Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
296

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m going to offer you your debate on your own ground. This gentleman, referenced by me in the Noah’s Ark thread, has issued a challenge. He is using your very own Bible for most of his arguments therefore, his “credentials” are irrelevant and you lose yet one of your arguing points. Craft your reply. Debunk him. Save Christianity. May I make a prediction? You cannot.

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html[/quote]

He says Jesus never claimed divinty yet in John 10:30 “the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Jesus failed to perform miracles: Wine to water, raising the dead, casting out demons, healing the leper, healing the blind man, etc.

Fails to gain accounts: Josephus wrote of Jesus

Failure to recruit a family member: His brother James was an apostle

Trinity- Jesus had a dual substance, being fully man and fully God. Jesus, the man, was just that, a man. No man has power except through God. Jesus was also fully God. He had all the powers God the Father has.

Jesus was schizophrenic- impossible to diagnose based on what was written about him. We would first have to know what Jesus actually thought.

Resurrection- Jesus’ disciples often preached his resurrection to their death (Peter, Thaddeus, both James, Bartholemew, Thomas, Simon, Phillip, Andrew, and Paul). Seems unlikely they would have preached resurrection to the death had they just made it up. Paul tried to have Christian executed and gave up a high place in society to preach Jesus resurrection to the death while exhorting his audience to question the no fewer than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus with him.

And that’s just to scratch the surface.[/quote]

You sir, are the drive by artist. Read the entire argument, with references. You apparently don’t know your bible as rigorously as you would have us believe. If you can refute it by simply “scratching”, I suggest you step up to the task at hand and put together your thesis under the rules of engagement laid out. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Or is it you’re the type of person to request rigorous debate and argument from someone else, but not provide it yourself? I cosign the basic arguments in that link. You want to “debate” me? Refute them under the rules of engagement. Let me save you the time; you or the other poster here, can refute the arguments in their entirety. Hence my earlier comment to you that this age old “debate” will bear no fruit.

298

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Without the Sun vegetation would’ve died of pretty much instantly. So, millions of years or one hour, it wouldn’t have mattered.[/quote]

Sloth, this is so nonsensical I’m just going to leave it sitting there, naked in all its embarrassment.

Maybe plant life in Montana works differently than where you’re at but EVERY SINGLE NIGHT up here it gets dark for more than one hour and sure enough when the sun rises the next day the plant life seems to have done just fine.[/quote]

You can’t compare a night, where the sun has radiated heat upon the earth during the day (trapped in the surface and the atmosphere), to a period of creation where there’d never been a sun to warm the earth (regardless of the existence of earth and atmosphere).

299

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I’ve made this point several times in the past myself. To some extent, even the scientific minded still have to rely on faith. How do you know evolution is real? Have you ever examined the fossil records yourself? Do you have any knowledge on DNA structures, biology, bio-chemistry, geology, etc.? If not, then you really have to go on faith of what scientists have said. Same can be said of the universe. We know, obviously, that it exists, that the sun is the center of the solar system, that the moon revolves around Earth. How do we know other things? Scientists have told us based on their calculations, but the calculations have been wrong before. Ptolemy, who calculated the Earth to be round, thought it was also the center of the solar system. He created an entire branch of mathematics to explain the irregular revolutions of the planets around Earth. The Sumerians, who with the only the aide of simple mathematics calculated the Great Year, thought the Earth was bowl shaped. When I was a kid we were taught that Cro-magnon man evolved from Neanderthal. Now we are taught differently. So it definitely takes a little faith in what science teaches unless you have personally examined the evidence.
[/quote]

You’re actually making my argument for me.

I have no problem with faith based on the best avaliable information/hypothesis. Pick up any text book from 60 years ago and you’ll find a wealth of misinformation – thats the nature of learning and knowledge, we take our best guess, test it out, keep what works, change what doesn’t. The theory of evolution is far more sound than the theory of spontaneous generation. The theory isn’t perfect, of course. It will be challenged and changed and modified as we learn more.

The problem I have is the fact that Christians are like people with one of those textbooks screaming that it’s right and that it has to be right and everyone who doesn’t agree with it will be punished, despite the fact that all evidence we have now contradicts much of what is in it.[/quote]

Well, my only point was that for those who say they only believe in science, there are very few who could actually explain why they believe what is in a science book. Take a person that believes in the Red Shift. Have they worked out the mathematics to prove it? Have they ever checked scientists work to prove it? Doubtfully, yet they will say a Christian is accepting things on blind faith. Well, if that Christian is going on what somebody told them was in the Bible then, yes. However, if they actually read and studied what is in the Bible then that is different. The bottom line is whether you put your stock in pure religion or pure science there is a degree of faith in either.[/quote]

There is also the option to put full stock in neither. I don’t believe the bible, nor do I believe we have a perfect understanding of our universe. I believe most if not all of what we “know” will eventually be disproven. But, in the case of science, its honestly the best we can do with what we have. In the case of the bible, you have people screaming and threatening when you refuse to ignore all that has been disproven (just read back to when Push TOLD me I’d be standing in front of his God one day… sure sounds like the threat of eternal punishment to me).

Is there a higher power? Are there things we don’t and can’t understand? Sure, I believe that. There are spectrums of light and sound we cant see or hear, but we know they exist. So the issue for me isn’t so much IF stuff is out there, but the fact that one particular interpretation of the metaphysical which makes no sense and has a holy book full of impossible history is so prevalent.

There probably is a higher power out there. I don’t know if it’s sentient. It’s certainly not benevolent. It’s sure as hell not a white man with a big white beard wearing a white robe. It doesn’t choose random groups of people as its “chosen” and burn everyone else. It doesn’t send the creations it “loves” to eternal torment because they happened to be raised Buddhist or Hindu or Baha’i.

I don’t know if there is a God or not. But, if there is, that God is a part of the universe, by virtue of its existing. It doesn’t exist outside of the universe. [/quote]

That’s fine. I can respect pretty much anyone’s beliefs. I believe that most of what science tells us is correct to the best of their knowledge. Obviously, we know more things now than we did 1000 years ago. Some people really act though like you should believe everything science tells you until proven wrong.

When I was a non believer I believed something like the universe itself was God. There were powers in the universe that could be tapped if we had the proper knowledge. I don’t slam anyone over what they believe because they could easily do the same to me.

301

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Without the Sun vegetation would’ve died of pretty much instantly. So, millions of years or one hour, it wouldn’t have mattered.[/quote]

Sloth, this is so nonsensical I’m just going to leave it sitting there, naked in all its embarrassment.

Maybe plant life in Montana works differently than where you’re at but EVERY SINGLE NIGHT up here it gets dark for more than one hour and sure enough when the sun rises the next day the plant life seems to have done just fine.[/quote]

But you appreciate that there might be some problems if the Sun had not been created yet?

edit:

Ah, right so God designed plants to function using photosynthesis, but had them further up his todo list than the stars which produce the light that they need.

Actually, why am I questioning the order at all, because it doesn’t matter since God can do whatever he likes and it doesn’t have to make sense.

304

I think what he did was make the plants at 11:59pm and then quickly made all the stars so they didn’t die off.

305

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Without the Sun vegetation would’ve died of pretty much instantly. So, millions of years or one hour, it wouldn’t have mattered.[/quote]

Sloth, this is so nonsensical I’m just going to leave it sitting there, naked in all its embarrassment.

Maybe plant life in Montana works differently than where you’re at but EVERY SINGLE NIGHT up here it gets dark for more than one hour and sure enough when the sun rises the next day the plant life seems to have done just fine.[/quote]

You can’t compare a night, where the sun has radiated heat upon the earth during the day (trapped in the surface and the atmosphere), to a period of creation where there’d never been a sun to warm the earth (regardless of the existence of earth and atmosphere). [/quote]

Bud, we’ve already established that energy, in fact all energy in the entire universe, had been created the day before, Day 2. So now you’re implying that an Omnipotent God could not have used that energy to sustain plant life for the seconds, minutes or hours that it took for Him to place the sun its present place?

Are you saying the temperature of the earth HAD to have been absolute zero (or -150F or -20F or +15F or whatever temperature you so desire) until the sun was in place? The God that was knowledgeable enough to spin every single thing in the universe in motion couldn’t quite figure out how cause vegetation to survive until the solar system was structured with its gravitational pulls, etc.?[/quote]

It doesn’t say he did any of this. And, since I’m putting aside my own view and reading it literally as a step-by-step account of creation I can’t accept these explanations.

306

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m going to offer you your debate on your own ground. This gentleman, referenced by me in the Noah’s Ark thread, has issued a challenge. He is using your very own Bible for most of his arguments therefore, his “credentials” are irrelevant and you lose yet one of your arguing points. Craft your reply. Debunk him. Save Christianity. May I make a prediction? You cannot.

http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html[/quote]

He says Jesus never claimed divinty yet in John 10:30 “the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Jesus failed to perform miracles: Wine to water, raising the dead, casting out demons, healing the leper, healing the blind man, etc.

Fails to gain accounts: Josephus wrote of Jesus

Failure to recruit a family member: His brother James was an apostle

Trinity- Jesus had a dual substance, being fully man and fully God. Jesus, the man, was just that, a man. No man has power except through God. Jesus was also fully God. He had all the powers God the Father has.

Jesus was schizophrenic- impossible to diagnose based on what was written about him. We would first have to know what Jesus actually thought.

Resurrection- Jesus’ disciples often preached his resurrection to their death (Peter, Thaddeus, both James, Bartholemew, Thomas, Simon, Phillip, Andrew, and Paul). Seems unlikely they would have preached resurrection to the death had they just made it up. Paul tried to have Christian executed and gave up a high place in society to preach Jesus resurrection to the death while exhorting his audience to question the no fewer than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus with him.

And that’s just to scratch the surface.[/quote]

You sir, are the drive by artist. Read the entire argument, with references. You apparently don’t know your bible as rigorously as you would have us believe. If you can refute it by simply “scratching”, I suggest you step up to the task at hand and put together your thesis under the rules of engagement laid out.

Go ahead, I’ll wait. Or is it you’re the type of person to request rigorous debate and argument from someone else, but not provide it yourself? I cosign the basic arguments in that link. You want to “debate” me? Refute them under the rules of engagement. Let me save you the time; you or the other poster here, can refute the arguments in their entirety. Hence my earlier comment to you that this age old “debate” will bear no fruit.
[/quote]

Well, despite the fact that you already have your answer, here is more. Please forgive the fact that I only had time to look at part of it.

Gospel sources- Most scholars agree that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. The Gospels were all written during the lives of their authors. These are still considered primary sources by history standards.

Joseph, the father of Jesus, was the son of Jacob but legally the son of the deceased Heli (Deuteronomy 25:6 references this law)

More is yet to come

309

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Without the Sun vegetation would’ve died of pretty much instantly. So, millions of years or one hour, it wouldn’t have mattered.[/quote]

Sloth, this is so nonsensical I’m just going to leave it sitting there, naked in all its embarrassment.

Maybe plant life in Montana works differently than where you’re at but EVERY SINGLE NIGHT up here it gets dark for more than one hour and sure enough when the sun rises the next day the plant life seems to have done just fine.[/quote]

But you appreciate that there might be some problems if the Sun had not been created yet?

edit:

Ah, right so God designed plants to function using photosynthesis, but had them further up his todo list than the stars which produce the light that they need.

Actually, why am I questioning the order at all, because it doesn’t matter since God can do whatever he likes and it doesn’t have to make sense.[/quote]

We all keep looking at vegetation as being a tree, or bush. Bacteria or algea could be considered vegetation. Those two really do not need the sun to grow.

311

Haha, I guess so.

312

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Without the Sun vegetation would’ve died of pretty much instantly. So, millions of years or one hour, it wouldn’t have mattered.[/quote]

Sloth, this is so nonsensical I’m just going to leave it sitting there, naked in all its embarrassment.

Maybe plant life in Montana works differently than where you’re at but EVERY SINGLE NIGHT up here it gets dark for more than one hour and sure enough when the sun rises the next day the plant life seems to have done just fine.[/quote]

You can’t compare a night, where the sun has radiated heat upon the earth during the day (trapped in the surface and the atmosphere), to a period of creation where there’d never been a sun to warm the earth (regardless of the existence of earth and atmosphere). [/quote]

Bud, we’ve already established that energy, in fact all energy in the entire universe, had been created the day before, Day 2. So now you’re implying that an Omnipotent God could not have used that energy to sustain plant life for the seconds, minutes or hours that it took for Him to place the sun its present place?

Are you saying the temperature of the earth HAD to have been absolute zero (or -150F or -20F or +15F or whatever temperature you so desire) until the sun was in place? The God that was knowledgeable enough to spin every single thing in the universe in motion couldn’t quite figure out how cause vegetation to survive until the solar system was structured with its gravitational pulls, etc.?[/quote]

It doesn’t say he did any of this. And, since I’m putting aside my own view and reading it literally as a step-by-step account of creation I can’t accept these explanations.[/quote]

Keep this up and I’m going to face-palm you.

Yes, it does say He did this. Veggies on Day 3. Suns and moons on Day 4. It’s easy to figure out. You are chaining some kind of anvil of incongruity to your ankle for no good reason.[/quote]

No. I’m talking about the Energy field Greenhouse explanation.

315

Again, just taking the literal approach.