Any Christians out there?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Seeker
'excessive' skepticism?

How can there be such a thing?

What is a proper level of skepticism?

Who defines it?

Common sense. Pragmatics.

One can intellectualize all one wants but at a certain point, one has to just acknowledge that the most likely conclusion is __________.

Originally posted by Seeker
Everything is uncertain.

How do you live like that? I bet you don't live like that. I bet that everyday you assume a whole variety of things are certain. Why when you start talking philosophically are you so willing to put aside your experiential, pragmatic resolutions regarding certainity?

Originally posted by Seeker
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.

What leads you to the conclusion that we should not venture far?

Originally posted by Seeker
'God' is a meaningless word for me.

Here, let me give it some meaning, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

[Ethelred]

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

Your last question shows the other questions are based on a lack of understanding. Directed, dictated, inspired whatever you want to call it. It still comes down to wether the Bible shows the hand of Jehovah or just the hand of falible men. There is still nothing special (are going to misunderstand yet again? You have managed it at least three times so far.) in the writings of mere men.

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.

I showed you internal evidence the the Flood was considered real. You did NOT show otherwise. You showed choices of style that you contend are a sign that its just a story. I showed people acting as if it was real. If the people in the Bible don't agree with you I see no reason to.

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 see no other way to take it. I said that if the impossible parts of the Bible were shown real I would be a christian and in reply you contradicted that statement.

I merely questioned why the issue of the Flood, if proved to have happened, would be of any value to you?

You didn't question. You stated my postition. It didn't look like a chalenge to me.

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.

A universal flood is physcialy impossible with some sort of literaly godlike intervention. Even one of Arthur C. Clarkes aliens would have a hard time bringing in and then removing more water than there is on the Earth. Such a flood would ALSO require that someone saved animals and men. That too would be impossible with the Ark described in the Bible but with an impossible flood it could be construed that an impossible arc might somehow be miracled into action. The genetics would be a problem but only if the genetics were the same as they really are which of course is part of the evidence that the flood did not occur. If all land animals had extremely resticted gene variation in comparison to sea animals that would be indicitive of a disaster like the flood.

[QUOTE] 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.[QUOTE]

I am guessing you just didn't want to think this through because it pretty obvious. If an impossible event occured that is in the Bible that at the very least lends credence to that impossible events we cannot check. The whole concept of miracles versus history seems to utterly escape your grasp. You keep making the bogus claim that the mundane justifies the impossible. It does not. It only justifies the mundane.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You are trying to apply ordinary evidence that only supports ordinary event that I haven't questioned to extraordinary claims. Anything that is outside the physical laws of the Universe like a god or a flood with more water than the Earth has is certainly extraordinary.

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.

Many were not contingent on anything or were contingent on the Israelites doing things they did do.

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?

No. Not in the least. This is simply pleading that a few unsurprising completley possible events somehow justifies the impossible EVEN though EVERY impossible event that can be checked fails the check.

No, they are not evidence of miracles or divine intervention. Yes, they are real evidence.

No they are not evidence for the god of the Bible UNLESS they are evidence of divine intervention. They are only confimation that the Bible has some historical events in it. Something I have pointed out to you MANY times that I don't deny.

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.

Or the complete lack of interventioin. Its possible that the unatural events in Exodus occured. We have no evidence that they did not. Neither do we have any that they did. You pulled this fallacy before. You are acting as if a possibility somehow magicaly becomes a reality if no one can disprove it. Its the other way around. You make the extraordinary claim so you must prove it.

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

No. However when the heck did I claim anyone was trying to mislead? All it does is show that the Bible tends to have some real events in it. So does the writings of Snorri Sturleson but the fact of the existance of people like Hrolf Kraki in those writings does not costititute evidence for the existance of Thor or Odin who I think may be in Hrolf Saga Kraki. I am going on Poul Anderson's books on this. I can't read Icelandic.

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

Only on historical matters. Not on religious ones or devine interaction.

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

Because otherwise it remains what I think it is. A book written by fallible men with no special value.

But you are reading the narratives as a Fundamentalist, just diagreeing on their accuracy, so yes you are misinformed and you do have misconceptions.

I am reading them as they are written. You have a lot of misconception about logic as your claims that real historical events imply that impossible events happened.

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.

As you demand. Not the text. I showed you that the people in the Bible don't agree with you on the flood. You are using modern ideas to claim that the ancients thought as you do.

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

They can. But there is no reason to believe if all the extraordinary claims that can be checked fail the checks. Don't pretend I am misinterpreting. They most certainly thought the Flood was a real event as it is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible and in every instance it was treated as real and nowhere is treated as a story.

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?

You are being amazingly dense on this. And making things about yet again. I never claimed the Bible is inaccurate on historicaly verifiable events. I only said that such events have no relevence to the validity of extraordinary claims.

Yet again since you seem bound and determined to ignore this:

Carl Sagan:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.



Mundane events are not in question. So they are irrelevant. Only the extraordinary claims are relevant and some of them can be checked. Those that can fail the checks. Again your interpretations are yours. I am not beholden to them and in any case I have ample evidence that your interpretations would be denied by many of the Bibles authors since they treat the Flood as real in every passage where it is mentioned outside of Genesis.

What would make a world wide flood, supported by scientific evidence, so special? I don't understand.

And you claim I have misconceptions. How can you not understand that an extraordinary event that is shown to REAL when tested would enhance the possibility of reality in the cases that can't be tested?

Third time since you evaded it in all previous discusions you must be having a hard time with this very basic concept.

Carl Sagan:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinarly proof.

My extension to Sagans statement:
Not mere mundane evidence for things that no one is questioning.

[Lars-E]

I'm a christian. And I have that book "Jesus Freaks". It's very good. Almost a must imo.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb

How do you live like that? I bet you don't live like that. I bet that everyday you assume a whole variety of things are certain. Why when you start talking philosophically are you so willing to put aside your experiential, pragmatic resolutions regarding certainity?

Its easy. I know I live like that so I don't see why he couldn't.

Everything I think I know is tentative and subject to change. GIVEN sufficient cause. An assumption is not the same thing as knowing with absolute certainty. In many cases the level of uncertaintity is quite low. I am more than reasonabley certain the Earth will continue to rotate. I see no reason to think otherwise. However if you can show how it could happen then I would have to change that assumption. So far I am pretty sure the Sun didn't really stop as claimed in the Bible. That one cannot be checked though, despite a fairy story that occasionaly makes the rounds of Fundamentalists.

For instance I used to think that electrons orbited the nucleus of the atom. Now I know to a higher degree of certainty that they don't. Things would be different if they did.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Do you folks know anything about the blood of Christ?

Yes.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Good ol' Troll. If you aren't for his god you will burn forever. But its not personal. After all its doesn't have a thing to do with a person's behaviour just belief. So Hitler goes to Heaven and a 3 year old child in New Guinee goes to Hell because it never even heard of a Christian.

The last part there must be catholic. It certainly is not protestant. You seem to be suffering from your catholic school/upbringing? Turned you into a godhater?

[Robert]

Ethelred: So far I am pretty sure the Sun didn't really stop as claimed in the Bible. That one cannot be checked though, despite a fairy story that occasionaly makes the rounds of Fundamentalists.

I can see your idea, but you're not following it the honest way. There is no way you can be sure that the sun didn't stop. You were not there at that moment, and it's scientific impossible prove it never happened.

It morely depends on the question if a super-natural force exists that commit these things.

*IF* such a force does exist all those things 'fundamentalists' believe in, are suddenly realistic.

The thing is that we, 'fundamentalists' do actually believe in such a force. To us it is realistic. To you it is not realistic, because you don't believe in such a force.

Neither you or me can prove such a force does or does not exist. We can trow our personal arguments into the debate, like we say "look at his actions, you can see the force through it's actions" and you say "but those actions are not committed by a force but by natural causes" and that's what our debate is.

It's defenitely not a clean way of debating to title us 'fundamentalists' because of our believe system.
A fundamentalist is someone who wants to push his ideas through the troat of others. Pherhaps by violence, or pherhaps by complaining all the time to his neighbour that he's not supposed to do that and that.

I will agree with you if you name *some* christians who actually do that, fundamentalists.
But you can't push that title through our troats, because we are debating, like you are debating.

If we are fundamentalists, than so are you. Both of us are sure about our cases, and both of us try to convince the other. I think that's the purpose of a debate.

Me myself think it's very un-christian to push our believe system through troats of others. Of course I want to spread the message, but I will never do so against the will of people. And I will for sure never tell people what to do and what not to do. That's not my 'mission'.

Conclusion: stop the personal insulting.
Pherhaps someone might look like a fundamentalist in YOUR eyes, but again, that's only because that someone's opinion differs from your opinion. And pherhaps the majority of the people right now shares your opinion, that still doesn't mean you have the right opinion.

CyberShy

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Asher
I find it amazing so many people in the world have so many different faiths and every single one of them honestly believes they're picking the right one.

There's a good reason for this.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lars-E


The last part there must be catholic. It certainly is not protestant.

Its Protestant. You simply don't know all of the varieties. You haven't read the thread either. It was Troll that was saying that eveyone that isn't christian goes to Hell. He then backed off a bit for three year olds. There are plenty of Protestants that wouldn't. I guess you haven't run accross the type.

You seem to be suffering from your catholic school/upbringing?

Now that is pure Protestant. False too. I am not suffering from having a Catholic upbringing. I simply noticed that not only were the Protestants wrong the Catholics were too.

Turned you into a godhater?

I can't hate something I don't think exists. I know a lot of people have a hard time accepting this but it really should to be obvious. You have to believe in a god to hate it. I suspect some Atheists may fit your preconception. I am Agnostic. If given REAL evidence for a god I think I could manage to accept it. I have found however most Christians have rather loose ideas about what constitutes evidence. Some don't. Those are the ones that know that the existence of god can be neither proven nor disproven.

[Ethelred]

Yet another poster attacking for their own misunderstanding. In this case Cybershy seem to laboring under the impression that "Fundamenalist" is an insult and he has taken to task for his own mistaken idea.

Originally posted by CyberShy
I can see your idea, but you're not following it the honest way. There is no way you can be sure that the sun didn't stop. You were not there at that moment, and it's scientific impossible prove it never happened.

I didn't say I was sure and that can be seen even in what you quoted. I said I was pretty sure. It scientificly impossible for it to have happened through natural law. You seem to have missed my saying there was no way to check it.

It morely depends on the question if a super-natural force exists that commit these things.

There is no evidence for any such entity. If one exists it has gone out of its way to hide the evidence.

*IF* such a force does exist all those things 'fundamentalists' believe in, are suddenly realistic.

Only if you ALSO assume the force made the Earth so it looks exactly like the Fundamentalists are wrong. If the god was deceptive with the world why not the Bible instead? I see no way to decide which once you assume the world was created by something so devious. That is why Fundamentlists usually try to obfuscate the evidence instead of claiming that Jehovah created the world to look like the Bible is wrong.

The thing is that we, 'fundamentalists' do actually believe in such a force. To us it is realistic. To you it is not realistic, because you don't believe in such a force.

Its unrealistic because there is zero evidence in the world around us to support the idea.

Neither you or me can prove such a force does or does not exist. We can trow our personal arguments into the debate, like we say "look at his actions, you can see the force through it's actions" and you say "but those actions are not committed by a force but by natural causes" and that's what our debate is.

No. Our debate is over the lack of evidence for the world you think we live in. Evolution is a real thing. The evidence is overwhelming. For the world to look the way it does and the Bible to be correct requires a god that is so deceptive that there is still no reason to believe the Bible.

It's defenitely not a clean way of debating to title us 'fundamentalists' because of our believe system.
A fundamentalist is someone who wants to push his ideas through the troat of others. Pherhaps by violence, or pherhaps by complaining all the time to his neighbour that he's not supposed to do that and that.

You have that wrong too. While some Fundamentalist do that not all do. A Christian Fudamenalist is simply someone that believes the Bible is literaly true. Ckweb claimed that was mostly a US idea. I think he may have gotten over that by now considering how many Europeans he has disagreed with on the Bible. Some fundamentalists are not Young Earth Creationists but most are. Either way if you believe in Adam and Eve and the Flood and the Tower of Babel you are pretty much a Fundamentalist.

I will agree with you if you name *some* christians who actually do that, fundamentalists.
But you can't push that title through our troats, because we are debating, like you are debating.

Its a word Cybershy. Its a way to refer to people without a massive circumlocution like 'the people that think the Bible is literly true wether they are pushy about it or not'. I think typing that out once should be enough. If you think the Bible is literaly true then you are by definition a Fundamentalist. If you don't then you arene't and I am not refering when I talk about Fundamentalists.

If we are fundamentalists, than so are you. Both of us are sure about our cases, and both of us try to convince the other. I think that's the purpose of a debate.

I can't be a fundamentalist. I don't believe the Bible is literly true. I know that there has never been a world wide flood for instance. You seem to have a problem with the word. Perhaps you simply didn't understand its meaning.

Me myself think it's very un-christian to push our believe system through troats of others. Of course I want to spread the message, but I will never do so against the will of people. And I will for sure never tell people what to do and what not to do. That's not my 'mission'.

Pushing is to some christians not a good thing. But the Bible does say to spread the word doesn't it? Some people put their emphasis in different parts of the Bible. Not surprising since on this issue you can find quotes in the Bible going either way. Yes its another thing the Bible contradicts itself on.

Conclusion: stop the personal insulting.

Where did I do that except in the case where Troll insulted me first?

Fundamenatlist is not an insult. If you have a problem with the word that is YOUR PERSONAL problem rather than an insult from me.

Pherhaps someone might look like a fundamentalist in YOUR eyes, but again, that's only because that someone's opinion differs from your opinion. And pherhaps the majority of the people right now shares your opinion, that still doesn't mean you have the right opinion.

CyberShy

You need to look the word up Cybershy. If you find the word insulting that is your problem. Few Fundamentalists would agree with you.

Now 'Fundy' is derogative to some degree and I never call anyone that. Its a lot easier to type though.

[Gangerolf]

you god-belivers; do you laugh at people who believe in UFOs, ghosts, Father Christmas, little people, trolls, unicorns and so on?

[Ethelred]

My mother told me that one of my great grand aunts put milk out for the Little People. That was when my mother was pretty young so maybe she was having her leg pulled.

[Gangerolf]

what's more bizarre:

a) putting out milk for the little people

or

b) going to church every sunday

[Robert]

I looked it up in the dutch dictionairy, I'm sure it won't be different than the english one. it says:

Fundamentalist:
follower of an orthodox unliberal religion.

conclusion: you're wrong.
Besides that: you don't get half of what I said. Reread it.

[Jack the Bodiless]

...Uh, CyberShy:

"Orthodox" and "unliberal" means they follow the Bible and don't allow loose, "liberal", allegorical interpretations.

Conclusion: he's right.