Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 12:54 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 12:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You know that my beliefs are false/fake?

I know they are false/fake?

You presume to know quite a bit.

Bro, did you read what I wrote? Or did you just invent something in your head you'd rather respond to...

The part where you just posted ten shitty reasons to grant the Bible special privilege and then acknowledged that your acceptance of said claim does not proceed from such reasons is not a presumption.

That is a thing you literally just did.

(23-03-2014 12:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I challenge you to debate me 1 on 1 and we will see how spurious my beliefs are when they stand up to anything you can throw at them.

If they're predicated on subjective personal experience then that's literally the point I just made.

"What I can throw at them" is external reality. Do you accept external reality as generally determined by evolving scientific consensus?

If so, there's nothing to discuss.

I will use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to argue for the existence of a cause of the universe which after engaging in a conceptual analysis of said cause, will argue that this cause is more plausibly a personal Creator.

To do so, I will be relying heavily on the contemporary research and findings of astronomers, cosmologists, and astrophysicists as well as philosophical argumentation.

In other words, I am calling you out bro, accept it or move on. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
duplicate
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I will use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to argue for the existence of a cause of the universe which after engaging in a conceptual analysis of said cause, will argue that this cause is more plausibly a personal Creator.

To do so, I will be relying heavily on the contemporary research and findings of astronomers, cosmologists, and astrophysicists as well as philosophical argumentation.

Oh, so, this old schtick:
1) Assert deistic first-cause premises
2) ???
3) Conclude Christianity
4) Profit!

Been there, done that.

Step 1 is a purely philosophical consideration. Step 2 is subjective personal experience. Step 3 is contradicted by the subjective personal experience of billions of others.

Step 1 has room to be somewhat worthwhile, notwithstanding that it is entirely irrelevant to actual religious beliefs and practices.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 12:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I will use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to argue for the existence of a cause of the universe which after engaging in a conceptual analysis of said cause, will argue that this cause is more plausibly a personal Creator.

To do so, I will be relying heavily on the contemporary research and findings of astronomers, cosmologists, and astrophysicists as well as philosophical argumentation.

Oh, so, this old schtick:
1) Assert deistic first-cause premises
2) ???
3) Conclude Christianity
4) Profit!

Been there, done that.

Step 1 is a purely philosophical consideration. Step 2 is subjective personal experience. Step 3 is contradicted by the subjective personal experience of billions of others.

Step 1 has room to be somewhat worthwhile, notwithstanding that it is entirely irrelevant to actual religious beliefs and practices.

Then let us move to the boxing ring.

Yes or no?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 01:05 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Then let us move to the boxing ring.

Yes or no?

Do you feel the change of venue makes a difference?

You have already acknowledged that your belief is predicated on subjective personal experience. Anything so based is by definition not amenable to debate.

A strictly cosmological discussion may be had; terming it a "debate" is overly generous, given that it is by definition a realm of opinion only. The argument being, at best, self-consistent, given the complete and utter lack of any empirical basis for the premises.

... 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, 01:15 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 01:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 12:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Then let us move to the boxing ring.

Yes or no?

Do you feel the change of venue makes a difference?

You have already acknowledged that your belief is predicated on subjective personal experience. Anything so based is by definition not amenable to debate.

A strictly cosmological discussion may be had; terming it a "debate" is overly generous, given that it is by definition a realm of opinion only. The argument being, at best, self-consistent, given the complete and utter lack of any empirical basis for the premises.

My belief in God being predicated on a subjective personal experience is not what the debate is going to be about.

So scratch that.

You either are willing to debate me or you are not. Now I will start the thread in the boxing ring. Enter into it if you dare. Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 03:19 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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

Funny how you don't quote a scientist about science, but rather fundy christians with a vested interest in discrediting it in favor of their own a priori bullshit. Your ability to discern truth from falsehood is astonishingly nonexistent.

1. Radiation cannot be observed by any of our five senses, yet can be objectively verified and measured. So right off the bat you're full of shit.

2. Anytime someone cops to something being 'self evident' it's because they don't actually have an argument. Things that have happened in the past leave traces that we can detect in the present, that does not mean that science is only limited to the present (that it cannot determine what happened in the past or make probabilistic predictions of what will happen in the future). Nothing you've said at all throws into doubt arctic ice-core samples used to measure atmospheric CO2 levels back millions of years. Once again, you are demonstrably full of shit.

3. Disingenuous use of the word 'speculation'. There are multiple layer of corroborative evidence in support of the age of the Earth and the Universe, all of which are very well attested. Unlike say, a literal interpretation of Genesis; which is what people who attempt to backhandedly denigrate science like this are usually aiming for. You have no evidence to support the creation stories of the Bible, which conflict with everything in science. So instead of facing reality, you instead try to through all of science under the bus to save your own belief; because you'd rather have a comforting belief than an honest truth. You are dumber than the ground you walk on.

4. Those who say that science must be limited to human history have no fucking idea how science works; and it's clear that for all your claiming to be a skeptic in search of evidence, you don't either. Go get yourself a real education fucktard before you go regurgitation this demonstrably false bullshit again; you are an embarrassment to the human race.


(23-03-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.

Nope dumbass.

"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."

I'm failing to see Peter's love or forgiveness here, even in context. Capital punishment for lying? Why wasn't Peter killed whenever he lied to Jesus and denied him? Hypocrisy much? It's still not very loving, and so it's just a counterpoint to your original assertion. The Bible isn't all brotherly love. Also, treat others as you wanted to be treated; well didn't Jesus grab a whip and go on a rampage in the Temple to drive out the money lenders? So attacking others with a whip is cool by Jesus' standards?


(23-03-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.

I'm half tempted to go look up another half dozen different interpretations of that passage from other Christians, but I have better things to do than wade through apologetic websites.

Also, the bible doesn't contain any 'spiritual truths' that didn't already exists in older, preceding religions. The ethic of reciprocity is not unique, nor is sacrifice, nor is sin and salvation.

Also, how does this doctrine apply to psychopaths, sadomasochists, or the depressed? Those who by definition lack empathy, enjoy personal suffering, and loath themselves?


(23-03-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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

If the Bible isn't compelling enough to have prevented and entire nation of Christians from committing premeditated systematic genocide, why the fuck should anyone else pay it any mind? The book has consistently and reliably failed as a moral guide.


(23-03-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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

You could have saved a lot of time by just typing 'No True Scotsman' in all caps... Drinking Beverage


(23-03-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.

And your subjective personal experience, which is identical to those claimed by thousands of others from competing mutually exclusive religions, means fuck all to anyone else. You simply have a personal relationship with your Ego. Weeping


(23-03-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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

You are a fucking idiot, and you've now made that an objective fact.

Also, you didn't see the gorilla did you? Laugh out load

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-03-2014, 03:24 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 08:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 08:03 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  So how do you know the bible is true? What evidence do you have.

The following is not an exhaustive list but is a part of the cumulative case for demonstrating the reliability of the Bible. The most important piece of evidence I have that the Bible is true is that I did what it said and got what it promised i.e a relationship with God Himself.

1. Manuscript Evidence. There are way more copies of the biblical manuscripts, with remarkable consistency between them, than there are for any of the classics like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. "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, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

2. Archaeological Evidence. Again and again archaeological discoveries have verified the accuracy of the historical and cultural references in the Bible. The more they dig, the more it confirms the Bible. “It is important to note that Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas.” E.M. Blaiklock, The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology.

3. Eyewitness Accounts. The Bible was written by people who witnessed the events it describes; many were persecuted or martyred but never changed their story. Would you die for something you knew was untrue? “It is no moderate approbation of Scripture that it has been sealed by the blood of so many witnesses, especially when we reflect that they died to render testimony to the faith …with a firm and constant, yet sober, zeal toward God.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion.

4. Corroborating Accounts. There are plenty of references in non-biblical sources to the events described in the Bible. The Jewish historian Josephus, born in 37 AD, “provide(s) indispensable background material for the student of…New Testament history. In them, we meet many figures well known to us from the New Testament. Some of his writings provide direct commentary on New Testament references.” J.D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary.

5. Literary Consistency. The Bible contains 66 books written over 1,500 years by 40 different writers but it tells one "big story" of God's plan of salvation that culminated in Jesus Christ. You can't even pass a secret around a circle of 12 people and get the same message at the end. “There is indeed a wide variety of human authors and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these…there lies a single divine author with a single unifying theme.” John R.W. Stott, Understanding the Bible.

6. Prophetic Consistency. There are over 300 specific prophecies in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. “The very dimension of the sheer fulfillment of prophecy of the Old Testament Scriptures should be enough to convince anyone that we are dealing with a supernatural piece of literature….God has himself planted within the scriptures an internal consistency that bears witness that this is his Word.” R.C. Sproul, Now That’s a Good Question.

7. Expert Scrutiny. The early church had extremely high standards for what books were judged to be authentic and therefore included in the Bible. A book had to have been written by an Apostle or someone in their immediate circle, had to conform to basic Christian faith and had to be in widespread use among many churches. This was a careful process of “the people of God in many different places, coming to recognize what other believers elsewhere found to be true”; these writings were truly God’s word. G.J. Wenham, J.A. Motyer, D.A. Carson and R.T. France, The New Bible Commentary.

8. Leader Acceptance. A majority of the greatest leaders and thinkers in history have affirmed the truth and impact of the Bible. "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given man. All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to us through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong.” Abraham Lincoln.

9. Global Influence. The Bible has had a greater influence on the laws, art, ethics, music and literature of world civilization than any other book in history. Can you think of one that even comes close? “Christianity”, as set forth in the Bible “is responsible for a disproportionately large number of the humanitarian advances in the history of civilization—in education, medicine, law, the fine arts, working for human rights and even in the natural sciences….” Craig L. Blomberg, in Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.

10. Changed Lives. From St. Augustine to Martin Luther to Joni Eareckson Tada to countless everyday men, women and children, the words of the Bible have transformed lives unmistakably and forever. “As unnamed masses of Christians down through the ages have shown us, the Bible is the most reliable place to turn for finding the key to a life of love and good works.” T.M. Moore, The Case for the Bible.

http://www.essentialbibleblog.com/2013/0...-true.html
So glad you posted this list. Is this apologist drivel really the best you have?
1. Number of copies of nonsensical fairy tale story means nothing. Not to mention the proliferation of versions that Christians obsess about. Oh, but almighty god has preserved his word.
2. Holy shit, please put down your Noah book and read this http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthe...0684869136
3-7. To save space addressing these 'arguments', quoting Calvin, Nbd, Stott, Sproul and Carson really isn't helping your case. Objective sources?
8. Ok, I'll see your Lincoln, and raise a Jefferson. Means nothing of course.
"The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs".
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."
"In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

9. See 3-7. Belief in witches also had global influence. This too shall pass. Yes great influence, mostly resulting in torture of mind and body, and setting science back a millennium.
10. When 1-9 fail inevitably we get 10. Personal experience is all Christianity has and all any religion will ever have. Here's mine. I became a much more charitable, forgiving and patient human being when I became free of religious dogmatism, and it's attendant bigotry and divisiveness.

Your god is a nonexistent asshole. I hope you'll be free of him someday. Until then, please try your best not to indoctrinate innocents with your silly list.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like freetoreason's post
23-03-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 03:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Funny how you don't quote a scientist about science, but rather fundy christians with a vested interest in discrediting it in favor of their own a priori bullshit. Your ability to discern truth from falsehood is astonishingly nonexistent.

I quoted the following:

George Gaylord Simpson, the renowned evolutionist of Harvard
The Oxford Dictionary
Duane Gish, an American Biochemist
Enno Wolthius Professor Emeritus of Chemistry
Henry Morris author and apologist
John Whitcomb author.

In addition:

Frank Wolfs, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, provides his undergraduate physics students with a good working definition of the scientific method: "the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world."1

Professor Wolfs, as a research scientist himself, points out some of its limitations: "Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, 'Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view.' In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory."1

Four Essentials of the Scientific Method

Just what are these "standard procedures and criteria" that scientists apply in their attempt to arrive at an accurate and reliable representation of the world in which we live? Most scientists, including Wolfs, boil them down to the four following essentials:1

Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a mathematical relationship.)
Use of the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If they do not, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified. As Wolfs explains, "No matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, 'experiment is supreme' and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary."1

Wolfs further notes that this necessity of experiment in the method is tantamount to requiring that a scientific hypothesis be testable. "Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."1 It is fairly obvious that if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it should more properly be called a conjecture or speculation, in which case the scientific method can say little about it.

Wolfs, F. 1996. Introduction to the scientific method. Physics Laboratory Experiments, Appendix E, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.
Baumgardner, J. 2008 (in press). Language, Complexity, and Design. In Seckback, J. and R. Gordon (eds.), God, Science and Intelligent Design. Singapore: World Scientific.
Sanford, J. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Elim Publications.
Sanford, J., J. Baumgardner, et al. 2007. Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load. In Shi, Y. et al. (eds.), ICCS 2007, Part II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4488. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 386-392.
Sanford, J., J. Baumgardner, et al. 2008 (in press). Numerical simulation falsifies evolutionary genetic theory. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism. San Diego, CA: ICR.
Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effectively neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 76: 3440-3444.
Kondrashov, A. S. 1995. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Journal of Theoretical Biology. 175: 583-594.
Austin, S. A. 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, CA: ICR.
Hawking, S. W. and G. F. R. Ellis. 1973. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 134.




**********************************************************


It is clear to me that anything presented to you that does not agree with what you already presuppose to be true is simply brushed away, I will only be speaking with you if you agree to a debate.

Thank you. ThumbsupDrinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 03:24 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 08:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The following is not an exhaustive list but is a part of the cumulative case for demonstrating the reliability of the Bible. The most important piece of evidence I have that the Bible is true is that I did what it said and got what it promised i.e a relationship with God Himself.

1. Manuscript Evidence. There are way more copies of the biblical manuscripts, with remarkable consistency between them, than there are for any of the classics like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. "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, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

2. Archaeological Evidence. Again and again archaeological discoveries have verified the accuracy of the historical and cultural references in the Bible. The more they dig, the more it confirms the Bible. “It is important to note that Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas.” E.M. Blaiklock, The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology.

3. Eyewitness Accounts. The Bible was written by people who witnessed the events it describes; many were persecuted or martyred but never changed their story. Would you die for something you knew was untrue? “It is no moderate approbation of Scripture that it has been sealed by the blood of so many witnesses, especially when we reflect that they died to render testimony to the faith …with a firm and constant, yet sober, zeal toward God.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion.

4. Corroborating Accounts. There are plenty of references in non-biblical sources to the events described in the Bible. The Jewish historian Josephus, born in 37 AD, “provide(s) indispensable background material for the student of…New Testament history. In them, we meet many figures well known to us from the New Testament. Some of his writings provide direct commentary on New Testament references.” J.D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary.

5. Literary Consistency. The Bible contains 66 books written over 1,500 years by 40 different writers but it tells one "big story" of God's plan of salvation that culminated in Jesus Christ. You can't even pass a secret around a circle of 12 people and get the same message at the end. “There is indeed a wide variety of human authors and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these…there lies a single divine author with a single unifying theme.” John R.W. Stott, Understanding the Bible.

6. Prophetic Consistency. There are over 300 specific prophecies in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. “The very dimension of the sheer fulfillment of prophecy of the Old Testament Scriptures should be enough to convince anyone that we are dealing with a supernatural piece of literature….God has himself planted within the scriptures an internal consistency that bears witness that this is his Word.” R.C. Sproul, Now That’s a Good Question.

7. Expert Scrutiny. The early church had extremely high standards for what books were judged to be authentic and therefore included in the Bible. A book had to have been written by an Apostle or someone in their immediate circle, had to conform to basic Christian faith and had to be in widespread use among many churches. This was a careful process of “the people of God in many different places, coming to recognize what other believers elsewhere found to be true”; these writings were truly God’s word. G.J. Wenham, J.A. Motyer, D.A. Carson and R.T. France, The New Bible Commentary.

8. Leader Acceptance. A majority of the greatest leaders and thinkers in history have affirmed the truth and impact of the Bible. "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given man. All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to us through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong.” Abraham Lincoln.

9. Global Influence. The Bible has had a greater influence on the laws, art, ethics, music and literature of world civilization than any other book in history. Can you think of one that even comes close? “Christianity”, as set forth in the Bible “is responsible for a disproportionately large number of the humanitarian advances in the history of civilization—in education, medicine, law, the fine arts, working for human rights and even in the natural sciences….” Craig L. Blomberg, in Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.

10. Changed Lives. From St. Augustine to Martin Luther to Joni Eareckson Tada to countless everyday men, women and children, the words of the Bible have transformed lives unmistakably and forever. “As unnamed masses of Christians down through the ages have shown us, the Bible is the most reliable place to turn for finding the key to a life of love and good works.” T.M. Moore, The Case for the Bible.

http://www.essentialbibleblog.com/2013/0...-true.html
So glad you posted this list. Is this apologist drivel really the best you have?
1. Number of copies of nonsensical fairy tale story means nothing. Not to mention the proliferation of versions that Christians obsess about. Oh, but almighty god has preserved his word.
2. Holy shit, please put down your Noah book and read this http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthe...0684869136
3-7. To save space addressing these 'arguments', quoting Calvin, Nbd, Stott, Sproul and Carson really isn't helping your case. Objective sources?
8. Ok, I'll see your Lincoln, and raise a Jefferson. Means nothing of course.
"The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs".
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."
"In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

9. See 3-7. Belief in witches also had global influence. This too shall pass. Yes great influence, mostly resulting in torture of mind and body, and setting science back a millennium.
10. When 1-9 fail inevitably we get 10. Personal experience is all Christianity has and all any religion will ever have. Here's mine. I became a much more charitable, forgiving and patient human being when I became free of religious dogmatism, and it's attendant bigotry and divisiveness.

Your god is a nonexistent asshole. I hope you'll be free of him someday. Until then, please try your best not to indoctrinate innocents with your silly list.

If you want, you can get in line and wait to debate me. If not then toodles! Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: