Vylo

Anyone here familiar with the Scriven Principle, and Scriven Principle Extension? I think those would be an appropriate scientific answer to SOTC, but I don't have the reference on hand. I'll try to locate it tonight and put it up tommorrow if no one else can.

SignOfTheCross

The Catholic Church and reformers taught submission to the church. Of course, if you're an atheist you would do no such thing, but hypthothetically if you were, you would be expected to do just that.

Quote:

Not strange at all. The reason Christianity appeals to so many people is that all Christians can find verses which support their own preferences and prejudices, even if these directly contradict the preferences and prejudices of others who also call themselves Christians. Hence the "no true Christian..." arguments that keep breaking out among them.

This is why I do not endorse a private interpretation of Scripture. Interpretation was given to an ecclesiastical heirarchy, not the individual, of which would no doubt lead to divisions in the body of Christ.

Quote:

A Catholic inerrantist? You're aware that the Catholic church accepts evolution and rejects a literal interpretation of Genesis, right?

Yes and No. The Catholic Church doesn't teach evolution, rather accepts it as a scientific "theory". Catholics aren't bound to either creation of evolution, it is a matter of personal choice. Also, Genesis consists of metaphorical elements, though it itself is not entirely metaphoric.

Yes, your point? The Bible is free of theological error, nothing to do with grammar.

Correction, Augustine was an inerrnatist and he believed the Scripture did not teach scientific errors, rather the Scripture are science simply have different purposes.

Peace,
SOTC

Jack the Bodiless

The Bible is demonstrably not inerrant, therefore no scholar who claims that it is can possibly be competent. Even YOU do not believe that the Bible is inerrant: you have admitted as much. "Inerrant" means free of ALL errors: theological, historical and scientific.

But it was YOU who cited "how many gods are there?" as an example of the SAB's absurdity. It is a genuine contradiction, arising from the fact (known to Biblical scholars) that the books were written at different times by different authors who had different opinions on this issue.
The SAB is supposed to be a comprehensive list of ALL contradictions, an online reference. Sure, some of them are weak, and included only for completeness. An obvious one is "Answer a fool according to his folly" and ""Answer not a fool according to his folly": a clear contradiction, but obviously a deliberate one by the same author on consecutive lines of the Bible, not an error.

But can't you see that NO resolutions of alleged contradictions should be "weak" at all? If the Bible is truly the inerrant Word of God, NO fudging should be necessary!
It isn't described as local, and it certainly isn't described as metaphoric! The Bible says it happened, and it didn't.
The Earth is either flat or it is not. Actually, it is not.

Similarly with the stars being knocked off the dome in Revelation. There is no indication that this was intended metaphorically. "It's metaphorical" is apologetic-speak for "it's wrong". These things didn't become "metaphorical" until they were discovered to be wrong.

You commented favorably on Martin Luther earlier. Was he right to cite scripture to denounce Copernican heliocentrism? Geocentrism became "metaphorical" when it was discovered to be false.
The Bible is quite clear on the point that the sins of the parents should NOT be visited on the children.

The Bible is ALSO quite clear on the point that the sins of the parents SHOULD be visited on the children.

The same language is used in both cases. What part of "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" do you not understand?

The sin and punishment is TRANSFERRED over SEVERAL generations. How, exactly, can you punish a man by punishing his great-great-grandchildren as yet unborn?

By your analogy, this is like punishing ME by stealing my unborn great-grandson's teddy bear.

If this is actually the interpretation of the Catholic Church, it is clearly in error. It does NOT make sense.

Wayne Delia

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leviathan
It is shocking to me, the atheist claim that God doesn't exist.
Same here, I guess - I'm an atheist, and I've never seriously made that claim. The claim I do make is that sufficient evidence for the existence of gods of any kind has not been presented which compels my belief in any of those gods.

Would you classify a theist claim that God does exist as equally shocking? Probably not, because you might tend to agree with that claim. It's a double standard.

I have never understood it, and truly believed that a true religious skeptic would have to be agnostic, one who would claim they neither know, nor do not know, whether God exists.

Then what you have never understood is the meaning of the term "agnostic". An agnostic could be theistic or atheistic. The agnostic position is that the ultimate existence of God is unknowable. A person holding that position, yet maintaining a belief in a god, would be a theistic agnostic. A person could similarly hold that position, yet lack a belief in gods of any kind. Agnostic is a position about the availability of knowledge, rather than the belief or lack of belief in gods.

WMD

Jack the Bodiless

I will also add that the notion that slain kids "aren't really punished" because they "go straight to heaven anyhow" is easily refuted by this example:
Caanan doesn't "go straight to heaven". He has a miserable life as a servant ahead of him: punished by the "just and righteous" (and drunken and naked) Noah, for the rather vague "crime" of his father Ham (it has been suggested that Ham's original crime was sodomization of his comatose father).

This was their custom: that blame and punishment were hereditary. From this custom comes the manifest injustice of the doctrine of "original sin".

SignOfTheCross

Well your friends are stupid then.

I don't "blindly" follow Church authority. I simply recognise I have been blessed with God given faculties (such as reason and faith) to distinguish truth from error, but I also recognise my own ignorance, and I have accepted that I can't possibly "know" everything. If you can prove the Bible contradicts scientific proof (although this is impossible), or a contradiction of some sort, then I'll have no problem giving up my faith. Admittedly, I'd probably even be happy. However, thus far, I have not come across such "problems". Also, there is ony one Church, the Catholic Church.

Atheism included.

That's because the Bible makes no scientific claims, and the history of Israel is largely unknown. What seems strange to me is much of the archeological evidence seems to validate much of the historical claims made in the Old Testament (i.e. Joshua, Solomon), although this is far from proven of course.

Agreed.

I have to disagree. Whilst religion itself does comprise of some good characteristics (i.e. charity, kindness etc), if religion is a lie, and a lie is evil, then religion is evil. There are no two ways about it. I don't hold onto faith because I like the warm fuzzy feelings that sometimes overcome me when I think about God, I hold onto it because I believe my religion is the absolute truth, and if it were not, I wouldn't cry over it.

Peace,
SOTC

Wayne Delia

That does happen frequently. Quite often, the person demanding evidence has been stung fairly severely by someone asking him for evidence to back up his own theistic claims, which he is unable to provide, and the typical response is a strawman argument (such as the common "atheists believe there is no God") coupled with a demand of evidence to back that statement up. It's an attempt to drag the default skeptical position down to the level of the claim, which is unsupported by evidence. In the theist's mind, I suppose, once the positions are brought down to the same low level of evidential support, it becomes nothing more than an equal choice of positions based on preference, and the theist clearly prefers the theistic position. The "yelling" often comes into play when this is pointed out.

WMD

Jack the Bodiless

We already have, and you know that we have. It's interesting to watch your mental gymnastics as you wrestle with this.

You know the Bible's science is baloney. Yet you're not willing to give up your faith yet, despite indicating that this will be no problem for you.

Consider your contradictory statements on this issue. You recognize that the Bible contains erroneous scientific claims, you declare that it's impossible for the Bible to contain erroneous scientific claims, you dismiss erroneous scientific claims as "metaphorical", and you admit to the possible existence of erroneous scientific claims which would cause you to renounce your faith (rather than calling them "metaphorical").

You seem to be extremely confused.

markfiend

You still haven't answered the point:

Exodus 20:5 I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. contradicts Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Therefore one of them is not true.

By your own argument, the Bible contains a lie, therefore it is evil.

Are you going to give up your faith now?
:banghead:

Wayne Delia

You missed the point yourself, and it was a relatively simple point. I'm surprised you had trouble with it. You were not asked to prove God exists "beyond a reasonable doubt." You were asked to identify "which God" you were talking about. There are very many of them, and quite a few are defined in hopelessly mutually contradictory terms. Then what objective test do you have to determine that God does exist? Is it repeatable, i.e. the same prayers said in the same situation produce the same results? Is it independently verifiable, requiring no presupposed assumptions or necessary beliefs held? If not, then it is known as "unfalsifiable," meaning not that it's always true, but rather that no test can be designed to show a false result, usually due to convoluted tap-dancing apologetics and ad-hoc reasoning. Neither. One cannot disprove a universal negative, such as "No gods of any kind exist." However, for certain specific instances of gods, their existence can be logically disproved. Personally, sufficient evidence hasn't been presented which would compel me to accept any belief in any gods at all. Your understanding of atheism is incomplete. Period. But the dictionary definition is quite clear: "The denial of, or disbelief in, God." You're ignoring the second clause: disbelief.Yes, you are not correct. I'm not denying the existence of anything. Yet I disbelieve in gods of any kind, primarily due to the lack of sufficient evidence of their existence. I don't fit into the strawman argument you're trying to knock down. I realize that someone else wrote the claim, but it was not in reference to proving the existence or nonexistence of gods. Rather, "actual proof of nonexistence is not necessary" in order for a person to simply withhold belief. If I remember correctly, that was the context. Well, I won't elaborate on that at all, because it presumes facts not in evidence (i.e. that higher powers cannot be disproved by lower powers, or something like that). I do notice that if humans are limited to five senses and possess incomplete, imperfect human minds, then these limitations would also apply to human understanding of gods, which make the situation even more confused than it is at face value.

WMD