Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SignOfTheCross · 07-15-2003, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NZAmoeba
I dissagree with the envy/jealousy idea, but whatever, you have to grab at whatever straw you have to to get that one to work...

now, because you KEEP IGNORING IT i will repost it here

All these phrases use the exact same language, and there are multiple entries based on a similar theme, split hairs over THAT.

I do hope this gets through your faith goggles

It is God who gives life and God who takes life, and God will not take the life of anyone innocent. Such as it is, all have sinned and have fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23) and we are in need of a saviour. That is, every sin we commit against God is subject to His wrath. God does not punish the children for their fathers sins, nor the fathers for their childrens sins, rather the fathers for their own sins, and the children for their own sins. It may be so that by taking the life of a child, it is the father who suffers (or is punished) for the sin of their own, whilst the child is punished for original sin, but admitted into heaven on account of God's mercy.

Peace,
SOTC

Peace,
SOTC

SignOfTheCross · 07-15-2003, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NZAmoeba
sigh...
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=contradiction

Use any sugar-coated language you like, it still means the same thing

Are you looking to use the word "synonym" in a loose sense? If we use it in a strict sense, the type of strictness that we need if we are to prove contradictions in the Bible, then you might have a point.

Peace,
SOTC

The_Unknown_Banana · 07-16-2003, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
The Epistles were written in Greek, and no translation from Greek to English is perfect.

I agree, however most christians I know would contest to the flawlessness of even the English translation - as God would not let his word get distorted, or something. (After which I point them to the many different translations... but anyway)

Quote:

How is it you can accept my envy/jealousy arguement, and at the same time admit all I am doing is trying to validate my beliefs. Rather than rationalise a contradiction, I am looking for the theological point God is trying to make when inconsistencies (not contradictions) seem to arise.

Well, what I mean is that I can accept your argument, however I don't think that the envy/jealous argument is the only (or best) inconsitancy/contradiction, hence I could also just as easily believe that it actually did mean what it comes across as, and that it is a contradiction.

I would offer my own input, however I find it hard to argue when I have no idea which interpretation I'm arguing against. As you are no doubt aware, even scholars are not in agreeal on all points. (Hence the many different subsets of Christianity)

Define "Theological Contradiction"? (I think that's what you asked for earlier?)

Also, does the argument that Jack offered earlier ("Are we punished for the sins of others) not fit the criteria for some reason?

One problem I have with religion is that no matter how a person interprets the bible (literally or not... etc) they will always know their interpretation is the right one, and have "evidence" to back them up. Instead of rethinking their theological views, they will often block their ears and just say science is wrong, reality is an illusion.

The_Unknown_Banana · 07-16-2003, 12:16 AM

Also, if I may ask (unless I missed it earlier...?) why do you believe? Why bother to negate the usual need for "Logical-Material" evidence, and just go on faith? If you invested faith in a different religion first, do you think you would now be defending that one instead? (I guess this isn't really a fair question, as you have stated already that you aren't really that knowledgable of all the other texts)

Jack the Bodiless · 07-16-2003, 01:41 AM

Leviathan:

Quote:

I'm afraid you once again misunderstand my argument. I don't agree with you, and your assumption that I either believe in a 6,000 year earth or agree with you is erroneous.

My argument, I would stipulate, has been simple and succintly presented to you. I neither accept the argument that God exists, beyond a reasonable doubt, nor that he doesn't exist. Thus, for me, any atheist that claims God does not exist, beyond a reasonable doubt, and believes they can *prove* this to me, well they're going to have a difficult time in persuading me of their argument. I believe your questions are not directly addressing what I'm inquiring of you.

You have still not defined WHICH God you are being agnostic about.

I suspect you are as atheistic as I am with regard to the God of the inerrantists.

Here's what you said about leprechauns:

Quote:

My point is generally, that what is "reasonable" to one person, might not be to another. To answer your question, *in my experience* I believe that it is reasonable to say "I don't believe in leprechauns." But I would like to add an amendment, if I may, to your statement. "I don't believe in leprechauns, but I certainly haven't seen everything in the world, been to every part of the world, talked to someone from every part of the world about leprechauns, or experienced everything there is in the world, thus, I can be *practically* certain in my belief there are no leprechauns, but I cannot be certain."

Substitute the phrase "a fuzzily-defined higher power" for the word "leprechaun", and this becomes a statement of my position on the existence of such a deity.

As you have said, a-theism means "without theism": I lack belief in deities. The word doesn't actually mean "denies the existence of God", just as a-leprechaunism doesn't mean "denies the existence of leprechauns" (assuming "leprechaunism" is belief in leprechauns). It is merely a lack of belief in leprechauns.

Dictionary definitions of atheism are notoriously inaccurate.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-16-2003, 02:18 AM

SignOfTheCross:

Quote:

I've read enough of the "supposed" contradictions to know beyond reasonable doubt the webmaster has neither a PhD in biblical studies, nor an education (and I say this with a sarcastic tone) nor have they read the Bible in its proper context. I would investigate the site in full, but why bother when it makes claims as absurd as "does one or many Gods exist?". The site loses ALL credibility in my eyes for that statement ALONE. Perhaps there are geuine contradictions on the site, but if you could separate them from the rubbish one's, then I'd be happy to look at them.

You are merely demonstrating your own ignorance here.

The Jews were originally polytheistic. El was part of a family (he was the father of Baal, for instance). Over time, Judaism changed from polytheism to worship of one God among the many believed to exist: "MY god is better than YOUR god". This then eventually became true monotheism, the belief that the god being worshipped is the only one that actually exists. The Bible reflects this change of beliefs over time.

Genuine scholars know this. Biblical inerrantists apparently do not. No competent Biblical scholar is an inerrantist.

Quote:

In any case, what is an atheist to do when Bible scholars provide an exegesis for every verse in the Bible and no contradiction is cited?

This has never been done, so the question is hypothetical. At least, it's never been done competently: the distortions of logic, misreading of Hebrew, and ludicrous fictions necessary to "resolve" many contradictions are simply laughable. And even those who CLAIM to have done it are forced to admit to "copying errors" when pressed on details: they are forced to admit that there are errors in the Bible after all.

Quote:

No, that is not my intention. Atheists claim they can disprove God beyond reasonable doubt, I'd like to see this proof. I was actually hoping for psychological, or scientific evidence that this was the case, but so far I have received nothing except the claim the Bible is littered with contradictions, of which I deem to be false since no one on these boards (I presume) can claim to be a Bible scholar.

Are you capable of comprehending the scientific evidence that disproves Noah's Flood? Or do you believe it was a local phenomenon, not worldwide?

Quote:

If the number was more like "10" or "20", I'd be interested, but I rubbish the fact there are "1000" proposed biblical contradictions, for the simple reason there aren't. To suggest there are "1000" is devient, and I question your biblical knowledge, if any.

Again, Biblical scholars know otherwise.

Quote:

Actually, I think you'll find there is not ONE proven contradiction ion the Bible, if we stick to what makes a contradiction a contradiction. Principle of contradiction (Logic), the axiom or law of thought that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time, or a thing must either be or not be, or the same attribute can not at the same time be affirmed and and denied of the same subject.

There are many such examples. But you have already demonstrated your willingness to mangle the English language and deny the obvious. I can just as easily argue that "the sky is blue" and "the sky is green" do not contradict.

Quote:

Actually, faith is not defined that way. Faith is belief not based on logical "proof" or material evidence. And if we take your definition of plausible into account, what makes your appearance of error in the Bible any more plausible than a Bible scholar who says there is not? Think about it this way, he is learned, you are ignorant, and I don't mean that in an insultive way, but to point out that your opinion the Bible is in error is no more worthy than the 3 year old who thinks the earth is flat.

Again: anyone who says that the Bible is inerrant is NOT a competent Biblical scholar. They are ignorant: we are not.

And you DO know that the Bible was written by flat-Earthers, right? The Hebrews believed the Earth was flat and covered by a solid dome, the "Firmament" in Genesis, to which the stars are attached. They still believed this when Revelation was written: some of the stars get knocked off the dome and fall to Earth.

Quote:

It is God who gives life and God who takes life, and God will not take the life of anyone innocent.

This is not true. The Bible says otherwise.

Quote:

God does not punish the children for their fathers sins, nor the fathers for their childrens sins, rather the fathers for their own sins, and the children for their own sins.

Again: you may prefer to believe this, but the Bible says otherwise.

Quote:

It may be so that by taking the life of a child, it is the father who suffers (or is punished) for the sin of their own, whilst the child is punished for original sin, but admitted into heaven on account of God's mercy.

Again, the Bible is clear on this: children are frequently punished for the sins of their fathers. This reason is frequently explicitly stated in the Bible. There is no reason or justification to invent OTHER reasons that you PREFER to believe, simply because you don't like what the Bible says.

Are you ready to tackle the issue of human sacrifice yet, or would you rather deny the Bible on that issue too?

Jack the Bodiless · 07-16-2003, 02:27 AM

Incidentally, SignOfTheCross: would you regard Saint Augustine of Hippo as a competent Biblical scholar?

Quote:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from knowledge and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. . . . Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon
Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-16-2003, 02:35 AM

Oops, nearly missed this:

Quote:

...so far I have received nothing except the claim the Bible is littered with contradictions, of which I deem to be false since no one on these boards (I presume) can claim to be a Bible scholar.

Why do you presume this?

You are mistaken. There are quite a few Biblical scholars here. They mainly hang out in the "Biblical Criticism and History" forum. It's the main area where Biblical errors are discussed.

SignOfTheCross · 07-16-2003, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Unknown_Banana
[B]I agree, however most christians I know would contest to the flawlessness of even the English translation - as God would not let his word get distorted, or something. (After which I point them to the many different translations... but anyway)

This is fundamentalism. Those who believe the King James Version of the Holy Bible is free from ALL grammatical error, and I wouldn't say most Christians endorse this view.

Quote:

Well, what I mean is that I can accept your argument, however I don't think that the envy/jealous argument is the only (or best) inconsitancy/contradiction, hence I could also just as easily believe that it actually did mean what it comes across as, and that it is a contradiction.

You could if you wanted, but you'd be contradicting Scripture.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)

This verse reasons that private interpretation proceeds private inspiration, the right of interpretation having been given to Apostles and their successors, the Church, not ourselves.

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

We clearly see from Scripture, the right of interpretation was given to the Church. I might add this does not forbid one from reading the Bible, or even engaging in private interpretation, but should one contradict Church teaching they are subject to their own fallibility, and have thus exalted themselves above the cheif interpreter, the Church. My question, if the Bible plainly states the right of interpretation was given to the Church, and the Church, having done an exegesis of every single verse in the Bible, yet finds no contradiction, how is your assertion there is anymore credible than the Church?

It's strange that the Church draws a lot of its theology from the verses that look to be inconsistent or even contradictory.

Quote:

I would offer my own input, however I find it hard to argue when I have no idea which interpretation I'm arguing against. As you are no doubt aware, even scholars are not in agreeal on all points. (Hence the many different subsets of Christianity)

Yes, well I am Catholic so I'd have to say the protestant scholars are in error. It's not that they are ignorant, just that as humans, we have a tendency to pick a side and then learn to defend it.

Quote:

Define "Theological Contradiction"? (I think that's what you asked for earlier?)

Hmmm, a "theological contradiction" I suppose would be something that contradicts something else on a theological point. That is, if you can prove God is not love when it clearly says it is, then that would be a contradiction, but you'd also have to take other things into account, such as God's justice and wrath. I believe historical errors (if there are any) do not contribute to the Bible innerancy, as it Bible is soley for theological purposes, not historical or scientific.

Quote:

Also, does the argument that Jack offered earlier ("Are we punished for the sins of others) not fit the criteria for some reason?

I think I've already responsed to that.

Quote:

One problem I have with religion is that no matter how a person interprets the bible (literally or not... etc) they will always know their interpretation is the right one, and have "evidence" to back them up. Instead of rethinking their theological views, they will often block their ears and just say science is wrong, reality is an illusion.

Well, first of all, I don't submit to the my own interpretation, but the Churches. Martin Luther once said if every man was to interpret Scripture without the guidance of the church, we'd all go to hell in our own way. I suppose he's pretty much spot on with that point. As for evidence, we (Catholics) have the early church fathers (Augustine, Jerome etc), and believe it or not, even history is open to interpretation. As for your last point, I am an evolutionist (I suppose), believe the earth is older than 6000 years, believe dinosaurs once roamed the earth and the big bang theory is the best scientific theory we have thus far that explains the origin of the universe. So no, I don't believe science nullifies faith, rather somehow they are connected.

Peace,
SOTC

SignOfTheCross · 07-16-2003, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Incidentally, SignOfTheCross: would you regard Saint Augustine of Hippo as a competent Biblical scholar?

Augustine is spot on, and my favourite theologian. Your point being?

Peace,
SOTC

p.s. must go now, be back later.

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

07-16-2003, 12:16 AM	#54
The_Unknown_Banana Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 179	Also, if I may ask (unless I missed it earlier...?) why do you believe? Why bother to negate the usual need for "Logical-Material" evidence, and just go on faith? If you invested faith in a different religion first, do you think you would now be defending that one instead? (I guess this isn't really a fair question, as you have stated already that you aren't really that knowledgable of all the other texts)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.