Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Question for Christians

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:23:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was reading the book "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" (1987) and I ran across a portion whoch the author asked the Bible to be innocent until proven guilty (i.e., presumption of truth until proved wrong). Question: How is that rational? Also, why not do the same corcular reasoning with other holy texts?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:25:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:23:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I was reading the book "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" (1987) and I ran across a portion whoch the author asked the Bible to be innocent until proven guilty (i.e., presumption of truth until proved wrong). Question: How is that rational? Also, why not do the same corcular reasoning with other holy texts?

This.

Except "corcular" should be "circular." (Sorry, I've been giving Scotty this treatment for the last day, and I don't want to play favorites. ;-) )
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:27:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:25:58 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/21/2012 9:23:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I was reading the book "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" (1987) and I ran across a portion whoch the author asked the Bible to be innocent until proven guilty (i.e., presumption of truth until proved wrong). Question: How is that rational? Also, why not do the same corcular reasoning with other holy texts?

This.

Except "corcular" should be "circular." (Sorry, I've been giving Scotty this treatment for the last day, and I don't want to play favorites. ;-) )

OMG sorry. I'm on my iPad and normally I spell check if I'm on my computer. Stupid autospell.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:39:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:23:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I was reading the book "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" (1987) and I ran across a portion which the author asked the Bible to be innocent until proved guilty (i.e., presumption of truth until proved wrong). Question: How is that rational? Also, why not do the same corcular reasoning with other holy texts?

I do not know why they do not do the same with other texts.
The real reason why you should treat the Bible as you say, (innocent until proved guilty) is because the Bible is true for one. Second is because they Bible contains not just words that you read but also mathematical values in the work. To person who gives the Bible the innocent plea allows you to honestly read and discover it's truth. EX. I read the Bible and I understand what it says because I focus on it and have Jesus therefore by my faith in Jesus I am better equipped to interpret its meaning better than a professor that has studied for years. (This is not implied to a man who has higher faith and understanding then I they have the same faith and more experience.) But it applies to people who just read it without Jesus influencing them in understanding. Like yourself you do not believe the Bible therefore you can not understand it. Someone who faithfully believes can understand. Therefore to understand and realise that it is true and the word God you must come in with as you said the innocence approach.
TheAsylum
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:42:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:39:53 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/21/2012 9:23:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I was reading the book "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" (1987) and I ran across a portion which the author asked the Bible to be innocent until proved guilty (i.e., presumption of truth until proved wrong). Question: How is that rational? Also, why not do the same corcular reasoning with other holy texts?

I do not know why they do not do the same with other texts.

So I should be a Muslim until I've reasons to reject the faith?

The real reason why you should treat the Bible as you say, (innocent until proved guilty) is because the Bible is true for one.

Proof please?

Second is because they Bible contains not just words that you read but also mathematical values in the work.

Values are subjective
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:48:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:23:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I was reading the book "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" (1987) and I ran across a portion whoch the author asked the Bible to be innocent until proven guilty (i.e., presumption of truth until proved wrong). Question: How is that rational? Also, why not do the same corcular reasoning with other holy texts?

I think that in many ancient works of literature historians will tell you that if a historical document turns out to be verifiable correct in certain area's than we give that document the benefit of the doubt where it is not verifiable. Now if we apply that to the bible we look at: the things that can be historically verified, are they? And I'm sure we have different views on this but to keep the conversation going lets just assume they are historically verified. Therefore, we give the benefit of doubt to places in the bible that cannot be historically verified (such as specific miracles like turning water into wine.) Now, we can use this reasoning with other holy texts of different religions. However, if the claims of Jesus are true, than it blows every other religion out of the water so to speak. If the claims of Jesus are true than no other religion is wholly right. Of course those claims are disagreed on, but that was just to show the way of thinking.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:49:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The real reason why you should treat the Bible as you say, (innocent until proved guilty) is because the Bible is true for one.

Proof please?

Why>? I was answering your question not debating it.

Second is because they Bible contains not just words that you read but also mathematical values in the work.

Values are subjective

They are to us not to God or the Bible. Like did you know that the first verse of the Bible has 12 multiples of seven's? No other language in the world can develop a sentence like Gen 1:1 with that many multiples of seven.
TheAsylum
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:49:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:39:53 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 6/21/2012 9:23:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I was reading the book "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" (1987) and I ran across a portion which the author asked the Bible to be innocent until proved guilty (i.e., presumption of truth until proved wrong). Question: How is that rational? Also, why not do the same corcular reasoning with other holy texts?

I do not know why they do not do the same with other texts.
The real reason why you should treat the Bible as you say, (innocent until proved guilty) is because the Bible is true for one.

Superfluous comma.

When considering Biblical "difficulties," that's exactly what is at issue.

Second is because they Bible contains not just words that you read but also mathematical values in the work.

Superfluous copula. Missing commas.

Are you aware that some of those values are erroneous?

To person who gives the Bible the innocent plea allows you to honestly read and discover it's truth.

Missing article.

EX. I read the Bible and I understand what it says because I focus on it and have Jesus therefore by my faith in Jesus I am better equipped to interpret its meaning better than a professor that has studied for years.

Run-on sentence. Missing pronoun.

We generally give more credibility to someone who has studied Roman history for years than we do to someone who simply "has faith" that Julius Caesar never existed. There is no good reason to give you special treatment with regard to this principle.

(This is not implied to a man who has higher faith and understanding then I they have the same faith and more experience.)

Run-on sentence. "To" should be "for." "Then" should be "than."

But it applies to people who just read it without Jesus influencing them in understanding. Like yourself you do not believe the Bible therefore you can not understand it.

Missing colon. Missing comma. "Can not" should be "cannot."

Someone who faithfully believes can understand. Therefore to understand and realise that it is true and the word God you must come in with as you said the innocence approach.

Missing comma. Missing "of." "Realise" should be "realize" unless you use British spelling, in which case you should use it consistently.

In other words, you have to believe it's true before reading and understanding it. If we treated all historical texts like that, the result would be metaphysical chaos. We have to have standards, and there's no reason, other than a pre-existing favoritism toward the Bible, to give it special treatment from those standards.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:51:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
whoch?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:52:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:49:00 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The real reason why you should treat the Bible as you say, (innocent until proved guilty) is because the Bible is true for one.

Proof please?

Why>? I was answering your question not debating it.

Redundant mathematical symbol. Missing comma.

Since the truth of the Bible is what is at issue when discussing Biblical "difficulties," it's a fair question.

Second is because they Bible contains not just words that you read but also mathematical values in the work.

Values are subjective

They are to us not to God or the Bible.

Missing comma.

Like did you know that the first verse of the Bible has 12 multiples of seven's?

Missing comma.

No other language in the world can develop a sentence like Gen 1:1 with that many multiples of seven.

If I looked hard enough, I could probably find twelve multiples of seven in the sentence I'm tying right now.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:53:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:52:19 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/21/2012 9:49:00 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The real reason why you should treat the Bible as you say, (innocent until proved guilty) is because the Bible is true for one.

Proof please?

Why>? I was answering your question not debating it.

Redundant mathematical symbol. Missing comma.

Since the truth of the Bible is what is at issue when discussing Biblical "difficulties," it's a fair question.

Second is because they Bible contains not just words that you read but also mathematical values in the work.

Values are subjective

They are to us not to God or the Bible.

Missing comma.

Like did you know that the first verse of the Bible has 12 multiples of seven's?

Missing comma.

No other language in the world can develop a sentence like Gen 1:1 with that many multiples of seven.

If I looked hard enough, I could probably find twelve multiples of seven in the sentence I'm tying right now.

Please explain.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:54:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:51:02 AM, stubs wrote:
I'm scared writerdave is going to destroy my post because I'm the worst writer in the world haha

I don't have the time or patience to deconstruct more than one person's lousy writing. I generally don't have trouble understanding what you're saying, unlike Scotty, and at least you're humble about your writing (I don't know why humility seems to be a prized virtue around here, but it does). Just promise you'll work to improve yourself. :-)
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:59:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:48:26 AM, stubs wrote:
At 6/21/2012 9:23:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I was reading the book "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" (1987) and I ran across a portion whoch the author asked the Bible to be innocent until proven guilty (i.e., presumption of truth until proved wrong). Question: How is that rational? Also, why not do the same corcular reasoning with other holy texts?

I think that in many ancient works of literature historians will tell you that if a historical document turns out to be verifiable correct in certain area's than we give that document the benefit of the doubt where it is not verifiable. Now if we apply that to the bible we look at: the things that can be historically verified, are they? And I'm sure we have different views on this but to keep the conversation going lets just assume they are historically verified. Therefore, we give the benefit of doubt to places in the bible that cannot be historically verified (such as specific miracles like turning water into wine.) Now, we can use this reasoning with other holy texts of different religions. However, if the claims of Jesus are true, than it blows every other religion out of the water so to speak. If the claims of Jesus are true than no other religion is wholly right. Of course those claims are disagreed on, but that was just to show the way of thinking.

But given the knowledge of apologists that those claims are disagreed upon, from which it follows that the truth of the Bible is at issue when discussing Biblical "difficulties," the "innocent until proven guilty" approach is inappropriate. Additionally, we are not justified in giving the benefit of the doubt to any document that makes miraculous claims simply because it correctly lists some historical facts. For instance, I'm writing an apocalyptic fantasy series that is set on Earth in the near future, and I rely heavily on recent history and known scientific principles in telling the story. Using your principle, we'd have to prima facie consider my series a work of nonfiction, even though it involves magic!
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 10:00:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:53:38 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 6/21/2012 9:52:19 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/21/2012 9:49:00 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The real reason why you should treat the Bible as you say, (innocent until proved guilty) is because the Bible is true for one.

Proof please?

Why>? I was answering your question not debating it.

Redundant mathematical symbol. Missing comma.

Since the truth of the Bible is what is at issue when discussing Biblical "difficulties," it's a fair question.

Second is because they Bible contains not just words that you read but also mathematical values in the work.

Values are subjective

They are to us not to God or the Bible.

Missing comma.

Like did you know that the first verse of the Bible has 12 multiples of seven's?

Missing comma.

No other language in the world can develop a sentence like Gen 1:1 with that many multiples of seven.

If I looked hard enough, I could probably find twelve multiples of seven in the sentence I'm tying right now.

Ooh, score one "oh snap!" against WriterDave! Now find about six hundred more "oh snaps" in the next twenty-four hours or so, and I'll be on an even keel with Scotty.

Please explain.

What needs explanation?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 10:31:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:52:19 AM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/21/2012 9:49:00 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
The real reason why you should treat the Bible as you say, (innocent until proved guilty) is because the Bible is true for one.

Proof please?

Why>? I was answering your question not debating it.

Redundant mathematical symbol. Missing comma.

Since the truth of the Bible is what is at issue when discussing Biblical "difficulties," it's a fair question.

Second is because they Bible contains not just words that you read but also mathematical values in the work.

Values are subjective

They are to us not to God or the Bible.

Missing comma.

Like did you know that the first verse of the Bible has 12 multiples of seven's?

Missing comma.

No other language in the world can develop a sentence like Gen 1:1 with that many multiples of seven.

If I looked hard enough, I could probably find twelve multiples of seven in the sentence I'm tying right now.

I swear to non-existent God (because people otherwise start going "ha you believe in God hurr durr"), this is getting funnier and funnier each time you do it. *Quickly makes sure that each word is spelt correctly.* Also, "hurr durr" is used as expressionist onomatopoeia. [I got] In there before criticism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 10:53:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:59:14 AM, WriterDave wrote:
...For instance, I'm writing an apocalyptic fantasy series that is set on Earth in the near future, and I rely heavily on recent history and known scientific principles in telling the story. Using your principle, we'd have to prima facie consider my series a work of nonfiction, even though it involves magic!
Let me once again channel my powers of divination....infractus vicis apparatus! Your story involves global warming...am I right?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.