Civilized Bible debate.

[iggymatrixcounter]

I Haven’t seen a good CT topic debate going on in awhile… so I’m going to make everyone feel uncomfortable by talking about one of the most controversial subjects you can talk about; The Bible.

Now before this gets locks I want to make it clear to everyone that any huge literary piece gets dissected and analyzed. That is essentially what I want to do in this thread. So in order for anyone to make a valid point about anything further you must cite a scriptural reference or any point you make will be invalid. (I’ve found that most Christians suck at doing this but those who claim to be non Christian know more about texts than those who claim to be. Prove me wrong f you can XD. )

This will be a series of topics that I will bring up, I will bring up a new subject every once in awhile because let’s face it, in every debate people repeat themselves multiple times and it gets annoying. So if I feel that the debate is looping I will change the subject (look at the first page to see what is the active topic.)

The topics will be all over the place. I will try to stay away from religious beliefs as much as possible, but by referring to texts for every argument, you shouldn’t get into the normal flame war that persists in similar topics.

We are NOT discussing whose religion is better, but rather what can be proved/disproved by biblical text. If you make a comment that Jesus dies on a cross… prove it. Assume that no one knows anything and that you have to explain every detail of your post.

Remember! If you don’t have a scripture that can back up your point, IT WILL NOT COUNT!!!




So those are the general guidelines. Like I’ve said, I find that people who claim to have no religion have a better understanding of the Bible than most people who claim to belong to a church or whatnot. I will try not to make these topics too in depth because I want to be able to jump around and I don't want pages of the same opinion to be said over and over.

My first topic will be death.

-What happens after you die?

Second topic, what will happen to the earth in the future?

Current topic: The earth

(Before I post my reasoning I will let others bring up their arguments first.)

[Afrobean]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

Nothing about religion can be argued in any way. People who have faith have the mindset of "it doesn't matter what anyone says because I have faith" and people who don't believe are just as closed minded in their "The bible is fiction and is not meant to be taken literally."

In short, there's no debating, really. It's just religious people saying "The bible says Jesus was resurrected" and atheists saying "that's not physically possible."

If you simply want to discuss elements of the bible and possible interpretations of it, I'd suggest taking a thread to a religious forum. These forums tend to have a lot of opinionated atheists.

Now in response to your topic:

Your body decomposes in the ground or you are burned and your ashes are stored in an urn or scattered in some kind of ceremony.

That is the only thing which is known for sure. Debating any further happenings involving an afterlife will gain us nothing because there is not one completely reliable source of unbiased information. Everything anyone will say will be their personal thoughts on what happens or what their religion dictates happens with no proof or way to argue it.

what can be proved/disproved by biblical text.

No offense to people who believe it, but nothing can be proven using a book which is not accepted by all as scientific truth.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

I'm afraid I don't fully understand.

Are you saying that you want us to prove what happens after death by using only the Bible as a source, leaving science and anything else at the doorstep?

If so, then isn't Afro's post completely worthless to what you're trying to do?

This is fair, as it restricts not only our knowledge but our focus, too, but it's also kind of daunting a task to rifle through the entire Bible to see what it says about whatever subject and where, no?

Correct me if I misunderstood, though.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

In short, there's no debating, really. It's just religious people saying "The bible says Jesus was resurrected" and atheists saying "that's not physically possible."

True but there are 8 other accounts of people being ressurected in the Bible, did they have anything to say about what the afterlife was?

If you simply want to discuss elements of the bible and possible interpretations of it, I'd suggest taking a thread to a religious forum. These forums tend to have a lot of opinionated atheists.

True but like I said, I've met more atheists that know more about the Bible than most Christians, I just want to see what people know.

Everything anyone will say will be their personal thoughts on what happens or what their religion dictates happens with no proof or way to argue it.

No no, I don't want what your personal thoughts are, think of it as just what the Bible says on the subject. Personal thoughts = flame debates. References with facts = real debates

No offense to people who believe it, but nothing can be proven using a book which is not accepted by all as scientific truth.

Are you saying that the Bible and science are different? If that is what you're saying, I ask you to prove where the Bible and science differ.

Are you saying that you want us to prove what happens after death by using only the Bible as a source, leaving science and anything else at the doorstep?

Ultimately what you believe is what you believe. As far as science and the Bible, I've never seen a case where they are different from each other.

It's like a debate you would have in class, I remember discussing symbolism in a stupid book and I didn't believe in what it was saying but that's what the author's message was.

Think of it as trying to prove what the author's view on the subject is rather than your own. Prove to me something that it says, if it's what you believe then fine, if it isn't that's also fine.

If so, then isn't Afro's post completely worthless to what you're trying to do?

Kind of, his point has a scriptural back up. But he doesn't know where it is. (Or at least didn't post it)

This is fair, as it restricts not only our knowledge but our focus, too, but it's also kind of daunting a task to rifle through the entire Bible to see what it says about whatever subject and where, no?

Correct me if I misunderstood, though.

I'm not asking for your beliefs. That's how flame wars start. Just asking what a piece of literature says on the subject. You've done similar things with Greek mythology, and Shakesphere*(sp).... do the same with the Bible. If you can prove what you believe through the Bible, do it. But don't think I'm asking what you believe on the subject. There's a thread already existing about death, I would just read that if I wanted to know what people felt about it. In this thread I want to show me/ discuss what someone else (the Bible's author) feels about it.

[sjoecool1991]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

I have a shred of proof that at least some of the bible is true.

It is scientific fact that the earth's magnetic field has been reversed at least one time, and only a disaster of immense preportions can cause this. The proof that the magnetic field reversed is that a group of geologists found a huge magnetic rock that was pointing south, and all magnetic raock found before that were all pointing north, these rocks basically work the same way as a compass.

It is not pure chance that the date of this reversing was traced back to nearly the exact date of the flood in the bible. And this flood also caused fossiles of fish on the peak of some mountains in the himalayas.

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

Anything historical from the Bible is true. ANY research on ANY historical occurances in the Bible can be matched with history books, archeology, etc. There have even been instances where history was wrong but the Bible was right, then later on stuff was found or whatever that made the Bible account right.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

It is scientific fact that the earth's magnetic field has been reversed at least one time, and only a disaster of immense preportions can cause this

No, Earth's magnetic fields reverse quite regularly. Average period is about a quarter million years, and the last time it changed was WELL over six thousand years ago, if you want to go that route. It is a natural occurrance that very doubtfully correlates with external influences, and I would wager MOST CERTAINLY does not correlate with internal occurances. If anything, a major event would happen as a result of a magnetic shift.

Even if there was concordance with an immense disaster, that still proves nothing more than mere coincidence.

It is not pure chance that the date of this reversing was traced back to nearly the exact date of the flood in the bible.

Oh, really? What's the exact date of the flood? You don't know because it can't be calculated exactly. Either because it didn't happen or because geologic dating isn't the most precise of sciences. On top of that, did the flood occur SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND YEARS AGO?! Because that's when the last reversal was.

And this flood also caused fossiles of fish on the peak of some mountains in the himalayas.

Or it could have been that the Himilayas were once ocean-front property, before the Indian subcontinent crashed into Asia and forced them upward.

Nice try, sjoecool, but you really need to reevaluate your definition of proof.

Anything historical from the Bible is true. ANY research on ANY historical occurances in the Bible can be matched with history books, archeology, etc.

Well, if it's true, show me your proof for the existence of Noah's Ark, Methuselah living to be near a thousand years old, the earth being created twice, in different sequences, talking shrubberies. Hell, let's make it easy on you. Show me proof of Jesus' existence. The fact is that there is zero or very little circumstantial evidence for these things, nowhere near an amount required to prove something.

There have even been instances where history was wrong but the Bible was right, then later on stuff was found or whatever that made the Bible account right.

Do tell. No, really, tell.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Afrobean]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

There are a large amount of factual historical things in the bible. We know that they are factually historical because of secular information from the time backing it up.

Regarding this flood thing: I've heard from many different sources that many of the religions of the area have a flood story of some kind that actually have common elements. It's not unlikely that there was really a flood, or that there were heroic survivors. It's really more of the whole Noah living the amount of time that would easily kill a man, even in these days of better living standards, and the personal saving of animals in order to preserve them for after the flood.

Anyway, I really just don't like the idea of providing Bible information as though it's proving something. It seems others would agree that it's not a good idea.

ANY research on ANY historical occurances in the Bible can be matched with history books, archeology, etc.

This is not true by any means. Yes, there are MANY historically supported events in the bible, but there are some which cannot be proven historically, by any means. I recall hearing a while back in a show on the History channel about Moses that there is no secular media supporting the idea that Jews were slaves to the Egyptians.

There have even been instances where history was wrong but the Bible was right, then later on stuff was found or whatever that made the Bible account right.

Haha. And what of the the instances where the Bible was wrong and science was right, then later on stuff was found or whatever that proved science to be right? If you think in terms like that, you're just brought back around to the "I believe it, so it's true" mentality. Really, if a person has faith in their religion, historical proof means nothing to them. Anyway, I can't think of a single instance where historical records said one thing and the bible said something different, only to later discover somehow more accurate historical documents later that support the Bible's story on it.

EDIT: oh. Guido handled a response to Iggy's post quite well... probably better than mine. I should read posts more completely before responding to interesting posts. Oh well. Doesn't really matter.

[-Izzy-]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

Guido edit: No, YOU haven't learned to quit trolling in CT with your religious bigotry.

Why does he want us to try and prove what happens after death only using the bible. Cause that only points to one side and then everyone just agrees with eachother and there is no point to the whole idea. But yea, there is no proof of what happens after death in the bible because there is just no proof in the bible of anything. And if it says some people were resurected then obviously the bible is wrong because you cant be resurected. I'm glad common sense is finally taking over in our world.

[sjoecool1991]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

Well, I'm not really that great at debates, because I got a really bad grade on a formal debate in school.
But I do know one man who could easily blow you all away with his debating, no matter what you say against he always somehow comes up with something prefectly logical to say back to you.

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

Oh, really? What's the exact date of the flood? You don't know because it can't be calculated exactly.

2370 B.C. Very long and drawn out how you get there, but you basically start with a date mentioned in the Bible, match it to history and keep dropping back years of timeperiods that occured. (607 BC was the fall of Jerusalem and then you go back from there)

Anything historical from the Bible is true. ANY research on ANY historical occurances in the Bible can be matched with history books, archeology, etc. There have even been instances where history was wrong but the Bible was right, then later on stuff was found or whatever that made the Bible account right.

You guys are right, not everything can be proven right. But nothing can be proven wrong either. I should have worded that better.

Haha. And what of the the instances where the Bible was wrong and science was right, then later on stuff was found or whatever that proved science to be right?

I'm not aware of such instances, if you could bring one up that would be helpful.

Course I see where my error was in the first place. See I thought this would have been a debate like one similar to something you had/have in English class where you discuss a book and its symbolism or its themes or whatnot. Course you can't expect to just use information from one source and need to refer to many sources.

Go ahead and lock this whatever mod sees this first, too lazy to find one atm but I'm sure it's being watched anyways.

[Reach]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

http://ffrf.org/quiz/scripts/bquiz_results.php greatest bible information ever.

The flood? 2370 BC you say? Nonsense! Egyptian historical documents date back to atleast 3000 BC. There is no documented flood, therefor, if there was one it was not worldwide, because there was no worldwide flood and the egyptians were not wiped out in 2370 BC.

Now from this we do have one fact. That is, the bible is not to be taken seriously under most accounts. Hell, according to the bible men should not have long hair...*points to pictures of jesus*

I would assume the bible says you go to heaven when you die or go to hell if you have sinned and not confessed or something along those lines XD

[Afrobean]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

I'm not aware of such instances, if you could bring one up that would be helpful.

resurrection, living for hundreds of years, global flooding, etc.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

Why does he want us to try and prove what happens after death only using the bible.

Who cares? It makes for an interesting thread.

But yea, there is no proof of what happens after death in the bible because there is just no proof in the bible of anything.

Way to miss the entire point of the thread.

You guys are right, not everything can be proven right. But nothing can be proven wrong either.

The onus is on the side making the fantastic claims to prove them.

Course I see where my error was in the first place. See I thought this would have been a debate like one similar to something you had/have in English class where you discuss a book and its symbolism or its themes or whatnot. Course you can't expect to just use information from one source and need to refer to many sources.

Go ahead and lock this whatever mod sees this first, too lazy to find one atm but I'm sure it's being watched anyways.

Well, first of all, you really didn't ask to criticize the Bible in the literary sense, you asked to argue certain points using the Bible as really the only source. This is a perfectly fine venture, but as I stated earlier, a bit daunting and quite possibly a bit difficult.

The thread veered off course with sjoecool's first post, but then you ran with it, so the derailment is partially your fault =). If you want me to lock it so that you can try again or something, just give the word (which, admittedly, you already did), but if you want to keep going as it is, that's cool, too.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Civilized Bible debate.

Well how about we go to something that is a little less controversial. If the topic veers off this time you have my permission to lock it.

Death is discussed in the Bible but surprisingly the dead are just dead, they don't go on to an afterlife. They simply cease to exist. (Ecc. 9:5,10)

Another example I've always thought of was if people went to Heaven after they died, then when the Bible mentions people being resurrected why is that a favor? They would have been in heaven with a perfect body (sort to speak) and now they are back as a fleshly human. I always think of when Jesus resurected Lazarus. Why did he do that if Lazarus went to heaven?

Anyways that was the direction I thought the thread would go. Not proving the Bible against science and whatnot because that is inconclusive and starts flame wars. I wanted to debate the Bible within itself. Find flaws within itself. People SAY you go to heaven when you die but there are other verses/ examples (like the ones I just mentioned) that can prove otherwise.

But enough of death XD. Try this topic, it may be less controversial:

What will happen to the earth in the future?