If he were inherently good, the world would reflect that.

Except nobody is claiming people are inherently good.

It is, except for the U.S., a place of much ruthlessness and evil.

You’re joking, right? Nothing ruthless or evil happens by the U.S. or in the U.S.? Seriously?

The Bible states that the first man, Adam, was our representative. He was made mutably righteous. When he sinned (the fall), all of his posterity were made sinful as well.

All you’ve managed to do is explain why, by your standards, humanity is in bad shape. This, however, does not mean that The Bible is it’s explanation. You still don’t manage to do that.

Man, since the fall, is deserving of God’s wrath because God is righteous and we are sinful.

You can’t argue like this without first proving the existence of the Christian God. You are assuming that there is one, and then assuming that people “deserve” something from this God. Where do you get that belief from? I’m guessing The Bible, which you still haven’t proven to be true no matter how many opportunities I’ve given you.

You’ve stated numerous times in this thread about how there is evidence corroborating the resurrection of Jesus and other phenomena as described in The Bible, yet you have yet to provide one, one single link verifying your claims.

In order to be good, one must hate evil.

I’m guessing you get this idea from The Bible as well, which, by the way, you still haven’t proven to be absolutely true. The only reason you have to believe that The Bible is true is because The Bible tells you it’s true (it’s true because the claims in it are true – let me remind people that you made this statement without proving the claims in it were true).

Proof that God does exist is in the form of his Word, and the Creation, both of which are attacked these days both by modern science and various other ways.

PRCalDude on April 29, 2007 at 7:25 PM

You seriously don’t understand what it is to “prove” something, do you? A claim that God created the world is not proof that God created the world, it’s a claim made without evidence. Can you prove The Bible is the word of God? Really, you can? Well then provide a link. Oh, wait, you don’t have any links to provide? I see.

Well, I suppose I could go deeper and begin an email dialogue. I’m not sure of the point.

-Gilgamesh predates Noah by centuries and flood narratives (as you mentioned) are not unique to any culture.
-The concept of monotheism predates Judaism by centuries, and is found in multiple religions, not the least of which are the Egyptians.
-There is no worthwile historical evidence of the Exodous
-The virgin birth was copped, if I recall correctly (it has been years, please remember) from Jainism
-Heaven and Hell come from Zorostrianism, which also predates Judaisim
-The earliest Gnostic text, once again from memory, is that of Mary, and it was early first century.
-Certain Christian festivals are direct descendants of pagan rituals.

Before such things as an email dialouge can be initiated, I’ll need parameters. Can we reference things that predate Judaism, actual Judaism or are we going to use the Bible and only the Bible? If we can only use the Bible, is it allowable to show how certain things are impossible as related to us within the text?

The problem is the closed loop. I have the ability to muck about with the “allowed” gospels and show the inherent contradictions, specifically the moral ones. I can, if necessary, use other sources that highlight the similarities of Christianity and whatever else.

I’m more than willing for you to set the rules and give you the home court advantage.

Nonfactor on April 29, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Sorry. I quoted BlackLake instead of you. I’m trying to keep track of several different arguments here.

But that’s a rather subjective assumption for an absolute answer. Who says that there is a “fallen nature of man today,” and what evidence do you have to verify that things now are worse than they were back in whatever imaginary time you’re thinking of?

Ok. Men are constantly killing one another, depriving each other and doing all of the other things they do because man is fallen. He is sinful. If he were inherently good, the world would reflect that. It is, except for the U.S., a place of much ruthlessness and evil. The Bible states that the first man, Adam, was our representative. He was made mutably righteous. When he sinned (the fall), all of his posterity were made sinful as well.

How does The Bible explain of “God’s relationship to man”? It states that God exists (which you still haven’t offered up any evidence outside of The Bible to corroborate) and states that there is a relationship between man and God.

Man, since the fall, is deserving of God’s wrath because God is righteous and we are sinful. In order to be good, one must hate evil. The same is true of God. God, being gracious, immediately intervened after the fall and promised to send a Saviour (Genesis 3:15). Successive interventions by God further clarified who this Saviour would be, until he was fully resolved in the coming of Jesus. God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus on the cross for our sins, at the same time redeeming certain men and women from their sins. Jesus was our substitute, so bore our punishment in his place. In so doing, God also maintained his justice by pouring out his wrath upon sinners. “Christ became sin for us.”

That doesn’t explain anything; it’s just a statement that you assume to be true because you want something to look up to. And again, how does The Bible explain “man’s need of a savior”? It states man needs a savior and provides one, but that doesn’t prove anything, especially when there’s no proof that this so-called savior rose from the dead in the first place.

I would much rather that man be inherently good. The world would be a much, much better place. That’s not how it is though, and that explanation doesn’t fit. Knowing then, that I am sinful and deserving of wrath, I look to my Saviour, Jesus. See my above post to BlackLake about the resurrection issue. Proof that God does exist is in the form of his Word, and the Creation, both of which are attacked these days both by modern science and various other ways. Science has already assumed its answer. Methods of attacking the Word are too numerous to recount here, but all have defenses from a Christian viewpoint.

I can’t, and I don’t. All I can do point is that if you’re sure, it’s clearly due to faith, not physical evidence. There is no conceivable relevant physical evidence.

Blacklake on April 29, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Now you’re telling me your faith is more valid than mine. We have the gospels that provide a reliable Jesus death and resurrection. There was an empty tomb as physical evidence. If Jesus wasn’t resurrected, everybody could have just gone to the tomb and said, “Look, there he is, right where we left him.” Various alternate explanations have been offered as to what happened to Jesus’ body instead of a resurrection, but if you have no evidence yourself of these alternate explanations, we’re right back where we started.

Ok, if your unsure, how can you tell me I can’t be sure.

I can’t, and I don’t. All I can do point is that if you’re sure, it’s clearly due to faith, not physical evidence. There is no conceivable relevant physical evidence.

I think I do.

You think you do what? I stated that you cannot provide evidence, you have not. You have made claims such as:

it perfectly explains the fallen nature of man today and the state of the world, and of God’s relationship to man, and of man’s need of a Savior

But that’s a rather subjective assumption for an absolute answer. Who says that there is a “fallen nature of man today,” and what evidence do you have to verify that things now are worse than they were back in whatever imaginary time you’re thinking of? How does The Bible explain of “God’s relationship to man”? It states that God exists (which you still haven’t offered up any evidence outside of The Bible to corroborate) and states that there is a relationship between man and God. That doesn’t explain anything; it’s just a statement that you assume to be true because you want something to look up to. And again, how does The Bible explain “man’s need of a savior”? It states man needs a savior and provides one, but that doesn’t prove anything, especially when there’s no proof that this so-called savior rose from the dead in the first place.

If you are an agnostic

I’m not.

you can’t logically tell me I’m wrong because you’ve admitted you aren’t sure about the existence of God.

PRCalDude on April 29, 2007 at 4:38 PM

I’ll bite. Even if I were agnostic I could tell you that there is no evidence outside of The Bible corroborating the resurrection of Jesus. Even if I were agnostic I could say that the Christian God’s Bible is untrue due to flat out evidence and logic (you do realize that miracles in and of themselves are illogical, right?), and if The Bible is untrue then the entire religion is a sham.

I tried giving you the benefit of doubt that you knew what you were talking about. I thought you’d actually present this so-called evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus, but nope. I’ve lost count of how many times I asked you to provide this evidence that supposedly backs up the claims made in The Bible–you can’t do it.

Nonfactor on April 29, 2007 at 1:40 PM

I think I do. The Bible is true because it perfectly explains the fallen nature of man today and the state of the world, and of God’s relationship to man, and of man’s need of a Savior? What evidence are you looking for? If you are an agnostic, you can’t logically tell me I’m wrong because you’ve admitted you aren’t sure about the existence of God. If you’re unsure, how can you logically tell me I’m wrong?

Krydor on April 29, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Christians have been answering copycat charges since the Christian faith began. Gilgamesh is not the only Flood narrative around. Every culture has one. Have you investigated our responses?

The Council of Nicea threw out the gospels that were much later than the originals. The gnostic gospels were all written by 2nd and 3rd century heretics that weren’t eyewitnesses of the events in question.

Most of the confusion about Revelation these days centers around the fact that most of the modern writers (LaHaye et al) don’t read the apocalyptic texts that Revelation is based on (Zechariah, Isaiah, Daniel, etc.) If you’re not more specific, I don’t know really how to answer you. Email me through my website later if the answer comes to you.

The Son of God is risen from the dead, and you won’t accept that.

PRCalDude on April 29, 2007 at 11:02 AM

I tried giving you the benefit of doubt that you knew what you were talking about. I thought you’d actually present this so-called evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus, but nope. I’ve lost count of how many times I asked you to provide this evidence that supposedly backs up the claims made in The Bible–you can’t do it.

You don’t know what I’m talking about? The folly of using ancient texts as history. When ancient peoples didn’t understand something, they tossed God in there. Think eclipses and earthquakes.

So, to say that God’s intervention is apparent when one uses the Bible as reference is rather shortsighted. The story of Noah and is Ark was lifted from Gilgamesh. Unless there were two different worldwide floods and two different righteous men that God chose to spare. So, we can either use that story as a teaching tool regarding being a faithful person (or whatever), or we can claim that this a real and true example of God’s intervention with the affairs of humans.

Anyway, one example of dozens regarding the use of other religious texts within the Bible, showing that the Bible is not the truly revealed word of God, as pagan sources were used. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, to boot. Regardless, God was added later by the Jews after hearing the story from someone else.

The story of the Gospels is a fun one, which has been touched on. The Nicean council decided what goes where. At the time, there were a bunch of different Gospels going around and serious debate on the divinity of Jesus. Sound familiar?

At any rate, there were some Gospels expunged with regards to not needing churches, reincarnation, yin/yang concepts, no magical powers and some other eastern influences. The council came about to consolidate the power of a central church. They wanted one telling of the ressurection, but ended up with multiple ones. What you have now is the abridged edition of the Bible, chosen by men who wished to control vast numbers of people.

The inclusion of Revelation was to keep people in line. If I recall correctly, there were a couple of apocalyptic texts at the time. Even then, they weren’t sure if it was actually John’s revelation or someone pretending to be John. It certainly is the one most open to interpretation, which is why people are on about the Rapture.

The story of the Bible is a cool one, although it’s less about faith and more about control. I haven’t bothered with this for a number of years, so this is giving my memory a good workout. Apologies up front for my hazy memory with regards to some of the above.

I am agnostic.

Blacklake on April 28, 2007 at 11:43 PM

Ok, if your unsure, how can you tell me I can’t be sure. This discussion’s probably about to go to archive, but I’ll try to answer you in more detail later.

Hence, as there can be physical evidence neither for or against the proposition “God exists,” there is no corresponding scientific research providing evidence one way or the other. So “Science” (not to be confused with some scientists) doesn’t at all say what you claim.

Of course not. If all the editors of the scientific journals are staunch atheists, they’re not going to take any evidence that the Christian God exists as valid. Science can only reassert it’s own presuppositions. They’ve assumed the answer.

What circular logic? I’ve pointed out yours, the least you could do is point out mine before you make accusations. And so far in this thread I haven’t used any evidence to prove there isn’t a god because 1) The burden of proof is on you and 2) I’ve simply been asking you questions.

Why do I assume the burden of proof. Because you say so? I’ve tried to answer your questions. When you’re already committed to your answer no matter what, what evidence could I possibly admit that you would accept? The Son of God is risen from the dead, and you won’t accept that.

I agree, I can’t know everything, but I can know that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, and I can know that the sums of a triangles corners add up to 180 degrees, and I can know that sections of The Bible have been falsified.

Ok, which ones? That’s something worth discussing.

And again I ask (but I’m beginning to think you don’t want to answer) what proves The Bible is absolutely correct? You say there is other evidence. I say show it to me. You ignore that section of my post.

You want extrabiblical evidence? Ok. I’ve given reasons why I think Darwinian evolution didn’t happen. Since the only competing theory (thanks to the editors of scientific journals) is that we were created, what do you want? Which claims specifically do you want to talk about.

I don’t believe The Bible to be true just as much as I don’t believe the Qur’an to be true.

The Qur’an isn’t internally consistent. It requires the doctrine of naskh (abrogation) in order to be interpreted. It also teaches tanzih (transcendence) which states that no human language can describe Allah, in which the Qur’an fails to be what the Qur’an claims to be.

The claims made are illogical.

Which ones?

There is extrabiblical evidence that the accounts are true. You wouldn’t find it compelling. You want to maintain your dependence on yourself rather than on what the Bible says.

You keep saying that yet you continue to not provide any evidence. Where is the evidence outside of The Bible that Jesus rose from the dead, that he walked on water, that he preformed any of his miracles?

I’ve been up front about my use of circular logic. You haven’t been about yours. You are just as selective of evidence that reinforces the idea that there isn’t a god, because that’s the belief you’ve committed yourself to.

What circular logic? I’ve pointed out yours, the least you could do is point out mine before you make accusations. And so far in this thread I haven’t used any evidence to prove there isn’t a god because 1) The burden of proof is on you and 2) I’ve simply been asking you questions.

You can’t know everything, nor are you always right, but at the same time assert that the Bible is false and the Christian God is a figment of my imagination.

I agree, I can’t know everything, but I can know that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, and I can know that the sums of a triangles corners add up to 180 degrees, and I can know that sections of The Bible have been falsified.

The Bible is proof of the Christian God. He has revealed himself.

And again I ask (but I’m beginning to think you don’t want to answer) what proves The Bible is absolutely correct? You say there is other evidence. I say show it to me. You ignore that section of my post.

You still haven’t actually stated why you don’t believe the Bible.

PRCalDude on April 28, 2007 at 11:37 PM

I don’t believe The Bible to be true just as much as I don’t believe the Qur’an to be true. There is no evidence that corroborates many of the claims made in the document. The claims made are illogical. And there is no “proof” of the Christian God outside of this document that states that the Christian God exists (Oh, by the way, this document says that the document is the word of this Christian God and the word is 100% true).

Though science isn’t at all certain of whether or not the earth was created because, as you say, it’s constantly searching for new answers, it still claims there is no god.

Individual scientists might say things like that, but you’ll be hard pressed to find scientific research on whether or not God exists. Anywhere. The reason for this is that God, whatever it may be, is apparently not physical. And if it’s not physical, it fails to fall under the domain science. Hence, as there can be physical evidence neither for or against the proposition “God exists,” there is no corresponding scientific research providing evidence one way or the other. So “Science” (not to be confused with some scientists) doesn’t at all say what you claim.

You’ll even find, if you actually looked, a large number of scientists who profess personal belief in God (though they hopefully don’t make the mistake of presuming to back up this claim of faith with physical evidence, which is necessarily impossible.)

I think you’re making the same mistake that many atheists make: you assume that a particular scientific theory (evolutionary theory) somehow stands in juxtaposition to a non-scientific belief (God exists), and that one can be refuted by arguing about the soundness of the other. That’s not possible. One is a claim about the physical world; the other is not.

Meanwhile, you’re continuing to project the arguments of other people onto me with statements like “You say what we call the creation is not created at all.” I have said and do say nothing of the sort. I don’t even know “created” could even mean in this context. I’m neither a theist or an atheist; both of those parties seem to make claims about the veracity of propositions that can’t be tested for veracity. I am agnostic.

God intervened, did he? And you know this how? Oh, The Bible, that’s right. And you know The Bible is true how? Do you not see your own circular reasoning? It’s really really embarrassing to see someone continue to use this lamest of fallacies.

There is extrabiblical evidence that the accounts are true. You wouldn’t find it compelling. You want to maintain your dependence on yourself rather than on what the Bible says.

How do you know everything happened as foretold? And how does this prove that God exists or The Bible is true?

Well, you can read Isaiah 53 and then any of the gospel accounts of the passion if you want. Again, there is extrabiblical evidence that Jesus was crucified. For various reasons, Christianity wouldn’t have made it out of the ancient world if the resurrection wasn’t a fact. But it happened according to the Scriptures.

You believe God exists, you admit to circular logic and use of selective evidence, you have no proof Jesus was resurrected or that God created the Universe outside of The Bible, and when all this is pointed out to you, you say “so?” Pathetic.

I’ve been up front about my use of circular logic. You haven’t been about yours. You are just as selective of evidence that reinforces the idea that there isn’t a god, because that’s the belief you’ve committed yourself to. You’re committed to your own independence from God, but are at the same time dependent on a finite intellect that is also fallible. You can’t know everything, nor are you always right, but at the same time assert that the Bible is false and the Christian God is a figment of my imagination. You are absolutely certain of this even though you can’t be. I say that the creation and your conscience tell you that there is one. The Bible is proof of the Christian God. He has revealed himself. You still haven’t actually stated why you don’t believe the Bible.

I just told you why it’s absolute truth.

You told me it was true, but you still haven’t give any evidence to support your belief. You still think the argument “it’s true because the claims in it are true” is a valid argument for crying out loud. You haven’t proven the claims in it to be true, and using quotes from The Bible that state “The Bible is true” is not proof.

God intervened in history at varioius times, progressively revealing of a coming Redeemer. The first time he did this was in Genesis 3:15, then later with Noah, Abraham, Israel, the prophets, and lastly in Jesus.

God intervened, did he? And you know this how? Oh, The Bible, that’s right. And you know The Bible is true how? Do you not see your own circular reasoning? It’s really really embarrassing to see someone continue to use this lamest of fallacies.

Everything happened as foretold.

How do you know everything happened as foretold? And how does this prove that God exists or The Bible is true? How do you know Jesus was raised from the dead? (And I’m almost afraid to ask that question because I know the answer, and I know it will be circular logic yet again).

I should have known where this “debate” was headed when I responded to you on April 27, 2007 at 8:04 PM. You believe God exists, you admit to circular logic and use of selective evidence, you have no proof Jesus was resurrected or that God created the Universe outside of The Bible, and when all this is pointed out to you, you say “so?” Pathetic.

What could possibly constitute physical evidence for something that isn’t physical? Considering that you’d combine statements like that with ones like this, actually offered as a criticism of science:

We say it’s the creation. You say what we call the creation is not created at all. It’s a matter of presuppositions. Though science isn’t at all certain of whether or not the earth was created because, as you say, it’s constantly searching for new answers, it still claims there is no god. Well, if it knew everything, it could do that. Since it doesn’t, and because it’s fallible, it can’t. Moreoever, if it assumes the presupposition that there is no god, it can only reinforce that presupposition with further inquiry. Science is not religiously neutral. It can’t be.

Like I said, if the only evidence admissable is evidence that is based on the assumption that there is no god, guess what scientists are going to find?

What could possibly constitute physical evidence for something that isn’t physical? Considering that you’d combine statements like that with ones like this, actually offered as a criticism of science:

Science isn’t at all certain about what it knows, neither does it even know where to look most of the time.

when that’s pretty much the entire point of the scientific perspective as a whole, not a criticism of it, it’s pretty hard to grasp where you could possibly be coming from.

Kralizec on April 28, 2007 at 12:41 PM

Look, my critiques come from reading Dawkins. He made the point in “The God Delusion” that there are not many (if any) intermediate forms and structures for the creatures we see because evolution took place but the original mechanism (the scaffolding, he calls it) by which the evolution took place has been erased. Fine. Fair argument. But who’s taking what on faith then? If he can’t find the original scaffolding by which evolution took place, then how can he tell us we have a God of the gaps, or whatever.

My point wasn’t to take on evolution vs. creationism at all. It was to point out that there is much scientists take on faith, and much that they need to be true in order for their argument to hold water, for example now they’re running around changing their assumptions to show that early earth indeed had a reducing atmosphere. Miller and Urey’s experiment had fallen out of favor for a long time because scientists couldn’t show this. It’s back in fashion now because scientists in 2005 now think we had one. It was in my high school biology textbook in 1997 even though it had fallen out of fashion some 20 years earlier. Like I said, if the only evidence admissable is evidence that is based on the assumption that there is no god, guess what scientists are going to find? I don’t care if we help them refine their arguments. We’ll just keep refining ours.

Is this going to turn into a creationism vs. evolution debate? Your reverence runs a bit toward the selective as well.

No, it’s not, and no, it doesn’t. Mind your projections.

Krydor on April 28, 2007 at 12:48 PM

I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to, but I’m all ears.

What I’m saying is that the the Biblical texts are not historically accurate. Therefore, we cannot infer God’s intervention with the use of the Bible as a source.

I do know how the Bible came about, and much of it came from other religions (not Judaism). It’s rather interesting, don’t you think, that the text which actually show a man can have a relationship with God through Jesus with no need for intermediaries were expunged from the record?

If this is a road you wish to travel, you might not like the destination. Just a friendly heads up.