Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 10-11-2006, 01:16 AM

Message to Gamera: Will you please tell us why you believe that the God of the Bible is worthy of being accepted, and why he has the right to rule the universe?

Johnny Skeptic · 10-11-2006, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Who knows? But getting back to 2 Peter, it's painfully obvious to me that the author wasn't refering to physical perishing, but spiritual perishing, which is not subject to the empirical analysis you have relied upon.

My position is that God has not nearly done everything that he can in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. 2 Peter indicates that God is not willing that any should spiritually persish, but that is a lie. God could easily send Jesus back to earth to perform miracles all over the world, which would surely result in at least some people becoming Christians who were not previously convinced. ANY supposedly supernatural being who showed up and healed all of the sick people in the world would immediately attact a lot of followers. If such a being started a new religion, it would quickly become the largest religion in history. Humans place great emphasis on good health. Christian doctors are trying to prevent and cure all diseases, are they not?

Do you not find it to be quite odd that no one can know anything at all about the specific existence and will of the God of the Bible except through human effort? Do you have any evidence that anyone has ever learned about the God of the Bible from God himself? If God does not exist, it is to be expected that knowledge of his specific existence and will would be limited primarily to the entirely secular factors of geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age, the very factors that are discussed in Kosmin and Lachman's 'One Nation Under God'. The book deals only with the U.S. Did you know that every year, a much higher percentage of women become Christians than men? In South America, 90% of the people are Roman Catholics. That is due to the fact that the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property.

I would like to add "limited to prevailing methods of communication and transportation" to Kosmin and Lachman's list of secular factors.

rhutchin · 10-11-2006, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

...getting back to 2 Peter, it's painfully obvious to me that the author wasn't refering to physical perishing, but spiritual perishing, which is not subject to the empirical analysis you have relied upon.

I guess that is the approach Calvin kinda took.

I don't know that it matters how one takes this verse in the sense of "perishing." If a person perishes spiritually, then that person would also perish physically (eventually).

However, if spiritual perishing is in view, how do you see that fitting into the overall argument that Peter makes in this chapter?

rhutchin · 10-11-2006, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

rhutchin
Ok. However, even this understates the problems that are involved. Translation is basically an art, not a science. Understanding that which one translates into their own language is necessarily problematical even if a person does what Carrier describes. In fact, Carrier is introducing biases that may not be relevant to understanding the Bible given the interweaving of the NT with the OT concepts in which words take on meanings unique from that which a purely secular education would prepare a person to understand. In other words, a historical-critical methodolgy described by Carrier is not worth that much (but then people have been arguing this point all over the place).

Johnny Skeptic
So in other words, you have to become a Christian based upon reading the New Testament in English BEFORE you can understand the ancient Greek writings from which the English was translated, right?

I don't see why that would be. If a person can read the NT in English and understand it well enough to want to become a Christian, then a person could read the NT in Greek and understand it well enough to want to become a Christian (or in any other language for that matter). However, a complete understanding of the Bible (including NT and OT) requires that a person understand the interrelationships between the OT and NT and the concepts developed in the OT and carried into the NT. I do not think all this is necessary for a person to understand that the NT says he is a sinner who must stand before God one day and be judged for his sins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

You criticize Richard Carrier, but please tell us what YOUR methodology is regarding how to understand the Bible. Please state in 500 words or less what you would say to a person who is looking for a worldview and knows very little about the Bible. Your presentation needs to be able to be easily understood by the typical layman in any country, including uneducated people who live in remote regions in third world countries.

I did not intend my comments to criticize Carrier. He makes good points. I think he just understates the problems inherent in translating from one language to another. My advice: Read the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What kind of God would limit tangible knowledge of what he has done to how much a person is able to know about copies of ancient texts? Where is this ancient historical God TODAY?

I think you need to take this up with God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What, if any, tangible blessings can a PARTICULAR Christian expect to receive from God TODAY? Better yet, what, if any, tangible blessings could a PARTICULAR follower of God have EVER expected to receive? If God does not exist, it is to be expected that the only blessings that a PARTICULAR person could expect to receive from him would be subjective spiritual/emotional blessings. Some Christians have said that the modern nation of Israel is evidence of God's existence today. Would you care to defend that approach?

I think all the promises made by God in the Bible are available to those whom God saves and people can expect to receive them.

rhutchin · 10-11-2006, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EthnAlln

There is yet another fact that needs to be taken into account in the case of the Bible: Greek was not the first language of most of its authors. Their ear for the subtle nuances of meaning might be slightly off, as mine is so often when I am abroad (even in Britain!!). For what it's worth, here is the literal text of 2 Peter 3:9:

ou bradynei kyrios tes epaggelias, hos tines bradyteta hegountai, alla makrothumei eis hymas, me boulomenos tinas apolesthai alla pantas eis metanoian khoresai.

Word for word translation, one phrase at a time:

ou bradynei kyrios tes epaggelias (not delays lord of the promise), that is, "The lord is not delaying in his promise." The word epaggelia, whose root is the same as the root of the words angel and evangelist, originally meant a public denunciation of a person who took place in public life after being disgraced. But my dictionary also gives promise as a second meaning.

hos tines bradyteta hegountai, "as some delays suppose," that is, "as some people understand delays." The word hegountai---third person plural--is one of those multi-meaning words. Its primary meaning is lead the way, and it is the source of the word hegemony.

alla makrothumei eis hymas. "but is patient to [with] us." The word makros means long, and thumoo means to become angry.

me boulomenos tinas apolesthai. "not wishing any to perish." Straightforward enough. The word any (tinas) is accusative plural.

alla pantas eis metanoian khoresai, "but all to repentance to come," that is, that all come to repentance. Again the word all is accusative plural. The word metanoia means literally afterthought. It may mean either a change of mind or a change of spirit (nous). The word khoresai is the aorist infinitive of khoreo, which confusingly can mean either to draw back or to move forward. The aorist simply means that the action is thought of as an event rather than a process, which would be the case had the present infinitive been used.

That sort of lays it out. But all the caveats about the historical context and the literary style of the time need to be heeded. You can't just fit this literal translation together into grammatically correct English and believe you have the meaning. Only those with much experience of the literature as well as the language (which isn't me---I know mostly Greek scientific and philosophical works in the original language, not the bible) can really say what the text probably means.

Looks like a good start to me.

rhutchin · 10-11-2006, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Well, the following arguments from Richard Carrier most certainly do not “deal with minor and insignificant situations and almost always involve a difference in numbers.”

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...n/rubicon.html

Richard Carrier

Holding claims there are no significant disagreements among the Gospels, not even in the chronologies of Luke and John. The general consensus of experts does not agree with him. But I will grant that with some interpretive acrobatics, one could force the chronology of John to fit that of Luke--by admitting, for example, that John erred when he said Jesus was crucified on "the day of preparation for the Passover" (19:14-16 and 19:31), or that Luke erred when he said it was already the Passover when Jesus was crucified (22:7-16; also the interpolated verse at 23:17), and by admitting that Luke did not "carefully follow everything from the beginning" as he claims to (1:3), since he left a lot out. For example, John describes the ministry of Jesus through three Passovers (John 2:13-23; 6:4, 6:10; 11:55, 12:1, 13:1, 18:28, 18:39, 19:14); but Luke, only one (Luke 22). John also only mentions Jesus clearing the Temple once, “years” before he is executed (John 2:13-23), and long before his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (John 12:12-20), but Luke only mentions Jesus clearing the Temple once, mere days before he is executed, and “after” his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-48). Similarly, John records a miraculous catch of fish after Jesus died, not before (John 21), while Luke only records a miraculous catch long “before” Jesus died, not after (Luke 5:1-11). And so on. But other contradictions are just too huge to allow any rational harmony. For example, see the closing example in my Plausibility of Theft FAQ. For more, see the articles relating to the New Testament in the Secular Web section on Biblical Errancy.

Johnny: Rhutchin, these arguments are just the beginning. You will be forced to start doing that will you least like to do, CONDUCT RESEARCH. I will be quoting Richard Carrier extensively, and you will surely find out that his knowledge of the Bible is much superior to yours. I will also be extensively quoting the quite distinguished author, college professor, and liberal Christian Dr. Elaine Pagels. As Pagel’s has aptly said, “the victors rewrote history, ‘their way.’” Anyone with just a modest amount of common sense knows that early Christian writers pirated the Jewish religion. If a supernatural being inspired the writing of the Bible, it was his intention to confuse people much more than he told them the truth. He succeeded in his attempt quite well since he needlessly ensured that three fourths of the people in the world are not aware that he exists. He has not gained anything at all by hiding, but mankind would surely have much to gain if he clearly revealed his existence and will to everyone.

I will let you pick one of the problems Carrier lists and describe the issue in a new thread so that we can discuss it further.

Johnny Skeptic · 10-11-2006, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What, if any, tangible blessings can a PARTICULAR Christian expect to receive from God TODAY? Better yet, what, if any, tangible blessings could a PARTICULAR follower of God have EVER expected to receive? If God does not exist, it is to be expected that the only blessings that a PARTICULAR person could expect to receive from him would be subjective spiritual/emotional blessings. Some Christians have said that the modern nation of Israel is evidence of God's existence today. Would you care to defend that approach?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think all the promises made by God in the Bible are available to those whom God saves and people can expect to receive them.

Please quote some tangible promises that the Bible makes for everyone who God saves, promises that are available in this life. I doubt that you can quote even one tangible promise that a Christian can expect to receive in this life. What tangible promises have YOU received that you expected to receive, why did you receive them, and why haven't all Christians received them?

rhutchin · 10-11-2006, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

rhutchin
I have looked at many of the problem passages, but the resolution of the problems usually requires that a person be very intimate with the Hebrew language which I am not.

Sauron
If that is so, then you have no business telling everyone here that these diescrepancies are minor and insignificant - after all, you admit you don't know Hebrew, so how could you possibly make such a determination?

Answer: you are engaged in wishful speculating again.

Gotcha.:wave:

I don't see why. A person can determine the significance of a problem by the context in which the problem appears even with no understanding of the original languages.

For example, we might have--
1. God took the form of a man, Jesus Christ.
2. God took the form of a man, Christ Jesus.

We have a discrepancy between the two. However, discrepancy does not affect our ability to understand that which each version of the sentence is telling us. Does it? A person could conclude that the "problem" was insignificant. Whatever the original rendering, Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus, it does not change that which is said. That seems like a problem that could be described as insignificant, couldn't it?

Johnny Skeptic · 10-11-2006, 04:39 AM

Message to rhutchin: At the EofG forum, you once said the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

A loving God would provide a means for people to escape eternal death and accept all who sought that escape.

You mean ONLY people who God decides to reveal himself too, right? Would a loving God provide food to starving Chrisitians who are devout and faithful? Would a loving God clearly tell Christians that slavery is wrong? Would a loving God tell Old Testament Jews that if a Jew kills a Jew, he would be killed, but if a Jew kills a slave, he would be punished, but not killed?

Is it your position that God predestines who he will reveal himself to, and forces the elect to accept him without giving them a choice? Is it your position that God predestines skeptics to reject him? Can you demonstrate that free will exists?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What kind of God would limit tangible knowledge of what he has done to how much a person is able to know about copies of ancient texts? Where is this ancient historical God TODAY?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think you need to take this up with God.

But you have already said that you believe that “all the promises made by God in the Bible are available to those whom God saves and people can expect to receive them”, so why are you telling me to take this issue up with God when you have already answered my question. The supposed promises that you mentioned are the answers to my questions. What are the promises? Remember, I said “tangible” evidence. No loving God would promise to provide only spiritual/emotional blessings to his followers. The simple truth is that tangible benefits are distributed to humans in a random manner that DOES NOT indicate divine involvement of any kind.

Johnny Skeptic · 10-11-2006, 05:30 AM

Message to rhutchin: How do you account for the fact that in the U.S., a much higher percentage of women are Christians than men, and that a much higher percentage of young people are less religious today than they were 100 years ago? If you ask me to ask God about these issues, I will ask you to ask God about these issues.

Please reply to my post #51.

10-11-2006, 01:16 AM	#61
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	2 Peter 3:9 Message to Gamera: Will you please tell us why you believe that the God of the Bible is worthy of being accepted, and why he has the right to rule the universe?

10-11-2006, 05:30 AM	#70
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	2 Peter 3:9 Message to rhutchin: How do you account for the fact that in the U.S., a much higher percentage of women are Christians than men, and that a much higher percentage of young people are less religious today than they were 100 years ago? If you ask me to ask God about these issues, I will ask you to ask God about these issues. Please reply to my post #51.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.