Rational BAC

I never did bring up very much the validity of the Old Testament

IMHO--------------

Actually Christian fundies would throw me straight into hell for this ------------but I think the OT is fascinating literature in some parts, very boring in other parts, poorly written in many parts. ------------------But in no way the word of God.

Still fun to read----at least some parts are. Some great literature there.

I do like some of the Psalms. I do like some of the Proverbs. I do like "The Song of Solomon". There are quite a few parts of the Old Testament that I like. But in no way do I consider any of it the direct word of God.

Best that can be said about the OT is that it explains in a very limited way the historical context for the New Testament.

And the New Testament I take somewhat more seriously -----and very seriously the purported words of my Saviour---Jesus Christ.

However in all cases in the Bible, even in the purported words of Jesus-------------I take it all with a grain of salt.

After all-------even what Jesus was purported to have said was written down decades later after those same decades of oral tradition as a basis.


Try this sometime ----------Tell your neighbor some gossip. And find out from another neighbor weeks later what you said supposedly------------------and that is an oral tradition.

So --even with what Jesus is purported to have said,--------we are all looking through a mirror darkly.

Cherry Picking rules.

Take that in your pipe and smoke it -----both Fundies and non-theists.

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Try this sometime ----------Tell your neighbor some gossip. And find out from another neighbor weeks later what you said supposedly------------------and that is an oral tradition.

Actually, many oral traditions were propagated by the younger generation learning the stories word for word, until they had them perfectly. They will change over time, but much more slowly than some random gossip that no-one has any control over once it's left your lips. This is where the Muslim tradition of learning the Qu'ran comes from.

And are you going to continue to post reasons why you don't believe in parts of a book none of us believe in anyway, or are you going to try to address some of our actual questions about your position?
Take that in your pipe and smoke it -----both Fundies and non-theists.
The above is not a rational argument for anything.
TW

Rational BAC

OK

Give me some questions that I have not addressed as yet.

My memory aint so good anymore-----------

Mageth

Starboy:

The bible is a document that makes claims about reality.

I would amend this . The bible is a document that includes myths and legends that people have claimed make claims about reality. In so doing, the significance, the true meaning, of the myths are often lost.

I'm not sure that, for example, the Genesis creation account and the Flood were intended by the original recorders to be taken as historical accounts. Rather, I think they were perhaps originated (with heavy borrowing from earlier traditions) and recorded as myths to illustrate (universal) truths about the human condition. For example, the second creation account shows woman as being made or split apart from man - illustrating the age-old motif of duality (e.g. the sexes) coming from unity (androgyny).

Starboy

Thanks Mageth, I stand corrected.

The bible is a document that adherents use to make claims about reality. More than one religion can use the same holy writings and make very different claims from the same source within the writings.

This is a longer explanation of what the religious are doing but is more accurate.

Starboy

Starboy

Errrrr, Rational BAC, perhaps the problem is not with your memory. It is all here for you to see.

Starboy

Abel Stable

Why are there different degrees of faith? Other christians' faith leads them to entirely different conclusions. They claim their faith & the holy spirit guides them to understanding the bible - especially the fundies. So why is it your guidance is better/worse then theirs? They have just as close a relationship with christ as you do.

BioBeing

So why do you NOT take with a grain of salt the fact that Jesus (and hence God) exist? I mean, you have virtually picked the book as clean as a vulture will clean a carcass, except for that one thing. Why that one? Why did you pick this one bit to hang onto?

BioBeing

Content deleted - double post, sorry!

Jinto

And you reached this conclusion... how?

And you reached this conclusion... how? Oh, this is your reasoning:

Fine. Man is not the most intelligent, the most perceptive, the most developed, or otherwise the best form of life in the universe. What is your point?

Sometime before you assume that infinite levels of development are possible. Remember: all human beings are a result of the universe, not the cause of it, so it's irrational to assume that any other beings are not results of the universe. Now, the universe has been around for a quite finite period of time, therefore all beings will only have reached a finite level of development. You're not going to find any omnimax beings here, because they simply wouldn't have developed yet.

Energy-like beings are impossible: without particulate form, the waves will just pass right through each other. While "beings of pure energy" might be a common science-fiction motif, it has no parrallel in reality.

And logically, since all the beings that we know about are a result of the universe, it's a huge lapse of parsimony to suppose that there is one that is the cause of the universe.

And he'll say: "No, you were too busy worshipping the wrong God."