Marine,
Those questions in the previous response I made to you were rhetorical questions. The question begging fallacy brings up so many rhetorical questions that can be debated until the end of time and for that reason alone, it is a logical fallacy.
<a href='http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html' target='_blank'>This site explains the fallacy better than I do.</a>
To answer the challenge you gave me, though. I can easily disprove the Christians' central belief contained in the Bible. That is the resurrection of Christ. Christ was man, lived as man, died as mortals do. Humans don't come back to life after being dead three days time. That is simply impossible, which leads one to several different conclusions:
1. Christ wasn't human (which is hard to prove and doubtful).
2. Christ didn't die (again, hard to prove).
3. The resurrection is a metaphorical story as in "born-again Christian" is a metaphor describing someone's life as a Christian who lost their faith and then regained it.
In regard to your challenge, though, I must add that even if the flood of genesis is true, that doesn't mean all of the Bible is true. While the things you mention might are a part of the historical and archeological record, it does not "prove" that Yahweh or Jesus Christ did these things or set these actions into motion. Anyone or anything could have set these actions into motion and that is one of the great mysteries of our universe. Claiming that the God of the Bible did this, is indeed, a simplistic answer to a very complicated question(s).
Also, to claim that God is a "he" is an anthropormorphism, which means placing that which is infinite, mysterious, divine in human-like terms. The god I believe in is not anthropomorphic rather, god is something that simply cannot be explained given our limited understanding of the otherworldly.
If the Bible is true, like you say, then that would mean god is perfect (because the Bible states such). If that is so, logically we can deduce that a perfect being needs nothing, or else that being would cease to be perfect. A perfect being would not move and would have no need for anything because that would suggest the being's lack of something, which in-turn would suggest the being is less than perfect (perfect beings, if any, would lack nothing and would need nothing and would do nothing because the being(s) are perfect).
With this in mind, why did God of the Bible create anything at all? The answers the Bible gives to that question suggests that God wanted to give to us the "gift" of creation. That is where the contradiction lies. A perfect being would not "want" or "desire" anything because that being is perfect.
Like I said in a previous post, Marine. It is futile for Christians to "prove" that God exists, or that Jesus was the son of God and by extention, God. It is futile and sinful for a Christian to prove their faith, because any proof would deny that Christian the faith necessary to be a "believer." Think about that.
Instead of attempting to prove to me that the Bible is true, or that God exists, I suggest you take a different approach. You should, instead, be persuading me that I need the Bible and that I need to read it, that my very life depends upon me reading the Bible and believing in it. Simply attempting to prove all or part of the Bible suggests that you need some kind of "proof" in order to believe it, which suggests you lack faith in that which you believe.
Lastly, in regard to the Bible and all its wonderful stories, I suggest reading Joseph Campbell who has done an awful lot of research on the biblical stories from genesis to Exodus. In his many books he suggests the biblical stories are not original and the gist of the stories are found in many cultures' mythology, if not actual history. The story of Socrates, the greek philosopher and ethicist, directly parallels Christ's life and death (the big difference being that no one assumed or asserted that Socrates was the son of God). Historical evidence strongly supports Socrates' existence and he did indeed die in the manner in which he did. This story and Socrates' teachings traversed the globe as a result of the Greeks' seafaring culture. It is not absurd to conclude that this story got mixed up with Jesus', another ethicist.
I think we've come a long way on debating whether or not gays should marry or if being gay is wrong. The Bible says it is wrong, but it also says alot of other things are wrong that we all take part in, i.e. touching the dead skin of a pig (should football be banned?). Christians regularly pick and choose which belief system contained in the Bible is true and should be followed, and that which is not true and should not be followed. With this in mind, how do we really know that being gay is really wrong?
And, even if the Bible does say that being gay is wrong, this does nothing to compel anyone not to be gay. In addition, we are talking about the legal status of gays, being gay and being able to marry legally. For legal questions, we follow the Constitution of the United States, not the Bible. While the Constitution might or might not have been influenced by biblical teachings is beside the point. The way I interpret the Constitution, gay marriage should be permitted. Nothing whatsoever in the Constitution speaks of gay marriage, specifically abolishing the practice.
|