Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Best answer ever.
That would be confusing reality with science fiction movies.
The problem with the reality within the reality within the reality is that the atheists takes a special pleading perspective of being able to discern that it is so. If not, then how does he come to this conclusion? And if it is just sheer speculation, then there's no need to entertain it seriously.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
You and me are simultaneous dreams in dream world.
In whose dream?
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Aliens can create man out of test tube, they can also create universe by sneezing.
OK, I take it that you are not interested in serious dialogue, just jesting around. If that is so, let's end it.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
That would be confusing reality with science fiction movies.
The problem with the reality within the reality within the reality is that the atheists takes a special pleading perspective of being able to discern that it is so. If not, then how does he come to this conclusion? And if it is just sheer speculation, then there's no need to entertain it seriously.
Same thing. You are speculating you are all knowing and your god's bible is all truth.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
OK, I take it that you are not interested in serious dialogue, just jesting around. If that is so, let's end it.
OK i take it that you are think seriously that your understanding is flawed and just assuming your information is correct.
Seriously your God story is a cool story bro.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Again, Tcmc did admit that objective truth exists. Think about it: To say that there is no objective truth is already to presuppose there is, otherwise that claim is irrational."
You'd still insist Tcmc conceded when its you who got the context confused...
"I did not raise any bar. I made clear what is meant by feet firmly planted in mid-air. Your magnetic levitation and aeroplane do not fit at all and it misses the point. But ASSUMING that I grant your examples, does it mean relativism is true. Of course not."
It apparent you did just no so to your good self. Anyway told you its was your strawman, this relativism but you choose to argue all the way. Applause for your effort.
"Why the lack of obligation or incentive to ask where the laws of nature come from? Is it because you do not wish to see that the answer is ultimately philosophical, even theological but not scientific? Sciences cannot go beyond and ask why there are natural laws or who establish them is because that's beyond the capabilities of science. But that just mean that science is limited, we do not need to be limited in the same way. We can always ask further. To do science one has to PRESUPPOSE the existence and uniformity of these laws."
I'd inquired from my preferred source just not obligated to share it. You, however seemed to have an agenda on teaching your perceived rightness of things so no stopping you there.
"But if I was right about an argument being a series of statements then why were you so reluctant to affirm it? You were wrong not merely because of my insistence that I am right, but because your error has been shown. An argument is NOT a statement (singular) but a series of statements (plural)."
"My first example was that my BELIEFS changed over time, but not the objective truth about my religious position in 1990. Same too with durians example. The objective truth is that I like durian in 1990 but hate it in 2000. My tastes changed but the truth did not. It would be objectively wrong to change it to say that I hate durian in 1990 but love it in 2000, that would be contradictory to the facts in the example."
How can you be so confused... your 1st example was the Singaporean, the 2nd was your beliefs. These and your other examples does not fulfill your definition of objective truths.
"OK, you were right, you were the one who said that God was cruel. This is what you said, "So are you saying the other lifeforms suffered mortality because of one man sin? Conclusion: God is cruel to impose such suffering to other lifeforms on the 1st mistake that man supposedly made." So you are telling me that you were NOT making a moral judgement about God being cruel but just stating something neutral? I don't see how you can maintain this. The point is that people with a properly working moral compass all agree that being cruel is morally wrong. But now you said it is neither good or evil?"
Let you be the judge so show me the laws or definitions pertaining to cruel as being morally wrong in this particular context. I assert again, I did not make any moral judgement when I said God is cruel to the other lifeforms. If you want to pass judgement please refer to law or definition else its just bias and prejudice.
"I know what the definition of troll is, I am challenging YOUR accusation that the mere emotional response you have to my talking about your kids is tantamount to trolling. Mind you I wasn't even badmouthing them. But I am willing to let this pass so that we can move on."
It questions your intention of refering to my kids when you could have done perfectly without. Very reasonable question. If you not willing to explain, I'll take it that I can exercise the priviledge make your mom references.
"Concerning the "chewing the cud" issue, what critical ambiguity are you talking about really? As mentioned ad nauseum to you, the context was about the kind of animals that are considered unclean to the Israelites. They were to eat only those that chew the cud AND have divided hoofs, but not if only one of the conditions were met, as with the rabbit and coney."
The description "chewer of the cud" can be left out if it was as you claimed. However, if its written it would mean to use the description to identify. You had cloud the description with an ambiguity thats critical for identification. I'll take it as you just don't know whats "chewer of the cud" means.
"Whether you insult me or my alleged hypocrises, the fact is that you DID insult. But like I said, I am not going to continue this slugfest, though you have trampled and spit on my olive branch that was extended to you, justifying that as a refusal to compromise."
I did insult your hypocrisies and I'm proud of it. I trample on hypocritical formalities as well.
"You are CONFUSED between treating the Bible as a science textbook and using the Bible to inform our scientific study of the world. The Bible is NOT a science textbook. It is a HISTORY book as it tells us about beginnings, and also a futuristic one as it informs us of the end to come."
The bible is not, but those people ARE taking it as science text, making scientific references to it ALL the time.
"Yes, I find it hard to believe that you are not here to win arguments. If you were that conscious of tearing down your opponent's fallacies, then why are your posts peppered with such fallacies as well, to the extent that you mocked me for not pointing out more which you committed? Pretty inconsistent, aren't you?"
Its just your bias or your unwillingness to concede. These does not concern me, only logic and truth does. You really don't understand these fallacies as a tool to test an arguement do you?
"And whether you intend to insult mother or not, I'm going let it pass. If you did not, then your conscience is clear. And if you did, I'm letting it go and choosing not to hold it against you. So you have absolutely nothing to lose and is walking out of this. A good deal really, win win for you."
You are implying that I could have insulted your mother when you cannot even define it. I was not even involved in the insulting in the 1st place. Where from I walk away? But you did accused me of insult. Judge and you shall be judged upon.
FACT: Tcmc DID concede that objective truth exist. And that means relativism is false.
My agenda is clear, to show by that there are good reasons to think that theism is true and atheism is false.
I saw that coming, that you would qualify your "statement is an argument" thingy.
My examples of objective truths cannot be faulted. It's not my confusion at all. Objective truth is that which corresponds to reality, independent of feelings, time etc etc.
Then what were you trying to say when you said God was cruel? No different from saying that you like the colour of red?
Of course I could have chosen not to mention your kids. But does the mere mention of them amounts to trolling? Like I said, if you don't like the mention of your kids, just say so. No need to accuse others of trolling. In any case, I am happy not to talk about them or bring them into the discussion since it is a sensitive spot for you.
The Bible was not written by me, not up to me to leave out "chew the cud" just because critics have issues with it, issues that are not really issues at all.
I do take note of your delight and pride in insulting your opponent. Your accusation of hypocrisies are just that, accusations.
While the Bible is not a science textbook, it does speak on things in the real world, so why can't the Bible be used to inform the way we do science? Or history? Or archaeology?
It's OK to own up to your own fallacies which I pointed out. No need to sound so defensive that you were merely testing things out lah.
You did insult. And you were proud of it. Nuff said.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Same thing. You are speculating you are all knowing and your god's bible is all truth.
Which part of my post have me saying I am all knowing?
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
OK i take it that you are think seriously that your understanding is flawed and just assuming your information is correct.
Seriously your God story is a cool story bro.
That God is creator is more than just a cool story, but I believe it is the truth about the cause of our universe's existence. It is far more logical and rational as an explanatory answer than your aliens.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
That God is creator is more than just a cool story, but I believe it is the truth about the cause of our universe's existence. It is far more logical and rational as an explanatory answer than your aliens.
Same problem as explained earlier.
You are judging based on your own ruler.
Taking a rib out of a man to create a woman is as illogical as alien farting out humans. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Which part of my post have me saying I am all knowing?
Your defence in which you dismiss the possibility of alien, this reality being part of a fragment of another reality.
Saying that the fantasy in old testament is tantamount to truth.
It takes a lot of conviction to believe in aliens, God, or this reality being part of a fragment of another reality.
Using non-related historical events that does not show any proof of God's existence is just as good as writing a fantasy based on a historical event.
Seriously, you can always assume "truth until founded false" or "false until founded truth" stance and all other atheist-related religions can just as easily dismiss your notions as you can do to theirs.
If you assume false until founded truth, then God don't exist, because all the events are not proof of existence.If you assume truth until founded false, then aliens exists, alternate realities exist because you cannot prove its non-existence.
Geddit? Seriously, if you want to argue about Darwin's theory of evolution as wrong, we can just go on scientific to scientific comparisons. However, arguing a spiritual or religious belief is like playing bang balls. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
There are a host of problems in an atheistic worldview based on philosophical naturalism that are self-refuting. The following includes a few examples:
1. The consistent atheist says there is nothing immaterial. Those who say otherwise can’t be atheists, as that would allow God, who is immaterial (John 4:24), to possibly exist. But this means that logic cannot exist either as it is immaterial (i.e., abstract). Logic has no mass and is universal (even the universe obeys the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction). Being made in the image of a logical God who created and sustains the universe makes sense. Of course, many people do not perform logic correctly. That is because we have lived in a sin-cursed world ever since Genesis 3. Our fallible, imperfect minds do not always correctly “think God’s thoughts after Him.” But in the atheistic viewpoint, how can one maintain that there is no immaterial and yet refer to the immaterial at the same time in the same relationship? Information is immaterial, Truth is also immaterial. Love, hate, sadness, and all other emotions are immaterial.
2. The consistent atheist says the universe came from nothing, is going to nothing, and nothing matters (i.e., no purpose). So why debate the subject of God, the Bible, Christianity, and so on (why have this purpose)? In other words, how can one have purpose and have no purpose at the same time in the same relationship?
3. The consistent atheist says there is no morality (since there is no God who sets an absolute standard of morality). Yet many atheists say there are some absolute moral standards, such as not to murder.
4. Science comes out of a Christian worldview where God upholds the universe in a consistent fashion (e.g., Genesis 8:22; Hebrews 1:3). And God, who knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10; Revelation 22:13), has declared that this consistency will be the same in the future until the end (Genesis 8:22), so we have a basis to do science since things like the laws of nature should not change (i.e., allowing repeatable and observable science). But why would that be the case in an atheistic evolutionary worldview? How can one know things won’t change tomorrow? Furthermore, how can one know that one accident could explain another accident? There is no basis for science in an atheistic worldview. How can one have no basis for science and yet do science?
Bottom line: Unbelievers must borrow from the biblical worldview to make sense of the world. They must betray their professed worldview and stand on the Bible’s truth to argue for atheism and oppose the Bible!
1. Reasonable atheists would tell you that there is no god as per current evidence and lack of evidence. They will also tell you that if future evidence does show up suggesting an invisible being, of course atheists will believe in him/her/it. You should know that atheists go by empirical evidence. But there is no empirical evidence of an invisble being "in the sky" as of now. Believe I have told you this before. There is evidence in logic, in the words we say, the thoughts in our head produced by brain activity (neurons, signals, chemical ). I am not well versed in brain activity but if you really are keen, you can always speak to a doctor or a neurologist about how logic (thoughts, consciousness) come about. ANd the empirical evidence I believe is consistent among the medical pratictioners who study the brain . However, there is no empirical evidence of an invisible being up there. People from all over the world claim to have seen, felt, experienced gods, deities and goddesses. But all their accounts and "evidence" are inconsistent. Also, there is no way to measure this invisible deity. So currently, due to lack of evidence and inconsistency, we conclude that there isn't any invisible being up there.
2. Many other religious book also offer the same version as the bible. ALso, you love to pick one not-very-obvious verse that "seemingly" sounds scientific but when we ask you about the unscientific verses in the bible, you quickly churn up lots of excuses and reasons, like how a donkey can talk and a man in a fish. CHerry pick where science is applicable?
3. Oh no, you are seriously delusional. I have never met an atheist who believes there is no morality. However, many atheists do believe that much of morality is SUBJECTIVE to culture, tradition and society and in one society it might be ok to commit infanticide or genocide (the isralites), but in another, frowned upon. And from what I know there are many christians in prisons.
4. Again, your euqation is flawed. You are lazy. Just because something is complex, you automatically relate it to someone out there doing it. Why dont you take some real effort to read about other theories? Something complex =/= Someone did it.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Really? Please show again the verses that God lied.
- Note that sending someone to lie or deceive on your behalf is also considered lying, morally speaking.
- 1 Kings 22:23
- Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
- 2 Chronicles 18:22
- Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
- Jeremiah 4:10
- Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
- Jeremiah 20:7
- O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
- Ezekiel 14:9
- And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11
- For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
- Note that sending someone to lie or deceive on your behalf is also considered lying, morally speaking.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Same problem as explained earlier.
You are judging based on your own ruler.
Taking a rib out of a man to create a woman is as illogical as alien farting out humans.Exactly what do you mean by judging based on my own ruler? What and Whose ruler should be used then?
Why would God creating a woman from the rib of a man be considered illogical?
BTW, if you don't even believe in aliens, much less their ability to fart out humans, then I would appreciate it if you don't just invoke aliens to parody my beliefs. I mean, are you looking for a serious discussion or not? If not, let's end it.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc did admit that objective truth exists, and that's the objective truth!
Using magnetic forces to hold you up (as substitute for wires) is not planting your feet in mid air. The same goes for using the law of aerodynamics to make planes fly. Nice try but no cookies. But I suppose you did not go one step further and ask why do these laws of nature exist and who established them?
Your definition of objective truth is grossly inadequate. Objective truth is that which really is, independent of place, time, feelings, perceptions etc. It refers to facts that are independent of whether anyone believes in them or not. As mentioned before, you have confused matters of beliefs (which can change over time) with matters of truth (which does not change over time). Both examples I gave were examples of objective truth which you failed to see.
But if I was right about an argument being a series of statements then why were you so reluctant to affirm it? You were wrong not merely because of my insistence that I am right, but because your error has been shown. An argument is NOT a statement (singular) but a series of statements (plural).
Why accuse me of causing confusion when Tcmc was the one who said God was cruel? Like I said, I was only asking Tcmc to justify her moral stance since atheism provides no basis for moral judgement.
Regarding being cruel see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty
Why would eliciting an emotional response from you when talking about things you value personally be tantamount to trolling? Is that even the defintion of trolling? Whatever happened to other defining factors, like being inflammatory?
My link more than just specified about ruminant or refection concerning the issue of cud chewing. Again the text is not teaching the how to of identifying animals that chew the cud, it is about telling the Israelites not to eat the rabbit or coney.
What false compromise are you talking about? Are you denying that you ever insulted me? I'm just telling you that we were both guilty of that and move on. But it seems that you prefer to continue hostilities.
Facts that back up my claim that creationists do not treat the Bible as a science textbook can be found on these main creationist sites in the following http://creation.com/but-genesis-is-not-a-science-textbook or http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/can-creation-models-be-wrong
It is a fallacious appeal to motive that you accuse me of pointing out your fallacies to win the argument whereas you make out yours to be so noble sounding. But even if true, it does not invalidate the fact that you committed fallacies in your reasoning, which calls into question the soundness of your arguments. Not only that it amounts to you committing the fallacy of appeal to motive.
Whatever re the last point. Slugfest not entertained.
BIC
I think you got me wrong.
I forgot what we were discussing but my point was, truth is very subjective.
What is true to you is not true to me and vice versa.
Even within christianity and among christians, truth differs according to individual, denomination, cell group, church.
And I have shown you how even christians truths are subjective to the denomination, culture etc.
I gave you an example which you refuse to admit on how christians livign 300 years ago see cremation as a sin because they believe that cremation affects the resurrection and therfore salvation. but christians today dont see that as truth anymore.
Christian truths do change and are also subjective.
Even 50 years ago, many christians saw it true that rock music (even christian rock) is satanic. Today? most contemporary churches play rock music, even the hardcore rock onnes.
It is not that their interpretation is wrong. YOU think that their interpretation is wrong. It is you who fail to stand in their shoes to see that that was truth to them. It is you who fail to see that christian truths do change and are subjective to culture too.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Your defence in which you dismiss the possibility of alien, this reality being part of a fragment of another reality.
Saying that the fantasy in old testament is tantamount to truth.
It takes a lot of conviction to believe in aliens, God, or this reality being part of a fragment of another reality.
Using non-related historical events that does not show any proof of God's existence is just as good as writing a fantasy based on a historical event.
Seriously, you can always assume "truth until founded false" or "false until founded truth" stance and all other atheist-related religions can just as easily dismiss your notions as you can do to theirs.
If you assume false until founded truth, then God don't exist, because all the events are not proof of existence.If you assume truth until founded false, then aliens exists, alternate realities exist because you cannot prove its non-existence.
Geddit? Seriously, if you want to argue about Darwin's theory of evolution as wrong, we can just go on scientific to scientific comparisons. However, arguing a spiritual or religious belief is like playing bang balls.1. As mentioned, the belief in aliens is based on belief in evolution. If evolution is false, then so is the belief in aliens. What then about those supposed allegations of alien sightings, alien abductions, and space-ships? Well, there is another interpretation, if interested see http://www.alienintrusion.com/main.html
2. Saying that the OT is fantasy is a question-begging epithet.
3. I'm not talking about how much conviction you have of anything, convictions being pretty subjective and you seem to make it sound just all in the head or due to the sincerity of belief. I'm talking about whether God exists, not how strong your convictions are. The strength of one's convictions does not determine the existence of anything.
4. Why must it be either "true unless proven false" or "false unless proven true"? It's a false dilemma. There must always be good reasons to believe something is false or true. Events that happen must have a cause. The universe must have a cause. What is that cause? You only have two choices, God, or the universe made itself. And if you still want to invoke aliens just for the fun of argument, note that these aliens are still part of the universe and cannot be the cause of the universe.
5. I will be happy to argue evolution with you, if you want. But please know that evolution is not devoid of metaphysical presuppositions and assumptions. If you think it is pure science then you are purely wrong, and I will be happy to show you why.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Exactly what do you mean by judging based on my own ruler? What and Whose ruler should be used then?
Why would God creating a woman from the rib of a man be considered illogical?
BTW, if you don't even believe in aliens, much less their ability to fart out humans, then I would appreciate it if you don't just invoke aliens to parody my beliefs. I mean, are you looking for a serious discussion or not? If not, let's end it.
hmmm.... why would God creating a woman from the rib of a man be considered logical?thats real interesting.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
hmmm.... why would God creating a woman from the rib of a man be considered logical?thats real interesting.
Bible also mentions unicorns and dragons. :)
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. Reasonable atheists would tell you that there is no god as per current evidence and lack of evidence. They will also tell you that if future evidence does show up suggesting an invisible being, of course atheists will believe in him/her/it. You should know that atheists go by empirical evidence. But there is no empirical evidence of an invisble being "in the sky" as of now. Believe I have told you this before. There is evidence in logic, in the words we say, the thoughts in our head produced by brain activity (neurons, signals, chemical ). I am not well versed in brain activity but if you really are keen, you can always speak to a doctor or a neurologist about how logic (thoughts, consciousness) come about. ANd the empirical evidence I believe is consistent among the medical pratictioners who study the brain . However, there is no empirical evidence of an invisible being up there. People from all over the world claim to have seen, felt, experienced gods, deities and goddesses. But all their accounts and "evidence" are inconsistent. Also, there is no way to measure this invisible deity. So currently, due to lack of evidence and inconsistency, we conclude that there isn't any invisible being up there.
2. Many other religious book also offer the same version as the bible. ALso, you love to pick one not-very-obvious verse that "seemingly" sounds scientific but when we ask you about the unscientific verses in the bible, you quickly churn up lots of excuses and reasons, like how a donkey can talk and a man in a fish. CHerry pick where science is applicable?
3. Oh no, you are seriously delusional. I have never met an atheist who believes there is no morality. However, many atheists do believe that much of morality is SUBJECTIVE to culture, tradition and society and in one society it might be ok to commit infanticide or genocide (the isralites), but in another, frowned upon. And from what I know there are many christians in prisons.
4. Again, your euqation is flawed. You are lazy. Just because something is complex, you automatically relate it to someone out there doing it. Why dont you take some real effort to read about other theories? Something complex =/= Someone did it.
1. Please make up your mind. Are you saying that the current evidence prove there is no God, or are you saying that there is lack of evidence for existence of God? If it is the former, please share what are these evidence you speak of that prove that God does not exist. You said atheists go by evidence and logic as if to insinuate that theists do not. And I have told you before, empiricism fails on its own standards, do you have empirical evidence that empiricism is true? No you don't. And empirical evidence is NOT the determinant of whether something exists or is true. You said that brain activity explains logic, really? Then how do you know that brain activity explains logic, because those very same brain activities tell you? How you know that's true? See your problem? Conclusion: The lack of evidence is not conclusion of non-existence.
2. What other religous books offer the SAME version of the Bible? BTW, is science applicable to everything? If you think it is, then you should know that you have not left religion but simply exchanged one for another, scientism.
3. You are seriously confused. I said it before and for the umpteenth time I am NOT saying that atheists have no morals or do not affirm morality. I am saying that their atheism CANNOT account for the existence of moral values. And what has many Christians in prisons got to do with this anyway? What's your point? It's a red herring you are throwing. The apostles were also thrown into prison, but what did that prove? Jesus said that those who believe in Him would face persecutions and be thrown into prisons.
4. Again you are intellectually lazy to actually read what I wrote. When did I argue that complexity means someone did it? I was talking about the basis for science, that atheism does not supply any of it. In fact, theism was the basis for modern science.
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
hmmm.... why would God creating a woman from the rib of a man be considered logical?thats real interesting.
Because God CAn create a woman out of a rib just as he can create man from dust, or speak the universe into existence. What's so illogical about that?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
I think you got me wrong.
I forgot what we were discussing but my point was, truth is very subjective.
What is true to you is not true to me and vice versa.
Even within christianity and among christians, truth differs according to individual, denomination, cell group, church.
And I have shown you how even christians truths are subjective to the denomination, culture etc.
I gave you an example which you refuse to admit on how christians livign 300 years ago see cremation as a sin because they believe that cremation affects the resurrection and therfore salvation. but christians today dont see that as truth anymore.
Christian truths do change and are also subjective.
Even 50 years ago, many christians saw it true that rock music (even christian rock) is satanic. Today? most contemporary churches play rock music, even the hardcore rock onnes.
It is not that their interpretation is wrong. YOU think that their interpretation is wrong. It is you who fail to stand in their shoes to see that that was truth to them. It is you who fail to see that christian truths do change and are subjective to culture too.
Just answer me this, is your statement "Truth is very subjective" meant to be the objective truth about truth? If yes, thank you for conceding the existence of objective truth. If not, then why should anyone think your statement is true?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
- Note that sending someone to lie or deceive on your behalf is also considered lying, morally speaking.
- 1 Kings 22:23
- Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
- 2 Chronicles 18:22
- Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
- Jeremiah 4:10
- Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
- Jeremiah 20:7
- O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
- Ezekiel 14:9
- And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11
- For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Now you qualify your statement and give a twist to your earlier declaration that God lied which goes against the clear Bible teaching that God cannot lie, does not lie, never lies (depending on what translation you read from).
But your shoot first approach to Bible passages that trouble you is woefully flawed. Did you even read up on how Christian apologists have answered it? Do you do the due dilligence to find out more in the first place? I doubt so.
http://informationaboutgod.com/articles/Bible/lying.php
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lyingghosts.html
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/686-does-god-condone-lying
- Note that sending someone to lie or deceive on your behalf is also considered lying, morally speaking.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Bible also mentions unicorns and dragons. :)
And so?
Unicorns simply means "one horn" and the Bible is not to be blamed if all you can think of is the white horse with the one long horn sticking out of its forehead. Again the fault is your lack of due dilligence. See http://creation.com/the-unicorn
Dragons? I believe the word "dragon" is simply a pre-1841 word for dinosaur. Again the fault lies with your lack of due dilligence. See http://creation.com/dragons-animals-not-apparitions
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Because God CAn create a woman out of a rib just as he can create man from dust, or speak the universe into existence. What's so illogical about that?
If going by your explaination, Sun wukong came out of a rock. 8 Immortals crossed river. Nu wa created human from mud and clay, pan gu created earth. All these are also true. Nothng illogical about it. -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
But we all know that it is a fact that christianity is copied or adapted from Judaism.
It is a branch of Judaism.
Jews, followers of Judaism view christianity as a deviant branch.
A fact? Are you talking about fact as in objective truth, or is that just true for you but not for me? Anyways....
Christianity and Judaism share the same OT Scriptures. Not surprising since Jesus was a Jew. So Christianity has Jewish roots. But this does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity copied from Judaism. Like that I can also argue that atheism copied or adapted from theism by taking all the affirmative statements in theism and simply negating it. You buy that? See http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-Christianity-Judaism.html
But then again, people makes all sorts of allegations that Christianity copied from other religions. But such allegations commit the genetic fallacy, the error of trying to disprove a belief by tracing it to its source. See http://creation.com/was-christianity-plagiarized-from-pagan-myths
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
If going by your explaination, Sun wukong came out of a rock. 8 Immortals crossed river. Nu wa created human from mud and clay, pan gu created earth. All these are also true. Nothng illogical about it.The issue isn't about the logic of it, but the truth of it. While being logical does not mean it is true, being true certainly includes being logical. A true statement is always logical, but a logical statement is not always true. Geddit?