[quote=The Nexerus]They are all divinely inspired. You seem to misunderstand the teachings of Christianity with regard to scripture; God did not literally reach down with an ethereal hand and physically write the Bible. It was written, according to Christian teaching, by human beings who were divinely inspired. The same thing occurs with Islam and the Quran—Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel, as a representative of God, gave Muhammad the knowledge to write what he did, just as he had done with the prophets of the older faiths, whom Muslims recognize as legitimate prophets (including Jesus, even). Jews believe the same sort of thing about the prophets.You need to remember that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are entirely separate, and made with God between two different parties—in the older case, the Israelites, and in the newer case, all of humanity. The reason that the Old Testament and New Testament are both within the Bible is what I've been telling you in all of my posts so far, but that you've apparently ignored. Context. The Old Testament explains the prophecy of the Messiah, of 'Christ', and tells the mutual heritage of all of the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike. There's also the matter of a disagreement amount the different denominations of Christians over whether some of the Old Testament, specifically the Old Covenant, does apply to Christians. In my previous post I expressed the most mainstream view: that they're entirely and completely separate, and the Old Covenant is in no way whatsoever binding to Christians. There is also a popular view among Protestant Christian denominations that the moral teachings of the Old Covenant apply to Christians, but not the pen of the laws and rules for Orthodox Jews.The Old Testament is a part of the Bible chiefly for contextual and historical reasons, but some denominations also believe that the moral teachings ring true as well. No one besides Jewish Christians would tell you that Christians must be Torah-submissive.[/quote]

So basically you're saying the OT is man's word and the NT is God's word?

If so, how are we to know that the NT is not also just mans word?
If you look at it from what the Bible says, it's all Gods word so you're expected to listen to all of it.

If you look at it from personal interpretation, that's where the thousands of different denominations of Christianity popped up from.
But once you're at that point it's no longer trying to establish fact on what God said, but rather what you personally want God to of said.

Since we currently have no proof of God existing and no way of asking said God which parts are his own, all we have to go by is the Bible (Well, we could actually go by history, but history would show the Bible is 100% man made, no God's intervention. So to give you some benefit of the doubt, we'll go at it from what the Bible says). And the Bible says it is all God's word, OT and NT.

[quote=So Boerd]Let me adopt a different tactic. Every scientist on Planet Earth, Dawkins included, knocks on your door and says there is a God. Do you then believe?[/quote]

Do they provide proper proof and evidence?
Observable, physical, repeatable proof and evidence?

If so, probably. If no, I have no more reason to believe them than I do Ray Comfort.

[quote=So Boerd]I don't pretend to be rational.[/quote]

You sure you don't want to take that back? :hehe

[quote=Kho]I am here to debate and learn. If we avoid this topic at school, and we avoid it at social gatherings, and we avoid it in the workplace and only ever see opinionated people who will not change their minds argue about it on T.V, then why can we not discuss it here, on the internet. I understand you might have seen many God debates, but as you may have noticed, this is a first for me here, and I am quite interested in learning more and in contributing what I believe I know. We need to end this custom of 'argument for the sake of argument and debate for the sake of debate.'

I am here to debate, and I am here to learn from it and change my mind, and I am hoping people are just as open as I am in that regard. I will personally be the first to end it if I feel it is going nowhere.[/quote]

Heh, I like you! :)

[quote=Kho]Edit: I just realised that I have suddenly lost interest in this debate. I have too many other things to focus on, it was a mistake to join, but I couldn't help it Maybe I'll start a proper debate about this and we can continue this some other time. Adios.[/quote]

Well darn... :(

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]The burden of proof is one whomever there is more evidence against. There is yet no proof that there is more evidence against theists.[/quote]

It's simple math.
Science has tons of proof and evidence.
Religion has no proof and evidence.
Therefore by subtracting nothing from a ton our total is... There is more evidence against.

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]If you think there is no evidence against athiests or agnostics, etcetera, then leave theists alone and let them believe what they want. Hands off their freedom of belief. Agree to disagree and be civilized.[/quote]

As long as they agree to stop...

1) Teaching it to the next generation as if it's fact
1a) And down talk/shelter/hide the teaching of science to the next generation

2) Trying to push it into schools

3) Push it into law

4) Let it influence how they treat others

5) Trying to push it into Science

Then sure. But all these things are still happening, so it's still going to be debated.

[quote=So Boerd]The burden of proof is on whomever is making the statement. I can say green swans exist. You cannot prove they don't. Therefore you can only say you don't know. By making the assertion that they don't, the burden is on you to prove it. Green swans exist is an verifiable, unfalsifiable statement. The opposite is unverifiable and falsifiable. Making a definitive statement which is unverifiable is silly, don't you think?The burden is on the atheist and the theist both. It is not on the agnostic.[/quote]

Like was already stated, the burden on proof is whoever make's the claim.
You claim God is real? Prove it. If you can't we have no reason to believe in it.
Combined with the fact it is impossible to disprove a negative since it has no evidence to start with (therefore leaving nothing to truly disprove it with), it is safe to say it doesn't exist rather than to simply say you don't know.

[quote=Brovo]I am now a God because I say so.[/quote]

Praise be onto you :bow

[quote=Brovo]You can't disprove that. Now worship me in my newly founded church of Brovism.[/quote]

All bow before the almighty and logical Brovo! :bow :bow :bow

[quote=Brovo]The one tenet is that you must wear a silly hat.[/quote]

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEiyBbP28g8]Oh boy! This is my favourite tenet ever! :D[/url] 

[quote=Brovo]Or else you will go to candy-land and die over and over from cholesterol.[/quote]

... I LOVE THIS NEW RELIGION! :sun