Logical thinkers and religion

[Xyk]

OMGoodness funny!! Are you Jewish? I do not live by the old testament, which is what you are promoting (above). You've taken bits and pieces out of context and proven you don't understand the Bible at all. None of what you just wrote applies to me as a Christian. None of it.

Christians use both the new testament and the old testament. In fact, the ten commandments are in the old testament. Just saying.

Fine. Here's a list of 194 contradictions found within the New testament. http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

 

[A window to the soul]

Christians use both the new testament and the old testament. In fact, the ten commandments are in the old testament. Just saying.

Fine. Here's a list of 194 contradictions found within the New testament. http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

Jesus died on the cross to fulfill the law. I am no longer under the law (ten commandments). I am under grace (the holy spirit). Praise God!

That's basic stuff. And the moral of the entire Bible - Jesus (God) coming to earth and dying for our sins.

Fine. Here's a list of 194 contradictions found within the New testament. http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

It's bogus. People can say anything to try to discredit the Bible. I don't have time to go through all 194 contradiction now, but I will be happy to answer specific ones that you are curious about. I'll just pick a couple of them to prove how bogus that site is:

#28
After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Gennesaret. Mk.6:53.
After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Capernaum. Jn.6:14-17.

That's not a contradiction. Those are two different places. Jesus did in fact feed in more than one location.

#27
The people were not impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Mk.6:52.
The people were very impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Jn.6:14.

Same.

 

[Xyk]

Wow, another one that doesn't understand the Bible. Fact: Jesus died on the cross to fulfill the law. I am no longer under the law (ten commandments). I am under grace (the holy spirit). Praise God! Amen!!

Edit: That's basic stuff. And the moral of the entire Bible! (Jesus (God) coming to earth and dying for our sins.)

I'll admit defeat here. I edited my other post to include some (probably offensive) contradictions in the New testament. However, as a christian who apparently doesn't use the old testament, do you believe that anything in the old testament happened? I recognized all of the things that coriolis referenced as bible stories and they are also things that christians frequently reference. I could be wrong, but I think you referenced noah's flood earlier on in this thread. It was probably someone else.

 

[A window to the soul]

I'll admit defeat here. I edited my other post to include some (probably offensive) contradictions in the New testament. However, as a christian who apparently doesn't use the old testament, do you believe that anything in the old testament happened? I recognized all of the things that coriolis referenced as bible stories and they are also things that christians frequently reference.

I believe everything in the old testament happened and I think it's an interesting read. However, Christians are not concerned with the old testament: the Jewish Law or the law of Moses (ten commandments) because Jesus fulfilled the law when he was crucified. The old testament taught us that no man can keep the law; it's impossible and those people were under condemnation. The old testament points us to Jesus, and the new testament where there is salvation; no condemnation for those in Christ. The new testament is the gospel of Jesus and the foundation of faith.

To support what I'm saying, here are the scriptures in the new testament where it's very clear that Christians are not under the old testament Jewish Law or the law of Moses (ten commandments):

• "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." Romans 6:14.
• "Christians are ”dead to the law." Romans 7:4.
• "If ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law" Galatians 5:18.
• "Christians are "delivered from the law." Romans 7:6.
• "For Christians, the Law is "that which is done away." II Corinthians 3:11.
• "For Christians, the Law is "that which is abolished." II Corinthians 3:13.
• "For Christians, Jesus, on the Cross, was "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us." Colossians 2:14.
• "For Christians, the Law is taken "out of the way" and nailed "to his cross." Colossians 2:14.
• "When God speaks of a new [covenant or agreement], He makes the first one obsolete (out of use). And what is obsolete (out of use and annulled because of age) is ripe for disappearance and to be dispensed with altogether." Hebrews 8:13
• "And after that he said, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. Thus he put an end to the first in order to establish the second." Hebrews 10:9
• "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." [the law]. Galatians 3:24-25.

I could be wrong, but I think you referenced noah's flood earlier on in this thread. It was probably someone else.

You're right. [MENTION=10530]guesswho[/MENTION] brought up the subject. He was curious about Noah and Moses. I was answering his questions.

 

[Coriolis]

OMGoodness funny!! Are you Jewish? I do not live by the old testament, which is what you are promoting (above). You've taken bits and pieces out of context and proven you don't understand the Bible at all. None of what you just wrote applies to me as a Christian. None of it.

You're not blonde, like your recent avatars by any chance, are you??

First, I am not promoting anything in the bible, just recounting it. Some of these contradictions are in the NT, as anyone moderately familiar with the bible would recognize. I acknowledged I am deliberately prooftexting, and I know more about the bible than you probably realize. Disagreement is not the same as ignorance.

I'm glad to hear you know enough not to live by the OT.* I used to be a Christian, though, and every bible I have ever seen in a Christian church contains it. If it doesn't apply to Christians, why do they keep it? The answer "to show us what not to do" would almost make sense.

Its only possible use seems to be to set the stage for Jesus by tying him into the OT messianic hopes and prophecies. This is nothing but wishful thinking and clever use of poetic license, though. The story of Christ is influenced just as much by older stories of Mithra, Osiris, Attis etc. as by anything in the OT. It is all window-dressing. The important part about Jesus is how he lived his life, and what he taught about God.


* Though you did claim eariler:

[The foundation of my faith is the Bible, which I find to be very logical.]

specifying the bible, not just the NT or some other subset.

 

[A window to the soul]

I acknowledged I am deliberately prooftexting, and I know more about the bible than you probably realize.

No sir, you do not. And I clearly saw what you did. Skewed and deceptive.

* Though you did claim eariler:

specifying the bible, not just the NT or some other subset.

See my previous post. I quoted tons of Bible scripture that supports what I wrote. If you know the Bible like you claim you do, then you wouldn't have said that.

Furthermore, since you are not a Christian anymore, my posts are none of your business.

 

[redacted]

There are plenty of people in asylums who are absolutely certain that they are Napoleon, or that their hair is made of snakes. Their certainty doesn't make it objectively so, though their subjective experience is indisputable.

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me, because I can't see anything in our posts that's inconsistent.

As someone wrote earlier, perhaps on another thread, agnosticism is the only logically defensible perspective on god. Nonetheless, it can be logical sometimes to accept what cannot be rigorously proven through evidence and logic. I would have been hard-put to prove my mother loved me, but I have always believed it.

To clarify: do you believe the only logically defensible perspective on all unfalsifiable hypotheses is agnosticism?

I've always taken the probabilistic approach -- you have a space of possible hypotheses and rule out those that are contradicted by data over time. You're always left with a set of hypotheses that's infinite, so you evaluate the value of those against each other based on their descriptive efficiency. In this sense, you can narrow a perspective to a "best" hypothesis even in the face of other options that are also consistent with all the data you've seen.

 

[Coriolis]

No sir, you do not. And I clearly saw what you did. Skewed and deceptive.

See my previous post. I quoted tons of Bible scripture that supports what I wrote. If you know the Bible like you claim you do, then you wouldn't have said that.

Furthermore, since you are not a Christian anymore, my posts are none of your business.

I didn't realize this thread, or your contributions to it, were open only to practicing Christians. You are welcome to set up a Christians-only religious thread. I personally prefer a broader set of perspectives. In any case, you know far too little about my background to comment credibly on my biblical understanding. The only criticism of my bible remarks that you can muster is that you disagree. This is fine, but does not mean I am misinformed, just of a (very) different mind.

(Interestingly, I have become far more appreciative of Christianity since I stopped being a Christian.)

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me, because I can't see anything in our posts that's inconsistent.

To clarify: do you believe the only logically defensible perspective on all unfalsifiable hypotheses is agnosticism?

I've always taken the probabilistic approach -- you have a space of possible hypotheses and rule out those that are contradicted by data over time. You're always left with a set of hypotheses that's infinite, so you evaluate the value of those against each other based on their descriptive efficiency. In this sense, you can narrow a perspective to a "best" hypothesis even in the face of other options that are also consistent with all the data you've seen.

I agreed with your earlier comment, and I agree with you now. Yes, agnosticism is the only position that is completely logical in such cases. As you point out, and I did with my example about my mother, this is impractical and unworkable. We use logic as much as possible, but then must apply some sort of value judgment to evaluate risk based upon probable outcomes. Logic can help with the probability analysis as well as with establishing a values system, but the final decision is based on more than logic alone.

 

[Antimony]

Are you asking me to prove to you God exists? Do I look like God? Anyway, faith doesn't work like that, LOL! Just like life, death to self is a personal journey. I can't do it for you.

Why doesn't god prove he exists? He ran around promoting his image god knows how many years ago. SO why not now?

I ask you for logical proof because I wish to see your logical reasoning for god.

Also, I did read the posts. All 14 pages (as of yesterday).

Challenge me and see; everyone is doing it. Changed? I've been crucified with Christ. I am at the point of no return.

So you are flexible in your belief, but you won't stop believing if presented with evidence that the bible is a crock of?

Does flexible merely mean you are ready to change your exact opinion on god, but you will maintain, no matter what, that he exists?

I am not sure (and again, I read your posts) what you mean by you are certain in your belief of god, but you are flexible. Someone clarified this (an assumption you appeared to deem correct) and you were certain at that moment in time in god. However, presented with further evidence, your opinion is subject to change. Yes? Because it sounds like you are maintaining the rather illogical position of saying 'God is real and no matter what evidence I have, I won't refute it"

That's a reasonable sentiment regarding those who lack knowledge and understanding of spiritual things.

How is it logical to assert god exists?

What information am I lacking?

I have been relentless in my answers in these realms. I am probably more spiritual than you are religious.

lol, are you ranting? if you're wanting me to agree with you on all of this, I can't because you apparently zoned out during most of the discussion. It sounds like you just barely skimmed our posts.

I read them all. I don't care if you agree or not. In fact, I want you to disagree, and tell me (with logic) how you know god exists.

I read all the posts. It doesn't take a genius to see the misused vocabulary. And yes, I am ranting. I'm an ENTP. It comes with the name tag.

You'll have to ask the guy that believes in Zeus.

I'm unsure of how that determines the validity of Zeus. My point is, nowadays, if someone asserts Zeus is real, people will look at them like they are nuts. Saying "I feel his presence" is not an argument.

It is rational.

I am saying to break it down, not to tell me it is rational for no reason.

Why are you telling me that? I can't relate and don't recall that in this thread.

I'm saying that you are not right on the grounds of you feeling something.

My point is, a lot of people feel things very strongly, and they are not necessarily correct in their feelings.

Evan asked about it. I don't recall anybody soley justifying their faith based on feelings or what is right. Where in the world did you get that from?

I recall you saying you have felt god's presence, and know it is correct because you can sense it.


Points
- How is the bible logical?
- Which bible do you read?
- Do you believe the bible is irrefutable fact or a series of parables or a combination?
- How does feeling something justify it as fact?
- Jung is not the ultimate authority on everything
- Do you think everyone who asserts god does not exist is lacking in spiritual knowledge?
- Please clarify, again, in your own words, how you are flexible in your belief about god. Especially in light of the fact that you said no information will change your belief in god.

 

[Ginkgo]

Why me?

G-o-o-g-l-e.

Because you came into a thread, making claims and then not backing them up on your own two feet. A better question is "Why not you?" You're part of the discussion, and if you didn't want to be, you could easily sight sources that clarify your thoughts. That is, if you've done the research that you already claimed to have done and if you agree with it. I grow more doubtful of your research with each of your passing posts, and more doubtful of any sense you could have made of it, because each post seems empty.

You're not obligated to say anything, I'm just pointing out how foolish it is to engage in a discussion, only to expect people to be okay with you not clarifying your thoughts. Quite impulsive. I see no righteousness in your posts. Only defensive self-righteousness. Why? Because you're not leading people to even understand what you believe. Even if you believe in the Bible and that it is God's inspired word, don't you think it's up to you to communicate what sense you make of it, rather than fall back on the lethargic circular reasoning exercised oh-so liberally within the fundamentalist community?

 

[A window to the soul]

Why doesn't god prove he exists? He ran around promoting his image god knows how many years ago. SO why not now?

Why are you asking me? Ask God.

I ask you for logical proof because I wish to see your logical reasoning for god.

I refer you to my first post in this thread.

Also, I did read the posts. All 14 pages (as of yesterday).

I don't believe you.

So you are flexible in your belief, but you won't stop believing if presented with evidence that the bible is a crock of?

I have sufficient assurance. I've already explained where that comes from. There's also sufficient tangible evidence to prove the Bible is accurate, to satisfy me. Did you watch the Noah Ark video? That's one of many interesting discoveries. Have you even read the Bible?

Does flexible merely mean you are ready to change your exact opinion on god, but you will maintain, no matter what, that he exists?

I have no doubt God exists. What part of that don't you understand?? It's a faith based personal decision. The Bible is logical. Read it.

I am not sure (and again, I read your posts) what you mean by you are certain in your belief of god, but you are flexible.

I am flexible to learning new things and understanding what I don't currently understand. As an ENTP, that should be very clear to you.

Someone clarified this (an assumption you appeared to deem correct) and you were certain at that moment in time in god.

It's not an assumption. It's a fact.

How is it logical to assert god exists?

How is it logical to assert God does not exist after one has read the Bible and received the Holy Spirit? Not only does the Bible logically make sense to many people, there is also a physical experience just as the Bible describes. I can't make you understand what you are not willing to understand.

The first step is to read the Bible.

What information am I lacking?

For heaven's sake. Read the Bible. It's logical.

I have been relentless in my answers in these realms. I am probably more spiritual than you are religious.

You're the second person that's said that. Do I look I'm trying to compete with you guys on this topic? I'm not. This is a personal thing. -pats you on the back-

I read them all. I don't care if you agree or not. In fact, I want you to disagree, and tell me (with logic) how you know god exists.

Why does everyone cling to me? I'm not the only believer in this thread.

I've stated more than once that you would have to read the Bible for yourself to fully understand me. I'm bored with this.

I'm unsure of how that determines the validity of Zeus. My point is, nowadays, if someone asserts Zeus is real, people will look at them like they are nuts. Saying "I feel his presence" is not an argument.

I wouldn't look at them like they're nuts. It's none of my business what someone's personal beliefs are.

I am saying to break it down, not to tell me it is rational for no reason.

There's too much to it. I've already highlighted some key points with scripture throughout the thread That's the most I'm willing to do for someone that hasn't read the Bible. It's like you're asking me to teach you Calculus and make it make sense to you in one post. It's not going to happen. You're going to have to study.

I'm saying that you are not right on the grounds of you feeling something.

Thanks, but the Holy Spirit is not a feeling. I've already explained that point. A physical experience is a physical experience.

 

[NotOfTwo]

AAAaaargh, I sometimes hate this particular topic.

Nice points [MENTION=8543]Nerd Girl[/MENTION]

 

[A window to the soul]

Because you came into a thread, making claims and then not backing them up on your own two feet.

I gave my interpretations in simple language and backed them up with scripture. That's the best I can do. Take it or leave it. The Bible is where my faith comes from. The Bible is logical to me. I'm not the only logical thinker that accepts it as truth.

Even if you believe in the Bible and that it is God's inspired word, don't you think it's up to you to communicate what sense you make of it, rather than fall back on the lethargic circular reasoning exercised oh-so liberally within the fundamentalist community?

I do believe the Bible is God's word, I've stated that multiple times. AND I'm the only Christian in this thread bold enough to go beyond claims and communicate my interpretation of the Bible with the supporting scripture as people ask me questions. It's as if you also didn't read my posts and try to accurately understand me.

Your post is not a fair and accurate assessment of me at all! Disappointing.

(I'm not a member of a church or a denomination; as I've already stated. Not sure where you're getting fundamentalist community from. I joked around with a fellow ENTP months ago in another thread about being a fundie, but I am not. I'm not sure what a fundamentalist is to tell you the truth.)

 

[Ginkgo]

You're a liar. I backed up my claims with scripture. That's the best I can do. Take it or leave it. The Bible is where my faith comes from.

Saying that the Bible is true because it is true is circular. Not that that's inherently a flaw (all premises are basically circular). It's a flaw, in this case, because if the Bible contains contradictions, then you leave no room to choose what seems more reasonable out of everything it says. Nor do you have room to discard what is unreasonable (even if empirical evidence slaps you in the face and tells you otherwise).

 

[Ginkgo]

You're a liar. I backed up my claims with scripture. That's the best I can do. Take it or leave it. The Bible is where my faith comes from.


I'm the only Christian in this thread bold enough to go beyond claims and communicate my interpretation of the Bible. I'm not a member of a church or a denomination; I've already stated that.

Do you believe that all things in the Bible are literally true?
ps- being ignorant =/= lying. I am a liar though and have been ever since I first lied.

 

[A window to the soul]

Do you believe that all things in the Bible are literally true?
ps- being ignorant =/= lying. I am a liar though and have been ever since I first lied.

Saying that the Bible is true because it is true is circular. Not that that's inherently a flaw (all premises are basically circular). It's a flaw, in this case, because if the Bible contains contradictions, then you leave no room to choose what seems more reasonable out of everything it says. Nor do you have room to discard what is unreasonable (even if empirical evidence slaps you in the face and tells you otherwise).

You haven't read my posts. You're talking points were already addressed.

End of discussion with you...

 

[Antimony]

Why me?

G-o-o-g-l-e.

I want you to explain your beliefs. I don't want someone else to explain to me its logic.

I want you to explain how you know it is logical.

My questions are not silly or insulting. One must ask these questions in order to discern the truth, no?

 

[Ginkgo]

You haven't read my posts. You're talking points were already addressed.

End of discussion with you...

AH! Then I suppose I shall read them and challenge you again.

 

[A window to the soul]

I want you to explain your beliefs. I don't want someone else to explain to me its logic.

I want you to explain how you know it is logical.

My questions are not silly or insulting. One must ask these questions in order to discern the truth, no?

FAITH IS A PERSONAL CHOICE.
I ♥ JESUS.

I hope that's finally clear. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Ginkgo]

FAITH IS A PERSONAL CHOICE.
I CHOOSE JESUS.

Guess what? I agree with you entirely on that. I think most people would agree with that. But the insinuation is that you don't want to be challenged.

You still have yet to say whether you believe the Bible is 100%, literally true; that isn't so hard, now is it? Especially for someone with faith.