Jack the Bodiless

I merely changed a few words in his accusation and tossed it back at him. Maybe this verbal slap across the face will shock his brain into action.

Or maybe not.

sighhswolf

Dave,

" Orthodox theologians were tempted by the assurance of impunity, to compose fiction which
must be stigmatized with the epithets of fraud and forgery.
They ascribed their own polemical works to the most venerable names of christian antiquity."
Gibbon "The History of Christianity"

" It is lawful then to him that discusses disputes
and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates of things temporal pertaining to religion or piety to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed".
Augustine when he was bishop of Hippo

In "Ecclesiastical History" volume 8 chapter 21,
Eusebius said that he unscrupulously suppressed
"all that would be of disgrace to religion".

"A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people.
The less they comprehend the more they admire".
Gregory of Nazanius Bishop of Caesarea 4th century.
These are your church Fathers speaking here Dave,
and I for one dont believe a word of the document know as the "Holy Bible" because it is clear that it originated in the mind of man and was presented by liers.

Sin....Adam and Eve and the fall from grace.
"The son shall not share in the guilt of the father, neither shall the father share in the guilt of the son"
Ezekiel
This is contradictory to what god does and what he threatens.

You speak of idolatry.
You place "atheism" into a compartment labeled as idolatrous.
The god of christianity is supposedly the same god of the Hebrews.
Yet, the Jews view christianity as idol worship.

You base your faith on the sacrifice of Jesus/god
in human form as atonement for the so-called "sins
of mankind".
"I and the Father are one."

You believe in the trinity.

Rabbi Shraga Simmons editor of Aish.com in Jerusalem says " God is not a mortal.
He cannot be born and cannot die. Saying that god assumes human form diminishes his divinity and his unity".

Numbers 23:19 " God is not a man, that he should be DECEITFUL nor the SON OF MAN that he should repent.
Would he say and not do? Speak and not confirm?"

Of course the above verse doesnt reveal that god on numerous occassions was deceitful even to the point of lying to his own prophets.

Psalms 146:3
"Do not rely on princes nor in the son of man, for he holds no salvation."

It is irrational to place faith in a book filled with lies, written by men who were known to embellish the truth and presented by men who sought control and power over large populations of humankind.

It is beyond reason to think or believe that a loving fatherly god would have allowed his "perfect" thoughts to be recorded by imperfect
humans.

And it is the height of denial to believe that this perfect divine omnipotant omniscient omnipresent being would have sanctioned a document that is so ambiguous and vague that his
followers cannot agree when it comes to interpretation of the texts.

Does it seem likely that this perfect being would leave anything to chance?

Does it seem likely that something as important as
the guidebook for the saving of "souls" would lend itself to many different interpretations?
A perfect and loving fatherly god figure would have surely been very specific in the instructions for everlasting life after death.

You place your faith in what you are told, simple.
You have listened to clergy, you have listened to members of your faith, you probably have read and made your own interpretation of biblical text.
If you can make your own doctrine and interpretation of texts, then so can every other Tom dick and harry, and I dont think for one second that is what would be expected by an all powerful holder of mankinds souls.

Wolf




<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

DaveJes1979

daemon
Dave: ahhh, but you have already presupposed that God doesn't know - and thus I could not know (through His revelation).

Dave: I am not at all embarrassed at "slurring" -if it is accurate.

Dave: the proof that you believe in God procedes directly from my argument of God's existence. I have argued that God's existence is the necessary precondition to knowledge. If this is so, then it follows that you must be suppressing that truth - since you do have (some) true knowledge.

So basically, this brings us back to the arguments I have offered for God's existence. If God exists - you are lying.

Dave Gadbois

DaveJes1979

Quatermass
Dave: well, that really doesn't given me a reason why sola scriptura is "impossible."


Dave: the debate between (the late) Bahnsen and I is not about if the OT law is normative or not - the question is "IN WHAT SENSE is it normative?" That is the weakness of alot of Bahnsen's writings, since he fails to see that this is the real issue.

As a good starting point for answer these questions - I suggest studying up on the nature of the church (as seen in the Acts narrative and the directives in the NT epistles) and the nature of Israel as a theocratic kingdom, and its place in redemptive history. The answers lie there.

Dave: why is it nonsense to have a standard of testing? You seem to have such a standard- which leads you to believe what I said is "nonsense."

Dave: my theistic presuppositions can be challenged if there is justification given for the atheistic ones. I have yet to see it.


Jack the Bodiless
Dave: you can assert it - but I'd like to see substantiation of this point. I have given my substantiation of it in my post just above this one. If God exists, it follows that atheists are lying.

Dave: but how do you know your "moral sense" is at all accurate? After all, human beings disagree so often on these sorts of matters.

What I mean when I say that God's existence is "obvious" is that it is an epistemological certainty that one cannot run away from. This is what I have been arguing - and I'd like to return to those issues.

Dave: I didn't just make this claim - you are ignoring the argumentation I gave. I have brought up both the law of induction and moral laws as specific transcendental proofs. I have argued that moral laws are accounted for in God's eternal nature as good and just. The law of induction is accounted for in the fact that God has ordered the universe in such a way as to make induction a valid tool of knowledge.

I await an atheistic rebuttal or alternative.

Dave: first of all, I have to correct your error reguarding the origin of the Christian "logos". Logos is simply the Greek language counterpart of the Hebrew "Word" or "Wisdom" spoken of in the Old Testament - hardly of Greek origin.

Second of all, I think you are confusing the formal study of logic with knowledge. Everyone has knowledge of some sort. Logic is just ONE form of knowledge - and one can be logical without having formally studied it.

I also would ask you for justification of the claim that logic is an "evolved" faculty. Even if it has evolved, what makes logic "right" (correspond to reality)?

Dave: and HOW does evolution account for it. You are going to have to say more than this. How does evolution make our reasoning valid? How does evolution justify the existence of moral norms? How does it account for the uniformity of nature? Evolution (if true) only tells us how humans developed certain cognitive functions - it does not provide a basis for believing that those functions actually give us true knowledge or not.

Dave: how do you know that the son hasn't transgressed God's law?

Secondly, simply because the father's sperm physically gave way to his son's existence does not entail that the son owes the father anything - because the father owes HIS being to God.

Dave: your declaration means very little. You can declare yourself to be cotton candy - that does not make it so.

Once again, you claim "God made a decision to punish the innocent". No - because of Adam, there are none who can be labeled "innocent." We share in Adam's sin and his guilt. It was not Adam's alone. God's omniscience has EVERYTHING to do with this. God knew that Adam actually and accurately represented humanity.

Dave: and why should one assume that "survival" is inherently "good" or "just"? If so, this does not tell us precisely WHO should survive. Evolution only tells us that the fittest should survive.

How are you going to construct an ethical system on that?

Dave: no one has ever claimed that the Bible is the only source of knowledge. Our claims is that it is an INFALLIBLE source of knowledge, and that it tells us how we can be made right with God and live a meaningful life.

The Christian worldview also holds that perception and some forms of reason are reliable. I have shown you how our worldview accounts for various forms of reasoning (induction and morality) - but I have yet to see justification for these "atheistic axioms." Replies such as "if you don't you're insane" is hardly a form of epistemic justification. These axioms are also basically worthless, since they tell us nothing about what constitutes sound reasoning.

Dave: you completely avoided the argument altogether. You can't counter a transcendental argument by holding up distinctively atheistic criteria of what "good" is. Please justify your standard of "good". I have shown you where my standard comes from.

Dave: when I refer to universal ethics, I am talking about ethics that should compel humanity (universally) to accept them.



HRG
Dave: but one rests on God's word as such because His word shares the same transcendental authority as God. That is - does the revelation provide the necessary preconditions for knowing God?

Dave: the Apocrypha contain theological errors that conflict with the rest of Scripture. I would also point out that they do not have historical authority, in that Jesus held to the Palestinian canon, which did not contain the Apocrypha.

Dave: not at all. The fact that God is providential is enough for us to know that His words will not be corrupted. The fact that God gave His creatures sensory faculties and cognitive powers is enough to know that we can read His word (we don't have to know about photons at all).

Dave: as interesting an assertion as this is, where is the proof? One is going to have to do more than speculative conjecture.

Dave: I suggest any honest interpreter of Augustine should look up this quote in context in his book "On Lying." (section 17)

"It is lawful then either to him that discourses, disputes, and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates or speaks of things temporal pertaining to edification of religion and piety, to conceal at fitting time whatever seems fit to be concealed: but to tell a lie is never lawful, therefore neither to conceal by telling a lie."

You see, he specifically states that it is "never lawful" to conceal by telling a lie. This was the part that was conveniently left out of the quote, for it demonstrates the distinction Augustine was making between concealing and lying. Concealing is not necessarily deceptive - it simply is referring to the fact that one does not reveal EXHAUSTIVELY in all situations what one knows/believes.

Dave: there is no chapter 21 in the 8th book of Eusebius' ecclesiastical history. I refer you to <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius" target="_blank">www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius</a> - which documents the pseudo-scholarship behind this errant quotation.

Dave: this only shows that Gregory had a low opinion of the intelligence of the masses. I happen to agree with him -- but this does not lead me to conclude that I should be deceptive.

Dave: Eusebeius was not a father at all. And the others you quoted were not ancient fathers. They were in no position to manufacture Scripture at all. You're going to have to do better than this.

Dave: that quote from Ezekiel is in reference to civil punishment. It does not address original sin at all.

Dave: our good rabbi has misrepresented the nature of the Incarnation. We do not say that "God is mortal" or anything of the sort. Nor did God die. That confuses the two natures of Christ. Christ was fully divine and fully man. The divine nature remained the same in the Incarnation. The Incarnation was an "addition" - the human nature was added ALONGSIDE OF the unchanging divine nature in the one person of Christ. Nothing was "diminished."

Dave: how is that supposed to be proof of God being deceitful?? Very strange.

Dave: what men that were "known to embellish the truth" wrote the Bible?

Dave: it is "beyond reason" because...?

Dave: is that what Evangelical Christians (those who affirm the authority of Scripture as such) agree on doctrines such as creation ex nihilo, original sin, the Trinity, the 2 natures of Christ, the vicarious atonement, salvation by grace alone, justification by faith alone,the person and deity of the Spirit, the 2 sacraments, the 2nd coming of Christ????

Dave: you have only proven to me that we should not trust people. I agree. Stick to the Scriptures.

Put 5 people in 5 rooms with 1 Bible - out comes 5 different interpretations. What is the variable? Men.

Dave Gadbois

Jobar

Dave:" you have only proven to me that we should not trust people. I agree. Stick to the Scriptures."

And these selfsame Scriptures weren't originally written, then transcribed, then translated, then interpreted, then re-written, then re-translated- by people?

If we had some Scripture written in the sky in letters of fire, or written on the Earth in mountain chains, or written on the face of the moon with patterns of craters- well, I would at least agree that there are forces and minds far beyond those of human beings. But what we have here is a book written in very common materials, using words any person can use or misuse. And it is abundantly obvious to all that human beings are able to speak and write lies, misunderstandings, mistakes- falsehoods ranging from completely innocent to utterly heinous.

Perhaps one day we will find some pattern of stars in some distant galaxy which spell out a message from some ultimate, or at least very great, power. Perhaps some mathematician will find a code which translates the terms of pi or e into long and self-consistent instructions on how men should live and act and worship. Perhaps the sun will start scrolling out the words of God in patterns of sunspots.

And perhaps tomorrow a pig will sprout wings, and fly into the Chicago stockyards carrying a large load of explosives. Until some such thing happens, I think that believing in any God is a sad and degrading misuse of the human mind, and a massive anchor on the advance of the human race.

Quatermass

It’s impossible from a practical point of view. You cannot divorce yourself from your cultural trappings. You use sola scriptura as a means of giving authority to your opinions but it is a hollow authority. For example, if there are two Christians who say that they hold to the principle of sola scriptura – can we, on this basis – predict what they believe? Nope. So all it really means is they believe the bible is authoritative – the practical result of that belief is unknown. It is ultimately you that decides what you believe – guided by the influences that formed your view of the world.

I am not interested in researching the choking on gnats by Calvinist extremists. My point was that by appealing to the authority of scripture just about any action can be justified and there is no logic that can be used to determine the correct interpretation. It is your opinion that Bahnsen was wrong yet you both held to sola scriptura. Too bad your standard doesn’t give unambiguous guidance. It seems like an important characteristic of an objective standard!

Induction follows from the regularity in nature. You want to make God a necessary condition for induction but it is not at all clear why someone who does not share your presuppositions should accept this unfounded claim. Merely repeating that it is necessary does not advance your case and nor does saying that no other view is possible. Have you really argued anything else?

DaveJes1979

Jobar
Dave: actually, you can get the Scriptures in their original languages at amazon.com if you'd like. The Greek New Test. goes for about $30, and the Hebrew Old Test. goes for $50-80.

Dave: indeed, but the Scriptures evidence themselves to be the words of God because they actually reflect who God is. If they said just ANYTHING, they would not be consistent with God's nature and character - and ought to be rejected.



Quatermass

Dave: the principle of sola scriptura has never taught that our own biases and cultural trappings don't exist and effect us. The principle merely states that these biases and trappings are ultimately subject to the scrutiny of Scriptures themselves.

Dave: sola scriptura does not teach that everyone will agree.

Dave: yes, and God holds us accountable for our decisions to conform to the Bible. In a very limited sense, it is "ultimately" the person who decides. But what sola scriptura addresses is the basis of that decision.

Dave: the inherent meaning in the text itself can only "justify" correct interpretations. To deny this is to deny the law of non-contradiction.

Dave: sola scriptura teaches us where the authority lies - it does not give us an enumerated interpretive framework. It is not supposed to. It merely confines the source of authority for our interpretations.

And we DO have unambiguous guidance - that is demonstrated by the huge areas of agreement that exist between us. Those are the fundamental tenants of the faith (and actually, quite a bit more than merely fundamentals, but many distinctives as well). There do exist certain hard to understand portions of the Bible in non-essential matters.

Dave: why do you assume there is regularity? What is there, in the atheistic worldview, that would lead you to expect regularity in your experience? Hint - you cannot derive your answer from experience, since to do so would be to employ induction.

Dave G

Jobar

Dave, as the newest moderator here, I'll introduce myself- you can find my 'testimony' towards the bottom of <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=55&t=000020&p=3" target="_blank">this page.</a>

The short version- I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church until age 15 when I became an atheist. In college I became a pantheist, and after considerable thought and discussion I now (at 46) comfortably accept both labels.

I know that the Greek and Hebrew versions- note that I do not say 'originals'- are available at any large bookstore. Do you claim that these weren't written by people? (And, just from curiousity- have you read them? I have a friend who learned to read those two languages just for that purpose- he tells me that large portions of the scriptures suffer from biased translations...)

And- I am rather fascinated by these two sentences.

Dave: "indeed, but the Scriptures evidence themselves to be the words of God because they actually reflect who God is. If they said just ANYTHING, they would not be consistent with God's nature and character - and ought to be rejected."

Dave, this is just bald assertion. "Evidence themselves"? "they actually reflect who God is"? "God's nature and character"? And mainly- "*If* they said just anything"???

While I certainly make no claims to being a Biblical scholar of the caliber of some in these forums, still I would argue loudly that the scriptures DO "say just anything". It's an amalgam of legends, parables, history, myths, letters, and tall tales. It's shot full of obvious errors and self-contradictions. Many of the stories are cribbed from other books and other religions. There is NO consistency, certainly not in the character of the God they portray! (If there was, do you really think that there would be thousands of different Christian denominations?)

We understand that *you* believe that the Bible "actually reflects who God is" but we see nothing of the sort!

Quatermass

No and as shown it has no predictive value. A person can hold to sola scriptura and disagree on any number of your “huge areas of agreement.” I also don’t buy that there are huge areas of agreement. You did not address my previous question on this. Please tell us what you think of your Catholic, Pentecostal, and Methodist brethren who agree with you hugely.

As if decisions mean anything from a Calvinist perspective. According to your theological nonsense God chose from the beginning, independent of any foreknowledge and human decisions or actions. How’s that camel feel going down? I maintain that sola scriptura is meaningless.

You are assuming that the Bible has a single, objective meaning: care to elaborate on the correct interpretation of these essentials and non-essentials – murder, war, capital punishment, divorce, monogamy, salvation, works, baptism, the holy spirit, the trinity, the law, fellowship, birth control, abortion, slavery, women, homosexuality – to name just a few? There’s little point to saying there is a single objective meaning if that meaning can never be determined and/or changes over time.

But what if the bible was written by men who held different opinions just like Christians do today? It’s only a contradiction if you assume the book is infallible.

The atheistic worldview – I don’t even know what that means. Induction is a fact that we both assume. You want to go further and say it requires God - which is interesting but unnecessary. Hint - induction is an assumption confirmed by human experience – nothing to prove or derive.

HRG

A text full of parables, allegories and prophecies has no inherent meaning, but needs
to be interpreted and does not determine a specific interpretation. Of course, every Bible student believes that his personal interpretation is identical to this - allegedly existing - inherent meaning.

Easy. Why should the universe deviate from its ordinary behavior if there is no intermeddling god around to disturb said behavior ? That's why we can expect regularities and patterns.

It is the theist who should worry that a supernatural being might cancel gravity tomorrow. IOW, he needs to introduce an additional assumption - that his god won't do it.

HRG.