> and assurance about what we do not see.
You seem to ignore this part. This is another way of saying "no proof". You again are using the bible to "prove" something. This is a mistake. I have shown multiple times that the bible is inconsistent at best and cannot be taken with an assumption of truth.
> The dictionary definition is not the Bible's definition. What the Bible means by faith is a certainty about the reality of things based on evidence.
That's correct, it's not the same definition, the dictionary has the actual definition.
> That's not a flaw at all. My belief that the chair will hold me is based on evidence, and even sometimes on scientific verifiability. That's not a problem.
It's a problem when you are drawing parallels between belief and evidence based knowledge.
> Before God asked Moses to believe in Him, he revealed himself in the burning bush and did some miracles for him
Before God asked Abraham to believe in Him, he spoke to him and gave him a vision (Gn. 15).
Before Jesus asked the disciples to believe in him, he talked with them for a day, and then showed them a miracle (the turning of water to wine)
Before Jesus asked Paul to believe in Him, he appeared to Paul.
> And the bible not being a reliable source for information makes all of this come under scrutiny. I can pull examples from the bible just like you can. In fact your argument is based on the idea that you can form "evidence" for any agenda you want from the texts.
> He does. There is an increasing amount of reports of hundreds of Muslims having visions of Jesus and turning to Christianity.
https://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/pers ... 95/01-2007In there is says: "Beginning in 2002, a group of people interested in this phenomenon took initial steps in bringing it to the attention of a worldwide audience through a series of video programs. Numerous on-site interviews were conducted with former Muslims who had experienced a dream or vision of Jesus resulting in their conversion to Christianity."
So what would you say about the increasing number of people leaving both religions? Is that Jesus as well? Or maybe Satan, wouldn't that be convenient. Funny how a "vision" leads people into faith while thinking and reasoning pulls people away.
> 1 Cor. 14.34...Ha, ha ha. Wow, that's such a radical change of subject I got whiplash! This is a much bigger discussion, but we know from 1 Cor. 11 (same author, same book) that the women were allowed to speak in the church. There is something very specific going on in 1 Cor. 14 pertaining to the use and abuse of spiritual gifts and the disruption of the services by a particular group. The context makes all the difference. But this is a conversation for a different post.
Change of subject my ass, you are trying to avoid admitting how bad these books are. I responded to you saying this:
My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all.
You claim the credibility of the writings and that the teachings within those writings are of sound logic. Please, enlighten me as to how you can justify bronze age misogyny. And "context" is a weak argument that will probably only serve an ill attempt to redirect the question.
> You're the one who said that science contradicts the idea of resurrection. All I did was show an example of resurrection from science to refute your argument.
Yes, I said this. You don't seem to see any difference between someone being dead for three days in a hot cave and a caterpillar that can come back after it's frozen. The human example would be a miracle, which by definition is outside natural law and has no evidence for it's occurrence.
> We haven't even touched on this argument, so you can't rightly confuse me of circular reasoning. I haven't even done any reasoning from the Bible.
All of your reasoning has been based on the bible. You are lying at this point.
> Faith is a knowledge based on evidences, as evidenced by chairs, keys, doorknobs, and every other part of our normal lives.
Do you honestly believe that scientists work on the basis of faith? If so, you either have the wrong understanding of what faith is (most likely) or are dangerously misguided on what the field of science is.
> Where's your evidence? I have countered the few you threw at me. Science doesn't contradict the Bible at all. As a matter of fact, Alvin Plantinga (I know, Plantinga again) wrote a whole book logically showing how science has more in common with theism than naturalism. It's called "Where the Conflict Really Lies," if you're interested.
You haven't countered shit. You are the chicken playing chess in this scenario. My evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PEKppz5cgwThis is a nice list:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_ ... fic_errorsHere is a small summary of fighting scientific discovery:
http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html#numbereighthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OhXQTMOEcTo claim that the things in the bible are scientifically sound is to be completely irrational. When you are met with something you cannot somehow convince yourself is scientific, you say it's poetic or not literal. Convenient to be able to just pick what gets to be true, isn't it? Even with all your cherry picking it is impossible to avoid the truth that the bible is a grotesque example of a system of morality that should have died out long ago.
You claim context for that sexist passage I posted earlier, I hope you have the "proper" context for all of these as well:
Christianity is misogynistic. Misogyny is fundamental to the basic writings of Christianity. In passage after passage, women are encouraged—no, commanded—to accept an inferior role, and to be ashamed of themselves for the simple fact that they are women. Misogynistic biblical passages are so common that it's difficult to know which to cite. From the New Testament we find "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. . . ." (Ephesians 5:22:23) and "These [redeemed] are they which were not defiled with women; . . ." (Revelation 14:4); and from the Old Testament we find "How then can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?" (Job 25:4) Other relevant New Testament passages include Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:7; 1 Corinthians 11:3, 11:9, and 14:34; and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 5:5-6. Other Old Testament passages include Numbers 5:20-22 and Leviticus 12:2-5 and 15:17-33.
And here we have some passages about slavery. I can imagine you'd like to say that these views are old and a sign of when it was written. I ask then, why are they still included? Why continue to teach this along side all else?
The Christians who supported and engaged in slavery were amply supported by the Bible, in which slavery is accepted as a given, as simply a part of the social landscape. There are numerous biblical passages that implicitly or explicitly endorse slavery, such as Exodus 21:20-21: "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Other passages that support slavery include Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9-10, Exodus 21:2-6, Leviticus 25:44-46, 1 Peter 2:18, and 1 Timothy 6:1. Christian slave owners in colonial America were well acquainted with these passages.
A touch on the historical significance of the bible:
Mark, the oldest of the Gospels, was written at least 30 years after Christ's death, and the newest of them might have been written more than 200 years after his death. These texts have been amended, translated, and re-translated so often that it's extremely difficult to gauge the accuracy of current editions—even aside from the matter of the accuracy of texts written decades or centuries after the death of their subject. This is such a problem that the Jesus Seminar, a colloquium of over 200 Protestant Gospel scholars mostly employed at religious colleges and seminaries, undertook in 1985 a multi-year investigation into the historicity of the statements and deeds attributed to Jesus in the New Testament. They concluded that only 18% of the statements and 16% of the deeds attributed to Jesus had a high likelihood of being historically accurate. So, in a very real sense fundamentalists—who claim to believe in the literal truth of the Bible—are not followers of Jesus Christ; rather, they are followers of those who, decades or centuries later, put words in his mouth.
And to say the bible stands on its own merits is another mistake:
". . . God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James:1:13) "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Genesis 22:1)
". . . for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12) "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever. Thus saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 17:4)
"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (John 5:31, J.C. speaking) "I am one that bear witness of myself . . ." (John 8:18, J.C. speaking)
"I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18) "And I [God] will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts . . ." (Exodus 33:23)
Will you go on to say these are poor translations? If so, how can the rest of the book be trusted with such an important task? You charge me with dismantling your bible as a foundation for moral and scientific understanding to further my point, which is to say your arguments are from the bible itself. I have done this repeatedly.