Freethought & Rationalism Archive

simon kole · 07-11-2011, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

And my innumerable claims about the veracity of the Bible have been:
its truth neither can be inescapably conclusively proven, nor disproven.
Both are a matter of belief.

Yeah right? As if we're even obligated to disprove every wonder filled myth in history in order to show mysticism is unfounded. There is no place a deity seems to exist, except in the minds of believers. If you think about it, virtually every religion on earth (especially true of Abrahamic faiths), is mutually exclusive. So every believer (as a matter of statistical probability) should expect damnation (unless I suppose you're some sort of deist with a very obscure version of a god).

If a bunch of people came up to me tomorrow and said their favorite religious sage could walk on water, produce fish from empty baskets, and resurrect people, I would think they were full of shit--unless they had video, scientific studies, rigorous peer review of those studies, solid confirmation the resurrected people were actually dead in the first place (and then more investigation, an investigation of the investigation), etc. etc. etc. I guess people weren't quite as curious back in the day. Somehow along the way it collected more sophisticated people, but nothing changes the fact that the bible (from beginning to end) has every stamp of mythology.

There's no contemporaneous witnesses, it all traces back to a few men who spread a story (that stuck for a variety of reasons, but all very explainable reasons). So, like I said, if the circumstances surrounding the bible (and new testament) were replicated (in our modern society), and we had a few hundred cult members who suddently entered our society making these sort of claims, we would think they were nuts (and rightly so). Starting from that idea (what's the logic I would apply in all other circumstances), atheism will come naturally

It's really quite amazing to me that people can be smart in most aspects of life, but when it comes to religion, they can be so absolutely dumbfounded (it's like hypnosis). It's a peculiar thing that will hopefully amuse future generations when they joke about the primitiveness of their ancestors (because if this crap doesn't slowly evaporate, we may not have future generations).

i simply examine the texts for contradictions among them in their own terms.
The only facts that can be established factually are what the texts actually report.
Their truth or untruth cannot be inescapably conclusively disproven, or proven, so both are a matter of belief.

simon kole · 07-11-2011, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

אל־תען כסיל כאולתו פן־תשוה־לו גם־אתה׃

μὴ ἀποκρίνου ἄφρονι πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνου ἀφροσύνην ἵνα μὴ ὅμοιος γένῃ αὐτῷ׃

ne respondeas stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne efficiaris ei similis׃

:banghead:

Do you know Whom it is that can read these words simon?
He knows what they say, wouldn't you think.

Really, I cannot take you at all seriously, simon, regarding Biblical truths when you repeatedly display your utter ignorance and unawareness of so many of those things pertaining to the fundamentals and living practices of The Faith. And are ever so ready and willing to -squirm- rather than simply confessing to any lack of comprehension or of mistake.
As I said before, "just consider whatever I may have written to have been for the benefit of others who do not suffer from your problems."

I continue to write here so that these matters of what you are lacking be set to writing, for the sake of the public record.
If you are lacking in reading comprehension, or in logical reasoning skills, or in the actual doing of what being a member of The NT Faith requires, Or simply cannot 'see' with your blinders on, and cannot 'hear' with your fingers stuffed in your ears, while singing your nah-nah-nah-nah's, that is your own personal problem.

When you avoid answering these challenges regarding your thoughts and conduct, you only the more appear to be as one caught with your pants down around you ankles.
<edit>
I wonder; "will pride indeed go before the fall " ?
Or will the fall come -before- the pride goeth ?

The tongues of the night herald the darkness of those who shelter there.

Perspicuo · 07-11-2011, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Your quarrel is with the NT reports regarding what Jesus told his apostles, concerning the meaning of the OT Scriptures (Lk 24:44-48), which meanings are found in the NT writings.

Quarrel? No quarrel. I'm just pointing out a huge inconsistency which has no justification. If the NT is true, YHWH is a liar. Which of course cannot be the case because it goes against one of the supposed basic characteristics of God. Therefore, the Bible is not divinely inspired.

simon kole · 07-11-2011, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Your quarrel is with the NT reports regarding what Jesus told his apostles, concerning the meaning of the OT Scriptures (Lk 24:44-48), which meanings are found in the NT writings.

Quarrel? No quarrel. I'm just pointing out a huge inconsistency which has no justification. If the NT is true, YHWH is a liar. Which of course cannot be the case because it goes against one of the supposed basic characteristics of God. Therefore, the Bible is not divinely inspired.

<edit>

Failte · 07-11-2011, 08:11 AM

Please stop preaching. The pious little one-liners don't add anything to the conversation.

Quote:

i simply examine the texts for contradictions among them in their own terms.
The only facts that can be established factually are what the texts actually report.

This really isn't true, you know. You are inserting a tremendous amount of conjecture, interpretation, and selective reading to make the bible non-contradictory (in both this thread and the others). If you actually were sticking with only what the bible actually says --without additions, without "could be" and "might have meants"--then we others in the thread have clearly shown contradictions: logical, doctrinal, and textual, which you have acknowledged in various posts. But whenever these differences are shown, you simply "re-interpret" the texts to mean what you want them to mean.

If we agreed with your belief that the bible is unified and god-breathed, and if we believed in your specific brand of god, we'd probably agree with your "explanations" of the text, as well. But as most of us do not accept your conclusions, our reading of the bible does not change/edit the contents in order to make things sync up.

Sheshbazzar · 07-11-2011, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

אל־תען כסיל כאולתו פן־תשוה־לו גם־אתה׃

μὴ ἀποκρίνου ἄφρονι πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνου ἀφροσύνην ἵνα μὴ ὅμοιος γένῃ αὐτῷ׃

ne respondeas stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne efficiaris ei similis׃

:banghead:

Do you know Whom it is that can read these words simon?
He knows what they say, wouldn't you think.

Really, I cannot take you at all seriously, simon, regarding Biblical truths when you repeatedly display your utter ignorance and unawareness of so many of those things pertaining to the fundamentals and living practices of The Faith. And are ever so ready and willing to -squirm- rather than simply confessing to any lack of comprehension or of mistake.
As I said before, "just consider whatever I may have written to have been for the benefit of others who do not suffer from your problems."

I continue to write here so that these matters of what you are lacking be set to writing, for the sake of the public record.
If you are lacking in reading comprehension, or in logical reasoning skills, or in the actual doing of what being a member of The NT Faith requires, Or simply cannot 'see' with your blinders on, and cannot 'hear' with your fingers stuffed in your ears, while singing your nah-nah-nah-nah's, that is your own personal problem.

When you avoid answering these challenges regarding your thoughts and conduct, you only the more appear to be as one caught with your pants down around you ankles.
<edit>
I wonder; "will pride indeed go before the fall " ?
Or will the fall come -before- the pride goeth ?

The tongues of the night herald the darkness of those who shelter there.

I'm sure 'your god' appreciates you referring to The Scripture presented to you as being 'The tongues of the night'.
As ignorance is associated with darkness, so abide in your lightless cave.
Amen, It certainly appears that your fall will come before your pride goeth.
Have thine own way nabi simon, being as you are altogether too obstinate to hearken to the voice of this dumb ass who would to warn you in the way.

simon kole · 07-11-2011, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Jesus is the author of the NT understanding which you find contradictory to the OT.

You really don't get it, do you?

You haven't even established that Jesus existed, let alone that he (or any real person) said or did any of the things written in the gospels. We don't know who wrote any of the NT stories, or when, or how changed they were before they were codified circa 400 CE.

We do know that the writings were changed many times, and that there was bitter controversy as to what was 'scripture' and what was not. So your absurd contention that "Jesus" was the author of anything is utterly without foundation.

You know what is my purview. All those lie outside it, and you know it.

Bullshit.

The claim "Jesus is the author of . . . " lies outside your self-imposed convenient little "purview," but that hasn't stopped you from making innumerable truth claims about the veracity of the Bible.

A. My personal beliefs are irrelevant to examination of the texts in their own terms.

B. And my "little purview" is large enough for these:

1) Biblical Contradictions, here.

2) Basic Logical Inconsistency of the Bible, here.

3) Basic Doctrinal Inconsistency of the Bible, here.

4) Unity of the Bible, here.

5) Scripture is the Word of God, here, at my fifth response.

6) Two Kinds of Death and Two Kinds of Life in Humans, here, bottom half of post.

7) What Must I Do to Inherit Eternal Life? -- Lk 10:25-29, here.

8) Hell vs. Annihilation, here.

9) Physical vs. Spiritual (Bodyless) Resurrection of Jesus, here.

10) Temporal vs. Eternal Future Messianic Kingdom, here, at my last response within the quoted field.

11) Disobedience is Unbelief, here.

C. My innumerable claims about the veracity of the Bible have been:
its truth neither can be inescapably conclusively proven, nor disproven.
Both are a matter of belief.

And you know that.

Quote:

You are playing both sides of the fence, and losing - against yourself.

simon kole · 07-11-2011, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

Please stop preaching. The pious little one-liners don't add anything to the conversation.

Quote:

i simply examine the texts for contradictions among them in their own terms.
The only facts that can be established factually are what the texts actually report.

This really isn't true, you know. You are inserting a tremendous amount of conjecture, interpretation, and selective reading to make the bible non-contradictory (in both this thread and the others). If you actually were sticking with only what the bible actually says --without additions, without "could be" and "might have meants"--then we others in the thread have clearly shown contradictions: logical, doctrinal, and textual, which you have acknowledged in various posts. But whenever these differences are shown, you simply "re-interpret" the texts to mean what you want them to mean.

Like the chemistry teacher "reinterprets" the students' understanding of the Table of Elements when they think they see "contradictions" there.

It's about correct understanding, not "contradictions."

Quote:

If we agreed with your belief that the bible is unified and god-breathed, and if we believed in your specific brand of god, we'd probably agree with your "explanations" of the text, as well. But as most of us do not accept your conclusions, our reading of the bible does not change/edit the contents in order to make things sync up.

I understand that.

I don't use a forensic approach, nor impose an extrinsic methodology on the texts in understanding them.
I understand the texts in their own terms.

schriverja · 07-11-2011, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Then why all the confusion over circumcision and the other parts of the Jewish Law in Acts 21?

Addressed in post #430, above.

Addressed in post #425, above.

Quote:

Jesus didn't write a word of the NT, dude. We have accounts of what he said, but they weren't written by people who were there.

The Luke passage doesn't support your case that Jesus intended everyone to stop being Jewish, honoring the Jewish traditions, etc. Jesus himself observed them (at least the Passover, and apparently the Sabbath unless he had a healing to do). Luke was at least the 2nd revision of Mark, and the passage you cite isn't found in any other gospel. It didn't show up until at least 55 years after Jesus walked the earth). There is a reason that Luke, the least Jewish of the gospels, was so heavily used by the Marcionites. (I myself think the most consistent early form of Christianity was probably the Ebionites, as they at least tried to reconcile the Hebrew Scriptures with the teaching of the Jewish Jesus). I have supplied several statements attributed to Jesus that say the commandments of the OT should be kept. You have yet to cite a statement by Jesus that supports an alternate interpretation, as at most the Luke 24 passage points to Jesus showing the disciples he was the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies, not a new covenant himself.

I don't buy Paul's claim of special revelation, precisely because it doesn't match what is found in Gospels or the OT. I also don't buy the similar statements in Hebrews, as the theology clearly seems to follow in Paul's school of thought.

All those are outside my purview, dude.

How is it outside of your purview that the Luke passage you keep citing doesn't support your case? And that the Acts passage shows that the people who were supposedly there, having the 'Scriptures opened up' for them came to a vastly different conclusion than you? You understand Jesus better than Peter, James and the other folks that were there?

Sheshbazzar · 07-11-2011, 09:15 AM

ראית איש חכם בעיניו תקוה לכסיל ממנו׃
There are men who can read this, even as they read it 2500 years ago.
My words are incisive and decisive, and are going to by far outlast simon's faulty arguments.

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

07-11-2011, 09:15 AM	#460
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	ראית איש חכם בעיניו תקוה לכסיל ממנו׃ There are men who can read this, even as they read it 2500 years ago. My words are incisive and decisive, and are going to by far outlast simon's faulty arguments.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.