Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 10-05-2009, 09:21 AM

Well said. Hardcore believers seem unable to "think outside the box", that is develop a detached awareness of their own thinking and the religious and psychological context of scripture. At its worst the mindset is childish, an all-or-nothing reductionism completely ignorant of any other viewpoint, yet claiming superior insight and authority.

At least someone like Augustine had the experience and education to put his Christian beliefs in some kind of perspective. The worst fundamentalists are anti-intellectual and intolerant, lacking an informed opinion about any subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

Quote:

Yes, the same way atheists rely on sites such as; Skepticsannotatedbible to find their errors. I wonder how many atheists realized these supposed conflictions before Google?

Quite a few of us. You keep talking about "atheists' as if you assume they are not knowledgeable about the bible, that they don't "understand" things, and that they are simply uninformed.

I know more atheists who have read the bible, cover to cover (often more than once), than I have met christians who have done so. Most of them only know what they are told in church or in the specifically chosen passages in "bible study". Obviously some christians are well-acquainted with their bible, but they seem to be in the minority. In addition, many atheists have spent time investigating other religions, looking for some kernel of truth there - we have often read the Koran, the Vedas, the Torah, and even Dianetics. Many, many atheists here were believers for many years.

Many of us identified the falsehoods and contradictions in the bible long before the internet and long before Google. Our research methods are not as simple as typing into Google, I'm afraid. To continue to insinuate that we are speaking from a position of ignorance when it is clear that we are not, is insulting.

Our opinions are as valid as yours, and -- from what I've seen here -- often based on better scholarship and understanding of the issues. We just don't believe; that's the difference.

Dark Virtue · 10-05-2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Virtue

Lovely, now you're twisting MY words around.

I'm simply correcting you.

I don't know that answer, but I'm sure alot of Christians see "hate", and probably think nothing of it.

Yes, the same way atheists rely on sites such as; Skepticsannotatedbible to find their errors. I wonder how many atheists realized these supposed conflictions before Google?

Because wisdom comes to those who study and learn. Anyone can read Luke 14 and see the word "hate", and suppose it means literal hatred.

It is simple. Heck, i understand what this verse translates into. What's your excuse?

Bible scholars have been studying the bible since the 3rd century. I don't think they used Google or Yahoo!

Meaning some people just don't understand the wide variety of meanings in different words.

Quote:

2.) What is wordplay doing on the Bible?

Back when these words were being spoken. It wasn't considered wordplay. Everyone knew what Jesus meant when he said, "follow me instead of your parents."

The Jewish midrash on Exodus describes God as hating the angels, and not just the fallen ones. It does not mean he dislikes Michael and Gabriel! It means that he chooses to give man the Torah, rather than the angels.

Jesus pretty much said the same thing. DO NOT HATE YOUR PARENTS, but worship me [Your God] over them.

The bible says "God hates his angels."

Since the word "hate" is being used as a strong-word.

Do you believe God actually detests his angels?

IBIH, you haven't seemed to have made the distinction that I'm not arguing with you over the word "hatred". I'm speaking in generalties and you keep pointing back to specifics that I'm not even addressing.

As others have asked before me, please supply verses that you are referring to.

spamandham · 10-05-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Virtue

IBIH, you haven't seemed to have made the distinction that I'm not arguing with you over the word "hatred". I'm speaking in generalties and you keep pointing back to specifics that I'm not even addressing.

As others have asked before me, please supply verses that you are referring to.

IBIH don't need no stinkin' Bible verses. That's the mistake atheists keep making and the reason they don't understand. You're not supposed to actually read the Bible in order to understand it.

IBelieveInHymn · 10-05-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdeering

Since you are accepting what the Jews have to say about Jesus how about answering my post addressing Jesus' failure to live up to the inerrant Biblical prophesy (or shall we say template) for the true Messiah, for convenience sake I'll repeat the ten lines:
[LIST=1][*]Be the seed (a direct descendant) of King David, through King Solomon (e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-16) I.e. be totally human

The glorious kingdom of Christ is founded upon the Davidic covenant, for he is the seed of David according to the flesh, (Rom 1:3). Since the days of Zedekiah, only one king of the Davidic family has been crowned in Jerusalem, and he was crowned with thorns by a jeering mob. But the covenant is immutable by the oath of Yahweh (Psa 132:11; 89:30-37), and Yahweh will get give to the thorn-crowned one the throne of his father David

Quote:

[*]Be a spiritual and military/political leader (e.g., Is 2:3, 11:2; Dan 7:14)

This description glorifies the Ancient of days who then proceeded to give this person authority to rule on earth (cp Psa 2:6; 110:1,2). And so this verse refers to Christ's appointment as absolute Lord and Judge by virtue of his atoning sacrifice.. the one who achieved a sinless life (Isa 53:9), paid the price for man's redemption (Isa 53:5,6), and was vindicated by his bodily resurrection as Judge of the entire human race (Acts 17:31; Rom 2:16). God's intention in giving Him this authority (Mat 28:18) was that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. He was to have global rule over everyone.

Quote:

[*]Be married and have children during his term (e.g., Ezek 46:16-17)

THE PRINCE MUST NOT TAKE ANY OF THE INHERITANCE OF THE PEOPLE...: These are warnings to a MORTAL "prince", not for an immortal one!

HE IS TO GIVE HIS SONS THEIR INHERITANCE: Another indication that this "prince" is mortal. Since this prince would have sons it seems clear that he will not be the Messiah.

Quote:

[*]Arrival of Elijah the Prophet (e.g., Mal 3:23-24[4:5-6][2])

All other nations would acknowledge divine blessing on the Israelites because their land would be such a delightful place (Deu 4:6,7; 28:9,10; 33:29; Jer 33:6; Zep 3:19; Zec 8:13,23).

Quote:

[*]Building the Third Temple in Jerusalem (e.g., Ezek 37:26-28)

I WILL MAKE A COVENANT OF PEACE WITH THEM: Ezekiel 16:62; 20:37; 34:25. I WILL ESTABLISH THEM AND INCREASE THEIR NUMBERS: Gen 22:17,18).

Quote:

[*]In-gathering of Jewish exiles to Israel (e.g., Is 11:12)

Even Gentiles are now convinced that God is on the side of Israel. They too will come to Jerusalem to humble themselves in worship before the God of Israel (Isa 14:2; 49:22; 66:20).

Quote:

[*]Reunification of Judah and Israel into one people (e.g., Ezek 37:22)

Israel is one people.

Quote:

[*]World peace (e.g., Is 2:4)

When Jesus returns, there will be 1,000 years of perfect peace.

Quote:

[*]Universal knowledge of G-d (e.g., Is 11:9)

Full of the knowledge, And full of the Glory (Num 14:21; Psa 72:19). And full of the knowledge of the glory..." (Hab 2:14).

Quote:

[*]Resurrection of the dead (e.g., Is 26:19)

"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise" In Hezekiah's day, the dead coming back to life, the Assyrian captives (given up for dead) returning to their own Land! And the dead (singular) of course, to his body as good as dead in leprosy, raised up by God's power.

"Together WITH MY DEAD BODY" is alluded to by Paul in 1 Th 4:14: "God will bring WITH JESUS those who have fallen asleep in him."

It is not certain whether the resurrection envisioned here is intended to be literal or figurative. A comparison with Isaiah 25:8 and Daniel 12:2 suggests a literal interpretation, but Ezekiel 37:1-14 uses resurrection as a metaphor for deliverance from exile and the restoration of the nation (see Isa 27:12-13)both are correct!

Johnny Skeptic · 10-05-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

The glorious kingdom of Christ is founded upon the Davidic covenant, for he is the seed of David according to the flesh, (Rom 1:3).

Nonsense, if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, he could not have been genetically related to David. Of course, there is not any historical evidence at all that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Since it is well-established that the Bible contains errors, including the false claim that a global flood occurred, there are not any good reasons to believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

show_no_mercy · 10-05-2009, 11:22 AM

This looks like you've copied it from some website, but whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

The glorious kingdom of Christ is founded upon the Davidic covenant, for he is the seed of David according to the flesh, (Rom 1:3). Since the days of Zedekiah, only one king of the Davidic family has been crowned in Jerusalem, and he was crowned with thorns by a jeering mob.

Jesus didn't fulfill the role of king since he wasn't anointed by any legitimate high priest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

the one who achieved a sinless life (Isa 53:9), paid the price for man's redemption (Isa 53:5,6)

Isaiah 53 directly follows the themes of the previous "chapters" of Isaiah, wherein the Jewish people are the suffering servant. Isaiah didn't write "chapters", that's why I put it in quotes. You have to read deutero-Isaiah in context: Isaiah 40-55 is one context, and reading it in its entire contexts it's pretty obvious that the suffering servant in 53 is Israel. Reading Isaiah 53 in isolation is merely quote-mining.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

Full of the knowledge, And full of the Glory (Num 14:21; Psa 72:19). And full of the knowledge of the glory..." (Hab 2:14).

The Psalms aren't prophetic, btw.

Sai · 10-05-2009, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBelieveInHymn

The glorious kingdom of Christ is founded upon the Davidic covenant, for he is the seed of David according to the flesh, (Rom 1:3).

Nonsense, if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, he could not have been genetically related to David. Of course, there is not any historical evidence at all that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Since it is well-established that the Bible contains errors, including the false claim that a global flood occurred, there are not any good reasons to believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Until we see at least ONE solid piece of evidence of the world wide flood, we may as well use that is a test case for the inerrancy of the rest. Big fail so far. Find one major falsehood in the book why believe any of it.

Failte · 10-05-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Find one major falsehood in the book why believe any of it.

It does throw the whole idea of inerrancy out the window, but finding a falsehood in the book doesn't automatically mean that every statement is false. That is just as much hyperbole as claiming that the whole thing is true. Until proven otherwise, we can dismiss any specific passage the bible as myth, however. They far outnumber anything that is verifiable.

There are a few passages that are supported by empirical evidence, let's be fair about that. Some places mentioned do exist, some people mentioned are real people. That most of the book is a muddle of mythology and wishful thinking means we shouldn't accept it as "truth" and should question every single assertion made about it.

Sai · 10-05-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

Quote:

Find one major falsehood in the book why believe any of it.

It does throw the whole idea of inerrancy out the window, but finding a falsehood in the book doesn't automatically mean that every statement is false. That is just as much hyperbole as claiming that the whole thing is true. Until proven otherwise, we can dismiss any specific passage the bible as myth, however. They far outnumber anything that is verifiable.

There are a few passages that are supported by empirical evidence, let's be fair about that. Some places mentioned do exist, some people mentioned are real people. That most of the book is a muddle of mythology and wishful thinking means we shouldn't accept it as "truth" and should question every single assertion made about it.

I should have clarified and said "why believe any of it is inerrant" and "why believe any of the miraculous claims".

I see the book as a sort of historical novel written by a committee.

As for factual accuracy, its all over the map.

Failte · 10-05-2009, 12:17 PM

I rather think any historical accuracy is by accident, really. It's a collection of stories specifically put together to further a religious agenda -- that they happened to get some of the places and some of the people right is entirely coincidental, in light of their intent.

It was definitely written by committee, though. I can never figure out how true-believers reconcile the fact that "the bible" as we know it has been edited, collated, re-written, re-ordered, and re-interpreted based on current political climate. What got included and what got discarded? Why? That doesn't seem to bother the inerrantists at all.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-05-2009, 12:17 PM	#560
Failte Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,405	I rather think any historical accuracy is by accident, really. It's a collection of stories specifically put together to further a religious agenda -- that they happened to get some of the places and some of the people right is entirely coincidental, in light of their intent. It was definitely written by committee, though. I can never figure out how true-believers reconcile the fact that "the bible" as we know it has been edited, collated, re-written, re-ordered, and re-interpreted based on current political climate. What got included and what got discarded? Why? That doesn't seem to bother the inerrantists at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.