CAMPBELL34 VS. LIBERTINE :The War To Settle The Score...

First of all, the Bible clearly states there is a hell. Second of all, if you go to the first post, the first question was about the Bible and about the prophecies (which is the foundation of a Christian's belief). Libertine was the one that said, "Scratch that, let us first answer how we know there is a God." Well the Bible is one of the biggest ways we know their is a God and to try to explain that there is a God without the Bible leaves us with personal testimony. Campbell has been battling numerous ignorant people who will throw anything he has out the window. Don't you know campbell's middle name is prophecy. Don't you know how many times he uses prophecy and people on the forums just close their ears and refuse to listen. He is the one that is battling basically by himself against all others on the (non) Christian forum.

 

And that's where we come in

 

Campbell, the question is pretty simple, brother...

Give me some objective evidence of "God". I am open to it.

 

Campbell, bring up the Eastern Gate prophecy. As they say, your middle name is prophecy, so this should be nothing new for you

 

JDFU, Libertine, Campbell and all others viewing (and participating),

JDFU is correct when saying,

except that the change was proposed by Libertine and it appeared implicit that Campbell agreed.

JDFU, tell me if this OK to pose here: Libertine and Campbell are you both going to debate the direct question, "Does God exist?" Or are you both going to debate "Are the prophecies of the Bible valid?" Or neither, you both withdraw and make it a "cats game." I must say that debating the latter, "Are the prophecies of the Bible valid," could, probably would, bog-down into deeply detailed mire. Libertine, although I think you would do much better than hold your own, you might be the "antelope in the cage" if you tried to engage Campbell on a level of Biblical detail in a greater context of a Biblical perspective because there would be no time for effective research; however if it was understood that this could be constantly brought back to general argument of principle rather than dealing with an assumption that there is some deeper understanding that can be only be approached from a Biblical context then you might very well give Campbell very hard run. There is also the very important question of active moderation and particularly making sure the debaters do not vigorously engage others during the debate and that questions are not overtly avoided but instead answered. What do you all think about this, others please 'chime in.'


David


.

 

I agree with that. Campbell was trying to debate that there was a God without the Bible. So his argument was only the tip of the ice berg. But if he goes about arguing the Bible/prophecies and if they are valid or not, now Libertine has crossed over to Campbell's territory.

 

JDFU,


Also, in my last post, I am making assumptions about Libertine's Biblical knowledge that may not be valid but if my assumptions are true I suspect that Libertine would take the wise approach of pulling the argument into common ground so that useful communication can continue; something that Campbell did appear to do during the last 20 pages or so, he continued to provide personal experience and, also, appeared to make attempts at providing inductive proof that "God does exist" rather than vigorously approaching the problem of providing evidence through eliciting proper agreement and understanding from Libertine. In other words clear single sentences that ask a question in order to provide real agreement of understandings.

I'll add that most often in the heat of debate many debaters lose touch with honest review of thier own positions; debaters focused on 'winning' instead of the truth strongly tend to dull the real potential for learning that is available.

All in all, we need to have active moderation and some clarification of ground rules.

What do you think ?


David



[Edit. Note: Of cousre one could aways argue for an overall position that they do not necessarily believe in, but that is, apparently, not part of the format for this debate]
.

 

I asked if I could butt in, and they agreed, so I did.

If I could care less about God, why would I be here debating with you? You're wrong. I dedicated myself to finding the truth. And finding the truth demands that I reevaluate timeless questions such as "God does exist?" and "Is there an afterlife?" et cetera.

And yet, nobody has shown me HOW it is NOT foolish. I go by a little philosophy here: If you prove me wrong (or make it reasonably suggestive that I am wrong, at least; if you put me in doubt), then I will change what I think so that I am as right as possible.

People have shown me a thousand and one ways in which the Bible is foolish. And it makes sense. So I believe it to be so. And yet, you, nor my former pastor, nor any Christian I've ever encountered, has given me a good, sensible reason to believe that the Bible is NOT foolish.

"The Bible has laid out the plan of salvation for you," and yet, so have countless other books! The Tripitaka, for example. Except, that book actually makes sense and isn't filled with contradictions and hasn't been translated so inaccurately.

Were it not for keeping this civil and for not wanting to offend you, I might have called you something I should not.

You have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY dismissed all of the over 100 inconsistancies of the Bible that I have just pointed out previously in this thread. You have not taken into account the terrible inaccuracy in the Bible's most popular translation ...

AND YET you INSIST that I am a hypocrite for not believing in what you say, just because you can find the place where it happened and because other people have written about it?

My friend, accounts of the Buddha's life is FAR more documented than was Jesus' life, in the Sutra Pataka. They are longer than the Bible. They were written before the Bible. The actual places described in them *can be found today*, just like in the Bible.

And yet, you speak that I should completely dismiss this man, and go for Jesus, and synonimize it with "throwing a bone and believing in the whole theory of evolution"? Preposterous! You speak in gibberish.

Note: Just as the theory of evolution has unexplained gaps, so do accounts of the Bible and of the divinity of Jesus, and God's existance. A person can believe in evolution without being strict regarding eras that are difficult to explain because of lack of documentation. Despite the fact that the Bible is plenty of documentation, people STILL war over how it ought to be interpreted.

And yet, the evidence for the Bible is utterly self-contradictory, and yet AGAIN you have failed to even ACKNOLWEDGE my statements regarding those contradictions. Campbell, I'm shooting holes in your arguments, and you're pretending that it's still whole by not paying attention to its state.

Yes, there is contradictory scientific testaments regarding evolution. Yes, there are contradictory scientific testaments regarding the Bible. The question is: Which stands a more logical chance of being correct?

Okay, ... everything that I've said up until now regarding you dodging my contradictions, forget about it. I'm going to leave it in because my post is a transcript of what I've been thinking. But, disregard it.

Here, I am going to post some of the more solid contradictions on that page for you:

Genesis:

2 Samuel

1 Kings

Psalms

Isaiah

Jeremiah

And I am going to stop there. Do with that what you will. The chapters and verses follow each of the quotes, as on the site, they are links to those very verses. If you want even more inconsistancies, let me know.

*ahem* After 17 pages of substance, there is a question about the rules. That is HARDLY being more worried about rules than substance.

How do you explain why chimpanzees and humans have DNA which 98% of is in common with the other? And why is it not only these species which have this in common?

Yes there is. It's not very well-founded, but it exists.

 

actually i didnt mean clearly what you thought i meant caus this doesnt relate to what i said. just because you spend your life trying to find ways to justify prephecies doesnt mean other people arent too.

 

Frankly, Libertine doesn't give a damn if you bring out Nostradamus, Prophet Ezekiel and Sylvia Browne... half-assed, vague "predictions" and coincidences do not prove an omni-max deity.

I am simply asking Campbell for some evidence of "God" other than a constant testimony and "interpreting prophecies".

Shit..."prophecy" is in every camp, Campbell. What's next? Merlin?

All I need from you, in order to continue this debate, is OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for an OBJECTIVE "God".

 

He sinned. And we are all dead to sin.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

Except, you know, for all those deserts that were once quite fertile. What was Iraq and mesopotamia once known as? The fertile crescent? oh, yeah.

The Hebrews that left with Moses, in the book of Numbers 21, DID reach the land of Canaan.

1. (1-3) Defeat of the king of Arad the Canaanite.

The king of Arad, the Canaanite, who dwelt in the South, heard that Israel was coming on the road to Atharim, then he fought against Israel and took some of them prisoners. So Israel made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.” And the Lord listened to the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites, and they utterly destroyed them and their cities. So the name of that place was called Hormah.

21 Then Israel said to Joseph, “Behold, I am dying, but God will be with you and bring you back to the land of your fathers.

24 And Joseph said to his brethren, “I am dying; but God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land to the land of which He swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.”

Where does it say that he died in Egypt?

I'll get to the rest later, if I have time.

 

what evidence is there against evolution? i thought it was just a lack of evidence which christians poked at

 

Even darwin died without being sure on evolution. He proved that a species could adapt, but it couldn't become a whole different creature. Evolution, the big bang, I don't care, all of those theories are just that: theories.

 

The existence or non-existence of God can't be proven by objective means. If the debate opens with this as a truism, then there is no debate possible.

To get things moving, the opposing parties must be offered some automatic value for what they bring to the table, even if it doesn't meet the standards for complete objectivity.

All a believer can offer is personal testimony, scriptural reference, and inferred proof, and then tentatively offer these to the objective world for testing; in Campbell's case, examples of scripturally-based history and prophecies and the archaeological and scholarly evidences that he believes to support these, and his anecdotes about his experiences with God. 50 automatic points to Campbell, because these methods have stood the test of time...religion and faith in God are as prevalent as at any time in the last 2,000 years and have withstood the tests of all types of official repression and attempts at scientific and scholarly discreditation.

All a non-believer can offer is offer is logical argument against the sources, methods, and conclusions of the believer, as well as testimony about the non-relevance or failure of faith in his/her life or in the context of the larger world and history. 50 automatic points to Lib, because these methods are equally valid and have the weight of many years of extensive scientific discovery and theory to reinforce this validity.

 

It is such a great fraud that people who saw Jesus perform first hand died for him. Jesus would have been a great lawyer...

 

Why would GOd discipline you for denying his existence? He knows you better than you know yourself...your past, your present, your future....he sees the big picture. He is also merciful and understanding...giving you the time and experience that you need to sort out your thoughts, and if you are being true to yourself and truly seeking the truth rather than spending too much time bashing the possiblilty of Him and all those who hold Him dear, you will find the truth someday.

You will either find out while here on earth (i pray it happens this way) or you will find out when your time is up..by then it will be too late. GOd says he will give everyone the chance to choose.

Just make sure that you are being true to yourself...offline....the man that none of us really know. Dont say things simply to show off...you owe it to yourself to open up and recieve.

blessings~

 

Sorry, but a God who creates people out of thin air and then offers them only one life in which to make the right choice to escape eternal hell is neither merciful nor understanding...it doesn't matter how you rationalize it.

 

You make it sound like God's going to catapult everyone into hell mercilessly.

Only 1 life, you say? Thousands of days, dozens of years, that is long enough of a time for anyone! Even if people don't make up their minds that easily, thousands of days!

Really mate, if a whole bunch of people went around yelling, "You're shit/You're fake/you're a fairy tale" and defamed your name every day of their lives and telling other people to do the same, do you think they'd want to spend eternity with you? They show, by their actions, that they definitely don't want to. They think you're shit.

The very fact that you could defame God's name for 3/4ths of your life, but still be possibly saved in your remaining days, seems something extraordinary. God is still giving you the chance to be saved every single day.

 

repeat...no matter how you rationalize it.

 

This was a worthless reply that does not, in any way, shape, or form, even bear any relevance to the failed saying.

Also irrelevant. Whether it is no longer as fertile or not has no bearing on the fact that God promised to desolate it, and it is currently inhabited and some of it is even farmed.

Read the verses leading up to it. They were in Egypt.

Also: He died in Egypt. His body was NOT "brought out of this land to the land of his fathers". What you state has no substance. HE died in Egypt. The people he spoke to, which he said those words to, may NOT have died in Egypt, but HE did.

Long ago, a study was done that recreated what scientists believe to be a fairly accurate reproduction of the primordial Earth. Earth, as it was billions of years ago, before there was very much oxygen in the air, and as the Earth was not yet fully formed.

Scientists put it in a glass container, and ran an electrical spark through it. Some of the elements bonded together to form amino acids and other parts of very simple cells. Another electric shock created more amino acids, some proteins, and a cellular wall structure. And further electrical shocks brought those substances to develop into protocells, which reproduce and die, but are not complete cells. Scientists posit that this is likely the way that life began.

Attacks on the study include things like "the oxygen that was present in the original environment would have destroyed the cells" (which is obviously not true, as the cells in the experiment, despite exposure to oxygen, were not destroyed), and things like "the reproduced environment is actually nothing like what Earth was like so long ago" which may very well be true, but also is doubtful.