The Bible - Why Trust It

[nPeace]

That’s what I said. However, you’re attempting to substitute scholarship with arrogance. And you’re right: the result is a dumpster fire.

Have it your way. There. Feel better. Stop the crying then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

primitiven means childish??? Spout Spout. Where do I find that other than what is spouted here?

Seems pretty synonymous to me.
One is just a somewhat nicer way to put it. It means pretty much the same thing though.

I am not going to post an answer and explanation to a question, only to have someone repeat their own false idea about what I meant. If you already know what I meant, or the reason for my saying something, then why ask? What sense does it make to ask a person why they said something, and when they give the answer, you continue as though they said nothing?

Projecting much?
Sounds like every question you have ever asked about biology etc and your reactions to the answers received.

If you already know, and can speak for others, then what is the purpose of the other person speaking?
If someone did that to you, how do you think you would feel? I hope it would make you feel as sick as it makes me feel. That level of arrogance is... ugh .

Uhu. Like when certain theists think they an speak for all atheists. Indeed, very annoying.

I am not dishonest. I tell the truth. If I am wrong, I admit it,

Ow, you mean like that time where you said this:

Who said God created individual species?
Did God make Caucasians, and then make dark skinned people, and then...? Have you read the Bible Hubert?

And then went into 6-7 pages of denial after plenty of people pointed out your error?​

and this can be seen from my posts here on RF

The opposite seems to be true...

If you claim you don't see it, then I suggest it is because, you don't want to.
Some people don't seem to have a humble bone remaining in them, so that they even want persons to agree with anything they say - wrong or right.

The irony is almost painful

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, that is not Christian faith. It's not my faith

Except that it is - by definition.

You are free to demonstrate otherwise.

Perhaps it is yours, since you believe whales evolved from four footed creatures

here we go again.....

, based on rock hardened bones with nostrils and ear remnants, that says absolutely nothing.

It might not say anything to uneducated folks like yourself, how would barely even recognize the difference between a reptilian jaw and a mammalian tailbone.



psssst: not a single fossil is required to be able to determine the fact that whales are mammals and share terrestrial ancestry with other mammals. All you need is some comparative anatomy analysis and a few sequenced genomes to be used in a genomic comparative analysis. That alone proves terrestrial mammal ancestry of whales. But sleep tight. You may enter denial mode again.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Ditto.

I don't feel the need to push Unitarian Universalism on anyone, nor do I care if anyone joins. Pointing out lies/flaws in a religion is not a bad thing, so your need to pretend yours is the only "true" or perfect one is a waste of time.

 

[sojourner]

Have it your way. There. Feel better. Stop the crying then.

See?


Dumpster fire.

 

[nPeace]

@TagliatelliMonster

Except that it is - by definition.

By whose definition? Sadly. Yours.

You are free to demonstrate otherwise.

Certainly, I will demonstrate it.
I believe, and have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.
Is it based on evidence? Certainly.

I believe and have faith in God.
Is it based on evidence? Certainly.

Christian faith is described in the Bible, as... the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

I haven't seen the sun rise tomorrow, but I have evidence it will.
I have not physically seen God, but I have evidence, he is.

 

[nPeace]

I don't feel the need to push Unitarian Universalism on anyone, nor do I care if anyone joins. Pointing out lies/flaws in a religion is not a bad thing, so your need to pretend yours is the only "true" or perfect one is a waste of time.

I don't know where you got that from, but I think you are

...and I really don't know, what for.

 

[Goodman John]

I think the message in my posts that is getting lost is that I don't believe it's God doing those horrible things to Man recounted in Genesis- or in the OT overall. I believe the story was written to APPEAR as if God was visiting all sorts of evil upon Man, but in reality it was Satan (masquerading AS God) who is responsible for the destructive and deadly events, from first to last. I simply do not believe God- who I believe to be the ultimate in goodness and grace- would do such things to Man for any reason, and certainly not commit mass murder and order his people to commit genocide on others. These are the hallmarks of Satan, not of God. That Satan has managed to fix in your minds that it is God, and not he, who is the greatest mass murderer of all time is a testament to his deceit and cunning.

Think of this: If a man shoots up a place of business, or a kid shoots up a school, killing dozens- are we to accept his explanation that 'they were wicked so they had to die'? No, of course not. Why on earth, then, do you give "God" a pass when he clearly- and on multiple occasions- violates one of the commandments given to Man: Thou shalt not kill. I certainly don't give God a pass for mass murder- it's not God who is responsible: it's Satan, in the guise of God. And no, I don't give Satan a pass for it, either.

 

[sojourner]

@TagliatelliMonster

By whose definition? Sadly. Yours.


Certainly, I will demonstrate it.
I believe, and have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.
Is it based on evidence? Certainly.

I believe and have faith in God.
Is it based on evidence? Certainly.

Christian faith is described in the Bible, as... the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

I haven't seen the sun rise tomorrow, but I have evidence it will.
I have not physically seen God, but I have evidence, he is.

State the quantifiable, objective and observable evidence, Plz. As you stated, your saying so doesn’t make it so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster

By whose definition? Sadly. Yours.

By definition of what "religious belief" is.
By definition of what "religion" is.

Certainly, I will demonstrate it.
I believe, and have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.
Is it based on evidence? Certainly

Ow boy... talk about an equivocation fallacy.
This is using "faith" in an entirely different way. Here, it means reasonable expectation based on understanding and demonstrable knowledge.

After all, our knowledge about the mechanics of orbits around the sun and rotations of the planet are such that we can actually calculate with ridiculously extreme precision when sunset/sunrise will happen in any given spot on the planet. Or other planets, for that matter.

To equate that with religious faith, is beyond ridiculous.

I believe and have faith in God.
Is it based on evidence? Certainly.

It's not.

It's based on claims in a book that are just being believed.

In analogy with your previous "example" of "faith", this is the equivalent of saying "I have faith that the sun will NOT rise tomorrow because the undectable farie army is going to halt the rotation of the earth"

Christian faith is described in the Bible, as... the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

Hoped for and not seen. Exactly. It is just assumed / hoped that it is there, eventhough it can't be seen. So it's blind. It's.... just believing, in spite of having no actual evidence.

I haven't seen the sun rise tomorrow, but I have evidence it will.

But our understanding of the mechanics of the solar system are such that we can calculate with extreme precision when the sun will rise standing on any given spot on the planet. Or other planets.

I have not physically seen God, but I have evidence, he is.

You do not have any evidence.

If you disagree, you can show me the equivalent of being able to calculate to extreme precision when sunrise will take place in any given place on any of the planets in the solar system.




All in all, this was extremely disappointing. All you got is false analogy based on an equivocation fallacy.
It was, off course, expected, that you wouldn't have anything valid to say though.

Because religious belief by definition invokes faith because there is no evidence, because the claims can't be accepted based on their own merrits.

 

[sojourner]

Christian faith is described in the Bible, as... the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
(Heb. 11:1 — NRSV)

“Conviction” And “evident demonstration” aren’t the same thing. Faith is “conviction,” not “demonstrable reality.” You’re twisting the text.

[edit]
The passage you quote is from the Watchtower, whose scholarship is at best dubious. We do not recognize it as a valid translation. As you can see, in this instance, it represents a radical departure from the intended meaning of the text. JW publications are notorious for this kind of subterfuge. JW common perspective also likes to pretend that you all are “scholars” on the same level as peer-reviewed, published researchers. You are not. I now understand your arrogance posing as scholarship. It won’t work; it won’t fly here.

 

[nPeace]

I think the message in my posts that is getting lost is that I don't believe it's God doing those horrible things to Man recounted in Genesis- or in the OT overall. I believe the story was written to APPEAR as if God was visiting all sorts of evil upon Man, but in reality it was Satan (masquerading AS God) who is responsible for the destructive and deadly events, from first to last. I simply do not believe God- who I believe to be the ultimate in goodness and grace- would do such things to Man for any reason, and certainly not commit mass murder and order his people to commit genocide on others. These are the hallmarks of Satan, not of God. That Satan has managed to fix in your minds that it is God, and not he, who is the greatest mass murderer of all time is a testament to his deceit and cunning.

Think of this: If a man shoots up a place of business, or a kid shoots up a school, killing dozens- are we to accept his explanation that 'they were wicked so they had to die'? No, of course not. Why on earth, then, do you give "God" a pass when he clearly- and on multiple occasions- violates one of the commandments given to Man: Thou shalt not kill. I certainly don't give God a pass for mass murder- it's not God who is responsible: it's Satan, in the guise of God. And no, I don't give Satan a pass for it, either.

I understand what you believe. That doesn't answer my question though. Do you mind answering it?

 

[nPeace]

@TagliatelliMonster
I extracted the only useful part of your post.

This is using "faith" in an entirely different way. Here, it means reasonable expectation based on understanding and demonstrable knowledge.

After all, our knowledge about the mechanics of orbits around the sun and rotations of the planet are such that we can actually calculate with ridiculously extreme precision when sunset/sunrise will happen in any given spot on the planet. Or other planets, for that matter.

So because you know the sun rises and sets, does not mean you know it will do so tomorrow, or the next day. You require faith.
The same way you require faith that the seed you plant, will grow anything.

I have reasonable expectation based on understanding and demonstrable knowledge that there is a creator.
Both are evidence based. There are no differences.

 

[nPeace]

State the quantifiable, objective and observable evidence, Plz. As you stated, your saying so doesn’t make it so.

With you!!!?
No way Jose. I am not doing this.

Spoiler

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
(Heb. 11:1 — NRSV)

“Conviction” And “evident demonstration” aren’t the same thing. Faith is “conviction,” not “demonstrable reality.” You’re twisting the text.

[edit]
The passage you quote is from the Watchtower, whose scholarship is at best dubious. We do not recognize it as a valid translation. As you can see, in this instance, it represents a radical departure from the intended meaning of the text. JW publications are notorious for this kind of subterfuge. JW common perspective also likes to pretend that you all are “scholars” on the same level as peer-reviewed, published researchers. You are not. I now understand your arrogance posing as scholarship. It won’t work; it won’t fly here.

Same difference B.
Greek eʹleg·khos - bringing forth evidence that demonstrates something.
Greek eʹleg·khos; Latin ar·gu·menʹtum - Evident demonstration, convincing evidence.

You are an expert, so it should be easy for you to do your own research.

 

[nPeace]

@TagliatelliMonster I actually forgot to mention...
So since you don't see no whales morphing from four legged creatures... You have faith in it.
Have a good day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@TagliatelliMonster
I extracted the only useful part of your post.


So because you know the sun rises and sets, does not mean you know it will do so tomorrow, or the next day. You require faith.
The same way you require faith that the seed you plant, will grow anything.

I have reasonable expectation based on understanding and demonstrable knowledge that there is a creator.
Both are evidence based. There are no differences.

I see that the concept of faith still eludes you since the "faith" that the Sun will rise and set is nothing like the "faith" in the Bible. Now you are guilty of an equivocation fallacy.

By the way, if you had "reasonable expectation" you would be able to demonstrate it. So far you have utterly failed at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@TagliatelliMonster I actually forgot to mention...
So since you don't see no whales morphing from four legged creatures... You have faith in it.
Have a good day.

This is a falsehood, a personal attack, and it pretty obvious breaking of the Ninth Commandment. It is also a dishonest description of the evolution of whales. It is rather far from Christian behavior. By your weak standards almost every murderer convicted in a court of law has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why I keep harping on the concept of evidence and why creationists continually run away.

One simply cannot understand the concept of evidence and be an honest creationist. At that time one has to openly lie. And I guess just a general feeling that one is lying is excusable for creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@TagliatelliMonster

By whose definition? Sadly. Yours.


Certainly, I will demonstrate it.
I believe, and have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.
Is it based on evidence? Certainly.

I believe and have faith in God.
Is it based on evidence? Certainly.

Christian faith is described in the Bible, as... the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

I haven't seen the sun rise tomorrow, but I have evidence it will.
I have not physically seen God, but I have evidence, he is.

And what is that "evidence"?

 

[sojourner]

And what is that "evidence"?

Yeah, the poster wouldn’t answer me, either. The claim of “evidence” apparently cannot be shared with us “swine.”

 

[sojourner]

With you!!!?
No way Jose. I am not doing this.

Ha! I’m not surprised. IOW, you don’t really want to debate, you just want to preach, like your buddies.

Same difference B.

No. It’s not the “same difference.” What we know that, apparently, you don’t, is that translation involves much more than transliteration. It’s a subtle twist of words that means something entirely different. It’s like the placement if a comma that will change the meaning of a sentence, even though the same elements are there.

You’re word-mongering, just like your ilk always do. Your argument seems reasonable, but it isn’t at all, once it’s parsed out.

You’ll have to do much, much better. No one’s buying it.