What's your advantage in knowing that God? Your disadvantage is that you're encumbered by the nonsense that the apologists make up.

Phat writes: I too can write a book. In my book, the Holy Spirit will be with the believers. The skeptics and those who demand evidence to prove belief will be left in the dust.

In other words, you'll make it all up to suit yourself.

Phat writes: You likely will say that it will be the other way around and that those of us who accept God without evidence are delusional.

If you cling to your beliefs contrary to the evidence, you are certainly delusional. That's what the definition of delusion is.

Phat writes: None of us are worthy to discipline you.

But you'll gladly gloat about being "wiser" than us.

You may know more about driving cars and operating computers but what makes you think you know more about God?

There may be hope for you yet! The only way to *know* about God is by encountering God. They had no books and no apologists. Just sheep, goats, a starry night and plenty of time to think. They obviously were moved to write about their experiences...and writing took a great deal of effort in those days. So I believe that they had an encounter.