Moderator: Community Team
Norse wrote:But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
Norse wrote:But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
CrazyAnglican wrote:
When looking at the available evidence both stances are equally beyond proof. You could ask me to prove the existence of a Giant Squid and I would be equally at a loss for any proof. Not much of a diver, really![]()
Let's be real here though. If you are engaging in an argument about the existence of God then the burden of proof is shared as both sides are making claims.
Hence, it's inarguable. I believe in God, Yes. I know it's faith and not a proven fact, Yes. I've examined my own faith and spoken with people of many differeing viewpoints. Frankly, nobody has ever said anything that would make me change my mind. Many have tried.
Generally, you'll hear me defend my choice to be a Christian, and I'll speak (at great length sometimes) about the benefits of having faith. These are things that are arguable and empirical evidence can be brought in to back them up. To make a long story just a little bit longer There are many, many reasons to be Christian that have nothing to do with whether God can make a make a rock so big that he can't lift it himself.
suggs wrote:whilst there is still doubt that jesus even existed, as a real historical figure, i think we should take the rest of the bible with a pinch of salt/ huge bifter.
Norse wrote:But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
got tonkaed wrote:mr nate.....as i had suggested....this was done via a quick google search. The inforation admittedly is not my own. However, the questions come from a seminary student in the first one, and a response off a christian based website in another.
Though i do not doubt there are justifications and possibilities for bridging gaps in each of the things you cite, my point was rather simple. Widowmakers essentially claimed that nothing the bible had been proved historically inaccurate. I was merely showing that through a very quick and impromptu search, you could find christian sources, which suggest that premise is false.
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?
The same could be said about people who do not believe.got tonkaed wrote:ill admit, that could be very true. I guess i would differ from you in the necessity of some of those historical details. Judging by your rather quick, perhaps overly defensive stance, that you do put a lot of stock into these things. Personally id be tempted to argue that you are perhaps deifying the wrong things about the text in such a way, but ill admit i dont know you, and you do seem to do a very through study of the text (much more than i certainly ever did).
However, it strikes me as interesting that many christians tend to have no problem with their being biographical or historical errors about non foundation elements, but you seem to have taken a very different stance on the issue.
I believe if you make enough out of the elements you will always be able to believe that they are true, simply because you will invested too much of yourself into them for them to be anything but "true"
you will invested too much of yourself into them for them to be anything but "true"
suggs wrote:inerrancy? any chance we could converse in English?
Jesus. (praise be)
MR. Nate wrote:Able to believe they are true and able to demonstrate they are not false are very different. If I fail at the second, I will not allow myself to do the first. And I have studied it, and I'm confident that there are not any problems. I am quite willing to stand by the Chicago statement of inerrancy (that the Bible has exemption from error or the quality of never making an error).
The same could be said about people who do not believe.
-Do you all really know what you are talking about in regards to the Bible being wrong?
-Have you spent the time actually looking over the evidence Mr. Nate provided to explain the accusation of Biblical error?
-If so how can you say he is wrong?
By him simply defending his position, you are accusing him of being blind and believing the Bible regardless of anything else.
Before you accuse someone of: "you will invested too much of yourself into them for them to be anything but "true"
make sure that you are not doing that yourself. If you are not willing to look at both sides and see both pictures, you are doing exactly the thing you accuse Christians of doing, being blind.
Norse wrote:But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
Norse wrote:But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?
WidowMakers wrote:The same could be said about people who do not believe.got tonkaed wrote:ill admit, that could be very true. I guess i would differ from you in the necessity of some of those historical details. Judging by your rather quick, perhaps overly defensive stance, that you do put a lot of stock into these things. Personally id be tempted to argue that you are perhaps deifying the wrong things about the text in such a way, but ill admit i dont know you, and you do seem to do a very through study of the text (much more than i certainly ever did).
However, it strikes me as interesting that many christians tend to have no problem with their being biographical or historical errors about non foundation elements, but you seem to have taken a very different stance on the issue.
I believe if you make enough out of the elements you will always be able to believe that they are true, simply because you will invested too much of yourself into them for them to be anything but "true"
-Do you all really know what you are talking about in regards to the Bible being wrong?
-Have you spent the time actually looking over the evidence Mr. Nate provided to explain the accusation of Biblical error?
-If so how can you say he is wrong?
By him simply defending his position, you are accusing him of being blind and believing the Bible regardless of anything else.
For instance I am in the middle of the creation/evolution debate. I feel I have explained issues regarding the errors in evolution an dhow it cannot be. I have spent time looking at the data and have come to thew conclusion that it is impossible. At the same time others have others have looked at the data and have come to completely opposite conclusions.
So who is right?
MR. Nate wrote:Infallible means incapable of error on any level
Inerrant allows for it to be accurate by the standards of the day. For instance, the whole "son" thing in genealogies. Often in biblical genealogies, they'd just put in the highlights to get a nice number. So some guys got skipped. It was culturally acceptable, and the word "son" allowed for it. (see my earlier post) But today, many consider that an error. On a certain level, it is, by todays definitions. But at the time, it was considered accurate and acceptable.
That's why I say inerrant, not infallible.
Snorri1234 wrote:No no, inerrancy means the is no error in the scripture whatsoever. The Bible is 100% true and should be taken totally literal.
Backglass wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:No no, inerrancy means the is no error in the scripture whatsoever. The Bible is 100% true and should be taken totally literal.
Exactly. 100% True, except for those parts that aren't...metaphors, etc.
We will decide which is which to fit the times.See, it's easy! Just make it up as you go along and believe the parts you want to believe...everybody else does.
- Giant ark & worldwide flood? Metaphor!
- Walking Dead? True!
- Humans turned into piles of salt? Metaphor!
- Humans walking on water? True!
Backglass wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:No no, inerrancy means the is no error in the scripture whatsoever. The Bible is 100% true and should be taken totally literal.
Exactly. 100% True, except for those parts that aren't...metaphors, etc.
We will decide which is which to fit the times.See, it's easy! Just make it up as you go along and believe the parts you want to believe...everybody else does.
- Giant ark & worldwide flood? Metaphor!
- Walking Dead? True!
- Humans turned into piles of salt? Metaphor!
- Humans walking on water? True!
heavycola wrote:[i think science has proved that it's impossible to walk on water (without giant inflatable shoes)
Backglass wrote:I have seen his act. I'll bet he could pull off a mean crucifixion & resurrection as well.
It just takes a good magician to pull it off.
heavycola wrote:Backglass wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:No no, inerrancy means the is no error in the scripture whatsoever. The Bible is 100% true and should be taken totally literal.
Exactly. 100% True, except for those parts that aren't...metaphors, etc.
We will decide which is which to fit the times.See, it's easy! Just make it up as you go along and believe the parts you want to believe...everybody else does.
- Giant ark & worldwide flood? Metaphor!
- Walking Dead? True!
- Humans turned into piles of salt? Metaphor!
- Humans walking on water? True!
it's so easy! I could SO fall for this!
Also, i love augustine's get-out clause. I mean, i think science has proved that it's impossible to walk on water (without giant inflatable shoes, and the bible makes no mention of those) or to rise from the dead (without a defibrulator - again, no mention).
So how do they work?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users