OT of OT: Rating Fyron -- no longer possible - Page 14

Ragnarok · #**131** March 6th, 2003, 04:19 AM

Quote:

There are basic ideals that define Christianity Rags. I am just going along with those.

In general Christianity these are the beliefs. But I'm not a general Christian.

Quote:

You have no hard evidence to support your claims, so their is not much to argue against there.

Nope guess not. But not much to argue against you either as you have no hard evidence to show me. You claim you have, just as I have claimed. But claims alone are not enough.

But now that this is over. At least for me...

I notice you took your rating system off.

jimbob · #**132** March 6th, 2003, 04:53 AM

Quote:

A look at the historical timeline is all the evidence I need to tell you that the Bible was written after the historical events it supposedly predicts. How many times must I repeat this before you will start noticing it? 50? 100? My evidence is basic historical facts.

I'd like to see one of these historical "facts". I'd be very surprised that anyone on earth could make an accurate claim on when any ancient text was originally put to paper. Certainly historians can carbon date the earliest document found to date, but this simply does not rule out the existance of an earlier document. That said, I personally believe that the oral tradition is as good as the written tradition in many cultures. If you want, I'll dig up some "expert opinions" from the Classics department that agree. We have very few contemporary documents regarding Julius Ceasar or Alexander, yet the transcripts that exist are 1) widely regarded as being resonably accurate (even though the earliest surviving documents are easily 200 years post-Julius or post-Alexander) and 2) often passed down originally by oral tradition prior to their "codification".

Quote:

My point is that Rags is wrong about the predictive capabilities of the Bible. That is what I have been arguing.

It seems this is so only because you have already decided that this is so. If you believe that accurate prediction is impossible, then we're already done here. But not on the basis that we have reason to doubt what happened a few thousand years ago, but because you have a world view that excludes the possibility that the writers were not lying.

Quote:

The stories of the Bible were not being told before the historical events the Bible supposedly predicts, but afterwards.

But why do you believe this? If it's because of an expert opinion, please, for your own sake, check your source(s). If you have some good sources (or if you're a historian yourself) then please, share and enlighten us all!! If it's because you believe that anything supernatural is impossible, then it really isn't about the authorship at all.

Fyron · #**133** March 6th, 2003, 06:36 AM

When you are talking about centuries to millennia of time difference, a few years (even decades) do not matter.

Don't be so literal. Would you prefer if I used the term "composed" instead of "written"? I was not necessarily refering to the actual act of writing them down, but when they were created.

Quote:

It seems this is so only because you have already decided that this is so. If you believe that accurate prediction is impossible, then we're already done here. But not on the basis that we have reason to doubt what happened a few thousand years ago, but because you have a world view that excludes the possibility that the writers were not lying.

They were not necessarily lying, so much as distorting the facts just enough to get their message across.

I have seen 0 evidence that the stories were (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) before the events took place, and plenty of evidence that they were (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) after they took place.

Quote:

But why do you believe this? If it's because of an expert opinion, please, for your own sake, check your source(s). If you have some good sources (or if you're a historian yourself) then please, share and enlighten us all!! If it's because you believe that anything supernatural is impossible, then it really isn't about the authorship at all.

As I already said, I am not a historian, and I do not have any history books at present. So, I can not at present cite you sources that will prove what I am saying about when these things occured. I am certain that if I spent the time to find them, I could find more of them than you ever wanted to see.

I know this because I have learned enough about ancient history to be able to place things in a relative timeline, and the (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) of the stories/books of the Bible happened well after the events that Rags posted in the original thread that the Bible supposedly predicted.

Quote:

quote:
You have no hard evidence to support your claims, so their is not much to argue against there.

Nope guess not. But not much to argue against you either as you have no hard evidence to show me. You claim you have, just as I have claimed. But claims alone are not enough.

The difference is that if I wanted to, I could find enough hard evidence to support my statements from reliable sources, as they are factual. You, on the other hand, would not be able to because your claims are not factual. I am sure you could find sources that make the same claims you have, but you could find sources making just about any claim you can think of.

Quote:

But now that this is over. At least for me... I notice you took your rating system off.

If you want to stop the debate, stop posting things that require responses.

Only one person that gave me a 1 rating fessed up to it. The other people have remained silent. If they are too cowardly to come forth, then there is no point in giving them the satisfaction of seeing my rating drop. Actually, it would probably be best if the rating system was disabled entirely. It serves no real purpose, except as a cheap shot for petty people that don't like people disagreeing with them.

Alpha Kodiak · #**134** March 6th, 2003, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I never said you made statements as to people's fate. But Hell is the fate for non-Christians according to Christianity (after the alleged coming of Christ).

As others have said, it is probably time to agree to disagree. All I ask is that you accept the possibility of other views. As for Hell being the fate of non-Christians, I look at it this way (different Christians look at it in many different ways, so I am only speaking for myself here):

Suppose for a moment that there is a God who created the universe and everything in it. In this small corner of the universe He created man on planet earth and gave man a free will so that God and man could experience a true relationship. Man rebelled against God and the relationship was broken. According to the Bible, the price of rebellion against God is death. Hell, meaning an eternity without God, became man's fate.

At this point God could have abandoned man and created someone else to have a relationship with. Instead, God chose to take the form of a man in the person of Jesus in order to pay the penalty (death) for man's rebellion (sin). When Jesus died and rose again, the curse of death was broken for those who would accept his gift of eternal life.

It is in this that I am trusting. I do not seek to condemn others, only to marvel at the grace of God that He has provided a way for me to have a relationship with Him, for I know that I am a sinful man who cannot possibly relate to God in my own strength. It is not for me to say who will have eternal life and who will not. If a person spends their whole life telling God that they want nothing to do with Him, what will become of them when they come face-to-face with Him?

As for those who have been faithful in other religions, I am thankful that I do not have to decide their fate. I believe that we are accountable for what has been revealed to us. God is both just and merciful, and I believe that when all is said and done, all will agree that His judgments are correct.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him." John 3:16,17

I am not trying to force this view on you, only to try to explain my view of eternity. You are welcome to agree or disagree.

Fyron · #**135** March 6th, 2003, 07:46 AM

And from that follows that those that do not accept Christ will not get into heaven. Hence, a large majority of people get to go to Hell, assuming that Christianity is right.

Of course, no one has yet answered my question as to why Christianity (or whatever their personal belief system is) is right, and all other religions are wrong. What is so special/different about Christianity that makes everyone else wrong? How do you know that your religious beliefs are the right ones, and Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Australian Aboriginals, American Indians, non-converted-to-Christianity Africans, etc. are all wrong? And no quote from the Bible could possibly be a valid logical argument for this, as that would require very circular reasoning, which is a huge logical fallacy.

ZeroAdunn · #**136** March 6th, 2003, 08:01 AM

Hmmm... were to begin, were to begin.....

Well, I think wardad is right, I need some alcohol.

ZeroAdunn · #**137** March 6th, 2003, 08:06 AM

Fyron: That is the whole point of religion, it isn't about logic, it is about faith. Believing something you cannot be sure in because someting inside tells you it is right. You must understand this, as you show great faith in science.

I personally am not a christian, and find it, along with most organized religions, flawed and mostly a sham. But in the end it doesn't matter, I still choose to respect their beliefs because they could be right, I don't know, and there is no way for me to find out, and if it makes them feel a little better, and doesn't hurt anybody else, more power to them.

Alpha Kodiak · #**138** March 6th, 2003, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZeroAdunn:
Hmmm... were to begin, were to begin.....

Well, I think wardad is right, I need some alcohol.

Don't worry, I'm done. There is nothing else that needs to be said from my perspective.

Fyron · #**139** March 6th, 2003, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

quote:
Originally posted by ZeroAdunn:
Hmmm... were to begin, were to begin.....

Well, I think wardad is right, I need some alcohol.

Don't worry, I'm done. There is nothing else that needs to be said from my perspective.

Because you are rigidly set in your ways and not open to new ideas.

Quote:

Fyron: That is the whole point of religion, it isn't about logic, it is about faith. Believing something you cannot be sure in because someting inside tells you it is right. You must understand this, as you show great faith in science.

Something inside me (that thing called a brain) tells me that some of it is wrong.

I do not show faith in science as you meant it. There is a tremendous difference between science and religion, and faith does not apply to science (unless you do something dumb like turn science into a religion).

[ March 06, 2003, 06:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Ruatha · #**140** March 6th, 2003, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
Originally posted by Ruatha:
About that majority thing.
Yes, the Christians aren't in any majority of the population.
But remember that today more people lives than there has ever existed in all of mankinds history , added up in atotal over time!

Actually, that is not true.

Ah, Fyron. Now you do it again.
I haven't rated you but I can see why people rated you low.

You state a belife you have as a undisputable fact.
You give no arguments saying why this isn't true.

No one can actually say that it is absolutely true or not.
Many estimates ends up saying that it is true but it depends on how old the human race is and the population growth in prehistoric times.

I for one belive that this is so.
Actually it is one of the problems that those who belive in reincarnation has to explain (Altough they have produced several theories explaining it, very few says that the population growth problem is untrue)

Some links:

Reincarnation
Demography

Or:
Do the math yourself...
Methods of historical demography

Other references:
David Bishai, 'Can population growth rule out reincarnation? A model of circular migration', Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 411-20, 2000

(Start Edit)
And some more:

(Image from the smithsonian institute)

A pedagogic site on world population growth.

(End Edit)

[ March 06, 2003, 09:49: Message edited by: Ruatha ]