The Bible - Divine Revelation Or Superstitious Myth

Pah · Oct 6, 2004

Wleeper said:
... If there is one overriding fact that runs through the Bible is that our God is an unchanging God. The same yesterday, today, and forever.

Apparently you have not heard the arguments for Open View Theology - complete with chapter and verse. God changes his mind because God has limited foreknowlege and is responsive to his subjects.

Sin and immorality are not dependent on the times in which one lives. Furthermore, what people are willing to accept has absolutly no bearing on what God is willing to accept.

Apparently you think that slavery should be today what it was in the bible. You must also agree with the genocide and infanticide God commanded as well. And accept "banishment" as a punishment for murder (Cain and Able) versus the stoning for lesser crimes (adultery, for example).

Perhaps you should thank Atheism for helping to get to that morality of today.

-pah-

true blood · Oct 6, 2004

I don't know Pah. You speak of laws that were meant for a specific people that existed thousands of years ago. How were those laws compared to the athiestic laws of the same time period? Since slavery has been mentioned, compare the atheist slavery with the slavery laws of Israel. The killings done in the name of "religion" pales in comparision with the killings done in the secular world.

Jayhawker Soule · Oct 6, 2004

true blood said:
I don't know Pah. You speak of laws that were meant for a specific people that existed thousands of years ago. How were those laws compared to the athiestic laws of the same time period?

What were the relevant "atheist laws of the same time period" as the purported genocide of the Midianites? What past secular authority has sanctioned the mass murder by drowning of every man, woman, and child on the planet with the exception of a single family?

true blood · Oct 6, 2004

Aye, I'm asking that. If someone chooses to bash a nation's laws, God, etc.. shouldn't you at least give an example of the other surrounding nation's laws and Gods, etc.. Some type of comparison.

Pah · Oct 6, 2004

true blood said:
I don't know Pah. You speak of laws that were meant for a specific people that existed thousands of years ago. How were those laws compared to the athiestic laws of the same time period? Since slavery has been mentioned, compare the atheist slavery with the slavery laws of Israel. The killings done in the name of "religion" pales in comparision with the killings done in the secular world.

The only atheistic government(s) I am aware of is/are of modern times. All the ancient nations I understand to have had a religion with gods of one sort or another.

done in the name of religion

The World Wars had God on each side. Both civil war opponents in the US called upon God. Bush has recently invoked God in his mismanaged war in Iraq. Perhaps my thinking of religion's role in war is too expansive but I know that the total annihilation of the "enemy" was predominate in biblical wars.

-pah-

Jayhawker Soule · Oct 6, 2004

true blood said:
Aye, I'm asking that. If someone chooses to bash a nation's laws, God, etc.. shouldn't you at least give an example of the other surrounding nation's laws and Gods, etc.. Some type of comparison.

Which nation or national leadership do you feel compares unfavorably to a supernatural leader who destroys the world's people in a Global Flood, kills the first-born of the Egyptians, and mandates the genocide of the Midianites save for some 32,000 virgins kept alive and distributed as spoils of war. At the very best your argument reduces itself to: "my God is an ugly, vicious, sociopathic, jealous butcher - slaughtering the innocent and condemning future generations to pain and servitude - but, then again, you secular folks have some pretty bad leaders as well."

Nothing, absolutely nothing - not Stalin's Gulags, not the Holocaust, not Pol Pot, not Dafur - compares to the mind-numbing, nauseating, juvenile, sociopathic disregard of life personified by EL/YHWH. It is so ugly, so bad, that a whole sect of early Christian Gnostics came to the conclusion that the God of Israel was an evil Deity, a Demiurge, that Jesus came to defeat.

All in all, it's not much of an argument for theism.

Wleeper · Oct 6, 2004

There you go again. Pah, you and Duet have both said that you do not believe in God or the Bible. Then you turn around and try to use the Bible which you don't believe, to make an argument against the God you don't believe in. Why do you insist on validating my argument. And you claim that Christians are beguiled and believe a myth?

Pah · Oct 6, 2004

Wleeper said:
There you go again. Pah, you and Duet have both said that you do not believe in God or the Bible. Then you turn around and try to use the Bible which you don't believe, to make an argument against the God you don't believe in. Why do you insist on validating my argument. And you claim that Christians are beguiled and believe a myth?

Do you seriously think a Republican can not argue with a Democrat because he or she is not a Democrat? Do you really think you should not be held accountable for your statements? I think your premise is utterly misguided and seemingly, an attempt to stifle a logical voice.

Cross-examination is a normal procedure for ferreting out the truth or falsity of a witness and, in court, only can use the testimony of the witness. Tradition goes against you Wayne

-pah-

Pah · Oct 6, 2004

I wonder if you would advance that argument on Amazon.com to counter a review of your books? Would you take that risk at alienating the public?

-pah-

The Voice of Reason · Oct 6, 2004

Wleeper -

I just want to make certain that I understand this. Are you saying that pah (an acknowledged Atheist) can not use Biblical verses (or quotes of them) in his arguments in this debate? If this is the case, then are you willing to forego the use of Biblical verses as well?

TVOR

Wleeper · Oct 6, 2004

If he claims that the Bible is nothing but a myth then he cannot use it as an authority. A person cannot claim that that God did a particular thing and use as his authority for the claim a document which he claims is false. That is unless his real name is Dan Rather.

Wleeper · Oct 6, 2004

On the flip side of this, I am perfectly entitled to use the Bible becuase I accept it as authoratative.

The Voice of Reason · Oct 6, 2004

Wleeper said:
If he claims that the Bible is nothing but a myth then he cannot use it as an authority. A person cannot claim that that God did a particular thing and use as his authority for the claim a document which he claims is false. That is unless his real name is Dan Rather.

Nicely done on the Dan Rather shot. You have to appreciate good humor.

Heck, I'll frubal you for that one myself.

Wleeper said:
On the flip side of this, I am perfectly entitled to use the Bible becuase I accept it as authoratative.

You do realize that this would invalidate your very arguments - pah will simply deny your premise (since it is based on the Bible). If both sides in a debate don't start from the same premises, the debate is pointless. If you wish to convince pah (or any other reader) then you must allow him to use Biblical verses (and violate your stance that he/she is then "intellectually dishonest" or you should refrain from using them yourself.

If it were you and I in the debate, I would simply ignore anything you quoted from the Bible. Then again, I pretty much reject it all anyway. I'm fairly certain that pah does also (again, I do not speak for pah), but is using the verses and quotes so that the debate can continue. Personally, I would like to see the discussion be limited to rational thoughts and logical discourse - but then again, I'm not in this one (yet).

Respectfully,
TVOR

Wleeper · Oct 6, 2004

If I wish to support a point I will present the authority for my position. You have the right to accept or reject my authority. But to base an argument on an authority which you yourself claim to be false is illogical.

Jaymes · Oct 6, 2004

Wleeper said:
If I wish to support a point I will present the authority for my position. You have the right to accept or reject my authority. But to base an argument on an authority which you yourself claim to be false is illogical.

"YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORI-TIE!"

/South Park

Sorry, sorry... couldn't resist.

Wleeper · Oct 6, 2004

A good sense of humor is a good thing to have. Use it often and you will be a better person for it.

Pah · Oct 6, 2004

Wleeper said:
If he claims that the Bible is nothing but a myth then he cannot use it as an authority. A person cannot claim that that God did a particular thing and use as his authority for the claim a document which he claims is false. That is unless his real name is Dan Rather.

Wleeper said:
If I wish to support a point I will present the authority for my position. You have the right to accept or reject my authority. But to base an argument on an authority which you yourself claim to be false is illogical.

You are hoisted, it seems, on your own petard and you use any excuse to wiggle away from it. Talk about intellectual honesty. I do not claim the Bible or Christianity is right I only claim that you misunderstand it.

Your articles will make a good source for threads as they do not quote verse.

-pah-

Wleeper · Oct 6, 2004

Help me out here Pah. I have reviewed this thread and all your post and have not found one that quotes a verse. If you don't know if the Bible and Christianity is right, how can you know that my understanding is wrong.

Once again. No cigar

Pah · Oct 7, 2004

Wleeper said:
Help me out here Pah. I have reviewed this thread and all your post and have not found one that quotes a verse. If you don't know if the Bible and Christianity is right, how can you know that my understanding is wrong.

Once again. No cigar

It was in post #5 that I said you were wrong to not include another category. Fully explained.

But I'm confused- you tell me I can't use the bible as authority yet you seem to think I should have? You have been the only one I've seen (in an admittedly brief look) quote verse. What IS your story?

-pah-

The Voice of Reason · Oct 7, 2004

Wleeper said:
If I wish to support a point I will present the authority for my position. You have the right to accept or reject my authority. But to base an argument on an authority which you yourself claim to be false is illogical.

Wleeper -
1) You are basing your argument on a document that is not universally accepted by all those involved in the debate. I know that you are aware of this, I'm just pointing it out.
2) When you use the Bible to substantiate your point you are committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. In short, you are in a debate about the validity of the Bible, and you are using the Bible to attempt to prove your point. I am including the following excerpt from Wikipedia (a free, online encyclopedia). This is the longer version of:

From Wikipedia: Begging the Question
...it described a type of logical fallacy in which the evidence given for a proposition contains the proposition itself. This is also known as a circular argument, circulus in probando, petitio principii, vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic, it was first identified by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in his book Prior Analytics.

TVOR

The Bible - Divine Revelation Or Superstitious Myth

Uber all member

Active Member

-- untitled --

Active Member

Uber all member

-- untitled --

Member

Uber all member

Uber all member

Doctor of Thinkology

Member

Member

Doctor of Thinkology

Member

The cake is a lie

Member

Uber all member

Member

Uber all member

Doctor of Thinkology