Science, Religion, and Ignorance.

[Lightbringer]

If I had a penny every time someone conveniently „got tired“ of a debate I'd be rich. You must be aware that this comes across as a poor excuse. Since you're talking about my purpose here, I'll let you in on that. My purpose is two-fold:

1) to provide a defence of the faith of those who believe but aren't able to defend themselves from charges such as yours so if you really believed this debate to be pointless you wouldn't spend 7 pages attacking people who clearly can't defend themselves while refusing to tackle people such as myself

2) to reason and correct people of the opposing views and bring them closer to truth so in a way, „shutting you up“ and making sure to get the truth straight are one and the same in my eyes. My goal is to help both people on my side and yours to get better and the little hostility I show is for the purposes of scolding rather than humiliation so it's quite justified

Now, since you have complaints about the format of my post (rather than the actual contents since you haven't read it yet even tho it would only take a minute or two) I'm going to respond to this so as to get the facts straight. First off, it's not that much longer than what you write and even if it were the difference isn't big enough to make it any less of a wall of text than your posts.

As for trying to get the point accross as comprehensively as possible, that's exactly what I did. After you showed some misunderstandings in regards to my original post I wanted to sketch my views more clearly which required a bit more length. I spent about an hour writing that post so as to reduce it to the current length. I omitted what I considered redudant and outlined certain things more clearly. (I was also quite charitable in regards to your claims about Jesus and had I not been the post would have been shorter)

Granted the post doesn't contain your quoted points, I did make sure to tackle your arguments in a point-by-point manner starting with the fundamental assumption underlying them all. Don't make assumptions about my workflow or writing style as I too made sure not to „jumble everything without breaking it up“. I spent about an hour trying to make it what it, as organized and clear as it is now and it was already past the time when I was supposed to sleep so I will not take these assumptions kindly

I'll tell you what. If you reformat your comment, I'll respond to it.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

As in a topic like this doesnt simply boil down to raw facts. Personal opinion will always be a part of it.

exactly.exactly.

Pure opinion and arguments...like politics.It's what kids are into.

 

[Deadlift]

I'll tell you what. If you reformat your comment, I'll respond to it.

I can't fix the post any more. I spent an hour on it last night and I believe I've done more than enough. Me doing your favours doesn't extend beyond eliminating obscurity and treating your arguments charitably.

Don't misunderstand, I won't lose anything if you don't reply. After all, as far as debating goes you're giving up while all my rebuttals to your arguments remain intact. The goal of securing my side is perfectly safe as things are now. Rather, the reason why I am persuading you to reply is for your sake. (The second goal of my being here.) If you expect to see me begging for your reply you're not gonna get that. The mere fact that I've spent this much time pursuing you to give an answer is a peculiar one on its own.

 

[Dannie]

Can you disprove god without a reasonable doubt

That's not how it works now be a good lad and answer his question.

 

[Lightbringer]

What reason do you have to think this? So far you simply taunted it without any justification. Be that as it may the Bible as you concieve it (a cover-to-cover history whispered by God to the ears of his faithful authors) is something that doesn't exist, never existed and was never thought to exist neither by the Church nor the very authors of the texts in question.

ll the writings of the Bible are a product of humans who wrote the message of God in a way that would be understandable to the people who lived at that time, written for a purpose tangible at that time and viewed through the lenses of that time.

If the bible is simply a book written by humans with no divine assistance, then it is not a holy book.

Within the bible, there are countless passages where they directly quote God's own words and events that they could not have possibly witnessed.

If there was no divine assistance, then there would be no such way to know this knowledge, which makes the bible a sham.

@Bold: Clearly you are wrong. There are literally passages in the bible which state that God spoke directly to his prophets, who wrote the book.

These are just a few examples among many. So I say to you again, read the bible before defending it with your own opinion.


_____________________________________________________________________________


20:1 "God spoke all these words"

3:15 "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in"


1:1 After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, 2 in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.


34:27 The Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

6:6 "These words I am commanding you today must be kept in mind, 7 and you must teach them to your children and speak of them as you sit in your house, as you walk along the road, as you lie down, and as you get up. 8 You should tie them as a reminder on your forearm and fasten them as symbols on your forehead. 9 Inscribe them on the doorframes of your houses and gates. "


22:31 "The one true God acts in a faithful manner; the Lord’s promise is reliable; he is a shield to all who take shelter in him. 23:2 The Lord’s spirit spoke through me; his word was on my tongue."

________________________________________________________________________




This one in particular is very relevant to our discussion. It clearly says not to add to God's words, which you and the rest of the people who have defended the bible in this thread are doing.


30:5 "5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

More on the specific purposes later in my post as for now there is an even more pressing concern which you have to deal with. Your view relies on the assumption that God COULDN'T and WOULDN'T give his word in any way but that of a literal truth which He COULD NOT and WOULD NOT allow to be affected by the historical circumstances of the author writing it down.

Again, read the bible.

If his words weren't meant to be understood as a literal truth, then what is the point and what value are his words if they could simply be twisted into any meaning?

It's very convenient to suggest that God only spoke in the historical context of the authors' time. Why? His words were meant to be eternal. Why would God only phrase his wording in a way that could only be understood by certain generations? It's as if God didn't think through his own plan.

Why couldn't God be more in depth or give some sort of insight into the working of the universe more other than vague platitudes; such as the existence of atoms, or the fact that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that there were galaxies of stars?



It even clearly states that God created the Earth before the Sun and Moon. What was the historical context of that?

Genesis 1:14-19 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good."

Not only would a message unbound to any specific culture or any specific moment in history be also unrelated to any specific problem that ought to be addressed and as such would be completely without content and irrelevant to the people it was being given, it also begs the question of why have such a written revelation at all? Why not have the word imprinted directly into every human everywhere and shed the need for a collection of manuscripts whose canon would be formed strictly through human debates, without any prophets for centuries to come?

Good question. It's as if the bible was only written by regular people and that had no contact with God or any divine assistance, which leads to these fallacies.

It is clear that this line of thought completely misses the point of the Bible as a revelation document. Whatever the reason for God's doing so may be, it is a fact that we're talking about a God who would opt for a progressive revelation, a God who chose to work under the limitations of human history.

Then why would God directly intervene if he simply wanted progressive revelations? Take Noah for example. God flooded the entire Earth because he didn't like the way it turned out. How is that progressive?

That is also a contradiction in itself as God claims to be giving humans free will, yet destroys them when he doesn't like the choices humans make, even though he should already know the outcomes of those choices even before he creates them. There are passages in the bible that contradict God giving humans free will and state that God dictates everything in our lives. So the argument of having a progressive God wouldn't even make sense.

God created man in his image, yet flooded the world because man became wicked and corrupt. So would that not mean that God is also wicked and corrupt? But then there are other passages that state that God is also benevolent which is another contradiction.

How many more contradictions do you need?

Spoiler

Ecclesiastes 3:1-15

"1 Everything that happens in this world happens at the time God chooses. 2 He sets the time for birth and the time for death, the time for planting and the time for pulling up, 3 the time for killing and the time for healing, the time for tearing down and the time for building. 4 He sets the time for sorrow and the time for joy, the time for mourning and the time for dancing, 5 the time for making love and the time for not making love, the time for kissing and the time for not kissing. 6 He sets the time for finding and the time for losing, the time for saving and the time for throwing away, 7 the time for tearing and the time for mending, the time for silence and the time for talk. 8 He sets the time for love and the time for hate, the time for war and the time for peace. 9 What do we gain from all our work? 10 I know the heavy burdens that God has laid on us. 11 He has set the right time for everything. He has given us a desire to know the future, but never gives us the satisfaction of fully understanding what he does. 12 So I realized that all we can do is be happy and do the best we can while we are still alive. 13 All of us should eat and drink and enjoy what we have worked for. It is God's gift. 14 I know that everything God does will last forever. You can't add anything to it or take anything away from it. And one thing God does is to make us stand in awe of him. 15 Whatever happens or can happen has already happened before. God makes the same thing happen again and again."

The very character of the biblical God is shown to be such. There is progress of the people of Israel from worshipping El alone to considering him (under the name Yahweh) as the one sole God. There is progress from offering animal sacrifices as repentance to offering them as tributes of gratitude. There is progress from the Leviticus to a new law given by Jesus. The only story that the biblibical narratives depict is that of progress, of change in understanding, of God talking to His people in their given historical context and slowly shedding it away.

What does that have to do with working under the limitations of human history?

What ground then do you have to assert that a message given by such a God must be a literal word untouched by anything ungodly? It is extremely arrogant and even limiting to God to decide what He should and shouldn't do but it gets worse when the very God we're discussing is fundamentally a God of progressive convenant, a God of both the Old and the New Testaments.

Again, direct quotes from the bible.

______________________________________________________________________

30:5 "5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

4:3 "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."

22:18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
______________________________________________________________________

Side note: I can already see you accusing me of circular reasoning – proving Bible by Bible. That's not what I'm doing. I'm just pointing out that the texts in question are talking about a God who is communicating to people progressively and is allowing his word to be understood in a skewed way for a certain time only for it to be revealed fully later down the line (which is philosophically speaking exactly what one would expect of a providential omniscient deity). I'm not claiming that on this basis there actually is a God who does all this. The point is that if the God were to exist we shouldn't expect his written word to be flawless.

@Bold: Once again. Literal quote.

30:5 "5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

Moving away from the theological exegesis to purely historical matters I want to talk about this point in particular:

I truly hope that you are not claiming here that the existence of Jesus is in the same boat as that of King Arthur. If you are then look at the spoiler.

Spoiler

From Wikipedia:

„Virtually all scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed[5][6][7][8]“

„Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][32][33][34]“

„Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4]“

„Virtually all scholars believe that the Christ myth theory has been refuted, and that Jesus did exist as a historical figure.[213][214][215]“

„In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory not supported by any tenured specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines.“

Direct links:

You must be registered for see links

of Jesus[/URL]

You must be registered for see links

Jesus[/URL]

You must be registered for see links

Myth theory [/URL]

To state that Jesus' existence is in the same boat as that of King Arthur is a claim that betrays complete lack of konwledge on the topic at hand and for this reason I will not waste my time discussing this issue with you any further.

You sourced wikipedia....a site which can be edited by anyone.

Also those links don't work.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. The idea of a man called Jesus being crucified to have existed is possible as there are some historical references of King Arthur as well. I've mentioned this in my previous post about there being historical references, but even those references are not solid proof of their existence.

However, the actual historical figures and the legends around them are unsubstantiated. There is no evidence to corroborate the stories to these historical figures. Even your own Wikipedia source says this.

An example would be this event mentioned in the bible. No historical evidence whatsoever:

27:51 "At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…"

If however, you are only challenging the miraculous reports of the New Testament while conceeding the historical basis of the texts then you have conceeded that the most important historical narrative for Christianity has very strong historical evidence and the only issue is whether there is any evidence for miracles.

Once again, the only historical evidence for Jesus were a few references which are still debated upon to this day. The idea that you have "strong historical evidence" is untrue.

To this I say, the most relevant miracle related to Jesus (his ressurection) has good evidence pointing to it but I will not argue for this now due to time concerns. This is of no relevance to your comment however since proving specific episodes in an otherwise universally accepted historical person is on a whole different scale than proving the very historicity of the character in general, so the two are far from being in the same boat.

There is evidence to Jesus' resurrection? Are you serious?

I'll repost the bible verse once again where it claims that when Jesus resurrected, the bodies of many saints climbed out of their tombs and appeared to many people.

Yet there is no mention of this in any historical text, document, or otherwise.


27:51 "At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…"

As for science and theology, I'll be brief. Theology makes claims about the natural world which science can verify or falsify. By doing so, science helps theology to overcome factually wrong ideas while theology itself provides a fruitful framework for science to explore. The popular image of theologians naively asserting things only to begrudgingly retreat at face of scientific discoveries is a charicature of a more profound dialogue that is actually at play.

If you can disprove a divine book which claims to be the word of God, especially if that God is said to be flawless, then the bible is wrong and that God simply does not exist.

Well I've responded to your comment and all of your points. So are you happy now?

Your entire argument was contradictory to the teachings within the bible. Anything else you wanna add or are we done here?

 

[demon of the leaf]

That's not how it works now be a good lad and answer his question.

Sorry sweetheart but you dont make the rules

If the bible is simply a book written by humans with no divine assistance, then it is not a holy book.

Within the bible, there are countless passages where they directly quote God's own words and events that they could not have possibly witnessed.

If there was no divine assistance, then there would be no such way to know this knowledge, which makes the bible a sham.

@Bold: Clearly you are wrong. There are literally passages in the bible which state that God spoke directly to his prophets, who wrote the book.

These are just a few examples among many. So I say to you again, read the bible before defending it with your own opinion.


_____________________________________________________________________________


20:1 "God spoke all these words"

3:15 "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in"


1:1 After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, 2 in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.


34:27 The Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

6:6 "These words I am commanding you today must be kept in mind, 7 and you must teach them to your children and speak of them as you sit in your house, as you walk along the road, as you lie down, and as you get up. 8 You should tie them as a reminder on your forearm and fasten them as symbols on your forehead. 9 Inscribe them on the doorframes of your houses and gates. "


22:31 "The one true God acts in a faithful manner; the Lord’s promise is reliable; he is a shield to all who take shelter in him. 23:2 The Lord’s spirit spoke through me; his word was on my tongue."

________________________________________________________________________




This one in particular is very relevant to our discussion. It clearly says not to add to God's words, which you and the rest of the people who have defended the bible in this thread are doing.


30:5 "5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."





Again, read the bible.

If his words weren't meant to be understood as a literal truth, then what is the point and what value are his words if they could simply be twisted into any meaning?

It's very convenient to suggest that God only spoke in the historical context of the author's time. Why? His words were meant to be eternal, why would God only phrase his wording in a way that could only be understood by certain generations? It's as if God didn't think through his own plan.

Why couldn't God give some sort of insight into the working of the universe more than vague platitudes, like the existence of atoms, or the fact that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that there were galaxies of stars?



It even clearly states that God created the Earth before the Sun and Moon. What was the historical context of that?

Genesis 1:14-19 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good."





Good question. It's as if the bible was only written by regular people and that had no contact with God or any divine assistance, which leads to these fallacies.





Then why would God directly intervene if he simply wanted progressive revelations? Take Noah for example. God flooded the entire Earth because he didn't like the way it turned out. How is that progressive?

That is also a contradiction in itself as God claims to be giving humans free will, yet destroys them when he doesn't like the choices humans make, even though he should already know the outcomes of those choices even before he creates them.

God created man in his image, yet flooded the world because man became wicked and corrupt. So would that not mean that God is also wicked and corrupt? But then there are other passages that state that God is also benevolent which is another contradiction.





What does that have to do with working under the limitations of human history?





Again, direct quotes from the bible.

______________________________________________________________________

30:5 "5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

4:3 "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."

22:18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
______________________________________________________________________





@Bold: Once again. Literal quote.

30:5 "5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."





You sourced wikipedia....a site which can be edited by anyone.

Also those links don't work.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. The idea of a man called Jesus being crucified to have existed is possible as there are some historical references of King Arthur as well. I've mentioned this in my previous post about there being historical references, but even those references are not solid proof of their existence.

However, the actual historical figures and the legends around them are unsubstantiated. There is no evidence to corroborate the stories to these historical figures. Even your own Wikipedia source says this.

An example would be this event mentioned in the bible. No historical evidence whatsoever:

27:51 "At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…"






Once again, the only historical evidence for Jesus were a few references which are still debated upon to this day. The idea that you have "strong historical evidence" is untrue.





There is evidence to Jesus' resurrection? Are you serious?

I'll repost the bible verse once again where it claims that when Jesus resurrected, the bodies of many saints climbed out of their tombs and appeared to many people.

Yet there is no mention of this in any historical text, document, or otherwise.


27:51 "At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…"






If you can disprove a divine book which claims to be the word of God, especially if that God is said to be flawless, then the bible is wrong and that God simply does not exist.

Well I've responded to your comment and all of your points. So are you happy now?

Your entire argument was contradictory to the teachings within the bible. Anything else you wanna add or are we done here?

And the same argument about your texts being from wikipeda so you have your rebutal holds no grounds

 

[Lightbringer]

And the same argument about your texts being from wikipeda so you have your rebutal holds no grounds

Which texts? All of those texts are sourced form the bible itself.

Please stay out of this debate if you're simply going to make half-assed remarks.

 

[demon of the leaf]

Which texts? All of those texts are sourced form the bible itself.

Please stay out of this debate if you're simply going to make half-assed remarks.

How about you make me the bible doesnt only talk about what god did but also give storys of repentence that even the most evelil men could make a turn for the better and have a chance at heaven read about saul he used to kill anyone who worshiped christ but later became a follower

 

[Lightbringer]

How about you make me the bible doesnt only talk about what god did but also give storys of repentence that even the most evelil men could make a turn for the better and have a chance at heaven read about saul he used to kill anyone who worshiped christ but later became a follower

Ok, you clearly didn't read my response to Deadlift at all.

Perhaps you should do so in order to enlighten yourself on what the bible says.

 

[demon of the leaf]

Ok, you clearly didn't read my response to Deadlift at all.

Perhaps you should do so in order to enlighten yourself on what the bible says.

I read the bible once every month to refreash my memory so i do know what im talking about and i read follow sciance as well and i will tell you this your not no champion of sciance your just a radical anti athiest just like arian so i really couldnt care if you dont like what im saying but it is the truth

 

[Lightbringer]

I read the bible once every month to refreash my memory so i do know what im talking about and i read follow sciance as well and i will tell you this your not no champion of sciance your just a radical anti athiest just like arian so i really couldnt care if you dont like what im saying but it is the truth

Obviously you didn't read it well enough to analyze it.

Either add something to the argument and rebuke my post or I'm just going to ignore you henceforth.

 

[demon of the leaf]

Obviously you didn't read it well enough to analyze it.

Either add something to the argument and rebuke my post or I'm just going to ignore you henceforth.

I have read you post and called you out and i have brought a rebutal i even added a mention a saul who used to butcher early christanity and ended up converting so i did contribute but if i remember correctly you dont have a long attention span so im being kind enough for you plus typing on a phone is a pain

 

[Dannie]

Sorry sweetheart but you dont make the rules

Have fun believing in something that you can't prove then.

 

[demon of the leaf]

Have fun believing in something that you can't prove then.

I dont have to prove anything you have the tough job of bring proof

 

[Dannie]

I dont have to prove anything you have the tough job of bring proof

Like I said, it doesn't work that way. YOU are the one that wastes his time and energy putting faith into something without any actual evidence if it even exists or not. It's not really the jobs of the non-believers to prove anything, since they are non believers.

But since you have been asked twice to prove Gods existence in this thread and can only reply with "Can you disprove God", you don't even know what you are believing in, and can only go by sheer faith on your emotions and just plain ignorance when being asked a simple yes or no question, I don't even think you even know what you believe in, and just want to believe just to believe.

But like I said, it's not my place to tell you how to live, so have fun believing in something that you can't prove.

 

[Avani 🥈]

Ok, you clearly didn't read my response to Deadlift at all.

Perhaps you should do so in order to enlighten yourself on what the bible says.

Lol both of them are moving the goalpost to their comfort zone.

OP tried to suggest religious theories are tried and tested in the same manner as the theories of science. One important aspects of science is organized knowledge in the form of testable explanations and with new discoveries, older theories can be corrected as we gain new information. e.g. People believe in existence of dinosaurs (examples chosen by OP) because of numerous physical evidences of bones found by various of scholars and subsequent studies. Not because someone returned from a remote excursion and declared he found dino and bones told him so and so and people wrote up about Triassic and Jurassic just like that. And a few early assumptions based on partial skeletons were corrected when they found whole skeletons.

The whole concept of a book being God's word cannot be proven. Whether it was really a god or only a record of beliefs and myths and legend of the times will depend on what one chooses to believe. No matter how well recorded rest of the history is, that part always depends only on faith in the old legends that can not be tested or re-enacted in a lab.

Problem arises when religious books declare themselves to be direct words of God and the only truth. They kind of block this option of changing theories when new discoveries are made- as seen by the flat Earth theorists or anti evolution theorists campaigns- some of them posted in this thread too.

Religion is all fine but if they wish to compare it with science they should start with convincing those flat earth theorists that it's a sphere and that's what bible says if they can, rather than arguing with atheists. But it's clear they avoid those.

 

[demon of the leaf]

Lol both of them are moving the goalpost to their comfort zone.

OP tried to suggest religious theories are tried and tested in the same manner as the theories of science. One important aspects of science is organized knowledge in the form of testable explanations and with new discoveries, older theories can be corrected as we gain new information. e.g. People believe in existence of dinosaurs (examples chosen by OP) because of numerous physical evidences of bones found by various of scholars and subsequent studies. Not because someone returned from a remote excursion and declared he found dino and bones told him so and so and people wrote up about Triassic and Jurassic just like that. And a few early assumptions based on partial skeletons were corrected when they found whole skeletons.

The whole concept of a book being God's word cannot be proven. Whether it was really a god or only a record of beliefs and myths and legend of the times will depend on what one chooses to believe. No matter how well recorded rest of the history is, that part always depends only on faith in the old legends that can not be tested or re-enacted in a lab.

Problem arises when religious books declare themselves to be direct words of God and the only truth. They kind of block this option of changing theories when new discoveries are made- as seen by the flat Earth theorists or anti evolution theorists campaigns- some of them posted in this thread too.

Religion is all fine but if they wish to compare it with science they should start with convincing those flat earth theorists that it's a sphere and that's what bible says if they can, rather than arguing with atheists. But it's clear they avoid those.

I have neither compared god or science those are two completly different things but to go and attack a persons beliefs or a religion is not science nor is it productive but i do give chances to prove my beliefs wrong with as open of a mind i can give the flat earthers i just flat out ignore attacking them brings no real benefits

Though it gets rather irritating seeing athests attack religions cause they feel enlightened and dont use science as a way to advance themselves i am quite knowlagable on science and astronomy and history

A theory which is basically a guess in all manners of the word if it is proven as scientific fact then that means there is ample proof of such

 

[Deadlift]

If the bible is simply a book written by humans with no divine assistance, then it is not a holy book.*

Within the bible, there are countless passages where they directly quote God's own words and events that they could not have possibly witnessed.*

If there was no divine assistance, then there would be no such way to know this knowledge, which makes the bible a sham.*

@Bold:*Clearly you are wrong. There are literally passages in the bible which state that God spoke directly to his prophets, who wrote the book.*

These are just a few examples among many. So I say to you again,*read the bible*before defending it with your own opinion.

While I find it nice to see that you responded to my post I can't help but notice that you didn't pay much attention to it as you misunderstood my argument right off the bat, and in the most basic way. I never said what's written in the Bible is purely a product of man working all on his own. Rather, I believe I was very explicit that God did speak, that God did inspire and assist. (Hence why I call my view progressive REVELATION, not progressive pondering.) What I was arguing against was the idea that the Bible (all of the combined canonical writings) were whispered word for word as a "cover-to-cover history“.

I absolutely affirm that God did speak to the authors of the Bible, but not with the goal of presenting them the entirety of revelation right away, but rather as working in the given limitations of the author in question and slowly shedding those limitations away as the generations went by.

I already said this before, all the texts were written by people who lived in a certain historical period, were influenced by it and recorded the events they witnessed through the lenses of it. For there to be human agency in the revelation process, the revelation must've inevitably been looked at through human eyes.

Now, I see you decided to actually provide some support for your fundamental assertion which underlies all your other arguments one way or another and you did this by attempting to show that the Biblical writings themselves show that God preached literally a cover-to-cover history. While I am going to tackle all of these in a moment I first want to stop and reflect on the fact that you merely pasted incomplete verses without even mentioning the texts from which they were taken.
This is a crucial point because every verse in the Bible is dependant on the general nature of the text from which it was pulled. I find this effort of yours to be deeply flawed and incomplete and I now run the risk of confusing the passage you provided with some other passage from some other text which you did not in fact quote.

Nonetheless, I will do your work for you, but you should really try to take more responsibility in your position. Now I will look at the individual verses. Needless to say, doing so will require quite a lot of text given how you shot-gunned me with literally a dozen verses.

Spoiler

20:1 "God spoke all these words"

I believe this verse is taken from the Book of Exodus and is referring to the decalogue being given to Moses. After I said this one sentence, any support that this may have seemed to give to your position immediately evaporates as this is referring to just one part of a narrative which was itself written from the perspective of Moses and this particular quotation is an announcement of God revealing the ten commandments to Moses.
It is NOT a statement of endorsement for everything that was written by every author in every of the religious texts found in the Bible. (There wasn't even such a body of texts to be confirmed at the time of this narrative) The verse is thus incomplete and taken out of context.

3:15 "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16*All Scripture is breathed out by God*and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in"

Now here you're quoting a verse from the Epistle to Timothy, one of the pseudodigraphical Pauline epistles written to an early Christian, Paul's disciple Timothy. I have a couple things to say about this:
1) All the verse says is that the scripture was breathed out by God, meaning inspired and theologically significant which I never denied but instead affirmed
2) Timothy too (much like Paul who was his mentor and whose theology he inherited), being a Christian, believes in the fundamental tenets of Christianity which I will mention later on in this post, so brace yourself before I get to that.

1:1 After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, 2 in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.*

This is a quote from another epistle, namely to Hebrews, which was written by a Hellenistic Jew who converted to Christianity and for a long time attributed to Paul. I will again tell you to remember point (2) in my previous rebuttal as I will get to that later on.
Regardless, nothing here supports your fundamentalist views. All the verse says is that God spoke, He said something. Ironically, here we see the verse mention God speaking in "various portions and in various ways“ which actually lends slight credence over to what I've been saying. God talks to different people differently.

34:27 The Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

Again, this is another quote from the Exodus which portrays God revealing what is essentially the Law later presented in Leviticus and it has nothing to do with such a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible.

6:6 "These words I am commanding you today must be kept in mind, 7 and you must teach them to your children and speak of them as you sit in your house, as you walk along the road, as you lie down, and as you get up. 8 You should tie them as a reminder on your forearm and fasten them as symbols on your forehead. 9 Inscribe them on the doorframes of your houses and gates. "

Just a passage from Deuteronomy which is a retelling of the Exodus story and a repeated affirmation of the law given to Moses by God. Has nothing to do with the topic.

22:31 "The one true God acts in a faithful manner; the Lord’s promise is reliable; he is a shield to all who take shelter in him. 23:2 The Lord’s spirit spoke through me; his word was on my tongue."

This here is taken from the second book of Samuel and is a part of a greater recalling of David's days as a ruler. In this text David is again not talking about the same thing we are talking but is poetically describing his confidence and trust in God. He portrays all the troubles he faced as king, the pressures his enemies put on his kingdom and describes God as the "Rock“ on which he can rely on, the Lord who is his shield and sanctuary. This is what this particular verse refers to:

The Spirit*of the*Lord*spoke through me;
****his word was on my tongue.
3*The God of Israel spoke,
****the Rock*of Israel said to me:
‘When one rules over people in righteousness,
****when he rules in the fear*of God,
4*he is like the light*of morning*at sunrise
****on a cloudless morning,
like the brightness after rain
****that brings grass from the earth.’

It is clear that he is referring to God's own instructions to him and help He has recieved during his rule rather than being an endorsement of a certain view on exegesis.

This one in particular is very relevant to our discussion. It clearly says not to add to God's words, which you and the rest of the people who have defended the bible in this thread are doing.*


30:5 "5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

And finally, we get to the only verse here that seems to give some shred of support to what you're saying but this too is only if we take it at face value and ignore its origin. You are here quoting an enigmatic figure called Agur who is featured only in a single chapter of the Book of Proverbs and of whom nothing else is known. (Further pointing out that the Book itself isn't a history book that doesn't allow people to study it.)
Proverbs itself is a part of the larger collection of books called the Books of Wisdom or „Writings“ and interestingly enough, much like the Book of Psalms it doesn't present hard-cold dogma but personal philosophies. It's an excellent example of Jewish thought which was divided into multiple camps. For example the other books of Wisdom disagree with Proverbs, and even different people mentioned in the proverbs disagree with each other.
The book doesn't present infallible dogma but lessons on life, morality etc. Much like how Psalms are poetry which has for its purpose the use in liturgy, it is of a second-rate theological value, and the prophetical narratives (which are themselves conclusively trumped by the New Testament writings) take priority over it. (Even more so when the author you're quoting is an insignificant figure himself.)

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."

Again, you're quoting Timothy here and I will tell you to stick to that point (2) for a bit longer. Also this is taken from a letter that is foreshadowing a moral and spiritual blindness and degradation. Just a few verses earlier, Paul talks about how terrible things will happen in the last times and how as Christians we must stick to sound teachings. The same message is also talked about immediately after the verse you provided hence you're hiding the original context of the letter.

22:18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

A quote from Revelation, the last book added to the Biblical canon and the most controversial one of them all. Not to mention, you conveniently used the translation which says „book“ when it can alternatively be translated as "scroll“ which actually refers to the Revelation itself which John (supposedly) saw and does NOT refer to the entirety of the Biblical texts which we are talking about.
This would be crystal clear to anyone who bothered to actually read the Book of Revelation, and the fact that you come up with an objection like this constitutes, perhaps more than everything else you said, a knock down proof of your incompetence, your dishonesty. your bad faith and your hopelessness.

1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again:*If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

Another quote from the Pauline Epistles. This time it's Galatians and is actually referring (as it plainly says) to the Gospel which refers to the story of Jesus, the message of salvation which is again not something that has to do with the entirety of the Biblical texts.

Seeing how the last quote was a Pauline quote, and seeing how I've covered all the quotes you've provided, I think it's good time to shed some light on the mysterious point (2) which I brought up way back in your first point on Timothy.
What we're talking about here is a Christian Bible, not the Jewish Tanakh, not the Islamic Quran. The Christian Bible takes the Old Testament from Judaism and it ADDS onto it the New Testament, which is the revelation of Jesus Christ. When it comes to theological matters the New Testament ALWAYS takes priority over the Old Testament. The Old Testament is read and interpreted in the light of the New Testament. This is true for the Church today, for the Church of the past as well as for the early Christians (who are the authors of the New Testament texts) and even Jesus (the God of Christianity) himself.

The entire idea of Old and New Covenants is that of surpassing the old and going into the new. Jesus himself was crucified for spreading what the Jews considered heretical and his very notion of being a messiah, while expected by the Old Testament texts, is understood in a completely new light. Far from being a superior leader who will bring armies to defeat Israel's enemies, the messiah came to die the most humiliating death, rejected by the very people that expected him, in order to cast light in the darkness that was creeping over not just the Jews but humanity as a whole.

Right here, the most important apocalyptic event of them all was turned on its head and by none other than the God incarnate himself. The early Christians all believed this and they wrote the texts with such an understanding. Paul believed this too, so I found it particularly amusing that you quote him as he himself is a radical example of progressive revelation. A man who used to be a strict follower of Judaism turned the greatest apostle of them all.

Given how in Christianity the Old Testament is merely a foreshadowing of what is to come in its fullness all of those passages you quoted from it are completely overturned by the New Testament writings. And the New Testament writings are all product of the view that I just described. In fact, the entire history of the Biblical faith is that of radical change and progress. It started with Judaism but ended up transforming into a religion completely distinct from it. The first and last stages are unrecognizable. Christianity is as such fundamentally a message of change and progress from old understanding to a new one, it always was and still is.
You may think the message of change is merely giving in to the pressure of the secular but in reality it is the other way around. It is the worldview which I'm advocating here (which you condescendingly consider a mere product of not having read the Bible) that was the original view of the Church.
As St. Augustine of Hyppo, perhaps the most important of the Church Fathers, concluded: "I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church" (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 5)

It is instead the fundamentalism which you are proposing that came around in the early 20th century under pressure of secular discoveries on one hand and rogue liberal theology on the other.

Then why would God directly intervene if he simply wanted progressive revelations? Take Noah for example. God flooded the entire Earth because he didn't like the way it turned out. How is that progressive?

That is also a contradiction in itself as God claims to be giving humans free will, yet destroys them when he doesn't like the choices humans make, even though he should already know the outcomes of those choices even before he creates them. There are passages in the bible that contradict God giving humans free will and state that God dictates everything in our lives. So the argument of having a progressive God wouldn't even make sense.*

God created man in his image, yet flooded the world because man became wicked and corrupt. So would that not mean that God is also wicked and corrupt? But then there are other passages that state that God is also benevolent which is another contradiction.*

How many more contradictions do you need?

On what basis do you conclude that revelation being progressive requires God not to work directly? The God we're talking about is a God who became incarnate, one of us, who lived with us, talked to us and died for us so we could be saved. It is absolutely impossible to get any more intimately and directly in contact with us than that.

Also, the "image of God“ is a subject of an ongoing debate between theologians (then again, pretty much everything is). The fact that God made man in his image doesn't mean he made him exactly the same. Obviously if this were the case there would be no difference between us and God. Whatever the meaning of that phrase may be it is to be found elsewhere such as the theory that it means having the ability to come to know God and love him, a higher purpose than that of other creations mentioned in Genesis or something else along those lines.

The supposed contradictions only exist if you approach the Christian theology uncritically.

You sourced wikipedia....a site which can be edited by anyone.*

Also those links don't work.*

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. The idea of a man called Jesus being crucified to have existed is possible as there are some historical references of King Arthur as well. I've mentioned this in my previous post about there being historical references, but even those references are not solid proof of their existence.*

However, the actual historical figures and the legends around them are unsubstantiated. There is no evidence to corroborate the stories to these historical figures. Even your own Wikipedia source says this.*

An example would be this event mentioned in the bible. No historical evidence whatsoever:*

27:51 "At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and*appeared to many people.…"

The links might have broke after I copied the post from Word. Here are the links:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

And I am disheartened to see you actually believe a Christ myth theory. The idea that Jesus of Christianity didn't exist (while at most conceding merely some random person named Jesus as possibility) is a historically laughable one. If you actually did research you'd know that. I watched scholars debate, read their articles and checked the consensus. As far as scholarly circles are concerned, there is as much debate on Jesus' existence as there is on the Earth being flat, meaning on one side we have an overwhelming consensus of credible scholars who deploy universally accepted methods of research to reach a conclusion while on the other side we have a small circle of crackpots with an agenda and passion for conspiracy theories. If I were you, I'd take a minute and reflect on the fact that you have found yourself in the latter group.

Jesus is almost universally recognized as having been an Israelite preacher, healer and an exorcist. A prophet who was christened by John the Baptist, who gathered followers, was tried for causing unrest among the Jews and was sentenced to death on the cross after which his followers have come to believe that he rose from the dead and carried on his message.

This is not religious fantasizing. This is a historical fact. The fact that you don't know this and are actually telling others to look for the truth is an ironic one indeed.

If you're going to discredit what I'm saying because I linked you to Wikipedia… don't. Wikipedia is a reliable reference point and while it can theoretically be edited by anyone, it is also tightly moderated and any claim that lacks sources is regularly removed. Also, the only reason why I linked to Wikipedia is because you clearly haven't done any research yourself and are in need of a starting point that summarises the current state of affairs. (Not to mention the fact you yourself didn't point to any source for your claims so what gives you the right to question mine?)
Also, the verse you quote from Matthew further solidifies your utter ignorance of how the historians approach the case. Just because a document has elements of myth that doesn't mean it has no historic value. Furthermore, the verse you posted is almost certainly apocalyptic imagery added to the narrative recorded in Mark so as to glorify it. Nevertheless, I told you already, if you're going to resort to a flat-earth level of position then I will not waste my time on this issue with you. I've told you the state of the consensus and gave you 3 links rich with references to the most credible scholars working in the field. Further educating you on this issue is not something I will do here.

If you can disprove a divine book which claims to be the word of God, especially if that God is said to be flawless, then the bible is wrong and that God simply does not exist.*

This is only true if your fundamentalist assumptions are true. You need to provide a sound justification as well as a rebuttal to my counterarguments to show how Christians and non Christians ought to interpret the Bible in a literalistic fashion, And you certainly haven't done so.

Well I've responded to your comment and all of your points. So are you happy now?

Your entire argument was contradictory to the teachings within the bible. Anything else you wanna add or are we done here?

Far from proving my argument to be contradictory to the teachings within the Bible, you've demonstrated your lack of engagement with the material at hand on a stellar level. If I had to draw together the threads of this debate so far it'd be as follows:

You attempted to support your fundamentalistic assertion by pointing to the Bible as saying the same thing you did, but after actually presenting these verses in a complete and transparent matter it became clear that they fell a far cry from your hopes and aspirations.

Not only that, but I went on and explained how Christianity is fundamentally non-fundamentalist by pointing out that the authors of the New Testament texts themselves took a policy of reintepretation as well as pointing out even earlier disputes in theology among the Jewish people which wouldn't have arisen had they understood the Biblical texts as literal face-value truths. I further cemented my position in the fact that the very God we're discussing has definitively denied the expectations and prior understandings seen in the Old Testament and have shown how the entire history of the Christian message is rooted in such a reasoning. No amount of extrapolated verses is going to overturn that.
You hence have yet to adequately address my main as well as other objections such as you claiming to know what would be the best way for God to reveal himself which requires meeting a burden of proof impossible to bear.

When speaking about Jesus, you revealed yourself to be a proponent of the Christ myth theory and have thus lost any credibility on the topic of historical Jesus you might have had, and in response to my statement that science and theology are leading a constructive dialogue (which you'd know if you actually kept in touch with modern theology) you simply reiterated the very same fundamentalist assertion that you failed to justify.

Unlike yourself, who prefers to jump to conclusions about others having done so, I am more than happy to concede that you have read some chunks of your Bible, but reading the Bible in a shallow and surface-level way is worse than not reading it at all. The Bible is to be studied, not merely read and then accepted or rejected at face value while acting in a manner that would make a father of any exegesis roll in his grave.

 

[Multiply]

Jesus is almost universally recognized as having been an Israelite preacher, healer and an exorcist. A prophet who was christened by John the Baptist, who gathered followers, was tried for causing unrest among the Jews and was sentenced to death on the cross after which his followers have come to believe that he rose from the dead and carried on his message.
This is not religious fantasizing. This is a historical fact.

You must be registered for see images

Let me guess. You don't see how that's literally not a historical fact? That's literally the opposite.

 

[Deadlift]

Let me guess. You don't see how that's literally not a historical fact? That's literally the opposite.

If you disagree you're more than welcome to join forces with Lightbringer. You might start by presenting a detailed rebuttal to the points I made in my previous reply. And no, GIFs and unsubstantiated cheap shots don't constitute rebuttals at all.

Unless and until you do that, you fall right into the fundamentalist category as well.