Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"Because despite what the Bible says, no I don’t believe it is what he wants."
Based on what exactly? We seem to be going around and around, with you making more and more assertions, but offering no evidence to support any of them. No offence but it has a very familiar feel to it. Even the bible is wrong is now, that doesn't leave much to base belief on as far as I can see.
Her deity is subjective. Like a little mushroom.
Maddie, you’ve written that proof of you god is subjective. Is there anything else that informs your life that you accept as true based on subjectivity alone? Do you think it is ok for anyone to accept anything that way?
Strictly using the term subjective, yes. Many things are subjective, religion too of course. Like my love for games or certain books. I’m subjective to them, because they appeal to me.
adjective 1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonyms: personal, personalized, individual, internal, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, impressionist
So though I can’t see my emotional attachment to certain songs I know it to be true. It exists and I know it’s there. But I can never get someone to relate to it quite like I do. But also using it by its technical term, subjectivity can be good or bad. So to answer, no. Feel free to be subjective to someone’s personality but not the clothes they wear. Subjective is a broad term, since anything and everything is subjective to a point anyway. That’s inescapable.
Yes to the fact that I have things I know to exist, yet are subjective. But no to the idea that it’s okay to be subjective about things to an unhealthy degree.
"since anything and everything is subjective to a point anyway. That’s inescapable."
I hear this disingenuous canard a lot in religious apologetics. It's most often used to imply that because absolute certainty is impossible, that this suggests that subjective unevidenced claims or beliefs somehow have validity because we can't be 100% certain about objective facts, but it is easy to explode with a simple example, as some people believe the world is flat, others accept the objective fact it is round or rotund. The fact that neither position can be asserted as an absolute certainty doesn't change the fact that one is an objective fact, and the other a facile denial of that objective fact.
Again reality is best explained by objective evidence, and the preponderance of that evidence reaches a point where denial is of what it indicates is asinine. No amount of subjective opinion can validate anything. These arguments are sometimes subtle or nuanced and at others more blatant and easy to spot. The subjective opinion that one song is better than other is not an epistemological observation about reality.
"Yes to the fact that I have things I know to exist, yet are subjective. "
Yes we get these claims a lot from theists, that their personal experience gives them access to esoteric knowledge, but since knowledge implies facts and information, these could be demonstrated, and you have already admitted you cannot do this. Belief and knowledge are synonymous, but they are not the same. In order that our beliefs best reflect reality they need to be supported by a sufficient weight of objective evidence, that would represent knowledge.
The only arguements that can be made for the God hypothesis are...
A) God of the gaps fallacy.
&
B) Non deductive arguement.
Therefore, bollocks.
Could you explain these two, in your own words?
Sure,
A theistic world view is no longer necessary, as naturalism or a naturalistic world view successfully does this.
It follows causal links and does not require the suspension of the laws of physics and/or nature.
Also, a theistic world view is not testable, empirical and has no predictive qualities.
Furthermore, the only argument for theism is via logical argument.
In that case, theism still cannot make a deductive arguement which is one that is true.
At best, you could make an inductive or abductive argument, which equally just demonstrates how tragic the entire concept is.
Hi Maddie
Welcome to the club
Have you asked yourself why you are Christian and not another religion or why not an atheist?
Are you the product of your surrounding influences? If you are, what have you done with your freedom to choose?
Did you choose your belief or was it passed on to you?
Why do you believe what you believe?
Have any of your beliefs changed along the way?
Yes, I have. I’ve considered other religions as well. I don’t believe in more than one god but I believe that some religions are very similar to the Bible. I think there’s a reason for that. Christianity is the term closest to how I feel my beliefs fall under. I never turned to atheism because I felt as if at one point I understood. Not everything that happens has a reason or was influenced by God. To believe everything can be attributed to the God or the Devil’s actions is insane. Some things really just are, for no reason other than.
I am the product but I also still had a choice. My grandparents on both sides were very religious. To the point of not seeming very religious sometimes. That trickled down to my parents but instead of the extremist views (my grandma thought Obama was the anti-Christ) my parents were very religious in a different way. My mother gay and married a woman for 15 years and my father, twice divorced had mixed grandchildren. Something he had to keep from his father ( he was old, no point in arguing ). I combined their teachings with my own. And that’s what I chose ( it’s more in-depth of course ).
Both, read above.
The answer isn’t “I don’t know”, but it certainly isn’t something I can sum up. At least, not in minute detail.
Yes, though mostly when I was young. The things church told me I would repeat at home. And my parents would let me know if something was a little too extreme.
@Maddie
"Yes, I have. I’ve considered other religions as well. I don’t believe in more than one god but I believe that some religions are very similar to the Bible."
You are implying that you chose your personal worship method/god definition. But please answer this question, are you practicing the same denomination as your grandparents and parents?
From my experience, an overwhelming percentage of theists practice what they learned from their parents. If you actually changed your religion or denomination, I give you credit for actually examining all sides and choosing based on your own personal bent. But if you are practicing what your parents practiced, then attempting to sell the concept that you actually searched around and chose what suits your beliefs, is questionable.
Additionally, if you still go to the same church as your grandparents/parents, then no matter how much waffle you put on the pan, you are still practicing those tenets. Throughout this thread you have implied you are a free-thinker and do not necessarily practice what you were taught as a child. I use the word "imply" because you are not specific, and borderline evasive on this topic.
Please do not interpret this as an ad hominem attack, I just wish to unpack your claims to reveal what I am inclined to believe, that like most theists, they just follow what they were taught from their parents. I was raised protestant, in the United Church of Canada. I am very certain that if I had clung to my theism, I would still identify myself as a member of that sect.
You came here to learn from us, and I am attempting to learn from theistic practices and tendencies. I am attempting to discover just what percentage of theists practice what they were taught from their parents.
On a side note, it appears your immediate family was not traditional and somewhat dysfunctional. I do express my sympathy for any confusion and pain you felt during your childhood. I was exceptionally fortunate that my parents were the Canadian equivalent of Ozzie and Harriet.
Yes, I have. I’ve considered other religions as well. I don’t believe in more than one god but I believe that some religions are very similar to the Bible. I think there’s a reason for that. Christianity is the term closest to how I feel my beliefs fall under. I never turned to atheism because I felt as if at one point I understood. Not everything that happens has a reason or was influenced by God. To believe everything can be attributed to the God or the Devil’s actions is insane. Some things really just are, for no reason other than.
I am the product but I also still had a choice. My grandparents on both sides were very religious. To the point of not seeming very religious sometimes. That trickled down to my parents but instead of the extremist views (my grandma thought Obama was the anti-Christ) my parents were very religious in a different way. My mother gay and married a woman for 15 years and my father, twice divorced had mixed grandchildren. Something he had to keep from his father ( he was old, no point in arguing ). I combined their teachings with my own. And that’s what I chose ( it’s more in-depth of course ).
Both, read above.
The answer isn’t “I don’t know”, but it certainly isn’t something I can sum up. At least, not in minute detail.
Yes, though mostly when I was young. The things church told me I would repeat at home. And my parents would let me know if something was a little too extreme.
Maddie,
"Christianity is the term closest to how I feel my beliefs fall under."
Welcome to the lake of fire.
Since you have claimed to be a Christian believer you must be eager to drink Jesus' blood and to eat his phyiscal flesh in order to gain eternal life. If you aren't then there is no reason to believe in him. So, would you rather kill baby Jesus and drain his blood to drink with his tender flesh or would you rather do it to a teen age Jesus or an older adult Jesus? The longer you wait the more blood and tougher flesh you have to drink and eat.
John chapter 6 = https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john6&version=CEB;ERV;TLB;N...
Since you will gain eternal life from drinking his blood and eating his flesh would you even bother to cook him after draining his blood into a bucket? Some people in the Old Testament boiled their babies before eating them. Think of a good recipe. And you can't share your meal with anyone else. It is strictly for you. You don't have to eat the nails, hair, and bones but you have to eat the bone marrow and everything else = guts, lungs, heart, brain, eyes, etc.
Remember the reward = eternal life.
John 6:53-56 (NLT) = "53 So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. 54 But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him."
I’m sorry my response is so short, for I disagree. Except that yes, they did boil the babies. Historically crazy stuff happens. I do not believe I will be “eternally damned” because I do not physically eat babies. He does go on to say that his flesh is “bread” and his blood “wine”. But I’m not sure if this is what is meant. Unfortunately some of these things (a lot ) are either made up, over simplified or over symbolic. With that beings said, no. No one would be “persecuted” for not eating children.
Maddie,
"I do not believe I will be “eternally damned” because I do not physically eat babies."
I didn't mean to say that you have to eat babies. I am just saying that per the story in John chapter 6 that you have to eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood if you want eternal life. Of course if you don't want eternal life you don't have to do that but if you do then you must. So, if you are one of those people who want eternal life at what stage of Jesus' life would you want to kill him, drink his blood and eat his flesh?
If you don't drink his blood and eat his corpse you may simply cease to exist. According to the story you need his blood and his flesh in order to live forever. So it seems that if you don't get it then you will die. The choice is life or death. So will you drink and live or go without and die? That is your free will at work.
BTW, Jesus doesn't say that he will "persecute" you. But he does say in John 15:6 that he will have you tossed into the fire if you don't stick with him.
John 15:6 (ERV) = "6 If you don’t stay joined to me, you will be like a branch that has been thrown out and has dried up. All the dead branches like that are gathered up, thrown into the fire and burned."
Decide your fate. Become a cannibal and live forever or refuse and get burned.
A word of advice: Based on observation it is easy for a poster such as yourself to become overwhelmed trying to keep up with all of the different comments. Some people tend to get ticked off when they are not responded to. Feel free to ignore me whenever you want to.
All gods are imaginary and there is no celestial deity of any kind in this solar system.
I try to base my comments on the biblical stories so I will never ask you for any proof other than to do what Jesus said that a person who has faith can do. Not one person in human history has ever had faith in the Jesus character.
@diotrephes
You said baby JESUS, not babies. I’m sorry. I misread that completely. I combined that with the boiled babies and came up with eating them. So sorry.
There are many examples from the Bible that mentiones that line of rhetoric. Many, many “ways” to enter heaven or be condemned to hell. I believe some of these “ways” are myths. I’ll only give one example, because as you’ve shown yourself, there are many.
Matthew 18-3:
“Truly I tell you,” he said, “unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child— this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one child like this in my name welcomes me.”
Maddie,
"There are many examples from the Bible that mentiones that line of rhetoric. Many, many “ways” to enter heaven or be condemned to hell."
IMO you must read the fine print. Just because you enter the kingdom of heaven it doesn't mean that you will get eternal life. Those things have different requirements.
Matthew 7:21 (CEB) = “Not everybody who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter."
Psalm 133:3 (GW) = "It is like dew on Mount Hermon, dew which comes down on Zion’s mountains. That is where the Lord promised the blessing of eternal life. A song for going up to worship."
In the New Testament you can get eternal life by being righteous, obeying the commandments, leaving your family and possessions to follow Jesus, doing what God wants, and by drinking Jesus' blood and eating his flesh. So it is most likely that you have to do all of those things because they are what God wants you to do.
It is highly doubtful that you will have the opportunity to kill Jesus, drain his blood, and eat his body in this lifetime. But suppose on Judgment Day as a condition of gaining eternal life you have to make the decision if you will do that. At that point in time would you do it? But the kicker is that if you haven't made the decision to do it in this life you won't be offered the actual opportunity to do it on Judgment Day.
Does that make your decision easier? If you believe in the story why not just say that you would kill Jesus, drain and drink his blood, and eat him raw right on the spot?
You know why you are reluctant to say that you would do that? It is because you don't believe what the story says. So why do you call yourself a Christian when you don't believe what Jesus supposedly said?
Hi Maddie
I know you said your faith was subjective, but, you also said you identified as Christian.
Any particular brand of christian?
If you have chosen a brand of your faith, why that one in particular
What differentiates your brand of christianity from the others?
How do you justify your faith in the face of nil evidence for its founder?
Happy Wednesday Maddie and Welcome!
I was a devout Christian for over 40yrs. It wan't until I started I started working in Pediatric Oncology that I started to question my faith. After Years of research, I now identify as an athiest. Please note, most people do not change their mind to be mean spirited. They change their mind because they thought it through and thought they were wrong. It is emotionally very difficult.
I'm attaching a few videos from Biblical scholars. Most Ivy League Biblical Scholars state they believe in historical Jesus but Not supernatural Jesus.
https://youtu.be/NIXfDyoYK8Q
https://youtu.be/7xVBldyy_Oo
https://youtu.be/Pz-z8j67Ids
https://youtu.be/QuPsxFklxaw
Smile and be kind to one another. No Gods required ❤
@ RF
I would love to see some names and stats attached to that....also consider; in the US professed atheism is not a career enhancement, especially the denial that an historical Jesus figure existed ( despite the complete absence of evidence). That would be a step too far for many sponsors and the sheeple.
Also consider I have met as many fully qualified academics that are also idiots that hold very strange beliefs, in Oxford, Cambridge, UWA ,and just as many normal sensible sane people who believe in fairies, gods, things that go bump in the night and politicians promises down the local pub.
The existence of an historical jesus figure is unproven. That of a magical jesus figure as likely as fairies at the bottom of your garden.
(Edit typos and to make sense)
@Maddie:
Hi Maddie. I am not sure you are going to find a lot of us with questions. Many atheists were once religious and understanding the bible and religion is what got us here.
"I said earlier the proof in god is subjective." Subjective proof would be an oxymoron. I think you mean subjective evidence or evidence open to interpretation.
"Yes to the fact that I have things I know to exist, yet are subjective." This appears to be self deception. If it is "Subjective" how do you "KNOW" it to exist? Don't you just mean you assume it to exist? Or that you "believe" it to exist based on spurious subjective evidence? Belief itself is allocated to the degree of evidence, belief is not an all or nothing proposition.
If you tell me you have a cat. I am likely to believe you whether you have a cat or not. If you tell me you are a well known publisher who has written 10 best sellers, I may want to see a book or two before I actually believe that, especially if you are making assertions about which I disagree. If you tell me there is a magic creator of the universe, well obviously the degree of evidence needed to make that claim would be significant. So you say you know! In the next breath you tell me that that knowledge is subjective. How do you call it knowledge when it is subjective? To what degree do you know? In what sense do you know?
Knowing:
There are atheists on the site who will tell you flat out that "NO GODS EXIST." The label for this is "Strong Atheism" or "Anti-theism." Several very good arguments can be made for this position. (My contention is that they all boil down to "You can't prove me wrong by producing your god.") So I do not adopt this position all the time. Some gods are naturally self contradictory. These gods do not exist and can be shown not to exist because of their self contradictory nature. *The God of the Bible is not MORAL or ALL LOVING. That would be a really stupid assertion. The God of the Bible is not Omniscient and even admits it in the text. Another completely falsifiable God idea. Other gods just seem to appear useless. To KNOW your god exists, wouldn't you need to know "How it exists?" How can you tell the difference between your god "Actually Existing" and your own "Imagination." How is a thing subjective, and yet Known to be true.
The point I am making in this post is to say that not all atheists completely dismiss the existence of a god 100%. If for no other reason than it is hard to imagine something can or can not be known with absolute and total certainty. When I say I do not believe in god or Gods, I am asserting that I have never seen good evidence for one. I disbelieve at about the 99.999% level. Is there a chance , in all this universe, that a god or godlike being who creates universes could exist? I can not say, it could not exist with 100% certainty. I can say that I believe that no such being exists. I can not say that I know for a fact, no such being exists.
Know - My definition is Justified True Belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief. So the question is.... In what sense are you believing and then asserting KNOWLEDGE? If it is only knowledge for you , is it actual Knowledge or just a personal belief? I really do not think you KNOW what you are professing to KNOW.
I’m using this to reply to both of your posts. I hope I can get to everyone.
I believe so. That would be insulting, for me to assume you haven’t done your own investigating. It’s alright if you don’t have any to ask but I do. I want to know these things. How you feel, what you think and believe out of wanting to know. Nothing more. Feel free to not respond if you feel a question I’ve asked if offensive. I’m here for the conversation and that involves questions sometimes. I am ignorant about atheists as well. Which is why I’m here and having to be told what you are telling me. Again, sorry.
It indeed is an oxymoron. All proof in god is ultimately subjective. You cannot prove his existence but proof is asked for. And “proof” you are given. An oxymoron doesn’t make it any less real. How is someone’s idea of proof in any scenario not sometimes subjective?
I’m going to use the same definition of subjective that I used earlier (googled):
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. synonyms: personal, personalized, individual, internal, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, impressionistic
“This appears to be self deception. If it is “SUBJECTIVE”, how do you “KNOW” it exists? Don’t you just mean you assume it to exists? Or that you “believe” it to exist on spurious subjective evidence? Belief itself is allocated to the degree of evidence, belief is not an all or nothing proposition.”
First, I would like to know why you think I might be decieveing myself. Not that I am but why I am.
I must specify “exist”. Exist, by itself means to be alive. But we don’t always use it under that particular meaning. Oxymorons exist but aren’t alive, for instance. The heat exists but is not alive, but I’m very subjective towards it. Aka I have an opinion in regards to the heat, though it exists yet is not alive.
Now, again. Subjective, no matter how you slice it, means to be in “your point of view”. Proof also, can be “in your point of view”. Subjective - Opinion & Proof - evidence. Opinionated evidence. What I’m doing.
So, Subjective, Proof and Exists. In my [opinion] my [evidence] that God [exists] is those closest doubting him. Oh, assumptions are based off of subjectivity. You assume or {have an opinion} because you do not have proof {evidence}. I’m not denying I did that either. That’s my point. All of those were the same question.
I’m not sure where I insunuated that belief is black and white. I mentioned in another reply disagreeing with that very thing. The Bible is not all or nothing. It is not “Either you believe or don’t.” Please, let me know where I might have insinuated this.
I have nothing to note on your statement in belief, I agree as mentioned above. The claim would have to be significant. But the one I stated above is the one I have, significant or not.
I am sorry. I am not here to convince you he exists. Are you wanting me to respond more on why I believe that?
And truth? Also subjective. Everything is, to a degree. We all have opinions don’t we? A proven fact is true, because it is fact. Not fact, because it is true. Fact’s are undeniable ( and even still when in your face ) but wether you believe it to be true is another thing (global warming).
Asserting knowledge? Certainlly no one has to agree.
I can’t speak for everyone. It would be presumptions for us all to hold the exact same belief to the same degree, regarding god. So for me to hold my subjective [opinion] proof [evidence] with my belief [“truth” as it too is subjective, everything is subjective in regards to this topic]. It seems it isn’t an oxymoron after all. Since proof alludes to truth ( factual truth ) but subjective is just opinionated. Not false. One means to be real, the other to have an outlook. Not to be unreal. Just again, opinionated. It’s not like jumbo shrimp, not two opposites but completely different concepts.
@Maddie: (If you do the @ symbol and then the person's name, people will know who you are speaking to.
RE: How is someone’s idea of proof in any scenario not sometimes subjective?
If it is subjective, what cause do we have to believe it? We have science for taking thongs out of the realm of subjectivity and into the realm of observable, empirical, measurable fact. We then construct theories to explain these facts. When it comes to religion, we have no facts at all with which to construct a theory. NONE. All we have are inane assertions piled upon inane assertions. 1000 useless attempts at creating a fact does not equal one fact.
A religious fact is responsible for 30,000 different Christian faiths. A scientific fact is one that every human on the planet can agree to. It is demonstrable, measurable, and it predicts outcomes.
"An oxymoron doesn’t make it any less real." Of course it does, Unless you are using some obscure meaning of real, "existing in reality" that I am unaware of.
OXYMOREON: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ). Basic law of self contradiction: For all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true
YOU KEEP USING THE WORD PROOF - You mean EVIDENCE.
" Proof in any scenario not sometimes subjective?" NO. A square is not a circle. FACT. Nothing subjective about it. NOTHING.
"First, I would like to know why you think I might be deceiving myself. Not that I am but why I am." You said you are. You believe things based on subjective evidence. You don't know, but you choose to believe anyway. This is not the basis for any kind of logic. I don't know if the rocket will get to the moon or not but we will go ahead and put a couple of astronauts in it and shoot it off anyway. NO! That is insane. We need solid evidence. Not supposition or speculation or subjective opinions.
You are certainly allows to consider anything subjective to qualify as proof. That is a pretty low standard. If you do not care about what is real in the world, it makes perfectly good sense. That is what most theists do anyway. Yes, all the mumbo jumbo is true and we have proof. Bodies rising from the dead, gooey feelings, magical prayers that have been shown by science time and time again to fail, eternal souls, and heaps of other WooWoo.
If you are going to assert everything is subjective and you are fine believing garbage without facts, evidence, and support --- we are basically done talking. You do not care if what you believe is true or not. You consider it to be true based on subjective garbage and that is okay with you.
"You assume or {have an opinion} because you do not have proof {evidence}." NO! You are putting the cart before the horse. I assume nothing. There has been no evidence for the existence of a god. I have no reason to believe. If you think you have a good reason, please share and then I will believe. I may not worship your god depending on how you define him but I too will know he is real. There are no presuppositions in Atheism. If your claim is real, your god is real. It's just that simple. But you insist your claim is subjective and contingent on how you choose to see reality and not on objective, valid, verifiable reality. Why would I believe anything based on that. You really do not care about what is real in the world.
No! Proof is not in my point of view. We lock people up in psychiatric hospitals for having such views. If I think I am Jesus and can prove it by building a bookshelf. that does not make me Jesus. And if I walk about spitting in blind people's eyes to cure them. I am going to the funny farm.
The claim would have to be significant. But the one I stated above is the one I have, significant or not. Obviously you are entitled to set any criteria you choose for belief. You choose to believe in the subjective because you choose to believe in the subjective. The conversation has no place to go. I can not argue that you do not have that choice. Good luck to you.
You sound confused. You point out the consistent inconsistencies of your religion (all religions IMHO), yet still believe in this, what realistically amounts to, a poorly conceived and written fictional book. As mentioned, why not pick a different more moral and less unbalanced fictional story? What is it about this book that tells you it is not fictional? What with this book, overrides your innate ability to reason. We know that religion bastardizes humans innate moral coding...what bastardizes your ability to reason?
It would be impossible for my religion to be 100% true. It was written by human hands. No way. You won’t go to hell for having an abortion or being gay. But that is not Christianity, those ideas. It is not religion. Those are human ideals. The Bible is not itself a religion and should not be taken as literal. It is meant only as a guide to those who are curious. There’s a lot of bad but also a lot of good. I would not mind at all explaining why I believe parts of the Bible are non-fictional (they’re always some embellishments) and why it is that I choose the Bible over another example to live by. “Live by” is a little of an exaggeration. God does not dictate your day to day choices.
@ Maddie
How do you know this?
@Old man shouts...
Despite what those say, no. It is impossible, you cannot follow the Bible to T. But it’s seems that realism in some circumstances are very fitting to the reality of being alive, in the Bible. That realism should be a guide, I believe. Since again, noone could give the Bible everything it asks. A needle in a haystack it is.
@ Maddie
I asked about your previous post "How do you KNOW this?" you did not answer in the post above.
Also in a previous answer you stated you would be happy to give your reasons why you believe that a jesus figure actually existed...so please, enlighten me.
@old man shouts “But it’s seems that realism in some circumstances are very fitting to the reality of being alive, in the Bible. That realism should be a guide, I believe.”
You’re right. Again, I misread. Hopefully I haven’t been replying to the wrong people. Being religious, there is no 100% certainty to these things. Obvious, we’d all agree. So if you’re asking me if I know without a doubt, that the Bible was designed as a guide, of course I can’t prove it. But I can have a conversation. I can say I believe that, provide examples of my own (subjective) as to why I believe the Bible is meant to be a guide.
I like having discussions, no matter how strange or difficult. It’s bizarre but I feel like the elephant in the room is that I should somehow see this all as counterintuitive to what you see as a Christian as to how I see myself as a Christian. I don’t say you can’t be an atheist. Why is it odd I want to talk about god?
For me, the most intriguing thing is, I wanted a discussion. But you all already know the questions you are asking me. Do I KNOW? Do I have OBJECTIONAlL PROOF? I don’t of course, so then are you wanting to immediately go back to the discussion amongst yourselves about how god doesn’t exist? I thought I’d be asked questions like “Why do you believe in god?” Not “Do you have evidence there’s a god?” I haven’t asked a single one of you why you chose to be what you are and certainly haven’t TOLD you what you are either. If these questions were that simple we wouldn’t debate about them.
Pages