Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Murder does not equal punishment for a violation of Law
|
If someone passed a law that would result in the killing of people for their sexuality or their beliefs, and that law were enforced, that’d be murder. If you want to say it’s not because the killings would not be unlawful, well, in that case, a dictator can pass all the laws he wants and torture and kill whomever he wants, “legally”. But that’s no better than murder, so I’d call it murder anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah would count as mass-murder, regardless of the sexual orientation of their inhabitants. As for the Flood, would you also argue that God didn’t massacre children, babies, etc.?
|
Oh really? Would executing a murderer be murder? I think not, it would be justice and punishment. |
Really, killing gay people because of their sexuality, and massacring children, babies, etc. – and adults too – with a flood, would be murder.
Of course, I was not talking about murderers, so that is beside the point. Your response does not address my point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
No, if I brought them into the world, it would be a world in which they would experience pain, etc., but also happiness and positive things, and it’d be the only world I could bring them to. On the other hand, God could choose to bring people to a world in which they would not experience said suffering, but chooses the world with suffering instead.
|
Oh, I see, so you wouldnt be to blame in this regard because "now" you take into equation the positive aspects life. I see, thats not a contradiction, is it? Yeah, really, because the point of this argument is to put the blame on God and not yourself.
Having a world to where you can experience emotional and/or physical pain is not evil as you have made it out to be. Its life, besides, as I have pointed out - you would never know the difference and therefore, because of this, your argument is invalidated.
You equate suffering to be the result of intentional evil actions, but then in order to cast entirety of blame onto God, you ignore the other aspects of life and only speak of them to suit your fancy. That shows you that you are inherently being biased. Thats not objective. |
Your reply fails to address my point. Life has positive and negative aspects. I don’t consider that bringing someone into the world is wrong. Now, if I have the choice between bringing people into a world in which many of them will suffer, and bringing them into a world where they will not meet that fate, and I choose the former, that is wrong. The point should be simple enough.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
No, what will lead to suffering and death in a lake of fire, is the fact that God will throw people there, not the actions of those people.
|
Oh, I see, so I bring into the equation the rest of what you do not talk about and then you immediately go back to this subject, from where, obviously, you have no idea the context of the situation.
Grasping for straws arent we? |
It’s the other way around, although I’m not sure you realize that. I do address your points, so there’s no rest that I don’t talk about. I also insist on points you fail to address, and you fail to address them here again.
You say that I’m grasping at straws, etc., but you again fail to address the crime that I mentioned is committed by God. (assuming BG’s existence, etc.) He does that to gay people for their sexuality, and to many others (most people) as well, for whatever reason.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
You are arguing that part of the blame resides on the people who lived there, even if they didn’t know and could not have known about the disaster. That seems to be an odd idea of “blame”.
They chose to live there… they had to live somewhere! And, by the way, not all of them chose to live there. Many had no choice (babies, children, refugees, etc.).
|
If your going to be casting blame, then you have to include "all" aspects of any given situation. It doesnt matter if people are ignorant, people know that dangerous things can happen. Its part of life, but just because we have them doesnt mean that God is evil for creating a world where it can definately be a possibility.
To further my previous point - you wouldnt even know the difference between and so-called "natural disaster" if there wasnt anything to the contrary either. Therefore, in order to understand anything that might happen or to experience anything that might happen - you need to have both sides of the equation. |
My point stands. I’ll have to refer you to my previous posts, for there is no point in repeating the same arguments over and over again. On that note, I’ll start to avoid responding to contentions that only repeat what was said before and was already debunked. This is getting too long and boring, and there’s nothing new here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Evil would then be defined by Law.
|
And you would define what the Law says, because you claim that the Bible contains the Law (the Bible may claim that too, but it’s just that, a claim), and then you also decide that said Law, as interpreted by you, should be obeyed.
Do you realize that?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Oh really? Let me put it to you this way - thats your "interpretation"
|
Do I need to explain that again?
Yes, of course, unlike you, I acknowledge that some basic principles must be assumed without proof, in any system of morality. Without that, you don’t even have where to start. Those principles may be explicit or implicit, but they’re indispensable. One could argue that they’re self-evident, but that may depend on the person.
Now, let’s compare the principle you are defending with the one I’m defending here.
I argue that killing people for their sexuality is murder.
You argue that there’s an entity called God( but there’s no evidence, and there’s counter evidence, though I wouldn’t be necessary), then you argue that that entity calls for the killing of people because of their sexuality – and actually kills some of them -, then you argue that if that entity says so, it’s good (because you say so, even if you don’t realize :devil3: ). So, you excuse the killing of people on the basis of their sexuality, because you say so.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
It answers your point perfectly, because it destroys the root of your argument because your arguement is based upon a definition of the word "perfect" that is not applicable to the situation.
|
No, I’ll have to refer you back to my previous posts, but this is getting boring. Maybe it’s time to leave it at that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Whenever I read something, I am interpreting it? That is simply not true and your adherance to such a fallible statement is completely mind-boggling. You say that whenever I read something that I cant let what Im reading tell me what it is. That is false.
|
No, it’s true. What you are reading is a book, a sequence of characters.
It’s reasonable to say that a book “says” something, in the sense explained previously, and in the case of many texts (but not the Bible as a whole), because there’s agreement regarding some rules on how to interpret them, so interpretations are likely to concur.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
You can read what Im typing now, but you know what I mean, you dont have to personally put your own explanation into what Im saying to find out what I mean. I say the execution of murderers is punishment for their crimes - there is no need for you to interpret that.
|
Of course, I have to interpret what you write. Sometimes, what you write may be interpreted similarly by people with a certain cultural background, but that doesn’t take away the need for interpretation.
When you say that the execution of murderers is punishment for their crimes, any reader has to interpret the meaning of the words, the context, etc. In this particular case (i.e., the murderers, etc.), agreement may be more likely. But if you had said “sinners” and “sin” then there’d be a much greater degree of ambiguity. Someone who’s never read your posts might not interpret such expressions as I would, etc.
Again, interpretation is inevitable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
For you to say that there is is completely rubbish and is not true to the situation. Its a weak cop-out excuse to ignore the truth of the matter and that matter is that things can tell you what they are without "YOU" defining their words when they have already defined them.
|
Again, you do have to interpret those word, use one of the possible definitions, consider the context, etc.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Oh, I see, so here is the kicker. "You" are the one who says that it needs interpreting. Contextually, that means by people defining it themselves. That is your problem. You are not willing to believe nor even begin to show by your actions that the Bible can define itself.
You are ever so willing to believe in something else in this life to the contrary when it doesnt concern the Bible, for when it does, you immediately harp on "It needs to be interpreted by human beings, else you cannot understand what its saying!"
Not true. Words have meaning. Passages are defined by the context of the other passages - its called "studying".
|
It’s also called “interpreting”. Whatever one calls it, though, the Bible is a text that leads to radically different conclusions. There isn’t even one single Biblical text, but many versions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
You study math in school and you learn from everything combined what math is and how we arrive at it. Well Im going to say that its your interpretation. Math needs to be defined by you. 2+2 does not = 4 because math equations say it does, but because "you" or someone else says that it does.
Of course, I would laughed to scorn because it can be "proven" that 2+2 equals 4. Yet, when it comes to the Bible, you have a rediculous, absurd notion that it could never be the same thing when you are obviously ignoring the fact that words have meaning and therefore, given into the context fo letting the Bible define itself, that the BIble can state what it states without you putting your ideas into it.
Bottom-line - your being biased because its the Bible.
|
Repeating again, but 2 +2 = 4 is a string of characters, and it needs interpreting. An Aztec wouldn’t have interpreted that the way we do.
However, we do have an agreement on to how interpret the aforementioned string, so we’re going to see it similarly.
Again, it’s reasonable to say that a book (say, a math book) “says” something, because people with certain knowledge and cultural background will interpret it similarly, based on a common way of interpreting it. And in that way, we can use that method to communicate. You and I and the rest of the people in the thread and most people in the countries we live in, will interpret “2 +2 = 4” in a similar manner.
However, it’s clear that they will not interpret the Bible (as a whole) in a similar manner. There can be considerable agreement about specific passages. Also, some themes will result in agreement (i.e., the Bible says that there’s a God), but others don’t.
On that note:
Does the Bible “say” homosexuality (in all cases) is wrong?
That depends on whom one asks.
Does the Bible says that the world was created in seven days, or is it a metaphor of sorts?
That depends on whom one asks.
Etc., etc.
If you’re looking for the authors’ intent, that’s also a matter of interpretations, and in the case of the Bible, there were several authors with their own agendas.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
Yet, you have only replied to the arguments made by unbelievers. Other Christians have posted alternative views of homosexuality (namely, Gamera argued it’s not wrong, and rhutchin argued that they will burn for eternity in Hell), but you have not challenged them.
Of course, you don’t have to  , but my point is, when Christians start challenging one another’s interpretations of the Bible, things tend to go on indefinitely. That is very clear, and history proves it: after two millennia! there seems to be little agreement on a variety of issues that pertain to Christian dogma(s). |
Oh really? Well, thats your "interpretation" and not fact. Therefore, what your saying is not true. Its your personal opinion.
Disagreement is not the same as proof that can be proven without people's biased personal interpretations of a Book that can prove by what it states alone, in context of its other scriptures, that it doesnt need your interpretation.
But oh, what a foreign concept when it concerns the BIble. Not so with other things, but just the Bible. Such rediculous non-sense. |
No, what I said is a fact – based on the evidence (this thread, history, etc.), not only I but others as well will conclude that after all this time, Christians are very divided and read the Bible differently.
The fact that we need interpreting doesn’t mean we can’t have the same ways of interpreting, etc., talk about facts, and so on. I mentioned the issue because it means that the claim that no interpretation is needed, is mistaken.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
It was the first source that they started from, with passage of Matthew 16:18. This is what started it all.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matthew 16: 18 (New American Bible (Catholic))
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
|
I’m not an expert in Catholic beliefs, but as far as I know, they claim the Bible is referring to the Catholic Church. But in any case, they don’t derive all their dogma from the Bible itself, so if you try to argue against Catholics using only the Bible as a source, they may very well argue that your interpretation is wrong, since it lacks context – context would be Catholic Tradition.
In their own words:
(
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Catechism of the Catholic Church
As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
That depends on what “they” you’re talking about, as some of them require that you keep God’s Law (as interpreted by them), but others do not.
Again, you say you can prove it, but they make the same claims, and their views are different from one another and from yours. And again, two millennia and there’s still great disagreement, so it seems people have not been very successful at “proving” things.
Incidentally, can you point to some (known) Christian who, in your view, had what you consider to be the right interpretation, apart from you?
|
Oh really? I have evidence from scholarly books that have stood the test of time concerning the Hebrew and Greek Languages, the languages that the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament were originally written in. I have books that show me what the original text of the Bible states on the matter and because of that, it allows me to show forth evidence concerning the Bible and therefore, proof of what it states for a given matter.
I have this evidence and I use it to show the truth of the Bible. Thats the key. |
Well, others claim to have succeeded as well, yet they reach conclusions that are very different from yours.
Also, you haven’t responded to the question: can you point to some (known) Christian who, in your view, had what you consider to be the right interpretation, apart from you?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
And so "you" claim because "your" claim is based upon "your" interpretation on the matter because "you" have no evidence to state to the contrary anything of what I have said that I can prove from the BIble.
Your statements are based on convoluted attempts of saying there can be no proof because I have no evidence and then you try to shoot down the possibility of evidence by saying its my personal interpretation when it can be shown otherwise, but then you choose to ignore even that possibility of it not being my interpretation when the fact of the matter shows that with other things in the life, there is no personal interpretation that is required.
Your argument is circular, biased and one-sided.
|
No, again, we can determine facts and prove things by means that are accepted by others.
When you claim that you can “prove” whatever you claim you can prove, what you present as evidence doesn’t meet the requirements of science, or a court of law, etc. (depending on the case).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
Again, there’s no reason to believe so.
A person wouldn’t have to experience pain or death.
Consider the angels. Are they exposed to disease, hunger, natural disasters, aging, death, and death in a lake of fire? I think not.
Consider the people after resurrection. Did they all experience pain in their lives? What if they did in the womb, before they had pain receptors?
Consider God Himself. Does He have to experience pain, death, illness, etc.? If your argument is that He did, as Christ, I’d counter that God didn’t need that, so the answer would still be negative.
But the basic argument is of a different kind, and it’s what I explained earlier: God would be introducing all that, making the universe worse.
|
Oh, lets introduce another subject into the equation! But then, based in context, you would consider what I say to be "personal interpretation", even though I could show from the Bible that its not.
You have such a twisted, biased and lop-sided way of doing things. |
I made an argument and presented my evidence – evidence that should have sufficed. However, it clearly wasn’t enough for you, so I introduced more evidence.
Sorry, but that’s perfectly valid as far as I can tell. I mentioned the angels, etc., to give further evidence of my points. And you didn’t rebut either that argument or the previous ones.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Your arguements are completely circular. You want to bring in aspects of certain things from the BIble to try to prove a point but when I answer that point with "facts" that can be "proven", its "personal interpretation".
|
Actually, I use arguments based on
your interpretation of the Bible to prove a point.
For instance (and assuming existence, as always), I’d accuse rhutchin’s God of engaging in eternal torture, but I wouldn’t accuse your God of that. I’d accuse Him of mass-murder, though, and based on your interpretation of the Bible (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood). On the other hand, I wouldn’t accuse Gamera’s God of either crime.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
You see no connection because you believe that things that people say concerning the Bible cannot possibly be proven, its on personal interpretation. You are hinging yourself into a corner when it concerns the Bible and when anyone would give you a rope to pull yourself out into the open "NO! Its what you believe would happen! Your interpretaion of events!"
|
Maybe we could agree to disagree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Oh no, did you just use the word "evidence"? Well, Im sorry sir, you have made an un-substantiated claim because all of it is based on "YOUR" personal interpretation.
If your going to argue the point to that a LOT of people believe it to be true because of so-called "evidence" that they have, I would merely say that its still "their" personal interpretation that that is the way it is for in the past, a LOT of people believed that the earth was flat. Therefore, because people believe it, it MUST have been true!
Like I have pointed out earlier. You twist the meaning of any given situation to fit what you say to be the truth of the matter, but then when I present "evidence", its based on personal interpretation and therefore cannot be proven
Ill say it as many times as I have to; your arguement is biased, circuler, one-sided and completely absurd.
|
I’ll try again:
Any person with a basic knowledge of science would interpret the evidence as clearly showing that Creationism is not science, and evolution is. It’s not just my interpretation, but that of many people; it’s the interpretation of scientists, and it’s also the interpretation of the courts that had to rule on the issue.
Again, I have no problem with the use of words such as “evidence”, and “proof”. The fact that what we observe needs interpreting remains implicit and isn’t a problem, in general, until someone argues that there’s a book that doesn’t need interpreting.
I think I’ve been clear enough, but I’ll try once more to give more examples:
Forensic experts make observations, and interpret what they see (using science), in order to determine what happened.
Scientists look at the fossil record, DNA, etc., interpret what they see, and come to a conclusion (evolution).
People read a novel, watch a TV series, watch a movie, etc., and have to interpret them as well – and clearly (and unlike the case of, say, a math book), there are very many interpretations, as you can find easily on the internet, by going to a website to debate any such issues.
Now, the same goes for the Bible: it’s a book, it needs interpreting, and it’s a book that has resulted in a high number of different and conflicting interpretations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
No, you cannot use one side of the equation. I said sentient intelligence; ALL sides of the equation. Not just one. Animals cannot deliberate, reason, think and analyze all factors of a given situation and do something according to what either needs to be done or "should" be done. Therefore animals are not humans and humans are not animals, period.
|
Actually, I’d argue a chimp’s thinking abilities, while much below our own, are closer to ours than to those of a moth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
|
Ok, finally we get a definition. Well, then, I disagree with you.
If your claim is that there is an inherent sense that homosexuality is wrong, can you prove it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Oh really? So "now" we come into the realm to where we need to bring forth "evidence" to "prove" something? You talk of how did the translators know what the original text meant? Because we have scholarly books concerning the Hebrew and Greek Languages that show what any given word means in said language.
Go out and look for them, they are called The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, The Theological Dictiony of the New Testament and Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.
Evidence, according to the Hebrew and Greek Languages. They all coincide with each other and no scholar of the Hebrew and Greek Languages would question them.
Oh, but I see! Lets not consider "this" to be evidence. Oh no! We cant have that! Here we have books on the Hebrew and Greek Language, that have been verifed countless times and have stood the test of time itself! Oh no! Facts, evidence! Can't be! It "MUST" therefore be personal interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek Languages, which were the original text of the Bible, therefore it cannot be true!
Rubbish. How much longer are you going to be deliberately ignorant of the workings of the things of this world and twist the meaning of things to suit your fancy so that you wont have to acknowledge facts from something that you cannot prove to unaccurate and untrue?
|
Again, you claim that your books prove so. Others claim that their books tell differently. I cannot study all religions exhaustibly; there’s only one of me. I can tell, however, that no agreement has been reached regarding the Bible and homosexuality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Man + woman over a certain age = no potential for reproduction.
Man + woman + condom + pill = almost zero potential for reproduction. And again, I should stress that the idea is to prevent reproduction.
Man + woman, a variety of sexual activities not including vaginal penetration = no potential for reproduction.
Man or woman, alone, no potential for reproduction.
Male + male, not humans, no potential for reproduction.
Female + female, not humans, no potential for reproduction.
And what’s the big deal about reproduction anyway?
In the vast majority of cases, people have sex with no intent to reproduce, and in fact, contraceptives are precisely to prevent reproduction.
So, why the emphasis again gay sex?
|
It’s because reproduction and families and sexual unity made through the proper way is what counts here, not the gratification of lusts inherent in an immoral society with no regard to sexual morality.[/quote]
But you already assume there’s a proper and moral way beforehand.
Also, I’m comparing the other situations as an argument to your “unnatural” claim, in the case of homosexuality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Supposed by a God that is spoken about in a BIble that you continue to hold to the disallusioned view that cannot be evidence, in any form, because you believe its based on personal interpretation when you have no conclusive "evidence" to say so.
Im sorry, maybe I should do things your way. You have made an un-substantiated claim concerning the BIble because what you say is your personal interpretation that has nothing to do with facts or evidence because its something that I refuse to acknowledge.
|
Sorry, but you have misinterpreted my posts as well (again), and I don’t want to repeat the same arguments (again), so I’ll have to refer you to my previous posts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
You are putting Humans in the catagory of animals when there is no evidence to do so because of the inherent intellectual differences between humans and animals.
It is an instinct of a man to protect his family from danger. However, if his family are murderers and they are being taken to be executed for those crimes, then the acting on that instinct is against moral law because murderers must be punished and therefore, because the man labors to protect his family, a family of murderers, he has partaken of their evil deeds.
Therefore, there are "two" sides to "every" equation. You continue to use only one-side of them.
|
Apart from the fact that humans are animals, I used other species as examples because you said that homosexuality was unnatural, and used the argument of reproduction to attempt to back that claim, so my counterargument is valid.
Now that you have introduced a definition of “unnatural”, the answer is: can you show that there’s an innate sense of justice that considers homosexuality to be a moral wrong?
Do you think gay people have that sense of justice too?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
A fact? Did you use the word "fact"?! Oh come now! Why should it be considered a fact when its "YOUR...PERSONAL...INTERPRETATION"? Ahh, I see! When in regards to "you", it cannot possibily be so, but for others, oh yes indeed, it MUST be so.
|
No, you completely misunderstand my posts, and your attempt of sarcasm seems…odd. Do you believe that you’re making good points, and rebutting mine?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Your arguments are riddled with nothing but contradicts and bias to fit your ends rather than acknowledge that facts are facts and if they "ARE" facts, then they can be proven, which is the case with the Bible.
Even more so, I "NEVER" said that the earth was created in seven days. I said that the Bible states that the planet and the universe was created as a whole, first, in the beginning, and then was "re-created" or "reformed/repaired" afterwards in seven literal days, as stated in Genesis 1:1-31.
|
You did say that.
However, your argument that you never said that the earth was created in seven days, is wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Yes, I contend that the Bible teaches a literal creation of the planet in seven days.
|
But then, it’s true that you gave more details, talking about a “re-creation”, etc. I didn’t say you didn’t say that.
If you claim that Creation, as described by your interpretation of the Bible, is true, then that’s where I could debate…if you had any evidence to back your claim, that is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Uh-huh, but said science cannot be based on personal interpretation could it? Oh no, we dont want to talk about that, because when it concerns things other than the BIble, there cannot be personal interpretation.
|
Again, your sarcasm seems to suggest that you believe you’re making good points. Perhaps, we could agree to disagree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
That said, if you want to debate whether the Bible contradicts science first, that’s fine, and I think you’d find much better replies in the Evolution/Creation forum than in a formal debate with me (you oppose evolution, so you’ll find plenty of people willing to show that the Bible contradicts science - at least your interpretation of the Bible).
Still, if you prefer a formal debate, I guess you could start a thread on that too. If you can’t find a more knowledgeable and willing opponent, I’ll debate …though I won’t have time for more than one debate at a time, so if you’re going to argue that God created the world in seven days and that the Bible doesn’t contradict science, and I’m going to argue for the other side in both cases, one of the debates would have to wait until the other is over.
ETA: If you like formal debates, I just noticed a threadwhere an atheist is challenges Christians who would want to engage on such debates. He probably has sufficient time, and he's looking for a Christian to argue the points.
Anyway, I'll debate formally if you prefer, but I'll need some time between posts. |
On restrospect, whats the point? You refuse to acknowledge that there can be facts about the Bible that dont require a personal interpretation. However, based on all your actions thus far, I can say with absolute certainty that no matter what evidence and facts that I can show, from even scholarly sources such as the books mentioned to you previously concerning the Hebrew and Greek languages, you would just claim its personal interpretation. |
No, if we had been talking about a debate on what the Bible “say”, I wouldn’t just claim it. I would cite sources with other scholars that reach opposite conclusions, to back my argument (as if it weren’t obvious) that the Bible is a text with many different interpretations.
But that aside, that wasn’t the point of the debate. The point was to debate whether the Bible contradicts science.
Of course, you’d argue from the perspective of your own interpretation of the Bible, but in that case, my point is that you do not need to prove that your interpretation of the Bible is better than the others, or that it’s not an interpretation, or whatever you call it.
In other words, in an argument like that, your claims about what the Bible says, wouldn’t be challenged – not by me, anyway. I would simply show that what the Bible (according to you) says, contradicts science, regardless of whether the Bible actually “says” so.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
But there are many different religions and different interpretations. After studying them all… but I don’t have enough time in a lifetime to study them all. Even if I did, most Biblical interpretations I know do contradict science (Catholicism probably doesn’t, but that doesn’t make it probable; it fails for internal problems).
Now, you argue that I have to look at the Bible, not at what denominations say, and dedicate to it as much time and effort as a math student dedicates to math, etc. But again, I don’t have time to do that with all the religions – no one has –, and I cannot know beforehand which one is right. In fact, there’s no reason to believe any of them is right.
|
Oh really? No time? Thats an excuse. Secondly, as I have stated numerous times, you consider everything that has something to do with the Bible personal interpretation, but are not willing to acknowledge facts and evidence that show that the Bible states what it says because of the Original Text of Hebrew and Greek, to which we have lexicons and study aids for.
There is no excuse for you to say such a thing. You have the tools available for study, to find out. You just dont wish to, because you are content in the mentality of everything else aside from what you believe is fact or evidence, is not evidence, but personal interpretation. |
No, it’s not an excuse. If you claim that I’m lying, prove it! :devil3:
The fact is that this thread alone is started to take a bit too much time. But that aside,
I actually said I accepted, and I would debate if you liked. How is that an excuse?
That aside, I am not going to challenge your interpretation of the Bible in a debate, so I would accept your interpretation of the Bible as “what the Bible says”, for the sake of the argument. Again, the debate wouldn’t be about what the Bible says, or about whether the Bible says anything, but about your claims about the world.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
No other opponents? So you will just do it to do it, even though you will consider everything that I say to be personal interpretation regardless? Rubbish.
|
Now, I see that there probably is no point in a debate, but I’m willing to debate anyway, just for the fun of it.
:devil1:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Oh really? Well, here is a clue for ya - what you say concerning what "you" say are personal interpretations, although its can be proven that they arent, is nothing but personal interpretation as well. Therefore, using your own argument, there can be no facts at all. Nothing can be proven. Its all personal interpretation.
Therefore, this conclusively shows that your argument is biased, completely circular and has no basis in objectivity on any such thing if it is against what you think is to be the truth.
Therefore, nothing you say can be trusted, at all. Nothing. Ergo, there is no point in even listening to you or continuing this discussion.
|
Again, I didn’t say nothing can be proven. I’ll refer you to previous parts of my post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu
You said earlier, “If I can prove that one they were teaching is not what the Bible teaches, they they are lieing, whethor knowingly or unknowingly.”
Again, no one can lie unknowingly (by definition of lie) (see http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary, for example).
Now, you say that they’re unknowingly teaching a lie. Well, in the scenario you present, it would be a lie on the part of the original liar, not on the part of the others. In any case, they would not be responsible, unless they’ve been negligent – and even in that casa, they wouldn’t be responsible of [I]lying.[/I[
No, the word “lie” is erroneous here, and frankly, if I were to use it, I’d have to say that you’re telling lies. But that would be a mistake too, as you seem to be sincere, so I’ll only say that you’re mistaken, and so are the other people who teach religion to their children.
As for the “proof”, the thing is, what you see as proof, they don’t, and vice verse. Assuming malicious intent on the other side is, in general, mistaken, even if you would get it right in some cases, by chance. |
Im sorry, but all of this is your personal interpretation. |
My points stand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
What I have stated, you have personally interpreted, therefore, nothing negative of what you say about my comments can be construed as wrong- its your personal interpretation.
|
But you did make those comments, and failed to address my reply with anything but a “personal interpretation” argument that grossly misconstrues my words – though I’m not saying you do that intentionally.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
This is your interpretion, therefore, not fact. Therefore, your argument is meaningless.
|
My point stands.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Your entire contention is based on you claiming that everything I saw is personal interpretation, but using your own argument, you saying what your saying is not the truth either, but your own personal interpretation.
So there can be no facts and therefore, there can be no truth in anything and therefore, people are free to believe what they want regardless.
Anyone with a shred of common sense and intelligence can see the loop-hole in your entire arguement, based on personal interpretation. Your arguement is there non-existent because its based on such a thing that your arguing against.
|
No, I explained the difference and why your contentions about the Bible are your personal interpretation. No need to go there again.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Your questions cannot be answered truthfully and accurately, according to your own argument, because what you will believe is not based on evidence or facts, but personal interpretation on what you already call of what I say to be personal interpretation.
|
That is certainly not my own argument, but a gross misconstruction of it.
And, you did not answer my questions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Therefore, since there can be no facts, nor evidence, nor truth, according to your own arguement, then there is no point in continuing this discussion further with you. I have no desire to bandy words with someone who refuses to acknowledge that facts and evidence can be shown about the Bible that you refuse to allow to be considered evidence but you will then twist the tables and therefore, things that you say are to the contrary of the Bible could only be the truth because "you" have evidence that it is "truth" and that evidence cannot possibily be "your", or anyone else that agrees with you, "personal interpretation".
In other words - your argument is circular, contradictory, biased and not objective.
|
You are mistaken. See above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Berggy
Good Day.
|
Good day.
12-12-2006, 04:20 PM
