Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, you and others here are missing the point. It is irrational to treat the claims in the Bible as literally true and demand evidence without accepting everything else in the Bible literally, i.e., Omnimax God, etc. Using the premise that what is in the Bible is literal is a self-defeating premise.
No, it is you who is missing the point. It is not us who take the bible literally, we are responding to those Christians who take the Bible literally. If those Christians want to claim something unlikely literally happened, then yes, they need to provide evidence for that claim.
I can understand Goldie not understanding this simple point, despite me explaining it several times, but you are a PhD.
No, it is you who is missing the point. It is not us who take the bible literally, we are responding to those Christians who take the Bible literally. If those Christians want to claim something unlikely literally happened, then yes, they need to provide evidence for that claim.
I can understand Goldie not understanding this simple point, despite me explaining it several times, but you are a PhD.
And it has been explained to you.
The only logical and sensible argument is to explain the artistic quality and metaphorical & allegorical nature of the writings.
You cannot argue from the standpoint that the fantastical things literally happened...because then that invokes the Omnimax God being literal as well.
Even if it is the person you are arguing against that is the one taking The Bible literally...once you argue from that standpoint (even as a "Devils Advocate" type argument) as well...all your (and their) debated issues are fully resolved.
The Bible presents a Omnimax Powered God that knows everything and can do anything, and has thoughts and ways that are above yours.
THAT is the literal Bible explanation to account for anything and everything happening.
That is the answer to your question of their claims: The Omnimax Powered God Dunnit.
It says not to question anything, because you are not to lean upon your own understanding (it's inferior), but just defer to God.
As far as suffering/evil: It deems that a good thing, a "fruit of the Spirit", right there with peace, joy, and love.
And, of course, you may not think so...because you are leaning upon your own inferior understanding (that you were told not to do) rather than deferring to the all knowing, Omnimax Powered God.
So...there ya go. All the issues you "debate" are settled.
God did it...and you can't use your own understanding to question it. Case closed.
No, it is you who is missing the point. It is not us who take the bible literally, we are responding to those Christians who take the Bible literally. If those Christians want to claim something unlikely literally happened, then yes, they need to provide evidence for that claim.
I can understand Goldie not understanding this simple point, despite me explaining it several times, but you are a PhD.
And the REAL point: How many times do you get to "question a claim something unlikely literally happened"...and get the same, "All-Powerful & All-Knowing God did it", answer....before it would be considered harassing to question it again?
You've all asked the same guestions and contested the same claims countless times. And have always gotten the same reasoning, explanations, and answers that you find unsatisfactory.
Why would you ask again...if not just to be derisive?
They believe what they believe...and they outnumber you many times over (and growing)...what do you think is going to be different the next time you question them?
No, it is you who is missing the point. It is not us who take the bible literally, we are responding to those Christians who take the Bible literally. If those Christians want to claim something unlikely literally happened, then yes, they need to provide evidence for that claim.
I can understand Goldie not understanding this simple point, despite me explaining it several times, but you are a PhD.
No, it is you who is missing the point. It is not us who take the bible literally, we are responding to those Christians who take the Bible literally. If those Christians want to claim something unlikely literally happened, then yes, they need to provide evidence for that claim.
I can understand Goldie not understanding this simple point, despite me explaining it several times, but you are a PhD.
I hate to think how many times several of us have explained this over just the past month. It's not a difficult concept. It's not unlike debating societies where one person or team must debate one particular side of an argument, whether they agree with that side of the argument or not.
Actually, you and others here are missing the point. It is irrational to treat the claims in the Bible as literally true and demand evidence without accepting everything else in the Bible literally, i.e., Omnimax God, etc. Using the premise that what is in the Bible is literal is a self-defeating premise.
I was hoping you might reply to my comment #212 or at least acknowledge it somehow rather than just continue as if nothing...
If we're to skip right over that one, I agree it is irrational to treat so many of the claims in the Bible as true. Too much that clearly is not, so at best figuratively. Once we go the figuratively route, I agree it is the fool's errand to demand evidence or proof of any kind. That's one of the beautiful things about figuratively speaking. Just about anything goes along the lines of whatever anyone chooses to believe.
I hate to think how many times several of us have explained this over just the past month. It's not a difficult concept. It's not unlike debating societies where one person or team must debate one particular side of an argument, whether they agree with that side of the argument or not.
When dealing with the lost cause, it's hard to expect a result much better than collecting animal dung...
I hate to think how many times several of us have explained this over just the past month. It's not a difficult concept. It's not unlike debating societies where one person or team must debate one particular side of an argument, whether they agree with that side of the argument or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
When dealing with the lost cause, it's hard to expect a result much better than collecting animal dung...
You all are the lost causes...well, not as respects my amusement & entertainment (especially all your fixations over the years on feces), but that's a different factor.
I have explained to you...arguments ("Devils Advocate" or otherwise) against The Bible/Theological writings are unique...as there is no counter to a Omnimax Powered God Entity that knows everything and can do anything.
Nothing else you argue against has that as a counter to your position.
Once you argue, "OK, let's take the assumption that is true...Explain how dead people come back to life, it rains enough in 40 days to flood higher than Everest, a virgin girl gets pregnant, etc, etc....you have then taken the position that what the Bible says about those events are literally true. Once you assume that position, you lose the typical ability to cite the limit of physical laws & physics, because what you are arguing against invokes a Omnimax Powered God capable of doing anything and knows more than mortals, that caused all those things to happen.
The only logical and reasonable argument is to see the whole thing as metaphorical and allegorical...because once you introduce literal truth, you are set up for a "God Dunnit" counter argument.
You all are the lost causes...well, not as respects my amusement & entertainment (especially all your fixations over the years on feces), but that's a different factor.
I have explained to you...arguments ("Devils Advocate" or otherwise) against The Bible/Theological writings are unique...as there is no counter to a Omnimax Powered God Entity that knows everything and can do anything.
Nothing else you argue against has that as a counter to your position.
Once you argue, "OK, let's take the assumption that is true...Explain how dead people come back to life, it rains enough in 40 days to flood higher than Everest, a virgin girl gets pregnant, etc, etc....you have then taken the position that what the Bible says about those events are literally true. Once you assume that position, you lose the typical ability to cite the limit of physical laws & physics, because what you are arguing against invokes a Omnimax Powered God capable of doing anything and knows more than mortals, that caused all those things to happen.
The only logical and reasonable argument is to see the whole thing as metaphorical and allegorical...because once you introduce literal truth, you are set up for a "God Dunnit" counter argument.
You're not the decider on all things spiritual. You have some opinions. So do we.
And that is probably why you fight so hard to reject and disallow my concept of God to be used. You want to use the notion of the supernatural (which does not exist) to disparage prayer. In my view as part of God's "infinite body," disparaging prayers would be equivalent to disparaging the pain signals from our own bodies to get our conscious attention to problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Oh, hey, not so!
I don't "fight" or "disallow" your concept any more or less than the others, even if I could disallow such concepts. I just don't align with them is all...
I also didn't realize you believe the supernatural not to exist. We agree about that then. I also do not disparage prayer. In my view prayer is just not anything different, more or less, than hopes and wishes. Not to disparage but simply to explain my view like you do yours. What's disparaging about this?
No need for all the drama or rhetoric that tends to distort our differences here. Though I know you and others are more inclined toward that sort of drama and rhetoric beyond what I think is appropriate along these lines.
Believers who rely on the supernatural are self-defeating. God is the very essence of nature and the natural, IMO. The bold simply emphasizes what Christians are told are the most important aspects, "Faith, Hope, and Agape love" with agape love being the most important. All prayer is just an expression of those.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
