Christian Trap...

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Johnathan either answer my post or it'll be concessions accepted.

That's kind of unfair. It looks to me like about fifty to one here, so you can't expect him to answer every post. I would recommend all of you appoint one debater to represent all of you against Johnathan, and this would be a bit less disjointed.

I've been the main debater up to this point, thats hardly unfair.

[jegs2]

I've been the main debater up to this point, thats hardly unfair.

Nevertheless, you're hardly the only debater against Johnathan...

Besides, I think he's in England, and it should be pretty late there by now.

[Durandal]

It's such a shame that the fact that I'm a Physics student at Keble College, famous within Oxford University for the quality of its Physics students and regarded as having high potnetial by my senior tutour. But hey, what's he goign to know about my abilities re: science and logic? He's only spent a couple of years getting to know me and teaching me

You, like many, have developed an intellectual blind spot with respect to your religion. Some admit that. You carry on, trying desperately to reconcile it with modern social norms and scientific knowledge, and you make yourself look utterly foolish in the process. If this is the kind of reasoning you apply to your labwork, I fear for your future in the professional field.

We've talked about this before and I know a great number of women who take Paul literally and think very highly of him.

Do they keep their mouths shut in church? Nevermind, it doesn't matter. The fact is that he's a sexist asshole who believes that all women are temptresses, and that men are closer to God by default by never associating with them.

[Mutant Headcrab]

dont you find it odd that, in your words, god would sent you to eternal fire for not killing a baby?

I'll be honest. I really don't know. Trying to contemplate religion and trying to find meaning in stuff like this is beyond me. I cannot say what I would do in that situation. With my already confused state of mind, I couldn't possibly comprehend the philosophical ramifications of a situation like that and could never really make a real decision.

When it comes to my beliefs, I am in no way some nut-job fundamentalist who would try to weasel his way out with bizarre circular logic. I am a Christian, there is no denying it. However, I find myself disagreeing with so many views set forth by these other, so called "Christians". What I follow is my own ideas about God and the origional "love your fellow man" system set forth by Jesus. Also in no way do I think things from the Bible should be taken literally.

I don't know if this in any way answered your question. Please bear with me about what obviously must be a rant. Understand this is the first time I've been able to really outright discuss my beliefs without condemnation from friends our family. I don't live in some sort of Communistic society, Im just part of a white, conservative, southern family who probably wouldn't appreciate a view like this.

[Jonathan]

Read carefully. The statement implied God's approval.

Which he didn't have. I assumed you wouldn't say something like that because it would be the equivalent of me condemning you for the slaughter of millions of Jews on the hypothetical premise that you might have approved of Hitlers actions when there is actually no evidence that you did and in fact everything you have ever said would suggest the contrary.

Regardless, Hitler would have been just as "justified" with approval from the Pope or the Protestant Clergy since they are our "shepards" and they know "God's Will."

No, because they are fallible and he was actually denounced by quite a few of them. No man can justify another. Only God can do that.

Heck even he had faith in Jesus he'd be going to heaven anyway, since all of his sins would be absolved in your book.

If he honestly and sincerely repented of all he had done, he would have been forgiven. However that would have been incredibly difficult for him and highly unlikely. I don't expect to see him at the pearly gates.

That would be because objective standards require reference to this reality; and justice is generally refered to as a code which makes life in human soceity possible.

That's not what justice is about. Justice is about seeing that people act morally, are rewarded when they do and are punished when they don't.

Its not an objective standard, there is no proof that validates the existence of God.

That's irrelevant. I'm saying that if God exists, he's a more reliable source for morality than we are.

Some may claim that the Bible provides the proof, but there is no evidence to prove that true either.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence for the historicity of the Gospels. Is it absolute 100% proof? No. But it's still pretty good.

(Nor would it even be possible, in my opinion, since the Bible directly contradicts itself in places.)

I disagree.

Under this system any nut would be justified in any action if he claimed God's sanction; and since objective standands of evidence and justice would be dismissed, who would we be to say differently?

I've talked about this already.

Unless you can use logic and evidence to validly prove that God exists and that the Bible is valid

There is evidence for the historicity of the Gospels.

you have no grounds to dismiss any such claims. If you justify your beliefs by faith then any nut can claim God's sanction, through faith, for his actions.

He can claim it, but if he is claiming that the Christian God approved, then we can look at the bible and see if his claims contradict it. Whether or not you believe he exists or not doesn't matter for this purpose.

Oh and I find it amusing that you're saying I can't say he's lying about being told to do it by God when you reject the very idea of God and demand proof for it. Very amusing.

In Science relative certainly is perfectly acceptable since it is an intergral part of both its philosophical underpinnings and the theories that are its product.

In your case relative certaintity is completly unacceptable since your answer to Mike's question was that you know that God would not ask such a thing of you in this time of Grace. This means you would know with absolute 100% certainty that God would not ask such a thing of you, and that in turn requires omniscience. If you are only relativly certain then you COULD be wrong, God COULD ask such a thing of you.

I do not believe that he would, therefore to ask be what I would do, based on my beliefs in that situation would be to ask me to change my beliefs and is thereofre irrelevant.

Lies and errors are only determined to be such through the use of evidence and logic. Until I see proof that God exists and the Bible is valid then she has exactly the same justification for her beliefs that you do. Her faith.

If they claim to be of the same faith as the Bible, then their faith can be tested according to what the Bible says, whether you believe the Bible to be valid or not. Your argument makes no sense.

The only course they could possibly take would be to deny that God did such a thing, and since they would have dismissed reason as inferior to faith in the first place, they would have no means of proving otherwise.

The Bible says that the Earth was created aprx. 5000 yrs ago in 7 days. Science says otherwise. Based on what you just said we know Science to be wrong since its contradicts the Bible. In other words your stating that should the two conflict, faith is superior to reason. Your rebuttal just proved my point.

Your inflexibility is all that is proved. There is no conflict between the two. Science tells us the way the universe appears to operate. The Bible tells us about God and our relationship with him. A literal interpretation of 'days' gives 7 days. That is not a problem as the world could have been created in that time span, in a state where it would have appeared to have been running for several billion years. As long as the universe acts as if it was that old, then for the purposes of science, we may assume that it does. Whether it is or not is irrelevant. All we are doing is building a model that allows us to say how things appear to work and make predictions about the future. There is no conflict. That man was created fully grown and Eden did not take several years to grow indicated that the universe was created 'pre-aged' and there is no reason not to think that it was preaged by 15 billion years.

Destiny contradicts free will. The two are mutally exclusive.

Not at all. God knows what we would do with our lived, therefore our destiny can be to do what God has forseen.

The fact that not everyone is babtized is irrelevant to the conversation...

You were assuming that the baby in question had been baptised. I've never read of God killing a baptised baby. Therefore it isn't relevant.

the baby is babtized- the rest of the World dosen't matter.

Why are you saying that?

According to Christianity Babtism does remove sin in that it is the accetance of forgivness of God through Jesus.

No, the position of the Bible is that we accept forgiveness by doing just that - accepting it. Having water poured over you does nothing and a baby is not in a position where it can think 'hmm, am I really repentent of my sins'.

That is why many early Christians (including Constantine the Great) waited until they were on or near their death beds to be babtized. I repeat that the baby is innocent.

Any that did that were wrong. Forgiveness comes through repenting of your sins. The thief on the cross next to Jesus was forgiven, yet was never baptised. Baptism by anything other than the Holy Spirit is irrelevant.

The baby is innocent. God commands you to kill the baby. Would you kill it?

I've told you everything you need to know about this already.

Free Will and predestination are mutally exclusive by defination. I dare you to try and prove otherwise.

See above.

Prove that God exists and the Bible is valid. Until you do such things you are, by the defination of the terms, illogical and unreasonable.

Rubbish. It doesn't require absolute proof. It only requires reasonable evidence, which exists.

I have never discussed ways of wiping out Christans or approved of someone who resorts to violence when faced with insults. You claim people shouldn't judge Christians by the actions of other Christans- then you do the same to atheists. Sounds like a double standard to me.

I'm referring to a general attitude on this board that I've seen. I'm talking about a lot of the people I've debated with in these threads. There are a good number of decent people, but also a great many like those I have described. Is it true of all atheists? No. Is it true of most of them? I'm really not in any position to say.

As for God- he executes and tortures without even giving justifications for his actions. Most people consider such actions to be indicative of mental instability at the very least.

I see plenty of justiifcation in the Bible. Just because you disagree with the reasons doesn't mean you have to deny their existence.

Being reasonable is the foremost sign of being open-minded, I'm perfectly willing to change my beliefs should they be proven wrong. Your faith in the absolute truth of your beliefs makes you closed-minded- you already know the truth and anything that does not meet that standard is heresey or lies.

You are no different. You are convinced you know the truth and demand an absolute proof that sometihng else is true before you will even consider debating it.

As for your expressing yourself, I haven't seen myself or Mike (who have been the main opponents to yourself in the debate up to this point) propose anything else then equal treatment of Atheists and Theists when it comes to "expression". If your allowed to post the 10 Commandments in public places, then we should be allowed to post the atrocites from the Bible, or quote from Neitzche or whatever. [/i]

It isn't necessarily you or Mike I was referring to here.

EDIT: Fixed some quoting tags.

[Jonathan]

dont you find it odd that, in your words, god would sent you to eternal fire for not killing a baby?

It would be for disobeying him, regardless of the manner in which it is done. It is an important point.

[Jonathan]

I've been the main debater up to this point, thats hardly unfair.

Nevertheless, you're hardly the only debater against Johnathan...

Besides, I think he's in England, and it should be pretty late there by now.

Well, Northern Ireland at the moment. Will fly back over on Wednesday. Thank you for noticing the time difference :^) Far too many of these debates run on into the wee hours of the morning.

[Jonathan]

The problem is not with my acceptance of the Bible, but yours. Under so much pressure from people, why would I believe what I believe, unless it was sincere?

Maybe you should take a look under your username...

Jonathan? Oh you mean the tag Wong slapped on me because he violently disagrees with my views? Well if you're goign to judge people by labels that other people slap on them, that's your call.

[Jonathan]

Johnathan either answer my post or it'll be concessions accepted.

Grow up. There are a dozen of you and one of me. And it's 3:17 am here. I don't even know which post you mean. This is as bad as Wong claiming I was being evasive for not answering a question he'd asked in three separate posts when I hadn't even had time to read the first yet. If you're interesting in real intellectual debate, forget about childish calls like 'you weren't quick enough, concession accepted, I win' or I'll just ignore you from now on.

[Jonathan]

Johnathan either answer my post or it'll be concessions accepted.

That's kind of unfair. It looks to me like about fifty to one here, so you can't expect him to answer every post. I would recommend all of you appoint one debater to represent all of you against Johnathan, and this would be a bit less disjointed.

Most sensible thing I've heard all thread.

[Jonathan]

'Immense integrity'? Sorry, but his misogny is evident in his works, among other things. I'll try to find some juicy quotes.

It won't be anything I haven't seen before.

Further, I would be warmed to his mission work if he didn't try to claim his own interpretations of Christs' words as Gospel facts. I get irritated whenever I hear someone preaching Paul.

Like what?

'Bring me two of every animal'

'Bring me seven pairs of every animal'

This does not contradict?

Read what I just wrote.

And what about the Gospels? Some say there was only one angel in Jesus' tomb; the other say there were many. This is a minor contradiction, but it proves that the Bible is not inerrant.

No it doesn't. It is not a direct contradiction. If one said 'there was an angel there' and another said 'there were no angles there' then that would be a contradiction. But that isn't what happens. They simply record different details. If I told you that I was at a party last night and saw Bob there, then told someone else I had seen Bob and Son-of-bob there, would I be lying or contradicting myself? No, just reporting different details. Many allegedly proven cases of contradiction are very easily and more logically explained away in this manner.

Repeating something incessantly doesn't make it true, it only makes you stupid.

I've already given reasons for my arguments. I get tired of repeating myself in multiple posts.

Actually, it was written in Hebrew, Greek and a smattering of Aramaic. Current translations are from those Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic) words. And where did I claim every word was the same? Going fomr one language to another always results in some meaning being lost. Translators can make mistakes. Only the autographic originals are going to be inerrant. Translations are, by and alrge, very close to the originals however, and certainly adequate for the purposes of deciding major doctrine.

Thank you for admitting that the Bible is not identical to it's original form, and thus, not inerrant.

The original Bible is inerrant. Translations by their very nature are slightly inaccurate and cannot be. They're pretty darn close though.

I'll try being nicer when you try being smarter.

Ah, the mature response again. Oh well.

[Darth Wong]

Is there any point continuing to waste time talking to him? Let's face facts; Jonathan is a full-blown all-out fundie moron. He proudly admits to having no internal moral compass whatsoever,

Way to lie Mike. You appear to be confusing me with yourself there. I never said those words and in fact said the very oposite.

Bullshit. You have no self-determination of right and wrong, and you admitted that you COMPLETELY subordinate any personal views of morality to God and the Bible. Without those EXTERNAL authorities, you have no morality whatsoever, hence no internal moral compass.

and his "morality" is 100% subordinate to the edicts of a book and the wishes of his God; if his God commanded him to slaughter babies, he would gladly go and do it.
Logical argument on matters of morality or even science are also similarly pointless. [You can show to him beyond any reasonable doubt that something in the Bible is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE, and he will simply retort that God will make it possible because he's omnipotent. (snipped portion re-added)]

It's such a shame that the fact that I'm a Physics student at Keble College, famous within Oxford University for the quality of its Physics students and regarded as having high potnetial by my senior tutour. But hey, what's he goign to know about my abilities re: science and logic? He's only spent a couple of years getting to know me and teaching me.

You're the one who thinks the Great Flood makes sense. You can appeal to the authority of your undergrad student position all you like, but the scientific merits of the "Great Flood" are precisely zero.

EDIT: And I note that your feeble appeal to your own authority was accompanied by the snipping of the most important part of the point you were responding to. The fact is that you can't answer it because it's true; anything proven impossible in the Bible will be flatly dismissed by you because God can make it happen anyway, which is proof that you disregard all scientific methods when it comes to your religion.

And finally, when backed into a corner, he will simply appeal to his own belief: "it's true because I believe it to be true".

That's so ironic coming form a guy who claims superior morality via circular reasoning.

More psychological projection? How pathetic. How is it "circular reasoning" to state a premise that life/pleasure is good and death/suffering is bad, and then proceed to construct a moral code on that basis? Circular reasoning is using something to prove itself, dumb-ass. Your ignorance of logic definitions is not improving, I see.

Logical debate is impossible with such a bobble-headed individual; knock his arguments down and he will just bop back up with a stupid grin on his face, his profound faith in his own superiority and your moral inferiority completely untouched.

My own superiority? Ah the lies just keep on coming. It's well documented in my posts that I consider myself no better than anyone else and am deserving of the same fate as the rest of mankind. There but for the grace of God go I.

Except that you feel God is just and righteous, yet you feel God will torture me and not you. This is the classic dilemma of the fundie; if God is just, then it is just for him to torture me but NOT you. If we are both equally deserving of torture, then it is UNJUST of God to favour you just because you suck up to him (we call that cronyism). And in either case, the use of eternal torture is a punishment vastly out of proportion to whatever sin may have been committed, hence God is obviously NOT just, and certainly not merciful.

But Mike, if you really feel so threatened by me that you need to lie so much, not just to yourself, but to everyone here, why not just ban me?

Because I don't feel threatened by your feeble evasions, ho-hum attempts to cast the blame back upon me for everything you do (gee, I'll bet you think you can fool everybody!), etc. In fact, people like you embarrass every other Christian. It is other Christians who should wish you banned, not me.

After all, then you'd have no-one to contradict the lies! Better yet, you could change my password, prevent me logging in and post in my place. You'd have your own little puppet Fundie Moron to make imaginary arguemnts for you to attack. I mean, that's the way things go at the moment, right?

Nice strawman, but no. However, I'd bet that's what you'd LIKE me to do, because then you'd have an excuse for running away from this pummeling.

You say a lot of good things when it comes to engineering, to analysing sci-fi, to writing stories and I've enjoyed all of that, but when it comes to morality and religion, you just don't know how to deal with someone of a different opinion who'll stand up to your bullying.

How is it "bullying" to take your own words and throw them back in your face? You said that baby-killing would be OK if God did it, or if someone did it at God's command. It's not my fault you say horrible things.

[jegs2]

Jonathan, you seem to be attempting to answer everyone's posts. My recommendation is that you answer only Blkbrry's posts, since he initiated this thread. Otherwise you may find yourself overwhelmed.

[Darth Wong]

That's kind of unfair. It looks to me like about fifty to one here, so you can't expect him to answer every post. I would recommend all of you appoint one debater to represent all of you against Johnathan, and this would be a bit less disjointed.

Quite the contrary; in fact, the confusion of a melee allows him to evade points much more easily by answering only the points he wishes to answer and dismissing the rest for lack of time.

I went basically mano a mano against him last night in the "Christian School" thread, and the result was that I got him to admit he thinks it's OK to kill a baby at God's command, hence my new sig line.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, you seem to be attempting to answer everyone's posts. My recommendation is that you answer only Blkbrry's posts, since he initiated this thread. Otherwise you may find yourself overwhelmed.

I'm used to being overwhelmed and I don't want anyone to feel left out :^) My time is, however, running short and I may have to do that.

[neoolong]

Oh yeah, the point of this tangent was this: When presented that the Bible does not say what he thinks it says, instead of looking at what it actually means and changing his beliefs, which is what should happen if he actually held the Bible to be the basis of moral structure, Jonathan instead claims that the translators have a higher authority than the Bible. Which basically means he just believes what he wants and uses the Bible to try to justify it.

That's not true. When did I ever say that?

"The translators did and unless someone can find a good reason not to, I'm going to trust them. You have failed to provide any argument to believe they made a mistake beyond saying 'they got it wrong'."

I already told you what to look for. You still deny it.

In fact, I did exactly the oppsoite when I said that only the autogrpahic originals were inerrant and that translations would have errors.

See above.

The problem is not with my acceptance of the Bible, but yours. Under so much pressure from people, why would I believe what I believe, unless it was sincere?

Of course I don't accept the Bible as a source for morality. The central figure is a murderer.

[neoolong]

Of course that would have more of an effect if not given by someone who did the same thing.

I don't go round randomly calling people names. I cal someone a liar if they lie and a hypocrite if they are guilty of double standards. That's it.

Right, I'm sure arrogant is tattoed on my forehead. Oh wait you wouldn't be able to see that either.

Which means that you're basing your beliefs about the Bible on what you want to be true.

Massive random leap of logic into illogic there. I'm basing my beliefs on a ighly accurate translation into English.

Funny how you can translate a word into English that doesn't exist in the original.

I did. I said that the specific words never appear. You can look at it yourself. And if you're unwilling to actually post your translation...

You want me to post what the NIV says?

See, this is why I think you can't even read English correctly. Post the untranslated portion and then a direct translation.

There are many places on the net that wil tell you. I've given references and quoted from the passages in question. You are making claims that the translations are wrong without providing any proof other than your word. You have no credentials You have no reasons. You merely have an unsubstantiated claim. If it was me doing that, I'd be alughed out of the forum.

Don't be stupid. You want proof. Fine. The untranslated Bible. That's the best proof right there, since you believe it. If you aren't willing to actually read it, then you admit that you only believe the English translations because you want them to be true.

How about this. "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Do you know the context of this. And tell me why if you think the English NIV is accurate is there a death sentence when there was none in the original?

[neoolong]

Let me get this straight. You base your belief structure on a book you can't even read? Your title is right. You are a moron.

?! I can read English just fine. Came second in the country in my GCSE English exam. Enough with the random insults.

Funny I don't recall the Bible being written in English originally. Did they just find a copy?

It's called a dictionary. You don't have to learn the language.

If I give you a French novel and a French dictionary, you're not going to be able to read the novel without actually having learnt the language.

Actually I could. It would just take some work. Work I would do if I was going to base a belief system on it.

Your claim, you provide evidence.

I did. The untranslated Bible.

I don't recall you posting any passages. I certainly haven't seen any Hebrew or Greek. All I've heard are claims that 'it's there' and instructions to go do your work for you.[/quote]

Don't be stupid. Proof that a word isn't in the Bible? You want be to just copy the whole thing here?

Evidence? I'm going to trust the dozens of Bible translators on this.

Okay. So you take the word of man over that of the Bible. So when did man become infallible? Was there a memo?

I"m taking their word over your's as should have been fairly clear since you're making the unsubstantiated claims.[/quote][/quote]

Actually there was already a page posted substantiating my claims. You just chose to dismiss based on saying that only Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden. You of course ignore the fact that the passages don't pertain to the Garden of Eden.

Oh by the way, since homosexuality exists in nature and animals were from the Garden, it means that homosexuality was in Eden, and they didn't die so it must have been okay.

[Jadeite]

hehehe, Im using that one on GP4T. Id like to see those fundies reactions...

[Slartibartfast]

Jonathan, what do you consider "natural"?

Bear in mind you are using the internet to post a reply to it.

For the third time,

Our natural state is the state which we Adam and eve were in in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality is not natural. It is not the way God intended us to act.

Are you about to point out that computers aren't natural? They didn't have clothes there either, but Jesus didn't have a problem with wearing them. I'm talking about natural behaviour here. How God wants us to act.

You replying to an internet forum is unnatural. Sinner!

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Which he didn't have. I assumed you wouldn't say something like that because it would be the equivalent of me condemning you for the slaughter of millions of Jews on the hypothetical premise that you might have approved of Hitlers actions when there is actually no evidence that you did and in fact everything you have ever said would suggest the contrary. [/quote

The point was made to show that you would consider any action acceptable if God commanded it, this has not been refuted.

If he honestly and sincerely repented of all he had done, he would have been forgiven. However that would have been incredibly difficult for him and highly unlikely. I don't expect to see him at the pearly gates.

Which shows that God will forgive anything, regardless of how atrocious it may be, if you kowtow to him. A Hitler can get into heaven regardless of how much pain and suffering he c auses as long as he Kowtows to God and Jesus. You call that Just?

Quote:
Its not an objective standard, there is no proof that validates the existence of God.

That's irrelevant. I'm saying that if God exists, he's a more reliable source for morality than we are.

If he exists. One hardly call God an objective standard if he dosen't. The fact remains that you need to p rove that God e xists before you can use him as a valid source for any sort of moral code.

Some may claim that the Bible provides the proof, but there is no evidence to prove that true either.


Actually, there's plenty of evidence for the historicity of the Gospels. Is it absolute 100% proof? No. But it's still pretty good.

Historicity does not prove that the Bible had divine orgins. Just because we have evidence that Augustus existed, it dosen't mean that he was a God. (He was deified upon his death.) The same applies to the Bible.

Nor would it even be possible, in my opinion, since the Bible directly contradicts itself in places.)

I disagree.

Then prove that God exists and that the Bible is the word of God.

you have no grounds to dismiss any such claims. If you justify your beliefs by faith then any nut can claim God's sanction, through faith, for his actions.


He can claim it, but if he is claiming that the Christian God approved, then we can look at the bible and see if his claims contradict it. Whether or not you believe he exists or not doesn't matter for this purpose.

Don't think I don't notice how you butchered my arugement so that you wouldn't have to deal with it in its entirety. Lets look at it in its proper form.

I'm sure God (if he exists) will go on with his plan regardless of what you feel on the matter. In fact for all you know those abortions could have been ordered directly by God. Think about it, a woman goes to an abortion clinic and is stopped by a Christian picket line, she justifies her actions to them by saying "God told me to get an abortion". Regardless of their feelings on the matter they would have no valid counter-arguement or means of justifiying otherwise. The only course they could possibly take would be to deny that God did such a thing, and since they would have dismissed reason as inferior to faith in the first place, they would have no means of proving otherwise.

Quote:
Under this system any nut would be justified in any action if he claimed God's sanction; and since objective standands of evidence and justice would be dismissed, who would we be to say differently?

Quote:
God his told us what is right and wrong in the Bible. If someone claims to be doing God's will, yet does something contradictory to it, then he's clearly lying. Just because somebody makes a claim doesn't mean it's true.

Unless you can use logic and evidence to validly prove that God exists and that the Bible is valid you have no grounds to dismiss any such claims. If you justify your beliefs by faith then any nut can claim God's sanction, through faith, for his actions.

He can claim it, but if he is claiming that the Christian God approved, then we can look at the bible and see if his claims contradict it. Whether or not you believe he exists or not doesn't matter for this purpose.

When we look at the discussion, as a whole, we see that the MOST important element of the discussion is whether God exists and whether or not the Bible is his Word. Unless you prove that your Christian God exists, and that the Bible is his word you cannot claim that anyone's beliefs are any less valid then yours.

Oh and I find it amusing that you're saying I can't say he's lying about being told to do it by God when you reject the very idea of God and demand proof for it. Very amusing.

Not really, you rely on the Bible to support your position, implying that you accept the existence of God. Unless you can prove that God actually exists and that the Bible is his word you cannot use the Bible to support your position. However, since I do not accept God (since there is no proof) I'm perfectly justifed in saying that the person is lying when they claim that God told them to do something.

Lies and errors are only determined to be such through the use of evidence and logic. Until I see proof that God exists and the Bible is valid then she has exactly the same justification for her beliefs that you do. Her faith.

If they claim to be of the same faith as the Bible, then their faith can be tested according to what the Bible says, whether you believe the Bible to be valid or not. Your argument makes no sense.

Another butcher Job you your part(above). Lets look at its entirety. (below)

I'm sure God (if he exists) will go on with his plan regardless of what you feel on the matter. In fact for all you know those abortions could have been ordered directly by God. Think about it, a woman goes to an abortion clinic and is stopped by a Christian picket line, she justifies her actions to them by saying "God told me to get an abortion". Regardless of their feelings on the matter they would have no valid counter-arguement or means of justifiying otherwise.

Quote:
Yes they would. People lie. People get things wrong. Just because people say 'God told me' doesn't mean he did.

Lies and errors are only determined to be such through the use of evidence and logic. Until I see proof that God exists and the Bible is valid then she has exactly the same justification for her beliefs that you do. Her faith.

If they claim to be of the same faith as the Bible, then their faith can be tested according to what the Bible says, whether you believe the Bible to be valid or not. Your argument makes no sense.

Uh oh, it seems that when taken in context my argument makes perfect sense. Which unfortunatly for you, brings us back to that whole "prove that the Bible is Valid and that God exists" issue.

The only course they could possibly take would be to deny that God did such a thing, and since they would have dismissed reason as inferior to faith in the first place, they would have no means of proving otherwise.

Quote:
The Bible says that the Earth was created aprx. 5000 yrs ago in 7 days. Science says otherwise. Based on what you just said we know Science to be wrong since its contradicts the Bible. In other words your stating that should the two conflict, faith is superior to reason. Your rebuttal just proved my point.

Your inflexibility is all that is proved. There is no conflict between the two. Science tells us the way the universe appears to operate. The Bible tells us about God and our relationship with him. A literal interpretation of 'days' gives 7 days. That is not a problem as the world could have been created in that time span, in a state where it would have appeared to have been running for several billion years. As long as the universe acts as if it was that old, then for the purposes of science, we may assume that it does. Whether it is or not is irrelevant. All we are doing is building a model that allows us to say how things appear to work and make predictions about the future. There is no conflict. That man was created fully grown and Eden did not take several years to grow indicated that the universe was created 'pre-aged' and there is no reason not to think that it was preaged by 15 billion years.

You seem to be forgetting about Occam's razor when it comes to the age issue.

In addition, I don't seem to remember any mention of the Universe being aged to 15 Billion Years anywhere in the Book of Genesis.

Finally, your little eassy there proved my point again, you think that reason is inferior to faith. You accept the position of the Bible in Genesis even though you have ABSOLUTLY no evidence to support such a position. You have no answer to the dillema of reason vs faith all you have done up to this point is to try to change the subject or evade the issue by selectivly quoting.

You were assuming that the baby in question had been baptised. I've never read of God killing a baptised baby. Therefore it isn't relevant.

So does that mean you would kill an unbaptised baby if God commanded you to?

No, the position of the Bible is that we accept forgiveness by doing just that - accepting it. Having water poured over you does nothing and a baby is not in a position where it can think 'hmm, am I really repentent of my sins'.

Then why did God never killed a babtised baby?

The baby is innocent. God commands you to kill the baby. Would you kill it?

I've told you everything you need to know about this already.

Mike claims you said would kill a baby. Confirmation or denial would be nice (In the form of a Yes you would kill it, or no you wouldn't).

Prove that God exists and the Bible is valid. Until you do such things you are, by the defination of the terms, illogical and unreasonable.

Rubbish. It doesn't require absolute proof. It only requires reasonable evidence, which exists.

I never claimed that it required absolute proof, that was for a completely different issue. For this, I'm willing to accept reasonable proof. If you have reasonable evidence then provide it, I'll throw you a party if you prove us wrong. Until you have such evidence you are, by the defation of the terms illogical and unreasonable.

I have never discussed ways of wiping out Christans or approved of someone who resorts to violence when faced with insults. You claim people shouldn't judge Christians by the actions of other Christans- then you do the same to atheists. Sounds like a double standard to me.

I'm referring to a general attitude on this board that I've seen. I'm talking about a lot of the people I've debated with in these threads. There are a good number of decent people, but also a great many like those I have described. Is it true of all atheists? No. Is it true of most of them? I'm really not in any position to say.

Oh, or this just another example of your evasion though "selective" quoting? Lets take a look at the original post.

Ultimatly the choice comes down to reject logic and evidence, and things that are abstracted from them, such as life as a value, or reject faith as means of obtaining value and truth, and dismiss either God's existence or his moral authority.

Make your choice now Johnathan, either admit freely to all that you reject faith in the face or reason or that you reject reason in the face of faith. You can't have both.

Yes I can, and do. You are so arrogant, to assume that all those who have faith must be illogical and unreasonable. You look down your noses at us, sneering, claiming you are superior, discussing ways to wipe us out, calling God a psychopath, yet approving of a guy who resorts to violence when faced with insults. You call us close minded and intolerant, yet close off any idea of faith and look for ways to repress our expression of ourselves. Arrogant hypocrites, that is what so many of you are.

Hmm, looks like an Ad hominum tied together win an unsupported assertion. I'm willing to accept that you were refering to other people in the rest of the post though.

I'll forgive you for that, but if you want to be taken seriously you still have to prove that reason and faith are not mutually exclusive. Unless you do so you'll have to use reason to prove, with reasonable certainty, that God exists and that the Bible is his word for any of your arguments to have merit.

Being reasonable is the foremost sign of being open-minded, I'm perfectly willing to change my beliefs should they be proven wrong. Your faith in the absolute truth of your beliefs makes you closed-minded- you already know the truth and anything that does not meet that standard is heresey or lies.

You are no different. You are convinced you know the truth and demand an absolute proof that sometihng else is true before you will even consider debating it.

No, I require reasonable certainty. I'm willing to accept God's existence if reasonable evidence is provided. I've yet to see reasonable evidence provided for either the Bible's divine origin or for God's existence.

[Enforcer Talen]

hehehe, Im using that one on GP4T. Id like to see those fundies reactions...

I used to get the gp4t magazine.

[Jonathan]

Quite the contrary; in fact, the confusion of a melee allows him to evade points much more easily by answering only the points he wishes to answer and dismissing the rest for lack of time.

I went basically mano a mano against him last night in the "Christian School" thread, and the result was that I got him to admit he thinks it's OK to kill a baby at God's command, hence my new sig line.

I'm the one who came up with the question, not you. It's hardly you being the big brave tought man that scared me into submission. And where have I dodged questiosn here? Nowhere. You're more than a little biased here, Mike.

[Jonathan]

"The translators did and unless someone can find a good reason not to, I'm going to trust them. You have failed to provide any argument to believe they made a mistake beyond saying 'they got it wrong'."

That's me saying that I believe the translators over you, not that I believe them over God.

I already told you what to look for. You still deny it.

You told me to do your research for you. I'ms aying that that isn't how debate works. Go provide the passage in the original Hebrew/Greek, with your translation into English and an explanation of why you translated it the way you did. Then you'll have an argument. As it stands you're just saying that the translators are wrong and telling me to go prove it for you. I've no reason to believe you.

Of course I don't accept the Bible as a source for morality. The central figure is a murderer.

Only under your morality.

[Darth Wong]

Quite the contrary; in fact, the confusion of a melee allows him to evade points much more easily by answering only the points he wishes to answer and dismissing the rest for lack of time.

I went basically mano a mano against him last night in the "Christian School" thread, and the result was that I got him to admit he thinks it's OK to kill a baby at God's command, hence my new sig line.

I'm the one who came up with the question, not you. It's hardly you being the big brave tought man that scared me into submission.

It has nothing to do with being "big brave tough" and everything to do with the fact that your belief system is abhorrent and you were easily forced into an embarrassing public admission of immorality when debating one on one.

And where have I dodged questiosn here? Nowhere. You're more than a little biased here, Mike.

The fact that I had to ask the question more than a half-dozen times before you would finally give a straight answer speaks for itself, jack-ass.