The odds of a Shakespearian sonnet

[Audie]

My question was: "How does people disagreeing over the Bible validate or invalidate the Bible's teachings?"

I find the Bible unambiguous, especially since I notice that skeptics always disagree with Christian teaching.

Have you admitted yet that this is blatantly untrue?

Fibs are very naughty.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Have you admitted yet that this is blatantly untrue?

Fibs are very naughty.

Pick what you agree with, then:

1. Jesus is to be always worshiped and adored
2. Saturday is God's day, every day is God's day, moreover
3. You give at least 10% of your income to support churches and church missions
4. You go everywhere to everyone and tell them the Christ is the risen Lord, worthy of trust unto salvation

Fibber.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So what does 'true' mean? Show me how it tells us whether "Pierre is the capital of South Dakota" is true or not ─ talk me through each step the process of applying the test to the statement.
But since God is real, has objective existence, is not imaginary, and since God is not one of our fellow humans, and since God can do magic, there must be unique qualities that God objectively possesses that distinguishes [him] from a human, and from, say, a supergeneral and from a superscientist. Or are you content to worship a supergeneral or a superscientist?

And in particular and especial, the definition needs to give anyone the test that will tell whether whether any candidate is God or not, whether the statement, "this real thing is God" is true or not. Since I don't know what that test could be, I'm asking you.

And I say yet again, without it neither you nor I know what real thing you're talking about,

1. I am unaware of any counter-claims to Pierre as capital.
2. I am aware of numerous claims, made by reasonable persons, that Pierre is the capital.
3. Beyond a reasonable doubt, Pierre is the true capital.

God may be merely a super-being with great power. Per the Bible, I'm in a lot of trouble unless I cling to Him.

The logical, reasonable test for the biblical God, since He says within, "Test me... let's reason together," is to say aloud, "God if you exist, I will follow and trust you, but I need you to intervene in this natural world via supernatural means. I need to know it's not my imagination or mere coincidence, but that you are communicating with me. Of course, if you don't exist, I'm just talking to air, so no biggie... God, the Bible says you have the burden of proof, as you are withdrawn from men because of sin, invisible. But the Bible says you intervened in humanity via the Christ. He lived and died millennia ago, so send me something I can understand/believe if the Christ is your Son."

 

[Audie]

Pick what you agree with, then:

1. Jesus is to be always worshiped and adored
2. Saturday is God's day, every day is God's day, moreover
3. You give at least 10% of your income to support churches and church missions
4. You go everywhere to everyone and tell them the Christ is the risen Lord, worthy of trust unto salvation

Fibber.

Charmingly disingenuous of you to pick
teachings that relate specifically and only to your
particular sky-god.

I notice that skeptics always disagree with Christian teaching.

That is baloney, but you, what, cannot admit it and try to make me out to be a liar
for pointing it out? So very Christian, so loving!

Among many other basic concepts in the bible,
we offer commandments 5 through 10 that
are essentially universal among the cultures of the world.

I agree with and abide by those. As well as a lot of t he
other bits of folk wisdom in the bible.


Calling names / false accusation of lying, and otherwise adding to your earlier falsehood is what, "Christian" of you?

We are starting to feel the "Love" that gets you spat on

 

[blü 2]

1. I am unaware of any counter-claims to Pierre as capital.
2. I am aware of numerous claims, made by reasonable persons, that Pierre is the capital.
3. Beyond a reasonable doubt, Pierre is the true capital.

An odd system, one concerned with opinions but not with facts. You know of no opinions opposing the statement. You know of opinions in favor of the statement.

So it seems your definition of truth is, "That which the majority of personal opinions I'm aware of think is correct."

Is that right? If not, what IS right?

God may be merely a super-being with great power.

So a superscientist or superwarrior, but having no supernatural powers ─ is that what you're saying?

The logical, reasonable test for the biblical God, since He says within, "Test me... let's reason together," is to say aloud, "God if you exist, I will follow and trust you, but I need you to intervene in this natural world via supernatural means.

First, why would one offer to follow and trust a being one's never seen? How could that be logical and reasonable? How do you know he's not a human fraud, or the devil, or a predator setting up a trap?

And second, now you say God indeed has supernatural powers, so he's a magician, not a superscientist.

God, the Bible says you have the burden of proof, as you are withdrawn from men because of sin, invisible.

What has the bible to do with anything? If God is real then we turn to his weekly TV show, not to the bible to know what he says. We turn to the bible if we're curious about the religious beliefs and practices of the near East in the Bronze Age and the early Roman empire. We have no more reason to think their God stories are true than we have to think the God stories of Mesopotamia, Greece, Persia, India, China, Africa or the pre-Columbian Americas are true.