Do they really believe?

[gonegolfing]

Tbright:

For me, OT prophecies that were realized in the person of Jesus Christ were very, very convincing. Also, the one that got me was the ritual of circumcision to be performed on the 8th day as commanded by God. That particular procedure has been proven to be best performed on the 8th day as a child's ability to clot blood are actually the highest is his whole life. Abraham couldn't have known that.

For many of the prophecies fulfilled, see HERE.

It gotcha did it ? Genital mutilation was the clincher was it ?    The whole god hypothesis for you, rests on the fact that a penis bleeds less on the eighth day ?  ooooooooooo compelling !!  

Leviticus 12; :1-3 makes it clear why the eighth day was chosen. God makes no reference whatsoever to any scientific reason for the eighth day being the one to mutilate the genitals, but makes it very clear that the child needs to be with the mother for the first seven days as both were considered unclean.

The rest of the passage is just ridiculous misogynist nonsense.

Lev 12:1  And the Lord said to Moses,
Lev 12:2  Say to the children of Israel, If a woman is with child and gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for seven days, as when she is unwell.
Lev 12:3  And on the eighth day let him be given circumcision.
Lev 12:4  And she will be unclean for thirty-three days till the flow of her blood is stopped; no holy thing may be touched by her, and she may not come into the holy place, till the days for making her clean are ended.
Lev 12:5  But if she gives birth to a female child, then she will be unclean for two weeks, as when she is unwell; and she will not be completely clean for sixty-six days.
Lev 12:6  And when the days are ended for making her clean for a son or a daughter, let her take to the priest at the door of the Tent of meeting, a lamb of the first year for a burned offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin-offering:
Lev 12:7  And the priest is to make an offering of it before the Lord and take away her sin, and she will be made clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for a woman who gives birth to a male or a female.
Lev 12:8  And if she has not money enough for a lamb, then let her take two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burned offering and the other for a sin-offering, and the priest will take away her sin and she will be clean,

also in reference to birth and uncleanliness:

Lev 22:27  When an ox or a sheep or a goat is given birth, let it be with its mother for seven days; and after the eighth day it may be taken as an offering made by fire to the Lord.


Notice the bizarre hypocrisy below however:  

Lev 22:24  An animal which has its sex parts damaged or crushed or broken or cut, may not be offered to the Lord; such a thing may not be done anywhere in your land.

Yet god allows an eight day old child to have its sex parts cut and damaged, which is commanded, and done as a sacrifice and as part of a so called eternal agreement.


Such awesome and compelling stuff isn't it Tbright ?  

But hey ! You keep milkin that vitamin K data for all it's worth baby !

[Dante]

be back tomorrow to "dodge" posts more.

I feel so neglected!

And you were here 2 hours ago, but didn't even see anything dodgeworthy?

[screwtape]

I feel so neglected!

And you were here 2 hours ago, but didn't even see anything dodgeworthy?

He's raised his dodging skillz to a higher level.

[velkyn]

Hmm, I wonder what compliment this was.  Oh well.  I am quite sure, TS, you don’t think you’ve backpedaled, or done anything else wrong.  Most Christians don’t every want to admit that.  And clarification is clarification and backpedaling is backpedaling. They aren’t the same thing.  

ROFL. “Church people generally get along pretty well.”  I know for a fact that is simply a lie.  I watched just how “well” they get along when my church disintergrated and on Christian forums.  And well, I don’t suppose I have to mention how Protetants, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, LDS etc, treat each other.  

And oh, I just love how you aren’t “going to argue the point” that I was a Christian, as if that were some great favor you were doing me. Nice little OneTrueChristiantm attitude there. Love the swipe at your fellow Christians too.  And TS, I was a Presbyterian, I know all about Calvinism and the elect.  I know just how special that makes those who think they are elect feel, that they get out of jail free because God “chose” them and only them. What amuses me is that they have no evidence for their supposed “election”.  They declare themselves such which certainly seems a vain and arrogant thing to do. As for “The way one lives their life is a better demonstration of what one really believes.”  Yep, I agree.  If one believes that one should be a good person, then that’s what one does, with no need of threats or promises from a spook in the sky. It has been my experience that religion sure doesn’t make a person act any better but it sure can make them act worse.    

If your mom prays that you’ll become a Baptist, she thinks you’re wrong, TS. If she wants you to change, why is that? I would think she is afraid for you if you don’t get out of this “phase”.  You seem to think that it is a matter of “maturity” that means if you are a TrueChristiantm or not.  Am I to take this as meaning as you think I am “immature” in not believing in your god?  This seems to be the usual Christian attempt to claim that atheists are just “rebelling” against “daddy”.  

I am not picking and choosing my religion. I follow the tenants of traditional Christianity - from Christ, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin.  This is the Reformed view and in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith.  It is true that I have rejected much of Catholicism - and Dispensationalism and much of modern fundamentalism.  So what? My faith is similar to many millions of people and disimilar from millions - perhaps billions others.  Atheists have no common theology (allegedly) but the doctrine that God does not exist. You think I throw up bad logic?

How many times I’ve heard each Christian claiming that they are following “traditional Christianity” and not so strangely they all differ in what that consists of.  And you all think you are the OneTrueChristians^tm.  And if you think atheists have theology, you are simply an idiot and have no idea what the word means.  Hilarious. And I fail to see any logic you’ve offered. You are pretty good with the fallacies though.  

I do love the “anything is possible”.  Really?  You believe that you could be hoodwinked by Satan, that you could simply be wrong? You see, TS, I don’t think you really think that anything is possible.  If you did, you wouldn’t be making the claims you are.

I have explained that God made be believe and that after that I see it (at least in my own mind) that it is a choice. Of course I cannot choose to leave this view - but I would not even if I could.  That is not a contradiction. That is something you have not even come close to establishing.

You say that “God made me believe” and then you want to say “It’s a choice.”  Then you say that you “cannot choose to leave this view”.  How can it be a choice if you *cannot* choose? Please explain that.  

You want to say I waffle?  You’re welcome to if you can show it.  If not, it’s a lie and just one more Christian trying to make vague claims to try to drag me down to their level, the ol' "But you do it too."  with a pouting lip to excuse your actions.

Again, sorry but your bible says that God damns people.  You said he didn’t, “My God does not damn you.”  You now want to say that God now can judge “as the judge he does condemn”, e.g. damn people.  Which is it, TS?  And sorry, I don’t “sin”. I don’t acknowledge your primitive superstition that some magical being judges people.  And I don’t think there any consequences for “sinning” beyond how they intersect with secular law.  I find your god quite culpable for damning people for things they didn’t do if I go with the myth your bible presents.  I am not moving away from personal responsibility at all. But thanks for trying to move the goalposts.  

I love how you ask “why should Christians agree” and follow it up with strawmen arguments that I have not mentioned at all.  Sad little thing you are.  Why should Christians agree? Well, if you all are getting the “real” answer from God, this supposed “truth” of the universe, I should certainly hope you would agree. And it’s the issue alright. Yes, who knows if the EOC is right?  Isn’t it strange that NONE of you know?  But oh you claim you know, TS, with your insistence that God does “this” and doesn’t do “that”.  

And more lies about what I think.  I mean, really, TS, is this all you have any more, baseless claims that you try to argue against since you can’t address my actual comments.  Seems so.  You are shocked, shocked! to see me ask you why you claim you are right when you whine “Does this make them right? Who knows?” when you are cornered.  This is the usual tactic of a Christian who doesn’t want to be shown wrong. You’ll change your story as many times as you think you have to not to be shown to be wrong.  And ah, here we go with the usual solipsism “But what is proof? Does it even exist?”  No surpise here.  All of the sudden, “proof” and “evidence” cease to exist when a Christian is asked for them.  Hilarious.  So much for your claim that you are open to being proved wrong. You just think you’ve given yourself an out if anyone does present proof or evidence.  Oh, one could really set a clock by the consistency of how Christians act on this forum.

Are you saying that you are prepared to use your own faith to believe in God? If you look at my challenge - I said it had to be in relation to the God of the Bible - not to a God you can just pick and choose. I think this should be interesting - even if it is just to see you try and prove a point.

Well, let’s look at what you wrote

I say that I have faith because God gave it to me. Hence I can believe in faith his words. I have often said - (not on here of course) that the most convincing proof that the Bible is wrong is for someone to get faith all by themselves in God. I have never ever met anyone who has acquired faith in the God of the Bible by themselves. You see - I dont have to prove God to you - there is really no benefit in it for me.  But you could prove the bible wrong - but so far I have never met anyone who was willing to even try to take up this challenge.  A very simple challenge apparently. Have faith in God. How simple - look at all those naive people in the world - obviously - it does not take a genuis to believe in God.

You’ve said that the bible would be wrong if someone got their faith all by themselves.  You said that you don’t have to prove God to me.  You said I could prove the bible wrong.  I read this as that I can prove the bible wrong period.  Not by your “most convincing proof” but just that I could prove the bible wrong. and by all means the Bible God.  I do love someone who picks and chooses complaining about that.  The bible is wrong in many ways.  How about no evidence for any of the important events?  Contradictions on basic facts in the most important stories? Where are the believers with magical powers as good or better than JC? Or how about the best one, why doesn’t God heal amputees?  We have the Bible god promising quick positive answers to prayer. We don’t see these.  

So you refuse to get into a debate about whether god exists or not.  You have claimed I cannot prove God exists, but you refuse to show this to be true or show the existence of something you claim. Of course, it opens you up to questions and I do agree that you would never do this since first you’ve claimed this “I cannot choose to leave this view” and therefore, we know that this is a lie: “Of course I am always open to being proved wrong.”  And the Bible doesn’t attempt to prove God exists but God himself does go out of his way to prove it. We have all of the OT where God is all about showing off how great he is, and then JC says that one should believe in miracles since they show God exists

John 10:37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

[Asmoday]

Tbright, I find it quite amusing that you only answer to one little part of my post and what you come up with to support your claim doesn't even say what you want it to say.

[Alzael]

^^^^ And he still hasn't proven anything either.

[nogodsforme]

Christians don't live better lives than anyone else. By many measures, Christians live worse lives than many atheists (more divorce, more family violence, more teen pregnancies, lower education levels, lower incomes, etc).

Less religious states in the US are much better off in human development than the states of the "Bible Belt". In fact, the Bible Belt states are dependent on the less religious states to subsidize their social services because they have worse social problems and less money to take care of them.

The same trend seems to hold worldwide, where the less religious the people of the country are, the more successful the society is--less crime, fewer people in jail, better social services, etc. Maybe it is because Christians think that god woo-woo works when it doesn't fix anything and non-religious people actually you know, do real stuff that works to solve problems...

Example: religion-based no-info abstinence-only programs vs real scientific secular sex information and birth control for young people. Which do you think leads to lower rates of disease and pregnancy, given that most people in their teens and 20's do eventually have sex? (Hint: Abstinence works until it doesn't. And then the ignorant kids do all the most risky stuff imaginable with no protection. Obviously, they don't really believe that god is watching....)

Japan, one of the most atheistic and un-Christian countries in the world, is a very peaceful, safe, stable and prosperous society, with some of the longest life spans anywhere. Wonder why that is, if atheism is supposed to be so terrible for people, and is supposed to lead to society falling apart due to rampant "sin".

[tradesecret]

The fact that I was living on death row - in sin meant that the only way out of it for me was for someone else from myself to do something to help set me free.  I could not do it myself. I cannot will myself to be alive or will myself out of prison. IF I am dead in sin then I am dead.  If the governor of the prison or God in this case determines for whatever reason to give me faith or to die on a cross - it has nothing to do with me. I cannot will him to do it - I cannot will him not to do it. I was never asked if I wanted Jesus to die on the cross. I was never asked if I wanted faith. This is why I say choice is irrelevent and why I say that every other form of discrimination is irrelevent - race, birth, sex, sexual orientation, religion, social position, social wealth, profession, colour, intelliegence, etc.  I did not choose God - I could not choose God. I was dead in sin.

If you suffer in eternity it is absolutely your choice and your own responsibility. You reject God - well I call that sin - but that is your choice. We have all sinned - no one is innocent (including children, the handicapped, foetuses, intellectually challenged, etc) If this is the starting point - then choice becomes irrelevent. At that point - if God is merciful to any and give grace and faith - no one can say that they deserved it. No one can say that they earnt it. He does not have to give any mercy. He does thankfully.  But he does not have to - and if we expect that he should then we are practising "guilt manipulation".  No governor has to grant a pardon to any prisoner. If a governor does not grant freedom - he is not evil.  It is the prisoner who broke the law. It is the prisoner who condemned himself. TO blame the governor only demonstrates that the person thinks that they did not do anything to deserve their punishment. (Now I grant that is a more interesting question but it is a different issue)

And you STILL are not addressing my point - indeed, your response is STILL carrying the same contradictions.

"...the only way out of it for me was for someone else from myself to do something to help set me free.  I could not do it myself..." 
"God in this case determines for whatever reason to give me faith "
"I did not choose God - I could not choose God. I was dead in sin."

To summarise: it was impossible for you to repent/find god/stop sinning on your own.  It required god to intervene and give you belief.

But THEN you try to say:

"You reject God - well I call that sin - but that is your choice"

Sorry, but this directly contradicts what you said before!!!

"You can't choose god" you say, but also "you will be damned because you did not choose god".

I'll say it again slowly:

If we cannot believe in and accept god without god FIRST doing something to MAKE us believe.....
Then if god does NOT take that first action, we will NEVER believe - and so NEVER be saved.....
Then it is therefore down to god's choices - and god's alone - whether we become saved.

Seriously - do you not see the huge contradiction in what you are saying?

My whole point is God saves man. I have never said any differently. The essence of Reformed theology is that Salvation belongs to the Lord.

If our choice - yours or mine contributes to our salvation then salvation is of the Lord and of us. It also constrains the power of God if he is "waiting" on you to make a decision.

I said that you have rejected God - and I have said that is a choice you make.  That is entirely consistent with human nature - but it is  contrary to human nature to choose God. The issue is that humanity is naturally inclined towards disobeying or rejecting God. I use the word choose - because I take the view that it is intentional.  You might take the view that it reasonable. I say that just because you can choose to do evil or sin does not mean you have the capacity to choose good.

Freewill in my understanding means that you are free to whatever you want to do - but not necessarily free to do whatever you ought to do. Robbers ought to hand themselves in - but rarely do.  Robbers tend to run as far away as possible.

So in my mind there is no contradiction. For God - what I consider is impossible is possible for him.  Jesus said it was impossible for a rich man to get heaven and yet rich men do get to heaven. The essence of what Jesus was saying is that no- one (in the context it wasa rich man) can get to heaven in their own steam or by their own power. He was not saying however that people do not go to heaven - merely pointing out that the way is something that God looks after not us.

So there is no contradiction unless of course you choose only to countenance that freewill is defined in one way and that is different to what I am suggesting. 

As I said we are sinners - (in my opinion) and we all deserve death - no one of us chooses God - but we all choose to reject God. That is our human disposition - as sinners. We sin because we are sinners - (through Adam) we are not sinners because we sin.

Again I thank you for your conversation.

[Graybeard]

[...]Japan, one of the most atheistic and un-Christian countries in the world, is a very peaceful, safe, stable and prosperous society, with some of the longest life spans anywhere. Wonder why that is, if atheism is supposed to be so terrible for people, and is supposed to lead to society falling apart due to rampant "sin".

Cause or effect?

If you are rich enough, you get freedom from worry about basic survival, you receive education, a welfare state of some sort and health care - what need of gods? Has not society taken over their job? If you are dirt poor, uneducated, desperate, hungry, you will grasp at any straw.

Only for the fortunate in the prosperous 1st world is there the God of the Gaps.

[tradesecret]

Hmm, I wonder what compliment this was.  Oh well.  I am quite sure, TS, you don’t think you’ve backpedaled, or done anything else wrong.  Most Christians don’t every want to admit that.  And clarification is clarification and backpedaling is backpedaling. They aren’t the same thing.

lol -

ROFL. “Church people generally get along pretty well.”  I know for a fact that is simply a lie.  I watched just how “well” they get along when my church disintergrated and on Christian forums.  And well, I don’t suppose I have to mention how Protetants, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, LDS etc, treat each other.  

You are quick to call someone a liar.  Christians in general do get on together.  There are spats - just like any family  - and sometimes with great divisions - but this does not mean that the majority do not get on together. In any event - whatever happened in your church is hardly relevent for an entire 2000 years of history in the church.

And oh, I just love how you aren’t “going to argue the point” that I was a Christian, as if that were some great favor you were doing me. Nice little OneTrueChristiantm attitude there. Love the swipe at your fellow Christians too.  And TS, I was a Presbyterian, I know all about Calvinism and the elect.  I know just how special that makes those who think they are elect feel, that they get out of jail free because God “chose” them and only them. What amuses me is that they have no evidence for their supposed “election”.  They declare themselves such which certainly seems a vain and arrogant thing to do. As for “The way one lives their life is a better demonstration of what one really believes.”  Yep, I agree.  If one believes that one should be a good person, then that’s what one does, with no need of threats or promises from a spook in the sky. It has been my experience that religion sure doesn’t make a person act any better but it sure can make them act worse.    

Again you have just demonstrated your ignorance wrt to Calvinism.  Presbyterians dont believe that being one of the elect gives them a get out of jail free card.  If you recall your days of TULIP you would recall the fifth point which emphasises perseverence - he who perseveres to the end will be saved. just because someone thinks that they are of the elect does not mean anything - it is by their fruits you will know them.

If your mom prays that you’ll become a Baptist, she thinks you’re wrong, TS. If she wants you to change, why is that? I would think she is afraid for you if you don’t get out of this “phase”.  You seem to think that it is a matter of “maturity” that means if you are a TrueChristiantm or not.  Am I to take this as meaning as you think I am “immature” in not believing in your god?  This seems to be the usual Christian attempt to claim that atheists are just “rebelling” against “daddy”.  

You really have no clue, do you? Baptists worship with Presbyerians and they worship with epicopalians and they worship with Lutherens - they would not do so if they did not think that they were on the same page. Baptisms might not worship with mormons or JW or with the Catholic church but that is a different issue.

I am not picking and choosing my religion. I follow the tenants of traditional Christianity - from Christ, Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin.  This is the Reformed view and in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith.  It is true that I have rejected much of Catholicism - and Dispensationalism and much of modern fundamentalism.  So what? My faith is similar to many millions of people and disimilar from millions - perhaps billions others.  Atheists have no common theology (allegedly) but the doctrine that God does not exist. You think I throw up bad logic?

How many times I’ve heard each Christian claiming that they are following “traditional Christianity” and not so strangely they all differ in what that consists of.  And you all think you are the OneTrueChristians^tm.  And if you think atheists have theology, you are simply an idiot and have no idea what the word means.  Hilarious. And I fail to see any logic you’ve offered. You are pretty good with the fallacies though.  

I used the word allegedly because I know that atheists are in denial and they get all sensitive about this partiuclar issue. Whenever anybody suggests it - they get all tissed up and says things like "idiot" and then try to make out that it was "amusing" or that it was "hilarious". If that makes you feel a little better - well good on you.

I do love the “anything is possible”.  Really?  You believe that you could be hoodwinked by Satan, that you could simply be wrong? You see, TS, I don’t think you really think that anything is possible.  If you did, you wouldn’t be making the claims you are.

I have explained that God made be believe and that after that I see it (at least in my own mind) that it is a choice. Of course I cannot choose to leave this view - but I would not even if I could.  That is not a contradiction. That is something you have not even come close to establishing.

You say that “God made me believe” and then you want to say “It’s a choice.”  Then you say that you “cannot choose to leave this view”.  How can it be a choice if you *cannot* choose? Please explain that.  

I am  just stating what I believe.  You ask a question and I attempt to answer it.

You want to say I waffle?  You’re welcome to if you can show it.  If not, it’s a lie and just one more Christian trying to make vague claims to try to drag me down to their level, the ol' "But you do it too."  with a pouting lip to excuse your actions.

lol.  Calling me names and attempting to belittle me is obviously in your lists of way to argue. (interesting)

Again, sorry but your bible says that God damns people.  You said he didn’t, “My God does not damn you.”  You now want to say that God now can judge “as the judge he does condemn”, e.g. damn people.  Which is it, TS?  And sorry, I don’t “sin”. I don’t acknowledge your primitive superstition that some magical being judges people.  And I don’t think there any consequences for “sinning” beyond how they intersect with secular law.  I find your god quite culpable for damning people for things they didn’t do if I go with the myth your bible presents.  I am not moving away from personal responsibility at all. But thanks for trying to move the goalposts.  

I say that you sin. Well I take it that you do. I never said that you had to agree with me or even acknowledge that sin exists. Gee you dont believe in God - so how can you believe in sin? duh!!  In my understanding sin is something that offends God - we cannot sin against each other. As for God damning I have answered that - I have conceded that God damns by qualifiying what I meant by that. But by all means - go ahead and continue your dillusion as to what you think I said and meant.

And more lies about what I think.  I mean, really, TS, is this all you have any more, baseless claims that you try to argue against since you can’t address my actual comments.  Seems so.  You are shocked, shocked! to see me ask you why you claim you are right when you whine “Does this make them right? Who knows?” when you are cornered.  This is the usual tactic of a Christian who doesn’t want to be shown wrong. You’ll change your story as many times as you think you have to not to be shown to be wrong.  And ah, here we go with the usual solipsism “But what is proof? Does it even exist?”  No surpise here.  All of the sudden, “proof” and “evidence” cease to exist when a Christian is asked for them.  Hilarious.  So much for your claim that you are open to being proved wrong. You just think you’ve given yourself an out if anyone does present proof or evidence.  Oh, one could really set a clock by the consistency of how Christians act on this forum.

You really should stop judging me by your own standards. And as for waffle - that last paragraph is a good example of one. Thinking my thoughts for me and commenting on my thoughts that you have thought for me. lol.  You seem to think that every person is just wanting to be proved wrong - funny that. I have yet to see an athiest admit when they are wrong -perhaps you might be the first.

Are you saying that you are prepared to use your own faith to believe in God? If you look at my challenge - I said it had to be in relation to the God of the Bible - not to a God you can just pick and choose. I think this should be interesting - even if it is just to see you try and prove a point.

Well, let’s look at what you wrote

I say that I have faith because God gave it to me. Hence I can believe in faith his words. I have often said - (not on here of course) that the most convincing proof that the Bible is wrong is for someone to get faith all by themselves in God. I have never ever met anyone who has acquired faith in the God of the Bible by themselves. You see - I dont have to prove God to you - there is really no benefit in it for me.  But you could prove the bible wrong - but so far I have never met anyone who was willing to even try to take up this challenge.  A very simple challenge apparently. Have faith in God. How simple - look at all those naive people in the world - obviously - it does not take a genuis to believe in God.

You’ve said that the bible would be wrong if someone got their faith all by themselves.  You said that you don’t have to prove God to me.  You said I could prove the bible wrong.  I read this as that I can prove the bible wrong period.  Not by your “most convincing proof” but just that I could prove the bible wrong. and by all means the Bible God.  I do love someone who picks and chooses complaining about that.  The bible is wrong in many ways.  How about no evidence for any of the important events?  Contradictions on basic facts in the most important stories? Where are the believers with magical powers as good or better than JC? Or how about the best one, why doesn’t God heal amputees?  We have the Bible god promising quick positive answers to prayer. We don’t see these.

And you say I change the goal posts.  whatever I said before - the sense was meant to be - and just to make sure you dont misunderstnad what I mean :

I say that it is impossible for someone to become a Christian without God giving that person faith. This is why I find it an useless pastime to debate about God's existence or not.  If someone were to become a Christian who believes in the Christian view of God - the Trinity - and leads their life in accordance with that belief - without assistance from God whatsoever - then it would prove that the Bible is incorrect. That is my challenge.  

So you refuse to get into a debate about whether god exists or not.  You have claimed I cannot prove God exists, but you refuse to show this to be true or show the existence of something you claim. Of course, it opens you up to questions and I do agree that you would never do this since first you’ve claimed this “I cannot choose to leave this view” and therefore, we know that this is a lie: “Of course I am always open to being proved wrong.”  And the Bible doesn’t attempt to prove God exists but God himself does go out of his way to prove it. We have all of the OT where God is all about showing off how great he is, and then JC says that one should believe in miracles since they show God exists

John 10:37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

I do not recall where I said you cannot prove God exists or not exist. Proving God exists or not exists is merely dancing with words it means nothing and you know that - so why are you getting all het up about it?


The fact that God demonstrates his power in the world before humanity either himself or through his son - in no way diminishes my arguement. If God appeared before you right now - you would not believe. If he turned you into a goldfish - you would not believe. If I were to provide a foolproof comprehensive logical arguement for the existence of God - you would dish out on it - using one of your tried and true patronising comments - "lies" hilarius" "idiot" - "moving the goal posts" " straw man arguement" - not answering my question - blah blah.

My point is not to evangelise you - it never has been. It is not to persuade you that God is real or that the Bible is true. I merely answered a question  and then commented that my belief comes from God and that it is impossible for someone to know God without him revealing himself to them. This entire website is testimony to my belief and confirms it with every word that is written.

Your compliment was - in responding to my post in the first place. lol

[modbreak]Fixed quoting[/modbreak]

[ParkingPlaces]

I said that you have rejected God - and I have said that is a choice you make. 

You little twerp. Atheists have NOT rejected god. Yours or any others. Get that through your thick skull. I know it's important to pretend that we are all against you because we want to sin, etc. I know it's important that you pretend we are horrid people unable to accept jc as our good buddy. But as long as you insist on keeping yourself this ignorant about reality, I guess you're just going to have to adapt to sounding stupid about nearly everything you say.

I'm not saying that you are stupid. I'm just saying that you're emulating that condition admirably.

[Alzael]

PP, don't sweat it. This one isn't even remotely worth getting worked up over. At the very least tbright is vaguely interesting, in a train wreck sort of way. This one is just bland and can't even make sense of his own thoughts in his own head.
Speaking of trbight, he's been surprisingly silent, I noticed. Especially noticeable considering how extremely talkative he was yesterday.

[Anfauglir]

And you STILL are not addressing my point - indeed, your response is STILL carrying the same contradictions.

"...the only way out of it for me was for someone else from myself to do something to help set me free.  I could not do it myself..." 
"God in this case determines for whatever reason to give me faith "
"I did not choose God - I could not choose God. I was dead in sin."

To summarise: it was impossible for you to repent/find god/stop sinning on your own.  It required god to intervene and give you belief.

But THEN you try to say:

"You reject God - well I call that sin - but that is your choice"

Sorry, but this directly contradicts what you said before!!!

"You can't choose god" you say, but also "you will be damned because you did not choose god".

I'll say it again slowly:

If we cannot believe in and accept god without god FIRST doing something to MAKE us believe.....
Then if god does NOT take that first action, we will NEVER believe - and so NEVER be saved.....
Then it is therefore down to god's choices - and god's alone - whether we become saved.

Seriously - do you not see the huge contradiction in what you are saying?

....Again I thank you for your conversation.

Sorry, but I cannot do the same, since you seem to be choosing NOT to have a conversation with me.  You are NOT answering my points.

YOU are the one who said "I did not choose God - I could not choose God" - YOU said it was impossible for you to choose god without god's assistance.  So your god had to make the first move - without god doing that (if what you say is correct), you would have been literally unable to choose him.

Now, if you want to go back on that - to say that in all cases, WITHOUT prior action from god, that it IS possible to choose him - then that's fine.  It would, of course, mean you having to change most of the facts and most of the point of your testimony, but it would at least make your words coherent and non-contradictory.  Your choice.

Just to be crystal clear.  You said:
"I did not choose God - I could not choose God"
and you also said
"You reject God.....that is your choice"

THOSE TWO STATEMENTS ARE CONTRADICTORY.  Please explain, if it is impossible to choose to accept god, how in any way it can be a "choice" to reject? 

With me and god, it is accept or reject.  You say it is impossible for me to accept on my own.  So how is having only a single possible option remaining in any way a "choice"?

[Ambassador Pony]

bm

Edit: Even if I know TS soon will have sudden "out of town business to attend to" never to return.
 

[Anfauglir]

You really should stop judging me by your own standards. And as for waffle - that last paragraph is a good example of one. Thinking my thoughts for me and commenting on my thoughts that you have thought for me. lol.

Quite right.  Telling other people what they do, or do not think; what they would, or would not think, is well out of order.

If God appeared before you right now - you would not believe. If he turned you into a goldfish - you would not believe.

Oops.  Still, I'll overlook that such a good Christian is incapable of practicing what he preaches to actually address this point.

If God appeared before you right now - you would not believe. If he turned you into a goldfish - you would not believe.

You are wrong.  Totally, 100% wrong.  If your god appeared in front of me, and turned me into a goldfish, I'd believe.  Full stop, no question.  Actual direct evidence of a god?  Sure - that would be more than enough for me.  It's a shame that - despite apparently wanting a relationship with all of us and wanting us to be saved - your god doesn't do it.  Knowing everything, he MUST know that that level is all that would convince me....so I can only conclude that (since he doesn't do it), he doesn't WANT me to be convinced.

However, you ARE right in this:

If I were to provide a foolproof comprehensive logical arguement for the existence of God - you would dish out on it.

I would indeed.  Because, quite frankly, I have already seen a far better "logical proof" of Allah that any I have seen for Christ.  It had holes in it, sure (it was Afadly's guys), but it was still waaay better than any I had seen for Jesus.  But logical proofs - as I am SURE you know - are ONLY as good as the premises and axioms on which they stand.  Which means that logical proofs stand or fall for truth (as opposed to validity) on the evidential bedrocks on which it stands.  And so any "logical proof" you care to bring must be supported on concrete and undeniable evidence.

Got any of that?

[velkyn]

Ah, TS, I see just more of the same.  More lies, more trying to redefine words, more excuses, more claims of OneTrueChristianitytm, more ignoring of points, more strawmen. etc.  Basically the same tactics that many Christians have used on this forum.  I am always amazed that people who claim to be so beholden to God, are so unconcerned about their actions that would supposedly damn their souls.  How many times can you ask forgiveness for your actions to an omnipotent being who knows what you’re going to do intentionally again and again?  When does it become evident to such a being that you aren’t interested at all in acting like a Christian, but just getting forgiveness for not acting like one?

I’ll have to say that I like how you call the wholesale killing of other Christians a “family spat”.  Wow, I sure dont’ want to live in your family. Rather than exposing even more of your nosense, I’m going to let this stand on its own as a monument to Christians who come here.    

And this

Again you have just demonstrated your ignorance wrt to Calvinism.  Presbyterians dont believe that being one of the elect gives them a get out of jail free card.  If you recall your days of TULIP you would recall the fifth point which emphasises perseverence - he who perseveres to the end will be saved. just because someone thinks that they are of the elect does not mean anything - it is by their fruits you will know them.

Yep, I do know TULIP, and I dont’ recall anything like you’ve claimed. I do recall basically this, which is a nice summation

You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.

http://calvinistcorner.com/tulip  Sure seems like a get out of jail free card.

You claim that Baptists worship with other Christians.  Really? Then why are there Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, etc?  If you’re all one big happy family, why the different buildings?  

I used the word allegedly because I know that atheists are in denial and they get all sensitive about this partiuclar issue. Whenever anybody suggests it - they get all tissed up and says things like "idiot" and then try to make out that it was "amusing" or that it was "hilarious". If that makes you feel a little better - well good on you.

Wow, TS, you’re psychic?  My you must make lots of money on how you can read minds.  Hilarious when you again try to lie about atheists.  I do wonder have you read your bible? You know, the “shall not bear false witness” and Romans 3 where it says that people who think they are lying “for” Christ aren’t welcome at all to God?

You say that “God made me believe” and then you want to say “It’s a choice.”  Then you say that you “cannot choose to leave this view”.  How can it be a choice if you *cannot* choose? Please explain that.

you answered this with

I am  just stating what I believe.  You ask a question and I attempt to answer it.

I know. It’s hilarious. You contradict yourself and you think this is okay.  
And of course, when you claim that I “waffle” you first provide no evidence and then when requested you provide this

And as for waffle - that last paragraph is a good example of one. Thinking my thoughts for me and commenting on my thoughts that you have thought for me.

Ummm, how is this waffling? Do you even know the meaning of the term?  Evidently not, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waffle?show=1&t=1288363530 because none of the definitions equate to what you have mentioned.  I have made comments based on yours and based on the usual Christian tactics I’ve seen here. I can see how you might take this as thinking your thoughts for you but I did not mean it that way, by the use of the word “usual”.  And I know that people dont’ want to be proven wrong.  But why come to a forum that is more than obvious on what it is and not expect people to try to prove you wrong? And, TS, there is no reason to admit one is wrong if one isn’t. You find something that I’ve been mistaken about and I have no problem admitting it.  I’ve misread things here on the forum, I’ve been off on stats, I’ve unproven claims and when shown I’m wrong, I accept it, apologize and move on.  Can you do the same?  You’ve said that nothing will change your mind, that’s as much admitting that you won’t.      

I also am amused when you say I should not judge you “by my own standards”.  Really, why not?  My standards are based on facts, my experience, etc.  What else do I have?  
I have explained what I thought you meant which is not changing the goalposts.  If I was doing that, I’d ignore you and then proceed to address what I decided to pursue. You see, you decide the “sense” of what you mean after someone questions it.  If you had meant what you have clarified, why not say that in the beginning?  Sense doesn’t always come through a post, TS.  It’s time you realized that.  This is why I say you backpedal and you equivocate since you never can mean what you originally post.  Now let me address what you have now said you meant:

I say that it is impossible for someone to become a Christian without God giving that person faith. This is why I find it an useless pastime to debate about God's existence or not.  If someone were to become a Christian who believes in the Christian view of God - the Trinity - and leads their life in accordance with that belief - without assistance from God whatsoever - then it would prove that the Bible is incorrect. That is my challenge.

 So why are you here, if, by your words, we may not EVER be able to believe?  And if God gives a person faith, and that’s the only way that they can believe, how is it any kind of choice for anyone to believe? This leads to the idea that God damns people for no reason but his lack of ability to give faith to everyone.  Since he requires this faith he gives, there is no choice and no free will. Your argument is rather cirucluar too. If God has to give faith for someone to believe in him, then it becomes that only believers are given faith.  No way to tell and it becomes a TrueScotsman fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman  
I thought I had seen at some point you saying that I could not prove that God doesn’t exist. I may could be wrong and mixed you up with someone else.  My apologies (see not hard to do at all).  And proving that God exists or doesn’t exist is not only “dancing with words”. And no, I don’t “know” that. I know the exact opposite.  It’s the analysis of evidence and of the claims that supposed holy books make.  One can take refuge in the philosophical question of “can we know anything?” but most people are pretty sure they can know that a white-hot piece of metal in their bare hand is real and provable.  

The fact that God demonstrates his power in the world before humanity either himself or through his son - in no way diminishes my arguement. If God appeared before you right now - you would not believe. If he turned you into a goldfish - you would not believe. If I were to provide a foolproof comprehensive logical arguement for the existence of God - you would dish out on it - using one of your tried and true patronising comments - "lies" hilarius" "idiot" - "moving the goal posts" " straw man arguement" - not answering my question - blah blah.

Here we go again. There is no fact at all.  And you cannot know that I would not believe.  I would believe if I had evidence.  I used to believe and I occasionally direct a thought to God and ask for him to show himself, just like I asked when losing my faith. The reason I don’t believe is that no Christian can present any logical argument, that they can’t present any evidence and that they all disagree on what God “really means”. The commnents you find patronizing are comments with reaons behind them.  They indeed are condescending because of your actions. I have no need to offer respect to you.
I will ask again, then what is your purpose here?  You started your posts with declaring that your version of Christianity was the right one.  We countered that and showed you your errors. You ignore us. Then you make this claim:  

My point is not to evangelise you - it never has been. It is not to persuade you that God is real or that the Bible is true. I merely answered a question  and then commented that my belief comes from God and that it is impossible for someone to know God without him revealing himself to them. This entire website is testimony to my belief and confirms it with every word that is written.

Again, we have a circular argument.  You want to claim that this website is “testimony” and “confirms” e.g. proves how right you are, that people can’t have faith if they don’t believe and don’t believe if god refuses them faith.  One of the other possibilities is that your god doesn’t exist and that you are a nut.

[Alzael]

This is why I find it an useless pastime to debate about God's existence or not.

Then why would you even be here? You're just wasting everyone's time and contaminating the real conversations with your own intellectual garbage.

The fact that God demonstrates his power in the world before humanity either himself or through his son - in no way diminishes my arguement.

Actually it does, because god in no way demonstrates any power in the world. And certainly none that you're capable of proving. For that matter you can't even prove that you actually believe in god, it could quite conceivably be Satan that you actually worship, since you arrived at your faith by having it given to you rather than through any actual, you know, thought.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually miss University Pastor. Even he wasn't as completely mentally unevolved as the current crop of theists.

[Agga]

Do those consequences include torturing her for all eternity if she doesn't do everything you say?

No they do not.  1) I am not a Holy God, who is the judge of Sin.  2)  I am not disciplining her for sin, but for bad behavior.  3) God disciplines those he loves, the bible says, and not all discipline from God includes eternal torture.  Just ask Peter, or Moses, Or Abraham, or Adam and Eve, Or Cain, ect.  

I see. 

However, you seem to forget that bad behaviour IS sin.  So, why are you punishing your daughter for sinning, since you just said that this isn't your job?

[phelix22]

It isn't just interesting, it isn't fair.  I should pay for everyone of my sins, but because God forgave me, I don't, not that they didn't go unpunished, but that someone else took that punishment for me.

Exactly, you have this mythology set up in your mind where your sins are paid for you. You believe that your sins are taken from you, rather than having to bear them yourself. This is all a creation of your own mind to excuse yourself.

I couldn't make this stuff up if I had to.  Also,  there is nothing made up in what happened in my life.  What you call mythology is actually called discipleship, being a disciple or follower of the teachings of Jesus.  I don't know how many literary scholars we have in here, I know there are many who can make a quick quote to a skeptic, and a quick note to watch some educated man state criticism of the bible and its credibility.  the thing is you really have to get way out there to find those who believe there is no man named Jesus, no Jew who lived around 4bc to 29ad, who had a following of 12 men and a few hundred disciples and who's believers have persisted to follow some 2000 years later.  What is impossible to believe is that it is based on total fiction.  Every faith that has stood the test of time has dealt with scrutiny, they are either proven bogus and snuffed out, or there is an element of truth that helps them sustain credibility.  Was there a Man named Muhammed?  Was there a real Jesus?  Was there a real Joseph Smith?  Can one find enlightenment through meditation?  I understand there is an element of spirituality that people make up, they want to believe, they need an answer, even scientists tap into this idea of there is more knowledge out there than what we know and we must discover it.  But to say, you made all that up in your own mind is just absurd.  And since we are in an arena that demands proof, what have you to your claim that it is made up?

And if this God was such a bad God, then why make forgiveness available to anyone?

The forgiveness isn't available to anyone. It's only available to those who do the monkey dance. A better queation would be 'If this god is such a good god, why punish people eternally at all?" Why not just forgive them, or give them a punishment less draconian?

Because of Justice.  What is just.  for a criminal to go unpunished?  No.  One must pay the price for one's actions.  In society we base it on what we think is fair.  "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"  but that is for the action.  What is the consequence for rejecting God?  That would be Hell, according to the scriptures.  What is just is that anyone who chooses to say, there is no God or I don't want your forgiveness, I can do it on my own, I am smarter than you, I am independant and in no need of a savior.  Then that person has made themselves to be the supreme authority in there life.  In essence they have become their own god.  And the penalty is eternal hell, according to the scriptures.  What frustrates me is that we (humans) don't agree with sin.  We blame God for the opportunity, we blame God for our weakness, and we blame God for our judgement.  That just doesn't make sense.


[modbreak]Fixed quotes[/modbreak]

[phelix22]

And if jesus H took our punishment already, how can you even say there is a hell for me to go to?

See, that is the beauty of the scheme. Jesus "took our punishment" but when it comes down to it he took "our" punishment selectively. If for whatever reason you don't jump through the hoops when the big sky daddy tells you to, it turns out that Jesus hasn't taken your punishment but you have to face it on your own.

Not exactly.  according to scripture, Jesus died so that anyone who would believe in Him would not die but have eternal life.   Elsewhere in scripture it says that he died for the sins of the world.  But the bible also says, "vengence is mine" and judgement is coming.  All those who are forgiven are,,,forgiven.  All those who have rejected will face an eternity without hope.  Hell was created for humans, but for Satan and the 1/3 who went with him.  Jesus didn't say, I will die for some if they jump through enough hoops.  In fact scripture is clear, that we can't earn it or do any work to attain salvation.  But when we have faith in Jesus and repent of our sins, the scriptures say we are forgiven.  Now I know there is plenty of fodder here for criticism, thats fine I will do my best, but at least this is an overview statement in rebuttle to screwtape and asmoday above.

[velkyn]

Was there a real Jesus? 

 No evidence at all that there was some man/god that lived in Jerusalem.  There might have been some itinerant rabbi that had stories built up around him, but there is no evidence of any of cited events of JC's life.  

and no it doesn't make sense to blame god for anything because god doesn't exist.  

[phelix22]

Wow, no evidence?  Ever studied antiquity.  Ever heard of BC and AD.  Ever read the Matthew Mark Luke John.  I mean this discussion board is full of people stating there is no God, they demand proof of anyone who contradicts, and yet I ask for proof and I get, "na hah, you gotta prove it." - paraphrase.

I just have to say a few words about this.

phelix22, either you haven't informed yourself much about this or your knowledge consists solely of materials from Christian fundamentalist sources.

There is no evidence for Jesus' existence; neither for a Jesus as described in the bible nor for a historical and purely human Jesus.

I am not a researcher nor a phd.  When it comes to form criticism, biblical criticism, and this type of argument I must rely on others who are trusted and competant.  William F. Allbright,  Recent Discoveries in Bible lands (New York) 1955 "we can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about ad 80, two full generations before the date 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of Today.  Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archeologists of the 50's and 60's was a student of the German historical school which taught that the book of acts was a second century book and not trustworthy, after investigating came to the conclusion that Luke and Acts are written by a meticulous and accurate historical writer.  That this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.  Simon Kistemaker Professor emeritus, states, " normally, the accumulation of folklore among people of primitive culture takes many generations; it is a gradual process spread over centuries of time.  But in conformity with the thinking of the form critic, we must conclude that the Gospel stories were produced and collected within little more than one generation.  In terms of the form-critical approach, the formation of the individual Gospel units must be understood as a telescoped project with accelerated course of action.

A. H. Mcneile Regius Professor at University of Dublin, says there is just not enough time or evidence to persuade one to think of the Gospels as made up mythology.  As for the credibility, the gospels stand up under testing as well.  the history of Thucydides 400 - 460 bc is available to us by only eight manuscripts dated about 900 ad.  Yet there is no classical scholar who argues against the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides.  F. F. Bruce - Rylands professor.  Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343bc yet the eariest copy we have is dated ad 1100, we have only 49 manuscripts total, and yet no argument.  Bruce Metzger, author and editor, "the quantity of New Testament material is almost embarrassing in comparison with other works of antiquity"  in 1977 he was able to document 4600 Greek manuscripts of the bible, and as of now he can document more than 5600.  But it is not just the abundance of material, it is also the consistancy.  If it were made up, where are the varying copies.  With so many attempts to get rid of the bible, why haven't any made it, if so many manuscripts survived all these years. 

[phelix22]

Here is a big can of worms you are bringing into the conversation "God created Sin".  but lets skip to the end, i would be responsible for her doing something wrong because I gave her the freedom to do what she wants.  Ummm no.  her choice, she knew the rules, she broke the rules, she pays the price.  If it were my fault for giving her the freedom, then couldn't we blame the government for every crime?

It's your fault because you made her the way she is. You created sin not her. And you can't claim to give her the freedom to do what she wants, because you're punishing her for doing it. This is not free will, it is circumstantial will. Free will requires a lack of consequences and constrainsts, hence 'free'. If you can only do what you want within certain restrictions than you do not have freedom. As you yourself said yourself, there are rules. This is not giving her freedom. You could have made her incapable of doing bad things. This can't be considered an imposition on freedom because this is already the case. There are many things that we as humans cannot choose to do. Such as fire energy rays from our eyes. We cannot choose this because we lack the ability to do it. So we could have simply been created without the ability to do bad things and we could still have free will, assuming you can even prove that we have free will. And again, as an all-knowing being you knew that all of this would happen when you created her, so you knew from the start that she would do this and you would have to punish her and did nothing to stop it.
[/quote]

The meaning of freewill is that you are free to do what you will.   In otherwords, you can do whatever you are capable of doing.  Without the option to do wrong there is no choice.  There is no freewill.  there is no freedom.  However in the case of my daughter, she can do anything she wants.  But because of my authority as parent, i decide the consequences for her actions, but she alone decides what those actions are.  That is where the freedom lies.  regardless of the rules, of the boundaries.  We can do whatever we want (that we are capable of, laser eyes not included).  If God created us and gave us no choice but to follow Him, to believe in Him, we wouldn't be free at all. 

[phelix22]

I see. 

However, you seem to forget that bad behaviour IS sin.  So, why are you punishing your daughter for sinning, since you just said that this isn't your job?

 
It is my job to train up my children in the way that they should go.  I am to represent what a good father does.  In the real world there are consequences.  You steal, you go to jail.  If I don't discipline, if I don't follow God's example in scripture, then I will have to also give account for that when I am judged. 
but underlying all of this is love.  God shows his love when He disciplines, and I love my children and in order to do what is best for them, I discipline them as well. 

[Omen]

It is my job to train up my children in the way that they should go.  I am to represent what a good father does.  In the real world there are consequences.  You steal, you go to jail.  If I don't discipline, if I don't follow God's example in scripture, then I will have to also give account for that when I am judged.  
but underlying all of this is love.  God shows his love when He disciplines, and I love my children and in order to do what is best for them, I discipline them as well.  

When was the last time you left a loaded gun next to your daughter to teach her that life has consequences?

[velkyn]

Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archeologists of the 50's and 60's was a student of the German historical school which taught that the book of acts was a second century book and not trustworthy, after investigating came to the conclusion that Luke and Acts are written by a meticulous and accurate historical writer.  That this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. 

Really, the 50s and 60s?  funny how this man seems to have been either really really really young (if its the 1850s and 60s) or really really dead, having died in 1939. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay there's nothing to indicate that this man is any great historian nor that anyone in the field ever thought him that. It is only Christian websites that make this claim. It sems that Christians are often left to make up claims of greatness to make their myths seem more impressive. 

as for the rest of your "experts" they make a lot of vague claims but nothing concrete.  There evidently is plenty of time and evidence to find the gospels made up mythology since other people find this to be the case.  These claims of absolutes are always amusing, made even more so when someone like you, phelix, can't seem to find anything more recent than the 1950s (or McNeillies' case the very early 1900s).  Talk about cherry-picking and doing it badly. 

There is a bit of a difference between other ancient texts and the bible. The ancient texts that you cite aren't making ridiculous claims like the bible. No one is saying that those other texts are magical divinly inspired books. We know that Herodotus is full of poop on many occasions. And the bible is no better. Yes, there's a bunch of copies of it.  So?  People believed in it and passed it around.  It's like if people today suddenly vanished and aliens came to look at our relics.  Does the existence of lots of copies of Dianetics make it real? Same with the Quran, would that make it real if it was the most populous book? It may be in the coming centuries.  And the claims of "consistency" are simply lies. We have modern scholars, like Bart Erhman who have ably demonstrated this. 

oh, and BTW, nice plagiarism of Josh McDowell. Just moving a few words around doesn't disguise much. 

[Historicity]

I am not a researcher nor a phd.

I'll agree to that statement.

Yet there is no classical scholar who argues against the authenticity of Herodotus ...

Herodotus says there are flying snakes in Africa.

But "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Herodotus says that fetal lions are so fierce and claw the lioness womb so badly during gestation that a lioness has only one cub.

But "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Herodotus tells of a nation in Russia where the men decided to abandon their women and homes and go adventuring.  The abandoned women started having sex with the slaves.  The slaves then thought themselves to be free men.  After about 10 years the men came back but found the slaves had formed a spear line and drove the men off the field.  The men consulted an oracle and she said the problem was that by opposing the slaves with weapons they had honored them.  Instead at her instructions in the next battle they came cracking whips.  The Pavlovian conditioning caused the slaves to cower and flee back and wait cringing for the masters to come and give them orders.

But  "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Yeah.  Right.

[phelix22]

Herodotus says there are flying snakes in Africa.

But "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Herodotus says that fetal lions are so fierce and claw the lioness womb so badly during gestation that a lioness has only one cub.

But "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Herodotus tells of a nation in Russia where the men decided to abandon their women and homes and go adventuring.  The abandoned women started having sex with the slaves.  The slaves then thought themselves to be free men.  After about 10 years the men came back but found the slaves had formed a spear line and drove the men off the field.  The men consulted an oracle and she said the problem was that by opposing the slaves with weapons they had honored them.  Instead at her instructions in the next battle they came cracking whips.  The Pavlovian conditioning caused the slaves to cower and flee back and wait cringing for the masters to come and give them orders.

But  "no classical scholar who argues against" it.

Yeah.  Right.

You completely missed the point, but since we don't really know each other well, I apologize if I mislead you. The idea is that these were his writings.  The documents were authentic and trustworthy.  If you want to argue the teachings then we can.  I don't know as much about herodotus as you, but i am pretty familiar with biblical teaching.  and I haven't found any biblical teaching to be like that of flying snakes and the furiousness of the fetal lions.  

[Ambassador Pony]

Historicity,

+1 for quoting Herodotus and knowing what you're talking about. +1 from another who has actually read The Histories and loved it.

Thanks for bothering with these mouth-breathers, brah.

edit: *blushes*