Counter-Apologetics

I dont count the OT God. People simply wrote about Him and filled in their own thoughts in His words. Jesus is more reliable...apart from tipping over a few tables and killing a tree, He showed little in the way of instability.

Not true. He spoke of sending the goats to everlasting fire. And Revelation has its share of death, doom and destruction too. The God of the WHOLE Bible has a pretty consistent violent nature. Discounting the Old Testament just won't fly.

quote:

---

Focusing on option 3, how I interpret it is that both materialism(cosmos) and spirit(gods of one type or another) exist. It is, of course, a belief in which we have no evidence for. Thus we can choose to consider it or we can choose option A.

---

I interpret it as trying to construct an argument to get to where they want to without caring about whether it makes sense. I don’t think any of the options are worldviews because all of them allow a range of beliefs on at least one of the four issues.

quote:

---

If we choose C, we then would go on to define which "God" we were talking about. Tangle limits everything to the book itself...whereas believers have described a more detailed God based on their beliefs(imaginations). So to start with, in matters of belief...why limit a character to a book? If the character being discussed is a Deity, would it not make sense that the character was larger than the book itself?

---

That’s a tangent to our discussion. If you go with Sola Scriptura and Biblical Inerrancy I think that you would have to agree with Tangle. GDR at least rejects parts of the Bible as racist propaganda (even if he wouldn’t describe it that way). So I think it comes down to theology.

And everything time you want to check a point you have to find it in the video again. For discussions like this, text is just way more efficient.

The goats need to be burned up. It's like the human body and autophagy. Inefficient, diseased and weak cells get consumed and remade into healthy cells. Goats are a hindrance to human progression. Even if I were a goat, I would agree that I needed to get eliminated.Now...to be specific...it is horrendous behavior was it the Nazis, for example. They had no right to judge which people were chosen and which were disposable. I would argue, however, that God not only has a right to autophage the inefficient humans, but He knows that it will lead to better people for His purpose in the future. you don't trust Him, so I can see your counter-arguments. And to be specific...people...humans themselves should never determine that they are acting on behalf of God. We need to focus on loving and helping each other more. Let God take care of the goats His own way and in His own time.

You're missing the point: The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament. You have no rationale for accepting the New and rejecting the Old.

Not really. Jesus represents God in the NT. Jesus is hardly like Jehovah.Without Jesus, there would be no NT. Furthermore, the OT God never speaks in the NT except to say "this is my beloved son of whom I am well pleased. Hardly sounds like the vengeful OT god.

As I pointed out, He is the same. He talked about sending the goats to everlasting fire.

OK, let's say that He did. You hardly have legal credentials to represent the goats, do you? What will you argue before the Court?

Besides, I know your legal strategy! You will argue that both the OT God and Jesus are fictional. You were taught too much science and logic in your legal training and not enough respect for a Creator. Even some scientists have such respect.Note: Can A Scientist Believe in The resurrection?

quote:

---

Today’s widespread materialist view that events contrary to the laws of science just can’t happen is a metaphysical doctrine, not a scientific fact. What’s more, the doctrine that the laws of nature are inviolable is not necessary for science to function. Science offers natural explanations of natural events. It has no power or need to assert that only natural events happen.

---

Counselor? Your Client

What do legal credentials and courts have to do with anything? It doesn't matter whether or not the goats and the Flood victims "deserved" to be punished. The point is that the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament have exactly the same approach - genocide.

It... has... nothing... to... do... with... legality.It's about comparing oranges to oranges. The Old Testament orange is the same as the New Testament orange. It doesn't matter whether they are real or fictional. It doesn't matter how much respect one has for Loki or Quezalquatl. It doesn't matter whether scientists believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.The fact is that the God of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament are equally bloodthirsty - according to the ONLY source of information you have. Your "loving" God is made up.

I'll bet you have! Even though I always get it wrong, I'm still gonna try and figure you out.You first went off the rails when you logically deduced that science determines reality. Granted you challenge everything, but you somehow decided to challenge/question God. What you found became your new belief. You cannot claim that you are forced to go where the evidence leads you, for you have rejected belief. You have even said that belief should be a last resort. Sometimes it is fun to argue with you as there is an undercurrent of humor and clever quips and comebacks. You are usually a very worthy opponent. After reading your last final insistence that your argument is sound, however, i am feeling as if you will never change it no matter how much I send back at you. Thus I am forced to concede your argument that we are the only ones who can pick up the duty that God won't do for us...but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. If you ever became a traveling counter-apologist, you likely would be faced with hostile audiences in the churches you spoke at...but your basic challenge would be for the congregation to throw away their preconceived beliefs and ideas and simply go feed people and hand out spare change etc. They would likely hate you for it. I don't hate you by any means...I've accepted your argument regarding the value of the message and the duty of all of humanity to provide for each other. If God actually sent you out with that message, the only possible reason he would do it is to take the crutch away from the Christians.It seems odd for someone to preach a message that God was literary fiction, Jesus was embellished, both were bloodthirsty according to the books, and that we are expected to do it ourselves!You and jar are very similar. Tangle, on the other hand, is prematurely conclusive. One cannot assume that everything is simply fiction just because they have never had reason to think otherwise. (apart from his insistence that he once believed it all.)

Tell me, when you say apart from his insistence that he once believed it all. are you saying that I'm lying? Or do you think that my belief was inferior to yours?And what exactly is this supposed to mean One cannot assume that everything is simply fiction just because they have never had reason to think otherwise. ?Serious question.

It means you would have had a good reason to think or believe otherwise. Examples of this would include subjective corroborations, answered prayers of a major life-changing degree, experiences such as I had regarding unexplained voices coming out of someone 3 feet in front of me, coupled at that same moment with my armhair literally standing on end and an electrical feeling in the air.In other words, once someone has adequate subjective "evidence" or experience that rules out fiction, they won't stop believing.Finally, I think too many people read too many reports from critics who persuade them to logically stop believing. You may claim that dogmatic propoganda is harmful, but I would claim the same for its atheistic counterpart.