‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 > 
 
   
 

What’s in it for God?

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2019 03:11
 
TwoSeven1 - 08 January 2019 08:36 PM
MrRon - 08 January 2019 05:22 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 January 2019 08:55 AM

“And you don’t see that you are being manipulated into believing that you are sick and that (conveniently) your particular religion has the cure?”  No, I don’t see manipulation.

“I know what you’re referring to. Please be specific. What were people doing that made them ‘evil’?”  What does the Bible say?

“No, I’m appealing to logic.”  Really?

“No, there isn’t. It’s a fairy tale. And I think that you’re smart enough to realize that at some level.”  Well, I don’t believe it’s a fairy tale.  What is there for us to discuss in light of our disagreement?

“And here we see the cognitive dissonance revealing itself. You’re not answering because you’re probably a decent person and you now realize that you are more moral than the God you worship.”  You’re assuming why I’m not answering, and yet I answered already.  Many times.

“You missed the point completely.”  No, I haven’t.  You are making the argument that because the Bible says God is, in your own words, all-loving and all-powerful, that somehow contradicts the fact that there is suffering in the world.  I hear you loud and clear.  You don’t seem to understand what I’ve been explaining.

“Please try to think for yourself rather than always deferring to your preferred book.”  The Bible is my point of reference for this discussion.  I have been trying to explain that the Bible is reasonable.  Is what the Bible says about God not the whole point of what we’re discussing?  You keep making this discussion about me and my opinions and I keep trying to bring back the context.  How does asking your hypothetical question have relevance with the context?  You would do better to ask how God can allow suffering instead of asking me to say what I would do if I were him.

“How could you be guilty of something before you have the time to exercise your free will?”  Understand this as meaning that sin is inherent in our nature.  God knows that all human beings need salvation because sin is opposite to his nature.

“You don’t understand that famine, poverty, disease, and natural disasters are not ‘mistakes that are repeated’?? Seriously?”  I never said that they were.  I mentioned the things that I did because you said that history speaks for itself.  I was simply challenging your claim that history speaks for itself.  I didn’t equate poverty, disease and natural disasters as mistakes.  We were talking about two different things.  The problem I have with your claim about history is that it really doesn’t do what you say it does.

“I have no idea what the Bible says - I’m asking YOU.”  Then why do you keep assuming to know what I believe?  The whole basis of this discussion is God as described in the Bible.  You should brush up on what the Bible says before entering into a debate about what it says.

“Besides, you are keen to point out that one can’t just take things at face value from the Bible - they need the proper ‘interpretation.’”  No, that’s not what I pointed out.  I pointed out that we have to know context to understand the Bible, which has nothing to do with interpretation.  What you have done is take verses out of context and applied your meaning, which constitutes interpretation.


Is there a reason why you’re not answering this question?…

If it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?


I see no reason to continue if you don’t answer that question. Avoiding the question tells me that you are not interested in facts, logic, or reason. All you want to do is dodge the important questions and refer everything back to your particular book of indoctrination. I kind of don’t blame you. There is really no defense for the obvious inconsistencies and shortcomings in what should be a PERFECT book. Anyway, I doubt you would tolerate those antics from a devout Muslim. Or a devout Hindu. Or a devout… pick the religion. You are apparently incapable of stepping outside YOUR bubble and thinking for yourself. But if you ever get serious about having a discussion, then you can try tackling these unanswered questions:

  - How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature on the planet?
  - What were people doing that made them “evil”?
  - Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?
  - Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?


I won’t be holding my breath though. 

Ron

“Is there a reason why you’re not answering this question?…”  I’ve explained why multiple times.

And I’ve explained that a) the question DOES have relevance to the discussion, and b) your refusal to answer it betrays your intellectual dishonesty.

“I see no reason to continue if you don’t answer that question.”  Then let’s not continue.

Fair enough. And the unanswered questions I have posed will remain a testament to the folly of irrational beliefs and the inability to logically defend those beliefs.

Ron

[ Edited: 09 January 2019 03:16 by MrRon]
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  48
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
09 January 2019 08:05
 
MrRon - 09 January 2019 03:11 AM
TwoSeven1 - 08 January 2019 08:36 PM
MrRon - 08 January 2019 05:22 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 January 2019 08:55 AM

“And you don’t see that you are being manipulated into believing that you are sick and that (conveniently) your particular religion has the cure?”  No, I don’t see manipulation.

“I know what you’re referring to. Please be specific. What were people doing that made them ‘evil’?”  What does the Bible say?

“No, I’m appealing to logic.”  Really?

“No, there isn’t. It’s a fairy tale. And I think that you’re smart enough to realize that at some level.”  Well, I don’t believe it’s a fairy tale.  What is there for us to discuss in light of our disagreement?

“And here we see the cognitive dissonance revealing itself. You’re not answering because you’re probably a decent person and you now realize that you are more moral than the God you worship.”  You’re assuming why I’m not answering, and yet I answered already.  Many times.

“You missed the point completely.”  No, I haven’t.  You are making the argument that because the Bible says God is, in your own words, all-loving and all-powerful, that somehow contradicts the fact that there is suffering in the world.  I hear you loud and clear.  You don’t seem to understand what I’ve been explaining.

“Please try to think for yourself rather than always deferring to your preferred book.”  The Bible is my point of reference for this discussion.  I have been trying to explain that the Bible is reasonable.  Is what the Bible says about God not the whole point of what we’re discussing?  You keep making this discussion about me and my opinions and I keep trying to bring back the context.  How does asking your hypothetical question have relevance with the context?  You would do better to ask how God can allow suffering instead of asking me to say what I would do if I were him.

“How could you be guilty of something before you have the time to exercise your free will?”  Understand this as meaning that sin is inherent in our nature.  God knows that all human beings need salvation because sin is opposite to his nature.

“You don’t understand that famine, poverty, disease, and natural disasters are not ‘mistakes that are repeated’?? Seriously?”  I never said that they were.  I mentioned the things that I did because you said that history speaks for itself.  I was simply challenging your claim that history speaks for itself.  I didn’t equate poverty, disease and natural disasters as mistakes.  We were talking about two different things.  The problem I have with your claim about history is that it really doesn’t do what you say it does.

“I have no idea what the Bible says - I’m asking YOU.”  Then why do you keep assuming to know what I believe?  The whole basis of this discussion is God as described in the Bible.  You should brush up on what the Bible says before entering into a debate about what it says.

“Besides, you are keen to point out that one can’t just take things at face value from the Bible - they need the proper ‘interpretation.’”  No, that’s not what I pointed out.  I pointed out that we have to know context to understand the Bible, which has nothing to do with interpretation.  What you have done is take verses out of context and applied your meaning, which constitutes interpretation.


Is there a reason why you’re not answering this question?…

If it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?


I see no reason to continue if you don’t answer that question. Avoiding the question tells me that you are not interested in facts, logic, or reason. All you want to do is dodge the important questions and refer everything back to your particular book of indoctrination. I kind of don’t blame you. There is really no defense for the obvious inconsistencies and shortcomings in what should be a PERFECT book. Anyway, I doubt you would tolerate those antics from a devout Muslim. Or a devout Hindu. Or a devout… pick the religion. You are apparently incapable of stepping outside YOUR bubble and thinking for yourself. But if you ever get serious about having a discussion, then you can try tackling these unanswered questions:

  - How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature on the planet?
  - What were people doing that made them “evil”?
  - Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?
  - Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?


I won’t be holding my breath though. 

Ron

“Is there a reason why you’re not answering this question?…”  I’ve explained why multiple times.

And I’ve explained that a) the question DOES have relevance to the discussion, and b) your refusal to answer it betrays your intellectual dishonesty.

“I see no reason to continue if you don’t answer that question.”  Then let’s not continue.

Fair enough. And the unanswered questions I have posed will remain a testament to the folly of irrational beliefs and the inability to logically defend those beliefs.

Ron

“...and b) your refusal to answer it betrays your intellectual dishonesty.”  I thought your point was that I am intellectually dishonest?  Are you now saying that I am intellectually honest?

“Fair enough. And the unanswered questions I have posed will remain a testament to the folly of irrational beliefs and the inability to logically defend those beliefs.”  Interesting conclusion.  You’re implying that an unanswered question proves an argument to be false.  How about the unanswered questions that I’ve asked you?

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2019 17:21
 
TwoSeven1 - 09 January 2019 08:05 AM
MrRon - 09 January 2019 03:11 AM
TwoSeven1 - 08 January 2019 08:36 PM
MrRon - 08 January 2019 05:22 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 January 2019 08:55 AM

“And you don’t see that you are being manipulated into believing that you are sick and that (conveniently) your particular religion has the cure?”  No, I don’t see manipulation.

“I know what you’re referring to. Please be specific. What were people doing that made them ‘evil’?”  What does the Bible say?

“No, I’m appealing to logic.”  Really?

“No, there isn’t. It’s a fairy tale. And I think that you’re smart enough to realize that at some level.”  Well, I don’t believe it’s a fairy tale.  What is there for us to discuss in light of our disagreement?

“And here we see the cognitive dissonance revealing itself. You’re not answering because you’re probably a decent person and you now realize that you are more moral than the God you worship.”  You’re assuming why I’m not answering, and yet I answered already.  Many times.

“You missed the point completely.”  No, I haven’t.  You are making the argument that because the Bible says God is, in your own words, all-loving and all-powerful, that somehow contradicts the fact that there is suffering in the world.  I hear you loud and clear.  You don’t seem to understand what I’ve been explaining.

“Please try to think for yourself rather than always deferring to your preferred book.”  The Bible is my point of reference for this discussion.  I have been trying to explain that the Bible is reasonable.  Is what the Bible says about God not the whole point of what we’re discussing?  You keep making this discussion about me and my opinions and I keep trying to bring back the context.  How does asking your hypothetical question have relevance with the context?  You would do better to ask how God can allow suffering instead of asking me to say what I would do if I were him.

“How could you be guilty of something before you have the time to exercise your free will?”  Understand this as meaning that sin is inherent in our nature.  God knows that all human beings need salvation because sin is opposite to his nature.

“You don’t understand that famine, poverty, disease, and natural disasters are not ‘mistakes that are repeated’?? Seriously?”  I never said that they were.  I mentioned the things that I did because you said that history speaks for itself.  I was simply challenging your claim that history speaks for itself.  I didn’t equate poverty, disease and natural disasters as mistakes.  We were talking about two different things.  The problem I have with your claim about history is that it really doesn’t do what you say it does.

“I have no idea what the Bible says - I’m asking YOU.”  Then why do you keep assuming to know what I believe?  The whole basis of this discussion is God as described in the Bible.  You should brush up on what the Bible says before entering into a debate about what it says.

“Besides, you are keen to point out that one can’t just take things at face value from the Bible - they need the proper ‘interpretation.’”  No, that’s not what I pointed out.  I pointed out that we have to know context to understand the Bible, which has nothing to do with interpretation.  What you have done is take verses out of context and applied your meaning, which constitutes interpretation.


Is there a reason why you’re not answering this question?…

If it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?


I see no reason to continue if you don’t answer that question. Avoiding the question tells me that you are not interested in facts, logic, or reason. All you want to do is dodge the important questions and refer everything back to your particular book of indoctrination. I kind of don’t blame you. There is really no defense for the obvious inconsistencies and shortcomings in what should be a PERFECT book. Anyway, I doubt you would tolerate those antics from a devout Muslim. Or a devout Hindu. Or a devout… pick the religion. You are apparently incapable of stepping outside YOUR bubble and thinking for yourself. But if you ever get serious about having a discussion, then you can try tackling these unanswered questions:

  - How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature on the planet?
  - What were people doing that made them “evil”?
  - Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?
  - Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?


I won’t be holding my breath though. 

Ron

“Is there a reason why you’re not answering this question?…”  I’ve explained why multiple times.

And I’ve explained that a) the question DOES have relevance to the discussion, and b) your refusal to answer it betrays your intellectual dishonesty.

“I see no reason to continue if you don’t answer that question.”  Then let’s not continue.

Fair enough. And the unanswered questions I have posed will remain a testament to the folly of irrational beliefs and the inability to logically defend those beliefs.

Ron

“...and b) your refusal to answer it betrays your intellectual dishonesty.”  I thought your point was that I am intellectually dishonest?  Are you now saying that I am intellectually honest?

No. And I’m not sure how you derived that from what I said.

“Fair enough. And the unanswered questions I have posed will remain a testament to the folly of irrational beliefs and the inability to logically defend those beliefs.”  Interesting conclusion.  You’re implying that an unanswered question proves an argument to be false.

No. I’m speaking to beliefs - not to any particular “argument”.

 

How about the unanswered questions that I’ve asked you?

Such as?

Ron

 

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7099
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
09 January 2019 19:30
 

By the time the quotes of quotes of quotes get so very long, with periodic inserted answers, readers and posters are bound to miss questions.  Very confusing.  Try addressing one point or paragraph at a time?

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20930
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
09 January 2019 19:55
 
hannahtoo - 09 January 2019 07:30 PM

By the time the quotes of quotes of quotes get so very long, with periodic inserted answers, readers and posters are bound to miss questions.  Very confusing.  Try addressing one point or paragraph at a time?

Really.

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  48
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
09 January 2019 21:45
 
MrRon - 09 January 2019 05:21 PM
TwoSeven1 - 09 January 2019 08:05 AM
MrRon - 09 January 2019 03:11 AM
TwoSeven1 - 08 January 2019 08:36 PM
MrRon - 08 January 2019 05:22 PM
TwoSeven1 - 08 January 2019 08:55 AM

“And you don’t see that you are being manipulated into believing that you are sick and that (conveniently) your particular religion has the cure?”  No, I don’t see manipulation.

“I know what you’re referring to. Please be specific. What were people doing that made them ‘evil’?”  What does the Bible say?

“No, I’m appealing to logic.”  Really?

“No, there isn’t. It’s a fairy tale. And I think that you’re smart enough to realize that at some level.”  Well, I don’t believe it’s a fairy tale.  What is there for us to discuss in light of our disagreement?

“And here we see the cognitive dissonance revealing itself. You’re not answering because you’re probably a decent person and you now realize that you are more moral than the God you worship.”  You’re assuming why I’m not answering, and yet I answered already.  Many times.

“You missed the point completely.”  No, I haven’t.  You are making the argument that because the Bible says God is, in your own words, all-loving and all-powerful, that somehow contradicts the fact that there is suffering in the world.  I hear you loud and clear.  You don’t seem to understand what I’ve been explaining.

“Please try to think for yourself rather than always deferring to your preferred book.”  The Bible is my point of reference for this discussion.  I have been trying to explain that the Bible is reasonable.  Is what the Bible says about God not the whole point of what we’re discussing?  You keep making this discussion about me and my opinions and I keep trying to bring back the context.  How does asking your hypothetical question have relevance with the context?  You would do better to ask how God can allow suffering instead of asking me to say what I would do if I were him.

“How could you be guilty of something before you have the time to exercise your free will?”  Understand this as meaning that sin is inherent in our nature.  God knows that all human beings need salvation because sin is opposite to his nature.

“You don’t understand that famine, poverty, disease, and natural disasters are not ‘mistakes that are repeated’?? Seriously?”  I never said that they were.  I mentioned the things that I did because you said that history speaks for itself.  I was simply challenging your claim that history speaks for itself.  I didn’t equate poverty, disease and natural disasters as mistakes.  We were talking about two different things.  The problem I have with your claim about history is that it really doesn’t do what you say it does.

“I have no idea what the Bible says - I’m asking YOU.”  Then why do you keep assuming to know what I believe?  The whole basis of this discussion is God as described in the Bible.  You should brush up on what the Bible says before entering into a debate about what it says.

“Besides, you are keen to point out that one can’t just take things at face value from the Bible - they need the proper ‘interpretation.’”  No, that’s not what I pointed out.  I pointed out that we have to know context to understand the Bible, which has nothing to do with interpretation.  What you have done is take verses out of context and applied your meaning, which constitutes interpretation.


Is there a reason why you’re not answering this question?…

If it can be shown that there are contradictions and/or errors in the Bible, would that change your mind?


I see no reason to continue if you don’t answer that question. Avoiding the question tells me that you are not interested in facts, logic, or reason. All you want to do is dodge the important questions and refer everything back to your particular book of indoctrination. I kind of don’t blame you. There is really no defense for the obvious inconsistencies and shortcomings in what should be a PERFECT book. Anyway, I doubt you would tolerate those antics from a devout Muslim. Or a devout Hindu. Or a devout… pick the religion. You are apparently incapable of stepping outside YOUR bubble and thinking for yourself. But if you ever get serious about having a discussion, then you can try tackling these unanswered questions:

  - How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature on the planet?
  - What were people doing that made them “evil”?
  - Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?
  - Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?


I won’t be holding my breath though. 

Ron

“Is there a reason why you’re not answering this question?…”  I’ve explained why multiple times.

And I’ve explained that a) the question DOES have relevance to the discussion, and b) your refusal to answer it betrays your intellectual dishonesty.

“I see no reason to continue if you don’t answer that question.”  Then let’s not continue.

Fair enough. And the unanswered questions I have posed will remain a testament to the folly of irrational beliefs and the inability to logically defend those beliefs.

Ron

“...and b) your refusal to answer it betrays your intellectual dishonesty.”  I thought your point was that I am intellectually dishonest?  Are you now saying that I am intellectually honest?

No. And I’m not sure how you derived that from what I said.

“Fair enough. And the unanswered questions I have posed will remain a testament to the folly of irrational beliefs and the inability to logically defend those beliefs.”  Interesting conclusion.  You’re implying that an unanswered question proves an argument to be false.

No. I’m speaking to beliefs - not to any particular “argument”.

 

How about the unanswered questions that I’ve asked you?

Such as?

Ron

 

“No. And I’m not sure how you derived that from what I said.”
Well, if I’m intellectually dishonest, and my “...refusal to answer it [the question] betrays your [my] intellectual dishonesty,” then my dishonesty is betrayed.  This means the opposite of what you intended.  Semantics, yes, but I felt like you could benefit from a correction.

“No. I’m speaking to beliefs - not to any particular ‘argument’.”  There are a couple problems with this statement:

1.  What we have been doing is arguing points.  It doesn’t make sense to try and separate the arguments from the reasoning.
2. As I pointed out before, you based all of your attacks from your interpretations of the Bible and assumed I agree with your interpretations.  All along I was trying to get you to understand that your interpretations are incorrect.

“Such as?”  Are you seriously unaware of my questions?  Have you been reading the things that I’ve posted at all?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  48
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
09 January 2019 21:49
 
hannahtoo - 09 January 2019 07:30 PM

By the time the quotes of quotes of quotes get so very long, with periodic inserted answers, readers and posters are bound to miss questions.  Very confusing.  Try addressing one point or paragraph at a time?

Keeps them on their toes! :-)

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17143
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2019 22:45
 
hannahtoo - 09 January 2019 07:30 PM

By the time the quotes of quotes of quotes get so very long, with periodic inserted answers, readers and posters are bound to miss questions.  Very confusing.  Try addressing one point or paragraph at a time?

It’s an argument about which view of the ignorance, myth, magic and superstition of make-believe gods and magic books is the right one. There is only one right view and that is that’s it bullshit, so there really is no point other then whacking at the theists pinyata to see whats inside.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
10 January 2019 03:46
 
TwoSeven1 - 09 January 2019 09:45 PM

“No. And I’m not sure how you derived that from what I said.”
Well, if I’m intellectually dishonest, and my “...refusal to answer it [the question] betrays your [my] intellectual dishonesty,” then my dishonesty is betrayed.  This means the opposite of what you intended.  Semantics, yes, but I felt like you could benefit from a correction.

Betray means:
1. expose (one’s country, a group, or a person) to danger by treacherously giving information to an enemy
2. unintentionally reveal; be evidence of

Therefore, you revealed/exposed your intellectual dishonesty. I felt that you could benefit from some simple definitions.

“No. I’m speaking to beliefs - not to any particular ‘argument’.”  There are a couple problems with this statement:

1.  What we have been doing is arguing points.  It doesn’t make sense to try and separate the arguments from the reasoning.

So here we go again… me putting things back in context.

I said this (which specifically contains the words “beliefs”):

“Fair enough. And the unanswered questions I have posed will remain a testament to the folly of irrational beliefs and the inability to logically defend those beliefs.” 

To which YOU said:

“Interesting conclusion.  You’re implying that an unanswered question proves an argument to be false.”

To which I said:

“No. I’m speaking to beliefs - not to any particular “argument”.

Get it?

2. As I pointed out before, you based all of your attacks from your interpretations of the Bible and assumed I agree with your interpretations.  All along I was trying to get you to understand that your interpretations are incorrect.

And I specifically asked you which method you’re using to interpret the Bible and you never did answer that one either. Are you going to answer it now?

“Such as?”  Are you seriously unaware of my questions?  Have you been reading the things that I’ve posted at all?

It doesn’t surprise me here that you have ignored my answers. And my questions. When all you have is an ancient fairy tale book with virgin births, talking snakes, carpenter zombies, arks with every animal species on the planet, endorsed slavery, etc., I do understand that a serious probing of it presents issues that you’d rather avoid. Completely understandable.

SO…..  if it can be shown that the Bible contains errors and/or contradictions, would that change your mind about the validity of the book?

Ron

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  48
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
10 January 2019 08:23
 
MrRon - 10 January 2019 03:46 AM
TwoSeven1 - 09 January 2019 09:45 PM

“No. And I’m not sure how you derived that from what I said.”
Well, if I’m intellectually dishonest, and my “...refusal to answer it [the question] betrays your [my] intellectual dishonesty,” then my dishonesty is betrayed.  This means the opposite of what you intended.  Semantics, yes, but I felt like you could benefit from a correction.

Betray means:
1. expose (one’s country, a group, or a person) to danger by treacherously giving information to an enemy
2. unintentionally reveal; be evidence of

Therefore, you revealed/exposed your intellectual dishonesty. I felt that you could benefit from some simple definitions.

“No. I’m speaking to beliefs - not to any particular ‘argument’.”  There are a couple problems with this statement:

1.  What we have been doing is arguing points.  It doesn’t make sense to try and separate the arguments from the reasoning.

So here we go again… me putting things back in context.

I said this (which specifically contains the words “beliefs”):

“Fair enough. And the unanswered questions I have posed will remain a testament to the folly of irrational beliefs and the inability to logically defend those beliefs.” 

To which YOU said:

“Interesting conclusion.  You’re implying that an unanswered question proves an argument to be false.”

To which I said:

“No. I’m speaking to beliefs - not to any particular “argument”.

Get it?

2. As I pointed out before, you based all of your attacks from your interpretations of the Bible and assumed I agree with your interpretations.  All along I was trying to get you to understand that your interpretations are incorrect.

And I specifically asked you which method you’re using to interpret the Bible and you never did answer that one either. Are you going to answer it now?

“Such as?”  Are you seriously unaware of my questions?  Have you been reading the things that I’ve posted at all?

It doesn’t surprise me here that you have ignored my answers. And my questions. When all you have is an ancient fairy tale book with virgin births, talking snakes, carpenter zombies, arks with every animal species on the planet, endorsed slavery, etc., I do understand that a serious probing of it presents issues that you’d rather avoid. Completely understandable.

SO…..  if it can be shown that the Bible contains errors and/or contradictions, would that change your mind about the validity of the book?

Ron

Interesting.  The way you used the word betray can be taken two different ways (I understood what you intended the first time).  I am the one who stands corrected on its meaning!  You use it to mean “expose,” specifically.  I suppose the context behind what you said determines the meaning?  Another part of the definition of the word betray is, “to be disloyal to,” which doesn’t speak to a party’s guilt.  Think of the Biblical account of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas Iscariot.  The Bible is clear about Jesus’ innocence, but Judas betrayed him.  What you should understand about my mistake here is that I’m tired of debating with someone who’s on a high horse.

“So here we go again… me putting things back in context.”  Exodus?  Is that not the context I agreed to discuss?  I didn’t agree to discuss hypothetical questions.

“It doesn’t surprise me here that you have ignored my answers. And my questions. When all you have is an ancient fairy tale book with virgin births, talking snakes, carpenter zombies, arks with every animal species on the planet, endorsed slavery, etc., I do understand that a serious probing of it presents issues that you’d rather avoid. Completely understandable.”  You’ve said all of this before.  Was the Bible not the very point of our discussion?  Why didn’t you post anything from it?

Fairy tale book, virgin births, carpenter zombies and endorsed slavery are all incorrect.  Had you posted references, then I would have engaged you on all of these, as well as explained to you the reasonablness of the Ark/Flood account.  Your condescension really gave me nowhere to go.

Hopefully you can receive what I’m saying here and level with your opposition in the future.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
10 January 2019 17:50
 
TwoSeven1 - 10 January 2019 08:23 AM

Think of the Biblical account of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas Iscariot.  The Bible is clear about Jesus’ innocence, but Judas betrayed him.

What does that have to do with anything??  Why should I take anything in ANY “holy” book seriously?

What you should understand about my mistake here is that I’m tired of debating with someone who’s on a high horse.

Well, I’ll be glad to step down when you give me reason to. Just answer my questions and demonstrate why it’s irrational/wrong to be skeptical of God beliefs. So far, your dodges and your defense of the ridiculous (arks and global floods, etc.) are propping me up in a very comfortable saddle.

 

“So here we go again… me putting things back in context.”  Exodus?  Is that not the context I agreed to discuss?  I didn’t agree to discuss hypothetical questions.

In other words, you don’t want to discuss anything that makes you uncomfortable. Which is exactly what those hypotheticals do. But… if you had a solid defense, then hypotheticals wouldn’t bother you. How can you tell the difference between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God do differently than drowning every creature (including human babies and children) on the planet?

“It doesn’t surprise me here that you have ignored my answers. And my questions. When all you have is an ancient fairy tale book with virgin births, talking snakes, carpenter zombies, arks with every animal species on the planet, endorsed slavery, etc., I do understand that a serious probing of it presents issues that you’d rather avoid. Completely understandable.”  You’ve said all of this before.  Was the Bible not the very point of our discussion?  Why didn’t you post anything from it?

Why must I post something from the Bible? I’m mainly focused on what YOU believe and why you believe it. Besides, if it can be shown that the Bible contains errors and/or contradictions, would that change your mind about the validity of the book?

Fairy tale book, virgin births, carpenter zombies and endorsed slavery are all incorrect.  Had you posted references, then I would have engaged you on all of these, as well as explained to you the reasonablness of the Ark/Flood account.  Your condescension really gave me nowhere to go.

No, all those things are actually in your book. Your arrogance and self-righteousness really gave me nowhere to go.

Hopefully you can receive what I’m saying here and level with your opposition in the future.

Like I said before, I think you’re fairly intelligent. And a pretty decent and moral person. Hopefully you will come to realize that you are more moral than the God you worship. And that your indoctrination has robbed you of your own dignity and self-worth. I don’t think YOU would drown every creature on the planet. I don’t think YOU would create a system of gratuitous suffering. I don’t think YOU would endorse owning other people as your own personal property. I don’t think YOU would hold people responsible for the crimes/sins of their ancient ancestors. I also don’t think you would be so tolerant if people of other religions reflexively deferred everything back to their particular book and refused to acknowledge that they would change their mind if their book contained contradictions/errors, would you? Anyway, I don’t know if any of this will ever truly register with you, but I do hope you reflect on it. As Thomas Paine said, “it is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” 

Ron

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  48
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
11 January 2019 07:49
 
MrRon - 10 January 2019 05:50 PM
TwoSeven1 - 10 January 2019 08:23 AM

Think of the Biblical account of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas Iscariot.  The Bible is clear about Jesus’ innocence, but Judas betrayed him.

What does that have to do with anything??  Why should I take anything in ANY “holy” book seriously?

What you should understand about my mistake here is that I’m tired of debating with someone who’s on a high horse.

Well, I’ll be glad to step down when you give me reason to. Just answer my questions and demonstrate why it’s irrational/wrong to be skeptical of God beliefs. So far, your dodges and your defense of the ridiculous (arks and global floods, etc.) are propping me up in a very comfortable saddle.

 

“So here we go again… me putting things back in context.”  Exodus?  Is that not the context I agreed to discuss?  I didn’t agree to discuss hypothetical questions.

In other words, you don’t want to discuss anything that makes you uncomfortable. Which is exactly what those hypotheticals do. But… if you had a solid defense, then hypotheticals wouldn’t bother you. How can you tell the difference between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God do differently than drowning every creature (including human babies and children) on the planet?

“It doesn’t surprise me here that you have ignored my answers. And my questions. When all you have is an ancient fairy tale book with virgin births, talking snakes, carpenter zombies, arks with every animal species on the planet, endorsed slavery, etc., I do understand that a serious probing of it presents issues that you’d rather avoid. Completely understandable.”  You’ve said all of this before.  Was the Bible not the very point of our discussion?  Why didn’t you post anything from it?

Why must I post something from the Bible? I’m mainly focused on what YOU believe and why you believe it. Besides, if it can be shown that the Bible contains errors and/or contradictions, would that change your mind about the validity of the book?

Fairy tale book, virgin births, carpenter zombies and endorsed slavery are all incorrect.  Had you posted references, then I would have engaged you on all of these, as well as explained to you the reasonablness of the Ark/Flood account.  Your condescension really gave me nowhere to go.

No, all those things are actually in your book. Your arrogance and self-righteousness really gave me nowhere to go.

Hopefully you can receive what I’m saying here and level with your opposition in the future.

Like I said before, I think you’re fairly intelligent. And a pretty decent and moral person. Hopefully you will come to realize that you are more moral than the God you worship. And that your indoctrination has robbed you of your own dignity and self-worth. I don’t think YOU would drown every creature on the planet. I don’t think YOU would create a system of gratuitous suffering. I don’t think YOU would endorse owning other people as your own personal property. I don’t think YOU would hold people responsible for the crimes/sins of their ancient ancestors. I also don’t think you would be so tolerant if people of other religions reflexively deferred everything back to their particular book and refused to acknowledge that they would change their mind if their book contained contradictions/errors, would you? Anyway, I don’t know if any of this will ever truly register with you, but I do hope you reflect on it. As Thomas Paine said, “it is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” 

Ron

“What does that have to do with anything??”  It’s an example of why the word betray is not a good descriptor in the way you intended to use it.

“Just answer my questions and demonstrate why it’s irrational/wrong to be skeptical of God beliefs.”  This is not what high horse means.

“...if you had a solid defense, then hypotheticals wouldn’t bother you.”  I’ve already explained why I don’t see a point in answering your hypothetical questions.

“Why must I post something from the Bible? I’m mainly focused on what YOU believe and why you believe it.”  Then you should have posted something from the Bible because it’s what I believe.

“Fairy tale book” -Fairy tales are not historically accurate, they are fiction.

“virgin births” -The Bible doesn’t say there was more than one virgin birth.

“carpenter zombies” -Jesus rose to life, not to being undead.

“endorsed slavery” -The Bible does not endorse slavery.

You yourself admitted that you have no idea what the Bible says.  If this is true, then how could you possibly know what I believe?  I think I made it pretty clear that I believe the Bible.  Your incorrect assumptions are why the Bible needs to be our point-of-reference for discussion.

“As Thomas Paine said, ‘it is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.’”  This is disingenuous, Ron.  You also have a glaring double-standard.

Edit: Fixed quotation.

[ Edited: 11 January 2019 07:52 by TwoSeven1]
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2019 17:13
 
TwoSeven1 - 11 January 2019 07:49 AM

“What does that have to do with anything??”  It’s an example of why the word betray is not a good descriptor in the way you intended to use it.

It’s a perfect descriptor.

“Just answer my questions and demonstrate why it’s irrational/wrong to be skeptical of God beliefs.”  This is not what high horse means.

You failed to make the connection.

“...if you had a solid defense, then hypotheticals wouldn’t bother you.”  I’ve already explained why I don’t see a point in answering your hypothetical questions.

And I explained why the questions are relevant and necessary for an honest discussion. Especially whether or not errors and/or contradictions in the Bible would change your mind. Because if there’s nothing that will ever change your mind, then there’s no point of the discussion. You apparently just want to evangelize. And this is not the place for that. Sorry.

“Why must I post something from the Bible? I’m mainly focused on what YOU believe and why you believe it.”  Then you should have posted something from the Bible because it’s what I believe.

Weren’t we talking about the ark and the “flood”? Isn’t that from the Bible? I know you believe it, but now my question to you is… How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature on the planet?

“Fairy tale book” -Fairy tales are not historically accurate, they are fiction.

EXACTLY!

“virgin births” -The Bible doesn’t say there was more than one virgin birth.

One virgin birth is just as ridiculous.

“carpenter zombies” -Jesus rose to life, not to being undead.

Small distinction. Anyway, nobody comes back from the dead.

“endorsed slavery” -The Bible does not endorse slavery.

It most certainly does. See Exodus. What else do you call being able to own people (and their offspring) as your own personal property, mark them, sell them, and being able to beat them severely?

You yourself admitted that you have no idea what the Bible says.  If this is true, then how could you possibly know what I believe?  I think I made it pretty clear that I believe the Bible.  Your incorrect assumptions are why the Bible needs to be our point-of-reference for discussion.

No - I had no idea what it said regarding that one particular point we were discussing at the time.
I know what you believe because you have made those beliefs pretty clear. And since we have been talking about arks, floods, slavery, Jesus rising from the dead, Gods, Heaven, Hell, etc., I don’t see how you can think that we HAVEN’T been using the Bible as a point of reference!!


“As Thomas Paine said, ‘it is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.’”  This is disingenuous, Ron.  You also have a glaring double-standard.

.

No, I don’t have a double-standard. I just have a standard. And I freely admit that if my beliefs (on anything) can be shown to contain errors and/or contradictions then I would gladly revise my views. Can you say the same?

And there’s still these, which will go unanswered by you because it’s impossible to answer them honestly without confronting the uncomfortable reality of holding irrational beliefs::

- How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature (including human babies) on the planet?
- What were people doing that made them “evil”?
- Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?
- Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?
- Would you be so tolerant if people of other religions reflexively deferred everything back to their particular book and refused to acknowledge that they would change their mind if their book contained contradictions/errors?
- Should we be killing the children of death row inmates?


Ron

 

[ Edited: 13 January 2019 05:13 by MrRon]
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  48
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
14 January 2019 09:36
 
MrRon - 11 January 2019 05:13 PM
TwoSeven1 - 11 January 2019 07:49 AM

“What does that have to do with anything??”  It’s an example of why the word betray is not a good descriptor in the way you intended to use it.

It’s a perfect descriptor.

“Just answer my questions and demonstrate why it’s irrational/wrong to be skeptical of God beliefs.”  This is not what high horse means.

You failed to make the connection.

“...if you had a solid defense, then hypotheticals wouldn’t bother you.”  I’ve already explained why I don’t see a point in answering your hypothetical questions.

And I explained why the questions are relevant and necessary for an honest discussion. Especially whether or not errors and/or contradictions in the Bible would change your mind. Because if there’s nothing that will ever change your mind, then there’s no point of the discussion. You apparently just want to evangelize. And this is not the place for that. Sorry.

“Why must I post something from the Bible? I’m mainly focused on what YOU believe and why you believe it.”  Then you should have posted something from the Bible because it’s what I believe.

Weren’t we talking about the ark and the “flood”? Isn’t that from the Bible? I know you believe it, but now my question to you is… How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature on the planet?

“Fairy tale book” -Fairy tales are not historically accurate, they are fiction.

EXACTLY!

“virgin births” -The Bible doesn’t say there was more than one virgin birth.

One virgin birth is just as ridiculous.

“carpenter zombies” -Jesus rose to life, not to being undead.

Small distinction. Anyway, nobody comes back from the dead.

“endorsed slavery” -The Bible does not endorse slavery.

It most certainly does. See Exodus. What else do you call being able to own people (and their offspring) as your own personal property, mark them, sell them, and being able to beat them severely?

You yourself admitted that you have no idea what the Bible says.  If this is true, then how could you possibly know what I believe?  I think I made it pretty clear that I believe the Bible.  Your incorrect assumptions are why the Bible needs to be our point-of-reference for discussion.

No - I had no idea what it said regarding that one particular point we were discussing at the time.
I know what you believe because you have made those beliefs pretty clear. And since we have been talking about arks, floods, slavery, Jesus rising from the dead, Gods, Heaven, Hell, etc., I don’t see how you can think that we HAVEN’T been using the Bible as a point of reference!!


“As Thomas Paine said, ‘it is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.’”  This is disingenuous, Ron.  You also have a glaring double-standard.

.

No, I don’t have a double-standard. I just have a standard. And I freely admit that if my beliefs (on anything) can be shown to contain errors and/or contradictions then I would gladly revise my views. Can you say the same?

And there’s still these, which will go unanswered by you because it’s impossible to answer them honestly without confronting the uncomfortable reality of holding irrational beliefs::

- How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature (including human babies) on the planet?
- What were people doing that made them “evil”?
- Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?
- Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?
- Would you be so tolerant if people of other religions reflexively deferred everything back to their particular book and refused to acknowledge that they would change their mind if their book contained contradictions/errors?
- Should we be killing the children of death row inmates?


Ron

“I don’t see how you can think that we HAVEN’T been using the Bible as a point of reference!!”  -I have been using it as my point of reference.

All you have presented to me are your own interpretations of the Bible and a bunch of hypotheticals.

I’ll withdraw from this discussion in light of our core disagreement on how to proceed.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1698
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
14 January 2019 19:24
 
TwoSeven1 - 14 January 2019 09:36 AM

“I don’t see how you can think that we HAVEN’T been using the Bible as a point of reference!!”  -I have been using it as my point of reference.

Me too. You just won’t/can’t answer the questions.

All you have presented to me are your own interpretations of the Bible and a bunch of hypotheticals.

In other words, you refuse to answer questions that make you uncomfortable by forcing you to think of the consequences of your beliefs. For example, you’ve indicated that it’s just for God to drown the babies and children of all the “evil” people on the planet because they would grow up to be evil too. So should we be killing the children of death row inmates? It’s a perfectly reasonable question in light of your stated belief.

I’ll withdraw from this discussion in light of our core disagreement on how to proceed.

You can withdraw from the discussion, but you can’t withdraw from your cognitive dissonance. 

- How do you distinguish between a just God and an evil and malicious God? What would an evil and malicious God have done differently than drowning every creature (including human babies) on the planet?
- What were people doing that made them “evil”?
- Do you think an all-loving and all-powerful God could have created a system in which there is no gratuitous suffering?
- Do you call owning other people (and their offspring) as your own personal property and being able to beat them within an inch of their life “indentured servitude”?
- Would you be so tolerant if people of other religions reflexively deferred everything back to their particular book and refused to acknowledge that they would change their mind if their book contained contradictions/errors?
- Should we be killing the children of death row inmates?


Ron

 

 
‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 >