Hello

[tackattack]

That might work against a literalist but Tackattack already made it pretty clear he thinks it's mostly all nonsense stories with a sliver of truth - that being how people experienced what they perceived to be god. He's just really bad with probability and has convinced himself that if enough coincidences happen in your life and if enough people believe in god and report experiences of him he must exist

I wouldn't say a sliver, but aptly put

tackattack writes: God doesn't choose sides...
But God does choose sides. In Joshua 17:18 he tells his people before the war with the Canaanites: "the mountain shall be thine" (no qualification - "the mountain shall be thine").

tackattack also claims that God's omnipotence is not to be questioned because it wasn't god who was trying to evict the Canaanites; it was "the men (who) could not drive out the chariots of iron."

The argument hinges on the pronoun "he". Does it refer to God, or does it refer to Joshua and his men?

But Judges 1:19 does not just contradict Revelation 19:6 (which states that God is omnipotent) it also contradicts Joshua 17:18 where God clearly says to his people, "thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots..." yet when it came to the crunch, according to Judges 1:19 he (God or Joshua, take your pick) could NOT drive out the Canaanites BECAUSE they had iron chariots.

...and so it goes: As each contradiction is explained, the explanation merely creates new difficulties with some other bible text.

Rather than quote one verse I clearly looked at the entire chapter. Even if you look at all of the various translations it's fairly grammatically clear that God was with someone (or a group of someones) and those someones could not take on some iron chariots (that might or might not have existed). It doesn't stay why just that they couldn't. IF the story isn't just a parable that doens't preclude the why of why they couldn't. It is atestable only to man's failings not God's.

Tackattack is a very lukewarm theist

I actually don't know why he calls himself a Christian and not just a deist - the reasons he gives for believing in the Divinity of Jesus could be applied to any figure from any religion throughout history - so that choice seems more cultural/social to me than anything, and he also has said that god doesn't answer prayers or interfere with the universe, but he's contradicted himself a few times so i'm not sure

I'm pretty sure I stated that he doesn't ANSWER my prayers because I don't ask for anything I use prayer more as an affirmation of my love for God. I thought that I stated that he has interfered at some point , just the method of his interference is unmeasurable by scientific methods. Please if I contratict myself please point it out specifically so I can address that. Thank you!

Yeah, I know about apologetics and I'm not impressed. If a bible text sounds stupid or contradicts some other text, it is immediately reinterpreted (without evidence) as metaphorical, allegorical, or "taken out of context".

Or (as you have done in the last sentence quoted above) the apologist will suggest that the bible-reading-technique of the skeptic is not as good as the technique of the gullible believer. Sounds good to other believers, but just a cheap shot, really...

I think I see where you're going with this. I looked up apologetics (new term to me) and I'd say I do defend my views in lieu of intense scrutinity. I don't think I do it in a way that puts down other believers or non believers though. I wasn't taking a shot at anyone's interpretation or methodology of understanding the bible. I'm trying to say that I don't know how you read the bible other than what you've shown one line at a time. It's not the skeptic's "reading-technique" that is lacking. Most skeptics I've had contact with (and a lot of theists as well) take the Bible too literally and quote it one line at a time. It's a tool to understand God, but not the only tool good Christians use. I've stated elsewhere my mother believes the Bible is the word of God. I feel it is Man's interpretation of what God is. I get guidance from the bible by reading and trying to filter out the humanity I see in it. It's usually fairly easy for me because I'm in touch with the Holy Spirit when I do it. My assertion is that it's just a bunch of words to be debated by most skeptics and some literalists feed that and miss the overall point.

Well I was a christian, "lost my faith", tried other options really actively tried for seeking truth and I suppose I was even an agnostic for a bit, then had some personal revelations and believed in Christianity settled on a doctirne and poof.

Care to share?

I think I've shared quite a bit as it is. We've gone over the bigfoot thing and what's an unprovable story when you won't accept the pictures. I don't think it's worth the ridicule to put forth the effort. Maybe if I had been asked immediately after my first post before I put my guard up, perhaps.