croweupc

No need for Dr.Franklin to give Christianity a bad name, you are doing a great job of it all by yourself.

You need the fruit of the Spirit!

I accepted the debate.

You just proved my point. No matter what errors are in the Bible, you refuse to acknowledge them. There is no way you would cut this much slack for any other source. You have to bend over backwards and it still does not make sense. As I pointed out, the reason for it being called the field of blood  is deferent. I don’t think apologists are not smart, quite the opposite, the smarter they are the more clever their narrative. What I do not think you understand is if you did not believe the Bible was inerrant, you would have automatically concluded that these two accounts were contradictions. It is only out of necessity that you have them agree. These accounts were written by two different authors, and they have two separate conclusions. 

I agree.

 I have no problem with people referencing, I do from time to time, but most people tend not to think about the issues independently first. I can think much deeper about a topic if I do not start by reading others opinions first. This, of course, is just my opinion.

good ol’ copy and paste!

The Bible is full of these contradictions. It would seem no matter how many you show the Christian apologists will find some way to make it agree.

For instance:

Matt 27:6-8

This account has the chef priests buying the field with the money Judas threw at them. The field was named the field of blood because the money was used to arrest Jesus and was considered blood money. Judas hangs himself.

Acts 1:18-19

This account however has Judas buying the field and spilling his intestines and blood on it and that is why it is known as the field of blood.

When people start with the conclusions first, they will always end up at the answers they want. You have to start with the conclusion that the Bible is inerrant in order to make these verses non-contradictory. The lengths people go to try and keep it inerrant is astonishing.

Thanks for your response.

Unfortunately there is no way to reason someone out of what they were never reasoned into, which is so often the case with Christianity. I grew up in church, and was a believer from a child til 34 years old. I have never been drunk and never took mind altering drugs. I have never had an experience like you explained, but people in other religions have. People of all religious persuasions have had experiences that compelled them to believe, the problem with this is how consistent, or rather inconsistent these experiences are. Why are you one of the lucky ones to have such an experience?

Though you didn’t grow up in church, it would surprise me if you were not deeply influenced by the culture of Christianity considering just how prevalent it is around us. 

We are all skeptical of what we don’t believe. The problem arrises when we become convinced. We should be skeptical even if we believe it and should always remain open to change if new information were to show our beliefs and experiences as unreliable. I know a wiccan who has had an experience and believes in a god and godess of creation. These experiences are only convincing to the person who has them. I would be shocked if you are ever able to break the spell Christianity has on you because experiences are so powerful.

The 30,000 in 2 Samuel 6:1 is how many men King David took to bring back the Ark. You talk about out of context, this is most certainly out of context. You cannot just take numbers from other parts of the book and add them together like that and call it good. These events didn’t happen at the same time. It contains years of King Davids reign into account. These numbers you are putting together are not connected.

First I will point out that chapter 21 is about the census of able men who can fight and chapter 27 of 1 Chronicles is about active men month by month. Two separate numbers about two different groups, active versus able. 2 Chronicles 1 is under King Solomon, so this would be some time after King Davids census. Please understand the context next time!

2 Samual 24:9

Israel had 800,000 fighting men

Judea had 500,000

1 Chronicles 21:5

Israel had 1,100,000

Judea had 470,000

In the Bible:

3=1 (Trinity)

1=1000 (Days)

I just thought of this. If we ignore all of the times the Bible gets it wrong, it would be right 100% of the time.

If I could ask you a question:

How do you know the God of the Bible exists?

Let me also point out, you're not Jesus!

So you think that passage you quoted from gives you the right to talk to people the way you do? That passage was about believers clearly. The king gives you something and you do nothing with it. If you bury what the king has given you will make the king angry. What have you done with the kings money? You are a savage person who thinks he's doing a good service for Christ. Why not encourage and lift people up instead of tearing people down? How could you possibly reach anyone with that type of attitude? I like to debate, but I prefer to have a conversation with a respectful person who actually wants to have a conversation and not just tell people they are fake or say they are going to hell. I will treat people with respect if they treat me with respect, but as you can tell from my last post, I am willing to be obnoxious if provoked.

Let me also point out that this is a parable! It is not meant to be taken literally. It is allegorical for how he will handle those who do nothing with what was given them. They will not have eternal life. You can make the Bible say anything you want, but it most certainly doesn't mean you are being like Jesus was. He ate with sinners. Jesus always had the most trouble with Jewish leaders. If Christian leaders acted the same way Jewish leaders did in his time, would Jesus be happy with those Christian leaders? Jesus often taught the virtue of actions.

Matt. 7

I am primarily curious if your answers will differ from the ones I’ve been told.

There are several instances of stoning in the first five books, and Joshua. Most are very troubling to me. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. For instance, Achan along with his entire family were stoned. There is a story in Numbers were a person is stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. I have no issues with punishment, but it is the extent of the punishment that bothers me. There are other issues, but will stick with this for now.

Why?

I am just glad to know if there is a hell (which I am certain there’s not) you’ll be there to torment me!

Jesus wasn’t talking to atheists, he was talking to arrogant jewish leaders. He was talking about the disservice they were doing by the actions they took in the name of YHWH. You know, you should really read your Bible.

I do not believe in a personal creator God. We have never observed something come from something other than itself. We have observed changes overtime in certain species like dogs, and we know if you allow enough time for small changes to occur it will lead to the change of species. As for the Solar-system, what would be more compelling is if it were not fine tuned. Then we would require a God to sustain life. In other words, life would not exist in a Solar-system that’s not fine tuned for life. I get believing in a higher power, but when you give it attributes inconsistent to our observations, it becomes a little unbelievable for me.

Jesus mourned at death, and you enjoy the suffering of others. Jesus said “forgive them, they know not what they do.”

You are nothing like the Christ you pretend to serve.

I’m being facetious and a bit hyperbolic.

Reading through these treads you will see people say things like “if you only had the truth as I do”. I was a member of an ultra conservative denomination that taught they had truth. It was exclusive and relied on Matt 7:13-14. Obviously we could just lean on Orthodoxy as it is most certainly the oldest form of Christianity, but we were taught that the church had the doctrine locked down because the general public didn’t have copies of the Bible so no one could go against the authority of the church leadership. Now that we have the Bible we can study to show ourselves approved unto God. (2 Tim 2:15) It was the terrible thing done in the OT by God’s permission that made me question it. When I discovered the many contradictions in the Bible and the conflicting manuscripts passed down, I had no choice if I were being honest with myself but to give up my faith. I have no problem with personal religion so long as others are respected. I will stand up against the tyranny of oppression brought about by the religious who seek to impose their beliefs on others.

As long as you belong to the right religion, the right denomination, hold the right set of beliefs, and act on those beliefs in just the right way, it’s free!

My point was you are demonizing the very religion your so called messiah was a part of. I know he was jewish, the question was sarcastic. If you are a part of a jewish sect of Christianity, why the harsh tone towards their religious beliefs? It just seems odd to me, that’s all.

Wasn’t Jesus a Jew?

Matt. 5:17

”Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” 

Young Earth Creationists treat science like hermeneutics. They only know what they have been told by people who have never worked the field or submitted to peer review for verification. They do not know nor have they studied science because science is demonized behind the pulpit. I would know because I used to be a YEC. The Scientific Method has yielded unparalleled results and they accept every other branch of science until it conflicts with their religious beliefs. As I have said before, not all Christians have issues with science and the conclusions made from empirical evidence. There are Christians who believe in evolution as well as the Big Bang Theory. Science unlike most religious beliefs is open to new information and is willing to go anywhere the evidence takes it. If we use our religion as a spiritual guide and science as a guide into the natural world, science would be far less critical of religion. It is because of the attacks of religion on science that has put them on defense. There are many good Christian Scientists who contribute to the field, if only people would be more like them and move past their biases.

In science there is consensus (unless the science is done by a religious person), in religion there is not a consensus. All branches of science agree and support one another’s conclusions. Science is not an educated guess. It is based on hard evidence with peer review to ensure the results are accurate. Science is about understanding the natural world and should not really impact religious beliefs. The problem is that many (Christians in particular) have beliefs about the natural world built into their religious teachings and that is why they are constantly at odds. In reality, science should deal exclusively with the natural world while religion deal exclusively in the metaphysical. If they are kept mutually exclusive they can work well together, but when they seek to explain something other than what they are intended to, it becomes messy. Many religious people including many Christians have found a way to make science work with their faith. If God created the natural world as most religions claim, it seems to me anyway that they should want to study the handy work of God.

You hit the nail on the head. There is a distinction between knowledge and belief. Belief is acceptance of a proposition you cannot possibly know is true. This is not to say that beliefs are always wrong. It is possible to have faith in something and true at the same time, I just find such methodology to be unreliable. Chances are I would be wrong because of the number of options I have to choose from. Knowledge would be things like the Earth is round. Belief is like the resurrection of Jesus of which no one can verify. Not saying it isn’t true, only that we cannot possibly know for sure. 

You don’t want to hear opposing views, why are you on a debate site?

The last sentence is why I have no specific God/god/gods belief.

 I am not personally part of the LGBT community. With that said, many Christians (not all) want to restrict rights simply because it goes against their religious beliefs. If religious beliefs were personal, it would be fine, but often times it is not. I get there are differences of opinion, but we share this space on Earth. I like to bring up how others would feel if someone with differing beliefs were to legislate them. Would you like it if you were forced to adhere to someone else’s beliefs? If you don’t do this, cool. But too many do and this is why I am on this site defending my position not to believe. I am open to proof if someone actually had any, but so far I have seen no definitive proof of God. I take no issues with Pantheism, or Deism, as neither make specific god claims or tell people what to do and how to think.

First I would like to point out that this is a debate site. I am making arguments about why I don’t believe.

Marriage is a contract, not a magical belief. I am not against ceremonies or practices, I am arguing about the usefulness these practices have for a Deity. If there is a Deity able to create the entire Universe, why care so much about how we worship and serve? Also, the Bible shows a God with human emotions, and this doesn’t make any sense for a Deity. Why are you selling out your life to a book written by ancient superstitious people?

Protestants came after the printing press after the Bible was able to be read by anyone. Before this the church had under lockdown and killed anyone who disagreed. This doesn’t happen anymore because the general public has access to the Bible. Study history, not what your church tells you.

You make a lot of generalizations without much substance. Why is that?

I will not claim there is nothing profound within Christianity writings, just not as profound. When I say profound, I am not talking about just an extraordinary claim because Christianity has plenty of that, but rather in practicality. For instance, there is nothing practical about baptism or a resurrection. They fit the narrative of the Bible quite well, but if God is all powerful, these truly are unnecessary. Why did God require blood sacrifice for sin? The NT has a human sacrifice for sin, and again why? Why does God require blood to appease him? The sacraments seem meaningless to an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving God. There are so many arbitrary rules and laws in the Bible. In the OT they were required to pick up stones and throw them at people (sometimes the entire family including children) who disobey even the least of these laws. This is supposed to be the same God in the NT, but clearly Jesus disagrees with some OT laws and changes them. Christianity is nothing like Judaism from which it came. Most Christians do not even follow the Sabbath, the most holy day. Hypocrisy at its best.

The only positive claim I made was that Buddhism is more profound. There are many things they believe both of us would find strange. Every religion I know about has multiple sects who disagree on various points which to me proves its fallibility.

I would never suggest torment is good for any amount of time. I really only had the four noble truths and the eightfold path in mind. From my understanding they believe in reincarnation, so in that sense everything is impermanent. I was referring to hell in the classical orthodox view. I am fully aware of the different interpretations of hell. Many religions have philosophical problems and paradoxical problems. I cannot mention them all here and was trying to keep it somewhat on subject with the topic. I do consider the countless denominations to be evidence against the proposition that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

And I quote “eternal conscious torment”.

Buddhist don’t believe in permanence.

 I think my overall point is being missed, I’m not Buddhist.

They don’t believe in the same hell many Christians do of eternal conscious torment. The Buddhist taught the four noble truths which is all about eliminating unnecessary suffering. Is there corruption in the Buddhist religion? Sure. It is made up of people. I was talking about the fundamentals of the religion and not the people who believe in it. People are either good or they are bad regardless of their religious persuasion.

I don’t know you or what you believe. If you vote to take away the rights of others who disagree, then I care. If you don’t and just practice your beliefs without restricting the rights of others, then go right ahead. I only mean to point out the absurdity of the beliefs many religious people have. If that sounds like I want to make religion somehow illegal, I want to assure you that you are mistaken and that was not at all my intent.

What are you talking about?

I don’t particularly care what people personally believe until they legislate them and force others to comply. The problem is what you believe will inevitably influence your actions, and that is what I am concerned with.

Let’s say we were talking about Santa, would your reaction be the same? If you take the positive and I the negative, how would this same argument play out?

I could say Santa is silly to believe in because we have never seen flying rain deer, or a flying sled, or a sack filled with millions of toys, or a rather large man fitting in a small chimney who likes to have milk and cookies. You could point out how I didn’t follow the orthodox teachings by the right set of books, so that is why I don’t believe in Santa. If only I had been orthodox instead of the heretical version I understood, I would believe. But I could point out that your beliefs come from a very old set of books. Your version is just as unbelievable as the one I have. This would essentially be the exact same argument I am making about Christianity.

We have never seen a person born of a virgin, turn water into wine, stop a storm with just words, multiply bread and fish to feed thousands, heal the blind by spitting on clay, or being resurrected three days after a brutal Roman crucifixion. Yeah, but I didn’t believe in the orthodox version! No, because it is just as unbelievable. You just have an old set of books that tell you this happened without a single shred of evidence to support your claims. You could see this is the fact if you weren’t so convinced it is true. I am not the one making a claim, I am simply not accepting the claims Christianity makes without corroborating evidence to support it. If Jesus still walked the Earth I would believe. No, he simply leaves the Earth without a trace. How convenient.

Interesting reading:

The US is submerged in Christian culture, it doesn’t matter if you were raised in the church, you were exposed to the culture. Being raised in it is not necessary to the superstitious and gullible. 

Do you realize you only believe that because you were taught to believe that way?

 If you were raised in certain parts of China, Africa, Russia, or North Korea you would have never even heard of Christianity, much less Orthodox Christianity. How lucky you must be to have been raised in just the right location to find the truth.

Name calling!

That was the point. I was contrasting. The Orthodox view of Christianity believes in hell, so that was very much my point. Buddhists also don’t believe in hell, so why not call me out on that point?

So you’re not being arrogant? If you are anything like the god you serve, I would want nothing to do with him. 

Buddhists don’t tell people to serve their Deity or burn in hell. They simply want to eliminate unnecessary suffering. Christianity seems only to create suffering, guilt, judgment, and bigotry.

Why do you believe what the Bible says? There are other religions older such as Buddhism which is far more profound. What other book would you accept with talking animals and all manner of unbelievable stories in it. Religion makes people believe ridiculous things and has built in defenses to keep people from questioning their beliefs. You have all the trappings of indoctrination.

I respect anyone who has an open mind about what they believe. I do not share the same experiences as you, so my views differ from yours. I am a naturalist. I only believe in the natural world, but I would never take the position that the natural world is all there is. I sympathize with your beliefs because my mom believes in a higher power. My dad however is an ultra conservative Christian which is why I was one for over thirty years. I know what it’s like to live in a place where my beliefs were constantly reinforced by the people I surrounded myself with and the material I chose to read. Indoctrination works best in isolation. I see you like to read other religious sources which is good because you get many different perspectives. You mentioned correlation, and the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster shows the problem with the belief that correlation equals causation. It shows the decline of pirates happening at the same time as global temperatures rise and suggests that they must be related. Having opinions are fine, but when we make truth claims about subjects we know little about is where I have issues, and to top that off people want to tell you how to live and act, and legislate their  beliefs on the rest of us. The same people who legislate their beliefs are the first to complain if someone they disagree with legislates theirs. We share this space and should respect each other, but that can’t happen when one side is trying to force the other side to comply with their beliefs. This drives me crazy! I like to tell people to imagine someone of another faith enforcing their religious beliefs on them. This example usually helps them see the problem we are having unless they just don’t care. 

i guess the first place to start is what do you mean by spiritual? That word is not well defined and has assumptions built in. It appears to me our brain controls our experiences. Imagine being on drugs and having an experience, would you call that spiritual? I have no reason to doubt anyone who claims they had an extraordinary experience. Should we start with a supernatural explanation when we can’t even demonstrate the supernatural exists? Every time humans have claimed the supernatural for things like lightning, thunder, earthquakes, and famines, we have shown time and time again it is natural. I am not saying that the supernatural doesn’t exist, but when is a good time to accept that it does? We should always look for natural explanations first before jumping to the supernatural. Even if we were to establish a non-natural explanation, how do we determine who or what happened exactly? Most people just credit the God or gods they happen to believe in. If people left it at just a higher power, cool! But most will tell you who did it and what he wants every to do and how to live. We all have beliefs that exceed the evidence we currently have, but it’s the level of certainty that drives me crazy. I proportion my level of belief to the evidence. If I have little evidence, my level of belief would not be as strong as beliefs with ample evidence. Skepticism is about certainty. How certain should I believe what I think is true? That’s where I’m at right now.

My issue is not really with religion. I quite like the Buddhist text and teachings. I have no issues with a God proposition. When people think they know God and how he wants me to live, I take issue with them. The only evidence they have is an ancient book written in ancient times with ancient ideas like stoning people for working on the sabbath. When I bring this up, they justify these horrible acts because God is good, kind, just, all loving, and he knows best. The justification of truly horrible behavior is a scary thing to me. I never felt comfortable with certain text in the Bible, I just ignored them for a really long time.

I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. If testable evidence supports the claim, I will believe it. If testable evidence is against the claim, I will reject it. If no testable evidence exists, my belief remains at null until sufficient evidence supports it. The greater the claim, the greater the evidence is needed to support such claims. As for metaphysics, if you are not claiming absolute certainty, then I really don’t care, but if you know for sure something you cannot possibly know, I think it is unjustified.

Do you not understand quotes and sarcasm. You are such a literalist that you miss the point of the quote. No Protestant I know believes in this way, it was meant to express the philosophical problems with the belief in the Christian God. I see you focused on the quote and ignored the rest. You along with every other persuasive religion feels they have truth and refuse to accept anything else. There are many philosophical problems with Christianity. What would it take to convince you that you are wrong? A better question is, what would it take to convince you another religion is right, and has your beliefs met that level of scrutiny? Most have not and will not examine their own faith claims the same way they do others. The main reason for this is because they are already convinced it’s true, so there is no need to do so. We are naturally more skeptical of beliefs we do not share, but will blindly accept beliefs we do share. I am skeptical of any belief that has not met its burden of proof. 

The narrative was not meant to explain you, but only to express how easy it is to believe almost anything. I did grow up in church, of course not yours, but I know how believable things become when everyone around you believes the same things and constantly reinforcing what you already think is true. Belief keeps people from learning anything new. When we already think we know the answers, we stop seeking. Progress only happens when we are open to new information. How we obtain information is important too. The church produces its own narratives to reinforce its belief system. If you buy their narrative, you will believe what they are saying.

Why do you believe their narrative?