Dealing with ignorant people

[fr0d0]

Did Jesus rise from the dead or not?

If yes then BY WHICH STANDARD do you decide the validity of the supernatural claims? - I have asked you that question numerous times over the last few months and have not once received an answer.

Yes he did. But the physical proof of that event is irrelevant. The point of it is how it affects me and how I act on that. I believe it happened - I can't ever know.

We both know you don't know it's true, but do you have any sort of methodology that you can apply to the scriptures to differentiate the literal from the allegorical or do you just cherry pick based on your own authority?

I can apply an allegorical approach to the whole thing, as because as I say, that's the real point of it. If you want finer...

I use common sense mostly, but you could also use these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_he...rmeneutics

Why is the story of the resurrection of Jesus any more appropriate to believe than the story of the parting of the red sea, or the burning bush or the taking snake?

Only Jesus' resurrection would require belief. The others can be understood without belief.

I'm as skeptical as you about the talking snake.. I see it as clearly allegorical: because the rest of the story fits so well with an allegorical message.

The burning bush could have been an actual event - then interpreted by Moses who was meditating on the mountain at the time after all. It wouldn't be unusual to experience a trance like state. All that's important from the encounter is the message delivered - and to me the amazing statement that we can see where God has been but never 'see' God.

The parting of the Red Sea seems fantastical. Those stories, from my position of ignorance, I take as grossly embellished. I don't like to speculate, but I guess it could mean something like a low tide enabled one group to cross then the tide came in and the following group drowned. It's like the evidence for god in creation... if you accept 'God' then everything is proof. In the same way natural phenomenon, and circumstantial evidence, can be interpreted as divine intervention.

Good point. But where in the bible does God say that he exists/ I am? He didn't write he book, he inspired it.

Your stupidity actually hurts my brain...

Existence is simply not nothing, therefore If he exists there is a God and if not then there is no god. If you claim that he doesn't exist then by definition you believe in nothing...

To quote Rabbit:

"My take would be that it is not possible to give sufficient meaning to the word "god" and the sentence "god exists". The term “god” does not refer to an actual concept, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration."

So the bible's stupidity hurts your brain. I actually appreciate the honesty of it. It does not falsely identify God and for this reason you call it stupid.

The statement God exists on it's own is meaningless - but i'm not taking in general, i am talking to you specifically, your god with the attributes you give him, which i already understand to a degree from reading your posts here over the last few months.

The specific Christian (my) concept of God is not specific enough to formulate an accurate enough description to attribute 'being' to.