Why the Bible is wrong, according to the Bible

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I never said that my choice is superior than others. I have faith that my choice is correct and if I'm wrong I'll suffer the consequences.

Even by having faith that your choice is correct, you are still saying that your choice is superior to others (that your choice is the right one, and theirs is the wrong one).

As you say, your choice is based on faith that it's the right choice, which is fine I guess, but that's arbitrary, and I think is the basis for why religious beliefs are primarily determined by geography.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

No I still think my analogy is a fine example because by not choosing that is making a choice.

In your analogy there's no universal negative consequence for not choosing, so it can't be a good example.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Again I don't look at it as holding a gun to someones head but rather if I didn't tell someone about the potential consequences I'm doing that person a disservice. They still have the free will to choose, it's more the matter of making an informed decision.

You aren't holding the gun in the analogy, god is, because god is the one that determines if the choice you make is the correct one.

And as I already pointed out you cannot make an informed decision, since an informed decision requires knowledge, not belief. And you even admitted it yourself, because you said it comes down to faith not reason!

Here's a different analogy: You are sick with a disease and you go to the doctor. The doctor has an injection that will cure you, and if you choose no injection you will die. He presents 10 different injections and you have to choose which one to use, only one will work. Oh and he gave you the disease in the first place by putting it in the drinking water.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I believe what I believe because of what I read in the bible.

Why do you believe what the Bible says vs. other possible sources?

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I know you want me to answer this question directly for some reason and no offense but I'd like to know why you really want me to answer it that badly. I can't help but think in the back of my mind you are wanting to try to trap me in something.

I don't have a trap in mind about it, but when you were reluctant to answer I wanted to know why, so I pressed for an answer. Some people don't like to talk about the "you're going to hell" part of their faith even though they believe it because they are embarrassed about it, which exposes a flaw in their faith IMO.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I never said that God provided me with things to convince me, rather I put my faith in him and trusted in his will and as a result things happened to convince me.

For my point there is no difference between the two. You put your faith and trust in, and things happened to convince you.

Others put their faith and trust in, and nothing happens to convince them. Why are they held accountable for that?

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

The goal isn't to test God to prove that he exists it really does come down to faith.

Right, but the claim is that as a result of faith things will happen, but they don't seem to happen for everyone even if they have faith.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

My belief is that there is only one path to God. I will not waiver from that. I can't comment on if people from other religions say the same thing. I know that answer won't be satisfactory to you but I can't speak of things I do not know.

Do you see the weakness in this statement though? It might work for you, but for someone asking deeper questions it is completely empty and unconvincing.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

See that's where we are different. I have faith that what God teaches in the bible is correct. Yes I know there are different versions of the bible (ie. New International version, King James, etc.) but what is said in the bible is essentially the same message.

Actually I don't mean different translations, I mean different source texts. The original copies of the books of the Bible no longer exist, and the Greek source documents that do exist are a century or more older than when they were thought to be written, and the texts are filled with changes and differences.. out of 5700 Greek fragments of the NT, no two are the same. There are more differences among them than there are words in the NT.

And that's not counting books that were important to some groups that didn't make it into the NT which have different doctrines.

Even within the NT itself, there are different contrary messages from different authors.

You have faith that the Bible is correct, but really what you mean is you have faith that your interpretation of the Bible is correct.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Bottom line is I believe what I do because of what is in the Bible and I believe the bible.

And you believe the Bible because you have faith the Bible is correct. But why do you have faith that the Bible is correct?

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by photon

Even by having faith that your choice is correct, you are still saying that your choice is superior to others (that your choice is the right one, and theirs is the wrong one).

As you say, your choice is based on faith that it's the right choice, which is fine I guess, but that's arbitrary, and I think is the basis for why religious beliefs are primarily determined by geography.

That's your interpretation, however, I have never said that my choice is superior to others.

Originally Posted by photon

In your analogy there's no universal negative consequence for not choosing, so it can't be a good example.

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by photon

You aren't holding the gun in the analogy, god is, because god is the one that determines if the choice you make is the correct one.

And as I already pointed out you cannot make an informed decision, since an informed decision requires knowledge, not belief. And you even admitted it yourself, because you said it comes down to faith not reason!

Here's a different analogy: You are sick with a disease and you go to the doctor. The doctor has an injection that will cure you, and if you choose no injection you will die. He presents 10 different injections and you have to choose which one to use, only one will work. Oh and he gave you the disease in the first place by putting it in the drinking water.

Okay I see where you are coming up with this one, but I have to disagree with the fact that the doctor is the one that gave the disease in the first place. This is where I go back to my beliefs of how the world started. I think I would change the analogy a bit to say that the doctor has a virus locked in a cabinet (say it's a liquid) and tells the patient, "don't open the cabinet and take that liquid." The patient ignores the doctor and takes the liquid anyway thus infecting them.

Originally Posted by photon

Why do you believe what the Bible says vs. other possible sources?

I believe what is in the bible because it makes sense to me, and I've heard no argument to the contrary that has convinced me that what the Bible is incorrect.

Originally Posted by photon

I don't have a trap in mind about it, but when you were reluctant to answer I wanted to know why, so I pressed for an answer. Some people don't like to talk about the "you're going to hell" part of their faith even though they believe it because they are embarrassed about it, which exposes a flaw in their faith IMO.

Okay I'll take you at your word. I have no problem talking about hell but I don't believe that should be the only reason a person chooses to follow God.

Originally Posted by photon

For my point there is no difference between the two. You put your faith and trust in, and things happened to convince you.

Others put their faith and trust in, and nothing happens to convince them. Why are they held accountable for that?

Right, but the claim is that as a result of faith things will happen, but they don't seem to happen for everyone even if they have faith.

This doesn't compute to me. How can a person put faith in and trust in God when they don't believe in God or are following God. Not only that but if you are putting faith in God just so something can happen to you than it seems to me like the reason for putting faith in God has the incorrect motivation and is almost like just putting faith in God to test God.

Originally Posted by photon

Do you see the weakness in this statement though? It might work for you, but for someone asking deeper questions it is completely empty and unconvincing.

Honestly it isn't up to me to convince anyone or coerce anyone into believing in God. I share my faith and leave it in God's hands to work in that persons heart.

Originally Posted by photon

Actually I don't mean different translations, I mean different source texts. The original copies of the books of the Bible no longer exist, and the Greek source documents that do exist are a century or more older than when they were thought to be written, and the texts are filled with changes and differences.. out of 5700 Greek fragments of the NT, no two are the same. There are more differences among them than there are words in the NT.

And that's not counting books that were important to some groups that didn't make it into the NT which have different doctrines.

Even within the NT itself, there are different contrary messages from different authors.

You have faith that the Bible is correct, but really what you mean is you have faith that your interpretation of the Bible is correct.

And you believe the Bible because you have faith the Bible is correct. But why do you have faith that the Bible is correct?

Okay, very well I have faith that my version of the bible is correct. I don't have the information at my finger tips before but I've read information before that has convinced me of this years ago.

[Flabbibulin]

Interesting that the majority of debate here is revolving around doctrine. My biggest problem with Christianity isn't scripture or inaccuracies, but Christians themselves- whom I consider to be some of the worst people in our society. Sorry Christians on here that might be offended, but I have more experience in this than I care to get into.

The endless number of cases of emotional and spiritual abuse in western evangelical churhces is staggering, coupled with a superiority complex in Christians that would drive anyone mad (not that this even scratches the surface).

I do have great respect for the message of the Gospel (not necessarily as a literal account), but it is unfortunate that Christians have perverted it.

Someone earlier wrote something along the lines of Christianity being an awful message with good salesmen?? I disagree completely-

Good message with awful salesmen.

[GirlySports]

Maybe that's the problem. All your gods tell you how awesome they are and how great life is and as a kid you believe it but as an adult you feel neglected because you feel God no longer protects you.. he's useless.

Whereas my god tells me from the second I come crying out of the womb and feel cold because I'm torn away from the cozyness of my mom that "LIFE SUCKS KID, NOW DEAL WITH IT!"

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Someone earlier wrote something along the lines of Christianity being an awful message with good salesmen?? I disagree completely-

Good message with awful salesmen.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

- Mahatma Gandhi

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Without another belief system to attack atheism would lack all purpose and zeal. Without a enemy to demonize it would quickly fade away as a concept.

That is why atheists can't be content in their own unbelief. Try to find a book written by a atheist that promotes their belief without attacking other faiths. Compare that to the percentage of books in any christian book store that promotes its own beliefs without the need to even mention other belief systems. It is easy to see who is dependant on whom.

You make the mistake of thinking all atheists are Richard Dawkin, most of us (and we are the overwhelming majority in Canada) just don't believe in god and could care less about you or anyone else.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

That's your interpretation, however, I have never said that my choice is superior to others.

You say your choice is correct, that other's choice is incorrect. That you will have eternal life as a result of your choice, and that others' choice will result in their eternal damnation. I don't see how you can not interpret that as having the superior choice, but we can use a different word then, you say your choice is the correct choice right?

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Okay I see where you are coming up with this one, but I have to disagree with the fact that the doctor is the one that gave the disease in the first place.

Why? The negative consequence of the lack of choice (death from disease) isn't something the patient in the analogy created or set up, it's something they're subjected to by an external agent. I didn't choose to be born into a universe where I'm damned if I don't make the right choice, it's something forced on me by an external agent (god).

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

This is where I go back to my beliefs of how the world started. I think I would change the analogy a bit to say that the doctor has a virus locked in a cabinet (say it's a liquid) and tells the patient, "don't open the cabinet and take that liquid." The patient ignores the doctor and takes the liquid anyway thus infecting them.

This change doesn't fit though. Salvation comes by making a choice to take something. You've changed the analogy to make salvation (the cure from the disease) come by NOT doing something, so it's not the same.

You didn't mention the part about there being 10 injections either.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

This doesn't compute to me. How can a person put faith in and trust in God when they don't believe in God or are following God.

I'm talking about people that do put their faith and trust in and are actively following god. This is what I said: "Others put their faith and trust in, and nothing happens to convince them. Why are they held accountable for that?"

Things happen in your life to convince you that you are on the right path. Others that live the same life, believe the same things, put the same faith and trust in god, and those things do not happen, so they decide that their faith has been misplaced and change their faith.

You get salvation, the others get damnation, how is this just when people are simply making decisions based on their experiences?

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Honestly it isn't up to me to convince anyone or coerce anyone into believing in God. I share my faith and leave it in God's hands to work in that persons heart.

Fair enough, but the Bible also instructs believers to be able to give an answer for the hope they have, to be able to defend it. Belief because of a desire to believe isn't an adequate defense IMO.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Okay, very well I have faith that my version of the bible is correct. I don't have the information at my finger tips before but I've read information before that has convinced me of this years ago.

What kind of information did you read? Was there specific books or authors?

They usually don't teach or mention this kind of information, at least not in more evangelical denominations. Struggling with the different paths to salvation mentioned by the different authors of the gospels (for example) is something they try to avoid rather than research and discuss.

Most pastors that go to seminary learn of the differences and difficulties in the scriptures, but they never seem to bring that to their congregations, and I think it does them a great disservice.

[Thor]

I've always wondered why Christians can square away the idea of hell so easily. How you could worship a God that wishes to punish people for eternity makes that God in my opinion a pretty scary being indeed.

But more importantly, why would the devil punish you, you are one of his boys! (Thanks Jim Jefferies)

[Red Slinger]

I agree with afc wimbledon above. There's a difference between an atheist and simply a person who doesn't believe in 'God'. An Atheist is someone who categorically rejects a deity. Dawkin would clearly fall into this category.

I'll use the well worn example of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why would I bother to go out of my way to reject FSM when the concept is clearly bogus to begin with? An atheist would reject FSM. However, by rejecting FSM you are giving some credence to FSM as a concept and in the process lending credibility to it. Dawkin and his ilk aren't actually arguing in a rational manner. They've engaged in a ridiculous debate. Calgaryborn is completely correct in this respect. Atheism is a parasite on religion.

I'm not an atheist. I don't even engage in the concept just as I wouldn't seriously engage in debating the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster. I think a lot of people fall into the same category as me rather than that of atheism or agnosticism.

However, like I mentioned earlier real faith can not be denied. People feel what they feel and it's not a matter of rationality to try to explain, debate, justify or change their faith. Sure, one could argue it's akin to the phantom limb phenomenon but nonetheless the feeling is there. There is no 'reality' so to speak because we all experience "it" differently. Each of us has our own reality, our own unique digestion that results from our "I-ness". So, if a person of real faith feels what they feel than it is (to borrow a term) what it is. That's like arguing with someone who says they feel cold. Sure, you can argue the conditions which are causing their temperature (anology to the Bible for those following along at home) but how can you argue how they feel when it is truly felt?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I agree with afc wimbledon above. There's a difference between an atheist and simply a person who doesn't believe in 'God'. An Atheist is someone who categorically rejects a deity. Dawkin would clearly fall into this category.

Actually people often have varying degrees of defining the word atheism. Strong atheism, weak atheism, etc.. Dawkins specifically said he's confident there is no God but does not rule out the possibility, I think he said he's 6.9/7 on a scale of confidence.

I'll use the well worn example of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why would I bother to go out of my way to reject FSM when the concept is clearly bogus to begin with? An atheist would reject FSM. However, by rejecting FSM you are giving some credence to FSM as a concept and in the process lending credibility to it.

That's a silly concept, so by this logic the best answer to religion is silence and to ignore it outright?

Dawkin and his ilk aren't actually arguing in a rational manner. They've engaged in a ridiculous debate. Calgaryborn is completely correct in this respect. Atheism is a parasite on religion.

I'll let photon politely tear this apart, but I'm not photon so wtf? All Dawkin's and his ilk are doing is arguing in a rational manner. They've engaged IN debate of something they feel is long overdue in the national and worldwide discourse as religion massively influences everything in our world today. It would be more apt to suggest religion is a parasite on atheism as we are all born atheists, but many become infected with religion as the grow older. See what I did there.

I'm not an atheist. I don't even engage in the concept just as I wouldn't seriously engage in debating the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster. I think a lot of people fall into the same category as me rather than that of atheism or agnosticism.

I think very few people that don't believe in God don't fall under definitions (modern/traditional) of atheism or agnosticism.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by photon

You say your choice is correct, that other's choice is incorrect. That you will have eternal life as a result of your choice, and that others' choice will result in their eternal damnation. I don't see how you can not interpret that as having the superior choice, but we can use a different word then, you say your choice is the correct choice right?

Yes I believe my choice is correct. I've already said that, I don't know why you want to change it to superior.

Originally Posted by photon

Why? The negative consequence of the lack of choice (death from disease) isn't something the patient in the analogy created or set up, it's something they're subjected to by an external agent. I didn't choose to be born into a universe where I'm damned if I don't make the right choice, it's something forced on me by an external agent (god).

This change doesn't fit though. Salvation comes by making a choice to take something. You've changed the analogy to make salvation (the cure from the disease) come by NOT doing something, so it's not the same.

You didn't mention the part about there being 10 injections either.

Again this goes back to my belief of the beginning when God created man and man chose to eat of the apple that he was instructed not to. Thereafter this decision creates a seperation between man and God for all future generations. When Jesus died this was to bridge that gap to make it easier to restore with God. When I say I believe the bible I mean I believe the bible, which is why I disagree with your scenarios because they are leaving out that piece. Granted I know there are a lot of people that don't believe in that (I'm not going to debate creationism vs evolution either).

Was it your choice to be born into this world no, but it happened. If you are then given a choice to be restored to God and choose not to accept it than it is your free will that has prevailed because God chose not to make us all robots. Yes satan will present other paths (some of which I've explored) and again it's a personal choice to choose any other one of those.

Originally Posted by photon

I'm talking about people that do put their faith and trust in and are actively following god. This is what I said: "Others put their faith and trust in, and nothing happens to convince them. Why are they held accountable for that?"

Things happen in your life to convince you that you are on the right path. Others that live the same life, believe the same things, put the same faith and trust in god, and those things do not happen, so they decide that their faith has been misplaced and change their faith.

You get salvation, the others get damnation, how is this just when people are simply making decisions based on their experiences?

First of all I don't know why some one would be testing God to be convinced of his existence if they already believe in him. To me that doesn't make sense. This not withstanding it's possible that God has shown the person and that person has just not seen it or chosen not to see the little things in their life. I'm not saying that God audibly says "Hi there, just wanted to let you know that I exist."

This isn't about making decisions based on experiences because the experiences are great but should not be the reason a person makes a choice to follow God (because really this just amounts to testing God). There is a large element of faith that is needed.

Originally Posted by photon

"Fair enough, but the Bible also instructs believers to be able to give an answer for the hope they have, to be able to defend it. Belief because of a desire to believe isn't an adequate defense IMO."

Okay, and I have defended my belief. I have faith in God, I have faith that the bible is correct, and I feel complete having God in my life as opposed to feeling that I was missing something when I moved away from God. If someone isn't willing to accept that I believe the bible is correct and my faith in it or they want me to provide some physical evidence the God exists than there is nothing I can do. I beleive I've explained why I believe what I believe. To me the bible makes sense and I feel whole with God in my life.

Originally Posted by photon

What kind of information did you read? Was there specific books or authors?

They usually don't teach or mention this kind of information, at least not in more evangelical denominations. Struggling with the different paths to salvation mentioned by the different authors of the gospels (for example) is something they try to avoid rather than research and discuss.

Most pastors that go to seminary learn of the differences and difficulties in the scriptures, but they never seem to bring that to their congregations, and I think it does them a great disservice.

I said don't have the information off the top of my head but I have heard proof of the validation of the source material for the bible. If I can find it I'll let you know. This isn't something I was taught in church.

Why do I feel like I keep going in a circle with my answers.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Thor

I've always wondered why Christians can square away the idea of hell so easily. How you could worship a God that wishes to punish people for eternity makes that God in my opinion a pretty scary being indeed.

It could be that God doesn't punish people because they've already made thier choices as to where they want to go. Besides Hell won't be so bad as we'll be so damned busy shaking hands with friends to know where we are

[photon]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I agree with afc wimbledon above. There's a difference between an atheist and simply a person who doesn't believe in 'God'. An Atheist is someone who categorically rejects a deity. Dawkin would clearly fall into this category.

Atheism is a statement about belief, by definition an atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in 'God'.

Ask the question "Do you believe in God/Gods"? If the answer is no, then you are an atheist.

There are weak atheists ("I don't believe in 'God'"), and there are strong atheists ("I believe there is no God").

And the degree can change depending on the specific god in question. Obviously people who are theists with respect to the god of the Bible are atheists with respect to Wotan.

Incidentally, it's funny how you place Dawkins, because he doesn't place himself there. So many people talk about what they think people like Dawkins and others say, but get it wrong (not picking on you, just an observation across the interwebs).

From Dawkins' book:

Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities
seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God
along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum
is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven
milestones along the way.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. Cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang). Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number,
category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7- 1 am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Personally I don't like this scale, because belief and knowledge are different (though related).

You can be an agnostic atheist (doesn't think there is, insufficient information, but willing to be changed). Or a gnostic atheist (there is sufficient positive evidence to state that there is no god).

Many Christians wouldn't admit to it but they are in fact agnostic theists. They can't prove anything about their god or their belief, but they still believe, they have faith (Rockin' Flames, you're an agnostic theist ).

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Thor

Actually people often have varying degrees of defining the word atheism. Strong atheism, weak atheism, etc.. Dawkins specifically said he's confident there is no God but does not rule out the possibility, I think he said he's 6.9/7 on a scale of confidence.

So, tell me something that you believe deeply. Is it any of my business to tell you that I think what you hold feel deeply is probably bunk with a 6.9/7 on a scale of confidence?

That's a silly concept, so by this logic the best answer to religion is silence and to ignore it outright?

I wouldn't have put it that way but I suppose so if it has to be either or. I don't think religion can be ignored. Religion is different than believing in a deity. Religion is institutionalized but belief, in and of itself, isn't. Someone's faith has no impact on me whatsoever. Therefore, I am in no position to argue with someone else what they should or should not believe. Religion doesn't fall under the same rules in my eyes. So if you're talking about religion then I agree that purposefully ignoring it is not the answer. If you're talking about faith/belief then yes, another person's faith should be ignored.

I'll let photon politely tear this apart, but I'm not photon so wtf? All Dawkin's and his ilk are doing is arguing in a rational manner. They've engaged IN debate of something they feel is long overdue in the national and worldwide discourse as religion massively influences everything in our world today. It would be more apt to suggest religion is a parasite on atheism as we are all born atheists, but many become infected with religion as the grow older. See what I did there.

If they want to argue religion I have no problem with that. If they want to argue about belief than I do have a problem with that. It seems that line is often blurred. I'm not confident that Dawkin is only rejecting religion.

I think very few people that don't believe in God don't fall under definitions (modern/traditional) of atheism or agnosticism.

I would argue that those that are quick to label their belief or lack of belief are those that are also willing to talk about it the most. The rest of us tend not to engage in the conversation unless someone is trying to tell us what to believe or what not to believe.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Yes I believe my choice is correct. I've already said that, I don't know why you want to change it to superior.

I didn't want to change it to superior, it was just the word I happened to use at the beginning and you were objecting to what I was saying but didn't seem to be objecting to what I was meaning.

In this context superior and correct are synonymous.

So back to what started that, out of the billions and billions of people, an individual thinks their choice is the correct one and the others are incorrect. What makes them so special that they're right?

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Again this goes back to my belief of the beginning when God created man and man chose to eat of the apple that he was instructed not to. Thereafter this decision creates a seperation between man and God for all future generations. When Jesus died this was to bridge that gap to make it easier to restore with God. When I say I believe the bible I mean I believe the bible, which is why I disagree with your scenarios because they are leaving out that piece.

I didn't leave out any piece. I have a universal negative consequence for not choosing (disease = separation from god), and I have the choice (accept the injection = accept salvation from Jesus).

But I'll discard the analogy then, and ask a few questions.

First, if you were in the garden, would you have chosen to eat the apple? Would every human have chosen to eat the apple? Or would some humans have chosen and some not have?

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Granted I know there are a lot of people that don't believe in that (I'm not going to debate creationism vs evolution either).

What about the global flood then?

Why not debate it?

Or why is it even an issue, more Christians than not accept evolution as fact.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

If you are then given a choice to be restored to God and choose not to accept it than it is your free will that has prevailed because God chose not to make us all robots.

I'm given a choice to be restored to god, but that the restoration has to happen at all isn't something of my doing, and if I don't choose it I'm damned. That's not free will that's coercion. God is making robots because those that don't choose what he wants them to choose results in their destruction.

Is there free will in heaven? If so, can I sin in heaven?

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

This isn't about making decisions based on experiences because the experiences are great but should not be the reason a person makes a choice to follow God (because really this just amounts to testing God). There is a large element of faith that is needed.

As I said twice, I'm not saying someone follows god based on experiences, I'm saying that they're already following god by faith, and then change their minds because the promises and things described in the Bible don't actually come to pass.

And actually you are incorrect too, not everyone is required to have a large element of faith. Paul got knocked off his horse and blinded, not a lot of faith required there. John is filled with miracles that Jesus performs simply to show the people he is who he claimed to be. Some people get special treatment, others do not and get damned as a result? Hardly seems just.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Okay, and I have defended my belief.

You have and I appreciate that, you've been reasonable and patient.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I said don't have the information off the top of my head but I have heard proof of the validation of the source material for the bible. If I can find it I'll let you know. This isn't something I was taught in church.

Sure! If it's something I haven't read or seen before, we could even do something where I'd read it and give my feedback, and you could read something I bring and you give your feedback.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Why do I feel like I keep going in a circle with my answers.

Honestly, it's because your answers are in fact a circle. You have faith that your beliefs are right. Your beliefs are right because you have faith they are.

It feels right, but in the end it's flawed reasoning.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Why would I bother to go out of my way to reject FSM when the concept is clearly bogus to begin with?

Why would you go out of your way to reject something that you reject? Is that the question? That doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

However, by rejecting FSM you are giving some credence to FSM as a concept and in the process lending credibility to it.

Do I lend credibility to the concept of Santa by not believing in Santa? Unicorns? Harry Potter?

That also does not make sense.

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

So, tell me something that you believe deeply.

Gravity. The big bang. That the earth is not flat.

Is it any of my business to tell you that I think what you hold feel deeply is probably bunk with a 6.9/7 on a scale of confidence?

Yes, absolutely. I'd rather believe what is true than what is not true.

[troutman]

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC12/Campbell.htm

Tom Collins: I gather you're not terribly fond of the Bible.

Joseph Campbell: Not at all! It's the most over-advertised book in the world. It's very pretentious to claim it to be the word of God, or accept it as such and perpetuate this tribal mythology, justifying all kinds of violence to people who are not members of the tribe.

The thing I see about the Bible that's unfortunate is that it's a tribally circumscribed mythology. It deals with a certain people at a certain time. The Christians magnified it to include them. It then turns this society against all others, whereas the condition of the world today is that this particular society that's presented in the Bible isn't even the most important. This thing is like a dead weight. It's pulling us back because it belongs to an earlier period. We can't break loose and move into a modern theology.

One of the great promises of mythology is, with what social group do you identify? How about the planet? To say that the members of this particular social group are the elite of God's world is a good way to keep that group together, but look at the consequences! I think that what might be called the sanctified chauvinism of the Bible is one of the curses of the planet today.

Tom: But if you throw out the Bible as history, don't you also throw it out as a moral imperative?

Joseph: Yes. I don't think the Bible is anybody's moral imperative, unless you want to be a traditional Jew. That's what the Bible tells you.

Tom: Doesn't it tell you how to be a good person?

Joseph: No.

Tom: Lots of people think so.

Joseph: Just read the thing. Maybe it gives you a few hints, but the Bible also tells you to kill everyone in Canaan, right down to the mice.

Tom: What was the passage you quoted to justify their exclusivity ideas?

Joseph: "There is no God in all the world but in Israel." That leaves everybody out except the Jews. This is one of the most chauvinistic views of morality.

[jolinar of malkshor]

You guys are still arguing about this?

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by photon

Why would you go out of your way to reject something that you reject? Is that the question? That doesn't make sense.

That's exactly the point. I'm not rejecting it. The very notion of rejecting it is absurd.

Do I lend credibility to the concept of Santa by not believing in Santa? Unicorns? Harry Potter?

That also does not make sense.

Well, this is a bit of a non-starter. For one, I'm not sure that any adult really believes in Santa, Unicorns or Harry Potter however I'm sure there's someone out there to prove me wrong. Second, let's presume that there is someone out there that is a hard core believer in Santa. Would you bother to argue with him/her? If so, I would be curious why you would bother. What would be gained by it? Would the Santa follower be saved by you? I'm guessing (and I could be wrong) that you wouldn't lend any credence to the conversation to begin with.

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

Gravity. The big bang. That the earth is not flat.

Yes, absolutely. I'd rather believe what is true than what is not true.

Arguing what is true and what is not true is a slippery slope. Descartes argued it much better than I could have but I'll try to paraphrase: you can't really know anything for certain that you see or hear or touch or smell. For all you know you're dreaming or living in someone elses fantasy. The only thing you can know for certain is that you are conscious of thinking. This is where the "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think therefore I am" comes from, although my explanation is sloppy at best. Obviously, this is an extreme example but I think it fits the conversation. 1000 years ago it was "true" that the Earth was flat. 1000 years ago it was true that God created everything. 1000 years from now maybe we'll discover that God farted and caused the Big Bang. I guess my point is (besides working in a fart reference) is that I'm not comfortable talking about what's true and what's not true with any degree of certainty.