Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist

the

Narrow Path Pilgrim, I have a question:

Just how narrow is your path?  Like, say I dropped two big rocks in the middle of you path.  Just for the hell of it, let's give these rocks names, I'll call the first rock "Science" and the other one "Proven Fact".  Now, say these rocks block your path, do you stop and choose another path, unhindered by such rocks, or do you keep walking into them over and over, hoping you'll wear them out, and they'll simply go away?

Honestly, you cited why believe that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun, this consisted of quotes from scripture, and scientific experiments.

Scripture isn't a valid reference source, as it requires that God exists, and he is the Christian God, and he did, in fact give these scriptures to man.

At such a point, the discussion would simply degenerate into a debate over interpretation of scripture, which is ultimately pointless, as there's no proof of the initial assumption (ie: A Christian God's existance, and his creation of the scripture)

So now we're left with your scientific evidence, which Eramus debunked with his first post, and you went on to misunderstand how it's plausible.

So basically, we're left with...nothing.  Your point, as you've made it to up to now, has been disproven, and you have yet to bring any new points to the table. Geocentricity, as you've presented it, is just as invalid now as it was before you made this thread.  Congratulations on your momentous acheivement.

Just as a sideboard to this conversation; why do you think the Pope is the anti-Christ?

Also, Dionysios...you're back?  Thought you were fed up with all our crazy, new-age, hippy bullshit.  Like tolerance.

May I point out that using the Bible as evidence of the infallibility of the Bible is logically fallacious?

May I point out that using the Bible as evidence of the infallibility of the Bible is logically fallacious?

1) The bibles are not infallible because they are translations of the original revelation, thus they may contain some errors. The Word of God is.

2) The evidence presented there about its infallibility is not for non-believers, but for people that already recognized the nature of what they are learning.
I mean, it is for people that already believe some things (contained in the Word of God), but they are still not sure (or don't know) what is the nature and features of the Word of God; so, the Word of God itself teaches its own nature.

2) The evidence presented there about its infallibility is not for non-believers, but for people that already recognized the nature of what they are learning.

I mean, it is for people that already believe some things (contained in the Word of God), but they are still not sure (or don't know) what is the nature and features of the Word of God; so, the Word of God itself teaches its own nature.

Sounds to me like you're saying that the Bible is a good source of truth, as long as you already believe that it's perfectly fine to accept claims blindly, purely on the basis of some authority; claims that neither you nor anybody else has any means of verifying or falsifying.  You don't even have any way of knowing whether the words in the Bible were ever uttered by your god.  Basically, the only support you have for your beliefs are the beliefs themselves.  Don't you see anything... flimsy about this attitude?

But then you've also forfeited your right to dispute claims that anybody else makes, since no agreement can ever be reached between you.  That's really the problem with dogmatism: it prevents all possibility of civil discussion that might promote consensus or agreement between people.  It's the worst kind of sophistry.

-Erasmus

Quote from: "Javier_Vierja"

2) The evidence presented there about its infallibility is not for non-believers, but for people that already recognized the nature of what they are learning.

I mean, it is for people that already believe some things (contained in the Word of God), but they are still not sure (or don't know) what is the nature and features of the Word of God; so, the Word of God itself teaches its own nature.

Sounds to me like you're saying that the Bible is a good source of truth, as long as you already believe that it's perfectly fine to accept claims blindly, purely on the basis of some authority; claims that neither you nor anybody else has any means of verifying or falsifying.  You don't even have any way of knowing whether the words in the Bible were ever uttered by your god.  Basically, the only support you have for your beliefs are the beliefs themselves.  Don't you see anything... flimsy about this attitude?

But then you've also forfeited your right to dispute claims that anybody else makes, since no agreement can ever be reached between you.  That's really the problem with dogmatism: it prevents all possibility of civil discussion that might promote consensus or agreement between people.  It's the worst kind of sophistry.

-Erasmus

Eramus your entirely correct. However I believe what Javier Verga was trying to say is that even if you acccept that Bible is divnily inspired truth (Statement A) Statement B the Sun revolving around the Earth DOES NOT NESSECARILY FOLLOW. His point is that this isn't a debate about the validity of the Bible (which is a different debate) but a debate about Narrow Path Pilgrims absurd interpretations of the BIble to support his geocentrist views.
There is a difference
A polite
Cinlef

I don't know if you (both) really understood what I meant there.

There are plenty of individuals in very different stages, for example:
a) People that are not interested in anything beyong physical things, atheist.
b) People that believe or may want to believe in spirituality, but rejects the bible.
c) People that may want to believe in spirituality, including the bible.
d) People that already knows and believe some things of the bible.
e) People that knows more than d), and understand more, and believe more.
f) There are some other variants, people that believe some things but not other ones, people that has been misinformed (they are the great majority), etc.

The bible is not intended for everybody, but for c) to f)

But what I was trying to explain was: not the whole bible is for c) to f), some parts are for c) and other parts for d), etc.

The part that talks about its infallibility is not for a) and b) (almos none of the bible is for them).

Sounds to me like you're saying that the Bible is a good source of truth

Yes, it is.
But not just reading the bible, it is neccessary to study quite well it.

as long as you already believe that it's perfectly fine to accept claims blindly

blindly? Who said blindly?

Anyway I understand your point, but an explanation about it would require to write a lot (if you are interested I would).

purely on the basis of some authority; claims that neither you nor anybody else has any means of verifying or falsifying.

Yes, God is not compliant with the scientific method.
It is one of the major problems of humanity.
I can explain why it is this way, but only if you are interested.

You don't even have any way of knowing whether the words in the Bible were ever uttered by your god. Basically, the only support you have for your beliefs are the beliefs themselves. Don't you see anything... flimsy about this attitude?

Before believing, no. After believing, yes, I have a method.
(another thing that requires explanation).

Cinlef:
I wasn't talking about the Sun revolving around the Earth there, I was just (off topic) replying to what logic! said about the bible being logically fallacious.

I wasn't talking about the Sun revolving around the Earth there, I was just (off topic) replying to what logic! said about the bible being logically fallacious.

That's because you misunderstood what he said, Javier.
He said that using the Bible to prove it's own infallibility is a logical fallacy, because it's circular reasoning, as the reasoning to make it infallible necessitates that it be infallible before it tries to prove its infallibility.

I don't know if you (both) really understood what I meant there.

There are plenty of individuals in very different stages, for example:
a) People that are not interested in anything beyong physical things, atheist.
b) People that believe or may want to believe in spirituality, but rejects the bible.
c) People that may want to believe in spirituality, including the bible.
d) People that already knows and believe some things of the bible.
e) People that knows more than d), and understand more, and believe more.
f) There are some other variants, people that believe some things but not other ones, people that has been misinformed (they are the great majority), etc.

The bible is not intended for everybody, but for c) to f)

But what I was trying to explain was: not the whole bible is for c) to f), some parts are for c) and other parts for d), etc.

The part that talks about its infallibility is not for a) and b) (almos none of the bible is for them).

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Sounds to me like you're saying that the Bible is a good source of truth

Yes, it is.
But not just reading the bible, it is neccessary to study quite well it.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

as long as you already believe that it's perfectly fine to accept claims blindly

blindly? Who said blindly?

Anyway I understand your point, but an explanation about it would require to write a lot (if you are interested I would).

Quote from: "Erasmus"

purely on the basis of some authority; claims that neither you nor anybody else has any means of verifying or falsifying.

Yes, God is not compliant with the scientific method.
It is one of the major problems of humanity.
I can explain why it is this way, but only if you are interested.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

You don't even have any way of knowing whether the words in the Bible were ever uttered by your god. Basically, the only support you have for your beliefs are the beliefs themselves. Don't you see anything... flimsy about this attitude?

Before believing, no. After believing, yes, I have a method.
(another thing that requires explanation).

Cinlef:
I wasn't talking about the Sun revolving around the Earth there, I was just (off topic) replying to what logic! said about the bible being logically fallacious.

But that's preposterous. Truth is truth. What is in the bible is either true or false. It can't just be true for Christians.

Quote

I wasn't talking about the Sun revolving around the Earth there, I was just (off topic) replying to what logic! said about the bible being logically fallacious.

That's because you misunderstood what he said, Javier.
He said that using the Bible to prove it's own infallibility is a logical fallacy, because it's circular reasoning, as the reasoning to make it infallible necessitates that it be infallible before it tries to prove its infallibility.

I think you misunderstood what I said, please read my last two posts again.

But that's preposterous. Truth is truth. What is in the bible is either true or false. It can't just be true for Christians.

The truth is the truth, but those truths were not spoken to everybody.

he truth is the truth, but those truths were not spoken to everybody.

What the hell?? Either the Bible is true or it isn't. Stop hiding behind sophistry and explain yourself
An enraged
Cinlef

Quote

he truth is the truth, but those truths were not spoken to everybody.

What the hell????? Either the Bible is true or it isn't. Stop hiding behind sophistry and explain yourself
An enraged
Cinlef

I agree with Cinlef.  As I keep saying, the attitude of "What's true for so-and-so might not necessarily be true for other people," may have some basis in modern epistemology but it's a death-knell for rational discussion intended to achieve consensus and understanding (which is sorta why fora exist, right?)

In addition, the idea that revelation is a mystery whose secrets are accessible to an elect few who have some sort of "key" to understanding is the central feature of Gnosticism, a fascinating if obtuse and heretical mode of spirituality.

-Erasmus

Now who is becoming enraged is me!

You still don't understand.

For example: You can write in a bokk "the table is white", and in another section of the same book "the table was painted white with the X technique", and in another part you can explain about light spectrum and wavelenght, refraction, and even deeper explanations.

All is "true", but not all the sections are intended for the same people. One is for a child, the other is for people that understand about painting, and the other is for more advanced in physics.

I don't mean that the contained in the bible is true for someone and not true for others. It is just the thuth, but is not wrote to everybody, just because they can't understand it. They need a previous state of knoledge to understand some of the truths.

Wait I'm still confused (I'm not being sarcastic you have sincerely lost me)
As far as I can see you are saying 1 of 2 things
1.Are you saying that saying that the deeper truths of the Bible require prior knowledge of the Judaeo Christian beliefs to be understood? This would be a valid point
2. Are you saying only Christians can see the truth of the Bible? That would be evidently invalid as the Bible is used to convert people by showing them the truth which is what CAUSES THEM TO BELIEVE.
Also while I being Catholic do accept the Bible as a source of truth you haven't presented any argument for why someone who isn't a Chritian (or in the case of the Old Testament; Jewish or Christian) should accept the Bible as a source of truth. Which I believe is what 6strings and Eramus and logic are getting at.
Circular reasoning: statement x is true because statment Y is true because it confirms the truth of statment X which is true because of stamnet Y (ad nauseum) is tottally invalid. Their point is that as this isn't a Judaeo-Chritian forum you must show why the Bible should be accepted as true (since people on the forum dont make the same assumption as regards to its truth as you do). However until you prove to them that its a valid source they are totally within bounds to say you citing it proves zilch
An irate
Cinlef

All is "true", ... It is just the thuth,

My question, "Why do you believe it?" or "How do you know it's the truth?" still stands.

They need a previous state of knoledge to understand some of the truths.

This is what I was refering to as the Gnostic viewpoint.

-Erasmus

Wait I'm still confused (I'm not being sarcastic you have sincerely lost me)

OK

1.Are you saying that saying that the deeper truths of the Bible require prior knowledge of the Judaeo Christian beliefs to be understood? This would be a valid point

No.
That's also right but not for deeper truths, may be a very simple truth is hided because an orientalism is used, and a deeper truth is written in "plain text". It is necessary to study Judaeo belief and customs to understand some text, but not necessary they are deeper.

2. Are you saying only Christians can see the truth of the Bible? That would be evidently invalid as the Bible is used to convert people by showing them the truth which is what CAUSES THEM TO BELIEVE.

That's more close to what I said.
Not the whole bible text is to convert people, some books in the bible are specifically written to people that already are believers.
But I was going even further: not all the books and sections for believers are for all the believers, some are for mature believers.

Look how the bible define different groups of people: 1 Corinthians 10:32
Jews, Gentiles, the church of God

1 Corinthians 1:1-2
"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, to the church of God in Corinth"

Galatians 1:1-2
"Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me, to the churches[/] in Galatia:"

1 Thessalonians 1:1
"Paul, Silas[a] and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you"

We also need to know what means "the church" in the bible. The Greek word is ekklesia and means "the ones called" or "people called to the same purpose". And they can be called for anything, for instance in a verse: in Acts 17:5 the word "mob" is the same Greek word ekkesia. But in the other context it refers to the people believer, that have common interest in Christ and God. Ekkesia is not a temple. For temple there is another word in Greek.

Look: Galatians 1:13
Paul didn't persecuted a temple, but people, the believers.

So, every time that in the bible one read "the church of God" is talking of the believers.

Romans is a book where some sections are for "still not christians".
1 and 2 Peter are books that are for believers, but they were juds still celous for the law (of Moses).

The whole Old Testament is not for the ekkesia (for us) but for the people of Israel.

One can learn form something that was not written to him? Of course. If you open a letter that was not for you, you can learn some things, but there are things that are not for you (if you read "tell to your sister something" in that letter, you don't have to do that because it is not for you, but in the whole content you can also understand something useful for you).

You now can say: But I believe that people are the same for God thru time, and God doens't change with time. That's right, but circunstances change.
For example, now after Jesus Christ work, the circunstances have changed because of what he attained for us.
Can we learn from the old testament? Yes. Is it for us? No.

I wrote above: "not all the books and sections for believers are for all the believers, some are for mature believers"

1 Corinthians 2:6
"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature"
This section, this wisdom is for the mature.
Can a non-mature read it? Yes, but he won't fully understand.

It is the same: if you want to learn to multiply, first you have to learn to add. If you want to learn mathematical analysis, first you need to learn to add and multiply (and even more). Can a person that doens't know to multiply to read about mathematical analysis? Yes, but he won't understand very much.

With spiritual things it is similar. Spiritual things are not magic, and have some rules like other things. It is not that God is making difference among the people, but the people are in different stages and need to learn different things because they aren't still capable of understanding the other ones.

1 Corinthians 3:1
Hebrews 5:12
(please read the verses)
Some truths are for mature, it doen't mean that other can't read them, but they won't understand much.

Also while I being Catholic do accept the Bible as a source of truth you haven't presented any argument for why someone who isn't a Chritian (or in the case of the Old Testament; Jewish or Christian) should accept the Bible as a source of truth. Which I believe is what 6strings and Eramus and logic are getting at.

Yes, that's right. I still didn't say anything for that purpose.
But all this discussion came because I wanted to explain that it is not a fallacy. It is not a fallacy because that part is not for people that still don't believe. Can they learn something with this? Yes, but it is not intended to convince them about the validity of the bible, they can learn that the bible says for itself that the Word of God doesn't fail and that it is the truth.
It doen't say that in the sense: look, it says that it is the truth, so it must be. It would be a fallacy to try to convince someone in such a way.

Their point is that as this isn't a Judaeo-Chritian forum you must show why the Bible should be accepted as true

If it was their point I'll try to do my best, but I repeat, I just explained why it wasn't a fallacy, not more.

(since people on the forum dont make the same assumption as regards to its truth as you do).

Yes, but they (and you) asked, and I answered.

However until you prove to them that its a valid source they are totally within bounds to say you citing it proves

I'll prove nothing. But I'll explain what is the mechanism in all this.

Javier_Vierja wrote:
All is "true", ... It is just the thuth,

My question, "Why do you believe it?" or "How do you know it's the truth?" still stands.

Yes, I know Erasmus. I'll answer to that in the other thread.

Javier_Vierja wrote:
They need a previous state of knoledge to understand some of the truths.

This is what I was refering to as the Gnostic viewpoint.

Well, you could think on a similarity in that point, but I'm not gnostic. The verses that I exposed above show what I meant in what I said before.
I am not very familiar with all the ideas behing the gnosis, but AFAIK I don't share much.

I'll write about what you asked, but later (I'm a bit tired right now).

I believe I understand what you mean.
However when exactly did you show that using the Bible to justify belief in the Bible is not a logical fallacy?
Whether or not the Bible is true isn't there point. There point is that using the Bible to prove the Bible is infallible doesn;'t work by the rules of logic.
Because if the Bible was a lie than the quotes from it that you use to prove its true would also be a lie.
See the logic fallacy isn't your belief in Scripture but your justifying Scripture by quoting Scripture. this is known as circular reasoning.

I believe I understand what you mean.
However when exactly did you show that using the Bible to justify belief in the Bible is not a logical fallacy?

The bible doen't say the bible is infallible, it says that the Word of God is.
And they are not the same thing.
(The post I still have to answer to Erasmus in the other thread is about that subject)

But you still could argue: God says that all He says is truth. OK, if you wonder where the truth is, that's the information that you need.

But if you are not sure if you can trust what God says because you are not sure if He is a liar or not, well, you have a problem.
Besides, God doen't have any supeior stage to validate what He says, you have reached the top there, there is no more over him.

A similar situation is this one: Hebrews 6:13
"When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself"

Sigh I am beginning to become vexed/. My problem with your reasoning is this and only this everything your saying is contigent on the Bible being the most accurate representation of the Word available correct? (I would agreee with this ) However someone asked you why you feel able to say this. Ratehr than stating its a matter of faith, or relating some personal reason you tried to show it logically (again fine) quoting passages from the BIble(no no no no). The issue raised was that the Bible itself may not be a valid source of knowledge, if you want to disprove it logically you can cite any other source to support your arguments BUT NOT THE BILBE ITSELF. That is circular logic. Okay. So unless I severely understood you response to the allegation that using the BIble to confirm the BIble isnt a logical fallacy (and if so I'm sorry) then you should admit it IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.
A fatigued
Cinlef

Well, I'm a bit fatigued too, but if we want to go deeper with this, then let's go. Please tell me what are the bible verses that in particular you are talking about (logical fallacy), then I'll try to answer, if I know, why are these verses there.

He means that you can't quote the bible to prove that the bible is right.

That would be like me saying "I am God" and then when someone says "prove it", I say "I'm God so if I say I'm God then I must be right. Proved!"

That's why it's circular logic.

cheesejoff: I know perfectly what he means, we've been talking a lot already (better read all the posts).

OK, seeing that Cinlef don't post the versicles in question, I'll post a couple that I think can be interpreted to do what he is pointing.

Here is a versicle when Jesus was praying to God: John 17:17

For Jesus, the Word of God was the truth.

The origin and nature of the scripture:
2 Peter 1:20-21
Here the scripture is describing how we have the scripture now, and the way we must study it.
Here is an example about how it was written: Jeremiah 36:4

OK. Now think. Did you have in your life an experience like this?:
Suppose that you are talking with your mother or a very close friend, and she/he says: "would I lie to you? I am telling you the truth".
Is that a valid thing for her/him to say? It depends entirely in the confidence that you have to that person. It depends on affections, how much you know the person, what kind of relationship you have, etc.
You can't say that to an stranger, you can't say that to someone that don't know you at all. If you try to validate what you are saying to an stranger with your own words, it would be "full circular logic", but if the two persons already know each other, it may be different.
When your mother says that, it is because she is trying to make you think about all she did for you and how much she loves you; so, if you are unsure if she may be laying to you on the situation, she is making you realize that with all she did for you in the past and all the love she has shown to you, it is quite unlikely that she is going to lie to you now, causing an damage.
It is entirely based in the quality of the relationship that you already have with the person.

So, may be that you already have been studing the scripture and you realized that it have something divine, but you are not certain about its origin, and you have been heard that it expresses thoughts of men with hight moral or something like that. Well, then you have the answer in the scripture itself: it didn't come from any man's mind.
You also have the validation from people that are already living this, like me (may be you disregard this, I don't care).

Let's see the example of the versicle where Jesus was praying. Suppose that someone already knows some of the bible teaching, but he/she is asking himself/herself what is the truth. OK, there you have the answer to what the truth is, and what Jesus Christ considered to be the truth.

The person can still don't believe that, because once you start to believe, you don't lose free will, a person can believe some scriptures and other not, of course it is not the best to do (and also it is not coherent).
Different is the case when you don't understand something in the scripture. You can't believe something that you can't understand.
And the reasons why someone is not able to understand some parts of the scriptures may be a lot. Nobody understand all.

So, summarizing, this kind of things make sense only when there are already confidence, not when the person hearing or reading distrust to the one speaking.

So what you are really saying is that you'll only understand if you choose to believe in the bible?

That's still a bit circular. I could easily write a book which claims a giant peanut orbits the earth, but you can only have proof if you choose to believe in it first without having the proof beforehand.

If it's true evidence then it's true regardless of your opinion or belief. The proof should come BEFORE the belief, not after.

The difference between trusting God and your mother is that if your mother said "I exist" it would be very easy to believe since you can see quite clearly that see she exists

But when God says it then it's harder to accept because you don't have any proof of him existing in the first place, so you believe that he exists based on the fact that you trust him, and the only reason you trust him is because you believe he exists...

Don't get me wrong, most Christians do a lot of good for the world, but you are still believing without conclusive evidence.

And yes I'm aware that that's what most religions are about, believing without it being proven, and it's up to you if you want to do that. But then what makes Christianity right and Judaism wrong? Or the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, or even bigfoot?

Please bear in mind I have nothing against Christians or indeed anyone of any religion. I actually have respect for the good that most religions do. Except, of course, for Christian fundamentalists who seek to destroy others rights and freedoms.

cheesejoff: and what makes you think that the bible is trying to prove something? Anyone said that?
The bible has information from someone that's telling you how the things are, you can accept the information or reject it, nothing else is involved.

The difference between trusting God and your mother is that if your mother said "I exist" it would be very easy to believe since you can see quite clearly that see she exists

It's very clear to me that you didn't get the point. Please read my posts (specially the last ones) in the topic "People believe what they want to believe" (it is on the Other Alternative Science section) and then re-read my last post in this topic".
I can't explain all about how this things work in just one post, so, if you read all the post I pointed, you'll have more chances to understand what I meant in here.

But when God says it then it's harder to accept because you don't have any proof of him existing in the first place

Yes, you cannot believe anything that is supposedly from God if you don't believe that God exists.

First you need to belive that God exist (Hebrews 11:6), and about the proof, the only proof are the things made (Romans 1:20).
So, take it of leave it. No problem, you are free to believe whatever you want or makes more sense to you.

so you believe that he exists based on the fact that you trust him, and the only reason you trust him is because you believe he exists

No, you first believe He exist, then may be you will know Him and after knowing Him for a while you may start to trust Him (please read the post I pointed for further understanding).

Don't get me wrong, most Christians do a lot of good for the world, but you are still believing without conclusive evidence.

And yes I'm aware that that's what most religions are about, believing without it being proven

In fact, there are proofs, but after you believe.

and it's up to you if you want to do that.

Yes.

But then what makes Christianity right and Judaism wrong? Or the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, or even bigfoot?

Well, check the information presented by everyone and decide. And about Christianity, don't take the first doctrine that you hear to be Christian's doctrine as if it really was, examine what people says (I actually don't know of any so called Christian religion that teaches the bible doctrine right, but they teach mostly their own ideas, anyway in some parts they are right).

Please bear in mind I have nothing against Christians or indeed anyone of any religion. I actually have respect for the good that most religions do. Except, of course, for Christian fundamentalists who seek to destroy others rights and freedoms.

OK, that's right.

Look cheesejoff, If someone really wants to know more because perhaps he is interested in knowing God and believe in Him (and later to Him), I'll do all I can to try to help him and provide the information that I have and I know. But if someone is just trying to argue with the only purpose to show that the bible is wrong, I am not going to lose my time on that (it doens't seem to be your case, and I don't say it is the case of anyone that was asking or questioning here either).

I'm not trying to say that the bible is wrong, I'm merely questioning how you know it's right.

So if you believe in God, then the bible is right? Fair enough.

But, you said I first need to believe that God exists (Hebrew 11:6) but that means I need to believe a quote from the bible first.

Basically:

Imagine someone did not believe in God or the Bible.

Now imagine he wanted to understand the bible.

He needs to believe in God first.

But to know that he needs to believe in God, he needs to read the bible (Hebrew 11:6)

Except that he does not believe in the bible in the first place.

See the dilemma? To accept the Bible, you need to trust that it's right. I understand that this is what faith is all about.

So basically it's up to the individual to decide between Christianity or any other religion. And I know you know this so that's perfectly fine. Personally I don't choose any of them but if you want to Javier then that's cool by me.

And I respect the fact that you have not tried to force your religion on anyone else.

So, no hard feelings then Javier, this is just my opinion on the topic

So if you believe in God, then the bible is right? Fair enough.

It is not so simple, it doesn't work this way.

BTW, what is right or wrong doesn't depend on what you believe. I believe that the truth is something objective.

An analogy: if someone believe that the earth is flat, and another one believe it's round, and a third person believe it is a cube, the earth doesn't change its shape for each person.

"God exists and the bible has the Word of God", if it's right, it is right for everybody, and if it's wrong, it's wrong for everyone.
But like in the shape of the earth issue, not everybody believes the same thing (I thought nowadays eveybody thought  it was round until I found this forum).

But, you said I first need to believe that God exists (Hebrew 11:6) but that means I need to believe a quote from the bible first.

Not necessarily from the bible. You need to believe that God exist, it doesn't say you must do it from the bible; furthermore, in the other versicle it says "from the things made", it doen't say from the bible.

Look, here, it explains a way a person can start to believe in the bible.

I'd still like to know whether or not you find it acceptable to cite scripture in an argument of facts, and if so, why?

I'd still like to know whether or not you find it acceptable to cite scripture in an argument of facts, and if so, why?

The scripture contains truths, not facts.
But it talks about facts that may be considered historical facts by one that considers it as a source of truths (I mean, that believes what it says).

But what do you mean, for example?

The scripture contains truths, not facts.

I think the way we (non-Bible-citing people) see the Bible as containing statements.  Whether or not they are true is up to debate. You take their truth as a premise; we do not.  Instead, we ask you to justify your use of these propositions as truths.

If you want an example, take, hm, any of the miracles associated with Christ.  His resurrection, for example.  The statement found in the New Testament, "And on the third day, He rose from the dead, and revealed himself to his disciples," or whatever -- is that a true statement?  What evidence do you have to support it?

If that is not the sort of thing you're referring to when you say "truths", then what is?

-Erasmus