Look, Paben, I've been accused of cherry picking and then the accuser cherry picked and asked me not to quote the Bible when responding to Bible quotes. Absurd.

 

Hmm, I detect mild irritation, but concede that is an unfair requirement. However, it has been noted before that you have a tendency to answer a question with a question or pass the buck by resorting to a bible quotation. Being constantly referred to the workshop manual, or asked "What do you think?" is not a convincing indicator of in-depth understanding of how a car works! But is a blind faith better than no faith? Having no faith in anything much I suspect it probably is.

 

No one banned you, we asked you to give an opinion, a rational opinion, not quote from the bible.

We are discussing scripture vs fact, so quoting that source as proof of the veracity of that source is like saying "I am right because I say I am"

The wisdom in the bible is not what is being questioned, it's whether the bible is a true account of what happened. The bible is not, and cannot, be the source for the discussion of itself.

You can quote the bible as much as you like, just don't be surprised if people get frustrated as it doesn't answer the question being asked of you.

 

Thank you (written in a rush on the train)

Off course the wonderful irony is that the 'need' is perfectly explained by science and the theory of evolution

 

Yes simply the logical fallacy of argument by assertion

 

I don't have blind faith.

 

As I said earlier in the thread (you didn't respond) you're asking for physicalist responses to metaphysical questions.

 

No. If I'm asked a question about Christianity I'll be hard pressed to answer it without referring to the Bible.

 

It's not ironic. It's not even in dispute. In fact I made the point myself earlier in the thread - don't you get it?!

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...l#post11794759

 

But doesn't 'faith' mean a strong belief in something for which no proof can be provided? It would seeem that faith and blind faith are much the same.

 

This is not blind faith:

https://www.scoobynet.com/1019401-go...l#post11622643

The proof comes a couple of pages later.

 

I didn't realise that was a question, I thought it was a statement. However, asking for you to prove why some text is historical is not metaphysical.

That's like saying is the Odyssey real is a metaphysical question, or if the 12 Caesars is a real account of the lives of the emperors of Rome is a metaphysical question. You should apply the same principles.

 

Ok, what part of what book in the Bible do you want me to explain to you? One at a time, please.

ETA the comparison to Homer and Suetonius was nonsense. I trust you see why.

 

We are not asking you about Christianity though, we are asking whether scripture is a true account of what has happened. So whilst you would have to refer to the bible to say "well, I think the account in Matthew whatever is true because ...." the because should not from the bible.

The Harry Potter books tell us about magic and Hogwarts, whether it is true is not be found in those books........

 

See above. Unless you're more specific I can't possibly know. Another nonsense comparison, by the way.

 

I don't want you to explain the Bible, I want you to provide supporting evidence outside of the bible, cross reference to other contemporary accounts that support it being a true account.

I can read the bible for myself and interpet its meaning.

 

Which part of which book in the Bible?!

 

It doesn't matter, you choose. I'm not asking for an explanation of what any particular text or passage means.

 

But that it simple circular logic, it's nonsense JT

Honestly its drivel

 

I don't know what proof you are referring to here. Faith by definition is inherently blind or it's not faith at all but fact. A fact is verifiable, faith is not and therefore, however strongly held, is blind. All religions demand the same level of belief in the unprovable of course.

 

Here you go:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...5&version=HCSB

You can do the grunt work.

 

Simply asserting something does not make it so.

 

Lol, re quote it here

And we can go thru it

 

This is not blind faith, it has been arrived at though reason:

https://www.scoobynet.com/1019401-go...l#post11638752

 

"Additionally, science shows that human beings are hard-wired for faith, we have evolved to believe"

So I agree that we've evolved to have faith, that's a fundamental principle of a theistic evolutionist. We contend nothing within science.

As Cicero said: “Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God”.

 

This is where the whole of Christian faith falls apart for me.


What is claimed is illogical, unjust and entirely wrong.


I say this as someone who genuinely believes that JC existed, was an incredible person, and a great example to us all.


The idea that you can do terrible harm to others, then suddenly give yourself to Jesus, and all will be forgiven, is an atrocity of a concept, and completely contradicts one of the great teaching of Jesus, that 'you reap what you sow'

 

Lewis's trilemma doesn't allow for this.

 

Sorry but I do not even begin to understand what that means

 

OK had a look at this now.


I don't deny Jesus was A son of god, I just believe that he wasn't THE son of god.


If JC was a son of god, then so are you and I, and everyone else

 

So you've dismissed the trilemma, then?