How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Muffled]

The Bible is just man's word. We can show clear places in it where the authors made mistakes. It appears that you are claiming that God is incompetent.

I believe it is the inspired word of God. There is no evidence that man is the sole source.

I believe God is competent but He allows mistakes. We see the mistakes as authentication that the text is not fiction because fiction writers would edit out the mistakes.

 

[Muffled]

thank you for the info. I will have to relay this on to our Jewish members since they appear to be ignorant of this fact.

I believe most Jews know what Christians believe but they do not believe it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe it is the inspired word of God. There is no evidence that man is the sole source.

I believe God is competent but He allows mistakes. We see the mistakes as authentication that the text is not fiction because fiction writers would edit out the mistakes.

There is no evidence of all that a God was involved. At least none that I have seen. I have seen many endless mistakes by believers in their claims when it comes to this.

 

[metis]

I believe Jews do not have the Holy Spirit to guide them into the truth.

Didn't God care about any humans anywhere on Earth before 2000 years ago? How about those today who don't know much of anything about Jesus?

 

[Audie]

I believe that would be anything short of God's perfection.

Well then. Welcome to the club you invented.
Of course, perfection is impossible,
so you've concocted a grossly insulting
word to describe everyone.
What does that accomplish?

 

[Audie]

I believe the Bible is factual.

I believe Jews do not have the Holy Spirit to guide them into the truth.

The flood story is obviously not factual.

The unicorns, zombies, talking animals etc?
Factual?
Surely you are joking.

 

[F1fan]

The Bible is better than history.

Better for personal religious beliefs, not better for knowledge. Everyone can benefit from learning more history.

Historians have been known to lie but God never does.

Historians actually exist, no God is known to exist. Don’t confuse religious texts that refer to God as if factual. There is no case for that assumption.

 

[dybmh]

Breaking up a post excessively shows that you are not reading it and understanding it. If you are responding to each and every sentence instead of trying to understand the point the whole post will sail over your head.

Your post was riddled with false claims. Each deserved a response.

What you do not seem to understand is that to fix the obvious contradictions of omnipotence and omniscience is that you have to limit those two powers when it comes to your version of God. That means that your solution to the self contradictions is to make God neither. Ironically that is supporting those arguing against the concept.

Where am I limiting omnipotence and omniscience?

What is MY version of God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your post was riddled with false claims. Each deserved a response.

No, it wasn't. At best you were just denying. You never "refutes" anything.

Where am I limiting omnipotence and omniscience?

What is MY version of God?

Where you limit omniscience has been explained to you quite a few times. You seem to have a problem understanding it. Your silly book analogy was a foolish game where you stopped God's omniscience at a person's points of decision. That is limiting God's omniscience. It is too bad that you cannot understand this. It appears to be a case of cognitive dissonance on your part. Almost everyone else can see this.

As to what your version of God is you are now trying to use a strawman argument. I never claimed to know all of the details of your version of God. I have no ideas how many different ways that you screwed up logically. I can only comment on the parts of your beliefs that you have made obvious.

 

[dybmh]

That is merely confirmation bias. It is not confirmation. If one only counts the hits but does not count the misses then that does not count as evidence. And please, when you do not understand how your arguments display your own extremely "shallow limited mental capabilities" you should not accuse others of it.

It all depends on which god nd how it is understood. If a person is imagining human forms in the clouds you are correct. If not, then you're wrong.

What valid evidence do you have of God? Confirmation bias does not count. In your test you must be willing to accept both positive and negative results.

Anochi Hashem. From that produces a moral system which I have found to be always true 100% of the time. Essenitally colonization+domination produces evil actions. But the same root causes that produce these can be adapted into something good and useful and productive in the right context. And even if colonization+domination occur, this can be used as a negative role-model further producing good which eventually defeats colonization+domination. Almost everything that exists operates this way with very few exceptions. But those exceptions are also explained by "Anochi Hashem".

What I'm describing is objectively true, and testable. If any tryannt throughout history is analysed it follows the model. Future tyranny can be predicted and avoided. If any hero throughout history is analysed it follows the model. Future heros can be predicted and encouraged. All those in between the extremes can be encouraged to be heros when they can be, and to avoid being tyrannts when they can be. The triggers for tyranny among all those in the middle can be predicted and proactively avoided. The triggers for heroism among all those in the middle can be predicted and proactively encouraged.

The world becomes a good place, as God intended, and technically, already is.

 

[dybmh]

No, it wasn't. At best you were just denying. You never "refutes" anything.

Where you limit omniscience has been explained to you quite a few times. You seem to have a problem understanding it. Your silly book analogy was a foolish game where you stopped God's omniscience at a person's points of decision. That is limiting God's omniscience. It is too bad that you cannot understand this. It appears to be a case of cognitive dissonance on your part. Almost everyone else can see this.

As to what your version of God is you are now trying to use a strawman argument. I never claimed to know all of the details of your version of God. I have no ideas how many different ways that you screwed up logically. I can only comment on the parts of your beliefs that you have made obvious.

As I said, a person's point of decision permits them to traverse between the different interconnected branching timelines. All of these timelines are known by God per omniscience. All of the consequences of each choice are known. But because the timelines are all included in the same "book" the individual, like a reader can place themself in any of the predetermined timelines.

If you don't know the details of MY version of God, woud you please stop making reference to it?

 

[dybmh]

thank you for the info. I will have to relay this on to our Jewish members since they appear to be ignorant of this fact.

No, we don't have The Christian Holy Spirit. And our truth is not their truth. But that doesn't prohibit love, respect, and cooperation.

~Nods to @Muffled ... you know what I'm talking about, right?~

 

[dybmh]

no God is known to exist

this has been proven false. your denial is part of the proof. Politics, politics has many gods. You cannot deny it and remain honest and consistent.

 

[F1fan]

this has been proven false. your denial is part of the proof. Politics, politics has many gods. You cannot deny it and remain honest and consistent.

Your fringe definition is not in the context of what I wrote so irrelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, a person's point of decision permits them to traverse between the different interconnected branching timelines. All of these timelines are known by God per omniscience. All of the consequences of each choice are known. But because the timelines are all included in the same "book" the individual, like a reader can place themself in any of the predetermined timelines.

If you don't know the details of MY version of God, woud you please stop making reference to it?

And if God was omniscient he would know which timeline that the person would take. You are just trying to move the problem down the road, but your solution is to say "God does not know this". That is limiting his omnipotence. In other words you are solving the problem by making God not omniscient.

 

[Subduction Zone]

this has been proven false. your denial is part of the proof. Politics, politics has many gods. You cannot deny it and remain honest and consistent.

Oh really? There is proof of a god. Please put up or shut up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, we don't have The Christian Holy Spirit. And our truth is not their truth. But that doesn't prohibit love, respect, and cooperation.

~Nods to @Muffled ... you know what I'm talking about, right?~

That did not sound very respectful to me. But whatever floats your boat.

 

[F1fan]

Oh really? There is proof of a god. Please put up or shut up.

On another thread he used the definition of god where some people are overly absorbed by a celebrity or athlete and call them a god. This is not the religious definition of god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On another thread he used the definition of god where some people are overly absorbed by a celebrity or athlete and call them a god. This is not the religious definition of god.

In other words he has to redefine terms. He demotes the idea of omniscience to try to refute the fact that if a God is omniscient and omnipotence that God is responsible for everything it appears that he has to demote the concept of God to claim that one exists. That appears that to be more than a bit blasphemous to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Absurd, how can you know anything about something you can't detect?

I don't need to detect God to know about God. I can know God through the Messenger of God, who is the Intermediary between God and man..

All of your religious belief is guessing that you believe is true.

No, it is not guessing. I don't base my life on guesses.

The evidence you cite is not adequate for critical thinkers, as we explain to you over and over again.

I already know that, but so what?

Who says scriptures are reliable? Only those who want to believe. They are highly flawed to use as evidence for what they claim.

As I said before belief has nothing to do with wants. I believe the Baha'i scriptures are reliable but I am not using them for evidence of what they claim.

Your religious beliefs are all based on assumptions. I understand you want to reject this fact.

That is not a fact, it is an opinion. I reject it because it is not true.

That's too bad, science is what is relable for knowledge.

That's too bad, science has no knowledge of God.

And by you. And by everyone on earth.

I know God exists, but 'how I know' is not something you are privy to.

You told me. And you have no evidence that you are correct.

I have no proof but I have evidence.

Your standards are very low, and not at the usual stadard for logic, law, and academics.

The standards of evidence for God are not the same as the standards for logic, law, and academics.
Any logical person would immediately know why, and I would not need to explain it.

That isn't knowledge, it is belief based on assumptions the Messengers are genuine. They have written nothing that suggests they had any contact with a God. You have bad belief, not knowledge. That you have to inflate your claim that you have knowledge indicates you are defensive about the weakness of your beliefs.

My belief is based upon certitude that the Messengers are genuine. What Baha'u'llah wrote suggests to me that He got a revelation from God.
I did not say I have factual knowledge but I have knowledge according to #2. below.

knowledge;

1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

knowledge means - Google Search

It's not good enough, as has been explained to you over and over again. It just doesn't sink in.

It's good enough for me, as has been explained to you over and over again. It just doesn't sink in.

Of course it is comforting, why else would people believe in any religious framework except for the personal benefits and mental rewards?

Evidence.

That is why your belief is questionable. Why assume revelations are true?

Evidence.

Whether your language is that you believe they are factual or you assume they are factual still means they aren't factual or true. Facts are demonstrably true. Truth is demonstrated, it isn't believed. You want your beliefs to be valid, but you don't have adequate evidence. Sorry.

It means they aren't factual but it does not mean they are not true. All truth is not factual, only proven truth is factual.
Religious truth is believed, not demonstrated.
My beliefs are valid for me because the evidence is adequate for me.

Why would a person want this? Not when the ideas lack evidence.

They don't lack evidence.

It's not convincing. There is nothing he wrote that suggests he was in contact with a God. Not credible.

Not convincing to you.
Nothing that suggests to you that he was in contact with God.

You could be mistaken.

I'm not worried about that.

Your evidence is not credible. You have no argument.

Not credible to you. No argument that works to convince you.

Well, you haven't.

Fine.

But you don't have adequate evidence for anyone who isn't biased.

My evidence is adequate for anyone who is not biased.

So what, you have low standards. You want to believe this stuff.

I have high standards. I don't want to believe this stuff. I believe on evidence.

It's ideological truth, not factual truth.

It's God's truth, not factual truth.

I have high standards, you have low standards.

I have my standards, you have your standards.

No, I am considering your claims and they are weak. That is your dilemma.

I have no claims, I have beliefs. Baha'u'llah was the one with claims. I believe His claims.
I have no dilemma since I am sitting pretty with the truth about God and reality.

I'm not interested in the personal motives of believers, I'm interested in the evidence. That's because I seek truth, not dogma. If a person wants to explain why they want to believe, and what their bias is, let them be honest and share it. That won't mean that critical thinkers will be sympathetic and agree to believe. Frankly it's odd that you try to apeal to emotions like this when we explain to you that it's about evidence.

It's about evidence, it's about evidence, it's about evidence, it's about evidence....
But logically speaking you do not know anything about God so you CANNOT KNOW what evidence for God would be if there was any.

Believers have low stndards. Critial thinkers have high standards.

Fallacy of hasty generalization and fallacy of black and white thinking.

That is why believers believe in ideas that are not true and factual.

Believers believe in what is true but not factual.

That is what studies reveal. No one comes to a rational conclusion that a God exists due to facts and reasoning, they believe for personal and social reasons.

I came to a rational conclusion that a God exists due to facts and reasoning.
I do not believe for personal or social reasons.

Objectivity is about skilled thinking, not personal perspective.

Your personal bias precludes skilled thinking.

Yes it is. God isn't part of physical reality.

God isn't part of physical reality but physical reality is only a very small part of reality.

What you think Messengers are is not factual.

So what?

Atheism isn't a claim or argument, it is the natural default of intellectual thought concering the idea of god.

So what?

You offer no rational basis for your assumptions and beliefs.

Nothing that you consider rational.