Tuesday, May 19, 2009

An atheist tracks with scripture

Reynold said, "It's obvious as to why people are called to preach: There's no "god" or "angels" etc. to spread the word him/her/themselves. Same with every other cult on the face of the planet. Your "god" most definately does need people to do the work, because otherwise, it just wouldn't get done, period."

Reynold, it's obvious that preaching is foolishness to you by the statement you made. I'm glad that you're on track with scripture. "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor 1:18.

165 comments:

ExPatMatt said...

Trish,

You're treading dangerously cult-ish lines with that approach, don't you think.

It's like;

"Everything we say is correct and though some people will disagree, we know they are wrong"

[Some people disagree]

"See! These people who disagree fail to see that I already predicted that they'd disagree, thus proving that they are wrong and we are right, haha!"

[people who disagree walk away shaking their heads]

stranger.strange.land said...

Trish is actually treading on very safe biblical grounds, Matt. The "Word of the cross" is so unlike any message that man would make up. There is absolutely no room for human pride or self promotion.

We are shown to be so depraved that it took none other than the Son of God to abase himself and take the place of humiliation in order to get us out of the mess that we got ourselves into.

That is what sets Christianity apart from all religions and cults. Christ's atonement. They all have some sort of works for man to do in order to achieve, or help toward "salvation." The Christian message is that Jesus Christ alone accomplished salvation for his people. Not only did we not contribute anything (except our sins), we were actually enemies of God, and dead in our sins. (Romans 5:10; Ephesians 2:1)

Why, it would take some kind of divine intervention to cause someone to receive and embrace a message like that.

Craig

Heath The Blogless said...

ExPatMatt

I disagree with you

But I am sure you already new that I would, and you think you know that I am wrong.

I still haven't walked away laughing, I stay because I am concerned for you.

ExPatMatt said...

Craig,

I'm not sure you understood what I was getting at. It's got nothing to do with the difference between your religion (or relationship, if you prefer) and others.

It's the preempting of dissent and claiming that dissent is further proof of how right you are.

Imagine a UFO abductee who says "you're going to think I'm crazy but..." Someone then calling him crazy does not make him right about his UFO experience.

What Trish (via the Bible, of course) is doing is claiming that any dissent about Christian theology is actually proof that Christian theology is correct because the theology says that people will dissent from it.

That's what I was getting at. Perhaps I'm wrong, but your answer seemed to respond to a point I didn't make. (maybe I'm just having a slow day!)

Heath,

The difference is, I don't think that I'm right because you disagree. Nor did I claim such.

I don't even claim that I'm right; I was just expressing my opinion on that particular line of apologetics.

Cheers,

Heath The Blogless said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Heath The Blogless said...

Sorry shouldn't say "walked away laughing" (That's what I use to do to Christians)
I should have said "walked away shaking my head."

(I'll get it right eventually)

Heath The Blogless said...

Great response
stranger.strange.land
I like it

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Reynold:

Reynold said, "It's obvious as to why people are called to preach: There's no "god" or "angels" etc. to spread the word him/her/themselves. Same with every other cult on the face of the planet.Sorry, Reynold, but you're ignorant to make this comment. I mean that in the strict sense of the word, not the colloquial sense. "Ignorant" as in "without knowledge." The entire Bible testifies to the spreading of the entire cosmos at the first Preacher: namely, God Himself.

"Let there be light!" and Lo! You can see it emanating from the sun. In six days He preached, creating all that exists by His spoken Word.

As to spreading the message, He spoke to Adam and Eve directly. He preached. He spoke to Moses from the burning bush. He preached. He spoke to Abram, Noah, Jacob...you get the drift.

He also sent angels, from the Angel of the Lord to Gabriel and Michael. They spoke and interacted with actual, historical men and women.

God spoke directly through and worked miracles by the prophets, His Son, the apostles...point being: the Biblical record is historically reliable (the most reliable ancient document we have) and has shown itself to be what it claims: the Word of God written. It testifies against your opinions. Read it and see.

Your "god" most definately does need people to do the work, because otherwise, it just wouldn't get done, period."See earlier comment. Further: God (capital "g") doesn't need us anymore than a dead person needs a manicure. We need Him, however, always have, and have been created and commanded to share the news. The great thing is: you don't have to remain agnostic. He wrote you 66 books so you'd know Him. Why don't you read for yourself?

@ ExPatMatt:

You're treading dangerously cult-ish lines with that approach, don't you think.

It's like;

"Everything we say is correct and though some people will disagree, we know they are wrong"

[Some people disagree]

"See! These people who disagree fail to see that I already predicted that they'd disagree, thus proving that they are wrong and we are right, haha!"

[people who disagree walk away shaking their heads]
Actually, what Trish was quoting from was written millennia ago. It wasn't Trish who predicted it, it was God who claimed it would be so.

It would be quite a different situation if she were merely making an argument, but the Bible's been right for over 3k years, so what else would one expect?

:)

Logic Lad said...

Unsurprisingly i am with Ex Patt, saying that anyone who disagrees with me is foolish and so can safely been ignored is very cultish behaviour. It is promoting insular behaviour and attempting to prevent the investigation of the supposed knowledge.

And i know this is a familiar line for me to take but there is no independant evidence that this quote is from any god, it was written by men for the express purpose of controlling other men (and women, actually to be fair mostly women)

Stranger

Blood sacrifices are common to appease gods in many religions, nothing makes the christian one special.

Brazen

still using that unsubstantiated source as your only base of argument, still unconvincing.

you said 'As to spreading the message, He spoke to Adam and Eve directly. He preached. He spoke to Moses from the burning bush. He preached. He spoke to Abram, Noah, Jacob...you get the drift.'

is it not strange that now we have the ability to record accuratly the spoken word that God has stopped talking, he used to be so out going, burning bushes, personal apperances and now nothing, given his utter lack of communication for the last few thousand years it makes you kind of wonder if all those old stories are just that and where possibly just the product of ignorance (in the true sense) and fear of the unknown.

The bible is not historicaly accurate, please stop claiming it is. it is self contradictory and there are things that have been blantently moved in time to make the story more dramatic, you can at best think of it as an historical novel, taking real elements but changing or moving them to make a better narrative.

hate to be picky but reynold is right in not captalising god in this case, he is refering to your choice of deity in general not a specific one , if you need to check try replacing god with a name and see if the sentence still works, in this case it won't.

You said 'but the Bible's been right for over 3k years, so what else would one expect? '

The bible has never been a true depicition of reality and the more we learn the less relevant it appears to be, it may have some value for its philosophical lessons but even then there is so much that in it that promotes actions that are immoral, or we, the human race, have grown out of that the time taken to extract the good would probably better spent writting something new.

Jason and Vanessa said...

It is true that God doesn't need us (as if He is dependent on us):

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything."- Acts 17:24-25

However, He does use means. For example He says He will feed us, but He doesn't just make food appear (for the most part), rather He gives us ability to work, to till the land, or buy food, with money that we earned from our jobs,...but He provided the land, the job, and our skills.

God ordains the ends as well as the means.

So we preach because it is God's ordained means to His ends (the salvation of sinners). This is how God has chosen to work.

"Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others... For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised.

...Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, He is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."
- 2 Corinthians 5:11-21

So on behalf of God I plead with you, unbeliever, repent and believe the gospel!

Soli Deo Gloria!

jason d.

TRKent said...

Hi Trish,

I found a great quote for you...

"For the Christian, TOLERANCE is an aspect of love. The Christian says, I am worried about your beliefs because they have eternal consequences. But I will treat you respectfully, as I hope you will treat me.

The non-Christian’s idea of tolerance is more of an expression of aloofness and unconcern: I don’t really care what you believe. I won’t bother you if you don’t bother me. There is no such thing as truth anyhow, so why get upset about it? This approach cuts off communication about beliefs, faith, and religion.

But evangelism is an expression of love, of the kindness, tolerance, and patience of God, meant to lead us to repentance."

~ Quote taken in part/whole from Glenn Tinder, Christian professor in Boston, MA (copied from the 5-6-09 TODAY, The Family Altar devotional titled "Tolerance" www.thisistoday.net )

Blessings!
Terry <*}}}><

ExPatMatt said...

Trish,

Was that my comment that was deleted? If it was, I didn't intend to delete it and I'm not sure what happened there.

Anyway, I can't remember what I wrote, but I recall that it was sheer brilliance and it destroyed all your arguments in one fell swoop with no chance for rebuttal.

Shame I can't remember it....

;)

Reynold said...

Trish is actually treading on very safe biblical grounds, Matt. The "Word of the cross" is so unlike any message that man would make up. There is absolutely no room for human pride or self promotion. 
Sounds like what every religion I've run into has said...no human could have come up with our message...

As for the message about "christ", there have been "saviour figures" throughout history. Mithras, the Zoraoastrian religion, etc.

The thing is, every religion has some unique points.

Matt has it right.



Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Reynold:

Reynold said, "It's obvious as to why people are called to preach: There's no "god" or "angels" etc. to spread the word him/her/themselves. Same with every other cult on the face of the planet.
 
Sorry, Reynold, but you're ignorant to make this comment. I mean that in the strict sense of the word, not the colloquial sense. "Ignorant" as in "without knowledge." The entire Bible testifies to the spreading of the entire cosmos at the first Preacher: namely, God Himself. 
And thanks for that nice example of circular reasoning. Think for a minute...just who is doing all the preaching? Humans, not "angels". Your knowledge of circulare reasoning aside, I'm not the ignorant one here.

As to spreading the message, He spoke to Adam and Eve directly. He preached. He spoke to Moses from the burning bush. He preached. He spoke to Abram, Noah, Jacob...you get the drift. 
So some book says: Evidence please?

He also sent angels, from the Angel of the Lord to Gabriel and Michael. They spoke and interacted with actual, historical men and women. 
And your basis for saying this stuff is, the very book you're trying to justify in the first place. The Koran says a lot of things about it's deity too, does that mean that we should use it's stories as evidence that it's deities exists?

God spoke directly through and worked miracles by the prophets, His Son, the apostles...point being: the Biblical record is historically reliable (the most reliable ancient document we have) and has shown itself to be what it claims: the Word of God written. It testifies against your opinions. Read it and see. 
Read it. I've also done some reading outside of the bible. It's not all it's cracked up to be, especially when it comes to things like archeology. The View from Nebo, The Bible Unearthed, etc.

Angel said...

Amen, Trish!

Fish with Trish said...

Matthew, yes you must have deleted it because I didn't.

Whateverman said...

Craig (SiaSL) wrote Trish is actually treading on very safe biblical grounds, Matt. The "Word of the cross" is so unlike any message that man would make up.

Such as Islam, Mormonism, the Jehova's Witnesses and David Koresh?

None of their messages, coming from religions I assume you believe to be false, sound anything like the core message coming from Christianity?

Really???

ExPatMatt said...

Reynold;

"Matt has it right.".

Finally! Something on this blog we can all agree on! ;)

Thanks Trish, I'm not sure how I managed to delete it but I'll be more careful in the future.

Regards,

stranger.strange.land said...

Matt.

Does the Pulitzer Prize have a category for Blog Comments? Would yours have been a nominee?

Craig

Heath The Blogless said...

Logic Lad

A few times you have claimed that the Bible is not accurate is self contradictory, The bible has never been a true depiction of reality, And you even say that it teaches us to be immoral. Could you please provide us with a couple of examples of this.

Thanks

stranger.strange.land said...

Logic Lad said...

Blood sacrifices are common to appease gods in many religions, nothing makes the christian one special.

Nothing makes Christ's sacrifice special? Okay, let's first look at the reason a sacrifice is needed, and that will determine the nature of the sacrifice.

According to Scripture every person sins and needs to make an atonement, but lacks the power to do so. God's nature is to hate sin and punish it. (Romans 1:18) We can't make atonement ourselves because we are wicked. "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD." (Prov. 15:8) There is no way we can establish our own righteousness before God.

The uniqueness of Christs sacrifice:

God himself provided the atonement.

God himself (in Christ)was the atoning sacrifice. He became a curse in our place. (Gal.3:13)

Christ's sacrifice destroyed the devil, who had the "power of death." (Heb. 2:14)

Christ rose from the dead and presented his own blood before God in heaven, on our behalf.(Heb. 9:12ff)

Christ's sacrifice was once for all, never to be repeated, and his blood continues to "cleanse the conscience" of those for whom he was sacrificed. (Heb. 9:14)

...but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. (Heb 9:26-28)[NKJV]

"Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:9-10)

I'd say that the Christian doctrine of the atonement is pretty special. Nobody else has anything that comes close.

Craig

stranger.strange.land said...

Whateverman said...
Craig (SiaSL) wrote Trish is actually treading on very safe biblical grounds, Matt. The "Word of the cross" is so unlike any message that man would make up.

Such as Islam, Mormonism, the Jehova's Witnesses and David Koresh?

None of their messages, coming from religions I assume you believe to be false, sound anything like the core message coming from Christianity?

Really
???

Yeah, really.
Islam claims that Jesus was the forerunner of Mohammed, and did not die on the cross. (No atonement)
Islam says that Allah cannot be known or understood by man. Christianity says the exact opposite.
Islam's way of salvation is through faith and compiling good deeds, especially observing the "Five Pillars."

The two main themes of Christianity's central message are 1. The identity of Jesus Christ, and 2. The Gospel (how we are saved). We believe that the bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Salvation is through faith in Jesus' substutionary atonement on the cross for us.These are both deinied by JWs and the LDS.

The Watchtower says that Jesus was a manifestation of Michael the archangel, he did not rise bodily from the dead (after paying a ransom to the devil), and because of that ransom, we now have a chance to earn our salvation through good works.

Latter Day Saints deny that Christ is God. They teach that Jesus' atonement enables mankind to be saved by obedience to "laws and ordinances of the Gospel." It is clearly a works-righteousness system.

I don't know what David Koresh's message was.

Craig

stranger.strange.land said...

Reynold said...

As for the message about "christ", there have been "saviour figures" throughout history. Mithras, the Zoraoastrian religion, etc.

That is not surprising. The first hint of a coming savior was given by God in Genesis 3:15. Also, there is a BIG difference between a "saviour figure" and an actual Saviour. See the other unique qualities of Christianity's core message in my comments above.

Always glad to talk with you, Reynold. : )Craig

Logic Lad said...

Heath

Contradictions in the bible.

A simple web search will give you reems of info on this subject, but i know that it is against policy to give links so here is an example from the first result from 'contradictions in the bible'

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Here you can clearly see in one chapter all the beasts are made first and then in the second man is made first. Please explain how this does not constitiute a clear self contradiction within the same book.

Many of the instructions and examplesin the bible are immoral, there is the promotion of slavery, genocide and rape. There is the remarkable levels of misogny, there is the utter lack of justice and the denial of free will. all these things are immoral.

Stranger

you start 'According to Scripture....' this is the essential point, you are basing all your argument on this one book again, a book that is completly un substatiated. Take away the scriptural mysteries and look at the raw 'facts' a man is sacrificed to appease the wrath of a diety, this sacrifice is not even a proper sacrifce becuase the victim dosn't stay dead, so it is less a ritual sacrifice and more ritual torture.

The convuluted logic of trying to argue that a god was sacrificed to himself to appease himself so he would forgive the sins of people he created in his own image and he already knew exactly what they would do, makes my brain hurt.

'and his blood continues to "cleanse the conscience" of those for whom he was sacrificed'

the sheer immorality of this statement is staggering, this is one of the doctrines that makes christianity unpleasant, the suggestion that becuase we are forgive we are no longer to be held accountable for our actions. just saying sorry does not undo the wrongs we have done. nothing can undo past actions all we can do is learn from them and try and make up for them. The concept of jsy being able to say 'i may be mass murderer but i said sorry to God so i can still go to heaven' is abhorent.

You think the sacrifice of christ was special, you have to it is a core of your doctrine. to me it is just the story of another human sacrifice to a jealous god. one, i have to add, that has very little historical validation.

Heath The Blogless said...

Logic Lad
Thanks but you make things to easy for me I was looking for something new. The Genesis 1 and 2 debate has been answered hundreds of times.

Genesis 1 is a chronological account of creation (day by day)
Genesis 2 is a Reiteration of What God had done, going into detail about the creation of Adam and Eve.

Do you really think Moses would have made such an obvious ‘mistake’, I mean it is only a few verses in between them it must have been obvious. On a related topic, it has been claimed here that the bible has been fiddled with over time. Do you really think the people that did this wouldn’t have fixed up such an obvious ‘mistake’?

Onto your second point you haven’t given any examples again you have just made statements. How am I meant to try and help people understand what is going on in a passage if I don’t have any. While we are on the topic of Morality. I am glad you see these things are wrong because it shows me you do have a conscience. You can see that some things are right and some things wrong. Just wondering do you think lying and stealing are wrong, if so why did you come to this conclusion?

And by the way its not just one book its 66 books written by 40 people over thousands of years with one central theme the redemption of man through Jesus Christ.

bassicallymike said...

Logic Lad said....the suggestion that becuase we are forgive we are no longer to be held accountable for our actions.You won't find that in scripture. In fact Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Romans 6 said "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!Speaking of contridictions, I assume you've done a simple web search on Bible difficulties, found CARM.org and either wrote off their explanations or ignored them since they didn't fit your presuppositions?

bassicallymike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reynold said...

stranger.strange.land said...

Reynold said...

As for the message about "christ", there have been "saviour figures" throughout history. Mithras, the Zoraoastrian religion, etc.
That is not surprising. The first hint of a coming savior was given by God in Genesis 3:15.Excuse me? There's nothing that hints of any saviour in that verse.

Genesis 3:15 (New International Version)
15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."
Also, there is a BIG difference between a "saviour figure" and an actual Saviour. See the other unique qualities of Christianity's core message in my comments above. 
"unique qualities"?

They argue that here:

www dot crunchyroll dot com/forumtopic-355250/christianity-a-copy-cat-religion/www dot medmalexperts dot com/POCM/pagan_origins_getting_started.html

Reynold said...

Nuts, I mangled the formatting for that...

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ All atheists:

Whoa, mama-cita! Clearly I forgot to check the "dude, update me with emails" button because I've been buried in the middle. How'd that happen??

Anyhow, I won't respond to everyone (as Trish sighs approval), but I will address a few points.

Some atheists have said that I have used circular reasoning. Not so, I just don't prefer the evidence route. Sufficient for me is the sheer ridiculous number of times the Bible's been proven, merely by prophecy fulfillment and through archaeological finds.

The fact that ignorant people have not done their homework to see the trail of evidence won't be belabored by me. As Einstein put it, "Why should I memorize how many feet are in a mile when I can look that information up in any old book?"

Seriously, I'll give two names: Simon Greenleaf, William Lane Craig. A simple search for manuscript evidence on a dial-up 56k modem will suffice to show the Mt. Everest of input on the subject. That anyone would deny the Bible is reliable in this day and age is incredible to me!

(sighs)

Alright:

@ Reynolds:

As for the message about "christ", there have been "saviour figures" throughout history. Mithras, the Zoraoastrian religion, etc.That is not surprising. The first hint of a coming savior was given by God in Genesis 3:15.Excuse me? There's nothing that hints of any saviour in that verse. In answer to your question, this is called the "Protoevangelion," Greek for "first Gospel." It is the first time the Gospel is preached in the Bible, and in man's history.

Oh! One more thing:

As to the charge of my circular reasoning (i.e.: saying that God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is God's Word because God said so...in the Bible...):

I will ask this question:

When an atheist/agnostic says, "There is no God," and then employs every process of "investigation" to show it is true...and THEN concludes, "See! There IS NO GOD!"...um...

Yeah. Same thing.

My point: we have all our presuppositions. The Scriptures declare that due to man's sinful heart, a "natural man" cannot submit and does not submit to God or His Word. Rather, the truth of God's existence (and therefore any special revelation of His, as in the Bible) is suppressed in wickedness.

My assumptions are at least two:

The God of the Bible exists.
The Bible is His self-revelation (as attested to by historical facts, archaeology, evidence of the prophets and apostles, evidenced by hundreds of prophecies coming over a 1,500 year span).

The atheist/agnostic has at least two assumptions as well:

There is NO GOD.
I hate him very much.

Good day!

Logic Lad said...

BasicalyMike

The fact that you can just say sorry for past transgresions and then be let into heaven is a basic tenent of christianity. Deathbed. Please explain how the previous statement is wrong.

I have just taken a quick look at the carm site it was not the first in mu google search, It does not seem to cover this specific issue. So not terribly helpful for this argument. Thank you for giving me a new resource, i am sure it will be helpful in future discussions.

Brazen

How can i come up with something new? the source document has been in existence for thousands of years and has been rebuffed and defended since it's creation. I am sure that my next line is going to be a typical response to your response, I am afriad your interpretaion does not fit with what was written, in both extracts the language in clear, both use a 'this then this' form of sentence, even if the second is a recap then the chronology should be the same, it isn't.

Do i think that a bronze age story teller would tell a story differntly from one telling to the next, Yes. Oral tradition is very bad at keeping small details the same, thats why writting is so important.

you said 'Do you really think the people that did this wouldn’t have fixed up such an obvious ‘mistake’? '

You mean edit the spoken word of a prophet? but his words is the infallible inspired words of God. if we can just correct the obvious errors in the bible then we would have far less arguments about it.

I would like to see you put a positive spin on Lot handing out his daughters to a mob to rape so that they will leave to men alone. Do i need to point out that replacing one rape victim with another is hardly the act of a good man, unless ofcourse lot volunteered for the duty himself.

Lying and stealing are bad for society. They cause a loss of trust and need to constantly defend your person / possesions. Given we have evolved as social animals our conscience is a evolutionary advantage to recognise things that are bad for the pack therefore bad for our survival chances. humans do a lot worse on there own than when they have others to support them. See no need for a father figure watching over me all the time. and no matter how tangentially you approach it, please refrain from accusing me of a lack of morals because i refuse to accept the existence of any deity, i don't need the threat of eternal damnation to make me do the right thing. can you say the same?


If i walk into a bookshop and buy a compilation of a trilogy bound into one volume am i buying one book or three?

I am aware that the bible is a collection of writings, it's just easier to refer to it as 'a book' than 'a collection of bronze age folk tales and myths edited by the priesthood for the oppresson of man'

Logic Lad said...

Brazen

you said 'I just don't prefer the evidence route'

You have just managed to invlaidate every argument you have ever made, good job fella

you said' Sufficient for me is the sheer ridiculous number of times the Bible's been proven, merely by prophecy fulfillment and through archaeological finds'

While there is evidence for some of the happenings in the bible, it is only the ones that are mundane and used as part of the setting, the census for example, but even then in the bible it is tim eshifted for dramatic effect, the actual important bits, the parts that would substantiate the supernatural parts of the story, not a sausage.

I like your broad assumption that athiets don't do research, but given your stated dislike of evidence what would be the point?

I counter your apologists with Dawkins and Hitchens, go read there stuff and explain how it is wrong without waving a bible in the air.

Your concept of the athiest/agnostic argument is flawed. Some people may take the illogical start point of there is no god, however most start with 'for the extraodinary claim that there is a creator diety who decides who goes to heaven and hell what is the evidence.' they then are presented with the supposed evidence and come to the conclusion ' while it is impossible to prove there is no god, i don;t see sufficent evidence to conclude there is one, so while i am open there being more evidence currently i will act as if there is no god' however saying 'there is no god' is quicker. this is a little different to the theist god prooves bible prooves god arguments.

You talk about assumptions, and this is the problem. you must force the evidence to fit your preconcpetions, you don;t even consider the possibility that you are wrong, most, not all, athists would cheefully accept the existence of a diety (change their minds) if sufficent evidence could be provided. strange how we get accused of being closed minded.

you said 'The atheist/agnostic has at least two assumptions as well:

There is NO GOD.
I hate him very much.'

Again you arte starting from the wrong place.

I have explained why you first assertion is wrong and i, personally, can't hate something that i dont believe exists, i am not keen on a number of things done in his name however.

Reynold said...

Some atheists have said that I have used circular reasoning. Not so, I just don't prefer the evidence route. 
Thanks for admitting that you don't use evidence. Guess what that means? You have used circular reasoning. Circular reasoning doesn't use evidence.

Sufficient for me is the sheer ridiculous number of times the Bible's been proven, merely by prophecy fulfillment and through archaeological finds. 

So here you say that you do use evidence. Which is it? Anyway, for "prophecies", look at messiahtruth dot com, the "Knowing Your Orchard" section, or just look around that entire site. For archeology, here's some books I've mentioned before:

The Bible Unearthed, The View from Nebo by Amy Dockser Markus, and Out of the Desert by Steibing.

 
The fact that ignorant people have not done their homework to see the trail of evidence won't be belabored by me. As Einstein put it, "Why should I memorize how many feet are in a mile when I can look that information up in any old book?" 
I wouldn't talk about ignorance, lady. Most unbelievers do a lot of research into this. They don't do what you apparently have done, which is just look at the material that supports their viewpoint only, then make their conclusions...we look at both sides. Something I suspect you've not bothered to do.

 
Seriously, I'll give two names: Simon Greenleaf, William Lane Craig. A simple search for manuscript evidence on a dial-up 56k modem will suffice to show the Mt. Everest of input on the subject. That anyone would deny the Bible is reliable in this day and age is incredible to me! 
I will say the same about the evidence against the accuracy of the bible. Look at the books and sites I've mentioned above.

William Lane Craig?? Are you kidding? He once admitted that even if he was given absolute evidence against the resurrection he would still choose to believe it!

Here:
 
www dot jcnot4me dot com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm#Comments on Craig's Book: Reasonable FaithWhen asked the "time-travel" question...see the part bolded in red and the results after it. To summarize:

Dr. William Lane Craig, double PhD protector and promoter of Christianity- he'd rather discount his own objective experience as an eyewitness, and instead go with his inner feelings- yet he wants everyone else to go with what he claims are eyewitness accounts to the supposed resurrection. Given the chance via a time machine, he would discount the objective realityof the real world, in favor of warm subjective inner voices and fuzzy feelings.  
Brazen Hussey'sIn answer to your question, this is called the "Protoevangelion," Greek for "first Gospel." It is the first time the Gospel is preached in the Bible, and in man's history. 
Care to explain just how Gen 3:15 is the "first gospel"? It doesn't imply anything except the enmity between snakes and the woman's offspring, humanity. They each attack the other. One steps on the other's head, the other bites at the heel. (what the snake can most easily reach).

Note that the Jews, who wrote the OT themselves do not agree with the "first gospel" idea, and they're the ones whose predecessors wrote that verse!

You people just rip it out of context and attach a foreign meaning to it.

Reynold said...

 
Oh! One more thing:

As to the charge of my circular reasoning (i.e.: saying that God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is God's Word because God said so...in the Bible...):

I will ask this question:

When an atheist/agnostic says, "There is no God," and then employs every process of "investigation" to show it is true...and THEN concludes, "See! There IS NO GOD!"...um...

Yeah. Same thing.
 
No. Not even close. For the most part, atheists do the investigations first, then conclude that there is no god. Many used to be believers in fact. You've gottten it backwards.

 
The atheist/agnostic has at least two assumptions as well:

There is NO GOD.
I hate him very much.
 
Huh? You do realize that this statement makes no sense, right? It's also not even close to reality. How can someone hate something that doesn't exist? At best, one can look in the OT and find examples of moral depravity by your diety and point out that he's not the morally perfect being that you all pretend he's supposed to be, and can say that if this being as portrayed in the the bible or koran, etc existed, this being would not be a morally perfect being. but everyone knows that's just shooting down one of the characteristics of this being.


That's not anywhere near close to saying that you say we say.

That's just weird.

Logic Lad said...

BasicallyMike

I have just spent some time reading the CARM site. It seems to be full of, possibly the source of, many of the poor arguments and strawmen i keep coming across on the web. Having read a number of their articles in the Athiest section i have seen no argument that has not been substantially shot down a number of times, attempting to claim that athiests are amoral, that athiesm is illogical becuase you can't proove a negative, that the concept of a god proves there is one. all the usual stuff with all the usual lack of support. If these arguments are placed on a blog they get butchered. I will continue looking through the site to see if the quality improves but as of yet nothing to change my mind. The main thing that has stuck me so far is that many of the attempts to prove atheism wrong using logic would work just as well to prove theism wrong, kind of suggests that the arguments have more to do with word games rather than rationality

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Logic Lad:

1) Your first paragraph in rebuttal is not clearly written. Are you trying to cast doubt on perspecuity?

2) The overwhelming number of times that the higher and lower critics of Germany from the late 19th century have been duly answered on the subject of manuscript fidelity and accuracy for the Bible is...overwhelming. So much so that I'll point you to do your homework: the textual critics have been answered.

3) Oral tradition isn't a game of telephone: you're dealing with apples, not oranges. If I want to tell the next generation about the acts of God, it isn't just my job: there were hundreds and thousands of cross-examining and correcting witnesses to the same information. It was the best form of communicating the corpus of sacred history at the time, until they could be codified in written form.

4) Don't address me and then lump in someone else's comments. You did this at least twice.

5) Do I need the "damnation threat" to be moral? No, that's not the reason it's brought up. Whether you're offended is of little consequence, I'll tell you again: your eternal soul is at stake, you deserve God's wrath and indeed can rest assured that it resides over you, waiting patiently. That you come on a blog and mock God and His Word and think blithely to yourself that you don't deserve final and eternal punishment, given the eternal holiness and goodness of the One who made you and sustains you, is beyond the shadow of a doubt an indicator that justice is merited.

Warning someone a train's coming when they're listening to their iPod on the tracks isn't rude: it's the only humane thing to do.

Or, would you rather listen to the iPod?

bassicallymike said...

Logic Lad...Sorry, I thought you might be addressing the problem of grace being a license to sin. However.......
You seem to not like the idea that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. When it comes to the judgement we are all going to be found guilty. No one will deserve to enter heaven no matter how much we've tried to make up for our sinful past.
"The greatest enemy to human souls is the self-righteous spirit which makes men look to themselves for salvation."

Charles Spurgeon

This is one of the distinctives of the Christian Faith, the message that salvation is by grace millitates against every fiber of a mans natural tendency. That is why all other religions will be, in essence, based upon a form of works righteousness. Most sceptics can't seem to grasp this critical difference, based on the many times all the other religeons are trumpted as equals.(not necessarily you)
My allusion to the CARM.org site was in respect to your alleged contradictions in the Genesis verses, not the issue above.

Logic Lad said...

OK, i have now read a fair number of articles on CARM, Unless there is some gem hidden their I can find no argument worth the name. I strongly recommend that this source is not used as a basis for debaiting with athiests. I thought the artical about the possibility of the Ark was particuarly amusing, it seemed to concentrate on the engingeering problems of building a large vessel rather than all the practical and logistics problems of moving, housing and feeding such an enormouse number of animals, a classic example of not answering the question.

Logic Lad said...

Basicallymike

Sorry about the inclusion of deathbed in my last response to you, i clearly missed a word when i as deleting a section, also i apologies for the poor spelling, i have been trying to respond when i have little time so my editing has not been the best.

stranger.strange.land said...

@Reynold

Gen. 3:15 The seed of the woman.

Compare: Revelation 12:1ff (actually, all of chapter 12)

stranger.strange.land said...

Logic Lad said...

Stranger

you start 'According to Scripture....' this is the essential point, you are basing all your argument on this one book again, a book that is completly un substatiated. Take away the scriptural mysteries and look at the raw 'facts' a man is sacrificed to appease the wrath of a diety, this sacrifice is not even a proper sacrifce becuase the victim dosn't stay dead, so it is less a ritual sacrifice and more ritual torture.

The convuluted logic of trying to argue that a god was sacrificed to himself to appease himself so he would forgive the sins of people he created in his own image and he already knew exactly what they would do, makes my brain hurt.

'and his blood continues to "cleanse the conscience" of those for whom he was sacrificed'

the sheer immorality of this statement is staggering, this is one of the doctrines that makes christianity unpleasant, the suggestion that becuase we are forgive we are no longer to be held accountable for our actions. just saying sorry does not undo the wrongs we have done. nothing can undo past actions all we can do is learn from them and try and make up for them. The concept of jsy being able to say 'i may be mass murderer but i said sorry to God so i can still go to heaven' is abhorent.

You think the sacrifice of christ was special, you have to it is a core of your doctrine. to me it is just the story of another human sacrifice to a jealous god. one, i have to add, that has very little historical validation.
(May 21, 2009 12:24 AM)


Logic Lad,

Thanks for your re-interpretation of the Christian doctrine of salvation and forgiveness. Your parody is what you are ridiculing. I, and others, have presented summaries of the real doctrine on this page, and on other posts. If you like, I would be happy to do it again here.

Craig

stranger.strange.land said...

@Reynold

Don't worry about the "mangled" formatting. I'll find it.

Thanks.

Craig

ExPatMatt said...

Brazen,

"The atheist/agnostic has at least two assumptions as well:

There is NO GOD.
I hate him very much."
.

That's just insulting. I must say I'm a bit disappointed to see you write that.

Regards,

Whateverman said...

Brazen, I've never met an atheist who hates God. Never.

I write a lot on the internet, and I think it's fair to say I've encountered a good number of believers and "disbelievers". Of the latter, sure, some of them are angry - but at best, it's at Christianity, rather than the Christian God.

After all, the only evidence a non-believer has that the Christian God exists is the Christian himself (not the Bible). The Christian is the representative of the belief system in question here.

Kids don't hate Santa Claus, you don't hate orcs, I don't hate compassionate conservatives (oh buuuurn)...

Ok, sorry, that wasn't called for :) Seriously though, I can not hate something I don't believe exists. I am 99.999999999% sure that the God described by Ray Comfort and his ministry is a fiction - and I don't hate him. I come much closer to hating Ray himself, though I find ways to avoid that.

Seriously, how can you hate something you don't believe in?

Whateverman said...

Whateverman sagely asked Seriously, how can you hate something you don't believe in?

Yes, I just quoted myself :) I want to follow up with something designed to address the predictable answer.

Imagine that "atheists actually hate God", and then extrapolate from there. In order for this to be true, an atheist must know that God exists, and must know enough about the nature of this being in order to have something to hate. Right? In this model, the atheist would know that he's dooming himself to Hell.

Right?

Who has more to lose: the atheist who dooms himself to eternal torture, or the religion which invents a fiction to argue away the problems presented by atheism?

With the former, the atheist goes to hell. Not a big deal, as according to Christians of every stripe, plenty of people are going to be there waiting for him (including other Christians, rock stars, chefs, lawyers, Buddhists, babies, aboriginal tribes, teachers, televangelists, etc).

With the latter, Christianity has to admit that beyond faith in what they believe, they can't show that their version of the truth is better than any other.

---

So - is "atheists hate God" true, or is it a fiction? What does an atheist have to gain by falsely claiming to not hate God?

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ ExPatMatt/Whatev':

Gent's: I apologize, that was a Douglas Wilson quote I heard recently that I found quite amusing. If it ruffled your feathers too much, I must retract it. :(

But, really, it was funny, didn't you find?

If both of you claim you don't hate God, however, there is a problem because of your definition of hate.

Jesus says "if you love me, then obey what I command." The way we don't hate/positively love God is why that statement was made by Wilson and parroted by me.

Love and hate are defined as actions vs. emotional responses according to Scripture, and it plays out that way in life as well: if I love my wife, I'll actually go home and get off this blog. If I hate her, I'll stop at the bar on the way home and find a replacement. (Tasha: if you read this, that was merely illustrative!)

As to the issue Whatev' posted:

good gravy, man, you're on the same time I am because you just posted! I can't keep up.

As to the evidence not making the case for you to convince you of Christianity's God: I would point you to some resources such as the Evidence Bible, perhaps Lee Strobel's work and Simon Greenleaf (the latter really makes a strong case, an older resource you may have to find at a library).

As to archaeology (or was that someone else?): I'll have to get back to you on that note, but if you look at John Ankerberg (sp?) or perhaps Strobel again, they have lists of resources.

As to the issue of "how can I hate God, whom I don't believe in?": begs and illustrates the question.

I maintain that being created in God's image has resulted in a phenomenon called the sensus divinitatis, or the sense of the Divine, a la Romans 1:18 and following. In my own a posteriori knowledge, I can only agree. My particular journey, if you will, didn't include atheism, but rather a migration from a nominal Roman Catholicism to a rugged Calvinistic Protestantism.

So, we have a basic difference in perception and experience: I have never not believed in God in the general sense. Coming at the issue from a Christian angle, I have to conclude (because my conscience requires it) that the Bible's account of the general revelation of Creation and the nature of man in God's image must be true.

I recall you (Whateverman) did say in another place that you don't deny the possibility of God existing, but rather don't affirm the Christian God? In that, I would say even you have some sense of the Divine in you, even in seed form.

Would you agree?

Again: I apologize for the snooty comment earlier. I thought it was so funny when I heard it, I was hoping you'd at least chuckle.

Have an uber 3-day weekend, all!

Reynold said...

stranger.strange.land said...

@Reynold

Gen. 3:15 The seed of the woman.

Compare: Revelation 12:1ff (actually, all of chapter 12)
 
I know that: That's why I pointed out in my earlier comment that it was the members of the Judaic religion that wrote genesis...they did not write revelations. That was written by the members of your religion who are well-known to have made the stories in the NT to "match" the "prophecies" in the old. They just looked at Genesis, and said something like: "we'll put the same thing in this book"! Fulfilled "prophecy".

Again, look at the Jewish site I mentioned earlier.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Reynold:

You, sir, are funny. Hilariously so, in fact.

First, you said I was ignorant.

You also called me a lady.

I use the men's room...suffice it to say..."Hussey" is my surname, and my blog title is "Brazenhusseys" at blogspot. I understand the confusion, but you illustrate your ignorance quite well.



it was the members of the Judaic religion that wrote genesis...they did not write revelations. That was written by the members of your religion who are well-known to have made the stories in the NT to "match" the "prophecies" in the old. They just looked at Genesis, and said something like: "we'll put the same thing in this book"! Fulfilled "prophecy".The ignorance continues. Here's the fact of the matter: the apostles were sacrificed for their eyewitness testimony of Christ. With the exception of perhaps John, who was nonetheless exiled. Secondly, no one wrote "Revelations", it's "Revelation," or accurately: "The Revelation of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John." One revelation.

I bring up the martyrdom issue because of this fact: would you willingly allow yourself to die for something you knew for a fact was fiction, after losing your place in your community? What on earth would they have to gain?

Moreover, the writers of the NT canon were Jews, dude. With perhaps one exception: Luke. Do you mean to allege the ridiculously non-academic view of the Jesus Movement? Or perhaps the fallacious and disproven manuscript allegations of the German higher and lower critic schools of thought? Just fyi, because I don't think this is common knowledge: the liberals who espouse either of these views have been duly answered by J. Gresham Machen during the early 20th century.

He is by far not the only source who laid to rest the recycled and reused allegations that the Bible is of purely human origin.

The fact that we have thousands and thousands of ancient manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls (a modern find), with a variance of 2-4% amongst them, discounts the theory that the manuscript is not trustworthy.

I'll point you to F.F. Bruce on this note.

Heath The Blogless said...

Hi my atheist and agnostic friends

I am still waiting for one of those supposed facts that are wrong in the bible. Just one that's all I ask.

stranger.strange.land said...

Reynold said...
[stranger.strange.land said...

Gen. 3:15 The seed of the woman.

Compare: Revelation 12:1ff (actually, all of chapter 12)]

I know that: That's why I pointed out in my earlier comment that it was the members of the Judaic religion that wrote genesis...they did not write revelations [sic.]. That was written by the members of your religion who are well-known to have made the stories in the NT to "match" the "prophecies" in the old. They just looked at Genesis, and said something like: "we'll put the same thing in this book"! Fulfilled "prophecy".
"Well-known?"

Reynold, exactly how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Craig

Reynold said...

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Reynold:

You, sir, are funny. Hilariously so, in fact.
 
And you're condescending. Your point?

First, you said I was ignorant.

You also called me a lady.

I use the men's room...suffice it to say..."Hussey" is my surname, and my blog title is "Brazenhusseys" at blogspot. I understand the confusion, but you illustrate your ignorance quite well.
 
I was only going by your username. I guess that in your world the gender of blog commentators is obvious to everyone. Or is this wit of yours part of the fruits of the "holy spirit" I keep hearing from you people?

Get over it. And it was you who first started throwing the "ignorant" word around. Too bad since it applies mostly to you.

Moreover, the writers of the NT canon were Jews, dude. 
They were the founders of a new religion, christianity. Or do christian churches (well, other than the ones set up to try to convert Jews), all have the trappings of the Jewish faith in them?

With perhaps one exception: Luke. Do you mean to allege the ridiculously non-academic view of the Jesus Movement? Or perhaps the fallacious and disproven manuscript allegations of the German higher and lower critic schools of thought? Just fyi, because I don't think this is common knowledge: the liberals who espouse either of these views have been duly answered by J. Gresham Machen during the early 20th century. 
You've obviously not looked at the Jewish site I've mentioned before and are instead blathering on about other stuff.

Oh and you still love to talk about ignorance...too bad it applies more to yourself. Why? Just take a look at what you say:
 
The ignorance continues. Here's the fact of the matter: the apostles were sacrificed for their eyewitness testimony of Christ. 
Evidence, please? Not even the bible mentions much of that. Only in some stories centuries after the "fact" do you hear of that. Why not in the bible itself?

Besides, there are other problems with that idea: people are willing to die for a lot of things.

infidels dot org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/2.html#ivWith the exception of perhaps John, who was nonetheless exiled. Secondly, no one wrote "Revelations", it's "Revelation," or accurately: "The Revelation of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John." One revelation. 
So what? Does correcting a spelling mistake make that story become true all of a sudden?

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Reynold:

I like your foil, btw.

You wrote:

Besides, there are other problems with that idea: people are willing to die for a lot of things.To re-iterate, you are countering my point of the martyrdom of the apostles. Biblically speaking, there is an account in Scripture where Christ is speaking of Peter's death. Parenthetically it's noted that Jesus was referring to Peter's death.

Here's the substance of the argument which you glazed over: we're talking first-generation eyewitnesses. We're not talking a Muslim who dies with a bomb strapped to his chest because his "god" won't otherwise give him any assurance of heaven. We're talking about people who had nothing earthly to gain, everything to lose, and that's what they did.

Why?

You also mention that these facts of the apostles' martyrdom aren't recorded well in Scripture. Neither is George Washington's birth, but it happened. The Bible doesn't claim to contain all history, and the apostles aren't the central figures in sacred history: Christ is. That their entire lives aren't recorded in Scripture isn't proof they didn't live. Do you have reason, other than their martyrdom proves my case, to doubt the account given in church history?

Lastly:

I will admit to you that I didn't visit that site you mentioned. I don't recall committing or claiming to do such?

Just curious: have you ever read J. Gresham Machen's or F.F. Bruce's works? I believe you can find some of it at monergism (dot) com, or crta (dot) com, or ccel (dot) com.

Still hoping your hardness of heart softens at the hand of God's grace.

Eternity can be blissful or otherwise: what would you rather have?

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Reynolds:

Moreover, the writers of the NT canon were Jews, dude.
They were the founders of a new religion, christianity. Or do christian churches (well, other than the ones set up to try to convert Jews), all have the trappings of the Jewish faith in them?
The Apostles were not founders of a "new" religion, but rather Christianity is the fulfillment of an ancient one called Judaism.

Viz: all the Scriptures Jesus and His disciples used: Jewish Scripture.

Viz: Jesus' epithet, "King of the Jews."

Viz: Um...read Hebrews!

The NT is "new" in another sense of the word: we are made new creatures in Christ, we are made alive through the Holy Spirit residing in us, we are no longer under the curse of the law but under grace...these types of things.

But a new religion? Not in the way you suppose. That would make no sense.

As to the Jewish trappings: Yes and No.

Yes: Christianity still has prophet, priest, king: all in Christ. We are also called a kingdom of priests, a royal priesthood. We have an eternal sacrifice, once and for all, in Christ. Jesus is THE Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Our Scriptures include and depend upon the Jewish Scriptures, for our Christ was and is their Messiah, the fountainhead of our faith. etc.

No: We don't have the ceremonial law. We don't have the need for dietary laws, for Jesus said that all food is now made clean or "kosher." We don't need continual sacrifices: Jesus paid it once for all time. There is no blood but Christ's blood shed. etc.

The NT is the fulfillment of the OT in every way. The OT was a "scaffolding," if you will, insofar as the Mosaic law is concerned. Once the building was built, the new temple (our bodies, collectively the church throughout time), we had no need of the scaffold.

Hope that illustrates the point.

Have a good weekend and realize what good news awaits you in Christ your Lord!

Reynold said...

Reynold, exactly how did you arrive at that conclusion? 
Do you not look at the Jewish site I posted where they talk about that?

Here's another one that deals with messianic prophecies:
www dot virtualyeshiva.com/counter-index.htmlHeath The Blogless said...Hi my atheist and agnostic friends

I am still waiting for one of those supposed facts that are wrong in the bible. Just one that's all I ask.
 
As for mistakes in the bible:
 
skepticsannotatedbible dot com/science/long.html 
Just thumb around in there and you'll find some, though the author of the site isn't too careful about what he includes: he has poetry and dream sequences counted. Though it's an excellent place to start looking for mistakes.
 
ex) Matthew 13:31-32Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. And since there are no trees in the mustard family, mustard seeds do not grow into "the greatest of all trees."

Matthew 27:45, 51-53When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the land." And when he died, there was a great earthquake with many corpses walking the streets of Jerusalem. It is strange that there is no record of any of these extraordinary events outside of the gospels.

stranger.strange.land said...

@Reynold

You: I pointed out in my earlier comment that it was the members of the Judaic religion that wrote genesis...they did not write revelations. That was written by the members of your religion who are well-known to have made the stories in the NT to "match" the "prophecies" in the old. They just looked at Genesis, and said something like: "we'll put the same thing in this book"! Fulfilled "prophecy".

Me: Reynold, exactly how did you arrive at that conclusion?

You: Do you not look at the Jewish site I posted where they talk about that?

Reynold,
Thank you again for the link to the Jewish site. Yes, I did look at it, as well as the crunchyroll forum.

What I wanted to know was, how did YOU come to the conclusion that the writers of the N.T. read the Scriptures (O.T.) and made up fulfillments to prophecies to fit their own purposes. What primary source documents give accounts of Paul, Peter, Matthew et.al. being exposed as perpetrating this hoax?

Reynold, maybe you can set me straight about something. Are you a Jew who is refuting the Claims of Jesus as being the true Messiah? Or are you an atheist refuting the God of Hebrews @ Christians?

Craig

stranger.strange.land said...

@Christians

Centuries had passed since the human race plunged itself into ruin, at the instigation of the devil. At last, Christ came and redeemed his people by his victory on the cross, and dealt Satan a resounding defeat.

Then began the age in which we are now living, God bringing men and women to himself by the the preaching of the Gospel.

Since the Gospel age's beginning, Christ's victory has been ruthlessly contested by the enemy, and it will continue to be fought against until Jesus returns at the end of the age.

Here is what the beloved disciple John said to Christians.

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. (1 John 2:18)

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
(1 John 2:22-23)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.
Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.
(2 John 7-9) NASB

So, it should be no surprise that today we continue to see vigorous opposition to the Gospel coming in many forms, from outright persecution to books and blogs attempting to refute the claims of Christ.

Brothers and sisters, through these things, Christ is preparing his people to be his bride, his eternal companion. No weapon formed against Christ's own can prevail.

Rejoice.

Craig

Reynold said...

What I wanted to know was, how did YOU come to the conclusion that the writers of the N.T. read the Scriptures (O.T.) and made up fulfillments to prophecies to fit their own purposes. What primary source documents give accounts of Paul, Peter, Matthew et.al. being exposed as perpetrating this hoax? 
I decided to check out if the claims of the bible stood up to scrutiny. Thanks to the information I found, on sites like that, I found that they didn't.

BTW, the gospels weren't eyewitnesse accounts, those "books" were written decades after the fact, according to actual biblical scholarship.

What relevence does your question have to the argument?


Reynold, maybe you can set me straight about something. Are you a Jew who is refuting the Claims of Jesus as being the true Messiah? Or are you an atheist refuting the God of Hebrews @ Christians? 
Again, what relevence is this question to anything? Or are you hoping to poison the well in the future? It's really none of your business.

Reynold said...

Here's the substance of the argument which you glazed over: we're talking first-generation eyewitnesses. 
No, we're not.

infidels dot org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap5.html
 
Too long to quote, but he does talk about F.F. Bruce and others arguments in there. You can start reading from here:
Evangelicals have published reams of apologetical material defending the historical reliability of the gospels' story of Jesus. An attentive reading of the many articulate works of Josh McDowell, John Warwick Montgomery, F. F. Bruce, J. N. D. Anderson, Michael Green and others reveals certain stock arguments. These include the importance of the short time span between Jesus and the writing of the gospels, and the centrality of eyewitnesses in the formation of the gospel tradition. Such factors, it is held, make it extremely unlikely if not impossible that the gospels contain fabricated or legendary material. These arguments start from generalized premises as to what is or is not probable in the development of historical records. Such abstract criteria are then applied to the gospel narratives in a blanket fashion.

There is a serious blind spot in this approach.
 
You can start reading from that point onwards.

We're not talking a Muslim who dies with a bomb strapped to his chest because his "god" won't otherwise give him any assurance of heaven. 
Wrong. The Koran does promise rewards for those who martyr themselves for their faith.

We're talking about people who had nothing earthly to gain, everything to lose, and that's what they did. 
Given that those stories weren't made up till decades later, if anyone was "martyred" it wasn't the so-called "original disciples". Those who were killed for their faith did so believing that thay'd get the heavenly rewards, like those who die for the Muslim faith.

That doesn't make either religion correct.

You also mention that these facts of the apostles' martyrdom aren't recorded well in Scripture. Neither is George Washington's birth, but it happened. 
Unlike the "martydom" of the "apostles" there is a whole honkload of evidence for the existence for George Washington.

At least use a better analogy next time.

The Bible doesn't claim to contain all history, and the apostles aren't the central figures in sacred history: Christ is. That their entire lives aren't recorded in Scripture isn't proof they didn't live. 
It sure is not evidence that they DID live now, is it?

Do you have reason, other than their martyrdom proves my case, to doubt the account given in church history?The fact that biblical scholarship shows that there wasn't really a lot of evidence for their "martyrdom" in the first place?

Reynold said...

The rest of my reply:


www dot infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/persecuted.html#8.1 
Contemporary scholarship agrees: in the first century the persecution of Christians was much smaller in frequency and scale, and very different in nature, from that of later centuries. Moreover, the Church itself, as well as the social, political, and economic circumstances of the Empire as a whole, were all notably different in later periods.

As David DeSilva remarks, "rarely in the first century were Christians killed" and "far more rarely were they executed on official orders." Acts attests there was no formal Roman opposition to Christianity in any legal sense until after 62 A.D. at the earliest--and even then it was not as strong as it would become in subsequent generations. The only known Roman actions against Christians in the 1st century were the extralegal acts of emperors whom even the Romans themselves declared as formally damned (i.e. the decisions of Nero and Domitian lost all legal force)

Something else. Marytdom was not unique to Christianity or Islam:
At the same time, it may well be that the earliest Christians faced death more for the moral cause than any historical claim, which was not a novel idea. As W. H. C. Frend notes, "In the first two centuries C.E. there was a living pagan tradition of self-sacrifice for a cause, a preparedness if necessary to defy an unjust ruler, that existed alongside the developing Christian concept of martyrdom inherited from Judaism."[3]People willing to die for a cause does not make that cause true.

As for your comment
The NT is the fulfillment of the OT in every way. The OT was a "scaffolding," if you will, insofar as the Mosaic law is concerned. Once the building was built, the new temple (our bodies, collectively the church throughout time), we had no need of the scaffold. 
Judaic scholarship shoots down those "fulfillments". If you care to read the sites I mentioned, you'd see what I mean. Christianity is a newer religion that parasitised the older one, Judaism, then Islam came along and parasitised both of them.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Reynold:

Me:We're not talking a Muslim who dies with a bomb strapped to his chest because his "god" won't otherwise give him any assurance of heaven.

You: Wrong. The Koran does promise rewards for those who martyr themselves for their faith.I think you need to read what I said again. We're saying the same thing, but you said I was wrong. I'm sure you just mis-read.


Me: We're talking about people who had nothing earthly to gain, everything to lose, and that's what they did. You:Given that those stories weren't made up till decades later, if anyone was "martyred" it wasn't the so-called "original disciples". Those who were killed for their faith did so believing that thay'd get the heavenly rewards, like those who die for the Muslim faith.The "given" that you include: that the stories weren't "made up" until "decades later" is a "given": that isn't a given. Even if the ONLY record we have were the Bible, then we at least have Stephen, Paul, Peter and James who were martyred. These men were first-hand eyewitnesses.

Now, ONE martyr, alright: maybe he's just plain suicidal. FOUR? Not so easily dismissed. I still trust the account from Eusebius and Josephus, though I understand that both these men's accounts aren't Holy Spirit inspired and infallible. Given the four from the Bible is sufficient, however.

If it is the Bible you are discounting (vs. the accounts of Eusebius and Josephus re: the martyrdom of the apostles):

Since the earliest records we have are within 5-10 years of the original events (thinking: Mark's Gospel in particular), this would make the accounts extraordinarily reliable.

Re: The difference between a Muslim and Christian martyr: the Muslim religion has always depended on use of force and jihad/martyrdom for "Allah" to guarantee salvation. The Christian martyr doesn't go out trying to kill someone who doesn't convert. At that point there is all the world of difference: one is a victim of falsehood (Muslim), the other a victim of being hated by the world (Christian). Does this make either true? No. But let's keep the distinction.

Do you understand that thousands of hand-copied manuscripts with 2-4% variance in non-essential materials (no doctrine is in question with these variants), with manuscripts originating from within 5-10 years of the original events, and others within the first generation or span of the lives of eyewitnesses, makes the Bible hands-down the most well-preserved and reliable ancient document?

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Reynolds:

Contemporary scholarship agrees: in the first century the persecution of Christians was much smaller in frequency and scale, and very different in nature, from that of later centuries. Moreover, the Church itself, as well as the social, political, and economic circumstances of the Empire as a whole, were all notably different in later periods.First, I ask: which contemporary scholars? You can gather a plethora of contemporary scholars who begin with false premises and a mission to dis-prove the Bible. Why would I trust these sources?

The notion of Christian persecution growing from small to greater is of NO import to this discussion.

Nobody is saying that Christianity was a world-wide religion from 33 A.D. Why would it be? It had a beginning, and was limited to Jerusalem and the area around Israel. It took time to migrate, multiply, grow.

It makes perfect sense that the persecution would reflect this fact.

stranger.strange.land said...

I had asked:...how did YOU come to the conclusion that the writers of the N.T. read the Scriptures (O.T.) and made up fulfillments to prophecies to fit their own purposes. What primary source documents give accounts of Paul, Peter, Matthew et.al. being exposed as perpetrating this hoax?

You then answered me and then asked, "What relevence does your question have to the argument?"

Well, if that sort of thing was going on when the NT was being written, it seems that there would have been some kind of early documentation. Otherwise how would more recent scholars (19th century) have known about it, unless it was mere conjecture.

I asked, "Are you a Jew who is refuting the Claims of Jesus as being the true Messiah? Or are you an atheist refuting the God of Hebrews & Christians?"

You replied, "Again, what relevence is this question to anything? Or are you hoping to poison the well in the future? It's really none of your business."

I think that your reliance on "MessiahTruth," "VirtualYeshiva," and previously "Jews for Judaism" as resources make my inquiry a valid one.

Am I hoping to poison the well in the future? I wouldn't do that to you, Reynold. I am not so much interested in winning a debate as I am in eventually winning you.: )Craig

Heath The Blogless said...

Reynold

Thanks for the references, I had a bit of a look there seems to be a lot of speculation, on the pages I couldn't find any references to these facts, and the scriptures you quoted don't make your case very well.

Just for your reference the lack of records for an event, does not make a case for that event not happening. We have one record of the event so you can believe it or not that is up to you.

The one about the mustard seed was interesting, it's called an analogy, it was using it to make a point. I really don't think it is meant to be taken 100% literally. He may have been using a common figure of speech for that day, this is just me speculating, so ignore it if you like, I could do some more digging if you like and go and find out the what the original Greek was saying. But I don't think you are really that interested, I think you have already made your mind up. If you want to use it to make a case against the bible that is up to you.

I have a feeling that you have some sin in your life that love so much. That you will not allow yourself to even admit that the Bible might be correct and God might be real, and that you would have to give it up. You love your sin and in doing that hate God. It gives me a heavy heart for you and all the others here.

Please just remember that there are no atheists or agnostics in hell.

Reynold said...

Brazen Hussey's:
 
I think you need to read what I said again. We're saying the same thing, but you said I was wrong. I'm sure you just mis-read. 
My point was that other faiths have martyrs too, that doesn't make them right.

In regards to your statement here:
The "given" that you include: that the stories weren't "made up" until "decades later" is a "given": that isn't a given. Even if the ONLY record we have were the Bible, then we at least have Stephen, Paul, Peter and James who were martyred. These men were first-hand eyewitnesses. 
 
and your statement:
If it is the Bible you are discounting (vs. the accounts of Eusebius and Josephus re: the martyrdom of the apostles):

Since the earliest records we have are within 5-10 years of the original events (thinking: Mark's Gospel in particular), this would make the accounts extraordinarily reliable.
 
Sorry, but I believe one of the sites I posted refutes that claim. Those earliest "gospels" were written down decades later.

infidels dot org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap5.html 
It's from that site, just start reading from where I said to start in my earlier post. Then there's a link I give near the end of my post here.

Re: The difference between a Muslim and Christian martyr: the Muslim religion has always depended on use of force and jihad/martyrdom for "Allah" to guarantee salvation. The Christian martyr doesn't go out trying to kill someone who doesn't convert 
Have you never heard of the Inquisition or the Crusades? Or how the earliest missionaries to N. America and S. America acted? There wasn't always that big "distinction" between Christians and Muslims in behaviour.


Do you understand that thousands of hand-copied manuscripts with 2-4% variance in non-essential materials (no doctrine is in question with these variants), with manuscripts originating from within 5-10 years of the original events, and others within the first generation or span of the lives of eyewitnesses, makes the Bible hands-down the most well-preserved and reliable ancient document? 
As I hear it, only religious apologists make that claim; for one thing there was the "books" were chosen by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D, a long time after the supposed events. They were chosen by man, not "God".

infidels dot org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html 
No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations, some accidental and some purposeful, were made to the originals by various authors, editors, and copyists.

Many biblical authors are unknown. Where an author has been named, that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors. The present names were assigned long after these four books were written. And--in spite of what the Gospel authors say--biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry.
For another thing even if what you said is accurate, even if the bible was transcribed accurately, that has no bearing on whether the stuff that was transcribed was true or not.

Reynold said...

stranger.strange.land 
Well, if that sort of thing was going on when the NT was being written, it seems that there would have been some kind of early documentation. Otherwise how would more recent scholars (19th century) have known about it, unless it was mere conjecture. 
In infidels dot org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html

he says that the bible books weren't assembled until about 300 years later. Lots of time for stuff to have happened and not be documented. Besides, haven't the Jews always been making those claims about the bible? Just who's been listening to them?

Anyway, from that non-Jewish site this time:

The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.--more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include additional books known as the Apocrypha.)

The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.

The composition of the various books is thought to have begun around 1000 B.C., and to have continued for about 1,100 years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods and were often unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations, some accidental and some purposeful, were made to the originals by various authors, editors, and copyists.
 

What I meant by your question as to whether I'm a Jew or not, is the question itself has no relevence to the discussion we're having. So what if I used some Jewish resources? My alleged religion or ethnicity is not relevent here, nor is it of any concern of yours.

Reynold said...

I forgot to put in a link to this book:

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Paperback) by Bart D. Ehrman.

Ehrman's site is:
www dot bartdehrman dot com/He started out as an evangelical himself, just in case one wants to question the accuracy of those who start out to disprove scripture, as (I think) brazen hussy did earlier.

This is in reply to brazen hussy's more than Craig.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Reynold:

Have you never heard of the Inquisition or the Crusades? Or how the earliest missionaries to N. America and S. America acted? There wasn't always that big "distinction" between Christians and Muslims in behaviour.Yes, I have: the Inquisition is a Roman Catholic problem. The Crusades came 500 years after jihad. The Crusades stopped, but jihad? Um...ever hear of 9/11? The point: the Islamic jihad hasn't stopped. The Crusades have, centuries ago.

Further, as to whether the Crusades were "just war" or not (the Children's Crusade is plainly atrocious), has no bearing on the subject. An abuse of a religion doesn't discount the religion, even Jesus warned about false teachers and prophets, even false Christs coming.

You also keep bringing up the allegation that the Gospels weren't written until decades later. This is of zero concern: all it would have taken to dismiss Christianity is one thing: the body of Jesus.

The fact remains: there is no evidence you've brought up in these links have all been answered. You're dealing with men like Ehrman who have an agenda to disprove and disbelieve Christianity: their autonomy and guilty consciences.

IF God is not real, why do you seek to disprove Him so?

IF your premise is accurate (that God doesn't exist), then why do you strive so much to make your case? I mean: why bother? You're fighting against someone you claim doesn't exist, so who is the bigger fool?

I ask this NOT to insult you, but if you really believe that God is mere fiction, why all the vitriol?

Unless....

Paul the Apostle had it right, after all:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Romans 1:18-23

Reynold said...

brazen hussy's:
 
The fact remains: there is no evidence you've brought up in these links have all been answered. You're dealing with men like Ehrman who have an agenda to disprove and disbelieve Christianity: their autonomy and guilty consciences. 
I take it you dont' realize that Ehrman was a christian originally. What do you think his motive was then?

Would you care to back up your charge against him? Put up or shut up.

Nothing like resorting to ad-hom attacks when you don't like what someone else has to say. Using your "logic" then I can just dismiss every evangelical source that you bring up without having to read them, simply because they're pushing their own agenda.

IF God is not real, why do you seek to disprove Him so? 
Becuase of the actions of his fan-club throughout history.

IF your premise is accurate (that God doesn't exist), then why do you strive so much to make your case? I mean: why bother? You're fighting against someone you claim doesn't exist, so who is the bigger fool? 
The religious right people who are out to corrupt the education in america. That's a huge reason right there to oppose religion. Bringing ID/creationism into schools is only going to mess up the scientific education of a generation of kids.

Then there's the members of the religious right and what they do when they get enough political power. The last 8 years should have been able to show the problems there. Faith-based funding? Tax payer funding only to religous groups who are free to discriminate on who they hire, etc?

Reynold said...

I forget; there's also the global warming denialists, the occasional HIV-denialist (Phillip Johnson), the people who supported Bush's fake war in Iraq, the people who are stirring up trouble in the Middle East (ex. John Hagee's Christians United for Isreal group)

dailykos dot com/story/2008/2/29/112252/606/533/466272We don't need people trying to jump start armaggedon meddling in politics.

Fish with Trish said...

Gang (specifically Reynold), let's try to refrain from posting links to websites. Sorry, Reynold I've been allowing them through for you (and others) but this is directed more towards you since I'm not able to fully explore every web site that you put up please try to restrain yourself from posting info to links.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Reynold:

In a stroke of eloquence, you said:

Put up or shut up.

Nothing like resorting to ad-hom attacks when you don't like what someone else has to say.
Did you mean ad-hominem abusive attacks like saying "put up or shut up"? Is this the kind of scholarship I ought to listen to? Just curious.

As to Ehrman, and anyone else moving from evangelicalism to atheism, all they prove is that there are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Like Jesus Christ warned. There is and will always be tares/weeds amongst the wheat.

Jesus said to leave them until the Last Day when His angels will separate the wheat from chaff.

I'll let your Lord and God, Jesus Christ, put you in your place, and I do hope it's with Him on His side of glory (really do), but until then, could you refrain from your abusive language?

You answered my question as to why you fight so hard against the existence of God by going into ad hominem abusive attacks (which Christians can't do, but atheists can?) and various red herring arguments.

If you have a problem with Bush fans, Iraqi war fans, or quite debatable issues of evolution, environmentalism and corruption of education (I believe Creationists were there first? So: who exactly corrupted the educational system? Do you even know the history of our educational system?), by all means: argue against the existence of God.

?!

Apparently the non sequitur fallacy is acceptable amongst atheist would-be scholars?

If you'd like to refrain from abusive lingo, ad hominem abusive arguments, and actually deal with one issue at a time instead of your political barrage, then we can continue the discussion.

Last I checked, I never voted Republican, not that anyone was discussing politics.

(Since you brought it up, I'm Constitutional Party 100%. Republicans are much too liberal for my taste.)

Stick to the issues, and if your pride gets wounded along the way, may I suggest another past-time other than trying to argue for the existence of the great "Nothing"?

As to faith-based funding: I didn't claim to support it. I don't.

As to churches discriminating against who they hire based on whether they are practicing homosexuals, etc.: um...teachers unions don't actively recruit pedophiles, either, and they aren't a Christian organization. Neither does the FBI hire known terrorists. Your point?

stranger.strange.land said...

Reynold

In response to my question of whether you are a Jew arguing against Jesus being the Messiah, or an atheist arguing against the God of both Christians and Jews, you first responded:

Again, what relevence is this question to anything? Or are you hoping to poison the well in the future? It's really none of your business.

Later you said:

What I meant by your question as to whether I'm a Jew or not, is the question itself has no relevence to the discussion we're having. So what if I used some Jewish resources? My alleged religion or ethnicity is not relevent here, nor is it of any concern of yours.

Reynold, it doesn't matter in the least to me whether you are a Jew, or an Armenian, or a Zambian. My point was that on the one hand you appeared to be arguing the case for atheism, then for theistic Judaism.

Craig

Reynold said...

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Reynold:

In a stroke of eloquence, you said:

Put up or shut up.

Nothing like resorting to ad-hom attacks when you don't like what someone else has to say.
 
Yeah, I noticed you did that against Ehrman. Thus, I asked you to prove your charge against him. Instead, you just complain.

Did you mean ad-hominem abusive attacks like saying "put up or shut up"? Is this the kind of scholarship I ought to listen to? Just curious. 
This is the kind of question that asks you to prove your charge.

As to Ehrman, and anyone else moving from evangelicalism to atheism, all they prove is that there are wolves in sheep's clothing. 
Prove your charge, please.


I'll let your Lord and God, Jesus Christ, put you in your place, and I do hope it's with Him on His side of glory (really do), but until then, could you refrain from your abusive language? 
In what possible way was my language "abusive"? Examples, please.

You answered my question as to why you fight so hard against the existence of God by going into ad hominem abusive attacks (which Christians can't do, but atheists can?) and various red herring arguments. 
Red herring, no. Just looking at history and the patterns of attack on science and education that you people do when you get enough political power. Unlike theists, atheists don't try and push atheism in schools, just "secularism" which is "religious neutrality" meaning that teachers aren't supposed to say one thing or another about any gods but are instead supposed to teach science and the facts as they are best known.

If you have a problem with Bush fans, Iraqi war fans, or quite debatable issues of evolution, environmentalism and corruption of education (I believe Creationists were there first? 
Yeah, just like the astrologers were there first...does that mean that they were right and we should chuck astronomy?

So: who exactly corrupted the educational system? Do you even know the history of our educational system?), by all means: argue against the existence of God. 
What does one have to do with the other...bottom line, as knowledge increased older theories and ideas about the age of the earth and how we got here got chucked out due to the lack of evidence supporting them and the evidence supporting the new ideas, which the ID/creationists are trying to hold back. It's the same reason why astrology is not taught, even though "they were there first".

Reynold said...

Apparently the non sequitur fallacy is acceptable amongst atheist would-be scholars? 
No, you're just not getting the point I'm trying to make. Even though I elaborated on it in my last post.

If you'd like to refrain from abusive lingo, ad hominem abusive arguments, and actually deal with one issue at a time instead of your political barrage, then we can continue the discussion. 
I have refrained from that; you just can't stand it when anyone disagrees with you. I have called no names and instead have responded in like tone to how I have been responded to.

Last I checked, I never voted Republican, not that anyone was discussing politics.

(Since you brought it up, I'm Constitutional Party 100%. Republicans are much too liberal for my taste.)
And that just helps prove my point. They claim that the states was founded on christianity, which is an outright lie. I'd give a link, but Trish doesn't allow it. So I'll just ask where "Christ" was mentioned in the Constitution. Evangelicals like your party have a habit of lying about history. That's another reason why I oppose people like you.

Stick to the issues, and if your pride gets wounded along the way, may I suggest another past-time other than trying to argue for the existence of the great "Nothing"? 
My "pride" has nothing to do with it. I'm concerned for the education of american's youth, I'm concerned for the science that is being corrupted by you people and the consequences of it.

You're the one crying about my "abusive language", I'd say that it's your pride that's being hurt, since I have not been abusive at all, I just have the temerety to disagree with you.

As to faith-based funding: I didn't claim to support it. I don't. 
Most evangelicals do.

As to churches discriminating against who they hire based on whether they are practicing homosexuals, etc.: um...teachers unions don't actively recruit pedophiles, either, and they aren't a Christian organization. Neither does the FBI hire known terrorists. Your point? 
Talk about red herrings. I'm not talking about terrorists, or criminals, I'm talking about faith based organizations which are fundes by everyone's taxes, who are hiring only christians and who have religious strings attached for who they help. Non-faith based groups just discriminate against criminals and against those who are not qualified (who lack the skills) to do the job. Faith based groups have gotten into trouble in the past for hiring people who are NOT qualified but who just toe the ideological line.

ExPatMatt said...

Brazen,

Saying 'put up or shut up' isn't an ad-hom attack. It's rude, but it's not ad-hom.

Ad-hom is where you attack the person rather than the argument. ie, attacking Ehrman for what you perceive his agenda to be, rather than actually addressing any points he might have made.

That's my understanding of it anyway.


On another note, I do agree with you [Brazen] that churches should be able to hire with a screening process that accounts for their faith - I don't think it's discriminatory and I think it would be hypocritical not to. Similarly, I don't think that churches should be forced to conduct or recognize gay marriage if it conflicts with their dogma - if you're gay, you can't be signed-up to a church that believes that being gay is an abomination; that's just daft!

/pot-stirring

Cheers,

Logic Lad said...

Heath

A wrong fact in the bible, ok, lets pick creation in 6 days, lets pick the earth being only 6000 years old, lets pick the whole Noahs flood, no actually lets pick any one of the miracles of Jesus, these things are impossible and more to the point untestable and unverifiable, they don't count as facts they are at best unsubstantiated rumour. Oh and virgin birth, thats another good 'fact' for you.

get_education said...

The reason atheists have studied and argued and such, most probably, come from their first encounter with contradictions in their beliefs. Many have been Christians before.

Think about it. You suddenly notice that those arguments you cherished so much, like those made by Spurgeon, are convincing only to those who are already convinced. You suddenly realize of all the logical fallacies, the circular reasoning, the rhetorical tricks. Of course, your first instinct is to think that those guys just got it wrong, and you start studying and studying, always on the look for the truth. Until you realize that, well, there is no arguing. All you can have is faith (if they want to keep believing).

One way or another, most notice that it is just unreasonable to believe the God of the Bible to be true. Then, well, other gods, if explored, prove to be as illogical, then, maybe some undefined theism. At one point or another, even that undefined theism might fall off in the face of the history of the gods.

Now, for the Biblical one:

Blood sacrifices are common to appease gods in many religions, nothing makes the christian one special.This is the perfect give-away of the Biblical God's lowly origins. Origins in those primitive beliefs where gods required blood and sacrifices to be appeased. Humanity "deitied" what humanity could not understand. Such deities were anthropomorphic (so, it is not humans made to the image of God, but most gods made to the image of humans, which is quite clear). So, we have a drought! Maybe the gods are angry, what could please them? Let us sacrifice something of value. Maybe they like lamb! Sacrifice a lamb, maybe they want gold, maybe they want something more valuable, like life! And there you are, gold, animals, humans.

Think guys, why would an all powerful God need blood to be appeased? Why would such a God need anything?

I know you have your excuses. Save them. They are not convincing but to the convinced who rather remain blind than try and figure out why does this guy just not see the obvious fulfillment of the prophecies! Well, because they are no such thing. The lord of the rings has tons of fulfilled prophecies. And I do not believe it to be true at all. The Bible looks exactly the same once you look carefully into it.

Your problem, perhaps, is that you cannot put yourselves into the atheists shoes. Mostly because you have bought that silly argument that the atheist is just denying the obvious. But try it once. Imagine there is no God for one second. Then look at your arguments and see if they would be convincing ...

G.E.

BathTub said...

I agree that churches should be allowed to discriminate like that. But if their discrimination goes against the laws of the land then they should forfeit any sort of government subsidy, like tax breaks.

Heath The Blogless said...

Thanks Logic Lad

for your comments, could you please provide your references for these things not occurring, because all I have now is that you don't think they did because you have not seen these type of things happen. That's not very logical to dismiss things just because you have not seen something like it before. I have references for people that claim they did happen or were witness to these events.

Thanks

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Logic Lad (responding to Heath):

The miracles being dismissed is understandable by a person who doesn't want to submit to God's rule. But here's the point: if God is God, would you actually expect anything less?

I mean, He sends His Son to die in your stead, but you don't expect there to be accompanying miraculous signs to attest His identity?

That line of reasoning doesn't actually prove anything, just trying to make the case for the obvious: God being God and wanting His Son's vindication, of course there's miracles: they testify to who He is.

On the flip side:

It's even MORE of a miracle to assume that nothing made everything by pure accident. The impossibility of the contrary makes necessary the existence of God.

Lastly: the things you listed (young earth, Noah's flood, Jesus' miracles) present an "impossible" situation only if the science that argues against them is actual fact, which you assume to be the case.

Viz: the earth MUST be billions of years old...because ToE demands it. The evidence on the earth's age is up for interpretation.

Same with the rest of your examples, which examples were supposed to be mistakes in the Bible. The irony is, if you watch the last part of "Expelled: the Movie," and see the atheists positing a "more rational" explanation for the origin of life on earth, you wind up with insubstantial fairy tales, like Panspermia or crystals...

...but this is more acceptable to you?

If we were to go to a court room and one side were trying to convict a man of murder and had 40 witnesses + to testify their case, the case would be closed in short order.

Somehow, this same reasoning doesn't apply to the veracity of Scripture?

get_education said...

The miracles being dismissed is understandable by a person who doesn't want to submit to God's rule. But here's the point: if God is God, would you actually expect anything less?---

Nonsense. There is no such thing as "not wanting to submit to God". Why would anybody not want to submit given the price of eternal life versus the warning of eternal torment? Atheism is not denial, it is actually the result of stopping denial. Miracles are unbelievable because they are extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not just quoting, it makes good sense. You do not see it because you are in ... denial of the truth in unrighteousness (TM).

---

It's even MORE of a miracle to assume that nothing made everything by pure accident. The impossibility of the contrary makes necessary the existence of God.---

Interesting. Who thinks this is what happened? (I would add that even this makes much more sense than a magical being creating everything out of nothing, then killed itself to calm himself down for that very human-like irrational anger at its own creation that did not behave as it should, which is part of its nature ...)

---

Viz: the earth MUST be billions of years old...because ToE demands it. The evidence on the earth's age is up for interpretation.---

The evidence is not open to interpretation. Not to the point of reality being 6,000 years. It is billions of ears old because it is billions of years old. It is fundamentalist Christians who want the data to say differently than it does. Biologists do not go to Geologists and press them into changing the data.

---

If we were to go to a court room and one side were trying to convict a man of murder and had 40 witnesses + to testify their case, the case would be closed in short order.---

1. The witnesses would have to exist, be there, have a name, address, social sec number ...

2. Their testimony would have to be rational.

3. Their testimony would be dismissed if the forensic data clearly contradicted their saying.

4. Their testimony would be doubted if too much time had elapsed.

5. Their existence would be doubted if it were an indirect reference by some person who just heard that there were 40+ witnesses, but there is no way of identifying them. As, for instance, if they were women in times when women did not count as members of society.

G.E.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ GE:

You said,

"There is no such thing as "not wanting to submit to God". Why would anybody not want to submit given the price of eternal life versus the warning of eternal torment?"

That's a good question. I asked it, you dodged it. Saying, "There's no such thing as doing this thing I'm doing" makes no sense. Then again, you also say,

"[Nothing created everything by accident] makes much more sense than a magical being creating everything out of nothing, then killed itself to calm himself down for that very human-like irrational anger at its own creation that did not behave as it should, which is part of its nature."

This is the substance of your argument?

If you are NOT claiming nothing created everything, so be it, but I wasn't addressing you in the first place. I've heard nothing but ridiculous stories posing as theories, such as panspermia and spontaneous generation. Cosmic accidents making beauty, art, order and minds/life arising from pure matter? That's Alice in Wonderland and the Cheshire Cat.

As to the issue of the veracity of the eyewitnesses, you claim that in order for them to exist or to be valid witnesses, they need social security numbers...

...hmmm....you have to be joking, right? Do you understand the history of the SSN? Did you get and education? Just curious.

Your entire last paragraph is spurious, but even given the criteria, the Bible stands.

Here's the rub, G.E.:

You and the other atheists want to constantly put God in the dock (great book by CS Lewis, BTW), but nothing said here has addressed this one fact: You are guilty before the God you'd like to deny. You can stand on the tracks all you want, staring down at the train's light, but in the end: the train wins.

What are you going to do about your guilt before God? How do you plan on addressing your biggest problem in this and the next life?

Your condemnation is an objective fact you can deny, shy from, argue against, but it's not up for negotiation. You stand condemned before Omnipotent Justice. Mock away, but God won't be mocked. You'll face Him one day, and there it is too late to repent.

Trust in Christ and drop the weak arguments: they can't save you.

Heath The Blogless said...

Hi all atheists and agnostics on this blog.

I have a very important question for you.

What is your motivation for putting comments on this blog?
Do you just want to have a good argument?
Does it make you feel good to prove that you are right?
Or something else?

What do you hope to achieve?
To turn people away from Christianity?
To make people realise the Bible is not true? If so why do you care?
To prove that God does not exist?

I only say this because I am worried about you guys. You would want to be 100% sure of your convictions. I mean 100% not 99.99%. If God is real what do you think he would think about you are trying to achieve? If you are trying to turn people away from him do you think he would be happy about that? I am not trying to frighten you into stopping what you are doing or in to changing your mind, I just ask you to consider it.

BathTub said...

Well for me primarily the same as posting at Ray's. To point out the lies. If you think you have divine truth you shouldn't have to lie to promote it should you?

If people like Trish and Ray are going to lie then I will respond. No one expects to 'convert' Ray, he's way to far gone. But reasonable people read his blog and his lies shouldn't be allowed to go unanswered. So it's the reasonable rational people that Ray might sucker in who I guess you say is a secondary motivation.

BathTub said...

As has been said many times before, if Ray could stop the the chronic lying his blog participation would dry up really fast.

He knows this too. He's done posts on how he baits people. He knows how to get a response.

Logic Lad said...

Heath

It is perfectlt reasonable to quesiton an extraodinary happening, unless presented with extraodinary evidence. Miracles aside, please explain how any of the creation myth is fact.

Brazen

Your 'argument' only works if we presuppose the contents of the bible is true, given that is not an agreed premis there really is nothing to answer here.

I know you won't/can't answer but untill you can explain how God poofed into existence then you have little to complain about the big bang theory, i don't know what happened at the moment of the event but i have yet to be convinced it was preceeded by a diety saying the equivilent of '1,2,1,2,3,4'

No the earth is billions of years old and this then allows for the ToE, strangely it is the christians who come up with the conclusion then make the facts fit, most scientists start with the facts and then try to craft a theory.

hearsay evidence is generally not admitted in court.

brazen said 'You and the other atheists want to constantly put God in the dock (great book by CS Lewis, BTW), but nothing said here has addressed this one fact: You are guilty before the God you'd like to deny. You can stand on the tracks all you want, staring down at the train's light, but in the end: the train wins.
'

Any judge who is guilty of the crimes he sentences others for is a hypocrite. A judge should be held to at least the standard he holds others too, if not higher. Just becuase God Supposedly has the power to punish does not give him the moral right if he is just as guilty.

Answer to Heaths post starting 'Hi all atheists and agnostics on this blog.

I have a very important question for you.'

I post here and elsewhere for two reasons,

Yes i like a good argument and places like this allow me to practice my arguments and style with people who are polite and reasonable.

my second reason is becuase i have an interest in trying to understand people who hold opinions i don't understand. the arguments presented here give me an insite in to how different religious people think.

Your last statement shows your missunderstanding of most athiests, I can't proove god does not exist and i am 100% behind my conviction that unless you show me evidence i will not change my position on the god theory.

I don't want to turn people away from their beliefs, you can believe what you want, you seem keen on trying to change my mind so i defend my position and to do this i must attack your evidence, as i can't provide evidence of a negative on question the evidence of the positive.

And like bath tub says, i can't let a lie or a fallacy go, it just upsets me to see people missrepresenting my view of the world.

BathTub said...

Sorry I didn't mean for this to be a multi-parter.

But also for me personally part of it is that Ray is from New Zealand, and as such he represents NZ on an international stage. So I feel the need to make a showing that not all Kiwi's are as stupid and dishonest as he is.

Now you might say I am being offensive, but the simple point is everything I say about Ray I can give specific examples. Ray doesn't have that benefit when he lies about me personally, as he has done on his blog.

To Ray's credit, he is getting slightly better.

Slightly.

He has started crediting his sources and providing links when he quotemines someone. That's one of the things that we often complained about. And he doesn't quietly fix his posts so often now when we point out his mistakes and pretend they didn't happen.

He did do it today though, I sent in a post pointing out a weird post on the the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. He blocked my post and edited his own. So clearly he read mine and just covered his flub. Kind of.

Heath The Blogless said...

Hi logiclad

I agree with you It is perfectlt reasonable to quesiton an extraodinary happening.
What type of evidence would you need. I can see that eye witness accounts aren't enough for you.What sources would you accept.I am sure you would just dismiss any source as misguided or a liar for there own ends. I doubt if you even saw a miracle happen right before your eyes you would accept it. I am positive you would find some other "scientific" explanation for it.

AS you know when it comes to facts about creation we all have the same evidence. It is not about the evidence it is about how we interpret this evidence.
You come with the notion that there is no supernatural only the natural so you therefore automatically dismiss anything outside of the natural. Which in turn causes you to make all of your "facts" fit into that mold.

I take the same evidence and through my experience of seeing God work in my life do not dismiss the supernatural, and therefore take this into account when I interpenetrate the evidence.

So it is not so much a question of "facts" it is more a question of evidence interpretation. So it would be a bit of a waste of time giving you my "facts" as you would interpret them differently anyway. And no I am not trying to side step the issue. I just think it is a waste of your time and my time. If you are really interested I am sure you could Google it or go to one of those "terrible" creationist websites.

Heath The Blogless said...

Thanks for your answers Bathtab.

I see you have a problem Ray comfort, so why are you posting here exactly. Do you just want to bad mouth Ray or is it any one that associates with him? I know Trish is part of the same ministry team but she is not Ray she has here own thoughts and her own view on things like everyone else hear. Just because we agree with Ray on some things does not mean we agree with him on every thing. So I will ask you again why do you post on this blog apart from hating ray comforts "lies".

ExPatMatt said...

Personally, and I speak for all atheists everywhere when I say this; I comment on Christian blogs in the hope that I can prove a Christian wrong on some small detail of theology, thus proving that Christians are not perfect and therefore proving that there is no God.

What?


Oh, was that supposed to be a secret? BathTub, you didn't tell me that the EAC had met again and decided to keep this stuff hush-hush!

I'm always the last one to know...

get_education said...

I did not dodge anything Brazen. I told you, there is no such thing as not wanting to submit to God. There is no gods to submit to. That is it. I am 100% sure that the God you worship does not exist at all because it is irrational. That is the answer. How did you miss it?

For the witnesses, you missed the whole thing too. Obviously. Then you guys say we are the ones in denial.

Good point tat you were not talking to me. Sorry, I just get out of the way.

G.E.

BathTub said...

Well Horth the Blagloss, I responded about Ray here due to you asking about it. Trish is quite capable of making her own silly mistakes and assertions. But like in the previous case with the dishonest press release I was quite willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't her words. But instead of acknowledging it she tried to defend it, stuff like that is why we stick around.

BathTub said...

Sorry ExPatMatt, the Memos from the EAC come so thick and fast sometimes it's hard to keep assignments and details straight.

stranger.strange.land said...

ExPatMatt said...
Personally, and I speak for all atheists everywhere when I say this; I comment on Christian blogs in the hope that I can prove a Christian wrong on some small detail of theology, thus proving that Christians are not perfect and therefore proving that there is no God.

Well, you'll never prove ME wrong about anything, because I am NEVER wrong. Once I THOUGHT I was wrong about something, but it turned out that I was wrong.

(What did I just say?)

Craig

get_education said...

ExPatMatt,

I explicitly gave you instructions not to release that information. You are without excuse [TM].

G.E.

Heath The Blogless said...

Stranger strange land

That wasn't really what I was after. That just tells me what you are doing, it doesn't tell me why. Why are you so keen to prove that Christians are wrong, and why are you so keen to prove there is no God.

Thanks

Fish with Trish said...

Dear Bath Tub, the press release is not a lie. You must be terribly confused to continue for many days to be hung up on this. I'm so sorry that you're not understanding where Mr. Comfort stands on things and where I stand on things. I apologize that you are taking up so much of your time on this. I have made myself perfectly clear from the beginning on where I stand. In case you need me to repeat myself, I'm not an Evolutionist. I am a Creationist. And Ray can speak for himself on this issue. As for me, I believe that Evolution is a false theory. Here's why:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

Simple as that. GOD created everything. I hope this is clear.

Again, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

From the press release: "Evolution is a theory and the word 'theory' means nothing more than 'speculation' or 'conjecture.'"

This is taken from the websters online dictionary for example, "abstract thought : speculation".

The press release is very honest. Sorry you're confused on this.

Perhaps it should have read "Evolution is a theory and the word 'theory', in light of Evolution, means nothing more than 'speculation' or 'conjecture.'"

Again, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

"Of old You (GOD) founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands." Psalm 102:25

"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." Psalm 19:1

"Before the mountains were born Or You (GOD) gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." Psalm 90:2

"And the heavens declare His righteousness, For God Himself is judge." Psalm 50:6

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us" Acts 17: 24-38

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS" Hebrews 1:10

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3

"Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created." Revelation 4:11

BathTub said...

Wow you apparently read that entire thread and yet managed not to understand anything I said.

Lets see what your example honestly says shall we?
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/theory

1. A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory".

2. A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices".

3. A belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales".
Hmmm strange, why did you not post the full definition? Why did you not that you quoted 1 of 3 definitions?

Remember you shouldn't have to lie if you have the truth. It's so simple.

Do you believe in Atomic Theory, Quantum mechanics, Plate tectonics, Cell Theory, Germ theory, Gravity?

BathTub said...

Oh and as you should know, if your readers don't bother to check that page, that page goes on into quite a bit of detail about the meaning of scientific theory. pages worth that would have just been ridiculously long to paste here.

Why do you keep lying that Theory only has one definition?

This has been pointed out to quite clearly.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Logic Lad:

Your 'argument' only works if we presuppose the contents of the bible is true, given that is not an agreed premis there really is nothing to answer here.I do believe I've been saying this the entire time. The two sides (Christian/Atheist) will not see eye to eye because at bottom there are two different foundations. Your entire worldview (I assume) begins with no allowance for miraculous events or beings. Your worldview is materialistic at bottom, and all things have a naturalistic explanation. Further, you assume and conclude that there is no God. I assume and conclude He is, and His Word is the Bible.

That is NOT to say that there is no evidence to support this fact. I will be honest with you that I am comfortable with these assumptions, as you are with yours. There is a plethora of evidence, but the problem with evidence: it must all be interpreted. Same is true in courtrooms: evidence is one thing, but the interpretation requires "experts" and eyewitnesses to back it up.

Why? Because forensic science knows that evidence must be interpreted.

Same here, and we'll never meet in the middle or agree. The issue is spiritual: you lack the eyes to see and heart to receive the Truth of God. I was sort of in your shoes once upon a time. I say "sort of" because I've never denied the God of the Bible exists, just denied His rule over my heart.

I know you won't/can't answer but untill you can explain how God poofed into existence then you have little to complain about the big bang theory, i don't know what happened at the moment of the event but i have yet to be convinced it was preceeded by a diety saying the equivilent of '1,2,1,2,3,4'1) I don't deny the Big Bang, except I think it was more like the sound of God's voice. That there was some cosmic beginning event: we agree.

2) God never poofed into existence. His Name is "I AM THAT I AM," which gives rise to the idea of "aseity" or self-being. He is eternal as one of His attributes.

3) The notion that you claim you have yet to be convinced the beginning was preceded by God speaking is based on, again, your unproved presuppositions to the contrary. Saying "I've never seen God" is no proof. You've also never seen a black hole, have you? No, but someone else you trust (astronomers) have detected them by observing quasars and X-ray emissions. That is to say, the eyewitness account of people you trust have detected something and you don't disbelieve them. I'd say on this type of belief, you and I would claim a thing as true. I believe Jesus and the Prophets and Apostles. I trust them: I have no reason not to. You trust the science community, even if they allow politicians like Al Gore make bold statements such as "the science on man-made global warming is settled." Pardon me, while I gag...(aimed at Al Gore, not you).

Brazen Hussey's said...

No the earth is billions of years old and this then allows for the ToE, strangely it is the christians who come up with the conclusion then make the facts fit, most scientists start with the facts and then try to craft a theory.Wrong again: the age of the earth is not a universally accepted "fact" amongst any science community: even the atheist community wouldn't make such a claim! When I was a kid, it was only a few billion years old. Interestingly, that number keeps growing. How old is the earth? I don't know. I don't care. The Bible makes no extroverted claim on the exact or approximate age, either: this is inferred from genealogies. So, if it's 6k years or a googolplex years, it's of little consequence: we still have our moral guilt before an omnipotent justice to deal with.

brazen said 'You and the other atheists want to constantly put God in the dock (great book by CS Lewis, BTW), but nothing said here has addressed this one fact: You are guilty before the God you'd like to deny. You can stand on the tracks all you want, staring down at the train's light, but in the end: the train wins.
'

Any judge who is guilty of the crimes he sentences others for is a hypocrite. A judge should be held to at least the standard he holds others too, if not higher. Just becuase God Supposedly has the power to punish does not give him the moral right if he is just as guilty.
You either ignore or have yet to read what I've written on this subject.

Let's see...if you commit a capital crime, are found guilty of it, are sentenced to the maximum punishment of death by lethal injection...

...by your reasoning, the court is somehow guilty of murder?

Sorry, you get no dice on this one.

OR: if you are OJ Simpson, lead the LAPD on a high-speed chase, and they break speed limit laws to catch you, are THEY guilty of speeding?

Not likely.

See the weakness of this line of thinking?

At bottom, my concern is this:

You have been created with so much more potential joy, peace, and life in Christ. More than this: you stand guilty before Him. He will hold you guilty of all the laws you break.

You don't get to negotiate.

There are no court-appointed public defenders in heaven.

There is no appeal (unnecessary: God's judgment and knowledge are untainted by sin and are perfect).

Thus: you have to face the music. What will you do on Judgment Day? There is ONE WAY out of this: to trust in the grace and mercy of your loving Creator, who provided you with the only answer in the cosmos: His Only Son.

Will you put to rest your arguments? What else can possibly be more important than your eternal destiny?

BathTub said...

Not sure how old you are Brazen Hussey, but if you care to Google "History of the Age of the Earth" you can verify this for yourself but The Age of the Earth has been experimentally derived at around 4.5 Billion years old for over 50 years. Going back to 1953. Even before World War 2 estimates where between 3 & 4 Billion. If you have a source indicating otherwise I would be interested to read it.

stranger.strange.land said...

Heath.

I was just kidding around with Matt, trying to lighten the mood here a bit. It seeems to have gotten somewhat tense lately.

Craig

Brazen Hussey's said...

I'm old. old as dirt.

Fish with Trish said...

James, thank you for being on my blog and for defending the truth. You're a huge blessing!

BathTub said...

So are you 6000 year old dirt or 4.5 Billion year old dirt? ;)

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Trish:

[please don't compliment me: my head is big enough. just ask my wife. insufferable.] Thanks... (looks @ his shoes and shuffles feet.)

@ Stranger/ExPatMatt:

NO JOKING! Pay 'tention!

@ All atheists:

Though I have been snooty here and there, with Reynold in particular, I have thoroughly enjoyed the palaver! Seriously, having to think and re-think through some things has been mind-taxing at times.

I have to confess: I could probably use less blisters on my fingertips.

But thanks to the atheist/agnostics, for a GREAT conversation.

Having said that:

It is my sincerest hope to eat the table of Jesus Christ in Heaven with you guys at the feast.

Now, THAT will be a grand day!

The invitation's in your hands. Please, repent and believe. I've nothing to gain except some more eternal friends, delighting in the presence of our common savior and Lord, Jesus.

ExPatMatt said...

I hear you on that, Craig.

Gotta lighten up some times guys - it's only the internet!

But still, Trish, it's dishonest to say that the theory of evolution is 'nothing more' than speculation. You know it's not true, even if your faith won't allow you to acknowledge it.

As evolutionists understand it, the theory of evolution is a well supported explanatory model dealing with the diversification of life on Earth.

You don't just get to re-define terms just because you don't agree with the implications.


Regards,

Brazen Hussey's said...

Just FYI:

I have taken the liberty of testing the age of the Earth.

My findings, to be published here and now, are as follows:

The dirt is EXACTLY 6,253 years old.

Case closed!

(Feel free to cite this as a source in all future documentation.)

Exiting, stage left.

BathTub said...

Wow you weren't kidding, you really are old.

That's almost as old as the 8000 year bristle cone pine dendrochronology sequence we get from California. ;)

bassicallymike said...

Hey Matt....As creationists understand it, the theory of evilution is speculation, based upon man’s attempt at explaining away a Divine creator by means of combining large quantities of time along with pure chance powered by God only knows what, with minimal evidence of trans-species support from the fossil/geological record. :o)

ExPatMatt said...

Basicallymike,

You said;

"As creationists understand it...".

That's your problem right there though, creationists don't understand it, as evidenced by the rest of your comment.

Seriously, your 'fallacy/misunderstanding per sentence' ratio is off the charts!

Oh, and spelling it 'evilution' just makes you seem childish. Kind of like when some atheists spell Jesus' name with a 'b' in place of the first 's'. It's not big and it's not clever; just childish.


Regards,

bassicallymike said...

Boy, what happened to "Gotta lighten up some times guys - it's only the internet!"


Seriously, your 'fallacy/misunderstanding per sentence' ratio is off the charts!
You know Matt, I had the exact same reaction when I read your "understanding". "Well supported" was the term I disagreed with. And as Bath Tub attested to, that is not a universally held understanding among all scientist.
Now you may dimiss this as just another of my many fallacy/misunderstandings, however there is one thing that I know for certain. You and I will both, one day cease to function as human beings as death knocks at our door. Our eyes will close, our lungs will stop heaving, our hearts will stop beating, our color will fade, and our skin will cool. What then Matt? I've heard you say "well back to my preexistence state which wasn't bad"(or to that effect). If you are right and I am wrong, besides taking some grief(some desereved) from a bunch of skeptics, I haven't lost anything!
What if I'm right and you are wrong! You on the otherhand, will stand before a thrice Holy God whom you have mocked, and denied and you will have to give account for your every thought word and deed.
If you have ever even once lied, stolen, blasphemed or had lust in your heart, God will see you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous adulterer at heart and because He is a just God, He will be forced to give you what you deserve. You will be cast into an eternal hell, there to be punished forever. Matt, I think I'm liking my chances a whole lot better than yours. Please,think about this tonight when you lay your head on your pillow.

BathTub said...

No, the Theory and Fact of Evolution is Universally accepted as True. Essentialy the only deniers are Muslim and Christian Fundamentalists. Some of them are honest enough to admit their rejection of the science is simply religious based but there are plenty of people who try and pretend otherwise.

My dispute with Trish is that she was cherry picking one definition of the word theory, the one that matches her religious beliefs, and then pretending that was the only definition. Even her own source disagreed with her limited definition and specifically listed Evolution under Scientific Theories.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Bath Tub-

Merely asserting, with a capital "U", that the ToE is Universally accepted, reminds me of my 3-yr-old saying "I don't WANT to go to bed!" hands on hips.

That all dissenters are religious fundies is also a misrepresentation of facts:

Just watch "Expelled" the movie for examples. Not all dissenters there were fundamentalist Christians or Muslims.

ToE is not universally accepted: there have been over 30k signatures from professional scientists to this effect, vying for the Intelligent Design theory.

Alright, retreating back to my non-evolved family, descendants of Adam (the final Adam, that is).

Have a great weekend, all!

bassicallymike said...

Bath Tub...You seem to define "universally" as only those who support your position.

You gotta love Answers.com
universal
adv.
"In a universal manner; without exception; as, God's laws are universally binding on his creatures."
;o)

BathTub said...

Sorry I should say Universally among people who count (ie scientists).

Brazen you do understand that Intelligent Design is Essentially Theistic Evolution?

And just like your age of the earth claims (unsubstantiated) you are going to have to back up your ID petition claims because if I google Intelligent Design Petition I get an ANTI-ID Petition with 25 thousand signatures.

I think you need to check up because most of the 'facts' in Expelled weren't facts. And you were right about the people in the film not being christians or muslims, I don't think they had a single muslim in it all if I recall.

Now you MIGHT be thinking of The Dissent from Darwinism Petition?

Is that the one you are thinking of?

Because that's even funnier if you were.

That's the one from from the Discovery institute.

See and it has about 900 signatures.

Take a look at how few are biologists.

It's been around for about 8 years.

AND it doesn't deny evolution.

Again it's a Theistic Evolution thing.


THEN we have the light hearted response.

Project Steve.

It's the Pro-Evolution Petition.

But you have to be scientist with the name Steve (or some variant thereof), which for the US is ~1%.

It's about 6 years old and has 1088 'Steves' signing it. Over half of them are Biologists.

You really want to play the numbers game?

bassicallymike said...

Bath Tub..."Sorry I should say Universally among people who count (ie scientists)."
So if you are still holding to the all scientist "without exception", accept
the Theory and Fact of Evolution as True statement, I don't understand why you said "sorry"!

BathTub said...

It's funny because http://www.answers.com/topic/universal doesn't say anything about 'without exception'.

BathTub said...

lol my mistake again. I didn't catch that there was a seperate definition page for Universally. I'm not quite sure of your point there.

But anyway the point is I would be very interesting to see if Brazen Hussey actually has any numbers. Because as I said the Dissent from Darwinism Petition that I *think* he was talking about (again I could be wrong) is not a Creation Petition, it's a Theistic Evolution Petition.

And seriously what's the deal with all the people that can't spell BathTub?

bassicallymike said...

BathTub said...I'm not quite sure of your point there.
Yes, you seem to be quite dismissive of your own faux pas. You have misused the word "universally".

Brazen Hussey's said...

@BathTub:

Better spelling?

You are right! Ouch and double ouch-the petition I was thinking of was the petition against Global Warming.

You have my sincerest thanks for pointing out my mistake.

As to the age of the earth, I was wondering about my comment on that note, and my source (maybe you've heard of him?) is Ray Comfort's book "You Can Lead An Atheist To Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think".

In which he mentions the age of the earth has been pushed from 100 million years in the early 1900's to 4.5 billion later in the century.

There, again, I was thinking the age of the universe as a whole, which age has been growing as well.

Or, what, you want a source for that too?

:)

I invite all rotten tomatoes, sarcasm, and all such cascading effects properly due to such horrid mistakes on my end. And seriously: THANK YOU for pointing it out! It's always good to be corrected.

Good Day, and may your drain never clog.

BathTub said...

Er no basicallymike, you are playing the 'pick one definition and pretend it's the only one' game again. I've already played this game with you in another thread. My mistake was not seeing the seperate link over at answers.com and wondering where you were quoting from.

Brazen Hussey I believe you that Ray would say that. And it's true. But it's completely false to say it has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. It has everything to do with Science splitting the atom and discovering Radiometric Dating.
If you googled what I mentioned before you will see that people thought the planet was very old well before Darwin was even born.

Are you aware that you can derive a minimum age of the planet of around a million years old just with physical objects that you can see and touch and count? Before you even have to use stuff like Radiometric Dating.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ BathTub:

Re: the age of the earth and the trouble with the certitude of it:

The assumption is uniformity: that every quantum of energy, every ray of light (thinking: starlight in particular), every physical property of every atom, has always behaved in time past the way it does now.

I would grant your premise (with egg on my face!) that the scientific community seems to agree on the age of the earth, but would disagree that radiometric dating was accurately presenting facts.

Based SOLELY on the fact that such amounts of time requires that God couldn't intervene and make light travel from the stars to our planet so we could observe them by day 6.

BathTub said...

I'm sure you'll have something to back your claim against the science of radiometric dating, other than 'it disagrees with my doctrine'.

You actually guessed what was going to be my next question.

It's question I usually end up asking. Do you believe God made the light in transit, or sped up the speed of light, or some other.
And for what purpose? Starlight isn't needed. It only takes minutes for sunlight to get here.

Why would God deliberately make things look old?

If you invoke miracles to answer how things appear to look, because you have to, then there is no serious way of coming to an agreement on things.

Why does the universe look very old?

God made it look that way.

Why does the earth look very old?

God made it look that way.

How can we see stars billions of light years away?

God made it so we could see them.

So instead of leaving things as they were naturally God alters things so they specifically DONT look like a young earth in a young universe.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ BathTub:

Though you paint it in silly terms, if you subtract the pejorative tone (if there was meant to be a sarcasm there), then you and I agree on your summary of my answer.

I'd add this:

That the universe was made for US to observe it, so we would reach for God, see the vastness of space and the irreducible complexity of the microcosm, and say "Whoa! This is awesome, and Someone more awesome must've made it."

Something to that effect.

In essence, how could we appreciate the cosmos if we didn't observe the starlight?

How could we appreciate the Milky Way if we were in the middle of a spiral arm vs. in between the spirals?

If you've seen it, you know I refer to the movie "The Privileged Planet," but there are copious amounts of Scripture to back up my theory.

And you're right to observe: it appears older than I, as a young earther, would admit. Why? Because I take God at His Word.

If I am proved wrong about the age of the earth, there is still that pesky bit of guilt to deal with, and the hereafter.

Whether the earth is billions or thousands of years old doesn't address this central issue: Has the blood of Christ washed away your guilt?

I'd love to debate with you on any number of subjects, and allow me this: I am really not a scientist.

(did you just gasp? no, it's true. I'm not.)

If I am DEAD WRONG about these peripheral issues, it's the central issue of our guilt before our Holy God and Creator/Father that we must address.

The rest falls into the category of "this is really what I think the Bible is teaching, but it could be another Copernican Revolution."

I'll allow for my fallibility on the issue of the earth's age, while maintaining that the possibility is there I could be dead-center on the pesos.

As a Christian, my mind MUST be captive to the Scripture. But know this much: the Bible doesn't come out and say, "on this calendar year by your Julian or Greco-Roman calendar, God made light..." It's conjecture and inference on our end, albeit strong ones.

Hope that somewhat helps.

And again: please point out my mistakes when and if I make any. I'll be more careful not to.

Dinner time!!

BathTub said...

Well at that point it seems you are just playing pascals wager, with the added twist of a Trickster God.

Reynold said...

basicallymikeWhat if I'm right and you are wrong! You on the otherhand, will stand before a thrice Holy God whom you have mocked, and denied and you will have to give account for your every thought word and deed.
If you have ever even once lied, stolen, blasphemed or had lust in your heart, God will see you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous adulterer at heart and because He is a just God, He will be forced to give you what you deserve. You will be cast into an eternal hell, there to be punished forever. Matt, I think I'm liking my chances a whole lot better than yours. Please,think about this tonight when you lay your head on your pillow.
 
And what if the Muslims are the ones who are right? Everything you said to the atheist can then be turned on you.

Read up on Pascal's Wager as well, and you'll see why threatening people with something that they don't believe in generally doesn't work.

ExPatMatt said...

Brazen,

I'd just like to take a moment to say that I really like your style. Seriously, I do; you're a good guy.

I hope you and yours are all happy and healthy and that dinner was delicious!

Regards,

Matt

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ ExPatMatt:

As Barney Fife would say in Andy Griffith:

"Aww, shucks...."

That, dear friend, made my day. If I could, I'd buy you dinner sometime, or invite you to my place. My wife makes a seriously fantastic (enter dish of choice: she rules the kitch')!

One further thought: the day, family, and meal was uber-tastic.

Logic Lad said...

Brazen

you said 'Your worldview is materialistic at bottom, and all things have a naturalistic explanation'

Again you have got this the wrong way round, i have looked at the universe and failed to see any significant evidence for a creator,maintainer god such as the one of the Abrahamic religions. I did not start out from this conclusion and then try to make the evidence fit. My family was devout and i attended church for many years, yetr in all that time I was utterly unimpressed with the evidence. While i accept that evidence requires interpretation given that you refuse to accept the possibility that there is no god then your ability to analyse data is flawed by your desires. Think of like the cop who is sure that someone 'did it' all the evidence is made to fit the case, regardless of how far it has to be bent to make it fit.

Why do i feel like a scratched record, i don't deny, i don't beleive. To deny someone i would have to first agree they existed and i don't.

you said 'God never poofed into existence'

Hold on, be fair, if you are allowed to not have to explain the origins of your creation myth why should I, I like the repeated expansions and contractions of the universe theory, so what happened befor the big bang, the previous big crunch, what started the first big bang? the universe has always existed, just like your god has in your explanation.

you said 'The notion that you claim you have yet to be convinced the beginning was preceded by God speaking is based on, again, your unproved presuppositions to the contrary'

Yes i have to take things on trust, given that i am incapabable of knowing the sum total of human knowledge there are plenty of areas in which i have to take some ones elses word for it, however if that piece of information is going to actually effect me in some way i make an effort to understand and make sure i agree with it, the existence of quasars while interesting does not effect my daily life, the existence/belief in a god would, so i take care to find evidence and consider the ramefications. I have looked at your evidence and in my opinion in all cases there is a more reasonable explanation than the god theory.

Not to mention in the sense of fair play, if you can support your beliefs by simply saying 'it's written in these books so it must be true' why can't i, just using different books?

you said 'Wrong again: the age of the earth is not a universally accepted '

True there is some disagrement but it is generally accepted to be about 4.5 billion years, ( i think, certainly around that age) much longer than the biblical 6000 years and therefore giving enough time for evolution to work. not to mention if you had one source claiming one thing and every other reputable source claiming something different but the others where broadly consistant, which would you question?

Oh and on the genelogies thing, does it not bother you that the only way the bible gets back as far as it does is because some people had to live for insane amounts of time?

you said'So, if it's 6k years or a googolplex years, it's of little consequence: we still have our moral guilt before an omnipotent justice to deal with'

So why are you making such a big deal about it then? and this is a complete non sequiteur, does this mean you have run out of actual arguments?

Logic Lad said...

Sorry Brazen had to split my response due to length

you said '...by your reasoning, the court is somehow guilty of murder?'

i have no idea how you got to this conclusion from what i said, i never said that people cannot be judged i said it was hypocritical for the judge to go down the 'do as a say not as i do' route. I am afraid you have done is build a strawman and then taken great delight in knocking it down, a well known fallacy, please try to keep from making up my arguments for me. The god of the bible clearly supports genocide, murder, rape and slavery. If he where a leader of a country he would be vilified and condemened for his immorality, that is the question you need to address.

'There are no court-appointed public defenders in heaven'

Lets look at this shall we, should i worship a god i don’t believe in because of fear? do you think that would get me into heaven? i could mouth the words and chuck my pound in the donation box but surely pretending to worship is more offensive than honest scepticism.

And while we are at it, what do you think heaven is? becuase given that your whole life is a desperate struggle to get in there have you got the first clue what you are getting yourself into? Also how are you sure you will get in? are you following the right god? even the right version of the right god, at the end of the day if the Catholics are right you are boned.

Personally i can't help but feel that an eternity of anything would eventually become torture, no matter how nice it started out, given heaven is supposed to be perfect it cannot change, so you had better be complety happy with it if you get there.

bassicallymike said...

Reynold said...Read up on Pascal's Wager as well, and you'll see why threatening people with something that they don't believe in generally doesn't work.

Not all that sure about Pascal's wager, but Jesus said "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Matt. 16:26 ESV
I would put more stock in Jesus' wager than Pascal's.
Like Ray say's.."it doesn't matter if you believe in trucks or not....You step out in front of one...splat!"

ExPatMatt said...

basicallymike,

Why do people believe in [the existence of] trucks?

Serious question.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ ExPatMatt:

I probably shouldn't say this, but that made me rotfl! Well, that was an exaggeration, but it did make me col (chuckle out loud).

I understand what you mean by your description of the PA system.

The trouble is, we Christians can't escape connecting everything to God, since it all correlates to Him or originates from Him. I can see your problem with PA, but I'd say that the real problem is that the universe being what it is (created by God), it must all necessarily relate to Him.

Sure, it seems like we're arguing in circles, but we're in the inescapable bubble (universe) created by God's hands. Any way you turn, any molecule you uncover or study: creation.

Which points to: Creator.

Like a fish arguing to all the other fishes:

"We're all wet!"

I do appreciate your candor, and as one arguing from within Christianity: I can also appreciate your frustration with the seeming inescapability of the arguments in PA. I assure you that, though there be many apologists who are worse than others with PA, it isn't merely a Jedi mind trick or shell game. This is more than words, but see: we're all enclosed in this thing called "Creation," and all of it relates to its Creator, subjectively and objectively, of a necessity.

The Bible isn't much different, I'm afraid, in its apologetic approach: beginning with the assertion that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

No proof, other than you're standing under those heavens and atop that earth.

Luckily for both of us, though we disagree at this point, the evidence abounds.

Foundational to the Christian worldview is that life cannot have arisen from non-living matter.

Thus, where did it come from?

Christian answer: a Being who had life in Himself.

Back of that, where did existence come from?

A Being who had being/existence in Himself, properly called "aseity." Even His covenant Name is "I AM THAT I AM," which hints at the selfsame point. It's the Name He relates to Moses, "Tell Pharaoh 'I AM' sent you."

Where did society, ethics, love, beauty, personality, thought come from?

On and on the list goes, but philosophically, the best answer seems to be God (again, from the Christian worldview).

The impossibility of ToE is glaring at all these points. In reviewing a Hitchens/Douglas Wilson debate entitled Is Christianity Good For The World?, Hitchens merely posits that morality "evolved."

Sorry, but matter can't evolve into living matter. Random processes, big bangs, unguided mistakes, don't give rise to morality, thoughts, symphonies, the beauty of my late father's laughter, the belly-laugh heard 'round my dinner table, the jurisprudence of our Constitution...but that's the prevailing theory in the West in direct competition for our zeitgeist.

(To be cont'd)

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ ExPatMatt, cont'd:

Another problem is that "empirical evidence" is trumped as the ace up the sleeve of atheists. "Show me the empirical data!"

Of better use is historical, archaeological, philosophical, juridical/legal, and logical evidence. This type of evidence abounds, if the myriad empirical evidence (look anywhere) doesn't suffice.

Other questions that may prove useful:

Is the manuscript of the Bible proven reliable or not?

Can we trust the testimonies of Moses, David, Elijah, the prophets/apostles?

Is Jesus a real, historical figure, and can we trust what the Gospel accounts have to say about Him?

Two names I'll give you in your quest:

Simon Greenleaf
Sir Wm. Ramsey

The former held 3 doctorates in law and taught extensively on the use of evidence. He sought to disprove Christianity by looking at the evidence in the Scripture, and became a Christian.

The latter was an archaeologist with the same mission, specifically he sought to disprove Luke and Acts. He, too, came to Christ through his search.

Theirs aren't the only stories on record, but two of my fave's.

I point you this way because PA is but one system of apologetics, my favorite and the most biblical, but if God and the Bible are true, of course there's a trail of evidence to be found.

Hope some of this helps. Take care!

Logic Lad said...

Mike

However i have physical evidence of a truck, your god not so much

Logic Lad said...

brazen said 'Of better use is historical, archaeological, philosophical, juridical/legal, and logical evidence'

But surely if this evidence is not empirical, ie obsercable and repeatable, then of what value is it? it's not evidence it's conjecture, or opinion.

you said 'Is the manuscript of the Bible proven reliable or not?
'

This topic has been wrestled over on this blog too many times. you say yes, i say no. suffice to say that you have yet to demonstrate it's validity, and it's inaccuracies have been listed in detail.

You site two people who choose to challange the bible and then converted, fair enough, their are plenty of people who went the other way so i fail to see your point, and degrees in law and archelogy have no impact on what these people choose to believe, that would be an appeal to authority, a fallacy i think you will find.

BathTub said...

Actually Brazen Hussey, Order from Chaos is a known in science, people study it.

If you google you will find papers like these easily enough.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7053/full/436905a.html

http://www.physorg.com/news63381025.html

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ (Il)Logic(al) Lad:

I'm going to answer your earlier challenge, just haven't read through it yet.

On your recent fallacious attacks, you say:

But surely if this evidence is not empirical, ie obsercable and repeatable, then of what value is it? it's not evidence it's conjecture, or opinion.



Here you deserve the name "Illogical Lad"--how many times have you been in court? For there to be only empirical data in the courtroom, and not the variety that I've cited, you display your ignorance of the facts. If you study history, you'll note historians can't possibly have this sort of data.

The evidence you require is illogical, but only displays your lack of knowledge in the study of ancient history. Read up on that before you think to reply.

you said 'Is the manuscript of the Bible proven reliable or not?
'

This topic has been wrestled over on this blog too many times. you say yes, i say no. suffice to say that you have yet to demonstrate it's validity, and it's inaccuracies have been listed in detail.


And yet you have yet to show any inaccuracies! Rather, Illogical Lad, you need to study the two names I've listed: they've disproven your claims. There's a history of archaeology behind me. Where's your evidence to the contrary? Bare assertion?

you listed two people who choose to challange the bible and then converted, fair enough, their are plenty of people who went the other way so i fail to see your point, and degrees in law and archelogy have no impact on what these people choose to believe, that would be an appeal to authority, a fallacy i think you will find.

Um, no it's not an appeal to authority at all, you're just displaying your serious case of illogical-ness and ignorance!

Really, try that statement in a courtroom as a defense attorney:

"Judge, I object: the prosecution is appealing to authority, I don't care if this witness has a degree."

You'll be laughed to derision!

Before you answer, do your homework, I was trying to make your job easier. All you've proven is that you don't care about the truth of the matter at hand: you just want to win arguments.

I return now to my ultimate apologetic:

You will face the God you deny. What will you do then with your guilt? This isn't conjecture, it's Truth.

If you were in a courtroom and told the judge, "I don't believe in you!" Would that make a difference?

It surely won't help in the face of Jesus Christ.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I invite you to seriously re-examine the illogical case you've tried to make here, and then ask yourself why you launch such a weak case against a God you deny?

Because you don't want to believe, right?

It was the same with the Jewish leaders of the time of Jesus' life. They saw Lazarus raise from the dead: saw him walking. Many of them still refused to believe.

Imagine that. The case is no different here: you refuse Jesus Christ, with a vengeance. Even if I "prove" the case again and again: you simply don't want Him.

Isn't that right?

Might I suggest another hobby for you, then? Might I suggest you spend your time and energy playing in the park? The joys you have today will need to last eternity long: you will have no place for joy unless you repent.

bassicallymike said...

Matthew, I will quickly grant your premise that a truck is much more easily believed than God since you have obviously seen a truck but fail to acknowledge any evidence for the existence of God. However, the point of this simile is not so much the visual evidence of God, but the certainty of your coming appointment with the Creator of the universe.

You claim to have read the Bible several times, yet you seem to have missed (or flat out rejected) the basis with which we humans, are to relate to God. Faith! Another reading of Hebrews chapter 11 may be in order, especially verse 6. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. Hebrews 11:6 ESV

You call for empirical evidence of God’s existence. God say’s in Roman’s chapter 1:19,20, I’ve shown you enough evidence of my existence in creation to give you a basis on which to exercise your faith. The ball is in your court, God calls you to faith, you, haughtily call on the people of faith to prove God’s existence. You will never, on this plane, receive the intellectual/empirical proof of God’s existence you call for! Why? It would no longer require faith. You will never come to faith while trusting in your own intellect.

We may be on what you could call a fool’s errand. But by faith, we call all who will, to repentance and faith, and in so doing, God changes lives and gives sight to those who can now say “I once was blind, but now I see.” What will you do? Believe it or not!

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Logic Lad:

In response to your two-parter:

you said 'Your worldview is materialistic at bottom, and all things have a naturalistic explanation'

Again you have got this the wrong way round, i have looked at the universe and failed to see any significant evidence for a creator,maintainer god such as the one of the Abrahamic religions. I did not start out from this conclusion and then try to make the evidence fit.


Let's say a crime occurs, a homicide. Joe Friday sends in the local CSI team. Standing amidst a pool of gore and guts, with bullet casings abounding, three carcasses, a couple of firearms, and a host of witnesses to the events, the CSI team shrugs and says, "There's no evidence to collect, sorry. No crime here!"

That is what you're worldview of bare materialism is.

You stand upon a mountaintop of evidence, and you say, "What evidence?"

Here's a few questions for you.

1) You say "I like the repeated expansions and contractions of the universe theory...the universe has always existed..." Alright: what expanded? What contracted? How did this thing start to expand or contract?

Because in this universe, in order for motion to occur, sufficient energy must be present to overcome the inertia of the object(s) to be set into motion. Let's call this a "cause." Taking your theory, what was the cause of said motion? What was the cause of existence of the matter that was set into motion?

You use a logical/mathematical impossibility, that of the actual infinite, to sidestep the question, then call yourself "Logic Lad." You need another name.

2) You say "I have looked at your evidence and in my opinion in all cases there is a more reasonable explanation that the god theory." What explanation? Cosmic contractions? Expansions? Did you ever see an expansion/contraction or explosion produce a Shakespeare play? Bach concerto? Truffles?

You would actually call "cosmic accidents, random chance, and plenty of time" the origin of all that is? Seriously, if you can show me an explosion of any sort that produces universes then please point me to it.

Your evidence, and your logic, is severely lacking.

3) You claim the Bible has been proven unreliable. Really? When did this happen? Please, summarize your argument, because here you parade a severe lack of the knowledge of history. The Bible isn't myth: there are no myths as such with the preponderance of evidence.

4) You claim that with enough time (4.5 bill. yrs) evolution could work. Honestly, out of chaos, nothing but chaos comes, I don't care if you give it a googolplex years! Yet you would have me to believe that the double helix of DNA, and the molecular information structures that carry more information than the library of Congress within each of our cells, just somehow evolved, unguided by any intelligence or design?

Prove your case, my devout materialist friend: when did life spring up from non-life? When did science show that? Didn't Pasteur already show that spontaneous generation was a farce? Yet you hang your worldview on the hope that there is nothing but matter and energy.

The Bible's testimony is rooted in history, not myth. You keep claiming it is myth and theory: keep those labels to your precious "expansion/contractions caused all things to exist" theory: all you have done is dodged the question of origins.

I'll say again: what will you do in the face of your guilt? God sent His Son to pay your fine the first time around: the second coming will see the Son of God judging the quick and the dead. Will you keep refusing His Gospel? Will you try to argue your case to Him, armed with "but I thought expansion/contraction theory was so plausible?"

It sounds as plausible now as it will Then.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Logic Lad:

you said '...by your reasoning, the court is somehow guilty of murder?'

i have no idea how you got to this conclusion from what i said, i never said that people cannot be judged i said it was hypocritical for the judge to go down the 'do as a say not as i do' route....The god of the bible clearly supports genocide, murder, rape and slavery. If he where a leader of a country he would be vilified and condemened for his immorality, that is the question you need to address.


1) So, God is the hypocrite here, right? Let me get this straight: you, a guilty sinner, are charging the God of the universe with hypocrisy? Is that your plea?

2) You have said here and elsewhere that the "God of the Bible 'clearly' supports genocide, murder, rape and slavery."

Didn't you just accuse me of making a straw man argument? In your defense, you employ a straw man: isn't this hypocrisy? Didn't you just accuse God of hypocrisy?

You say God "clearly" supports genocide, murder, rape and slavery.

First: qualify those terms. Define them. What do you mean by 'murder' for instance? Do you lump in 'capital punishment'? If this is the case, guess what? God warned us from the start that the soul that sins shall die. Know what that means? Capital punishment. Whether you agree with capital punishment is irrelevant, because I tried that argument once when I was pulled over for speeding.

"Officer, I don't believe in speed limit laws."

I had to pay the fine nonetheless, go figure. It's called "Justice." You may not like it, but you deserve it all the same.

Rape being condoned by God is a myth as much as ToE is an unproven myth: when and where did God ever condone rape? Before you look in Scripture, let me give you the Cliff Notes: it ain't there.

Quit parroting Hitchens, Dawkins, and their misinformed mass of followers: it just isn't true. But alas: read the Bible for yourself and you'll see.

As to slavery: what do you mean by that? Do you mean the slavery of the West, with ships going to African coastlines and pillaging people to use in fieldwork? No, again, this is misinformation. God doesn't condone this kind of slavery. The slavery in Scripture was of two kinds: A) slaves were captives of war, which both sides of any battle would have known before going into battle that this danger was present, B) slaves were indentured servants, or people who didn't pay their bills. After serving their time for their debt, they were set free. In fact, the God of the Bible you like to misrepresent gave ancient Israel commands on how to treat their slaves well, and even gave laws that would periodically force the Jews to set their slaves free. There were rules God put in place to even care for the slaves: now that's graciousness, not despotism.

Second: your biggest issue is the straw man "god" you've created to hate. You would love any number of reasons to hate Him, but I'm afraid He has given myriad reasons to win mankind's love. Don't believe me? Next time you enjoy a meal, watch a sunset, take a walk, swim, enjoy the company of another person, know that not only does God give you the faculties with which to apprehend these beauties, He creates them for you to enjoy, despite the fact that you insist He doesn't exist.

More than that, He sent His Son to die in your behalf. He sent His rescue, He created the air you breathe, and you want to vilify Him with misrepresentations and straw man arguments, all the while calling Him the hypocrite?

Logic Lad: that's illogical.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Logic Lad:

And while we are at it, what do you think heaven is? becuase given that your whole life is a desperate struggle to get in there have you got the first clue what you are getting yourself into?

What do I think heaven is is an irrelevant question, because the Truth of the matter is objective and not my opinion on the matter. Where do I find information on Heaven? A trusted and proven, well-documented and attested source that would stand up in any courtroom. In fact, it's so reliable that in court, they actually make the witnesses put their hands on it to vow to tell the truth. So, what do I think Heaven is? Who cares? What does the Bible say on it would have been a more relevant question. For that answer, I invite you to "Tolle Lege," or "Take up and read."

Also how are you sure you will get in? are you following the right god? even the right version of the right god, at the end of the day if the Catholics are right you are boned.

Christian epistemology is this: having the testimony of the Holy Spirit. That's how I'm sure I'll get in. I trust the Word of God in the Bible. It's sort of like trusting Ford to give me an accurate manual for one of their Mustangs: they made it, they should know. God made me, He would know.

Am I following the right God? Yes. How do I know? He lives in me. At least, this is what Jesus said in John 16 and 17, and Paul in Romans 8. I have yet to run into anything or anyone that would cause me to disbelieve what I've read. Threads like this push me further into faith, but take up the Bible and read it for yourself.

As to the Roman Catholic comment: I am a happy former papist. They've proven the fact that they rebel against God with their many departures from His standard: the Bible. It's how I measure any truth: compare it to the real deal. What did God ever say about idols? About justification? About the Pharisees? About false teachers? About a tree and its fruit? These questions and more convince me that the Papists care more about their position of power than the Truth of God.

Here's my challenge to you:

Quit parroting what you hear other atheists say, and find out the facts for yourself. You say you were raised in a Christian home, the truth is: you were never a Christian, for if you were you wouldn't have left. Whatever you were raised on, at some point you decided to leave Christ behind.

What changed? Not the truth or history of the Bible: that doesn't change. So, what do you love more than Christ? Do you find your lack of Him satisfying? Since God made you and this universe, if you don't know God, how can you know anything truly?

My challenge is that you take up the Bible and read it through. Start anywhere, but I'd recommend the first five books (Genesis thru Deuteronomy) and the Gospels/Acts in first priority.

Find out for yourself, because your arguments leave no doubt: you don't know what you're talking about. That isn't meant to offend, it's an observation. So: find out. God wants to be known: He left plenty for you to read about Him, right there in the Bible.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Logic Lad (last one):

And while we are at it, what do you think heaven is? becuase given that your whole life is a desperate struggle to get in there have you got the first clue what you are getting yourself into?

Correction: my whole life isn't a desperate struggle to get into Heaven. That's what Christ's atoning work was for: HE DESPERATELY STRUGGLED IN MY PLACE.

That's what makes all the difference between Christianity and all other religions, amongst other reasons: we don't have this white-knuckled-struggle, followed by a sweaty-palmed, crossing of fingers in a vain hope that God will be pleased with my lame attempt at deserving grace.

Do you get that?

If you build this straw man of the faith, then you clearly do not understand Christianity:

WE DON'T STRUGGLE TO GET TO HEAVEN

JESUS DID IT ALL.

To think I was at the lake last week fishing with my kids and best friend, all the while I was supposed to be "desperately struggling to get to heaven."

Egads!

Seriously, this is what makes the Good News so Good: Jesus did what we desperately wicked people refused and couldn't do: He lived the good life, the perfect life. He fulfilled God's law. Then, innocent Jesus went to the cross and paid a fine He didn't owe, but you and I did.

Double whammy:

1) Jesus' perfect life, perfect works, can be credited to your account in God's eyes.

2) Your guilt is the only "cost" of admission: but you must ask His forgiveness. He paid the fee at the cross. Your eternity in Hell was paid for by the Eternal Son of Glory, hanging in your place.

How do you apprehend it? Repent from your sins, and turn to Jesus in trusting faith.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Matthew 11:29-30, KJV

ExPatMatt said...

Brazen,

The way you explain PA makes it seem like it was created thusly;

Presup. Apologist (PA) - "Wow, there's lots of really complicated and difficult to explain stuff in the universe"

Sceptic (S) - "I know, we should probably investigate it all and see what it's all about, eh?"

PA - "Nah, let's just say God did it and then label everything we see of evidence that this is true."

S - "But what if people question that conclusion? What if people ask how we know that?"

PA - "A-ha! Then we'll just say that it would be impossible for it to be any other way. As long as there remains something that hasn't been explained, as long as human knowledge and understanding is incomplete, we can just assert that God did it and nobody can prove us wrong!"

S - "Doesn't that seem a little intellectually unsatisfying? I mean, it doesn't really explain anything, does it?"

PA - "But it's such a neat and tidy answer; it doesn't matter if it's right or not - it's an answer and that's all that matters!"

S - "I disagree"

PA - "By what standard of logic do you disagree?"

S - "What? Well you know, the human standard that we all use every day."

PA - "You have no right to use that standard because it comes from God and you don't believe in God so you don't get to use His logic. Unless you can explain exactly where logic comes from, you don't get to use it"

S - "But, that doesn't make any sense..."

PA - "Sorry? Are you admitting there's a God by using His logic again?"

S - "No, I'm just disagreeing..."

PA - "By what standard of logic do you disagree?"

S - "I'm done going 'round in circles with you, come back when you've learned how to hold a normal conversation."

PA - "By what standard do you determine what's normal?"

S - "Idiot." [walks away shaking head]

PA - "See the angry attitude of the atheist as he realizes that he can't escape the truth of God's logic?!"


Fin.

Any questions?

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ ExPatMatt:

Now THAT is comedy!

Whether you meant it or not: truly funny.

I'll have to get back to comment on what you're saying.

@ BathTub:

Thanks for the papers, I am printing them out. I do recall a few years ago, the "Chaos Theory" in mathematics. The only problem, as I recall (in my trusty Jedi Archive of a brain), is that once you could find patterns in randomness or chaos, then it no longer was random or chaotic...but alas! That's the nature of randomness and chaos, isn't it?

As I said: thanks for the papers. Any light is appreciated, just give me time to read 'em before I respond (so long as I have an IQ enough to digest them).

BathTub said...

It's not Chaos Theory, in part at least it's just that Chaos and Random aren't as interchangeable as people often mistake them for.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ BathTub:

Given prevailing Chaos theory, which can roughly be describes as "deterministic randomness"...paraphrasing the Wikipedia on it...:

One can surmise at least this much:

If there is an equation behind a phenomenon, such as patterns in air turbulence for example, then that means there is a law governing such.

Which only begs the question: how, why and when do laws merely spontaneously appear?

Given a materialistic universe, how did life spring up from matter?

Even Francis Crick, fellow discoverer of DNA, used the science of probability to figure out the chance of a single DNA molecule "evolving" out of an unintelligent, merely materialistic universe.

Chances? Beyond possible.

His solution? Panspermia. That is: aliens, eons ago, developed to such a high degree that they "seeded" the cosmos with DNA, which later found its way here and developed.

Again, all he did was pose an intelligent engineering race, and then side-stepped the question altogether. This is called "infinite regression." Only problem: it's completely illogical and unscientific.

Another example is Fred Hoyle, another atheist and Nobel-winning mathematician. He did the math on a single cell evolving using probability science...and the odds of a single cell evolving was 1 x 10 to the 40,000 power.

Um...only trouble with that: anything (according to science/math) with greater odds than 1 x 10 to the 50th power is noted as impossible.

Why is that? Well, science has deduced there are only 1 x 10 to the 53rd power electrons in the known universe.

So, according to atheist Fred Hoyle, he posited that in order for a single cell to have arisen in this universe, there would have to be an eternally omniscient, omnipotent Being. "Call Him God if you must," was what he said.

Did this bring him to Christ? No, not that I've heard, but at least he was honest when faced with the science and math of it all.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ BathTub:

To back up the latter part of my recent response, this is taken from an online paper The Evolution of Life, Probability Considerations
and Common Sense—Part Three

By Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon:

At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will
concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving
the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled
Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at
the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one
of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers
but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a
primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
--Fred Hoyle, atheist and Nobel-Prize-winner.

Quoting from another such paper:

The
noted scientists Francis Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan have estimated that the
difficulty of evolving a man by chance processes alone is 1 in 102,000,000,000—which Borel’s
law says is no chance at all.


What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring
Solely by Natural Means?—Part Two
by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon: available online.

BathTub said...

I'm really not sure what your point is since I said it wasn't Chaos Theory.

Especially with all your panspermia talk it's not something I subscribe to.

God suffers from infinite regression too btw. So "it's completely illogical and unscientific."

Did you know the Universe was raspberry flavoured?

BathTub said...

Again I fail to see the relevance, you were simply saying Chaos can't lead to Order. I was simply showing that that simply isn't true. Not sure what that has to do with Aliens or anything.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ BathTub:

I was only sharing the obvious: chaos/nothingness plus random, unguided processes plus time equals...chaos/nothingness.

But of course, your intelligence is of the sort that it can conceive of such a universe in which "out of nothing, everything comes", I assume?

As to the idea of chaos/randomness and your point that you weren't discussing chaos theory, I was sharing a preliminary thought on the subject of chaos as a mathematical theory.

As to "your God suffers from infinite regression": you would be the first person I've heard say such an absurd thing.

Even Aristotle, devout non-Christian that he was, posed an "unmoved mover" that must have set things into motion. You seem satisfied to cry "foul" when a sufficient First Cause is front of you.

The reason God is logical and materialism is absurd, is that God is the sufficient First Cause for all there is.

Take ethics, for example. Materialists want to say we "evolved" and simply call ethics whatever it is society wants to call it.

Which, as you well know, is the mother of tyranny.

:)

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ BathTub:

I fail to see why you fail to see my point, and notice the loud silence in face of Crick and Hoyle.

Wassupwiddat?

Just wondering.

BathTub said...

Except your obvious assertion is obviously false.

You can't be serious that you've never heard 'who created God' before.

I don't believe "out of nothing,everything comes", keep Ray's dishonest strawmen to yourself if you actually want to have a conversation.

"Take ethics, for example. Materialists want to say we "evolved" and simply call ethics whatever it is society wants to call it.

Which, as you well know, is the mother of tyranny."

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Ethics is the mother of tyranny?

Materialists are the mother of tyranny?

Society is the mother of tyranny?

BathTub said...

Because it's irrelevant. I'm not here to chase after your gish gallop.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ BathTub:

I recommend you take a course in basic logic, take a Bible and read it, and take a cursory glance at the history of philosophy, because the idea of God as First Cause is ancient. I didn't want to insult your intelligence too much, but on this point of "God must have had a cause" is quite frankly the last illogical leap that Hitchens, Dawkins and their pedestrian fan club have to swallow and comfort themselves with.

Not sure what part of "aseity" or "First Cause" or "Uncaused Cause" gets your knickers knotted, but the fallacy is all yours.

"Take ethics, for example. Materialists want to say we "evolved" and simply call ethics whatever it is society wants to call it.

Which, as you well know, is the mother of tyranny."

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.


Well, friend, let me explain "society calling ethics whatever society wants to call ethics" is the mother of tyranny.

Nietzsche, my favorite atheist next to you, was quite frank when he wrote "Will to Power," which book stated the only ethic is essentially might makes right. He also wrote "Beyond Good and Evil," do you see a motif? It was this idea of strength and those gutsy enough to take society and change it by force if need be that inspired Nazi Germany. Hitler passed out copies of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"-another Nietzsche book-to the leaders in his army.

Besides forcing their will like grand bullies upon society, what else did you think tyrants did?

Hitler is but one of legion examples.

Under your relativistic schema, this is no problem: it's just ethics.

You said you don't force your views upon society (I think on AJ's blog), that's only relevant if you live in the Fortress of Solitude and never interact with anyone. Otherwise, you do pose in theory a clear and present danger to society.

Without a standard of ethics that doesn't change, without a clear sense of right and wrong, you pose a danger because evil can be good.

Making yourself your own authority and final arbiter of truth won't fly in the final analysis, unless you're the King of kings? Which King you'll face one day, and I don't see illogical negotiations being a part of your acquittal.

There's but one acquittal available, but you insist on rejecting Him. There's hope for you yet, though: you're still breathing. Repent and trust in Christ.

ExPatMatt said...

Brazen,

You seem to have something against the concept of 'Might makes Right'.

I wonder why that is when your entire basis for assuming that God is Good is because He says He is the 'Almighty' and what He says goes. This is the epitome of Might makes Right and you think this is fine and dandy.

So which is it?


"Without a standard of ethics that doesn't change, without a clear sense of right and wrong, you pose a danger because evil can be good".

You know he's going to respond with slavery, right?


Cool,

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ ExPatMatt:

The adage "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely," though you didn't use it, is tempting to apply to God.

It's easy to understand why. Here's the difference: God has proven, even in the passages in describing master/slave relations, that He is gracious.

And yes: I realize that's a hard pill to swallow this side of Wilberforce and Lincoln, but the slavery wasn't of the same kind.

BathTub was right to say slavery was the order of the day, but of a different sort: it was potentially the outcome of a war gone badly or the outcome of not paying one's bills. In the case of the tribes that occupied Israel prior to the Jews' taking the land, God was clearly judging the occupants of the land for their sins through Israel's conquest. He says as much in many places.

Which may sound pretty convenient, much like "gee, that's convenient for the Jews, shut up about Hitler already!"

It would take more space than I have to explain more fully, but the Scripture is clear on this note: it was an act of justice on one hand: they were receiving the payment for their sins.

Laying the slavery question aside for a minute, you asked:

I wonder why that is when your entire basis for assuming that God is Good is because He says He is the 'Almighty' and what He says goes. This is the epitome of Might makes Right and you think this is fine and dandy.

I understand, from the intro, why you'd say this. I don't assume God is good because He's almighty and can squash me, although from time to time God uses this argument as a parent will a child in the sense "who do you think you are, Mr. Big Stuff? Have you forgotten who's house this is?"

The question of God's goodness is answered through and through the Scriptures: from Creation (as if He gained from making us? It is sheer grace to even exist), to providing a covering for sins from our shameful beginning, onto the grand promise of providing us a way out of the death-trap existence we deserve at every turn: He gave His Son on our behalf.

So, in short:

God is holy, and doesn't owe us anything, but He gives us all we need to live, even enjoy, this life.

We deserve death and eternal punishment (according to His rules, not mine).

Knowing we fail miserably His standards, He sends the answer to our eternal problem by sending Jesus to take our punishment in a final vicarious, atoning sacrifice.

Christianity is "done," in that the requirements have been met by Another.

All that's left: turn to Christ (repentance/turn away from our sin), trust in His work alone.

That, friend, is why I say God is so good. It's the constant moment-to-moment grace of the everyday breathe, life, vitality, food, even giving this blog so you and others could think through these truths; culminating in a never-ending glorious life everlasting that God's Son deserved but I surely did NOT.

He gave it anyway.

It's easy to get lost on one side of the "holiness/justice vs. grace/love" thing: but God is both just and justifier.

Hope this illustrates the reasons why I think God is good.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ BathTub:

Aha! You used the "gish gallop" fallacy! Gotcha!

Logic Lad said...

Brazen

I am going to try and keep this short, as the multi post responses are getting out of hand, if there is anything I don't address you think is important please bring it up.

I am sure you are aware that once you start with the ad hominem attacks your arguments lose most of their value, riffing on my username is something i expect in the school yard not from someone who claims to be old as the hills, please be aware that having someone walk out of an argument with you is not the same as winning it.

Your comments about historians rather reveals your abject lack of understanding of research. If a historian were to produce an account from a single document, unsupported by any physical (archeological) evidence claiming some extraordinary happening he would, quite rightly, be told to go away and try harder. There is nothing illogical in wanting testable evidence, indeed it is the only kind of evidence that actually has meaning.

The fact you choose to ignore and\or fail to answer the error's in the bible I have highlighted does not make them go away.

How is 'this person, who is a lawyer, changed his mind so you' should not an appeal to authority?

Your analogy makes no sense but i will try to extend it to make my point.
If a witness is giving evidence on their area of expertise then you would be foolish to question them however if the blood spatter expert started telling you about trace evidence then you could ignore them, they are outside there field.

You are the only one who seems to be in the win at all counts camp, i am just pointing out the blatant falseness of your arguments.

You see the world as inherent evidence of the creator, i don't, not so inherrent is it?

you said ' How did this thing start to expand or contract?'
My point is if you are allowed to have an eternal inexplicable start to everything why can i not use the same argument?

I am not going to step by step refute the rest of the second response post as i have already answered most of it and for the rest are displaying a willfull ignorance of the mechanism of evolution. If you insist on repeating the whole it's nothing but random chance line then there is little i am going to be able to say to correct you.

Yes, god is a hypocrit, he states 'have no other god but me' jealous possesiveness and then 'do not covert' don't be jealous, hypocrisy out of his own book.

slavery is immoral and is supported by the bible no matter how you want to justify it too yourself.

Please get over the whole 'i hate god thing' i hate him as much as i hate the tooth fairy and father christmas.

brazen said 'you were never a Christian' Don;t tell me what i was or wasn't you have no idea, and quit it with the no true scots man fallacy, I have read the bible, it is one of the biggest reasons i stopped believeing, why do you not try reading it critically rather than blindly, perhaps you will learn something.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Logic Lad:

I will call you "Logic Lad" despite you lack of it. That is observation, not ad hominem. As to using your name in such a way as "illogical lad": dude, get a sense of humor and lighten up a bit, will you? 'Twas a joke.

Alright, sense of humor aside:

Your comments about historians rather reveals your abject lack of understanding of research.

Oh, this isn't "ad hominem?"

If a historian were to produce an account from a single document, unsupported by any physical (archeological) evidence claiming some extraordinary happening he would, quite rightly, be told to go away and try harder.

Agreed: this isn't so with the Bible, the fact you refuse to acknowledge the archaeological history with Sr. Wm. Ramsey is NOT an appeal to authority (!?!), he was a well-known archaeologist who produced evidence for the veracity of the Bible, which he sought to disprove. The rest of your drivel on the subject of accusing me of appealing to authority is simply, ironically and hypocritically, an ad hominem abusive attack.

Which you brought up and then used against me. Odd how illogical that seems.

There is nothing illogical in wanting testable evidence, indeed it is the only kind of evidence that actually has meaning.

It was the bare empiricism you required which was silly and illogical. You made a bold statement about evidence needing to be of a certain kind, then said it needed to be "observable, repeatable" (as in a science experiment) etc. This is not the kind of evidence used to verify history. Historians look at the manuscript and have shown beyond all doubt (unless you ignore their findings) that the Bible is trustworthy and has copious integrity.

How is 'this person, who is a lawyer, changed his mind so you' should not an appeal to authority?

Because the lawyer in question, Simon Greenleaf, sought to destroy the Christian religion by showing it had no evidence. His evidence was not the "repeatable in a science lab" evidence you require, because you don't test history that way. Rather, he cross-examined, as it were, the eyewitness testimony and did other tests. His goal was to disprove the Bible. What was his claim to fame? Besides being proven wrong and coming to Christ, he taught EVIDENCES AND THEIR PROPER USE IN COURT at Harvard.

This is NOT appeal to authority: evidence was his main gig!

Gotta run to work. Will have fun with the rest of your fallacies later.

BTW, calling a fallacy a fallacy is NOT ad hominem: it's simply the truth. You keep coming on here with half-truths (the rest of your comments) and then wonder why you get debate?

One last thought and I'll continue later: how is it you accuse God of hypocrisy and display it in spades?

What does that make you?

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Logic Lad:

LL: "...if you are allowed to have an eternal inexplicable start to everything way can i not use the same argument?"

I: Here you are doing 3 things wrong.

1) You argue for an eternal regress: the universe expands and contracts, which was supposed to cause all things to be. This is self-refuting.

2) You argue that an effect is it's own cause. Self-refuting.

3) You are assuming that I am arguing this illogical way, using the cosmological argument. This falls under the category of straw man fallacy. I am not arguing for an "eternal inexplicable start": God isn't inexplicable or theory, He revealed Himself to us in His creation, redemption, and the Scriptures. Eternal contraction/expansion theory: inexplicable conjecture which fails at several levels, not the least of which I've mentioned. Out of nothing nothing comes. You fail to understand basics of logic. God being 1st cause is God being God.

But don't take my word for it: take His. He's done enough to prove Himself without my feeble words.

You also allege you've "highlighted errors in the Bible," but I fail to see any you pointed out. What you did show was a lack of basic hermeneutics, but if you wanted to bring up some Scriptures then I'm sure I or another can help you.

LL: "slavery is immoral and is supported by the Bible..."

I: You have yet to show the Bible supporting or advocating slavery. The verses you pointed out said only "[if you are a slave/master, then] behave thus and so." That isn't advocating slavery: it's addressing culture as it was at the time of the Scripture in question. Please show me when we are told to go make slaves. We can discuss it then. As to the morality of it:

You said it's immoral. Really? Given what authority or morality in your atheistic universe, LL?

By what standard do you call anything bad or good, immoral or otherwise? By what covalent bonds or force of gravity or synaptic nerve signal do you judge anything?

Do you acknowledge the standard of God, then? Do you acknowledge the presence of God in the fact you've been made in His image, and thereby can make such judgments?

I absolutely deny, given your "expanding/contracting" beginning to this universe, that you have a moral leg to stand on. If I have evolved from a freak cosmic accident in a bowl of chemical stew some eons ago, there is no such thing as "morals": we are just grown-up, mutated accidents.

LL: "Please get over the whole 'I hate god thing' i hate him as much as i hate the tooth fairy..."

I: Really? Does that mean you're also commenting with equal vitriolic ad hominem arguments against the existence of the tooth fairy? On which blog? See, you show your lies here: you either don't understand yourself or think I'm blind! By your own actions you show your hatred of "god," with a little "g:" because you take even capitalizing the "G" as a sign of honor you won't pay. But do you actually try to refute the tooth fairy on tooth fairy blogs? Do you go to "father christmas" blogs and do the same there? No?

Then WHY do you take so much time to spew your angry comments here, on a Christian blog, if you are as ambivalent as you claim?

I'll let your previous statements show the answer.

(One more post and I'm done)

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Logic Lad:

(cont'd)

LL: brazen said 'you were never a Christian' Don;t tell me what i was or wasn't you have no idea, and quit it with the no true scots man fallacy, I have read the bible....

I: Ok, I won't tell you what you weren't, I'll let Jesus do it for me:

John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

John 14:15

Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

John 14:28
You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

John 15:10
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.


And John wrote, from I John 1:

6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I John 2:18 and following:

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

Keep telling yourself you were a Christian, but Jesus Christ defines who and what Christians are. I say this not to condemn you, but find it rather odd that you are defensive over whether or not I call you a "former Christian." In your low view of Christianity, wouldn't that be like me saying, "Logic Lad USED TO BE a bigot."? What do you care: you don't believe in God, right?

Or is it rather that you DO care?

Speaking for myself: I care about your eternal soul. All debating aside for a minute, I don't know what drove you running from the faith. I do know that you have passion behind your comments, and it's not a passionate love for God.

Seeing what you've written, calling God a hypocrite and all: no wonder you hate Him. You never knew the real God, and I don't mean that to ruffle your tail feathers.

I mean this sincerely: you don't and have never known the real Jesus, the Author of Life. You reject Him because you have been introduced to or because you have invented a villain you despise. I am sorry you see Him that way, I think you didn't read the entire Bible, or didn't want to come to Him.

Whatever the cause for your falling away, I don't think you knew Him as He is, which is why it was so easy to leave Him behind. I invite you back, though. He's much better than you've painted Him.

Brazen Hussey's said...

On slavery, final thought:

John 8:31ff:

31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”

34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.


Logic Lad, others: if you're concerned about slavery, Christ will and can set you free indeed.

The offer of this freedom is His alone to give.

Brazen Hussey's said...

Re: slavery issue-

OK, final final final thought (for now)...

First off, yes, it bugs me that the Bible doesn't speak as loudly against slavery as the modern mind would like. In that sense, Logic Lad and I agree.

But remember 3 things:

1) It was to free enslaved Israel that Moses was sent to Pharaoh in the first place. The Israelites were enslaved to Egypt, it would appear to have been a race-based slavery. Please note that God set His people free from it.

2) Slavery in other forms did exist in the Scripture, as I've noted. They were of two kinds: a willing bond-slave, who became a slave by defaulting on paying his bills or by choice (by choice because the master would feed, clothe, care for the slave, and the slave would arguably be an ancient form of a welfare recipient). The second kind was a prisoner of war. Of these types of slavery, God had strict rules on the treatment of the slaves.

3) The Bible's account of setting sinners free from their ultimate slavery to sin(see Romans 6, 8, and John 8:31, possibly Galatians 3:28) was the motif that empowered the abolitionist movements in Great Britain and the USA under Wilberforce and Lincoln, respectively.

That in mind, ultimately it was the northern Christians in the USA that helped emancipate slavery and abolish it in our own country. Wilberforce was inspired by John Newton, author of "Amazing Grace" the hymn, and former slave trader turned Christian.

Newton's story of coming to Christ after a life of trading in human souls left him no end of torment, to his dying day.

Lastly, know that the Bible is the ultimate key to eternal freedom. It is Jesus' blood that sets us free from a slavery to sin. It is the work of Christ that emancipates our eternal soul. The default position of the man without Christ is simply slavery to sinful desires, whatever those desires may be.

Ultimately, then, the Bible is a book about emancipation in the final analysis. That is the over-arching point to the entire book.

So, again, Logic Lad: sorry for the long posts, you've given me so much to consider I couldn't drop it. Now I feel I've done my best, and my deepest hope is that whatever offense I may have offered you, it was only in defense of the God who deserves so much more than the blasphemous charges that were laid against Him.

I wish you only the height of joy: found in Christ alone. Be assured of that.