Voddie Baucham Why I Choose to Believe the Bible Part 5

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.
[/quote]

Actually this is incorrect. Well, I am not saying anything on the part you don’t care, but that we can say G-d is a She. G-d is masculine, that is why G-d is referred to in the masculine. Humans and creation are feminine (like Eve from Adam, and the Church from Christ) in nature.[/quote]

I have a question: If woman was created from man, why do human males have far less DNA than females? From a scientific perspective, if women were created from men they should have as much DNA or less than men do. Instead, they have a lot more.

62

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mackk wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mackk wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:

Very interesting, to say the least! I enjoyed how he talks about people who claim to believe in science rather than God. In reality those people are being simply ignorant. Dr. Voddie Baucham Jr. talks about how the Bible never asks for blind faith. People often ask for the Bible to be proven on these boards! but even history can NOT be proven with the scientific method. He is a pastor of the Grace Family Baptist Church, so you all know = ][/quote]

Thanks for the post. That Pastor is fabulous. And he’s basically saying what I’ve repeatedly said on these threads. Science is science and faith is faith. And our faith is really not blind it’s based upon a rich history of strong evidence. As the Pastor puts it: “Eye witness accounts, 66 books almost 2000 years and over 23,000 archeological digs to back it all up.”

But you waste your time posting this on T Nation. The non-believers will not suddenly become believers because of this video. You are simply casting your pearls before swine. They will continue to be blinded by their over blown ego’s and ultimately their own ignorance. And a good verse for them is from Philippians.

Philippians 3:19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things.
[/quote]

Science is a faith in so far as believing breathing oxygen keeps us alive; there is PROOF of scientific validity. There is no PROOF other than abstract BELIEF in religion. If you try and refute this I can’t try and convince you that evidence is evidence…it would be relatively pointless.
[/quote]

Just as it’s pointless to explain to you how confused you are about the word “him” as it is referenced in the Bible regarding God.

And you’re all wet about it being an “abstract belief”. It is no more abstract than any other part of history where evidence is offered up and a logical conclusion is drawn.

Science is science and faith is faith… [/quote]

Sorry…apparently satirical projections of christian misogyny are over your head…and I love the fact you’re justifying religious beliefs with logic…seriously I lol’ed a bit.[/quote]

This coming from someone who doesn’t understand the word “abstract” or how the masculine tense is used in the Bible. Have you read the Bible junior? Or, are you getting all your information from one of your college profs?

I love T Nation, where else can you find 20 year old experts? [/quote]

I use a few big words and suddenly I’m an expert? Wow…it’s pretty easy to impress you.

Ab-stract:
�¢??adjective
1.
thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.

Please explain to me how in referring to religious beliefs as abstract (belief apart from a concrete reality) is incorrect or an improper use of the word? And I think I do understand masculine tense, it refers to god as a MAN, a MALE and at the very least alludes to the fact that MEN are closer to god than WOMEN…Thanks for playing though and sorry to ruin your day by being 20 and holding you to your shitty points.

P.S. Yes I’ve read the bible, and like most human works it has its good parts and its fucked up ones.

63
64

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Yeah, I’ve read similar responses before on this site many times in past debates over the years. When someone posts something from a religious site it’s as if it doesn’t count. Yet, when one wants information about museums he would in fact contact an entity affiliated with museums. If you want to know about Baseball certainly get on a good baseball site. But when it comes to something like biblical archeologial digs by all means DO NOT use any sort of religious affiliated sites that have studied or been involved with those digs…they MUST be biased. Funny stuff. Like I said human beings find a position and then work like the devil (no pun intended) to defend it. No problem.

Hey, I’m not going to convince anyone as I said you can pick apart anything that I post. So go for it.

But I am going to make a hard and fast rule that I’m not going to post back and forth with anyone regarding the Bible who has not actually read the entire Bible. I just don’t consider those people serious. Atheists are usually (not always) young males full of testosterone and head strong. They KNOW there is no God. Anyway the Bible is pretty much the only book that people feel they can critique and pick apart without having actually read it.

Not that I am accusing you or anyone else of not having read the Bible but as I said from this point forward I want to know. [/quote]

Stop labeling everyone that does not comport to christianity an “atheist”. There are other belief systems that recognize “god” or the divine. The reason most people reject biblical sites is because they first accept that the bible is the unerring word of God, and then use that premise to support conclusions. This circular logic is fallacious on its face. It goes something like this; why is the bible right? Answer: because it says so - look right here. And on it goes.

For the record, I have read the KJV cover to cover and it still sits in my nightstand.

65

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I love T Nation, where else can you find 20 year old experts? [/quote]

Yup. It’s the same place you find 50 something year old pseudo-experts. I thought it was just me where you couldn’t refrain from the ad hominem and other fallacious arguments.

66

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Are you kidding me?

Belief in God is blind faith. That’s all you’ve got. You can’t prove his existance and you can’t disprove it. Your faith is amazing, but it is faith.

I think it’s amazing that people can decide to believe something so strongly.

Kneedragger79- I’ve changed my opinion about many things when I discovered I was wrong. Show me evidence of your religion that I can experience with my senses and thus know, and I will happily change my mind again, because honestly, there are some selfish benefits to believing in God and those were nice.[/quote]

Honestly, tell us how its blind faith?

I have said before, evidence is subjective.

I see design in this universe and in life that could not be the result of random chance events. You see improbable random events that occurred from billions of years of time.

I see a fossil record of creatures with similar skeletal structures to humans. You see transitional fossils to humans.

I see a uniqueness in human cognition, separate from all other animals, something that would not have occurred with macroevolution. You see moral evolution.

Shall I continue?

ZEB said it perfectly. It is EVIDENCE. Not cold hard proof. Nothing can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. Since that is the case, we all rely on some sort of faith.

67

Forbes, i can see why ou would conclude that everyone accepts things on faith; many who argue with religious conclusions are guilty of faith based reasoning themselves. However, this doesn’t mean that absolute proof doesn’t exist.

Let me give you an example: you absolutely know that if you stop breathing your body will pass out and we’ve seen with our own eyes that if continued you continue to drive your body of oxygen, you’ll die. This doesnt take faith to accept, you can hold your own breath and pass out to make sure.

Also, if you look under a microscope, you can see the cells that everything is comprised of. We dont suspect that it is, we know. You can also see DNA replicating under the microscope, thus we know that DNA exist. You can look through a telescope and see the rocks on the moon and observe over time that everything is going around the sun.

I 've done all of the above and that’s why i know that my conclusions about these phenomena’s existance are not faith. On the other hiand, i really dont know for sure that global warming is happened.

Also, dont assume that because i suspect something is one way, that i believe it is. There’re somethings i am taking on faith and some that im not. I know the difference. Many people on here apparently don’t.

68

Ps I apologize for the terrible grammar and spelling. I just got an ipad and am not used to it.

69

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Forbes, i can see why ou would conclude that everyone accepts things on faith; many who argue with religious conclusions are guilty of faith based reasoning themselves. However, this doesn’t mean that absolute proof doesn’t exist.

Let me give you an example: you absolutely know that if you stop breathing your body will pass out and we’ve seen with our own eyes that if continued you continue to drive your body of oxygen, you’ll die. This doesnt take faith to accept, you can hold your own breath and pass out to make sure.

Also, if you look under a microscope, you can see the cells that everything is comprised of. We dont suspect that it is, we know. You can also see DNA replicating under the microscope, thus we know that DNA exist. You can look through a telescope and see the rocks on the moon and observe over time that everything is going around the sun.

I 've done all of the above and that’s why i know that my conclusions about these phenomena’s existance are not faith. On the other hiand, i really dont know for sure that global warming is happened.

Also, dont assume that because i suspect something is one way, that i believe it is. There’re somethings i am taking on faith and some that im not. I know the difference. Many people on here apparently don’t.[/quote]

The things you mentioned (such as oxygen deprivation and the observance of cells) doesn’t take away from the argument. We are discussing the existence of God vs other scientific hypotheses that likewise cannot be proven, and instead rely on subjective evidence. Can macroevolution, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the “order” and “design” of life and/or our planet etc etc, be observed and therefore tested?

No.

Therefore, with the evidence we do have, it all depends on how you look at it.

That is what I’m saying.

70

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Ps I apologize for the terrible grammar and spelling. I just got an ipad and am not used to it.[/quote]

Hey, I’ve seen worse. MUCH worse :stuck_out_tongue:

71

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Forbes, i can see why ou would conclude that everyone accepts things on faith; many who argue with religious conclusions are guilty of faith based reasoning themselves. However, this doesn’t mean that absolute proof doesn’t exist.

Let me give you an example: you absolutely know that if you stop breathing your body will pass out and we’ve seen with our own eyes that if continued you continue to drive your body of oxygen, you’ll die. This doesnt take faith to accept, you can hold your own breath and pass out to make sure.

Also, if you look under a microscope, you can see the cells that everything is comprised of. We dont suspect that it is, we know. You can also see DNA replicating under the microscope, thus we know that DNA exist. You can look through a telescope and see the rocks on the moon and observe over time that everything is going around the sun.

I 've done all of the above and that’s why i know that my conclusions about these phenomena’s existance are not faith. On the other hiand, i really dont know for sure that global warming is happened.

Also, dont assume that because i suspect something is one way, that i believe it is. There’re somethings i am taking on faith and some that im not. I know the difference. Many people on here apparently don’t.[/quote]

The things you mentioned (such as oxygen deprivation and the observance of cells) doesn’t take away from the argument. We are discussing the existence of God vs other scientific hypotheses that likewise cannot be proven, and instead rely on subjective evidence. Can macroevolution, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the “order” and “design” of life and/or our planet etc etc, be observed and therefore tested?

No.

Therefore, with the evidence we do have, it all depends on how you look at it.

That is what I’m saying.[/quote]

I don’t think science claims that they know for sure about the existence of God or otherwise and I certainly wouldn’t argue that science could even begin to approach that topic. I’d be really surprised if physicists were able to do more than theorize about the origins of the universe in my lifetime. For this reason, while I will clearly say that religious belief in god is utterly faith based, I wont say that I believe in any particular theory concerning events I can’t prove to myself.

However, to state that science requires as much faith as religion is a mis-understanding of the difference between what scientists theorize and what they know. To say they don’t know anything for sure is wrong; to say science and faith are the same thing is also wrong. There’s a major difference between what scientists have deducted from what they know concerning areas were the error region is unknown, and what they have proven. I don’t take what science has to say in the area of physics theories about the origin of the universe as truth. That would be a glaring leap of faith on my part, in which case you’d be right.

You have to understand that knowing that you can’t know whether or not the Bible or any other religious account concerning a supernatural entity is the truth isn’t the same thing as saying that God doesn’t exist.

All I’m saying is that we can’t know for sure either way.

72

[quote]Oleena wrote:
All I’m saying is that we can’t know for sure either way.
[/quote]

This has always been the truth. I just choose, based on evidence (Not cold hard proof) to believe in the Son of God, and the Scriptures that he has revealed.

73

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
All I’m saying is that we can’t know for sure either way.
[/quote]

This has always been the truth. I just choose, based on evidence (Not cold hard proof) to believe in the Son of God, and the Scriptures that he has revealed.[/quote]

Why do you believe Christian scriptures as opposed to those from other sources? Why about them is more convincing that of the Mormons, Buddhism, Jainism, or any other religion to date?

74

[quote]Mackk wrote:

Ab-stract:
�?�¢??adjective
1.
thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.[/quote]

Which the Bible IS NOT. So learn to apply the word correctly since you seem to know what it means.

Your conclusion is completely untrue and certainly not verifiable by any quality source.

Ah yes the “thanks for playing” nonsense. Well, at least no one can accuse of you being original. As to your standards they seem to be low and easy to meet. But I don’t fault you on that based on your working knowledge of the Bible you are taking the same tack that anyone would who either never read the Bible, or read it and didn’t understand it. You do not understand the masculine as it is used in the Bible and you’ve incorrectly used the word abstract (even though you seem to know what it means) in your reference to the Bible.

I guess what I’m trying to say is get more familiar with the topic before you act like an expert. I bring this up again because I know you were confused regarding my use of the word in reference to you.

I’m glad to hear that you read the Bible I really am. But like most lengthy texts it helps to have some guidance when you read it. This is not a put-down, just good sound advice. As you are making too many errors for someone who allegedly read and understood the Bible.

75

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mackk wrote:

Ab-stract:
�??�?�¢??adjective
1.
thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.[/quote]

Which the Bible IS NOT. So learn to apply the word correctly since you seem to know what it means.

Your conclusion is completely untrue and certainly not verifiable by any quality source.

Ah yes the “thanks for playing” nonsense. Well, at least no one can accuse of you being original. As to your standards they seem to be low and easy to meet. But I don’t fault you on that based on your working knowledge of the Bible you are taking the same tack that anyone would who either never read the Bible, or read it and didn’t understand it. You do not understand the masculine as it is used in the Bible and you’ve incorrectly used the word abstract (even though you seem to know what it means) in your reference to the Bible.

I guess what I’m trying to say is get more familiar with the topic before you act like an expert. I bring this up again because I know you were confused regarding my use of the word in reference to you.

I’m glad to hear that you read the Bible I really am. But like most lengthy texts it helps to have some guidance when you read it. This is not a put-down, just good sound advice. As you are making too many errors for someone who allegedly read and understood the Bible.

[/quote]

The problem with your last argument is that you assume the person helping you interpret the Bible understands it better than you do. Generally, the other people interpretting it only have a better understanding of the historical reasons behind some things that are ordained in the bible and the reasoning behind actions: they cannot tell you exactly what GOD meant any better than you figure for yourself. They may say that they can, but generally someone else has told them what to think before they got to you, so they’re guessing as well. Also, there’s no way of knowing if the people who wrote the bible got it right. They certainly got a few things wrong (concerning the way the universe works). We can’t know for sure what spiritual things they got wrong. To say we can is a lie.

76

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I love T Nation, where else can you find 20 year old experts? [/quote]

Yup. It’s the same place you find 50 something year old pseudo-experts. I thought it was just me where you couldn’t refrain from the ad hominem and other fallacious arguments. [/quote]

BG you are the biggest clown on this site bar none. I’ve seen you attack people for no reason on a regular basis. You rarely make sense or draw logical conclusions. Basically you’re a fraud of the highest order (as I told you weeks ago). If you don’t like my posts refrain from reading them. I try not to respond to your stupidity. I usually don’t even read your posts because you add NOTHING to this site. From this point forward I’ll put you on ignore so that I’m not even tempted to read your retort (as there is always a retort – Right Mr. last word?)I’ll leave you with a final idea - go back to the sex thread where you came from and tutor people on how to make porno. After all isn’t that what you’re known for? A 45 year old guy who likes to teach 20 somethings how to make porno - Nice!

Really go crawl back under your rock I cannot think of even one person who will miss you around here.

Zeb

77

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mackk wrote:

Ab-stract:
�??�??�?�¢??adjective
1.
thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.[/quote]

Which the Bible IS NOT. So learn to apply the word correctly since you seem to know what it means.

Your conclusion is completely untrue and certainly not verifiable by any quality source.

Ah yes the “thanks for playing” nonsense. Well, at least no one can accuse of you being original. As to your standards they seem to be low and easy to meet. But I don’t fault you on that based on your working knowledge of the Bible you are taking the same tack that anyone would who either never read the Bible, or read it and didn’t understand it. You do not understand the masculine as it is used in the Bible and you’ve incorrectly used the word abstract (even though you seem to know what it means) in your reference to the Bible.

I guess what I’m trying to say is get more familiar with the topic before you act like an expert. I bring this up again because I know you were confused regarding my use of the word in reference to you.

I’m glad to hear that you read the Bible I really am. But like most lengthy texts it helps to have some guidance when you read it. This is not a put-down, just good sound advice. As you are making too many errors for someone who allegedly read and understood the Bible.

[/quote]

The problem with your last argument is that you assume the person helping you interpret the Bible understands it better than you do.[/quote]

Well you make a good point. Like anything else one must make sure that he/she has a good teacher or the learning cannot commence. But there are good teachers available you just have to pursue it.

78

With your senses? If there was unquestionable proof of God, why would anyone ever doubt Him. Now with the things I have experienced in this life and many other reasons, there is a God. I know that with my whole heart and soul. See below for further explanation, a small portion.

Provide any answer you can, with proof of where the mammalian eye came from. No theories please because theories are just a best guess.

How about the human knee? No primate has anything close to our knee design because they walk on all fours. Where is a single fossil to back the stance we evolved from primates, with the same characteristics. On that same note, please do the math. For arguments sake, let us assume we share ninety nine percent of our genes with our closest relative, the orangutan. Now let us do some simple math. I hate wiki but people accept the numbers because they can be changed by anyone. Human genome - Wikipedia Now divide the number they provide by .01 and tell me, with no scientific evidence we evolved. Just theory, again.

On a related note let us talk about behavior. Now take a common canine, even a hunting breed. We train retrievers by pointing to a given object and their attention is drawn there. In fact training a lab to retrieve/hunt is quite easy, even instinctual. Controlling them and getting the desired bird is the small detail in training. Human mothers interact with their children the same way. She points to an object and the infants attention is immediately drawn to where the finger points. So a key task is shared with a simple mind of a canine and humans. Logically many would say primates would and should teach their young the same way. But all those individuals would be very wrong. The young primate learns through trial and many errors. Knowledge is lost from one generation to the next. So we teach the same with infants and a hunting breed but our closest relative genetically does nothing even close to the same.

Now if you insist on believing we evolved from primates, even with all the scientific evidence showing this simply can NOT be true, well not sure you would change your mind for any reason.

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Are you kidding me?

Belief in God is blind faith. That’s all you’ve got. You can’t prove his existance and you can’t disprove it. Your faith is amazing, but it is faith.

I think it’s amazing that people can decide to believe something so strongly.

Kneedragger79- I’ve changed my opinion about many things when I discovered I was wrong. Show me evidence of your religion that I can experience with my senses and thus know, and I will happily change my mind again, because honestly, there are some selfish benefits to believing in God and those were nice.[/quote]

79

My understanding, G-d is without a sex like human kind is. My understanding God is thought to be masculine because Adam was created in His image. I understand your point about G-d being masculine though, I think. ; )

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.
[/quote]

Actually this is incorrect. Well, I am not saying anything on the part you don’t care, but that we can say G-d is a She. G-d is masculine, that is why G-d is referred to in the masculine. Humans and creation are feminine (like Eve from Adam, and the Church from Christ) in nature.[/quote]

80

Take an embryology course and you will find the answers there. I know a local community college has to offer a course. In fact it is quite simple to understand. The whole process and how cells know where to go, when and what to be/do is absolutely incredible. Earth shattering to be honest.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.
[/quote]

Actually this is incorrect. Well, I am not saying anything on the part you don’t care, but that we can say G-d is a She. G-d is masculine, that is why G-d is referred to in the masculine. Humans and creation are feminine (like Eve from Adam, and the Church from Christ) in nature.[/quote]

I have a question: If woman was created from man, why do human males have far less DNA than females? From a scientific perspective, if women were created from men they should have as much DNA or less than men do. Instead, they have a lot more.[/quote]