Example 1

Christian: Hey, I've found this great article you should read, it comes from JesusisLord.com. It will show you exactly why Jesus is God and he came to save your soul from hell.
Non-Christian: I'm not reading that apologetic crud.
Christian: You just don't want to face the Truth

Example 2

Non-Christian: Have a check out of EvilBible.com. It will show you exactly how evil your God truly is.
Christian: Non-Christian apologetic crud. Why would I read that?
Non-Christian: You just don't want to face the facts of your un-Holy Book.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is not my intention in this thread to argue which side is correct. I just want to here what people think about these two points of view. I have often been frustrated by people who will link a page from evilbible.com, or perhaps a youtube video from godisimaginary.com, which took them two minutes to post, and me an hour or more to compose a reply (study each Bible verse contextually to respond). And after this, have that whole hour or more of work get fobbed off with a one-sentence "apologetic crap" response. And I'm sure there are some non-Christians here who have put just as much effort into their posts (eg, evolution threads) only to have some Christians fob them off in the same way - obviously they will know the frustration.

I certainly understand some of the psychological reasons for such responses. So with such varied and different responses, is one group more correct than another? Is either evilbible.com more or jesusislord.com trustworthy? Is one group more prone to the "that's just apologetic crud" argument?

Discuss

~ Regards, PA

[disclaimer]* the author of this post makes no guarantee for the accuracy of either evilbible.com or jesusislord.com, and is not held responsible for any information or misinformation spread from either site. The author picked two sites that seemed obviously on opposite sides of the argument and did not verify the accuracy of either site[/disclaimer]

Most sources are biased to varying degrees. I think those who discount information purely on the basis of where it comes from without exploring further lose out.

An argument is an argument. It doesn't matter where it is found.
Heck, an AiG link is fine with me.

The only thing that ISN'T fine is posting a huge number of links not to back up a claim, but to overload an opponent with an impossible amount of arguments.

EDIT - really sorry for the length!!!!

It isn't as simple as GOD IS GOOD vs GOD IS EVIL.

What are you actually asking? Which website is right? Neither. But they're both as valid. The old testament god is without a shadow of a doubt, a nasty piece of work. Likewise Jesus was by-and-large a good chap, and no-one can say his teachings aren't positive.

But asking which is right just muddles the whole argument, as does an athiest referencing godisevil.com just to discredit someone advocating Jesus.

The old testament God, Yahweh, is obviously a refection of the times it was written in. Sexcist, homophobic, rascist, genocidal, infanticidal... the list goes on.

The God of the new testament obviously reflects the teachings of Jesus/Paul.

To say you believe that the crossing of the Red Sea actually happened, and also that you live by the teachings of Jesus is completely illogical. The two books are obviously based on different belief systems.

Whether you believe in them or not you must admit this.

Both sides need to stop arguing about the details. Too many Christians are ready to support ID, and then say that the bible is literal. This makes no sense.

ID could be, and has been, used to propose a complex creator that formed the big bang and/or the spark of life. In which case, being non-divine and complex it must be biological, and therefore the product of evolution.

But if the bible is literal, then the creator is divine, unknowable and outside of science. If this is the ID creator, one that is not biological and actually created the world within x number of thousand years etc etc, then ID must by definition be based in Christian thought, something proponants of ID are always denying.

ID either supports evolution or the bible - it can't keep occupying this nebulous middle ground.

So which is it? I have a really hard time understanding what people here actually believe.

Conversely, too many athiests get bogged down in the details, when they need to take a wider view. Evolution is fact. The issue here is political. We must not let something with no evidence and a muddled ideology like ID be taught to children. That is the issue.

Likewise, you cannot get someone to stop believing what they want, neither should you. But quoting the Old Testament when someone talks about Jesus just muddles the argument. What is the issue there? is it about the difference between literallism and allegory???? If so, then make that your argument.

Sorry for the length, I think this issue is bigger than any argument we have on this board can currently allow.

Aw, and here I thought this thread was about how enigmatic I can be.

I often read through many of the threads posted in this sub forum but the reason I seldom post is because I get the impression that several here simply argue for arguments sake and not because they are willing to concede to a well made point from the other side. Though I'm not religious I have gained a lot of insight from the links provided by both Christians and non-Christians alike. I understand that this is not a tournament to decide who will win, but when someone asks for links to back up a claim, then simply brushes them off without bothering to read them then that renders the debate useless.

It's easy to claim one has an open mind, but the way one responds in a debate demonstrates just how open minded one really is.

Just my two centavos.

I'm not asking that at all. I didn't even read jesusislord.com. I thought off the top of my head "what could be a good opposite to "evilbible", and I typed "Jesusislord.com" knowing that someone would have made a site about that. For all I know it could be fundamentalist dogma teaching the world is created in six days, about six thousand years ago (something I don't believe), or telling all who don't believe they will burn forever in eternal hellfire for their continued disobedience (hellfire being another thing I think is unbiblical). I'm asking as to what people think of the reasons for making those responses, and whether it happens more often from those who believe or those who don't (ie, do more Christians ignore non-christian sites, or do more non-Christians ignore Christian sites). I remember a time when i spent 1hr 45m on a response to an article someone linked, after which they responded with a four-word "God must love apologists", without even discussing the issues raised. It frustrates when people take 2 minutes to link an article/video, you spend hours composing a detailed reply, and they spend 2 minutes to not even address it, perhaps even link a new article that took only 2 minutes, thinking they have successfully "won" the debate.

And I'm sure non-Christians get just as frustrated when Christians do this to them. So who is more culpable in this? Who is more likely to dismiss a response? I've seen both sides do it, but which side is more prone to doing so? That's the issue of this thread.

I disagree. I think there is a perception that the Old Testament God is totally violent and evil while the New Testament God is a cuddly teddybear who wouldn't hurt a fly. Neither view is correct, in my opinion. The Old Testament God is more loving and Faithful than many give credit for, and the New Testament God is more judgemental and condemnatory than many give credit for.

No worries. Sorry I cut some of your quote, I just dealt with some of the more pertinent issues I saw. All the best, Emma.

I think it is pretty even amongst believers and skeptics alike. More a case of particular people and how they respond/read others arguments. Do people just want to say their piece or do they actually have a question and want to learn?

There is a view that there are so many interpretations of the Bible that even if you think it is 'contextually' correct, the relativity of it all renders it kind of redundant. I am sure since you study the Bible you do have a deeper understanding of what it means. But for some it is the interpretation aspect that is an actual stumbling block to accepting Christianity has validity.

Also I try not to spend to long on my posts, for inevitably the ones you put time into people never comment on or read. I also rarely go to people's links - they should give me a synopsis I figure lol. I would love to know if any Christian has actually gone to one of those link heavy evolution pages and read them all anyway.

I hadn't seen evilbible before - it is rather amusing: Apparently Jesus speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell.

Evilbible.com is a great site to check out. Though if you want to use their bible quotes for an arguement instead of posting a link to evilbible.com go to biblegateway.com search up the link there, read the background quick (at least the chapter and the surrounding ones, yes I know it's painful but it'll help your arguement down the line) and then post your quote from biblegateway.com and then source biblegateway.com so believers can't just ignore your arguement and complain that it's a biased source because the site you're linking to showing the horrible things of the bible is their fellow believer's website.



The devil is in the details however.

Like for instances 2 Samuel 12 there is a great victory, strong faith and a lesson learned in the chapter... What you don't often hear about is the fact that in that lesson giving for ticking off god is that he tortured to death a little baby and had the baby's mother raped as a show of disapproval to David. Of course David begged the lord not to murder his child but god still did it but David kept his faith and won a battle of a city that probably costed many lifes and much more suffering.




I think both sides do it equally. We can all just look at something, call it biased so it's not worth getting into and move on.

Looks like I've seen through your evil plot, lol. Seriously, as a general rule there is no need to cite sources for Bible passages - we all know where they come from. Quoting chapter and verse (and depending on if it's relevant, maybe the translation) is plenty good enough for my mind. The only time you would need to quote a source for a Bible passage is if you are utilising other people's published research, such as evilbible. Going through biblegateway and then quoting that instead is rather dishonest, imo, because the research into those quotes still comes from someone else's published research and it is just appropriated work.

Thanks for the input

I think many of the UM folks don't understand how to argue, how argumentation works. Let alone whether they are arguing informally or formally or why they are arguing .....I concur with your 'great' point that many argue to be "right". this is dogma not argumentation.... ... argument can be used to create a common ground between the stasis.. it can be used . to refine ones understandings and to value the gift of the critical analysis others provide.....To know when to argue are great places to begin...... So many use circular logic and question begging as the crux of thier argument...perhaps the most common is the arguer that argues on assumption and calls this 'formal logic' instead of informal logic.......IMO..


i personally would not touch the bible or argue it with no historical or academnic background, religion from a posit of beleifs has a vested interest in passing on the beleifs not arguing for merit or value...one is generally arguing for agreement, in a beleif (faith)based construct one only needs to agree...........

Supra Sheri, if you mean that "many people on UM do not know how to conduct a debate", I totally agree.

One of the basic rules of debating, which unfortunately is often broken on the UM believers/sceptics debate-board is:
posting a short, "Yeah! That's what I also think! Go for it!" type of post.

I personally believe that such responses tend to encourage "clans/gangs" to develop; and that, in turn, discourages development of the debate -- *especially* if (or when) the reply includes the (usually) very long copy of the previous post.

This is also not a "Formal debate" board. It is a discussion board, where people are free to share their opinions on matters and ignore the forms of formal/informal logic. Yes, most do not know the difference, because this is not a site dedicated to a particular way to debate. Though sometimes we do take exception when this argument turns nasty (insults, offensive remarks, etc) at which point things can get touchy. But on the whole, as long as the rules are obeyed, you can post whatever you want, and Exposition/persuasive arguments which appeal to emotion or unsubstantiated beliefs are just as valid on this board.

Just a thought,

I agree with you PA completely! It's like all the debating that goes on around here with creation/evolution. Even though both ideas are belief systems, neither side is ready to admit it. It's like people have an intellectual need for being proven "right" when in reality everything that we think is a belief.

It's annoying. They don't address your points, they just post a link or a one liner and run away as if you've been debunked. I usually only post links to affirm data that I'm presenting. Like if I post a Bible verse I'll post a link to an online Bible. As cimber said, when people just post links, it's websites debating, not people.

I think people in general look for things that back up what they believe , which isn't necessarily the truth. And when it comes to things like the bible or koran linking interpretations is just that - linking someones opinion. While a majority holding the same view might make it true , for now , it isn't always the case . - example . for years medicine was sure stress and spicy foods caused ulcers until in the 80's it was suggested that most were caused by bacteria. The majority laughed .......until it turned out to be true. My point being what you may think of fact may not be ............... and there is always more than one interpretation.

the fact that the bible , koran , ect ......... are nothing more than mans interpretation of God says alot. I think too many put stock in opinion and that is exactly what it is. Good advice ? sure . But if someone wrote a new bible or koran today - how many would believe it came from God ? same difference.

People definitely need to post a reference, but a link is just polite. Numerous times people will post a "verse" with no reference that they have edited or taken out of context. If you're going to post something from a book you should cite your source like anything else.

So true, so very true. Not sure where this myth began but it seems very prevalent among non-believers. Then of course to some of us who see Jesus and the God of the Old Testament as the same person it is hard to think any other way. The New Testament clearly equates Jesus as God many times including stating that Christ was the Rock which guided the Israelites out of Egypt, is the Creator, is the Alpha and the Omega, etc...

Rob (PA), problematic is that this issue ('the culpable') is more individualized than grouped. A sound argument addresses as many POVs as humanly possible, formal or informal, and seeks to establish a common language and/or lens (context) that is well understood. Argumentation, as Sheri noted, is not about 'right' and 'wrong' per se, it's a means of voicing an educated assertion using proof/evidence, progressive logic, and humility. Persuasion is about 'right' and 'wrong.' 99% of the "arguing" on UM is actually persuasion.

In my experience, the 'culpable' question is, "Do you believe in possibility?--because both Believers and Non-Believers will answer Yes.

*Thanks Rob. This gets my vote as one of the better UM topic threads.

In your examples above I don't think there is enough information available to give a definite response. We don't know for example if the people involved have had previous experience with the websites. There are some well known and often quoted websites that we all know are biased, and they even say so in their web pages. So I think it is fair to say that when we are familiar with the website and content referenced in a post, that it is somewhat justified to expect that the quoted material will also be biased.

>In that instance I believe It is possible that both positions are correct in your example.<

If you are not familiar with the material or website quoted in the post, then I don't think you can justify such a position unless you have actually used the link and read the content.

>In that instance I believe It is possible that neither of the positions are correct in your example.<

It can be tough to keep an open mind especially when you are continually bombarded with articles from the same biased website(s) that you have already investigated in previous threads. I think it is possible that over use of a single, or limited source for your post can trigger the response in your examples.
I don't think this necessarily shows that posters on one side of an argument are more close minded, it may simply be that they have seen the same song and dance in previous threads.

As a rule of thumb, when I visit websites that I am not familiar with, one of the first things I do is use the "About Us" link. It is amazing how much you can learn from that one page.

Here is what I was able to learn about your two websites, without even reading anything else.



http://www.jesusislord.com/aboutus/index.htm




http://www.evilbible.com/about_evil_bible.htm


The first website although it does have a definite agenda, is clearly focused on one aspect of Christianity.

The second website is not likely to give you an unbiased opinion on any aspect of Christianity.

My 2 cents ( and a bit more, sorry )

Robbie argumentation is a central part of all of our lives, we use it all the time in situations of uncertainty (informal logic) Many of us who have an idea on how to argue help those who don't , i was once such a person...Micheal and hyperactive helped me alot learn how........we can always grow and learn....

On the Um forum or public sphere we are concerned with matters that affect us generally with our roles as citizens, in prinicple it is accessable to all I concur...Migrating from one sphere to the next is also common...
arguments can take the form of critical discussion, they help us bridge differences regardless of your religious leanings one can learn about other things and not compromise their own beleif preferences.....s..... we are a community not a church and all have to keep this in mind when presenting arguement whether formal or not....

Anyone who reads the Bible can tell they are intended as the same god. What people point out, is the seeming difference in personality. No one can deny that there is a difference in how God in the New testament and God in the Old act. That can't be denied. There are two explanations though. Christians believe it was simply revealed in different lights, and unbelievers believe it was a difference in culture and that gods are a reflection of culture.

Lets be honest here both sides tend to use whatever sources they can to disprove someone else's religion. Athiest will use whatever they can find to disprove Christianty. Christian will try to show how their God is only about love & forgiveness. Pagans are some where inthe middle I guess but even they have people in thier religion that want to disprove everyone.

As a Christian I can tell you God who is Jesus, the One and the same, are not all about love and forgiveness. He also has a role of judge. He will also return and destroy the beast and all who follow the beast so many millions of humans will die in the very last day.

There are so many philosophical paths that we could take in this thread that to call it a thread is inappropriate. Twould be better to call it a carpet with many many mini-threads in it.

You ask about three questions all of which are ambiguous sort of.

1. Is one group more correct than the other?

a. Correct about what?
b. What do you mean by "correct"?
c. Where is the line between one "group" and another?

2. Is evilbible.com or jesusislord.com more trustworthy?
a. What is trustworthy?
b. How would we determine the amount of trustworthiness something has?

3. Is one group more prone to the "that's just apologetic crud" argument?
a. What do you mean by "more" prone to?
(1) On what scale do you determine a groups prone-ness?
(2) Does a groups prone-ness to something vary depending on what it is they are being subjected to?
b. What is "apologetic crud"?
(1) Can it be considered an "argument"?
(2) What is an "argument"?
(3) In which context is the argument taking place?
(4) Why is apologetic crud bad anyways?
(5) Why do you assume that there are only two groups/sides?
(6) If there are more than two how would you determine which one is "correct"?


In any case, IMO, neither group is correct (even though I'm not sure what it is they're trying to be correct abut) because neither group is Judaism. Neither of those sites are trustworthy. Apologetic crud is subjective and technically every religious argument is an apologetically cruddy argument.

~HaKaizen~



What does this have to do with the thread?

No apoligetic Crap here, No frustrations either, sad that there are Bros and sisters who would actually harm eachother over beliefs.I say wht I know , and If anyone does not believe me, To tell the truth, it is understandable.

Thats the words Father vused when He First started Enlightening Me.

IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE>

This means God totally understands why evcery one Of God's children believe as they do, it also explains why Father , and Mother(God ) Love their spirit children unconditionally.

It's understandable If you don't believe me.

Love Omnaka

lol, a dirty little secret. But I do have to source them for each bible quote... If I don't I'm accused of changing words, missing context for the chapter, not quoting the full verse, not reading the passages that surround it and it gives the people I'm discussing with a source they trust because it's their fellow believer's website.

Granted outside of the bible I source the sites correctly to the source for articles and outside opinions. But I've found that it's just easier to go to a bible website to source from. But you are right that it is a bit dishonest in a way. But if I do source evilbible.com then the said believer will normally hit on my source site as being biased and changing words and then I've got to source a bible site to show that evilbible.com is telling the truth and then the believers go on about how evilbible.com is throwing it out of context and showing it in an unflattering light so it shouldn't be true because it's from a site that is against believers. Then just completely ignoring the discussion that then normally leads off topic because the believers don't want to face the reality of morality outside of their own perfect faith and can just blame evilbible.com for being biased. But if I quote just biblegateway.com I've found a more in touch posting towards it or since I'm hitting on my outside morality compared to the bible, I'm ignored completely which would have happened anyways most likely before hand.




No problem... It's kind of hard to be honest about that but even I do it sometimes. I try to fight it sometimes because I do like knowing what other people think and where they come from on that idea... Some days though it just seems like hitting a mental wall.

I'd like to address this part of your OP, PA, if you don't mind.

When you say "study each bible verse contextually" do you mean "study it with the meaning of how Christianity wants you to look at the bible - i.e. with a bias towards the Christian teaching being correct" or do you mean "step outside the Christian religion, look at the times and cultural context of when it was written and then analyse the verses as to possible meaning"?

If you don't mind me saying, many Christians (not saying you do) - when they say "study in context" mean "study it as Christianity would like you to perceive it", which kind of defeats actually trying to get to the meaning of the text.

I think its kind of hard to find unbiased sources because so much of what we discuss is based on opinion or perspective. Think of a critic who reviews movies, he is always going to have a slight biased towards his favorite genres, actors, directors, etc.

The trick is to find a source that is credible, research the source of bit. Evilbible.com may be biased but they may also be right. Even unbiased websites can have a biased community or a few biased writers. Also biased people can end up being the most credible...like you are biased towards Christianity but that biasness(is that a word?) is what allows you your extensive knowledge of the religion as I am an unbiased source but have only a general knowledge of the religion because I have less of an interest in that field of study then people who have picked a side. Even a unbiased man can be biased towards his unbiasness (hehe)

Its not all that important that their biased its that their trustworthy.

Heck its probly as easy as typing "Is evilbible.com biased?" into Google and seeing what comes up.

No they are not both a belief system.creation is a religious belief taken from the bible .evoution isn't .Your just trying to make creationism sound credible


fullywired

I agree, you should do both. Read a chapter in the context of the book, as well as the times. Example: Hebrews talks about sins that result in loss of salvation. People argue over what that sin is, but when you read the book in context, you'll figure it out. It was addressed to newly converted Jews, who were being pressured into returning to Judeism. So it is quite obvious that the only way to lose salvation is by actually making a decision to turn away from the faith. Other books can be better understood through a cultural context, Revelation for example.

This is something that is prevalent on this board. Scientific sources have no religious bias but are instantly dismissed, accused of having such or just plain ignored as if they were not there by those trying to debate the scientific validity of creationism.