FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-06-2001, 04:51 PM   #21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Whole New World

There is so much humor in what you have to say. Unintentional I image, but there nonetheless.

"I wish to enlighten myself...to widen my mind by seeing other viewpoints. I don't hate the Christians: I hate the christianity."

You wish to enlighten yourself by destroying other people's faith? And you justify that by being SO certain that NO Christian thinks for his or her self? That is widening your mind to see other viewpoints? Sounds fishy to me.

"And don't call me ignorant of christians, you have never lived my life, or even met me! "

So we can't call you ignorant because we haven't lived your life, but you can label ALL Christians ignorant sheep, even though, presumably, you have not lived their lives either? I went through my period of skepticism too, but I didn't emerge from it as arrogant as you have.
 
Old 02-06-2001, 05:52 PM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I assure you, my humor is quite intentional. If I appear arrogant, I appologise. It is probably caused by the annonymity of the internet: I find such humor in my ability to get under someones skin with a valid point. As to the sheep comment, don't christians claim to emmulate sheep? I don't claim that christians don't think, I just don't think they are logical when it comes to relegion. As far as I can determine, there is no way to logically work through the existance of an invisible god.
If you think I am abrasive, concider this: Satin has little affect on hard wood, but sandpaper makes it take notice.

Once again, the primary reason I am here is for entertainment. I laugh out loud as I read some of these responses. If this isn't the reason that you are here, why are you here? Keep having fun, and keep up the good replies.
Daniel
 
Old 02-06-2001, 09:03 PM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lightbulb

The fact of the matter is that if one reads the Bible with a plain-sense reading of the text, they will see that there are contradictions and errors. It's as simple as that, and I'm sure people that visit this page are familiar with the contradictions in the Bible.

The requirement of fundamentalist Christianity is that the reader suspend the rules of language so that a statement that is clear, all of a sudden becomes "not clear" for the sole reason that another passage contradicts it. They just say, "well that doesn't say what it clearly says...because...the Bible can't contradict itself." I'm sorry, but it is not too much to ask that the rules of language be observed when reading a text. If we ignore the rules of language in reading the biblical text, how do we know when the rules of language are being suspended, and when they are not? It is completely arbitrary, and it allows for Christian sects to get away with ludicrous interpretations, saying, "oh, well this passage needs extrapolation because it doesn't say what I want it to say..." And all fundamentalist sects do this to some extent.

I was debating the controversial verse in Mt. 24:34 (in which Jesus says "this generation will not pass away" until all the apocalyptic events take place) with a fundamentalist and he was arguing that "genea," the word translated "generation" could mean "race" (a definition that has NO basis) and so should be interpreted in that way in Mt. 24:34. Of course, I asked him to insert "race" when he felt like it everywhere the word "generation" appeared. When we did this, the gospels turned into an anti-semetic tirade. That's the problem. When we start suspending the rules of language, anything is possible. It is best to go with the plain-sense.

And "Nomad," another reason that many people insist that the Bible be clear is because about five hundred years of Protestant theology has been based on that very assumption--and most of the attacks concerning contradictions are levied at Protestant fundamentalists. A confusing book that needs to be interpreted by specialists is not a very Protestant concept, but fits right into Roman Catholic theology. From your posts, I don't think you are Catholic, but I could be mistaken.
 
Old 02-07-2001, 06:03 AM   #24
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Interestingly, God doesn't need to put anything into the text that is contradictory for the likes of you to not get it dmv.
Nomad
</font>
So your rebuttal to my statement is a personal insult. Yea that works well in debates... Not. I'll suspend my response to that and simply ask you again...

Are yousaying that god has installed contradictions into the bible to exclude from heaven anyone that requires some degree of credibility in their god?

Do most christians have such a short attention span. There are at least 3 points on this thread that have just been disregarded by you two. Your response to our questions are eithor insults or another question on a completely different subject. Come on guys, how about a little focus.



What would it take for you to believe that the Bible was the Word of God?
Nomad
[/QUOTE]

Something on the level of what happened to
Saul.


 
Old 02-07-2001, 12:44 PM   #25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

As far as I know, modern christian doctrine does not teach direct intervention by G-d (miracles). Unless you are one of those feeble minded individuals who believes in female angels (search the bible for girl angel) touching people or follow "It's a Miracle (coincidence, good luck, etc)", there is little hope of actually being "told" of god's exhistance. Especially since s/he/it doesn't exhist.

You asked what it would take for me to believe the bible is the word of god? Exactly what it would take to make you believe that the Koran is the word of God. (P-nutButterUponHIm). Maby after I believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Honest Mechanics- Doctors- Lawyers-&Politicians. At that moment, I will embrace the man who put muddy spit in a blind man's eyes.
Daniel
 
Old 02-07-2001, 07:44 PM   #26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
And millions of people have read the bible and interpreted as the revealed truth of God.</font>
They decided that the bible was true beforehand. Unless you're claiming that atheists and other non-christians read the bible and were converted. Are you?

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
--Isaac Asimov

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Umm. God screwed up by not putting the interpetation of the Bible beyond the common language of the time and into a mathmetical system that only a couple of dozen people TODAY would understand (and how many in the First Century)?</font>
1. God screwed up by putting the bible in a form such that it is open to interpretation. Fancy and figurative language is fine for Hawthorne and Melville, but when you're talking about eternal damnation, it's probably better to be clear and unequivocal.

2. A couple of dozen people understand mathematical notation?? 24 people? Where the hell did you get that?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
What is your authority for that breathtakingly unsupported statement? And what is the difference between "the perfect truth" and just "the truth?"</font>
What he was saying is that "2" always means 2. This is not the case with words, with can have many different and unrelated meanings.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
I don't think inspiration necessarily forecloses human error.</font>
Then how can you accept any part of the bible as true? How do you distinguish between god's word and human error?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Reformed skeptic who found faith through history and personal experience.</font>
I am very interested in this. What do you mean by "history?" What were the experiences?

[This message has been edited by Patrick Bateman (edited February 07, 2001).]
 
Old 02-07-2001, 07:50 PM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Unsupported assertions do not advance an argument Bob.</font>
Interesting that you should say that, because that's exactly what you did on the genealogies. That and insult me. A lot.


[This message has been edited by Patrick Bateman (edited February 07, 2001).]
 
Old 02-07-2001, 08:00 PM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Combine dmbprof's "christianity as a virus" rhetoric with,</font>
Christianity is a meme, which can be likened to a virus in some respects.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
jragonfli's "christians as mentally inferior" rhetoric</font>
On average, atheists/agnostics tend to be smarter than the religious. There have been studies.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
then we really ARE getting back to Berlin, 1939.</font>
What does this have to do with Nazis?
 
Old 02-07-2001, 08:06 PM   #29
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Thanks Patric, I loved the responses. Did you see the Matrix? I found the "Humans are a Virus" argument to be one of the more interesting points of the movie. Keep writing, and keep having fun!
 
Old 02-07-2001, 08:13 PM   #30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

"They decided that the bible was true beforehand. Unless you're claiming that atheists and other non-christians read the bible and were converted. Are you?"

You misunderstood my point. I was showing the fallacy of the post I was responding to. He raised the numbers game. I merely countered with another numbers game. I actually don't think that the numbers game proves the point. However, I will say that I have known, and learned about, many people who rejected the Bible before they converted to Christianity. So, you are wrong. Not all Christians decided the Bible was true beforehand. Many converted after an intensely personal experience or through the study of the Bible. Not all of us were raised in Christianity.

"1. God screwed up by putting the bible in a form such that it is open to interpretation. Fancy and figurative language is fine for Hawthorne and Melville, but when you're talking about eternal damnation, it's probably better to be clear and unequivocal.

3. A couple of dozen people understand mathematical notation?? 24 people? Where the hell did you get that?"

That would depend on what sort of mathmatical computations the Bible would have been put in, wouldn't it? And at least some respected mathmaticians DO believe that the Bible contains a mathmatical code. However, the issue is highly controversial one subject to fierce academic debate. JUST the kind of thing that I doubt a God would entrust his "Word" to.

And you overlooked, or ignored, my point about First Century understanding. God had to convince THEM, before he could convince US. Afterall, they handed down His "Word" to us. Moreover, I think you are focusing on the Bible as some magic tailsman that contains the mystical word of God. That was not the opinion of the early Christians. To them, the "Gospel" was the death and resurrection of Christ, as well as whatever teaching traditions they passed on as well. It was not the "New Testament." It was "What Happened." Whether you doubt the historicity of the New Testament or not, it is fairly clear about the basics of "What Happened." Jesus Chris was the messiah, and maybe more. He taught the coming of the kingdom of God/Heaven, and antagonized the Jewish authorities to the extent that they moved against him, causing Jesus to be turned over to the Roman Authorities for execution. Jesus was in fact executed, but he rose again on the third day, demonstrating God's triumph over sin. That was the CORE Christian message, and THAT was what Christians have, and should today, attempt to tell others about.

"Then how can you accept any part of the bible as true? How do you distinguish between god's word and human error?"

Because I beleive that the resurrection of Jesus Christ provides strong evidence of his divinity, or at least divinely granted authority, those words preserved in the New Testament which are likely his are authoritative.

Morevoer, I also believe it historically probable that Jesus trained and taught and appointed several of his followers to carry on his work and spread his teachings and deeds. Let us call them "Apostles." To the extent that the New Testament records their teachings and deeds, I believe that they are authoritative.

However. To the extent that there are clear interpolations or redactions, I find them to be much less authoritative. That is not to say that the Christian who added text to the New Testament had no insights to offer, but his authority is much less than Jesus and his Apostles.

Out of Room.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:36 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.