How plausible are Moby Dick, Macbeth, or the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Irrelevant question, because I am not claiming inerrancy or divine inspiration for the above three books, I would claim that all of them are works of fiction. You are claiming both inerrancy and divine inspiration for the Bible, therefore you have to establish that unlike the above, it is not a work of fiction.
Which explanation?
That the Bible is no more divinely inspired or true than Moby Dick, Macbeth or the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Why?
Because when you have conflicting accounts of the same story from two or more different witnesses, or inconsistencies in the story of one witness, what you need to do is look for evidence from other sources to establish which, if any, of the witness accounts are true. What you don't do is start making up excuses that are nowhere alluded to or implied by the witnesses themselves.
For example, I showed you inconsistencies in the Genesis story of the Flood. Your response was “maybe it meant this”, “maybe it meant that.” At no stage did you even attempt to look for evidence. Never mind though, because we have plenty of evidence about the Flood – all of it points to the truth of one version of the story, and the true version is that the Flood never happened That is a well established fact, Shaneequa, its not a “plausible” excuse, nor an opinion, nor “just a theory”, it is a fact which is evidentially supported by the following observable realities......
A global flood would cause planetary temperature fluctuations ranging from between approx 40 Kelvins to approx 2,000 Kelvins. There is no way that a wooden boat full of livestock would survive the experience.
A global flood would have left us with a single, uniform, globally present sedimentary stratum of recent date. No such thing exists.
Archaeological evidence shows that the Ancient Egyptians and the Chinese maintained unbroken continuity of activity all throughout the time that they were supposed to be under 9,000 metres of water.
A global flood would have wiped out entire swathes of aquatic taxa, and yet said taxa are still swimming around, spawning to their hearts content.
The Flood is supposed to have happened within the last 6,000 years. After the Flood the only creatures left standing were the inhabitants of the Ark, or so the Bible tells us. And yet from genetics we now know that it is impossible to achieve the genetic diversity which exists on earth today within a time frame of 6,000 years, (and that holds true whether it was seven or two each of the animals in the Ark).
To take another example, I showed you inconsistencies in the creation story, and you responded with some nonsense that our western bias perceives a contradiction where there is none. Leaving aside that our western perception of linear time stems from the same Judeo Christian tradition as the Old Testament itself, again you brought forward no evidence to corroborate your version of the story. And again, we have plenty of evidence to show that the creation story in the Book of Genesis is not true. For a start, if Eve had been created from Adam's genetic material, ie his rib, she would have had one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. In other words she would have been a man. (So if creationism really was true, God would have created Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve
).
Even more importantly, we know that humans evolved from other primates, slowly and incrementally. None of our forebears were created from dust or a rib, and this is not an opinion, nor a “plausible” explanation, nor just a theory either. Since the mapping of the human genome the weight of evidence in favour of evolution has become so heavy that we no longer even need the fossil record at all as evidence for it. We can see it in our genes. However, as it happens, the fossil record also remains perfectly consistent with evolution, as does the rest of geology. And as if all that weren't enough, we can see evolution happen in real time, with our own eyes. Insecticide resistant insects, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and numerous other examples of descent with modification among the flora and fauna around us which have taken place within a short enough timespan for us to observe. Here's one example for you..
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/061201_quietcricketsNow, you said in your last post...
I have actually discarded previous opinions in favour of new evidence, many times.
So now that I have given you evidence, are you going to discard your opinions that the Flood and the Biblical creation story are literally true? If not, how do refute the evidence I have shown you?
Verses, please?
Sure.
The date of Christ's birth – Matt 2:1 vs. Luke 2:1-2
The details of Christ's birth – First two chapters of Matthew vs same of Luke
The timeline – The Gospel of John vs the other three
The location of the Sermon on the Mount - Matt 5:1,2: vs Luke 6:17,20:
The last moments of Christ - Matt 27:46,50: vs Luke 23:46 vs John 19:30
I made a typo in my last post. I meant the witnesses to the empty tomb and the Resurrection, not the Crucifixion. Apologies. Anyway – here's the verses - Matt 28:1 vs Mark 16:1 vs John 20:1
Okay. Let me do the first thing, then you can remind of the second thing.
Fire away.
Come on! Look at all the televangelists extorting money, giving false hope and preaching a false gospel.
Anybody – televangelist or otherwise - who preaches the literal truth of the creation story and the Flood is “giving false hope and preaching a false gospel”, not to mention inculcating a false fear of guilt and eternal torture. Do you now finally understand why I say it is unethical for you to be doing that on this forum? I know you're not extorting money, but you are still spreading falsehood.
If they can do all this for the public to see, it causes one to wonder what evils that they do in private.
No, that doesn't follow. Just because somebody has an eye to the main chance and spots a way to part fools from their money does not mean they are capable of any evil under the sun. Humans are not that simplistic. You also need to take into account that televangelists have mostly found themselves a scam that doesn't involve the risk of prosecution, so if these private evils you are imagining them to be capable of include stepping outside the law, its likely that most would be too risk averse to carry them out, even if they were psychologically capable of it.
Exactly. What does the bible say about the human heart? It's desperately wicked, for one.
I have already established that the Bible contains untruths, so unless you refute my evidence anytime you start an assertion with the words “the bible says...” the rest of the sentence will fall on deaf ears.
Yes. There are psychopaths that thrive on wickedness. They are happy to do the most evil they can do. The bible says their consciences have been seared "with a hot iron"...so much, that there is no repentance, nor any desire for repentance.
Psychopaths make up a small minority of the population, they are not in any way a representative example of human nature. And I don't care what the Bible says about them, that has fallen on deaf ears (see above).
Again, the bible says snip
See above.
Even if he had not existed, the "story" proves to be relevant for current times.
No it does not. You made an unsubstantiated assertion on the basis of a few bible quotes and some seedy televangelists.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying.
That the moral zeitgeist becomes generally more humane from generation to generation. Have a read of this, its not very long...
In sixteenth-century Paris, a popular form of entertainment was cat-burning, in which a cat was hoisted in a sling on a stage and slowly lowered into a fire. According to historian Norman Davies, "[T]he spectators, including kings and queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized." Today, such sadism would be unthinkable in most of the world. This change in sensibilities is just one example of perhaps the most important and most underappreciated trend in the human saga: Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth.
In the decade of Darfur and Iraq, and shortly after the century of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, the claim that violence has been diminishing may seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. Yet recent studies that seek to quantify the historical ebb and flow of violence point to exactly that conclusion.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.htmlTherefore, anyone who finds themselves at the head of an institution which has survived for many centuries, the Pope say, will find they have plenty to apologise for on an institutional basis, even though they as individuals have no blood on their hands.
Pastors that fail to rightly divide scripture and earnestly proclaim the truth according to the scriptures are held in greater accountability. If a pastor does not treble at God's word....but glories in his own vain "methods"....he will have much blood on his hands if he does not repent.
More unsubstantiated assertions. You didn't put “the Bible says” that time, but you may as well have.
I seriously don't know how to answer that.
At least you're honest about it. I think the answer is that such a God is not worth worshipping.
That's not the reason I believe.
Well, then I'm a little confused as to why you gave that story in response to the sign off question in my last post. So why do you believe then?
Seriously....at least understand what it is you are rejecting.
I understand that in your last post you thought we could “take comfort” in the idea that God has torn rapists to pieces and sent them to an eternal torture so horrible that they wish they weren't born. After, of course, this omnipotent deity stood by and allowed all the rapes to happen. That notion of God is worthy of nothing but rejection.
Can you explain to me who Jesus is, and tell me why He died?
The bible tells us that he was the son of God and he died for our sins. But as I have already established at the top of this post, the Bible contains untruths.
Hell is eternal and there will not be a moment's rest from the agony. It will be physical torment with no hope for reprieve.
And you think God sent Mother Theresa there for a thought crime, and yet you still pray to this monster?
That rehab chaplain was a nice guy, but I knew he was just as spiritually confused as the rest of us.
I wasn't referring to him, you've told me about him before. He sounds a few sandwiches short of a picnic too, with his “worship a sneaker” nonsense.
But even that is slightly less insane than the fundamentalist doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and Young Earth Creationism that you ended up falling for.
The verse is relevant, because it speaks to people that expect God to be altogether one such as ourselves.
I never have expected God to be altogether like ourselves, so it is not relevant to me.
He's not "my concept of God", but who He says He is, regardless of who I might have wanted Him to be.
“The Bible says.”.....see above.
Will you please explain?
The literal truth of the bible, young earth creationism, eternal torture for thought crimes.
I'm not wrong about the Roman Catholic downgrade of holiness.
Yes, you are, but this debate is not about Catholicism, so never mind. Suffice to say, I am not influenced by the Catholic view of things any longer so it is irrelevant to this thread. You are trying to convert an atheist, not a Catholic.
From birth we are little rebels with a natural enmity toward God. Fortunately, we are under the age of accountability, so babies go to heaven.
First, He is the author of life. We cannot say that about any human being...so if
He were to choose to zap us all today, we could have no complaint. It is by His mercy that He holds back His terrible and righteous wrath. Our every breath is a sign of his mercy, as we are not guaranteed our next breath.
Remember, all these people died. Likewise, it is appointed for all of us to die. In their case, it happened all at once.
Also, I'm not peddling anything. Salvation is not for sale, and Jesus is not a product. The disciples were not called to market the gospel, but to proclaim it. True evangelism is not results oriented. It matters not how people respond to the word, but that the word be faithfully proclaimed.
I'm sure the bible says all these things, see above.
Nope. For one thing, the bible is closed. Everything we need to know is in the bible, and that means we will not receive new revelations.
If a "prophet" or "apostle"....or even a booming voice from the sky were to make such a command, we know unequivocally, we are not to heed to such a one.
No, Shaneequa, you have completely missed the point of the question. I'm not questioning whether or not the bible calls on you to do these things today. Let's accept for the sake of argument that you are right and it doesn't. Now – hypothetically speaking – if the bible DID call on you to stone homosexuals, etc, what would you do? Would you obey the Bible, or not?
I would want to know the facts. Even though I trust a person doesn't mean a person can't be wrong.
True. I've given you some facts, and I look forward to either your refutation backed with evidence, or your acceptance of them. Here's a link to a source so you can double check my representation of them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/ 
Topic: Shaneequa vs Cheetah