RE: Deal for Daystar.
November 8, 2008 at 2:51 pm
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2008 at 3:01 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(November 8, 2008 at 2:24 pm)Daystar Wrote:What I mean is, if you are teaching the 'truth' of the bible, and claiming it, then you do want an argument don't you? Because of course I'm going to argue back because I don't think the bible is truth. But you say that you don't want argument. Seems like a contradiction to me. Unless of course you simply don't want me to use the burden of proof against an argument of your claims. Even though I think its very valid.(November 8, 2008 at 12:49 pm)Tiberius Wrote: He'll never accept it because he isn't just trying to "educate" us on the Bible; he's trying to convert us.
You really think that I am trying to convert you? After I have said I haven't?
The objective of a true Christian is similar to that of Noah, not to convert but to present. Did you know that Noah didn't shut the door of the ark, God did. Or of Paul, just to plant the seed, and if the seed grows that is up to you and God. I do want to educate you but I am not so niave to think that that is likely. I have dealt with enough Xians and Atheists to know that is a vain pursuit.
I am here to discuss.
(November 8, 2008 at 12:24 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Daystar, you say that you are here to just teach about the bible and not to teach the truth of it or prove that it is true.
Not to teach the truth of it? I am certainly not here to teach anything but the truth of it. I don't need to prove it - that is nonsense.
(November 8, 2008 at 12:24 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: So can we make a deal now?
The deal is this: I'd be very interested in learning more about the bible and how you interpret it. So long as you don't CLAIM that it is truth of the supernatural (meaning something that hasn't evolved or developed from natural laws). If you do claim this, you can still teach it your way but I should have every right to correct you and you should accept my correction when I remind you that you are not supposed to teach scripture as truth of the supernatural.
Deal?
That doesn't make any sense to me. What have we been doing all along? You know that I believe - that I CLAIM that the Bible is 'truth of the supernatural.' Are you like Windows Vista or something? Science has to 'prove' to you what I claim before you will acknowledge it?
If you are propositioning me to help you more accurately understand what the Bible teaches it is up to you not to accept the supernatural. Can I teach you in that way? I don't see why not.
You have a deal. (though not a point)
However, if by your proposition you mean that I can't mention God because he is supernatural you have no deal. The Bible deals with the supernatural.
If you want to express the reasons and logic and outside sources etc against, that is what I have been trying to get you to do all along.
I'm happy if you teach the bible as fiction and I'm happy if you 'teach' about the 'truth' of the bible. But if you 'teach' about the 'truth' of the bible you cannot then tell me that I have nothing to say on the matter! I don't think the evidence you are presenting is valid, I think its false. And I don't have to disprove the truth of the bible as I have said many times now. I can just dismiss the evidence If I don't consider it to be evidence. Until you provide what I consider to be evidence, I can assume the bible is a load of nonsense. That's the burden of proof.
