Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tigers! · 01-21-2006, 03:41 AM

To Billy Wheaton
Are you stating that therefore believing in errancy leads to objectivity?

Clivedurdle · 01-21-2006, 06:06 AM

I agree with Billy here - slingshots are a far more dangerous weapon in trained hands - it is the equivalent of a gun.

Billy is not giving speculation about this. Eight thousand years ago - well before David (if he existed btw - Bible unearthed) there were bows and arrows better than medieval longbows. Slingshots are an earlier weapon - the boomerang is an adaptation, and isn't there a common African sling that is still used that is very dangerous?

Quote:

The mission of Willow Creek Community Church is to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ.

The sole basis of our belief is the Bible, which is uniquely God-inspired, without error, and the final authority on all matters on which it bears. As the Bible teaches, there is one God, eternally existing in three persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — each possessing all the attributes of Deity.

This is terrifying, and I thought the Trinity was not actually in the Bible and is this a correct understanding of three equals one? What do the catholics call this - super mystery or something?

Clivedurdle · 01-21-2006, 06:12 AM

Quote:

he sling is perhaps man’s first projectile weapon. It generally consists of two cords and pouch. The cords are held in your hand and a projectile is placed in the pouch. The length of the cords provide greater mechanical advantage than one’s arms. Projectiles can be slung over 1500 feet (450m) at speeds exceeding 250 miles per hour (400 kph). There are many historical accounts explaining how the sling could out-range and out-fire the bow, the sling's main competitor. There are also dozens of sources noting the amazing accuracy of this weapon in trained hands. Although use of the sling diminished after the fall of the Roman Empire, the weapon’s supremacy as the premier, personal, long-range weapon was not supplanted until the 15th century. Ultimately, changes in society, technology, and military tactics made slings ineffective in large-scale combat. The sling continues to be used in various smaller conflicts and by enthusiasts to this day.

http://www.slinging.org/

David weaker? Rubbish! Maybe this is actually a story about the importance of having the best weapons and the best trained fighters!

hatsoff · 01-21-2006, 11:32 AM

This might help...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Samuel 17

David said to Saul, "Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight him."
33 Saul replied, "You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a boy, and he has been a fighting man from his youth."
34 But David said to Saul, "Your servant has been keeping his father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, 35 I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. 36 Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God. 37 The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine."
Saul said to David, "Go, and the LORD be with you."

So David expected to win. However, by all *appearances* Goliath was the experienced favorite.

Clivedurdle · 01-22-2006, 10:51 AM

The chapter before the Goliath incident states David was Saul's armourer, but there seems to be some confusion of timelines here - he plays the Harp to calm Saul which sounds like an incident later in Saul's life. You do not get to be an armourer to a king without excellent knowledge of weapons.

Definite example of errancy there, was he the kings armourer when he faced Goliath?

Is it preachers who have made this a weak against strong story to reflect Christ's weakness when actually it is a story of high tech weaponry and very highly skilled people?

But isn't Saul also mythical?

What do the details of weaponry used and tactics and background tell us about the age of this story?

Is it like "the tanks rolled forward at the battle of Gettysberg"? Are there idiosyncracies like the camel trains?

billywheaton · 01-23-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

To Billy Wheaton
Are you stating that therefore believing in errancy leads to objectivity?

My point is that most Evangelical Christians (I focus on Evangelicals because I'm not qualified to speak of other sects) come to defend inerrancy after they have already accepted "Jesus as their personal saviour". Whether The Bible could be inerrant could be looked into objectively. In that sense, inerrancy could potentially be validated. In my opinion, there is overwhelming evidence against the claim of inerrancy. Evangelicals, in my opinion do themselves and society significant harm by not confronting, or even acknowledging, this evidence.

So, objectivity as a tool has no bearing on errancy vs inerrancy.

I've heard Christians repeatedly talk about everyone confronting evidence brings with them a bias. Somehow, they feel this justifies their close-mindedness.

Anyway, I know most Christians aren't ready to confront their eternal future which is what they have to do in order to "objectively" evaluate anything. Belief in Biblical inerrancy is the toxic ingredient, I contend, in the addictive cocktail called Evangelical Christianity.

billyWheaton from http://billywheaton.com/

Clivedurdle · 01-23-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

(Christian) Fundamentalism

General Information
Fundamentalism is a term popularly used to describe strict adherence to Christian doctrines based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. This usage derives from a late 19th and early 20th century transdenominational Protestant movement that opposed the accommodation of Christian doctrine to modern scientific theory and philosophy. With some differences among themselves, fundamentalists insist on belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth and divinity of Jesus Christ, the vicarious and atoning character of his death, his bodily resurrection, and his second coming as the irreducible minimum of authentic Christianity. This minimum was reflected in such early declarations as the 14 point creed of the Niagara Bible Conference of 1878 and the 5 point statement of the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1910.

Two immediate doctrinal sources for fundamentalist thought were Millenarianism and biblical inerrancy. Millenarianism, belief in the physical return of Christ to establish a 1,000 year earthly reign of blessedness, was a doctrine prevalent in English speaking Protestantism by the 1870s. At the same time, powerful conservative forces led by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield opposed the growing use of literary and historical criticism in biblical studies, defending biblical inspiration and the inerrant authority of the Bible.

The name fundamentalist was coined in 1920 to designate those "doing battle royal for the Fundamentals." Also figuring in the name was The Fundamentals, a 12 volume collection of essays written in the period 1910 - 15 by 64 British and American scholars and preachers. Three million copies of these volumes and the founding of the World's Christian Fundamentals Association in 1919 gave sharp identity to fundamentalism as it moved into the 1920s. Leadership moved across the years from such men as A T Pierson, A J Gordon, and C I Scofield to A C Dixon and Reuben Torrey, William Jennings Bryan, and J Gresham Machen.

As fundamentalism developed, most Protestant denominations in the United States felt the division between liberalism and fundamentalism. The Baptists, Presbyterians, and Disciples of Christ were more affected than others. Nevertheless, talk of schism was much more common than schism itself. Perhaps the lack of a central organization and a normative creed, certainly the caricature of fundamentalism arising from the Scopes Trial (1925), the popularization of the liberal response by representatives like Harry Emerson Fosdick, well publicized divisions among fundamentalists themselves, and preoccupations with the Depression of the 1930s and World War II curtailed fundamentalism's appeal. By 1950 it was either isolated and muted or had taken on the more moderate tones of Evangelicalism.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/fundamen.htm

What went wrong? WW1 and 2, the Depression and Darwin did serious damage, how come the dying religion survived and is now growing so strongly? It is like Dracula sucking thought out of innocent brains!

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

01-21-2006, 03:41 AM	#11
Tigers! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: On the wing, waiting for a kick Posts: 2,558	To Billy Wheaton Are you stating that therefore believing in errancy leads to objectivity?

01-22-2006, 10:51 AM	#15
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The chapter before the Goliath incident states David was Saul's armourer, but there seems to be some confusion of timelines here - he plays the Harp to calm Saul which sounds like an incident later in Saul's life. You do not get to be an armourer to a king without excellent knowledge of weapons. Definite example of errancy there, was he the kings armourer when he faced Goliath? Is it preachers who have made this a weak against strong story to reflect Christ's weakness when actually it is a story of high tech weaponry and very highly skilled people? But isn't Saul also mythical? What do the details of weaponry used and tactics and background tell us about the age of this story? Is it like "the tanks rolled forward at the battle of Gettysberg"? Are there idiosyncracies like the camel trains?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.