-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I haven't met any other teenage atheists, so I really wouldn't know. But perhaps the problem lies in comprehension issued rather than with the argument itself? If atheists keep coming back with the same old debunked arguments, perhaps you see their logic is flawed, whereas they see the response is flawed? I really couldn't tell though, no personal experience whatsoever.
I am sort of skeptical of that claim. What do you mean by 'honest study'?
Surely you must be joking!
I am sort of skeptical of that claim. What do you mean by 'honest study'?
Surely you must be joking!
It's just that I'm weary of the "You're misinterpreting what it says" and "That's out of context" dodges. There are some rather explicit and evil things going on in the OT. That is a fact.
There are verses saying that not one iota of the old laws would change, as Jesus didn't come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17 and on) Then, there are verses in the NT showing how one ought to treat slaves and how slaves ought to behave, not that one ought NOT to have slaves. (1 Timothy 6) I'm not sure exactly what I'm misunderstanding here.
There are verses saying that not one iota of the old laws would change, as Jesus didn't come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17 and on) Then, there are verses in the NT showing how one ought to treat slaves and how slaves ought to behave, not that one ought NOT to have slaves. (1 Timothy 6) I'm not sure exactly what I'm misunderstanding here.
Evil is determined by God, since He is good. Your conception of evil is mistaken since it's subjective and therefore arbitrary.
Here it is.
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17)
But I'm not sure what your point is. Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law of the Prophets, he came to fulfill them, as he said. And that's what he did. He fulfilled the Law by living a sinless life, and he fulfilled the Prophets through fulfilled prophecy.
Me neither, but I'm not sure what your point is here either. If it was inherently wrong it would have been forbidden. As I pointed out, your views about what is wrong are just your opinion, but God is both just and omniscient, so He knows the truth of all things.
Here it is.
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17)
But I'm not sure what your point is. Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law of the Prophets, he came to fulfill them, as he said. And that's what he did. He fulfilled the Law by living a sinless life, and he fulfilled the Prophets through fulfilled prophecy.
Me neither, but I'm not sure what your point is here either. If it was inherently wrong it would have been forbidden. As I pointed out, your views about what is wrong are just your opinion, but God is both just and omniscient, so He knows the truth of all things.
Last edited:
R
Ok, I guess we're talking about you now.
What is the purpose of the law?
What does it mean to be fulfilled?
Does it still stand if it has been fulfilled?
What laws are still in place and why?
There are verses on all of this. It was a hot topic in the Epistles. It is my opinion that if one is honestly studying and making a genuine attempt to find answers, they will find answers because the answers are there. These aren't unexplainable mysteries or something where one must compromise intellectually to be satisfied.
Regarding slavery- clearly it is your opinion that slavery is bad. I agree with that opinion, although I'm not one to look down on history for it having existed. That said, I think the bits about slavery are rather useful and also rather revealing. Even in strange situations like slavery, one can act as a loving Christian. How? Read the Bible.
What is the purpose of the law?
What does it mean to be fulfilled?
Does it still stand if it has been fulfilled?
What laws are still in place and why?
There are verses on all of this. It was a hot topic in the Epistles. It is my opinion that if one is honestly studying and making a genuine attempt to find answers, they will find answers because the answers are there. These aren't unexplainable mysteries or something where one must compromise intellectually to be satisfied.
Regarding slavery- clearly it is your opinion that slavery is bad. I agree with that opinion, although I'm not one to look down on history for it having existed. That said, I think the bits about slavery are rather useful and also rather revealing. Even in strange situations like slavery, one can act as a loving Christian. How? Read the Bible.
H
i have had several debates with some kids at my school who have made the decision to become atheists. most of their arguments consist of science disproving the bible. i need some help on were i can acquire the knowledge to further debate them.
R
Hey there! By the way, you can just use the term atheist. Atheism is just lack of belief so agnosticism is basically redundant (at least in my mind).
You're definitely onto something here. I think that the belief in objective knowledge requires faith... in any instance (whether you're a theist or an atheist).
Should I take it you support slavery and stoning?
And here is the rest
18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
I'm going to take it as the 'Law of the Porphets' is a typo meant to be the Law or the Prophets yes? Just to make sure.
He might have fulfilled the law, but instead of nullifying it, isn't it that all christians should also seek to fulfill the Law by leading a sinless life? Even though it's impossible, shouldn't christians strive to do that as well, meaning the Law is still valid?
I was just trying to understand exactly what rainacorn meant by 'understanding' all the supposed contradictions point out in the Bible, either as meaning some objections are not justified (which I agree) or if he meant that ALL objections came from the fact people were not reading the Bible correctly, and that it was 100% inerrant.
I'm not saying that one will not find an answer ever in the Bible, I'm just wary that different people come up with different answers to the same questions, many of which are different if not contradictory, and all are equally supported in the Bible. Not questions such as 'was Jesus the son of God' of course, the answer to that (in Christianity) is pretty universal. I'm also wary of answers which don't explain anything. It's a faith thing, I guess, that some people accept things as true just because they are written in the bible. I don't. I agree with some things in the Bible and disagree with many others, because it seems to me as though some doctrines derived from the Bible go one way, and reality goes the other way. To me, it's completely unsupported assertions resting on other completely unsupported assumptions. At the bottom of it all, the basis of religion is common with all of our existences in that it is based on reality, but the further it goes in doctrines and theology, the more it becomes divorced from reality. But that's just my opinion.
As for slavery, I don't look down on history for there being slavery. At the time, slaves were necessary for any one civilization, because those that didn't have any were trampled over by those who had some. Nowadays however, slavery is superfluous and unnecessary.
I also wonder what would be your opinion of a Christian having slaves, such as in the Confederate South at the time, with full support from the Bible.
Not quite. Theism as opposed to atheism expresses a position on belief. Do you believe in a god, yes or no? Gnosticism, as opposed to agnosticism expresses a position on knowledge. There is no need at all for knowledge. Do you claim that you are certain of your belief, yes or no?
A gnostic atheist knows that either a specific deity (such as Amun-Ra or Poseidon) or all deities do not exist, whereas an agnostic atheist doesn't believe in deities but doesn't claim with certainty that they do not exist.
That would depend on your definition of faith. For example, I have faith that the universe is as we perceive it, that it's not a computer model and that we live in the matrix, nor that aliens can screw around with our universe to make us see whatever they want us to see. That is as much faith as I have. Anything and everything beyond that does not require faith.
Then again, comes the position that one might say that the universe is the way we perceive it is the null hypothesis, and to propose that there is more than what we see (invisible intangible immaterial undetectable deities controlling what happens to our immortal souls after we die) is an alternative hypothesis requiring evidence for people to accept. Failure to produce evidence would mean that belief in the null hypothesis is fully justified and requires no faith, and belief in the alternative despite the lack of or contrary evidence does require faith.
As for the knowledge bit, knowledge is just our understanding of the universe, and it is always subject to change whenever we discover something new. There is no need to have faith that knowledge is correct because knowledge can and will be shown wrong, and will be changed accordingly. One needs faith to say that our knowledge is perfect and will never change, even in the face of new unexplainable facts.
And here is the rest
18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
I'm going to take it as the 'Law of the Porphets' is a typo meant to be the Law or the Prophets yes? Just to make sure.
He might have fulfilled the law, but instead of nullifying it, isn't it that all christians should also seek to fulfill the Law by leading a sinless life? Even though it's impossible, shouldn't christians strive to do that as well, meaning the Law is still valid?
I was just trying to understand exactly what rainacorn meant by 'understanding' all the supposed contradictions point out in the Bible, either as meaning some objections are not justified (which I agree) or if he meant that ALL objections came from the fact people were not reading the Bible correctly, and that it was 100% inerrant.
I'm not saying that one will not find an answer ever in the Bible, I'm just wary that different people come up with different answers to the same questions, many of which are different if not contradictory, and all are equally supported in the Bible. Not questions such as 'was Jesus the son of God' of course, the answer to that (in Christianity) is pretty universal. I'm also wary of answers which don't explain anything. It's a faith thing, I guess, that some people accept things as true just because they are written in the bible. I don't. I agree with some things in the Bible and disagree with many others, because it seems to me as though some doctrines derived from the Bible go one way, and reality goes the other way. To me, it's completely unsupported assertions resting on other completely unsupported assumptions. At the bottom of it all, the basis of religion is common with all of our existences in that it is based on reality, but the further it goes in doctrines and theology, the more it becomes divorced from reality. But that's just my opinion.
As for slavery, I don't look down on history for there being slavery. At the time, slaves were necessary for any one civilization, because those that didn't have any were trampled over by those who had some. Nowadays however, slavery is superfluous and unnecessary.
I also wonder what would be your opinion of a Christian having slaves, such as in the Confederate South at the time, with full support from the Bible.
Not quite. Theism as opposed to atheism expresses a position on belief. Do you believe in a god, yes or no? Gnosticism, as opposed to agnosticism expresses a position on knowledge. There is no need at all for knowledge. Do you claim that you are certain of your belief, yes or no?
A gnostic atheist knows that either a specific deity (such as Amun-Ra or Poseidon) or all deities do not exist, whereas an agnostic atheist doesn't believe in deities but doesn't claim with certainty that they do not exist.
That would depend on your definition of faith. For example, I have faith that the universe is as we perceive it, that it's not a computer model and that we live in the matrix, nor that aliens can screw around with our universe to make us see whatever they want us to see. That is as much faith as I have. Anything and everything beyond that does not require faith.
Then again, comes the position that one might say that the universe is the way we perceive it is the null hypothesis, and to propose that there is more than what we see (invisible intangible immaterial undetectable deities controlling what happens to our immortal souls after we die) is an alternative hypothesis requiring evidence for people to accept. Failure to produce evidence would mean that belief in the null hypothesis is fully justified and requires no faith, and belief in the alternative despite the lack of or contrary evidence does require faith.
As for the knowledge bit, knowledge is just our understanding of the universe, and it is always subject to change whenever we discover something new. There is no need to have faith that knowledge is correct because knowledge can and will be shown wrong, and will be changed accordingly. One needs faith to say that our knowledge is perfect and will never change, even in the face of new unexplainable facts.
As for compromising intellect, isn't that what faith does? I mean, every living being on the planet born of sexual reproduction inherited half its genetic material from one parent and the other half from the other. So Mary was blessed with the seed of the Holy Spirit (not too clear on how that bit went). Jesus has half his DNA from Mary, that's all fine and well. Where did the other half of his DNA come from? We know he NEEDS both pairs of chromosomes, or else Jesus would have been female (only one X chromosome from Mary, no Y chromosome). The best one could come up with is that Mary's DNA was perfect, so Jesus only needed half the chromosomes anyways (which needs to be taken on faith) and that Jesus was a guy because the Holy Spirit either poofed a Y chromosome into existence or changed Mary's X into a Y (which is a miracle, which must again be taken on faith). A MAJOR part of the christian doctrine rests on Jesus being the son of God born of a virgin. From what I showed above, how can this not be intellectually compromising?
I don't mean to sound harsh or anything, but there does come a point where a leap of faith is necessary, and that leap of faith is a leap away from intellectualism. To deny that is to deny the religious faith.
R
Yea...that's basically what I said (except I never specified the first type of atheism as gnostic... but it was implied).
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm a nihilist, so... the whole "there is no such thing as objectivity" argument is inevitable... and often lengthy and repetitive. I'd much rather just avoid it all together (I can't tell you how many times I've had that argument... it's absolutely tiresome).
EDIT: In fact... I'm not being a very good nihilist by participating in a discussion such as this...
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm a nihilist, so... the whole "there is no such thing as objectivity" argument is inevitable... and often lengthy and repetitive. I'd much rather just avoid it all together (I can't tell you how many times I've had that argument... it's absolutely tiresome).
EDIT: In fact... I'm not being a very good nihilist by participating in a discussion such as this...
Last edited:
Whoops, sorry, my bad.
Well, the way I see it, the only thing that is objective is reality. Our perception of it is subjective, but scientists try to remove as much subjectivity as possible. Example, both gravity and evolution are a fact, they happen. That is objective. Our understanding of them, via the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution, is subjective, and subject to change if ever we gain new knowledge. No matter how much knowledge we gain or lose though, it has no effect on the objectivity of the real phenomenon itself (ie our understanding of gravity has no effect on the properties of gravity)
I'd just like to know your opinion on this, because it's not often that I come across a nihilist I've been told I'm sort of existentialist anti-nihilist (really not sure about that, but it seems to fit), I think, meaning for me there is no objective meaning to life and we make up our own meaning and our own purpose as we go along.
Well, not 'nothing' per se, bu as the saying goes, making a mountain out of a molehill and all that
Well, the way I see it, the only thing that is objective is reality. Our perception of it is subjective, but scientists try to remove as much subjectivity as possible. Example, both gravity and evolution are a fact, they happen. That is objective. Our understanding of them, via the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution, is subjective, and subject to change if ever we gain new knowledge. No matter how much knowledge we gain or lose though, it has no effect on the objectivity of the real phenomenon itself (ie our understanding of gravity has no effect on the properties of gravity)
I'd just like to know your opinion on this, because it's not often that I come across a nihilist
I've been told I'm sort of existentialist anti-nihilist (really not sure about that, but it seems to fit), I think, meaning for me there is no objective meaning to life and we make up our own meaning and our own purpose as we go along.Well, not 'nothing' per se, bu as the saying goes, making a mountain out of a molehill and all that
Sorry, I didn't mean to raise questions about Jesus's virgin birth, I just wanted to point out that faith does come in at a certain point, and faith is a leap away from intellectualism.
Oh and by faith, I don't mean that someone believes with more or less conviction, I mean absolute faith that one is 100% correct.
The laws might not be anti-intellectualism, but it would not be intellectually honest to deny that some moral guidelines set out in other religions are much better than some morals in the Bible. On the other hand, laws provided a solid frame for societies to develop in ancient times, setting out rules of things to do and not to do, instead of letting people find out all over again what are bad behaviors to avoid (such as the laws describing how to avoid to be made unclean by corpses and carcasses). Such laws are hardly divinely inspired however, they are rather secular (if sometimes mystical) laws set to stop specific behaviors from having specific natural consequences as a result.
Would you like to talk more about the laws and how they were fulfilled, etc?
Oh and by faith, I don't mean that someone believes with more or less conviction, I mean absolute faith that one is 100% correct.
The laws might not be anti-intellectualism, but it would not be intellectually honest to deny that some moral guidelines set out in other religions are much better than some morals in the Bible. On the other hand, laws provided a solid frame for societies to develop in ancient times, setting out rules of things to do and not to do, instead of letting people find out all over again what are bad behaviors to avoid (such as the laws describing how to avoid to be made unclean by corpses and carcasses). Such laws are hardly divinely inspired however, they are rather secular (if sometimes mystical) laws set to stop specific behaviors from having specific natural consequences as a result.
Would you like to talk more about the laws and how they were fulfilled, etc?
Of course, in the proper context.
Yes.
Paul speaks at length about the believer's relationship to the law. It's a big topic so I'm not going to go into it just now, but it is addressed at length in the Bible.
There aren't any contradictions, although there are a few minor inconsistencies in names and numbers which may have been the result of transcriptional errors.
Then I'm at a loss to explain why you're taking issue with slavery in the Bible, which is an ancient book.
Like anything it would depend on the specific circumstances. The Bible condemns most facets of slavery of the sort that was found in America. On the other hand, there was no way for a slave to support himself while the institution was in effect, and a Christian slave-owner would have provided for his slaves and treated them as family.
Yes.
Paul speaks at length about the believer's relationship to the law. It's a big topic so I'm not going to go into it just now, but it is addressed at length in the Bible.
There aren't any contradictions, although there are a few minor inconsistencies in names and numbers which may have been the result of transcriptional errors.
Then I'm at a loss to explain why you're taking issue with slavery in the Bible, which is an ancient book.
Like anything it would depend on the specific circumstances. The Bible condemns most facets of slavery of the sort that was found in America. On the other hand, there was no way for a slave to support himself while the institution was in effect, and a Christian slave-owner would have provided for his slaves and treated them as family.
Much ado about nothing. Mary was a virgin and God provided the Y chromosome. This is trivial and should be obvious. Chromosomes are just a particular arrangment of atoms, which are abundantly available. God wouldn't even have had to create ex nihilo, if He didn't want to. Or, if He wanted to, He could have. It really doesn't matter.
R
Not if you're incapable of following what's being said. That would be a huge waste of my time. Pearls before swine, and all.
Look, understanding concepts does not require faith of ANY KIND. All you need is a brain capable of understanding concepts and following logic and reason.
Putting faith in God is another thing all together.
You said there is a Biblical contradiction regarding law, but you haven't proven it or explained it, even. Simply stated it exists. Make your case, friend.
Look, understanding concepts does not require faith of ANY KIND. All you need is a brain capable of understanding concepts and following logic and reason.
Putting faith in God is another thing all together.
You said there is a Biblical contradiction regarding law, but you haven't proven it or explained it, even. Simply stated it exists. Make your case, friend.
R
Well, the way I see it, the only thing that is objective is reality. Our perception of it is subjective, but scientists try to remove as much subjectivity as possible. Example, both gravity and evolution are a fact, they happen. That is objective. Our understanding of them, via the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution, is subjective, and subject to change if ever we gain new knowledge. No matter how much knowledge we gain or lose though, it has no effect on the objectivity of the real phenomenon itself (ie our understanding of gravity has no effect on the properties of gravity)
I'd just like to know your opinion on this, because it's not often that I come across a nihilist I've been told I'm sort of existentialist anti-nihilist (really not sure about that, but it seems to fit), I think, meaning for me there is no objective meaning to life and we make up our own meaning and our own purpose as we go along.
I'd just like to know your opinion on this, because it's not often that I come across a nihilist
I've been told I'm sort of existentialist anti-nihilist (really not sure about that, but it seems to fit), I think, meaning for me there is no objective meaning to life and we make up our own meaning and our own purpose as we go along.
We have a much different way of perceiving time in comparison to that of other organisms. We also have a different way of perceiving the universe all together, thus making (what we perceive as) reality subjective in comparison to that of the universe. So... we can't truly know anything. We just go by what our senses tell us.
What I just described to you could be considered epistemological nihilism... a form of nihilism that I'm a bit weary about. Feel free to challenge that theory because I'm not quite sure about it myself.
On another note... existential nihilism is, yes, what you described: there is no objective meaning of life. I've heard the term "anti-nihilist" used several times in a book I'm reading, but I'm not entire sure what that is. As for myself... I am an existential, moral, and political nihilist... all falling under passive nihilism (which means I accept society for what it is and have no desire to attempt to change it).