100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Throwdown Vote | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 08/01/08 06:44 PM
|
|
Spider wrote:
That's the difference between the two times, many of the Jews in the time of Jesus were repentant for their sins and sought salvation, but during Noah's days, the hearts of men were turned towards wickedness. This is precisely the argument I expected. The reason that I personally reject this argument is because it only looks at the precise moment in the times of the actual stories. However, we can't do that. That's not the full picture. There had to have been a time prior to the flood when all men were not evil and many indeed were seeking to serve God. Therefore the argument that, because every man was evil at the time of the flood the situation on the ground was different, doesn't hold water (if you'll excuse the pun). It doesn't hold water, because that's merely the pinnacle of the story, but there must have been times earlier, prior to the flood, when all men were not evil and therefore those times would have been equal opportunities for God to have offered salvation before he allowed the whole world to become corrupt. I've thought of all these possibilities before Spider. This explanation does not hold water IMHO. Let's have a vote. If you feel the above argument is valid without any supporting evidence, say "Aye". If you think it is an invalid argument because it lacks evidence, say "Nay" Thank you all for your time and consideration. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no need to vote folks.
I concede defeat. 
I offered no evidence for my position. Spider has proven that his God is consistent. The war is over. God and Jesus have risen to victory.
Spider has won the debate. The war is over. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider wrote:
That's the difference between the two times, many of the Jews in the time of Jesus were repentant for their sins and sought salvation, but during Noah's days, the hearts of men were turned towards wickedness. This is precisely the argument I expected. The reason that I personally reject this argument is because it only looks at the precise moment in the times of the actual stories. However, we can't do that. That's not the full picture. There had to have been a time prior to the flood when all men were not evil and many indeed were seeking to serve God. Therefore the argument that, because every man was evil at the time of the flood the situation on the ground was different, doesn't hold water (if you'll excuse the pun). It doesn't hold water, because that's merely the pinnacle of the story, but there must have been times earlier, prior to the flood, when all men were not evil and therefore those times would have been equal opportunities for God to have offered salvation before he allowed the whole world to become corrupt. I've thought of all these possibilities before Spider. This explanation does not hold water IMHO. I realized that I quoted the wrong post. This is the post I intended to quote. This is what you are voting on. We have one Yay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I voted Aye
The problem is, with both of the arguments, you are both making assumptions based on your own feelings towards the stories. Because Spider has taken it upon himself to be the champion of all-things biblical, he assumes he can know what god thinks. Its nothing more than his interpretation. Abra does exactly the same, using logic. So, to be honest, neither of them will get any sort of closure because neither of them will win or lose. Because we actually, truly, dont know. Using the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Torah to base your actions upon is fine, but when you start debating its factual truth, it is nothing more than heresay. Even fellow christians cannot agree on the "truth" This is a contradiction in itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Fri 08/01/08 07:42 PM
|
|
I voted Aye The problem is, with both of the arguments, you are both making assumptions based on your own feelings towards the stories. Because Spider has taken it upon himself to be the champion of all-things biblical, he assumes he can know what god thinks. Its nothing more than his interpretation. Abra does exactly the same, using logic. So, to be honest, neither of them will get any sort of closure because neither of them will win or lose. Because we actually, truly, dont know. Using the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Torah to base your actions upon is fine, but when you start debating its factual truth, it is nothing more than heresay. Even fellow christians cannot agree on the "truth" This is a contradiction in itself. Belushi, The discussion has nothing to do with God or what God thinks. We are attempting to address claims that the Bible contradicts itself. Since I posted using scripture and Abra didn't, a reasonable judge would have to find for me. To prove that the Bible contradicts itself and to refute such claims, you must use the Bible. How else could a contradiction in the Bible be proven? For Abra to say "Some people must have been repentant before Noah's time" is to throw in his own opinion, which can't be used to prove a contradiction in the Bible. I thought it was clear that this isn't about "This is definitely true and everybody should beleive it", I was simply try to disprove Abra's arguments for the Bible being inconsistant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Fri 08/01/08 07:46 PM
|
|
Using the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Torah to base your actions upon is fine, but when you start debating its factual truth, it is nothing more than heresay. I'm in total agreement. I wasn't even attempting to argue hardcore evidence. I was trying to present arguments based on pure reason. What is reasonable? That's that only questions I ever ask. Like you point out Belushi, no one can know the facts, therefore all we can ask is whether or not something is reasonable. As soon as a person starts demanding hardcore "evidence" they are already lost. I was going by rule # 2 that stated,... rule # 2) In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. In other words, I was arguing what is more reasonable to believe. Because that's all we can argue. And that's all I was arguing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I voted Aye The problem is, with both of the arguments, you are both making assumptions based on your own feelings towards the stories. Because Spider has taken it upon himself to be the champion of all-things biblical, he assumes he can know what god thinks. Its nothing more than his interpretation. Abra does exactly the same, using logic. So, to be honest, neither of them will get any sort of closure because neither of them will win or lose. Because we actually, truly, dont know. Using the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Torah to base your actions upon is fine, but when you start debating its factual truth, it is nothing more than heresay. Even fellow christians cannot agree on the "truth" This is a contradiction in itself. Belushi, The discussion has nothing to do with God or what God thinks. We are attempting to address claims that the Bible contradicts itself. Since I posted using scripture and Abra didn't, a reasonable judge would have to find for me. To prove that the Bible contradicts itself and to refute such claims, you must use the Bible. How else could a contradiction in the Bible be proven? For Abra to say "Some people must have been repentant before Noah's time" is to throw in his own opinion, which can't be used to prove a contradiction in the Bible. I thought it was clear that this isn't about "This is definitely true and everybody should beleive it", I was simply try to disprove Abra's arguments for the Bible being inconsistant. Ok ... here is one classic contradiction ... CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD: "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling." "The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11) "For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34) "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9) "God is love." (1JO 4:16) God is telling them to murder innocent babies in the first one In the second set he is all sweetness and light. Contradictory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I voted Aye The problem is, with both of the arguments, you are both making assumptions based on your own feelings towards the stories. Because Spider has taken it upon himself to be the champion of all-things biblical, he assumes he can know what god thinks. Its nothing more than his interpretation. Abra does exactly the same, using logic. So, to be honest, neither of them will get any sort of closure because neither of them will win or lose. Because we actually, truly, dont know. Using the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Torah to base your actions upon is fine, but when you start debating its factual truth, it is nothing more than heresay. Even fellow christians cannot agree on the "truth" This is a contradiction in itself. Belushi, The discussion has nothing to do with God or what God thinks. We are attempting to address claims that the Bible contradicts itself. Since I posted using scripture and Abra didn't, a reasonable judge would have to find for me. To prove that the Bible contradicts itself and to refute such claims, you must use the Bible. How else could a contradiction in the Bible be proven? For Abra to say "Some people must have been repentant before Noah's time" is to throw in his own opinion, which can't be used to prove a contradiction in the Bible. I thought it was clear that this isn't about "This is definitely true and everybody should beleive it", I was simply try to disprove Abra's arguments for the Bible being inconsistant. Ok ... here is one classic contradiction ... CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD: "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling." "The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11) "For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34) "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9) "God is love." (1JO 4:16) God is telling them to murder innocent babies in the first one In the second set he is all sweetness and light. Contradictory That's great and exactly what I was looking for, but it goes into the other thread and I really don't feel like doing this now. Maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's great and exactly what I was looking for, but it goes into the other thread and I really don't feel like doing this now. Maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow. Take a break from the whole thing Spider. It's not worth getting all riled up over. It's just a discussion forum. It's not a holy war. Really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's great and exactly what I was looking for, but it goes into the other thread and I really don't feel like doing this now. Maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow. Take a break from the whole thing Spider. It's not worth getting all riled up over. It's just a discussion forum. It's not a holy war. Really.
Holy War was TLW's characterization of the situation, not mine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's great and exactly what I was looking for, but it goes into the other thread and I really don't feel like doing this now. Maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow. Take a break from the whole thing Spider. It's not worth getting all riled up over. It's just a discussion forum. It's not a holy war. Really.
Holy War was TLW's characterization of the situation, not mine. it was my characterization based upon your behavior my friend. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using the Bible, or the Qu'ran or the Torah to base your actions upon is fine, but when you start debating its factual truth, it is nothing more than heresay. I'm in total agreement. I wasn't even attempting to argue hardcore evidence. I was trying to present arguments based on pure reason. What is reasonable? That's that only questions I ever ask. Like you point out Belushi, no one can know the facts, therefore all we can ask is whether or not something is reasonable. As soon as a person starts demanding hardcore "evidence" they are already lost. I was going by rule # 2 that stated,... rule # 2) In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. In other words, I was arguing what is more reasonable to believe. Because that's all we can argue. And that's all I was arguing.
Abra - I do not dispute your approach to assessing the truth of scripture on the basis of "reasonableness". But being "reasonable" is subjective - and is not viable in concluding that the bible is "contradictory" - just unbelievable on your part. Most of your posts equate unreasonable with contradictory - which is a shifting middle. Were we to equate these two - everything would be contradictory as determined by subjective opinion. A severly limited scope by which to assess anything - for opinion is determined by the amount of evidence accumulated by the one formulating the opinion. I know little of UFO phenomina - but that doesn't stop me from thinking it's unreasonable to conclude it as fact. Would my opinion of this carry the same weight as Jeannie? I think we could all agree that to equate our opinions as having equal weight would be absurd. Jeannie has devolted an enormously more extensive amount of time to this topic than I. My opinion on this matter is subjected - at best - and limited at that. I believe that this is the point Spider is making. Unreasonable does not equate with contradicton. |
|
|
|
|
