|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 05/26/2005 : 18:41:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
My interpretation is better than past interpretations because I take verses literally which they take figuratively, or ignore, or sideline. Sometimes I've been in polite conversations with people and they've just walked away rather than deal with verses that I bring up.
I'm not sure how you can establish an absolute truth when the foundation for that truth is subject to interpretation. Where the owner of each is certain of their approach and the validity of their personal interpretation. I suspose that's why there are more flavors of christianity than Baskin Robbins has ice cream. And what drove Joseph C Smith to his personal delusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
I could classify your definition of "all powerful" as "semantic nit-picking".
Well, you can't discuss a topic unless you agree on definitions.
I agree with Dude. Without a working definition h4c, and others, are free to continue moving the target through christian spin/apologetics. Most of what has been surmised about god(s) are attributes originated by man and used as necessary in order to support a point. And re-interpreted as needed. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2005 : 10:22:00 [Permalink]
|
| Man, I still disagree, the problem is the definition of the word "all". Some folks believe 'all' powerful means anything that is possible within the set rules of physics i.e. that God(s) must use physics as it is to interact with the universe (mormons), some folks believe 'all' powerful means anything you can think of, like the excretion of the fully formed SUV thread(take your pick o' Christian) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2005 : 14:49:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Man, I still disagree, the problem is the definition of the word "all". Some folks believe 'all' powerful means anything that is possible within the set rules of physics i.e. that God(s) must use physics as it is to interact with the universe (mormons), some folks believe 'all' powerful means anything you can think of, like the excretion of the fully formed SUV thread(take your pick o' Christian)
No. If god created the universe, then god also created the rules within it. The very concept of ex nihilo creation defies the "rules" of physics as we understand them. The power to create something from nothing implies that you define the rules that govern whatever it is you are creating, and the rules for how it interacts with other things you create.
A created (from nothing) universe implies that the rules were also "created".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2005 : 16:03:35 [Permalink]
|
While we do know a lot about the laws of nature, scientists cannot due to it's very nature verify the existance of the second paragraph of that law: the paragraph that says "Excemptions to these laws may be made by God at any time for any reason."
But since we have no substantial, undeniable scientific evidence of the existance of God, HE got His divine throat slashed by Occam's Razor. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2005 : 16:11:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But since we have no substantial, undeniable scientific evidence of the existance of God, HE got His divine throat slashed by Occam's Razor.
I agree, but I was talking about the definition of omnipotent.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2005 : 21:06:29 [Permalink]
|
When the validity of any assertion rest firmly on faith, then the realm of any assertion is without limits.
Faith is the evidence of the believer. Spin spin spin. It is true because I believe. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2005 : 22:14:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When the validity of any assertion rest firmly on faith, then the realm of any assertion is without limits.
Faith is the evidence of the believer. Spin spin spin. It is true because I believe.
Faith is the antithesis of reason.
When confronted by evidence that directly contradicts things taken on "faith", you end up with strangled and convoluted apologetics, like this thread here by H4C attempting to come to terms with the cognitive dissonance such things generate. Hippy is a smart person, capable of reading extensively and organizing loads of info into specific contexts. This thread, and some others he has participated in here, go to some pretty extreme lengths to overcome the contradictions between his "faith" and the lack of evidence to support it.
The bible is, literally, loaded with contradiction. Some minor (that don't effect the basic message), and some major (that alter the message in significant ways). Yet H4C says he is only aware of "one" contradiction in the whole thing.
Just THINK about the tortured thinking that lets you say that the genesis books don't contradict one another. The only thing they have in common is theme! (goddidit and humans fucked it up)
And that is just considering the contradictions between the two genesis accounts. Take either of them and compare them to empirical evidence and the "contradictions" become unreconcilable.
quote:
Genesis:
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Really? Explain the billions of stars not visible to the naked eye. What light are they giving earth?
And so on and so on.... in almost any place where a claim is made in the bible.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2005 : 22:59:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
When the validity of any assertion rest firmly on faith, then the realm of any assertion is without limits.
Faith is the evidence of the believer. Spin spin spin. It is true because I believe.
It is actually quite rare for a believer to assert that something is true because they believe. More often the "faith" of a believer is based on a personal revelation or "evidence" which is not open to public scrutiny. Naturally the validity of the "evidence" and the reasoning process the believer uses to arrive at their conclusions remain extremely suspect to any unbiased observer. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2005 : 17:42:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
When the validity of any assertion rest firmly on faith, then the realm of any assertion is without limits.
Faith is the evidence of the believer. Spin spin spin. It is true because I believe.
It is actually quite rare for a believer to assert that something is true because they believe. More often the "faith" of a believer is based on a personal revelation or "evidence" which is not open to public scrutiny. Naturally the validity of the "evidence" and the reasoning process the believer uses to arrive at their conclusions remain extremely suspect to any unbiased observer.
I believe that we are agreeing with each other. It's just that my version was a 4 vodka tonics simplification of what you said. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2005 : 18:01:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
...
And that is just considering the contradictions between the two genesis accounts. Take either of them and compare them to empirical evidence and the "contradictions" become unreconcilable.
quote:
Genesis:
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Really? Explain the billions of stars not visible to the naked eye. What light are they giving earth?
And so on and so on.... in almost any place where a claim is made in the bible.
Earlier in this thread issues were raised concerning the stories of David. Without going into specifics, Tim Callahan "Secret Origins of The Bible" suggests that many of the problems with the stories of David (Samuel, etc) are the result of poor editing. That the stories of Samuel/David are actually the blending of two rival traditions.
p 223 - just keep reading ...
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2005 : 06:29:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Cuneiformist:
Specifically, there are these two verses:
Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Jhn 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
The word for voice in the first verse is "phone" which signifies an actual voice or sound. The word for manifest in the second verse can mean to visually appear or it can mean to inform or show forth.
Hmmmm. Not entirely convincing. First off, John's the latests of the Gospels, and seems strange anyhow. And regarding the verses cited, John 10:27 could easily be talking about the present, not the future-- when he's dead and all. (But the "sheep" reference is so fitting.) And John 14:21 is saying that if you do what I say, it's the same thing as loving me. But when the pastor or whomever wants you to profess that you "love" Jesus, is he really just asking you to do what he says? Because if so, why not just ask the person to just do what Jesus says and be done with it?
The only compelling part is the final part of 14:21-- "manifest myself to him." I'll have to think about that... |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2005 : 22:21:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
I believe that we are agreeing with each other. It's just that my version was a 4 vodka tonics simplification of what you said.
Fair enough. I would agree that it is extremely frustrating to argue with someone who employs a double standard which is, I think, the spirit of your post.
I would say that, although Hippy is using a double standard, he is at least completely honest about it, unlike many who defend a literal (or mostly literal) interpretation of the Bible.
Hippy:
I wonder if you could take a step back from the details of reconciling apparent contradictions in the Bible for a moment and honestly ask yourself this question, "What is the purpose of Christian Apologetics?" Do you honestly believe, in all cases, that their purpose is to get to the truth? Or is it more likely that reconciling contradictions is their true purpose? If apologetics are a valid way of interpreting the Bible, then are the methods employed by apologetics also valid for other ancient/historical texts?
Many of the proffered explanations for apparent contradictions in the Bible are extremely strained, and would not be taken seriously at all (not even by you, I think) were it not for the assumed "fact" that the Bible is inerrant (or inerrant except for translation and copying errors).
In my view it is extremely biased (or at least naive) to assume that in every case where there is an apparent contradiction it is in fact not a contradiction unless there is no conceivable way to rationalize said contradiction away.
Having said all this, I wanted to thank you for starting this interesting topic. I know from personal experience that it can be intimidating to be the only one in the room with a particular viewpoint. I hope that you will continue to post to this board as I (and I'm sure many others) appreciate your input. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2005 : 11:07:40 [Permalink]
|
Hello all:
First, a rewording/clarification. My interpretation of the Bible is better than past ones because it does not contradict itself, to my present knowledge. I got this interpretation quote:
because I take verses literally which they take figuratively, or ignore, or sideline
. And, in a very few cases, I take verses figuratively where they take them literally.
Matt:
quote:
I know from personal experience that it can be intimidating to be the only one in the room with a particular viewpoint.
Thank you. I appreciate your understanding.
As to apologetics, in my mind there are several streams of apologetics. I do not know the precise definition of "apologetics", so I may be in error on this point. But it seems to me that Christian apologetics is both defending the validity of the Christian faith and determining the makeup of the Christian faith, i.e. "getting to the truth" as to what the Bible says entirely. So in answer to your question, I think it's both.
quote:
In my view it is extremely biased (or at least naive) to assume that in every case where there is an apparent contradiction it is in fact not a contradiction unless there is no conceivable way to rationalize said contradiction away.
That would depend upon how reasonable the rationalization is. I think that it is perfectly reasonable to say that the list of mighty men in 2 Samuel is an updated version of the list of mighty men in 1 Chronicles; especially since the former is placed 40 years (I think) after the latter. Furthermore, I would grant this method of rationalization to anyone.
Cuneiformist:
The Lord most certainly has the ability to appear or speak to people; and since he's recorded as doing so, and He never said that He would stop, I see no reason to expect that He wouldn't if one followed Him close enough.
Dude:
quote:
H4C says he is only aware of "one" contradiction in the whole thing.
This thread is the first major study of Biblical contradictions that I've done.
quote:
And if the definition of god isn't "omnipotent" in the sense of all powerfull, nothing that this being can't do atleast once... then this entity becomes nothing more than just another being with some level of power less than "all".
My previous posts on this topic have not been trying to state that He can't do stuff like heal the sick or vanquish armies. I've been trying to say that "all powerful" shouldn't include paradoxes, such as: creating a stone so heavy that He can't lift it, or cause Himself to stop existing, or lie about something that He said He wouldn't.
I'll be back in a bit,
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2005 : 11:22:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
quote:
Are you worried that the second commandment might have been so badly translated that to get to Heaven, everyone should really be grand egotists, instead of loving their neighbors?
There are some parts of the Bible that I am not concerned with; namely, the Book of Esther. The reason for this is because it nowhere mentions Yahweh, contains no doctrine, and, to my knowledge, it is not quoted by any other part of the Bible. As for the rest, I have a general desire to not believe something which is not true. And, though books like Judges and Samuel may be "Jewish histories" they do contain words of Yahweh which can shed light or modify other parts of the Bible. Also, if one book in particular has an inordinately high amount of contradictions, then I might want to consider that that book should perhaps be taken out of the canon of Scripture.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2005 : 12:43:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
There are some parts of the Bible that I am not concerned with; namely, the Book of Esther.
What about the Book of Exodus? And, while we're at it, why the insistence on insultingly labelled Masoretic Old Testament? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 05/31/2005 12:44:08 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
