How do we know anything is true?

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
gabbagabbahey said:
Well, you can't get more bothersome to someone than to damn them to an eternity of torture, whether you are actually present for the festivities or not. : )


I don't understand. Why not?
 

IAdventurer01

Well-known member
gabbagabbahey said:
People often think atheist means someone who says they know that there is nota god. IMO all the word means is it is someone who has not seen any (strong or verifiable) evidence for it. And no, that does not mean they are agnostic, because that's implying that you feel that it is a 50/50 proposition. Are you agnostic about leprechauns? I mean, you can't prove they don't exist...

Fair enough, it certainly is a word with a lot of excess baggage. Still, taking your definition: if atheist as someone with no strong evidence of a god, I think my point still stands, and perhaps is enforced by your more lax definition. Beyond the lines between individual religions, there is an additional line between those who feel there is evidence for a god and those whom do not. Religious people, for their own unique reasons, feel that there is sufficient evidence of some sort to believe in a god. Even if they think they could be wrong about their specific details, it's easier to imagine at that point another religion's interpretation of god(s) than to accept the lack of any higher being.

Pale Horse said:
I would hope this discussion and discourse, at least to this point is different. No one here is claiming any victory as it were, which I quess is a win for all, up to this post? Or maybe I should say, no one's being moronic yet?

I think it helps that this seems to be developing a bit more as a meta-discussion about discussing religious arguments than actually attacking individual beliefs. It helps keeps things civil, while still allowing for a lively debate.
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
IAdventurer01 said:
Religious people, for their own unique reasons, feel that there is sufficient evidence of some sort to believe in a god. Even if they think they could be wrong about their specific details, it's easier to imagine at that point another religion's interpretation of god(s) than to accept the lack of any higher being.

I think on some level that the various faiths shy away from being overly critical of each other because they think, "Hey, I won't ask you to prove there was a talking snake if you don't ask me to prove how a magic horse can fly someone to heaven." Subconsciously they all know that they often believe things that are unprovable and downright silly if you say them out loud in the light of day.

In their minds a belief in a god, any god, is better than none at all. Why is that? People find solace in numbers. They want to fit in and be the norm. They want to conform. They do not want to be ostracized or pointed out as being different than the rest of the tribe. Someone who admits they are an atheist is going to be looked down on by the majority of Americans. Atheists are the least likely minority to get voted in to public office, even below those that are openly gay.

Enough already. If someone has evidence to prove that they really do have god on their side, bring it forward. Other wise keep it out of our schools, laws and government.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
IAdventurer01 said:
Fair enough, it certainly is a word with a lot of excess baggage. Still, taking your definition: if atheist as someone with no strong evidence of a god, I think my point still stands, and perhaps is enforced by your more lax definition. Beyond the lines between individual religions, there is an additional line between those who feel there is evidence for a god and those whom do not. Religious people, for their own unique reasons, feel that there is sufficient evidence of some sort to believe in a god. Even if they think they could be wrong about their specific details, it's easier to imagine at that point another religion's interpretation of god(s) than to accept the lack of any higher being.
Term "Atheist" actually has two meanings. It is a derivation of Greek word atheos, "without gods". Mostly, it is understood as someone who does not believe in any deity.

However, it could also be understood as someone who is not under the protection of any deity, e.g. not a member of single religion. And yes, I've heard many people use it in this sense in modern times as well, whether they've been aware of this deeper etymology or not.

Which gets us to an interesting conclusion: A person can describe him- or herself as an atheist, but still believe in the Christian (or some other) God.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
For a minute there I thought there was someone clapping to stir up the pigeons and then along comes Finn.

Thank you, Finn.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
My answer to the Original (implied) Question

The truth of the Bible can be evidenced in more than one way. Two way are its self consistency despite dozens of writers spanning a couple millenniums, and it?s more authentically sourced than any other literature in antiquity. Those simple facts alone (which aren't in dispute among the intellectually honest) should be reason enough for anyone to purposefully investigate the claims therein, regardless of whether or not you choose to put faith in those claims. That is to say, such facts support the Bible's claim to be the infallible Word of God, though arguably it doesn't prove it, decisively.

Archeology too, confirms Scripture, in the very least on a historical level. Not entirely, we haven't found the Garden of Eden, or Babel, or Noah's Ark. Instead of confirms, (because why use a fallible procedure to judge an infallible work), I'll say archeology consistently supports the claims of Scripture. However, until archeology is a decisive science, it will be shallow confirmation at best ?for now.

For those that have read the Bible, its detailed predictive prophecy (from a statistical analysis) is stunning to say the least. The book of Isaiah has amazing insights about the heavens that couldn't be proven until around the 1920's. The book of Job too has insight into our solar system and its neighboring galaxies though it was written 2000 BC+/-. This sort of evidence is consistent to the Bibles claims that its contents are inspired by God. I do realize though that even ardent skeptics will say this doesn't constitute proof. For reasons I care not to share at this time (which are far better that the supposed ones coming), I'll still say up to this point, I agree.

Now for the reasons above, good students asking the right questions, seeking the right answers, knocking on all the closed doors will take the above evidence and upon studying it will find the following:

The Bible is the standard of standards.
Consider the law of logic: A true claim can not contradict another true claim. This law is the same everywhere and applies at all times, without exception. If we take the Biblical world view, we see the claim that God's mind is the standard for all knowledge. Expanding on that, there can never be an exception to a law of logic because the claim is "the law of non-contradiction" and God's mind is Sovereign truth. If we are then, as the Bible claims, made in His image, we confirm/and conform to that law.
What if you reject that claim? That's a fair question. I would ask what then is the basis of the foundation of our laws? I mean, scientists accept these laws are 'universal' but to my knowledge, not one scientist I've met has universal knowledge. How can that be answered rationally if not for the revelation of God omniscient? I'll leave this here to percolate.

The Bible is the foundation of science :) Gasp

Similar to the above science allow us to describe the predictable, consistent way in which the universe normally behaves. Science allows us to make successful predictions about certain future states. From a Biblical world view, God tells us. This is unique, because the Bible claims God is beyond time, therefore he is not subject to it. Why does that matter from a scientific standpoint? Because the scientific method refutes the fallacy of begging the question. That is: How can we know the future will be like the past? Because past success is a good indicator or future success. This is maddening logic, and it is circular unless you use a Biblical world view to that vicious cycle.

The God that is dismissed by men

If we make the claim that only the Bible has the ability to make sense of the standards of knowledge (like those above), then what of the paradox to those who reject the claims of the Bible, do they have no knowledge? How can one reject the truth of the Bible, while simultaneously relying on that truth From a Biblical worldview we are taught that God 'hardwired' that truth in each one of us. As a result there are some who are able to use the knowledge of logic and uniformity that He has placed in us, all while denying the God that makes such knowledge possible. This fact that (doubters and skeptics) are able to use logic and science is a proof that the Bible really is true. And it is consistent with the claims there in. It can be reasonably said that the worldview delineated by the Bible is the only worldview that can make sense of all those things necessary for knowledge.

The Bible is uniquely self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic. It has been confirmed countless times by archaeology and other sciences. It possesses divine insight into the nature of the universe and has made correct predictions about distant future events with perfect accuracy. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and it demonstrates this claim by making knowledge possible. Essentially, the proof of the Bible is that unless its truth is presupposed, we couldn?t prove anything at all.



Disclaimer: No faith or faiths were harmed or claimed in the makings of this post. No other religions or peoples were consulted or referenced, nor implicated though the above reasoning. It is offered without malice or inequity, for the author?s sole purpose of furthering an investigation to those who want to. It is being presented as a reasoned, logical, and grounded answer to the question "How do we know anything is true. Any further discourse concerning other claims within the text being questioned and investigated above will be not be addressed, without first determining motivation. Which up to this point have been determined to be somewhat obfuscatory.
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
Inconsistencies in the bible;

Genesis
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night,
on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the
sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day)
working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls
heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.
This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our
space program. 1:6-8

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their
photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making
the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a
hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions
of stars. 1:16

"And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth." Really? Then why are only a tiny fraction of stars visible from
earth? Under the best conditions, no more than five thousand stars are
visible from earth with the unaided eye, yet there are hundreds of
billions of stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion or so galaxies.
Yet this verse says that God put the stars in the firmament "to give
light" to the earth. 1:17

God commands us to "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth,
and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living thing that moveth
upon the earth." This verse is used to justify Christian opposition to
birth control, to concern for the environment, and to animal rights. The
earth was made for humans, and they can do as they damn well please with
it. 1:28

All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats,
mosquitoes, and barracudas -- all were strict vegetarians, as they were
created by God. But, of course, we now know that there were carnivorous
animals millions of years before humans existed. 1:30

Here is a list of hundreds of more inconsistancies;

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf

Here is a list of over 400 scientific and historical inaccuracies;

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Failed prophecies and promises? The bible is chock full of them. IMO prophecy needs to be much more unique and specific than the vague "astrology" type found in the bible, where the prophecies are so vague & broad that just about anyone can read anything into them. Also, it's pretty easy to say prophecy is true if you either write it after the fact or it is something that you can fulfill after you've predicted it.

For example, if I "predict" that some day that I shall have a shaven head, be a leader of men, and always wear green socks, and then 25 years down the road I get a job as a preacher , I shave my head and buy a boat load of green socks, well, it wasn't anything supernatural that made those things come true, was it? I just shaved my head, bought the socks and studied to be a preacher.

Also, it's quite easy to make prophecies look like they really happen if you edit out the uncomfortable, glaringly incorrect bits.

The bible was written by mortal men. It was edited by mortal men. It is interpreted, in many wildly different ways by mortal men. And it looks exactly how you would expect ancient bronze age desert dwellers to try & explain their world. That's why there are more different Christian Sects (over 40,000) than there are sentences in the bible.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

Give me an example of what you think is the best prophecy in the bible & we'll take it from there. I'm willing to be convinced, but it better be good. : )
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Pale Horse said:
For those that have read the Bible, its detailed predictive prophecy (from a statistical analysis) is stunning to say the least. The book of Isaiah has amazing insights about the heavens that couldn't be proven until around the 1920's. The book of Job too has insight into our solar system and its neighboring galaxies though it was written 2000 BC+/-. This sort of evidence is consistent to the Bibles claims that its contents are inspired by God. I do realize though that even ardent skeptics will say this doesn't constitute proof. For reasons I care not to share at this time (which are far better that the supposed ones coming), I'll still say up to this point, I agree.
A Tom Clancy novel can describe the real-life U.S. political climate down to a frightening detail, yet it still is and will be nothing but a work of fiction.

I'll be the first to admit though, that was a bad analogy. The Bible is not a work of fiction, at all. It is a history book, a book that describes known facts of the natural sciences, and a book that offers unique insight into human behavior. It is one of the humanity's first attempts to write a 'handbook to everything'. It was written after the most exact scientific methods known by man at the time.

However... as such a handbook, it is badly outdated. Our knowledge has expanded since its writing, and some of the things considered facts back then have been overturned when new light has been shed into things. Of course, some still stand. But it is a huge leap in logic to claim that because some teachings of the Bible still prove true, everything in it does.


All right. Now that we got the boring rationale out of the way - time to unleash one of the true wonders of this universe: What the mind of a god is truly capable of.

Pale Horse said:
The Bible is the standard of standards.
Consider the law of logic: A true claim can not contradict another true claim. This law is the same everywhere and applies at all times, without exception. If we take the Biblical world view, we see the claim that God's mind is the standard for all knowledge. Expanding on that, there can never be an exception to a law of logic because the claim is "the law of non-contradiction" and God's mind is Sovereign truth. If we are then, as the Bible claims, made in His image, we confirm/and conform to that law.
What if you reject that claim? That's a fair question. I would ask what then is the basis of the foundation of our laws? I mean, scientists accept these laws are 'universal' but to my knowledge, not one scientist I've met has universal knowledge. How can that be answered rationally if not for the revelation of God omniscient? I'll leave this here to percolate.
These "universal laws" most scientists refer to are actually called the "laws of physics". For the known universe to exist, there needs to be a framework that ensures that certain things always happen the same way. If there wasn't, anything or any of us could just poof out of existence at any given moment.

Now, one might ask, who planned such a framework for the universe to operate in such a manner? Here is another pointer a man can (sometimes intentionally) get wrong. Our universe was not planned to work the way it does. No, it simply is the way it is thanks to certain things always working the same way. "Standard" refers to something that is there as opposed to something that is non-standard. Neither is mutually exclusive. But when we talk about the universal laws, there is no such thing as non-standard here. There is no cause and consequence. No outcome. There is simply stability - things are the way they are because they are.

The Bible is not a standard of standards, because the "universal laws" don't conform to any standard - because they don't have to.

Pale Horse said:
The Bible is the foundation of science
Similar to the above science allow us to describe the predictable, consistent way in which the universe normally behaves. Science allows us to make successful predictions about certain future states. From a Biblical world view, God tells us. This is unique, because the Bible claims God is beyond time, therefore he is not subject to it. Why does that matter from a scientific standpoint? Because the scientific method refutes the fallacy of begging the question. That is: How can we know the future will be like the past? Because past success is a good indicator or future success. This is maddening logic, and it is circular unless you use a Biblical world view to that vicious cycle.
Those laws that are referred to here, are called the laws of probability. Some of them are based on the laws of physics, others simply to observation of the events that have happened before. The logic is that because something has happened, it has a fairly good chance to happen again. However, it does not happen always.

And therefore, what comes to the claim "The Bible is the foundation of science", I can prove that as false with two simple sentences.

They are: The Bible contains a ton of absolutes. Science deals with none.

Pale Horse said:
The God that is dismissed by men
If we make the claim that only the Bible has the ability to make sense of the standards of knowledge (like those above), then what of the paradox to those who reject the claims of the Bible, do they have no knowledge? How can one reject the truth of the Bible, while simultaneously relying on that truth From a Biblical worldview we are taught that God 'hardwired' that truth in each one of us. As a result there are some who are able to use the knowledge of logic and uniformity that He has placed in us, all while denying the God that makes such knowledge possible. This fact that (doubters and skeptics) are able to use logic and science is a proof that the Bible really is true. And it is consistent with the claims there in. It can be reasonably said that the worldview delineated by the Bible is the only worldview that can make sense of all those things necessary for knowledge.
God created man in his image. That means a man can use logic and science because man is God. No man can know what God knows, but all men do. Yet there are things out there we can fairly certainly say that no man knows. Which means that either man is not created in the image of God, and therefore not a God himself - or that God, who can by this logic only know what the man knows, is not omniscient.

Pale Horse said:
The Bible is uniquely self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic. It has been confirmed countless times by archaeology and other sciences. It possesses divine insight into the nature of the universe and has made correct predictions about distant future events with perfect accuracy. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and it demonstrates this claim by making knowledge possible. Essentially, the proof of the Bible is that unless its truth is presupposed, we couldn’t prove anything at all.
The Bible is the Word of God, because it is the Word of Man, who in turn, is God. Therefore, the knowledge in the Bible is the knowledge made by possible by man.

So, what is true? The answer is simple. Everything you know and consider true, and the man next to you does, and the man next to him - all that is true. If the next man does not, that does not mean that it is untrue. Instead, it is unknown.


In the end, what we choose to believe in boils down to one simple thing: How we approach the things we don't know. When man wrote the Bible, plenty of things that are everyday knowledge to us were unknown to them, and they had no means to find out what causes them. Despite never achieving said state, man is a creature built to achieve perfection. So they couldn't just let them be unknowns. They had to explain them some way. And that way was to chalk it up to the existence of the supernatural.

The Man still does not know everything. As a matter of fact, if they did, it would create yet another paradox. If the man did, he would be omniscient, and therefore God would be as well. However, if we knew everything, everything would be natural for us, and there would be no place for God, because He is not mundane.

So... the things we don't know. Many of the things that were unknown to our ancestors are known to us. But what of the things we still don't know. Have we crossed a critical threshold, after which we can safely assume that even the things we don't know will turn out to be perfectly natural, or is there still room for something that will be truly supernatural?

And that, my dear peers, is the closest thing of a Holy Grail we can have - the search of the divine within ourselves.

Now, there is just one little thing left to keep in mind: When you contemplate your faith, do not let it get in the way of logic. Because if you do, there is a chance that you may poof out of existence at any given second.


<small>Disclaimer: No common sense was violated in the making of this post. Despite this, the text above may confuse. As a matter of fact, it is supposed to. Because that, you puny mortals, is the best way to teach you what may happen when you challenge the mind of a god.</small>
 

IAdventurer01

Well-known member
Finn said:
Term "Atheist" actually has two meanings. It is a derivation of Greek word atheos, "without gods". Mostly, it is understood as someone who does not believe in any deity.

However, it could also be understood as someone who is not under the protection of any deity, e.g. not a member of single religion. And yes, I've heard many people use it in this sense in modern times as well, whether they've been aware of this deeper etymology or not.

Let's all just take away from this that words are terrible at conveying meanings and we should be wary of assigning nouns to ourselves and others. ;)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Giggidy.+I+read+this+in+Gilbert+Godfried+s+voice+Source+is+expreacher_bf6e52_4468076.jpg


Ezekiel 23:20-21.

No wonder the Bible became so popular. It was the only porno you could open on a Sunday.

Filthy beasts. :whip:
 

Indyfan82

Member
To the Ezekiel 23:20 post, please remember a key word important in any work of literature- context. ;)
In this case, God is using two adulterous sisters as a metaphor to speak about the behavior of Samaria and Jerusalem. (see Ezekiel 23:4) And God is condemning their sin and explaining the punishment He will bring as a result.
And yes- some graphic language is used to get the point across. And obviously, when parents are reading The Bible with their children (or children reading The Bible on their own), they would most likely use a Bible that is paraphrased in a language children can understand and written so as to be age appropriate. (For example, I would also suggest that parents may want to be careful with reading the Song of Solomon [or Song of Songs] to children, since there are also rather graphic descriptions in there.) But as a child matures, the child can read all of these passages at an age appropriate time.
This reminds me of the question I've heard from some people as to whether Christian parents would take their young children to see "The Passion of the Christ" in theaters. (or watch it on home video, etc.) And I would say- of course not! It's an R-rated movie and with good reason. You're supposed to be 18 to get into R-rated movies in theaters on your own, at least in most states, I do believe. [That may have changed- I don't know.]
This would be another place where parents would need to use judgment on allowing their children to watch it at an age appropriate time.

Of course, this also reminds me of the joke about National Geographic being a porno because of all those naked tribal women (and I guess men sometimes too- but it's usually only the women that get the most mention.)
Again- it's all in context. And in the right context, with the right audience, it's not pornographic at all- the same goes for The Bible.
 

Indyfan82

Member
Proof of having done good deeds is not proof for the supernatural claims in the bible or of the truth of Christianity. Also, for every one good deed that has been done in the name of Christianity , I can match, and raise you two bad deeds that have also been done in it it's name. Trust me, you don't want to start down that path.

To this point, I addressed that in my original post- and Pale Horse added some more useful insights as well:

Originally Posted by Indyfan82
Perhaps none of this would serve as proof to the veracity of The Bible, but it should speak as proof to its transformational power in the person of Jesus Christ.


The proof of the Bible is the question of the OP. Essentially, how can I be expected to believe the power of JC, if the book about him itself isn't true.

It's a completely vaild stance. I mean, look how many twi-hard lives have been changed by Edward Cullen. Evidence of change is not evidence of proof.

So, to reiterate, I don't claim that good works solely act as proof of the Truth of Christianity. But they sure help.
There have been numerous bad deeds done in the name of many gods- and yes, there have been many bad deeds done in the name of Christ, unfortunately. To this point, Jesus Himself addressed that:

"' ''Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father who is in Heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your Name, and in Your Name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from Me, you evildoers!'
Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.''
When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at His teaching, because He taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.'''
(Matthew 7:13-29 NIV 1984)
(Here is a link to the passage on Biblegateway.com as well.):)

So, as Jesus told us here, there are many who will call to Him, "Lord, Lord" on the last day (i.e. the time of judgment in the afterlife) and tell Jesus all about all the good deeds they did in His Name- and He will tell them that He never knew them. Why? Because they were wolves in sheep's clothing- they weren't truly following Jesus and doing the will of His Father- God The Father in Heaven.
So for those who have done bad things in the name of Christ, I would say one of two things- either they weren't truly Christ's followers or they had fallen away from Christ and back into sin. And even people who have done bad things after asking Jesus to be their Savior can still be forgiven. I daresay every Christian would attest to that and to the truth of 1 John 1:9.
King David was called "a man after God's own heart" and yet he sinned against God by committing adultery with Bathsheba and having her husband murdered. God punished him for that (the illegitimate child he had with Bathsheba died, for one thing- his whole family experienced a ton of heartache and grief as well later on down the road.)- but David repented and wrote (under the inspiration of God The Holy Spirit) the beautiful Psalm of repentance- Psalms 51.
And of course, there are many other examples as well. For a more modern example, George Wallace is famous for vowing to literally stand in the way of integration in the mid-60s during his time as governor of Alabama then. However, years later, he apologized to black leaders and told people that he was wrong for what he had said and did- and he attributed his change of heart to putting his faith in Christ. In his last term as governor, he appointed a record number of black people to office in Alabama.
The point of this is just to say that while it does not serve to prove The Bible is true- because people have also attested to other books and beliefs that have changed their lives as well- (for the good or the bad)- but it should at least help to lend credence to the transformative power of Jesus Christ.
That's really the only point I was trying to make with that.
 

Indyfan82

Member
On a different note, I am already usually an occasional drifter and poster here at best. I do like to check in at times, but I'm not on every day. So if I don't respond to something right away, I'm sorry for that- I have not forgotten about the thread and I will try to chime in where I can. (That pesky non-virtual real life stuff has kept me quite busy of late- lol.):D
But it's all good- God's in control and I trust Him to get me through it all. May He bless everyone here too. And for those who don't believe in Him, may your lives be totally awesome with a ton of cool things happening which you can accredit to anything you wish, like being cool Indy fans.:) :cool:
 

kongisking

Active member
Indyfan82 said:
King David was called "a man after God's own heart" and yet he sinned against God by committing adultery with Bathsheba and having her husband murdered. God punished him for that (the illegitimate child he had with Bathsheba died, for one thing- his whole family experienced a ton of heartache and grief as well later on down the road.)

Yet another example of God being a murderer of innocent children.
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
Indyfan82 said:
The point of this is just to say that while it does not serve to prove The Bible is true- because people have also attested to other books and beliefs that have changed their lives as well- (for the good or the bad)- but it should at least help to lend credence to the transformative power of Jesus Christ.
That's really the only point I was trying to make with that.

And that is fine & I will accept that, but I hope then that you accept that people's lives are also changed in dramatic ways by Dr. Phil, Bono, Oprah & the very ordinary friends, family & neighbors we all have in our lives, and none of them are supernatural in any way what so ever.

I don't have a beef w/Jesus Christ. If he was a real person I think he sounds like he was a pretty darn good guy, and someone we can all aspire to in some ways. But that does not mean it proves he was supernatural. It just (sort of) proves he was a pretty good guy.
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
Pale Horse said:
Innocent:

I don't know what else you would call the great flood other than the murder of innocents. Understand, that according to the story, god killed everyone in the great flood except for Moses and his family. That means that not only did he kill the truly bad men (murders/thieves/rapists)but he also killed poor women who were only trying to survive the only way they knew how (prostitution) and all of the children, including the unborn who were still in their mother's wombs.

Now, I don't believe any of it. There may have been a great localized flood, as often happens even today but I no more believe that god made it happen than I do the man in the moon did. It's like the stories today that Pat Robertson tells his listeners. "The reason hurricane Katrina happened was because god was punishing the United States because of abortion and homosexuals." And if, if mind you, that there was a god and he did create a great flood and he killed everyone except one man & his family he most certainly would not be someone I would worship. Fear? Yes. Worship? No.

It would be like being forced to worship Kim Jong Un. The people of North Korea have to both worship & fear him at the same time. As Hitchens said, that is the very definition of sadomasochism. No thanks for me.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
He, she, it. Maybe god is not even a thing. Does there have to be a 'god'? What could 'god' mean? Say it enough and it sounds very strange, very foreign. When I say it enough to make it a phoneme, I realise I don't know what it means. What does any word mean? Can we afford to take anything literally?

The story of the Great Flood is just that, a story. It's illustrating something. It didn't literally happen. So, if there's no god (like we think there is) and the stories are just fictional tales that are using metaphor to make us think, we don't have to worry. We can get back to the thread question. Is anything true and if so, how could we know it?

I imagine if there is truth, to know it you have to become it. Isn't that deep? But in every cliche, there is a grain of....truth!
 
Top