If you believe in the God of the Bible, why try to prove it logically?

[orogenicman]

What part of my reply did you not understand?

Well, I don't understand why you ignored my scripture that refutes your scripture....
(actually I do know why, I just wanted to rub it in your face a bit)

Because your scriptures didn't refute anything. Everyone on the planet knows that the god of the OT was a sociopathic prick, while the god of the new testament knocked up a virgin and killed his own son. Worship that? Are you insane?

[catfish]

Well, I don't understand why you ignored my scripture that refutes your scripture....
(actually I do know why, I just wanted to rub it in your face a bit)

Because your scriptures didn't refute anything. Everyone on the planet knows that the god of the OT was a sociopathic prick, while the god of the new testament knocked up a virgin and killed his own son. Worship that? Are you insane?

So, in other words, even though I posted verses from the OT (like yours), you're just going to cherrypick the verses that supports your literalist fundy view regardless of the fact that the verses I posted came "after" your verses. Gotcha, at least I can be sure you're a fundy now.

[fr0d0]

Yet children just get it.

C'mon dude answer the question

What part of my reply did you not understand?

I understood your reply fully. Hence my answer. I posed a separate question which you didn't respond to.

[Esquilax]

So, in other words, even though I posted verses from the OT (like yours), you're just going to cherrypick the verses that supports your literalist fundy view regardless of the fact that the verses I posted came "after" your verses. Gotcha, at least I can be sure you're a fundy now.

So is it that all the previous verses that mention god's orders are false, or just the ones that make your religion look bad, catfish?

Because it'd be really funny if you were arguing for a position where even basic stuff like the ten commandments were lies.

[catfish]

So, in other words, even though I posted verses from the OT (like yours), you're just going to cherrypick the verses that supports your literalist fundy view regardless of the fact that the verses I posted came "after" your verses. Gotcha, at least I can be sure you're a fundy now.

So is it that all the previous verses that mention god's orders are false, or just the ones that make your religion look bad, catfish?

Because it'd be really funny if you were arguing for a position where even basic stuff like the ten commandments were lies.

No what's funny is you are about to tell me how I'm supposed to interpret it.

[orogenicman]

Because your scriptures didn't refute anything. Everyone on the planet knows that the god of the OT was a sociopathic prick, while the god of the new testament knocked up a virgin and killed his own son. Worship that? Are you insane?

So, in other words, even though I posted verses from the OT (like yours), you're just going to cherrypick the verses that supports your literalist fundy view regardless of the fact that the verses I posted came "after" your verses. Gotcha, at least I can be sure you're a fundy now.

Let's revisit one of those verses I posted, just for example, shall we?

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Now, I don't know how you interpret that paragraph - apparently it is against your religion to ask questions in Sunday school - but it is clear to me that Moses ordered women and children to be murdered , and virgins to be given to his men to do with as they like. You apparently don't have a problem with any of this. Imagine the outrage had it been Obama that made the order.

Yes, I fully understand that we are talking about a different time, and a different culture from today. And dude, that's exactly the friggin point, isn't it? The god of the Bible was a genicidal sociopath. Most normal people don't subscribe to that sort of thing these days. YOU can't cherry pick the bible by only accepting only what you believe to be the good parts and ignoring the rest. It's the same friggin attitude that got pedophile Catholic priests in trouble the world over. It's the problem with the entire Judeo-Christian religion. Your entire history is one of repeated atrocities followed by unabashed denial. It took Rome 400 years to apologize for what it did to Galileo. 400 friggin years. And it has never apologized for the genocide that occurred during the Crusades.

Shall I continue?

[fr0d0]

Shall I continue?

If you can provide one scrap of evidence that this was unjust killing and rape. So far there is none. Apparently we should take your word for that.

Would Obama be speaking for God? Would we know that retrospectively? Would we know if Moses here was actually speaking for God or if the Israelites, as God's people fighting in his name, were actually doing God's will? Are we sure that our exegesis is comensurate with our claims?

[Foxaèr]

If you can provide one scrap of evidence that this was unjust killing and rape. So far there is none.

You are like the amoral defense attorneys who defend an obviously known criminal, allowing the individual to escape justice for his crimes.

[fr0d0]

But my defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Or is that Christian baggage we should be torching??

[Zen Badger]

Common arguments for the existence of God (such as the ontological argument, the teleological argument, first cause, cosmology, etc), only get you as far as an abstract notion of some sort of god -- the kind that philosophers talk about (if you accept the arguments, that is).

If you believe that the God of the Bible really exists and has the properties ascribed to him by this book, then other means are required to justify belief in this specific God. Typically this comes down to either scriptural authority, or divine revelation, or some combination of the two (for example, belief in the truth of the message of the biblical prophets is belief in both of these things). Am I omitting anything here? Note that I am including 'personal experience with God' under the umbrella of revelation, as God revealing himself to you.

But if you are willing to accept revelation / scripture as vehicles for determining truth from falsehood, then what is the point in attempting to construct a logical argument for the existence of God in the abstract? You already have what you consider proof of his existence, and a logical argument won't prove that your particular God exists. If you are trying to convince someone, they will still have to accept scriptural authority or divine revelation, will they not?

If belief in revelation / scripture is both necessary and sufficient, and logic alone is insufficient -- why bother?

Because they can no longer kill or torture those who disbelieve.