There is one little simple question atheism can't answer...

Oh God, don't try to accuse me of dodging just because your own dodging is so evident. That's childish.

I didn't use ad hominems. Show me a single ad hominem I've used. And don't just skip over this part of the post like you always do. Demonstrate that I've used ad homines.

I disagree with the notion that there's a difference between the OT and NT as far as literalness and figurativeness is concerned. I simply asked you how you can know that one is figurative and one is literal and you're unable to give any kind of explanation aside for your own insistence. It's like you expect people to simply take your word for it.

I am not making claims, so I don't need to provide sources. I am merely asking questions, questions that you can't answer.

You haven't shown that the NT is any less symbolic. You've simply given your unsupported opinion.

And also, I don't have to disagree with everything you're saying to question/challenge certain parts of your posts.

GreySeal9

My old debate prof would have a heart attack if she read this thread.

cybrcatter

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Oh God, don't try to accuse me of dodging just because your own dodging is so evident. That's childish.

I didn't use ad hominems. Show me a single ad hominem I've used. And don't just skip over this part of the post like you always do. Demonstrate that I've used ad homines.

I disagree with the notion that there's a difference between the OT and NT as far as literalness and figurativeness is concerned. I simply asked you how you can know that one is figurative and one is literal and you're unable to give any kind of explanation aside for your own insistence. It's like you expect people to simply take your word for it.

I am not making claims, so I don't need to provide sources. I am merely asking questions, questions that you can't answer.

You haven't shown that the NT is any less symbolic. You've simply given your unsupported opinion.

And also, I don't have to disagree with everything you're saying to question/challenge certain parts of your posts.

LJS9502_basic

I find that claim suspect because I see no difference that would make one literal while the other is figurative. I was the first one to ask you a question as to what's the distinguishing difference. Now that you've show that you can't really substantiate your distinction, you're trying to shift the burden of proof on me. It's a slick move, but it's not going to work here.

I just don't understand why you can't just admit that it's your opinion. Then I'd get off your back about it.

Also, why are you not demonstrating what ad hominems I used? :?

Where did god come from, guess nobody can answer.....

nothing answers that

Where did God come from? That, unfortunately is a question will never see the answer to.DavidianMH

I find that claim suspect because I see no difference that would make one literal while the other is figurative. I was the first one to ask you a question as to what's the distinguishing difference. Now that you've show that you can't really substantiate your distinction, you're trying to shift the burden of proof on me. It's a slick move, but it's not going to work here.

I just don't understand why you can't just admit that it's your opinion. Then I'd get off your back about it.

Also, why are you not demonstrating what ad hominems I used? :?

GreySeal9

I gave you a link showing it's NOT just my opinion that the Jewish people used symbolism. So why should I say that is my opinion? That makes no sense. If you are not going to counter with sources then it's meaningless to continue this discussion. So show me your sources.

[QUOTE="DavidianMH"]Where did God come from? That, unfortunately is a question will never see the answer to.TheStarM4n

I wish god had given me the ability to comprehend :(

[QUOTE="DavidianMH"]Where did God come from? That, unfortunately is a question will never see the answer to.TheStarM4n

No. That my friend is YOUR opinion, not fact. MY opinion is that there is no god. But that is MY opinion.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I find that claim suspect because I see no difference that would make one literal while the other is figurative. I was the first one to ask you a question as to what's the distinguishing difference. Now that you've show that you can't really substantiate your distinction, you're trying to shift the burden of proof on me. It's a slick move, but it's not going to work here.

I just don't understand why you can't just admit that it's your opinion. Then I'd get off your back about it.

Also, why are you not demonstrating what ad hominems I used? :?

LJS9502_basic

I gave you a link showing it's NOT just my opinion that the Jewsih people used symbolism. So why should I say that is my opinion? That makes no sense.

Jesus Christ. I never said the Jewish didn't use symbolism. Why are you having such difficulty with this? Why can't you just read the posts correctly? Why even continue to quote me if you're just going to continue to not read my posts correctly?

I said that the distinction you made between the OT and NT insofar as sybolism and literalness is your opinion, not that the Jewish used symbolism. Please brush up on your reading comphrension or don't reply to my posts. I am tired of correcting you about what I said. I shouldn't have to do that. It's tiresome.

I asked you what the distinction was. Why should I have to proofvethat they are the same when you have not proved that there is a difference insofar as literalness, and when I asked the question first. You are simply trying to worm out of the question. I simply said I don't see a difference in that regard. How should I prove that? That's like asking me to prove a negative. I asked you a question, not the other way around. You're simply trying to shift the burden of proof because you don't want to admit that the distinction is simply your opinion. If you want to present in another fashion other than your own opnions, actually back up your claims with something substantial.

You say that you weren't talking about the NT, but you did make the distinction between the NT and the OT and I inquired about that. You simply don't have an answer to the question. That the Jewish used symbolism doesn't prove anything in that regard. It simply proves that the Jewish used symbolism. Nothing else. If you want that premise to go further, then you have to connect it to your other arguments. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Also, LJ, why are you accusing me or ad hominems yet you won't show where I used them? If you're accusing me of them, don't you think you should actually emonstrate that I've used them?

@DarthSatan I don't give a crap about your incorrect opinion. Lol... Also it is not my opinion. My relationship with Jesus is enough to show it is fact. TheStarM4n

So your position is, "I'm right because, so there"? Why I never argue with christians, they take self delusion to an insane level.

i am really starting to get sick of all this atheist vs all debates . I just want to live my life and not worry if i am going to rot in a hole in the ground or go to some after life.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I find that claim suspect because I see no difference that would make one literal while the other is figurative. I was the first one to ask you a question as to what's the distinguishing difference. Now that you've show that you can't really substantiate your distinction, you're trying to shift the burden of proof on me. It's a slick move, but it's not going to work here.

I just don't understand why you can't just admit that it's your opinion. Then I'd get off your back about it.

Also, why are you not demonstrating what ad hominems I used? :?

GreySeal9

I gave you a link showing it's NOT just my opinion that the Jewsih people used symbolism. So why should I say that is my opinion? That makes no sense.

Jesus Christ. I never said the Jewish didn't use symbolism. Why are you having such difficulty with this? Why can't you just read the posts correctly?

I said that the distinction you made between the OT and NT insofar as sybolism and literalness is your opinion, not that the Jewish used symbolism. Please brush up on your reading comphrension or don't reply to my posts. I am tired of correcting you about what I said. I shouldn't have to do that.

I asked you what the distinction was. Why should I have to proof that they are the same when you have not proved that there is a difference insofar as literalness. You are simply trying to worm out of the question. I simply said I don't see a difference in that regard. How should I prove that? That's like asking me to prove a negative. I asked you a question, not the other way around. You're simply trying to shift the burden of proof because you don't want to admit that the distinction is simply your opinion. If you want to present in another fashion, actually back up your claims.

You say that you weren't talking about the NT, but you did make the distinction between the NT and the OT and I inquired about that. You simply don't have an answer to the question. That the Jewish used symbolism doesn't prove anything in that regard. It simply proves that the Jewish used symbolism. Nothing else. What is so difficult to understand about that?

If you want to provide a distinction between the two then you have to present the reasons why...and opinion doesn't cut it. Why should I have to develop your argument? Again and for about the third or fouth time....I was discussing the OT...not the NT. So if you want to change the direction of the discussion...do so with some solid proof. I really am not interested in discussing your opinion.

I gave you the reasons.....but you'd have to study the books and you don't want to do that. Not my fault. It's not a simple yes or no answer. You state you agree symbolism is in the OT. Fine. However, I'd have to see your proof of the historical account of Jesus being regarded as symbolism.

Also, LJ, why are you accusing me or ad hominems yet you won't show where I used them? If you're accusing me of them, don't you think you should actually emonstrate that I've used them?

GreySeal9

I told you why I;m right. My relationship with God is enough to prove that. Am I going to explain it to you, nope :)TheStarM4n

No you told me why you believe yourright, not why you are, there is a huge difference. And I know all about relationship with god I was a christian for a long time, then I woke up.

I told you why I;m right. My relationship with God is enough to prove that. Am I going to explain it to you, nope :)TheStarM4n

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Also, LJ, why are you accusing me or ad hominems yet you won't show where I used them? If you're accusing me of them, don't you think you should actually emonstrate that I've used them?

LJS9502_basic

No it isn't.

Ad hominem:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominems are when you discount somebody's entire argument based on a person characteristic. I did not do that.

[QUOTE="TheStarM4n"]I told you why I;m right. My relationship with God is enough to prove that. Am I going to explain it to you, nope :)DarthSatan

No you told me why you believe yourright, not why you are, there is a huge difference. And I know all about relationship with god I was a christian for a long time, then I woke up.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Also, LJ, why are you accusing me or ad hominems yet you won't show where I used them? If you're accusing me of them, don't you think you should actually emonstrate that I've used them?

GreySeal9

No it isn't.

Ad hominems are when you discount somebody's entire argument based on a person characteristic. I did not do that.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Then provide some proof that one is literal and the other figurative. Why ask me? I presented an argument on symbolism in the OT. As I've told you several times now it was someone else who brought the NT into the discussion. That was never what I was discussing. But I'm ASKING YOU to back up your statement that they are the same. The burden of proof is on you as that is the argument you have made continually in this thread. You cannot make statements and then say the burden is not on you while asking others to provide proof.

I gave you a link showing it's NOT just my opinion that the Jewsih people used symbolism. So why should I say that is my opinion? That makes no sense.

LJS9502_basic

Jesus Christ. I never said the Jewish didn't use symbolism. Why are you having such difficulty with this? Why can't you just read the posts correctly?

I said that the distinction you made between the OT and NT insofar as sybolism and literalness is your opinion, not that the Jewish used symbolism. Please brush up on your reading comphrension or don't reply to my posts. I am tired of correcting you about what I said. I shouldn't have to do that.

I asked you what the distinction was. Why should I have to proof that they are the same when you have not proved that there is a difference insofar as literalness. You are simply trying to worm out of the question. I simply said I don't see a difference in that regard. How should I prove that? That's like asking me to prove a negative. I asked you a question, not the other way around. You're simply trying to shift the burden of proof because you don't want to admit that the distinction is simply your opinion. If you want to present in another fashion, actually back up your claims.

You say that you weren't talking about the NT, but you did make the distinction between the NT and the OT and I inquired about that. You simply don't have an answer to the question. That the Jewish used symbolism doesn't prove anything in that regard. It simply proves that the Jewish used symbolism. Nothing else. What is so difficult to understand about that?

If you want to provide a distinction between the two then you have to present the reasons why...and opinion doesn't cut it. Why should I have to develop your argument? Again and for about the third or fouth time....I was discussing the OT...not the NT. So if you want to change the direction of the discussion...do so with some solid proof. I really am not interested in discussing your opinion.

I gave you the reasons.....but you'd have to study the books and you don't want to do that. Not my fault. It's not a simple yes or no answer. You state you agree symbolism is in the OT. Fine. However, I'd have to see your proof of the historical account of Jesus being regarded as symbolism.

Jesus Christ. I didn't present a disintction between the two, I said that I see no difference that would make one figurative and one literal. And I asked you and you engaged me. So you can't just say "that's not what I was discussing" when you engaged me on the question. If you don't want to discuss that, don't quote me. What is difficult to understand about that? Why do you constantly respond to my questions and then say "that's not what I was talking about!" when pressed.

You gave no explanation for your reasons. You simply asserted your own opinion and now you are trying to shift the burden of proof. Why can't you just admit that that is simply your opinion? Why do you have to try to make it more concrete that it is and then not provide proof?

Again, what evidence, outside of your own opinion, do you have that one is figurative while the other is literal?

I told you why I;m right. My relationship with God is enough to prove that. Am I going to explain it to you, nope :)TheStarM4n

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Look at the word childish in your post. That is an ad hominem dude.LJS9502_basic

No it isn't.

Ad hominems are when you discount somebody's entire argument based on a person characteristic. I did not do that.

OMG. WTF?

An ad hominem is when one dimisses one's argument.

If I said "LJ is childish, so he's wrong about this Bible discussion," that'd be an ad hominem, but I simply called your attempt to turn the "dodging evidence" thing back on me childish, which it was.

First, you skip my requests to know what the ad hominem was for several posts (for obvious reasons) and then when further pressed, you try and mispresent what an ad hominem is?

Why do you think that nobody is going to see through this stuff? :?

[QUOTE="DarthSatan"]

[QUOTE="TheStarM4n"]I told you why I;m right. My relationship with God is enough to prove that. Am I going to explain it to you, nope :)TheStarM4n

No you told me why you believe yourright, not why you are, there is a huge difference. And I know all about relationship with god I was a christian for a long time, then I woke up.

i just can't take that the only "proof" for the existence of god is the bible. god exists because the bible says it does is like me saying evil sewer dwelling clowns exist ecause It says they do. also I have over my life time joined many religions, and the sense of fulfillment I derived was no different from one to the next. which can only lead me to conclude that it is the act of belonging to something that provides that sense of fulfillment, rther than some god. Terefore i now leave my faith in the one thing I know exists and I can rely on, me.

I need no strength from your false gods, I possess all I require within.

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

My old debate prof would have a heart attack if she read this thread.

Jazz_Fan

Jesus Christ. I didn't present a disintction between the two, I said that I see no difference that would make one figurative and one literal. And I asked you and you engaged me. So you can't just say "that's not what I was discussing" when you engaged me on the question. If you don't want to discuss that, don't quote me. What is difficult to understand about that? Why do you constantly respond to my questions and then say "that's not what I was talking about!" when pressed.

You gave no explanation for your reasons. You simply asserted your own opinion and now you are trying to shift the burden of proof. Why can't you just admit that that is simply your opinion? Why do you have to try to make it more concrete that it is and then not provide proof?

Again, what evidence, outside of your own opinion, do you have that one is figurative while the other is literal?

GreySeal9

I gave reasons. The OT which you've agreed on is a story with symbolism. The NT is the historical account of Jesus and His teachings. I've told you that several times. Unless you can provide me with some proof that the NOT is not the historical account of His life and teachings then I don't know what else to tell you. For evidence you can, of course, read the NT which does, in fact, documents His life and teachings. That part is not symbolic.

"Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire."

I already stated He used metaphors and symbolism in His teachings. So...if most critical historians agree....then I guess it's not symbolic.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

No it isn't.

Ad hominems are when you discount somebody's entire argument based on a person characteristic. I did not do that.

GreySeal9

OMG. WTF?

An ad hominem is when one dimisses one's argument.

If I said "LJ is childish, so he's wrong about this Bible discussion," that'd be an ad hominem, but I simply called your attempt to turn the "dodging evidence" thing back on me childish, which it was.

First, you skip my requests to know what the ad hominem was for several posts (for obvious reasons) and then when further pressed, you try and mispresent what an ad hominem is?

Why do you think that nobody is going to see through this stuff? :?

No you engaged me on the question. And I told you early on that the other dude brought the NT into it. Go back and reread.LJS9502_basic

Of course I engaged you because I asked the damn question. Duh. But you responded to that question and went down that avenue, so it's ridiculous to complain about it now. If you don't want to go down that avenue, don't respond. I won't be offended if you choose not to respond to me.

I gave reasons. The OT which you've agreed on is a story with symbolism.LJ

It probably has symbolism, but it's impossible to know what is symbolic and what is not. We can only guess.

The NT is the historical account of Jesus and His teachings. I've told you that several times. Unless you can provide me with some proof that the NOT is not the historical account of His life and teachings then I don't know what else to tell you. For evidence you can, of course, read the NT which does, in fact, documents His life and teachings. That part is not symbolic.LJ

I didn't say it doesn't document some of his life. I'm saying that the ressurection and virgin birth and what not can be symbolic. What proof do you have that those things are literal?

And no, simply saying "the NT is the historical account...yada...yada...yada,,," does not prove that those particular events are literal because that is simply what you believe. Do you have any historical proof that these things are absolutely literal and there's no symbolism involved?

"Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire."

I already stated He used metaphors and symbolism in His teachings. So...if most critical historians agree....then I guess it's not symbolic.

LJ

Jesus Christ. We are talking about the miracles such as the ressurection and what not. I am saying that those things can be symbolic. I never disputing that he was a teacher or healer or was crucified.

It's the supernatural elements that are being questioned. Why can't those not be symbolic?

Right but since you accused me of dodging that goes straight to the discussion and is an ad hominem.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You dismissed it as childish...it is an ad hominem.

LJS9502_basic

OMG. WTF?

An ad hominem is when one dimisses one's argument.

If I said "LJ is childish, so he's wrong about this Bible discussion," that'd be an ad hominem, but I simply called your attempt to turn the "dodging evidence" thing back on me childish, which it was.

First, you skip my requests to know what the ad hominem was for several posts (for obvious reasons) and then when further pressed, you try and mispresent what an ad hominem is?

Why do you think that nobody is going to see through this stuff? :?

Accept what you've said? Why would I simply accept your opinion when you've given no proof? That's ridiculous. I don't need to make a counter argument to your non-proof.

Also, the childish remark was directed at your attempt to accuse me of evidence dodging because I thought that was extemely childish, like an "I know you are but what am I" kind of thing.

You're simply trying to twist my comment into an ad hominem when it's not simply because you don't want to be wrong.

It's not neccessary to be argumentative about everything. It's okay to admit when one is wrong. It's not the end of the world.

[QUOTE="TheStarM4n"][QUOTE="DarthSatan"]

No you told me why you believe yourright, not why you are, there is a huge difference. And I know all about relationship with god I was a christian for a long time, then I woke up.

DarthSatan

i just can't take that the only "proof" for the existence of god is the bible. god exists because the bible says it does is like me saying evil sewer dwelling clowns exist ecause It says they do. also I have over my life time joined many religions, and the sense of fulfillment I derived was no different from one to the next. which can only lead me to conclude that it is the act of belonging to something that provides that sense of fulfillment, rther than some god. Terefore i now leave my faith in the one thing I know exists and I can rely on, me.

I need no strength from your false gods, I possess all I require within.

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

LJS9502_basic

It's very telling that you decide to not actual address my arguments, but just say "prove all that stuff" even thought most of it wasn't the kind of assertion that can be proven.

I didn't make any emphatic claims in the text you just quote. I simply said that stuff like the virgin birth and ressurection could be symbolic and that I see no reason to think they have to be literal. It didn't say it absolutely was symbolic. I said it "could" be and that I am not convinced that the NT is literal.

You haven't proved that it is literal, so why should I counter against what you've never proved. How does that make sense?

You've claimed that it is literal. Why can't you provide proof for that? Why are simply reduced to trying to shift the burden of proof om me simply because you could not substantiate your own claims.

It is my opinion that it could be symbolic. I never denied that. However, you're trying to deny that the NT miraculous events being literal is just your opinion.

So, if it's not just your opinion, where's your proof?

1 Yes, I could handle that, probability determines that bad things happen. I need no external crutch.

2 Christianity espouses nothing different than almost any other religion and it promotes "good works"as much as the next religion

3 the fact that "he died for you" is again an opinion with no factual basis outside the bible, whch as I stated is not proof of anything. i don't deny that jesus existed, was a real man, and was crucified. But he was not the son of god because there isn't one.

4 most "miracles" are easily seen through hoaxes. The power of the mind over the body is amazing, and again all religions claim miracles, not just christianity.

5 I've attended a number of different christian churches, they are all basically the same.

6 telling me to pray to something I don't believe in is silly. Why don't you pray to the flying spaghetti monster? Only he can save you! ridiculous.

telling me to pray to something I don't believe in is silly. Why don't you pray to the flying spaghetti monster? Only he can save you! ridiculous.

DarthSatan6

Yeah, it's pretty trollish. That kind of stuff should be prohibited.

It's very telling that you decide to not actual address my claims, but just say "prove all that stuff" even thought most of it wasn't the kind of assertion that can be proven.

I didn't make any claims in the text you just quote. I simply said that stuff like the virgin birth and ressurection could be symbolic and that I see no reason to think they have to be literal. It didn't say it absolutely was symbolic. I said it "could" be and that I am not convinced that the NT is literal.

You haven't proved that it is literal, so why should I counter against what you've never proved. How does that make sense?

You've claimed that it is literal. Why can't you provide proof for that? Why are simply reduced to trying to shift the burden of proof of me simply because you could not substantiate your own claims.

It is my opinion that it could be symbolic. I never denied that. However, you're trying to deny that the NT miraculous events being literal is just your opinion.

So, if it's not just your opinion, where's your proof?

GreySeal9

I didn't address it because it's all been addressed several times. You made the claim that certain events in the NT are figurative. And I would like some source on that. What don't you get about that? I've asked over and over. If it's your opinion that miracles are symbolic...where is your proof? You wanted to change the topic from OT to NT.

It's very telling that you expect me to do what you refuse to do....don't you think?

Greyseal, perhaps you should express the flaws of the opposing argument in the form of "why not" questions just to get across the message that you are not making claims, because at this rate this wont go anywhere. >__>

it's up to you to provide proof of your claims.:| You stated earlier the one making the claims has to provide the soucre. Well where is yours? Nice attempt at diverting the subject away from the fact that you expect me to support your claims and you don't have to do so.LJS9502_basic

I didn't say that the NT is absolutely symbolic. I said that it could be and I have no reason to believe it has to be literal when the OT is symbolic. I am not making emphatic claims. You are.

I didn't address it because it's all been addressed several times. You made the claim that certain events in the NT are figurative. And I would like some source on that. What don't you get about that? I've asked over and over. If it's your opinion that miracles are symbolic...where is your proof?LJ

I didn't say they were absolutely symbolic. I said that they could be and I see no reason to believe they are literal. Why can't you provide proof that they absolutely are literal?

You wanted to change the topic from OT to NT.LJ

No, I didn't. You made the distinction and I asked why. Don't try to rewrite the history of this thread. Everything is on record.

It's very telling that you expect me to do what you refuse to do....don't you think?

LJ

I haven't made emphatic claims. The only thing I've done is ask you to prove your emphatic claims.

You know you can't prove them, so you're trying to throw it back at me.

So, where's your proof that it is absolutely literal since you won't admit that that is your opinion?

I admitted that I was stating an opinion. You haven't. So the burden of proof is on you as I asked the question first.

I'm not going to give you any rope as far as these intellectallly dishonest tactics are concerned.

Greyseal, perhaps you should express the flaws of the opposing argument in the form of "why not" questions just to get across the message that you are not making claims, because at this rate this wont go anywhere. >__>

Teenaged

It's not going to go anywhere even if I do do that.

He's intent on trying to shift the burden of proof because he doesn't want to admit that he's pushing an opinion, but also doesn't want to provide substantiation. So he's just trying to throw my charges toward him back at me in a "No you!" kind of fashion (which is why I used the childish remark).

But what the hell, I'll give it a try: LJ, why can't both be symbolic?

I haven't made emphatic claims. The only thing I've done is ask you to prove your emphatic claims.

You know you can't prove them, so you're trying to throw it back at me.

So, where's your proof that it is absolutely literal since you won't admit that that is your opinion?

I admitted that I was stating an opinion. You haven't. So the burden of proof is on you as I asked the question first.

I'm not going to give you any rope as far as these intellectallly dishonest tactics are concerned.

GreySeal9

Because the source we have is the NT which provides as they did occur. So since you say that is not true...the onus is on your to provide your proof. Otherwise perhaps it would be better if you stuck to your opinion and stated you don't beleive it happened.

Greyseal, perhaps you should express the flaws of the opposing argument in the form of "why not" questions just to get across the message that you are not making claims, because at this rate this wont go anywhere. >__>

Teenaged

[QUOTE="DavidianMH"]Where did God come from? That, unfortunately is a question will never see the answer to.TheStarM4n

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Greyseal, perhaps you should express the flaws of the opposing argument in the form of "why not" questions just to get across the message that you are not making claims, because at this rate this wont go anywhere. >__>

LJS9502_basic

No that is not accurate. You got involved in the discussion I was having with somone else where I clearly told him OT not NT miracles.My discussion was NEVER about the NT. You jumped into that discussion and have continued to try to divert that subject to the NT. And stating that the miracles are figurative IS a claim. So since you want to discuss them...provide some source.LJS9502_basic

I did not state it emphatically. I said that the NT miracles could be figurative. I never said they absolutely were.

You made the emphatic claim, so where's the proof? Why can't they both be symbolic. What prohibits the NT from being symbolic?

In that conversation with the other person, you made the distinction. I thought the distinction was suspect and so I questioned it. It was something I was interested in debating. If you didn't want to go down that route, you didn't have to quote me.

It all comes down to you simply not responding if you didn't want to talk about that, but for some reason, you're addicted to responding to me and the complaining that you don't want to talk about something once you can't provide proof.

Because the source we have is the NT which provides as they did occur. So since you say that is not true...the onus is on your to provide your proof.LJ

Just because the NT says that's what happened doesn't mean it is being literal. You of all people should know that.

You need to prove why we should interpret it in a literal way. So why should we? What does the NT say that indicates that literal is the only way to interpret these events?

Otherwise perhaps it would be better if you stuck to your opinion and stated you don't beleive it happened.

LJ

I never said it was anything other than opinion that it could be symbolic.

You, however, stated an emphatic claim. So where's your proof? Why can't both be symbolic.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

This is one of the reasons why religion holds back progress. Science looks for explanations for the world and universe around us, religion does not. If certain religious people had their way we would stop looking for answers because all we ever need to know is contained in an ancient text. I would prefer that we continue to look for answers rather then give up and say a magic being did it all.

The something from nothing argument also applies to god, you claim that god has no substance, I agree with you on this and so would most athiests.

xaos

For instance fiction literature is not seeking to progress science so you are saying it's holding back science. Hockey is holding back science. Etc. That does not logically follow. Only thing that can hold back scientific progression is something impedeing it. Not something that evolves outside the field.

What do you mean by that? just curious.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Greyseal, perhaps you should express the flaws of the opposing argument in the form of "why not" questions just to get across the message that you are not making claims, because at this rate this wont go anywhere. >__>

LJS9502_basic

I said that they could be symbolic, not that they absolutely are. I see no reason to believe that have to be literal.

You shouldn't misrespent people's claims, especially when they tell you repeatedly what their clais are. It's rude.