Sign in to follow this  
DoctorIssachar

Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You believe the original writings were mistake proof?  Why?

Cant prove up...so blame me for my not accepting?

 

As I said, I doubt that any amount of evidence would suffice for you.... Well over 5000 NT manuscripts, and you believe all of those copies are wrong... You think that +5000 scribes all screwed-up and were incapable of accurately copying a few books? Imo, it requires more faith to believe that thousands of copyist were all incompetent than it does to believe the majority got it right.

 

15 hours ago, Songster said:

Dan, cuchulain has no desire for an honest exchange of views. He's what my wife calls a "right-fighter" (one who demands that his opinion or position be recognized or proclaimed as "right", even if it's wrong.)

 

I reckon we all think our position is right.. I think most people want to believe in something, but some want absolute undeniable confirmation before they'll accept the possibility that something could be true.. Frustration sets in when they don't get unquestionable proof, so they attack what can't be substantiated to their satisfaction.

 

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You know a lot less about my understanding than you think.  Your evaluation of your own understanding is lacking in substance.

 

From all you've written, your understanding is limited to what you can see and touch.. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

You know a lot less about my understanding than you think.  Your evaluation of your own understanding is lacking in substance.

 

For the rest -- you think that you are in a position to lead someone to enlightenment?  You?  Of all the smug, condescending, arrogant.....  Words fail.  Try and impress someone, with your great wisdom, who gives a crap.

 

:whist:

 

 

 

 

I am well aware of my own personal and intellectual failings.

You, apparently, have yet to find anything about yourself that disappoints.

(TRY SMUG, ARROGANT, AND CONDESCENDING...)

As for my leading another to enlightenment.... My own soul is my only concern. If I can assist another, I do what I can....

Personally, I have absolutely no care (but absolute certainty) where your soul (assuming you have one) spends eternity....

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Songster said:

[...] It might be prudent to heed the words of one that is certain of the fact that the soul IS immortal.

 

There is no soul.

 

Quote

Scientists have subjected Homo sapiens to tens of thousands of bizarre experiments, and looked into every nook in our hearts and every cranny in our brains. But they have so far discovered no magical spark. There is zero scientific evidence that in contrast to [animals], Sapiens have souls.
If that were all, we could well argue that scientists just need to keep looking. If they haven’t found the soul yet, it is because they haven’t looked carefully enough. Yet the life sciences doubt the existence of soul not just due to lack of evidence, but rather because the very idea of soul contradicts the most fundamental principles of evolution. [The scientifically proven fact that humans evolved from animals]

The traditional monotheist answer is that only Sapiens have eternal souls.

Excerpts From: Yuval Noah Harari. Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Songster said:

I am well aware of my own personal and intellectual failings.

You, apparently, have yet to find anything about yourself that disappoints.

(TRY SMUG, ARROGANT, AND CONDESCENDING...)

As for my leading another to enlightenment.... My own soul is my only concern. If I can assist another, I do what I can....

Personally, I have absolutely no care (but absolute certainty) where your soul (assuming you have one) spends eternity....

 

 

 

 

 

Ouch.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

There is no soul.

 

Excerpts From: Yuval Noah Harari. Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow”.

 

Nice try.  Attempting reason, with a true believer. is a waste of effort.     

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

As I said, I doubt that any amount of evidence would suffice for you.... Well over 5000 NT manuscripts, and you believe all of those copies are wrong... You think that +5000 scribes all screwed-up and were incapable of accurately copying a few books? Imo, it requires more faith to believe that thousands of copyist were all incompetent than it does to believe the majority got it right.

 

 

I reckon we all think our position is right.. I think most people want to believe in something, but some want absolute undeniable confirmation before they'll accept the possibility that something could be true.. Frustration sets in when they don't get unquestionable proof, so they attack what can't be substantiated to their satisfaction.

 

 

From all you've written, your understanding is limited to what you can see and touch.. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

 

Look a little deeper.  Judge a little less.  You are still mistaken.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Nice try.  Attempting reason, with a true believer. is a waste of effort.     

 

 

 

 

Oh no, no, no... That was a statement (There is no soul). No reasoning with someone who takes a book (any book) literally (and himself too serious)... 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Oh no, no, no... That was a statement (There is no soul). No reasoning with someone who takes a book (any book) literally (and himself too serious)... 😄

 

 

Since it's you, I feel comfortable making conversation.  In matters of post death existence, I take an Agnostic stance.  I don't know.  Assertions aside, nobody knows.

 

To my perspective, Life is short.  After that, there are two possibilities.  Either something happens, or nothing happens.

 

If nothing happens, I won't even find out.  If something happens, there are two possibilities.

 

It will be an unconscious something, or a conscious something.  If it's an unconscious something, I won't even find out.  If it's a conscious something, it will be interesting.  We will all know soon enough.  Or not.

 

In the end, speculation counts for nothing and arguing is a waste of time.  I've also encountered people who knew -- with great conviction -- all about the reality of reincarnation.  I also refused to argue with them.  Life is too short to waste in silly arguments, with arrogant people.

 

:whist:

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

There is no soul.

If you're saying you don't possess a soul, I'll take your word for it...

Your book say you don't. My book says I do.

You believe your book. I'll believe mine.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 2:39 AM, Dan56 said:

 

As I said, I doubt that any amount of evidence would suffice for you.... Well over 5000 NT manuscripts, and you believe all of those copies are wrong... You think that +5000 scribes all screwed-up and were incapable of accurately copying a few books? Imo, it requires more faith to believe that thousands of copyist were all incompetent than it does to believe the majority got it right.

 

 

I reckon we all think our position is right.. I think most people want to believe in something, but some want absolute undeniable confirmation before they'll accept the possibility that something could be true.. Frustration sets in when they don't get unquestionable proof, so they attack what can't be substantiated to their satisfaction.

 

 

From all you've written, your understanding is limited to what you can see and touch.. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

So...you believe several manuscripts because there are several...but cannot provide proof they all read as the original, because there are no originals left?  Does that sum it up?  Again, I say...I don't believe that.  If you can provide proof that the originals match the remaining copies, then I will reconsider.  But since you don't have access to the originals, it's going to be hard to do, isn't it?

 

Look at our discussion about your infallible prophecy, Dan.  One translation says one thing, another says another completely.  Not just a little, completely.  We cannot agree about the right translation on that.  You want me to take it on faith that the later copies are exact?  I already have proof that there are changes, or errors, or whatever you want to call them.  I have proof that the book has changed, WITH WHAT IS READILY AVAILABLE.  You want me to believe that the originals match?  Prove it.  I will accept proof, your incorrect notions of me aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 8:28 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Ouch.   

Now you see why I have Songster on ignore, or at least a small portion.  :) He's always right, always assumes he's right, tells us we are clearly wrong and assumes we are wrong, often engages in personal attacks, is unwilling to consider another opinion except to say how horribly wrong it is, then blames the person for all that he does himself and states repeatedly we refuse to accept his proof that he never offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Now you see why I have Songster on ignore, or at least a small portion.  :) He's always right, always assumes he's right, tells us we are clearly wrong and assumes we are wrong, often engages in personal attacks, is unwilling to consider another opinion except to say how horribly wrong it is, then blames the person for all that he does himself and states repeatedly we refuse to accept his proof that he never offered.

 

I think the most amazing thing about Songster, is the venom of his insults.  Which he then forgets.  Or says he forgets.  :blink:

 

:thumbu:

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

So...you believe several manuscripts because there are several...but cannot provide proof they all read as the original, because there are no originals left?  Does that sum it up?  Again, I say...I don't believe that.  If you can provide proof that the originals match the remaining copies, then I will reconsider. 

 

You are correct that there can be no absolute proof since no originals exist.. However, I do believe there's credible evidence which strongly suggest the originals have been accurately copied and have not been altered in any meaningful way.

Edited by Dan56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

You are correct that there can be no absolute proof since no originals exist.. However, I do believe there's credible evidence which strongly suggest the originals have been accurately copied and have not been altered in any meaningful way.

You mean like even current translations aren't accurate?  Or not addressing that point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

You also believe that the Exodus is a historic event.     :rolleyes:     :lol:

 

Yes, I do...... I trust the bible was accurately preserved and the events it describes are historically correct. You guys seem to only trust what you can see and hear, but consider that there could be more to life than what you can comprehend and rationalize here and now. The bible answers everything you don't know, and that's a lot. :)

 

Everyone ask; What's it all about and why am I here? Atheist reject the answer and Agnostics are content to remain clueless. If you believe God created the universe, then believing Moses parted the Red Sea isn't so inconceivable or hard to believe. When studied and understood, the bible is the only credible answer I've found that answers and explains life's most fundamental questions, and those answers give a person purpose and peace of mind.

 

To believe that the universe came into existence by accident, and that the complexities of DNA, eyesight, and everything else just randomly evolved from nothing, is more inconceivable than accepting that intelligent design had to have put it all together. Only one planet among billions has life, how anyone chalks that up to coincident is beyond me? People believe in God because every other explanation is absurd, its takes more faith to believe that we came into existence from nothing than it does to accept a creative force. 

 

2 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

You mean like even current translations aren't accurate?  Or not addressing that point?

 

I personally believe the KJV is the most accurate, I've only found a couple Hebrew words that were not translated into the best English, for instance in Acts 12:4 Pascha means Passover, not Easter.. But those are easily looked-up to get a more definitive Hebrew or Greek definition. I believe the originals were accurately copied into the same language, but there aren't always exact words to translate the meaning from one language to another, and some words can have multiple meanings, so they must be defined in the context of what's being written and expressed.. Where no direct word for word translation is possible, its necessary to transliterate using the closest corresponding words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suffer not a poisoner to live.

 

Or...suffer not a witch to live.

 

But yeah, pretty insignificant.  Unless you were burned for it.

 

The bible has answers.  But when i determine the validity i get hung up on that solid dome around the world on which the stars are affixed.  Or...incorrect answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Yes, I do...... I trust the bible was accurately preserved and the events it describes are historically correct. You guys seem to only trust what you can see and hear, but consider that there could be more to life than what you can comprehend and rationalize here and now. The bible answers everything you don't know, and that's a lot. :)

 

Everyone ask; What's it all about and why am I here? Atheist reject the answer and Agnostics are content to remain clueless. If you believe God created the universe, then believing Moses parted the Red Sea isn't so inconceivable or hard to believe. When studied and understood, the bible is the only credible answer I've found that answers and explains life's most fundamental questions, and those answers give a person purpose and peace of mind.

 

To believe that the universe came into existence by accident, and that the complexities of DNA, eyesight, and everything else just randomly evolved from nothing, is more inconceivable than accepting that intelligent design had to have put it all together. Only one planet among billions has life, how anyone chalks that up to coincident is beyond me? People believe in God because every other explanation is absurd, its takes more faith to believe that we came into existence from nothing than it does to accept a creative force. 

 

 

I personally believe the KJV is the most accurate, I've only found a couple Hebrew words that were not translated into the best English, for instance in Acts 12:4 Pascha means Passover, not Easter.. But those are easily looked-up to get a more definitive Hebrew or Greek definition. I believe the originals were accurately copied into the same language, but there aren't always exact words to translate the meaning from one language to another, and some words can have multiple meanings, so they must be defined in the context of what's being written and expressed.. Where no direct word for word translation is possible, its necessary to transliterate using the closest corresponding words.

 

 

Keep on telling me what I believe.  Maybe some day, you'll get a little closer.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Of course, you could try actually listening, for a change.

 

:whist:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Suffer not a poisoner to live.

 

Or...suffer not a witch to live.

 

But yeah, pretty insignificant.  Unless you were burned for it.

 

The bible has answers.  But when i determine the validity i get hung up on that solid dome around the world on which the stars are affixed.  Or...incorrect answers.

 

 

Of course.  Just a bit of carelessness -- a poor choice of words -- from the perfect Author.  The Author who knows the future in perfect detail and knows -- in perfect detail -- what death and mayhem will result.

 

:whist:

 

Lets not forget -- the All Loving perfect One, who cares about justice.

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Suffer not a poisoner to live.

 

Or...suffer not a witch to live.

 

But yeah, pretty insignificant.  Unless you were burned for it.

 

The bible has answers.  But when i determine the validity i get hung up on that solid dome around the world on which the stars are affixed.  Or...incorrect answers.

 

The correct translation is, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18). The verse clearly refers to people who practice sorcery, not to “poisoners”. 

 

There is only one verse where the word "dome" actually appears in English translations of the Bible, but it is only found in the NASB version, and its a bad translation of Amos 9:6. 

 

A good concordance will give you the definition of the Hebrew word used in verses like these.. So its a simple matter to cross check the correct English translation.

 

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Keep on telling me what I believe.  Maybe some day, you'll get a little closer.

 

You've described yourself as Agnostic, so it doesn't take a genius to define that, and I've done it several times now. You've also mentioned Apatheist, which  just describes the general mentality of those who don't care for religion or the existence of a deity.. I've listened, and you've written nothing that deviates from what I've defined, so there's no need for me to 'get a little closer' when I've been spot-on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this