Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by QGator2414, Dec 30, 2013.
corrected it for intellectual honesty
Here is 45 minutes to help explain why. As good a "theory" as there is...
That iPad still had a designer(s). It didn't come to be through random acts of nature, genetic mutations, or anything like that. I think if anything, you're making a an argument for multiple Gods.
If we are considering ultimate origins of the ipad, then it most certainly did, unless you want to argue that a group of Neanderthals or Homo Erectus could build an iPad.
No, I don't mean that - I don't believe Jesus walked on water or that David Blaine can levitate (no matter how much training he has). If you need to believe in some magical being that controls the universe that's up to you, just stop trying to convince people there's any logic to it. It's called "faith".
I'll add that we don't have to see or know the designer of the iPad to know that it had one (or more).
You protest too much. I don't know anyone who NEEDS to believe in magic. Check that, there are some women I've met online dating ...
no offense, but i do not care why others choose to believe what they do when it comes to the God of religion
good for them if it helps them, but it does nothing for me
like i said, i can see the logic in believing in a creator of sorts, based on the way we see creation in our own human experience, but there is nothing logical after that....the rules and regulations, the anthropomorphism, omnipotence, miracles, heaven and hell...it's a huge jump to go from believing in a creator to wholeheartedly believing in what an ancient book says about "him"
you guys talk about God like you know him, about heaven and hell like you know where its located...it's laughable for adults not to be able to at least see that it's a belief system...
and someone is going to first have to convince me why it even matters what you believe...
We do know Him 108- I will pray for you to someday find your way and get to know Him too
No offense taken.
But I will still suggest you take 45 minutes and try to understand why the Bible is seen as reliable.
Well the Cross would be my answer but as I just said I would first start with the 45 minute video I posted to help understand why the Bible is reliable to believe...
Agnostics/atheists need to understand that the (fairly quaint) "wish projection theory" cuts both ways.
No what I'm saying ?
Know we don't, can you clarify?
Are you saying that it's just as likely miracles such as virgin birth, healing the blind/lame/lepers, bringing the dead back to life, turning wine into water, walking on water etc. happened as not? Because in my mind there's a lot less "wish projection" in thinking those things didn't happen than in thinking that they did.
I watched it, 2414. Voddie Baucham is an intelligent man and makes an impassioned case for the credibility of the Bible. I agree there is archeological evidence confirming many of the stories/locales mentioned in the Bible, but his appeal to the sheer numbers of people that 'witnessed' the resurrection is not intellectually honest. Impressive numbers are just that - numbers intended to impress and convince.
Other than tradition there is no evidence that the gospels are first hand accounts. Scholars agree they were written decades after the events happened making it quite possible they were second, or even third hand accounts. Despite Bauchman's objection, the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the stories are indications they were changed through many retellings. The other evidence he mentioned, writings by the early Christian fathers in the 2nd century must be discounted for the same reason.
Most Biblical scholars agree several of the epistles traditionally attributed to Paul, as well as Hebrews, were written by someone other than Paul. The authorship of 2nd Peter is highly questionable. With little doubt, the Johannine Comma -
1 John 5:7,8 - was certainly added to later texts to support the Trinity dogma. There's extant textual evidence to support that fact.
Bauchman said some critics have said the Bible has been translated from translations. There have been cases of this but I agree it is not generally true. The best, and more highly regarded translations have sourced the oldest and most reliable of the extant texts. What he did not address, however, was the issue of how scholars differ on interpretation of words, phrases, portions and stories. In my mind, this largely covers the greater portion of disagreement over the text and its spiritual intent.
Just as Jesus generously employed parables to make his points when he taught, many scholars today agree the gospels themselves and the miracles related within them are parables writ large. For example, it's generally accepted that the story of Noah's ark and the flood is a messianic foreshadowing. The story of Jesus walking on the rough waters of the Sea of Galilee would have been told to confirm his role as Messiah. Peter's step out of the boat illustrates how we can be swamped and destroyed when we take our spiritual eyes off the author and finisher of our faith. What, if any, would have been another reason for Jesus to defy gravity and physics to walk across the water if not to make just that point?
Also, as an aside - are you aware Voddie Bauchman has strong connections with the Dominionist and Quiverfull movements?
I was not aware of his connections though not surprising based on some of what I have heard from him.
Thank you for the response to the video as well. I may have missed some hyperbole.
With regards to translation I think Dr. Baucham would agree with you. My guess is he would believe some translations are not as good as others. I would assume he preaches from the ESV or NASB.
Not God can also be a useful construct.
Maybe, but Not God is the null hypothesis.
Yes, as we're all chasing our presuppositional tails, it is imminently reasonable to presuppose a God who can God.