Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 10:38 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:19 AM)meremortal Wrote:  Somebody went to a fundy training class on how to debate atheists. Just keep throwing out "truth claim" and "evidence for that?" to every response.

I have no formal training in apologetics.

If I made a truth claim, for example: God exists, I would then be asked to give evidence of this claim and justifiably so.

If an atheist makes a truth claim, for example: The Bible is unreliable, then I expect them to give evidence of this claim.

(23-03-2014 10:19 AM)meremortal Wrote:  By the way, quoting christian apologists isn't "evidence" for your position.

Depends on the position I am arguing for. In certain cases, supplying expert testimony is evidence for a claim. Not unlike many atheists supply the expert testimony of scientists to support some of the claims they make.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:30 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  1. Never said christians can't be intellectuals. Slaves were intellectuals too. Being an intellectual doesn't mean they are not a slave. There is also a bias. Muslims say the same thing. They argue the same.

So? Flat earthers and round earthers exist. They both believe their views are right. That does not mean that the earth is both flat and round. To maintain this would be to commit a violation of the law of noncontradiction.

For example:

Either Christians are right when they maintain that Jesus died via crucifixion and Muslims are wrong, or Muslims are right and Christians are wrong.

Jesus either died via crucifixion, or He did not. He could not both have died and not died. It is either or. Muslims maintain that Jesus was indeed crucified but that He did not actually die. Christians claim that not only was He crucified, but that He actually died.

They are either both wrong, which history tells us is simply not plausible, or either Christians are right and Muslims are wrong or Muslims are right and Christians are wrong. Based on the evidence we have, Muslims are simply wrong on this issue. They are wrong even though they think they are right. They are wrong by virtue of the evidence, not my opinion.

(23-03-2014 10:30 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  2. there would be tons of evidence that can show who the killer was without eyewitness not just forensics.

Name some.



(23-03-2014 10:30 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Remember the the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

Often times quoted, infrequently understood. This simply is not always true. Wikipedia the topic for a summation of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 10:50 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Still not evidence for any god.
I have no where argued that an abundance of manuscript attestation is evidence for God. You have just erected a strawman.

Not strawman, preemptive strike.


(23-03-2014 10:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It is one of the most unreliable form of evidence, so unreliable in fact that it is inadmissible in science. If it's all you have, then you go to trial with the evidence you have, not the evidence you'd like. Lets also not forget that as it relates to the Gospels, they are not even eye-witness accounts, rather the accounts of hearsay (if not outright fabrication) written down decades or centuries after the supposed events, and written down in a language (Greek) not spoken by those who was being written about (Hebrew and Aramaic).
Science has no stock in what has happened in the past that is not repeatable and observable. It is limited primarily to the here and now. So using this rationale to discredit the validity of eyewitness testimony is to misconstrue the fundamental nature of science.

You sir, are full of shit, and wouldn't know science if it reared up and bit you in the ass. You're pulling the same AIG/Ken Ham bullshit, and it's won't fly. Science is a method. You use it to make and test hypotheses with evidence, and this can be applied to the past, present, and future. Eyewitness testimony is simply very unreliable, and this has been shown with the use of science.






(23-03-2014 10:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The Gospels changed Hitler's life, and the lives of those who followed his message of hate in the name of the Christian God.
Since the gospels do not contain a message of hate, but rather that men should love one another as they love themselves, then it cannot be reasonably said that the gospels were Hitler's inspiration for his hate campaign.

There was also a man named Ananias who, with his wife, Sapphira, sold some property. He brought part of the money to the apostles, but he claimed it was the full amount. His wife had agreed to this deception. Then Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart? You lied to the Holy Spirit, and you kept some of the money for yourself. The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was yours to give away. How could you do a thing like this? You weren't lying to us but to God." As soon as Ananias heard these words, he fell to the floor and died. Everyone who heard about it was terrified. Then some young men wrapped him in a sheet and took him out and buried him. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, "Was this the price you and your husband received for your land?" "Yes," she replied, "that was the price." And Peter said, "How could the two of you even think of doing a thing like this – conspiring together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Just outside that door are the young men who buried your husband, and they will carry you out, too." Instantly, she fell to the floor and died. When the young men came in and saw that she was dead, they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear gripped the entire church and all others who heard what had happened. (Acts 5:1-11 NLT)

How about Jesus's thoughts on slavery?

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Love your neighbor indeed. Drinking Beverage

Not only that, but for all your claims, the Bible did nothing to prevent Hitler and an entire nation full of Christians from committing such atrocities. So much for the power of the Bible to make changes in people's lives for the better...


(23-03-2014 10:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Not everyone who reads the Gospels changes for the better,
I have never argued the contrary.

Then you are either disingenuous or ignorant. If a fact can be used in support of multiple mutually exclusive explanations, it is ultimately evidence for none of them. So either you brought up the original point hoping that I wouldn't be able to turn it around, or you were too stupid to realize that I could; the point being that it was never any sort of evidence to support your original assertion.


(23-03-2014 10:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  nor is changing for the better limited only to people who read the Bible.
Once again, I am not arguing this. Strawmanning is easy. Addressing my points is more difficult.

You have no point besides obfuscation and shifting the burden of proof. You are a sad amatuer apolgist indeed.


(23-03-2014 10:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 10:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  There are people who have life changing experiences while reading the Qu'ran, the Vedas, or Shakspeare. Changes in behavior are not evidence for the truth of the Gospels, or the existence of your god.
Precisely, nor is that my argument. The list of ten evidences I said ARE NOT EXHAUSTIVE and are to be taken cumulatively, not individually.

Even culmalatively, they are not evidence. 10 bad arguments does not magically become better evidence than 1 bad argument, it is simply 10 bad arguments. If you make it 20 bad arguments, you still don't have any better evidence; you just have more bad arguments. If you really think that multiplying bullshit gets you to some semblance of truth, you are far more fucking retarded than I would have originally given you credit for.

You are a hopeless fundy, and not even an interesting one.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-03-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:47 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 10:30 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  1. Never said christians can't be intellectuals. Slaves were intellectuals too. Being an intellectual doesn't mean they are not a slave. There is also a bias. Muslims say the same thing. They argue the same.

So? Flat earthers and round earthers exist. They both believe their views are right. That does not mean that the earth is both flat and round. To maintain this would be to commit a violation of the law of noncontradiction.

For example:

Either Christians are right when they maintain that Jesus died via crucifixion and Muslims are wrong, or Muslims are right and Christians are wrong.

Jesus either died via crucifixion, or He did not. He could not both have died and not died. It is either or. Muslims maintain that Jesus was indeed crucified but that He did not actually die. Christians claim that not only was He crucified, but that He actually died.

They are either both wrong, which history tells us is simply not plausible, or either Christians are right and Muslims are wrong or Muslims are right and Christians are wrong. Based on the evidence we have, Muslims are simply wrong on this issue. They are wrong even though they think they are right. They are wrong by virtue of the evidence, not my opinion.

(23-03-2014 10:30 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  2. there would be tons of evidence that can show who the killer was without eyewitness not just forensics.

Name some.



(23-03-2014 10:30 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Remember the the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

Often times quoted, infrequently understood. This simply is not always true. Wikipedia the topic for a summation of it.

1. thats where evidence kicks in. The evidence you gave for the bible is also used for the quran which makes both unprovable unless biased. The example you gave we make predictions that show the earth is round, and we have evidence for it.

2.Damage to the house, in angle the gun was shot, the injuries of the victim.

3. Only people who disagree with that are people with no evidence that want to stay slaves to religion. There is no evidence of godzilla, there for we can say godzilla is not real.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
23-03-2014, 11:01 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Science has no stock in what has happened in the past that is not repeatable and observable. It is limited primarily to the here and now. So using this rationale to discredit the validity of eyewitness testimony is to misconstrue the fundamental nature of science.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Observable

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...al-science

Drinking BeverageI have already done this. I get it you enjoy being a slave to Ken Ham, but you need to break those shackles of intellectual slavery.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
23-03-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Not strawman, preemptive strike.

Thumbsup


(23-03-2014 10:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You sir, are full of shit, and wouldn't know science if it reared up and bit you in the ass. You're pulling the same AIG/Ken Ham bullshit, and it's won't fly. Science is a method. You use it to make and test hypotheses with evidence, and this can be applied to the past, present, and future.

The following is worthy of reading for insight into the limitations of the method you espouse (for brevity I have listed two of the five the article mentions):

None among us doubts the tremendous strides science has made. Nor can there be any doubt about the benefits that have accrued to mankind as a result of scientific endeavor. However, as great as science is, and as wonderful as its benefits for humankind have been, the scientific method nevertheless is subject to certain limitations. Five readily come to mind.

1. The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the five senses. George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard, wrote: “It is inherent in any acceptable definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observations are not really about anything—or at the very least they are not science” (1964, 143:769). The Oxford Dictionary, in fact, defines science as “a branch of study which is concerned with a connected body of demonstrated truths or observed facts” (emp. added). It is only through use of the five senses that this observation takes place. As Duane Gish has noted: “Thus, for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be supported by events, processes, or properties which can be observed...” (1973, pp. 2-3). If something can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted, then science can deal with it. But to expect science to investigate something in the proverbial “sixth sense” is to demand too much of the scientific method, and lays it open to charges of abuse or misuse.

2. The scientific method is limited to the present. That science is limited to the present should be a self-evident, axiomatic truth, since the present is the only place and time in which the five senses operate. Enno Wolthius commented on this point when he wrote:

Science seeks to explain the behavior of that which is, and to check its explanation by means of experiments. But this experimental requirement can be met only in the present time. The past, and especially the beginning of things, lies beyond the grasp of this method, and so science can only speculate about the origin and history of the world (1963, p. 50).
To require science to make factual statements about pre-history is to prostitute the method. Since science is based upon observation, it must limit its scope to human history, where things can be properly observed and recorded. As Henry Morris and John Whitcomb have suggested: “Since historical geology, unlike other sciences, cannot deal with currently observable and reproducible events, it is manifestly impossible ever really to prove, by the scientific method, any hypothesis related to pre-human history” (1961, p. 213).

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte...rticle=315

(23-03-2014 10:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  There was also a man named Ananias who, with his wife, Sapphira, sold some property. He brought part of the money to the apostles, but he claimed it was the full amount. His wife had agreed to this deception. Then Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart? You lied to the Holy Spirit, and you kept some of the money for yourself. The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was yours to give away. How could you do a thing like this? You weren't lying to us but to God." As soon as Ananias heard these words, he fell to the floor and died. Everyone who heard about it was terrified. Then some young men wrapped him in a sheet and took him out and buried him. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, "Was this the price you and your husband received for your land?" "Yes," she replied, "that was the price." And Peter said, "How could the two of you even think of doing a thing like this – conspiring together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Just outside that door are the young men who buried your husband, and they will carry you out, too." Instantly, she fell to the floor and died. When the young men came in and saw that she was dead, they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear gripped the entire church and all others who heard what had happened. (Acts 5:1-11 NLT)

The above is a passage that recounts how two people died who lied to God.
This is what is referred to as "quote-mining", and is fallacious. You take eleven verse out of the context in which they were plucked and use them to support a view of scripture that is wholly unsupported by the rest of the New Testament.

(23-03-2014 10:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How about Jesus's thoughts on slavery?

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Love your neighbor indeed. Drinking Beverage

Once again, fallaciously quote-mining texts to support a view of the scriptures wholly unsupported by the New Testament is not convincing. Not only that, but you fail to realize Jesus is teaching via parable/allegory to convey a deeper spiritual truth. He essentially is telling these people that those who have seen and heard all that He had done and rejected Him would be dealt with more severely than those who had not heard and seen the things He had done. Those who have great knowledge will be responsible for what they did with their knowledge. This in no way nullifies His teachings that men are to love one another as they love themselves.

(23-03-2014 10:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Not only that, but for all your claims, the Bible did nothing to prevent Hitler and an entire nation full of Christians from committing such atrocities.

The Bible is a compilation of books and as such, possesses no "volitional capacity" to prevent anything. It would be strange to blame a book for not stopping people from harming one another. A book is an inanimate object. Rolleyes

(23-03-2014 10:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So much for the power of the Bible to make changes in people's lives for the better...

Even being charitable and granting that Hitler did glean his inspiration from twisting the texts to justify his own evils, this in no way undercuts or rebuts the argument that the Bible has been a source of inspiration in the betterment of millions of people's lives. Facepalm


(23-03-2014 10:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Then you are either disingenuous or ignorant. If a fact can be used in support of multiple mutually exclusive explanations, it is ultimately evidence for none of them. So either you brought up the original point hoping that I wouldn't be able to turn it around, or you were too stupid to realize that I could; the point being that it was never any sort of evidence to support your original assertion.

I brought up what I did in response to a person who asked me why I thought the bible was reliable. I see you overlooked the very first portion of what I wrote in my initial response to the person in question.

The main reason why I know the bible to be reliable is because I did what it said and received what it promised, i.e. a relationship with God Himself.




(23-03-2014 10:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Even culmalatively, they are not evidence. 10 bad arguments does not magically become better evidence than 1 bad argument, it is simply 10 bad arguments. If you make it 20 bad arguments, you still don't have any better evidence; you just have more bad arguments. If you really think that multiplying bullshit gets you to some semblance of truth, you are far more fucking retarded than I would have originally given you credit for.

You are a hopeless fundy, and not even an interesting one.

What is bad or good is largely subjective. This must be taken into account. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 11:54 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It means that "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." F.F. Bruce

Which has entirely nothing to do with the contents and their (lack of) worth.

So there's that.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Is this a truth claim, or just standard atheist rote?

I'm pretty sure "Christians considered Christian scripture [more] important" is a fairly uncontroversial statement.

Is "the sun rises" a truth claim?

You seem to have learned the phrases "claim" and "burden of proof", but you completely fail to understand them or apply them correctly. You should probably work on that.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Do you have evidence or argumentation to support this claim? Or is it just another atheist rote response?

Your assertion - y'know, the bit that happened first? - was that there was.

I deny that assertion. Prove me wrong!

But since you're curious:
Start here.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It means that eyewitness testimony can be used to ascertain certain facts regarding an event that is not subject to verification via scientific means.

There is eyewitness evidence for bigfoot and vegetable lambs. There is eyewitness evidence for alien abductions and the efficacy of sugar pills. There is eyewitness accounts for Elvis faking his own death.

I'm gonna need a little more substantial evidence before buying into your truth claim.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  There are many martyrs for other religions because they sincerely believe that their beliefs are true.

And thus it has no bearing on the truth of those beliefs. And you just said as much.

Which means your previous statement, that it did somehow lend credence to what Christians in particular belief, was entirely wrong and you acknowledge it as such. Why the heck did you bother saying it?

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I know of no one who has died for something they knew was a lie however.

What do you know - that's also meaningless.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Two truth claims above that need to be evidenced.

What, that eyewitnesses are unreliable? You somehow managed to be unaware of that? Really?

I don't need to spoon-feed you. Well - maybe I do, judging by your record so far. But tough shit. I'm not going to bother. You can verify that one for yourself.

But here's something to get you started, so far as "eyewitness" accounts in the New Testament completely contradicting each other goes.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you were knowledgeable on the subject, you would know that there are roughly nine extra-biblical references to Christ and Christians in ancient literary works. Far from one.

And references to Christians existing only demonstrate that Christians existed.

So there's that.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, later sources say Christians exist. That's - bear with me - also meaningless. The fact that Zoroastrians existed does not make Ahura-Mazda real.

This is demonstrably false. Simply reference the nine extra-biblical references that exist. A google search will help you here.

Hey, you do know what Google is! You could probably look up something like "reliability of eyewitness accounts" while you're at it.

But no, you literally just said above that the sources refer to Christians. Therefore they attest the existence of Christians. And that's it.

This is not complicated.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The Protestant Bible contains 66 books. Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic Bibles have different canons. Without mentioning the likes of, say, Mormons... Whoops!

The apocryphal books are recognized as containing some instructive writings but are not recognized as being inspired by God as the sixty six are. That is why most Bibles published today DO NOT contain the apocrypha.

"Most"?

Protestants are a minority of the world's Christians.

Just because you declare something "apocrypha" doesn't magically change the part where hundreds of millions of people disagree with you. So there's that.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The teachings of Mormonism stand in stark contrast with the teachings of orthodox Christianity in many crucial matters and are not even considered to be "Christian" in any historical sense of the word. So bringing them up is really moot.

Okay, then. What makes one "Christian"?

Because apparently belief in the divinity of Christ is not sufficient, nor is self-identifying as "Christian"...

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Even if this were true, which you have yet to demonstrate, so what?

It means cultural context actually matters, and you can't just make shit up and apply it retroactively.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Evidence for any of this?

Oh, sweet noodly appendage.

Can you do anything by yourself?

Read some history, friend. Once "orthodoxy" was settled, exactly how nicely were the likes of the Arians and Nestorians treated?

Protip: not nicely.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Lincoln embracing slavery is not evidence the Bible is not reliable, which is what the cumulative case is demonstrating. So this is a red herring.

No, the "case" is a vapid delusion that demonstrates nothing and as such a joke is more dismissal than is even required.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I guarantee with absolute certainty that you reject parts of Biblical "morality". Therefore you are applying some sort of pre-existing subjective filter to what you draw from it, rendering the point meaningless. Whoops!

Evidence for this?

Sure. Do you endorse slavery?

No?

Shucks. Guess you don't take all your Biblical morals at face value.

I wonder why that is?

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I will need you to provide evidence and good arguments for the assertions you made above.

Assertions like "the Iliad is an important piece of historical literature"?

No, I'm going to let that one rest. Maybe you should read a book sometime.

Assertions like "Christianity retarded science"?

Kinda self-evident, but okay.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The fact that people have been influenced by other religious writings in no way undercuts or rebuts the claim that the Bible is a reliable source of truth.

Wut.

It means that "being an influence on people" has necessarily no correlation with being "a reliable source of truth".

So we can discount "people have been influenced by the Bible" as in any way having anything to do with whatever reliable "truth" it might contain.

In other words, it literally and explicitly refutes the claim. So there's that.

(23-03-2014 10:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The ten points listed were not meant to be taken in isolation, bur rather as a cumulative case for the reliability of the bible as a source of truth. When taken together, all ten pieces of evidence must be explained.

Ah, see, the problem with that is, it's stupid.

If you aggregate a bunch of failures you just get a failure pile. They don't magically become more valid.

If you use them to attest each other then you are making a presuppositionally circular argument so bad it would make homeopaths blush.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 10:57 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  1. thats where evidence kicks in. The evidence you gave for the bible is also used for the quran

Really? The Quran is said to have the most manuscript attestation of any ancient work of literature?

Even if the above is argued, it is demonstrably false. The New Testament boasts far more manuscript attestation than the Quran and the New Testament is roughly six hundred years older.

Not only that, but I stated very clearly that the main means of my knowing the Bible to be reliable is that I did what it said and got what it promised, i.e. a personal relationship with God Himself.

No Muslim will say that for it is considered a blasphemy in Islam to state what I have just stated.


(23-03-2014 10:57 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  which makes both unprovable unless biased. The example you gave we make predictions that show the earth is round, and we have evidence for it.

Why?

(23-03-2014 10:57 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  3. Only people who disagree with that are people with no evidence that want to stay slaves to religion. There is no evidence of godzilla, there for we can say godzilla is not real.

I disagree with it and not for the reason you supplied.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:00 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 11:57 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Not only that, but I stated very clearly that the main means of my knowing the Bible to be reliable is that I did what it said and got what it promised, i.e. a personal relationship with God Himself.

Oh, how nice for you; unfalsifiable subjective personal experience.

I guess the null results are just not true Scotsmen?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 12:04 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 11:57 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 10:57 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  1. thats where evidence kicks in. The evidence you gave for the bible is also used for the quran

Really? The Quran is said to have the most manuscript attestation of any ancient work of literature?

Even if the above is argued, it is demonstrably false. The New Testament boasts far more manuscript attestation than the Quran and the New Testament is roughly six hundred years older.

Not only that, but I stated very clearly that the main means of my knowing the Bible to be reliable is that I did what it said and got what it promised, i.e. a personal relationship with God Himself.

No Muslim will say that for it is considered a blasphemy in Islam to state what I have just stated.


(23-03-2014 10:57 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  which makes both unprovable unless biased. The example you gave we make predictions that show the earth is round, and we have evidence for it.

Why?

(23-03-2014 10:57 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  3. Only people who disagree with that are people with no evidence that want to stay slaves to religion. There is no evidence of godzilla, there for we can say godzilla is not real.

I disagree with it and not for the reason you supplied.

1. It is only false to you because you a christian. If you were muslim you would agree with the above. You saying the quran is wrong is different when I say it because when I say it that is because the evidence is bad, when you do it you have a double standard saying it works for you but not them. There is also a personal relationship with krishna, and if you chant the mantras loud enough he will appear, and people have said it has happened.

2. Why? Because what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

3.I have meet many religious slaves in which when we debate evidence and they realize that they are wrong then they say that. Saying the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence is the argument of the ignorant used to keep there illogical beliefs. Thats why I can't believe anything that has no evidence, much less accept it.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: