So why doesnt God appear every now and again?

[bigmc]

LOL ok

typical

 

[Man of Steel]

typical

 

Well, you didn't put forth any more argumentation.  

You asked questions.  I answered them.  You put forth the ultimate objection.  I resolved it.  Then you just returned to absolute square one with "fiction books" and "no evidence".

There's nowhere else to go LOL.

[Agnostic007]

Who should have written the words, God?

Would that make it more believable?

Isn't the Bible a book of recorded history? Does this mean no history books are true?

The ten commandments were allegedly written by God, and those seem to be a point of contention too.

1. It would have made them less divisive, fewer contradictions, rational, factual.

2. I would assume a god wouldn't put things in a book that contradict, that defy known laws of physics or history without providing overwhelming evidence to support such things. So I would assume that a god would do a much better job than the anonymous authors of the bible did

3. No, the bible contains some information that is historical much like a Clancy book may contain some information that is historical. That doesn't make it a history book.

4. Which set? He is alleged to have written both sets. But that story was written by man.. so...

[SF1900]

typical

 

The issue is that all evidence that the bible and God are real is inherently biased. The majority of people who study these topics are devout believers. They begin their research with the idea that God 100% exists, then they try to find evidence to support this notion. That is not the way science works. You can begin research with a hypothesis, but you can't already be convinced of your conclusion. Religious people are. Its a horrible way to do research. This is inherently going to lead to a confirmation bias regarding all evidence that contradicts what one initially believed. We all know if Ken Ham found evidence that contradicts the bible, he would "throw it away."

[Man of Steel]

Lee Strobel  (former atheist converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
Allister McGraith (former atheist converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
Ravi Zacharias (former atheist raised Hindu converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
Nabeel Qureshi (former muslim converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
C.S. Lewis (former atheist converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
David Wood (former atheist converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)
Dr Hugh Ross (former atheist converted to Christianity and became preeminent apologist because of evidence)

None of them had any Christian upbringing.

[Dave D]

1. It would have made them less divisive, fewer contradictions, rational, factual.

2. I would assume a god wouldn't put things in a book that contradict, that defy known laws of physics or history without providing overwhelming evidence to support such things. So I would assume that a god would do a much better job than the anonymous authors of the bible did

3. No, the bible contains some information that is historical much like a Clancy book may contain some information that is historical. That doesn't make it a history book.

4. Which set? He is alleged to have written both sets. But that story was written by man.. so...

1. Just so we're clear, you think a book written by God would be MORE believable. Could you also give an example of a contradiction (and please be a legitimate example besides Jesus rose from the dead, or a virgin birth, as I understand you don't believe in these (and I'm not faulting you)).

2. I do understand your point here, pillar of clouds by day fire by night, and so on,  however most scientists agree that there was a "great flood" at some point in human history (a common folklore among many beliefs, and noted). What specific historical time pieces are you referring to that dont don't line up?

As a side note we consider Stonehenge to be something of an unexplained mystery that defies logic, and it still stands

3. Again would give a specific example (besides "miracles")? In terms of time line the bible lines up with other documented history.

4. I've always wondered what was on the first set of stones, life would have likely been much simpler before Moses was mad. If only we were able to find these tablets....


Again I understand and respect your stance and position. However just because there are portions of the bible that appear untrue doesn't mean we dismiss everything.

[SF1900]

Poor evidence for suggesting their conversion was based on "evidence." lol. Man, this is sad. It's really pitiful.

I think I am going to have to vacate this thread. The delusion is strong. 

[bigmc]

Again I understand and respect your stance and position. However just because there are portions of the bible that appear untrue doesn't mean we dismiss everything. - dave d

so the bible is true where it suits you

but false where it makes you look stupid

mos said the bible were the words of god channeled through man

and to be taken as absolute fact

see none of this stands up to any scrutiny at all

[Dave D]

Again I understand and respect your stance and position. However just because there are portions of the bible that appear untrue doesn't mean we dismiss everything. - dave d

so the bible is true where it suits you

but false where it makes you look stupid

mos said the bible were the words of god channeled through man

and to be taken as absolute fact

see none of this stands up to any scrutiny at all

Scrutinize it bro.

Agnostic made his point that the Bible contains events that defy the law of physics and  history without providing overwhelming evidence. I conceded the fact that those events, namely the virgin birth and the resurrection, could be dismissed because obviously those are events that he wouldn't believe in.

I never said it's true when it suits me. But that's how people live everyday, we chose which rules/laws we will adhere to and those we won't depending on our needs and desires. I don't need the bible to make me look stupid, I'm good at doing that on my own.

I referenced Stonehenge, and I'll throw in the pyramids as well. Those defy logic and the technology of their era, especially how Stonehenge was constructed through generations, and even though we can't fullt explain their existence we know what we see.

There's a lot we don't see, there's a lot we don't know. As advanced as we are we still discover "new" plants, insects, animals and discoveries in the ocean.

You don't believe in God. That's fine. That doesn't mean you're right nor does it mean you're wrong.

Mos said he believes the bible is the divine inspired word of God and I agree, doesn't mean anything.

[bigmc]

Scrutinize it bro.

Agnostic made his point that the Bible contains events that defy the law of physics and  history without providing overwhelming evidence. I conceded the fact that those events, namely the virgin birth and the resurrection, could be dismissed because obviously those are events that he wouldn't believe in.

I never said it's true when it suits me. But that's how people live everyday, we chose which rules/laws we will adhere to and those we won't depending on our needs and desires. I don't need the bible to make me look stupid, I'm good at doing that on my own.

I referenced Stonehenge, and I'll throw in the pyramids as well. Those defy logic and the technology of their era, especially how Stonehenge was constructed through generations, and even though we can't fullt explain their existence we know what we see.

There's a lot we don't see, there's a lot we don't know. As advanced as we are we still discover "new" plants, insects, animals and discoveries in the ocean.

You don't believe in God. That's fine. That doesn't mean you're right nor does it mean you're wrong.

Mos said he believes the bible is the divine inspired word of God and I agree, doesn't mean anything.

it doesnt mean anything 

it does when you are preaching that good men will suffer for eternity in hell

because they dont believe the absolute fact that god exists

you see the problem is as our thinking becomes evolved

the old fire and brimstone doesnt cut it anymore

the bible was a book used as a tool to opress the masses through fear

live to our edict or you will suffer an eternity in hell

its an evil concept you support my friend

the purest form of evil disguised as good

[Dave D]

it doesnt mean anything  

it does when you are preaching that good men will suffer for eternity in hell

because they dont believe the absolute fact that god exists

you see the problem is as our thinking becomes evolved

the old fire and brimstone doesnt cut it anymore

the bible was a book used as a tool to opress the masses through fear

live to our edict or you will suffer an eternity in hell

its an evil concept you support my friend

the purest form of evil disguised as good

Gotcha.

Turn or burn that's the bible message?

What is used to oppress the masses through fear today? Media, government, or maybe schools?

I'm assuming you're referring to the Catholic Church when you say "live by our edict.....". And because that group used the bible to enslave the masses it's complete garbage.

The US constitution once considered women beneath men and supported slavery.

So by your logic, the tools used to cause fear among society today should be considered evil, yet you still post on the Internet.

Or would it be more accurate to say that the Bible, like a gun in the wrong hands is a potentially deadly weapon.


I respect that you never sleep though.

[Necrosis]

1. Just so we're clear, you think a book written by God would be MORE believable. Could you also give an example of a contradiction (and please be a legitimate example besides Jesus rose from the dead, or a virgin birth, as I understand you don't believe in these (and I'm not faulting you)).

2. I do understand your point here, pillar of clouds by day fire by night, and so on,  however most scientists agree that there was a "great flood" at some point in human history (a common folklore among many beliefs, and noted). What specific historical time pieces are you referring to that dont don't line up?

As a side note we consider Stonehenge to be something of an unexplained mystery that defies logic, and it still stands

3. Again would give a specific example (besides "miracles")? In terms of time line the bible lines up with other documented history.

4. I've always wondered what was on the first set of stones, life would have likely been much simpler before Moses was mad. If only we were able to find these tablets....


Again I understand and respect your stance and position. However just because there are portions of the bible that appear untrue doesn't mean we dismiss everything.

2. Stonehenge is very basic physics, a dude did it in his backyard with no tools but ropes. A great flood did not occur, the water cycle as it exists makes that impossible, we would need extra water, where does rain come from again? The mayan's believed the earth was held up by four palm trees of different colors, ancients were stupid, just like we will seem stupid in a thousand years.

Throw away everything from that time period, it's a completely useless relic of superstition

[Yamcha]

In the end, we will all face the same fate.

[Donny]

Gotcha.

Turn or burn that's the bible message?

What is used to oppress the masses through fear today? Media, government, or maybe schools?

I'm assuming you're referring to the Catholic Church when you say "live by our edict.....". And because that group used the bible to enslave the masses it's complete garbage.

The US constitution once considered women beneath men and supported slavery.

So by your logic, the tools used to cause fear among society today should be considered evil, yet you still post on the Internet.

Or would it be more accurate to say that the Bible, like a gun in the wrong hands is a potentially deadly weapon.


I respect that you never sleep though.

Just ignore Ginger he has a business worth 10 Million... Writes just BS on getbig trolls on many threads. Nothing Bodybuilding related.

[bigmc]

Gotcha.

Turn or burn that's the bible message?

What is used to oppress the masses through fear today? Media, government, or maybe schools?

I'm assuming you're referring to the Catholic Church when you say "live by our edict.....". And because that group used the bible to enslave the masses it's complete garbage.

The US constitution once considered women beneath men and supported slavery.

So by your logic, the tools used to cause fear among society today should be considered evil, yet you still post on the Internet.

Or would it be more accurate to say that the Bible, like a gun in the wrong hands is a potentially deadly weapon.


I respect that you never sleep though.

some good points here

but ultimately in trying to be clever by referring to slavery etc

you have just proved my point that people evolve

in the future we will look back on the concept of being punished for eternity for watching porn

with the same scorn we now put on barbaric concepts like slavery

[Donny]

some good points here

but ultimately in trying to be clever by referring to slavery etc

you have just proved my point that people evolve

in the future we will look back on the concept of being punished for eternity for watching porn

with the same scorn we now put on barbaric concepts like slavery

NO he just proved you are a Buffoon..

[SF1900]

MOS would kill his own child in a sacrifice to God. He said it. His response after does not matter. The proper answer to the question, "would you sacrifice your own son if god wanted you to?" should be "NOOOO!" every single time. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that he knows God stopped Abraham. The answer, no matter the circumstance, should be, "NO, I will not sacrifice my own child for you, God." This just shows his warped thinking.

CaptainFreedom on March 16, 2016, 02:15:20 PM
if God appeared before you and asked you to sacrifice your child as a test of faith, would you?

MOS
Given I know of Abraham’s example in scripture yes I would follow through, but I also know that God stopped Abraham after he was tested and didn't allow his child to die.
Without that knowledge of Abraham’s circumstance would my faith be as strong as Abraham’s if I were tested in the same manner?  I don’t know.

[Mclovin]

There is no eternal hell.

There actually is a lot of evidence showing that the concept of an eternal hell didn't become mainstream among Christians until several hundred years after Jesus. The Jews in biblical times didn't believe in eternal hell; it was more of a pagan belief.

[Kahn.N.Singh]

MOS would kill his own child in a sacrifice to God. He said it. His response after does not matter. The proper answer to the question, "would you sacrifice your own son if god wanted you to?" should be "NOOOO!" every single time. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that he knows God stopped Abraham. The answer, no matter the circumstance, should be, "NO, I will not sacrifice my own child for you, God." This just shows his warped thinking.

CaptainFreedom on March 16, 2016, 02:15:20 PM
if God appeared before you and asked you to sacrifice your child as a test of faith, would you?

MOS
Given I know of Abraham’s example in scripture yes I would follow through, but I also know that God stopped Abraham after he was tested and didn't allow his child to die.
Without that knowledge of Abraham’s circumstance would my faith be as strong as Abraham’s if I were tested in the same manner?  I don’t know.

In Problema I of Fear and Trembling, Søren Kierkegaard uses the story of Abraham to argue that there can be a teleological suspension of the ethical. The ethical is understood here as represented by Hegel's idea of Sittlichkeit (i.e., the 'ethical life' of an individual in a community built on custom and tradition). A teleological suspension of the ethical is performed by way of the absurd (or that which eludes, and is not dependent on, rational explanation).
     In order to show what this means, Kierkegaard introduces a distinction between a "tragic hero," who is willing to perform unthinkable sacrifices (e.g., Agamemnon's willing sacrifice of his young daughter to safeguard the Greek fleet to Troy) for the sake of the ethical (i.e., the community), and a "Knight of Faith," who is willing to make monstrous sacrifices for the sake of something "above" the community, e.g., one's faith in God (e.g., Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac). Subsequently, a Knight of Faith exhibits an intensely private relation with God, one that cannot be verbally expressed or rationally defended (because if it could, it would have to be expressed in a rational language that the community could understand – hence bringing faith back from the absurd and down to the ethical – which, for Kierkegaard, is a failure).

I have no doubt that MOS is certainly a man of faith, but he's no Knight of Faith (with which I'm sure he's perfectly fine).

[Dave D]

2. Stonehenge is very basic physics, a dude did it in his backyard with no tools but ropes. A great flood did not occur, the water cycle as it exists makes that impossible, we would need extra water, where does rain come from again? The mayan's believed the earth was held up by four palm trees of different colors, ancients were stupid, just like we will seem stupid in a thousand years.

Throw away everything from that time period, it's a completely useless relic of superstition

Fair enough on Stonehenge. A little preposterous to say a great flood didnt occur when scientific evidence would suggest otherwise. Scientists believe that giant glaciers once covered the earth, why would they melt, where did the extra heat come from? That's like saying dinosaurs never existed because we never see them........

Again totally fine if you don't believe in a god or Christianity and you think that it's all foolishness.

[SF1900]

In Problema I of Fear and Trembling, Søren Kierkegaard uses the story of Abraham to argue that there can be a teleological suspension of the ethical. The ethical is understood here as represented by Hegel's idea of Sittlichkeit (i.e., the 'ethical life' of an individual in a community built on custom and tradition). A teleological suspension of the ethical is performed by way of the absurd (or that which eludes, and is not dependent on, rational explanation).
     In order to show what this means, Kierkegaard introduces a distinction between a "tragic hero," who is willing to perform unthinkable sacrifices (e.g., Agamemnon's willing sacrifice of his young daughter to safeguard the Greek fleet to Troy) for the sake of the ethical (i.e., the community), and a "Knight of Faith," who is willing to make monstrous sacrifices for the sake of something "above" the community, e.g., one's faith in God (e.g., Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac). Subsequently, a Knight of Faith exhibits an intensely private relation with God, one that cannot be verbally expressed or rationally defended (because if it could, it would have to be expressed in a rational language that the community could understand – hence bringing faith back from the absurd and down to the ethical – which, for Kierkegaard, is a failure).

I have no doubt that MOS is certainly a man of faith, but he's no Knight of Faith (with which I'm sure he's perfectly fine).

Eh, I believe his response candidly demonstrates that he would be a "Knight of Faith" if ordered by God.

He even said it himself. I am just going by what he said.

[Dave D]

some good points here

but ultimately in trying to be clever by referring to slavery etc

you have just proved my point that people evolve

in the future we will look back on the concept of being punished for eternity for watching porn

with the same scorn we now put on barbaric concepts like slavery

Lol, porn wasn't even a concept during the time period.

You are correct when you say people evovle, as we gain more knowledge and understanding we can apply those lessons to advance.

The same happens with biblical understanding, as long as people stay open minded.

[bigmc]

Lol, porn wasn't even a concept during the time period.

You are correct when you say people evovle, as we gain more knowledge and understanding we can apply those lessons to advance.

The same happens with biblical understanding, as long as people stay open minded.

being open minded is important

my biggest problem is this

everything good is put down to god

everything bad is put down to mans free will

basically its a win win for god

throws the ability to debate rationally under the bus

cause you can always fall back on the above argument

[Kahn.N.Singh]

Eh, I believe his response candidly demonstrates that he would be a "Knight of Faith" if ordered by God.

He even said it himself. I am just going by what he said.

Hey, SF!

Not if he talks about why he chose to perform such a monstrous act. Knights of Faith, if there are any, cannot justify their actions via rational explanations. No rational reasons can be given, that's why it's absurd. So, a true, Kierkegaardian Knight of Faith would not, e.g., tell authorities: I killed my child because God told me to, and then go on to some kind of apologetic justification of their crime. He'd keep his mouth shut about his faith.

[SF1900]

Hey, SF!

Not if he talks about why he chose to perform such a monstrous act. Knights of Faith, if there are any, cannot justify their actions via rational explanations. No rational reasons can be given, that's why its absurd. So, a true, Kierkegaardian Knight of Faith would not, e.g., tell authorities: I killed my child because God told me to, and then go on to some kind of apologetic justification of their crime. He'd keep his mouth shut about his faith.

Thanks for the clarification.

I still think its an absurd thing to say, even if he would not actually sacrifice his own child. Just goes to show you!