rlogan

What knowledge is demonstrated of medicine, mathematics, astronomy, science, metallurgy, etc.? Must have been a pretty limited education! Likewise for Paul.

One of the strange things about the Christian faith is to make intellectual superheroes out of people ignorant of major bodies of science in their own time.

Eratosthenes made a fairly accurate calculation of the earth's circumference centuries before the "scholar" Paul sewed his first tent.

Chris Weimer

So when Zeus flooded the country side because he wasn't treated hospitably and killed everyone except one family, or when he destroyed the Earth in a gigantic flood and allowed everyone to live except Deucalion, that proves that Zeus is the supreme God, right? I mean, who would make that up? :banghead:

Knurd

Thanks for the explanation. I must have misunderstood your previous post. It came across, to me at least, as anti-intellectual. Perhaps I'm the only one who saw it that way.
I'm unfamiliar with this Dr. Scott. Apparently he has impressive credentials. I like the idea to "invade the church with intelligence," however; I have less enthusiasm about shaming people. (Shame is often used as a device to maintain control.)

The question that now arises in my mind is this: What level of intellectual freedom is allowed in Dr. Scott's Chruch? Are there some things that cannot be questioned?

Excellent! :thumbs: It sounds like your branch of Christianity is at least somewhat liberal, which I can respect more than the strict fundy brand. I'm not looking at my post as I write this, and I don't think I said you believed those things, but I have to admit that I was thinking it. I apologize to you (and to myself) for jumping to the conclusion that you were an inerrantist, creationist, etc. I do try to avoid that bad habit that is so ingrained in my fundy past.

The problems that I see in this approach to the Bible is determining what is a mistake and what isn't. God wrote a bible to "prove" the way, but it has errors, and we've got to decide what an error is and what isn't. So the bible has to be filtered through theologians and scholars to remove the impurities, but theologians and scholars make errors themselves and disagree with one another, so then I have to choose which guru to follow and I might make an error in that. Seems like a poor way for God to "prove" that I ought to follow the gospel. And that doesn't even take into account choices that I could make about non-Christian religions. It's a whole can of worms that could get this thread chopped up into as many pieces as a Thanksgiving turkey.

It seems to me that faith is jumping to a conclusion. Since faith failed me in the past, I prefer to go back to as few assumptions as possible and work my way up from there. Who, knows, maybe I'll come to the same conclusions as your Dr. Scott, and maybe not.
Many times when a theist posts on this forum, it is in the form of unsupported declarative statement. My parents tell me that when I was very young my favorite question was, "WHY?" Why (there I go again) don't we use that wonderful word as adults? We'd have a better world. "HOW" is another good word. It is those why and how questions that the declarative statements fail to satisfy.

Amazing. I find this disturbing. I don't think I've said anything that labels me as holding an extremist position. I think I've responded honestly, openly, and with concern for the position and feelings of others on this list. I am seeking to use my mind in the best way I know how, rationally considering all viewpoints within the limits of my intelligence. Any challenges I make are intended to challenge my own position as much as anyone else. And yet, I'm labeled as extremist, apparently because I'm not at this time following the same beliefs as you. :banghead: Does the kettle and pot cliché apply here?

Knurd

I see that you really want to debate this. I'm not the person for it, because I just don't have time. I suggest that you put this into formal debate proposals. Someone will give you a dabate that you can really hang you hat on. And I'd like to read it.

However I will respond to one thing that I find interesting.

II Kings 2:23-24 is what you're talking about, I think. Children insulted the prophet and he cursed them and bears came out of the woods and set things right.

Your argument, if I understand it, is this: The prophet may have done wrong in cursing them, but god honored the curse. It happend just like that.

Then you argue that if this were a document written by man it would not have included such a ghastly story. Since this horrific incident IS recorded, that proves that the Bible contains God's message to the world, and so on. Stories of biblical genocide fall into the same category.

I find this logic less than compelling for the following reasons.

First, you're judging the bible writers by the moral standards of today. It was a rough would in acient times. In ancient times slavery was normal for many cultures. In ancient times the victor in wars wanted the land for his OWN people. The more of the enemy one kills the more resources are available for his own people. So the writers of the biblical genocide events probably thought little about it. In the light of the culture of the time it is easy to see how stories like this would be included in the Bible.

Second, non-biblical spiritual books that claim to be writen by a diety also contain atrocities. The same argument works there as well. I'm currently reading the Book of Mormon, and have found some atrocities. Surely, a book written by men would not include those. Is the Book of Mormon also the word of god? What about the Koran? What about non-canonical christian/jewish scriptures? The list is endless. You ought to apply the same rules to these other books.

With this you actually give an opposing viewpoint quite strong ammunition against your position.

It is well known that prophets, priests, preachers, are fond of using fear to keep people in line (otherwise they might think for themselves).

I think I understand your position and it is this: You give a scenario in which the killing of the children is a kind of prophecy and draws a paralled between the prophet and Jesus and death by bears to hell. (The prophet was a "type" of Jesus, I used to say.) If one is willing to take the several leaps of faith then this has some logic to it.

However, I'll propose a scenario that requires fewer leaps of faith.

One day a bear came out of the woods and killed some children. The prophet seized upon this opportunity to put the fear of god into the villagers, "Oh, those children were making fun of me, so I cursed them. You'd better listen to me or something bad will happen to you." And the story was oral tradition for a while, but eventually became written in the bible.

Think. After 9/11 Jerry Falwall took the opportunity to blame it on the homosexuals and others. Very similar to how a prophet living in ancient times could have used a bear attack to boost his standing with superstitious villagers.

Of course my scenario doesn't "prove" anything. Your interpretation of the events doesn't "prove" anything either. It's just that my simpler version shows that your complicated interpretation has logical holes. Occam’s Razor is a good technique to apply here.

Okay, you may rebut if you like, but I probably will leave any follow up to others, due to personal time restraints. I really suggest that you take advantage of posting a formal debate challenge. I'd love to see this formally debated.

Chris Weimer

ACtually, it sounds more like what parent say to their children, "if you don't do such and such, a bear will come out of the woods and each you."

I doubt it even happened at all.

Toto

Dr Gene Scott® is a flamboyant, cigar-smoking, televangelist with notable fund raising abilities. (More about him here and here. His PhD is from Stanford in "Philosophies of Education," from 1957.

BrianJ

It is also worth noting that Gene Scott has lost faith in God, and can no longer be considered a Christian.

Amaleq13

I don't see how that article justifies your statement.

He is described as surprised that his faith did not obtain a positive response but also indicates he intends to continue his ministry.

I suspect you are underestimating Scott's ability to eliminate his cognitive dissonance by the equally powerful "rationalization".

Jack the Bodiless

As others have noted, MANY religions make such claims.

You would be correct to argue that those wishing to portray God as gentle and benevolent wouldn't invent this stuff: but this view of God is recent, and unsupported by most of the Old Testament.

The God of the OT is primarily a vicious god of destruction, and is mostly portrayed as such.
You have that backwards. The Serpent (who wasn't "the devil") told the truth: it was God who lied in that story.

God said that eating the forbidden fruit would kill Adam and Eve that very day. The Serpent told them that it would not. From the context, it's quite clear that the Serpent wasn't promising immortality (at least, not immediately: however, A&E would have gained immortality by going on to eat from the Tree of Life).

Christians have mangled the Bible here because they don't like the image of God that the Genesis author presented.

Jack the Bodiless

...Oh, and if you'd like to argue that "nobody would make up" a story like this: check out the Prometheus myth. Zeus didn't want us to have fire, but Prometheus gave it to us anyhow, and paid the price, just as the Serpent did.