Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
onenerdykidThat's a rather bold claim. Not saying it's not true, but I've never heard this before. Sources? I do find it hard to believe that he is wiser than Aristotle (who invented modern logic, one of the soundest ethical theories, biology, physics, metaphysics, zoology, a big bang-esque theory, etc) or Newton (who practically invented calculus on a dare) or one of the 10 other people I could easily list who have literally changed the way we think about the universe.
That doesn't discredit anything he has said, but I do cast doubt on the claim that he is the "wisest man to walk the planet".
MCNUGGETSwisdom and raw intellect are mutually exclusive.
LonelyReligion was evolutionary. Everything you know is a lie.
It's all a hoax.
The bible is not true and can be proven false.
milk_manIf you hold the key to proving the Bible false you should come forward with it. No one else has been able to
milk_manIf you hold the key to proving the Bible false you should come forward with it. No one else has been able to
ZeMagnificentKevYou seem a little bored
milk_manIf you hold the key to proving the Bible false you should come forward with it. No one else has been able to
milk_manIf you hold the key to proving the Bible false you should come forward with it. No one else has been able to
LonelyWell nothing I said is false. And as it has been said time and time again, you are the one that the burden of proof falls onto.
Prove to me that jesus was raised from the dead.
Prove to me that a man road into the sky on a chariot of fire.
Prove to me that a man split the sea.
You can't say that the bible is true and any other sort of religion is false. And you can't say that a book that has a few historical accurate facts is non fiction when the majority of it is in fact fiction.
LonelyWell nothing I said is false. And as it has been said time and time again, you are the one that the burden of proof falls onto.
Prove to me that jesus was raised from the dead.
milk_manThis is really the only one that needs to be proven. Where do you live? If you live somewhat near a movie theater check online and see if they have the movie "The Case for Christ," if they do, go to it and I'll PayPal you half the movie ticket price. It's a super good movie based on a book and it can lay out the facts that prove the resurrection better than I could
LonelyWhy are the other two or any other grossly unrealistic parts of the bible not relevant?
milk_man1. There's really no way to prove or disprove them
2. They aren't vital to Christianity (compared to Jesus' resurrection)
You live near any theaters?
LonelyEven if they're not vital it still makes it fiction.
It's more likely that we are living in part of a simulation than God existing.
While it may be unlikely that we are in a simulation, there is a lot more evidence supporting that then God existing. I do live near a theatre but after watching God's not dead I decide to stay away from any movie like such for the remainder of my life.
milk_manIf you hold the key to proving the Bible false you should come forward with it. No one else has been able to
onenerdykidHow many Biblical/religious claims have been overturned by science? Hundreds.
How many scientific claims have been overturned by the Bible/religion? None. Absolutely zero.
Instead of people trying to prove the Bible is false, you need to start proving that it is true.
milk_manYou mean prove that the Bible is historically accurate? That's what really matters. And you definitely don't do that using the type of science you're talking about
onenerdykidHistorical accuracy is only a part of the equation. Did Jesus really exist (was he a historical figure)? I don't think many people would truly doubt this (though I'm sure some do). That there was a man named Jesus who gave advice to people and performed apparently inexplicable acts doesn't at all prove anything about the nature of God or God's existence. He could turn water to wine and walk on water, but that doesn't remotely prove anything concerning the nature of God. You still have to get from Jesus, a man who was born and killed, to God.
You also have to ask yourself this: what is more likely to be the case? That the laws of the universe are temporarily suspended (and suspended for your sole benefit) or that these things didn't actually happen they way they are purported to happen? Was it more likely that a young Jewish virgin became pregnant through divine intervention or that a young Jewish girl lied about having sex outside of marriage so she wouldn't be stoned to death on her father's doorstep (as the Jewish Bible dictates to be done)?
There is only insufficient (or a complete lack of) evidence that surrounds the Bible. Hearsay and eye-witness testimony of followers does not constitute sufficient evidence. If there was any solid evidence at all, you should be easily able to demonstrate it and convince all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jains, etc. of their folly and vice-versa. But there isn't, which is why it doesn't happen.
TheHamburglarI was actually born on Easter in 1991. You can't prove I'm not the resurrection of Christ-therefore, I am Jesus. Therefore, I am God. #christianlogic
LonelyThe big bang could have caused itself.
DooberzYeah dude, right on, it's pretty chill when babies just birth themselves too. No mother or father needed it can just... cause... itself..................
tomatonaterRespect the bible, its a holy book.
It's your walk through on your Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
onenerdykidI don't need to respect a book that claims I am sinful and guilty because of the actions of 2 people whom I have never met or had any interaction with. I do not need to respect a book that claims I am born sick and commanded to get well or I will burn in Hell for all of eternity. I do not need to respect a book that condones and promotes slavery, the stoning of women, the subjugation of women, Anti-Semitism, and homosexuality as an abomination deserving of punishment. No such book will ever have my respect.
If you consider this your "basic instruction" manual for life, then your moral compass is profoundly off track.
milk_manFor someone who claims that Christians pick and choose what they believe when it comes to science you're sure picking and choosing what you want to believe Christianity is.
onenerdykidNo - these messages are in the Bible. That is a fact. Ignoring them arguably makes you a bad Christian, but calling them out for what they are is simply logical.
milk_manDo you not understand the Christian religion and the old covenant and the new convenant? This stuff is elementary in Christianity. You sound like me trying to talk about astrophysics.
.MASSHOLE.Onenerdykid was a philosophy major, this kind of stuff is his bread and butter. I've never seen someone so well-versed in different religions and philosophical arguments surrounding them.
Just a heads up before debating him about this kind of thing.
milk_manDo you not understand the Christian religion and the old covenant and the new convenant? This stuff is elementary in Christianity. You sound like me trying to talk about astrophysics.
milk_manHe's talking about laws in the Old Testament that were written before Christianity existed. There's a reason that Christians don't follow that. For goodness sake, the ones who hated Jesus and killed him were the ones who were holding onto that law. They didn't recognize Jesus' authority.
onenerdykidWhich is partly false- you know Jesus said he came to affirm every iota of the old laws, not detract from them. So don't make it seem like he was opposed to the laws of the Old Testament.
I agree that Jesus acts differently than how he says, but this only shows the blatant hypocrisy and contradictions contained within the Bible.
milk_manYou're saying that the New Testament condones slavery by instructing people on how to treat slaves? Come on man.
onenerdykidYes, this is correct. The American slave states were on the right side of a theological argument. They used the New Testament as divine proof that they were allowed to own other human beings. There are at least 4 or 5 verses that clearly allow the ownership of people and how you are to "properly" care/beat them. This is a factual statement about the ideology contained within the New Testament.
milk_manSo you're saying that a bunch of 1800's modernist southern slave owner's interpretation of the New Testament, that was obviously used to justify things they knew were wrong, is what defines the New Testament and Christianity as a whole? Nah man. That's not how any of this works. For every verse that you (or slave owners from the 1800's) can twist into a proclamation that owning slaves is acceptable, I can name 10 verses that clearly state that it is not.
onenerdykidSome perhaps knew it was wrong and used it to their vicious advantage, but many definitely believed it to be true because the New Testament is very clear on the subject. No words need to be twisted here:
1 Timothy 6:1 - Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.
1 Peter 2:18 - Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.
Ephesians 6:5-8 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.
That you can counter these verses with other verses that contradict them only shows that the Bible is... wait for it- contradictory. The Bible is at best a contradictory moral document that would fail any basic ethics class taught today. It contains messages of peace & love AND completely contradictory moral prescriptions, such as slavery, the inequality of women, and anti-Semitism. It is a moral failure of an ideology, one which we can do better than and have done on innumerable occasions. We have far better, far more consistent ethical philosophies, some of which pre-date the Bible by hundreds of years.
milk_manYou're misinterpreting those verses. They are instructing the slaves how to bear their burden with grace. It isn't condoning slavery. What do you expect them to say? "Slaves disobey your masters and flee"?? This is being written to believers who are enslaved, not all slaves. So if you're going to use your argument, it only justifies slavery if the slaves are believers. But that's not its purpose.
onenerdykidWow. That you are trying to twist this into some apologetic defense is truly mind-boggling. Of course this condones slavery. At best, it condones a certain type of slavery. And if this is somehow only being written to believers who are enslaved, then slaves who are non-believers would logically have it better and be able to rebel? Luckily there are ethical philosophies where you don't need to bend over backwards and attempt to justify when slavery is and isn't acceptable.
milk_manNope. As I said, the argument you are making would only make sense if you said it justifies slavery of believers. That was never my point, it's yours. I just fixed it for you.
But judging by your response, I'm assuming you're about done with this discussion
onenerdykidFirst Timothy
onenerdykidYou hardly fixed it, rather obfuscated it. First Timothy and Ephesians are completely without reference to slaves as believers- go read them. They are pure and clear directions on how slaves ought to obey their masters. "Let all who live under the yoke" cannot be interpreted to mean "only believers who are under the yoke". Nice try. You are simply not paying attention to the text and rather injecting your own wishes into it.
onenerdykidYou hardly fixed it, rather obfuscated it. First Timothy and Ephesians are completely without reference to slaves as believers- go read them. They are pure and clear directions on how slaves ought to obey their masters. "Let all who live under the yoke" cannot be interpreted to mean "only believers who are under the yoke". Nice try. You are simply not paying attention to the text and rather injecting your own wishes into it.
.lenconHave you read the Bible? I am not trying to question anything you are saying, but you seem to claim to know a lot about the Bible. Just wondering if you have taken classes that taught you what you know or if you have actually studied the Bible yourself.
milk_manDo you know who peter and Paul (Ephesians) were writing to? These weren't newspaper articles written to society in general.
onenerdykidI have not read the Bible in its complete entirety, but I have read and studied it at university and graduate levels. Along with Christian theologians such as St. Anselm, St. Augustine, and St. Aquinas.
You do know that people take inspiration from the Bible, regardless of who they were writing to? Again you are trying to turn the conversation away from the what ideology actually inspires and promotes.
milk_manPeople's misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of scripture doesn't prove anything about the scripture itself. Let's take a poll of Bible scholars who have studied scripture and ask them if the New Testament condones slavery. Because it seems that the skeptics believe it does and the theologians and biblical scholars believe it doesn't. (I am not and do not think I am a biblical scholar)
onenerdykidScripture isn't some super-crazy hard thing to actually make sense of. I read the scripture, understand what it says, and then make judgments based on that. The scripture is what is causing me not to believe, not that I am a stubborn non-believer who won't open his eyes.
Far too often than not, believers are not like this (and I am not saying you are doing this now). They have faith first and then try to make sense out of the scripture and bend it to fit their narrative of Christianity. The Bible starts out as 100% divinely inspired truth, but logic, reason, science expose many parts of it as false and all of a sudden things are "allegorical" or only to be taken as "metaphor". But for hundreds of years prior, it was fully considered true. Popes, arch-bishops, cardinals, priests, saints, inquisitors, etc. at one point all thought the Earth was the center of the universe or that Jews are to be hated & persecuted or that people ought to be tortured until they believe in the love of Christ or that gays ought to be treated as moral abominations or that people should own other people as property or that women cannot be in positions of power or even equal to men. Why? Because it is all in the Bible and moreover gives it a divine blessing to do so.
You are telling me that for the past 2000 years everyone who has used the Bible as an excuse for the above is crazy wrong and they all have misinterpreted the scripture? All the popes, all the priests, all the cardinals, etc. they all got it wrong? Or could it be that yes these things are obviously in the Bible and modern believers (rightly using their own common sense and practical reason) don't want them to be there and are trying to shape the narrative as to do away with them?
It also begs the question that if such a book is divinely inspired, shouldn't it be a little easier to comprehend and not so easy to misinterpret to the point that people get killed? When I read a book such as the Bible or the Qur'an, it is patently obvious that these books are written and inspired by men without a clue as to what constitutes ethics or morality. How is so obvious? Because we have books written by men and women that are hundreds of times more moral and more ethical than the Bible or Qur'an could ever hope to be. Simply put- we can do better than the Bible. And we don't need threats of eternal damnation or promises of eternal bliss to do the right thing.
milk_manWe can't have a legitimate discussion if all your points are shoved in one post like that. All these claims you're making could be pages of discussion for each of them.
Have you read the Bible in its original language? If not, then how can you have an opinion on how it's written? Most skeptics who actually sit down with an open mind and read the entire Bible either start believing or don't hold a hostile view toward Christianity anymore. Maybe that's why so many refuse to do it.
onenerdykidThen feel free to attack/criticize any point you wish. I won't shy away from a discussion. I actually hold the opinion that if you prove me wrong, then you've made me a better person. I hope you (or anyone) would grant the same courtesy.
First it is not true that most people who read the Bible become convinced of its truth.
That is an absurd claim. And again, it is precisely because I have read the Bible that I don't believe in it. The scripture alone is enough to make me completely turned off by it all. And it is totally false to say you need to read a book in its original language in order to form an opinion of it. If that were true, then it would hold for you right now about your interpretation of Christianity. If it were true, then I would have to read Aristotle in the original Greek, or Kant in the original German, or Kierkegaard in Danish. It's simply not true because the translations have been peer reviewed enough times and agreed upon by a community of experts. Now, I will grant you that reading a text in its original language is a beneficial thing. But to claim that it is necessary to form an opinion about it is thoroughly untrue.
