Alleged Contradictions - Seeing God's Face

[ManofGOD]

This is foolishness. Is it not said: A fool returns to his folly like a dog returns to his vomit.

[Jason Jarred]

(7th November 2008 20:18)Daystar Wrote:  If Atheists didn't believe in God but never discussed him at all I wouldn't be here. It is one thing to not believe - which I am not at all concerned about - and yet an entirely different thing to say something wrong about what you don't understand.

Let's be clear about making a distinction here. I don't think Atheists are necessarily concerned with talking about God (Although we will certainly discuss Vishnu and other Gods out of interest), and not necessarily as the God appears in a religious text, but more specifically to discuss the *belief* in a God or Gods. It's quite a different thing to discuss an object, than to discuss the belief value placed on an object.
We may give Christianity special attention at times due to its prevalence in our society, but your religion on the whole is no more credible than any other religion.

(8th November 2008 16:13)ManofGOD Wrote:  This is foolishness. Is it not said: A fool returns to his folly like a dog returns to his vomit.

I agree, in fact... that is possibly the *best* analogy for religion I have heard so far.

[leo-rcc]

Guys, to be fair, If you point out contradictions in the bible and Daystar posts his view as to why it isn't a contradiction that is not preaching, just responding to the point made.

Whether the explanation is satisfactory to you is up to you of course.

[Tiberius]

Point is, we didn't point out most of these contradictions he has gone over in his "alleged contradictions" series. If he was responding to something we'd written in another thread, he should do so in the same thread. Creating new threads just to put his opinion about the interpretation of the Bible is preaching.

[Ace Otana]

(9th November 2008 13:29)Tiberius Wrote:  Point is, we didn't point out most of these contradictions he has gone over in his "alleged contradictions" series. If he was responding to something we'd written in another thread, he should do so in the same thread. Creating new threads just to put his opinion about the interpretation of the Bible is preaching.

Agreed, I've been watching.

I was wondering why the new threads. I couldn't class this as simple education of the bible, this is either close to preaching or it is preaching.

[Kyuuketsuki]

(7th November 2008 19:42)Daystar Wrote:  I think that it would be best for the two of you to consider the Bible as complete fiction and go from there.

Although not history the bible is a useful historic source but the essential claims made within it need to be critically & objectively examined (something you're not capable of based on your posts to date) and it's essential claims (the miraculous events, prophecies, claims to divinity etc./) taken with a pinch of salt until such time as evidence is presented that verifies those claims.

(7th November 2008 19:42)Daystar Wrote:  Don't consider the evidence or credibility of it as important in a consideration of what you more comfortably think of as complete fiction. I'm not here to convince or convert you.

No of course you're not ... that's why you blitz this place with scriptural quotes isn't it?

(7th November 2008 19:42)Daystar Wrote:  Just educate you on the Bible.

Thanks but no thanks ... not only (in my experience) do atheists tend to know an awful lot more about the bible than their Christina adversaries but I'm a recovering ex-Christian so it might be well to assume we actually know the odd thing or two.

Kyu

---

(8th November 2008 16:13)ManofGOD Wrote:  This is foolishness. Is it not said: A fool returns to his folly like a dog returns to his vomit.

Pretty much sums up the religious doesn't it?

Kyu