Freethought & Rationalism Archive

BadBadBad · 05-22-2003, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BioBeing
Ahhhh - the old "you don't understand the bible because God doesn't want you too" routine

The calvanists may have won the debate you read, but that still makes no sense to me! I'm not a Christian because God doesn't want me to be? Tell that to the door-to-door salesmen who come peddling the bible. Tell it to the US gov't - take in "God we Trust" off our money because God doesn't trust me! Tell long winded fool that I will never be able to read the bible the way (s)he wants me to because God doesn't want me to read it that way.

Do the clavinists get a kick out of being the only ones who God chose to let them read his book properly? "Of course there are atheists - its not that they used their brains to decide the bible was no good - God doesn't want them! They are not good and pure like us!" Kinda makes it nice and comforting to realize that the people who do not believe your lie do so because they don't subscribe to the lie...

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

They made a very convincing case that indeed the Bible does say that, and I've been questioning xians on only part of the whole biblical predestination doctrine. The Calvanists had quite a story going.

My point to LWF is that just because you can back up your God fluff with what the Bible says doesn't make it true. I think the discussion is very relevant to this thread in that your brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, mothers and fathers are going to be divided up at the pearly gates, and arbitrarily sent off to heaven or hell. The prospect that the decision was arbitrarily made from the beginning of time, makes heavenly bliss for eternity all the more disturbing.

BadBadBad · 05-22-2003, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BioBeing
Do the clavinists get a kick out of being the only ones who God chose to let them read his book properly?

They're not the only ones. What do you think LWF and Helen are doing in this thread and every other christian I've ever met. It's not just to Atheists. They do it to every one even within their own church. "God tells me which parts of the Bible to read, which parts to believe, how to interpret what it says, how to be an expert on ancient cultures and history." "If you don't believe what I believe, it's because God doesn't want you to." Or the more common, "because God knew in advance you wouldn't so now he's gone and hardened your heart, and if you change your mind, well God always knew you would."

Yep, you've got it!

HelenM · 05-22-2003, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
But the point is that it's not contradictory to the Bible. It contradicts what is said but not what is clearly meant. The Bible is not meant to be taken literally and never was.

In that case, who has the infallible key to what all the metaphors in the Bible mean? If you have it, where did you get it from?

Helen

HelenM · 05-22-2003, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BioBeing
The theists have suddenly become noticable by their absence... maybe a nerve has been touched?

I was in Florida without a computer.

Helen

HelenM · 05-22-2003, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brettc
Nice job nailing the jello to the wall, but what about you? Your husband is an atheist. What solace do you have for your prospects for a blissful eternity in Heaven, while for the same eternity, your husband burns in agony begging to you in Heaven? Will you be oblivious, apathetic, or entertained?

I don't know, brettc, except I'm sure I won't be entertained.

Helen

Ronin · 05-22-2003, 06:25 PM

Quote:

In that case, who has the infallible key to what all the metaphors in the Bible mean? If you have it, where did you get it from?

Helen, you effin' rock!

:notworthy

So, here's a thought, be good to one another while alive.

Anyone need the key to that?

HelenM · 05-22-2003, 06:36 PM

Thanks Ronin

'Be good to one another while alive' definitely gets my vote!

Helen

BioBeing · 05-22-2003, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM
I was in Florida without a computer.

Helen

I was in Santa Rosa Beach earlier this month. None of my pictures on line yet though, or I'd share my cute kids

are you the only theist around here?

BioBeing · 05-22-2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronin
Helen, you effin' rock!

:notworthy

So, here's a thought, be good to one another while alive.

Anyone need the key to that?

Take your pick of golden rules - they all seem the same! I try to follow ALL of them! http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

long winded fool · 05-23-2003, 12:27 AM

One thing I was assuming is that the format of the discussion was "If 'the Bible,' then..." It is true that because it is in the Bible is not proof that it is true. If we accept the Bible and go from there, which I thought was the context of the op, then we can discuss rationally.

Helen, the key to interpreting the Bible is very simple. If one interpretation of a true Bible presents a contradiction, either it is false or the contradiction has been mislabeled. It is not rational to assume that because you don't understand it, there's nothing to be understood. (The fox and the crow.) This is not the scientific method, I'm sure you'll agree. The interpretation that eliminates the contradictions ought to be the interpretation applied to the Bible. The argument is not directly about if the Bible is correct, this was assumed as an axiom in the premise, the argument is about which interpretation, if any, could possibly be correct. (The assumption being that if none were found, the truth of the Bible could be rejected.) Since other interpretations present a contradiction, and since mine is present in the Bible and does not, ("where your treasure is, your heart will be,") the interpretation I've used is the logical interpretation to challenge with the conflict mentioned. My interpretation could very well be wrong. Any interpretation that presents a contradiction must be wrong. (Again, with the assumption that the Bible is right.)

The magic key with which to uncover the metaphors of the Bible is nothing but honest logic. Anything objectively illogical is wrong. Maybe the Bible is wrong. But if we grant it in order to present a contradiction, it is only rational to challenge the most logical interpretation and not one that presents large numbers of contradictions. The latter is merely begging the question. If we want to find out if a contradiction can be solved, (maybe this wasn't the purpose of the op) we ought to see if it can and not reject out of hand Biblical precepts that can be read to suggest that there is no conflict. These precepts, in fact, ought to be the very ones examined which is why I examined them and presented an interpretation that suggests that there is no conflict. Anyone's welcome to throw this out the window without entertaining it and cling desperately to the contradiction present in the literal interpretation of an allegory, however this says more about their own personal fears than it does about the actual content of the Bible.

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

05-22-2003, 06:36 PM	#87
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Thanks Ronin 'Be good to one another while alive' definitely gets my vote! Helen

05-23-2003, 12:27 AM	#90
long winded fool Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,113	One thing I was assuming is that the format of the discussion was "If 'the Bible,' then..." It is true that because it is in the Bible is not proof that it is true. If we accept the Bible and go from there, which I thought was the context of the op, then we can discuss rationally. Helen, the key to interpreting the Bible is very simple. If one interpretation of a true Bible presents a contradiction, either it is false or the contradiction has been mislabeled. It is not rational to assume that because you don't understand it, there's nothing to be understood. (The fox and the crow.) This is not the scientific method, I'm sure you'll agree. The interpretation that eliminates the contradictions ought to be the interpretation applied to the Bible. The argument is not directly about if the Bible is correct, this was assumed as an axiom in the premise, the argument is about which interpretation, if any, could possibly be correct. (The assumption being that if none were found, the truth of the Bible could be rejected.) Since other interpretations present a contradiction, and since mine is present in the Bible and does not, ("where your treasure is, your heart will be,") the interpretation I've used is the logical interpretation to challenge with the conflict mentioned. My interpretation could very well be wrong. Any interpretation that presents a contradiction must be wrong. (Again, with the assumption that the Bible is right.) The magic key with which to uncover the metaphors of the Bible is nothing but honest logic. Anything objectively illogical is wrong. Maybe the Bible is wrong. But if we grant it in order to present a contradiction, it is only rational to challenge the most logical interpretation and not one that presents large numbers of contradictions. The latter is merely begging the question. If we want to find out if a contradiction can be solved, (maybe this wasn't the purpose of the op) we ought to see if it can and not reject out of hand Biblical precepts that can be read to suggest that there is no conflict. These precepts, in fact, ought to be the very ones examined which is why I examined them and presented an interpretation that suggests that there is no conflict. Anyone's welcome to throw this out the window without entertaining it and cling desperately to the contradiction present in the literal interpretation of an allegory, however this says more about their own personal fears than it does about the actual content of the Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.