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.
The total lack of any factual evidence on biblical myths and fables, coupled with the vague and ambiguous quotes of scripture to support whatever the argument of the day is, leads competent, rational thinkers to some inescapable conclusions.
I recently asked some posters over on the Christian sub-forum, if they could possibly defend their ideas based on their own interpretations, their own synopsis, their own thinking, on biblical teachings and subjects.
In other words, could they defend their ancient ideas without endlessly quoting scripture? You know; in their own words, through their own interpretation? Individually?
Know what they said?
"Nope" they said. "Can't do it, and it's not necessary." And furthermore, they don't want to do it that way! (PS: They'd lose, and they know it)
So.. there you have it. WE approach a debate with ideas, presented from several different perspectives, as varied as our highly individual personalities. In return, we get ambiguous, amorphous, vague and indecipherable biblical scripture. And shouted denials and untruths and insults about scientists.
Not too convincing, now is it? Hardly a good structure for an argument...
The total lack of any factual evidence on biblical myths and fables, coupled with the vague and ambiguous quotes of scripture to support whatever the argument of the day is, leads competent, rational thinkers to some inescapable conclusions.
I recently asked some posters over on the Christian sub-forum, if they could possibly defend their ideas based on their own interpretations, their own synopsis, their own thinking, on biblical teachings and subjects.
In other words, could they defend their ancient ideas without endlessly quoting scripture? You know; in their own words, through their own interpretation? Individually?
Know what they said?
"Nope" they said. "Can't do it, and it's not necessary." And furthermore, they don't want to do it that way! (PS: They'd lose, and they know it)
So.. there you have it. WE approach a debate with ideas, presented from several different perspectives, as varied as our highly individual personalities. In return, we get ambiguous, amorphous, vague and indecipherable biblical scripture. And shouted denials and untruths and insults about scientists.
Not too convincing, now is it? Hardly a good structure for an argument...
Hence, my thread title. Hard to argue it, eh?
God can not be subjected to scientific testing. God is supernatural. Science deals with the natural. The validity of the Bible must be approached on an historical basis.
The Bible has only one correct interpretation. To ask for individual personal interpretations only invites screwball ideas that distort what the Bible has to say about a given subject.
If you want to check into the validity of the Bible, about the only thing you can do is to check it against history. And by that I mean take some of the prophecies that from our point in time have been fulfilled. Study them and see what is really being said. Then turn to the historians and see what history says really happened. If history agrees with the Bible then come to a conclusion. See if what the Bible said would happen to some nation did indeed happen. Were the Jews twice dispersed into the world and then regathered as the Bible said? If they were then how was it known so that it could be recorded in the Bible? There are a number of prophecies that can be checked into. You can Google them to find them if you wish.
There's a promise in Genesis 12:3 'And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse...' (yes, I had to quote a scripture). It's a promise from God to Abraham that the person or nation that blesses Israel will be blessed and the person or nation that curses Israel will be cursed. So look into history again and see it any nations that were benevolent toward Israel were experiencing prosperity and then if later they turned against Israel, did that nation go into decline? These are things that can be checked and evaluated.
Also, the existence of the historical Jesus can be evaluated by again looking to the historians. The majority of Biblical historians and critical scholars agree that the historical Jesus existed. They may not believe in his divinity but they are confident from their research that enough historical evidence exists to prove his existence as a man. See what they have to say and come to a conclusion.
In my own thinking; I don't if it's flawed reasoning or not, but if there were not at least an historical Jesus then there was nothing to act as a spark or catalyst for the formation of the church's, the church writings, all the people who were willing to be martyred. History tend's to agree on the historical Jesus. It only disagrees on his divinity.
But you will never be able to put God or the Bible in a test tube. It just doesn't work that way. One last verse. Jeremiah 29:13 'And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for me with all your heart'. If a person isn't interested in finding God then he won't.
People say, why doesn't God just reveal himself to everyone and end all doubt. Here's the thing. The Bible says that the angels were in the presence of God. They knew without doubt that God was real. And yet, one third of the angelic race chose to rebel against Him. The Bible also says that in the millennial kingdom, when Christ is on the earth ruling from the throne of David, and in a state of perfect environment, there will still be people who want nothing to do with him. Therefore, the reason for coming to God by faith and not by absolute proof. God wants a relationship with people who are interested in Him. I cannot provide scientific proof for what I said.
There are scientists who can go beyond science, who can set aside the role of scientist, to look into things that are of a supernatural nature. There are scientists who can't or won't. Science has provided many wonderful things in our lives but there are things that are beyond science. The supernatural exists along with the natural but can not be proven by the natural.
Oh, come on. How can you not believe in magical trees, talking snakes, men living to be 800-900 years old, and, if I'm all allowed to get a little naughty here, demons having intercourse with human females.
We have a lot of channeled messages from writers of the OT and NT. They all say that what they actually said is twisted to suit the needs of the ones who rewrote the bible to make it scriptural. Their stories were not intended to be scriptural nor were they intended for anything other than to help guide. The rewriters threw in some extra stuff to put the fear of God into man. After they were done, they exclaimed "Lets call this the word of God so that we can get people to follow what WE want them to believe. So they won't question anything and don't ever tell them that they don't need the book at all and we'll make millions because humans are gullible".
some of the stories are true and are inspiring but that's only about 40% of the bible. The rest is just garbage to hook people into giving money to the church's instead of actually helping the less fortunate.
I will say that one thing that I especially like about catholic (which is a christian sect for those of you who believe otherwise) theology is that they believe that OT stories are much like NT parables that Jesus taught -- not factual, but useful in delivering a message.
And aside from that whole mix up with Galileo, the Catholics do embrace science including evolution.
The total lack of any factual evidence on biblical myths and fables, coupled with the vague and ambiguous quotes of scripture to support whatever the argument of the day is, leads competent, rational thinkers to some inescapable conclusions.
I recently asked some posters over on the Christian sub-forum, if they could possibly defend their ideas based on their own interpretations, their own synopsis, their own thinking, on biblical teachings and subjects.
In other words, could they defend their ancient ideas without endlessly quoting scripture? You know; in their own words, through their own interpretation? Individually?
Know what they said?
"Nope" they said. "Can't do it, and it's not necessary." And furthermore, they don't want to do it that way! (PS: They'd lose, and they know it)
So.. there you have it. WE approach a debate with ideas, presented from several different perspectives, as varied as our highly individual personalities. In return, we get ambiguous, amorphous, vague and indecipherable biblical scripture. And shouted denials and untruths and insults about scientists.
Not too convincing, now is it? Hardly a good structure for an argument...
Hence, my thread title. Hard to argue it, eh?
There are a lot of things, like evolution, that you could write off in the same way.
God can not be subjected to scientific testing. God is supernatural. Science deals with the natural. The validity of the Bible must be approached on an historical basis.
The Bible has only one correct interpretation. To ask for individual personal interpretations only invites screwball ideas that distort what the Bible has to say about a given subject.
If you want to check into the validity of the Bible, about the only thing you can do is to check it against history. And by that I mean take some of the prophecies that from our point in time have been fulfilled. Study them and see what is really being said. Then turn to the historians and see what history says really happened. If history agrees with the Bible then come to a conclusion. See if what the Bible said would happen to some nation did indeed happen. Were the Jews twice dispersed into the world and then regathered as the Bible said? If they were then how was it known so that it could be recorded in the Bible? There are a number of prophecies that can be checked into. You can Google them to find them if you wish.
There's a promise in Genesis 12:3 'And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse...' (yes, I had to quote a scripture). It's a promise from God to Abraham that the person or nation that blesses Israel will be blessed and the person or nation that curses Israel will be cursed. So look into history again and see it any nations that were benevolent toward Israel were experiencing prosperity and then if later they turned against Israel, did that nation go into decline? These are things that can be checked and evaluated.
Also, the existence of the historical Jesus can be evaluated by again looking to the historians. The majority of Biblical historians and critical scholars agree that the historical Jesus existed. They may not believe in his divinity but they are confident from their research that enough historical evidence exists to prove his existence as a man. See what they have to say and come to a conclusion.
In my own thinking; I don't if it's flawed reasoning or not, but if there were not at least an historical Jesus then there was nothing to act as a spark or catalyst for the formation of the church's, the church writings, all the people who were willing to be martyred. History tend's to agree on the historical Jesus. It only disagrees on his divinity.
But you will never be able to put God or the Bible in a test tube. It just doesn't work that way. One last verse. Jeremiah 29:13 'And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for me with all your heart'. If a person isn't interested in finding God then he won't.
People say, why doesn't God just reveal himself to everyone and end all doubt. Here's the thing. The Bible says that the angels were in the presence of God. They knew without doubt that God was real. And yet, one third of the angelic race chose to rebel against Him. The Bible also says that in the millennial kingdom, when Christ is on the earth ruling from the throne of David, and in a state of perfect environment, there will still be people who want nothing to do with him. Therefore, the reason for coming to God by faith and not by absolute proof. God wants a relationship with people who are interested in Him. I cannot provide scientific proof for what I said.
There are scientists who can go beyond science, who can set aside the role of scientist, to look into things that are of a supernatural nature. There are scientists who can't or won't. Science has provided many wonderful things in our lives but there are things that are beyond science. The supernatural exists along with the natural but can not be proven by the natural.
There are plenty of things that have been perceived in history as being purely supernatural. However, with further study such things have been shown to be quite natural.
How in the world can you claim that your Christian God is purely supernatural?
Quote:
The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe
God becoming man (Jesus) completely destroys this. Even if you accept that Jesus is both God and man, Jesus still has NATURAL elements to him. The minute he supposedly walked the earth you allow for scientific/historic study.
Consider the following:
How can you have a personal relationship with a being who is PURELY supernatural? Are you claiming we have the supernatural capacity to understand/communicate with God? Wouldn't that put us above the natural? What about the fact that we supposedly have a soul? Isn't the soul viewed as a supernatural element? Wouldn't that again make something of our entity supernatural?
Also if God is not of this world how can you say he can intervene in this world and yet still be unobservable?
Wouldn't it make sense to say that God is the most natural being of all? Something that occurs naturally? Has no need for a cause? (I understand that this philosophy has problems as well it is merely a question to beg one to think about their current position.)
In other words, could they defend their ancient ideas without endlessly quoting scripture? You know; in their own words, through their own interpretation? Individually?
Huh? Never saw you come in and ask, rifleman
Even if you do, I'll have to jump in and protect you from being assaulted with sticks and stones
On the other hand, if they can't quote scripture what else can they? Not everyone sounds off on Rifleman's uncertainty principles. Again, you say, in their own words, as if you'll listen if they try.
there are plenty of things that have been perceived in history as being purely supernatural. However, with further study such things have been shown to be quite natural.
How in the world can you claim that your christian god is purely supernatural?god becoming man (jesus) completely destroys this. Even if you accept that jesus is both god and man, jesus still has natural elements to him. The minute he supposedly walked the earth you allow for scientific/historic study.
When Jesus Christ came into the world as a member of the human race he became the unique person of the universe. The God-man. Not half God and half man, but rather eternal and infinite God and true humanity. Two separate and distinct natures in one person forever. At the same time that he was a baby in the cradle in his humanity he was also holding the universe together as God. During his time on this earth he set aside the independent use and function of his deity and relied on the power of the Holy Spirit in living his life as a man. As a man he experienced the limitations and the temptations that all men have. Yet he resisted those temptations and avoided sin. In his deity he remained supernatural but as a man he was natural, only without a sin nature. As God he was omniscient but as a man he could be ignorant about things. The other two members of the Godhead, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit are deity only. And understand that God the Father is not also God the Son. Nor is He also the Holy Spirit. They are all separate persons who have the exact same essence. Three persons who are on God.
And yes, as a man he is subject to historical study. Therefore, if you will look into what the Biblical historians and critical scholars have to say about the historical Jesus, you can then evaluate what they have learned. Most historians are satisfied that the historical evidence is more then sufficient to show that the historical Jesus did exist. They only disagree with regard to his divinity.
Quote:
consider the following:
How can you have a personal relationship with a being who is purely supernatural? Are you claiming we have the supernatural capacity to understand/communicate with god? Wouldn't that put us above the natural? What about the fact that we supposedly have a soul? Isn't the soul viewed as a supernatural element? Wouldn't that again make something of our entity supernatural?
Man was originally created as a being with body, soul, and spirit. It is the human spirit that has the ability to understand spiritual things and have a relationship with God. When Adam sinned, he died spiritually which means that he lost his human spirit and therefore his relationship with God. There after, every member of the human race has been born with only a body and a soul. We are born spiritually dead. No human spirit. When the fetus is being formed in the womb it is a house under construction and is unoccupied. That is, there is no soul residing in the developing fetus. When the fetus exits the womb and is born, at that point God the Father creates a human soul and imputes it to the newborn baby. And it is at this point that there is human life as opposed to the biological life only that existed in the womb.
The soul is the natural part of man. It is not capable of relating to God. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, 'But a natural man (soulish man) does not accept the things of The Spirit of God:for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.'
If a person accepts Jesus Christ as savior, then at that point, God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit and imputes it to that person. This is what it means to be born again. God the Father imputes His very own eternal life as well as His rightousness to our human spirit which qualifies us to have an eternal relationship with Him.
Quote:
also if god is not of this world how can you say he can intervene in this world and yet still be unobservable?
God is separate and distinct from His creation, but He is free to enter into His creation and interact or intervene as He sees fit. He has manifested his presence in various ways at various times in human history. For instance, He led the Israelites through the desert manifesting Himself as a cloud by day and a pillor of fire by night. And yet, most of the people did nothing but complain and refused to trust Him to provide for their needs. And He was right there among them. He communicated directly only with Moses.
Quote:
Wouldn't it make sense to say that god is the most natural being of all? Something that occurs naturally? Has no need for a cause? (i understand that this philosophy has problems as well it is merely a question to beg one to think about their current position.)
No. God is not natural. He is not nature. He created nature. He doesn't occur. He simply is. We won't understand that this side of Heaven.
When Jesus Christ came into the world as a member of the human race he became the unique person of the universe. The God-man. Not half God and half man, but rather eternal and infinite God and true humanity. Two separate and distinct natures in one person forever. At the same time that he was a baby in the cradle in his humanity he was also holding the universe together as God. During his time on this earth he set aside the independent use and function of his deity and relied on the power of the Holy Spirit in living his life as a man. As a man he experienced the limitations and the temptations that all men have. Yet he resisted those temptations and avoided sin. In his deity he remained supernatural but as a man he was natural, only without a sin nature. As God he was omniscient but as a man he could be ignorant about things. The other two members of the Godhead, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit are deity only. And understand that God the Father is not also God the Son. Nor is He also the Holy Spirit. They are all separate persons who have the exact same essence. Three persons who are on God.
And yes, as a man he is subject to historical study. Therefore, if you will look into what the Biblical historians and critical scholars have to say about the historical Jesus, you can then evaluate what they have learned. Most historians are satisfied that the historical evidence is more then sufficient to show that the historical Jesus did exist. They only disagree with regard to his divinity.
Man was originally created as a being with body, soul, and spirit. It is the human spirit that has the ability to understand spiritual things and have a relationship with God. When Adam sinned, he died spiritually which means that he lost his human spirit and therefore his relationship with God. There after, every member of the human race has been born with only a body and a soul. We are born spiritually dead. No human spirit. When the fetus is being formed in the womb it is a house under construction and is unoccupied. That is, there is no soul residing in the developing fetus. When the fetus exits the womb and is born, at that point God the Father creates a human soul and imputes it to the newborn baby. And it is at this point that there is human life as opposed to the biological life only that existed in the womb.
The soul is the natural part of man. It is not capable of relating to God. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, 'But a natural man (soulish man) does not accept the things of The Spirit of God:for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.'
If a person accepts Jesus Christ as savior, then at that point, God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit and imputes it to that person. This is what it means to be born again. God the Father imputes His very own eternal life as well as His rightousness to our human spirit which qualifies us to have an eternal relationship with Him.
God is separate and distinct from His creation, but He is free to enter into His creation and interact or intervene as He sees fit. He has manifested his presence in various ways at various times in human history. For instance, He led the Israelites through the desert manifesting Himself as a cloud by day and a pillor of fire by night. And yet, most of the people did nothing but complain and refused to trust Him to provide for their needs. And He was right there among them. He communicated directly only with Moses.
No. God is not natural. He is not nature. He created nature. He doesn't occur. He simply is. We won't understand that this side of Heaven.
It seems you spent some time to give an honest answer. Even though you clearly seem to believe what you say; you are merely regurgitating the basics of your faith. In all honesty it appears to us skeptics as an attempt to sidestep the actual question. No new thought process is really brought to the table.
This does not in any way differ from what a Muslim, Jew, or another faith would answer the question. Each book claims they are right and you must trust because it says so.
For myself, I can not say all my ideas or arguments are original... but when I find flaws or issues with them I do more research and study. It seems quite unfair that the only way to accept any God is to take a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith".
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.
(PS: They'd lose, and they know it)
Hardly a good structure for an argument... 
