The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 04-29-2012, 07:21 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
But of course, atheists will harp and harp on the flood story because that's their "Oh gotcha" event. So what? I'm suppose to disregard the entire Bible because one story doesn't jive with what modern science claims? Science is flawed, God is not.
Why would we, or why should anyone believe that the particular books of the Bible were intended to be the one final compilation of scripture, and revelation of God's plan for man. Does it say anything remotely like that in the Bible? Is there anything that makes the calim that we would have one book, one compilation of writings as the final and ultimate holy authority? There isn't is there?

The Mormons have other scripture based on the idea that a oving God will continue to communicate his will to people who seek him
"James 1:5" and of course other religions have writings they consider holy.

If God does grant wisdom to any man that asks, why wouldn't the holy writings of other cultures have something to offer?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #502  
Old 04-29-2012, 07:30 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Right, so I don't understand why atheists create these kind of threads asking for evidence when it's obvious that nothing will ever convince them. Likewise, they are not going to convince me that God is a figment of my imagination. Can we just shake hands, and agree to disagree?
That's certainly not a problem for me. Believers have dominated society for a long time and in the past atheists suffered enough prejudice to keep it to themselves. In more recent years more atheists have begun to speak up and challange the ideas of believers. Now, in a diverse society, we have Christian groups and other believers openly and adamantly asserting their beliefs to try and affect public policy and the lives and rights of others. That conflict is not going away and won't be solved by shaking hands.

On a smaller scale, I doubt few people here will ask you to provide proof for anything that you recognize as personal belief rather than fact. It's believers who seem to want to bolster their faith by insisting it is supported by fact when that's often not the case.
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 04-29-2012, 07:53 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post

It's just a lame excuse for atheists to not give the Bible any credibility.
It is foolhardy to view ancient writings as historically accurate.

The BIble is an amazing book and that doesn't change when we look at it realisitically.

The books that eventually became canon were selected from many writings that were circulating at the time. Even then, the books that were eventually selected were copied and recopied by hand. The study of the copies we have tell us that changes were made for various reasons.

Even if you choose to believe the original writings were inspired by God, you're still face with the overwelming evidence that we don't know exactly what those original writings said and what was handed down are writings translated , changed and interperted by other men.
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 04-29-2012, 08:59 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
But even if you revealed the Bible has fiction, it would not be a deathblow to my faith. I know God is real because of my life experiences.
I think this is relevant on a couple of levels. First, you don't need certain traditonal beliefs to be true to find something meaningful and profound in your experiences.
As I began to question things I gradually realized I could release a lot of traditional beliefs and still find and hold value in other aspects.
2nd, That your beliefs are based to some extent on your personal interpretation of certain events, and as such are subject to and influenced by your emotions and subconcious.

Quote:
I don't see people being healed, saved, lives transformed with other religions. Most of it is engrained in the culture and follows strict rituals. That's smacks of something man-made. Yet Christianity does not simply work by performing a physical action. Christianity is about forming a personal relationship with the creator of the universe.
I have to wonder how familiar you are with other religions.


Quote:
Again, lack of evidence is not concrete proof that the Jews were never in Egypt. There is still many sites that have not been excavated or surveyed. And there is certainly evidence for the destruction of Jericho which occured not long after the Exodus.
Wait a minute, Didn't you JUST say that archeology supports the Bible? Now you're saying it doesn't but that really doesn't matter.
The whole point is thatn one should expect certain evidence to be available is certain biblical stories are true.
If the police hear there's been a shootout and multiple deaths at a certain location and find no evidence , no bulletholes, no shell casings, no blood, what would you expect them to believe about that story. Would there be any good reason for them to say "well that doesn't prove absolutely it didn't happen"

Last edited by cosmosdan; 04-29-2012 at 09:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 04-29-2012, 09:05 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Why would we think otherwise when you people gripe and moan about things like cross memorials? It's a freaking symbol. It's not going to hurt you. Atheists want to wipe every trace of Christianity from public view.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/at...station-73874/
No. Put in on your lawn and on your church lawn, but don't presume that symbols of a particular religion are automatically okay in spaces you share with the general public who do not all share your beliefs.

Personally I think the whole religion/Christainity under attack meme comes from Christianity trying to call dibbs on this nation and finding out that a lot of people won't go along with it.
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 04-29-2012, 09:08 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
The fact that you immediately dismissed my personal experiences as lies is enough proof that you will auto-reject any pro-Christian evidence.
Could you point out which post refered to them as lies.
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 04-29-2012, 09:17 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Are you serious? I'm claiming that the Bible is historical fact and God is indeed real. These many "Christians" certainly didn't chime in to defend the word of God.

I don't see how anyone can claim to be a Christian yet disagree on these basic tenents.
I don't see how people can claim to highly value the truth, and still embarce traditions taught by men over the considerable evidence to the contrary.

One does not have to believe the BIble is hostorically accurate to be a Christian, regardless of your personal opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 04-29-2012, 09:22 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
I'm sorry but if a person believes that the Bible is fiction, they are not a true believer. Jesus Christ said the events in the OT really did happen so you are basically saying Christ himself is lying.
That assumes what we have in the NT are the actual exavt words of Jesus. Other than tradition there's no good reason to believe that, and lots of evidence it's not true.

What about the gospel of Thomas. Should we also believe those are he words of Jesus.
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 04-29-2012, 11:29 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
I'm also aware that are many millions who call themselves Mormons and believe in a completely different Bible, yet call themselves Christians. I guess they missed that bit in Revelation 22:18.
That brings up several issues.
For one thing that passage says man should not alter the words of THIS book, meaning Revelation, not the Bible since the Bible did not exist.
Furthermore, it does not say God could not or would not, so the idea of continued revelation and scripture is not closed by that passage.
and, If it was God's plan that we were going to have one authoratative book, that is essentially the inerrant word of God {where does it say that?} then why issue such a warning? If God had no intention of allowing his word to be altered and inergered with , there's no need for such a warning.
Finally, evidence clearly shows that the books of the NT were altered many times.
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 05-22-2012, 04:39 PM
pikey pete pikey pete is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
I got nuthin' man. Then again, I'm a rationalist.
Reply With Quote
  #511  
Old 05-22-2012, 04:42 PM
pikey pete pikey pete is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmosdan View Post
That assumes what we have in the NT are the actual exavt words of Jesus. Other than tradition there's no good reason to believe that, and lots of evidence it's not true.

What about the gospel of Thomas. Should we also believe those are he words of Jesus.
actually there is evidence that the the Gospel of Thomas is older than the 4 canonized gospels, therefore it is closer to the source. Also, the Gospel of Thomas is nothing but a collection of maxims attributed to Jesus. I actually prefer that because it leaves out all the storytelling and gets right to the message.
Reply With Quote
  #512  
Old 05-22-2012, 05:08 PM
Kobal2 Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Assuming that gods actually existed, it seems more logical for there to be many gods rather than one. If one god can come into being/always have existed, why not many?
Supernatural selection. Survival of the meanest.
Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 05-22-2012, 08:23 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by pikey pete View Post
actually there is evidence that the the Gospel of Thomas is older than the 4 canonized gospels, therefore it is closer to the source. Also, the Gospel of Thomas is nothing but a collection of maxims attributed to Jesus. I actually prefer that because it leaves out all the storytelling and gets right to the message.
Me too. When I read it I imagined the authors of the gospels haiving it as a reference.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.