The Bible Claims...

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
No, there are devil worshipers who are famous , very famous . But you miss my point here.

You dont want to learn, you want to fight, you love to argue and fight I see and I will not be a part of you rant or argument or debate or fight.

You have no intention to learn anything, so because of this I will go away.

I was going to teach you something, but, its to late.

And one last thing, I am here to learn. However, based upon 'my' known reality, if the 'Devil' had already been proven, you would not be presenting a small riddle for me to answer now. It would be unnecessary.

Sorry if this offends you.

People worshiping 'devils' has absolutely no relevancy to whether something actually exists, BTW.

Peace
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I would put it like this: Was the way you looked at it the way Christians have always looked at it, or only how Fundamentalists have looked at it for 100 years. There is a long and interesting history of Bible interpretation that does not depend on a flat earth, a six day creation, and a cosmology taken only from the Bible. For me, I don't have to look at it in a completely different way because I have never been subject to the Fundamentalist interpretation.

I get what you are saying. However, in all honesty, if many of the claimed stories appear to unravel. Meaning, they do not appear to align with our 'known' discovery and reality, and yet, it claims to be 'truth', how might one honestly assess it 'is' truth? Especially when one also later explores NT scripture, and still finds many more irreconcilable differences there as well?
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
I get what you are saying. However, in all honesty, if many of the claimed stories appear to unravel. Meaning, they do not appear to align with our 'known' discovery and reality, and yet, it claims to be 'truth', how might one honestly assess it 'is' truth? Especially when one also later explores NT scripture, and still finds many more irreconcilable differences there as well?

Spot on. The late Joseph Campbell believed that, as our knowledge of the universe increases, our mythology has to change.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I get what you are saying. However, in all honesty, if many of the claimed stories appear to unravel. Meaning, they do not appear to align with our 'known' discovery and reality, and yet, it claims to be 'truth', how might one honestly assess it 'is' truth? Especially when one also later explores NT scripture, and still finds many more irreconcilable differences there as well?
There you go to the Church. Not the Fundamentalist guys down the street, but the Church Jesus founded, and ask how such things should be understood. You will find it much more rational. It's a whole different mindset. Take a look at 'Dei Verbum' for example, and how it addresses issues. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Dei verbum
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
There you go to the Church. Not the Fundamentalist guys down the street, but the Church Jesus founded, and ask how such things should be understood. You will find it much more rational. It's a whole different mindset. Take a look at 'Dei Verbum' for example, and how it addresses issues. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Dei verbum

What makes his interpretations 'better' and more 'accurate' then say.... Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Bart Ehrman, or even historians like Francesca Stavrakopoulou, etc...?

Many differing mindsets exist. Read the same book to 100 people, and ask for a report. 100 differing themes, perspectives, ideas, and conclusions result...

However, this appears to be God's chosen method for 'truth' (the Word). If 'truth' is in the eye of the beholder, which appears 'subjective', who's right? What standard? We are then right back to being 'circular', when referencing the Bible then, aren't we?.?.?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
What makes his interpretations 'better' and more 'accurate' then say.... Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Bart Ehrman, or even historians like Francesca Stavrakopoulou, etc...?

Many differing mindsets exist. Read the same book to 100 people, and ask for a report. 100 differing themes, perspectives, ideas, and conclusions result...

However, this appears to be God's chosen method for 'truth' (the Word). If 'truth' is in the eye of the beholder, which appears 'subjective', who's right? What standard? We are then right back to being 'circular', when referencing the Bible then, aren't we?.?.?
There are many mindsets. The mindset I am suggesting is that of the continuing community founded by Jesus Christ. The one that wrote the NT. Which makes it not a circular argument. The Bible did not create the Church, but the Church created the Bible, speaks for it, and guides us to sensibly understand the Bible. You still may reject Jesus, but at least you would do so on a better basis than shooting down a supposed circular argument that never should have been proposed in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
There are many mindsets. The mindset I am suggesting is that of the continuing community founded by Jesus Christ. The one that wrote the NT. Which makes it not a circular argument. The Bible did not create the Church, but the Church created the Bible, speaks for it, and guides us to sensibly understand the Bible. You still may reject Jesus, but at least you would do so on a better basis than shooting down a supposed circular argument that never should have been proposed in the first place.

I get what you are saying. However, using the Bible to prove the Bible would be no different then using a science book to prove the same science book. Or, using a history book, to demonstrate truth of the same history book :)

Please tell me how your example differs?

Example... Mathew 27:52 makes a statement, which is not corroborated outside this assertion of 'truth'. So how might I validate such a claim?
 
Upvote 0

user385

Active Member
Oct 8, 2016
72
52
New York City
✟36,995.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do you believe there is only One Truth @cvanwey? Perhaps your guess is that there is only One. Why else would you spend your time asking these questions? I say that if you have more questions then you should ask. Remember that not everyone who says they are a Christian really is one. I am glad you are asking questions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I get what you are saying. However, using the Bible to prove the Bible would be no different then using a science book to prove the same science book. Or, using a history book, to demonstrate truth of the same history book :)

Please tell me how your example differs?

Example... Mathew 27:52 makes a statement, which is not corroborated outside this assertion of 'truth'. So how might I validate such a claim?
Because it does not use the Bible to prove the Bible, which is of course circular. Jesus founded a Church and that Church wrote the Bible (the NT, the rest it accepted). The Church is the community Jesus founded, and it wrote and now testifies to the Bible. You have many more points to examine in figuring out the truth of Jesus Christ, the witness (sometimes mixed) of the Church, and then what the Bible says.

For Mathew 27:52, you can look at the text but you can also look at the Church Fathers to see what they say about it. And almost 2000 years of inquiry. It's not the local Fundamentalist pastor with a take it or leave it hard core explanation.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Do you believe there is only One Truth @cvanwey? Perhaps your guess is that there is only One. Why else would you spend your time asking these questions? I say that if you have more questions then you should ask. Remember that not everyone who says they are a Christian really is one. I am glad you are asking questions.

I'm asking questions because I was raised in it, and was told it was true for decades, by many people I respect and admire. It wasn't until I studied it for myself, did I then start to conclude I may have been duped.... This is me being honest. Now, I'm actually placing people's assertions to the test, rather than blindly following 'authoritative answers.'
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Because it does not use the Bible to prove the Bible, which is of course circular. Jesus founded a Church and that Church wrote the Bible (the NT, the rest it accepted).

Accepted by whom? The ones whom already believe(d) it's true. This demonstrates a bias conclusion, nothing more...

The Church is the community Jesus founded, and it wrote and now testifies to the Bible. You have many more points to examine in figuring out the truth of Jesus Christ, the witness (sometimes mixed) of the Church, and then what the Bible says.

Lookup the term 'eyewitness', in which I then realized the only true 'eyewitness' is Sal/Paul, whom claimed a vision while traveling to Damascus. Other then that, the Bible is all hearsay, oral tradition, and growing legendary embellishments. Sorry. This is my honest interpretation after much research... I'm looking for someone to change my perspective, using rational and consistent logic. The same logic used to discern any other claimed piece of knowledge.


For Mathew 27:52, you can look at the text but you can also look at the Church Fathers to see what they say about it. And almost 2000 years of inquiry. It's not the local Fundamentalist pastor with a take it or leave it hard core explanation.

The verse has no outside sources to confirm it. You have NO choice but to read the verse, and accept it, based purely upon faith or not. You would THINK a few locals would have reported zombies walking around, and reported it??? This would be the most incredible thing seen, for the "many' who witnessed such an event.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Accepted by whom? The ones whom already believe(d) it's true. This demonstrates a bias conclusion, nothing more...
You are being argumentative, and that is causing you to miss what I said so you can launch an argument. I said the Church accepted the OT, meaning that it included it in it's own canon of Scripture. Accusing me of bias is hostile and I don't need to continue with this if your intent is to be hostile. My life is way too short for that kind of thing. If you want to win your argument, consider yourself the victor, but if you want to discuss with me at least do try to understand before attacking. For now, until I hear otherwise, I'm done with discussing with you.
 
Upvote 0

AvgJoe

Member since 2005
Supporter
Feb 5, 2005
2,748
1,099
Texas
✟332,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Please list the best Bible prophecy fulfilled (chapter and verse), so I may compare. TY

Here's one:

Ezekiel's Prophecy of Israel's Rebirth in 1948

In the year 592 B.C. in the Babylonian Empire a Hebrew slave named Ezekiel was instructed by an angel to:

  • "Lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself. You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel. After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year." (Ezekiel 4:4-6).
At the time of this visitation the Jews were in captivity after being overthrown by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzer in 606 B.C. This 70 year captivity of the Jews had been prophesied extensively by Isaiah almost 100 years earlier (Isaiah 39:5-7) and (Jeremiah chapters 25 & 27).

Now the prophecy in Ezekiel 4 predicts a total of 430 years of punishment for the nation of Israel. 70 years of this period of punishment are accounted for in the 70 year Babylonian captivity. That leaves 360 more years of punishment unaccounted for. For centuries biblical scholars could find nowhere in history a period of punishment on Israel that could corresponds to the remaining 360 years of punishment.

In the book of Leviticus, chapter 26, we are told that if the nation of Israel did not hearken (obey) unto the Lord that she would be punished. Then after being punished, if the nation continued to be in rebellion toward God that the punishment would be multiplied by seven:

  • "If you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant ... I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies. If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over." (Leviticus 26: 14-22)
Recently Biblical scholars have applied this Levitical principle of multiplying Israel's punishment by seven to the remaining 360 years of punishment and found a phenomenal discovery.

The Biblical prophetic year in the Jewish calendar is 360 days long. This discovery was made by Sir Robert Anderson in his book The Coming Prince. In fact, all ancient calendars of the world, at one time calculated the year as 360 days. So if you multiple the 360 years of remaining punishment x 360 days/year x 7 times punishment (Levitical principle) = 907,200 days. 907,200 days is 2483.8 years (modern Julian calendar years). So, 907,200 days of punishment remained for the nation of Israel after the 70 year Babylonian captivity. The question is where do you begin calculating the remaining 907,200 days?

Servitude of the Nation

There is a Biblical term applied to the nation of Israel called the period of the servitude of the nation. This refers to the period of time that the conquered people of Israel lived through without their own rulership. The people and nation of Israel ceased being a sovereign nation in 606 B.C. And began the first 70 years of servitude at that time. After the 70 year Babylonian captivity they returned to the land but they were ruled over by a succession of empires (Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman) until 70 AD When Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. Then for the next 18 centuries the Israelites were dispersed among the many nations of the world and for the most part were slaves. To the Jewish mind they lost their sovereignty in 606 B.C. with the Babylonian takeover and didn't regain it until the servitude of the nation ended on May 14, 1948 when Israel again became a nation.

The Babylonian captivity began July 25th 606 B.C. and ended July 23rd 537 B.C. This was the very day that the Medo-Persian emperor Cyrus gave the decree that allowed the Jews to return to Israel. If you begin counting the 907,200 days of remaining punishment from July 23rd 537 B.C., the day of Cyrus' decree and the end of the first 70 years of the servitude, and go foreword 907,200 days you get May 14th 1948! This was the very day that David Ben Gurion announced to the whole world the official formation of the nation of Israel!

Desolation of Jerusalem

Another term commonly discussed is the period of the desolation's of Jerusalem. This was the period of time prophesied by the prophets in which the city of Jerusalem would be desolate and 'trodden down by the gentiles". Many people have mistakenly believed that this term was the same period as the Servitude of the nation discussed above. However, this period of the desolation's of Jerusalem did not begin in 606 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzer took the first captives. The desolation's of Jerusalem began with the third siege of Jerusalem with the destruction of the city and the temple. The city and the temple were destroyed on August 18th, 587 B.C. in the third siege of Nebuchadnezzer and the Babylonian army. Exactly seventy Hebrew calendar years later (360 days/year) brings us to August 16th, 518 B.C. If we begin calculating the remaining 907,200 days of punishment from that day it brings us to June 7th, 1967. This is the very day Israel recaptured the city of Jerusalem during the Six day war with Egypt, Jordan and Syria!

How could Ezekiel have predicted this? He couldn't unless he was instructed by One that lives outside of time and sees the beginning from the end. Fulfilled prophecy authenticates the Word of God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The Bible claims the Bible is given from God.

Not really.

The Bible is a collection of between 66 and 78 (depending on who you ask) distinct books written by a multitude of different writers, most of whom are anonymous; and written between roughly 800 BC/BCE and 100 AD/CE. The oldest being some of the works of the Prophets, such as parts of Isaiah, Amos, Nahum, etc dating to the 8th and 7th centuries BC; while some of the books of the New Testament antilegomena (i.e. 2 Peter and Jude) perhaps as late as the mid 2nd century AD.

Divided into two sections, the Old Testament which comprises the Jewish Scriptures of the Tanakh/Septuagint, written before the time of Jesus and the New Testament which comprises the distinctly Christian texts. These texts cover a wide range of different literary genera from instruction (written Torah, the Pentateuch), history (e.g. Judges, the books of the Kings), poetry (e.g. Psalms), wisdom literature (e.g. Proverbs, Job, Sirach), prophecy (e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, the Twelve Minor Prophets), apocalypse (e.g. Daniel, the Revelation), gospel narrative (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), ecclesiastical correspondence (e.g. Romans, Galatians, 1 Peter), personal letters (e.g. Philemon, Titus, 1 Timothy) and other.

The Bible doesn't necessarily make a "claim" for itself, because the Bible isn't a monolithic work, it's not a book; it's a collection--a library--of books. There are books in the Bible which make claims of divine authority, such as the books of the Pentateuch which record the instructions given by God to the Jewish people, or the books of the Prophets in which the words of the prophets, received by God, are given to the people, and similar.

The authority of the Bible in the Christian Church is found by its historic reception and usage in and by the Church itself. A recognition of certain books having the mark of divine authority by their pedigree, usage, and content and their intended use within ecclesiastical context, most specifically, liturgically (i.e. for Christian worship). The Canon of the Bible, fundamentally, evolved and developed through the question of what should be read in the Liturgy. A common way of speaking in the ancient fathers of the Church is to speak about what books were to be read, by which they meant which books should have readings taken from them for the Liturgy. There existed a general consensus for the majority of which books should be used from very early, the Septuagint--the translation of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek made several hundred years before Christ--was more or less an ready-made collection of accepted Scripture since the beginning of Christianity, often when the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament they are quoting the Septuagint, often verbatim. The primary issue was what would come to be called the New Testament, most of the books which make up the New Testament were accepted very early and pretty generally across the ancient Christian world, by the end of the 2nd century a core New Testament Canon was already very firmly established (these books are known as Homologoumena or "accepted writings"); but there was some dispute over a handful of other books, known as Antilegomena or "disputed writings", some of these Antilegomena would eventually find general agreement such as 2 Peter, Jude, the Revelation of St. John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, though some did not such as the Didache, the Epistle of Clement (1 Clement), and the Epistle of Barnabas.

Even today there remain disagreements among different branches of Christianity, the most well known is the disagreement among most Protestants and Roman Catholics over the canonical status of the Deuterocanonical books, those books which were in the Septuagint but were eventually not accepted by Judaism in later centuries as part of the Jewish Bible (Tanakh).

The idea that the Bible is automatically self-authenticating is an idea that tends to be adhered to by some modern post-Reformation Protestants; but isn't exactly an historically accepted position in Christianity on the whole. The authority of Scripture isn't asserted "because it says so", but rather from other things, such as the historic consensus of the Christian Faithful (the sensus fidelium) and all that entails: the preaching of God's word, the use of Scripture as the regula fidei ("rule of faith") and/or norma normans ("[the] norming norm"), etc.

The Bible is the the object of our faith, but the instrument by which we encounter God's word (and more importantly God's Word, i.e. Jesus Himself), which as 2 Timothy 3:16 says is "useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness". We confess these books to be inspired, that is, the Holy Spirit conveys the word of God through them for us.

At the end of the day the Bible is not to Christianity what the Qur'an is to Islam. The Bible is an ecclesiastical and liturgical document containing a myriad of texts which serve to deliver to us the word of God for our edification in the faith and in this way serves to establish rule and norm within the Church holding us accountable to the original (to borrow a Roman Catholic term) deposit of faith given to the Church from Christ by His apostles. As such we can always look to Scripture for our benefit as disciples and servants of Jesus Christ, as the Christian Church.

Mandatory Disclaimer: I believe what my post is consistent with historic and generally mainstream Christian beliefs; but obviously there will be some very different opinions on the subject by others.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Godistruth1

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 9, 2018
1,781
183
32
Somewhere
✟97,167.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Okay, but which God? As you know full well, there exists more than one claimed God, with differing moral objectives.
First step is to know if God exists, then you need to see which concept of God makes most sense. Although the concept of God is different in each religion and in most cases opposing, either one concept can be right or all are wrong!
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
You are being argumentative, and that is causing you to miss what I said so you can launch an argument. I said the Church accepted the OT, meaning that it included it in it's own canon of Scripture. Accusing me of bias is hostile and I don't need to continue with this if your intent is to be hostile. My life is way too short for that kind of thing. If you want to win your argument, consider yourself the victor, but if you want to discuss with me at least do try to understand before attacking. For now, until I hear otherwise, I'm done with discussing with you.

My apologize if you feel I'm trying to 'win' an argument. Unfortunately, much gets lost in translation over text ;-)

My point is, when I read many verses, they appear to demonstrate fantasy, instead of reality. When one reads Mathew 27:52, for example again, one has NO choice but to use the Bible to prove the Bible. This is one of the many reasons I state to use the Bible, is circular.


I am not trying to attack you, win, or demonstrate how I'm right. I, again, apologize if this is what you think is my intention. It is not. I'm trying to get myself to believe many verses, which appear 'just straight up false on so many levels.' It makes claims, with no external evidence to support as such. This is no different then reading many competing textual writings.

Your thoughts?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
My apologize if you feel I'm trying to 'win' an argument. Unfortunately, much gets lost in translation over text ;-)

My point is, when I read many verses, they appear to demonstrate fantasy, instead of reality. When one reads Mathew 27:52, for example again, one has NO choice but to use the Bible to prove the Bible. This is one of the many reasons I state to use the Bible, is circular.


I am not trying to attack you, win, or demonstrate how I'm right. I, again, apologize if this is what you think is my intention. It is not. I'm trying to get myself to believe many verses, which appear 'just straight up false on so many levels.' It makes claims, with no external evidence to support as such. This is no different then reading many competing textual writings.

Your thoughts?
I think you still don't understand what I said and you are more attuned to your agenda than to a dialogue. I was making the point that the Church authored the NT but accepted the OT. Then you started a riff about 'accepted' and how that's a 'bias conclusion'. It's a fact that the Church accepted the OT. The only reason I said it was that I wanted to distinguish that from the role of the Church in authoring the NT.

You seem far more eager to talk about the Bible as fantasy than anything else. I think you probably were influenced heavily by Fundamentalism and now you have a clue that Fundamentalism doesn't hold up. But you are still thinking as a Fundamentalist at core, only now more interested in ripping the Bible than propping it up. I don't need that discussion. I offered you a more historical way of looking at it not bound by Fundamentalism. If and when you are ready for that, try me again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟118,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I get it, I know. I've already admitted all of this from the jump, in the OP. But none of this gets us any closer to a most plausible reality :)

No one seems to be reconciling that discovered evidence, does not seem to align with many Biblical claims. So I, in all honesty, have an apparent dichotomy confronting me... Discard everything, to instead favor of my indoctrinated upbringing. Or, follow the seemingly overwhelming evidence, which leads me away from many claimed events from the Bible. Following the evidence seems to work fairly 'well' in most other circumstances...

All one can do, is proportionately follow the evidence, in accordance with the asserted claim. Yes, I know, again, this is an 'objective' assertion. I fully get that... We must all assert, think, or believe something, at some point, and I'm being honest. And yes, I again get this is yet another assertion...


If I don't believe, what will change my mind? Especially if 'my' brain needs evidence which seems to align with the rest of my known reality????


So I hope this will be the last response attempting to demonstrate the possible failure of the claimed 'objective' epistemological assertion.

Thnx
I am not aware of any evidence against Christianity. I realize there are ostensible a posteriori objections but those are specious and almost always ignorant of what they are relating too, or based on bad Theology and Hermeneutics. For example I see you object to the tower of Babel. Well that is very clearly Etemenanki, and as far as reaching the heavens that is what all Ziggurats presumably did by function of their nature not their height. They were identical to the cosmic tree motif. "Reached the heavens" is also an established Ancient Near East expression for tall. With a little Biblical study your problem with the serpent would be resolved as well. The main thing to learn here is that before you object to something you should be sure to understand what it is you are objecting too.

What's important is that your skepticism is consistent. All things are apprehended, we have no direct experience of the outside world. So in what way can we be skeptical of one apprehended thing over another? You have this sense that there are rational and epistemological methods toward arriving at a truth about something. But why should that be true under any ontology but creation? So if you accept the conclusion based on rationality that there is no God, then it leaves your rationality in question, which decouples your entire conclusion. Rather than reject the capacity for rationality, why not investigate the other properties that led to a decoupling conclusion?

Even if we look past our cognitive ontology
there are incoherent conclusions about our world without God. How can something come from nothing? How can life come from non life? How can free willed, rational, conscious agents come from contingent, deterministic matter? The only coherent solution is a volitional unmoved mover.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0