ElishaElijah
Return
You say you read the Bible several times yet you don’t understand that there is only 1 Bride of Christ, 1 Body of Christ, many members but 1 Body.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You don't understand the point being made. Or you're avoiding it.
ElishaElijah
Return
How many sects are you made out of?
Five Solas
Active Member
So, you don't have an example. Points made.
Five Solas
Active Member
Ooops ..
Five Solas
Active Member
You lack the basic knowledge needed for a debate...
Five Solas
Active Member
Obviously. If you do not believe in God, His things will be beyond your comprehension.
ppp
Well-Known Member
If I give you an example of people who thought they were Napoleon, how does that change the fact that I cannot tell his claims from those of someone who claims to be Napoleon?
So you don't have a secular source to support your definition.
And typically, you describe our different experiences as my failure. You never met Jesus, either. Nobody alive today has. You met your own mind and thought it was somebody else's. I know. It happened to me, too, when I agreed to suspend disbelief and critical thought in a church. All it takes is the will to believe.
I doubt that you know what debate is. Hint: It's not the same as listing your beliefs and then repeating them when they are rebutted. It requires competence in critical thinking.
Incidentally, I'm adding your comment to my growing collection of ways that theists attempt to disqualify the opinions they don't like and can't find a rebuttal for. It's along list, so I just showed you the bottom part. Yours is last:
[41] You get your biblical passages from Atheist web sites.
[42] A copy/paste from Biblehub does not make one a biblical expert.
[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.
[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.
[45] He believes he is qualified on the basis that he has been inside a church and picked up a bible.
[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.
[47] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.
[48] You're cherry picking scripture.
[49] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.
[50] You don't know what Jesus was talking about. Typical atheist.
[51] If you are going to quote Scripture for support for your claims then you need to tell me what the context is.
[52] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.
[53] You have no biblical expertise, your word on the Bible is strictly a layman's opinion.
[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.
[55] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana
[56] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.
[57] You're a Biblical ignoramus.
[58] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.
[59] Please don't say, 'how can I trust it? The Bible contradicts itself'. That will only be evidence to me that you don't understand what it's ancient writers meant, and don't want to.
[60] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.
[61] Its cute you cherry picked from a cherry picked verse because you dont know anything else. Very cute. Can you explain what "yakaffara bissilahi" mean in Quranic arabic?
[62] So you are an expert in arabic right?
[63] You dont understand transliteration, its an everyday haters haven to find.
[64] You need a spiritual susceptibility to recognize Him through His verses, if not, you're out of luck.
[65] The words are the proof, even by themselves, but you need a certain spiritual susceptibility to them.
[66] The problem is you read all these hadiths without the notion of Quranic wisdom
[67] There are two atheists who claim they can make exegesis of the Qur'an with out even a Childs knowledge in the arabic language. Im sorry to say but that is not exegesis, but learning off some website.
[68] You lack the basic knowledge needed for a debate
And if I don't believe in Santa, are his things also beyond my comprehension? Will I need help in understanding The Night Before Christmas from a kid that does believe?
Yet another attempt to disqualify dissenting opinion. This one sounds like several others above. You now have the bottom two positions on the list.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
It's you who isn't understanding, I explained this to you multiple times, and it's not just about the 45000 different Christian sects, humans have imagined thousands of different deities and religions. They all claim they are right, theirs is the one true god / religion, they all offer the same subjective claims you have made.
ElishaElijah
Return
I think you can add atheism to your list of false religions and sects.
Can the existence of God be proven?
ElishaElijah
Return
I have not seen Jesus Christ is correct, but I do know Him because He gave me the Holy Spirit and I’ve been born again and that’s how I know Him. When He returns or when I die I will be with Him forever, that’s when I will see Him.
“God wanted to make known among the Gentiles the glorious wealth of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
Colossians 1:27 CSB
ElishaElijah
Return
Why would I go to a secular source for spiritual and scriptural definitions when I have the main source of Truth, the Bible?
“You adulterous people! Don’t you know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? So whoever wants to be the friend of the world becomes the enemy of God.”
James 4:4 CSB
Are you saying I should go to the worldly sources to find out what God says and means concerning what faith is or who He considers a Christian or a believer?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Only if you don't know what religion means, or atheism. This also does not remotely address my post or my point.
It's hard to see what that fact has to do with atheism, or your inability to grasp that endlessly asserting that according to the bible you are right and the rest wrong, when the all make the same claim, doesn't really address the point?
ElishaElijah
Return
Well, the Bible and Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Him. If anyone says otherwise they are a false prophet and teacher. Your point is irrelevant
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Did I not already respond to this ridiculous article? Again, theologians do not study history they study scripture with the assumption that it's actually true. Now if one posted a list of the THOUSANDS of Islamic scholars and philosophers who all claim the Quran is the literal truth you might suddenly understand they are starting with the assumption that the Quran is actually true and it doesn't actually mean it's true. They have no interest in applying skepticism or rational thinking to their claims. Islam in the U.S. is going to be larger than Christianity by 2050.
You don't get to quote scholars who assume a bunch of mythology is true and expect that to be an actual point?
Historians have clearly demonstrated the Bible is mythology.
In fact your claims of "skepticism" don't actually make sense? You haven't explained why people are "skeptic" when all they are doing is reporting history?
Thank you, you have proven my point extremely well. Now obviously if we shifted this ridiculous logic to Islam and said "only scholars who ALREADY BELIEVE THE QURAN GET TO BE ISLAMIC SCHOLARS!" then of course all Islamic scholars would believe that the Quran is the true word of God. I can't even believe you actually think that only fundamentalists can be the only qualified people to actually be scholars of a religion?
First it's the biggest fallacy I have ever heard. Literally. You just basically said - "only people who believe the Bible can judge if the Bible is true"??? Insane?
In the actual real world we have the entire historicity field and it's pretty much 100% that the Bible is religious syncretism, borrowed mythology with zero historical verification.
Of course there are Islamic fundamentalists who upon hearing historians view that Islam is actually not revelations from an angel and the science in the Quran that "proves it's from God" is actually Greek science they learned from manuscripts stored in Christian archive libraries are either "skeptics" or atheists who are not qualified to comment on this truth.
In this case I'm sure you get it. Greek mythology historians also don't believe in the Greek religions to know they are just stories.
Even when I was Christian I would never have stood for such obvious lack of integrity with the argument you just presented. Something that is true should not need such obvious special pleading.
No they do not. A small radical group of fundamentalists think that. Respected Biblical scholars have a consensus on the Gospel dating. These are actual believers and scholars.
This is the consensus in Christian scholarship -
The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.[9][10] The authors of Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career,
Perkins, Pheme (1998). "The Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles: Telling the Christian Story". In Barton, John (ed.). The Cambridge companion to biblical interpretation.
Reddish, Mitchell (2011). An Introduction to The Gospels
Lincoln, Andrew (2004). "Reading John". In Porter, Stanley E. (ed.). Reading the Gospels Today.
You can make that statement about Joe smith and the Mormon revelations. You can make that statement about Islam and the angel Gabrielle updating Christianity. You can make it about Bahai, Hinduism (revelations from Krishna to Prince Arjuna). That statement does not make any of those religions true. Those are claims made by people who were told it was true and accepted it. They no longer can emotionally accept or consider the concept that that religion is no different than all the others. Legendary stories. But the evidence is very clear the myths are not original, there is no actual historical evidence and like all supernatural stories and revelations they are just people bending the truth.
If you can use it for Christianity then all the others can just as easily make the same claims. Just like you would laugh at a Muslim who used this argument to show you the Quran is true it's equally laughable here.
Here is a peer-reviewed member of the Biblical historicity field commenting on the consensus of the field.
"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.
No. We aren’t interested in that.
When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."
Obviously apologists cannot deal with this so they make up fallacious arguments like you have presented above.
Please explain why a historian who demonstrates every bit of theology and many stories are found in older religions are "skeptical"? The theologians response to this I have found is denial, lie, or silence.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Actually that's completely wrong. The consensus in Christian scholarship is Genesis is a myth. What you are calling a "sweeping statement" is consensus is historicity and a majority even in other fields of Christian scholarship?
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia
The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity.[1
It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology,
-Scholarly writings frequently refer to Genesis as myth, for while the author of Genesis 1–11 "demythologised" his narrative by removing the Babylonian myths those elements which did not fit with his own faith, it remains a myth in the sense of being a story of origins
-
Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[18][19] but adapted them to their belief in one God,[2] establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ancient Israel's neighbors.[20][21]
As scholar of Jewish studies, Jon D. Levenson, puts it:
How much history lies behind the story of Genesis? Because the action of the primeval story is not represented as taking place on the plane of ordinary human history and has so many affinities with ancient mythology, it is very far-fetched to speak of its narratives as historical at all."[93]
Another scholar, Conrad Hyers, summed up the same thought by writing, "A literalist interpretation of the Genesis accounts is inappropriate, misleading, and unworkable [because] it presupposes and insists upon a kind of literature and intention that is not there."[94]
Generally, Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE.
Since Thomas Thompsons work was peer-reviewed in the 1970s Moses has been accepted as legendary in historical scholarship.
The minority of fundamentalist scholars who attempt to make this literal end up with conspiracy theories, creationism and nonsense disproven by most modern science. Serious Christian scholars have no interest in joining these fringe conspiracy groups.
Above is the consensus among rational scholars and is the majority opinions.
So had you been more educated you may have been able to take my comments more seriously.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Does he claim to talk to a deity? Yes.
Do deities have supernatural powers? Yes.
Is this power magic?
Let's see.......
merriam-webster
magic
an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source
magic
adjective
having seemingly supernatural qualities or powers
Yes, some of the definitions do fit the abilities of Biblical characters.
You are trying so hard to get me into a position where one would "no one should take you seriously", which is an actual apologetic.
In just the last post an apologist suggested that the only scholars who are qualified to comment on the truthfulness of scripture is people who ALREADY BELIEVE?! Here we see a variation of the same tactic. Imagine that.
joelr
Well-Known Member
That isn't evidence. If it is then so is the Quran, the Mormon updates to Christianity, the Bahai updates to all religions, and so on. Every religion is full of "evidence".
In fact there is evidence that aliens crashed at Roswell, it says so in several books. 2 Retired Army men spun some wild stories for a writer doing a book which created a new narrative in the 1980s. There are thousands of religions, many of them we still have scripture and gospels. They are claims.
I'm in shock that now 2 people find this a reasonable argument? In this case you are blind to the truth of Islam because you are not a believer. You cannot say it's not true because you cannot understand the things of Allah.. You cannot say Zeus is not a real God. You do not believe and are blind to the truth because you can only understand if you believe.
First, if you think there is evidence then present it? I was Christian for a long time. These myths are not that complicated? There is no secret understanding? Just like history shows the Roman and Greek religions, or even Islam are just man made myths, it also shows Christianity are stories taken from previous cultures.
This concept that "only people who already believe can believe" is sad. I's hard to imagine you have to resort to such obvious fallacies?
But you kind of demonstrate the point here which is helpful. You cannot show these ancient stories are true and have to lean on fallacies and paradoxes? There are thousands of ex-christians who were fundamentalists. They make the same arguments. There is in fact no secret knowledge you get by being a believer. If one is honest and open enough to face what is actually true then they will realize these beliefs are just like Islamic beliefs. They are myths.
RIght but you were incorrect about the one example you gave. Please provide an actual example. Your lack of knowledge of academia doesn't make me the one who is incorrect.
All claims. Same thing Islam does?
You also cannot show a Muslim or Zoroastrian any proof to the contrary? That doesn't make it true? Accepting claims doesn't make it true?
But it can be shown there is no historical evidence for the supernatural claims. The gospels are Greek/Persian myths, all copied from Mark which is 100% myth in every way.
Same for the OT.
You saying "I believe", every religious person says that. Every cult member. Every flat Earther or 911 conspiracy theorist says that? You commented on my debate style then:
1) can only produce claims
2) use apologist fallacies (only believers can believe or know it's true)
So if one adopts your debate and belief style and they live in an Islamic culture...........boom, instant Muslim. And this is one reason by 2050 Islam will outnumber Christianity.