|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 5/8/2002 1:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 23991
Proof is whatever ONE person needs to believe in something. When it comes to being a non-believer, my thing is that there's been more proof against it, in my eyes, than for it. So, it's a personal opinion.  |
| Date: 5/8/2002 1:12:00 PM From Authorid: 53251 Well... I don't need proof... I guess all the proof I need is in my heart. Thanks for posting. |
Date: 5/8/2002 1:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 51635
for some it's a question of pfoof, for others it's a quetion of how the bible has been interpreted ... for someone to say that they have read it and it means this or that and then to say that I couldn't possibly read it and find the true meaning on my own is what I have a problem with ... and in the ages when the church had more power then kings, whos to say that they didn't get a little corolful when doing the interpreting? ... this is, I think, why people need more "proof" that man did not create God in his image so that God, through the men who created him, could be the setter of rules and the end all - be all power in the universe ... IMZP  |
Date: 5/8/2002 1:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 51061
This is a good post man I am a christian and i believe for my own reasons, I think that people must find proof in there own way, I think that the Bible is true, but I may be wrong, but as I said people believe for differnt reasons.---Guy  |
Date: 5/8/2002 1:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 30229
Okay, Six Gun, I am going to TRY to answer this to the best of MY ability here.  As an example, I will tell you that I was talking to one of my Athiest friends on the phone yesterday.. She and I agree to disagree, and respect each other for that... She doesnt ask me for proof of anything, nor do I ask her. But I do see what you are saying here... It DOES seem like the non-belivers cannot accept the fact that we believers BELIEVE in our hearts and minds. Of course the Bible has ambiguity in it, and it is full of symbolism. To be honest, it is hard to understand. But I refuse to try to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" to the non-believers WHY I KNOW the Bible is the way for ME to go. Just as they have NO proof that it isnt.. There just is NOT "beyond a shadow of a doubt" proof on either side. It is what WE all feel inside of us and what our lives and conscienses dictate to us. I BELIEVE in the Bible with all of my heart, and I do not pick and choose scriptures.. I have faith in God and I love God, and the feelings of that is incredible. I hope I answered your question, and if I didnt, I am sorry..  |
Date: 5/8/2002 1:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 42539
i understand what you are saying but people could say how are you sure without any prove and you can say the same no one will be right on this till the end of time the only hope in debate is to meet in the middle  |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 2:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
I agree CHild yet thats not what I am talking of in a sense, I am getting frustarted because Idont feel as though I am wording it as to where people are understanding it, I am soory for that. LEt me try again. I agree proof is impossible. without a doubt proof that is....WHAT i AM SAYING IS........WHAT DO you CONSIDER PROOF? I am not trying to convince anyone of anything this is for my knowledge to use in future debates concerning the Bible. Here is what I am saying... The bible says there was an exodus out of egypt by alot (lol) of Hebrews.....is there proof of it?..is it possible it COULD have happened?......Yes, I can show it was possible and could have happened. Now some will say "well, it isnt mentioned or spoken about in any great writing"....Saying there is no record doenst mean it didnt happen, thats the same as me saying, the bible records it so it must have happened.......what do I need to do to show IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED  |
Date: 5/8/2002 2:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
First of all, let me say that absolute proof is not the same as probability. Secondly, when you use a source to support a debatable topic, the source must be sound. Some of the criteria for a sound source would be 1. Who wrote it. Is this person an expert in their field? If not then their testimony may not be as credible. For example, I only have a rudimentary understanding of astronomy, therefore if I were to write a book on the subject it would lack credibility because of my lack of expertise. In addition to this if an opinion by Carl Sagan contradicted mine it would reduce my credibility even more. If it is an eyewitness account, has the person demonstrated that their testimony is reliable? Do other sources agree with them. How likely is their account, etc. Also the context in which the book or account was it written must be taken into account. Does the person have an agenda? For example, a book about Clinton written by a hard-core Democrat and one written by say Rush Limbaugh would both be somewhat suspect (especially if the assertions made were not backed with evidence) because both camps have an axe to grind. Finally, where the Bible is concerned, using it as a single source is incorrect. This is because each book was written separately. Therefore they must be taken on their own merit. To say that they were meant to be taken together begs the question "how do you know?" which leads to assertions and questions about God. Since God is usually the basis for Biblical debates, to go back to the reason "because God intended it that way" in regards to the Bible being a single work is circular reasoning. I hope this is the kind of reply you were looking for.  |
| Date: 5/8/2002 2:45:00 PM From Authorid: 53142 Well six gun through all of my studies ive learned one thing.there are people who prove over and over again that the bible is the true word inspired by god.And on the other hand ther are peple who can prove over and over again that it is not true.I think the most important question is,Why do you think the bible is true?For me it is simply because I believe it!Its not a christans responsability to debat the bible,just spread the news about it if people will not listen let the holy spirit work on them.Lead by example.GODCHASER |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 2:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 30229
Hmmmmmm..... well, since I am not the brightest star in the sky, LOL, I will only add that Scientific Theories has spent the better part of the last 50 years disproving the Bible, and the Bible has spent hundreds of years disproving Scientific theories. It is a circle, so to speak. Science cannot convince ME that the Bible is false, just as I cannot convince Science that it is true. I believe the Bible, the Word Of God though, It is in my heart, my mind, my life and my very being... |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 3:01:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
Mine also gail. |
Date: 5/8/2002 3:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 48993
you bring up a great question six gun ( as usual) >>> i have christian based beliefs , but as karma killer pointed out the bible is complied of books by many authors , therefore in my opinion what the bible says is "circumstantial" .... what i feel in my heart however is not , because no one can know my true heart except my god ... this is the reason "non believers" question proof , because the proof is not in their heart.( IMO)  |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 3:21:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
Ok,Karma Killer, so we can agree that when debating the bible I can use the books independently. Right? If not why Not? |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 3:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 21867
Yo SixGun, Well...all I can say is that God and life (probably God influencing Life) have shown me the proof I needed to believe. Too many things have happened in my life...I have been through and come through so much pain and trials that I totally believe without His help I should be a drugged out, loser gang member or six feet under by now. But all those events could well be called circumstantial, coincedence, figment of my imagination etc etc...but the thing is, I don't think these events were trying to convince anyone else except me...for they were happening to me. And I am convinced. Is it logical? Probably not...but do I really have a problem with it? Not really The proof I need is in my heart and in what I feel...and thats good enough for me. Peace,  |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 3:26:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
Yes, of course you can. If you're trying to get the point across that that would mean you would have more than one source/witness for an event, go for it. However, on the other side of the coin, if the accounts contradict each other, then both sources lose credibility and with enough of these become suspect, right? If not, why not? |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 3:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
Oh shoot. I replied on your handle Sweetie. Well the above^^was from me, Karma Killer. |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 3:31:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
I agree. |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 3:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 48993
agreed agent smith! |
Date: 5/8/2002 4:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
"Small percentage" of error? Sixgun, take a fictional novel you have read, and point out to me how the characters can shoot fireballs; seperate bodies of water; walk on water; raise people from the dead, etc, all with the wave of a magic staff...are you trying to tell me that the Bible without a doubt be only truthful and there is no fiction at all within it? The entire book could be one giant fictional novel that the people of that era have taken too seriously, and because many people say that is truth, does that make it so? WHY is there such a VAST difference in so many teachings and interpretations of such a book? WHY are there so many contradictions in it? EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE extraordinary PROOF. FAITH is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. If I ask YOU to believe in leprachauns, or that I was abducted by some little green men and they took me up in a UFO, or that Santa Claus really does exist, it is MY responsibility to come up valid, and varifiable reasons for you to believe MY claims. IF I cannot do that, then you have no business believing any of my claims. IF you believe what I ask you too, without any valid proof/reasons, then that is called: FAITH (or perhaps because I am a great story teller). A couple of things I'd like you to address: You say that "God is all knowing". Why did "God" put the serpent in the Garden of Eden IF he KNEW it would tempt Eve? Afterall, HE is all knowing. And if he was doing it to test her why would he NEED to? IF He's all knowing, so he would already know the answer. And if Eve sinned she would be imperfect and if God is perfect in every aspect how is He capable of creating imperfection? Also, this: If YOU believe this all knowing, "savior"/god/being up in the sky; and a heaven with streets of gold and flowing with milk and honey,is true, without any proof, then why can't all the other religions and god beliefs; CLAIMS ....be TRUE as well?  |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 5:04:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
"WHY is there such a VAST difference in so many teachings and interpretations of such a book" Because each man will think as he will yet I think if christians would be willing to stop being stubborn and listen to others this would not be so rampant, but the question you ask has nothing to do with God or religion, its a flawed question from the start and not a valid argument. Although my post is not about that and I dont think people are getting it. Hee is what I ....ok, tell you what I am going to post a post in debates later about the exodus out of egypt and I think if you check it out you will understand. |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 5:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Thinker, Tim is frustrated because no one is getting the point of this post. Here is what is being asked: If someone were trying to prove something, what would you accept as proof, regardless of whether it is the Bible or Bob's account of the traffic accident he was in or any other debatable topic. We'll leave extrodinary claims out of it because he admits that those take faith. He wants a debate on a concrete subject and he wants to leave faith out of it. So, if someone were to debate a concrete topic, what would you consider proof? BTW, I pointed out that he should have left Non-Believers out of his title since he wasn't specifically discussing the Bible. He agreed. Could you try to answer the question again? |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 5:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Call me a dummie then, because I saw your question "What would be proof enough, and I ask you a couple of questions (For starters) that I would like valid answers to. "Flawed" question? NOT "valid"?? *throws up hands* |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 5:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
The only things I would accept as proof, are those that I can SEE, or verify by using scientific and or technological methods, and perhaps in addition, an eyewitness account of a creditable witness. I would not go on maybe's, "could haves" , hearsay, or believe something on popular opinion or majority opinion |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 5:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
He mentions the Bible? Several people have mentioned that they just have faith, and he responded to them....* scratches head* |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 5:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Thinker, I think your second to the last response is what Tim was looking for. He is concerned that people dismiss credible evidence for the Bible, just because it IS for the Bible. While I don't necessarily feel the same way, I understand that that's why he posted this. My answer to him still stands, regardless of what the topic is. He also asks in the post could it have happened? My answer (when we were discussing it at home) was "sure, things are possible. However, when you have an event or book or whatever that is only credible if you accept a multitude of far-fetched explanations, the event loses credibility with every "might have beens"." This is MY main problem with the Bible. Not that any one event described in it COULDN'T have happened, but that to accept it over all you have to use such convoluted thinking and logic that it becomes untenable as a verifiable source of ANYTHING. |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 5:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Gotcha now! I'm going to have to say that I have to go with the more logical, the more sensical explanations; and the one that has the most sound evidence or proofs. I don't want someone to just throw out all logic and say "Just have faith". |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 5:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
IF, in a court of LAW, I get on the stand and testify to something so incredible, and make seemingly impossible claims, but have no concrete, solid proof or evidence of my claims, but just use as my defense: "But your honor, it COULD have happened that way!", then I would be laughed out of court. |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 5:55:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
OK Thinker, what Im asking is, if I post on a historical, or so called historical act if I can show It might have happened and probably did and it cannot be proven otherwise all I want is someone to say, "yes, it could have happened" |
|
Date: 5/8/2002 6:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Here's the problem with that, as I see it. If I stipulate that the natural (as opposed to supernatural) historical events that are found in the Bible probably did take place, although maybe not exactly as they are portrayed in the Bible, then what? As far as I'm concerned, there is some basis in fact for most of the stories found in the Bible but that doesn't prove Jehovah god, or any of the supernatural events recorded, or really anything. All that proves is that the ancient Jews recorded their stories, beliefs and mores. However, people of ancient times were prone to exaggeration and did not have the same concept of historical accuracy that we do today. This is one reason why I doubt most of it. There is historical documentation for the life of Julius Cesear. We know that he lived. Now Julius Cesear claimed to be a god. Just because we know he lived, should we believe this claim? Do you see the problem now? |
Date: 5/8/2002 11:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Sixgun, part of the difficulty of "proving" the Bible rests within its covers; it claims to be the word of God. It claims to be truth. As you are aware, the phrase, "Thus saith the Lord," appears hundreds of times. Its uncompromising claims are arrogant and foolhardy--if they are not true. Its own audacity prohibits neutrality concerning its contents. I think that this feature of the Bible prompts many to hold its accounts to a higher standard than other writings. I also think that it should be held to a loftier standard; it claims to be divinely inspired. The beauty of the matter is that either one accepts it, or one doesn't. If the Bible is not what it claims to be, Judaism, Christianity and Islam can instantly be discarded as irrelevant and no more beneficial than a belief in a moon made of green cheese. If the Bible is as true as it claims, an appeal to accept only logic and rational thinking will be analogous to accepting only classical physics when the more-inclusive quantum theory is indicated. Great post!  |
Date: 5/8/2002 11:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 17525
Hey Sixgun, you've presented an interesting problem here. But i think that an even bigger problem lies in attempting to say "the bible is true" as a blanket statement. As you said, in a court of law, the probability of something can be enough to be accepted as evidence for or against. But here, we're talking about many, many...MANY possibilities, or impossibilities as the case may be. We're being asked to accept things that go against all of human experience. The biggest problem i see with biblical discussions or debates is the blanket statement. The bible is a collection of many different books written over many years of time. A blanket statement about its historical dependability becomes almost impossible to make without the addendum, "you just have to have faith". And again, as you implied, faith WITH proof is not faith at all, but certitude. I think what most people who argue the bibles historical accuracy, (myself included) have a problem with are the many details which do not jive with one another. Gospels which do not render the same account, or render it in completely different time or place settings from one another. Now, in a court of law, when two statements are conflicting, one HAS to be false. They may both be false, but one HAS to be because they cannot both be true if they conflict. When the OT tells us that this or that city and its people were completely wiped out, then in subsequent chapters, tells us there are still lots of people left from that same place as well as the city still thriving, we have to step back and say, "something is NOT true here". Given situations like that, logic dictates that it's best to consign those stories to 'fable' and perhaps look for another meaning being rendered, if indeed there is one. When we see the geneologies of Jesus not even remotely resemble one another, we have to say, "someone's not truthful here". Even beyond the truthfulness, we have to say, "how can a God have ancestors?" It's these types of discrepancies, indeed the very articles of faith, which many people of strong belief have no problem accepting on faith. It is difficult for others to simply ignore what are obviously conflicting accounts. Then, to ask for proof of anything in these situations is of no use at all, as the truthful statement itself cannot even be identified. It becomes only rational again to place these in the 'fable' category rather than attempt to juggle logic or reasoning. Personally, I don't ask for proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I ask, "how can these things be true of they don't agree?" To me, the old adage of "God works in mysterious ways" doesn't cut it when it comes to simple logic and natural law being flagrantly violated on a constant basis. Then, being asked to...just accept it on faith is almost an insult to ones intelligance. If God gave us minds, how can he not want us to use them? When we do, and what we're being told doesn't make sense, we shouldn't point to God as the source of the irrationality. We should point to man attempting to teach irrational ideas, or perhaps it's just mans imperfection in attempting to convey perfection. Who really knows. Sorry for the long reply, but you have a good point here and it's really a BIG topic. Just my opinion tho. Peace,  |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 12:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 17525
Just one more thing: What constitutes proof in terms of the Bible MUST, by necessity, be contemporary sources other than the bible itself. The Bible cannot prove itself. It must have outside witnesses whether it be archaeological, or literary. There are some which prove SOME things. But there is nothing which proves the whole Bible so untimately, the blanket statement that the Bible is true is just so much flatulance. It's like saying 'the earth is true'. What is there to prove? JMO Peace, |
Date: 5/9/2002 7:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 10733
I OBJECT! its all HERESAY!! .. LOL.. sorry just being a nut.. hehe.  |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 9:15:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
Osiris, Thanks, you understood what I was asking and gave me some answers I was looking for. |
Date: 5/9/2002 10:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
When I was first here, I asked the question "If you were God, how would you "prove" yourself?" I received some very interesting replies. They may give you some insight, Sixgun Here's the addy: http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm136769.html I am also very interested in the answers you are receiving here, so I'm just going to sit back and watch. The answers you receive here will relate to almost ALL of the debates which I take place in   |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 10:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 53623
Sixgun, the problem is that, for many skeptics, they demand a higher level of proof for the historic claims of the Bible than they do for other historic events. (http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/extraord.htm - for an article on this subject) When examined by the same standards, the Bible stands head and shoulders above any other document of ancient history in terms of accuracy, and in terms of the writers' attempting to provide proof of their claims. In fact, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts correct errors made by other "reputable" ancient historians (http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/actsarcheology.html). However, these non-believers you refer to refuse to accept any information on the Bible, unless that information confirms their pre-conceived biases. They counter with claims that all Christian sources are lies, and that only the sources THEY use are valid. Sorry, truth is truth, no matter where it comes from, and there is a difference between healthy disagreement on interpretation of info and summarily rejecting info just because you don't like where it comes from. Granted, some sources are more reliable than others (folks who quote Acharya S. like she could do no wrong, when she, in an audio interview, confessed she was told to refute the Bible by space Aliens, and has the Shintoist mad at her because on of her 22 "copycat" messiahs was supposedly a Shintoist legend, yet the Shintoists have never heard of the guy - and she didn't site her source), but "it's the facts, stupid" that are important. --- In short, Sixgun, I feel for you Brother. Peace, Tom |
| Date: 5/9/2002 11:08:00 AM From Authorid: 53353 The written word is not always proof, or truth if you will. Things of the time period may have happened or existed, but does not make the whole story true. We have many ficticious stories with true events, people, or places. Without this we would have no basis for the fable. Faith has to be considered when talking about not just the bible, but anytime one is asked to believe in something based soley on the account of others. I have never been to Austrailia, but I have faith that it is there from the accounts of others. ---Viper |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 11:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 17516
Here's alot of the problem that I see here. Some people seem to think that disproving one thing proves another. For example, disproving evolution doesn't prove the Bible. It's the fallacy of bifurcation. By the same token, proving one thing about the Bible doesn't prove the entire thing. (nor does disproving one thing disprove the entire thing, though if you encounter a multitude of errors, you can safely conclude that it's not a reliable document, but that's another debate) Now if you can demonstrate the overall historical accuracy it would prove that the Bible is a historically accurate document. Would this prove any of the supernatural things about it? No. I have a question for all you believers that chimed in here: do you agree that Julius Caeser was a historical person? If so, how do you know. If not why not? |
| Date: 5/9/2002 12:18:00 PM From Authorid: 53623 Karma wrote (Would this prove any of the supernatural things about it? ) YES IT WOULD! The Biblical writers were attempting to prove supernatural events that occured in a HISTORICAL context (Jesus died HERE, was buried HERE, at THIS TIME, with THESE WITNESSES present, and THESE WITNESSES over here saw Him alive at THIS TIME and in THIS PLACE - all of which can be verified by common historical means.) This is why you have seen me harp so much on Sanders' three test methodology on previous posts - it is the standard used to prove Julius Caesar was a real person (based upon the text of his Galic War manuscript) by verifying whether historic events recorded actually occured. Apply that same test to the Bible and not only does it prove accurate historically, the level of proof is greater than that which you accept as valid for proving Caesar's existance. If the Bible can be proven accurate historically, then the question isn't what happened but why. Did it occur for the reasons the writers gave. And THAT is where faith begins. (Please understand I'm not angry in this post; just excited because I get the feeling that Karma is about to understand something about believers she never understood before.) Peace, Tom |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 1:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
I'm not going to take the bait at this time, Karma *smiles* But ... I will state why I believe many Christians refute evolution, and correlate it with "proving" the bible is correct. Evolution is in direct conflict with what Genesis teaches (6 days of creation vs. billions of years). So... if one can "disprove" or "discredit" evolution, it is one less stumbling block for disbelievers AND believers. Unfortunately, it does NOT prove the bible is correct in any way, shape, or form. One can merely try to prove the existence of a "higher power", "god" or "gods" this way. That is all. NOT that the bible is the inspired word of God. |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 1:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Actually Paranoid, disproving evolution doesn't prove there is a god in any way shape or form. That is still bifurcation. Disproving evolution only proves that evolution isn't true. Don't you agree? If not, why would you think disproving it proves there is a deity? |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 1:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Question Tom: Sixgun and I disagree about what you meant in your last reply. One of us thinks that you are saying if the bible is historically accurate then one must ask did the event happen the way the bible said it did. For example, if Sodom and Gommorah were proven to have happened the why (God did it as a judgement) would still be a leap of faith. The other person thought you meant that if the bible were found to be historically accurate in some of it's details then the supernatural events (the resurrection, etc) would be proven as well. Can you clarify which you meant? |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 2:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Well... MOST people use evolution to try to "prove" there are no deities. They believe that scientific laws and random chance have created everything around us (including them). If one can dispel this idea, it leads to an entirely different line of thinking. This reasoning will lead to the believe that we are NOT an accident, and resort to aliens, gods and many other rationalizations as to how everything got here. If one can disprove evolution, then a logical response is this: *wow* Since we didn't get here by accident, "something" must have created or made us! This would then be a proof of sorts that there may be a deity(s), or controlling entities of some sort which designed and created us and the world we live in. There are those, though, even when confronted with the fact that evolution is still a theory who will state "we always were here". By "disproving" evolution, it removes one more thing which stands between God and mankind. One has less proof that "we were always here" than the previous position, so IF one chooses to believe this way there is probably nothing that could be presented to them which would change their mind. IMO, of course |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 2:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
That may well be so, but all of that reasoning is faulty. Proving one cannot prove or disprove the other. Evolution and a deity are not mutally exclusive, therefore proof or disproof of evolution can only point to whether or not evolution is a viable theory. To think otherwise is to approach it illogically. You're a smart man Paranoid. Please tell me that you understand this. |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 2:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Also, I have had it mentioned to me that to believe in evolution is to believe that something came from nothing. Well so does belief in the Bible God. No one can explain how he got here either, so that belief (that a supreme omnipotent being came from nothing) is as illogical or even more so than that the big bang started it all etc. I don't want to get into a debate on evolution at this time because I don't feel I'm knowledgable enough about it to do so. I just bring it up to point out that one belief is as unlikely as the other. Now, why won't you answer my question about Julius Caeser? Are you chicken? *smiles* |
| Date: 5/9/2002 2:51:00 PM From Authorid: 53623 I have to leave right now (work is over, time to go home)- so I can't give this the answer it deserves right now. I WILL reply tomorrow right here. Let me tease you a bit by saying -- a little of both. Peace, Tom |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 2:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Well THAT should be interesting Tom, since the two seem mutually exclusive to me. |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 3:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Here is a question for you Sweetie, do you think the same level of proof SHOULD be used for events, regardless of what they are? Please define what would constitute proof FOR YOU for different events. |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 3:50:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
I believe there is a fine line. I will echo what I believe Tom said. IF the bible can be proven Historically accurate, Better yet, If an act told of in the bible can be proven accruate then the question must be asked.....Did it happen the way the bible says? As far as proving the act (historical event)happened, we should follow the same rules that any other event would constitute. The second part of the question....Did it happen the way the bible said?..no matter if it includes a supernatural event or not this would take faith to believe and therefore if someone were to try and prove that it did happen of God,it would take more compelling evidence than normally needed. |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 4:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
It doesn't prove one, per se... it merely removes one reason from the plethora of reasons why people don't or won't believe in any god(s). And this removal leads others one step closer to knowing God |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 4:12:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
Im really fired up now that Osiris, Rushure, Tom, Paranoid, Thinker, Agent Smith and Karma Killer (my baby) have replied. These are people who hang out in the debate section and who I hold in high regards as far as their opinion goes. Im also glad to see Gail, Alfrowi, Smile to death,IMZP, Guy, God chaser, Child of Kali, Danie Darlin,spiral Joy and Viper |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 4:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Do you really think that Paranoid? Do you really think that god and evolution is mutally exclusive? What is your evidence for this? And if god and evolution AREN'T mutually exclusive then how does disproving evolution remove a stumbling block to a belief in a deity? |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 5:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
I never said they are "mutually exclusive". I said that evolution is one of the many things which cause some to disbelieve in a god. Any god. Removing ANYTHING which can cause unbelief is a good thing, and can lead to a belief in God later in life --once the other possibilities have been explored. Once evolution is out of the picture, what other choices are left? I see only two: 1)there is a creator or creators 2)it's always been here, and always will be here. Option 2 is much harder to deal with than evolution, but is not impossible to disprove Once THAT option is gone, what is left? The choice to either believe in a creator or not. No matter what "proofs" or "evidences" one can find. To get back to your original question, disproving evolution is merely one step in a looooong walk toward believing in a god. |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 5:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Thanks Sixgun I'll be here as often as I can, but I'm going to be fairly busy the next few days, and super busy during the weekend. Hopefully others here will keep this debate going. I'm sorry for sidetracking it a little, but I feel that KK's questions which are directed toward me deserve answers. |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 7:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Well Paranoid, I've recently gotten a book on Evolution, and when I feel that I know enough about it I'd love to debate it. Having said that, when you list those choices, I think you are being rather limited. Surely you have more imagination than that! |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 9:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Well, I am certainly open to suggestions. What other options for life as we know it are there? I see three: It's always been here, someone or something created it, or we're not sure where it all came from BUT I know how we came to be (evolution). I would LOOOOVE to see a few more added to those three, but they are the only ones which I have ever seen that make any logical sense! Aliens don't cut it, as they do not answer the question of "where did they come from". It merely leads back to the original three I have stated. (I separate evolution from "it's always been here" because it is a theory which at least attempts to answer the question of HOW we came to be.) |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 10:09:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
I agree Parinoid.....I would liek for someone to show me in a LOGICAL way how life started if not from God?...... |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 10:10:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
Like..........And i mean anyway...If you believe in Evolution show me how it is logically possible |
|
Date: 5/9/2002 10:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 17525
I think there are lots of things in the Bible that can be proven acccurate such asnames of places. But that doesn't prove the Bible accounts are accurate. We know there was an Egypt and still is. As to whether the jews ever were slaves there or exited is not provable by saying Egypt is fact or Israel is fact. Each case must be weighed on it's own accuracy of ALL details. Not just the general ones. There are many proofs required to establish the historical accuracy of a claim, not just names of places, etc. So you can begin to see the danger of the blanket statement about the Bible. There are too many aspects of the stories to proove before the story itself can be proven completely in its accuracy. And again it would require outside sources to verify such as literature or archaeology. This is a tough question Sixgun. The more I think about, the more difficult it becomes to answer as a single question. JMO peace, |
Date: 5/10/2002 12:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 27678
The events in the Bible can be proven through history, SG. That's the proof. There was a nation of Israel ruled by King David. Pontius Pilate was a real man, in a real place. For people to act as if the Bible was written out of place, somehow, in history, is rather far fetched. Yet, that's how people view the Bible. After all, wasn't Babylon a real nation at one time? Or the Assyrian's a real group of people?  |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 12:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 27678
How can the worships and rituals concerning Zeus, or Apollo, or Diana be proven? Or the worship of the Egyptian Pharoahs at the time of Moses? And if these are provable by ancient writings, then why not the Bible, as the ancient writing concerning the worship of "I AM?, ie., Jehovah? or Jesus? Six Gun, you are right, insofar as the argument concerning proving something, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Like dinosaurs? Fossils and bones are the only evidence - not photos - so scientists fill in the blanks. Just like with history - and if the Bible is nothing more than a writing about Jehovah, one of many gods, throughout history, then why must it be proven? This argument is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the whole idea of the possible existence of HIM, and therefore, HIS LAWS concerning the governing of our lives and environment in a healthy way. So, if someone doesn't want to believe, no amount of proof will change their minds, and so what? GOD is real to those who know He is, and He proves HIMSELF to US EVERYDAY, right? |
| Date: 5/10/2002 6:44:00 AM From Authorid: 53623 Here we go Karma - Lets examine your first example - If the cities found under the Dead Sea prove to be Sodom and Gommorah and the salt "pillar" that was found on the cliffs above the sea a few miles away proves to be genuine then you have an accurately recorded event, and you are left to decide for yourself whether these events occured for the reason listed - could there be another explanation why a woman would turn into a statue made of salt? Could there be another reason aside from God that would explain how these cities burned to the ground and then were buried beneath the sea never to be seen again or at least for a long time? (The focus is the destruction of the cities, not the supernatural way they were destroyed. The evidence left behind suggests there were supernatural forces at work, but YOU must decide to believe that, or to try and ascribe the event to some other reason.) The Resurrection however is in a class by itself - because the focus of the story itself is on a supernatural event. Hundreds, possibly thousands saw Jesus die. They saw the beating He took, the nails driven into His wrists and feet, the spear thrust into His side. They saw the darkness, they saw a thick tapestry in the Temple tear like paper, they felt the Earth shake beneath them, and a few of them even met up with dead loved ones. They saw Him removed from the Cross and taken away for burial. Three days later, many of those same people saw Jesus alive, and over the course of a month and a half many more saw Him alive - including more than 500 at one time. Cities can be destroyed by means other than supernatural ones, but a man dead for three days cannot come back to life except by supernatural means. You can reason away Sodom and Gommorah; you cannot reason away the Resurrection; the details won't let you. But both do require a leap of faith at some point. I want to get yours and Sixgun's reply before going any further. Ya owe me that, deary (I came in an hour early for work just to write this! (Big grin!) Tom |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 8:04:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
Osiris, were getting somewhere now though......I agree with what you say as far as showing probability,...you said" There are many proofs required to establish the historical accuracy of a claim, not just names of places, etc. So you can begin to see the danger of the blanket statement about the Bible. There are too many aspects of the stories to proove before the story itself can be proven completely in its accuracy. And again it would require outside sources to verify such as literature or archaeology"...And I agree 100% |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 8:19:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
I'll give you my take on it Tom, I think things like the Exodus and the destruction of Jericho and Sodom and Gommorah can be proven in this way. We look at what this book (the bible) says then if I can show proof that beyond what is needed to prove any other historical event then we can say with Some certainty it happened. As far as how it happened the individual person must decide that for themselves and to do so sometimes requires faith. Now, it doesnt matter if I agree with you or not about the Resurrection andf how it happened because I know what the argument is already (ive been here debating for 2 years almost now..LOL) And that is, you are using the bible to prove the bible and that is flawed logic, also I think they would say circular reasoning..LOL |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 9:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 17516
Here Tom, let me see if I can answer you. You say that two cities have been found that were destroyed and close by there are pillar(s?) of salt. Well first I would have to ask, when are these cities dated to? Does it correspond to the Biblical account? Were any evidences found in the cities that show that they WERE Sodom or Gomorrah? Is there any outside evidence that these cities even existed? Do we know from the Bible account or from outside accounts where Sodom and Gomorrah existed? Does this correspond to where these excavated cities were found? Were there any other cities in that area, that these places could be? Lastly, from my understanding there is more than one salt pillar found in that area. I would say that the pillar of salt story is more probably found in the Sodom and Gommorah accounts to account for these naturally occuring pillars. Just because something (these two cities) look like they MAY be Sodom and Gommorah, to say absolutely that they are based on the evidence you have given is a leap of faith and more importantly poor science. Let me give you an example, I am an amateur genealogist. Now, I know that I have an ancester named John Lewandowski and that he lived in Michigan and his son's (my grandfather) name was Joseph. Even though I have found many John Lewandowski's in the Michigan area with son's named Joseph, I cannot just pick one and then say "here is proof of my ancestor", even though I would dearly love to find him. I would need to find more corraborating evidence than just these names, because there are so many John and Joseph Lewandowski's, just as you would need to show more corraborating evidence because other cities existed in that area. Does this make sense to you? I hope so, because by showing your "evidence" and asking me to accept it as proof of Sodom and Gommorah, you are really just asking me to make a leap of faith. |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 10:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 17516
Now, as for your evidence of the Resurrection, I would say that not only have you skewed it (not intentionally I'm sure) but I doubt that you would believe another I event I would tell you about using your standards. First of all you say, hundreds or even thousands saw some of the events. But in reality, all that you have are accounts by four individuals which, according to most scholarly reports I've read, date at least 40 years after the event. Not only that, but their accounts don't agree about what exactly happened, or when or where. These authors are the one who claimed these multitudes saw what they did, but in a court of law this would be hearsay. (I have to cut this short because Tim and I have to go), but let me just conclude by saying that the Resurrection is an extrordinary event and you have not shown extrordinary evidence to support it. |
Date: 5/10/2002 12:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 53623
Uhh uhh Sixgun, you know me better than that! (LOL) Far from circular logic, since, according to Sanders' tests (which you know I KEEP harping on), EXTERNAL evidence is required to prove a document's historic accuracy. (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html and http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh.html both cite Sanders' test, and http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html, http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html, http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/trustworthinessofthebible.html, and http://www.christian-thinktank.com/topix.html (multiple articles) are examples of online topical articles that use Sanders' methods - there are several books as well, starting with Sanders' own "Introduction in Research in English Literary History" Far from circular logic... Now maybe you and I aught to set up something to present what data there is (at least the stuff available online)? Getting close to quitting time again, so I'll catch you on Monday. Peace, my friend. Tom |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 12:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
I am curious, Karma. If using the bible to prove the bible is circular logic (as you are fond of telling me), then wouldn't it ALSO be circular logic to use a variety of other books to prove a certain book or point of view was also correct? Technically, the bible IS a compilation of MANY books with a common theme. It has over 40 authors, and most of the books were written independently of the others as well as being written at various times. I guess I have a real hard time with being charged with 'circular reasoning' on this one because of these facts. If I was using something Paul wrote to prove that Paul was correct, I believe it would apply (circular reasoning). But if I am using something Isaiah wrote to prove something that Daniel wrote was correct, I have a problem with that idea. Does this make sense? (hopefully???) |
| Date: 5/10/2002 3:37:00 PM From Authorid: 53623 Didn't see Karma's post - brief note, then I really do have to go - 1. I cited your example (which research is still ongoing) and I said "IF it proves..." . Research is still ongoing in many locations that are known Biblical sites - I was speaking of a general principle - change the reference to Jericho (a site MUCH more thouroughly researched) and the principle is still appliciple. 2. NOWHERE did I say that the level of scholarship and research you ask for here is not needed - in fact I'll go one better, even MORE info than you ask for is needed. By assuming that I, because I'm not addressing the specifics you cite, somehow I don't feel they are "important" is an error - and a "straw man" (?) 3. If the evidence for another event, using my standards, were proven, then yes, I would believe them - the fact I believe that Julius Caesar is a real figure is proof. 4. 40 years for the Bible vs 1100 years for Julius Caesar. That is the time gap between the oldest known copy of Galic wars and the time it was written - plus there are only 9 copies and wide changes between copies (seems Caesar was either told to cross the Rubicon by Hercules, or because it was prudent strategy, or saw a vision). Where as the Bible has only misspelling or regional word usage changes in its 24000 copies, dating from within the lifetimes of those who could protest any discrepencies in the accounts. 4. If an event occured in time and space, regardless of its reason for occuring, then asking for more evidence than what is asked for another event which also occured within time and space is (unintentional, in your case Karma) bias, and thus special pleading. Simply put, we have more evidence that Jesus rose from the grave than we do Caesar even existed, when judged by the same standard developed by a secular Historian. To dismiss Jesus means you MUST dismiss Caesar as well. In any case Karma I look forward to your reply and have a good weekend. Tom |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 3:55:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
Karma, it would be almost impossible to prove any city was Sodom or Gomorrah,all one can do is look at the account written in the Bible and if evidence is found to support it is make an educated guess. |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 3:58:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
That would be great Tom, Im leaving to go on a vacation for 2 weeks Sunday but I would like to know what criteria These "Sanders Tests" require to show ample proof. Sounds like something yo ucan help me on...appreciate it Tom |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 3:59:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
I agree 100% Paranoid, And I have been saying that for a long Time. |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 4:02:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
And Tom, I have a post stating the Same about proof and Caesar Compared to the Bible. |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 4:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Okay, let me point out something about circular logic and the bible. IF you say, "the bible is the word of god" and when asked how they know, they respond "because it says so in the Bible" THAT is circular logic. However, using the Bible to support something asserted in it isn't always circular logic and I didn't assert that it was in this case. |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 4:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 17516
Well Tom, overall I agree with what you say. However, the fact that the authors of the gospels cannot agree about the details of the resurrection weakens the argument for it. One more question and then I have to run too. Are you saying, Tom, or do you agree Paranoid that if some of the particulars about the lives and times of Jesus are true, this by it's own merits proves the resurrection? Why do you think this (if indeed you do). I am not arguing that all of this was made up, or there is no historical background to the bible. What I do have issue with is being asked to believe in talking donkeys, men living in whales for three days, walking on water and other EXTRAORDINARY events, without EXTRAORDINARY proof to support them. Is this understandable? Do you agree that these types of events require a leap of faith and most likely cannot be proven? If not, why not? |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 4:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Thanks, Karma I was under the false impression that ANY use of the bible to support itself was circular logic, therefore faulty. Sixgun, I thought you may have asked similar questions a time or two |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 4:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 17525
I'd like to see some examples of how the bible supports itself. A reference in several different books to king David does nothing to suport the account that he brought back 200 foreskins. We would need AT LEAST another book which recounts the circumcision from the victims standpoint and is not part of the bible. Saving that we have ONLY evidence that he lived. The fact that david lived does not suport the claims made about his vast empire or Solomons. Archaeology tells us otherwise. The Jews were writing some tribal spiritual tales, some history, some folktale and some wishful thinking. When the bible tells of a person who we know lived, that does NOT support the fabulous claims made about that person. The claims must be proven individually. If one miraculous claim is proven to be true, it can be assumed that the others could be true also. But that assumption is not based on evidence, only probability. If someone is accused of plowing into a car, getting out, pulling the other driver out, and beating them up, we would have the evidence. We would have the smashed car, we would have the injury report from the other driver, police reports and hospital reports and possibly towing reports. If it happened as is claimed must be proven, but we have the evidence of the various details. We have no such thing with the Bible. Only small fragments, many of which are of no use in proving any details of the stories. JMO |
|
Date: 5/10/2002 10:02:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
For the most part Osiris I agree with you....Well, I think I got what Iwas looking for and it will help me greatly in debating, olus its great to have guys like Tom and Parinoid around... |
Date: 5/10/2002 10:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Hey ya know that is what I've been telling karma for years!! UNTIL she nicely asked me not to use that anymore, but BOOKS ARE books are books, say I wrote one 2000 years ago. Then someone reads it now, and takes it as gospel!! I mean duh, I could have wrote lies in it from beginning to end but they would think JUST because its old it must be true. NOW with the bible its different because it has been proven, if nothing more than by prophecy its self, not counting arifacts that have been found that prove not only names that are written in the bible and the history to go with those names, but towns and such. Anyway I'm tired, I'm rambling and so I soooooooooooooon will go to bed.  |
Date: 5/13/2002 5:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 53623
Good morning all - Karma, I was all set for you to take a whack at me - had my helmet on and everything, and you do a 180 on me. THAT's proof of the supernatural! (: ooks up to Heaven. "Thank you, Jesus.": But seriously, your point about discrepancies in the resurrection account is noted, but I believe it only strengthens the case for its truthfulness. You have different writers writing to different audiences in an admitted polemic. Had they been in colusion with each other we would expect to find perfect harmony in the accounts. However, there is nothing (at least that I have found) that is completely contradictory, but there are many matters that require more careful study for form an exegesis. Your second point is a very good one; some events do not lend themselves to examination, like talking donkeys. Here a leap of faith IS required, but how far a leap is determined by how trustworthy you find the other accounts. If those accounts (where evidence can be examined) prove true, can I trust the same writer to tell me the truth in matters that cannot be proven? This aims to the subject of inerrancy (which I believe). However, I don't think that the Bible MUST be inerrant for it to be believed. (That would make an interesting discussion!)Sixgun, the articles I listed above will give you the basics of Sanders' methodology. Enjoy your vacation! (I'm so jealous; I need one too!) Peace, Tom |
Date: 7/2/2002 6:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 56369
great post i hope somepeople see some truth in it  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
 |
