Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
24 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 6 of 2241 (699275)
05-16-2013 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zift Ylrhavic Resfear
05-15-2013 4:17 PM


The Bible says it is inspired so if you beleive anything in it you may as well believe that, too.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zift Ylrhavic Resfear, posted 05-15-2013 4:17 PM Zift Ylrhavic Resfear has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 12 of 2241 (700092)
05-30-2013 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulGL
05-29-2013 2:09 PM


The bit about Rousseau is badly disguised argument from authority.

Poor form.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulGL, posted 05-29-2013 2:09 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 56 of 2241 (701586)
06-21-2013 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Ossat
06-21-2013 3:51 AM


Can you quote that one from the Bible?

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

but if you ever try hard to look for God’s message in it

Messgaes such as this?

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

This is God's message? That disagrees with most decent people's morality.

Edited by Larni, : Oh, you know?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Ossat, posted 06-21-2013 3:51 AM Ossat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Ossat, posted 06-22-2013 11:04 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 62 of 2241 (701622)
06-22-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Ossat
06-22-2013 11:04 AM


How can you say that: have you even read the Bible?

Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

People who follow Jesus are entered into the Book of Life.

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

If you are not reading the whole bible you cannot fully understand that Jesus in his mercy sends many, many people to Hell.

Weasel words won't change a factual document. Saying that you do not understand the difficult bits does not mean that when your god says he wants those gays dead that that is not exactly what it means.

You are in effect using the argument from incredulity; a logical fallacy.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Ossat, posted 06-22-2013 11:04 AM Ossat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Ossat, posted 06-22-2013 10:29 PM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 66 of 2241 (701642)
06-23-2013 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Ossat
06-22-2013 10:29 PM


What you are doing is ignoring what the bibles says (in my example that gay people should be killed) because it conflicts with your personal image of God.

You don't agree with what the bible says God wants to happen to gay people so you undergo mental gymnastics so that your personal God is the same as the God depicted in the bible (the only source of information we have about God).

You are defining God as having the same morality as you do. What you should be doing is adhearing to the morality of God (in this case wanting gay people dead).

Think about your religion for a bit and you will see the true nature of God.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Ossat, posted 06-22-2013 10:29 PM Ossat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Ossat, posted 06-23-2013 5:44 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 72 of 2241 (701650)
06-23-2013 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Ossat
06-23-2013 5:16 AM


How can one consciously reject something that has not been established by the person in question.

Can I consciously reject the notion that a variable number of magpies is bad luck, if observed?

Of course not. I can only consciously reject what I have previously accepted. The bible does state that God is in the hearts of all men regardless of whether we have heard of him but how do I know that you are not ignoring that part of the bible because it is as 'difficult' as Lev 20:13?

So you see, going by the bible I have no leg to stand on and will go to Hell for ever for my rejection of him: unless (in your version of Christiainty) that bit can be ignored like the killing gays bit.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Ossat, posted 06-23-2013 5:16 AM Ossat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Ossat, posted 06-24-2013 6:08 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


(4)
Message 73 of 2241 (701651)
06-23-2013 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Ossat
06-23-2013 5:44 AM


but that it must be there for a reason.

Correct: so the we may know that God wants gays dead.

Perfect, wise, loving, pure, merciful, beautiful. Can't think of enough words to describe Him

But where do you get these ideas that God is like this from? If it is from the Bible you must also include 'hates gays', 'condones incest' and 'kills children'.

If not, why not.

The bible is a very easy book to understand. It becomes complicated when one tries to reconcile it with a perfect, wise, loving, pure, merciful and beautiful character.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Ossat, posted 06-23-2013 5:44 AM Ossat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Ossat, posted 06-24-2013 6:33 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 81 of 2241 (701697)
06-24-2013 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Ossat
06-24-2013 6:33 AM


God wants gays and disobedient children dead (you will remember the admonishion to put gays to the sword from Lev 20:13)

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

God demans children to be killed again.

2nd Chronicles 15:13 "That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

When I mentioned incest I meant Lot (Gen 19)

You follow and by extension agree with Jesus' stance on gay slaying. God does not want you to change the Bible's message to fit your morality.

2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

You say I should understand the Bible: I understand what it says and I have read it (being an atheist I find I often know a lot more than many Christians).


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Ossat, posted 06-24-2013 6:33 AM Ossat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Ossat, posted 06-26-2013 4:32 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


(2)
Message 83 of 2241 (701729)
06-25-2013 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
06-24-2013 11:14 AM


What baffles me is how people seem to think that God is only loving when the Bible clearly shows his character to be very different.

A little off topic, I suppose.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 06-24-2013 11:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Ossat, posted 06-26-2013 5:00 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


(2)
Message 88 of 2241 (701782)
06-26-2013 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Ossat
06-26-2013 4:32 AM


You do know that he sacrificed himself to save us from himself, don't you?

If he had have just forgave Adam and Eve for doing what he knew they would he would not have had to torture himself to death to save us from his decree that we are sinners.

Simple.

but I now there are creationist scientists (even if you wouldn't call them scientists) working in understanding our universe from a biblical perspective

This is not actually the case. What 'creation scientists' do is try to bebunk science. If science is wrong the Bible must be right, eh?

Simple

The texts there were revealed by God to Moses, Paul and the prophets. And not, I don't have evidence of that either, but I do choose to believe it

So you agree he revealed that he wants those no good gays put to death and you still think he's a loving guy?

Complicated.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Ossat, posted 06-26-2013 4:32 AM Ossat has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 94 of 2241 (701833)
06-26-2013 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Ossat
06-26-2013 4:56 AM


Mainstream science has figured out everything?

Pull the other one, mate. It's got bells on.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Ossat, posted 06-26-2013 4:56 AM Ossat has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


(3)
Message 96 of 2241 (701896)
06-27-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Ossat
06-26-2013 5:00 AM


What part of killing gays, dashing babies against rocks and having rape victims marry their rapist is not evil?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Ossat, posted 06-26-2013 5:00 AM Ossat has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 694 of 2241 (743538)
12-02-2014 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 693 by Faith
12-02-2014 5:43 AM


Re: Knowing God
I think the thing to remember is that you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts the bible.

Given that stand point and being aware that others cannot reconcile the words of the bible with the real world evidence (that you have accepted as being contradicted by the bible) are you surprised by the reactions of people on this site?

And I find it significant that even other Christians on this site cannot reconcile parts of the bible with physical evidence.

What are you thoughts about this?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 693 by Faith, posted 12-02-2014 5:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by Faith, posted 12-02-2014 6:31 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 1045 of 2241 (745906)
12-29-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1043 by Percy
12-29-2014 9:24 AM


Re: or of Jesus
Or maybe he could understand that his faith is not supported by evidence, may even be contradicted by it, but believe it anyway.

But then he or she is not being (intellectually) honest. The person is going with their feelings, rather than rationality.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by Percy, posted 12-29-2014 9:24 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1046 by jar, posted 12-29-2014 9:37 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 1060 of 2241 (745928)
12-29-2014 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1046 by jar
12-29-2014 9:37 AM


Re: or of Jesus
Yeas there is.

The taste is pleasurable too you, therefor you find it a rewarding experience.

What is irrational about that?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by jar, posted 12-29-2014 9:37 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1062 by jar, posted 12-29-2014 5:14 PM Larni has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019