For those who claim that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God" why do you believe this?
Seems to me the arguments to support this belief are usually circular. As in "The Bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God". And evidence that the Bible is the Word of God?" Because the Bible is without error or contradiction", i.e. inerrant.
Consider this OP a challenge. Give the skeptic a better argument to convince them that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God than the usual circular argument.
Why do you believe and why should the skeptic believe that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God"?
Break out of the circle.
Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Savant
- Posts: 12235
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?
Post #1 My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
- PinSeeker
- Banned
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Post #51
Due to the "excellence" (in quotes to indicate the lack thereof) of human beings.Clownboat wrote: Why, if everything your god does is excellently executed do we have nearly 40,000 versions of Christianity?
Right, and yours. And everybody's. But only some see it as a burden. "Pilgrim's Progress" (John Bunyan) is a great -- and fun -- read.Clownboat wrote: Sin is your burden to bare.
No, all the versions are just translations of the original Hebrew and Greek. Some translations are not quite as others, but they still say the same thing.Clownboat wrote: Then your god has failed to have his message delivered due to all the differing versions that are now available to us.
When there is any perceived discrepancy between translations, we can go back to the Hebrew and Greek to get the correct message; it just takes a little diligence.
LOL! The Pope sure as heck ain't Jesus. He's a man, just like you and me.Clownboat wrote: "Just look at the differing ways to get to heaven. Something crucial. Heck, even atheists can go to heaven now according to the Pope."
No, my faith informs me that God will set all things to perfect unity at the day of Christ, because man has broken it -- for the time being -- due to his sin. Denominations are man's (Christians') fault, because of the sin that dwells in each of us. But again, denominations are good in the human sense because it allows us to strive for the unity that we will one day have with like-minded folks. No one desires disunity, but because of our sin, no on man can perfectly agree with any other man. One great day, there will be no more disunity of any kind.Clownboat wrote: What your faith does not address though is all the differing denominations of your faith or why an all powerful god would desire such thing to happen to his message.
I have no idea what you're saying, here, Clownboat. I can't make any sense of this sentence.Clownboat wrote: And to clarify further, you quote mind out how they were written down by unknown authors and how that is not an assurance that they said any such words you claim they said.
Clownboat wrote: Do you mean Allah and the way he spoke through Mohammed or something else?
Mohammed actually turned Christian Scriptures that had existed for centuries at that point upside down to suit himself, thereby creating a false "Gospel" to counter Christianity and suit himself and create his own following. This was a common practice in that time. Anyway, Mohammed succeeded mightily. This was... well, it certainly wasn't God's work. But God did, obviously, allow it to happen.
He actually told Abraham this would happen way, way, WAY before that when He said he would make a nation of Ishmael, Abraham's son through his bondwoman, Hagar. Mohammed twisted the story of Abraham and the true child of the promise, Isaac (Abraham's son through the free woman, Sarah), falsely presenting Ishmael as the son of the promise. Thus, Islam.
Anyway, somehow, He's working it all together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. Don't ask me how, because, well, who has known the mind of God? But somehow.
Hey, I thought this was all about "contradictions." You got any more?
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6629 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Post #52
[Replying to post 50 by PinSeeker]
More accurately, miraculous diligence. There are no original texts extant. All we have are already copies and translations. Who knows what got changed in the process.No, all the versions are just translations of the original Hebrew and Greek. Some translations are not quite as others, but they still say the same thing.
When there is any perceived discrepancy between translations, we can go back to the Hebrew and Greek to get the correct message; it just takes a little diligence.
- PinSeeker
- Banned
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Re: Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?
Post #53LOL! No, but if JW said something like "We went downtown" and I said, "Several of us drove into the city together", then, provided we were both talking about the same group of people, we both technically said the same thing. And further, and if JW was the authority figure, or somehow more authoritative in the view of other people than I, you might -- very rightly -- credit what I said to him, especially if I was drawing upon what JW said when I said what I said. And You might use my words to do it, thereby citing both of us. That's the way to see it. But you don't want to. I getcha.rikuoamero wrote:Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet,PinSeeker wrote:While drawing on a combination of words from Jeremiah (19:1-13) and Zechariah (11:11-13), Matthew attributes the prophecy to Jeremiah as the more prominent prophet. In the same way, Mark (1:2) combines quotations from Isaiah (40:3) and Malachi (3:1) but cites only Isaiah as the more prominent prophet.polonius.advice wrote: Matthew 27:9–10
"Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.�
Where do you find this in Jeremiah?
A nice try, and a mistake easily made because the references are pretty obscure. That one is not so easy. But alas, not a contradiction.
Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet,
Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet,
Here is something spoken by JehovahsWitness
Finally, someone offers something in the way of "contradiction," that we can actually talk about. I've been hoping and praying for this. Okay, I'm in:
Oh wait...that was actually spoken by Pinseeker. Ya see, when I (rikuo) said that that quote was said by JW, what I actually meant was that it was spoken by Pinseeker but I attributed to JW, since he's a more prominent member of the forum.
So then...wouldn't my claiming it was spoken by JW be a non-truth? A misdirection?
- PinSeeker
- Banned
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Post #54
Well, there are fragments of the original manuscripts, and copies of those, but that's not really what I was talking about. The evidence is overwhelming that the text is the same today as it was nearly 2000 years ago. You probably won't believe that, but it's true. Plus, through the many, many copies (and even translations) we do have, if all taken together, through preponderance of all the evidence, we can very safely conclude that it is identical to the original manuscripts. Again, I know you won't accept that, but no matter.brunumb wrote: There are no original texts extant. All we have are already copies and translations. Who knows what got changed in the process.
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?
Post #55[Replying to post 52 by PinSeeker]
It's not what was said, it's who is saying it. Jeremiah didn't say what the author of Gospel Matthew claims he said. Therefore, it's incorrect for him to have written such.LOL! No, but if JW said something like "We went downtown" and I said, "Several of us drove into the city together", then, provided we were both talking about the same group of people, we both technically said the same thing.
I don't want to, because it would be inaccurate of me to say JW says what is in fact you. Is this done anywhere else? In academia? Elsewhere?And further, and if JW was the authority figure, or somehow more authoritative in the view of other people than I, you might -- very rightly -- credit what I said to him, especially if I was drawing upon what JW said when I said what I said. And You might use my words to do it, thereby citing both of us. That's the way to see it. But you don't want to. I getcha.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
- PinSeeker
- Banned
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Re: Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?
Post #56Free your mind, Neo.rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 52 by PinSeeker]
It's not what was said, it's who is saying it. Jeremiah didn't say what the author of Gospel Matthew claims he said. Therefore, it's incorrect for him to have written such.LOL! No, but if JW said something like "We went downtown" and I said, "Several of us drove into the city together", then, provided we were both talking about the same group of people, we both technically said the same thing.
I don't want to, because it would be inaccurate of me to say JW says what is in fact you. Is this done anywhere else? In academia? Elsewhere?And further, and if JW was the authority figure, or somehow more authoritative in the view of other people than I, you might -- very rightly -- credit what I said to him, especially if I was drawing upon what JW said when I said what I said. And You might use my words to do it, thereby citing both of us. That's the way to see it. But you don't want to. I getcha.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9389
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Post #57
PinSeeker wrote:Clownboat wrote: Why, if everything your god does is excellently executed do we have nearly 40,000 versions of Christianity?This is nothing more than victim blaming. Shame on you!Due to the "excellence" (in quotes to indicate the lack thereof) of human beings.
The message of the Bible is not clear on many crucial things. For example, requirements to get to a heaven. An all powerful god could make his message clear. The god concept you put forward failed to do that. Blame puppies for this for all it matters.
Clownboat wrote: Sin is your burden to bare.Demonstrably false.Right, and yours. And everybody's. But only some see it as a burden. "Pilgrim's Progress" (John Bunyan) is a great -- and fun -- read.
Sin is your concepts, not one I subscribe to any longer. You believe in this sin thing and you project this sin on to others. You should stop projecting ideas that you cannot show to be real.
Consider this: Who would buy medicine before being convinced that they are sick?
You have been convinced of this sin sickness. You have subscribed to a version of a religion that supplies you with the medicine. You then project your sickness on to the rest of humanity. I'll need you to convince me that I am sick before I will buy your snake oil I'm afraid. This might prove to be challenging, so perhaps you would do better to just pretend that I'm some enemy of your church or god and you can then go on projecting your sin idea.
Clownboat wrote: Then your god has failed to have his message delivered due to all the differing versions that are now available to us.This is false as there are no originals. We just don't know what the originals might have said. Not to mention all the years of oral tradition we have in the Old Testament.No, all the versions are just translations of the original Hebrew and Greek.
You also don't seem to be aware of just how much the English language alone has changed over the years. About 85 per cent of Old English words are no longer in use. Therefore, the delivery message chosen by you claimed all powerful god is not an effective way to deliver a message for the entire planet.
Clownboat wrote: "Just look at the differing ways to get to heaven. Something crucial. Heck, even atheists can go to heaven now according to the Pope."You place your faith in a book written by men, and laugh at those who listen to the pope. Great way to defend the point I made about the differing ways a person can get to heaven.LOL! The Pope sure as heck ain't Jesus. He's a man, just like you and me.
Remember, you believe you are sick though. You therefore have sought out medicine for your sickness. Again, all you are doing is pretending you have the correct medicine and then go on to blame humans. Not very convincing, but then again, I'm not sick.No, my faith informs me that God will set all things to perfect unity at the day of Christ, because man has broken it -- for the time being -- due to his sin.
False. If an all powerful god wished to deliver a message to the world, it could have done so. Humans are not more powerful than god. On second thought, perhaps you belong to a denomination that believes humans have the power over god? Is that the case?Denominations are man's (Christians') fault,
Please show that you speak the truth or kindly stop projecting your sin concepts on to the rest of humanity.because of the sin that dwells in each of us.
There is already unity within the different versions of your religion. What doesn't make sense is to have thousands of different version that agree with themselves but disagree with the others.But again, denominations are good in the human sense because it allows us to strive for the unity that we will one day have with like-minded folks.
What a terrible excuse.No one desires disunity, but because of our sin, no on man can perfectly agree with any other man. One great day, there will be no more disunity of any kind.
An all powerful god failed to deliver his message to the world, and you project sin on to all humans to excuse your all powerful god. It seems to me that your god concept lacks the power to do anything. You notice this and then blame the would be victims.
You quote mind my statement. Look up 'quote mine'.I have no idea what you're saying, here, Clownboat. I can't make any sense of this sentence.
Clownboat wrote: Do you mean Allah and the way he spoke through Mohammed or something else?Please show that you speak the truth. We have billions of Muslims that disagree with you, so kindly offer more than just your empty slanderous words.Mohammed actually turned Christian Scriptures that had existed for centuries at that point upside down to suit himself, thereby creating a false "Gospel" to counter Christianity and suit himself and create his own following.
I see. So when Abraham did it, no big deal, but Mohammed, how dare he. This is logically inconsistent.This was a common practice in that time.
Seems to me that Abraham did what you accuse Mohammed of doing.
'In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for "god" by religious readers.[8] However the documentary hypothesis developed originally in the 1870s,[9] identifies these that different authors - Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source - were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.'
'In the Tanakh, ’el�hîm is the normal word for a god or the great god (or gods, given that the 'im' suffix makes a word plural in Hebrew). But the form ’El also appears, mostly in poetic passages and in the patriarchal narratives attributed to the Priestly source of the documentary hypothesis. It occurs 217 times in the Masoretic Text: seventy-three times in the Psalms and fifty-five times in the Book of Job, and otherwise mostly in poetic passages or passages written in elevated prose. It occasionally appears with the definite article as h�’Ēl 'the god' (for example in 2 Samuel 22:31,33–48).'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
Anyway, Mohammed succeeded mightily. This was... well, it certainly wasn't God's work. But God did, obviously, allow it to happen.
God allowing this, if true will cause billions of humans to burn in a hell for eternity.
Why do you think he would want such a thing?
For the love of all that is holy! Your faith is not being questioned. We get it, you have religious beliefs. You can get off of your soap box and start presenting us with statements that you can back up with evidence.He actually told Abraham this would happen way, way, WAY before that when He said he would make a nation of Ishmael, Abraham's son through his bondwoman, Hagar. Mohammed twisted the story of Abraham and the true child of the promise, Isaac (Abraham's son through the free woman, Sarah), falsely presenting Ishmael as the son of the promise. Thus, Islam.
I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than cult speak. Remember, I'm not sick like you are.Anyway, somehow, He's working it all together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.Unacceptable. You can't make all these empty claims and then justify them with a statement such as 'who has known the mind of God'. You appear to be pretending to know the mind of a god here and now.Don't ask me how, because, well, who has known the mind of God?
Many potential contradictions have already been provided. I trust that the readers have read the words for themselves and will form an opinion. I don't see a reason to list more at this time.Hey, I thought this was all about "contradictions." You got any more?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- PinSeeker
- Banned
- Posts: 2920
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Post #58
Hoo, boy! I got you mad as heck, don't I, Clownboat? Sorry. Not my intention.
Oh, it's real, alright. Let me ask you something, Clownboat. This may be trivial to you, and I would agree, but it shows what's in you and me and all of us. What's your instinctive reaction when somebody cuts you off in traffic? Is it, "Man, I love that guy! He's awesome!" Or is it something else entirely? You don't have to say; I know the answer, in the general sense. That should be sufficient, but for you, probably not.
LOL! I'm guilty, too, Clownboat.Clownboat wrote: This is nothing more than victim blaming.
There are many difficult passages, for sure. But that's really because of our own limited minds. That's one good reason for believing Scripture, though, or at least thinking it might be true. Think about it. If you were putting together a book and you wanted to make it so that everybody would believe it, wouldn't you exclude anything difficult in it? Of course you would.Clownboat wrote: The message of the Bible is not clear on many crucial things.
That's by far the clearest thing in the Bible, Clownboat. Believe in Jesus. John 3:16 known worldwide by all kinds of people. Not "everybody," of course, but all kinds of people. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Is that not clear to you? Among Christians, there is absolutely no disunity on that, thank God.Clownboat wrote: For example, requirements to get to a heaven. An all powerful god could make his message clear.
Oh, that's too bad.Clownboat wrote: Sin is your concept, not one I subscribe to any longer.
Well, I acknowledge it in others, but I acknowledge it in myself, too.Clownboat wrote: You believe in this sin thing and you project this sin on to others.
Clownboat wrote: You should stop projecting ideas that you cannot show to be real.
Oh, it's real, alright. Let me ask you something, Clownboat. This may be trivial to you, and I would agree, but it shows what's in you and me and all of us. What's your instinctive reaction when somebody cuts you off in traffic? Is it, "Man, I love that guy! He's awesome!" Or is it something else entirely? You don't have to say; I know the answer, in the general sense. That should be sufficient, but for you, probably not.
Right, but we have many, many, many copies, and they are all virtually identical. So through preponderance of the overwhelming evidence, we do have the originals. We can verify that what we have now is exactly the same as what existed in the first and second centuries A.D.Clownboat wrote: ...there are no originals.
We know exactly what the originals said. We only have copies of the writings of guys like Aristotle and Socrates. You believe them, though, right? So why not the Bible?Clownboat wrote: We just don't know what the originals might have said.
No, my faith is in Christ, because God has made it so. And I'm not laughing at anybody in particular, I'm just laughing at the fact that you hold up the pope as someone in possession of all truth.Clownboat wrote: You place your faith in a book written by men, and laugh at those who listen to the pope.
Um, He did, Clownboat. But no human gets it all right, despite even the best of intentions. That's our fault, not His. But again, one day, He'll set it all back to the way it should be. That's what the Bible is all about. Jesus wins.Clownboat wrote: If an all powerful god wished to deliver a message to the world, it could have done so.
No. I'm not sure how you ever got that idea.Clownboat wrote: Humans are not more powerful than god. On second thought, perhaps you belong to a denomination that believes humans have the power over god? Is that the case?
Okay, so here, you were responding to what I said about Mohammed and the Koran. Abraham didn't write any of Scripture, Clownboat. So there's no way Abraham could have done what I said Mohammed did. I'm not sure how you come up with something like this. Makes no sense.Clownboat wrote: I see. So when Abraham did it, no big deal, but Mohammed, how dare he. This is logically inconsistent. Seems to me that Abraham did what you accuse Mohammed of doing.
God doesn't desire that any should perish; He desires that all would come to knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 2:4)Clownboat wrote: God allowing this, if true will cause billions of humans to burn in a hell for eternity. Why do you think he would want such a thing?
Wow. smh.Clownboat wrote: For the love of all that is holy! Your faith is not being questioned. We get it, you have religious beliefs. You can get off of your soap box and start presenting us with statements that you can back up with evidence.
No, it's Bible speak. That's Romans 8:28. Another widely known, "hall of fame" Bible verse.Clownboat wrote:I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than cult speak.Anyway, somehow, He's working it all together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.
I wish that were true. For your sake. But it's not.Clownboat wrote: Remember, I'm not sick like you are.
I understand why that's unacceptable to you. Truthfully, I wish I could give you more. But some things are just unknowable, some questions unanswerable.Clownboat wrote:Unacceptable.Don't ask me how, because, well, who has known the mind of God?
Okay wait, I'm confused. I said there are some things that are unknowable, that are just unanswerable questions. We can't know the mind of God on such questions, which applies to me, too. And you say I'm "pretending to know the mind of a god here and now"? How do you come up with that?Clownboat wrote: You can't make all these empty claims and then justify them with a statement such as 'who has known the mind of God'. You appear to be pretending to know the mind of a god here and now.
Right, and I refuted them all. Easily. I knocked them out of the park, actually, went yard on you. Got any more?Clownboat wrote:Many potential contradictions have already been provided.Hey, I thought this was all about "contradictions." You got any more?
This is just you and me, Clownboat? Why are you worried about anybody else's opinion?Clownboat wrote: I trust that the readers have read the words for themselves and will form an opinion.
Very well. Grace and peace to you.Clownboat wrote: I don't see a reason to list more at this time.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9389
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Post #59
Please, I beg you... stop projecting your feelings and musings on to others.PinSeeker wrote: Hoo, boy! I got you mad as heck, don't I, Clownboat? Sorry. Not my intention.
Clownboat wrote: This is nothing more than victim blaming.
It's reasonable for you to feel guilty of this sin concepts you are convinced you have, but projecting your feelings on to others is currently unjustified.LOL! I'm guilty, too, Clownboat.
Clownboat wrote: The message of the Bible is not clear on many crucial things.
Two things:There are many difficult passages, for sure. But that's really because of our own limited minds. That's one good reason for believing Scripture, though, or at least thinking it might be true. Think about it. If you were putting together a book and you wanted to make it so that everybody would believe it, wouldn't you exclude anything difficult in it? Of course you would.
1) I am not an all powerful god. If I were, and if I wanted to relay a message to everyone, I would do so easily.
Consider this, you believe in a god that can create the universe with words, but when it comes to relaying a message of salvation, he gets overpowered due to humans. This does not ring true.
2) There are many difficult things in the Bible that did not get excluded. So your point is currently lost on me.
Clownboat wrote: For example, requirements to get to a heaven. An all powerful god could make his message clear.
Demonstrably false:That's by far the clearest thing in the Bible, Clownboat. Believe in Jesus. John 3:16 known worldwide by all kinds of people. Not "everybody," of course, but all kinds of people. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Is that not clear to you? Among Christians, there is absolutely no disunity on that, thank God.
Matt 6:14-15 Jesus is claimed to have said: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you, but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Matt 12:37 Jesus is claimed to have said: for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
Matt 19:29 Jesus is claimed to have said: And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters for father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.
Then there is also the Pope: Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven.
Clownboat wrote: Sin is your concept, not one I subscribe to any longer.
It's not though. Being freed of my religious beliefs has been liberating and has allowed me to be a kinder and more loving human.Oh, that's too bad.
This is still you projecting your beliefs on to others and then pretending that your projections hold weight.Well, I acknowledge it (sin) in others, but I acknowledge it in myself, too.
Clownboat wrote: You should stop projecting ideas that you cannot show to be real.
With the lack of evidence you display, your assurance cannot be trusted. Sorry.Oh, it's real, alright.
To protect myself any anyone in the vehicle. My instinctive reaction is to move out of the way. I try not to judge them because for all I know, they just had a bee fly into their face. What matters is everyone's safety, not whether this person is a jerk or the victim of a bee.Let me ask you something, Clownboat. This may be trivial to you, and I would agree, but it shows what's in you and me and all of us. What's your instinctive reaction when somebody cuts you off in traffic?
Clownboat wrote: ...there are no originals.
You commented about referring to originals. What you said is impossible.Right, but we have many, many, many copies,
This is also false. See how Goliath grew in height as time passed for one example.and they are all virtually identical.
It is make believe to claim this. Factually, we do not have originals, not to mention much of the Old Testament was oral tradition for many centuries before finally being penned. The original oral tradition is obviously not available to us.So through preponderance of the overwhelming evidence, we do have the originals.
This claim has been shown to be false already, but for another example:We can verify that what we have now is exactly the same as what existed in the first and second centuries A.D.
In all Bibles, Deuteronomy 8:6 speaks of ’’fearing’’ or ’’revering’’ God, but a Dead Sea scroll says ’’loving’’ instead.
For even more examples, see: https://news.nd.edu/news/dead-sea-scrol ... rstanding/
You really need to amend your thinking on this matter.
This is still false...We know exactly what the originals said.
No, not by default. However, I'm much more familiar with the Bible then the works of Aristotle or Socrates.We only have copies of the writings of guys like Aristotle and Socrates. You believe them, though, right?
The Bible contains myths that did not happen. Also has a story about person living in the belly of a whale, talking animals, walking on water and decomposing bodies coming back to life. I would not consider such claims as true if they come from Aristotle or Socrates, so why would I believe unknown authors?So why not the Bible?
Clownboat wrote: You place your faith in a book written by men, and laugh at those who listen to the pope.
There is no information about Christ outside of the Bible. Therefore, your faith is in the book.No, my faith is in Christ, because God has made it so.
And I'm not laughing at anybody in particular, I'm just laughing at the fact that you hold up the pope as someone in possession of all truth.
I do no such thing, but note that millions of Christians do.
Clownboat wrote: If an all powerful god wished to deliver a message to the world, it could have done so.
Correct, but that is not because of humans, that would be because an all powerful god failed to accurately deliver his message. Then there is still the fact that the message has changed over the years.Um, He did, Clownboat. But no human gets it all right,
You would make a great Muslim! Just convert all your faith statements to Allah and Mohammed and your claims are no different.But again, one day, He'll set it all back to the way it should be. That's what the Bible is all about. Jesus wins.
Again, you faith is not in question. We know you have faith.
Note, I'm not comparing how they both wrote things (because they didn't). I'm comparing how they took existing god concepts and created a new religion.Okay, so here, you were responding to what I said about Mohammed and the Koran. Abraham didn't write any of Scripture, Clownboat. So there's no way Abraham could have done what I said Mohammed did. I'm not sure how you come up with something like this. Makes no sense.
Then he should not have failed in his delivery mechanism of knowledge. Since he did, this claim seems to be the writings of men creating a religion, not that of a god. We know man has invented thousands of religions after all.God doesn't desire that any should perish; He desires that all would come to knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 2:4)
I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than cult speak.
Like I said, cult speak. You belong to a cult by definition:No, it's Bible speak. That's Romans 8:28. Another widely known, "hall of fame" Bible verse.
cult
kəlt/Submit
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
Clownboat wrote: Remember, I'm not sick like you are.
You have faith that I am sick. You have faith, we get that. That is not in question. Whether I actually have this sickness you have faith in is in question though.I wish that were true. For your sake. But it's not.
I don't recognize this sin concept. It is your concepts. Therefore I reject your concept that I am sick until you can show that I'm sick.
From your words:Okay wait, I'm confused. I said there are some things that are unknowable, that are just unanswerable questions. We can't know the mind of God on such questions, which applies to me, too. And you say I'm "pretending to know the mind of a god here and now"? How do you come up with that?
- But no human gets it all right, despite even the best of intentions. That's our fault, not His.
- one day, He'll set it all back to the way it should be.
- I wish that were true. For your sake. But it's not.
(From you last post only. Could go back further, but I feel justified at this point).
Clownboat wrote: I trust that the readers have read the words for themselves and will form an opinion.
You are set in your faith and are convinced that you are sick. I have no delusions about changing your mind. However, we have many readers here that may not be convinced that they are actually sick. My words are not lost on people that still have an open mind. I debate to sharpen my own thinking and for any people following along.This is just you and me, Clownboat? Why are you worried about anybody else's opinion?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb