Those who seek for the truth should study the Bible

I thank you for this most engaging topic, and look forward to the discourse. I will begin by stating "Philosophy Now" does not define, but instead establishes the standard for truth and Bible2000 is holding the Bible to that standard. The truth relevant to this debate is asserted in Bible2000's opening statement i.e. what happens after death, intelligent creator, etc. etc. Bible2000 - my opponents case is weak, because if one premise falls or doesn't hold up to the standard put forth by my opponent the conclusion is not probable, and thus negated. The standard put forth does not have multiple legs that are mutually exclusive, but a well defined single one that does not exist without its necessary components. There are many things I want to express pertaining to his paragraphs under each premise, but as they neither support nor elevate the premise's they stand on their own. A statement without an explanation of how it pertains to the premise as it is not expressly clear is not support of said premise. Consider the first premise: The Bible is congruent (in agreement) with our experience. The premise itself is very similar to the last one . Both sound like rehashes of each other. I ask my opponent to explain how they are distinct from each other. After all experience is the process of living which presupposes action. I am assuming my opponent means our as in humanities. Talking about humanities experience people tend to talk about this generation or iteration (era) of humanity neglecting the past generations and their actions. Cognizant of the fact that my opponent said an inner moral code. There are many past actions of societies, that extend to now, that are disgusting like the acceptance of slavery based on scripture. The language surrounding how women are viewed - as objects - in the bible, and the treatment of homosexuals. IF the bible is correct: that a man who lay with another man be killed. God is giving permission or an exemption to the rule of thou shall not kill. People who don't kill homosexuals - that is many people - then their experience of life is not agreement with the bible, since they are violating Gods laws. Now, women hold positions of power some are leaders of their countries, but the bible puts property before the wife in the 10 commandments. It is telling to the fact that women be viewed as property. It had been done in the past, so our current experience is not in agreement with the bible. That of slavery; either its practice is in agreement or is not is befitting since we have practiced slavery and do not anymore. We as a society have determined morality and so there is no moral objective fact. Acknowledging the second premise and holding my opponent to that in his arguments pertaining to the bible. The third premise: The bible is in harmony - does not contradict - all of our established - accepted - knowledge, and confirms most of it. The most gross violation of this premise would obviously be the acceptance as evolution of how man came to be in the natural world vs the bible saying that Adam and Eve are the proximate, and God the ultimate, cause. Simply that there is an argument be enough to discount this premise. _________________________ Death is the ultimate reality. Accepting death is accepting life. Failing to recognize we are both dying every moment and living in each moment speaks to a delusion of the self and the idea of self. There is an unwillingness to accept that This is It. The principle of both sides of the same coin is present to see: Live by the word of God. Put another way pursue the good and disregard evil; if this is not done - enter consequences - you are wrong (essentially). It is a dualistic mentality that many cannot escape. The assumption that choosing God/the Bible will enhance your life, or better it in any way errs in the fact: We should not approached life from the outside. As if it were a meal. There is nothing to be gained from it. This delusion of enhancement arises from difficult moments. Choosing the "better" path is only better as long as the "wrong" path remains. Liberation from this mode of thinking stops the circle that happens when always choosing the path that goes left. Consider: The man who goes, comes. The man who comes, goes. Disenthrallment of good is not the acceptance of stagnation as an alternative. To choose is silly since there is no choice. We are not submitting to the inescapable (death). We are relative, mutual, and inseparable; as all other dualities of subject and object. Like moon that does not cast its image intentionally or the water that does not capture its image intentionally. God is a symbol pretending to be a reality and to pursue it is an idea, which never comes. To follow it is to give more reality to it. Attempting to get into the kingdom of heaven is a goal that does not really exist. Our ideas of self improvement relate back to ourselves. A separation happens between who we are and who we think we are, and the idea of who we are is easily comprehended more so than the reality; such that it's substituted for the symbol. This gives rise to the idea of permanence, which society encourages because of stability. When we no longer identify self with our nature, then the duality relationships that of subject and object becomes real. Like the moon in the water. It's an epiphany of sorts: I have no other self than the totality of things of which I am aware. So the notion of getting something from life, or receiving something at the end of it becomes ludicrous. I also contest the "decision" to go left or deciding to be good. It implies an infinite regression that fortunately does not occur. I would put it as: A decision just happens. We can't decide to decide. Conclusion: Bible2000 presented fallible premise's, and we should not accept the Bible based on his standard of determining truth.