Any Christians out there?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Troll


Ethelred,

I have listened to your very opiniated stance on several issues, its ok for you to be "bullish" or "Staunch" on your beliefs,, that being said, I have also noticed many times whenever a CHRISTIAN stands up for their beliefs you dont care for it?

Like YOU aren't oppinionated. You weren't standing up for your beliefs, you were witnessing. I have noticed that is your usual method of starting any religious discussions. Even the believers have pointed it out to you.

You seem to be somewhat of an eductaed individual, you seem to be intelligent. I applaud you for your efforts to defend your stance on "ANTI-CHRISTIANS"

You seem to think that disagreeing with you make me an Aniti-Christian. I don't care if you want to believe nonsense. This however is still a place for discusion. I like discussion and since I don't have the same oppinions as believers in many cases I tend to say so.

Well, I will say this, when the day of reckoning comes, and you stand before GOD ALMIGHTY with HIS SONJESUS CHRIST seated at his right, if you still dont believe in HIM, whom died for your Sinfulness, you will be 18" from Heaven, thaat being the distance between head knowledge of whom God is and Heart knowledge and belief in JESUS CHRIST as you LORD and SAVIOR!

IF there is a day of reckoning AND god is JUST as well as all those other things THEN god may actually notice what you haven't. That there is no reason for me to believe in the Bible and many reasons for me not to. Real world physical testable reasons and the Bible fails those tests in way too many cases.

IF I am punished for going on reality and for not believing until there is some actual evidence to cause me to believe then all I can say is that that god will NOT be a just one. You sure don't believe in a just god. Why do you think other christians are asking you to cool it?

I pray you repent and seek he whom does love and care for you!

~Peace~

There is nothing for me to repent. I am not an evil person. That the Bible insists that ALL men are evil is just more evidence to me that the Bible was written by rather narrow minded men in some parts. I hope that some day you will let reason and reality into your mind and see that YOU believe in a very unjust god. I am very glad to say with nor fear of error on my part that the Bible is just a set of books written by men with no more insight into reality than any other group of religious writers.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
So you discount in it's entirely that people may be here for a specific purpose?

There's no reason to discount it, but there's no reason to believe it either. If we start accepting one metaphysical claim as an excuse to do evil ("It was part of the Divine Plan, I had to betray my friend for cash money"), then we've got to accept all metaphysical excuses ("Snoggo commanded that I swindle the old lady, it's not my fault"). This wouldn't be the case if one metaphysical claim were objectively and demonstrably superior to another metaphysical claim (f'rinstance, if we could somehow prove that Snoggo doesn't exist), but as yet (and I suspect for all time) there is no objective and demonstrable deicision process for determining what metaphysical claims are valid or invalid. Judas can make all of the excuses he wants, but the fact remains (assuming for the sake of argument that the Bible presents the whole story) that he betrayed a friend for cash money.

What's curious is how the big, bad Atheists feel threatened by people of faith.
If they're a "straight" Atheist, they don't particularly feel called upon to bash Gays or Bisexuals, and vice-versa.
The only thing that rings their chimes is this one subject,
like that's all they have going for them, disbelief.
Pretty sad existence.
Not that I waste any tears on them.
I personally couldn't care less.

Am I one of the big, bad Atheists you're referring to here? If no, then that's fine (but be aware that when you throw insults around in the same post in which you respond to me, it's pretty easy for me to think that the insults are directed at me), becaue the hard-core atheists are every bit as loopy as the Fundamentalists in my book. If yes, then wrap around my ass.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
My picking and choosing is no more so than what a lot of Christians do to present God in the light they see him as.

Does that justify it?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
. . . the Bible fails those tests in way too many cases.

Is this another case of you making a negative statement about the Bible using a Fundamentalist argument or do you believe this yourself?

If you believe this, which tests does it fail?

[ckweb]

Your KJV Image

Originally posted by Troll
Of course..there is always the "Smoking" section of eternity....

Re: your image of the KJV 1611.

Are you KJV only?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Not that I waste any tears on them.
I personally couldn't care less.

Seems very un-Christian of you . . .

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


Is this another case of you making a negative statement about the Bible using a Fundamentalist argument or do you believe this yourself?

If you believe this, which tests does it fail?

I don't agree with your ideas on the Bible and I have good reason. If the Bible is so open to interpretation that it can be construed as to match the real world then it sure is badly written for something that is supposed to represent the actual intent of the creator of the the Universe. Without such it has no more value than anyother religious writings that have many things wrong. Surely the god of the Bible has the capacity to make sure that the book that is supposed to represent it is accurate enough that it doesn't look exactly like superstious nonsense. Such a god would be capable of dealing with translations. So that bit of Apoligism doesn't cut it with me.

I completely agree with the Fundamentalists on this. If it isn't right its not the word of god. If it isn't I see nothing special about it.

YOUR ideas on the Bible seem to be that it what was written by fallible men and its all open to interpretation. In which case I see no reason to think of it as in any way anything different from any other religious writings. That it has some verifiable historical events does not change this. After all its a collection of both religion and history and a heck of lot legend with some pure myth.

I am sure you will disgree with my concept of your thinking but so far I have yet to see a good reason from you why I should believe it especially since you don't believe much of it yourself.

You know perfectly which tests fail. There was no world wide flood. The world was not created as the Bible says. There was no Adam and Eve. Those are events I can check on. They didn't happen. That you choose to go vague on these checkable things only shows that you do not really believe in the Bible any more than I do.

There is only one thing wrong with Fundamentalism. The world and the Bible do not match. If they did I would be a Christian. As it is the Bible looks exactly like normal, superstitious, largely ignorant men wrote it no matter which version you use. It has no sign of devine control and frankly saying 'inspired by god' has no meaning. Bach was inspired by his view of god but he was not a prophet just a very good composer and musician.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I don't agree with your ideas on the Bible and I have good reason. If the Bible is so open to interpretation that it can be construed as to match the real world then it sure is badly written for something that is supposed to represent the actual intent of the creator of the the Universe. Without such it has no more value than anyother religious writings that have many things wrong. Surely the god of the Bible has the capacity to make sure that the book that is supposed to represent it is accurate enough that it doesn't look exactly like superstious nonsense. Such a god would be capable of dealing with translations. So that bit of Apoligism doesn't cut it with me.

It's not an Apologism. What I do and how I study the Bible is to accept it for what it is not turn it into something it isn't as Fundamentalists do. . . It has nothing to do with making it "so open to interpretation that it can be construed as to match the real world." There are correct interpretations and incorrect ones; it just so happens that when interpreted correctly the Bible often does provide an accurate portrait of the real world on philosophical, theological, practical, and even historical levels. Fundamentalists simply interpret it incorrectly and naively; and it appears, although you ultimately disagree with Fundamentalists on the issue of accuracy, that you also interpret it incorrectly and naively. It only looks like superstitious nonsense because you haven't spent the time to study and understand it in the context (I'm not trying to be a condescending; you've just told me that you've never read past Genesis and Exodus). You use your time to take on misguided individuals like Troll and other Fundamentalists.

BTW, you're employing a logical fallacy in your argumentation when you reject the Bible, or any other religious writing for that matter, totus pro parte on suspicion or even denial of some of its parts.

But if you want to go thinking like Fundamentalists by approaching the Bible as a modernist, go right ahead. You don't have a good reason, though.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


It's not an Apologism. What I do and how I study the Bible is to accept it for what it is not turn it into something it isn't as Fundamentalists do. . . It has nothing to do with making it "so open to interpretation that it can be construed as to match the real world." There are correct interpretations and incorrect ones.

There are questionable ones and dubious ones and arrogant ones as well. You sure are sure you have the correct ones.

Fundamentalists simply interpret it incorrectly and naively;

I don't see that. They do it naivly yes but I see no reason to call that incorrect.

and it appears, although you ultimately disagree with Fundamentalists on the issue of accuracy, that you also interpret it incorrectly and naively.

So where was Eden? Its not a naive question. I still see nothing special in your version. It looks remarkably like saying 'Its correct when it cannot be disproved and it just a story when it can be disproven'. It would be naive of me to think otherwise. You claims that it is done by internal evidence does not hold up. I showed that before with the Flood that is clearly thought of as real and not a story when it is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. The only reason you differed with me on that is that you do know the Flood didn't happen. The internal evidence of the Bible shows it as a real event.

It only looks like superstitious nonsense because you haven't spent the time to study and understand it in the context (I'm not trying to be a condescending; you've just told me that you've never read past Genesis and Exodus). You use your time to take on nikumpoops like Troll and other Fundamentalists.

How christian of you.

It is superstitious nonsense in parts. If the parts I can check, Exodus and Geneisis are wrong I see no reason to believe the parts I cannot check and I cannot check much in the Bible. Almost nothing in the New Testament is verifiable for instance. Just a few names.

BTW, you're employing a logical fallacy in your argumentation when you reject the Bible, or any other religious writing for that matter, totus pro parte based on suspicion (or outright rejection) of some of its parts.

Not at all. There is no fallacy involved in that. If its the word of a perfect god as christians claim or even simply about a perfect god I see nothing to believe in if the book itself isn't perfect considering the only devine actions that I can check fail the checks. I can't check them all because some don't make statements that are testable. In fact there are NO testable violations of natural in the Bible EXCEPT those that have failed the tests. Not one postive test. While the absence of evidence does not constite evidence of absence it does point to it especialy when the Bible is hitting zero on all testable devine actions and events.

But if you want to go thinking like Fundamentalists by approaching the Bible as a modernist, go right ahead. You don't have a good reason, though.

I have very good reason, you just don't like it. The Bible looks exactly like it was written by largely ignorant men. You have given me no reason at all to think of it anyother way unless you want to call pleading a reason.

As I said before the Fundamentalists have this part right. Its right or just the writings of men. Its not right so its just the writings of men. There is nothing special in that so there is no reason to believe in the untestable things in it.

[Seeker]

Another religion thread....my thoughts are availbable in many archived threads.

"As I said; I don't believe in any of you, that I have not personally seen, and therefore have no compelling validation that you truly exist."


Excellent thought. Serious I hope?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
There are questionable ones and dubious ones and arrogant ones as well. You sure are sure you have the correct ones.

I didn't say I have all the correct ones. But, what I will say, is that my methodology is more sound than Fundamentalists and therefore is more likely to lead to correct interpretations.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I don't see that. They do it naivly yes but I see no reason to call that incorrect.

That's because, as I've said, you don't study it enough. If you study the original languages, comparative literature, literary theory, etc., it would be obvious that the Fundamentalists are incorrect in many interpretations.

Originally posted by Ethelred
So where was Eden? Its not a naive question. I still see nothing special in your version. It looks remarkably like saying 'Its correct when it cannot be disproved and it just a story when it can be disproven'. It would be naive of me to think otherwise. You claims that it is done by internal evidence does not hold up. I showed that before with the Flood that is clearly thought of as real and not a story when it is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. The only reason you differed with me on that is that you do know the Flood didn't happen. The internal evidence of the Bible shows it as a real event.

In previous threads, I have shown you a considerable amount of internal evidence. You have simply chosen to ignore it either by not reading what I have written or simply choosing to believe that it is not so.

You did not show that a real Flood is required by the biblical text or to substantiate belief in God. Y'know, if there was a real, universal Flood, it wouldn't prove the existence of God to you so why do you even bother?!

Originally posted by Ethelred
How christian of you.

Fair enough. I edited my post . . . I was attempting to make a playful remark eluding to Trolls tendency to make arguments in direct contradiction to evidence and to proselytize rather than discuss. I assumed that "nikumpoop" would not be offensive. But, I re-considered, even before your post, and amended my initial post.

Originally posted by Ethelred
It is superstitious nonsense in parts. If the parts I can check, Exodus and Geneisis are wrong I see no reason to believe the parts I cannot check and I cannot check much in the Bible. Almost nothing in the New Testament is verifiable for instance. Just a few names.

From what I can tell you have only disproved a Fundamentalist reading of Genesis 1-3 and 6-10. To reject the rest of the Bible simply on the basis of two stories (and a particular interpretation of the stories at that) seems unfairly dismissive. Particularly in light of the significant amount of inscriptional, archaeological, sociological, anthropological, cultural, etc. etc. evidence that suggest the Bible's historical books present a conceivable picture and in many instances very accurate picture of events. (Remember, history does not deal in certainities the way science does).

Here is just some of the inscriptions that support biblical claims:

Tel Dan Stela
Mesha Stela
Black Obelisk of the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III
Annals of Tiglath-Pileser III
Annals of Sargon II
Kurkh Monolith of the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III
Tell Al-Rimah stela of Adad-Nirari III
Taylor Prism of the Assyrian King Sennacherib
Bull Inscription of Sennacherib
Nebi Yebus Slab of Sennacherib
Prism B of the Assyrian King of Esarhaddon
Rassam Cylinder of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal
Ration documents of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II

This, of course, is just a spattering of the inscriptions relevant to the Bible's portrayal of history. There are more inscriptions and considerable archaeological evidence relevant to the issues.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not at all. There is no fallacy involved in that. If its the word of a perfect god as christians claim or even simply about a perfect god I see nothing to believe in if the book itself isn't perfect considering the only devine actions that I can check fail the checks. I can't check them all because some don't make statements that are testable. In fact there are NO testable violations of natural in the Bible EXCEPT those that have failed the tests. Not one postive test. While the absence of evidence does not constite evidence of absence it does point to it especialy when the Bible is hitting zero on all testable devine actions and events.

A book about a perfect god written by imperfect humans has to be perfect . . .

Originally posted by Ethelred
I have very good reason, you just don't like it.

You are right. You have a reason. It's just based on misinformation, misinterpretation, and misconceptions. And, in some cases, it's less a reason and more a preference to believe something else.

Originally posted by Ethelred
The Bible looks exactly like it was written by largely ignorant men. You have given me no reason at all to think of it anyother way unless you want to call pleading a reason.

As I said before the Fundamentalists have this part right. Its right or just the writings of men. Its not right so its just the writings of men. There is nothing special in that so there is no reason to believe in the untestable things in it.

The writings of men can not be special . . .

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Seeker
Another religion thread....my thoughts are availbable in many archived threads.

"As I said; I don't believe in any of you, that I have not personally seen, and therefore have no compelling validation that you truly exist."


Excellent thought. Serious I hope?

The person simply has an excessive degree of skepticism.

EDIT: Y'know historical skepticism of biblical events, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ or other miracles, is in some respects mirrored by the skepticism that already exists, just one year removed, surrounding the cause of WTC collapse. There are people in this forum who genuinely believe that airplanes could not have caused the WTC to collapse; yet they watched it happen on television. Other conspiracy theorists have come up with crazy explanations that the US Gov't was involved in perpetrating the crime. If those sorts of skeptics can exist with an event as public and recent as this one, it simply doesn't surprise me that people will reject the historical witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. If an idea or concept exists outside a person's worldview, people today require scientific-type evidence to even entertain the notion. Yet, ironically, they will accept the stupidest ideas on the flimiest of evidence so long as the idea falls within their worldview.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb

I didn't say I have all the correct ones. But, what I will say, is that my methodology is more sound than Fundamentalists and therefore is more likely to lead to correct interpretations.

Only if you don't believe that Jehovah directed the writing of the Bible. Once that assumption is made the rest follows.

That's because, as I've said, you don't study it enough. If you study the original languages, comparative literature, literary theory, etc., it would be obvious that the Fundamentalists are incorrect in many interpretations.

No. Its because I haven't a different point of view. I see no reason to study a religious belief to that extent when it still comes out looking like the writing of men.

In previous threads, I have shown you a considerable amount of internal evidence. You have simply chosen to ignore it either by not reading what I have written or simply choosing to believe that it is not so.

I showed you internal evidence that the Flood is treated as real in the Bible which casts doubt on you claims of superior understanding. You haven't actually shown me the evidence I asked for. Internal evidence from a book that has clearly been modified or at least edited over time can only be used to disprove the Bible not prove it. External evidence is needed to prove it. External evidence of acts that are impossible yet claimed real in the Bible are what I need for that. All such claims in the Bible either are untestable or fail the test.

You did not show that a real Flood is required by the biblical text or to substantiate belief in God. Y'know, if there was a real, universal Flood, it wouldn't prove the existence of God to you so why do you even bother?!

I don't have to. I said I would consider it as substantiating the Bible which is what counts for me. I allready said if the impossible events in the Bible could be proved real I would be a Christian so you are just making up my position to avoid what I allready clearly stated. Why do you try to make up my postion like that in a reply to a post where I clearly stated the opposite?

From what I can tell you have only disproved a Fundamentalist reading of Genesis 1-3 and 6-10. To reject the rest of the Bible simply on the basis of two stories (and a particular interpretation of the stories at that) seems unfairly dismissive.

Only because you are a believer. There is nothing unfair about it. I can check those things. I can't check the others. Well not all of them. There are those claims of cities that will never be inhabited again that were.

Particularly in light of the significant amount of inscriptional, archaeological, sociological, anthropological, cultural, etc. etc. evidence that suggest the Bible's historical books present a conceivable picture and in many instances very accurate picture of events. (Remember, history does not deal in certainities the way science does).

Only things that are physicaly possible have been confirmed. None of the things that would require a god. Those are the things that would constitute proof. Those are the things that where they can be checked fail the checks.

Here is just some of the inscriptions that support biblical claims:

Tel Dan Stela
Mesha Stela
Black Obelisk of the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III
Annals of Tiglath-Pileser III
Annals of Sargon II
Kurkh Monolith of the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III
Tell Al-Rimah stela of Adad-Nirari III
Taylor Prism of the Assyrian King Sennacherib
Bull Inscription of Sennacherib
Nebi Yebus Slab of Sennacherib
Prism B of the Assyrian King of Esarhaddon
Rassam Cylinder of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal
Ration documents of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II

Are any of those of evidence of miracles or devine intervention. And I mean real evidence rather than someone quoting a Jewish claim?

I told you before I have no doubt that some parts are at least history with a spin even if not perfectly accurate. Some is likely completely accurate. None of those things however require devine intervention.

This, of course, is just a spattering of the inscriptions relevant to the Bible's portrayal of history. There are more inscriptions and considerable archaeological evidence relevant to the issues.

Then they are irrelevant. They only show that some parts of the Bible are real and none of the ones in question. Its just the writings of men with this which is clearly something I didn't deny.

A book about a perfect god written by imperfect humans has to be perfect . . .

Its up to the god to make it so. Its not up to me to patch it up for it.

You are right. You have a reason. It's just based on misinformation, misinterpretation, and misconceptions. And, in some cases, it's less a reason and more a preference to believe something else.

No misinformation, no misinterpretation, and no misconceptions are involved. Only a request for evidence of the god of the Bible. Without such it reamains a book by men with no special value regarding mans alleged relationship with the god of the Bible.

The writings of men can not be special . . .

You sure do have a strange problem with this concept. Special as in a real relationship with a god. That would be special. I don't see anything shows that kind of special nature in the Bible when checked against the real world. A world wide flood would certainly be at least one point of for the Bible whereas at the moment there are none.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Only if you don't believe that Jehovah directed the writing of the Bible. Once that assumption is made the rest follows.

How so? Especially if you are reading and interpreting in context . . . And, what do you mean by "directed"?

Originally posted by Ethelred I showed you internal evidence that the Flood is treated as real in the Bible which casts doubt on you claims of superior understanding. You haven't actually shown me the evidence I asked for. Internal evidence from a book that has clearly been modified or at least edited over time can only be used to disprove the Bible not prove it. External evidence is needed to prove it. External evidence of acts that are impossible yet claimed real in the Bible are what I need for that. All such claims in the Bible either are untestable or fail the test.

You misunderstood what I meant. I showed you internal evidence proving that the Creation and Flood stories are ahistorical. I didn't claim it proved the Bible.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I don't have to. I said I would consider it as substantiating the Bible which is what counts for me. I allready said if the impossible events in the Bible could be proved real I would be a Christian so you are just making up my position to avoid what I allready clearly stated. Why do you try to make up my postion like that in a reply to a post where I clearly stated the opposite?

I'm not trying to make up your position; only reading it as best I can. If I misread, I apologize. I'm not sure I did what you accuse me of doing, though. I merely questioned why the issue of the Flood, if proved to have happened, would be of any value to you? If science demonstrated conclusively that a universal Flood happened, it wouldn't prove that God caused it or that Noah built a ship and preserved the animals. So, I'm asking what's the point. You'd still have ample reason to be the skeptic you are.

So, if a Flood happened that would substantiate the Bible . . . what does that mean? How does an historical Flood substantiate the Bible in a manner superior to the inscriptions I've listed that corroborate other historical events in the Bible? I'm confused by your position.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Only because you are a believer. There is nothing unfair about it. I can check those things. I can't check the others. Well not all of them. There are those claims of cities that will never be inhabited again that were.

If you are going to move into prophecy, please don't make the mistake of that infidels website that takes texts out of context. Many prophecies in the Bible are contigent on a response or a certain event taking place, i.e. if Israel does this, than this will happen. Obviously, if Israel does not do this, than that will not happen.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Only things that are physicaly possible have been confirmed. None of the things that would require a god. Those are the things that would constitute proof. Those are the things that where they can be checked fail the checks.

But if the Bible is a historically reliable source in the physical things, wouldn't it be more logical to take the position that it is also reliable in the spiritual things rather than continuing in a position of skepticism?

Originally posted by Ethelred
Are any of those of evidence of miracles or devine intervention. And I mean real evidence rather than someone quoting a Jewish claim?

No, they are not evidence of miracles or divine intervention. Yes, they are real evidence. They do not quote Jewish claims. They are wholly independent inscriptions that corroborate a variety of historical events in the period of the Israelite Kings. Some of the evidence certainly allows the possibility of a divine intervention.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I told you before I have no doubt that some parts are at least history with a spin even if not perfectly accurate. Some is likely completely accurate. None of those things however require devine intervention.

True. But, doesn't it suggest the Bible is reliable source and the authors were not attempting to mislead people?

Originally posted by Ethelred
Then they are irrelevant. They only show that some parts of the Bible are real and none of the ones in question. Its just the writings of men with this which is clearly something I didn't deny.

They are not irrelevant. They add weight and value to the Bible as an historical source.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Its up to the god to make it so. Its not up to me to patch it up for it.

Why does god have to make a book written about him by imperfect humans perfect?

Originally posted by Ethelred
No misinformation, no misinterpretation, and no misconceptions are involved. Only a request for evidence of the god of the Bible. Without such it reamains a book by men with no special value regarding mans alleged relationship with the god of the Bible.

But you are reading the narratives as a Fundamentalist, just diagreeing on their accuracy, so yes you are misinformed and you do have misconceptions. You reject the Bible because you think it makes claims in Genesis 1-3 and 6-10 that contradict science and the "real world." But, if read as the text demands, one realizes the text does not make the claims you insist it does.

Originally posted by Ethelred
You sure do have a strange problem with this concept. Special as in a real relationship with a god. That would be special. I don't see anything shows that kind of special nature in the Bible when checked against the real world. A world wide flood would certainly be at least one point of for the Bible whereas at the moment there are none.

No strange problem: why can't imperfect men write something special, imperfectly, about a real relationship with a real god?

Again, why would a world wide flood be one point for the Bible while you reject the efficacy of other historical events the Bible accurately portrays? What would make a world wide flood, supported by scientific evidence, so special? I don't understand.

[Seeker]

'excessive' skepticism?

How can there be such a thing?

What is a proper level of skepticism?

Who defines it?

Everything is uncertain.

We are blind men in a tiny pool of light surrounded by an infinity of darkness and it is not meant that we should venture far.

'God' is a meaningless word for me.