Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Matt 10:28?People keep giving their beliefs but I am waiting to see if any Bible verses support these beliefs. No one has quoted any verses yet.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Matt 10:28?People keep giving their beliefs but I am waiting to see if any Bible verses support these beliefs. No one has quoted any verses yet.
I love how the Bible says humans cannot be trusted and then expects us to believe a text written by humans.Well since man is so imperfect perhaps Christians are wrong in what they assume is true about what they hear about the Bible being true.
How does hell fix anything?No one is forced to follow the commandments like a slave. Cities have traffic laws but people are not forced to obey them. But there are penalties if you do not follow them and the laws are for the protection of all citizens. God does not force people to obey the commandments but there are penalties because they are for the benefit of all people.
If you have a class of 20 students and 19 obey the rules but 1 causes problems by not obeying the best way to solve the problem is to remove the 1 student who does not follow the rules. God will remove those people who will not follow the rules for the benefit of all the others who are left.How does hell fix anything?
Because when your evidence is the Bible, and and any person with adequate vision can see and understand the content as being inadequate as evidence for the claims that are made FROM the content of the book itself.Please explain why I should have said "your observations".
Because the "evidence" is the book itself, and the dogma inherited from previous generations. There are no facts you present that we can use to conclude your religious claims are true.Perhaps you might want to explain why you conclude that Christians assume anything, and what makes you think they "heard something about the Bible being true".
As far as I know, Christians have arrived at the conclusion that the Bible is true, based on the evidence indicating it is. That's not assuming.
It's not a straw man, it's a direct set of examples that demonstrate stories themselves in books does not mean these stories are true at face value. We demand evidence that stories, especially fantastic stories with supernatural elements, are true at face value. Since theists claim these stories are true, and can't provide evidence that they happened and are true, then we throw them out and give examples through human history of embellished and invented stories.I have heard that argument many times, and it is considered a strawman, because the fact that there is fiction does not make every fact fiction.
No. There's just no supernatural phenomenon observed or known to exist. Why should we assume is exists? Bible stories?Many scientists do not reach such conclusion as "something is impossible because we never observed it, or discovered it".
So where do such arguments stem from? Could it be bias?
Sorry, it's not bias to acknowledge there is inadequate evidence that a Jesus existed. It's just honest. Of course you don't like it.There we go. Opinionated bias. Thank you for making that easy for us.
You are trying to minimize the power of evidence here. By doing so it helps you prove your beliefs in what way? Evidence needs to be available to ordinary senses and be understood without special assumptions. There's a knife at a crime scene. Is it the murder weapon covered in blood and fingerprints, or a butter knife that just happens to be present? Evidence is put together with the facts. This is not an advantage for theists trying to prove their claims because there is always going to be facts missing, namely that of any supernatural phenomenon, specifically a God. That's the problem for theists, not for observers without a bias to believe.Please start by explaining your understanding of "evidence", because since I have been here, I get the impression that some persons on RF believe evidence is something other than it is understood to be.
Your definition verifies that.
Evidence is a collection of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
The evidence can be strong, weak, circumstantial or conclusive, but it is never always conclusive, as though it proves something.
It is interpreted, and oftentimes the conclusion reaches is not correct.
Take DNA evidence for example. It is a piece of evidence containing a body of facts, but those facts may lead to something very different to what one interprets, or concludes, from that circumstantial evidence.
Example The Surprisingly Imperfect Science of DNA Testing
Magnetism would be a better analogy. Wind is easily measured. It can even be seen when it picks up debris.Evidence is not proof.
Evidence is a body of facts, which indicates something, and one can evaluate, and reach conclusions.
One does not need to see God for there to be evidence of God. In the same way one does not need to see wind, for there to be evidence of wind.
Can you see the wind I can't.
This implies a lazy God. But as I just noted there's no evidence available to human senses and reason that suggests any God exists outside of human imagination. Now some believers often believe that there are effects of Gods, like miracles. But this has no basis in fact or reason, it is another desperate need for a religious mind to find justification for their belief.The view that God does nothing, comes from those who believe that.
How is any of this known? To claim knowledge means it has a factual basis. What I suspect you are doing here is bluffing that you have knowledge when really you have poorly based beliefs, but have to exaggerate it as if that fraud will work in a debate. You may fool yourself with these mind tricks but you can't fool objective thinkers who have seen these trick of language many, many times before.Those who know God has done, and continues to do, do not have that view. They know what God has done for them. They may not be able to prove to you God's deeds, but as with the blind man that says he sees no evidence, there is no benefits in arguing with such persons. That would not make them see.
Yet you just claimed knowledge when you have none, perfect or imperfect. You have very weak beliefs and you feel compelled to embellish how well supported they are. You are choosing to lie and decide about these matters and don't seem aware you are doing it. That is the trap that religion sets for individuals who know WHAT they believe, but no idea WHY they believe it.I claim no such perfect knowledge of anything. I think each one should go where the evidence leads them.
That's what I do. I can't choose for you.
Hello paarsurrey,What a Pauline-mythical-Christianity-holyspiritgod, who plays politics with its denominations; saying something to Mormons and yet different things to Catholics and Protestants? Isn't he divisive, please?
Right?
Regards
I don't believe I need to quote all the texts in the Bible that says they wrote God's words, because I think you either know them, or know of them.I love how the Bible says humans cannot be trusted and then expects us to believe a text written by humans.
But removal only shows the teacher couldn’t deal with the root issues.If you have a class of 20 students and 19 obey the rules but 1 causes problems by not obeying the best way to solve the problem is to remove the 1 student who does not follow the rules. God will remove those people who will not follow the rules for the benefit of all the others who are left.
The point I'm making is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; there are many of the former, and so far none of the latter.what were the claims of Apollonius in the 50s onwards, and what were the contrasting claims of the so called "Christians" of that time? What are the sources closest to the source? Think about it.
Right, swiftly, righteously. Sometimes God removes them in their 90's by natural causes because God is so efficient and right on top of things. Sometimes God removes a child with deadly genetic diseases before the baby can break any rules, just in case, as an example to the rest of us.If you have a class of 20 students and 19 obey the rules but 1 causes problems by not obeying the best way to solve the problem is to remove the 1 student who does not follow the rules. God will remove those people who will not follow the rules for the benefit of all the others who are left.
And you could be mistaken in your belief, yes?I
I believe one who reads the Bible knows these things. Just check how many times the expression "the word of God", is used in the Bible.
The point I'm making is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; there are many of the former, and so far none of the latter.
Or as FitzGerald's Omar puts it ─
The Revelations of Devout and Learn’d
Who rose before us, and as Prophets burn’d,
Are all but Stories, which, awoke from SleepThey told their comrades, and to Sleep return’d.
These need to reform and become non-Pauline and non-mythical, please.Hello paarsurrey,
Well, you said it... a Pauline mythical God doesn't exist. And many churches are Pauline, imo.
As you'll have noticed, I'm a materialist, not least because I have no reason to think that the supernatural exists in any form other than as concepts held or things imagined by individuals.Yeah. The famous meme.
But still, when you are comparing, you must compare wider in my opinion.
As you'll have noticed, I'm a materialist, not least because I have no reason to think that the supernatural exists in any form other than as concepts held or things imagined by individuals.
That still leaves such interesting questions as, was there an historical Jesus?
And how much, if any, of the NT, is sound historical reporting.
That's up to them, paarsurrey.These need to reform and become non-Pauline and non-mythical, please.
Right?
Regards
Great. So since my evidence is not solely the Bible, as it would be like taking up a book, reading it, and saying "Ah. The truth." without testing it against known facts, and observations or experience, your opinions are not observations, but opinions that are clearly biased.Because when your evidence is the Bible, and and any person with adequate vision can see and understand the content as being inadequate as evidence for the claims that are made FROM the content of the book itself.
That's false. See above. Also I have presented facts. Not to you, because you evidently don't care for any. You never even asked.Because the "evidence" is the book itself, and the dogma inherited from previous generations. There are no facts you present that we can use to conclude your religious claims are true.
It's a strawman.It's not a straw man, it's a direct set of examples that demonstrate stories themselves in books does not mean these stories are true at face value. We demand evidence that stories, especially fantastic stories with supernatural elements, are true at face value. Since theists claim these stories are true, and can't provide evidence that they happened and are true, then we throw them out and give examples through human history of embellished and invented stories.
Exactly what I mean. You've made up your mind. Are you afraid of the facts?If you are going to claim the stories in the Bible are true then you need to demonstrate they are true. Since you can't at least you can demonstrate the stories are plausible. But believers can't even do that. That's why theists fall back on faith.
Why would someone be bothered about one who just has opinions... based on nothing? That makes no sense.No. There's just no supernatural phenomenon observed or known to exist. Why should we assume is exists? Bible stories?
Sorry, it's not bias to acknowledge there is inadequate evidence that a Jesus existed. It's just honest. Of course you don't like it.
What is evidence, please?You are trying to minimize the power of evidence here. By doing so it helps you prove your beliefs in what way? Evidence needs to be available to ordinary senses and be understood without special assumptions. There's a knife at a crime scene. Is it the murder weapon covered in blood and fingerprints, or a butter knife that just happens to be present? Evidence is put together with the facts. This is not an advantage for theists trying to prove their claims because there is always going to be facts missing, namely that of any supernatural phenomenon, specifically a God. That's the problem for theists, not for observers without a bias to believe.
Wind can be seen? I rest my case.Magnetism would be a better analogy. Wind is easily measured. It can even be seen when it picks up debris.
Opinion noted. Unless... do you have something more than what F1fan feels like saying?Thus far there is nothing in reality that correlates to the word "God". This is just a word referenced in sentences and believers happen to think it means something.
Perhaps when you explain what evidence is, we can go from there, but again, I have acknowledged your opinion.This implies a lazy God. But as I just noted there's no evidence available to human senses and reason that suggests any God exists outside of human imagination. Now some believers often believe that there are effects of Gods, like miracles. But this has no basis in fact or reason, it is another desperate need for a religious mind to find justification for their belief.
You seem to have a different definition for everything. Or do you just define things to support whatever you claim?How is any of this known? To claim knowledge means it has a factual basis. What I suspect you are doing here is bluffing that you have knowledge when really you have poorly based beliefs, but have to exaggerate it as if that fraud will work in a debate. You may fool yourself with these mind tricks but you can't fool objective thinkers who have seen these trick of language many, many times before.
Now you are calling me an empty headed liar. Lol. You are Buddhist? I never would consider you Buddhist. You sound more Atheist.Yet you just claimed knowledge when you have none, perfect or imperfect. You have very weak beliefs and you feel compelled to embellish how well supported they are. You are choosing to lie and decide about these matters and don't seem aware you are doing it. That is the trap that religion sets for individuals who know WHAT they believe, but no idea WHY they believe it.
I rest my case.No one comes to a factual and rational conclusion a God exists. People are exposed to these beliefs in their social experience and they adopt these beliefs and behaviors subconsciously. This behavior becomes a sort of operating software for social beings and they aren't terribly aware of how and why they ended up believing. It just happens as a result of social experience, much like language acquisition.
Definitely. I don't know anything about Kelly, or anyone else, besides those I have a fairly frequent interaction with, on a more personal level.And you could be mistaken in your belief, yes?
I set out the comparisons in my first mention of Apollonius. It's not as if he's unknown or unremarked.You dont have to be a theist or atheist. When you give comparisons, it should be compared.
I set out the comparisons in my first mention of Apollonius. It's not as if he's unknown or unremarked.