Monday, February 19, 2007

Debate With Dan--Part Three

And so we come to Part Three. This part is significantly shorter than the others because the debate keeps taking a circular route around the actual issue of the debate, which is the validity of the Bible as an inerrant life-manual.

Below I address only those questions or statements posed by Dan's latest entry that are relevant to the debate. The entire comment can be found in the comments section of Debate With Dan--Part Two.

His statements are in quotes and blocked, my statements follow.


So are you saying that you have no answers to my questions about the inaccuracies and contradictions of a supposedly divinely inspired truth? I have pointed out dozens of flaws in the Bible and the beliefs you have pulled out of it, and you have addressed none of those points with anything other than sermons. Is that because the fairy tales and resulting religions have no defense or just that you don't know enough about either to offer the defense.?

The questions you have asked me with your comment are addressed below. The preaching serves no purpose in this debate, so unless it is relevant I have excluded it.

"Not to disapoint you I will copy you as a responce to your post"
I am not really sure what this means since I didn't write any of the stuff you use below.

"I guess there is only one thing to ask then: Do you think The Bible is a fake?"
I believe that it, like other religious texts, is nothing more that philosophical beliefs codified in literary form. I don't believe that it is a historical or true account of a real, supernatural entity.

"I believe it was written by 40 or 50 people over 1500-3000 years all pointing or prophesizing (sic) events that did come true (provable throughout history and no other book in the history of the world can claim that)..."
The authorship of the Bible is far from being that simple, but that subject has been covered by scores of books, and treatises which I cordially invite you to read. As for the prophecies, I don't have the time or space to address the inaccuracy and fallacy of Biblical prophesy, but there are many others who do. One good article I have found on this subject can be found HERE.
H. G. Wells predicted the atomic bomb, aerial bombing, robotics, and many other things in his stories--does that mean that you believe Martians will invade the Earth?

"...and that has lasted or transcended all sorts of rejections, and hundreds of different governments, over this many years and has moved 500 men (at first) back then to preach the good news ...the 2 billion people of this day ... all believing in the same thing..."
If longevity is proof of validity, then shouldn't you be Hindu? Or Buddhist? or Jewish? These religions are hundreds or even thousands of years older that Christianity. As for 2 billion people believing the same thing: there are over fifty different version of the Bible, and over 300,000 different Christian sects--this is hardly believing the same thing.

"The book has eye witness account (sic) of very credible people in that time frame and throughout history (too many to count here) comparable and more accurate then (sic) any history, written about those times, books we have to date."
The Iliad has a credible report of Troy, so do you believe in Zeus and Achilles? And, the accuracy of the Bible's history is more flawed than most fantasy novels. The Bible has people alive in time periods after they died, the wrong leaders in the wrong time periods, and hundreds of characters and events that have never shown up in any contemporary documents or accounts. The Bible also repeatedly contradicts itself on stories that can't be proven to have happened in the first place. This is far from being historically accurate. There are literally thousands of historical documents and books, and many works of fiction, that are far more accurate.

"...Can you honestly say that this Christianity thing is just fake, fad or that there are that many very confused people?"

"Aren’t you concerned that maybe you missed something or maybe missed the bus? That would frighten me if I missed something that most all of humanity understands and welcomes."
No. More people don't believe the Bible than do. And, I would counter that very few of those who believe actually understand. Otherwise they would be able to answer some simple questions--questions you have dodged repeatedly.

"There is a movement these days to debunk Christianity but that also was written in the bible (sic) talking about the last days."
And here we go again with the only defense you ever offer, the fear of a supernatural being written about in a collection of tales that cannot be shown to be accurate much less divine.

"Good luck and may God bless you on your path; my advice to you is to pick the narrow one."
Okay. Thank you. Are you supposed to believe in luck?

Once again the debate was ignored and other subjects were turned to. It is starting to look like there is no defense other than the circular tactic of turning to the Bible to defend itself. So I pose only the following questions (again).

If the Bible cannot be validated as inerrant and truthful, then how the Hell can it be used as the only proof for its own validity? If it can be shown to be inerrant and truthful then why can't you do so?

Technorati Tags:


Dan Marvin said...

The quote from the bible you did not mention was 2 Timothy 3:1-7 “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

The “Good luck” was to you who has nothing else to go on but your own self. The God bless you was sincere and I hope someday our eyes will meet and you will say Praise Jesus.

The Bible is proof of its own validity! You will probably never understand the supernatural God written book called The Bible. I have a book to quote that explains the past present and future of mankind and the perilous times to come and you have science and your own mind Good luck with that.

R Nicolas said...

Once again you are preaching, and not answering the questions.

The circular reference is useless. I could just as easily pronounce that the Upanishads, and Qur'an validate themselves, that the Iliad validates itself, or that The Hobbit (Old Testament) and The Lord of the Rings trilogy (New Testament) taken as a whole validates itself. And, there are people in the World that believe those things too.

As for the chapter and verse, it was supposedly written by Paul after the death of Jesus. Wouldn't a better chapter be Matthew 23 since this contains the "words" of Jesus, and says roughly the same thing?

Or do you not use it because Jesus says about the so-called "end times" that they will come before the disciples die. Which has already happened making Jesus a big fibber, or maybe--a Myth.

I have many books of mythology that I can quote, but luckily for me I have my brain, knowledge, experience, and science to rely upon. I don't need luck.

As for ever hearing me say "Praise Jesus":--If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that.

Your turn.

Dan Marvin said...

I get my answers from The Bible and you get yours from Wikipedia “good luck with that.”

I will pray for you though and hopefully God will give you mercy.

For Him,

John 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

R Nicolas said...

As I said elsewhere, I get my answers from many places--However, I sometimes use Wikipedia as an online reference for people who want to further research my statements.

I have also used the Bible as a source in this debate. Since it contradicts itself, I guess we could both use it.

And, you still haven't answered the questions.

Brett Keller said...

No, no, the Hobbit is definitely not the Old Testament. Tolkien's The Silmarillion really is like the Old Testament (creation accounts, fall, etc.) that prepares you to read the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien's New Testament. The Hobbit is at best an aprocryphal kids' story. :-)