Metacrock

[/B]


Meta =>Yea well, that's fine, but unbelief is just as subjective. Why is subjectivity always be big taboo? There is just as much subjectivity that goes into unbelief and there is not path in life that can provide any meaningful analogue to self authentication that is not subjective.


Meta => I would agree with Nomad that 90% of the supposed contradictions and problems brought up by skeptics usually come form the inability to remember things about literary devices that they probably Leonard in English class.

Metacrock

[/b]


Meta => Wrong!That was not an attempt to outline any criteria. That was just a general answer to a general criticism. The criteria are too numerous to go into. They constitute a whole discipline known as "The Historical critical method." But it should be enough to know that they exist and that they are scientific and the method works. In fact atheist argument on this board assumes most of these criteria. Everytime any of you use Crosson to back your arguments you are implicitly supporting the historical critical method.



Meta =>Right, well that's one criterion that can be used; contradiction with known facts about the world. Usually that can be derived from science. Another would be mythological content. Mythology, metaphor and all the literary devices can be gleaned through understanding literary devices. For that one need only consult standard textual methods. Mythology is really clear because we have lots to compare it to. When something like the flood follow the earmarks of surrounding pagan myth than we can be sure it's mythological.


Meta =>You still have not explained why the use of mythological truth constitutes a "flaw?" These are only flaws if one assumes the fundi model of revelation. That only goes back to the 19th century, so why do you use it? Why should we assume that that is the only proper way to look at the text? Moreover, I think in what I said about the text bestowing Grace explains that pretty well. We should follow it because it bestows Grace.

Nomad tries, too, but fails:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Christians, our way of knowing what God is, wants, and thinks, is transmitted to us by way of the Bible, the Church (both acting as agents of the Holy Spirit), and personal revelation. Is this objective? I suppose that depends on how you look at it. To me it is completely objective, but only way we can have objective facts is if God exists at all. Otherwise, none of us can prove that we actually KNOW anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Meta => ahahahahahaahahhahahhhaaha, A lot of what you think of as "disagreement" is nothing more than difference. Of course there will be difference, people in different times in different lands come at things with different cultural understandings, how can they fail to disagree? So what? We have the core of the doctrine that is pretty much the same for the whole church. Culture gets in the way a lot, but the same can be said for almost everything that matters in life.


MEta => Most differences in views are meaningless and unimportant. The church is more untied now than it has ever been. The ecumenical movements of the 20th century were extremely successful

Bookman

I didn't intend any negative connotation by using the word subjective -- sorry about that. For what its worth, I agree with your statement "There is just as much subjectivity that goes into unbelief and there is not path in life that can provide any meaningful analogue to self authentication that is not subjective." at least to the degree that I understand your terms. It seems to be saying, as I have all along, that the path that one follows to one's goals, whether that goal be grace, inner peace, happiness, morality, or what have you is less important than the destination. Because, as you say, all of this is necessesarily subjective (and there's nothing wrong with that) and we have no means to objectively choose between christianity, zen buddhism, both, or neither. No taboo intended.

Also, I said:
"It has always seemed to me that the path to redemption is an important tenet, and that the bible is unclear on whether acts, faith, or the sacrament of baptism is sufficient to secure one's salvation."

To which you replied:
"I would agree with Nomad that 90% of the supposed contradictions and problems brought up by skeptics usually come form the inability to remember things about literary devices that they probably Leonard in English class."

I'm not certain what you meant by that. Are you saying that the bible is clear on what the path to salvation is? I thought that I understood this to be a point of contention even among christians.

Bookman

Metacrock

Meta => The problem with even begining to access that in that way is in deciding why one should think of there even being a Bible. I mean the works individually were not written as "The Bible." So to say "The Bible is erroneoius" or whatever is to create an imporession of a monolythic work with unified structure and purpose and than to judge that whole as flawed. But the whole is created as a collection of works. So why should a problem with one aspect of the collection invalidate the whole collection? Then you aren't bothering to consider the nature of the alledged problem anyway. So what is the value of a contradiction? Doesn't that rather depend upon the nature of the contradiction?


Meta =>But mythology can be very easy to spot, espeicially in Genesis where the Garden story follows almost exactly the outline of Pagan myth, and the story of he flood where it's clelary derivative of Oupnaphistim in Gilgamesh. So why then should we conclude that this is problem? There have been many fine works understanding the value of mythology, and certain shcolars of history of religions practically have a faith based upon mythology. So why can't we understand the Biblical use of mythology in that way? It's communicating mythological truth because mythology speaks to the psyche? IT does this through the use of archetypes.

Is Big G a god of war or of peace?

Merciful or revengeful?


Meta =>But that's a theological problem, not a textual one. Theological problems are best left to theologians, that's their jobs (dont' try this at home, I am a trained theologian).

See ... http://www.bobkwebsite.com/biblclcntrdctns.html]http://www.bobkwebsite.com/biblclcntrdctns.html]http://www.bobkwebsite.com/bibl clcntrdctns.html
... for a side-by-side comparison of some biblical contradictions including the characteristics of mystical beings/gods.


Meta =>Much alledged mythological content is blown way out of proportion as with the Christ myther claims, but why is the use of mythology a flaw? It isn't, it's another means of communicating thruth.


Meta =>that is just plain bull. I can prove the fulfillments of Messiah in Jesus thorugh the Talmud! I think we can assume that the Rabbins Yalkut know something about interp of the OT. Now that is another thread. PLease start it as a new one as it will be too protracted to do here.

Did Isaiah prophesize JC or provide a sign for Ahaz that he would prevail in battle with Rezin and Pekah?

JC!

Did any OT prophet prophesize that JC would live in/be from Nazareth/be called a Nazarene?

See ... http://www.bobkwebsite.com/biblicalfictions.html]http://www.bobkwebsite.com/biblicalfictions.html]http://www.bobkwebsite.com/b iblicalfictions.html
... for a description of some of the biblical fictions.


Start new thera on Messianich fulfillment topic.

Virgins births are found in other religions. The walls of the temple of Luxor depict a virgin birth.

Meta =>so what? it is also derivative form the OT.

Resurrections are found in other religions. The Bel myth of Babylon describes Bel's arrest, scourging, conviction, crucifixion, internment in the Earth, resurrection, and ascension.

I rather doubt it. I'll check the link but it's been my expernice that the christ myther stuff is usually Bs. I dont' think they had crucifiction.

See ... http://www.bobkwebsite.com/belmythvjesusmyth.html]http://www.bobkwebsite.com/belmythvjesusmyth.html]http://www.bobkwebsite.co m/belmythvjesusmyth.html
... for more on the Bel myth.

Thus, Xnity is not necessarily an original religion, having borrowed from other religions various mythological people/things/events.


Meta =>If any of that could be substantiated it woudln't even matter. Because I am a poly symbolic monotheist. There is one reality behind all religion and it is made to seem different by the filtering through cultural constructs. But as the one exception I take to this is to see Jesus as the one prefect revelation of God to humanity then I must take issue with mostof these. And as they are easily refuted there is no reason to take that position. However,if did turn out to be the case it would impendge upon my general faith in God.

Meta => Pretty good proof that God exists! It's a design argument. That couldn't come about randomly through evolution, not in my opinion. Most researchers in that field do not claim to have disproven religious experince.
http://www.newscientist.com/features...jsp?id=ns22871

In Search of God

Sceptics of religion are quick to claim that the brain's hardwiring proves that God has no real existence, that it's all in the brain. "The real common denominator here is brain activity, not anything else," says Ron Barrier, a spokesman for American Atheists based in Cranford, New Jersey. "There is nothing to indicate that this is externally imposed or that you are somehow tapping into a divine entity."


But Newberg isn't so sure. "We can't say they're wrong," he says. "On the other hand, if you're a religious person, it makes sense that the brain can do this, because if there is a God, it makes sense to design the brain so that we can have some sort of interaction. And we can't say that's wrong, either. The problem is that all of our experiences are equal, in that they are all in the brain. Our experience of reality, our experience of science, our mystical experiences are all in the brain."

Doubting Thomas

Then you worship the God of Chaos and you contradict yourself.

Why would a logical God filter itself through cultures in a scatter-gun approach? This explains the discordance among the sects of Christianity and other religions and I might *consider* the notion but for your statement on Christ.

Considering that Christ is thought of as God by only one religion (and then it has sects that can't agree), well, does this not contradict your filtering notion if Jesus is the one "perfect" revelation?

Considering that Islam and the Jewish faith believe he was man, how do you reconcile that with "the one reality" behind all religion?

-T

Apikorus

Puhleeze, Meta. We've been through this before. You are illiterate in Hebrew and Aramaic and you know next to nothing about the Talmud. The rabbinic literature is vast and contains many statements about Jewish messianism. Some of them seem to "fit Jesus", but many do not. Remember the rabbis knew of Christian claims yet emphatically rejected them. You can't read the original sources at all. At best all you can do is regurgitate what Glenn Miller or your sainted Alfred Edersheim wrote. Modern experts on Jewish messianism such as John Collins, Gershom Scholem, Moshe Idel, Raphael Patai, Gebern Oegema, etc. you've probably never read. Your own remarks are a parody of scholarship.

[ October 05, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

Toto

On Metacrock's dyslexia:

If MC would post one tenth of what he does, but take the time to edit, spellcheck, tighten, and get rid of the "ahahahah" "YOU'RE WRONG" "it's all Bs" and other garbage, he would have about 100 times the influence.

But I think he knows this. He has confirmed that his role is to be the "buffoon" - in other words, to be disruptive.

Toto

Nomad has made this claim before, but I have not had the time to respond to it:

In fact, we know that there are instances where our senses are not reliable. We know that we can be easily fooled by a magician, and some magicians have done us the favor of revealing their tricks. We also know that people can experience UFO abductions and other psychic phenomena, but neuroscientists can provide a better explanation, one which does not violate the laws of physics.

There is probably no way that anyone else can prove that your experience of your God is an illusion, since you have decided to believe. But you should consider that many other people have had experiences of other Gods which are inconsistant with yours. That, combined with the fact that these experiences of God can be created at will in a laboratory, makes the rest of us doubt that your experience can count as a proof of God.

Vorkosigan

This bit of reasoning is fallacious, of course, as we can just as easily deceive any of our senses, yet we consider them to be generally reliable. To treat an experience of God as being somehow different, and reject it as having happened because such an experience could be illusory is not logical. How can you prove to me that my experience of God is not real? What method would you use to prove you are right?

If you won't submit it to any empirical tests, and reject all empirical tests that show it be a failure, and reject all evidence from other gods that show them to be failures, and reject all evidence showing that miracles are impossible -- in short, if you deny reality in all its wonderful complexity, and adopt a position of complete nihilism toward human knowledge, you are right. There is no way to convince you. You're the man in the asylum, convinced he's Louis the XIV. We can show you where the door is, but only you can turn the knob.

Michael

lpetrich

The Biblical God? Does this mean that Amon-Ra and Baal and Marduk and Ashur and Ahura-Mazda and Zeus and Jupiter are all the Biblical God in disguise?

If so, then it's curious that this is not directly stated in the Bible. Paul did not go around claiming that he worships Zeus under some other name, to take one example.