15 Apr 10
3 edits
A further comment about your scriptures: Though I could assume for the sake of argument, that your scriptures are true in just the same way I can take for the sake of argument your assertions about God are true (so as to establish either a contradiction or a valid point), they serve merely as supplementary descriptions of that which you claim and justify your arguments no more than you saying the same thing, in your own words, two different ways justifies them further.
In short; if you say God is [insert claim], and your bible says [insert same claim with different wording], neither one vindicates the other. (unless of course you could infact demonstrate they are inspired by God without just assuming it a-priori.) :]
15 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergno they form the whole basis of what we profess, for we are not trying to establish our own ideas and speaking through our own originality merely using the scriptures as a supplement, but advocating the Biblical point of view ahead o our own. Why should that be the case? For we hold that it is inspired of God, we on the other hand are human and limited by our own experience and life span, not to mention being prone to aberration. there are of course certain lines of argument used by theists to demonstrate the inspiration of Gods word, prophecy and its fulfilment, internal harmony, practicality of application of the principles, source of wisdom, scientifically accurate on those aspects which touch upon science although not a scientific text book, oldest most translated and widely distributed book in history, historical accuracy, candour, etc etc
A further comment about your scriptures: Though I could assume for the sake of argument, that your scriptures are true in just the same way I can take for the sake of argument your assertions about God are true, they serve merely as supplementary descriptions of that which you claim and justify your arguments no more than you saying the same thing, in your own ...[text shortened]... your bible says [insert same claim with different wording], neither one vindicates the other. :]
15 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust because *you* believe they are true (because you *have faith* they are true) doesn't mean that your opponents hold the same beliefs.
no they form the whole basis of what we profess, for we are not trying to establish our own ideas and speaking through our own originality merely using the scriptures as a supplement, but advocating the Biblical point of view ahead o our own. Why should that be the case? For we hold that it is inspired of God, we on the other hand are human and limited by our own experience and life span, not to mention being prone to aberration.
If you claim god is X, and demonstrate this is true by saying "look! Bible says god is X" you have done nothing more than make me aware that some writings (yet to be determined are inspired by God) say God is X. You have completely failed to show God actually is X.
If you claim your God is X, Y, Z and and through logical deduction we have that Y and Z both being true induce a contradiction further down the line; then I say not only your claims about god warrants further justification, I say this particular claim is false. (might be because your ideas are flat-out wrong, or (if we ever establish the veracity of your holy book) you misintepreted the scriptures slightly, or thirdly...perhaps God doesn't exist afterall).
15 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergnope, you are getting ahead of yourself, for you can be party to the same information that i am, for we are not simply making claims with no basis. If i say the bible is inspired because of the fulfilment of prophecy, hundreds of years in advance and i shall show you a prophecy that was written 300 years before it happened and was fulfilled in detail how will you explain it rationally? you can claim that it never happened, then we can examine contemporary historical accounts and archaeological evidence. you can claim that it was written after the event, then again we are at liberty to ask, on what basis do you make the claim? you may claim that it was open to interpretation and did not really mean that, then how shall you explain the details, you may claim that it was coincidence and that God does not really exist, that is fine, but you shall be guilty of the very thing that you have alleged against us, that we are simply expressing sentiments that have no basis nor can be substantiated, so you see dear Agers, our claims of inspiration are not without credibility, as if we would expect you to accept anything just because we say that it is, for such an argument is weak indeed.
Just because *you* believe they are true (because you *have faith* they are true) doesn't mean that your opponents hold the same beliefs.
If you claim god is X, and demonstrate this is true by saying "look! Bible says god is X" you have done nothing more than make me aware that some writings (yet to be determined are inspired by God) say God is X. You have ...[text shortened]... you misintepreted the scriptures slightly, or thirdly...perhaps God doesn't exist afterall).
15 Apr 10
6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn leiu of eveidence to the contrary I am of the conviction that these so called prophesies are either vague enough that they may always be fulfilled somehow by the creative thinker, made true by parties having knowledge of them, or other ways I haven't thought of.
nope, you are getting ahead of yourself, for you can be party to the same information that i am, for we are not simply making claims with no basis. If i say the bible is inspired because of the fulfilment of prophecy, hundreds of years in advance and i shall show you a prophecy that was written 300 years before it happened and was fulfilled in detai ...[text shortened]... pect you to accept anything just because we say that it is, for such an argument is weak indeed.
Given I'm by no means a Biblical scholar I will, if you test me on such matters, think nothing of looking online for someone elses full refutation of them (as I have done so in the past), where they have spent many hours (by virtue of their particular skills and fields of expertise in such areas) gathering the necessary evidence and analysis to debunk them. I will of course provide references. :]
In short, your *prophesies* interest me not one bit, and add not one iota of credibility to your Bible as far as I'm concerned. Nor do personal claims about being touched by god etc...
15 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Agergyou ask for inspiration and when someone provides it you must of necessity run for cover claiming lack of interest, scrambling for goggle as if it were a lifeline to safety, Lol, Oh well, when you are ready. of course they add creditability, how else can we explain them other than through the avenue of the divine? Personal experience in itself can neither be corroborated nor denied, it is useless in proving biblical inspiration. It is 4:11am, why are you not sleeping?
In leiu of eveidence to the contrary I am of the conviction that these so called prophesies are either vague enough that they may be fulfilled by the creative thinker, made true by parties having knowledge of them, or other ways I haven't thought of.
Given I'm by no means a Biblical scholar I will, if you test me on such matters, think nothing of looking on ...[text shortened]... ne iota of credibility to your Bible. Nor do personal claims about being touched by god etc...
15 Apr 10
6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDidn't say I'd run...I merely impled I'd defer the case to those who are far better qualified than I to debunk them. I have been hit with prophecies in the past, and I freely admit that the work done in discrediting them to my satisfaction was perfomed by others. (As I expected they would be):]
you ask for inspiration and when someone provides it you must of necessity run for cover claiming lack of interest. Oh well, when you are ready. of course they add creditability, how else can we explain them other than through the avenue of the divine? Personal experience in itself can neither be corroborated nor denied, it is useless in proving biblical inspiration. It is 4:11am, why are you not sleeping?
3-weeks easter holiday has thrown my sleeping pattern out, completely and I revise for upcoming Uni exams through the night.
15 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergok, i admire your honesty, there used to be a place in Glasgow opened 24hrs, Insomnia it was called where the students could go and get a decent cup of coffee any-time of the night, dont know if its still there though or if there is one where you live. It had a huge porcelain bath in it as a kind of strange centre piece, i never went in it though, it was usually to full at that time of night when i passed through on my way to where i lived. Anyway i need to sleep my friend before i suffer meltdown of the mind, wish you well with your studies - regards Robbie
Didn't say I'd run...I merely impled I'd defer the case to those who are far better qualified than I to debunk them. I have been hit with prophecies in the past, and I freely admit that the work done in discrediting them to my satisfaction was perfomed by others. :]
3-weeks easter holiday has thrown my sleeping pattern out, completely and I revise for upcoming Uni exams through the night.
15 Apr 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo such place!...cheers :]
ok, i admire your honesty, there used to be a place in Glasgow opened 24hrs, Insomnia it was called where the students could go and get a decent cup of coffee any-time of the night, dont know if its still there though or if there is one where you live. It had a huge porcelain bath in it as a kind of strange centre piece, i never went in it though, ...[text shortened]... y friend before i suffer meltdown of the mind, wish you well with your studies - regards Robbie