I reject your claim

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 217
#181
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Genesis 1:25-27 and Genesis 2:18-19 specifically.
One claims man was made before animals and the other claims that animals were made before man.
Untrue.

Nope. Your imagination remains unconvincing.

#182
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
The animals had been formed already, they were brought to Adam to be named.


But if it is that much of a stumbling block for you...

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:"


"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."


"Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."


Definition of fable courtesy Merriam-webster...

"a narration intended to enforce a useful truth; especially : one in whichanimals speak and act like human beings"
Topic's author
#183
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
The wording can be and is interpreted in more than one way. There are certainly passages that do not agree with each other. The utility of the book is not currently under discussion since my only claim is that the bible contains apparent contradictions.

Topic's author
#184
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Ok well have a nice day then 
#185
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The animals had been formed already, they were brought to Adam to be named.
About 1.3 million species have been identified and described, it's estimated another 7 million still have yet to be identified.

At about 3 minutes per species and Adam putting in a full 8 hour day, it would take him over 22 years to name the current list or 110 years to name them all.

So, God created all of these species but never gave them a name? Why would he not do that and have Adam sitting around for years just naming animals? How did all the sea creatures get named? Did Adam have a divers certificate and swam the oceans naming them?

#186
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
In my experience, most alleged contradictions are either misunderstandings or translation issues.

That said, I'm not going to say there aren't discrepancies, but I also don't claim to know everything. I don't take the Bible in an idolatrous sense.

That said, I do teach the bible, I lead bible studies, and I read the bible everyday. I feel very edified by it. I believe that it edifies others. The Bible changes lives for the better.

But something has to be understood. What Christians call the Old Testament, Jews are educated in from the time they are children. They have teachers. They have scribes and rabbis with thousands of years worth of interpretation and tradition to aide them becoming good practitioners of their religion.

The average curious person? They don't really have that benefit. The New Testament is a lot easier to get into. The epistles, or letters to the church are probably the best writings in the bible for learning about what the faith is all about. From Romans to Jude. They are pretty solid. I think they are very lucid and plainly written, but I also might be taking my education in these matters for granted.

Anyway, that is my take.








#187
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
You woke up!

Have a good reality.

Topic's author
#188
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
That the bible is a translation of a translation of a translation is also true. Everything about the book could be completely misrepresented and we would never know. 
#189
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Goldtop
Maybe Adam is still naming things to this day. Adam is, after all, another name for man or mankind.

Hey, it's something to do, right? What else is there to do, sit around in the garden and get fat on pomegranates? 




Topic's author
#190
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Under the condition that there is a reality I will try thank you.
#191
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Yes. You go and try to find out if there is a reality. Good lad.
#192
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I'm not going to say there aren't discrepancies
I do teach the bible, I lead bible studies, and I read the bible everyday.
So, you teach discrepancies, lead discrepancy studies and read discrepancies every day.

I also might be taking my education in these matters for granted.
Yes, everything you teach and know could be wrong and most likely is.
Topic's author
#193
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Maybe Adam is still naming things to this day. Adam is, after all, another name for man or mankind.

This made me laugh. I do not object to this definition though I would reject the genesis story as counter to scientific fact but the fictional account of Adam and eve is prevalent enough to call it popular usage I suppose and it isn't as though you intend two meanings we are clearly discussing humans.
Topic's author
#194
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
A persistent and convincing illusion would be indistinguishable from reality.
#195
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You are, after all, someone who denies the existence of God, which is a foolish and superstitious position. If you have been duped into adopting a position which literally denies the reality of Truth, I could just as easily call you credulous and gullible. 

You are, after all, someone who denies the existence of millions of Gods, which is a foolish and superstitious position. If you have been duped into adopting a position which literally denies the reality of Truth, I would still call you credulous and gullible. 

#196
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
The New Testament was written in Greek, and there  are extensive commentaries on the letters and books contained in The New Testament by the early church which reference these writings in suchh a way as to verify the ancient manuscripts we have today.

That isn't to say that there aren't some controversies. Most bibles today are translated from the same source manuscripts, but the King James is translated from another.

The King James texts are closer to what The Orthodox Church uses for the New Testament, but The Orthodox Church uses an ancient Greek translation of The Old Testament. The King James translates from the Hebrew texts for The Old Testament I believe.

I prefer The King James, but I mostly use it because it isn't copywritten. It has the largest vocabulary of any translation, and I think it sounds good when recited properly, but there are still things that can be translated better. Out of all the contemporary translations, I think the English Standard Version is probably the best, but it is also translated from different texts than The King James. Depending on who you ask, some verses are omitted in the modern texts or some verses were added in the texts the King James is based on. As I said, The King James is closer to The Orthodox Church's texts.

That all might be a bit much, but yeah, there is still a debate going on. I think that both sides have a pretty good case, and I have my own opinions...

That all said, my original point is that the texts that are used in bible translations today are pretty accurate to the original texts, and a great deal of this can be confirmed by ancient commentaries that contain these scriptures. 



Topic's author
#197
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I think we are close to agreement on this issue as we can be all things considered. Let's move on. Did you see my post asking if we agree that any claim of freewill can be rejected unless this freewill thing can be demonstrated?
#198
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
What do you have from the time period that says otherwise? 

You cannot live up to this standard, so it is disingenuous to expect it of me. Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, etc., could not possibly be eyewitness to the supposed martyrdoms since they did not exist on Earth when the apostles were alive.  A quick check of your list reveals only Ignatius was as a contemporary and he mentions martyrdoms of only 5 apostles which is not even half, much less all, of the apostles.

As far as the conversation between Mopac and I, church tradition (such as some of what you mentioned above) contradicts itself in regards to the deaths of the apostles.  For instance, there are many martyrdom traditions of Matthew. Claims include Matthew being stabbed to death, burned to death, burned and killed by Festus, and killed by beheading.  Obviously, someone (many someones) has made something up about the death of Matthew. There is sufficient reason to doubt all the apostles were martyred especially given the lack of verifiable eyewitnesses and indisputable legendary accretion surrounding these individuals.
#199
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin

We are in agreement that there is no reason to accept any claim of free will are we not?


 Theologians have debated this since the beginning but...

I personally don't believe in free will, and I believe scripture supports my view.

There are some pretty smart people who disagree very strongly with me on this though. 

#200
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Yet the concept of God has been with all or almost all civilizations. Almost all people know of God or gods. 
Argument ad populum
Do you know of many people that are rational who don't know of God or gods? If not, then the concept of God bears up and so does this statement. 


try making sense of origins, morality, truth, existence, without first presupposing God
Argument from ignorance.

Demonstrated in arguments such as the moral argument. Make sense of morality from a relativist standpoint. On abortion, why is your preference any better than mine? What is your standard for "better?"

Second, we all make presuppositions about origins. How are those core beliefs made sense of? Those core presuppositions are what hold our worldview together because everything is funneled through them. Since none of us witnessed beginnings of life or the universe we have to interpret the data. We have only the present as the key to the past. Is the present the key? What kind of assumptions do we build into interpreting the evidence/data?

you don't know God via personal experience since you don't trust in Him. You don't see how He works for the better in your life. If you knew God you would not deny Him His existence. If you truly believed He would confirm Himself to you in all things. He would show you and help you to draw near to Him. Your life would be radically altered and affected. 
 
bald assertion
On your part. I'm not the one denying God. You are. I'm not proving God's existence here. I'm relating my personal experience and comparing it to yours, not trying to prove it. If you want reasonable and logical proof I have already invited you to test my truth claims in Post 182 or 191 of the prophecy thread. Instead, you get into these logical fallacy semantic word games. 

If you want to test every statement I made, let's go for it and see if what you say is true. Or you can identify what part you say is a bald assertion. 

"you don't know God via personal experience since you don't trust in Him." 

Is that a true or false statement? Do you trust God? Have you had a personal experience or revelation of God? How can you since you deny Him the likelihood His existence?

"You don't see how He works for the better in your life."

Is this a true or false statement? Do you see how God works in your life? How can you if you deny Him the likelihood of His existence? 


"If you truly believed He would confirm Himself to you in all things."

Is this statement true or false? I base it on personal experience, the validation of His word, and a changed life. At one time I denied Him too. This experience has been the witness and testimony of millions of people. It also builds into Hebrews 11:6. How do you validate the experience of a Spirit? I could relay some of those experiences. 

When my father died I questioned the meaning of life. Everywhere I went I met Christians who spoke of God. Circumstance after circumstance created this uncomfortable situation of the reality of God by people I met and events in my life. My uncle took me up the local mountains around FishHoek to cut down a tree that was killing off the local habitation. He would quote verses from the Bible to me, like, "As you sow, so shall you reap." I was taken to a tent revival in Durban South Africa by my room-mate in the game reserve I worked on in the lower Transvaal. I begged him to leave since I wasn't interested in hearing the message (we left early). I had a serious accident on the way back from town that put four of us in hospital in Phalaborwa. I learned that the Christian lady on the reserve prayed for our recovery. When I returned to Canada I decided to go to a local Baptist Church. It was there that the message of salvation first sunk into my head. I could go on and on about how I have experienced God directing my life, and also His answer to prayers, how He has looked after me, but I hope that gives you a glimpse. 

"He would show you and help you to draw near to Him."

How do you know this is a false statement? Drawing near is a claim of John 6:44. Many people have attested to the work of God's Spirit actively working in their life through answered pray and His hand of providence. Are you stating that these are all bald face assertions? Can you prove it? Are you speaking of things you know nothing of?

"Your life would be radically altered and affected." 

Again, I could give you many testimonies of people that have stated as much. C.S. Lewis is one such person. Well-known Ravi Zacharias is another. Do you deny their testimonies? These are not irrational people. 
Topic's author
#201
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Freewill is unnecessary to explain any natural phenomena and is not necessary to explain human nature and is not supported by the findings of neuroscience. This does not mean that freewill cannot exist but until it can he demonstrated some how I reject any claim of freewill but for whatever reason we agree that freewill is not a demonstrable phenomena.
#202
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
The second paragraph is applicable to our conversation. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about differing accounts, but contradictory accounts.  (ie, both cannot be true at the same time)


Topic's author
#203
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you know of many people that are rational who don't know of God or gods?
Begging the question, band wagon fallacy, dogmatism fallacy.
Demonstrated in arguments such as the moral argument. Make sense of morality from a relativist standpoint. On abortion, why is your preference any better than mine? What is your standard for "better?"
Better is a subjective view. They may or may not have different utilities but better is not a quantifiable fact it is a qualified opinion.
 I'm not the one denying God. You are.
I am not making a claim either way. I am simply unable to maintain a belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.
#204
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you know of many people that are rational who don't know of God or gods?
Begging the question, band wagon fallacy, dogmatism fallacy.
I'm asking a question. Are questions allowed?

Unable to answer the questions. Making everything into a logical fallacy without sufficient explanations. (that would be an ad hominem, an attack on the man, not an observation, right?)

"types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies used to manipulate public opinion in the modern day"


Demonstrated in arguments such as the moral argument. Make sense of morality from a relativist standpoint. On abortion, why is your preference any better than mine? What is your standard for "better?"
Better is a subjective view. They may or may not have different utilities but better is not a quantifiable fact it is a qualified opinion.

Are you speaking descriptively or prescriptively? Is "I like ice-cream" the same as "I like to torture people?" They are both opinions, nothing more, right???

Hey, I understand where you are coming from. Everything is relative, right? There are no absolutes, right? Is that correct?

And yours is a position that can be parroted off but once your worldview is put to the test I would be surprised if you still felt everything was relative. Then it would be DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts.   

If a criminal entered your house and decided to kill you or one of your loved ones, and could get away with murder, would it be better he did not do it? Is that just another matter of opinion - nothing wrong with it. Is that just relative, or are somethings truly better no matter what a personal opinion is about it? 



 I'm not the one denying God. You are.
I am not making a claim either way. I am simply unable to maintain a belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.

You have already made your decision. I underlined it.

What kind of evidence would you believe? Does it depend on you? Does truth depend on you?

The evidence is sufficient for many, yet some people do not want to make that decision. That is why they are called skeptics. 
Topic's author
#205
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
 My perspective as a living being that wants to continue living nearly guarantees that I will be of the subjective opinion that my life us important. That is qualia not quanta. 

Beliefs are not a choice. One cannot simply choose to believe something that one considers false.
#206
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin

My perspective as a living being that wants to continue living nearly guarantees that I will be of the subjective opinion that my life us important. That is qualia not quanta. 

So you can't say the same for another person who is faced with the same life-threatening situation. Is it just opinion, once again, or is it objective and universal (i.e., applying to everyone?) The problem is that if all morals are relative you can't say it is wrong, or better. It just is (descriptive, not prescriptive). It is just something you like or dislike. 


Beliefs are not a choice. One cannot simply choose to believe something that one considers false.

Believing in God would be a paradigm shift for you, that is for certain. But believing is a choice. No one else can do it for you. You have to do it yourself. 

More to the point of Hebrews 11:6, 

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.


must believe

Is whether you will believe because if you will not believe He exists then there is nothing that will convince you of His existence. Put another way, if you continue to deny His existence then how will you believe He is? You will continually make up excuses for not believing by denying Him. 

What is faith? It is belief. We both have faith. It is just in different things/persons.

My faith is not a blind faith or unreasonable faith, but a reasonable faith.
Topic's author
#207
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I do not have faith I have reasonable expectations based on past experience.
Topic's author
#208
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
If beliefs are a choice please demonstrate by briefly converting to and believing in Islam and then do the same with buhdism as a control for the experiment. Do worry you can go back to your old beliefs just as soon as the experiment is over.
#209
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yeah, there is a bit of mystery surrounding Matthew's death. I don't think there is really a consensus about that. 



Topic's author
#210
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
So you can't say the same for another person who is faced with the same life-threatening situation. Is it just opinion, once again, or is it objective and universal (i.e., applying to everyone?) The problem is that if all morals are relative you can't say it is wrong, or better. It just is (descriptive, not prescriptive). It is just something you like or dislike. 

Yup thats about thebsize of it. I would not like to die and so I assume that others similarly do not wish to die. That line of reasoning combined with the practice of empathy (An evolves survival trait) leads me to avoid killing people. Simple as that.