You ignored three more questions. Consider your post ignored.
-
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!
Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
You ignored three more questions. Consider your post ignored.
That isn't the classical definition of a 'Christian'. The *usual* definition of a 'Christian' is someone who believes that Jesus was God incarnate and died for the sins of the world.
So, yes, I would say such a person is Christian by the accepted definition. This is especially true since, being God, Jesus is someone a mere human *cannot* follow, bu they can believe in.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I can't tell you only one good one, when there are hundreds. Eat only shellfish and pork and tell your doctor what you're doing. Don't wash before cooking or wash pots after. Leave fecal matter out in the open. Drain the blood from people to help them. Work seven days always until you die of a heart attack.
There are hundreds of Bible laws that have benefit. The greatest is "Trust Christ".
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You asked a loaded question, not realizing that biblical slaves (indentured servants) could walk out and leave. The question was whether they could find food and shelter elsewhere. Consider the medieval feudal economy and the relationship of castle lord to the folks near the castle . . .
I'm trying to say you are finding I lack Christian fruit. What Christian fruit do you seek in me?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Yes, someone can exhibit traits that I think are non-biblical and still follow Christ. This I notice often, blessing brothers and sisters who completely disagree with me on doctrine but claim the Bible as their life guidebook.
What I asked was whether you would say a person is following Christ closely while hating Jesus Christ. Examples:
Am I a Nazi if I say, "I hate Hitler and wish he was dead!"
Am I a Christian if I say, "There is no God, and I never shall read the Bible or set foot in a church again!"
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
How does the Bible make a lucky guess and get correct:
*The precise day of Jesus's crucifixion
*The precise day of the restoration of Israel and its manner
*Hundreds of facts about human behavior that are all wholly true (Proverbs) and etc.
I would love to spend less time on religious forums but the Bible is true.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I don't think anyone can read it with an open heart and not find many things that resonates deeply, but having that open heart is easier said than done.
That's not a slave. The slave would be the one taken into captivity against his will, has his labor stolen from him, loses his freedom and dignity, is beaten and at times to death, and has his family sold away.
Quite possibly. Whether a person was a Nazi was based on party membership.
It's also quite possible for someone to have supported the principles of National Socialism while also thinking that Adolf Hitler wasn't the best person to achieve them.
Not really what we're talking about, is it? How many of those people consider themselves "followers of Christ"?
Most of our difference of opinion about who is and isn't a Christian has to do with people who love God, read the Bible, and attend church... but just interpret the Bible's message and God's will differently from you.
Tell you what: you list what you think are the essential traits of a Christian, then I'll give some examples of established Christian churches that violate them. Sound good?
Slavery isn't necessarily against one's will, a loss of dignity, nor a hardship--it depends on the culture and what one considers to be one's place in the world and in society. I would say that the relevant characteristic is a lack of freedom, rather than loss of freedom, and an attitude of surrender.
Come again?
Wholly true is pushing it, and the ones that are true are generally unremarkable. If they point to a divine author, then so do fortune cookies.
Not only did I not realize this, but it seems the American Bible Society didn't realize this either:
http://bibleresources.americanbible...ants-in-the-time-of-jesus-history-and-culture
BTW: indentured servants were just one class of slave in the ancient world. Other classes of slave - e.g. foreigners captured in war - had no way to buy their way to freedom.
So you're defending feudalism now?
I don't seek anything from you. So far, you've offered nothing that I'm interested in.
You've just described a slave as a confined and defeated individual who volunteered for that life, or was born into it but consents to it (I guess that's what distinguishes "lack of freedom" from "loss of freedom") - a life he would say preserves his dignity and which he doesn't consider a hardship - with no mention of the theft of his labor, beatings, the loss of rights, or the selling of his family.
You said that "it depends on the culture." What culture were you thinking of with that definition?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This is just patently false. There are plenty of people who do not believe in any gods ("lack belief in the existence of gods") yet do not believe that no gods are more likely than gods or visa versa. Many merely do not have a belief either way. But, because they certainly "lack belief in the existence of God/gods", they qualify as "atheist".
I don't believe that either is more likely. I don't have access to enough evidence to make such a conclusion currently.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Can you give a couple of examples?
I was primarily thinking of the Netflix series "Marco Polo," in which Marc becomes a slave in Kublai Khan's court, but it's just one of many examples I've read about in my time.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Is that your answer to my question regarding "How does the Bible get so many facts and prophecies 100% correct?"
Before asking how this claim could be true, it would be prudent to establish whether this claim is true.
Do you think this is "wholly true"?
Proverbs 12:21:
The righteous do not encounter any harm,
but the wicked are filled with calamity.
Do you agree with the Bible that good people don't suffer and that calamity is a sign of wickedness?
Well, it doesn't. It, like many ancient writings, has a 'wisdom literature' that addresses the hopes and fears of the people at the time. Such literature is collected by experience and observation. And it is often wrong (yes, even in the Bible).
Prophesies are uniformly vague and twisted to fit later facts. There was no *specific* prophesies that would pass even the least skeptical test.
If you want a *real* prophesy, I will say that there will be an eclipse of the sun visible across the continental US on August 21,2017. Times for the eclipse have been calculated for various locales down to the minute.
This can be contrasted to a 'prophesy' that says 'a young woman will have a child who will shake the world'. Do you see the difference? One is specific in several different ways. The other is vague, trivial, and says whatever the listener wants to hear.
Biblical 'prophesies' are of the latter sort.
So I guess that you don't like having your questions ignored any more than those whose questions you ignore like it. Can you learn anything from that?
Incidentally, in my case, most questions to you are rhetorical in nature, meaning that your non-answer is an answer - one of equal value to one that is not credible. You can expect me to post about your evasions. Once you choose that path, the next step is to make it explicit for the benefit of those who forgot about the question being ignored. Your strategy relies on nobody noticing what you are doing.