figuer

Seems you don't read carefully, or have problems understanding complex concepts:

3Djay "vain thoughts on punishments of unvelievers" were directed at Larsguy47 not at you.

My "thoughts on trying to prove a god false", were no such thing. I was following a line of thought from the previous posts about the validity of using a single statement from the bible to form a theological conception, or disprove it.

3DJay

You:

"Jesus was referring to his own words, that he was speaking in parables, and if one understood the parables, then they'd "get it", but if they didn't get it, they'd be left out." (Jesus existed?)

"The disciples asked Jesus why he spoke in parables, and he answered him thus." (Is this the Jesus, that is God, that your speaking about, as though he existed?)

"He's not playing "tricks" though, and no, merely playing "tricks" does not make one a "trickster"." (Of course God's not playing tricks, he doesn't exist. Why talk as if he does?)

"God didn't make these people unworthy, they were already unworthy, and so god fed their delusion." (He couldn't have made them unworthy, he doesn't exist. Why are you talking as though he does?)

"Why are you "judging" God?" (Who?)

"You assume that God is perfectly logical and treats everyone the same. I don't think the evidence points that way." (How can the evidence point any way about something that doesn't exist?)

I see, it's okay for you to argue from a position that God exists, when it suits you, but it's not okay for others.

And, my main point, to Larsguy, was about punishing "wise" believers. Don't know why you're on about the little unbeliever bit.

Do you understand why I picked Jeremiah 8, in particular, in a topic about the gospel being written specifically to confuse nonbelievers, and relies on gospel purity?

" 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

This is one of the Bible's paradoxes, which Larsguy can try and explain away. If that passage is true, then the Bible is corrupt. If that passage is false, then the Bible is corrupt.

Not only that, but Larsguy brought up that God wanted to fool the "wise". Larsguy makes out that he is wise about the law, that he has inside knowledge. The passages I posted also describe God punishing "wise" believers. Believers, who had corrupted the written law, but claimed to be wise about the law.

Jeremiah 8 provided one stone...if you get my drift. If you don't...think 2 birds.

Take it to the dictionary, under Hypocrisy.


Peace

Chris Weimer

Go with the former. I see the extraneous quote now.

Your exact quote:

I'm neither arguing that the book is infallible, nor that the god is "true". I operate with the assumptions that a) the book is a collection of documents representing certain groups of people in Palestine from 1000 BCE - 100 CE and b) god does not exist.

Chris Weimer

Yes.

Jesus is not God.

God does not exist. I always operate under that assumption. Any time I reference God doing something it's in a narrative context, and is no different than speaking of when Zeus or Hercules or Harry Potter did something. For example, Hercules had 12 labors. Does that mean that Hercules existed? No.

See above.

Why are you judging [replace word with Zeus, Hercules, Harry Potter, etc...]. Saying that Voldemort is a bad person says nothing about what J. K. Rowling does with that character.

The evidence would be, what did the ancient Jews, the people who wrote the Old Testament, think? God actually existing is assumed negatively. What the ancient Jews thought about God is a totally different story.

Once again, see a couple of quotes above.

And sorry, I wasn't paying all that much attention and didn't see that you switched addressees.

figuer

I'll go with the later (since you did it again).

I did not say you were arguing such things.

You were arguing in favor of concensus, versus single Biblical statements.

I was showing - repeat- "the validity of using a single statement from the bible to form a theological conception."

Neither your statement nor mine have anything to do with belief, but with Biblical/Theological studies.

funinspace

And you seam to like to overgeneralize as well. I don't see a contradiction there. Hum, I must be a closet Christian and don't even know it :Cheeky:

Well I guess that is about as plausible as the sun standing still, and Canaan missing a night time… Though I would lean towards it being contradictory in nature vice this elaborate explanation. Either way, I wouldn't use this as an example of a clear contradiction/inconsistancy. Funny thing is that I know 2 liberal Christian preachers who would accept that this is a legitimate Biblical text contradiciton or jumbled up.

funinspace

Now this is hogwash. Are you actually trying to say that all Liberal Christain preachers/theologians have not heard the "correct explanation" to various obvious contradictions that they happen to agree are gummed up somewhere? Or maybe you are saying that all liberal preachers/theologian, who do not believe in inerrancy, are not TRUE Christians?

Sheshbazzar

The problem is, if one asks for an explanation concerning any textual contradiction or "difficulty" from 50 different Christians, one is likely to receive 50 different widely varying and wildly contradictory "correct explanations".

How is one to determine which among all of those "correct explanations" (with dozens of new and more "novel" ones being invented daily) is actually the "correct explanation"?

For example, in this thread it has been admitted by Larsguy that his "correct explanation(s)" are different from, and contrary to those the "correct explanations" provided by his admitted mentors, The "Jehovah's Witnesses" and of course most other Christians will dismiss both of these sources "correct explanations", because they each have their own "correct explanation".

Sorry Larsguy, but as your "correct explanations" ARE different from that of every other Christian organization, including the "Jehovah's Witnesses", the "confusion IS NOT over";
Rather, your unattested to -(by any body of known or recognized church authority)- "correct explanation(s)" only contribute to the furthering of the confusion.
You have opinions, and you are entitled to your opinions, however, your opinions are after all, only the opinions of ONE single individual.
As such it they are lacking in that collective voice required of and for church authority, and which can only be granted by others, (other than yourself).
Thus, you are not in a valid position, (regardless of how well researched, educated, smart, wise, or of superior intelligence you may think you are), to suggest, imply, or state that your opinions, theories, or "findings" are superior to, over-rule, or ought to supplant those collective beliefs that are held, and have been jointly approved by other Christians.

funinspace

One difference to this problem is that that there is a large minority of the total Christian grouping, that does not need a "correct explanation(s)". They do not cling to the notion of inerrancy or a God-breathed canon. Ergo my query to Larsguy to explain his comment.

Sheshbazzar

So therefore their "correct explanation" is that because the text is errant, a "correct explanation" is not needed, correct?