(October 25, 2016 at 12:11 pm)Lek Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 10:23 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: If you yourself don't know how your belief is justified, then what have you been telling people here for three years? Until you can go from A to B through reason, all you have is an isolated case for what you believe in with no adequate argument to offer to anyone else.

I believe that the bible is true and is justification for my belief.  I'm not 100% sure of anything.  I've never made a choice in my life, such as getting married or what career to pursue, in which I was 100% sure.  We must make decisions on which way to go and then go for it, or else we'll just keep wallowing.  I don't want to be on my deathbed and still be hem hawing around about a decision that effects eternity.  I've considered the evidence and opened myself to God's leading and decided to follow him.  I believe that anyone who says that they are have no doubts about any life decision is probably being dishonest.

I agree that you don't always need to know 100% in order to make choices. But we're not talking about choosing between porridge or fried eggs for breakfast. We're talking about a relatively radical life choice with many implications. You don't just delve into any given Holy book unless there's a very, very good reason. Of course, there may be no such reason, since you have told me already that you've grown up in the faith. In that case, what I'm wanting to know of you is different. The adequate question isn't "how did you go from A to B (non-belief to believing)" but rather, have you tried that exercise for yourself? 

See, until then, what meaningful conversation can we have? Why should I consider Christianity as a possible truth if someone within it can't show me how to get there? It just makes me question how you got there in the first place, with little to no other choice than trivial circumstance. 

As for believing the Bible is true - how critical have you been? Did you know that roughly half of Paul's letters are forgeries? That the anonymous Gospel writers seem to be cherry picking the OT in an allegorical fashion, putting things out of context while trying to build a case for Jesus (which then makes you wonder if any of it is historical at all)? That the chronological order of the NT begins with Paul's letters - letters in which he miraculously fails to address any historical fact about Jesus found in the Gospels - letters that use the same language as contemporary mystery cults, with his countless mentions of the "mysteries of Christ Jesus". What mysteries? He was just on Earth doing and explaining! Unless of course we look at other mystery cults of the time in which no single deity was considered to be in the heavens or on Earth, but rather a middle ground, acting as a "heavenly spirit". And while we're talking about cults, have you read up on the rather revealing apologies of the time? Justin Martyr writing in 150A.D? He accuses the cult of Mithras for "having copied our rituals such as the Eucharist, anointing with oil" and a couple of other Catholic things I can't remember off the top of my head. Unlucky for him, the cult of Mithras precedes Christianity by 700 - 1000 years. 

If you consider these things, how close to 100% true would you get?

(October 25, 2016 at 12:20 pm)Lek Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 10:27 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: "We" didn't sin. God created the conditions for A&E to eventually sin without knowing what they had done, because only through the tree could they hold the ability to know. It's like being accused of breaking a law without being taught what the legal system is. Once again, that's God's slip up.

Of course Adam and Eve knew that they would be offending God if they ate of the fruit of that tree.  It's not that they didn't have the ability to know that they should obey God.  You have to give the writer of Genesis credit for having some smarts.  Do really think that the story is portraying God as setting up Adam and Eve?  He made it clear.  "Read my lips.  Don't eat from the fruit of that tree."  I can picture Adam saying to Eve:  "Duh.  God said not to eat this, but he didn't teach us to know evil, so I guess it's alright."  When they disobeyed God, then they obtained knowledge of the effects of evil.  You need to consider what the writer was trying to relate through the story.

The multiple writers of Genesis (there is evidence of 4 traditions, 2 of which got melded together into "Genesis") are either being poetic, or historical. If it's poetic, then there's room for all sorts of allegorical interpretations, but then there's the awkward contradiction of the already contradicting couple of lineages leading from A&E to Jesus, the contradiction being how you can possibly descend from an allegory? If it's historical, then that implies truths and matter-of-facts. And considering it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it seems like A&E lacked the metaphysics of ethics until they ate from it, by which time it was too late. It can't be that the tree merely gave them knowledge of the consequences, because if it did, that would imply that A&E could of had ethical metaphysics - they would have subscribed to deontology, the belief that right and wrong are inherently right and wrong regardless of the consequences. They would have to be deontologists since they precisely lack the knowledge about consequences. But see, that can't be, because their metaphysics would have been incomplete. To be a deontologist is to deny consequentialism. To be a deontologist, one accepts right and wrong in spite of the consequences.

I just wish they'd reject more of it and then interpret the rest of it without that broomstick up their ass.

(October 25, 2016 at 6:13 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I agree that you don't always need to know 100% in order to make choices. But we're not talking about choosing between porridge or fried eggs for breakfast. We're talking about a relatively radical life choice with many implications. You don't just delve into any given Holy book unless there's a very, very good reason. Of course, there may be no such reason, since you have told me already that you've grown up in the faith. In that case, what I'm wanting to know of you is different. The adequate question isn't "how did you go from A to B (non-belief to believing)" but rather, have you tried that exercise for yourself? 

If a person is in search of God there is a very good reason to delve into holy books. I've never been an unbeliever, but I've voluntarily put my belief to the test by participating in this forum for three years. I think that I've confronted all the arguments that are out there including your arguments below. So yes, I have put my faith to the test.

Quote:See, until then, what meaningful conversation can we have? Why should I consider Christianity as a possible truth if someone within it can't show me how to get there? It just makes me question how you got there in the first place, with little to no other choice than trivial circumstance. 

The way to get there is to seek God. You already know that.

Quote:As for believing the Bible is true - how critical have you been? Did you know that roughly half of Paul's letters are forgeries? That the anonymous Gospel writers seem to be cherry picking the OT in an allegorical fashion, putting things out of context while trying to build a case for Jesus (which then makes you wonder if any of it is historical at all)? That the chronological order of the NT begins with Paul's letters - letters in which he miraculously fails to address any historical fact about Jesus found in the Gospels - letters that use the same language as contemporary mystery cults, with his countless mentions of the "mysteries of Christ Jesus". What mysteries? He was just on Earth doing and explaining! Unless of course we look at other mystery cults of the time in which no single deity was considered to be in the heavens or on Earth, but rather a middle ground, acting as a "heavenly spirit". And while we're talking about cults, have you read up on the rather revealing apologies of the time? Justin Martyr writing in 150A.D? He accuses the cult of Mithras for "having copied our rituals such as the Eucharist, anointing with oil" and a couple of other Catholic things I can't remember off the top of my head. Unlucky for him, the cult of Mithras precedes Christianity by 700 - 1000 years. 

If you consider these things, how close to 100% true would you get?

Yes. I've considered all these allegations and I've also considered all the allegations of the scholars who disagree with your scholars. You're making illogical conclusions like inferring that Mithras was performing rituals similar to the Eucharist before the time of Christ just because the cult preceded christianity. You say that Justin Martyr made the accusation over 100 years after Christ. The mystery of Christ was that he died for all, not just the Jews. The Jews thought that he was coming just for them. Anyway, if there were other mysteries concerning Christ, what does that have to do with other "mystery cults". You're taking a bunch research and opinions of some scholars and not balancing them out with research and opinions of other scholars. Why don't you just say that Jesus didn't really exist, as is the opinion of some scholars? Sounds like you've worked really hard to build up a case in your mind against christianity.

(October 25, 2016 at 6:31 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: The multiple writers of Genesis (there is evidence of 4 traditions, 2 of which got melded together into "Genesis") are either being poetic, or historical. If it's poetic, then there's room for all sorts of allegorical interpretations, but then there's the awkward contradiction of the already contradicting couple of lineages leading from A&E to Jesus, the contradiction being how you can possibly descend from an allegory? If it's historical, then that implies truths and matter-of-facts. And considering it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it seems like A&E lacked the metaphysics of ethics until they ate from it, by which time it was too late. It can't be that the tree merely gave them knowledge of the consequences, because if it did, that would imply that A&E could of had ethical metaphysics - they would have subscribed to deontology, the belief that right and wrong are inherently right and wrong regardless of the consequences. They would have to be deontologists since they precisely lack the knowledge about consequences. But see, that can't be, because their metaphysics would have been incomplete. To be a deontologist is to deny consequentialism. To be a deontologist, one accepts right and wrong in spite of the consequences.

According to the bible, God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree and he did. He disobeyed God. The entire bible attests to that including Jesus himself. Why are you trying to complicate such a simple issue? I can understand if you just don't believe it, but why go through all these gyrations?

If one found oneself imbued, as it were, fully of Christ's love, and then found themselves compelled to, for example, follow Mosaic dietary restrictions, and wear clothing of just one variety of fiber, their salvation wouldn't be imperiled would it?

And additionally, the rest of us might then find their conversion to be all the more sincere. And should they then adopt even more inconvenient strictures from Leviticus and advocate for their acceptance amongst their religious brethren, it would follow we'd be even more impressed . . . .

(October 25, 2016 at 9:02 pm)Lek Wrote:

(October 25, 2016 at 6:13 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I agree that you don't always need to know 100% in order to make choices. But we're not talking about choosing between porridge or fried eggs for breakfast. We're talking about a relatively radical life choice with many implications. You don't just delve into any given Holy book unless there's a very, very good reason. Of course, there may be no such reason, since you have told me already that you've grown up in the faith. In that case, what I'm wanting to know of you is different. The adequate question isn't "how did you go from A to B (non-belief to believing)" but rather, have you tried that exercise for yourself? 

If a person is in search of God there is a very good reason to delve into holy books.  

That qualifies as a "good reason", yes.

Quote:I've never been an unbeliever, but I've voluntarily put my belief to the test by participating in this forum for three years.  I think that I've confronted all the arguments that are out there including your arguments below.  So yes, I have put my faith to the test.  

I congratulate you for that.

Quote:

Quote:See, until then, what meaningful conversation can we have? Why should I consider Christianity as a possible truth if someone within it can't show me how to get there? It just makes me question how you got there in the first place, with little to no other choice than trivial circumstance. 

The way to get there is to seek God.  You already know that.

I've come up with an original theory regarding seeking God i.e. placing faith in Him, but more specifically, the nature of religious faith itself. I don't know if I should go into it here though.

Quote:

Quote:As for believing the Bible is true - how critical have you been? Did you know that roughly half of Paul's letters are forgeries? That the anonymous Gospel writers seem to be cherry picking the OT in an allegorical fashion, putting things out of context while trying to build a case for Jesus (which then makes you wonder if any of it is historical at all)? That the chronological order of the NT begins with Paul's letters - letters in which he miraculously fails to address any historical fact about Jesus found in the Gospels - letters that use the same language as contemporary mystery cults, with his countless mentions of the "mysteries of Christ Jesus". What mysteries? He was just on Earth doing and explaining! Unless of course we look at other mystery cults of the time in which no single deity was considered to be in the heavens or on Earth, but rather a middle ground, acting as a "heavenly spirit". And while we're talking about cults, have you read up on the rather revealing apologies of the time? Justin Martyr writing in 150A.D? He accuses the cult of Mithras for "having copied our rituals such as the Eucharist, anointing with oil" and a couple of other Catholic things I can't remember off the top of my head. Unlucky for him, the cult of Mithras precedes Christianity by 700 - 1000 years. 

If you consider these things, how close to 100% true would you get?

Yes.  I've considered all these allegations and I've also considered all the allegations of the scholars who disagree with your scholars.  You're making illogical conclusions like inferring that Mithras was performing rituals similar to the Eucharist before the time of Christ just because the cult preceded christianity.

Negative. I'm not inferring anything. I'm simply reading that:

Quote:...Justin Martyr made the accusation over 100 years after Christ.

His words, not mine. And I don't see what 100 years changes. 

Quote:  The mystery of Christ was that he died for all, not just the Jews.  The Jews thought that he was coming just for them.

Jesus said that many times. Where's the mystery? What's mysterious is that Paul repeatedly has the opportunity to quote Jesus (e.g. teachings from the Sermon on the Mount) but fails over and over again to do so, and instead inserts his own teaching or something inbetween, but never explicitly from what Jesus has said/done. 

Quote:  Anyway, if there were other mysteries concerning Christ, what does that have to do with other "mystery cults".

The fact that when you take a step back, Paul just sounds like one more mystery cultists, and it makes sense. He has no knowledge of the deeds of Jesus. His only encounter is a bright light. It sounds to me like his Saviour is a spiritual being - precisely the sort of thing going around during his time. Occam's Razor.

Quote:  You're taking a bunch research and opinions of some scholars and not balancing them out research and opinions of other scholars.  Why don't you just say that Jesus didn't really exist, as is the opinion of some scholars.  Sounds like you've worked really hard to build up a case in your mind against christianity.

No, once again, Occam's Razor. The other explanation (that it's all true) simply doesn't stack up. Some more food for thought, a challenge unanswered by anyone here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-30849.html[/quote]

(October 25, 2016 at 5:15 pm)Lek Wrote:

(October 25, 2016 at 3:23 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Christian approach to the Bible:

Atheists love to use a wooden literal translation, rather what it's really saying, to try to discredit it.  Hopefully the readers are smarter than you.

(October 25, 2016 at 9:08 pm)Lek Wrote:

(October 25, 2016 at 6:31 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: The multiple writers of Genesis (there is evidence of 4 traditions, 2 of which got melded together into "Genesis") are either being poetic, or historical. If it's poetic, then there's room for all sorts of allegorical interpretations, but then there's the awkward contradiction of the already contradicting couple of lineages leading from A&E to Jesus, the contradiction being how you can possibly descend from an allegory? If it's historical, then that implies truths and matter-of-facts. And considering it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it seems like A&E lacked the metaphysics of ethics until they ate from it, by which time it was too late. It can't be that the tree merely gave them knowledge of the consequences, because if it did, that would imply that A&E could of had ethical metaphysics - they would have subscribed to deontology, the belief that right and wrong are inherently right and wrong regardless of the consequences. They would have to be deontologists since they precisely lack the knowledge about consequences. But see, that can't be, because their metaphysics would have been incomplete. To be a deontologist is to deny consequentialism. To be a deontologist, one accepts right and wrong in spite of the consequences.

According to the bible, God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree and he did.  He disobeyed God.  The entire bible attests to that including Jesus himself.  Why are you trying to complicate such a simple issue?  I can understand if you just don't believe it, but why go through all these gyrations?

No one is denying that. The issue is that God gave a moral choice to someone who can't morally choose just yet, because God made it that way.

It's a tremendously complicated issue, but not for my beliefs.

Why is it a moral choice not to do something someone told you not to do? Is that "someone" supposed to be some kind of moral authority? Upon what grounds? My folks taught me not to fraternize with minorities or buy a boat, I disobeyed.

It doesn't sound complicated. Asshole a said "don't do it". Asshole b did it. Now what?