marley can you see the wind? I cant, i can see the effects of the wind, I can feel the effects of the wind. You cant see God but you can see the effects of God.
No. What you do is pretend to attack “liberal” hypocrisy and then change the discussion to what “fundies” do if your attack is shown to be factually in error. Your persistent dishonesty is what stands out. (“Liberal” and “fundy” being your terms.)
It does not bother me that anyone challenges any Christian belief. There are a number of people of integrity on this MB who have no use for Christianity or religion or any belief in a god. I simply find your dishonest method of argumentation (equivocation of terms, assigning arguments to people who have not made them, etc,) to be tiresome:
You don’t seem to understand how proving things works. The burden of proof lies with whomever is making the assertion. In this case, you are claiming that, “The Bible is inspired by God, inerrant and infallible”. The burden of proof lies with you, to prove that what you say is true.
As for disproving the Bible, the most that can be done (considering the nebulous nature of what you are asking) is to show that there are apparant contradictions and factual errors. The convuluted interpretations needed to reconcile these apparent errors lower the bar, and give others the leeway to use the same level of interpretation on any part of the Bible they want, thus rendering the whole thing fairly useless as the supposed instructions of a presumed deity. I mean, as long as you insist that it doesn’t mean what it literally says, it can easilly be manipulated into meaning whatever someone wants it to mean.
So we have the fact that the burden of proof rests on you, and we have no reason at all to believe what you say is valid if you can offer no logical argument for your postion. On top of that, the only methods at your disposal to protect your holy text from it’s own internal inconsistancy can reconcile the discrepencies only at the cost of rendering the entire work malleable to anyone’s interpretations.
Oh, and I should mention that proving that “The Bible is inspired by God, inerrant and infallible” requires you first to prove that there is such a thing as God. Herein lies the reason that it is impossible to prove that you are wrong. Doing so would require one of two things:[ul][li]Proof that God exists, so that it can then be proven in a second argument that the Bible is not His word. Since there is insufficient proof that God exists (hence your plight), this route cannot be taken.[/li]
[li]Proof that God does not exist, and thus the Bible cannot be the word of a non-existant entity. Unfortunately, non-existance cannot be proven, so this route cannot be taken, either[/ul][/li]This is why those who disagree with your assertion will use the bible as evidence against the Bible. If the Bible can shown to be fallible, then God’s state of existance need not be addressed at all to render your assertion false.
Who said anything about all-knowing logic? I’m saying if you look quickly into how logic works and find out some simple, standard arguing tactics, you’ll find that your comment “If something cant be dis-proved…then how is it not proven?” is a fallacy. I don’t think you can prove to me that unicorns, leprechauns, etc. don’t exist. That doesn’t mean they do. Proving a negative is pretty damn hard to begin with. The burden of proof would be on me for making the claims about unicorns & such.
Oh, and faith is superceeded because some of us don’t have it, want it or need it. It’s not really relevant to this particular issue, but I don’t trust the reasoning of people who take faith (which is often supposed to contradict logic and sense) over reasoning anyway.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml =a good site for some basics about the bible and its validity.
That’s an invalid question. “Wind” is not an object that exists. It is a word used to describe the motion of the molecules that comprise the atmosphere.
As for seeing the air, yes, we can. All you have to do is cool air until it condenses into a liquid.
So we can see the air, and we can apply knowledge of fluid dynamics into understanding how the air, in its gas state, reacts to disturbances. Thus we understand wind without having to feel it or its effects.
Please try to come up with a better analogy next time.
Nomadic_One, look at this statement that you made:
You cannot disprove that there is life in other solar systems. But that doesn’t mean that there is life in other solar systems. That is what Marley23 means by logic.
Having faith in something doesn’t mean that you can’t be logical in your thinking.
BTW, it is both customary and reasonable that the person making the claim in a debate is the one who has to provide factual material to back it up.
wow you guys are good btw. you really make a person look at this. I want to say thank you for giving me the oppurtunity to extend my faith by taking a closer look at it. 
joe and marley you guys rock. btw one thing that i find fascinating about the bible is all its prophesies…the cool thing about them is thus far every one of them has been true.
and thank you for telling me the inaccuracy of the statement If something cant be dis-proved…then how is it not proven? therefore i cant cop out.
This is downright laughable, given how often the thing contradicts ITSELF. The only ‘prophecies’ I’ve ever seen involved massive twisting of biblical words so they would almost fit current events. It’s very common for a world event to happen, and for biblical scholars to then go racing through their texts and find predictions of that event. But that’s not prophecy, it’s retrofitting. You have to predict something accurately IN ADVANCE for it to be prophecy, and it has to be specific for it to be worth anything. This has never happened, and here’s betting it never will.
Jesus said he’d be back within the lifetime of his followers. Sounds like a big mistake to me, considering the source is alleged to be god. The bible is also full of regular errors, like the claim that insects have four legs.
Of course, the bible said his name would be Immanuel, not Jesus/Jeshua/Yeshua/Yehoshua.
Much of the other stuff in that page is junk, such as “If the New Testament writings were false, [Jews and Romans] would have produced a great deal of evidence to stop the growth of this “sect.” None exists,” which is just plain silly, and the reliance on Josephus, parts of which were obviously inserted later. This is discussed in this SD column.
:rolleyes: Guess I’ll have to lower the bar here. Can you name ONE?
Sorry, but that site impressed me not in the least. Case in point:
First of all, if Jesus had performed miracles, it should be documented in other historical texts. The lack of corroberating evidence is extremely suspicious, to say the least.
As for prophecies being fulfilled, the same effect could have easilly been achieved by some people writing works of fiction, taking the prophecies into account to have their fictional character (possibly based on an actual person) fulfill the phrophies.
It would seem that even more evidence (of the fabricated variety) would have been produced had the New Testament been real. Perhaps the Powers That Be (Powers That Were?) saw no reason to dispute the Christians for the same reason that NASA is not bothering to dispute the we-never-went-to-the-moon crackpots.
Perhaps no one had to, the way no one has had to refute the Heaven’s Gate cult as a fairy tale. You know that if something like that were real, Christian groups would be pumping out all kinds of “evidence” that it was false.
Yeah, secular history supported the film Gladiator, too. All historical fiction is supported in part by history. All current works of fiction that mention President Bush will be supported in the future by secular history. That proves nothing.
I really have to say that that was one of the weaker “Proof that the Bible is Rght” sites that I’ve seen. I don’t think its author would know an actual proof if it bit him on the ass. I mean, the way he throws the word “proof” around without using it properly is just sad.
If your father had let you stay several nights in jail rather than bail you out to “teach you a lesson out of love”, reasoning and logic would not determine that a ‘loving’ action. Especially if he had the money to bail you out, and you where not prone to registering in the county hotel.
Love without faith is pretty cold. I trust those who prove their worthyness, not because of their faith.
Because nothing is proven until it’s, well, proven. I don’t know how to explain it better than that. Every concept starts out as being false until it can be demonstrated to be true.
I mean, you can’t prove that unicorns don’t exist, can you? Does that prove that they doexist? Logic like that would “prove” that every God ever worshipped exists. Can’t prove Thor doesn’t exist? The He does!!
See, it doesn’t work very well, does it?
I think I’m failing to see your point, because I’m not sure how it relates to the quoted comment, and I don’t disagree that this action wouldn’t be loving by a reasonable or logical standard.
The people who I love would disagree. And I disagree about the atheists who love me.
Spite:
I have never experienced cold love in my entire life. It is a contradiction in terms.
Thanks for the welcome Zoe
Btw, you said “…it is both customary and reasonable that the person making the claim in a debate is the one who has to provide factual material to back it up…”
Usually, yes. But Christians live by faith (I assume), and faith isn’t designed to be reasonable in the eyes of the world 
Joe Random- “Every concept starts out as being false until it can be demonstrated to be true.”
Some would say nothing can be proven beyond all doubt/reason in our world. Sometimes you don’t need absolutes. Something can be proven in the sence that it’s highly reasonable, and I believe there are a large amount of “proofs” for the God of the bible.
Nomadic_One, I am both a devout, hard-core Christian and a translator. As part of my church’s celebration of Pentecost last week, I translated Christ’s words, “Peace be with you” and “As the Father sent me, so I send you” into Japanese. I also heard those words spoken in German, Italian, and Spanish, and I’ve heard them in Gaelic in the past. When you’re translating, one word doesn’t necessarily equate to only one other word in the language; instead there are nuances to be considered. For example, my best Japanese dictionaries are at work right now, but I think the one I most lists four possible words for “peace”, including one which implies “absence of war” and another rooted in “quietness.” While God may be inerrant, translators aren’t!
Getting back to the OP, my bottom line is and always must be the words and actions of Christ Himself. I’ve probably quoted the passages about loving God and your neighbor so many times that I’m blue in the face. I think it’s about time I pulled out the follow up verse: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Note the use of the word “all”. This means every word, every action, every thought must be measured against those two commandments, and, if it falls short, I have sinned. Christ explicitly and repeatedly told us how we should apply judgement if we must judge. Now, I have no idea how people judge themselves in private, but I have seen people bridle when someone applies the same standard of judgement which they apply to others in public. His4Ever, Nomadic_One, Christ is not my ultimate authority, not Paul, not the authors of Leviticus, not the translators King James hired. My understanding of His teachings regarding judgement is quite clear indeed. As I judge others, so I will be judged. If I judge harshly, I will be judged equally harshly. If I show no mercy, I will be shown none. To hijack a phrase Fundamentalists use, “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”
Objectively, we do judge. I recently judged that it would be better if I ceased to spend time at a different message board. I also judged that I did not want to accept a hug from someone who said cruel and untrue things about me. Heck, I’ll admit it. I judged that her actions were wrong, and I pointed them out to her. I did so by listing specifically what was not true and why. I’ve been known to judge His4Ever a time or three. The thing is, I hope I have done so mercifully and with the understanding that she is a mortal, fallible human being, just like me, or Polycarp, or gobear or like Christ chose to become.
To me, one point of His incarnation was to give us human beings that God cared enough about us to show us He knew first hand what it is to live in a human body which gets bruised, hurt, tired, horny, sleepy, etc. To me an essential part of Christianity’s message is, “It’s OK to be human. God understands what it is to strive and fail, to fall short of the mark, to turn aside. Your sins are forgiven. It’s ok.” Peter betrayed God out of mortal, human fear. Paul was directly responsible for the first Christian martyr. His judgement that these fallible human beings who denied Him should found Christianity. How can my judgement of my fellow men be less merciful?
Respectfully,
CJ
You said some good stuff there, Siege
That’s fine. You won’t get challenged for saying you have faith but if you assert something as fact in GD, you’re going to have to support it. If Nomadic_One had said “I believe the Bible is the word of God…” he would not have been challenged, at least not on that particular assertion (He might be asked how he personally reconciles seeming contradictictions and errors, though).
Can you give some examples of these “proofs?” (Which “Bible”, btw? Jewish or Christian?)