SmashingIdols

If this were really true the entire bible would be discredited [by everybody] as nothing but generative and solar mythologies with little or no historical basis.

Apply the methodology stated above to Adam and Eve or Jesus Christ and see what you have left...

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

Typhon

Typhon sez:

Joe Nobody was heard to mumble:
We do not, however, generally base our society, our laws, our hope of salvation, on the encyclopedia. You are off basis here I believe, by quite a bit.

A book on science, for example, only generally claims as "true" what it can show to have been verified and subject to a process of study, proof, and experimentation. It lists the possibilities that error is involved in the equation, admits what it can not say with certainty, and discards those previous claims, which are overturned, in the cases where they are found wanting.

The Bible, DOES NOT, do any of these. It states that it is the truth. It does not suggest it may be in error on anything. It does not change over time. It does not recant or suffer corrections. It does not leave room in its "theory" for radical changes based on further revelation, experiment, evidence, or anything else.

Therefore, the fact that it is obviously in great error, and does not know it, seriously weakens the trust one can put in any of its revelations.

Joe Nobody, again:
Someone can, but it doesn't change the issue. It doesn't matter what one "feels." That is as illogical as saying, "well, it's wrong only in the places where we can test its veracity, but I believe it's correct in those areas where we can not test its claims." You're saying, just because the Bible is wrong over and over again in what it claims about the natural world, which we can verify, that we should treat WITHOUT SERIOUS CONCERN what it claims about the spiritual realm (i.e. faith and doctrine), which we can not.

If you purchased a dictionary or encyclopedia, and you noticed that several words you knew, were completely wrong (say for Flying Fish it gave the following: a species of bird, or for Patagonia: a region of the interior of the earth where men have no heads and only one leg), how could you trust what it said about those topics you knew nothing about? It could be completely wrong, but you would have no way to know, and good reason not to trust that it was without error. You certainly wouldn't use it to write a career dependent speech, or prepare a paper that determined if you received your degree, won an award, or affected your standing in your field.

Here's a better one perhaps, considering the weight and the importance that Bible is often given. I take you on to a plane to go skydiving. There are ten parachutes in the plane, or a hundred, or ten thousand, it doesn’t matter for our example. I tell you they are all good, working parachutes, and that you should grab one. However, you being a paranoid chap, examine a few at random and notice that one is filled with dirty clothes, and no chute, another is filled with folded towels, no chute, and yet another is stuffed full of old newspapers, and no chute. The rest you can't get open, or don't have time or the means to test. I tell you to grab one, and jump. Now, how foolish are you if you take a parachute which may or may not be what you expect it to be, in light of what you've discovered, simply because you can't tell one way or the other about the rest, and because you "feel" that I'm telling the truth about them all being good, working parachutes? I wouldn't do it, so why would you do the same with an important, life-affecting belief system?

Now in the case of the Bible, if it is not the literal, inerrant truth, then you are forced to judge what is and is not factual, and since much of the Bible is not "knowable" or even verifiable, you are taking a big chance, and as theists love to say, "a leap of faith." Now, this is a risky venture if you've not been able to find any errors in the work you're basing your faith upon. If you have however, it becomes even more difficult to have any degree of logical confidence in the work.

If I was for example reading a history of the 4th Crusade, and it stated that the Crusaders were led by Frederick II and entered Jerusalem on March 17, 1229, I would worry greatly about the scholarship of the piece, especially if it later made important claims about how the Crusaders had founded an important state in what would later become South Africa.

Joe Nobody cried out:
It's not an all or nothing idea, but that is why I suppose, most Christians DO believe in the ALL over the NOTHING. If it is just "well, maybe some, maybe none, but definitely not all" how can you judge what areas are to be trusted? We can not test the claims of the Biblical authors on such cases as miracles, resurrection, or even that their god exists at all. If those few claims that we can test, against the physical world, are obviously wrong, yes, that does not make any other claims any more testable, but it does seriously damage taking them on faith, that the authors were right. At best, we can say we simply don't know, and can't say anything about these claims.

.T.

Joe Nobody

Cried out? Heard to mumble?

Joe Nobody

Tercel

Joe,
Typhon thinks you're a Christian so he's giving you the red carpet treatment.

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Joe Nobody

Red carpet treatment? I must be like royalty around here or something. All hail the King of the Joes!

I guess I have a few options here now given that this is the red carpet treatment. (1) Repay the red carpet treatment with a silent treatment. (2) Start rhetorical jousting. (3) Point out how T. misinterpreted some of what I said. (4) Refute the snot out of the nonsense found in his post. (5) Ignore the RCT and proceed as I normally would.

What ever shall I do?

Joe Nobody

Tercel

That's a good question... and one I wish I knew the answer to.

The trouble is:
If I used option 1 regularly, then I'd end up doing very little posting here; Option 3 has a tendency to get me tied up in 10 page threads with 2000+ word posts before the "misinterpretation" (aka "deliberate misreading") is sorted out; Option 4 is always fun, but only inspires the other poster to newer lows and higher levels of insults (I'd prefer not to be told again that I belong in a mental home) the next time they respond to one of my posts; And option 5, I'm not sure is possible - how can you respond normally to someone who would give you 10 reasons why you're wrong and stupid if you claimed the sky was blue? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
I'm not sure what you mean by "rhetorical jousting" but whatever it is, I'm sure it's worth a try since experience tells me that none of the other options work.

One idea I had would be to get a new user-name and claim to be an atheist: Which I'm sure would make the other posters exponentially more pleasant to talk to overnight. Only trouble is it would be dishonest...

Berenger Sauniere

To err is human. In other words, their God is human. In other words, their God is themselves.

Joe Nobody

I find that sad.

I have this slight problem with that. They are called bills. Means I have to go to work. Can't play on the net all day What do you mean by "deliberate misreading"? Seems like an attack almost.

Well, you could always respond for the benefit of the lurkers and everyone else

Its easy. Just ignore all the baggage. Sift through it and write down the points and respond to them. Ignore insults and ad homs. This can be done as a courtesy to other users and lurkers as well.

Rhetorical jousting. This is how I generally define it. It means to throw out the possibility of learning something. Use big words and colorful and emotive language in your posts. Simply outwit your oponent. Its like a pride contest where you show off your superiority by outwitting your opponent with vacuous language that is only meaningful to the untrained eye. The actual veracity of the argument is trivial or secondary. Its whoever presents their points in the best packaging that wins.

For instnace, a person may incorporate things like "Cried out" or "Heard to mumble" in their posts. They are a strong invitation to rhetorical joust at the very least

Joe Nobody

Toto

Joe, you have used Typhon's little digs to avoid the substantive points he made. Do you think that you are a paragon of reason?

You said,

You gave a silly analogy to an encyclopedia that was wrong on some facts, but you never explained why anyone should trust an encyclopedia that was wrong on one thing to be right on another.

For another example, suppose I have Harry Potter's book of spells. I try the first one. It doesn't work. Ditto the second. Does that prove that the entire book is false? No, but what are the odds? I have no reason to rely on that book.

It's your turn to defend this idea. Don't deflect the debate to matters of style.

Do you mean that it doesn't matter if the Bible is a reliable guide to history, biology, etc., but it still has some value? If so, what standards do you use to judge that value?

Joe Nobody

I didn't say we should base our society, laws, and hope of salvation on an encyclopedia. Nor did I say to base them on the official canon of the Christian religion.

So let it be mumbled, so let it be demonstrated.

Of course it does. It certainly wouldn't claim as "true" something not demonstrated to be true. You've stated a self-evident truth.

Two can easily play at this game.

Typhon attempted to illuminate the darkness by singing a little tune he once heard in a fundamentalist choir:

Do you realize that by stating the Bible does these things you assume its canonization? You have to assume the validity of that canonization as well or where do you get the notion of the unity of these works (which your comments assumed) which come from a variety of different sources? Here is what you really said: The inspired and inerrant documents of the Christian faith claim to be true.

Your glaringly obvious tautology assumes the unity of the books. It assumes what it must actually argue for.

We can also point out other flaws in what you stated:

Ever heard of textual criticism? It has DEMONSTRATED the opposite of what you said! Have you ever read Jeremiah 8:8??

Jer 8:8 "'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?"

What, they didn't talk about that verse in Sunday school?

And you have decided to dismiss the notion or progressive revelation because? Or have you never heard of it along with textual criticism and Jer 8:8 ?

Check out Matthew 19 for a commonly quoted reference of where some say Jesus endorsed progressivee revelation.

Therefore, that fact that science has greatly erred in the past seriously weakens the trust one can put in any of its revelations! Not exactly accurate. Of course, if I viewed the texts of the Christian canon in the same manner as you I might say the same thing.

I was stating things people believe. Not saying that a belief in something makes that belief true. Again, you've pointed out the glaringly obvious.

Who said that? There is a principle of giving a text the benefit of the doubt but was anyone even talking about that?

I would say the Christian canon is right in regards to many, many, claims about the natural world. It has some inaccurate claims though. It has primitive views as well.

And I trust you can quote where I actually stated that? I take it you are alluding to my "inerrant in regards to faith and doctrine" comment. Well, if you go back and read it again you will see I was merely stating a view people held, not endorsing it. There is a difference.

I would posit that many works, or arguments or whatever are not totally literal and inerrant. All you are doing is stating another self evident truth. If the books are not completely perfect its possible for any statement they contain to be in error. But are you willing to apply your dismissal of them to all literature?

If you want to say the amount of errors in a work can negate the general trustworthyness of the book then it is a different matter. I actually agree with that. Of course, I think its important to note that I have been told historians accept core stories to be true sometimes even when conflicting details are presented in ancient works.

Joe Nobody