Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Interesting view of the Bible

smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 11:48:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just had an interesting idea. What if the Bible was not ever meant to be interpreted as real, and God neither?

If you think about it, God is just a reflection of Human nature and morality. Also, it's clear the stories are all set in a different Earth each time, otherwise the Bible would not contradict itself. Does that not mean that the setting is secondary (I.E It never happened!) to the message the story is trying to convey? And that's why the setting is adapted to fit the story. A good God is for stories about what we should try and follow, if possible (compassion, empathy), and the ones where God is a c"nt, like Sodom, is telling us that God is just as flawed as us and to take example on his mistakes.

Built in his image? No, he is built in our image.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 12:24:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 11:48:07 AM, smelisox wrote:
I just had an interesting idea. What if the Bible was not ever meant to be interpreted as real, and God neither?

If you think about it, God is just a reflection of Human nature and morality. Also, it's clear the stories are all set in a different Earth each time, otherwise the Bible would not contradict itself. Does that not mean that the setting is secondary (I.E It never happened!) to the message the story is trying to convey? And that's why the setting is adapted to fit the story. A good God is for stories about what we should try and follow, if possible (compassion, empathy), and the ones where God is a c"nt, like Sodom, is telling us that God is just as flawed as us and to take example on his mistakes.

Built in his image? No, he is built in our image.

The stories in the Bible seem to be purely the result of the human imagination and nothing more.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write. What I don't understand is how we can all agree on that and yet people still hold it as their authority.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true. Is that really your understanding of how the Bible came to be, or are you tweaking the truth to assist your agenda?

What I don't understand is how we can all agree on that.....

Who is the "all" who agrees on that? The overwhelming majority of people do not agree on that at all.

.....and yet people still hold it as their authority.

And that doesn't give you a clue that maybe one or more of your premises is wrong?

No?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 5:14:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 5:41:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

LOL. Are you serious? Are you actually denying the FACT that the Bible was written by men?

Is that really your understanding of how the Bible came to be, or are you tweaking the truth to assist your agenda?

Please then, explain exactly how the Bible came to be and who wrote it?

What I don't understand is how we can all agree on that.....

Who is the "all" who agrees on that? The overwhelming majority of people do not agree on that at all.

.....and yet people still hold it as their authority.

And that doesn't give you a clue that maybe one or more of your premises is wrong?

No?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 5:44:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 5:14:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.

Notice Gentle Reader how the atheists will flit away from ever supporting his claims? He makes a claim, I say it is not true, he then asks me to justify my belief.

To him, his claim is fact and already accepted and established. I have to justify any deviation from his claim. But as you know Gentle Readers, Ethan don't play that.

Julius Erving (Dr. J) was "inspired", He did not "hear" voices in his head. You deliberatly used the pejorative phrase, "voices in their heads", Why? Because your argument is weak and needs that sort or intellectual dishonesty.

Now you ask me if I believe the writing were, "inspired by God". Why didn't you ask if I believed that the authors of the Bible heard voices in their heads? Because you fully know that the "voices in their heads" phrase was intellectually dishonest, but you want to equate it with, "inspired by God". That is fine if that is what you believe the phrase "inspired by God means (or amounts to), but why the smarmy misdirection?

You know that religious people would not agree with your characterization. Why not admit that, and prove through logic and strong argumentation that "inspired by God" is in no way that matters, different from "voices in their heads"? But you will make a post seeming to take your "view" as an established fact and demand that anyone who challenges that must go through some rigorous test of yours.

For the life of me, is intellectual honesty a bad thing to expect?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 6:38:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2015 5:44:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:14:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.

Notice Gentle Reader how the atheists will flit away from ever supporting his claims? He makes a claim, I say it is not true, he then asks me to justify my belief.

To him, his claim is fact and already accepted and established. I have to justify any deviation from his claim. But as you know Gentle Readers, Ethan don't play that.

Julius Erving (Dr. J) was "inspired", He did not "hear" voices in his head. You deliberatly used the pejorative phrase, "voices in their heads", Why? Because your argument is weak and needs that sort or intellectual dishonesty.

Now you ask me if I believe the writing were, "inspired by God". Why didn't you ask if I believed that the authors of the Bible heard voices in their heads? Because you fully know that the "voices in their heads" phrase was intellectually dishonest, but you want to equate it with, "inspired by God". That is fine if that is what you believe the phrase "inspired by God means (or amounts to), but why the smarmy misdirection?

You know that religious people would not agree with your characterization. Why not admit that, and prove through logic and strong argumentation that "inspired by God" is in no way that matters, different from "voices in their heads"? But you will make a post seeming to take your "view" as an established fact and demand that anyone who challenges that must go through some rigorous test of yours.

For the life of me, is intellectual honesty a bad thing to expect?

Notice, non-existent gentle reader that is taking the time to sit and read this thread so that you can learn something from ethang5, how he instead of engaging in a productive dialog, instead diverts the conversation.

To recap: I made an assertion characterizing your beliefs. Then you assert my characterization is not true. When someone tells you that your interpretation of what they believe is not true the way you proceed in a productive discussion is to suspend your assertion by allowing them an opportunity to clarify their view.

You on the other hand claim that the way to proceed is for me to continue asserting that I understand your views and then prove to you that I understand them. That is just plain stupid and no wonder you resorted to attacking atheists in general and then going on to assert that you understood what I meant by my question and then attacked what you think was my mindset.

Ok, let's make this real simple:

P1: The bible is the word of God
P2: The bible was written by men.
C: The bible was written by God through men

If the bible was written by God through men, that leaves only two options: God resorted to mind control, or God communicated to these individuals telling them what to write. The latter clearly qualifies as "hearing voices in their heads", the former is even worse. If I put on a tin foil hat and claimed aliens took over my brain and made me do it, I would be put in a mental institution a lot faster then by claiming to be speaking to them.

So to deny my characterization is to either claim it is not vile enough, or to say that someone who claims to be communicating with God and writing down his words would not accurately be said to be hearing voices in his head. Or you can also argue that the bible is not the word of God, or that the bible was not written by men. I await your objection.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:30:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This gentle reader observers the statement ...." The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write."

I also observe Ethangs objection to " hearing voices in their head" concept.

I think he is attempting to say that being inspired by something or someone does not necessitate hearing any voices in ones head.

Personally I don't see how being inspired by God is any different to being inspired by the Muse or being inspired by Mother Nature or being inspired by life itself.
None of those involve hearing voices in your head. They simply involve human perception and awareness of your own surroundings as well as the imagination to personify forces, concepts and emotions as supernatural characters.

All of us are inspired to write what we write on these forums. How do we get inspired? by hearing voices in our heads or by simply reacting to what we see in front of us, and communicating what we think and feel about it?
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:42:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
When I write my poetry and other things I am inspired by my 65 years worth of experiences on this planet, not by voices in my head. If I was hearing voices I hope I would seek medical attention!
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 3:04:10 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:30:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
This gentle reader observers the statement ...." The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write."

I also observe Ethangs objection to " hearing voices in their head" concept.

I think he is attempting to say that being inspired by something or someone does not necessitate hearing any voices in ones head.

Personally I don't see how being inspired by God is any different to being inspired by the Muse or being inspired by Mother Nature or being inspired by life itself.
None of those involve hearing voices in your head. They simply involve human perception and awareness of your own surroundings as well as the imagination to personify forces, concepts and emotions as supernatural characters.


All of us are inspired to write what we write on these forums. How do we get inspired? by hearing voices in our heads or by simply reacting to what we see in front of us, and communicating what we think and feel about it?

When Christians say that the bible was "inspired by God" they are not saying that these men were simply motivated and decided to write a book about it. Under that definition the bible would not be "Gods word".
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 3:26:56 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:30:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
This gentle reader observers the statement ...." The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write."

I also observe Ethangs objection to " hearing voices in their head" concept.

I think he is attempting to say that being inspired by something or someone does not necessitate hearing any voices in ones head.

Personally I don't see how being inspired by God is any different to being inspired by the Muse or being inspired by Mother Nature or being inspired by life itself.
None of those involve hearing voices in your head. They simply involve human perception and awareness of your own surroundings as well as the imagination to personify forces, concepts and emotions as supernatural characters.


All of us are inspired to write what we write on these forums. How do we get inspired? by hearing voices in our heads or by simply reacting to what we see in front of us, and communicating what we think and feel about it?

The bible does say there were two way communication between the prophets and God. Pauls transformation came when he saw a vision/apparition and Jesus spoke to him. Moses made famous his exchanges with God. Hearing voices accurately describes their experiences and hallucination is the medical diagnostic term for their condition.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 3:33:31 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 5:44:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:14:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.

Notice Gentle Reader how the atheists will flit away from ever supporting his claims? He makes a claim, I say it is not true, he then asks me to justify my belief.

To him, his claim is fact and already accepted and established. I have to justify any deviation from his claim. But as you know Gentle Readers, Ethan don't play that.

Julius Erving (Dr. J) was "inspired", He did not "hear" voices in his head. You deliberatly used the pejorative phrase, "voices in their heads", Why? Because your argument is weak and needs that sort or intellectual dishonesty.

Now you ask me if I believe the writing were, "inspired by God". Why didn't you ask if I believed that the authors of the Bible heard voices in their heads? Because you fully know that the "voices in their heads" phrase was intellectually dishonest, but you want to equate it with, "inspired by God". That is fine if that is what you believe the phrase "inspired by God means (or amounts to), but why the smarmy misdirection?

You know that religious people would not agree with your characterization. Why not admit that, and prove through logic and strong argumentation that "inspired by God" is in no way that matters, different from "voices in their heads"? But you will make a post seeming to take your "view" as an established fact and demand that anyone who challenges that must go through some rigorous test of yours.

For the life of me, is intellectual honesty a bad thing to expect?

Notice, gentle reader, Ethan did not explain himself but instead dodged the question?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 6:53:35 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 6:38:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:44:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:14:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.

Notice Gentle Reader how the atheists will flit away from ever supporting his claims? He makes a claim, I say it is not true, he then asks me to justify my belief.

To him, his claim is fact and already accepted and established. I have to justify any deviation from his claim. But as you know Gentle Readers, Ethan don't play that.

Julius Erving (Dr. J) was "inspired", He did not "hear" voices in his head. You deliberatly used the pejorative phrase, "voices in their heads", Why? Because your argument is weak and needs that sort or intellectual dishonesty.

Now you ask me if I believe the writing were, "inspired by God". Why didn't you ask if I believed that the authors of the Bible heard voices in their heads? Because you fully know that the "voices in their heads" phrase was intellectually dishonest, but you want to equate it with, "inspired by God". That is fine if that is what you believe the phrase "inspired by God means (or amounts to), but why the smarmy misdirection?

You know that religious people would not agree with your characterization. Why not admit that, and prove through logic and strong argumentation that "inspired by God" is in no way that matters, different from "voices in their heads"? But you will make a post seeming to take your "view" as an established fact and demand that anyone who challenges that must go through some rigorous test of yours.

For the life of me, is intellectual honesty a bad thing to expect?

Notice, non-existent gentle reader that is taking the time to sit and read this thread so that you can learn something from ethang5, how he instead of engaging in a productive dialog, instead diverts the conversation.

To recap: I made an assertion characterizing your beliefs. Then you assert my characterization is not true. When someone tells you that your interpretation of what they believe is not true the way you proceed in a productive discussion is to suspend your assertion by allowing them an opportunity to clarify their view.

You on the other hand claim that the way to proceed is for me to continue asserting that I understand your views and then prove to you that I understand them. That is just plain stupid and no wonder you resorted to attacking atheists in general and then going on to assert that you understood what I meant by my question and then attacked what you think was my mindset.

Ok, let's make this real simple:

P1: The bible is the word of God
P2: The bible was written by men.
C: The bible was written by God through men

If the bible was written by God through men, that leaves only two options: God resorted to mind control, or God communicated to these individuals telling them what to write. The latter clearly qualifies as "hearing voices in their heads", the former is even worse. If I put on a tin foil hat and claimed aliens took over my brain and made me do it, I would be put in a mental institution a lot faster then by claiming to be speaking to them.
"That leaves only 2 options", typical bifurcation fallacy.
So to deny my characterization is to either claim it is not vile enough, or to say that someone who claims to be communicating with God and writing down his words would not accurately be said to be hearing voices in his head. Or you can also argue that the bible is not the word of God, or that the bible was not written by men. I await your objection.

Please prove communication with God was a voice in "their" heads.
Then prove at what point in life you became a mind reader.
Then prove at what point in life your conclusion of how God communicates is correct.
Then prove.....nvm......You're an idiot.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:00:54 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 6:53:35 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:38:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:44:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:14:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.

Notice Gentle Reader how the atheists will flit away from ever supporting his claims? He makes a claim, I say it is not true, he then asks me to justify my belief.

To him, his claim is fact and already accepted and established. I have to justify any deviation from his claim. But as you know Gentle Readers, Ethan don't play that.

Julius Erving (Dr. J) was "inspired", He did not "hear" voices in his head. You deliberatly used the pejorative phrase, "voices in their heads", Why? Because your argument is weak and needs that sort or intellectual dishonesty.

Now you ask me if I believe the writing were, "inspired by God". Why didn't you ask if I believed that the authors of the Bible heard voices in their heads? Because you fully know that the "voices in their heads" phrase was intellectually dishonest, but you want to equate it with, "inspired by God". That is fine if that is what you believe the phrase "inspired by God means (or amounts to), but why the smarmy misdirection?

You know that religious people would not agree with your characterization. Why not admit that, and prove through logic and strong argumentation that "inspired by God" is in no way that matters, different from "voices in their heads"? But you will make a post seeming to take your "view" as an established fact and demand that anyone who challenges that must go through some rigorous test of yours.

For the life of me, is intellectual honesty a bad thing to expect?

Notice, non-existent gentle reader that is taking the time to sit and read this thread so that you can learn something from ethang5, how he instead of engaging in a productive dialog, instead diverts the conversation.

To recap: I made an assertion characterizing your beliefs. Then you assert my characterization is not true. When someone tells you that your interpretation of what they believe is not true the way you proceed in a productive discussion is to suspend your assertion by allowing them an opportunity to clarify their view.

You on the other hand claim that the way to proceed is for me to continue asserting that I understand your views and then prove to you that I understand them. That is just plain stupid and no wonder you resorted to attacking atheists in general and then going on to assert that you understood what I meant by my question and then attacked what you think was my mindset.

Ok, let's make this real simple:

P1: The bible is the word of God
P2: The bible was written by men.
C: The bible was written by God through men

If the bible was written by God through men, that leaves only two options: God resorted to mind control, or God communicated to these individuals telling them what to write. The latter clearly qualifies as "hearing voices in their heads", the former is even worse. If I put on a tin foil hat and claimed aliens took over my brain and made me do it, I would be put in a mental institution a lot faster then by claiming to be speaking to them.
"That leaves only 2 options", typical bifurcation fallacy.
So to deny my characterization is to either claim it is not vile enough, or to say that someone who claims to be communicating with God and writing down his words would not accurately be said to be hearing voices in his head. Or you can also argue that the bible is not the word of God, or that the bible was not written by men. I await your objection.

Please prove communication with God was a voice in "their" heads.
Then prove at what point in life you became a mind reader.
Then prove at what point in life your conclusion of how God communicates is correct.
Then prove.....nvm......You're an idiot.

Please prove communication with God in any way, shape or form?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:02:12 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:00:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:53:35 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:38:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:44:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:14:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.

Notice Gentle Reader how the atheists will flit away from ever supporting his claims? He makes a claim, I say it is not true, he then asks me to justify my belief.

To him, his claim is fact and already accepted and established. I have to justify any deviation from his claim. But as you know Gentle Readers, Ethan don't play that.

Julius Erving (Dr. J) was "inspired", He did not "hear" voices in his head. You deliberatly used the pejorative phrase, "voices in their heads", Why? Because your argument is weak and needs that sort or intellectual dishonesty.

Now you ask me if I believe the writing were, "inspired by God". Why didn't you ask if I believed that the authors of the Bible heard voices in their heads? Because you fully know that the "voices in their heads" phrase was intellectually dishonest, but you want to equate it with, "inspired by God". That is fine if that is what you believe the phrase "inspired by God means (or amounts to), but why the smarmy misdirection?

You know that religious people would not agree with your characterization. Why not admit that, and prove through logic and strong argumentation that "inspired by God" is in no way that matters, different from "voices in their heads"? But you will make a post seeming to take your "view" as an established fact and demand that anyone who challenges that must go through some rigorous test of yours.

For the life of me, is intellectual honesty a bad thing to expect?

Notice, non-existent gentle reader that is taking the time to sit and read this thread so that you can learn something from ethang5, how he instead of engaging in a productive dialog, instead diverts the conversation.

To recap: I made an assertion characterizing your beliefs. Then you assert my characterization is not true. When someone tells you that your interpretation of what they believe is not true the way you proceed in a productive discussion is to suspend your assertion by allowing them an opportunity to clarify their view.

You on the other hand claim that the way to proceed is for me to continue asserting that I understand your views and then prove to you that I understand them. That is just plain stupid and no wonder you resorted to attacking atheists in general and then going on to assert that you understood what I meant by my question and then attacked what you think was my mindset.

Ok, let's make this real simple:

P1: The bible is the word of God
P2: The bible was written by men.
C: The bible was written by God through men

If the bible was written by God through men, that leaves only two options: God resorted to mind control, or God communicated to these individuals telling them what to write. The latter clearly qualifies as "hearing voices in their heads", the former is even worse. If I put on a tin foil hat and claimed aliens took over my brain and made me do it, I would be put in a mental institution a lot faster then by claiming to be speaking to them.
"That leaves only 2 options", typical bifurcation fallacy.
So to deny my characterization is to either claim it is not vile enough, or to say that someone who claims to be communicating with God and writing down his words would not accurately be said to be hearing voices in his head. Or you can also argue that the bible is not the word of God, or that the bible was not written by men. I await your objection.

Please prove communication with God was a voice in "their" heads.
Then prove at what point in life you became a mind reader.
Then prove at what point in life your conclusion of how God communicates is correct.
Then prove.....nvm......You're an idiot.

Please prove communication with God in any way, shape or form?
So nothing to the point......
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:14:32 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:02:12 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:00:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:53:35 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:38:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:44:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:14:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.

Notice Gentle Reader how the atheists will flit away from ever supporting his claims? He makes a claim, I say it is not true, he then asks me to justify my belief.

To him, his claim is fact and already accepted and established. I have to justify any deviation from his claim. But as you know Gentle Readers, Ethan don't play that.

Julius Erving (Dr. J) was "inspired", He did not "hear" voices in his head. You deliberatly used the pejorative phrase, "voices in their heads", Why? Because your argument is weak and needs that sort or intellectual dishonesty.

Now you ask me if I believe the writing were, "inspired by God". Why didn't you ask if I believed that the authors of the Bible heard voices in their heads? Because you fully know that the "voices in their heads" phrase was intellectually dishonest, but you want to equate it with, "inspired by God". That is fine if that is what you believe the phrase "inspired by God means (or amounts to), but why the smarmy misdirection?

You know that religious people would not agree with your characterization. Why not admit that, and prove through logic and strong argumentation that "inspired by God" is in no way that matters, different from "voices in their heads"? But you will make a post seeming to take your "view" as an established fact and demand that anyone who challenges that must go through some rigorous test of yours.

For the life of me, is intellectual honesty a bad thing to expect?

Notice, non-existent gentle reader that is taking the time to sit and read this thread so that you can learn something from ethang5, how he instead of engaging in a productive dialog, instead diverts the conversation.

To recap: I made an assertion characterizing your beliefs. Then you assert my characterization is not true. When someone tells you that your interpretation of what they believe is not true the way you proceed in a productive discussion is to suspend your assertion by allowing them an opportunity to clarify their view.

You on the other hand claim that the way to proceed is for me to continue asserting that I understand your views and then prove to you that I understand them. That is just plain stupid and no wonder you resorted to attacking atheists in general and then going on to assert that you understood what I meant by my question and then attacked what you think was my mindset.

Ok, let's make this real simple:

P1: The bible is the word of God
P2: The bible was written by men.
C: The bible was written by God through men

If the bible was written by God through men, that leaves only two options: God resorted to mind control, or God communicated to these individuals telling them what to write. The latter clearly qualifies as "hearing voices in their heads", the former is even worse. If I put on a tin foil hat and claimed aliens took over my brain and made me do it, I would be put in a mental institution a lot faster then by claiming to be speaking to them.
"That leaves only 2 options", typical bifurcation fallacy.
So to deny my characterization is to either claim it is not vile enough, or to say that someone who claims to be communicating with God and writing down his words would not accurately be said to be hearing voices in his head. Or you can also argue that the bible is not the word of God, or that the bible was not written by men. I await your objection.

Please prove communication with God was a voice in "their" heads.
Then prove at what point in life you became a mind reader.
Then prove at what point in life your conclusion of how God communicates is correct.
Then prove.....nvm......You're an idiot.

Please prove communication with God in any way, shape or form?
So nothing to the point......

Yes, exactly, you offered nothing to the point. I can see that clearly.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:22:07 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:14:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:02:12 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:00:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:53:35 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:38:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:44:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:14:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.

Notice Gentle Reader how the atheists will flit away from ever supporting his claims? He makes a claim, I say it is not true, he then asks me to justify my belief.

To him, his claim is fact and already accepted and established. I have to justify any deviation from his claim. But as you know Gentle Readers, Ethan don't play that.

Julius Erving (Dr. J) was "inspired", He did not "hear" voices in his head. You deliberatly used the pejorative phrase, "voices in their heads", Why? Because your argument is weak and needs that sort or intellectual dishonesty.

Now you ask me if I believe the writing were, "inspired by God". Why didn't you ask if I believed that the authors of the Bible heard voices in their heads? Because you fully know that the "voices in their heads" phrase was intellectually dishonest, but you want to equate it with, "inspired by God". That is fine if that is what you believe the phrase "inspired by God means (or amounts to), but why the smarmy misdirection?

You know that religious people would not agree with your characterization. Why not admit that, and prove through logic and strong argumentation that "inspired by God" is in no way that matters, different from "voices in their heads"? But you will make a post seeming to take your "view" as an established fact and demand that anyone who challenges that must go through some rigorous test of yours.

For the life of me, is intellectual honesty a bad thing to expect?

Notice, non-existent gentle reader that is taking the time to sit and read this thread so that you can learn something from ethang5, how he instead of engaging in a productive dialog, instead diverts the conversation.

To recap: I made an assertion characterizing your beliefs. Then you assert my characterization is not true. When someone tells you that your interpretation of what they believe is not true the way you proceed in a productive discussion is to suspend your assertion by allowing them an opportunity to clarify their view.

You on the other hand claim that the way to proceed is for me to continue asserting that I understand your views and then prove to you that I understand them. That is just plain stupid and no wonder you resorted to attacking atheists in general and then going on to assert that you understood what I meant by my question and then attacked what you think was my mindset.

Ok, let's make this real simple:

P1: The bible is the word of God
P2: The bible was written by men.
C: The bible was written by God through men

If the bible was written by God through men, that leaves only two options: God resorted to mind control, or God communicated to these individuals telling them what to write. The latter clearly qualifies as "hearing voices in their heads", the former is even worse. If I put on a tin foil hat and claimed aliens took over my brain and made me do it, I would be put in a mental institution a lot faster then by claiming to be speaking to them.
"That leaves only 2 options", typical bifurcation fallacy.
So to deny my characterization is to either claim it is not vile enough, or to say that someone who claims to be communicating with God and writing down his words would not accurately be said to be hearing voices in his head. Or you can also argue that the bible is not the word of God, or that the bible was not written by men. I await your objection.

Please prove communication with God was a voice in "their" heads.
Then prove at what point in life you became a mind reader.
Then prove at what point in life your conclusion of how God communicates is correct.
Then prove.....nvm......You're an idiot.

Please prove communication with God in any way, shape or form?
So nothing to the point......

Yes, exactly, you offered nothing to the point. I can see that clearly.
Follow the bouncing ball. I addressed your ability to claim and know what another person experienced and what was in their minds. The fact you do not address this is obvious. The fact that you attempt to make issue of something irrelevant to my post is a deflection. The issue is not what God did, can do, or has ever done or not done. The issue was , once again, your ability to KNOW another's experience. You don't....hagd
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:14:41 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 6:53:35 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:38:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
P1: The bible is the word of God
P2: The bible was written by men.
C: The bible was written by God through men

If the bible was written by God through men, that leaves only two options: God resorted to mind control, or God communicated to these individuals telling them what to write. The latter clearly qualifies as "hearing voices in their heads", the former is even worse. If I put on a tin foil hat and claimed aliens took over my brain and made me do it, I would be put in a mental institution a lot faster then by claiming to be speaking to them.

"That leaves only 2 options", typical bifurcation fallacy.

Those of us who care about a productive discussion would go on to explain how the statement fits into the fallacy, so I can see why you didn't bother.

If we agree that according to Christian doctrine God wrote the bible through men then their are only two logically possible ways this could happen: Either God allowed the men to think for themselves, or he did not allow them to think for themselves. That is a true dichotomy since one is necessarily the negation of the other.

If he did not allow them to think for themselves then he "controlled their minds".

If he allowed the men to think for themselves, then by definition, they wrote the bible. Which means that for the bible to be the word of God he had to communicate with them by using his words which were eventually written down. If God communicated with these men in terms of words then they were hearing these words in the only place they can... their heads.

So to deny my characterization is to either claim it is not vile enough, or to say that someone who claims to be communicating with God and writing down his words would not accurately be said to be hearing voices in his head. Or you can also argue that the bible is not the word of God, or that the bible was not written by men. I await your objection.

Please prove communication with God was a voice in "their" heads.
Done.

Then prove at what point in life you became a mind reader.
I'm not, nor do I need to be to make the assertion.

Then prove at what point in life your conclusion of how God communicates is correct.
I don't believe God communicates to anyone. I am merely following the premises laid out by Christians to their logical end.

Then prove.....nvm......You're an idiot.
Remind me to refrain from ever debating you for fear that I will be dismantled by your breathtaking intelligence. [Sarcasm mode off]
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:16:08 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 3:33:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:44:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:14:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.

Notice Gentle Reader how the atheists will flit away from ever supporting his claims? He makes a claim, I say it is not true, he then asks me to justify my belief.

To him, his claim is fact and already accepted and established. I have to justify any deviation from his claim. But as you know Gentle Readers, Ethan don't play that.

Julius Erving (Dr. J) was "inspired", He did not "hear" voices in his head. You deliberatly used the pejorative phrase, "voices in their heads", Why? Because your argument is weak and needs that sort or intellectual dishonesty.

Now you ask me if I believe the writing were, "inspired by God". Why didn't you ask if I believed that the authors of the Bible heard voices in their heads? Because you fully know that the "voices in their heads" phrase was intellectually dishonest, but you want to equate it with, "inspired by God". That is fine if that is what you believe the phrase "inspired by God means (or amounts to), but why the smarmy misdirection?

You know that religious people would not agree with your characterization. Why not admit that, and prove through logic and strong argumentation that "inspired by God" is in no way that matters, different from "voices in their heads"? But you will make a post seeming to take your "view" as an established fact and demand that anyone who challenges that must go through some rigorous test of yours.

For the life of me, is intellectual honesty a bad thing to expect?

Notice, gentle reader, Ethan did not explain himself but instead dodged the question?

That's because when it comes to justifying any deviation from my claim: "Ethan don't play that".
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:46:52 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 11:48:07 AM, smelisox wrote:
I just had an interesting idea. What if the Bible was not ever meant to be interpreted as real, and God neither?

If you think about it, God is just a reflection of Human nature and morality. Also, it's clear the stories are all set in a different Earth each time, otherwise the Bible would not contradict itself. Does that not mean that the setting is secondary (I.E It never happened!) to the message the story is trying to convey? And that's why the setting is adapted to fit the story. A good God is for stories about what we should try and follow, if possible (compassion, empathy), and the ones where God is a c"nt, like Sodom, is telling us that God is just as flawed as us and to take example on his mistakes.

Built in his image? No, he is built in our image.

You just had this idea? Awesome. I hope more realize it. All religion is like this.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 2:11:10 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 3:04:10 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:30:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
This gentle reader observers the statement ...." The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write."

I also observe Ethangs objection to " hearing voices in their head" concept.

I think he is attempting to say that being inspired by something or someone does not necessitate hearing any voices in ones head.

Personally I don't see how being inspired by God is any different to being inspired by the Muse or being inspired by Mother Nature or being inspired by life itself.
None of those involve hearing voices in your head. They simply involve human perception and awareness of your own surroundings as well as the imagination to personify forces, concepts and emotions as supernatural characters.


All of us are inspired to write what we write on these forums. How do we get inspired? by hearing voices in our heads or by simply reacting to what we see in front of us, and communicating what we think and feel about it?

When Christians say that the bible was "inspired by God" they are not saying that these men were simply motivated and decided to write a book about it. Under that definition the bible would not be "Gods word".

I understand that most of them are talking about a mythical character in which they believe much like a child believes in Santa. However the concept of any book being inspired by God is no different to any book being inspired by the Muse and believers in its inspirational aspects claiming it is the word of the Muse rather than crediting or critiquing the authors for the words.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 2:41:22 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 3:26:56 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:30:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
This gentle reader observers the statement ...." The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write."

I also observe Ethangs objection to " hearing voices in their head" concept.

I think he is attempting to say that being inspired by something or someone does not necessitate hearing any voices in ones head.

Personally I don't see how being inspired by God is any different to being inspired by the Muse or being inspired by Mother Nature or being inspired by life itself.
None of those involve hearing voices in your head. They simply involve human perception and awareness of your own surroundings as well as the imagination to personify forces, concepts and emotions as supernatural characters.


All of us are inspired to write what we write on these forums. How do we get inspired? by hearing voices in our heads or by simply reacting to what we see in front of us, and communicating what we think and feel about it?

The bible does say there were two way communication between the prophets and God. Pauls transformation came when he saw a vision/apparition and Jesus spoke to him. Moses made famous his exchanges with God. Hearing voices accurately describes their experiences and hallucination is the medical diagnostic term for their condition.

If an author decided to write about himself and his own interaction with his personal thoughts, conscience, morals, etc. It would not be difficult to make the story appear to be two way or three way conversation between him, a God and a Devil where you need to choose between good and evil. Personifying ones own thoughts and attitudes is not hard to do for any creative writer. It also does not mean you actually hear voices in your head. What exactly do you "hear" when you listen to your own thoughts? I do not hear voices like I hear when real people speak to me. The inner hearing has nothing to do with actually hearing anything. Listen to your own thoughts and try to explain what you are hearing and how you are hearing it. Then let us know if you can manage to explain it so everyone agrees with you since we can all "hear" our own thoughts without audibly hearing anything.

The concept of listening to ones "inner saint" or "inner sinner" with all its temptations exists and manifests in various ways. Most mature people understand the good and evil characters are not real but merely representations of inner human conflicts.
If people can understand this cartoon....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
they ought to be able to understand the bible is simply an ancient form of the same concept in written form.

It is all merely stories about conflicts which happen in life. Conflicts between what humans perceive as good and evil regardless of whether the conflict are just in the hearts and minds of people or physically amongst people themselves as they physically or verbally go to war with each other.

Do you suffer from hallucinations when you "hear your own thoughts" or listen to your conscience "speaking" to you ?

Do yourself a favour and try to comprehend what ancient writers are trying to communicate through metaphors, idioms, parables, symbolism etc. instead of reading the stories as if they were some historical documents and then childishly accusing the characters in the stories of hallucinating as if those characters were real.

No real people have the ability to do miracles like pointing a stick at water and causing the water to separate or raising people from a literally dead state after three days or healing people by simply telling them to be healed. Surely anyone with a brain can see those things are allegorical?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 3:06:14 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 2:11:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/6/2015 3:04:10 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:30:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
This gentle reader observers the statement ...." The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write."

I also observe Ethangs objection to " hearing voices in their head" concept.

I think he is attempting to say that being inspired by something or someone does not necessitate hearing any voices in ones head.

Personally I don't see how being inspired by God is any different to being inspired by the Muse or being inspired by Mother Nature or being inspired by life itself.
None of those involve hearing voices in your head. They simply involve human perception and awareness of your own surroundings as well as the imagination to personify forces, concepts and emotions as supernatural characters.


All of us are inspired to write what we write on these forums. How do we get inspired? by hearing voices in our heads or by simply reacting to what we see in front of us, and communicating what we think and feel about it?

When Christians say that the bible was "inspired by God" they are not saying that these men were simply motivated and decided to write a book about it. Under that definition the bible would not be "Gods word".

I understand that most of them are talking about a mythical character in which they believe much like a child believes in Santa. However the concept of any book being inspired by God is no different to any book being inspired by the Muse and believers in its inspirational aspects claiming it is the word of the Muse rather than crediting or critiquing the authors for the words.

What is your interpretation of how Christians are using the word "inspired" when they claim that the bible was inspired by God? Please explain in detail.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 3:33:56 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 2:41:22 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/6/2015 3:26:56 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:30:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
This gentle reader observers the statement ...." The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write."

I also observe Ethangs objection to " hearing voices in their head" concept.

I think he is attempting to say that being inspired by something or someone does not necessitate hearing any voices in ones head.

Personally I don't see how being inspired by God is any different to being inspired by the Muse or being inspired by Mother Nature or being inspired by life itself.
None of those involve hearing voices in your head. They simply involve human perception and awareness of your own surroundings as well as the imagination to personify forces, concepts and emotions as supernatural characters.


All of us are inspired to write what we write on these forums. How do we get inspired? by hearing voices in our heads or by simply reacting to what we see in front of us, and communicating what we think and feel about it?

The bible does say there were two way communication between the prophets and God. Pauls transformation came when he saw a vision/apparition and Jesus spoke to him. Moses made famous his exchanges with God. Hearing voices accurately describes their experiences and hallucination is the medical diagnostic term for their condition.

If an author decided to write about himself and his own interaction with his personal thoughts, conscience, morals, etc. It would not be difficult to make the story appear to be two way or three way conversation between him, a God and a Devil where you need to choose between good and evil. Personifying ones own thoughts and attitudes is not hard to do for any creative writer. It also does not mean you actually hear voices in your head. What exactly do you "hear" when you listen to your own thoughts? I do not hear voices like I hear when real people speak to me. The inner hearing has nothing to do with actually hearing anything. Listen to your own thoughts and try to explain what you are hearing and how you are hearing it. Then let us know if you can manage to explain it so everyone agrees with you since we can all "hear" our own thoughts without audibly hearing anything.

The concept of listening to ones "inner saint" or "inner sinner" with all its temptations exists and manifests in various ways. Most mature people understand the good and evil characters are not real but merely representations of inner human conflicts.
If people can understand this cartoon....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
they ought to be able to understand the bible is simply an ancient form of the same concept in written form.

It is all merely stories about conflicts which happen in life. Conflicts between what humans perceive as good and evil regardless of whether the conflict are just in the hearts and minds of people or physically amongst people themselves as they physically or verbally go to war with each other.

Do you suffer from hallucinations when you "hear your own thoughts" or listen to your conscience "speaking" to you ?

Do yourself a favour and try to comprehend what ancient writers are trying to communicate through metaphors, idioms, parables, symbolism etc. instead of reading the stories as if they were some historical documents and then childishly accusing the characters in the stories of hallucinating as if those characters were real.

No real people have the ability to do miracles like pointing a stick at water and causing the water to separate or raising people from a literally dead state after three days or healing people by simply telling them to be healed. Surely anyone with a brain can see those things are allegorical?

The Bible lacks the concept of mental illness.
http://www.debate.org...

Psychiatry diagnoses Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Paul with schizophrenia! who suffered from hallucinations and serious mental disorders.
http://www.bible.ca...
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:55:19 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 3:06:14 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/7/2015 2:11:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/6/2015 3:04:10 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:30:16 AM, Skyangel wrote:
This gentle reader observers the statement ...." The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write."

I also observe Ethangs objection to " hearing voices in their head" concept.

I think he is attempting to say that being inspired by something or someone does not necessitate hearing any voices in ones head.

Personally I don't see how being inspired by God is any different to being inspired by the Muse or being inspired by Mother Nature or being inspired by life itself.
None of those involve hearing voices in your head. They simply involve human perception and awareness of your own surroundings as well as the imagination to personify forces, concepts and emotions as supernatural characters.


All of us are inspired to write what we write on these forums. How do we get inspired? by hearing voices in our heads or by simply reacting to what we see in front of us, and communicating what we think and feel about it?

When Christians say that the bible was "inspired by God" they are not saying that these men were simply motivated and decided to write a book about it. Under that definition the bible would not be "Gods word".

I understand that most of them are talking about a mythical character in which they believe much like a child believes in Santa. However the concept of any book being inspired by God is no different to any book being inspired by the Muse and believers in its inspirational aspects claiming it is the word of the Muse rather than crediting or critiquing the authors for the words.

What is your interpretation of how Christians are using the word "inspired" when they claim that the bible was inspired by God? Please explain in detail.

As I said above, I think most of them are referring to a supernatural character motivating human writers to write what they did by putting the thoughts into their heads. That does not mean any writer heard actual voices but rather simply followed their own thoughts. Neither does it mean any supernatural character inspired anything any more than Superman himself inspired stories about Superman. It could mean the creators of mythical characters get so involved in their characters that the characters take on a personality of their own in their minds and the writers end up being inspired by their own imaginary characters to write more and more stories about them.

I personally do not interpret " inspired by God" any differently to "inspired by the Muse" the only thing that differs is the fictional character which is supposedly the source of inspiration.
In my perception the mythical characters are merely personifying the source of inspiration whatever that source might be. Anything in life can be a source of inspiration for creative writing.
Have you ever written poetry or other creative literature? If so what would you creatively call the source of inspiration if it was nothing in particular but a mixture of a whole lot of different things? Muse? God? The "voice" in your head? The passion in your heart? The fire in your innermost being ? The well of water in your belly ? The inner motivation that compels you to do whatever you do?
What would you label it?
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:04:58 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 3:33:31 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:44:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:14:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.

Notice Gentle Reader how the atheists will flit away from ever supporting his claims? He makes a claim, I say it is not true, he then asks me to justify my belief.

To him, his claim is fact and already accepted and established. I have to justify any deviation from his claim. But as you know Gentle Readers, Ethan don't play that.

Julius Erving (Dr. J) was "inspired", He did not "hear" voices in his head. You deliberatly used the pejorative phrase, "voices in their heads", Why? Because your argument is weak and needs that sort or intellectual dishonesty.

Now you ask me if I believe the writing were, "inspired by God". Why didn't you ask if I believed that the authors of the Bible heard voices in their heads? Because you fully know that the "voices in their heads" phrase was intellectually dishonest, but you want to equate it with, "inspired by God". That is fine if that is what you believe the phrase "inspired by God means (or amounts to), but why the smarmy misdirection?

You know that religious people would not agree with your characterization. Why not admit that, and prove through logic and strong argumentation that "inspired by God" is in no way that matters, different from "voices in their heads"? But you will make a post seeming to take your "view" as an established fact and demand that anyone who challenges that must go through some rigorous test of yours.

For the life of me, is intellectual honesty a bad thing to expect?

Notice, gentle reader, Ethan did not explain himself but instead dodged the question?

Notice Gentle Reader, that DJR also expected RR's claim to be accepted as granted but I must "explain myself"? Why couldn't RR first support his claim that men of God heard "voices in their heads"? lol Find me an atheist who doesn't automatically transfer the burden of proof and I'll show you a fish that doesn't breathe underwater.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:17:42 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 4:04:58 PM, ethang5
Has nothing to say.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:18:46 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 5:41:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:01:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 3:51:29 PM, Double_R wrote:

Lets take this as a test case Gentle Reader. Lets break it down so you can see what atheists do. It's called intellectual dishonesty.

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

LOL. Are you serious? Are you actually denying the FACT that the Bible was written by men?

See? He did not ask, "Are you actually denying the FACT that the Bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

He deleted that part. Why? That is where the dishonesty part comes in.

Is that really your understanding of how the Bible came to be, or are you tweaking the truth to assist your agenda?

Please then, explain exactly how the Bible came to be and who wrote it?

I asked a direct question; "Is that really your understanding of how the Bible came to be,... referring directly to his phrase, "Voices in their heads" and he dodged and asked ME to "explain" myself!

What is there to explain? Your claim is untrue. But DJR bumps in and does the same trick. Ignore the claim and focus only on the, "the bible was written by men" part. They know they are doing this. If their position is logical and correct, why do they have to be so sleazy?

Of course, they will all now either whine that I am insulting, or become belligerent claiming that I am too. All to keep dodging the questions.

Q: What is "atheist kriptonite"?

A: Questions.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 4:42:29 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 6:38:52 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/5/2015 5:44:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:

The bottom line is that the bible was written by men who wrote down what the voices in their heads said to write.

This is not true.

Do you believe that the writings of the bible were inspired by God?

If yes, please explain what you mean.

Notice Gentle Reader how the atheists will flit away from ever supporting his claims? He makes a claim, I say it is not true, he then asks me to justify my belief.

To him, his claim is fact and already accepted and established. I have to justify any deviation from his claim. But as you know Gentle Readers, Ethan don't play that.

Julius Erving (Dr. J) was "inspired", He did not "hear" voices in his head. You deliberatly used the pejorative phrase, "voices in their heads", Why? Because your argument is weak and needs that sort or intellectual dishonesty.

Now you ask me if I believe the writing were, "inspired by God". Why didn't you ask if I believed that the authors of the Bible heard voices in their heads? Because you fully know that the "voices in their heads" phrase was intellectually dishonest, but you want to equate it with, "inspired by God". That is fine if that is what you believe the phrase "inspired by God means (or amounts to), but why the smarmy misdirection?

You know that religious people would not agree with your characterization. Why not admit that, and prove through logic and strong argumentation that "inspired by God" is in no way that matters, different from "voices in their heads"? But you will make a post seeming to take your "view" as an established fact and demand that anyone who challenges that must go through some rigorous test of yours.

For the life of me, is intellectual honesty a bad thing to expect?

Notice, non-existent gentle reader that is taking the time to sit and read this thread so that you can learn something from ethang5, how he instead of engaging in a productive dialog, instead diverts the conversation.

I have asked you serious questions all of which you have dodged. Who's diverting productive dialogue?

To recap: I made an assertion characterizing your beliefs.

Untrue. You posted YOUR belief of how the Bible came to be. You were characterizing your beliefs. And you know it. To deny that would be to say you did not know that Christians would disagree with your characterization. None the less, I asked you, Is that your understanding of how the Bible came to be? And you dodged the question.

You could not have been characterizing my beliefs because you made your claim before I had ever posted to the thread. And no matter how you may lie now to save face, we all know that you knew- that was a characterization of YOUR beliefs.

Then you assert my characterization is not true. When someone tells you that your interpretation of what they believe is not true the way you proceed in a productive discussion is to suspend your assertion by allowing them an opportunity to clarify their view.

Stop lying. You did not post that it was a characterization of my belief. You said the "bottom line is...." And you know that no Christian believes that. It is what YOU believe. But you MUST lie now about characterizations rather than claim because you cannot defend your claim. And you know you cannot defend it.

You on the other hand claim that the way to proceed is for me to continue asserting that I understand your views and then prove to you that I understand them.

Lie. It was YOUR view and now I am asking you to support it. You cannot, so you now squirm and embarrass yourself. Everyone with a brain here knows you are lying.

That is just plain stupid and no wonder you resorted to attacking atheists in general and then going on to assert that you understood what I meant by my question and then attacked what you think was my mindset.

I don't care if you keep dodging. It just gives me an excuse to keep pointing out the the readers that you are dodging.

Ok, let's make this real simple:

P1: The bible is the word of God
P2: The bible was written by men.
C: The bible was written by God through men

If the bible was written by God through men, that leaves only two options: God resorted to mind control, or God communicated to these individuals telling them what to write. The latter clearly qualifies as "hearing voices in their heads", the former is even worse. If I put on a tin foil hat and claimed aliens took over my brain and made me do it, I would be put in a mental institution a lot faster then by claiming to be speaking to them.

So like I said, this is YOUR belief, not a characterization of my belief. And I told you, if this is what you thought, fine, but you did not need to be sleazy and try to substitute your sleazy "voices in their heads" for "Inspired by".

You are wrong because many of the authors of the Bible did not know at the time they were being inspired. They did not hear voices. You added that in because of two simple and obvious reasons.

1. Your case is weak and needs sleaze.
2. You are sleazy.

So to deny my characterization is to either claim it is not vile enough, or to say that someone who claims to be communicating with God and writing down his words would not accurately be said to be hearing voices in his head. Or you can also argue that the bible is not the word of God, or that the bible was not written by men. I await your objection.

You have tried to run with a false dichotomy.
If the bible was written by God through men, that leaves only two options: God resorted to mind control, or God communicated to these individuals telling them what to write.

This is untrue. Now, I would ask you to defend this claim, but I know you will only dodge again. Perhaps you will lie again claiming it is your "characterization" of my belief.

You carry on. The point is not important or interesting enough to wade through you straight-faced lying.

ew.