emotional

Ah, but then they'll say you shouldn't set your fallen humanistic standards above the divine morality which is infallible and sinless, thus justifying anything God does, no matter how cruel we think it. In which case I pop up my inverted atheist moral-absolutes argument (as I expound at the beginning of my article Pascalians against Divinity), where I claim that the theist is then robbed of all sound basis for morality!

Photocrat

2b) Your attempts to establish the fallibility of the Bible are a waste of your time.

That was my point ...

HelenM

Is your believing it a waste of time?

love
Helen

Photocrat

Wrong perspective, Helen--that was in theirs, not mine (e.g. no, believing is not a waste of my time)

Here is, more or less, how the reasoning would work for a skeptic:

GOAL: To bring them to the truth (unbelief).

Since what they're trying to do (#1) by their own logic does not further that goal, that route is a waste of time.

Other skeptics with other goals may have other reasons, but the stated reasons do not further the given goal, ergo it is illogical.

Yes, I know quite well--humans aren't very logical ... *sigh* I've seen more questions begged here than in all the rest of my life; it makes connecting logic & atheism seem like hypocracy for me--what can I say if the "skeptics" aren't being skeptical of their sources merely because those sources reaffirm their preconceptions? Then they say the same of me after I carefully go through them to make sure that I'm not doing the same.

*sigh* Sorry, unfocused rant :] There are skeptics who are above this, but they don't seem to post very often, or I don't run into them much... or something.

GunnerJ

Actually, that's not my "Goal" by any meaning of the word. But this is a debate forum, and so I intend to debate.

Since I have no such goal, it cannot be properly called a waste of time.

My whole bru-ha-ha about Biblical inerrency came because someone posted a link to false Biblical prophesies. helix challenged the contention that one of them was, indeed a false prophesy. I rebutted his challenge. Therefore, this whole argument cannot be deemed a waste of time any wore than playing a video game or a sport is a waste of time. I enjoy debating. I enjoy it less when I'm debating a dishonest little troll who challenges my arguments without any demonstrated logic, but that's another story.

(EDITED TO ADD: This does not refer to you, 2xhelix)

So. My debate over the false prophesy was not part of some grand scheme to cause massive unbelief. It was an intellectual challenge (even though it shortly degraded into an embarassing flame war...) Even if my "Goal" were to "bring" people to "unbelief," this doesn't mean that all my undertakings would be to further this goal. I would still ahve to find some time for fun.

The given goal is neither agreed upon nor stated, nor even actively pursued, and so your whole challenge is illogical.

It should, so long as you get to dictate to me what my goals are and what steps I should take to further the goals you have assigned to me.

[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]

Doubting Thomas

Photocrat, what do you consider to be the "core testimony" of the Bible?

Just curious...

-T

Imhotehp

I don't see how anyone can see the bible as inerrant, since it doesn't waste any time failing the first test of self consistency.

In Genesis 1:20, it recorded creation as the following:

Notice the order of events. First the earth then, a few days later, land creatures. fascinating, that is if we look at what it says in Gen. 2:4 :

Did you catch that? The order of events in genesis one says that man was the last creature to be created on the last day of the "creation week", but in genesis 2 It says that man was walking around before the "beasts of the field" and the "foul of the air" and he was doing so the same day the earth was created, despite the fact that gen. 1:20 say the earth and man were created on different days!

Here we run into the hypocrisy of biblical inerrancy. The bible wastes no time in failing a simple test of self-consistency. Since there can be no consistency, there can be no inerrancy.

Photocrat

I don't usually call it "core testamony" but my primary concern is about Jesus, of course. I do not embrace Marcionism, though, since the OT is important for a proper understanding of Jesus' words and actions.

You may well introduce all manner of inconsistancies in their testamony, but I do not believe it is terribly relevant. Having been a witness in a murder one case, I have some idea what it is like remembering the events on the day someone important to you died. I know that I *do* remember that day--probably better than any other in my life. However, having the defense try to cast doubt on my testamony because I reversed the order of a couple things and could not remember what model of phone we own made me wonder why we are so worried about details & loose ends. I believe it is quite possible to make mountains out of mole hills, especially if you feel obligated to for any reason, like the defense attourney above. I believe that is the case, especially in various works like the "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" -- a large section of that book ignores the old maxim "a text without a context is a pretext." Most, if not all, of that work is a pretext.

I have actually had the opportunity to observe a hoax spread amongst a sizeable number of people. I noted how it mutated. The pattern I observed does not conform to the pattern of testamony found in the Bible. From that experience and others, I conclude that the Bible is more likely true than not, in spite of the sum total of everything you've managed to complain about.

Photocrat

Debate all you want; I'm not trying to stop you. It's just better not to debate red herrings.

[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Photocrat ]

Photocrat

Is any of that actually relevant if you take Adam, Noah & co. as parables? They're an interesting mode of communication since they're more robust than other means, given that variations destroy minimal amounts of information and accurate understandings of the meanings can be preserved for far longer & more easily (even after being preserved as oral tradition for generations) than any other form of communication I am aware of ...