AntiMaterialst Vs. a Bible Thumper[started]

[AntiMaterialist]

There are a few of you out there who believe in the infallibility of the Bible. I would like to debate one of you in a one-on-one debate. With multiple people arguing the various points, I am never able to force the argument to its logical conclusion.

Thus - would anyone like to debate Biblical infallibility with me, one-on-one?

[Apokalupsis]

It may help to define what you mean by "inspired". What you believe the term means may not be what Christians mean when they claim it. Can you elaborate? It's important that both parties are on the same page here, else it results in a sematics battle.

[AntiMaterialist]

That's a really good point...

What I mean is this - influenced in such a way that it cannot contain mistakes.

[Apokalupsis]

And to clarify "it"....do you mean The Bible as it was written, or do you mean copies of?

[AntiMaterialist]

I guess it would refer to whatever Bible my opponent believes is 100% inspired by God.

[Apokalupsis]

That would be the Bible as it was written, and not textual copies of.

[AntiMaterialist]

Well - let's just start up where we left off in the other thread...

Would you agree that there is no proof that every single word is divinely inspired? There is evidence (which is highly debated) that components of the Bible are divinely inspired. You personally feel that this evidence is sufficient to make the leap to believing that every bit of it is divinely inspired.

But, would you agree that this is not proven?

[Apokalupsis]

I would agree that there is enough evidence to reasonably conclude that scripture is inspired. However, I would not agree that scripture is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be inspired. Does that clarify?

[AntiMaterialist]

Is the Old Testament divinely inspired, or just the New Testament?

[Apokalupsis]

Both.

[AntiMaterialist]

Ok - now, what exactly does divinely inspired mean?

Does it mean factually correct in every instance?

[Apokalupsis]

Not literally no. The Bible is written in many literary styles. Example...Jesus tells us he is the vine. We don't take this to mean this literally. So if you admit to the variety of literay styles the Bible is written in, then I would state "Yes, it is factual".

However, this does not mean that it is taken as a technical or scientific journal. Take measurements for example...they are often rounded in the Bible. And that was fine...there was no need to be precise.

[AntiMaterialist]

So - how does one know when to interpret something literally, and when to interpret something metaphorically? Does the Bible itself instruct the reader as to when it is or is not being literal?

[Apokalupsis]

There are many ways. This is not to say that there are never difficulties...but in the instances of where those difficulties exist...an understanding of the history, context, audience, author, law (if applicable), culture, grammar, hermeneutics, etc...all help to determine what is said and meant.

[AntiMaterialist]

But - the method of interpretation is not spelled out in the Bible. It is a matter of human judgement as to when to interpet the scripture, and when to take it literally - correct?

[Apokalupsis]

The method of interpretation isn't spelled out in any book of antiquity. NONE whatsoever. However, through the methods above, we CAN know what was said and what was meant.

Furthermore, 99% of the time it's pretty obvious following some very basic historical method approaches. Of course, this leaves room for debate about the remaining uncertainty...but we can know most likely what was meant, and none of the instances in which we are unsure about affect any doctrine or contradict anything already understood in the Bible.

[AntiMaterialist]

So 1% of the time (or however much) it is unclear, and thus open to interpretation. I would define unclearness as a form of fallibility.

[Apokalupsis]

fallibility = error. something being "unclear" merely means much closer analysis is necessary, or it is an unknown. And in many of these passages that exist, they are variations.

Variation being something to the effect of...

Jesus es King, our Savior
esus is King, our Savior
Jesus is King, *ur Savir
Jesus the king, our savior.

From the manuscripts we have, we are able to know what the original text said. Furthermore, what we have are copies of the Bible (thus the variances above). There is no claim made that the copies contain no copyist errors. It is claimed that the Bible is inerrant. And through the multiple copies of the ancient manuscripts (25,000+...more than ANY book of antiquity by far), we can be certain we know what the Bible said in almost every instance. For those that we don't...they affect absolutely NO doctrine whatsoever...none.

[AntiMaterialist]

fallibility = error
Whether it is error due to the fact that it is consistently misinterpreted, or error due to a factual mistake, it is still an error, and thus fallible.

Now - are you saying there are no differences in doctrinal beliefs between those interpret some parts literally, and others who interpret those parts allegorically?

[Apokalupsis]

Whether it is error due to the fact that it is consistently misinterpreted, or error due to a factual mistake, it is still an error, and thus fallible.
NO one has ever once claimed in history, that a copy of the Bible is infallible. If this is your argument, it's a straw man. What is claimed, is that the Bible itself is infallible. The error lies with the receiver, not the transmitter. It is with our understanding, not with what is said. See the example of the variation above.


Now - are you saying there are no differences in doctrinal beliefs between those interpret some parts literally, and others who interpret those parts allegorically?
No. There are differences...and those differences lie with those who interpret what they read...not with the Bible teaching itself.

example...

Bible claims X.
Person A interprets X as Y.
Person B interprets X as Z.

X is still true, Y & Z are differences, but not correspondent to reality (that is, X). The fault is that of the interpretations, not of the Bible.

[AntiMaterialist]

The fault is that of the interpretations, not of the Bible.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, if they were inspired by God, they could have been written clearly enough that differences in interpretation did not occur. It is up to us, using our best judgement, to decide if we believe the Bible is 100% the word of God. The fact that parts are open to interpretation - sometimes very wide interpretation - is one of many blows against the Bible being 100% divinely inspired.


Now - another point - is Leviticus divinely inspired?

[Apokalupsis]

In your opinion.
No, it's illogical to conclude otherwise. What is necessary to be known, IS known. Variations in manuscripts that we have affect no doctrine, so it's trivial point...it affects absolutely nothing.

As far as "not being able to interpret" or being left open to wide interpretation...well, that's humankind for you. Unfortunately, man doesn't always practice objective exogesis and instead, allows their preconceived notions about what something should say prior to reading what it says. As a result, what is said is twisted into what the reader wants...enter the erroneous practice of eisegesis.

And which parts are open to very wide interpretation?

Yes, Leviticus is divinely inspired.

[AntiMaterialist]

Well - you believe Hell is eternal separation from God - others state that Hell is place of eternal torture involving physical torture. Big differences there, and both sides cite Biblical passages to justify their opinions.

Leviticus 20:13
'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.


I am sure there are multiple translations of the above verse - nevertheless, it is quite clear. It states that men who have sex with men should be killed. Since Leviticus is inspired by God, does this mean that God wants homosexuals to be put to death?

[Apokalupsis]

re: Hell...the fact that there are differences, does not mean that both parties are incorrect. Furthermore, it does not prove that the Bible has an error (fallible). Also, BOTH parties agree...that Hell is a pretty bad place.

Leviticus is a book of law specifically for Israel during a specific time under specific circumstances. Much of the law in the OT, is done away with by the NT.

Also, The Old Testament law was given to the children of Israel only. A gentile or non-Jew was never included as part of the Old Testament. He was not subject unto its laws. The Jews (ie. descendants of Abraham and Sarah through Isaac and through Jacob) made up the priesthood and kingdom of Israel. The only way that a gentile could be a part of that covenant was to become a Jewish proselyte. The Old covenant was given by God to govern Israel as a nation and as a Kingdom. If the Old Testament was still in force, it would still apply to the Israelites only.

The old covenant went out of effect after the testator of the New Testament died. Hebrews 9:16 says, "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." The testator of the New Testament is Christ Jesus. Paul wrote, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Colossians 2:14). Thus, the Old Testament went out of effect at the death of Jesus.

Laws have changed throughout the Bible depending upon to whom, where, and when they were for. Some laws were intended to be only temporary. When they fulfilled their purpose, God removed them. The Pharisees had a hard time accepting this, Jesus was constantly rebuking them as a result. They had followed the written and traditional law so long, that to them...the MOST important thing...was THE LAW. Jesus said this was wrong...the law served a specific purpose, and the most important thing was the SPIRIT OF THE LAW. When asked specifically what the most important law was to follow...Jesus said "To love God with all your heart", and the 2nd most important was "To love your fellow man with all your hear". These, are the most important and necessary laws to follow.

The killing of homosexuals is wrong today. During that specific time, homosexuality was JUST as wrong as adultery, incest, and beastiality...all had the same punishments. Israel was becoming heavily influenced by surrounding cultures who were engaged in many wicked things including child sacrifice, ceremonial sex, idolatry, pagan practices, evil towards other men, etc... Israel was to be God's mechanism for spreading His word. On occasion, Israel screwed up and became as their neighboring nations...and God held them to the same standard.

However, we are starting to drift off topic now. ;)

[AntiMaterialist]

No no - we are going exactly where I want this to go... I was anticipating you would say the old laws no longer applied. The case I am building requires that I set up a number of different points. One of these is that the God of the Old Testament was a vicious SOB.

I am not attempting to find contradictions in the Bible. My disagreement in this thread is with making the jump from believing that parts of the Bible are true, to believing that all of it is true. Fulfilled prophecy, if it really happened, only proves that those prophecies came true - it does not prove that everything else is true. It is a matter of personal judgement that one must make to believe that all of it is true.

One reason not to make that personal judgment is that Jesus describes a more loving God, whereas the OT describes an entity that does things like condemning people to death for being Gay.

Does it not bother you at all that God, as you see him, wanted the Jews to kill homosexuals for a thousand years or so? Just for having sex with other men? I don't care which culture you place that rule in, it is sick sick sick.

[Apokalupsis]

Life was harsh in Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. Leviticus prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, blasphemy, rape, kidnapping, idolatry, adultery (both parties), sex between a man and engaged woman (both parties), incest, sex between males, sex with animals, attacking or cursing one's father or mother, doing work on the Sabbath, and prostitution by a priest's daughter.

As far as homosexuality, in Old Testament times homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12.

14:24 There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. . . . . . . 15:12 He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.
Neighboring cultures were morally corrupt and very influencial. A holy God could not allow His chosen people (who were to be the example of righteousness) to be corrupted. When they were, He held them to the same standards.

As far as Jesus later describing a more loving God...Jesus mentions damnation much more than he does love. He also preached against sexual deviancy:


Mark 7:20-23
And [Jesus] said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."
He condemns fornication and adultery here as well. And since there wasn't even a question about the allowance of gay marriage back then, homosexuals were fornicators. All fornicators (gay and hetero) are held to the same standard here.

Also, it is important to note that the Bible does not condemn homosexual people; the sin is in the act, not in one's sexual orientation. Paul says in:


1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Paul is speaking to church members who used to be thieves, prostitutes, robbers, drunkards, etc... One isn't by default damned because of who he is...but by the engagement of what he does. And there is always a way for redemption.

God hasn't changed from the OT to the NT...the method in which one is saved has changed. The judgement is the same for all people at all times. God was just as loving in the OT as you see in the NT...also just as "just".

[AntiMaterialist]

He condemns fornication and adultery here as well.

Well - sure - but Jesus didn't order them executed.


A holy God could not allow His chosen people (who were to be the example of righteousness) to be corrupted.

He ordered them to kill for crimes that did not deserve killing - how much more corrupted can you get?

Apok - your justifications just don't really justify such horrible actions. If everything God says is good, then this would mean that you have to believe that under certain circumstances (like being in Israel between Moses and Jesus), killing men for having sex with men is a good thing. Are you really ready to believe such a thing?

A holy God could have done anything he wanted - including exile, or cutting off the penis. But no, what he wanted was to have them killed. All these justifications leave me with a queasy feeling when I think about it. In order to believe every word of the Bible, you have to swallow such awful concepts as God wanting people to be killed for homosexual activity.

Let's look at some other awful concepts you have had to swallow:

- God kills children. This happens more than once in the OT, in some fashion or other. I have read the standard justification for this, but I am curious how you justify this in your mind.

- God wanted people to die for the crime of working on the Sabbath. You seriously support this?

- God killed off all of humanity, except Noah and his family, because they were just too wicked. What, God lacked the power to redeem any of the rest of them? Or maybe he just didn't want to bother. Genocide is so much easier. Are we supposed to believe God is too lazy to bother trying to redeem those wicked primitives. Apparently he allowed those giants who hung on to the side of Noah's boat to survive, so they must not have been too terribly wicked (spoken with humor, I really don't know that particular story).

- God takes vengeance on the descendents of the enemy:
Exodus 20:5-6 "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."


You do not have to accept that God is this much an evil bastard - you always have the option to believe that parts of the Bible represent the personal bias of individuals, rather than God's word.

[Apokalupsis]

Well, now we ARE getting off topic. I fail to see how one's opinion of justification contrasting God's...show that the Bible is fallible. The idea that one opposes God doing X, merely illustrates 1) the differences of opinion, 2) innaccurate view of justice, 3) misunderstanding of events, 4) that God is arbitrarily cruel.

Any of the 4 are possible (though not necessarily correct), and none result in proving the Bible is fallible.

[AntiMaterialist]

Well - we have different concepts of fallible. I see fallible as <u>capable</u> of having error - you see it as having error.

See, I think you have to make a leap of faith, to go from believing that parts of the Bible are divinely inspired to believing that all of it is divinely inspired.

That leap of faith is a matter of judgement. No amount of deductive reasoning will prove that every single component of the Bible is true. Instead, one must rely on inductive reasoning to conclude that every word of the Bible is true.

I am attempting to build a case against making that particular leap of faith. In order to believe that every word of the Bible, old testament and new, is true, you have to believe that God does horribly evil things, like killing babies and condemning the descendents of his enemies. An all-powerful entity could do better than that.

God is not evil.

[Apokalupsis]

Yes, I see fallible as being in error.

The reason I believe the Bible is infallible...is that the word of God cannot contain error as God is a perfect, honest, and all good being. He is perfect in knowledge so there cannot be any mistake, and he is perfect in his honesty and goodness...so there cannot be any evil or deceit.

Now...the problem then lies with: Did God intend for the Bible...to truly be HIS word TO mankind? If yes...then the Bible must be infallible. If not, then of course, the Bible may be fallible.

As far as the "evil things" attributed to God in the OT...I'm slackin' on those threads I know. But I truly feel that they deserve their own threads. My position on that, is that those events DID happen...yet they were GOOD, and actually very necessary. And I 100% AGREE with those events and have NO problem w/ them.

I'm also a moral and compassionate being. And this may seem contradictory with the above revelation about my agreement with the OT events. However, it isn't. I submit that it is the understanding of events from the critic that is in error, not the events themselves.

I'm convinced after my thread, you'll see these events in a completely new light, and no claims of God being "evil" or being guilty of "evil acts" will be legitimate.

IMO, I do not believe that arguing the case for fallibility is supported by: God does bad things in the OT. God is actually good. Therefore the bad things in the OT couldn't be true (which means man wrote them out of his personal bias).

The EASY rebuttal, would be to merely say that we as man, have a limited understanding of all things, as we are finite in nature. God, being infinite (in knowledge, power, morality, etc...) understands all things fully. If God is all-good, then the events in the OT must be good, and it must be our limited understanding of morality and holiness than is in question.

Pointing out that you personally believe X is wrong, is not a case for Biblical errancy...it is simply a truth claim you believe X is wrong...nothing more. There is no causal relationship between you having a personal opinion about a moral and the Bible being fallible. People believe that homosexuality IS immoral (you don't...but others do). So they have just as much right for claiming your opposite position. That is..."Homosexuality is immoral, the Bible also says that it is, therefore it is infallible". Bad logic, but it is the same logic you are applying here.

[AntiMaterialist]

Apok - I think you are going in circles:


He is perfect in knowledge so there cannot be any mistake, and he is perfect in his honesty and goodness...so there cannot be any evil or deceit.


If God is all-good, then the events in the OT must be good.

This assumes that he inspired Moses to proclaim the laws in Leviticus. But, there is no way to prove that he did so. What evidence do you offer to support the contention that God told Moses to have everyone who works on the Sabbath killed?

[Apokalupsis]

Well, the problem is, that a claim was made that the Bible is fallible. The only evidence you've offered, is that you disagree with some parts of the OT. That's fine that you disagree...but it in no way proves the Bible is fallible.

The burden of proof lies upon you to prove that it is. You have asserted that it is, but not offered evidence that it actually is. As the opposition...I don't have to prove non-X...I only have to show how X is untrue (X being: Bible is fallible). Problem is...we haven't seen any evidence for X as of yet.

The burden of proof lies upon the critic claiming that the Bible is guilty, not the defense proving that the Bible is innocent.

[AntiMaterialist]

The burden of proof lies upon the critic claiming that the Bible is guilty, not the defense proving that the Bible is innocent.

Then we have an impasse - I do not accept those terms.


You honestly believe the Bible should be assumed to be the word of God until proven otherwise?

[Apokalupsis]

The Bible, like every book of antiquity, is to be assumed to be free of error until proven otherwise. In no other book of history, is it proper methodology to state: "OK, we must assume it's guilty of making a mistake...let's see why someone wouldn't think it is."

A double standard is applied here.

Also, I think you are talking about 2 things here...1) infallibility, and 2) divine inspiration. I think the discussion is getting mangled by 2 completely different topics going back and forth.

[AntiMaterialist]

I am claiming that there is insufficient reason to believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God. That is what I wish to establish with this thread.

I will not start out by assuming it is 100% the word of God - I see no reason to do so, and I see plenty of reasons to believe it is not.

I believe the burden of proof lies upon those making extravagant claims - claiming a book to be the word of God is about as extravagant of a claim as one can make.

Proving error in anything that old is nearly impossible. You can always concoct some far-out explanation to explain away the apparent error. Thus, I think more ground is to be gained by explaining all the reasons why we should not assume it is all true.

[Apokalupsis]

A book being the word of God and being infalllible are 2 different things.

As stated above:

Also, I think you are talking about 2 things here...1) infallibility, and 2) divine inspiration. I think the discussion is getting mangled by 2 completely different topics going back and forth.


Which are we to discuss here?

[AntiMaterialist]

We have two different definitions of infallibility. To me, fallible means capable of containing mistakes - to you it means containing proven mistakes.

By arguing that the Bible is not 100% divinely inspired, that would mean it was possible that it contained mistakes. To me, one point led into another, and I was planning on doing just that.

So - tell ya what... How about if I sit here and beat my head against a wall pointing out the traditional Biblical mistakes and you can point out the justifications for them.

After we have done that for a while, we can switch to a new one-on-one thread about the Bible not being 100% the word of God.

So...

Let's go with the point made in that other thread, about the nephilim re-appearing in the Bible after the great flood. That one was new on me. How was this possible? Did it mean that not all land-life died out in the flood as claimed in the Bible.

[Apokalupsis]

By arguing that the Bible is not 100% divinely inspired, that would mean it was possible that it contained mistakes.
I would agree with this as well. What I disagree with however, is the unproven premise that the Bible is not 100% divinely inspired (as opposed to only "somewhat inspired" for example). If that can be shown to be false, then we can get somewhere.



After we have done that for a while, we can switch to a new one-on-one thread about the Bible not being 100% the word of God.
I think that we also have yet to come to an agreement on what "divine inspiration" means.

Perhaps if we address these 2 points we can get somewhere. If you feel it is necessary to address specific alleged contradictions, we can do that as well, but I think there has to be a better approach.

[AntiMaterialist]

I would agree with this as well. What I disagree with however, is the unproven premise that the Bible is not 100% divinely inspired (as opposed to only "somewhat inspired" for example). If that can be shown to be false, then we can get somewhere.

It cannot be shown to be false, and it cannot be shown to be true - one must make a judgement call - an intuitive leap - to form an opinion on this. Do you agree?


I would say divinely inspired means that the writers were speaking concepts exactly as God wanted them spoken. It means there can be no room for error, either in the facts presented, or the nature of the presentation. In short, God was speaking through them, as was being completely honest while doing so.

[Apokalupsis]

It cannot be shown to be false, and it cannot be shown to be true - one must make a judgement call - an intuitive leap - to form an opinion on this. Do you agree?
No. And if it cannot be shown to be false, then no truth claim can be made that it isfalse. All one could state would be: It is my belief (or opinion) that it is false. That's fine, but in debate, we deal with truth claims, not opinions.

I think you believe that it is either T/F...but to clarify, do you also argue that we cannot know for sure either way?



I would say divinely inspired means that the writers were speaking concepts exactly as God wanted them spoken. It means there can be no room for error, either in the facts presented, or the nature of the presentation. In short, God was speaking through them, as was being completely honest while doing so.
I don't completely agree. I would argue that divine inspiration is more of God giving his prophets the concepts, teachings, philosophies, doctrines, etc...necessary and desired to be taught to all men...but God also allows those prophets to reveal God's word (concepts/teachings/philosophies/doctrines/etc...) through man's word. We see a variety of writing styles and abilities in the Bible. It isn't as if the prophets were taking dictation from the mouth of God, merely writing down word for word that God told them to write. I think this is what you may believe here...is that correct or no?

[AntiMaterialist]

I think you believe that it is either T/F...but to clarify, do you also argue that we cannot know for sure either way?

I think parts could be true, and parts could be false. I am saying that neither side can be proven, and thus it is a judgement call - a matter of belief. I do believe it is worth discussing the reasons for choosing one belief over the other.


as for divine inspiration...

The words can be a prophet's own words - but the concepts he writes down must be 100% factually correct, and delivered in a fashion that accurately conveys the intended information.

In other words, if the message is tainted by the human fallibility of the prophet, then it is no longer a 100% divine message.


I also contend that there is no reason to believe that even if a prophet does speak for God, he is incapable of also speaking falsely.

When Moses said to kill those horrible people who worked on the Sabbath, that could have been due to a character flaw, rather than God telling him to say that.

[Apokalupsis]

Making progress...


I think parts could be true, and parts could be false.
I would argue all or nothing. See below...




The words can be a prophet's own words - but the concepts he writes down must be 100% factually correct, and delivered in a fashion that accurately conveys the intended information.
Agreed.



In other words, if the message is tainted by the human fallibility of the prophet, then it is no longer a 100% divine message.
Absolutely.



I also contend that there is no reason to believe that even if a prophet does speak for God, he is incapable of also speaking falsely.
Here is where I disagree. The tests of a prophet were the strictist possible...if any error was made, ANY error...the prophet was considered a false prophet and put to death.

That God would choose his human representatives, provide them the inspiration for passing his message to the rest of humanity, then allow those human representatives to twist or corrupt His own message, is illogical.

It's placing the responsibility on a chosen few, for a very important task...but then also saying: "Oh well, if they get my message wrong, so be it". Doesn't make any sense.



When Moses said to kill those horrible people who worked on the Sabbath, that could have been due to a character flaw, rather than God telling him to say that.
Is it possible that perhaps the killing of those individuals, involved more than just "going to work on the Sabbath"? That their actions were actually a bit more than just waking up, going outside, and plowing the field to make an extra buck? Is it possible, that there was a bit more to it than that?

What if God is good (like you contend) and there is a rational explanation for His judgement? Is it possible that you may have overlooked something? Is it possible that there is something you haven't thought about? Or must it categorically be..."This passage is wrong, therefore, the Bible is fallible"?

[AntiMaterialist]

That God would choose his human representatives, provide them the inspiration for passing his message to the rest of humanity, then allow those human representatives to twist or corrupt His own message, is illogical.

Ah ha! I knew you were going to say this - I want to argue this point.

It is absolutely clear that God has allowed his message to become twisted and corrupted, from a Christian perspective. Godhatesfags.com would not exist, if God were not willing to allow his message to become corrupted.

Don't prophets have free will? You cannot have free will, and not also have the capacity for misinterpretation and outright deception, especially self-deception.

We do not understand God. When you start saying that God <b>would</b> do this or <b>would</b> do that, you are assuming you understand God's motivations - this is intellectually dangerous ground. I am not saying we shouldn't consider what we think God would or would not do - but we should consider it only with great reservation. It is a starting point for a line of reasoning that must be supported with other evidence, it is not an ending point.

Consider the Christian notion of free will - if a prophet has free will, then he can choose to act foolishly - including deceiving himself that the voice inside his head is God telling him to kill men who have sex with men.

Or, in Christian terms, perhaps their prophecies were given to them by Satan.

Or, perhaps that component of their selves that exists outside of our current space-time continuum was able to get a glimpse at the most probable future, as determined by various complex computer models used in Heaven, and then leak that information through to that component of their selves that resides on Earth - because, during a trance, the information-noise level produced by their physical brains was greatly reduced.

Predicting the future does not prove infallibility - there are numerous other possible explanations.

[Apokalupsis]

The message itself, isn't corrupted. Those who such as the site you have mentioned above, have used the message to further their "cause", philosophy, agenda, etc... It's called eisegesis...it's improper interpretation. God won't disallow the possibility that some people will twist his message. He will disallow (and has) the possibility of his message (as originally written in the Bible) to be corrupted.

Freewill has nothing to do with God's message being complete, pure, and without error. Freewill comes into play when we decide how we wish to use what is written.

Also, we CAN say what God will and will not do in many instances. We CAN, because we are told via the Bible, His infallible message, what he will, will not, can and cannot do.

If we have no message from God, then your argument would be true. We would not have a way to know whether God would do X or non-X. However, this is not the case. God has told us through the Bible.

The issue is...IS the Bible infallible or not? If it isn't...then I submit we can know almost nothing about God, and we should certainly not take the Bible seriously as a "message from God". If it is infallible, well, then we know quite a bit about him.

Let me ask you...do you believe Jesus was a moral person? Do you believe he was the most moral person? Or just a guy like the rest of us, who lived a generally good life (philosophically)? Was he more honest, honorable, righteous than most others? All others? Average? etc... What sort of moral person was Jesus? (this isn't going off-topic, it's directly related to our discussion)

[AntiMaterialist]

Also, we CAN say what God will and will not do in many instances. We CAN, because we are told via the Bible, His infallible message, what he will, will not, can and cannot do.

Right, be we are having a discussion about determining Biblical authority - you cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. No circular reasoning.




Let me ask you...do you believe Jesus was a moral person? Do you believe he was the most moral person? Or just a guy like the rest of us, who lived a generally good life (philosophically)? Was he more honest, honorable, righteous than most others? All others? Average? etc... What sort of moral person was Jesus? (this isn't going off-topic, it's directly related to our discussion)

I don't know. It is as simple as that. He must have had some sort of extraordinary qualities to have caused the massive response that he caused, but that does not prove any sort of infallibility.




He will disallow (and has) the possibility of his message (as originally written in the Bible) to be corrupted.

Says who?

[Apokalupsis]

Right, be we are having a discussion about determining Biblical authority - you cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. No circular reasoning.

Of course not. It is a given that 1) if the Bible is God's word, we can know very specific things about God, and 2) if it is not God's word, what we are told in the Bible about God is not credible and should not be taken as a message from God.

The point here is...that it's either all or nothing. There is no in-between. Either the Bible is the word of God, or it isn't. Parts of it being the word of God, and parts of it not being the word of God...is not an option. For if some of it is false...we must reject it all on the grounds that it contradicts what it says (to be God's word and infallible). We either accept it all, or we reject it all (in as far as it being the infallible word of God).

Can we agree on that before moving on?



I don't know. It is as simple as that. He must have had some sort of extraordinary qualities to have caused the massive response that he caused, but that does not prove any sort of infallibility.
I don't necessarily care about extraordinary qualities...I care about his moral bearing here. Either he was a moral or immoral being.


Says who?
Logic...and the Bible which claims to be the word of God. The Bible cannot be both the word of God and not the word of God at the same time. That is a violation of the logical law of noncontradiction. Either it is, or it isn't.

And if it is...then God hasn't allowed his message to be corrupted. If it isn't...then it simply isn't God's word.

[AntiMaterialist]

The point here is...that it's either all or nothing. There is no in-between. Either the Bible is the word of God, or it isn't. Parts of it being the word of God, and parts of it not being the word of God...is not an option. For if some of it is false...we must reject it all on the grounds that it contradicts what it says (to be God's word and infallible). We either accept it all, or we reject it all (in as far as it being the infallible word of God).

Can we agree on that before moving on?

No, we cannot. Do you feel that if you keep stating it over and over, it'll make more sense to me? I still see no valid reason why it could not be partially true. The part that says it is all true could be false, but the part that makes some prediction of the future could be true.



Either he was a moral or immoral being.

I lack the information to make such a judgement. However - I disagree with this either/or stuff. Morality is not binary - I doubt it is even a simple scale, there are probably multiple dimensions to be considered when evaluating morality.




The Bible cannot be both the word of God and not the word of God at the same time. That is a violation of the logical law of noncontradiction. Either it is, or it isn't.


But, it could contain information that was divinely inspired, and also contain information that is false. Think about it. Assume for a second that Genesis is divinely inspired. I could create a document that has Genesis in part of it, and reports of the random babblings of my 2 year old in the other (in which she looks at me and calls me mommy)

That would be a document that is partially inspired, and partially false (I am not mommy).

[Apokalupsis]

No, we cannot. Do you feel that if you keep stating it over and over, it'll make more sense to me? I still see no valid reason why it could not be partially true. The part that says it is all true could be false, but the part that makes some prediction of the future could be true.

I see no logical reason how it could possibly BE only partially true. Can you support the claim that it is a valid possibility?

You say that the parts that claim: "All of the Bible is true" could be false, while other parts are true. That's pretty convenient don't you think? If those parts that claim the Bible is true are actually false (which leaves YOU with the burden of proof to support), why should anyone accept anything the Bible says to be truthful? How could you trust a book that tells us mixed messages? How could you trust a book that that tells lies alongside with truths?

If I lie to you 50% of the time I'm talking to you...am I trustworthy? How about 25% of the time? 1/4 statements I make to you, I'm lying. Do you still trust me?

God, is an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-holy being. God cannot lie. God cannot deceive you. It is not within his nature to do so. If he gives you his message, it is complete, pure, all good, and holy. There is no room for error if a message comes from God. The Bible claims to be the message of God. Either it is, or it isn't. It isn't 1/2 the message. A 1/2 truth is a whole lie.



I lack the information to make such a judgement. However - I disagree with this either/or stuff. Morality is not binary - I doubt it is even a simple scale, there are probably multiple dimensions to be considered when evaluating morality.
Let's simplify...was he honest or dishonest? If dishonest...then nothing he said or did is worth examining is it? He would not be trustworthy. Can we agree on this?



That would be a document that is partially inspired, and partially false (I am not mommy).
It is a document that has no divine inspiration, but human inspiration. The nature of humankind and God are quite different.

[AntiMaterialist]

If those parts that claim the Bible is true are actually false (which leaves YOU with the burden of proof to support), why should anyone accept anything the Bible says to be truthful?

Because there is historical evidence to support certain claims in the Bible. I believe Jesus was a real person. I believe Moses was probably a real person.

Determining truth or falsehood is difficult, and is rarely absolute. The war of 1812 probably happened - very probably - because there is ample to evidence to support it.

Regarding the Bible - the primary evidence Christians use in support of the Bible is supposed evidence of fulfilled prophecy. If this really happened, then it would prove that something supernatural occurred to enable a particular phophet to glimpse the future. This would be partial truth. Nothing about this would then prove that the same prophet, when proclaiming that God wants gays and sunday laborers to be killed, is accurately speaking for God.

[Apokalupsis]

But prophets of the Biblical God must have a 100% accuracy and truth to their predictions and claims, else they were put to death. There was no room for error. Some of their prophecies were short term, allowing their contemporaries to know they were of God. Some of what they said were on par with what they knew and understood to be true. But when one said something that was to pass, but didn't...or when something was said that was contradictory to what was known and held to be true, they were put to death.

You are suggesting that some prophets fell through this important aspect of determining who was a true prophet of God. Also, you are saying here, that God bestowed his gift upon a chosen holy man, God's representative...but that his representative was mistaken or deliberatly deceived others through other false teachings or prophecies. This means...that either 1) God did not know that his chosen one would do this (God becomes limited in knowlege) or 2) God knew, endorsed and used this prophet to deceive mankind...in which case, God is not all-good, but evil, deceitful. I reject this as a possibility...both result in an illogical concept of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable being. Are you saying...that you believe it's possible that God isn't really "all that"?

[AntiMaterialist]

But prophets of the Biblical God must have a 100% accuracy and truth to their predictions and claims, else they were put to death.

But, how were they to determine the truth of a claim that is a moral statement?



or when something was said that was contradictory to what was known and held to be true, they were put to death.

Fine - but how was it known and held to be true? This is a horribly unreliable means of determining truth - all it does is prevent people from speaking against currently held beliefs.



This means...that either 1) God did not know that his chosen one would do this (God becomes limited in knowlege) or 2) God knew, endorsed and used this prophet to deceive mankind...

There are so many flaws to this argument, I do not know where to start...

Here are some other options for you:

1) They saw the future, but not directly from God.
2) We do not understand God's motivations, because we lack sufficient knowledge.
3) Deception by God may be a good thing, for some reason. After all, God clearly allows false prophets to arise and teach their message - so he doesn't prevent people from having the wrong message.


You have fallen way way down that slipperly slope of pre-suppossing what God would do...
- Your contention the God would not allow mankind to be deceived is false, because at least some significant portion of mankind has been deceived.

- Your idea that God would not take an action, knowing in advance that it would lead to confusion or harm is just not true. Think about it - Did God create Hitler? Didn't he know that Hitler would become a truly evil man. Or - did God create Mohammed, knowing he would grow up to found a religion that rivals Christianity in its capacity to win over converts?

Are you saying that God deliberately created a great deceiver like Mohammed - doesn't that violate your pre-conception of how God behaves?

In fact, I think I will start a new thread in the religion question asking that very thing.

[Apokalupsis]

But, how were they to determine the truth of a claim that is a moral statement?
Who is "they"? A prophet or the people the prophet spoke to?



Fine - but how was it known and held to be true? This is a horribly unreliable means of determining truth - all it does is prevent people from speaking against currently held beliefs.
Everyone of the prophets mentioned in the Bible...were well known already, to be "of God" by his contemporaries. If you have a specific prophet in mind, we can discuss.



1) They saw the future, but not directly from God.
Who from then? And how were the Biblical prophets in what they said, taught, prophecized about...not in tune with God?



2) We do not understand God's motivations, because we lack sufficient knowledge.
This philosophy is contrary to what the Bible claims. We are discussing Biblical prophets...you have exited the universe of discourse.



3) Deception by God may be a good thing, for some reason. After all, God clearly allows false prophets to arise and teach their message - so he doesn't prevent people from having the wrong message.
Yes, God allows men to do as they please and teach what they wish. Now, which of the Biblical prophets is guilty of doing this?

I believe the rest of your post is discussed in the new thread you created.

[AntiMaterialist]

Everyone of the prophets mentioned in the Bible...were well known already, to be "of God" by his contemporaries. If you have a specific prophet in mind, we can discuss.

Yeah - but so what? Just because something was well known does not make it true, to say the least.






1) They saw the future, but not directly from God.

Who from then? And how were the Biblical prophets in what they said, taught, prophecized about...not in tune with God?

I could speculate probably 20 different possibilities off of the top of my head. My point is that assuming these prophecies came from God is an awfully big assumption. The whole "Biblical prophecies prove the whole Bible is true" argument is built on a massive series of poorly justified assumptions.




2) We do not understand God's motivations, because we lack sufficient knowledge.

This philosophy is contrary to what the Bible claims. We are discussing Biblical prophets...you have exited the universe of discourse.


The larger context of our conversation is the claim of divine inspiration for every part of the Bible - so it is very much relevant. You claim that God would not allow a prophet to have a glimpse of the future, and then also allow that prophet to preach false theology or morality. Your justification for this belief is what the Bible says. This only works if you assume the Bible to be true to begin with. If you do not start with the assumption that the Bible is true, then there is no reason to assume that prophets are infallible.

You see, those parts of the Bible that are there to support Biblical validity, like that verse in Timothy, or the parts that ascribe specific, very human-like, characteristics to God - those parts, to my view, very much look like they were deliberately included to make the Bible self supporting. When you consider the huge amounts of effort that went into assimilating the Bible, this makes plenty of sense. This makes a lot more sense, in fact, than believing that a book with as many morally questionable moral teachings as the Bible is 100% the word of God.



Yes, God allows men to do as they please and teach what they wish. Now, which of the Biblical prophets is guilty of doing this?
For all I know, every single one of them could be guilty of doing so. I will not start off assuming their infallibility - that is such a huge leap to make.

[Apokalupsis]

You have stated: The Bible (in its entirety) is not the "word of God". I do not see any argument that has convincingly supported your thesis here. It would seem that instead, you want the opposition to provide evidence for their position, not necessarily for you to support yours. It would seem that 1) you believe I need to give the affirmitive, and 2) that it is merely "unreasonable" to believe that the Bible is entirely the word of God.

Well, for one, the burden of proof is not upon me...but upon you, as I'm the negative to the thesis. Secondly, what is unreasonable to one, is reasonable to another. This is subjective (and anecdotal). It isn't very good support.

I understand that you "dont' beleive it"...but I don't see valid arguments proving that the Bible cannot (or is not) the word of God (in its entirety). Instead, I see statements of: "I won't assume X" or "It's possible that X", etc...

Furthermore, when pressed for specifics, it seems as if you brush them off as unimportant. And if we cannot discuss specifics, I fear that neither position will yield anything more than what it has.

IMHO, I think you were wanting to argue the negative of a theist claiming: "The Bible is the word of God". It's a much easier position to take...but it is NOT the position you are able to take in this debate...I would have never presented such a thesis (not out of belief, but out of the form of debate it would take -- and the lengths it take).

[AntiMaterialist]

You have stated: The Bible (in its entirety) is not the "word of God".


The above sentence could be interpreted in two ways, so, to be precise - I have stated it is possible that parts, or the whole, of the Bible are not the word of God.




1) you believe I need to give the affirmitive, and 2) that it is merely "unreasonable" to believe that the Bible is entirely the word of God.

That is accurrate. Claiming the Bible to be 100% the word of God is a profound claim, with serious moral consequences. As such, it requires profound evidence and reasoning.




Well, for one, the burden of proof is not upon me...but upon you, as I'm the negative to the thesis.
Any thesis can be presented as a positive or negative. My claim is that there is insufficient evidence to support the belief that the Bible is 100% the word of God. In addition, I claim that the questionable morality of the Bible is <u>reason</u>, not evidence, to question the moral claims of the Bible.




Secondly, what is unreasonable to one, is reasonable to another. This is subjective (and anecdotal). It isn't very good support.
But, it is all anyone has. The Bible cannot be proven, and the Bible cannot be disproven. To use the example given in another thread - if someone asks how the Nephilim reappeared after the flood, one can just say "well, I guess they must have grabbed hold of the ark and floated alongside."

Given the complexity of these issues, any proof can be shot down by showing the premeses to be uncertain. Thus, all we are left with is trying to determine if something is or is not reasonable. I attempting to show to you that assuming every word of the Bible to be the word of God is unreasonable.




Furthermore, when pressed for specifics, it seems as if you brush them off as unimportant. And if we cannot discuss specifics, I fear that neither position will yield anything more than what it has.

I am just staying on target. We need to establish that it is a leap of faith to go from saying that certain prophets were granted a glimpse of the future, to saying that the scriptures they wrote were inspired by God, and are absolutely infallible. Even if one proves certain prophecies, it does not <u>prove</u> the rest of the Bible is true.

Look, I also want to get into arguing specifics of the Bible. But it is important to address this argument that partial truth mandates whole truth. As long as you believe that, you will be forced into assuming very unreasonable positions.




IMHO, I think you were wanting to argue the negative of a theist claiming: "The Bible is the word of God".
That is close to my starting position. I wish to argue that the claim "The Bible is 100% the word of God" is a claim of faith. Logic might (or might not) allow you to claim it is partially supernatural, but will not allow you to make that leap to claiming it is entirely the word of God. I believe I have made the reasons for this quite clear. If not, I will keep trying until they are clear.

I will get to the other arguments, that argue against specifics of the Bible, after this has been established.

[AntiMaterialist]

So...

As my opponent has discontinued this debate - I suppose that makes me the winner!

[Apokalupsis]

Yes, I concede. I do not have the time to carry on this debate. You may move it to the public discussion forum if you like.

We can use this as an example of how reason doesn't always win the debate, but rather who has more time on their hands and can reply the fastest. :)

[Symantix]

lol

[AntiMaterialist]

yeah - you wish!

So, Symantix...

Wanna take this up where Apok left off?

[Symantix]

Perhaps. Let me take some time to browse through the thread and see if I can add anything to what Apok has said. I'll get back to you in a week or so; I'm as busy as Apok is. ;)

Just kidding. Maybe this evening or sometime tomorrow.

[Symantix]

Okay, AM. I'll pick up this debate. You will have to be more patient with me than you were with Apok, however. I am truly just as busy, if not more. He and I are collaborating on several things, not to mention the many things that occupy both of our lives individually...work, family, etc...

Also, I am sure that you have some new strategies in mind for your encounter with me. I have no problem with this, but you must also promise me that you will go back over several of the strategies that you used with Apok, especially the one about homosexuals; I'm especially interested in re-tackling that approach and some others.

[AntiMaterialist]

Ok...

My main theme for this thread is that I do not see any reason to assume that, just because a prophet might have been supernaturally inspired to have glimpse of the future, all of their utterances about the morals God supposedly wants us to believe must be true.

When people start speaking for God - I find myself not believing them, simply because I see no reason why God couldn't just speak to me directly, if God wanted to.

[Symantix]

My main theme for this thread is that I do not see any reason to assume that, just because a prophet might have been supernaturally inspired to have glimpse of the future, all of their utterances about the morals God supposedly wants us to believe must be true. Check out some of the laws in the old testement. People who claimed to be prophets were subjected to severe scrutiny. If anything that they said was found to be false, and I mean anything, they were killed on the spot. This was a commend from God Himself (allegedly, from your perspective). It didn't matter if what they said prior was considered to be from God. If they spoke the truth, and then lied, they were looked upon even more severly than if they had never spoken truth to begin with.


When people start speaking for God - I find myself not believing them, simply because I see no reason why God couldn't just speak to me directly, if God wanted to. If the Bible is the Word of God, then what would He have to say to you that He hasn't already said? I understand that this is begging the question, but it is a valid point. Whether God has anything more to say to you is entirely dependant upon the righteous outcome of this debate. An almighty God who has the ability to empower His people to carry His word through the sifting of time is certainly not going to repeat himself. Like a dad who loves his kids and wants them to grow up and learn to do the work that he does, he's not going to step in and do it for them; it's now their job.

This is not to say that God will never speak again. But for now, I am content that He has said enough. As the Bible itself says:

"Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires."

[AntiMaterialist]

Check out some of the laws in the old testement. People who claimed to be prophets were subjected to severe scrutiny. If anything that they said was found to be false, and I mean anything, they were killed on the spot. This was a commend from God Himself (allegedly, from your perspective). It didn't matter if what they said prior was considered to be from God. If they spoke the truth, and then lied, they were looked upon even more severly than if they had never spoken truth to begin with.

OK - but how do you prove the veracity of a moral command?





An almighty God who has the ability to empower His people to carry His word through the sifting of time is certainly not going to repeat himself.
Certainly? Are you speaking for God now?




Like a dad who loves his kids and wants them to grow up and learn to do the work that he does, he's not going to step in and do it for them; it's now their job.
Look - I really find the Bible terribly unconvincing. God is supposed to be very very powerful - direct communication would not be overly taxing on his resources. You say "it's now their job" - but "they" are never going to convince people like me with a book like the Bible. I do not accept things blindly. I need reasons for things. Most of the morals outlined in the Bible make sense, but not all of them do. The explanations I have heard as to why God would object to homosexuality all fall very short of making sense. If God wants me to condemn a form of love that is natural to a significant portion of the world, and is not inherently harmful to others, then God needs to explain <b>why</b> I should condemn it.

And, of course, you are going to say that God does not live by my terms. To which I counter that God does not live by the terms of those people who invented Christianity either.

[Symantix]

OK - but how do you prove the veracity of a moral command? What do you mean?

Certainly? Are you speaking for God now? You got me there. ;) However, I will say that if He is all powerful, He wouldn't have to.


Look - I really find the Bible terribly unconvincing. God is supposed to be very very powerful - direct communication would not be overly taxing on his resources. Oh? If he is very powerful, then which would be harder:
1) To spread His word by speaking to each and every individual?
2) To spread His word by speaking to one individual in such a way that it produces a chain reaction that is so powerful, that He never has to say it again?

You yourself have said "God is supposed to be very very powerful"...shall He use the method which proves that He is really powerful, or shall He choose the method that proves that He's kind of powerful?


You say "it's now their job" - but "they" are never going to convince people like me with a book like the Bible.It's not their job to convince you; their job is just to spread His word.


I do not accept things blindly. I need reasons for things. Most of the morals outlined in the Bible make sense, but not all of them do.So you are saying the Bible is not infallable because your finite mind has not yet grasped what an infinite mind (possibly potentially infinite, from your perspective) has said? Isn't this a bit of a limited viewpoint?


The explanations I have heard as to why God would object to homosexuality all fall very short of making sense.To whom?


If God wants me to condemn a form of love that is natural to a significant portion of the world, and is not inherently harmful to others, then God needs to explain why I should condemn it.Define "natural". History will reveal to you the nature of man; he always gravitates towards what is "natural" in his own mind, but "unnatural" in the mind of God. This includes murder, subjugation, oppression, self-elevation, fornication, stealing...They do it, and they think they're right for doing it. If you would prefer to agree with the opinion of man, that is your prerogative. I fail to see how that proves, or even lends to proving, that the Bible is not wholly infallable or divinely inspired.

God says that many things, like murder and stealing, are wrong, and He does not explain why. You may say these things are obvious, but that is your viewpoint; they are not obvious to everybody. Just as it is obvious to me that homosexuality is wrong, yet not to you. I may not be able to successfully explain to you why; that could either be because my reasoning fails, or it could be because your ability to understand my good reasoning has failed. In either case, homosexuality is either right or wrong, independant of the argument. So it is also with murder, stealing, or rape. There are plenty of people out there who can justify these actions in their own mind; neither you nor I may be able to successfully make them understand that it is wrong, but that has no bearing as to the actual quality of the actions; they are either right or wrong, independant of the argument. So it is with God; there is much that He understands that go beyond our mental capacity. Even if He has explained it, it's not unlikely that we may fail to understand it.

In other words, if you don't understand it, try harder. ;) Until you do, trust in the things that God has said that you do understand, and trust in God in the areas in which you don't.

Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

---------------------------------



And, of course, you are going to say that God does not live by my terms. To which I counter that God does not live by the terms of those people who invented Christianity either. Well, I was going to say that, but will hesitate now so as not to be predictable. ;)

Anyhow, you're right, God does not live by the terms of the forms of Christianity that were invented by man, which there are plenty. But if the Bible is infallable, then it is also clear when it says that there is one faith, i.e. one form of Christianity that has been invented by God.

Galatians 1:11-12
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

[AntiMaterialist]

Originally Posted by AntiMaterialist
OK - but how do you prove the veracity of a moral command?

What do you mean?

I mean - they killed false prophets. But if a prophet is making a claim that God wants them to follow a certain moral precept - how could they possibly determine if that claim were true or not?




Oh? If he is very powerful, then which would be harder:1) To spread His word by speaking to each and every individual?
2) To spread His word by speaking to one individual in such a way that it produces a chain reaction that is so powerful, that He never has to say it again?
It is not a question of which would be harder, but of which would be more effective.




You yourself have said "God is supposed to be very very powerful"...shall He use the method which proves that He is really powerful, or shall He choose the method that proves that He's kind of powerful?
Does God have something to prove? I would think that if he wanted to get the message out, he would do so in the way that most effectively got out the message.




It's not their job to convince you; their job is just to spread His word.
Right - and if people don't believe it, then they are failing to spread that word.




If you would prefer to agree with the opinion of man, that is your prerogative. I fail to see how that proves, or even lends to proving, that the Bible is not wholly infallable or divinely inspired.

No - first man has to form an opinion about the divinity of the Bible to begin with for that argument to work. Your opinion that the Bible is infallible is an opinion of a man. One way or another, man's opinions are all we have. In order to make the judgement call about the Bible's divinity, we must analyze it and form our best opinion. Homosexuality, in and of itself, does not hurt people - thus I see no reason to say it is wrong. Presumably, God's moral commands would make sense. If they don't, then we must doubt the source of these commands. The source is a bunch of heterosexual men claiming to speak for God - but I find it more believable they are just spouting their own disgust with homosexuality.




God says that many things, like murder and stealing, are wrong, and He does not explain why. You may say these things are obvious, but that is your viewpoint;
I do not say they are obvious - I have an extensively developed belief system for how morals arise.




In either case, homosexuality is either right or wrong, independant of the argument. So it is also with murder, stealing, or rape.
Like a soccer ball is either black or white? Because all know something can either be A, or not-A, but cannot be A and not-A at the same time?

And... Murder, stealing and rape all involve hurting other people. Homosexuality does not.




But if the Bible is infallable, then it is also clear when it says that there is one faith, i.e. one form of Christianity that has been invented by God.
And so we come back to it - your belief system is built upon a flimsy stack of assumptions supporting the concept that the Bible is infallible.

So, lets go back to square one and start all over - why do you think the Bible is infallible?

[Symantix]

I mean - they killed false prophets. But if a prophet is making a claim that God wants them to follow a certain moral precept - how could they possibly determine if that claim were true or not?All prophecy from God was accompanied by signs which man could not perform in and of himself.

Have you read the Bible? I've met several individuals on this forum who claim that they have studied the Bible extensively, and yet they ask me questions which, even if they had read it through just once, it would seem that they would know the answer, at least if they had been paying attention to what they were reading. No disrespect to you; you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders...just curious.



It is not a question of which would be harder, but of which would be more effective.Sure. But your statement implies that you fully, or at least extensively enough, understand his objectives. You assume that God's only goal is to spread His word. You are making assumptions about God, and yet you believe that the only piece of literature that has been claimed to be his word for millenia is not reliable. If you believed that the Bible was God's word, you would not make this assumption. As it is, you have no grounds whatsoever. You may think I do not either, but that is determined by the righteous outcome of this argument.


Does God have something to prove?This depends upon whether you are implying that He is obligated or not. According to the Bible, whether He is obligated or not, He has been intentionally proving His presence and existance and exceedingly great power for the better part of six thousand years. He proved it to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Joseph and his brothers; he proved it to Ramses (who wasn't even an israelite), he proved it to Moses, he proved it to all the israelites that Moses lead out of Egypt, he proved it to Samson, he proved it to Gideon, to Rahab (who was a gentile prostitute, btw), to David, to Solomon, to many gentile kings and commonfolk...and on and on. He did so intentionally, according to the Bible, to make His presence and power known.

So...as long as by "have something to prove", you do not mean that He's obligated...then yes. ;) According to the Bible, God Has some qualities which He desires to demonstrate, and even teach, to His people.


I would think that if he wanted to get the message out, he would do so in the way that most effectively got out the message.True. And to speak to everyone directly would indeed be the most effective way...again, if that's all He wanted to do. ;)


Right - and if people don't believe it, then they are failing to spread that word.Wrong. "Spreading" is just a word. It can mean "delivering", "moving around", "speaking", "teaching"...in this context, it means "speaking and teaching"...if you don't believe it, niether I nor any man can change that, nor are we obligate to, according to the Bible.


No - first man has to form an opinion about the divinity of the Bible to begin with for that argument to work. Your opinion that the Bible is infallible is an opinion of a man.First man has to form an opinion about the lack of divinity of the Bible to begin with in order for your argument to work. Your opinion that the Bible is fallible is an opinion of a man. ;)


One way or another, man's opinions are all we have.First man has to form an opinion about the lack of divinity of the Bible in order for this opinion to work as well.


In order to make the judgement call about the Bible's divinity, we must analyze it and form our best opinion.The divinity of the Bible is not dependent upon your opinion. If you make a judgement, and decide that the Bible is not divinely inspired, perhaps you are judging prematurly; perhaps you either do not possess all the knowledge neccessary to make a solid decision, or perhaps you are ignoring the knowledge that you have. Perhaps.


Homosexuality, in and of itself, does not hurt peopleI'm not so sure about that.
thus I see no reason to say it is wrong.Then you are presuming that morality is always contengent upon whether you are hurting another person. This is why you also rule out masturbation, fornication, some forms of lying, and some other things which I believe to be wrong (I am assuming you do; I could be mistaken). You are also presuming that these things, along with homosexuality, do not cause harm, thus you presume that you fully understand each issue, and you also presume that you fully understand what harm is and is not.


Presumably, God's moral commands would make sense.Again, to whom?


If they don't, then we must doubt the source of these commands.Again, if this source is an infinite mind, then you are saying that we must doubt the source if our finite minds do not understand it. This doesn't make sense to me, and objectively, I don't think that it should make since to anyone.


The source is a bunch of heterosexual men claiming to speak for God - but I find it more believable they are just spouting their own disgust with homosexuality.So you say.


I do not say they are obvious - I have an extensively developed belief system for how morals arise.So because of this extensive development, you are sure that you can determine that this Bible, which claims to be inspired by God, is not, at least not wholly; you are sure that because it doesn't agree with your extensively developed morality system, then it can't be right, and therefore it can't be inspired. These are some pretty big leaps. I am impressed; you must have developed your system for centuries, making careful observations of human beings as they evolved over the millenia.


Like a soccer ball is either black or white? Because all know something can either be A, or not-A, but cannot be A and not-A at the same time?
And... Murder, stealing and rape all involve hurting other people. Homosexuality does not.This is a good point, and a point taken. I can agree that killing is not always wrong, at least not 100%; I can also see this with stealing. However, I have yet to see a case of rape or homosexuality, either in the Bible, or with my own eyes, that I can say served a righteous purpose.

And no, I am not attempting to group homosexuality with rape; they are two independent examples. For the record, I do indeed think homosexuality is wrong all of the time, but I don't harbor any ill feelings towards homosexuals. In truth, I don't believe that I'm any better than they are...whatsoever.


And so we come back to it - your belief system is built upon a flimsy stack of assumptions supporting the concept that the Bible is infallible.And so we come back to it - your belief system is built upon a flimsy stack of assumptions supporting the concept that the Bible is fallible.


So, lets go back to square one and start all over - why do you think the Bible is infallible? David Letterman's Top 6 Reasons why symantix thinks the Bible is infallible:

6) It was written over several millenia by many different authors. All of them testify to a God that is always the same. There are no disagreements among any of these men - who for the most part never knew each other - as to God's nature and character. This is amazing, and it has never happened before. It would be impossible to do this unless each individual was talking about something real; something that they had experienced in reality. If they were making it up, they would never have their stories straight...not even close to straight.

5) It was written by men of many different backgrounds. This makes the process described above even more impossible. Impossible is impossible, but this ups the anty.

4) It was written by many men who were under constant duress and constant and extreme fear for their lives. Almost all of the Bible writers were men who were hated by many. They were constantly abused. This makes it even harder to keep ones story straight, even if it is true...much less if it's false. You try to write an accurate account of something that you've experienced while someone is threatening your very existance.

3) It speaks of many prophecies that were fulfilled.

2) It has survived the test of time at least 100 times better than any other book of antiquity.

and finally (actually, not finally, but it's the only other reason I'm going to give for now...I have a movie to watch with my wife)

...you're going to love this one ;)

1) I have the Spirit of Christ within me which testifies to its truth and power.

I'm sorry, but I have to throw that one in. It's true, and it's nothing that I can prove to you right here and now. You do not believe me, but if you had the Spirit of Christ in you, you would. It is a self supporting statement, no doubt. But it's true nonetheless. Many people in this world go through many things that they can't explain nor prove to anyone; I and my brothers and sisters in Christ are among them. We are walking, breathing testimonies to the power and mercy of God. We know Jesus loved us before time began; we know He died a wretched death, and that our guilt died with Him; we know He rose to declare us not guilty before the almighty Father...

...and we know the Bible is reliabe and infallible.

LOL...go ahead...roast away. ;)

And then...why do you think the Bible is fallible?

[AntiMaterialist]

Have you read the Bible? I've met several individuals on this forum who claim that they have studied the Bible extensively, and yet they ask me questions which, even if they had read it through just once, it would seem that they would know the answer, at least if they had been paying attention to what they were reading. No disrespect to you; you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders...just curious.
I have read the Bible - but I do not have 1/100th of your knowledge of it. I have no problem asking apparently ignorant questions - going fishing, as it were. I trust you to correct me if my knowledge is inadequate.




All prophecy from God was accompanied by signs which man could not perform in and of himself.
And how do we know these signs occurred?




Sure. But your statement implies that you fully, or at least extensively enough, understand his objectives.
I figure that I do not fully understand his objectives, but that neither did the people who wrote the Bible. My starting point is that we are ignorant. Assume nothing. If God really wanted us to know without doubt, He'd just tell us directly.



You are also presuming that these things, along with homosexuality, do not cause harm, thus you presume that you fully understand each issue, and you also presume that you fully understand what harm is and is not.
I evaluate each situation, and do my best, that's all.




So because of this extensive development, you are sure that you can determine that this Bible, which claims to be inspired by God, is not, at least not wholly
No. I simply see no reason to believe it is 100% the word of God. I was just saying that my moral conjecturing is not simple - I said nothing about it being infallible.




However, I have yet to see a case of rape or homosexuality, either in the Bible, or with my own eyes, that I can say served a righteous purpose.
Rape - no. But homosexuality - well, love is a beautiful thing. There are plenty of homosexuals who experience deep and meaningful love. If you have yet to see good examples, well - then you need to get out of the house more. If by "righteous" you mean consistent with Christian principles - well, no duh. Christianity opposes homosexuality. That would make your statement a mere truism.




6) It was written over several millenia by many different authors. All of them testify to a God that is always the same. There are no disagreements among any of these men - who for the most part never knew each other - as to God's nature and character. This is amazing, and it has never happened before. It would be impossible to do this unless each individual was talking about something real; something that they had experienced in reality. If they were making it up, they would never have their stories straight...not even close to straight.

These were not entirely independent accounts, they were built upon each other. There were other supposedly holy writings that were excluded from the Bible because they were inconsistent. Thus - the Bible is consistent because of good editing - what else would you expect from a book so intently studied?



5) It was written by men of many different backgrounds. This makes the process described above even more impossible. Impossible is impossible, but this ups the anty.
As in someone with the qualities of an ant? It does not up the ante. It is not as if these guys were writing in a vacuum.




4) It was written by many men who were under constant duress and constant and extreme fear for their lives. Almost all of the Bible writers were men who were hated by many. They were constantly abused. This makes it even harder to keep ones story straight, even if it is true...much less if it's false. You try to write an accurate account of something that you've experienced while someone is threatening your very existance.

These things all come down to judgement calls, and this is no exception. This just doesn't impress me or even seem very relevant.




3) It speaks of many prophecies that were fulfilled.
If this is true, and not due to self fulfilling prophecies, then it would indicate that something of a supernatural nature occurred, but not that these prophets were absolutely correct in their every moral utterance.




2) It has survived the test of time at least 100 times better than any other book of antiquity.

Personally, I chalk that up to good P.R.



1) I have the Spirit of Christ within me which testifies to its truth and power.
So when people of other faiths have similar feelings consistent with their beliefs, what is happening with them? I believe that I sense the Tao/Holy Spirit/Divine Presence/Flow of the Universe/The Force (or whatever you want to call it) when I meditate. I also admit to myself that my subjective experiences are proof of nothing. Tell me, what is it you imagine I experience in meditation? What do you think Sufis experience?




And then...why do you think the Bible is fallible?
By fallible, I mean capable of containing mistakes. The claim of infallibility is an extraordinary claim, and thus is a poor starting point. Assuming the Bible to be infallible leads to having to believe in things like eternal damnation. I find it hard to believe that God would be that evil.

[Symantix]

I don't agree with much of what you're saying, AM, but I appreciate your humble approach. That kind of approach is contageous. I'll respond when I can.

[Symantix]

I have read the Bible - but I do not have 1/100th of your knowledge of it. I have no problem asking apparently ignorant questions - going fishing, as it were. I trust you to correct me if my knowledge is inadequate. Flattery will get you nowhere...you big love muffin.

And how do we know these signs occurred? *in song* The Bible tells us so...

I figure that I do not fully understand his objectives, but that neither did the people who wrote the Bible. My starting point is that we are ignorant. Assume nothing. If God really wanted us to know without doubt, He'd just tell us directly.
But the text that you're challenging says that what they did know about God, they only knew because they receive it directly from God. It also says that their task is to take the message that God gave them and give it also to His people. I realize that you don't believe this, but your lack of belief does not prove the Bible to be fallible or uninspired, either wholly or partially.


You are also presuming that these things, along with homosexuality, do not cause harm, thus you presume that you fully understand each issue, and you also presume that you fully understand what harm is and is not. I evaluate each situation, and do my best, that's all.Thus you don't deny the possibility that you don't understand enough about each issue to make a right decision. This is progress.

No. I simply see no reason to believe it is 100% the word of God. And I fail to see a reason to believe that it's not.

I was just saying that my moral conjecturing is not simple - I said nothing about it being infallible.Okay then.

Rape - no. But homosexuality - well, love is a beautiful thing. There are plenty of homosexuals who experience deep and meaningful love. If you have yet to see good examples, well - then you need to get out of the house more.Actually, I have seen a few gay couples in my lifetime that I do believe had a genuine love toward one another; a love that I deemed as right and good.

If by "righteous" you mean consistent with Christian principles - well, no duh. Christianity opposes homosexuality. That would make your statement a mere truism.
You have had your plentiful shares of truisms in this argument. Much of what you have said to contend that the Bible is not what it says it is begins with the presumption that the Bible is not what it says it is, while many of your other statements are based upon your opinions of what is right and wrong.

These were not entirely independent accounts,No, not entirely.
they were built upon each other.Some were, true; some were not, however.
There were other supposedly holy writings that were excluded from the Bible because they were inconsistent. Thus - the Bible is consistent because of good editing - what else would you expect from a book so intently studied? Nice argument. But my contention is that you could not have two books so consistent as any of the books of the Bible are with each other, much less 66.

As in someone with the qualities of an ant?:lol:
It does not up the ante. It is not as if these guys were writing in a vacuum. Anytime you add an additional variable to an equation like this, it ups the "anty".

These things all come down to judgement calls, and this is no exception. What doesn't come down to a judgement call? Give me one example. This isn't my opinion, if that's what you mean. Ask any psychologist. This is , hands-down, objective facts based on years of research of the human mind. A person accounting a historical instance in their own life is much more likely to recall the instance inaccurately if they are under stressful circumstances.
This just doesn't impress me or even seem very relevant. I'm not trying to impress you, I'm trying to win this debate. Convincing and impressing you might be a wholly unreasonable objective. ;)

If this is true, and not due to self fulfilling prophecies, then it would indicate that something of a supernatural nature occurred, but not that these prophets were absolutely correct in their every moral utterance.
Once again, God did not work through prophets who spoke innacurately concerning His revelation. Why would He, after all? Give me a scenario in which the almighty, all powerful, all knowing, creator of the universe would speak and work through a man and, though He possesses all the power to easily give this man the ability to speak concerning the revelation given him without error, would fail to do so? What reason would he have?

You contend that the existence of an almighty creator is likely, and yet you think He would allow His message to be issued with error? Does this even make sense mathematically?


Personally, I chalk that up to good P.R. Right...people, whose lives barely last a century at best, are in and of themselves perfectly capable of passing and preserving messages over thousands of years...especially if they are really long and complex messages. Makes sense to me.

So when people of other faiths have similar feelings consistent with their beliefs, what is happening with them?I don't know.
I believe that I sense the Tao/Holy Spirit/Divine Presence/Flow of the Universe/The Force (or whatever you want to call it) when I meditate. I also admit to myself that my subjective experiences are proof of nothing.Yes, they are proof of nothing. But if the Bible is the word of God, then I can contrast the nature within me with what the Bible says, and realize that what I have in me is exactly what God put there.
Tell me, what is it you imagine I experience in meditation? What do you think Sufis experience?
I would have to hesitate from making a judgement call here. I don't feel that I have the authority to tell you that what it moving within you is any less divine than what is moving within me. That does not mean that it is or it isn't; only that I am a mere man, and perhaps should not pass judgement concerning this matter, because I honestly don't know. There are several things in the scripture that might exclude what you're feeling from being anything more than heightened emotion or momentary mental clarity; but there are also some places which make concession for the possibility that the Spirit of God is actually moving within you.

It lends little to the issue at hand, anyway.



By fallible, I mean capable of containing mistakes. The claim of infallibility is an extraordinary claim, Yes, but the claim has to be made if God inspired it.
...and thus is a poor starting point. Assuming the Bible to be infallible leads to having to believe in things like eternal damnation. I find it hard to believe that God would be that evil. It is your opinion, i.e. a self report, that the eternal damnation is evil, and it is also beyond the scope of this discussion. Your opinions of morality lend nothing to the veracity of the text.

I would like to mention one other thing. When the Bible says that it is inspired, this is a translation, most commonly known from the KJV. It is a weak term, as well. The original text used the word THEOPNEUSTOS, which means "breathed of God". It means that the Bible is the very breath, even the very Spirit of God. Ephesians refers to the Bible as "the sword of the Spirit, which is His word"...which is, again, weak. The original tongue creates an appositional genitive construct, which means something more like "the sword is the Spirit; the Spirit is His word". So, according to the Bible's claims, we're not talking about mere inspiration; we're talking about the very breath of God; the same mighty breath that created all the universe.

[AntiMaterialist]

*in song* The Bible tells us so...
exactly - your belief system is built upon the assumption of Biblical infallibility - you are using that assumption in order to prove Biblical infallibility - circular reasoning.



But the text that you're challenging says that what they did know about God, they only knew because they receive it directly from God.
Once again, this only works if you start with the assumption they received everything they said straight from God. More circular reasoning.




No. I simply see no reason to believe it is 100% the word of God.

And I fail to see a reason to believe that it's not.

The burden of proof lies upon those making extraordinary claims. I claim we don't know, this is not extraordinary. You claim that a book is the inspired word of God, which is most extraordinary.

Just admit it - your whole belief system depends upon the starting assumption that the Bible is infallible! Without that assumption, it falls apart.



What doesn't come down to a judgement call?
nothing - and yet, you believe God punishes people by making them suffer for eternity for making the wrong judgement call. Honest well intentioned errors in judgement do not warrant eternal suffering.




Once again, God did not work through prophets who spoke innacurately concerning His revelation. Why would He, after all?
Why - because he still allowed these prophets to have free will. Some supernatural process could have given them a glimpse of the future, and because this happened they came to believe that the little voice inside their heads was the voice of God. You could also ask why God does a lot of things - suffering, created Lucifer, permitted the creation of disco - you name it. God works in mysterious ways.

Also, having a supernatural glimpse of the future does not necessarily mean it came from God.



Right...people, whose lives barely last a century at best, are in and of themselves perfectly capable of passing and preserving messages over thousands of years...especially if they are really long and complex messages. Makes sense to me.
Sym, that is the value of the written word. This is why the history of man, as described by Moses, prior to his time, is so "allegorical". He didn't have written facts, just tribal stories. This is why the story of the Black Sea Flood became altered into a worldwide flood with every animal on board.

A written document can last for thousands of years, and preserve a coherent message - just look at the Bible.



Yes, they are proof of nothing. But if the Bible is the word of God, then I can contrast the nature within me with what the Bible says, and realize that what I have in me is exactly what God put there.
uh huh - and, coincidentally enough - people who are never exposed to the Bible never seem to have within them the message of the Bible. Instead, they have within them whatever seems consistent with the belief system of their society.




It is your opinion, i.e. a self report, that the eternal damnation is evil, and it is also beyond the scope of this discussion. Your opinions of morality lend nothing to the veracity of the text.
Evil is illogical. Eternal suffering is evil. A being capable of creating the multiverse is certainly capable of simple logic. Thus, God would be unlikely to create a system in which the majority of his creations wind up having to suffer for eternity. This is quite relevant.

Tell me - what is evil?






By fallible, I mean capable of containing mistakes. The claim of infallibility is an extraordinary claim,

Yes, but the claim has to be made if God inspired it.
The claim that God inspired it is an extraordinary claim. Among many other possibilities, God could have inspired certain individuals with specific information. What they did with that information was of their own volition. It could also be that there was no true inspiration directly from God in the Bible.

[Symantix]

Just admit it - your whole belief system depends upon the starting assumption that the Bible is infallible! Without that assumption, it falls apart. If this is true, then it should not be difficult for you to expose the Bible's fallibility. Lies do not have formidable foundations; only truth does. Find the foundation and knock it out from under me.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

[AntiMaterialist]

If this is true, then it should not be difficult for you to expose the Bible's fallibility.
Writing a book that is internally consistent just isn't that impressive. I am not saying the Bible contains errors, I am saying it is possible for the Bible to contain errors. All the big issues in the Bible are unprovable one way or the other.

[Symantix]

lol...you win then. According to how your context is defining "possible", you win. It's "possible" that the Bible contains errors...whether it does or not is unrelated to this definition. It's like potential vs. kinetic...if something has the potential of having errors, but it's kinetic state is error-free, then someone who says that "it could possibly have errors", is right, as well as the person who says "it doesn't".

The problem here is, the Bible is already written, so there is no more room for potential energy. Therefore, if it is infallible, then it is not possible for it to be fallible ever again, because all potential energy has been expelled.

Also, if it is infallible, then I would conclude that we are dealing with the word of an infallible God. In which case, it wasn't even possible for it to be fallible before it was written, nor during its creation.

[AntiMaterialist]

Therefore, if it is infallible, then it is not possible for it to be fallible ever again, because all potential energy has been expelled.
Ducks are not frogs. Poodles are not frogs, but make annoying noises. Ducks make annoying noises. This sentence has nothing to do with this paragraphc. Sheep go 'baaaaaaa'. Therefore, the Earth is only kinda flat.

Understand now?

[Symantix]

If you are failing to understand my argument, I think there is probably a better way of addressing the circumstance besides mocking me. I think that I've treated you with at least a notable level of respect thus far. I'm afraid that the moderate level of objectivity that you've been able to display thus far is going to lose credibility if you persist in this approach.

[AntiMaterialist]

If you are failing to understand my argument, I think there is probably a better way of addressing the circumstance besides mocking me.
Hmmmm....

sorry...

Honestly, I was attempting to make you laugh, not belittle you...

Were tone of voice conveyable by computer, it would not have felt belittling.

I shall endeavor to be more sensitive.

[Symantix]

Okay then. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Perhaps you could explain to me what you were intending to convey, and then I could address it.

[AntiMaterialist]

Perhaps you could explain to me what you were intending to convey, and then I could address it.
Your previous post was confusing to me. Not overly confusing - I mean, I get the idea that if the Bible were infallible, it would probably still be. One could debate nuances over that point, but it would be pointless to do so. I agree in broader principle.

I was just confused over the comparison to potential and kinetic energy. My response really had no meaning at all. I was just using humor to express my misunderstanding.

Back on topic, I am saying that it is possible that the Bible was created with errors. We have no way of verifying the extraordinary claims of the Bible. If I claim that aliens from another star visited me last night and took me shopping at Wal-mart, but they were invisible and thus there can be no external verification of what happened - the we do not start off assuming my story is true. We don't treat my story like a trial defendant and assume it is innocent (true) until proven guilty (false). If it is an unverifiable claim, then that is where the line of inquiry stops.

Such a story could not truthfully be said to contain errors - but it is quite possible that it contains errors - if it is possible that it contains errors, then it is not infallible. We have to use our judgement, which is basically saying we have to make our best guess, in deciding whether we believe it or not.

By the same token, I am saying that the Bible could be fallible. How could we ever verify whether or not Jesus actually raised Lazarus from the dead? Just because we cannot prove it to be false does not mean it is true. Just because we cannot prove it to be true, does not mean it is false. We either form no opinion, or form a speculative opinion.

Also, you say God wouldn't allow folks who have been granted true prophecies the free will to write down false moral proclamations - a point you use in support of the argument that if some of the Bible is inspired, it must all be. When I ask you how you know God wouldn't do that, you say it is Biblically supported. So, basically, you are using the Bible as its own proof. Circular reasoning.


I say God wouldn't condemn people to eternal suffering. You say that is just intuition on my part. That is partly true. Accounts of near death experiences must be taken with some hesitation - but they form a consistent and quite positive picture of the afterlife. These accounts would indicate regions in the outer reality that do indeed involve a sort of self-inflicted mental torment, but they generally don't indicate anything permanent about them. They indicate the ability to change and grow continues beyond death, and through multiple lifetimes.

[Symantix]

Good show.

Tell me, can you list some matters of history which took place, say, more than 500 years ago, that do not also falter under this same form of reasoning?

Also, is there anything about the afterlife that you do believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, or at least without much doubt?

[AntiMaterialist]

Tell me, can you list some matters of history which took place, say, more than 500 years ago, that do not also falter under this same form of reasoning?

There was a Roman Empire.



Also, is there anything about the afterlife that you do believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, or at least without much doubt?
Not a thing. Our knowledge base is utterly limited - I would guess intentionally so. I am fairly convinced that I exist, but am reluctant to assume much else.

[Symantix]

There was a Roman Empire. And how do you know this for sure?

Not a thing. Our knowledge base is utterly limited - I would guess intentionally so. I am fairly convinced that I exist, but am reluctant to assume much else.I wonder, what would have to happen to you, or in your presence, in order for you to be sure of anything concerning the afterlife?

[AntiMaterialist]

And how do you know this for sure?
I do not know for sure that there was a roman empire. We have many different, corroborating, sources of information - so it seems quite likely.

Just like, we have corroborating sources of information for certain events in the Bible. However, for other events, we have nothing independent of the Bible to provide corroboration.




I wonder, what would have to happen to you, or in your presence, in order for you to be sure of anything concerning the afterlife?
Sureness would mean 100% certainty. That I exist in some form is the only thing to which I would ascribe 100% certainty. Apart from that, belief comes in degrees. But why is certainty necessary? I accept the inherent uncertainty of life.

[Symantix]

Sureness would mean 100% certainty. That I exist in some form is the only thing to which I would ascribe 100% certainty. Apart from that, belief comes in degrees. But why is certainty necessary? I accept the inherent uncertainty of life.
Does this mean that you are satisfied with remaining uncertain? Or does it mean that 100% certainty is not necessary in order for you to draw a conclusion of reasonable likelihood?

[AntiMaterialist]

Well - uncertainty is the only honest answer I can come up with, given the information at my disposal. I would like to know how everything works - but that does not appear to be an option, so I settle for looking at the hints and deriving the best conclusion I can reach.

[Symantix]

Looking at the Bible...what is your best conclusion based upon these "hints" as you call them...that the Bible is most likely fallible, or that it is most likely infallible? That it is most likely wholly inpired, partially inspired, or wholly uninspired?

[AntiMaterialist]

I would say it is not wholly inspired, because it teaches of things that make no sense to me, like eternal damnation, Noah's flood, God killing the enemy's first born, God commanding the ancient Israelites to kill homosexuals and Sunday laborers. If descriptions of God's actions make no sense, then I am inclined not to believe them. In fact, in general, I am inclined not to believe things that do not make sense. You will counter by saying that God does not have to explain himself to me, or that his works are incomprehensible to mankind. That is fine, but that applies to the ancients as well. A plague of locusts made sense to them as an act of God - so they attributed it to God. But I see no reason to believe they were right - I see no reason to believe they can anticipate's God's motives better than modern man - and thus, I see no reason to believe in the infallibility of the things they wrote.

As for miracles - well, nearly all religions have miracles - some of them better documented than Christianity. They can't all be right. I don't think the ability to perform a miracle indicates moral perfection or a perfect source of knowledge.

As for partially inspired or uninspired - I don't know. I can imagine all sorts of options which involve supernatural gathering of information but do not necessarily involve God - but there are to many unknowns to draw a conclusion.