Fist Bump for Rob Bell

DWill · Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:15 pm


	Robert Tulip wrote: What a hilarious thread. Thanks DWill for starting it. Hell is not real. It is an imaginary fantasy promulgated by the church to bolster its political power. The entire supernatural vision of orthodox Christianity is false and its believers deserve pity for being so delusional, against all evidence and logic. However, read as allegory, the Bible remains a powerful book. Hell, understood as delusional separation from reality, is a powerful metaphor for the problems of the world. Hell only exists in this world. Same goes for heaven.

Just to note: I started the thread to point out the strangeness to me of the reaction to Bell. To be frank, though, I didn't expect even our Christian conservatives to side against him. It's immaterial to me whether people believe in heaven and hell, but I think if they're going to also claim that getting into either place is a matter of spouting the correct doctrine, they should be ready to have that view criticized.

stahrwe · Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:54 pm


	Interbane wrote: Therein lies the problem Stahrwe. You expect me to believe even without 'evidence'. Your expectation is the problem. There is no reason for me to believe.

You are quite incorrect. I do not expect you, or anyone to believe without evidence. What I do expect is that the evidence be treated fairly and objectively and not be dismissed because it does not fit within your 'limits'. On the other hand, you know that evidence can be corrupted, contaminated, misinterpreted, and even fabricated. Your demand for evidence sounds very empirical and pure, but it is fabricated on a framework which presupposes that anything which doesn't fit your model is rejected. On the other hand, I have been reading about James Maxwell. He too demanded evidence, probably more than you claim to. He examined everything minutely before coming to conclusions and concluded that Christianity was correct.


	interbane wrote: It is only your opinion that I'm trusting the wrong thing, simply because you trust something does not make it right. If I had a time for every person who told me that, then expected me to believe them about one thing or another. You're not special in this regard. To you, your belief is the entire universe and of ultimate concern. To me, it's just a fantasy that a great many people have been duped into believing.

Though the above statement was composed by you, interbane, it would be as appropriate if I had said it to you.


	interbane wrote: I do know what I have to do. Live my life to it's fullest while I still have it, because it's the only one I'll have. Be a loving father and live morally. Those things that you expect me to do are superfluous nonsense. Give me a 'reason' rather than dogma; save your dogma for someone more gullible.

What have I asked you to do?
It is rather amusing that you ask for a reason, 'other than dogma'. What would that be? Dogma is one of that words that tends to put people off but in reality it is not a bad thing. Christian Dogma might suggest that Interbane repent of his sins (surely you don't deny that you are a sinner do you; i.e. you don't claim you are morally perfect?) and become a Christian. That is purely an action on your part and the culmination, without going into all the detail, is that you establish a personal relationship with Jesus. That is the dogma. If you want a non-dogmatic reason, perhaps someone cares about you and doesn't want you to lose out on the benefits of being a Christian.


	Quote: 1 John 5:10 10The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God [implies] 'God' [is] a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.

You have refused to study the Bible and are apt to dismiss the above verse but I caution you against doing so casually.


	interbane wrote: I still blame your hypothetical god. Not only has he not left enough evidence to believe he exists, he also hasn't left any sign whatsoever that faith is a virtue. It is god's fault that I don't "trust" the bible. He's made a universe where every other instance of faith turns out to be absurd and detrimental, yet expects us to have it towards an explanation of what's required?

'No evidence that faith is a virture?'
These are the lies you tell youself so that you can ignore the truth.

What about -
Desmond Doss
Mother Threesea
George Mueller
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
how many examples do you want?


	interbane wrote: This isn't a case of me having high standards. It's a case of me living in a universe where the only reasonable conclusion is that god doesn't exist, and that faith isn't a virtue. If you believe your god made that universe, then he is to blame, because he could have made it differently, and he chose not to. He could have made a universe in which faith was a virtue, but he chose not to. Do you think he wants us to simply have "faith" in a certain specific "faith". Then we would need to have "faith" in "faith" in a certain specific "faith". On towards infinite regress. It's obvious that the condition for faith is man-made.

It's a matter of you living in a state of mind that you choose to deny God. There is no basis for your alleged conclusion other than your desire to deny Him. We have been through the discussion of how the universe was made and it was shown that God desire to create and that His creation had to be less than perfect otherwise He would have to clone Himself. The presence of evile in the world is evidence in support of God not against Him.

quote#1) The call for evidence is a FRAUD. My request for what evidence would be accepted has gone unanswered.

interbane wrote:

Wrong for the hundredth time. If you can't accept our answers, don't respond. Denying that we gave an answer is blatant deception.

The call for evidence is THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE. You HAVE NO EVIDENCE. It's not our fault. It's not a problem with how we define evidence. It's YOUR problem for not being able to refer us to any.


	Quote: During such a discussion, the evidence can be presented in context and defended.

We went through a long dance trying to get you to define the evidence you would accept so don't claim that I am being deceitful. When we did agree on a protocol, and I began to submit evidence you quickly yanked the plug.


	interbane wrote: The bible is the set of claims in question. The only way it could double as evidence is if you could reliably show the sentence in question was indeed written by the purported author, and is shown to also be free from later tampering. You cannot meet that condition. The bible is therefore ONLY a set of claims.

I showed that there is independent evidence for the ministry of Christ outside of the Bible, in the Talmud. I also showed that within the Bible there were examples of revealed knowledge that people did not know. And I was just getting started when you pulled the plug. The little ditty above claiming that using the Bible is illegitimate is another of the lies you tell yourself. Proof, you won't engage in a detailed study of same.


	interbane wrote: Stahrwe, something can't be evidence if there is a good chance that it doesn't accurately describe the events that happened. You already have faith that the events occurred, so your perspective is biased here. Simply because you have faith that what the biblical authors wrote is true doesn't make it true, and it doesn't even mean it passes the conditions required to be evidence. I said what the condition is. It's not my condition, they use it in the court of law also. You haven't met that condition. Don't blame us.

More nonsense, as if scientists are totally objective and not biased. That is the third lie you tell yourself. I do blame you because you arbitrarily reject anything which conflicts with your world view. You establish your own set of rules of evidence and refuse to educate yourself about the material in question. I think that demonstrates that the failure is in you and not me.

geo · Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:07 pm

DWill wrote:


	Robert Tulip wrote: What a hilarious thread. Thanks DWill for starting it. Hell is not real. It is an imaginary fantasy promulgated by the church to bolster its political power. The entire supernatural vision of orthodox Christianity is false and its believers deserve pity for being so delusional, against all evidence and logic. However, read as allegory, the Bible remains a powerful book. Hell, understood as delusional separation from reality, is a powerful metaphor for the problems of the world. Hell only exists in this world. Same goes for heaven.

Just to note: I started the thread to point out the strangeness to me of the reaction to Bell. To be frank, though, I didn't expect even our Christian conservatives to side against him. It's immaterial to me whether people believe in heaven and hell, but I think if they're going to also claim that getting into either place is a matter of spouting the correct doctrine, they should be ready to have that view criticized.

I should point out that I have my own doctrine based on my own personal reading of the Bible and I think it's really going to take off. According to my doctrine, the coming Rapture will convey all fundamentalists to a huge casino and hotel (you can check but you can never leave) located in a very hot place where they will have to play games of chance for an eternity. It's sort of an ironic religion. If you want to join all you have to do is circle around three times in a living room or movie theater and sing the chorus of Jethro Tull's Aqualung. That's it. Praise be to Jebus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYWawWLc6PY

Robert Tulip · Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:21 pm

Not wanting to be sucked into the vortex of Stahrland, may I just say that Interbane does not have personal theories about evidence, but applies the theories of evidence that are used for all respectable practical and theoretical purposes across all intellectual disciplines.

It is creationists who completely invent a fantasy theory of evidence, veering off into a mad irrationality so they can justify their errors, piling ever more bizarre claims on top of their original mistakes. It is frightening.

There is no evidence for God, heaven, hell or Jesus, and abundant evidence that traditional stories about these ideas are pure fantasy. Christianity will just sink further into the mire of its cultural pathology while it persists in denial of what the evidence has to say.

geo · Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:11 pm


	stahrwe wrote: . . . I repeatedly asked for a book-by-book discussion of the Bible*. During such a discussion, the evidence can be presented in context and defended. The way BT members desire it is an ad hoc discussion which, by its very structure is unconvincing.

You have an interesting memory. We did begin a discussion of the Bible which predictably got bogged down because one particular person insisted on reading the Bible as the literal word of God (and fancies himself as a Bible expert in that regard). The dialogue never progressed beyond the usual bickering we have seen time and again on this board between two completely incompatible views. After all this time on BT, can you really expect that we could now have a reasonable discussion of the Bible? I just find that too incredible to believe.

I bolded the part of your post, "the way BT members desire it" because it illustrates precisely this fact--BT members wanted to discuss the Bible as the historical document that it is actually is. And you sabotaged that discussion at every turn until it became pointless to continue.

Anyhow, that's how I remember it.

If you want to see what I'm talking about, just start reading any of the Bible threads. Start here:

old-testament-genesis-1-of-66-t7832.html

Frank 013 · Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:50 pm


	Quote: Stahrwe We went through a long dance trying to get you to define the evidence you would accept so don't claim that I am being deceitful. When we did agree on a protocol, and I began to submit evidence you quickly yanked the plug.

This is an outright lie… there was no dance… you were given the criteria in another thread and I even went as far as to show you how it applied and confirmed the existence of historical people… YOU cried foul… don’t try to turn it around now.

You truly will do anything to sway people, including resorting to outright lies… that is shameful, I can see why you label yourself a sinner.


	Quote: Stahrwe I showed that there is independent evidence for the ministry of Christ outside of the Bible, in the Talmud.

The Talmud was written to late to be considered evidence of anything that happened so long before it… at the very best its contents can only be considered hearsay of events that could not have been witnessed by the story tellers (and that is a best case scenario) all it truly shows is that at the time of its writing Christianity existed… and no one is disputing that.

Later

Interbane · Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:08 am


	Quote: What I do expect is that the evidence be treated fairly and objectively and not be dismissed because it does not fit within your 'limits'.

Show me which "limits" are mine, rather than the limits humanity at large has agreed best arrive at the truth. You'll backpedal and say the limits instead belong to "atheists". I'll show you why you're wrong. Then you'll backpedal again and say the limits belong to "science". I'll say yes, you're right. But science is extremely effective at eliminating the garbage in a fair and objective manner. Unfortunately your "evidence" doesn't meet the requirements set by science. Stop whining about it. You only have faith.


	Quote: There is no basis for your alleged conclusion other than your desire to deny Him.

That is not the basis for my conclusion. My desire has nothing to do with it, as much as you like to believe I'm chuck full of bias. There is no piece of evidence I've seen in my entire life that has been able to move me from the 'agnostic' position, using legitimate and philosophically sound criteria when regarding the evidence. My emotion is attached to the criteria, not to atheism. I care that the criteria does not commit either type 1 or type 2 errors. Believing something that is false, or disbelieving something that is true. Science already does this so extremely well that I've adopted it's standards.

Let's look at your criteria. Your default piece of evidence seems to be the Talmud. You don't care that the authors of the supposed 'testimonials' can't be reliably traced. You don't care that they can't be shown free of bias. Based on this piece of evidence, obscure writings from some unknown person thousands of years ago with no other evidence, you accept the entire bible!?!

Since you refuse to specify what claim you're hoping to support with your evidence, I'll voice it for you. Here it is: "something strange happened 2,000 years ago". What other claim do you think your "Talmud" evidence supports?

Stahrwe, how do you go from the unconvincing claim of "something strange happened 2,000 years ago" to "the bible is entirely and utterly true". Those two claims are in different universes. I guess by ignoring what claim your "evidence" is supporting, you can maintain the fantasy that it supports the entire bible.


	Quote: His creation had to be less than perfect otherwise He would have to clone Himself.

It is possible for a human to be perfectly good, yet not omnipotent. They wouldn't be clones. Your argument was defeated long ago Stahrwe, and you keep repeating it. You can't power your way through stupidity by using faith. In fact, every reply you made has already been countered, or is a lie.

Forum rules

Fist Bump for Rob Bell Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!