Claims vs. Beliefs

[Subduction Zone]

Good thing I can rationally explain my faith then.

I doubt if you can, but have at it. So far all that have claimed this have failed. It will be refreshing to see someone do it for once.

 

[Trailblazer]

And the proof is their claim and nothing else? In that case, why do you deny other claims?
List of messiah claimants - Wikipedia, List of Mahdi claimants - Wikipedia, List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia, Prophet - Wikipedia.

A claim is not proof of anything at all because anyone can make a claim. I have said this dozens of times.
These false messiah claimants have no evidence to support their claims and that is why I deny their claims.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Just because one finds a source that agrees with them does not mean that is a reliable source. One should always ask where they published their works? If just on the internet then it is probably not very reliable. In any area of study there are professional areas to publish. Though some ideas are so badly presented that any reputable publishing house will read the article and say "Naah". There are several results one could get from a publisher. If they think the article was written by a crazy person they might just ignore it. They could flatly reject it with a letter. Neither of these first two is very good at all. They could reject it, but tell you what problems they saw in it. This is actually good and very promising. If the writer corrects his errors there is a good chance that it will be published. And least likely they could accept it at the first submission.

Your source as written would be rejected, but then so would almost any source that I linked. Articles written for every day reading do note tend to fit the proper format for professional papers. The question is is there actual scholarship behind your source or not. I doubt it. Can you demonstrate that there is any valid scholarship behind yours or is it simply "For the Bible told me so"?

For you I’d recommend listening to John Lennox:
John Lennox against the tide in history

 

[Subduction Zone]

For you I’d recommend listening to John Lennox:
John Lennox against the tide in history

But John Lennox is not a valid source for this. He is not a biblical scholar. He is a mathematician. This is an appeal to false authority fallacy. If you wanted to argue math he would be an excellent source. If you want to argue about the Bible he is not better of a source than I am and I am the first to admit that I am not a source.

You are making a common mistake here. You found a well respected scholar and tried to use him as a source, but he is not an expert in the Bible. You might as well tried to use him as a source on tuning one's car.

 

[Trailblazer]

Them "not knowing the difference" is not why they do it

I know. They have to say I am making a claim so they can say I have the burden of proof.
But I am making no claims so I have no burden.
The burden is theirs if they want to know the truth about God and a Messenger of God.

 

[ElishaElijah]

But John Lennox is not a valid source for this. He is not a biblical scholar. He is a mathematician. This is an appeal to false authority fallacy. If you wanted to argue math he would be an excellent source. If you want to argue about the Bible he is not better of a source than I am and I am the first to admit that I am not a source.

You are making a common mistake here. You found a well respected scholar and tried to use him as a source, but he is not an expert in the Bible. You might as well tried to use him as a source on tuning one's car.

Here’s a list of Bible scholars:
List Of Bible Scholars - Believers Portal
Is this your criteria, to accept any of these scholars and their views?

 

[stvdv]

I know. They have to say I am making a claim so they can say I have the burden of proof.
But I am making no claims so I have no burden.
The burden is theirs if they want to know the truth about God and a Messenger of God.

True

Feels much lighter, doesn't it
No need to explain nor to defend

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know. They have to say I am making a claim so they can say I have the burden of proof.
But I am making no claims so I have no burden.
The burden is theirs if they want to know the truth about God and a Messenger of God.

As several posters here have pointed out when anyone makes a claim they have a burden of proof. You probably know that I could easily go through this thread and pick out post after post explaining this to you. No one has to say that you are making a claim when you do. Your claims have been quoted to you time and time again and you try to falsely say "That is a belief". And no, it is not a just a belief when you try to use it in an argument.


I wish that I could make a quick flow chart. If you are having a discussion or an argument with anyone and you post something as support that is a claim. If you simply say "I believe . . . " that is a belief. Beliefs are not evidence for anything. Except for what is going on in one's head. There is no problem with having a belief. The problem arises when one tries to justify that belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here’s a list of Bible scholars:
List Of Bible Scholars - Believers Portal
Is this your criteria, to accept any of these scholars and their views?

Do you think so? I doubt if it is. Do you not see the rather obvious error that exists without clicking on the link? It says that your source is "Believers Portal". That indicates to me that they are only interested in people that believe. Such sources tend to include people that are not scholars and ignore the scholars that disagree with them.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Do you think so? I doubt if it is. Do you not see the rather obvious error that exists without clicking on the link? It says that your source is "Believers Portal". That indicates to me that they are only interested in people that believe. Such sources tend to include people that are not scholars and ignore the scholars that disagree with them.

So, do you accept these scholars or just the ones that support your views? Why would I accept a biblical scholar who wasn’t a believer? But to be fair, all scholars were unbelievers at some point in their lives, meaning nobody is born saved.

 

[firedragon]

The Gods. They act through me. I'm only riding in the chariot seat.

Okay. So for God to act "through" you, you should exist right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, do you accept these scholars or just the ones that support your views? Why would I accept a biblical scholar who wasn’t a believer? But to be fair, all scholars were unbelievers at some point in their lives, meaning nobody is born saved.

When it comes to being used as evidence I will accept any scholar as a source that publishes in well respected professional journals. The odds are that most of your source's "scholars" are just Christian apologists, or in other words, liars for Jesus.

I think that you may be projecting a bit here since you do not seem to accept anyone that does not follow your particular interpretation of the Bible.

 

[ElishaElijah]

When it comes to being used as evidence I will accept any scholar as a source that publishes in well respected professional journals. The odds are that most of your source's "scholars" are just Christian apologists, or in other words, liars for Jesus.

I think that you may be projecting a bit here since you do not seem to accept anyone that does not follow your particular interpretation of the Bible.

How many interpretations of the Bible are true? Am I considered an apologist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many interpretations of the Bible are true?

What do you mean by "true"? I cannot answer for sure until then. But the answer is likely to be "None".

 

[ElishaElijah]

What do you mean by "true"? I cannot answer for sure until then. But the answer is likely to be "None".

Have a good day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have a good day.

That's it? You are likely to be wrong so you run away? That is not cool.

 

[ppp]

I did not say that only the original person making a statement can make a claim.
I said that *I* am not making a claim.

Almost all of the sentences where you say you are not making a claim fit the definition that you

It is an interesting problem of when a belief becomes a claim. Let's us say I believe in human rights and some other beliefs and based on that I believe a person needed to go to prison for a crime. I don't demand that you believe like me and I accept that you believe differently but if enough people believe like me, the person will go to jail. If you consider the example you will notice I don't have to claim that the person is wrong or what not. But rather that I believe that I don't like what the person did and I would use force to place the person in prison.

Do beliefs become claims? I don't see any necessary connection between the two.

 

[The Hammer]

Okay. So for God to act "through" you, you should exist right?

A corporeal manifestation needs to exist. Not "me" per se.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is circular. It would be like someone claiming to be the messenger of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because he lives according to the gospel of the FSM. Drinks a lot of beer and dresses like a pirate, among other things.

It is obvious that claiming to behave according to what God X Scriptures say, does not increase at all the likelihood, nor the plausibility, of having been sent by God X. Same thing if said Scriptures are written after the fact.

ciao

- viole

No, it is not circular.

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

I did not say God exists because Baha’u’llah is a Messenger of God and I did not say Baha’u’llah is a Messenger of God because God exists.

Logically speaking, one has to look at the Messenger in order to know if He was a Messenger
That's why I said that the best evidence by which we can judge an alleged Messenger is the following:

1) Their Person (their character, as demonstrated by the life they led)
2) Their Revelation (the history, which is what they accomplished on their mission from God)
3) Their Words (the words that were attributed to them in scriptures, or what they wrote)

Of course the scriptures were written after the fact. How could they have been written before the fact?
Baha'u'llah wrote His scriptures after He received communication from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you state a personal opinion on the internet, expect to have it attacked. Not questioned, not constructively challenged, not considered then politely rejected: expect it to be attacked, probably brutally.

That seems to be the nature of the beast online. I agree that it's a shame.

That's true, but not everyone attacks other people's beliefs. Some people are actually polite and respectful even if they do not agree with my beliefs. It's all about the person.