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 06-10-2001, 09:46 PM   #41
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Tercel,

Since I falsely made the assumption that you were a fundie (or at least my wording seemed that way), please tell me what your are.

Later
 
Old 06-10-2001, 11:19 PM   #42
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The easy one first.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hubjones:
Since I falsely made the assumption that you were a fundie (or at least my wording seemed that way), please tell me what your are.</font>
I'm a Traditionalist. I believe what the majority of Christians have always believed. The major difference between traditionalism and fundamentalism is that fundamentalists also believe in Biblical inerrancy and literalism. So subtract inerrancy and literalism from what fundamentalists and the result is pretty much what I believe.

I don't know how much you know about Christian beliefs, but the Nicene Creed gives some of the basics.

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited June 11, 2001).]
 
Old 06-11-2001, 07:04 AM   #43
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Tercel,

OK. That's cool. So you're in the tradition and not of the literal interpretation. I see now. It's more of a cultural thing basically. ALright.

Later.

Looking foward to your response.
 
Old 06-11-2001, 07:33 AM   #44
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Tercel,
re: "I'm a Traditionalist. I believe what the majority of Christians have always believed. The major difference between traditionalism and fundamentalism is that fundamentalists also believe in Biblical inerrancy and literalism. So subtract inerrancy and literalism from what fundamentalists and the result is pretty much what I believe.
I don't know how much you know about Christian beliefs, but the Nicene Creed gives some of the basics."

The Nicene Creed is an historical catholic document. Are you catholic? The Nicene Creed is a point in history where (supposed) tradition stops and a written record starts.
 
Old 06-11-2001, 08:49 AM   #45
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
I'm a Traditionalist. I believe what the majority of Christians have always believed. The major difference between traditionalism and fundamentalism is that fundamentalists also believe in Biblical inerrancy and literalism. So subtract inerrancy and literalism from what fundamentalists and the result is pretty much what I believe.

I don't know how much you know about Christian beliefs, but the Nicene Creed gives some of the basics.

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited June 11, 2001).][/B]</font>
So you don't believe the Bible is inerrant? Or do you believe the translations may be errant?
 
Old 06-11-2001, 08:44 PM   #46
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hi Tercel,

You said "When did Satan come on the scene?"

In about the third/second centuries BCE a character who is the archenemy of God and man came about.

I do consider the evolution of God generating evil to Satan taking over the role to be one of the many contradictions in the Bible.

Parsifal
 
Old 06-11-2001, 09:36 PM   #47
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by joedad:
The Nicene Creed is an historical catholic document. Are you catholic? The Nicene Creed is a point in history where (supposed) tradition stops and a written record starts.</font>
Catholic? The Nicene Creed was written prior to the Reformation, so the Catholic Church at that stage was the Christian Church. No I'm not Catholic.

 
Old 06-11-2001, 09:40 PM   #48
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:
So you don't believe the Bible is inerrant? Or do you believe the translations may be errant?</font>
Both.
 
Old 06-11-2001, 09:42 PM   #49
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hubjones:
"The obvious alturnatives are that we are spiritual and/or beings with minds like God."

I guess Adam and Eve didn't need that silly old Tree of Knowledge in order to have a mind like God, did they?</font>
No, they already had one.
Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge is something that many Christians take metaphorically. (Again I fence sit) But looking at the possibility that it was literal:
The tree gave them "knowledge of Good and Evil". As they disobeyed God and ate from the tree and therefore their actions were Evil. In doing Evil they obtained knowledge of it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">What do you suppose Adam did when he was by himself? But as to decisions made by the created, I beg to differ. There is really no point in us arguing it any further because you believe we are made to choose things, and I believe we only do what we were made to do to begin with, thus no free will.</font>
Huh? I thought you were an atheist? How can you "believe we only do what we were made to do to begin with"?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Some things "God can't perform" huh? Your God gets more and more interesting everytime I talk to you.</font>
I take it you've had too much exposure to the fundies.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Sorry about the fundie remark, I wasn't saying you were, I was just making an assumption that a fundie probably influenced your definition of God (similar to myself, though I no longer buy it).</font>
No. Where I live there are very few fundies. My definition of God is just the normal one.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I'm still not clear as to your definition of God, so I'm going to leave the rest of that one alone.</font>
You really seem to want a definition of God. Alright.

God the Father:
God is the being who created the universe (the universe being the space-time fabric of which the earth, sun, stars etc are a part; as opposed to the Totality). ie he is the creator.
God is outside of time. ie he is changeless.
God permiates his creation and is present (or as present as a non-physical being can be in a physical creation) throughout it. ie he is omnipresent.
God continually upholds his creation and without his continued will it would not exist. It is thus wrong to think of the creation and God as entirely separate entities, but it is also wrong to think of them as one.
God has complete knowledge of his creation. ie he is omniscient.
God has the ability to perform any possible task (An impossible task would be one where the task is not logically consistent in itself, or is an illegal self referencing system. eg to make 1 + 1 equal three, or to give a being free will but to prevent them ever doing ever, or to create a stone so heavy that he couldn't lift it etc) ie he is omnipotent.
God is the source of/is: life, light, love, truth, holiness, rightousness, justice, mercy, perfection etc. (I think it would be difficult to explain these further)

Is that what you want?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Yes and no. The doctrine of the Trinity is always difficult. Anyway, while on Earth Jesus was not in possesion of his omnis and only could do what the Father enabled him."

Yes and no? What kind of answer is that? It still leaves me puzzled as to whether or not Jesus=God. Trinity isn't really difficult, however, the difficulty comes in when you explain Jesus and maybe even the holy spirit, but forget to explain God (if you explain God, you really don't need the holy spirit or Jesus). This is probably why many people are monotheistic. It's not complicated like trinity is. You might as well say you worship 3 Gods. At least you could explain what you believe.</font>
Um, I don't really know what to say to that.
"Yes and no? What kind of answer is that?"
One of the things I like about Christianity is that it isn't simple. I think I'd be worried if everything could be simply understood, because modern science is showing us just how complex the real world is. Anyway "Yes and no" is a perfectly good answer in my opinion. In other words "You're close, but it goes a bit deeper and more complex than that".
"Trinity isn't really difficult"
I have to disagree with this. "isn't really difficult" isn't the words I'd use to describe three beings which are one being yet not at the same time.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If God is outside of time as you claim, then are you saying that the Special Creation theory is false? It seems that God would have to be in time in order to create things in time. Anyway, I think pre-determination would be ever present. Not by force, but because if God knows things to be, then the things God knows have to be. They can't be any other way. Also, your time-less God claim seems to contradict eternity as well, being that eternity is an infinite measure of time. But that's another discussion.</font>
I see nothing wrong with special creation from a philosophical point of view. (From a practical point of view I believe in evolution - of the animals anyway, humans are a different matter [I do further fence sitting])

-Tercel
 
Old 06-12-2001, 06:33 PM   #50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Tercel,

Once again I have to throw in a few things (but I am enjoying this little debate we're having; we're not making the Earth spin any faster or anything, but it's something for us to do regardless. (smile) )

"No, they already had one.
Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge is something that many Christians take metaphorically. (Again I fence sit) But looking at the possibility that it was literal:
The tree gave them "knowledge of Good and Evil". As they disobeyed God and ate from the tree and therefore their actions were Evil. In doing Evil they obtained knowledge of it."

The only thing I have to say about this is that if they ate from the tree, commited an evil act, and knew it was evil after they did it, then that would mean that evil was present to begin with. I guess I'm saying that God (alleging its existence) is the source of the evil. My reasoning for saying that is well explained with this analogy: You can't know what extreme brightness is unless you know what extreme darkness is. A contrast is necessary for one to exist. Without the other, there isn't the first.

"Huh? I thought you were an atheist? How can you "believe we only do what we were made to do to begin with"?"

Well, look who's making the assumptions now. I'm actually an agnostic. You might even call me a weak agnostic (because I believe in the possibility of anything). I think there is a spiritual realm, however, I don't believe we know anything about it. This would be my explanation for the world's religions (different roads to the end of the rainbow). Also, as to whether or not this alleged spiritual realm is supernatural or not, I would say not. But my agnosticism allows me to say with certainty that I don't know and I probably never will.

"I take it you've had too much exposure to the fundies."

See what assumptions do for you? I guess we got off on the wrong foot with them huh? And for the record, I've had expierences with a fundie or two lately. At least you're open-minded (or so it seems at this time). They only think what they believe is right, like they have the exclusive claim to the absolute "truth". But they might have it. I just don't believe they do.

"No. Where I live there are very few fundies. My definition of God is just the normal one."

A "normal" definition to God? By who's standards? I think this is another reason for all the world's great (or not) religions. Everyone probably says the same thing about their definition of God (mind you I am not attacking what you believe normal is).

"You really seem to want a definition of God. Alright." etcetera...."

Thanks. Its about time I got somebody to do that (lol). Explaining the unexplainable, I must admit, I didn't think you could do it. But I guess what you wrote is probably the way you understand it (which is fine), an introductory summary if you will. And yes, that was what I wanted.

"Um, I don't really know what to say to that.
"Yes and no? What kind of answer is that?"
One of the things I like about Christianity is that it isn't simple. I think I'd be worried if everything could be simply understood, because modern science is showing us just how complex the real world is. Anyway "Yes and no" is a perfectly good answer in my opinion. In other words "You're close, but it goes a bit deeper and more complex than that".
"Trinity isn't really difficult"
I have to disagree with this. "isn't really difficult" isn't the words I'd use to describe three beings which are one being yet not at the same time."

Well, we both have opinions on the matter. Why should religion be hard to understand? It's hard enough trying to live with and understand evil people in the world, do beliefs have to be the same way?

Science minded huh? I'm assuming (and I think correctly) that you are a "moralist" when it comes to religion (if there is a such word as that) and a realist on the matter of science. That's cool. Personally, I don't know if what we think of as God is really that. It could not exist at all (that would piss a lot of people off). But we'll find out at some point (death more than likely). Why don't you start another debate? I look foward to continuing our little discussions.

WIP,

hubj.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:11 PM.

Top

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