Interesting letter

[Zzyzx]

.
This letter appeared on the Internet.

On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman,

Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)

Comments anyone?

[OpenYourEyes]

I was referring to reasons and beliefs that Christians have and that have not been disproven or contradicted.

Is this to say that beliefs, no matter how illogical, should be maintained unless they have be disproved or contradicted by others?

I wouldn't say that believing in God is illogical but rather some aspects of his nature are hard to understand, like the Trinity for instance. I can't speak for all god beliefs but my belief in God is in part based on experience so it's not just simply word-of-mouth or folklore like say leprechaun stories. I can also build a cumulative case for God as being the best explanation for a whole host of things in the world, whereas leprechauns aren't needed nor experienced as such.

At this point bringing up objections would only lead to the Christian seeing that there are some reasons on both sides of the debate.

Exactly. An astute Believer can then give serious consideration to the merits of what is presented pro and con. I trust that happens with readers of our threads (more so perhaps than debaters who are heavily emotionally committed to their beliefs).

Very few arguments target core Christian beliefs. Because with me, the secondary facts aren't as important, but the essential facts, like Jesus' life, message, and resurrection, and my perceived experience (through relationship, answered prayers, etc) with him, I find to be genuine. Science and philosophy tends to attack the secondary facts, when did the Israeli exiles happened, dates, times, etc. Not sure if you're saying that I should give up all of the belief just because there are good objections to the secondary facts.

In general, if I don't find something to be completely false, I don't reject it completely. Although in the case of the Bible, a lot of what people call false is just simple ignorance of the Bible so with me, it's not a matter of clinging on to whats true but rather, I just look for answers to objections or whatever I don't understand. I don't have all the answers but neither will atheism provide all the answers!

But as I mentioned before, it is becoming increasingly harder to take biblical objections as being a big or genuine problem given that there are so many explanations that refute many objections.

Refuting objections doesn't seem to fare very well in these debates where religion isn't given preferential treatment and where its company literature isn't accepted as authoritative or proof of truth.

However, refuting objections may seem convincing in church and in environments where opposition views are absent.

I have to disagree with you here and the first post you opened this thread with is the main reason why. Many people tend to be very ignorant of real explanations for objections or of the dedicated field that defends Christianity.

All people gotta do is research and educate themselves!

The more people become educated the less religious they tend to be in general.

I hear that a lot when for people who go into the sciences, but in my view, the problem is a lack of education when it comes to natural theology (or philosophy of religion) and Christian apolegetics. I say this because of the type of objections I hear from the crowd you're speaking of.

[Zzyzx]

.

I was referring to reasons and beliefs that Christians have and that have not been disproven or contradicted.

Is this to say that beliefs, no matter how illogical, should be maintained unless they have be disproved or contradicted by others?

I wouldn't say that believing in God is illogical but rather some aspects of his nature are hard to understand, like the Trinity for instance.

Should beliefs be maintained unless they have been disproved or contradicted by others?

I can't speak for all god beliefs but my belief in God is in part based on experience so it's not just simply word-of-mouth or folklore like say leprechaun stories.

If Leprechaun Believers claim to have experience is that adequate grounds for believing that the tales are more than folklore and word-of-mouth stories?

I can also build a cumulative case for God as being the best explanation for a whole host of things in the world, whereas leprechauns aren't needed nor experienced as such.

It is unfortunate that no Leprechaun Believers debate here. They could probably “build a cumulative case� for Leprechauns being the best explanation . . . .

At this point bringing up objections would only lead to the Christian seeing that there are some reasons on both sides of the debate.

Exactly. An astute Believer can then give serious consideration to the merits of what is presented pro and con. I trust that happens with readers of our threads (more so perhaps than debaters who are heavily emotionally committed to their beliefs).

Very few arguments target core Christian beliefs.

Kindly list “core Christian beliefs� that have not been debated or challenged here. At the end of this post I have quoted Christian sources what identify core beliefs.

We can start a thread on any of the core beliefs. Feel free to identify items listed by Christian sources as core beliefs that are NOT core beliefs (preferably in a separate thread).

Because with me, the secondary facts aren't as important, but the essential facts, like Jesus' life, message, and resurrection,

The “resurrection� has been debated many times. The story has been told and the Bible has been cited. However, no evidence has been brought forward to assure that any such thing actually, literally happened in the real world.

and my perceived experience (through relationship, answered prayers, etc) with him, I find to be genuine.

One's personal “perceived experience� is nothing more than an unsupported testimonial that has no merit in debate.

Science and philosophy tends to attack the secondary facts, when did the Israeli exiles happened, dates, times, etc.

Science doesn't attack anything. It studies nature in an attempt to discover what is, what happens and what causes which.

Some of us who are scientifically inclined and/or trained attack claims of knowledge that contradict what is known of the real world.

Not sure if you're saying that I should give up all of the belief just because there are good objections to the secondary facts.

I NEVER suggest that anyone give up their beliefs. What others believe is none of my business AND I realize that many people NEED their religious beliefs to cope with life or conditions – and to give them “hope�. Perhaps they would be a “basket case� without their religious beliefs.

In general, if I don't find something to be completely false, I don't reject it completely.

If I find a source contains errors I consider it questionable. If there are multiple errors, inconsistencies, contradictions, unsupportable claims, I regard it as very unreliable – and seek more appropriate sources of information.

Of course, I differ with many Theists in that I am not emotionally committed to or invested in ANY source.

Although in the case of the Bible, a lot of what people call false is just simple ignorance of the Bible so with me, it's not a matter of clinging on to whats true but rather, I just look for answers to objections or whatever I don't understand.

Notice that many who debate here as Non-Theists / Atheists / Agnostics / Ignostics are NOT ignorant of the Bible. In many cases they display knowledge of the Bible that puts Christians to shame. Several strong Non-Theistic debaters were formerly devout Christians for decades and some planned to (or did) attend divinity school.

Knowledge of the Bible often leads people AWAY from Christianity. See www.clergyproject.org

I don't have all the answers but neither will atheism provide all the answers!

Atheism – “I do not believe in gods� does not purport to or pretend to supply answers.

Theism does claim to have answers – but seems unable to substantiate those claims.

Search for truthful answers should be INDEPENDENT of theistic position.

But as I mentioned before, it is becoming increasingly harder to take biblical objections as being a big or genuine problem given that there are so many explanations that refute many objections.

Refuting objections doesn't seem to fare very well in these debates where religion isn't given preferential treatment and where its company literature isn't accepted as authoritative or proof of truth.

However, refuting objections may seem convincing in church and in environments where opposition views are absent.

I have to disagree with you here and the first post you opened this thread with is the main reason why. Many people tend to be very ignorant of real explanations for objections or of the dedicated field that defends Christianity.

Are there some examples of Christian debaters here effectively “refuting objections�?

Attempts are often made to “explain��what the Bible really means� (very different from what it actually says); to wander about discussing origin of the universe / beginning of life / infinite regression / etc; to throw out word salads or other diversionary tactics. Perhaps such things seem to “refute objections� if one is an Apologist. However, not all who debate or read here are impressed.

All people gotta do is research and educate themselves!

The more people become educated the less religious they tend to be in general.

I hear that a lot when for people who go into the sciences, but in my view, the problem is a lack of education when it comes to natural theology (or philosophy of religion) and Christian apolegetics. I say this because of the type of objections I hear from the crowd you're speaking of.

Education encompasses far more than “natural theology, philosophy of religion, and Christian Apologetics�.

A major aspect of education is development of ability in critical / analytical thinking (the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action). http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/d ... inking/766


Core beliefs identified by Christian sources

Core Christian Beliefs
The following are beliefs central to almost all Christian faith groups. They are presented here as the core doctrines of Christianity. A small number of faith groups who consider themselves to be within the framework of Christianity, do not accept some of these beliefs. It should also be understood that slight variances, exceptions, and additions to these doctrines exist within certain faith groups that fall under the broad umbrella of Christianity.

There is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8; John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:5-6; Galatians 4:8-9).
God is three in one or a Trinity (Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; John 14:16-17; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Acts 2:32-33, John 10:30,17:11, 21; 1 Peter 1:2).
God is omniscient or "knows all things" (Acts 15:18; 1 John 3:20).
God is omnipotent or "all powerful" (Psalm 115:3; Revelation 19:6).
God is omnipresent or "present everywhere" (Jeremiah 23:23, 24; Psalm 139).
God is sovereign (Zechariah 9:14; 1 Timothy 6:15-16).
God is holy (1 Peter 1:15).
God is just or "righteous" (Psalm 19:9, 116:5, 145:17; Jeremiah 12:1).
God is love (1 John 4:8).
God is true (Romans 3:4; John 14:6).
God is spirit (John 4:24).
God is the creator of everything that exists (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 44:24).
God is infinite and eternal. He has always been God (Psalm 90:2; Genesis 21:33; Acts 17:24).
God is immutable. He does not change (James 1:17; Malachi 3:6; Isaiah 46:9-10).
The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 2:11-12; 2 Corinthians 13:14).
Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1, 14, 10:30-33, 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 1:8).
Jesus became a man (Philippians 2:1-11).
Jesus is fully God and fully man (Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 4:15; 2 Corinthians 5:21).
Jesus was sinless (1 Peter 2:22; Hebrews 4:15).
Jesus is the only way to God the Father (John 14:6; Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22).
Humans were created by God in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).
All people have sinned (Romans 3:23, 5:12).
Death came into the world through Adam's sin (Romans 5:12-15).
Sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2).
Jesus died for the sins of each and every person in the world (1 John 2:2; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Peter 2:24).
Jesus' death was a substitutionary sacrifice. He died and paid the price for our sins so that we might live. (1 Peter 2:24; Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45).
Jesus resurrected from the dead in physical form (John 2:19-21).
Salvation is a free gift of God (Romans 4:5, 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9; 1 John 1:8-10).
The Bible is the "inspired" or "God-breathed," Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).
Those who reject Jesus Christ will go to hell forever after they die (Revelation 20:11-15, 21:8).
Those who accept Jesus Christ will live for eternity with him after they die (John 11:25, 26; 2 Corinthians 5:6).
Hell is a place of punishment (Matthew 25:41, 46; Revelation 19:20).
Hell is eternal (Matthew 25:46).
There will be a rapture of the church (Matthew 24:30-36, 40-41; John 14:1-3; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12).
Jesus will return to the earth (Acts 1:11).
Christians will be raised from the dead when Jesus returns (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17).
There will be a final judgment (Hebrews 9:27; 2 Peter 3:7).
Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).
God will create a new heaven and a new earth (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1).
http://christianity.about.com/od/christ ... trines.htm

There are many great teachings in the Bible, but here are 10 of the most important, or fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith. Within each of these broad categories there are many other doctrines that could fill whole books and bookshelves. This is just a quick overview of what Christians believe.
God

Theology is the study of God. This includes who He is in person and personality. This is an absolutely fundamental belief of Christianity.

In the pages of the Bible it is taken for granted by the writers that God does exist. The Bible opens with the words that God created the Heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). He is the creator, or source, of all life (John 5:26). Nature teaches us that there is a Creator and we have within us a basic understanding of a higher power (Romans 1:18-21, 28, 32).

God is a Spirit (John 4:21-24). He does not want to be worshiped through graven images or idols because He does not have a form as we know it (Exodus 20:4, 5). Though a spirit, He has personality as denoted by the names He has been given or claims of Himself (Genesis 22:13, 14; Exodus 3:14; 15:26; 17:8-15; Judges 6:24; Psalm 23:1). Though existing in three persons (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) He is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 44:6-8; 45:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4).

God knows all (Job 11:7, 8; Psalm 139; 1 John 3:20). He is all powerful (Genesis 18:4; Job 42:2). He is present everywhere at the same time (Psalm 139; Jeremiah 23:23, 24). God is eternal and unchangeable (Psalm 102:24-27; Habakkuk 1:12; Revelation 1:18). He is holy (Isaiah 57:15; 1 Peter 1:15, 16). He is righteous and just, yet merciful and gracious (Psalm 103:8; 116:5; 147:17; Romans 5:8; Ephesians 2:4, 8; 1 John 1:9). And God is love (John 3:16; 1 John 3:16; 4:8-16).

Basic Christian Beliefs

It is wonderful to know that God communicates to us through His Word so that we can know about Him and His plan
Christ

Christology is the study of Christ. Christianity would not be what it is if there was not a risen Savior, who was the promised redeemer (Genesis 3:15).

Though Jesus was the Son of God (Matthew 8:29; John 1:18; 3:16; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8), He was also born to human parents (Matthew 1:18; John 1:14; Romans 1:3; Galatians 4:4). Jesus had a physical body that grew and had normal physical needs (Matthew 4:2; Luke 2:40-50; 24:39; John 4:6; Hebrews 2:14).

Jesus died on a cross as the substitute for the sins of mankind (1 Corinthians 15:1-3; Revelation 5:8-12). He rose bodily the third day after His death (Matthew 17:23; 28:5, 6; John 2:20-22). He ascended to Heaven to God (Acts 1:3-11; Ephesians 1:20, 21; Hebrews 1:3).
Holy Spirit

Pneumatology is the study, or doctrine, of the Holy Spirit. Though a Spirit, He too has personality like God the Father (John 14:16; 16:7, 8, 13-15). He is referred to in many of the same passages as the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). The Holy Spirit is who indwells believers (1 Corinthians 6:9) and convicts them of sin (John 16:8-11). By the Spirit we are born again (John 3:3-5), renewed (Titus 3:5) and sealed unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13, 14; 4:30).
Bible

When studying the Bible (Bibliology) Christians believe it is inspired by God. That means it is breathed out from Him (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). We learn about God and understand God through the Scriptures (Matthew 16:17; 1 Corinthians 2:14).
Man

Anthropology (the study of man) in a Christian perspective deals with the nature and origin of man. Where man came from and why.

First of all, Christians believe that man is made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26; 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; Colossians 3:10; James 3:9). Though created by God (Genesis 1, 2) man did not always obey God (Genesis 3). We call this the fall of man. Because of man’s fall, sin was introduced into the world and the result is a finite physical life (Romans 5:12).
Salvation

The study of salvation is called Soteriology. This is an area of Christian teaching that has many different aspects. These include the purpose of salvation, the method of salvation and the means of salvation just to name a few.

The purpose of salvation can be summed up with the words regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification. Regeneration is to be made new in Christ (John 3:5; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:1-10; Titus 3:5). Justification is where we are made right and just before God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Deuteronomy 25:1; Romans 4:2-8; 8:1). We are sanctified (made holy or set apart) through salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:10, 14). Ultimately we will be glorified in Heaven as a result of our salvation (1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 John 3:2).
Church

God has established a few institutions in this world. One of them is the church. The study of the doctrine of the church is called Ecclesiology. This word comes from the Greek word that means “to call out from.� It could be said that the church is a congregation of believers called out from the world.

Jesus’ death was for the establishment of the church (Ephesians 5:25). The first church was in Jerusalem. Other congregations were established in various places. This started in Judea and Samaria (Acts 1, 2). Throughout the book of Acts there is a spreading of the Gospel and a constant establishment of churches. On a broad scale the church is the body of Christ made up of Christians (1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:2, 13). There is also the idea of a local church assembly where believers meet on a regular basis (Philippians 4:15; Colossians 4:16).

The purpose of the church is to worship God and bring glory to Him on the earth (Ephesians 1:4-6). It is to evangelize the world (Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 2; Ephesians 3;8) and help people to grow into mature Christians (Ephesians 4:11-15). Shunning the attendance of church leads to false doctrine (Hebrews 10:25-28).
Angels

Angels are beings created by God (Colossians 1:16) and are not the spirits of dead saints or simply glorified believers (Hebrews 12:22, 23). They are ministers of God (Psalm 104:4; Hebrews 1:14). Angels have great might and power (Psalm 103:20; 2 Peter 2:11). Their is a hierarchy of angels (1 Thessalonians 4:16; 1 Peter 3:22; Jude 9). There are some angels who have abandoned God (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6).

Satan is one of these fallen angels and is at war with God and His angelic host (Daniel 10: 12, 13; Jude 8, 9). He is called the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2), the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4), the wicked one (Matthew 13:19), the tempter (Matthew 4:3). He is an adversary to the Christian (1 Peter 5:8). His final judgment is to be cast into the lake of fire (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).
Future

Escatology is the study of the last things. While there is some controversy among Christians over the exact order of events, the general idea of things to come is that Christ will return to rapture the church and resurrect the dead believers (1 Corinthians 15; 1 and 2 Thessalonians; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 3:12). There will be judgment for the unsaved (Psalm 96:13; Acts 17:31; Hebrews 9:27). While the saved will be judged (1 Corinthians 3:8-16; 2 Corinthians 5:10), there will also be a time of reward for them (1 Corinthians 4:5).
Prayer

Though this is not a strictly Christian belief, prayer is vital to a Christian. So important that the Bible says that neglecting prayer grieves the Lord (1 Samuel 12:23; Isaiah 43:21, 22; 64:6,7). Prayer is the way God has ordained for us to communicate with Him (Matthew 7:7-11; Luke 11:13). It is so important the founders of the church sought help in the ministry so that they could dedicate their time to prayer (Acts 6:4).

Throughout the Bible prayer can be seen to take many forms. Moses talked with God in prayer more like a dialogue between two friends. In Joshua and Judges the Israelites often cried out to God. Samuel, and many other prophets prayed more in a manner of intercession (on behalf of others). David considered himself able to go to God in prayer on his own behalf instead of needing someone to pray for him. The book of Psalms is full of a crying out to God on a continual and consistent basis.

We can pray to God (Acts 12:5), to Christ (Acts 7:59) and to the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:15, 16). The normal pattern in prayer is that we pray to God through the Holy Spirit with the authority of Christ (John 14:14; Jude 20). There is no required position in prayer prescribed in the Bible. We can pray standing up (John 17:1), kneeling (Luke 22:41), prostrate (Matthew 26:39) or in bed (Psalm 63:6).

http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com ... n-beliefs/

[OpenYourEyes]

Should beliefs be maintained unless they have been disproved or contradicted by others?

When there's some basis for them beyond imagination, then I'd say yes. Granted that Christianity is a 'belief system', so my comment was to show that I can reject or suspend judgement or simply overlook individual components (beliefs) of the system without having to cast away the entire system.

If Leprechaun Believers claim to have experience is that adequate grounds for believing that the tales are more than folklore and word-of-mouth stories?

I'd say yes. But again what differentiates Christianity from Leprechaunism is that the concept of God has a much longer history, is more prevalent, and actually provides an rational explanation for a whole host of things in the physical universe, starting with the origin of the Universe.

It is unfortunate that no Leprechaun Believers debate here. They could probably “build a cumulative case� for Leprechauns being the best explanation . . . .

So you claim but not all explanations are created equal. The central figure in Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth, was indeed a real historical figure. Many historians have agreed or conceded to this. What have we for Leprechauns?

Kindly list “core Christian beliefs� that have not been debated or challenged here. At the end of this post I have quoted Christian sources what identify core beliefs.

We can start a thread on any of the core beliefs. Feel free to identify items listed by Christian sources as core beliefs that are NOT core beliefs (preferably in a separate thread).

Core Christian beliefs would be those beliefs that essentially define or describe Christianity. Core beliefs would be concepts like believing and following God's moral Law, believing and following Jesus Christ, salvation, repentance, etc.

The “resurrection� has been debated many times. The story has been told and the Bible has been cited. However, no evidence has been brought forward to assure that any such thing actually, literally happened in the real world.

Actually, Jesus' resurrection and some of the surrounding details fits the historical criteria, and therefore it likely did occur.

Haven't you being taking notes on Liamconner's insightful debates on this forum? WinePusher and Goose have done a good job, as well.

One's personal “perceived experience� is nothing more than an unsupported testimonial that has no merit in debate.

It depends on the matter being debated. Our legal system relies on testimony based on eyewitness accounts. History relies on a person's observation. If you tell me that I have "nothing" to go by then most certainly experience means more than just nothing unless proven false.

Notice that many who debate here as Non-Theists / Atheists / Agnostics / Ignostics are NOT ignorant of the Bible. In many cases they display knowledge of the Bible that puts Christians to shame. Several strong Non-Theistic debaters were formerly devout Christians for decades and some planned to (or did) attend divinity school.

Knowledge of the Bible often leads people AWAY from Christianity. See www.clergyproject.org

I also brought up philosophy and apologetics. My point was really about scientists (or skeptics, e.g. Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc) who tend to make comments about the Bible w/out having done any formal education or even real research on the biblical topic their commenting on. You can tell by the type of objections they raised which a lot of times are akin to people who've never actually studied the Bible. These scientists while knowledgeable in one field does not make them automatically knowledgeable or rational in other fields.

In fact, I even question if scientists understand where science comes from and its limits seeing that many of them lack knowledge on philosophy, leading some scientists to even proclaim that philosophy is dead.

[Zzyzx]

.

Should beliefs be maintained unless they have been disproved or contradicted by others?

When there's some basis for them beyond imagination, then I'd say yes. Granted that Christianity is a 'belief system', so my comment was to show that I can reject or suspend judgement or simply overlook individual components (beliefs) of the system without having to cast away the entire system.

That is a case of “Do It Yourself� (or “Pick and Choose�) Christianity wherein the individual or group chooses what parts of the Bible to follow and which to disregard. The 40,000 Christian denominations indicate the practice is widespread. Individuals debating their personal brand of Christianity here give further indication of DIY.

If Leprechaun Believers claim to have experience is that adequate grounds for believing that the tales are more than folklore and word-of-mouth stories?

I'd say yes. But again what differentiates Christianity from Leprechaunism is that the concept of God has a much longer history, is more prevalent, and actually provides an rational explanation for a whole host of things in the physical universe, starting with the origin of the Universe.

If longer history and “rational explanation� are criteria for believably, Judaism surpasses Christianity as do several other religions. Popularity (or prevalence) is argumentum ad populum (a logical fallacy).

It is unfortunate that no Leprechaun Believers debate here. They could probably “build a cumulative case� for Leprechauns being the best explanation . . . .

So you claim but not all explanations are created equal.

I have not taken a position regarding equality of explanations.

The central figure in Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth, was indeed a real historical figure. Many historians have agreed or conceded to this.

I agree that in all probability a Jesus-like wandering preacher lived 2000 years ago. So what?

Does that assure (or even indicate / suggest) that he was magical or supernatural or divine (or whatever is claimed)? Stories about his feats and conversations were not recorded until decades or generations and his “divinity� was not decided by Christendom until centuries later.

Although a basic agreement on Jesus' divinity was nearly universal in the early church, a precise definition of Christ's nature and his relationship to God was certainly not. A variety of explanations were offered in the first centuries after Christ, many of which were rejected sooner or later as heresies. It was in the time of Constantine that the coucil of Nicea was called to make a decision about a particularly popular theory called "Arianism." Arianism - not to be confused with the Nazi racial term "Aryan" - was a doctrine formulated by an Egyptian priest named Arius. Briefly, Arius maintained that Jesus was created by God at some point in the past and, while still divine, was subordinate to God his father. This view was eventually condemned by the council (in a nearly unanimous vote) in favor of the doctrine that Christ had always existed and was of the same essense as God himself. The "Nicene Creed," developed at this council, refutes Arianism in fairly strong terms and seems to be the first attempt to fix a single definition of Jesus' divinity that would be binding on all Christians. But debate about the nature of Jesus continued even after Nicea, and Arian Christianity was common for centuries afterward.

Later creeds developed the ideas from the Council of Nicea further into what is now known as the Trinity, the doctrine that God is one, yet manifest in three equal and co-eternal persons. While most modern Christians accept the doctrine of the Trinity, there are believers even today who seriously question its definitions and offer alternate explanations of Jesus' divine nature and relationship to God.
http://www.denverchristadelphians.org/d ... ivineP.htm

Notice that divinity was not and is not universally accepted in Christendom – AND that divinity was decided by VOTE.

What have we for Leprechauns?

I have no idea what, if anything, Leprechaun believers can produce as verifiable evidence – and exactly the same applies to tales about the feats and conversations attributed to Jesus.

The “resurrection� has been debated many times. The story has been told and the Bible has been cited. However, no evidence has been brought forward to assure that any such thing actually, literally happened in the real world.

Actually, Jesus' resurrection and some of the surrounding details fits the historical criteria, and therefore it likely did occur.

Kindly identify the historical evidence that supports Bible tales of “resurrection�.

Haven't you being taking notes on Liamconner's insightful debates on this forum? WinePusher and Goose have done a good job, as well.

Haven't you noticed that I have debated all those people (and thousands more). None have produced ANY verifiable evidence that a “resurrection� literally, really, actually, occurred in the real world. There are ONLY unverified stories written decades or generations later by writers whose identity is unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians.

Those stories claim that some people of disputed / uncertain identity discovered an empty tomb. An assumption was made that the deceased had come back to life and left. It seems unwarranted and irrational to assume that an empty tomb (thousands in evidence worldwide) indicate that the deceased returned to life.

The stories also claim that some, largely unidentified, people saw the deceased alive after being dead. Claimed sightings of dead people are not uncommon – as evidenced by Elvis sightings. In the case of Elvis sightings most of us are not gullible or naïve enough to assume they are evidence that he came back to life – and are likely to consider the claimants to be mistaken, delusional or deceptive. Agreed?

In the case of Bible stories, however, many seem convinced that the sightings could not have been mistaken, delusional or deceptive. Why so then and not now? Were gospel writers (whoever they may have been) above reproach or infallible – or were they fallible humans subject to being mistaken or misled?

One's personal “perceived experience� is nothing more than an unsupported testimonial that has no merit in debate.

It depends on the matter being debated. Our legal system relies on testimony based on eyewitness accounts.

Correction: The US legal system may consider eyewitness testimony PROVIDED the witness is present for cross-examination. It does NOT generally admit hearsay testimony.

The legal system depends upon a wide variety of evidence from forensics, ballistics, video and audio recordings, expert testimony, official / certified records, physical evidence (exhibits), etc.

Many reversals of convictions are based upon previous mistakes due to over-reliance on claimed eyewitness testimony – when the claimant has been shown to have been wrong (deliberately or inadvertently) or when the witness recants their testimony. Perjury is not unknown.

History relies on a person's observation.

The study of past events “history� is an inexact effort. However, statements by individuals may be corroborated (or refuted) by physical evidence and/or in accounts by multiple, disconnected sources

If you tell me that I have "nothing" to go by then most certainly experience means more than just nothing unless proven false.

Personal experiences (whether accurately perceived or not) may be convincing to the individual; however, when relayed to another person those claims of experience are unverified testimonials

Notice that many who debate here as Non-Theists / Atheists / Agnostics / Ignostics are NOT ignorant of the Bible. In many cases they display knowledge of the Bible that puts Christians to shame. Several strong Non-Theistic debaters were formerly devout Christians for decades and some planned to (or did) attend divinity school.

Knowledge of the Bible often leads people AWAY from Christianity. See www.clergyproject.org

I also brought up philosophy and apologetics.

Nice dodge – “Knowledge of the bible often leads people AWAY from Christianity.�

My point was really about scientists (or skeptics, e.g. Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc) who tend to make comments about the Bible w/out having done any formal education or even real research on the biblical topic their commenting on.

It is unwise to underestimate the knowledge and abilities of one's opposition. Some here may labor under the delusion that they could successfully debate those they demean – even though they often do not fare well in debates against less famous and perhaps less qualified “skeptics� here.

You can tell by the type of objections they raised which a lot of times are akin to people who've never actually studied the Bible.

It may be tempting to think that one understands the knowledge level of opponents.

These scientists while knowledgeable in one field does not make them automatically knowledgeable or rational in other fields.

Agreed. And, knowledge of theology does not make one knowledgeable or rational (or applicable) in other fields (particularly scientific fields).

Most of us recognize that study of theology does not qualify one understand how to fly airliners – but many seem to think that theology does qualify one to understand geology, genetics, or astrophysics.

In fact, I even question if scientists understand where science comes from and its limits seeing that many of them lack knowledge on philosophy, leading some scientists to even proclaim that philosophy is dead.

Has someone in this debate taken that position? If not why introduce a stinky fish (red herring) or a straw-man argument?

Incidentally, one need not be conversant in philosophy of science to develop new antibiotics, invent advanced electronic systems, make the calculations necessary to place spacecraft in orbit. Many choose to do actual work and research while leaving pontificating to others.

[Bust Nak]

I have faith that Dr. Laura probably gave a good explanation herself, but I will address this here. Kenisaw is not correct. This is not an example of Jewish cherry picking, but accusatory cherry picking, or maybe it's more accurate to call it nit picking. Though it is rather tedious, lets pick these nits before they hatch into lousy arguments that can then infect other threads...

Why not do the same for Leviticus 18:22? Something along the lines of the HaTorah discourages it, but it does not ban it, therefore secular law applies; or no gay sex is allowed in a temple, since there is no Temple, this is a moot point...?