Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Did you know?

1. The Bible gives just enough to trust Jesus and just little enough for mockers to leave, unconverted. I'm just trying to help.

2. Biblical Hebrew has a limited wordset. Round and spherical are there, elliptical or 11.5 degrees of axis are not there!

3. Ever since I was a child, I loved planetarium visits, where they draw imaginary lines to show the paths of the planets around the Sun, for from a viewer's perspective in space, the Earth is just . . . sitting there . . . in blackness.

4. I don't cherry pick to see the Earth is round and also not on pillars. I've investigated the pillars controversy in some depth. I've seen multiple plausible alternate explanations.

You ignored three more questions. Consider your post ignored.

 

[Polymath257]

That isn't what I asked you. I asked you whether you feel someone who hates Jesus and is Christian in name should still be called a "Christian", that is, a follower of the Christ.

That isn't the classical definition of a 'Christian'. The *usual* definition of a 'Christian' is someone who believes that Jesus was God incarnate and died for the sins of the world.

So, yes, I would say such a person is Christian by the accepted definition. This is especially true since, being God, Jesus is someone a mere human *cannot* follow, bu they can believe in.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm glad you acknowledge that the passage doesn't necessarily imply that the Earth is spherical.


... or on pillars?

Job 9:6:
he who shakes the earth out of its place so that its pillars tremble

Psalms 75:3:
When the earth and all its inhabitants dissolve in fear, I make its pillars secure.

1 Samuel 2:8:
For the foundations of the earth are the Lord’s;
on them he has set the world.


Tell us the one you think best demonstrates this. Be specific.

I can't tell you only one good one, when there are hundreds. Eat only shellfish and pork and tell your doctor what you're doing. Don't wash before cooking or wash pots after. Leave fecal matter out in the open. Drain the blood from people to help them. Work seven days always until you die of a heart attack.

There are hundreds of Bible laws that have benefit. The greatest is "Trust Christ".

 

[BilliardsBall]

And you maintain the position that OWNING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AS PROPERTY is morally acceptable if you treat them well enough while denying them their freedom.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

You asked a loaded question, not realizing that biblical slaves (indentured servants) could walk out and leave. The question was whether they could find food and shelter elsewhere. Consider the medieval feudal economy and the relationship of castle lord to the folks near the castle . . .

I'm trying to say you are finding I lack Christian fruit. What Christian fruit do you seek in me?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Someone who exhibits traits that you think go against Christ's message can still follow Christ based on their understanding.


That's basically the position of the Catholic Church, so you certainly wouldn't be alone in taking it.

Yes, someone can exhibit traits that I think are non-biblical and still follow Christ. This I notice often, blessing brothers and sisters who completely disagree with me on doctrine but claim the Bible as their life guidebook.

What I asked was whether you would say a person is following Christ closely while hating Jesus Christ. Examples:

Am I a Nazi if I say, "I hate Hitler and wish he was dead!"

Am I a Christian if I say, "There is no God, and I never shall read the Bible or set foot in a church again!"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Just giving credit where it is due, many claims in the Bible were once written off as 'religious pseudoscience' before being validated beyond reasonable doubt.

They may have all been lucky guesses, but I think there are less improbable explanations

How does the Bible make a lucky guess and get correct:

*The precise day of Jesus's crucifixion

*The precise day of the restoration of Israel and its manner

*Hundreds of facts about human behavior that are all wholly true (Proverbs) and etc.

I would love to spend less time on religious forums but the Bible is true.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How does the Bible make a lucky guess and get correct:

*The precise day of Jesus's crucifixion

*The precise day of the restoration of Israel and its manner

*Hundreds of facts about human behavior that are all wholly true (Proverbs) and etc.

I would love to spend less time on religious forums but the Bible is true.

I don't think anyone can read it with an open heart and not find many things that resonates deeply, but having that open heart is easier said than done.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You asked a loaded question, not realizing that biblical slaves (indentured servants) could walk out and leave.

That's not a slave. The slave would be the one taken into captivity against his will, has his labor stolen from him, loses his freedom and dignity, is beaten and at times to death, and has his family sold away.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, someone can exhibit traits that I think are non-biblical and still follow Christ. This I notice often, blessing brothers and sisters who completely disagree with me on doctrine but claim the Bible as their life guidebook.

What I asked was whether you would say a person is following Christ closely while hating Jesus Christ. Examples:

Am I a Nazi if I say, "I hate Hitler and wish he was dead!"

Quite possibly. Whether a person was a Nazi was based on party membership.

It's also quite possible for someone to have supported the principles of National Socialism while also thinking that Adolf Hitler wasn't the best person to achieve them.

Am I a Christian if I say, "There is no God, and I never shall read the Bible or set foot in a church again!"

Not really what we're talking about, is it? How many of those people consider themselves "followers of Christ"?

Most of our difference of opinion about who is and isn't a Christian has to do with people who love God, read the Bible, and attend church... but just interpret the Bible's message and God's will differently from you.

Tell you what: you list what you think are the essential traits of a Christian, then I'll give some examples of established Christian churches that violate them. Sound good?

 

[Willamena]

That's not a slave. The slave would be the one taken into captivity against his will, has his labor stolen from him, loses his freedom and dignity, is beaten and at times to death, and has his family sold away.

Slavery isn't necessarily against one's will, a loss of dignity, nor a hardship--it depends on the culture and what one considers to be one's place in the world and in society. I would say that the relevant characteristic is a lack of freedom, rather than loss of freedom, and an attitude of surrender.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How does the Bible make a lucky guess and get correct:

*The precise day of Jesus's crucifixion

*The precise day of the restoration of Israel and its manner

Come again?

*Hundreds of facts about human behavior that are all wholly true (Proverbs) and etc.

Wholly true is pushing it, and the ones that are true are generally unremarkable. If they point to a divine author, then so do fortune cookies.

You asked a loaded question, not realizing that biblical slaves (indentured servants) could walk out and leave.

Not only did I not realize this, but it seems the American Bible Society didn't realize this either:

http://bibleresources.americanbible...ants-in-the-time-of-jesus-history-and-culture

BTW: indentured servants were just one class of slave in the ancient world. Other classes of slave - e.g. foreigners captured in war - had no way to buy their way to freedom.

The question was whether they could find food and shelter elsewhere. Consider the medieval feudal economy and the relationship of castle lord to the folks near the castle . . .

So you're defending feudalism now?

I'm trying to say you are finding I lack Christian fruit. What Christian fruit do you seek in me?

I don't seek anything from you. So far, you've offered nothing that I'm interested in.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Slavery isn't necessarily against one's will, a loss of dignity, nor a hardship--it depends on the culture and what one considers to be one's place in the world and in society. I would say that the relevant characteristic is a lack of freedom, rather than loss of freedom, and an attitude of surrender.

You've just described a slave as a confined and defeated individual who volunteered for that life, or was born into it but consents to it (I guess that's what distinguishes "lack of freedom" from "loss of freedom") - a life he would say preserves his dignity and which he doesn't consider a hardship - with no mention of the theft of his labor, beatings, the loss of rights, or the selling of his family.

You said that "it depends on the culture." What culture were you thinking of with that definition?

 

[leibowde84]

If you don't believe in gods, you logically believe that no gods are more likely than gods. Keep on proving my point there champ!

This is just patently false. There are plenty of people who do not believe in any gods ("lack belief in the existence of gods") yet do not believe that no gods are more likely than gods or visa versa. Many merely do not have a belief either way. But, because they certainly "lack belief in the existence of God/gods", they qualify as "atheist".

Which do you believe is more likely: that there are 0 gods or 1+ gods? Now sure I get that you're an agnostic atheist, that's totally possible. I myself am an agnostic theist, at least for now still. But if you find the above question is a coin flip then you're simply an agnostic, no atheism or theism because you have no belief either way. It sounds to me like you're agnostic, but it's not for me to tell. There are both reasons for an agnostic to pretend to be an atheist and visa versa.

I don't believe that either is more likely. I don't have access to enough evidence to make such a conclusion currently.

 

[leibowde84]

Incorrect, I just have noticed most arguments you see online from atheists are dishonest or simply illogical.

Can you give a couple of examples?

 

[Willamena]

You've just described a slave as a confined and defeated individual who volunteered for that life, or was born into it but consents to it (I guess that's what distinguishes "lack of freedom" from "loss of freedom") - a life he would say preserves his dignity and which he doesn't consider a hardship - with no mention of the theft of his labor, beatings, the loss of rights, or the selling of his family.

You said that "it depends on the culture." What culture were you thinking of with that definition?

I was primarily thinking of the Netflix series "Marco Polo," in which Marc becomes a slave in Kublai Khan's court, but it's just one of many examples I've read about in my time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think anyone can read it with an open heart and not find many things that resonates deeply, but having that open heart is easier said than done.

Is that your answer to my question regarding "How does the Bible get so many facts and prophecies 100% correct?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is that your answer to my question regarding "How does the Bible get so many facts and prophecies 100% correct?"

Before asking how this claim could be true, it would be prudent to establish whether this claim is true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*Hundreds of facts about human behavior that are all wholly true (Proverbs) and etc.

Do you think this is "wholly true"?

Proverbs 12:21:

The righteous do not encounter any harm,
but the wicked are filled with calamity.

Do you agree with the Bible that good people don't suffer and that calamity is a sign of wickedness?

 

[Polymath257]

Is that your answer to my question regarding "How does the Bible get so many facts and prophecies 100% correct?"

Well, it doesn't. It, like many ancient writings, has a 'wisdom literature' that addresses the hopes and fears of the people at the time. Such literature is collected by experience and observation. And it is often wrong (yes, even in the Bible).

Prophesies are uniformly vague and twisted to fit later facts. There was no *specific* prophesies that would pass even the least skeptical test.

If you want a *real* prophesy, I will say that there will be an eclipse of the sun visible across the continental US on August 21,2017. Times for the eclipse have been calculated for various locales down to the minute.

This can be contrasted to a 'prophesy' that says 'a young woman will have a child who will shake the world'. Do you see the difference? One is specific in several different ways. The other is vague, trivial, and says whatever the listener wants to hear.

Biblical 'prophesies' are of the latter sort.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is that your answer to my question regarding "How does the Bible get so many facts and prophecies 100% correct?"

So I guess that you don't like having your questions ignored any more than those whose questions you ignore like it. Can you learn anything from that?

Incidentally, in my case, most questions to you are rhetorical in nature, meaning that your non-answer is an answer - one of equal value to one that is not credible. You can expect me to post about your evasions. Once you choose that path, the next step is to make it explicit for the benefit of those who forgot about the question being ignored. Your strategy relies on nobody noticing what you are doing.