Faith-based beliefs

[William]

There seems to have been a misunderstanding as to the purpose of my first thread on this subject due to the nature of some members making personal comments about other members in their posts, comments which were not directly related to the thread topic, and as a result the thread was locked.

I was using a disclaimer another member often uses, as a means of example - which is not contrary to any of the forum rules - not as a means of personal attack - which is contrary to the forum rules.

Certainly - as can be clearly seen, the OP does not make any such thing as a personal comment/attack or debate against any individual member.

The way I see it, debating is a form of schooling, in which the participants are both teaching and learning, whereas proselytizing clearly has no intention of learning, and in that is not teaching so much as preaching.

Is it fair that individuals use such a platform as a debate forum to preach from, when it is clear that their intention is not to debate at all, but to consistently spam the forum with their particular brand of organised religious indoctrination?

It is clear that the forum rules allow for some proselytizing to occur as a matter of 'par for the course', but when it is clear that individuals are not interested in any actual debate - especially in regard to their own particular sect - and even go to lengths to make disclaimers in order to avoid having to. Does this contravene the rules sufficiently to be dealt with in the same manner as any other type of rule breaking is dealt with?

Faith-based beliefs...Are they debatable?

What do you think?

PS - please don't use the OP question as an opportunity to make personal unrelated comments against other members. Just answer the question the OP is asking.

Thanks.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by William]

As always, faith based beliefs are debatable, as long as the person acknowledges their belief as such, they are generally ready and willing to debate it

It's when a belief is claimed as 'fact', or framed as 'disbelief of alternatives'.. that barriers to debating it are put up

[William]

[Replying to post 44 by mrhagerty]

You're controverted logic is a thing to behold.
The paradigm is that the person upholding proper English usage and definitions (as delineated in English dictionaries and studies on English usage and etymology) is NOT the person misusing language. Yet in your puzzling logic, you somehow see that person as misusing language.

My claim was that English is not a perfect use of language. This is in relation to how the words 'belief' and 'know' can be use interchangeably, which obviously has the side affect of added confusion.

We agree here. Faith-based beliefs are things one trusts in as true. Depending on what it is that people are trusting as true, depends upon whether the faith trusted in is nonnegotiable.

And Christian faith is one such thing, which makes this forum antithetic and self-defeating since you and your other atheist comrades label faith-based arguments as non-negotiable.

1: Removing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs from the debate would not have the affect of making the debate forums self-defeating. Rather my argument is in the acknowledgment that not arguing with nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs allows for the cancelling out of time wasted on something other than debate.

2: I am not an atheist.

Hopefully you will answer my request that you list topics about Christianity that can be devoid of faith-based statements.

The purpose of this thread is to identify nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. What is left after that becomes apparent as a 'list' of Christian arguments that are devoid of nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs.

Are you saying that not all faith-based beliefs are nonnegotiable?

Yes, provided that participants can discuss them on a common ground,such as a source of faith-based declarations (Something here in this thread that has been ruled out in advance.)

(Do you have an example re "Something here in this thread that has been ruled out in advance.")

As to the first part of your statement above, I see this as the process involved with identifying what are negotiable beliefs and what are not nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs.

Ex. two people can share common ground about what a Christian is, but have differences of belief about things like the Rapture or Predestination. Those topics are faith-based but can be debated as negotiable. Each can appeal to their understanding of the thing they hold in common, the Bible.

The example above shows a process whereby the two differences in biblical interpretation between Christian theists are argued but does not show where the negotiation is taking place, or for that matter, what the end result would be.

The OP topic is broader than simply two Christian theists debating their differences of biblical interpretations.

Are you saying you don't trust your belief that there is no God,...

About that, I have this to say.

1: I recognize you have the belief that I believe there is no GOD.
2: I recognize that the belief you express above is NOT faith-based.
3: I also recognize that the belief you express above is not based in any knowledge you have acquired from evidence.

Things can be true without evidence. You prefer Rationalism. You must then be aware that the second criteria for establishing truth by Rationalistic means is the operation of reason.

My position in relation to that is I think it logically reasonable to understand (all things so far considered) that The First Source has always existed and is the reason everything else Exists. The First Source = "GOD".

7+5 = 12 is a statement of pure reason WITHOUT a shred of evidence required to make it true.

The equation exists, which is all the evidence I require to then establish its authenticity.

Here are the two I'm referring to: a) Atheists claim that there is no god. b) Agnostics claim they don't know whether god exists or not because there is a lack of evidence thus far.

And b) happens to be what all supposed atheists are doing in this thread. It's not rocket science for be to conclude they are agnostics. But as they insist I'm wrong in doing so, I've held them to the folly of the atheist position, and asked them to prove what they claim to know.

That has naff all to with this threads subject. My own understanding of that dynamic is argued in the thread "Is atheism meaningless?" in this recent post.

A Christian is defined by the NT. I am free to personally disavow certain defining beliefs. But in doing so I cease to be Christian and must find another label.

In that, any nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs as "defined by the NT" would first have to become negotiable beliefs. Otherwise it wouldn't and couldn't happen.

About that, I have this to say;

My belief is that the Bible is not 'The Word' of any GOD. That -specifically - is what I consider to be 'make believe' about the Bible.

And as a belief, I don't have a problem with that.

Why would you?

But you go further. You use that belief to show me that I'm mistaken for believing the opposite.

Not really. When I link to my Members Notes it is to offer the reader access to more data as to why I take that position. It is a wonderful tool for such. I give reasons which I can direct the reader to, which is great for the fact that I do not have to repeat myself over and over when newbies come on in with arguments which I have already participated in.

And you disallow faith-based arguments, which you don't have a credible basis to do, since your criteria for that restriction comes from Rationalism, which fails in its rules for testing the things that comprise reality.

I do not disallow anything. I simply use the idea of recognizing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs as a means of avoiding wasting time and effort in a debate setting, which is a rational approach.

If anyone claimed they believed "The bible makes no mistakes and is the word of a GOD" and I asked them if this belief was negotiable and they replied "no", then I have saved a lot of time and space because the subject is not open to any debate with them.

I never made the statement that my rules of engagement are meant to save time and effort.

I did. Your rules of engagement are beside the point of the thread topic.

What is written is open to evaluation.

But not just any wild evaluation that comes to mind. Over the centuries the NT material has been available to study, rules of interpretation have developed that assure students and scholars they are understanding the intent correctly.

If you're interested: see Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation.

I evaluate the claim that 'the Bible is the word of a GOD' to being something of a wild claim. One does not need to be a scholar to make such an evaluation. Although I concede that it is helpful to be scholarly.
I don't care that people are interested in study of the bible or rules of interpretation etc...that is besides the point in relation to the claim or the thread subject and OPQ.

I see no logic in taking a whole heap of different writing, bundling it all together, declaring it as 'The word of (a) GOD' and claiming that there is a 'correct intent' which 'needs to be applied' in order to 'understand it correctly.' etc.

What is written is open to evaluation.

Not as to what they said, only what it means or if it is true.

What difference is there between what is written and what it means and if it is true?

If it wasn't written, then it cannot be evaluated.

So far my evaluation is that it does not matter who wrote anything. What matters is whether what is written is useful to my investigations or not.

The decision ahead of time that no knowledge can come through faith experience is prejudicial, especially if being decided by people who have never experienced faith in order to tell.

I decide that faith-based beliefs which are nonnegotiable, are - by there very nature - non debatable. Those who hold such nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs actually help me decide the best position to take on the subject. Prior experience in wasting time 'debating' with those who are actually proselytizing has allowed for me to evaluate the best response to use in such cases.
Identifying possible nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs allows for me to immediately ask for confirmation from the believer as to whether their beliefs are negotiable or not, and they - for the most part - seem happy enough to tell me.

So explain to the reader if you will mrhagerty, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I want something that can be seen or tested or independently verified, by what I said in the above.

In post 74 you quote your post in Member [strike]Rules[/strike] Notes [ftfy] where you list arguments that can't pose evidence for immaterial gods, which includes the following:

There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists.

Yes. Only, it wasn't a 'list of arguments' but rather a list of subjects which the link could take the reader to where more links to those actual arguments can be accessed.

which you say applies to immaterial gods, because you have been under the impression that I've been arguing for a non-immaterial God of the Bible.

I did not provide the links because I was under that impression.

That's why according to your rules you've been asking me to provide evidence (you took me as believing in a God who was NOT immaterial).

I did not 'take you' as anything. My focus (re that subject) was (and still is) on the fallacy of the demand for physical evidence for metaphysical subjects.

And are now surprised that I am clarifying that my God is immaterial. So, according to you own rule above, there is no expectation for material evidence.

I am not surprised at all. It is expected. All I did was to say that generally the biblical idea of GOD is that the GOD is immaterial...but I also acknowledged that there are indeed times recorded in the biblical writ where the GOD is presented as material.

In relation to that and the OPQ I could ask you;

Q: Which one of those (if any) do you put your faith in;
(a) The immaterial idea of GOD?
(b) The material idea of GOD?
(c) Both?

And in relation to your answer I could then ask you, if your faith in a,b, or c is nonnegotiable?

If your answer is 'yes' then there is nothing to debate.

If your answer was (a) I would see no point in asking you for any physical evidence
If your answer was (b) I could ask you for physical evidence.

At present your answer is (a).

However, that doesn't rule out such a God from being real or true.

Nor would I argue that it does, in the sense that the GOD might indeed be real. Whether the GOD is actually true, is another question entirely.

That's the rule I believe you are making a mistake about. That if a God is immaterial then such a God can't be real or true. Truth or reality doesn't depend on only what is demonstrable from material evidence.

And my answer to the above is that your belief about my position is incorrect.

You are arguing as if I have made statements to the contrary, which I feel you have been doing because you assume I am an atheist.

Once you sort that out, I think you might agree that would have to change your argument to suit.

Are the beliefs you have and wish to defend, nonnegotiable mrhagerty?

Since you brought up the dictionary as part of your argument, is your definition the same as the dictionaries?

Not by my definition, but I believe they are by yours.

Perhaps the fault therein is what you say you believe re me/mine.

When I have agreed above that they are non-negotiable, it is within the context of your definition.

So establish that my definition is incorrect then.

I've always maintained that they are negotiable or debatable once we arrive at a common ground about what constitutes evidence.

Well let us try that then and see what happens.

Lets say for the moment that I believe your beliefs are indeed nonnegotiable.

Would I be incorrect about that? Would my belief about that be a misunderstanding of your beliefs?

Yes. Because it's an understanding of my beliefs through your lens that faith-based statements can't convey evidence. I'm forced to acknowledge they are deemed nonnegotiable here, but not that they are nonnegotiable in truth.

Then give one small example of such a belief you have which you think is negotiable 'in the truth' and let us reason together to see if that will actually turn out to be the case.

Perhaps there is one from the list I gave in the OP which you can use. I am particularly interested in identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs, [NNFBB's] as this is the main emphasis of my creating this thread.

I specifically asked about YOUR belief mrhagarty. I was not asking for a commentary on religious truth in general.

It's only an attack if others believe that all religious beliefs should exist in a democratic environment, where every belief has equal standing.

Well to be fair, it was you who brought the word 'attack' into the discussion. Nonetheless, commentary on religious truth in general, isn't the focus of this or the other thread. We may discuss that elsewhere, some other time.

As above, if they attack the foundation of my beliefs or make claims that contradict them, I am entitled to defend my beliefs and also to show where such claims are in error.

Ex. It's an error to propose that faith cannot prove that what is believed is true. Because it has an assumption that proof must always and only mean scientific or material evidence.

The OP is focused upon identifying NNFBB's. In that context it doesn't matter whether the 'faith' can or cannot be proved. It just needs to be properly identified BEFORE it can be established that a 'same page' can be created or not.

You just said if they are nonnegotiable then Christian debate forums beg the question, implying they are a waste of time and effort (that's the whole point of saying they beg the question).

You've established that proof for immaterial gods is nonnegotiable, ...

I established no such thing. The problem with your reasoning above is that it is based solely on the assumption that I am an atheist who is demanding material evidence to prove the existence of the immaterial.

I am not, and if you had followed the links I provided to my Member Notes, you would have discovered that for yourself.

So - speaking about being on the same page - hadn't you better actually argue with ME than with the strawman you created which you are using to represent ME?

[William]

[Replying to post 71 by Guy Threepwood]

As always, faith based beliefs are debatable, as long as the person acknowledges their belief as such, they are generally ready and willing to debate it

If they are identified as negotiable, then sure. The purpose of this thread is to identify the general nonnegotiable Christian beliefs as well as provide ideas of method for how to ascertain which are which.

It's when a belief is claimed as 'fact', or framed as 'disbelief of alternatives'.. that barriers to debating it are put up

Therein, we identify nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. [NNFBB's]

[William]

[Replying to post 69 by StuartJ]

What I see as the willful and deliberate distortion of the stance of most Atheists is but one of the reasons I do not trust people of faith when it comes to matters of faith.

Be that as it may, the topic of this thread is not for debating the way 'people of faith define atheists' . There are plenty of threads currently debating that subject. Please use those threads.

[Deleted]

My claim was that English is not a perfect use of language. This is in relation to how the words 'belief' and 'know' can be use interchangeably, which obviously has the side affect of added confusion.

English has always had a standard. So also good composition, which is why they can still be taught in high schools and first year college. YES, misuse is wide-spread. But there has always been an appeal to what is proper. That means that misuse seldom redefines preferred English.

You will always be quickly corrected in the U.K. if you speak improperly in front of someone who
speaks RP. That means there is a rigidly enforced standard, and America largely follows that.

Take envy vs. jealousy. They are not the same. But people always cross them to the opposite situation. Just because someone says their jealous of Tims performing abilities, doesnt mean we rush to the publisher and get Merriam-Webster to change the definition.

1: Removing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs from the debate would not have the affect of making the debate forums self-defeating. Rather my argument is in the acknowledgment that not arguing with nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs allows for the cancelling out of time wasted on something other than debate.

So, give me an example of a debate that could take place on a Christian subject where any and all could agree to avoid faith-based statements and arguments.

The purpose of this thread is to identify nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. What is left after that becomes apparent as a 'list' of Christian arguments that are devoid of nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs.

Okay. So, lets list some. Im at a loss.

(Do you have an example re "Something here in this thread that has been ruled out in advance.")

When I articulated my arguments, you took it as proselytizing and stated your preference that I leave that out. That means to me that you had ruled this mode of answer out in advance, since you explained that you already had a thread on Rules (i.e. in advance)

My position in relation to that is I think it logically reasonable to understand (all things so far considered) that The First Source has always existed and is the reason everything else Exists. The First Source = "GOD".

That wasnt what I meant " that God was reasonable to assume. I was referring to your request for evidences, which appeared to be of the empirical, scientific type.

Are you saying you accept other types of evidences for faith-based propositions than our senses, scientific detection or an operation of reason?

7+5 = 12 is a statement of pure reason WITHOUT a shred of evidence required to make it true.

The equation exists, which is all the evidence I require to then establish its authenticity.

Which means so far youre a Rationalist.

In that, any nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs as "defined by the NT" would first have to become negotiable beliefs. Otherwise it wouldn't and couldn't happen.

And thats why I say this entire forum and this thread are antithetical. Youre operating under the name Christian, which comes from the NT and is defined by the NT, but you say cant happen until the basis of that name devolves into a negotiable belief. Youre dead in the water before you start.

I realize that debaters like the crowd inhabiting forums like these love to pull the carpet out from under the Bible and demand that everyone go back to a common starting line where we agree to collectively re-define the word Christian on your own terms. But you cant do that. Because you dont own the term.

Not really. When I link to my Members Notes it is to offer the reader access to more data as to why I take that position. It is a wonderful tool for such. I give reasons which I can direct the reader to, which is great for the fact that I do not have to repeat myself over and over when newbies come on in with arguments which I have already participated in.

So, you let your Notes do the work of leading the reader to conclude theyre mistaken.

I do not disallow anything. I simply use the idea of recognizing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs as a means of avoiding wasting time and effort in a debate setting, which is a rational approach.

recognizing . . so they can be avoided is the same as disallowing. Did you fail to see that?

If anyone claimed they believed "The bible makes no mistakes and is the word of a GOD" and I asked them if this belief was negotiable and they replied "no", then I have saved a lot of time and space because the subject is not open to any debate with them.

not open to any debate with them MEANS disallowed for debate, William.

This is why I questioned your use of English in this thread. You make a statement like the above and complain when someone understands it as disallowing. That IS the meaning. Its not esoteric. Its straightforward.

And frankly William, if were going to have disagreements about things like this, this is going to be too much of an ordeal for me. We simply have to have language in common. If you believe you can be recreational about it, Im out.

I evaluate the claim that 'the Bible is the word of a GOD' to being something of a wild claim. One does not need to be a scholar to make such an evaluation. Although I concede that it is helpful to be scholarly.

And if it being a wild claim is soooo right and soooo obvious, no clear thinking, educated person would embrace it. Yet they do. And not because theyve suddenly joined the lunatic fringe.

The frequent jibe that one has to lose his marbles to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God is specious. So Im surprised that you reach for this characterization of a wild claim.

I don't care that people are interested in study of the bible or rules of interpretation etc...that is besides the point in relation to the claim or the thread subject and OPQ.

Which is where you go astray. Faith-based ideas have content which comes from the rules of interpretation. Thats precisely how we rule out wild claims from proper ones.

I see no logic in taking a whole heap of different writing, bundling it all together, declaring it as 'The word of (a) GOD' and claiming that there is a 'correct intent' which 'needs to be applied' in order to 'understand it correctly.' etc.

Youve got the cart before the horse. You dont see the logic in someone taking writings and bundling them, and calling them. But if its God speaking his word and man recognizing it, theres no failure in logic.

You see the Bible as nothing more than a human production. It all depends on your starting point.

If yours is: God didnt write the Bible, thats going to determine your assessment and incredulity about a claim for Word of God.

If your starting point is in the beginning God and you ask Did he write? and you find writings with declarative statements that God has spoken, then bundling those statements together and calling them Gods word requires no breach in logic.

It doesnt have to be proved to be true to be perfectly logical.

What is written is open to evaluation.

What difference is there between what is written and what it means and if it is true?

Open to evaluation is in reference to being true, not what is written or its meaning.

If it wasn't written, then it cannot be evaluated.

Are you skeptical about whether it was written?

So far my evaluation is that it does not matter who wrote anything. What matters is whether what is written is useful to my investigations or not.

Okay. But I would think someone interested in the RIGHT answer would form the guidelines carefully and honestly. If you arbitrarily rule out things that might get discovered along the way, are you ensuring a RIGHT answer? That translates to me as controlling the outcome.

Nor would I argue that it does, in the sense that the GOD might indeed be real. Whether the GOD is actually true, is another question entirely.

Which is a rather big question, is it not? Yet, you will never waste time debating it will you.

You are arguing as if I have made statements to the contrary, which I feel you have been doing because you assume I am an atheist.

Well if youre not an atheist, Im not sure what difference it makes considering your positions here. If youre a non-Christian believer, then investigating Christianity would be necessary if only to rule it out in favor of whatever kind of believer you are.

If you disagree that you need to investigate Christianity at all, and Im putting words in your mouth, then why occupy a place in a forum entitled Christian Debating?

If you agree that investigating Christianity is an important step in confirming your brand of believer in God, then how will you do that by defining faith-based arguments as off the list?

So establish that my definition is incorrect then.

Faith-based is not defined anywhere authoritatively as something nonnegotiable or non-debatable. Ive been in dozens of debate forums that dont react to faith-based arguments as nonnegotiable.

This is the only place Ive encountered this tactic. And I suspect its designed to eliminate any conviction that might come along with the words offered. Its also a bit ludicrous to think one can debate things Christian and avoid faith-based statements, claims and arguments.

I mean, whats left? Is the New Testament good literature? Did the accuracy of the original writings of the Bible make it through the copying process into modern times? All safely avoid the content.

But even the first topic " you couldnt extend the topic to: Is the New Testament profound? Did Jesus make a difference? Because you cant talk about those things in some artificial, antiseptic environment devoid of faith-based explanations.

Then give one small example of such a belief you have which you think is negotiable 'in the truth' and let us reason together to see if that will actually turn out to be the case.

Debate the case for whether Jesus was presented as deity in the New Testament.

You dont have to commit to believing anything. You only have to accept that the NT would be a place where a claim like that would be made. The two positions would be 1) that the case is established as a claim in the NT, b) that the case isnt established because the statements made are ambiguous and could be understood as nothing more than a man who was only especially inspired.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 61 brunumb"

Please explain the logic and reasoning that leads one to accept that donkeys and serpents may talk, someone may live in a large fish for three days, and so on.

The person of Jesus. He attested these things as true in whole and in part. You will now have to assail Jesus as a fool, and I don't believe you will succeed.

This is not a case of belief being axiomatic. It's a case of finding Jesus' attestation fully logical in relation to His character.

But I'm certain there are folks who wouldn't take half a step in the direction of honestly assessing Jesus' character from what is available for Him.

Hopefully you're not one of them.

The other piece of logic involves one's starting point. If you begin, even academically, with the postulate: In the beginning God, the accounts follow logically, even if they are seen as incredulous as to truth.

In logic there are two criteria: logical validity and logically true. An argument can be logically proper according to rules of inference, but contain no premises that establish truth.

You asked about the logic and reasoning, not the likelihood they were true.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 76 by mrhagerty]

brunumb: Please explain the logic and reasoning that leads one to accept that donkeys and serpents may talk, someone may live in a large fish for three days, and so on.

mrhagerty: The person of Jesus. He attested these things as true in whole and in part. You will now have to assail Jesus as a fool, and I don't believe you will succeed.
This is not a case of belief being axiomatic. It's a case of finding Jesus' attestation fully logical in relation to His character.

Interestingly, your response makes no reference to reason and logic lead to an acceptance of talking animals or living in fish. That aside, a work of fiction may contain logical ideas and be internally consistent with the characters given dialogue that befits the nature attributed to them by the author. Eventually you have to fall back on magic as an explanation, not reason or logic.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 77 by brunumb"

Interestingly, your response makes no reference to reason and logic lead to an acceptance of talking animals or living in fish.

Then you are harboring your own definition of reason which you aren't sharing.

You've essentially asked me if I have a reason for believing in talking creatures and being swallowed by a fish for three days. Taking the word of a person of unassailable character as a truth-teller is a perfectly valid reason.

You do this for the account of Julius Caesar. You don't ask to observe his life firsthand, but take the word of an author you essentially know nothing about, but trust as a truth-teller. The historian's life, his method of forming history you have no knowledge of. We have literally no knowledge of his sources, or their eyewitnesses, yet you and I accept the truth-telling of Suetonius as a good reason to assume Caesar said and did the things attributed to him.

I choose Jesus of Nazareth, who accepts the OT as a history of events that really happened. His integrity as a truth-teller is a sufficient reason.

If what you meant to ask was: Do I have a good reason, a reason you will respect, that's a different question.

I also explained (and perhaps you stopped reading at the mention of Jesus) is that once you have a first premise of God, the rest of the premises and conclusion follow logically and do not violate the rules of inference and validity.

(you did take a class on logic in the philosophy department, right?)

Eventually you have to fall back on magic as an explanation, not reason or logic.

You'll need to point to where I did this in my former reply. Jesus has never been assessed as a magician by credible critics. He's often accused being deluded, or a megalomaniac, or too full of himself. But never a magician. His enemies called him an agent of Satan for the source of His miracles, but never a magician.

My other reason - that once you postulate God, the idea of talking creatures is not beyond logical extension - is not an appeal to magic that I can see. God as defined is capable of invading natural law and providing those effects. Unless you have a peculiar definition of miracle as nothing more than magic. Which will introduce another set of questions you'll have to answer.

That aside, a work of fiction may contain logical ideas and be internally consistent with the characters given dialogue that befits the nature attributed to them by the author.

So you join the ubiquitous StuartJ in asserting that the Bible is "make-believe,"
that the Bible is behaving just like the class of things we call make-believe.

So can you do me the kindness of naming a make-believe story the like to which the Bible is similar? I.e. the Bible presents itself just like make-believe story __________.

[William]

[Replying to post 75 by mrhagerty]

1: Removing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs from the debate would not have the affect of making the debate forums self-defeating. Rather my argument is in the acknowledgment that not arguing with nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs allows for the cancelling out of time wasted on something other than debate.

So, give me an example of a debate that could take place on a Christian subject where any and all could agree to avoid faith-based statements and arguments.

Why? Are you saying that "Christian subjects" are all faith-based, therefore there is no avoiding it? The argument I am making is not in the identification of faith-based assumptions, but identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. That will vary from person to person as well.

The purpose of this thread is to identify nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. What is left after that becomes apparent as a 'list' of Christian arguments that are devoid of nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs.

Okay. So, lets list some. Im at a loss.

Fair enough. I should have written "The purpose of this thread is to identify nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. What is left after that becomes apparent as a 'list' of Christian subjects that are nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs." - My bad. Does the change make a difference to the question you asked?

My position in relation to that is I think it logically reasonable to understand (all things so far considered) that The First Source has always existed and is the reason everything else Exists. The First Source = "GOD".

That wasnt what I meant " that God was reasonable to assume. I was referring to your request for evidences, which appeared to be of the empirical, scientific type.

I don't make requests for evidence unless the claims warrant that.

The claim determines whether physical evidence can be demanded or not.

Are you saying you accept other types of evidences for faith-based propositions than our senses, scientific detection or an operation of reason?

No. I am saying that in my understanding of GOD, faith is not required. I do accept that faith-based proposition is often an initiator but that once it is not required, it can be placed aside.

A Christian is defined by the NT. I am free to personally disavow certain defining beliefs. But in doing so I cease to be Christian and must find another label.

In that, any nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs as "defined by the NT" would first have to become negotiable beliefs. Otherwise it wouldn't and couldn't happen.

About that, I have this to say;

My belief is that the Bible is not 'The Word' of any GOD. That -specifically - is what I consider to be 'make believe' about the Bible.

And thats why I say this entire forum and this thread are antithetical. Youre operating under the name Christian, which comes from the NT and is defined by the NT, but you say cant happen until the basis of that name devolves into a negotiable belief. Youre dead in the water before you start.

I don't personally have any concerns about Christians and their NNFBB's and whether they choose to continue with them.
My job is to identify whether there is a chance for debate or not, so if Christians bring their NNFBB's to the table, they are not doing so for that purpose. They are doing so to take the opportunity to proselytize, which is not what I am here to encourage or otherwise waste my time being involved with. I am here to debate.

If a shop advertises a promise in order to get customers through the door, and does not deliver, that would be unethical, would you agree?

I realize that debaters like the crowd inhabiting forums like these love to pull the carpet out from under the Bible and demand that everyone go back to a common starting line where we agree to collectively re-define the word Christian on your own terms. But you cant do that. Because you dont own the term.

No one owns that term, and those calling themselves 'Christians' don't even agree as to what being a Christian actually is anyway, so you pull the carpet out from under your own feet arguing along those lines anyway, mrhagerty.

Not really. When I link to my Members Notes it is to offer the reader access to more data as to why I take that position. It is a wonderful tool for such. I give reasons which I can direct the reader to, which is great for the fact that I do not have to repeat myself over and over when newbies come on in with arguments which I have already participated in.

So, you let your Notes do the work of leading the reader to conclude theyre mistaken.

Nope. The reader is free to decide for their self, whatever they will. If they see any holes in my arguments therein, they are free to bring that to the table.
It is actually a great tool for the job, and I would encourage more individuals to use it this way.

I do not disallow anything. I simply use the idea of recognizing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs as a means of avoiding wasting time and effort in a debate setting, which is a rational approach.

recognizing . . so they can be avoided is the same as disallowing. Did you fail to see that?

The rational approach in recognizing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs as a means of avoiding wasting time and effort in a debate setting, is not disallowing anything. You fail at present to understand that. The individual Members are free to proselytize their NNFBB's all they want to, just as I am free to recognize their proselytizing NNFBB's are not debatable.

If anyone claimed they believed "The bible makes no mistakes and is the word of a GOD" and I asked them if this belief was negotiable and they replied "no", then I have saved a lot of time and space because the subject is not open to any debate with them.

not open to any debate with them MEANS disallowed for debate, William.

Yes I know that mrhagerty. NNFBB's are not 'open for debate' specifically because they are NNFBB's. Why are you finding this so hard to comprehend?

But not just any wild evaluation that comes to mind. Over the centuries the NT material has been available to study, rules of interpretation have developed that assure students and scholars they are understanding the intent correctly.

I evaluate the claim that 'the Bible is the word of a GOD' to being something of a wild claim. One does not need to be a scholar to make such an evaluation. Although I concede that it is helpful to be scholarly.

And if it being a wild claim is soooo right and soooo obvious, no clear thinking, educated person would embrace it. Yet they do. And not because theyve suddenly joined the lunatic fringe.

First you bring into the argument the subject of 'wild evaluation' then you bring into the argument the subject of 'lunatic fringe'.

'Clear-thinking educated people' who subject themselves to NNFBB's are not uncommon. They perhaps are even a dime a dozen.

The frequent jibe that one has to lose his marbles to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God is specious. So Im surprised that you reach for this characterization of a wild claim.

My response to the above is simply to ask you a straightforward question mrhagerty.

Q1: Do you believe the Christian Bible is "The Word of GOD"?

If your answer is 'yes', then my next question is;

Q2: Is this belief negotiable or nonnegotiable?

I don't care that people are interested in study of the bible or rules of interpretation etc...that is besides the point in relation to the claim or the thread subject and OPQ

Which is where you go astray. Faith-based ideas have content which comes from the rules of interpretation. Thats precisely how we rule out wild claims from proper ones.

That is still besides the point of the thread subject and OP. If the above process brings those to a place of NNFBB that 'the bible is the word of GOD', then it has been identified as such and there is no debating it with those who believe it.

I see no logic in taking a whole heap of different writing, bundling it all together, declaring it as 'The word of (a) GOD' and claiming that there is a 'correct intent' which 'needs to be applied' in order to 'understand it correctly.' etc.

Youve got the cart before the horse. You dont see the logic in someone taking writings and bundling them, and calling them. But if its God speaking his word and man recognizing it, theres no failure in logic.

Well that there is a big "IF" to run with anyway, and anyone who believes the IF is actually the TRUTH of the matter, has likely had to do so using NNFBB. In that, the 'IF' is no longer 'IF' at all. There is no debating it with those who have come to that conclusion. It is a matter of a settled thing with them in which argument of any sort against the belief is not considered even valid. All that is left from them is opportunity to proselytize, which I avoid getting involved with in a debate setting, and encourage others to do likewise.

So far my evaluation is that it does not matter who wrote anything. What matters is whether what is written is useful to my investigations or not.

Okay. But I would think someone interested in the RIGHT answer would form the guidelines carefully and honestly. If you arbitrarily rule out things that might get discovered along the way, are you ensuring a RIGHT answer? That translates to me as controlling the outcome.

There has been no noticeable negative affect in my NOT believing that the bible is the word of GOD in relation to my investigations. There is no 'outcome' in which to control. It is simply data which requires being evaluated.
Evaluated in the same way that Jesus is attributed with saying "Sort the chaff from the wheat" or words to that affect.

If one first believes that the bible is the word of GOD, then one proceeds from that point, and one is evaluating from a different position and is more likely not to notice any chaff, thinking it must be all wheat...because it is 'The Word of GOD'. Indeed, that way has already 'controlled the outcome'.

However, that doesn't rule out such a God from being real or true.

Nor would I argue that it does, in the sense that the GOD might indeed be real. Whether the GOD is actually true, is another question entirely.

Which is a rather big question, is it not? Yet, you will never waste time debating it will you.

It depends on who I am engaging with and whether their belief about it is negotiable or not. Before I would proceed, I would ask the individual and await their answer.

That's the rule I believe you are making a mistake about. That if a God is immaterial then such a God can't be real or true. Truth or reality doesn't depend on only what is demonstrable from material evidence.

And my answer to the above is that your belief about my position is incorrect.

You are arguing as if I have made statements to the contrary, which I feel you have been doing because you assume I am an atheist.

Once you sort that out, I think you might agree that would have to change your argument to suit.

Well if youre not an atheist, Im not sure what difference it makes considering your positions here. If youre a non-Christian believer, then investigating Christianity would be necessary if only to rule it out in favor of whatever kind of believer you are.

A theist cannot be an atheist at the same time. I may not believe what Christians believe the way in which Christians believe (generally speaking) but that does not make me an atheist.

If you disagree that you need to investigate Christianity at all, and Im putting words in your mouth, then why occupy a place in a forum entitled Christian Debating?

If you agree that investigating Christianity is an important step in confirming your brand of believer in God, then how will you do that by defining faith-based arguments as off the list?

Why do you call them 'faith-based arguments' when the OP is specific to identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs?

When I have agreed above that they are non-negotiable, it is within the context of your definition.

So establish that my definition is incorrect then.

Faith-based is not defined anywhere authoritatively as something nonnegotiable or non-debatable. Ive been in dozens of debate forums that dont react to faith-based arguments as nonnegotiable.

The OP is specific to identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. I am happy enough to acknowledge that the idea is new in that it hasn't largely been recognized, but that should not prevent anyone from creating a thread in which to offer the reader an opportunity to broaden their perspective and understanding about well established human dynamics specific to atheist/theist argument.

This is the only place Ive encountered this tactic. And I suspect its designed to eliminate any conviction that might come along with the words offered. Its also a bit ludicrous to think one can debate things Christian and avoid faith-based statements, claims and arguments.

The thing is, your argument is obviously moving away from the path of intent the thread OP is focused upon. Faith-based statements which are negotiable are not under question.

If this is your idea of 'establishing my definition as incorrect', you are remiss. You have gone off the track, moved the goalposts, created a straw-man argument.

Then give one small example of such a belief you have which you think is negotiable 'in the truth' and let us reason together to see if that will actually turn out to be the case.

Debate the case for whether Jesus was presented as deity in the New Testament.

First things first. Have you given the example asked for?

You dont have to commit to believing anything. You only have to accept that the NT would be a place where a claim like that would be made. The two positions would be 1) that the case is established as a claim in the NT, b) that the case isnt established because the statements made are ambiguous and could be understood as nothing more than a man who was only especially inspired.

I see in the above you have not. You do not say which of these positions you hold as a belief...[1] or .

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 79 by William"

Why? Are you saying that "Christian subjects" are all faith-based, therefore there is no avoiding it?

Bingo!

Unless you want to be ridiculous and talk about which agencies for the homeless have good Christian beds. That's a use of Christian that avoids all reference to faith-based ideas.

I've asked you to tell me how there can be negotiable subjects that have the word Christian included. Now would be ideal.