Haha, thanks mate, I try…

“Obi is operating under the presupposition of Christianity’s falsity. If he can argue, using scripture to prove the “untruth” of what Jesus said, why can’t I use the same scriptures he is using to prove their value and truth? Obi is presenting what Jesus said as if HE REALLY DID SAY IT—and then IT DIDN’T COME TRUE. This is a presupposition that the person was REAL, but he uttered falsities. I am arguing the same thing—He was REAL, but I am attempting to show that what he said did not have the inconsistencies Obi is saying are there.

If I am not allowed to argue my point because I am being forceful, and don’t “fit into” the logic most of you use, I will stop posting. It appears most of you want to stay in some “logic box” of some kind, and anyone who starts to shake the box a little just doesn’t fit the mold and is a problem.”

Actually, Obi is working under a more complicated premise. He’s working from this point:

Christianity holds that Jesus was the Son of God and member of the Trinity. As such, he is all knowing, all seeing and infallible. The Bible is infallible record of his life and teachings on earth.”

This is an A = B, B = C, C = D and therefore A = B = C =D argument.

As such, demonstrating that the words attributed to Jesus in The Bible do not accurately reflect reality disproves Jesus’ infallibility. That disproves that Jesus was a member of the Trinity and/or that the Bible is an accurate record of Jesus’ life and teachings. Either one of those two things is problematic for Christianity.

Your argument that the inconsistencies don’t exist is fine. But you can’t use or assume Jesus divinity (and therefore infallibility) or the in errancy of the Bible to disprove Obi’s claims of ‘untruth.’

You complain about our wanting to stay in a “logic box.” The truth is that logic is a box. It has rules and limits and boundaries. As soon as you step outside of them, we will discredit your argument because it is no longer logical. If you are not claiming your argument is logical (appeal to emotion or personal experience) that would be one thing, but you ARE claiming logical basis for your argument.

And it’s simply not there because you’re breaking the rules of logic in formulating your argument.

We certainly don’t want you to leave. We either want you to refine your argument to comply with the rules of logic or to accept that your argument isn’t valid and either change your position on the issue or find a new argument to support your position.

“In what way, then, do you differ from an atheist who uses common sense as a way to choose how to live?”(quester)

I dont differentiate, just because you dont believe in a creator doesnt mean youre right, just as with me believing doesnt mean im right. I do think there is a format to this life and common sense is one of its operating systems.

Quester, no offense intended, but for actual knowledge (like the natural and social sciences, philosophy) the Bible is a rather poor source. For one thing, it’s way out of date

True, but I did only claim it as “a story of multiple generations of people trying to figure out the world and how to live in it”. I might call it out of date if people were not still coming to the same conclusions as to the world and their place in it that the characters in the Bible did. I’m not going to open the Old Testament to learn about biology, but the Bible does still have it’s uses.

John T #223

The bible sure isnt one long narrative, but I think it has lots of good old fashion common sense. And maybe that is truly what God is all about.

In what way, then, do you differ from an atheist who uses common sense as a way to choose how to live?

Tim #224

What you’re saying makes perfectly good sense, and I should point out that my goal in this discussion is as much for me to learn (my own selfish goal) as anything.

Keep pursuing that goal. I’ve pretty much stopped responding to people (online) that I don’t think I can learn anything from or teach anything to. Why else communicate in this medium?

When I look at the Bible, I can certainly see a series of stories about how to live, and how NOT to live. For example, I’m one of the first to question how God would be glorifying Himself by asking for the foreskins of a thousand Philistines.

As the Apostate said to John T., there are many books that can fulfil this role. Some of my favourite include Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, and The Road to Mars by Eric Idle. The stories I consider to be good all talk about (at some level) what it means to be human. The best stories, in my opinion, talk about what it could mean to be human, if we were to live out our potential. I prefer the optimistic tales over the darker ones, in that regard.

If youre only 17, Im very impressed by your grasp of language and its application. Pretty mature speaking, you must be an old soul

What type of background?

What’s you background?

Come on mate, you have to see that that’s a bit of a stretch. Who says things like that? You’re bending language in awkward ways to make it seem as if that’s what they were really saying. A commander of a platoon would say those who are alive, not we who are alive. It simply sounds more natural in that situation, because he wouldn’t expect to be alive. However, Paul uses the personal pronoun “we”, which obviously refers to himself. I’m being literal because that’s usually the way you should read nonfiction works, no? Paul is sending a letter to a church he ministered to, and I don’t think he’d use confusing metaphors or obscure figurative language to get his point across — letters are usually rather straightforward.

Also, do you think perhaps Paul changed his tone regarding the prophecy coming to pass in his second letter to the Thessalonians because he was beginning to realize that perhaps it was never going to happen, and that he was in the early stages of denial? I recall from history class a man with the surname of Miller, who in the 19th century predicted the day the world would end. He and his followers went out into a field to wait for Jesus to arrive, and when he didn’t, they weren’t deterred. Many of them continued to follow him, showing that even after utter failures, humans can still convince themselves to keep following. I have a feeling that that’s what’s happening here, which is why you see Paul’s tone becoming more and more resigned to the possibility that Jesus may not be coming after all as time goes on.

Rover –

Indeed, he didn’t. But since he new what Jesus’ teachings regarding the subject were, he understood that Jesus was saying that he would return soon, because of all of the reasons outlined in this thread. However, it never happened, and I think the church has been holding onto an empty dream ever since. Just look at all of the people proclaiming the end is near, even today. They’ll be disappointed just like the millions who preceeded them, because such an end isn’t going to come.

What I mean is that you are taking a verse, and then being far to “literal” with the phrasing of it. To take a statement Paul makes “Then we who are alive and remain” and then state he is referring to himself is really not good hermeneutics. One has to investigate other places in the Bible where similar statements are made to really get a better understanding of what is being said.

One more example: “Our family is saving to buy a store. We know we will have the funds—we don’t know when though. But when we get enough funds, we who are alive will purchase the store…. etc.” The person making the statement is referring to the WHOLE FAMILY, though he doesn’t even know if he’ll be around to see it. Perhaps you won’t accept this—but it is a tense often used in the Bible.