Evidence to support the Christian Bible.

[Confused]

This is simple:

What evidence exists to support the truth of the OT and NT. By evidence, I mean something outside of scripture. What evidence supports the stories of the OT and the NT?
I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se. But what about it gives it authenticity? Such as archeological evidence to support the existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.

[joer]

And in regards to this statement of yours, Beto came up with a suggestion as to how one might respond to this type of statement:

Regardless of how well a 2000 year old fairy tale was translated it still does not prove the bible as anything but fiction.

…it's a weak or false analogy..

No, I did not come up with a "suggestion as to how one might respond to this type of statement". The response was to YOUR statement. It does not apply to Niloc's, unless you can demonstrate the Bible is essentially different from what is known as a "fairy tale", and something other than fiction. Let's avoid quote mining, shall we?

Thank You for clarifying Beto. I figured you probably did that. BUT the point is my question wasn’t ABOUT my question specifically, it was about that TYPE of question in general. And if you read Post 285: critically with the statement Nilloc made that I was questioning and focusing on in Quotes, you may have realized the question I was asking was more rhetorical than anything else.

But I do appreciate your candid reply Beto because it’s your forthrightness in loyally defending what you or your fellow non-believers assert that I admire in you Beto. It’s an excellent quality for one to have.

Good Will to you brother.

Zzy and others I have a response coming. Peace be with you friends.

[joer]

.
Joer,

It must be an oversight that you have not responded to my posts #287 and #289. I credit you with being honorable in debate and not one who ducks questions that they cannot answer. Is that true?

To refresh the memory, you are attempting to show evidence to support bible stories and have presented information regarding the "Star of Bethlehem" and have speculated about what it was.

I ask

1. How a celestial object can lead anyone anywhere on a rotating spherical planet

2. How a celestial object can stop over a point on a rotating spherical planet

3. What the Urantia Book (that I seem to recall you supporting) teaches about the "star"

Unless you can address these issues successfully you have failed to provide any evidence to support bible stories. In fact, you will have provided exactly the opposite – evidence that bible stories CANNOT be supported.

Now you appear to be attempting to change the topic and avoid responding. I am accustomed to debating bible supporters who "duck and weave" when confronted with issues that they cannot address. Surely that is not happening here, is it?

You will address these issues honestly and openly, won't you?

Thank You for your posts Zzy, and your congenial approach. I’ll answer your questions and respond to those others who have followed your lead. The first two questions you pose here I believe can better be answered on another thread.

In my honest view I’ve presented my evidence and satisfied the OP requirements, and am willing to discuss these points that seem to be more about How celestial movements are viewed by human beings, as compared to scientific data of what the movements actually are. So I’ll discuss the first two question on another thread.

The question on the Urantia book here as you pose it doesn’t seem apropos because I didn’t introduce anything from the Urantia Book as evidence in this thread. I presented strictly scientific, historical and literary critical analysis of the evidence presented and it's association to the biblical reported “existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.�

This thread isn’t about the Urantia Book it’s about science, logical and rational knowledge and the bible.

You wrote:

I credit you with being honorable in debate and not one who ducks questions that they cannot answer. Is that true?

I don’t know Zzy. I’ll have to let others be the judge of that. I’d like to think that I don’t duck the most important questions. Of course I use my own judgement to decide which are most important or those that I believe I have something of value to contribute. Often times others are spectacular in there expression of their views and I refrain from interfering out of respect of there dialogue. I’ve been guilty of opining in a discussion where presenters were elegant in their expression only to find the discussion ended upon my post. And I wished I would never had butted in and just enjoyed the presentation of arguments, concepts, ideas, and positions.

You wrote:

You will address these issues honestly and openly, won't you?

Yes I will Zzy. I create a thread call something like Common Human vs. Scientific perspectives of Celestial Movement to address your first two questions and others questions in that category.

And I’ll go "one on one" with you on the Urantia Book any day. If we take turns presenting something from the Urantia Book for the other to refute. Does that sound Just to you Zzy? You go first putting the onus on me to make the first refutation. Than I go with something from TUB you can refute. In the end well see what the score is on points made or refuted by each of us. I think it would be nice if we pick a panel of willing judges to judge the debate. That way our opinions of our own work won’t mean as much as judges in terms of whose position won the most merit. Right?

We could each choose half the judges from those willing to participate. We could choose either believers or non-believers to be as our pick for judge. I’d rather have an objective Atheist or Christian than a fundamentalist Atheist, Christian or other, judge my presentations. You pick who ever you want.

That sound fair to you Zzy?

Now for some of the other posts since my last one on this thread

Joey wrote:

>opinion I hope adds to the debate<

I gotta say guys, Joer has put up one heck of a position here, in relation to the OP. To me, his explanation has just as much to be believed as other's counters.

As all we have is plausibility to go by, Joer has presented a rational, logical case for the Star of Bethlehem. Whether it was a star or not, to me, is not material to whether the event occurred. It sure seems to me, within the bounds of this OP, this forum, and 'the real world' that these folks wrote what they thought was accurate about 'the star'.

I personally lean towards another's OP that suggests this event is based on an alignment of stars pointing to a rising sun. Even under this theory, the Star of Bethlehem event still has enough probability, and plausibility, that I don't mind considering this event as having occurred, though maybe not explained in a sufficiently scientifically accurate way.

The details may be arguable, but this atheist must agree that Joer's case here seems just as or more plausible than any of the counters against it.

I think Joey has some excellent initial judgement of posts. He may doubt his judgement after getting psychologically gang-tackled by the NON-BELIVER PARTY LINE. But just for his initial take on things He’s one judge I’d really trust on his first un-coerced initial objective opinion on something.

Beto wrote:

And suppose the "evidence", such as any given planetary alignment, and corresponding tales, was shown to belong originally to the Egyptians. Does the event still serve as evidence for the tale of the Star of Bethlehem? Can the same event serve as evidence for both "Horus" and "Jesus"?

That’s the problem Beto. You say "suppose" but there is no supposing about the evidence I presented. It’s real and it really happened. There was NO SUPPOSING about it. It didn’t happen in Egypt. It had nothing to do with Horus. It never “belonged� to anybody. It was a plainly occurring, astronomically and mathematically calculated, unusual astronomical event that occurred around the time of Jesus birth. Nothing more and nothing less. And it “could have been�, I never said I proved it was, BUT all things considered the culture, the time, the birth, the place, the state of science at that time. The way common people viewed the heavens at that time, It logically and rationally “could have� been the event that comes down to us as described and translated from an ancient perspective of the celestial event in the Star of Bethlehem Story.

Period.

Joey was right. And even with the mental hammer of peer pressure hanging over his head, I’ll bet you he still believes, the rational in his heart, logical and scientific aspects of the event itself. That’s not saying he believes or argues that the 2000 year old perspective is scientifically correct or in adherence to Today’s scientific knowledge. But logically ONE WOULDN’T EXPECT human beings from 2000 years ago to have the same perspective of educated human beings like those who are posting those questions challenging the accuracy in today’s scientific terms with the accuracy of the perspective of humans 2000 years ago.

It’s illogical to propose or imply that they would “a rotating spherical planet�

or as McCulloch honestly points out, an obvious caveat to the statement:

"How can a celestial object can lead anyone anywhere on a rotating spherical planet?"
(Excepting Polaris)

A celestial object (Polaris)CAN lead someone somewhere on “a rotating spherical planet� And ask any navigator, celestial objects have been leading millions of people to millions of places “on a rotating spherical planet� for ten of thousands of years. Whoops!

Better be a little more specific with that statement. NOT

You don’t have to be more specific. All you have to do is accept the fact that people used those terms about celestial objects leading them or stopping over a certain place figuratively NOT LITERALLY. I don’t mean to shout, but it’s just so frustrating when people overlook the obvious just to prove a point.

And then we have Goat’s comment:

Why should we accept the specific incident that is talked about in 7 bc. by the Book of Urania? Why not the comet in 5 bce, the lunar eclipse in 4 bce, the conjunction in 1 bce, and about a half a dozen different theories?

If you do a few seconds of critical thinking you can see the obvious flaws in Goat’s argument. Now he's using a BOOK, that has been discredited here among many non-believers and believers both, as an authority to disprove a scientific fact. (That really makes a lot of sense! NOT!) And luckily because most of us have a minimum of 20th century scientific knowledge from our first 12 years of formal education, we know off the top of our head what a comet looks like, what an eclipse looks like and many probably know what a planetary conjunction looks like. And that’s enough basic knowledge to know that NONE OF THESE EVENTS LOOKS LIKE ANY OF THE OTHERS. Neither do they look like a triple occurrence of the same planetary conjunction in one year where the angle of conduction is SO CLOSE they LOOK LIKE (NOT ARE!) “ONE STAR�! And because they occur at different times of the year in different parts of the sky THEY LOOK LIKE (NOT ARE!) they are moving.

Well since Goat and Zzy have segued into the gospels Can we deal with that evidence now? I really don’t have to start a thread about common Human vs. scientific perspectives on Celestial Movements now because I’ve dealt with those questions here. And I’ll gladly debate Zzy one on one on The Urantia Book under the terms I’ve presented in this post.

So since Goat is using what I presented about Matthew as an authority to debunk the Star of Bethlehem story, and Zzy is unreasonably questioning the disparity between Gospel contents. Why don’t we go there.

Thank You all for your posts. I appreciate your willingness to discuss things of a biblical nature in the interest of discovering (uncovering) TRUTH or at least the possibility of uncovering truth.

Good Will to you all my brothers and sisters.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 30 Post 300:

It is quite plausible that "unusual" celestial events happened around the time of your birth. Has that made you divine?

LOL. All I'm conceding is maybe this Jesus got born. No divinity.

An asteroid is visible over large areas of the Earth's surface as the planet rotates – and does NOT lead anyone anywhere. One CANNOT "follow" an asteroid. That is a meaningless idea.
If one invokes a "miracle" for trajectory or anything else about the story that becomes a matter for Holy Huddle where "miracles" may be accepted as truthful. In public debate involving Non-Theists, "miracles" are NOT accepted as explanations or as evidence.

I presented this only as a weak alternative to the 'star theory'. I will concede such notion does stretch credibility. I'm just these folks may very well have attribute their actions to some celestial object or event. I retract any "miracle" as that term is popularly understood.
I knew my daring to say 'miracle' for an asteroid trajectory was apt to get me rightly slapped. My intention was to convey a trajectory that may have been some kind of gravitational deal.
It's not my intent to just make stuff up here, but to realize that the universe does do some goofy things from time to time.
I'm willing to retract any asteroid claims here as I am only speculating. My intention was to further explain how I accepted Joer's position as plausible.

I AGREE 100%. The story is very clear in regards the star stopping.

I point out my own ignorance as to how "locked in" this star stopping is.

That said, don't some stars or planets appear to stop as they go into retrograde? If this is the case, then it points me back to thinking these folks have combined the biscuits of one event with the gravy of another, and they're eating a breakfast of their own misunderstanding. This still does change my opinion these folks claimed this story as real, though they lacked a proper understanding of the science.

I am not placing God or a divine Jesus into this, only looking at it from my understanding of how humans confuse one thing with another.

It is not only the time of year that is questioned but the YEAR. Attempting to fix the date from biblical stories produces a wide range of dates – with no correlation.
It is interesting that the "birth narrative" occurs in only two of the four "gospels" and they do not agree.

I just don't see why the particular year is relevant. If these folks thought some kind of "star" was leading them, then they thought it was leading them regardless of whether the star was even in the sky the whole time.

Yes, it might possibly maybe have some basis. However, those who put for the story as truth are ethically REQUIRED to provide more than a plausibility. That has not been done.

I accept this. I would say though since the particulars of the event are lost to time, we are forced into accepting or rejecting based on plausibility. As a "juror" here, my vote is that Joer's case has met the requirements of being a logical, coherent, reasoned position.

I don't mean to say that Joer is without a doubt correct, only that his case has been presented in a fashion I accept as worthy of consideration.

This is typical of results when a conclusion goes looking for "evidence" – and is an example of why an actual search for truth forms conclusions AFTER evidence is collected, analyzed and tested.

Agreed. All I'm agreeing to here is that Joer has presented a plausible scenario, and as I understand the OP, I would say, "Since the case Joer presents is plausible, I will accept it as evidence, but only as a non-supernatural event. No more, no less." (and Joer himself is not claiming supernatural)

Okay, we may let you back in the A Room.

LOL. As your sig points out, and particularly in this case, all we really have here is opinion. My opinion on the matter is Joer has presented his case for the Star of Bethlehem event as plausible, though not in a fashion that makes me think it was supernatural (nor does Joer indicate it had to be supernatural).
-----------------------
From Page 31 Post 302

In my honest view I’ve presented my evidence and satisfied the OP requirements

I agree. I think you present a logical/reasoned position that I accept, not including any supernatural "God" cause. I think it is plenty plausible to think the event occurred, though the particulars are forever lost to time.

I think Joey has some excellent initial judgement of posts. He may doubt his judgement after getting psychologically gang-tackled by the NON-BELIVER PARTY LINE.

LOL. Gang-tackled. hahahahaha. I only retract parts of my previous claims. I don't see where Joer has any need to plow anything under.

Joey was right. And even with the mental hammer of peer pressure hanging over his head, I’ll bet you he still believes, the rational in his heart, logical and scientific aspects of the event itself.

I believe Joer's case is sound from a logic/reason standpoint, per forum rules. I don't think Joer himself is saying his is capital T truth, only that it is plausible to think this event occurred, but may have been misunderstood by those folks who witnessed it.

I'm not a moderator, but in my opinion Joer's argument rises to the level of logic/reason required by the OP. I accept it may not fully reach an absolute proof, but my opinion is it is plausible enough that I would accept it as evidence for that particular part of the Bible being correct, insofar as it was told within the frame of knowledge of the day.

All you have to do is accept the fact that people used those terms about celestial objects leading them or stopping over a certain place figuratively NOT LITERALLY.

Agreed. All I personally need here is to think these folks at least thought some "star" was leading them. These folks are not astronomers, if they headed out in a direction because they thought some star was leading them, then they headed out. "Let's go in the direction of that star". That "star" leads them to a point on the horizon. Once they head out, they aim to the horizon, but "the star led them to the horizon".

As these oral stories get passed down, then the "tall tale" effect has the star with it's arm outstretched and finger pointing. I just don't see any need to over-analyze the "star".


I'd like to point out I brought up the "asteroid theory" as an example that this need not be a "star". I will retract that, and I hope no one expects Joer to defend my poor example.

[Beto]

You don’t have to be more specific. All you have to do is accept the fact that people used those terms about celestial objects leading them or stopping over a certain place figuratively NOT LITERALLY. I don’t mean to shout, but it’s just so frustrating when people overlook the obvious just to prove a point.

I suppose the star "figuratively" appeared in the sky as well. Do you deny you're making an arbitrary choice to START the figurative interpretation where you personally want? Do you have an objective reason to start there, and reject an interpretation, for instance, that the wise men are also figurative, representing Orion's belt? You seem to forget the problem isn't with figurative interpretations, it's the presumption that they can start where you want them to, without an objective criteria behind it.

[Zzyzx]

.

Unless you can address these issues successfully you have failed to provide any evidence to support bible stories. In fact, you will have provided exactly the opposite – evidence that bible stories CANNOT be supported.

Now you appear to be attempting to change the topic and avoid responding. I am accustomed to debating bible supporters who "duck and weave" when confronted with issues that they cannot address. Surely that is not happening here, is it?

You will address these issues honestly and openly, won't you?

Thank You for your posts Zzy, and your congenial approach. I’ll answer your questions and respond to those others who have followed your lead. The first two questions you pose here I believe can better be answered on another thread.

I see. You "will answer" but won't answer in this thread to which the questions directly apply. Nice dodge. I repeat the questions in THIS thread.

1. How can a celestial object lead anyone anywhere on a rotating spherical planet?

2. How can a celestial object stop over a point on a rotating spherical planet?

The question on the Urantia book here as you pose it doesn’t seem apropos because I didn’t introduce anything from the Urantia Book as evidence in this thread.

Is the UB "off limits" unless you raise it as a topic?

This thread isn’t about the Urantia Book it’s about science, logical and rational knowledge and the bible.

Is the UB a reference for you or a source of information?

I think that it is reasonable to ask an opponent about their position and their points of reference.

I consider it telling and amusing that you have several times ducked a direct question regarding whether you are a proponent (or supporter or follower) of the Urantia Book. Are you hesitant to make that acknowledgement among discerning and challenging debaters?

Do you not realize that refusal to answer and to have the answer become obvious later does not increase your credibility with readers?

I credit you with being honorable in debate and not one who ducks questions that they cannot answer. Is that true?

I don’t know Zzy.

You "don't know" if you are honorable in debate or if you duck questions?????

I’ll have to let others be the judge of that.I’d like to think that I don’t duck the most important questions. Of course I use my own judgement to decide which are most important or those that I believe I have something of value to contribute.

I see, you attempt to answer only questions that your decide are "important" and evidently feel free to dodge others that are "unimportant"?. Any difficult question or any question that demonstrates the paucity of your "arguments" can simply be dismissed as "unimportant". How convenient.

Often times others are spectacular in there expression of their views and I refrain from interfering out of respect of there dialogue.

This is a debate forum. One's ideas and discussions are not private or sacred.

I’ve been guilty of opining in a discussion where presenters were elegant in their expression only to find the discussion ended upon my post.

I can understand that your post might not have fit in to that discussion.

You will address these issues honestly and openly, won't you?

Yes I will Zzy.

Thank you.

Kindly explain in detail how a person can FOLLOW a conjuncture of planets.

Kindly explain in detail how a celestial object can STOP over the proposed birth place(s) of Jesus.

Do you realize that "Mathew" and "Luke" give two DIFFERENT locations for the birth scene? Does that complicate the issue of having a "star" stop over the birthplace(s)?

And I’ll go "one on one" with you on the Urantia Book any day. If we take turns presenting something from the Urantia Book for the other to refute. Does that sound Just to you Zzy?

You go first putting the onus on me to make the first refutation.

Let's see, are you proposing that I present something from a book that you favor for you to refute – and if you don't refute it you make a "point" – or do you make a "point" if you do refute your own reference?

Why does that sound a bit silly?

I will GLADLY debate Head to Head regarding the truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book but not on unfair or irrational terms.

I agree to have a closely monitored structured debate – and suggest alternating posts in which one question is asked and one answer is provided for the previous posted question – (i.e., answer one, ask one).

That sound fair to you Zzy?

Do you actually propose that as what you regard as fair? Is that an example of your standards of judgment and fairness?

I think Joey has some excellent initial judgement of posts.

He may doubt his judgement after getting psychologically gang-tackled by the NON-BELIVER PARTY LINE. But just for his initial take on things

He’s one judge I’d really trust on his first un-coerced initial objective opinion on something.

This statement is filed for future reference. Thank you.

Thanks also for the chuckle with "gang-tackled" and "the non-believer party line".

It is also entertaining to read that you credit Joey with excellent judgment as long as he appears to agree with you but dismiss his judgment if he is "psychologically" influenced -- as though he is weak and indecisive. I would not characterize Joey as one who is weak, indecisive or easily "led astray" in his thinking.

Perhaps Joey will have something to say about that insult.

But logically ONE WOULDN’T EXPECT human beings from 2000 years ago to have the same perspective of educated human beings like those who are posting those questions challenging the accuracy in today’s scientific terms with the accuracy of the perspective of humans 2000 years ago.

I agree. We cannot expect bible writers to have the perspective or knowledge of educated modern people. Their levels of ignorance regarding nature were far greater than our present levels of ignorance.

They did not realize, when making up or exaggerating a story, that the Earth was not flat and that the "stars" did not revolve around the Earth. So telling a tale about stars guiding people and stopping over a given location may have seemed perfectly reasonable to them and their audience at the time.

However, some modern people attempt to revert to the level of ignorance of that era rather than apply modern knowledge – and claim that the story is literally true.

Notice that the gospel of "John" does not include the embellishments. I wonder why "Mathew" and "Luke" would embellish the birth story with such add-ons. Could it be to make a rather ordinary birth seem miraculous?

A celestial object (Polaris) CAN lead someone somewhere on “a rotating spherical planet". And ask any navigator, celestial objects have been leading millions of people to millions of places “on a rotating spherical planet� for ten of thousands of years. Whoops!

Yes, woops. You have just demonstrated "grabbing at straws".

Readers can distinguish between using stars for navigation and being "led by a star" as per the biblical tale (that you later suggest is figurative).

Better be a little more specific with that statement. NOT

Of course, Polaris – the North Star. Why didn't I think of that?????

Jesus must have been born at the North Pole because that is the place where Polaris is directly above ("stopped" over according to the tale).

Or, do you propose that Polaris was over Bethlehem (or was it Nazareth?) two thousand years ago?

How can one say that Polaris "stopped"? Wouldn't it have had to be in motion to have stopped? How does that happen?

When Polaris is used for navigation does it "lead" people somewhere? Where?

It is more accurate to say that Polaris can be a reference in navigating toward a place that a person wants to go. Notice, that the "star" doesn’t "lead" anyone anywhere but serves as a reference to navigate where they want to go.

You don’t have to be more specific. All you have to do is accept the fact that people used those terms about celestial objects leading them or stopping over a certain place figuratively NOT LITERALLY I don’t mean to shout, but it’s just so frustrating when people overlook the obvious just to prove a point.

Thank you. When one gets frustrated or under pressure even carefully concealed truth may slip out.

I accept that the writers of the biblical "miraculous" birth story ("Luke" and/or "Mathew") may have spoken figuratively regarding the "star" leading people to the birthplace of Jesus and stopping. Of course they were speaking figuratively since no such thing happens in the real world.

EXACTLY. The story is NOT literally true. THAT is my point.

You were attempting to show that scientific information substantiated bible stories but have shown exactly the OPPOSITE. You have conceded that modern scientific knowledge makes it likely (or obvious) that the birth story is NOT literally true. Thank you.

Since you propose that the gospel writers were speaking figuratively (not literally true) about the star leading and stopping, perhaps they were speaking figuratively about the ENTIRE incident. Since you propose figurative for some parts of the story you are NOT entitled to arbitrarily decide that other parts are not figurative – unless you can provide sound reason to regard some parts as literally true and others as not literally true AND provide criteria by which such distinctions are made.

If you do a few seconds of critical thinking you can see the obvious flaws in Goat’s argument. Now he's using a BOOK, that has been discredited here among many non-believers and believers both, as an authority to disprove a scientific fact.

Rather than using the UB "as an authority", I think that Goat was "throwing your own book in your face" by noting its mention of a specific comet that was no more likely to be the proposed "star" than any one of several others.

And I’ll gladly debate Zzy one on one on The Urantia Book under the terms I’ve presented in this post.

Are you willing to debate Zzyzx "one on one on The Urantia Book" under FAIR and reasonable terms? OR do you require a stacked deck to feel competent to debate the issue?

[JoeyKnothead]

I thought maybe I need to clear this up, so here we go to clearing:

From Page 31 Post 302:

I think Joey has some excellent initial judgement of posts. He may doubt his judgement after getting psychologically gang-tackled by the NON-BELIVER PARTY LINE. But just for his initial take on things He’s one judge I’d really trust on his first un-coerced initial objective opinion on something.

I feel no pressure, psychologically or otherwise, to change my opinions. Hopefully my opinions change when I am presented with better evidence, and that alone. I feel no pressure in "the real world" or within these forums to change my mind based on anything other than better information.

My respect for any poster herein will not have me change my position based solely on how I want that poster to perceive me. If I consider a poster a friend, and that poster is wrong, I feel it is my duty to help steer my friend onto the path of correct.

Where I previously stated a position, and was given better information, I changed my position based solely on my understanding of the information. I felt no coercion, no pressure but my sense of trying to be fair to myself, and to the information presented.

Note here, I have not changed my position on the information Joer has provided. I stand by my assertion his Star of Bethlehem argument is a reasonable, logical position. The only change in my position has been in arguments I've presented.

I will not dogmatically adhere to a position that I present, merely because I presented it. If I'm wrong, it's just like being married all over again. I gotta admit I was wrong and carry on.

[joer]

Joey wrote:

I will not dogmatically adhere to a position that I present, merely because I presented it. If I'm wrong, it's just like being married all over again. I gotta admit I was wrong and carry on.

Thanks Joey, you got me laughing in front of my monitor screen again! I appreciate your ethic, joey. I believe my comments may have been a reflection of my own impressions of the posts on this thread more than an accurate portrayal of your reaction to them. I'm sorry if I imposed on you good character. I believe you have viewed it, I hope, in good humor. I have the utmost respect for your integrity.

You have a good way of pointing out and sticking to the truth. That's one very important thing I like about you. Your effervescent personality is another. IMHO You just have a lot of charisma.

Good Will to you my brother.

[joer]

Zzy wrote:

You "don't know" if you are honorable in debate or if you duck questions?????

Well you say I don’t duck questions:

Zzyzx wrote:

I credit you with being honorable in debate and not one who ducks questions that they cannot answer.

I trust your judgement. You’re the Top debater I’m not. Who better to judge my debating characteristics. Thank you for your confidence

You wrote:

Do you realize that "Mathew" and "Luke" give two DIFFERENT locations for the birth scene? Does that complicate the issue of having a "star" stop over the birthplace(s)?

Not off the Top of my head. But with the analytical critical historical and literary analysis evidence for understanding the Bible I’m presenting, perhaps we can better understand if their being "DIFFERENT" really matters.

You wrote:

Let's see, are you proposing that I present something from a book that you favor for you to refute – and if you don't refute it you make a "point" – or do you make a "point" if you do refute your own reference?

Why does that sound a bit silly?

Because you’re trying to make it sound silly? What’s the matter zzy? “Are you getting cold feet?�

You continued with:

I will GLADLY debate Head to Head regarding the truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book but not on unfair or irrational terms.

I agree to have a closely monitored structured debate – and suggest alternating posts in which one question is asked and one answer is provided for the previous posted question – (i.e., answer one, ask one).

Who goes first?

What Rules of debate will we follow?

Any limit of the length of the answer or complexity of the question, like multiple embedded questions? ( Like asking two, three, four, five or more questions in ONE. )

How about limitations of content? Like only questions about things that pertain to a what can be proven by a material basis of reality or will a spiritual basis of reality be acceptable?

I don’t mine you using rules as long as the content of debate is not limited by exclusionary evidentiary rules.

Or a “no holds barred� type of debate?

I have the same concerns about you as you’ve indicated about me in your closing statement:

Are you willing to debate Zzyzx "one on one on The Urantia Book" under FAIR and reasonable terms? OR do you require a stacked deck to feel competent to debate the issue?

So lets set it up! We’re both game. Lets crank out the parameters of this debate and get going.

Do want to review allowable references before we start so we eliminate objections to reference during the debate so we can focus on Topic instead of nit picking about acceptable references?

Speaking of Topic, I suggested,

"Is the Urantia Book more valid or invalid in terms of the Truth contained within it's Material?"

on the Head to Head thread and you said you would debate:

the truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book

So how about “How do you determine the Truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book's Contents�

I agree to have a closely monitored structured debate – and suggest alternating posts in which one question is asked and one answer is provided for the previous posted question – (i.e., answer one, ask one).

Sounds good to me. How’s our structuring process going so far? You don’t need to infer I’m trying to "stack the deck" or belittle my suggestions. Just tell me what How you want to set it up. I’ll make suggestions and we can work out in a copacetic fashion

How about the idea I presented about an outside judging panel comprised of the judges WE choose? I think that would make it a little more interesting don’t you?

I’m excited about the opportunity of trying to setup and execute a fairly structured debate with you, Zzy. I really respect the intensity and plethora of questions you ask. I welcome a chance to keep the questions down to a “one to one� basis. I’m pretty slow and it will give me a chance to keep up with you while you keep up with all the threads you post on. I love your vitality and I'm thankful your willing to spend a little of on a debate with me. Thank You brother.

I look forward to a debate where the structure is setup to keep the focus on the topic and avoid to many divergences. How about you Zzy?

Should we move this debate setup to the Head to Head thread now?

[Zzyzx]

.
Reply will post later today

[Zzyzx]

.

I credit you with being honorable in debate and not one who ducks questions that they cannot answer.

I trust your judgement. You’re the Top debater I’m not. Who better to judge my debating characteristics. Thank you for your confidence

Try to live up to the credit I give you. Notice that one meaning of credit is a loan (it might be wise to think of it that way).

Thank you for "I trust your judgment" and for the recognition.

Let's see, are you proposing that I present something from a book that you favor for you to refute – and if you don't refute it you make a "point" – or do you make a "point" if you do refute your own reference?

Why does that sound a bit silly?

Because you’re trying to make it sound silly?

I feel no need to make it sound silly. It IS silly – as readers can see.

What’s the matter zzy? “Are you getting cold feet?�

Oh sure, I fear arguments based upon bolding and underlining text.

I request that in a Head to Head debate that you use the forum's quote function properly to identify the person quoted and that you reduce the overuse of unnecessary formatting such as and .

If you make a good point I will be aware. In general debate threads you may feel it necessary to bold and underline – but overuse of bold and underline is, in my opinion, distracting for readers and is an indication that one has little confidence that their points are noticeable or significant on their own.

I will GLADLY debate Head to Head regarding the truth and accuracy of the Urantia Book but not on unfair or irrational terms.

I agree to have a closely monitored structured debate – and suggest alternating posts in which one question is asked and one answer is provided for the previous posted question – (i.e., answer one, ask one).

Who goes first?

You may choose. It makes no difference to me.

What Rules of debate will we follow?

I suggest that we AGREE upon what rules to follow. A good place to start may be the thread in General Chat that suggests rules for a Head to Head debate. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9405

I do NOT propose that what anyone (myself included) says in that discussion is appropriate for every debate – but rather that the thread is a good place for the participants to START developing an acceptable set of rules and conditions.

Based upon the ideas presented in that thread and other ideas, participants proposing a debate can discuss, perhaps by PM to avoid cluttering threads, the "rules of engagement" to apply to a particular debate.

Another crucial thread is "Guidelines for the C&A subforum"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741
Insert UB beliefs / book where appropriate.

Another apropos thread that contains some useful information (though not "rules") is "Debating for beginners (and others)" http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9533

Any limit of the length of the answer or complexity of the question, like multiple embedded questions? ( Like asking two, three, four, five or more questions in ONE).

Suggest wording with which you would be comfortable and I will consider what you say.

How about limitations of content? Like only questions about things that pertain to a what can be proven by a material basis of reality or will a spiritual basis of reality be acceptable?

Define "spiritual basis of reality" and describe how it is to be used as evidence or proof.

I don’t mine you using rules as long as the content of debate is not limited by exclusionary evidentiary rules

What do you mean you don't mind ME using rules? Are you in disagreement with having rules for debate? If you agree then WE have rules to which we agree.

Specify exactly what you mean by and how you interpret and apply "not limited by exclusionary evidentiary rules". Are you saying that using Peter Pan as evidence is to be deemed credible?

Or a “no holds barred� type of debate?

That is of no interest

I have the same concerns about you as you’ve indicated about me in your closing statement:

Are you willing to debate Zzyzx "one on one on The Urantia Book" under FAIR and reasonable terms? OR do you require a stacked deck to feel competent to debate the issue?

You have an advantage in that I do not attempt to structure a debate in my favor as you did with your opening suggestion. However, I will overlook that and attempt to come to agreement regarding what is fair and equitable.

Do want to review allowable references before we start so we eliminate objections to reference during the debate so we can focus on Topic instead of nit picking about acceptable references?

I am not in favor of any specific list of allowable references; however, a discussion of categories or types of acceptable reference or evidence is agreeable. What do you suggest?

Speaking of Topic, I suggested,

Is the Urantia Book more valid or invalid in terms of the Truth contained within it's Material?"

I am not inclined to measure the "relative truth" of a work used for reference.

What IS your position regarding the UB? I have asked several times in various threads with no response.

Notice that I do NOT say that the UB is all "hogwash" or that it does not contain some (however limited) truthful, useful or accurate information. I DO say that it seems difficult (at best) to identify literally truthful parts, if any, from those that are not literally true.

I have much the same attitude toward the bible, the koran and other revered texts. There may be some truth but what is true is not evident or necessarily identifiable. I ask proponents what criteria can be used to distinguish between truth and fiction or untruth – and have never received a coherent reply.

One problem we may encounter in structuring our debate is what constitutes evidence. I am far more a realist than a spiritualist. In fact, the latter is foreign to me. "Feelings" or "voices" do not impress me as being evidence of anything more than a person's emotional responses. Testimonials (personal attestations) are no more convincing – they are unverifiable personal expressions / opinions / observations. Personal opinion does NOT constitute evidence – though expert opinion (widely recognized experts) may have some (not absolute) merit.

"Convergence of evidence" is significant in my view. Single points of "evidence" that cannot be substantiated I regard as being questionable (possibly true, possibly false, or partially each – with no way of knowing which).

I am NOT willing to assume that supernatural beings exist or that they influence human affairs – or that "god" or "aliens did it". Stories about such beings or nature-defying feats do NOT constitute evidence in my estimation UNLESS they can be shown to have occurred literally, physically in the real world.

Circularity in argument does not furnish proof (citing a source to prove itself or citing a closely allied source) – such as "The bible (or UB) is true because it says it is" or or because these people say it is true or "this chapter of the bible is true because another 'independent' chapter says something similar"

Excuses for lack of evidence do not constitute a valid argument in my opinion. If one takes a position I credit them (often incorrectly – but I am generous) with having evidence upon which to form an opinion or reach a conclusion. Stating that they have a conclusion but can't find evidence to support the conclusion is a concession of default.

One is entitled to their own opinion but they are NOT entitled to claim possession of FACT or truth unless they can demonstrate that possession.

How about the idea I presented about an outside judging panel comprised of the judges WE choose? I think that would make it a little more interesting don’t you?

I suggest that we select two moderators rather than judges. In my opinion readers are independent judges. I am not interested in "points" or in "winning" – that is not my motivation to debate.

Each of us can invite one moderator who is wiling to act in the capacity of insuring that we follow the rules of the forum, the guidelines for C&A, our agreed rules and ethical / honorable conduct.