Christianity and Apologetics forum

Feedback and site usage questions

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Christianity and Apologetics forum

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

A recent conversation
Wootah
Why does Adam get given the role of naming the animals?

OneWay
God created their names before Adam.
Do you think God created something and did not know what to call it
before and after he created it? Like light, God said let there be light.
Like man. He said let us make man in our own image, before He created man.

Wootah
I think God is omniscient but I think Adam named the animals. I think it was a sharing of the creative process. When God spoke the universe came into existence and Adam, made in God's image, gets a similar role.
I also think, and this speaks to my point (pun intended), before there was light or a universe, God knew it and spoke it into existence.

Joey
Where has it been established, as a matter of truth, that Adam was given the role to name anythingI?
Extra points will be awarded to anyone who can offer confirmation that Adam even existed.

OneWay
Adam existed in the book of Genesis.

Brunumb
Tinkerbell existed in the book of Peter Pan.
So what?
Forum rules
1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true.

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

5. Please avoid "preaching" and using the forum as simply a way to blast people with the gospel message. This is a debating forum, not a convenient place to overtly proselytize.

6. Realize that most participants here are strong debaters and have a vast knowledge of Christianity and the Bible (including non-theists). If you make any claims, be ready to support your claims with evidence if asked. Non-Biblical evidence would go far among non-theists.

7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.


If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.

This sub-forum is intended as a meeting ground for any and all theistic positions – none of which are given preferential treatment. It is a very “level playing field�. Any story, statement or claim of knowledge which is challenged is required to be substantiated with evidence to show that it is true and accurate. “The Bible (or Quran or Bhagavad Gita) says so� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth.

If you disagree with the Guidelines and/or cannot debate without attempting to use the Bible to prove a point or position true, kindly do not debate in this sub-forum. Instead, use Theology, Doctrine and Dogma OR Holy Huddle sub-forums in which the Bible IS regarded as authoritative and can be used as proof of truth.

Also, kindly review Forum Rules regarding preaching and proselytizing.
Is it possible to get everyone to somehow sign off that they have read each rule before participating in the forums?
I would somehow appreciate an end to the misdirection that takes place when the Bible is mentioned. In relation to the forum rules point 3 is being neglected a lot. I feel I see a lot of posts like Joey's and Brunumb that I do think they should stop making or if they get reported will there be any action? It was never meant to be that atheists could just deny the Bible stories within the forum, but it was meant for them to argue against them.

Anyway ... venting out.

Thoughts?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: Christianity and Apologetics forum

Post #2

Post by otseng »

I don't have a clear answer for you on this one and I can sympathize with both sides on this. If someone wants to be completely free from such questions, it's best to create the thread in the TDD subforum. In the C&A subforum, one needs to be more careful of any theological claims made and be willing to back it up without just saying the Bible says so. Need to run to church now so I'll let others chime in on this.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: Christianity and Apologetics forum

Post #3

Post by Diogenes »

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.
Rule #3 needs to be read in conjunction with #4 and in that regard ", but not necessarily conclusive evidence" should be deleted because it implies the Bible may provide conclusive evidence. It does not and reading it that way contradicts rule #4. Without rule #4, the Christianity and Apologetics forum duplicates the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum re: evidentiary guidelines.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Christianity and Apologetics forum

Post #4

Post by JoeyKnothead »

I note that in the thread in question, this Adam feller was said to have given a role to do him the critter naming.

Such was done in some relation to a "creationist" topic. My position is that if one is to reference Adam giving a role in this creation topic - critter naming - it would be prudent to establish the accuracy of any and all real or implied claims regarding Adam, to establish that it was even possible he could have been invloved in events as described, as presented as support for "creation" claims.

In doing so, now I've got me a couple of upset Christians - who I contend know dang well they can't show Adam even existed to've uttered a single syllable, much less an entire word. Nobody said nothing about no Adam in the OP, now they wanna try to slip this'n by as "it's in the bible so y'all gotta play like it's real".

Their attempts to invoke Adam in support of "creationist" stuff should be met with scrutiny, and specifically because he's used as support for that OP topic.

Preaching belongs in TD&D, not in C&A.

What's next, we all gotta promise not to challenge any claim these particular Christians wanna present?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1952 times
Been thanked: 734 times

Re: Christianity and Apologetics forum

Post #5

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]

I see no issue with Joey's or brnumb's replies in relation to the exact question posed in the C&A sub forum.

Perhaps if the question was "Biblically speaking, why does Adam get given the role of naming the animals?" you would have a case. However, that question probably belongs in TD&D.

Since the Bible carries no weight in the C&A sub forum other than as a reference for what claims it makes, there is no issue asking what supporting evidence besides the Bible exists for any claim.

I think the main problem is some theists use the Bible incorrectly as a reference in some of the subforums. If you are using it to back up the fact that the Bible says something, then fine. If you are using it to establish that one of the claims in the Bible is a fact, then you have circular reasoning since no authority is granted to the Bible in some of the sub forums.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Christianity and Apologetics forum

Post #6

Post by Wootah »

Diogenes wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:44 am
3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.
Rule #3 needs to be read in conjunction with #4 and in that regard ", but not necessarily conclusive evidence" should be deleted because it implies the Bible may provide conclusive evidence. It does not and reading it that way contradicts rule #4. Without rule #4, the Christianity and Apologetics forum duplicates the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum re: evidentiary guidelines.
It can't be any simpler than it is.
.
In TDD you can say because the bible says so.

In CA you can't.

There is no duplication.

You make that clear when asking rule 3 to be modified, you are agreeing the rules aren't followed.

All I am asking is that if we debate Star Wars you don't start talking about Star Trek.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Christianity and Apologetics forum

Post #7

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #5]

Just total cognitive dissonance.

Read the website name.

Read the forum name.

Read the rules.

The point of CA is to say: Do not come in and argue the Bible is true from the Bible.

You guys are rule lawyering and not debating.

At the end of the day is this question: is that conversation in the first post what was intended for the forum?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Christianity and Apologetics forum

Post #8

Post by Wootah »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:57 am I note that in the thread in question, this Adam feller was said to have given a role to do him the critter naming.

Such was done in some relation to a "creationist" topic. My position is that if one is to reference Adam giving a role in this creation topic - critter naming - it would be prudent to establish the accuracy of any and all real or implied claims regarding Adam, to establish that it was even possible he could have been invloved in events as described, as presented as support for "creation" claims.

In doing so, now I've got me a couple of upset Christians - who I contend know dang well they can't show Adam even existed to've uttered a single syllable, much less an entire word. Nobody said nothing about no Adam in the OP, now they wanna try to slip this'n by as "it's in the bible so y'all gotta play like it's real".

Their attempts to invoke Adam in support of "creationist" stuff should be met with scrutiny, and specifically because he's used as support for that OP topic.

Preaching belongs in TD&D, not in C&A.

What's next, we all gotta promise not to challenge any claim these particular Christians wanna present?
Preaching is not allowed on the debating part of the website. That is true for CA and TTD.

Nothing is next.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Christianity and Apologetics forum

Post #9

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Wootah wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:40 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:57 am I note that in the thread in question, this Adam feller was said to have given a role to do him the critter naming.

Such was done in some relation to a "creationist" topic. My position is that if one is to reference Adam giving a role in this creation topic - critter naming - it would be prudent to establish the accuracy of any and all real or implied claims regarding Adam, to establish that it was even possible he could have been invloved in events as described, as presented as support for "creation" claims.

In doing so, now I've got me a couple of upset Christians - who I contend know dang well they can't show Adam even existed to've uttered a single syllable, much less an entire word. Nobody said nothing about no Adam in the OP, now they wanna try to slip this'n by as "it's in the bible so y'all gotta play like it's real".

Their attempts to invoke Adam in support of "creationist" stuff should be met with scrutiny, and specifically because he's used as support for that OP topic.

Preaching belongs in TD&D, not in C&A.

What's next, we all gotta promise not to challenge any claim these particular Christians wanna present?
Preaching is not allowed on the debating part of the website. That is true for CA and TTD.

Nothing is next.
My point is that in a topic that says or implies that all of us are "creationists", Adam's name was invoked as evidence that Adam was given the job of naming all the animals. As if that somehow lends credence to accusations of us all being creationists.

If you could show Adam even existed, you'd be one step closer to showing that initial claim is truth.

Instead, when challenged, the theist complains about how problematic is is to be asked to show they speak truth.

Where were you when the claim was presented to say such as, "Well about that, it's what the Bible says, but we can't put us no truth to it, we just ask y'all to play along so we can get our preaching on"?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1952 times
Been thanked: 734 times

Re: Christianity and Apologetics forum

Post #10

Post by benchwarmer »

Wootah wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:27 pm [Replying to benchwarmer in post #5]

Just total cognitive dissonance.
You're going to have to explain that one. I'm fully aware that we are debating Christianity and Apologetics in the C&A forum and fully expect and support people using the Bible as a reference for what the Bible says about something. HOWEVER, it is fair game, and right there in the rules, that anything in the Bible is not considered authoritative and it is expected that when asked people will supply other supporting evidence.

If someone wants to say "It says X in the Bible" and just leave it at that, then fine. That is evidence about what the Bible says. It does not, however, provide anything beyond that. A reference to Peter Pan or any other written work is just as authoritative as far as determining a truth value for a claim within the given book.
Wootah wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:27 pm You guys are rule lawyering and not debating.
?

We have to try and debate within the rules so of course we are going to point to those rules. You are of course welcome to question the rules (as you are doing here) and we can discuss.

What seems to happen more often that not though is that some theists get bent out of shape because non theists won't give the same weight to the theist's holy books.

As you can tell from my post history, I'm more than happy to discuss issues in the Bible, using only the Bible. Pointing out contradictions is fun :) I won't, however, accept a claim in the Bible as truth or even highly likely without some external (preferably verifiable) evidence.
Wootah wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:27 pm At the end of the day is this question: is that conversation in the first post what was intended for the forum?
Any question regarding Christianity is, I believe, intended for the forum. What seems to be the issue is that some don't like being asked for supporting evidence beyond the Bible.

Like I said, simply changing the question a bit would have solved the problem: "According to the Bible, why does Adam ...". Unless of course you have some non biblical documents, archeology, etc to support the answer either way?

Post Reply