The Religion Discussion

[X2]

As a scientific thinker AND religious believer (I know it seems contradictory, but you witness certain types of events in the world and faith can become belief)... I am curious...

How do you answer questions on the Bible or Quran definitively... when both original books have been translated numerous times... permitting human error and corruption to taint the word of "Insert Diety here"... how do you trust the books to be fact ?



Other than that... reading some of the past posts is like listening to a flat earth society member trying to explain themselves.

A whole lotta talking with no central point and 'facts' which are observations really...

[crock101]

The reason he refuses to answer the questions might have something to do with what happened when he openly admitted to believing that at one point on earth there was a talking donkey and a talking snake , I still use that admission to highlight just how delusional he is about world that we live in.

[megadoc1]

so your argument is about Habit? he already demonstrated that based on your expressed reasoning and beliefs, a talking snake / donkey should be either a non issue or worst yet, hypocrisy on your part to reject as something possible! heck, he even believes God can use stones to do the same.. lol

you are yet to prove to him why you think he should not hold such a view, he has poked holes in all your arguments put fort so far and showed that you haven't even begin to grasp basic understanding on what you so readily wants to refute ...try working on that at least!
you should be thankful to have someone as patient as Habit has been, to continue discussing the same thing over and over with you, why not make the best of it? forget the man! bring fort your objections to what he believes and discus that,if you don't agree with his explanations at least admit so and move on to another one,
so far you are only arguing the man after he breaks your argument and exposes the fallacies contained.
Slartibartfast have admitted that he is here just to argue is this your position also?

[Slartibartfast]

Again, vague answers that sound right to the unintelligent ear. If the bible mentioned magical unicorns then magical unicorns would have existed because there is no way to disprove it.

Megadoc saying to bring forth our objections to what Habit believes but Habit refuses to clearly reveal exactly what he believes (most likely for reasons stated earlier).

Megadoc, why do you you guys put so much effort into not answering simple questions?

[megadoc1]

Again, vague answers that sound right to the unintelligent ear. If the bible mentioned magical unicorns then magical unicorns would have existed because there is no way to disprove it.

Megadoc saying to bring forth our objections to what Habit believes but Habit refuses to clearly reveal exactly what he believes (most likely for reasons stated earlier).

Megadoc, why do you you guys put so much effort into not answering simple questions?

ugh? you serious? what you consider vague answers? and why just call it that ? why cant you do like Habit and demonstrate why you call it as it is?

Habit like myself claimed to believe the bible ,you on the other hand claim its false but in your effort to demonstrate to us why ,we observe that you don't really understand what you wish to refute,so we point that out ,there is no question to answer as long as your objection is ill formed.
but I notice you especially, admitted that you are just here to argue..I can live with that

oh I also noticed that when Habit calls u dishonest or exposes your fallacies he does so demonstrating it quoting contradictions in your posts
but you guys just find it easy calling him dishonest and accusing him of sidestepping questions and being vague without a Scintilla of evidence !
and hope to be taken seriously? please!

and I not defending habit eh I know he can handle himself

[Slartibartfast]

Lol

Please show me where these questions were clearly answered.

1. Was the earth created before the sun? Yes or no
2. How old is the earth? Number in earth years
3. Was the sun the first star to be created? Yes or no
4. Was man the first animal to exist? Yes or no

Here are my answers based on scientific theories, facts and beliefs.
1. No
2. 4.6 billion years old (give or take a few million)
3. No
4. No

See the format? See how clear the answers are? Notice that there is absolutely no way to misinterpret them?

Also, an argument in this context is an exchange of differing or opposing ideas.

And again, how can Habit disprove an argument that has not yet been fully made? I need to be sure that we agree on the "facts" presented in the bible to be sure that my argument is relevant.

What gets me is that you actually believe the crap you make up off the top of your head. Just saying something is "not a fact" is not a disproof of anything. Especially if it is taken out of all context.

It's only a matter of time before you realise you are fighting a losing battle like Habit and run off with your tail between your legs. The only thing that bothers me is that there are probably people that believe and perpetuate the lies that you and Habit tell.

[Slartibartfast]

ugh? you serious? what you consider vague answers? and why just call it that ? why cant you do like Habit and demonstrate why you call it as it is?

Here are my questions.

Was the earth created before the sun? Yes or no
How old is the earth? Number in earth years
Was the sun the first star to he created? Yes or no
Was man the first animal to exist? Yes or no

Here are my answers

1. No
2. 4.6 Billion years (give or take a few million)
3. No
4. No

Below are all of Habit's answers to the questions so far

Big Bang, uniformitarianism and evolution are not facts.

Prior to your questions, I am still waiting on you to provide me a factual error in the Bible, even one without a theoretical basis you are equating to as fact.

After this post I explained why I need his answers to ensure my arguments is relevant to the conversation.

Listen the only sidestep is yours. This all started with viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=21180#p9108643 in which you claim to have numerous proofs of the Bible being factually wrong, I just want one.

My answers to your questions are inconsequential and irrelevant, the Bible is factual wrong based on objective truth, not my answers. I already see that you are off base because neither the Bible nor evolution teaches that man was the first animal to exist, which is you last question.

abducted thought he google searched factual errors in the Bible viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=21180#p9109610 and he got shot down viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=21180#p9109729 . So either stop wasting time and come with your argument because I am not willing to go on with the back and forth.

^^^Slarti my answers dont determine the factuality of the Bible. The error that abducted made there was language, not interpretation. If you have proof that the Bible is nonfactual, produce the fact. I am not going to answer your question because I will not be drawn into your genetic fallacy.

Habit7 you left out "completely side stepping the question".

The central point has been explicitly refuted: there is no evidence for many of the claims of the bible including people rising from the dead, talking flaming bushes, worldwide flood, earth being only a few thousand years old, stars falling from heaven, talking donkeys.

The central point is if there are factual errors in the Bible.

The occurrence of resurrections, once God speaking through a burning bush and an angel speaking thru a donkey are supernatural events in history and are trusted in, in as much as any other event in history.

I given evidence for a global flood viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&p=7082330#p7082330 , the Bible doesn't give an age of the Earth and stars in the context you reference in Revelation are a celestial body much in the same way if a huge mountain was hurdling to Earth it would initially appear as a star.

Let me advise you to do as much as I do with Islam and Quranic topics. Don't just quote a snippet of the Bible or Quran and just run with the pretext in which it was given to you. Read the context before and after, read commentaries, read counter arguments and then have a full understanding of the text before you give your judgement. You guys are advertising your ignorance on these topic just by the issues you are raising. Surely the average unlearned Christian might be confounded by some of these questions but to any body who is serious about the Bible, your topics are quite pedestrian.

Notice any difference is how I formatted my answers compared to how he formatted his? Which set of answers gives the reader a clearer idea of what the writer thinks is true?

[crock101]

I do no think the bible is based on facts, I'm pretty sure it's just a silly fairy tale.
My position is very clear.

Habit on the other hand thinks that the bible is not only based on facts but it is factual in its entirety(if this is not the case habit,please say).
Yet he doesn't believe that the sun goes around the earth even though that is what is suggested in the bible.
Then has the audacity to say there are no factual errors in the bible.

[Slartibartfast]

How about I change up the questions a bit to reflect that I want biblical answers as well as personal views so that the two can be separated. Below are my updated answers.

According to the bible -
1. Was the earth created before the sun? Yes or no
2. How old is the earth? Number in earth years
3. Was the sun the first star to he created? Yes or no
4. Was man the first animal to exist? Yes or no

Do you believe the answer given in question 1. to be true? Why/why not?
Do you believe the answer given in question 2. to be true? Why/why not?
Do you believe the answer given in question 3. to be true? Why/why not?
Do you believe the answer given in question 4. to be true? Why/why not?

Megadoc feel free to answer these questions as well but I am mostly interested in Habit7's response. I know this seems like overkill but I need these answers before I state my case to ensure the relevancy of the points I make and to make sure that there is no switching goalposts or getting sidetracked.

Depending on these answers I may be able propose an argument to definitively prove that the bible has gotten it wrong from page one.

[Habit7]

I do no think the bible is based on facts, I'm pretty sure it's just a silly fairy tale.
My position is very clear.

Habit on the other hand thinks that the bible is not only based on facts but it is factual in its entirety(if this is not the case habit,please say).
Yet he doesn't believe that the sun goes around the earth even though that is what is suggested in the bible.
Then has the audacity to say there are no factual errors in the bible.

Yes I believe in Biblical inerrancy. And I won't doubt you think it is silly fairy tale because you know little to nothing about it the subject outside of what you read on rationalwiki or other atheist blogs. If you were knowledgeable about the subject you would know the fiction from that era would not include genealogies, geographic locations, events relative to current named world leaders and all have it penned and distributed within the time of fellow eyewitnesses who can publicly deny or corroborate the story.

But all that doesn't matter, you read something on rationalwiki.

Slartibartfast . It is strange that he would need to interpret anything in the bible,after all there are so many illogical things in there that he openly takes as literal historical accounts.
Talking snake,talking donkey,people being turned to pillars of salt , oh and dont for forget resurrection from the death,the basis of all Christianity so why when it comes to this ,suddenly he isn't taking the bible literally anymore. It is for the same reason I dont call tV6 and demand for Damion Salandy to be fired because he said "sunrise" and "sunset".
He spent the last couple weeks claiming that everything has a supernatural source no I didnt and therefore does not need to have a logical explanation.

I am glad to see your deductive skills are back. Somehow you couldn't understand that an allowance for direct panspermia therefore presupposes the existence of aliens, but now you think that Joshua 10 means the Earth stop rotating, even though it never said it did.

It would seem that yourself, Slartibartfast and former Catholics didnt understand the religion you supposedly intellectually rejected. The Roman Catholic rejects the Reformation principle of Scripture Alone, which I hold to, and thus holds to church tradition being equal to the Bible. Thus when men inspired by the Bible to study the ordered world that God created, like Galileo, made discoveries that affirmed teaching in the Bible, they were persecuted for going against Catholic tradition not the Bible.

Furthermore if you think rationlwiki is an objective source of information you have to be mistaken.

and it is NOT the same message. At one point biblical scholars taught that the world was flat and universe geocentric.

Those who taught the Earth was flat was not teaching based on any deduction from the Bible, it was based on the current intellectual viewpoint not the Bible. The Bible teaches the spherical shape of the Earth (Isaiah 40:22), a simultaneous worldwide event occurring in one place where there is day and another place it is night (Luke 17:34-36) and the Earth suspended in space (Job 26:7). You scoff at the idea that Christians have a bias over the Bible rather than science but this is why they have to, because sometimes science gets it wrong.

Also Galileo was vilified by the Catholic Church for his heliocentric views, but in his defence he stated heliocentrism was consistent with the Bible, not with the Catholic doctrine that makes the church's view equal with the Bible. Those who believe in geocentrism were not informed by the Bible but by popular intellect.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

The earth is a sphere, not a circle. A circle is flat as it exists in one plane.
Are people likened to grasshoppers to give a sense of scale?

[Habit7]

Circle is a matter of perspective in the same way we would describe the sun or moon. And the grasshopper reference pertains to subjection, not scale. This is also seen in Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them."

[Slartibartfast]

Another example of the vagueness that I talked about. If the earth was indeed flat Habit would have quoted that passage with the same "moral authority"

They constantly look to science for direction and then look for the most applicable passage so that they can pretend like that was being taught all along. This is why Habit7 insists that I propose my argument before he makes a commitment to where he stands even though I have already shown mine.

It would seem that yourself, Slartibartfast and former Catholics didnt understand the religion you supposedly intellectually rejected. The Roman Catholic rejects the Reformation principle of Scripture Alone, which I hold to, and thus holds to church tradition being equal to the Bible. Thus when men inspired by the Bible to study the ordered world that God created, like Galileo, made discoveries that affirmed teaching in the Bible, they were persecuted for going against Catholic tradition not the Bible.

[/quote]

Habit7, why not quickly clear up some of my misunderstanding by simply answering the questions that I have asked? I'm sure you are as fedup of everyone else reading this thread with my constant repetition of the same four questions.

Quoted for like the 100th time below for your ease of reference.

According to the bible -
1. Was the earth created before the sun? Yes or no
2. How old is the earth? Number in earth years
3. Was the sun the first star to he created? Yes or no
4. Was man the first animal to exist? Yes or no

Do you believe the answer given in question 1. to be true? Why/why not?
Do you believe the answer given in question 2. to be true? Why/why not?
Do you believe the answer given in question 3. to be true? Why/why not?
Do you believe the answer given in question 4. to be true? Why/why not?

[crock101]

Habit... you say you believe everything in the bible, yet you reject to idea that the sun goes around the earth.
Maybe we also disagree on what is considered "everything in the bible" .

Talking snakes and donkeys, women being turned to pillars of salt,undead Jewish zombies with great abs,ghost sperm,invisible men in the sky, are fine, but the sun going around the earth is where you draw the line , cause ...you know that is just silly...who would believe that.....

[meccalli]

^ikr, it's not nearly as bad as those idiots who believe everything that exists today, including life originated from nothing. It's almost as if the zero point of the universe coming into existence from nothing that they say the evidence points to is proof of God.
I mean how do people logically reason and support the notion that everything came from nothing without a God, if that isn't evidence of a miracle, idk what else is, even more so than the origin of life.

[Habit7]

Habit... you say you believe everything in the bible, yet you reject to idea that the sun goes around the earth.
Maybe we also disagree on what is considered "everything in the bible" .

Talking snakes and donkeys, women being turned to pillars of salt,undead Jewish zombies with great abs,ghost sperm,invisible men in the sky, are fine, but the sun going around the earth is where you draw the line , cause ...you know that is just silly...who would believe that.....

You cry that we are misunderstanding when you express faith in aliens, when you doubt the presence of NaCl in the body or what is a scientific theory and even more incredible, you forward the idea against all the laws of thermodynamics, that something can come from nothing.

Yet you purposefully misrepresent the Bible as geocentric even though Galileo the champion of heliocentricity justified his position based on observation and the clear teaching of the Bible. Why? Because an atheist wiki site said so.

This is the reason why I love to engage you guys, because you don't tackle Allah, Shiva Vishnu or Brahma, you tackle the one who you hate, the God of the Bible. And I respect that because you prove the Bible true in that we all hate the God of Bible through our disobedience to a his laws and the laws our own conscience, your hatred is just more direct. And in your rejection of God and the Bible you are forced to plant you faith in things more incredulous like a Universe without a cause, a morality based on yourself and rather than reading and explaining the Bible in its context you borrow poor arguments from atheists blogs and believe in it more than the Bible itself.

Your issue is not talking snakes and donkeys because obviously you believe in more incredible things than that. Your issue is a moral one. Proverbs 3:34 Though He scoffs at the scoffers, Yet He gives grace to the afflicted.. Dude I don't know what is your rub but you won't keep posting most in a religious thread if this was not important to you. God is not just asking you to believe in what is very evident to you, He is demanding your humble submission even before His judgement.

[civicman]

This is the reason why I love to engage you guys, because you don't tackle Allah, Shiva Vishnu or Brahma, you tackle the one who you hate, the God of the Bible.





Just for info if you talking about God of the bible .
It's Allah as well in the arabic bible.
God never called himself god in the original bible.
Just saying.

[megadoc1]

This is the reason why I love to engage you guys, because you don't tackle Allah, Shiva Vishnu or Brahma, you tackle the one who you hate, the God of the Bible.





Just for info if you talking about God of the bible .
It's Allah as well in the arabic bible.
God never called himself god in the original bible.
Just saying.

No ! dont get mixed up, it is true that Allah is Arabic for God but that does not mean the God of the bible and Allah in the Koran are the same and that's the distinction
second God did call himself God in the bible
"I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob."
Exodus 3:6
but just in case you are nitpicking at language ... bleh

[Habit7]

Yeah that's why I said God of the Bible to distinguish Him from Allah since we are speaking English and English translations of the Quran mostly maintain the Arabic Allah.

Yes God called Himself God in the Bible: He said also, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. Exodus 3:6

[fallen_angel]

I was stuck in Egypt for 2 years watching nothing but dust and women wearing hijabs. Then my company saw it fit to send me on asignment in colombia.


Haleleujah...

can u link up a work for me in Colombia?

[civicman]

Where the proof that it not the same god.
Every prophet mentioned in the bible is mentiond in quran.
Even jesus is given more respect by islam than christianity.
Look at the life jesus lived.Does chrstianity of paul and what is allowed even reflect the actual life of jesus.
What did he eat how did he pray ?
Muslims cannot deny christ the quran has an entire secrion dedicated to jesus and his mother mary.
Every single prophet is mentioned same adam same eve.
Just as the jews denied christ.
The final prophet sent by god was denied by some christian groups in the early years.
Christianity had evolved to the point now that its any thing you feel goes.
Christians say WWJD.
do they really know what jesus did.

[crock101]

habit said "You cry that we are misunderstanding when you express faith in aliens, when you doubt the presence of NaCl in the body"....

again ..at no point did i sat that i believe in aliens nor have i ever claimed that there was no salt in the human body , those are just things you made up about me and now claim to be fact . my statements on those topics are here on the forum and at no point did i make those claims , please try to stick to facts, if indeed you do understand what that word means.
i hate your god in the same way the japanese hate godzilla, ie it is a bit difficult to hate something that doesn't exist

the only reason nobody here is bothering with hinduism is because there seems to be a lack of hindu psychopaths coming to the forum to claim that there actually is a flying talking monkey who can change his size and pick up mountains.

there has never been any proof that hanuman exists , using your past "arguments" and 'logic"
that could mean that hanuman definitely exists .

a flying talking monkey who can change his size and pick up mountains .....habit would not believe in that , that's just silly , who would believe in that?

[crock101]

i made the statement...
"if there was evidence supporting the idea that aliens seeded life on earth then i would go with the evidence"

that statement is the intellectual equivalent value as saying
"if there was evidence supporting the idea that unicorns poop soft serve ice cream then i would go with the evidence"

they both rest entirely on the word "if" and both would require "evidence" to even be considered.
the first statement doesn't claim that aliens are real nor does the second statement claim that unicorns are real.

i could go for some soft serve about though , the one with the vanilla and chocolate mixed.

[Habit7]

I am saying that I take your word that we are misunderstanding your view on aliens and salt, but I am saying do not be disingenuous and falsely represent the Bible as geocentric because rationalwiki says so.

Also Godzilla is not the causal being of the universe. Lack of belief in Godzilla for a Japanese doesn't leave them incapable of accounting for an ordered and designed creation, thereby they believe in the incredible reality that at 2pm on a Thursday 15 billion years ago nothing became something along with all the immaterial fixed natural laws to govern it. Lack of belief in God does that and that is silly.

[megadoc1]

Where the proof that it not the same god.

the bible says God cannot lie but the Koran says Allah is the greatest of deceivers
and that is just one example

Every prophet mentioned in the bible is mentiond in quran.

it is alleged that the authors of Koran plagiarized the bible

Even jesus is given more respect by islam than christianity.

wrong! Christianity revere him God , Islam calls him a prophet ....I don't think saying peace be upon him adds anything to that

Look at the life jesus lived.Does chrstianity of paul and what is allowed even reflect the actual life of jesus.

yes! Paul says follow me as I follow Christ

What did he eat how did he pray ?

he was a Jew so I guess he ate kosher ,how did he pray? he thought us this way "Our father ....Matthew 6:9-13

Muslims cannot deny christ the quran has an entire secrion dedicated to jesus and his mother mary.

to be Muslim is to deny Christ as God, his crucifixion and resurrection.

Every single prophet is mentioned same adam same eve.

plagiarism perhaps?

Just as the jews denied christ.
The final prophet sent by god was denied by some christian groups in the early years.

Jesus said that John the baptist was the last prophet Luke 16:16...."The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is strongly urged to enter it".

Christianity had evolved to the point now that its any thing you feel goes.
Christians say WWJD. do they really know what Jesus did.

I am a Christian,this is not what I believe ,all what Jesus did is written for us to see and follow, not only that , he personally leads us ,Its one of his promise

[Tigs]

U talking tootoo. Nothing u said makes any sense. Where is your proofs from the koraan which u talking about. Like you making up your own books as you go along. You following the rewritten Bible that man write to suit thier whims and fancies.

[megadoc1]

U talking tootoo. Nothing u said makes any sense. Where is your proofs from the koraan which u talking about. Like you making up your own books as you go along. You following the rewritten Bible that man write to suit thier whims and fancies.

sir take it down ! this is your first post and this is page 709 if you start from about page 100 all these were discussed before
check out page 531 http://www.trinituner.com/v3/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&hilit=fulfilled&start=15900#p7184006
take yuh time

[boosted_wrx]

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, based off of the scientific theory of uniformitarianism, it is not a fact but you accept it by faith.
Taking the theory of uniformitarianism out of the picture we have no factual basis to prove the age of any celestial body other than relative ages.
The creation week of Genesis 1 is something I accept by faith because it is a question of history, not science primarily.

So back to your original claim: you have not proven many times anything and you are yet to show where the Bible is wrong on an issue of fact.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance:

My God!

However the concept of science is just a theory too, it's a means by which we try to rationalize what we see, and yes the bible didn't only speak about the Big Bang theory, the Quran did also, it stated the parts of how the univers was created and a comparison was drawn to the universe being like an egg which exploded and scattered across the universe , the. God developed earth.

[Slartibartfast]

So what you guys saying is that God only haf a simplified idea of how tue universe was created?

Btw, I don't think the bible is consistent with the big bang theory. But then again all I have is google amd rationalwiki to back me up. You can double check with Habit if he is able to give you a straight answer. Although I doubt, I'm still waiting on a straight answer for these

According to the bible -
1. Was the earth created before the sun? Yes or no
2. How old is the earth? Number in earth years
3. Was the sun the first star to he created? Yes or no
4. Was man the first animal to exist? Yes or no

Do you believe the answer given in question 1. to be true? Why/why not?
Do you believe the answer given in question 2. to be true? Why/why not?
Do you believe the answer given in question 3. to be true? Why/why not?
Do you believe the answer given in question 4. to be true? Why/why not?

I feel I'll hada ask duane to make this my signature.

[crock101]

Answering these questions seem to be very difficult for your friend.he obviously does not want to get locked down to one answer since he will inevitably get trapped by the next logical question to follow.