Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 09-20-2012, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Are you the Pope?

Are we to suppose that there is such a thing? :constern01:

Mea culpa,mea culpa

Is this ok?:
The incarnation of Joseph McCarthy presiding over the Un-Christian Activities Committee?:devil1:

sotto voce · 09-20-2012, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Are you the Pope?

Are we to suppose that there is such a thing? :constern01:

Mea culpa,mea culpa

Is this ok?:
The incarnation of Joseph McCarthy presiding over the Un-Christian Activities Committee?:devil1:

One who needed to be converted, according to Christians?

It's logic that rules here. Anyone can claim to be Christian, who actually believes in Krishna, or Marx; that is, Karl or Groucho. Or Mary, Muhammad, or Moroni; or just about anyone. If one is to make any sensible progress in discussing Christianity, one must focus on the Bible, because it defines the word 'Christianity'; because it has objective existence, complete with sentences, complete with subjects and predicates, that can be analysed, down to the last iota. Personal anecdotes are not worth a carrot. So it is futile to come here saying, "I'm a Christian, and I don't accept the Bible." Because one can end up discussing Karl, or maybe Groucho; or Vishnu, or Hathor, Thor or Torngasak; or just about anyone.

Iskander · 09-20-2012, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by PJLazy
Obviously, many Christians, including myself, do not believe that the Bible is literal or inerrant or that God is necessarily related to the Bible.

The statement says that one is free to interpret the book. A Christian who says this is a very good Christian.

A Christian who says that god is not contained in one book is a very good Christian

sotto voce · 09-20-2012, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Originally Posted by PJLazy
Obviously, many Christians, including myself, do not believe that the Bible is literal or inerrant or that God is necessarily related to the Bible.

The statement says that one is free to interpret the book. A Christian who says this is a very good Christian.

A Christian who says that god is not contained in one book is a very good Christian

Also sprach Zarathustra.

So watch your step.

Perspicuo · 09-20-2012, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Therefore, you are not a Christian in any widely accepted definition of "Christian".

By the way,
If you move your goalposts that much, what you are doing is supposedly protecting yourself from any refutation, but, alas, you are moving into unfalsifiability territory, which renders your position untenable.

Are you the Pope?

No, just someone who likes it when people are talking about "rocks" they are not talking about trees.

Is it too much to ask for?

Perspicuo · 09-20-2012, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJLazy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJLazy

Obviously, many Christians, including myself, do not believe that the Bible is literal or inerrant or that God is necessarily related to the Bible.

Therefore, you are not a Christian in any widely accepted definition of "Christian".

By the way,
If you move your goalposts that much, what you are doing is supposedly protecting yourself from any refutation, but, alas, you are moving into unfalsifiability territory, which renders your position untenable.

I don't think I follow... I am not protecting myself from anything. I have never heard any person argue that God and the Bible sprang up simultaneously. Obviously, God was here before the Bible was written, so regardless of whether the Bible is "God's word" or not, God would still exist absent any Bible at all. This doesn't even have to be based theologically as it is simple logic -- math would exist regardless if any math book was ever written.

I think trying to paint me as not a true Christian is somewhat silly and presumptive, but to try to say that I'm moving the goalposts because I believe the Bible can err, doesn't seem fair at all. Any Christian who reads the first two chapters of Genesis should realize there are already contradictions, and most Christians do not take the Bible literally. Yet we still believe in a Christian god. The Bible is just man's understanding and interpretation of the god we believe in. If that makes it unfalsifiable, I don't know what to tell you -- refuting a religion will never be easy because it is not going to be wrapped up in a neat and tidy package.

In that case, you could follow the Quran and call yourself a Christian. If words can be used any way, common understanding breaks down.

You come over to this forum, you call yourself a "cat", but you really mean "someone with the tail of a dog, the teeth of a dog, born of a female dog, who barks (like a dog, by the way)", confusion ensues and you think you're teaching people something.

No, you're not. You're just discussing for the heck of it. There is no point in what you said, you just stirred the waters playing "catch me if you can".

That's what I mean.

But of course, it's a free world. Carry on. You think you can use words with sui generis personal meanings, in serious discussions. I believe in calling a bird "a bird", a cat "a cat", and a tree "a tree", precisely because it's a serious discussion.

Iskander · 09-20-2012, 06:28 AM

Could we get back to the OP?

Bambi learns how to speak Icelandic, learn along!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=hNM1yGaZ468
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTqxcQbQvzc

Roger Pearse · 09-20-2012, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Are you the Pope?

No, just someone who likes it when people are talking about "rocks" they are not talking about trees.

Is it too much to ask for?

One always wonders whether people who do this apply the same approach to getting paid; or whether they would be equally happy to receive either a paycheck, or a block of cement labelled "paycheck".

PJLazy · 09-20-2012, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJLazy

I don't think I follow... I am not protecting myself from anything. I have never heard any person argue that God and the Bible sprang up simultaneously. Obviously, God was here before the Bible was written, so regardless of whether the Bible is "God's word" or not, God would still exist absent any Bible at all. This doesn't even have to be based theologically as it is simple logic -- math would exist regardless if any math book was ever written.

I think trying to paint me as not a true Christian is somewhat silly and presumptive, but to try to say that I'm moving the goalposts because I believe the Bible can err, doesn't seem fair at all. Any Christian who reads the first two chapters of Genesis should realize there are already contradictions, and most Christians do not take the Bible literally. Yet we still believe in a Christian god. The Bible is just man's understanding and interpretation of the god we believe in. If that makes it unfalsifiable, I don't know what to tell you -- refuting a religion will never be easy because it is not going to be wrapped up in a neat and tidy package.

In that case, you could follow the Quran and call yourself a Christian. If words can be used any way, common understanding breaks down.

You come over to this forum, you call yourself a "cat", but you really mean "someone with the tail of a dog, the teeth of a dog, born of a female dog, who barks (like a dog, by the way)", confusion ensues and you think you're teaching people something.

No, you're not. You're just discussing for the heck of it. There is no point in what you said, you just stirred the waters playing "catch me if you can".

That's what I mean.

But of course, it's a free world. Carry on. You think you can use words with sui generis personal meanings, in serious discussions. I believe in calling a bird "a bird", a cat "a cat", and a tree "a tree", precisely because it's a serious discussion.

The irony is that you aren't a Christian and yet you are trying to label my religious beliefs. I think I have the greater authority on the issue.

But regardless, I'm not just throwing out ad hoc statements for the hell of it. I don't believe God is contained solely in the Bible or that the Bible is inerrant. That's a big difference from "calling a dog a cat". You and the OP are trying to set the goalposts as the Bible...I just pointed out why this argument fails and my thoughts on it are not fringe-level when compared to mainstream Christians.

My whole rationale can be summed up as plainly as this: if there was no Bible could God and Jesus still exist? Of course they could. Their power does not come from words in a book no matter how much weight some Christians place on it. So other than Bible literalists, the OP's argument is not convincing. As I alluded to before, what you are trying to do is on par with contradicting the theory of gravity by attacking a science textbook. So retool and try a new tack...

sotto voce · 09-20-2012, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJLazy

if there was no Bible could God and Jesus still exist?

No.

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

09-20-2012, 05:18 AM	#23
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Originally Posted by PJLazy Obviously, many Christians, including myself, do not believe that the Bible is literal or inerrant or that God is necessarily related to the Bible. The statement says that one is free to interpret the book. A Christian who says this is a very good Christian. A Christian who says that god is not contained in one book is a very good Christian

09-20-2012, 06:28 AM	#27
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Could we get back to the OP? Bambi learns how to speak Icelandic, learn along! http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=hNM1yGaZ468 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTqxcQbQvzc

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.