Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Alan the Atheist · 01-14-2006, 04:08 PM

Lol thanks for the help guys, mabey we should all chip in and get this guy a glass of water.

Anyway, I've managed to get into a debate with a theology student. It was fair play when discussing philosophy, but the odds are probably against me now. So I thought I'd raise him one and go Secular Web against Xtian theology student. Well anyway, heres what he said:

Quote:

Oh by the way ... inerrancy is theologically respected. Conservative scholarship is wide-ranging and highly respected by large portions of the field that would not actually agree with its conclusions. Lets think of the pre-eminent British theologians alive today. I don't think I'd be too remiss in naming Tom Wright. I don't think I'd be remiss in calling him a conservative either. Also, I have lecturers who would support Biblical inerrancy; and I'm aware this is going to sound like boasting but its only intended to fore-sure an argument that they aren't very good: there aren't really any better theology departments in the country. Maybe one. Oh, and yes it's secular.

I find it hard to form a defence against your attack that the Bible is abundant with errors and contradictions essentially because I don't see any. Answering specific concerns might be easier, I don't really know.

I was thinking of using Mathhew1:1-17, where verse 17 claims its three sets of 14 generations, when actually it is 14,14,13. Do you think this is an easy one to defend, or is there some hidden rebbutal? I have used it sucessfully a few times, so I'm relatively comfortable with it.

Clivedurdle · 01-15-2006, 02:47 AM

On creation, don't forget Mark Twain

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm

Quote:

The Creator sat upon the throne, thinking. Behind him stretched the illimitable continent of heaven, steeped in a glory of light and color; before him rose the black night of Space, like a wall. His mighty bulk towered rugged and mountain-like into the zenith, and His divine head blazed there like a distant sun. At His feet stood three colossal figures, diminished to extinction, almost, by contrast -- archangels -- their heads level with His ankle-bone.

When the Creator had finished thinking, He said, "I have thought. Behold!"

He lifted His hand, and from it burst a fountain-spray of fire, a million stupendous suns, which clove the blackness and soared, away and away and away, diminishing in magnitude and intensity as they pierced the far frontiers of Space, until at last they were but as diamond nailheads sparkling under the domed vast roof of the universe.

Sorry, what does your respondent mean that the Bible is inerrant and that most theology departments agree with that? What about something simple like the duplicate chapters?

I thought the Catholic Church does not accept inerrancy - that is why they are able to promulgate new doctrines.

Clivedurdle · 01-15-2006, 02:55 AM

Quote:

What Is This Word?
John 1.1–14

Sermon at the Eucharist on Christmas Morning 2005
in the Cathedral Church of Christ, Blessed Mary the Virgin, and St Cuthbert of Durham

the Bishop of Durham, Dr N. T. Wright

One of the greatest journalists of the last generation, the late Bernard Levin, described how, when he was a small boy, a great celebrity came to visit his school. The headmaster, thinking perhaps to impress, called the young Levin to the platform in front of the whole school. The celebrity, thinking perhaps to be kind, asked the little boy what he’d had for breakfast.
That was easy, or so it seemed. ‘Matzobrei’, replied Levin. It’s a typical central European Jewish dish, made of egg fried with matzo wafers, brown sugar and cinnamon; Levin’s immigrant mother had continued to make it even after years of living in London. It was, to him, a perfectly ordinary word for a perfectly ordinary meal.
The celebrity, ignorant of such cuisine, thinks he must have misheard; he asks the question again. Young Bernard, puzzled now and anxious, gives the same answer. The celebrity looks concerned, and glances at the headmaster. What is this word he’s saying? The headmaster, adopting a there-there-little-man tone, asks him once more what he had for breakfast. Now dismayed, not knowing what he’s done wrong, and wanting to burst into tears, the boy says once more the only thing he can say, since it’s the truth: ‘Matzobrei’. An exchange of strange glances on the platform, and the now terrified little boy is sent back to his place. The incident is never referred to again, but it stays in his memory as a horrible ordeal.
The Jewish word spoken to an incomprehending world; the child’s word spoken to incomprehending adults; the word for food of which the others know nothing . . . it all feels very Johannine. What is this Word? ‘In the beginning was the Word . . . and the Word was made flesh.’ We are so used to it, to the great cadences, the solemn but glad message of the incarnation; and we risk skipping over the incomprehensibility, the oddness, the almost embarrassing strangeness, of the Word. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness didn’t comprehend it; the world was made through him but the world didn’t know him; he came to his own, and his own didn’t receive him. John is saying two things simultaneously in his Prologue (well, two hundred actually, but let’s concentrate on two): first, that the incarnation of the eternal Word is the event for which the whole creation has been on tiptoe all along; second, that the whole creation, and even the carefully prepared people of God themselves, are quite unready for this event. Jew and Gentile alike, hearing this strange Word, are casting anxious glances at one another, like the celebrity and the headmaster faced with a little boy telling the truth in a language they don’t understand.
That is the puzzle of Christmas. And, to get to its heart, see how it works out in the rest of John’s gospel. John’s Prologue is designed to stay in the mind and heart throughout the subsequent story. Never again is Jesus himself referred to as the Word; but we are meant to look at each scene, from the call of the first disciples and the changing of water into wine right through to the confrontation with Pilate and the crucifixion and resurrection, and think to ourselves, this is what it looks like when the Word becomes flesh. Or, if you like, look at this man of flesh and learn to see the living God. But watch what happens as it all plays out. He comes to his own and his own don’t receive him. The light shines in the darkness, and though the darkness can’t overcome it it has a jolly good try. He speaks the truth, the plain and simple words, like the little boy saying what he had for breakfast, and Caiaphas and Pilate, incomprehending, can’t decide whether he’s mad or wicked or both, and send him off to his fate.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_S...hristmas05.htm

This looks an interesting one to dissect! (BTW the universe was created so that we may celebrate xmas of course!)

WishboneDawn · 01-15-2006, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

One of my profs believes that the Yahwist thought that God was lonely. Not sure how that's going to fly with apologists, though.

I like that thought.

mikem · 01-15-2006, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scifinerdgrl

...and Beatles

Always saw him as more of a rolling stones fan myself!

mikem · 01-15-2006, 08:43 AM

The New Testament sees creation as a gift from the Father to the Son - see Colossians 1:16 "all things were created through him and FOR him".

On Scriptural innerancy - the Catholic church does not hold to it. The Second Vatican Coucil had this to say about infallibility: "teaching firmly, faithfully and wirhout error that truth whivh God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (Dei Verbum) So it is the RELIGIOUS truth CONTAINED within Scripture that is without error, not the SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES according to the RC church. Even some evangelicals are reluctant to use the phrase inerrancy. John Stott, widely regarded as the leading Evangelical in Great Britain, with a status not dissimilar to Billy Graham in America has written of his reluctance to use the phrase, with it's "negative connotations", prefering to speak of the "Trustworthiness of Scripture" - a position not unlike that of the RC view.

I doubt very much that the present Bishop of Durham is an inerrantist. He has described his view as "critical realism", by which I understand him to mean that the truth is mediated through a cultural lens.

Cantley · 01-20-2006, 12:44 PM

God is love, and love not expressed is meaningless. So God created the universe to express his love. The universe grew to awareness of him, as he knew it would, and we are now commanded to love each other.
That's why we are here - to love each other.

Julian · 01-20-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cantley

God is love, and love not expressed is meaningless. So God created the universe to express his love. The universe grew to awareness of him, as he knew it would, and we are now commanded to love each other.
That's why we are here - to love each other.

Nice sentiment, however, you have any evidence of this?

*crickets*

Johnny Skeptic · 01-20-2006, 08:16 PM

Why did god wait so long to create humans, and what did he do with his time before that?

alexjohnc3 · 01-20-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Nice sentiment, however, you have any evidence of this?

*crickets*

Why would a God need evidence of something for God is the ultimate love. We must follow love and God. <sarcasm/>

Seriously, if God exists it probably created the stuff for the sake of creating it. Meaning, to make it possible. I really can't think of any other reason for creating stuff if you're omnipotent and omniscient. Just a guess.

01-20-2006, 12:44 PM	#17
Cantley Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: England Posts: 5	I always saw it like this..... God is love, and love not expressed is meaningless. So God created the universe to express his love. The universe grew to awareness of him, as he knew it would, and we are now commanded to love each other. That's why we are here - to love each other.

01-20-2006, 08:16 PM	#19
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Why did God create the universe? Why did god wait so long to create humans, and what did he do with his time before that?

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

01-15-2006, 08:43 AM	#16
mikem Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: UK Posts: 278	The New Testament sees creation as a gift from the Father to the Son - see Colossians 1:16 "all things were created through him and FOR him". On Scriptural innerancy - the Catholic church does not hold to it. The Second Vatican Coucil had this to say about infallibility: "teaching firmly, faithfully and wirhout error that truth whivh God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (Dei Verbum) So it is the RELIGIOUS truth CONTAINED within Scripture that is without error, not the SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES according to the RC church. Even some evangelicals are reluctant to use the phrase inerrancy. John Stott, widely regarded as the leading Evangelical in Great Britain, with a status not dissimilar to Billy Graham in America has written of his reluctance to use the phrase, with it's "negative connotations", prefering to speak of the "Trustworthiness of Scripture" - a position not unlike that of the RC view. I doubt very much that the present Bishop of Durham is an inerrantist. He has described his view as "critical realism", by which I understand him to mean that the truth is mediated through a cultural lens.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.