Christians Unite

[FatAndFaithless]

Of course, that doesn't qualify as proof by your standards, but none such will ever be provided, because that would defeat the entire purpose the Bible so explicitly lays out. To demand it is akin to demanding water from a rock - ain't gonna happen without God Himself stepping in.

Then the minimum bar for evidence (which is very low) is set too high for your beliefs to ever convince us to take them seriously.

Unfortunately that's your problem, not ours.

No but you don't understand, the Bible has special criteria for 'proof'.

[MilesAbbott81]

Special pleading.

Circular reasoning.

I'm going to try explaining this to you one more time. Try real hard to concentrate, okay?

We are not talking about proving anything in the real world. The topic at hand is an interpretation of a particular Scripture. There is no evidence to be discussed, in any way shape or form. This is not the same as providing proof for God's existence, it is an entirely separate argument.

One cannot simply say "this Scripture means that," provide nothing other than opinion, and then criticize another for pointing out that they are logically mistaken based on precedents and antecedents in the very same book which that person originally quoted. It has nothing to do at all with circular reasoning or special pleading.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

But that's what Christians and other theists do all the time isn't it?

Surely it's irrelevant what source material you cite outside of the given holy text when attempting to elucidate on the meaning of scripture? If it's all down to interpretation (which the majority of course is) then what does it matter?

Also, welcome to the forum.

[robvalue]

We don't care what the "scriptures" say. Scriptures is a fancy word for words. A bunch of words on a page.

Didn't you tell me I had to apply logic to it? The logical thing to do with anything you don't know to be true is to assess its truth externally. And almost all of it fails this. So sorry, I couldn't care less what it says.

A bit of advice for you, maybe you could own what you are saying as your beliefs, rather than stating them as fact?

[Norman Humann]

I'm going to try explaining this to you one more time. Try real hard to concentrate, okay?

I'll do my best, but your continuous naked assertions are tiresome to say the least.

We are not talking about proving anything in the real world.

Can you prove it in the unreal world?

Nah, I'm just screwing with you now.

The topic at hand is an interpretation of a particular Scripture. There is no evidence to be discussed, in any way shape or form. This is not the same as providing proof for God's existence, it is an entirely separate argument.

To make any of the claims presented valid, one must already believe in god, yes.

Which means you're just preaching. Thanks for the clarification.

One cannot simply say "this Scripture means that," provide nothing other than opinion, and then criticize another for pointing out that they are logically mistaken based on precedents and antecedents in the very same book which that person originally quoted. It has nothing to do at all with circular reasoning or special pleading.

Oh, you mean the saying evidence doesn't apply to christianity isn't special pleading and claiming all the evidence needed is the bible isn't circular reasoning? Mhm.

[MilesAbbott81]

We don't care what the "scriptures" say. Scriptures is a fancy word for words. A bunch of words on a page.

Didn't you tell me I had to apply logic to it? The logical thing to do with anything you don't know to be true is to assess its truth externally. And almost all of it fails this. So sorry, I couldn't care less what it says.

A bit of advice for you, maybe you could own what you are saying as your beliefs, rather than stating them as fact?

I could say the same thing for you. Need I remind you, it is you who first said that the verse means God spoke of some supposed impotence without clarifying it was your opinion?

I can certainly take the time to preface every statement I make with "according to my beliefs..." if I must, but I would've thought that was obvious.

And still, it is not wise to assess truths by the external when referring to a book that is chock-full of all kinds of metaphors. It's an extremely complicated book, and making such a careless assumption as you have done kind of tells me you probably do not even have a basic understanding of it.

Know the source material if you want to argue about the source.

[FatAndFaithless]

Know the source material if you want to argue about the source.

How do you go about proving that something in the bible is a metaphor or to be taken literally?

[robvalue]

So you tell me to use logic, then you tell me the logical thing to do is just accept what it says, according to your interpretation. And ignore the bits you say are corrupted. That's a weird kind of logic.

My "opinion" about the verse I quoted was that the words say what they say.

It's not me that is forever trying to show that they actually say something else, that is up to the apologists.

[MilesAbbott81]

But that's what Christians and other theists do all the time isn't it?

Surely it's irrelevant what source material you cite outside of the given holy text when attempting to elucidate on the meaning of scripture? If it's all down to interpretation (which the majority of course is) then what does it matter?

Also, welcome to the forum.

Thank you.

I understand what you're saying, but this particular instance isn't really about interpretation, as one might interpret a poem or something. This is interpretation based on context (precedents/antecedents) and issues pertaining to translation. Big difference.

[robvalue]

Anyone can interpret the bible in an infinite number of ways.

Who gets to decide what is the right one? What does it even mean to say it's the "right" one?