Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

RikuoAmero · 15-12-2014 10:00pm

MrPudding wrote: »

It is, apparently, even worse than that. I recall reading somewhere that after the mass suicides it emerged that some of the people that willingly drank the poison didn't actually believe. They had spoken with people on the outside or written in diaries about not believing the story was true, but going along with it anyway, presumably out of some desire to belong. Think about that for a second, knowing something was not true, but still dying for it... Will try to find the references again.

If we see people in modern times dying for a belief that they actually believe isn't true, what does that say for you apostles. In fact, given that followers of a religion dying for their belief is held up as evidence for many religions, mutually exclusive to christianity, or at least belived by christians to be wrong, what makes you martyrs right and everyone else's wrong?

MrP

Please do. This is the first I've heard about non-believing members of those cults still being willing to die anyway.

Andrewf20 · 15-12-2014 11:16pm

Festus wrote: »

Julius Caesar on January 11, 49BC crossed the Rubicon. Or did he?

There are no eyewitness testimonies to that event so we can safely say it did not happen. Correct?

I do not know what your classical education is, if any, but no doubt there are some with a classical education who are reading this thread. Perhaps they can verify if Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon as described or not.

St Matthew and St John were both Apostles and hence eye witnesses to Christs ministry., as well as authors of two of the Gospels. Please now consider yourself informed.

But does it matter? Julius Cesear doesnt lay claim to believe in him or go to hell which seems to be a popular viewpoint throughout the bible.

We see the convincing power of magic even today. Big claims like some of those in the bible deserve to come under severe scrutiny as all big claims should. And so, which is more likely - this stuff actually happened or that it was made up / done under a veil of magic and trickery.

All religons cant be true and im not sure what the bible offers in terms of evidence that other religons dont have.

Festus · 16-12-2014 11:57am

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But does it matter? Julius Cesear doesnt lay claim to believe in him or go to hell which seems to be a popular viewpoint throughout the bible.

That wasn't the point I was making. Please re-read that section again.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

We see the convincing power of magic even today. Big claims like some of those in the bible deserve to come under severe scrutiny as all big claims should. And so, which is more likely - this stuff actually happened or that it was made up / done under a veil of magic and trickery.

perhaps magic is a convincing power to you. To me it is nothing more than clever entertainment.

However your comments suggest that you have scrutinized all of Christ's miracles. From your scrutiny can you explain how they were all done?
Or did this "stuff" actually happen?

Andrewf20 wrote: »

All religons cant be true and im not sure what the bible offers in terms of evidence that other religons dont have.

It is true that all religions cannot be true and it is by measuring one against the others that the truth is found. If you are not sure what the Bible offers start by reading it. Then compare it to the texts of the other religions.

Andrewf20 · 16-12-2014 1:54pm

Festus wrote: »

That wasn't the point I was making. Please re-read that section again.

I read it again. I do actually believe that Jesus as a man did exist, like Plato or Socrates but as for his supernatural claims - I remain less convinced.

For me, as long as men (whoever they claim to be) have the power to lie or deceive, doubt will prevail.

Festus wrote: »

perhaps magic is a convincing power to you. To me it is nothing more than clever entertainment.

However your comments suggest that you have scrutinized all of Christ's miracles. From your scrutiny can you explain how they were all done?
Or did this "stuff" actually happen?

Im thinking more in terms of its power to convince an audience 2000 years ago. The little I have to go on in relation to biblical miracles (eye witness testimony) doesnt help with the scrutinizing. Even watching magic today (with my own eyes) at a show or on the street, I can find it unfathomable how they do it. However I dont walk away thinking that magic actually exists - but if that was me in the audience 2000 years ago, maybe I would have thought the laws of nature were truely suspended in front of me.

Festus wrote: »

It is true that all religions cannot be true and it is by measuring one against the others that the truth is found. If you are not sure what the Bible offers start by reading it. Then compare it to the texts of the other religions.

I have read large swathes and remain unconvinced. But its not so much whats written - its more in this method of delivery, i.e in the form of an ancient book. Theres just too many holes for it to stack up.

marienbad · 16-12-2014 2:10pm

marienbad wrote: »

Unproven , written no sooner than AD 60.

Festus, can I have an answer please ? thanks .

Safehands · 16-12-2014 2:47pm

Festus wrote: »

However your comments suggest that you have scrutinized all of Christ's miracles. From your scrutiny can you explain how they were all done?
Or did this "stuff" actually happen?

I don't believe "miracles" actually happened. I believe that most of them were parables, presumably told by Jesus, which in time, turned into stories.
For example; the wedding feast and the wine. Jesus was actually comparing the existing religious beliefs and his new presence, to wine. Before now the wine was poor now I have arrived and I am the fine wine. It was an analogy between old religious beliefs and the new Christianity, and wine. Up to now the poor wine was served, now you have fine wine.
The same thing with the calming of the water, he has calmed the stormy religious water by his arrival.

He seems to have been an amazing man. No Miracles though.

Festus · 16-12-2014 3:01pm

Safehands wrote: »

I don't believe "miracles" actually happened. I believe that most of them were parables, presumably told by Jesus, which in time, turned into stories.

So it is by faith you believe this, yes?

Safehands wrote: »

For example; the wedding feast and the wine. Jesus was actually comparing the existing religious beliefs and his new presence, to wine. Before now the wine was poor now I have arrived and I am the fine wine. It was an analogy between old religious beliefs and the new Christianity, and wine. Up to now the poor wine was served, now you have fine wine.
The same thing with the calming of the water, he has calmed the stormy religious water by his arrival.

The wedding feast is recorded in the Gospel as an actual event, but you dismiss that - no evidence, no reasoning, just dismiss it out of hand as an assertion from blind faith.

Just because you cannot figure out a reasonable way to transform water into the best wine using 2000 year old middle eastern technology is not a good enough reason to dismiss it as merely a story designed to fit an analogy.

Christians accept it as the first public miracle of Christ. You claim it is nothing but a story

Safehands wrote: »

He seems to have been an amazing man. No Miracles though.

Can prove that claim or is it another one of your blind faith assertions?

Festus · 16-12-2014 3:09pm

marienbad wrote: »

Festus, can I have an answer please ? thanks .

When did Pliny the Younger commit his describion of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius of 79AD to writing? (hint: he did not write it in 79AD)

Should vulcanologist ignore his evidence due to this gap and rethink their position on Plinian eruptions?

marienbad · 16-12-2014 3:12pm

Festus wrote: »

When did Pliny the Younger commit his describion of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius of 79AD to writing? (hint: he did not write it in 79AD)

Should vulcanologist ignore his evidence due to this gap and rethink their position on Plinian eruptions?

Cab you Pease answer what I asked, thanks

Festus · 16-12-2014 3:16pm

marienbad wrote: »

Cab you Pease answer what I asked, thanks

What point are you trying to make that the answer to my questions do not address?

marienbad · 16-12-2014 4:07pm

marienbad wrote: »

Unproven , written no sooner than AD 60.

This point, an answer please, thanks

robinph · 16-12-2014 4:09pm

Festus wrote: »

So it is by faith you believe this, yes?

The opposite position to believing in a god does not require faith. It is just a lack of belief in the supernatural due to zero evidence to support your claims of a god.

Festus · 16-12-2014 4:49pm

marienbad wrote: »

This point, an answer please, thanks

Do you treat the biographies of celebrities written decades after the event in a similar vein?

Should we treat a history like Band of Brothers the way you treat the Bible because it was written in 1992 and not 1945 ?

orubiru · 16-12-2014 4:54pm

Festus wrote: »

So it is by faith you believe this, yes?

How do you come to this conclusion?

A believer in God requires Faith because our belief in Gods requires us to look beyond the reality that we see in front of us everyday.

I believe that God guides my life and my actions but I need to re-affirm my Faith because when I look at the world there is no direct evidence of my God only subtle hints. Second hand tales, dreams and intuition are not "solid" evidence. I understand that my God exists in ways that I cannot fully see or understand and so Faith is an integral component of my religious life.

The non-believer does not have this problem. It doesn't take Faith to look at the world and say "everything is good here, I see no proof of The Gods so I guess they dont exist". They can move on because it is not relevant. They don't need to have "faith" that everything is normal.

Gods are only revealed to those who look closely. If one does not look closely then one does not see God and so one does not need Faith to say "No Gods here".

Most likely it will not matter. The Gods would not reject Atheists. It seems more reasonable that God would commend them for keeping an open mind and waiting for solid evidence before understanding.

A believers life is one of committing to an ideal and sticking with it. One requires Faith to do this. God MAY appreciate that but God may also say "ah, you were not supposed to know I exist!".

A non-believer is not burdened by such things. They can have a life of exploration, discovery and (maybe) at the end revelation. None of this requires Faith. They only need to keep their mind open and enjoy the journey.

I believe in my God because I have seen things and have had certain revelations at various points in my life. Was this what God intended? I am not so sure. He wasn't exactly broadcasting Himself so maybe I was not supposed to see?

I believe that the character of God would not be so cruel as to cast out Atheists because they had no faith. I think it more likely that God would laugh and say "well, OF COURSE you didn't believe! I wasn't exactly coming down to declare myself every Saturday was I?"

Non-belief in God is not a faith-based position and it never will be.

Delirium · 16-12-2014 4:59pm

Festus wrote: »

Do you treat the biographies of celebrities written decades after the event in a similar vein?

Should we treat a history like Band of Brothers the way you treat the Bible because it was written in 1992 and not 1945 ?

Band of Brothers actually had interviews from the surviving soldiers that the mini-series is about. Did the writers of the bible interview Jesus or the apostles?

orubiru · 16-12-2014 5:00pm

Festus wrote: »

Do you treat the biographies of celebrities written decades after the event in a similar vein?

Should we treat a history like Band of Brothers the way you treat the Bible because it was written in 1992 and not 1945 ?

It doesn't matter though. The claims made by celebrities are not used to govern nations.

If Tiger Woods biographer said that there is eyewitness testimony that Tiger channels the souls of long departed Golfers and told us we shouldn't play Golf on Fridays or have sex with other men then... are we not entitled to ask for verification?

The difference between The Bible and Band of Brothers? I mean, come ON, really?

marienbad · 16-12-2014 5:02pm

Festus wrote: »

Do you treat the biographies of celebrities written decades after the event in a similar vein?

Should we treat a history like Band of Brothers the way you treat the Bible because it was written in 1992 and not 1945 ?

We are discussing direct testimony versus hearsay and so far you have not shown the Bible is anything other than hearsay

Festus · 16-12-2014 5:07pm

marienbad wrote: »

We are discussing direct testimony versus hearsay and so far you have not shown the Bible is anything other than hearsay

I have stated it is direct testimony to which your response is that it is hearsay and you have insinuated that there is a significance to the gap between the the events occurring and their being written down by the eye witnesses.

I have responded with examples that demonstrate that there is no significance to what you are insinuating.

marienbad · 16-12-2014 5:11pm

Festus wrote: »

I have stated it is direct testimony to which your response is that it is hearsay and you have insinuated that because there is a significance to the gap between the the events and their being written down.

I have responded with examples that demonstrate that there is no significance to what you are insinuating.

And who are you ? The most reputable scholars believe that two of the Gospels may be direct testimony but are not definitive on it . They may also may have reported it directly to the scribes that wrote it down later .

Is that not correct

Festus · 16-12-2014 5:19pm

marienbad wrote: »

And who are you ? The most reputable scholars believe that two of the Gospels may be direct testimony but are not definitive on it . They may also may have reported it directly to the scribes that wrote it down later .

Is that not correct

Who are you?

orubiru · 16-12-2014 5:22pm

Festus wrote: »

Who are you?

Whoever you believe he or she is.

marienbad · 16-12-2014 5:22pm

Festus wrote: »

Who are you?

You stated that it is direct testimony, therefore I am entitled to ask for your credentials am I not ?

Festus · 16-12-2014 5:43pm

marienbad wrote: »

You stated that it is direct testimony, therefore I am entitled to ask for your credentials am I not ?

You stated it was hearsay so can I not as you who are you?

Recorded recollection regardless if whether you write it yourself or dictate it to a secretary is not hearsay. If you want hearsay, perhaps consider these records:

Thallus (52AD) on the darkness when Christ died quoted by Julius Africanus 221AD
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

Tacitus (56-120AD) “Annals’ of 116AD

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)

“What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.”

Phlegon (80-140AD)

“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)

“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Suetonius (69-140AD)

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)

Celsus (175AD)

“Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.”

Josephus (37-101AD)

“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared” (This neutral reconstruction follows closely the one proposed by John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person).

marienbad · 16-12-2014 5:50pm

marienbad wrote: »

Afraid not- heresay definition-

Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them.

So no direct testimony then ?

Here is that definition of hearsay again

Harika · 16-12-2014 5:58pm

Festus wrote: »

You stated it was hearsay so can I not as you who are you?

Recorded recollection regardless if whether you write it yourself or dictate it to a secretary is not hearsay. If you want hearsay, perhaps consider these records:

Thallus (52AD) on the darkness when Christ died quoted by Julius Africanus 221AD
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
<-SNIP->
Josephus (37-101AD)

“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared” (This neutral reconstruction follows closely the one proposed by John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person).

All fine information about the person Jesus that lived 2000 years ago, don't you wonder that 50 to 200 years after his crucifixion the people there were not really aware of his miracles but instead called him a little crazy as he believed he was a god?
Forward to nowadays, where the hearsay of the apostles has gained more weight than the records of historians.

Festus · 16-12-2014 6:00pm

marienbad wrote: »

Here is that definition of hearsay again

Two Gospels were written by Apostle eye witnesses - Direct testimony - not hearsay.

You have not made any case for hearsay beyond your assertion and opinion.

Festus · 16-12-2014 6:04pm

Harika wrote: »

All fine information about the person Jesus that lived 2000 years ago, don't you wonder that 50 to 200 years after his crucifixion the people there were not really aware of his miracles but instead called him a little crazy as he believed he was a god?
Forward to nowadays, where the hearsay of the apostles has gained more weight than the records of historians.

All but one of the historians quoted were pagans so their understanding of Jesus was, like yours, limited.

They do however confirm that Jesus lived and confirms the Bible record.

marienbad · 16-12-2014 6:23pm

Festus wrote: »

Two Gospels were written by Apostle eye witnesses - Direct testimony - not hearsay.

You have not made any case for hearsay beyond your assertion and opinion.

That is not the definitive position and you know it, they may have been written by Apostles but it is not definitive . And you can't show a reputable source that says they were .

As it stands they are hearsay.

Harika · 16-12-2014 6:33pm

Festus wrote: »

All but one of the historians quoted were pagans so their understanding of Jesus was, like yours, limited.

They do however confirm that Jesus lived and confirms the Bible record.

wow that is a major logic fallacy: jesus lived so he was god. According to this logic Cesar also was a god when he crossed the rubicon, cause he also lived.

Festus · 16-12-2014 8:20pm

Harika wrote: »

wow that is a major logic fallacy: jesus lived so he was god. According to this logic Cesar also was a god when he crossed the rubicon, cause he also lived.

On your part yes for grossly misrepresenting what I actually said.

Jesus is God, but not because he was born and lived. He is, always was and always will be God. That Jesus lived is recorded in the Bible and confirmed by many other historical records, as presented. There may be more.

As for Ceasar, if there is a reputable source that says he lived and did things then by the logic you apply to the Bible did Caesar actually exist and do those things?

Harika · 16-12-2014 8:37pm

Festus wrote: »

On your part yes for grossly misrepresenting what I actually said.

Jesus is God, but not because he was born and lived. He is, always was and always will be God. That Jesus lived is recorded in the Bible and confirmed by many other historical records, as presented. There may be more.

As for Ceasar, if there is a reputable source that says he lived and did things then by the logic you apply to the Bible did Caesar actually exist and do those things?

Oh you turn the events, the first sources that record Jesus are outside of the bible or as you said pagans, that did not report anything about him being god, only that he and his disciples believed it, only afterwards the writers of the bible added the god part and as they had the historic writings they could use historical events to fit together with Jesus, to strengthen their case.

For Caesar: I would ask who are those sources, why did they write down what Cesar did, to what purpose, what is their background?

Festus · 16-12-2014 8:55pm

Harika wrote: »

Oh you turn the events, the first sources that record Jesus are outside of the bible or as you said pagans, that did not report anything about him being god, only that he and his disciples believed it, only afterwards the writers of the bible added the god part and as they had the historic writings they could use historical events to fit together with Jesus, to strengthen their case.

Who is turning events. I posted a a sample of corroborative evidence for Jesus Christ living when He did, recorded by historians unconnected with the Church he founded. - it is you who are turning things and suggesting a conspiracy theory

As for Caesar - if you don't believe he existed that's your belief and that's fine as he is not the subject of this thread.

Harika · 16-12-2014 9:01pm

Festus wrote: »

Who is turning events. I posted samples - it is you who are turning things and suggesting a conspiracy theory

When was the bible written down? Was it before or after the historians you named?

Where did I state that I don't believe Caesar existed?

Festus · 16-12-2014 9:12pm

Harika wrote: »

When was the bible written down? Was it before or after the historians you named?

Why does that matter and why can you not find the answer to that question on your own?

Harika wrote: »

Where did I state that I don't believe Caesar existed?

I never said you did.

Harika · 16-12-2014 9:16pm

Festus wrote: »

Why does that matter and why can you not finding the answer to that question on your own?

Cause it is funnier to hear it from you. :P

Festus · 16-12-2014 9:19pm

Harika wrote: »

Cause it is funnier to hear it from you. :P

Likewise. Let me know if you need me to do more of your thinking for you

lazygal · 16-12-2014 10:01pm

Festus wrote: »

Likewise. Let me know if you need me to do more of your thinking for you

Is that what Jesus said? Or did he want his followers to spread the gospel?

Festus · 16-12-2014 10:09pm

Matthew 7:6

housetypeb · 17-12-2014 12:33am

Romans 12:3–8

Safehands · 17-12-2014 12:46am

Festus wrote: »

So it is by faith you believe this, yes?

No Festus, logic. My explanation is far more logical than the version you believe in. I know that you don't apply logic to these events or beliefs but some of us do.

Festus wrote: »

The wedding feast is recorded in the Gospel as an actual event, but you dismiss that - no evidence, no reasoning, just dismiss it out of hand as an assertion from blind faith.

Evidence? Reasoning? What evidence is there that it happened? My Reasoning is quite simple, logic once again tells me what is more likely. Now I know in your world miracles are the norm, but some of us think they are quite hard to believe, logically, if you can understand that type of reasoning

Festus wrote: »

because you cannot figure out a reasonable way to transform water into the best wine using 2000 year old middle eastern technology is not a good enough reason to dismiss it as merely a story designed to fit an analogy.

Yes it is!

Festus wrote: »

prove that claim or is it another one of your blind faith assertions?

There you go again Festus, asking for proof, its a little tedious from someone who has never offered one scrap of proof for any of his assertions. I do have faith Festus, faith in physics, and performing magic tricks 2000 years ago may impress you, but I think they are just stories told by simple, uneducated people. A bit like the moving statue at Ballinspittle a few years ago. Look Festus, if God wanted to perform a miracle, then turning water into booze to impress his mother's friends has my full support, but it is very local and just a little bit underwhelming. There are many more impressive things he could have done to make his point to a far larger audience, don't you think?

RikuoAmero · 17-12-2014 12:49am

For those of you whose comments are solely, and I do mean this literally, just solely a mention of a Bible passage, can you please quote it in the comment box as well and give a comment about it, i.e. your thoughts, your interpretation, why you included it, whether you believe it or disbelieve it, anything at all really.
If all you're going to do is type "Bible Book X, Verse Y", then I have no idea what your thoughts are on the subject.

Festus · 17-12-2014 12:58am

Try looking them up

eviltwin · 17-12-2014 1:05am

Festus wrote: »

Try looking them up

It's polite to provide a link to the item you are quoting. Saves the audience going on a hunt for the information. And a simple explanation of same would be most helpful. Bible verse can be hard to interpret.

Festus · 17-12-2014 1:07am

Safehands wrote: »

There are many more impressive things he could have done to make his point to a far larger audience, don't you think?

Yes!

His Passion,

His Death

and

His Resurrection!

Festus · 17-12-2014 1:09am

eviltwin wrote: »

It's polite to provide a link to the item you are quoting. Saves the audience going on a hunt for the information. And a simple explanation of same would be most helpful. Bible verse can be hard to interpret.

Best way to learn is to look it up for yourselves. I gave you the pointer. After that it's up to you.

Heck, if you don't have a copy of the Bible near you all you have to do is copy it and paste it into a search engine, then read what falls out. You can even highlight it, right click and search directly. If you can't interpret it you can add "what does" before the verse and "mean" after and you'll find loads more reading material.

If you don't like my teaching methods or you don't want to make the effort to think and learn that's not my problem.

eviltwin · 17-12-2014 1:14am

Festus wrote: »

Best way to learn is to look it up for yourselves. I gave you the pointer. After that it's up to you.

If you don't want to think and learn that's not my problem.

Best way to learn what? The bible is just words to me, your the one claiming those words have relevance. If that's the case show us, explain it. If you can't be bothered l will just assume what you're referring to is the usual vague crap.

Festus · 17-12-2014 1:17am

eviltwin wrote: »

Best way to learn what? The bible is just words to me, your the one claiming those words have relevance. If that's the case show us, explain it. If you can't be bothered l will just assume what you're referring to is the usual vague crap.

More than happy to but not in this thread. You have too many disruptive classmates.

However I will give you another hint. Words in the correct order make intelligible sentences. Sentences provide information. Reading more than a few of these sentences in the correct order can lead to understanding.

Try it with the Bible sometime.

It's fascinating.

eviltwin · 17-12-2014 1:22am

Festus wrote: »

More than happy to but not in this thread. You have too many disruptive classmates.

However I will give you another hint. Words in the correct order make intelligible sentences. Sentences provide information. Reading more than a few of these sentences in the correct order can lead to understanding.

Try it with the Bible sometime.

It's fascinating.

I'll take your word for it :rolleyes:

Festus · 17-12-2014 1:31am

eviltwin wrote: »

I'll take your word for it :rolleyes:

Let me put the Bible in a nutshell for you.

Have faith in Christ and follow Him, and you can have eternal life.

If you do not you are assured of eternal death.

This is what God, through the Bible, promises.

Will you take my word on that?

Frank Bullitt · 17-12-2014 6:59am

Festus wrote: »

Let me put the Bible in a nutshell for you.

Have faith in Christ and follow Him, and you can have eternal life.

If you do not you are assured of eternal death.

This is what God, through the Bible, promises.

Will you take my word on that?

But if you refuse this, its eternal hell for you. A punishment that only shows its face in the New Testament, no mention at all in the old as horrible as it already is with slavery, genocide and murder.

This promise is nothing more than a poison chalice.

And this is where I have issue with the bible. It is full of some really evil and terrifying things, yet when a non-believer mentions them, we are told "oh, those aren't meant to be taken literally", but is it or is it not the word of god? This claim of higher understanding of the book to show it as a force for good is nothing more than a red herring.

This literal taking of the bible is something of a concern in this day and age, we aren't banging rock together to start a fire, yet there are people who take this stuff as literal, and claim that it still has relevance in society, when all it does is still show we haven't evolved enough yet.

Why would anyone take your word for it, when it is based on a book with so many loopholes, immoral teaching and no eye witness accounts?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments