(November 12, 2012 at 1:44 pm)John V Wrote:

(November 12, 2012 at 12:31 pm)Utracia Wrote: Are you really going to use the "it was legal at the time so it was okay" tactic? I suppose it is one way to excuse slaughtering these young women's families and then forcibly marrying them to their conquerors.

I'm not using any tactic at all. I'm noting that it's incorrect to read battlefield rape into the passage as most atheists do.

You are turning out to be a real dumb fuck, john. Your "god" is a scumbag. Why worship such a concept?

(November 12, 2012 at 8:18 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Is it OK for newspapers supposed to be printed AFTER the events they report happened?

Not if they are calling their stories 'prophecy'.

(November 12, 2012 at 8:18 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: There are many bible prophecies written centuries before the actual event. The problem is when people say, oh well Jesus is just doing those things in order to make it look like as if He is the fulfilment of the prophecy.

Thats a pretty lame argument because it makes it impossible for ANYONE to fulfil the prophecy. If they dont ride a donkey into Jerusalem they are excluded and if they DO they are still excluded.

Who said Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem? The bible? Maybe Jesus didn't ride a donkey into Jerusalem, and the authors just fudged the facts a bit with Jesus's life to fulfill a few prophecies? And what if he did? Is some guy riding a donkey into Jerusalem really that shockingly unlikely that we should attribute claivoyence to whoever said somebody would do that, and it happened centuries later.

(November 12, 2012 at 6:13 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(November 12, 2012 at 4:34 pm)Undeceived Wrote: There are 27 New Testament books and 66 in the whole Bible, many of which make predictions that came true. Outside sources:
http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/history_of_jesus.htm
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/...ources.htm
Are you saying all this evidence is a cleverly-contrived pack of lies? Well then, I declare all mentions of George Washington to be part of a conspiracy, perhaps devised by John Adams (the real first president) to pretend that a much more likeable man was president instead. The motive or the who makes no difference. George Washington was not president until you prove it with evidence I, the skeptic, accept as evidence. You have the burden of proof, my friend. George Washington was not a real man.

These sources deal with the existence of Jesus (a possibility I am willing to accept). Neither prove that Jesus was what he said he was. Neither prove the existence of God.

No, they don't. However, they present an interesting scenario. Jesus is the only man to claim he was God and be believed by thousands. Either he was a liar (contradicting his own teachings) or he was a madman (who was very calm and convincing). There is no evidence of later embellishment, and little time to develop a legend. All of this puts the decision on the shoulders of the individual--there is no clear proof either way. Either you believe the sources or you refuse to believe the sources because you are convinced that deep questions such as humanity's purpose and origin are answerable only by naturalistic science. The article I linked argues for a burden of proof for theists and atheists alike (http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com...-of-proof/ ). My sources don't prove the existence of God, but that doesn't mean atheism is to be automatically accepted in its stead. Both beliefs have a shortage of evidence and, more importantly, require a presupposed way of looking at the evidence. Atheists presuppose empiricistic naturalism. Theists presuppose rationalism in addition to empiricism. When two sides are arguing with opposite epistemologies as we are (with the very origins of those epistemologies the topic of the argument), one of us cannot simply tell the other 'prove it' as if they have the higher ground. My reason (and I believe the Holy Spirit's intervention) tells me Jesus told the truth about himself. Your reason ignores all human motivations and cuts the answer down to a cold science. If I may make an analogy. Joe the anarchist punches Dave the policeman in the face. A rationalist would say, “Joe hit Dave because he hates government institutions.” An empiricist would say, “The object called Joe collided with the object called Dave” and look for a physical explanation. Apparently, object Joe struck object Dave when the electrical activity in Joe’s brain rose. What caused the activity? The empiricist will look for other instances of the activity. He might discover that it increases when near objects that hold some kind of authoritative power over object Joe. Science would never come close to the concept of anger the emotion because emotions are only knowable by the inside information we have as humans. In order to find Joe's reason for hitting Dave, we must employ a rationalist perspective.

The same goes for reasoning about God. God is not a material being. He is all person. Science cannot touch Him. Just as reason alone could understand Joe’s personal intent in punching Dave, reason alone can understand the all-personal God. God’s existence is not provable if by ‘proof’ you mean ‘physical proof’. Now, He might leave clues for us. But if He does, He does so on His own terms with a purpose in mind. If His desire is for people open to His love to find Him, He will provide enough evidence for them to believe. Providing undeniable physical evidence makes people view Him as a force to submit to. Even if you reasoned God's intentions differently than I just did, 'proof' would have no place. You have the right to argue, "God would show Himself better if he existed" or "God would cater to all my wants." But you lack the right to impose a naturalistic view on the question of God (at least God in the traditionally accepted sense).

Think of science as a branch of philosophy, not philosophy as a branch of science. It's methods are only as good as the epistemology behind them.

Quote:There are many bible prophecies written centuries before the actual event.

Evidence?

(November 12, 2012 at 11:11 am)John V Wrote: The law says that people should be killed for certain offenses. you quoted one such instance yourself. Would such killing be sinful? You're still dodging the question.

If you want to be justified by the law, you will be judged by it. Christ has promised, however, that those who follow him will not even pass before judgement (John 5:24).

Since there is no way that you are going to be able to keep the whole of the Jewish law, nor do I believe that you want to, then you can't decide to act upon the "divine instruction" to kill sinners. You don't get to decide what to follow and what not to follow. You would have to take your brothers wives as your own should they die and produce children for your dead brothers, etc.

---

(November 12, 2012 at 4:34 pm)Undeceived Wrote: There are 27 New Testament books and 66 in the whole Bible, many of which make predictions that came true. Outside sources:
http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/history_of_jesus.htm
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/...ources.htm
Are you saying all this evidence is a cleverly-contrived pack of lies?

Why use the secular term "prediction" in place of prophecy? The clearest prophecy in the New Testament is the destruction of Jerusalem. Athiests claim that the text is either written during or after AD 70 or that the original texts were altered to include the prophecy. You can't prove a negative, as you well know, so their claim of maticulius conspiracy means they should be able to provide evidence for it. Their only evidence resides in weak textual criticisim.

You are still hiding behind your out of date political mandate Daniel.

Religious "law" is no longer valid here in the west. Just one of those little niceties that get the islamists up in arms (poor slaves that they are)

Quote:Either he was a liar (contradicting his own teachings) or he was a madman (who was very calm and convincing)

False dicotomy. Someone can be convinced of something wrong and be wrong even if he isn't a liar or mentally impaired.

Quote:There is no evidence of later embellishment, and little time to develop a legend

Legends don't need much time to develop. Word of mouth acts quickly. And there is evidence of embellishment, both in the books that were rejected by the church because they presented more contradictions and in the canonic gospels.

Quote:Science would never come close to the concept of anger the emotion because emotions are only knowable by the inside information we have as humans. In order to find Joe's reason for hitting Dave, we must employ a rationalist perspective.

I suppose you have never heard of neurosciences and psychology. Anyway, this is a strawman comparison. A punch in the face isn't an extraordinary claim, resurrection is. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A series of partisan books isn't enough evidence to back up an ordinary claim, let alone an extraordinary one.

Quote: God is not a material being. He is all person. Science cannot touch Him. Just as reason alone could understand Joe’s personal intent in punching Dave, reason alone can understand the all-personal God.

Even reason alone won't help your case.

The concept of the christian god is wholly unreasonable and riddled with contradictions. The concept of god in general doesn't fare much better: the infamous proofs of Thomas Aquinas have been shown to be circular and groundless since the times of Immanuel Kant.

Most philosophers nowadays reject any rationalistic "proof" of god. Even theologians don't prove god, they just presume that he exists.

Quote: But you lack the right to impose a naturalistic view on the question of God (at least God in the traditionally accepted sense).

This is would be true if you were an Epicurean and believed that your god lives in his specific domain. Your presumed god acts in the natural world, therefore any specific claim of an act with natural consequencies (i.e. a resurrection) falls within the scope of a naturalistic analysis.

---

Quote:Jesus is the only man to claim he was God and be believed by thousands

Not true: read here.

(November 13, 2012 at 4:37 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: You are still hiding behind your out of date political mandate Daniel.

Religious "law" is no longer valid here in the west. Just one of those little niceties that get the islamists up in arms (poor slaves that they are)

Am I insisting that we institute religious law? No. Thus your point is invalid.

No it is not. Religion is the "law" and from there Constantine 'Ruled" from there Henry VIII 'ruled" so the point stands.

You have no reason to be xtian mate. The whole fairytale is a farce as Kirbmarc has pointed out to you