1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Theology Continued

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Mike 1967, Mar 24, 2005.

  1. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    20,045 Messages
    940 Likes Received

    Thanks for the compliment, but I don't want to leave the impression that I don't believe the Bible isn't the word of God. I do. I believe that the Bible is inerrant.

    And I believe in quoting Scripture. But in arguments, I don't start there because when people argue, they dig into their positions and don't give. If I'm discussing and sharing, that's different. Then I'll use biblical quotes to support my view about sin, salvation, etc.
  2. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    20,045 Messages
    940 Likes Received
    Well, at least you acknowledged that your faith was EXTREMELY weak.
  3. Hoov

    Hoov Senior Member

    5,147 Messages
    515 Likes Received
    TB thanks for the heads up re: women, maybe i'll get it one of these days, then again......probably not. vanity and women, my biggest weakness......well i could go on and on here....but i get the vibe from your posts that you have the same.
    at any rate, party on dude, let us eat, DRINK and be merry (emphasis on drink). ohno, i'm, out of coke - but i don't drink soda.
  4. Mike 1967

    Mike 1967 New Member

    2,771 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Very familiar with that world. I came from it :D

    Was one for the first 27 years of my life
  5. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    61,077 Messages
    4,413 Likes Received

    LOL

    back and forth with the bible stories again...will you not get it that you are using stuff from a book that I do not think is correct and therefore it will not work to use examples from such book while trying to preach to me? It is amazing that even though I have said it time and time again, it still comes back to having to use scripture or examples from the same book in question to try and prove your point...circular.

    And the reason this circular argument is used, is because that is all you have....you can not show me actually proof, if anyone suggests god should show come to them physically or speak to them physically or if you ask for a showing....then it always falls back to the story of the devil trying to test jesus, or god works in mysterious ways. No more are the days when god talks directly to people like he did moses, no more is the day when jesus talks directly to people in his form in a physical manner...it was only done in the book of faith.
    Odd.

    Furthermore there is a difference in Believing in god and following his ways.

    I could see myself believing in god, does no mean I would follow him....hard for me to consider following a god that murders women, children and has committed mass genocide by his own hands basically out of frustration.

    And once again ....the way of many christians comes out with how YOU say god will judge me, whether if I believe or not, never mind the fact that you have no facts to back up your claims that I will be judged by a supreme diety after I die....in essence you judge me before letting the person you call god judge me.

    Funny how that works out with many.
  6. Mike 1967

    Mike 1967 New Member

    2,771 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    You have missed the point she was making Brain.

    Ultimately....if there is a God....then it must be a circular argument.... because it starts and stops with God.

    You can state that you do not believe the Bible....fine...because at some point there is a measure of faith required to believe it. But vice versa there is also a measure of faith required to believe that the Bible is not true. Just as there is a meausure of faith to believe anything that is not currently right in front of your face that you can see, touch and feel.

    If there is an Almighty God...then it starts with Him and stops with Him. There is no higher authority or truth that you can go to. He says it is true...so it is true....this is circular. If there is an Almighty God...then ultimately by the very nature of his existence...the proof will be circular. The only way that you cannot ultimately have a circular argument is to not have an highest authority.

    But to admonish her because her argument is circular reaks of arragonce and hypocrisy....it also reaks of the very thing you say you are standing against. Ultimately your argument is also circular: "I cannot prove it.....so it must not be true...because I cannot prove it". This is a circular argument. Just because you cannot prove something does not mean it is not true....so it takes a certain of amount of faith to believe it is not true. In the ultimate analisys...unless you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that something is either not true or is true, you are left with a measure of faith. This cuts both ways. This is what you are failing to grasp.

    At least be completely honest and admit that your argument is also based on a circular argument and is also based on faith.

    Now some will also take this to far and say that because there is a measure of faith required for nearly all things.....then Truth must be relative. But this is taking it to far and is not logical. There is that old saying, If a tree falls down in the forest, but nobody see's or hears it....did it really fall down ? I never understood why some found this to be a deap question. The answer is obvious to me.....of course it fell down....I simply was not there to witness it.

    It is funny to me how many will admonish others but fail to analyze their own position with the same standards.
  7. Crown Royal

    Crown Royal Insulin Beware

    10,652 Messages
    972 Likes Received
    That's the beautiful thing about my position...it allows me to always consider possibilities. There are SOME theists and SOME atheists that I cannot abide, basically because they refuse to at least study other views.

    For example - I can be proved wrong, there are certain ways that God can be proved or disproved, I just haven't run across them.

    If a theist (or atheist) cannot give a situation in which they would be proved wrong (or right), their belief stops being logical, and becomes dogmatic.

    And dogmatism is a terrible, terrible thing.
  8. Mike 1967

    Mike 1967 New Member

    2,771 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    God has the right to be dogmatic. The rest of us don't.

    But we are all dogmatic...everyday about common things.

    If you want examples of this simply go over to the Main Cowboys section and you will get all the examples of Dogmatism that you would ever need :D

    I'm sure there are examples of your dogmatism in there as well :)
  9. Crown Royal

    Crown Royal Insulin Beware

    10,652 Messages
    972 Likes Received
    How dare you say I am dogmatic about my Cowboys {SUPER BOWL 2006, BABY!!!}!!!
  10. Mike 1967

    Mike 1967 New Member

    2,771 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Well...honestly....I would be a hypocrite if I admonished you for it.....because I am extremely dogmatic about the Cowboys myself . :D

    I am more dogmatic than you...although I can't prove it :)
  11. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    61,077 Messages
    4,413 Likes Received

    How many times do I have to say that I can not prove my views to believers as well as they can not prove their views to non believers....I think that is screaming that it is ALL (including mine and others) circular arguments.

    I really do not know why that stance is so hard to swallow...I do not know if it is because believers are bound and determined to make the non believers ...believe so they will just ignore the idea that they will not.

    If anyone is being realistic it would be my stance that I will not change YOUR mind, and you will not change my mind, therefore the arguments are circular.

    Futhermore, no many how times it is argued....for a believer to try and prove his points to a non believer, by quoting scripture or ideas from a book that a non believer does not believe in...is...circular.

    Further more...it is mostly faith to believe that the bible is totally accurate, however it takes logic to believe that it is not. I would argue that it would take only faith to believe that a man was dead days and then brought back to life (jesus and lazurus, lazurs back to life in phyiscal form not spiritual), that a man could live in the belly of a whale, that a man or men could live hundreds of years, that a god burned letters into stone (ten commandments), that a wall around a city would fall after performing a ceremony around it and so on.
    Could one logically claim those things would happen? Actually have those things ever happened outside of the bible?

    But once again it is circular to argue it, because you will not believe MY point of view, and I will not believe YOUR point of view about religion...so WE (that includes me) dance around in a circle.
  12. naved

    naved New Member

    25 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Ofcourse, then you have the whole pre-destination mess
  13. naved

    naved New Member

    25 Messages
    0 Likes Received
  14. Mike 1967

    Mike 1967 New Member

    2,771 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Agreed. I have not said otherwise.

    My contention all along that I can provide good evidence...but ultimately I cannot prove it.

    Also, I believe that utimately that the belief/faith has to come from God. It will not come because I have "talked you into it".


    Correct. It is not hard to swallow. Please point out where I said that I did not agree with this statement. BTW: I am also a believer...so your generalization above does not hold water.


    This stance is indeed realistic.

    It appeared in previous posts that you were making claims that:

    (1) something cannot be true unless it can be proven
    (2) The believes argument was circular but yours was not
    (3) There is no evidence to support the believers faith.

    I apologize if you were not making these claims.

    Here we go again. I have already covered this very well in the post that you were replying to. Please reference this if you are interested in my comments that point out the ultimate necessity of circularity and the fact that any statement requiring any measure of faith is in the end circular.


    First thing that we would need to do is completely define the word accurate (i.e. does accurate mean there are no mispelled words from one translation to the next ?)

    Once we have defined what we are debating then we go to the following steps.

    (1) Prove that the Bible is not "accurate".
    (2) If you cannot prove it...then (as you yourself have already spelled out on this thread many times).....your position is based on faith.
    (3) Now, if you cannot prove it then the next option available to you is to provide evidence to support your position.
    (4) If you bring evidence to the debate on the "accuracy" of the Bible then I will obviously bring evidence to the debate to support my claim that it is "accurate".
    (5) Some of the evidence I bring will, by the very nature of the debate, obviously have to be the scripture itself.
    (6) So your argument is obviously circular because you will say that I cannot bring scripture to support my claims of the scripture. This would be tantamount to telling a convicted criminal that he could not give testimony at his own trial. The very core of our judicial system is that the convicted man is allowed to make a defense for himself. Now..he may be lying...but that is for us to weigh in our final determination on what to do with him/her.

    At the end of this analisys we would be left to weigh the evidence and make our own conclusions.

    Brain...you should understand this. The very nature of this forum is based on these exact principles. If nothing required faith, if everything were black and white....then this forum would not exist in the current format. If anything it would just be a lot of written statements about what is....there would be no discussion/debating required.



    I suppose that depends on whether or not you believe in God to begin with. If you do believe in God, or if you believe in the possibility of a God…..then you would have to believe that these things were possible. These things require Devine intervention. And God by His very nature is Devine.

    BTW: Have you searched for extra biblical manuscript evidence ? Josephus was a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus. He had some interesting things to say about Jesus

    A. 18:3:3, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
    B. 20:9:1, "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done;"

    Then why do you continue to argue. Is someone holding a gun to your head ?
  15. Mike 1967

    Mike 1967 New Member

    2,771 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Not a mess :)

    That would be your opinion.
  16. Crown Royal

    Crown Royal Insulin Beware

    10,652 Messages
    972 Likes Received
    Calvinism or non-Calvinism, that is the question....
  17. naved

    naved New Member

    25 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    By mess I mean you can't close the loop logically on that argument. You have to accept the right religion if you want salvation, but God is the one that gives you faith to accept it. Yet if he doesn't you are held accountable for your poor choice. Circular & messy as they come
  18. Mike 1967

    Mike 1967 New Member

    2,771 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    An essay by Scott Bidstrup
    "A rational, secular, historical perspective on the history of Christianity and its scripture"

    I always find it interesting when someone claims that their perspective is rational, secular and historic.

    The fact that it is historic requires a measure of faith. Unless of course Mr. Bidstrup is giving us a first hand acccount of what happenned :)

    I will not be reading the article...it is quite long. Perhaps you could get him to post here or you could pull out the key idea's that you want to include in this debate.
  19. Mike 1967

    Mike 1967 New Member

    2,771 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I have closed the loop logically. But I can see why you would have a problem with what you wrote above...because your correct...it would not make sense.

    I would recommend that you spend some time in Romans if you want to understand the argument. Paul outlines it very well.
  20. Mike 1967

    Mike 1967 New Member

    2,771 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Hmmm... I would not know. I have never read Calvin. :D

Share This Page