|
Post by helpmehere on Jul 24, 2007 9:55:29 GMT -5
It is not so much a matter of choosing the bible or the koran as the "book", it is the fact that I believe God uses any and every venue to have people worship HIM.
By having Jesus as god, we rob God of all the attention, for the lack of a better word, he wants from us.
I fear that by praising and worshipping Jesus, we are committing the sin of idolatry (sp?).
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 24, 2007 12:54:07 GMT -5
Rational. I do like these discrepancies - they show that the authors of the various books were not conspiring to create a contrived text of uniformity. If two thieves railed on Jesus, or one repented, then that is how the authors saw it. I believe the bible is written for everyone - even for those who want to ridicule. GloryInTruth. We missed you! I did not post to ridicule. However, if you claim the Bible is inerrant that means there are 0 errors. From a factual viewpoint there are errors but those who support an inerrant bible will twist as needed to "correct" the text. The final escape is to say it's an allegory. But, for example, in the case of the shadow on the sun dial moving backwards, it seems clear that if that had happened the poor people watching it would have been subject to some extreme forces. Or was it just a slight of hand? But then, if you are dealing with an omnipotent god it is just written off as a miracle.
|
|
|
Post by to rational on Jul 24, 2007 16:20:26 GMT -5
Rational. I do like these discrepancies - they show that the authors of the various books were not conspiring to create a contrived text of uniformity. If two thieves railed on Jesus, or one repented, then that is how the authors saw it. I believe the bible is written for everyone - even for those who want to ridicule. u! I did not post to ridicule. However, if you claim the Bible is inerrant that means there are 0 errors. From a factual viewpoint there are errors but those who support an inerrant bible will twist as needed to "correct" the text. The final escape is to say it's an allegory. But, for example, in the case of the shadow on the sun dial moving backwards, it seems clear that if that had happened the poor people watching it would have been subject to some extreme forces. Or was it just a slight of hand? But then, if you are dealing with an omnipotent god it is just written off as a miracle First of all.....you are making a valiant effort to appear rational, yet, the interesting thing about the history of the bible, is that the bible is about 'history'.... Why was the bible ever written/? My intuition is that the majority of it had been 'oral history', but with the fleeting of years, it seemed that a written book would serve the C. of Israel for the years and years to come. When it was written, was there some 'conspiracy' to get the best Jewish authors to dream up some myth, for no selfish reasons? If one considers the many religions that seek converts, then the conspiracy theory may be valid, but here the group is confinded to only the Jewish peoples, and a few rare converts, and the book was hardly meant to attract new members, as many of the stories were told as correction for the erroring Jews. Yet, it is a book of faith, and speaks very highly of the Creator . Whether or not someone believes the authors accounts or not is discount in my mind, as the point is to learn what we can, about a subject that goes far, far over all human beings heads, and it is meant to. Consider the authors when they were told stories by human lips, is it possible that humans erred in writing any, and if they did, is this a valid reason to consider the Creator, to be a false god? I think not, it only serves the purpose of seeking DAILY and today, for the same bread from heaven that can be ours, if we know where to find it......and therein lies the test for it does take a lot of searching and labor to get our substance.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 24, 2007 16:40:12 GMT -5
The fact that people were talking and writing about a creator is not evidence that there is a creator; it is evidence of belief in a creator or the desire for there to be a creator.
|
|
|
Post by To Mr Leo on Jul 24, 2007 16:44:03 GMT -5
So do you believe in a creator, or do you just like to debate for the sake of debate?
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 24, 2007 17:13:21 GMT -5
Is that a rhetorical question, or are you genuinely curious?
|
|
|
Post by To Mr Leo on Jul 24, 2007 17:21:52 GMT -5
Is that a rhetorical question, or are you genuinely curious? Serious question.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo unplugged on Jul 24, 2007 17:36:47 GMT -5
No, I do not believe in a specific creator.
Debating for the sake of debate tends to have a negative connotation, but as far as I'm concerned even when an issue is not relevant (or is seemingly irrelevant) to my own experience of life I still want to understand it as best I can, and get to the core of how and why people (including myself) believe what they believe.
|
|
|
Post by To Mr Leo on Jul 24, 2007 18:16:34 GMT -5
No, I do not believe in a specific creator. Are you an atheist?
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 24, 2007 18:30:05 GMT -5
I think "skeptic" suits me a bit better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2007 19:24:32 GMT -5
quote - I did not post to ridicule. Rational, I didn't mean to say YOU were ridiculing, I meant that the bible was written in this way.
quote - However, if you claim the Bible is inerrant that means there are 0 errors. From a factual viewpoint there are errors but those who support an inerrant bible will twist as needed to "correct" the text. I don't say the bible is inerrant. It can't be, it is full of contradictions. I hold that the bible was designed this way.
quote - The final escape is to say it's an allegory. But, for example, in the case of the shadow on the sun dial moving backwards, it seems clear that if that had happened the poor people watching it would have been subject to some extreme forces. Or was it just a slight of hand? Sounds amazing. It could have happened. All science can say is that it is "highly unlikely." Nothing in the universe is impossible. How, for instance, could Daniel have spoken about Rome or Jesus about the Jews losing and one day returning to their homeland?
|
|
|
Post by To Mr Leo on Jul 24, 2007 20:36:55 GMT -5
I think "skeptic" suits me a bit better. Skeptic of what? If you don't believe in a creator how can you believe in God? Are you just uncomfortable admitting you don't believe in God?
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 24, 2007 21:24:23 GMT -5
I'm skeptical of theistic declarations/doctrines presented as truth without sufficient evidence.
You can use whatever word you like - I prefer skeptic.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 25, 2007 6:14:39 GMT -5
Answering biblical contradictionsAs any experienced apologist will appreciate, even when one provides an explanation of supposed biblical "contradictions", the sceptic will rarely accept the material given. In my view, this is due to the philosophy behind the principles of scepticism, which almost always lead the individual to doubt anything that hints as being supernatural - and this is especially true of anything coherently supernatural which has been described in a confident and dogmatic manner, such as God. It must be understood that the sceptic buys fully into a materialistic world. To his thinking, there are no spirits or higher powers. Such things were merely the brainchildren of primitive man in his half-evolved condition, giving him a means of explaining events he could not fully comprehend. Nowadays we have science, and our scientists and university professors are busily developing purely physical explainations of everything that exists. It is central to the sceptic's belief structure that he find natural causes for all the phenomena of human experience. Hence, when he triumphantly points to a "contradiction", the sceptic rarely bothers much with the subsequent explanation offered by Christian people. Why should he? The sceptic already disbelieves in the supernatural content (and origin) of the Bible, and is forever hard at work suppressing the knowledge of God in his rebellion. He claims he already "knows" the Bible is false, and God is a non-existent entity. (He is his own highest authority.) Thus, for the sceptic, finding alleged biblical "contradictions" serves a function in itself. Namely that it provides a handy-dandy-Christianity-refuter, and gives him the internal basis and justification necessary to oppose Christian belief with a minimum of actual knowledge and understanding. Principles of scriptural interpretationPrinciples of interpreting the scripture are no different from interpreting any text which aims to report events. One key concept of which it is necessary to be aware is that of telescoping. What is telescoping the average person asks? Let me demonstrate. When I was at college, my university supplied a whole collection of prominent newspapers in the library for students. Hence, in my spare time - of which there was a significant amount - I could steadily plough my way through three of four different newspapers. One of the things I would notice was that different newspapers would report on precisely the same story; on exactly the same hard facts, and all would convey a similiar idea of what happened, but each bore slight differences between them. Why is this? Well it does not take a Sherlock Holmes to understand that the relevant journalist writing for one paper had selected from the available pool of facts and information a certain set of details, which another journalist, writing for a different paper may have not included in his own article. Each journalist selected different sets of details; different eyewitness testimonies; different choice of facts when they wrote their account of events. So, for instance, one journalist might quote from one man who claimed that such-and-such event occured during overcast weather, and another journalist might quote from a man who claimed it was sunny. Does that mean each of the journalists lied? Does it mean that they had sourced incorrect facts? Does the apparent contradiction in testimony render their account invalid? Of course not. It is perfectly possible for the weather to have changed during the course of the day, and for both eyewitnesses to be telling the truth, and for both journalists to be reporting absolute facts, despite the seeming discrepancy. This is called telescoping - everyone summarises events when they report them (even in daily conversation) - because it is impossible and unneccessary to provide mountains of facts, figures and information whenever we report an event. In the act of telescoping, we might include things, or omit things according to our purpose. The same applies to the biblical writers, who witnessed events and reported on them. Let us consider the following "contradictions" (as if God the Holy Spirit could ever inspire a writer to record error! It is foolishness to us Christians to even consider that God could err, but to the world, supposed errors on God's part are meat and drink for them): [Rational Wrote] Matthew 27:5 And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.I have heard this one before. There is actually no discrepancy between these two texts, when we synthesise them together with a clear understanding of textual criticism and the principle I have outlined above. Judas the Traitor of our Lord Jesus Christ, returned the money to the religious leaders in angry remorse, and went out and hanged himself from a tree. The scriptures tell us that the Pharisees were loath to put the money into the treasury, for as they said, " It is the price of blood" (that is to say, "blood money" and hence impure). Thus scripture tells us that the Pharisees purchased a field to be used as a cemetery - " purchasing a field with the reward of his iniquity" - this is plainly explained in the scripture itself. As I have consistently maintained, scripture interprets itself! We only need to apply a little care and dilligence to see it. Two possible explanations suggest themselves for Judas gory end. Either his body was so long exposed - remembering that Jews avoided contact with the dead because it made them ritually impure - that it decomposed on the noose, and was torn apart so his innards flooded out. Or, alternatively, when he was cut down, he fell on the ground with some force, split apart, and his bowls (intestines) ran out. Either way, both verses are perfectly consistent together, and there is no contradiction. [Rational wrote] 2 Samuel 23:6 The ... chief among the captains ... he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.
1 Chronicles 11:11 the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.The actual reference is 2 Samuel 23:8. And although it would be hard for you to work this out from the citation offered - doubtless sourced from a sceptic website with prepacked materials - both references speak of two entirely different individuals! 2 Samuel 23:8 These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time. 1 Chronicles 11:11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time. Even when I first glanced over these verses, I immediately saw the schoolboy error, sadly too common with functionally illiterate people to whom Elizabethean English is more-or-less a foreign language (haven't any of these sceptics ever read Shakespeare?). There is here a complete misunderstanding of the Elizabethan concept of "captain". Failure to understand period English, of course, leads to ridiculous errors where a silly assumption is made that because both texts refer to a "chief of captains" it must mean the same thing! (After else, what else could it mean? We are functionally illiterate remember!) This is exemplified in the NIV: 2 Samuel 23:8 Josheb-Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite, was chief of the Three; he raised his spear against eight hundred men.
And,
1 Chronicles 11:11 Jashobeam, a Hacmonite, was chief of the officers ; he raised his spear against three hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter.
Thus, this is the sceptics first salvo in the great "Biblical contradiction debate"! Two texts, in two separate books, both referring to two totally different individuals, one of whom was on David's equivalent of a general staff, and other who was a chief of officers in charge of the lower ranks. What a conundrum for the Christian to answer!
I'd say the score was presently: 1 point to the Christians, and 0 to the Lions, wouldn't you?
(Doxology: All praise to you LORD God, who never changes and whose words have stood the test of time, including the attacks of many ungodly men. And we are convinced that, until the ending of the world, we - your people - will evermore be able to rely upon your speakings for our salvation, understanding, and defence, until the day our Majestic Lord brings his great Church Victorious to its long awaited rest. No glory resides with us. It all belongs to you, Almighty Father!)
|
|
3
Senior Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by 3 on Jul 25, 2007 8:59:49 GMT -5
Glory in Truth:
In your writing you come across as arrogant and uncompassionate.
Just as you accuse me of generalizing or exaggerating, you do the same in your writings - painting all skeptics & non believers with the same brush. Your tone implies that skeptics exist at level beneath your own.
Your tone futher suggests that skeptic & non believers have a chip on their shoulders. Undoubtedly, some do. But many of us don't. I would like nothing better than to wake up one morning finding that *poof* something supernatural happened overnight and I now believe in and can serve God you know. I look at my happy go lucky religious friends and I envy their simple faith. (as an aside, I don't want anyone to think I'm an unhappy person, eating worms on the sidelines of life!) In MY experience, being a skeptic doesn't come easily. It's not an easy way out, as you have implied. Setting aside tradional, cultural beliefs takes courage.
I'm not speaking for any other skeptic who posts here! It would definitely be beneficial for all if you could find it in your christian heart to have a bit of empathy for others who don't believe as you do.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 25, 2007 18:21:01 GMT -5
[3 Wrote] In your writing you come across as arrogant and uncompassionate.
I freely admit to being passionate about orthodox Christianity, and my firm conviction that it is the only truth. I believe in a rational faith, informed by knowledge and research, but I also believe in the neccesity of faith, for as we are taught in the gospel, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" - or, "Faith is believing that we will recieve what we hope for, and is knowing the reality of things not seen".
In my zeal, and in my fervent desire to demolish distortions and untruths wheresoever I find them, so as to help build up the Lord's Holy Church (by the grace of the LORD), I do sometimes come across as rather direct. However, in my defence, I would point out that your posts were no less "arrogant" in your confident assertions that the Bible was "full" of contradictions; that the Bible was a textual equivalent of the Koran, which had been revised and muddled about (by wicked translators and Bible publishing firms), and was therefore unreliable for Christians. Bear in mind that we, the people of Christ, have as an article of our faith the confession of the Bible in its entirety. To fully confess the Bible from beginning to end, is to fully confess God.
When you assault this belief with foolish arguments, unresearched and lacking in substance, I admit to becomming animated. For as Orwell pointed out, it takes far more words and effort to dispel a lie, than it does to make one.
I do find it interesting that you resort to accusing me of "coming across" as arrogant and uncompassionate because I firmly, and in no uncertain terms, tackled your comments. I have found in my long experience as an apologist, that more often than not the last line of defence on the apologetic battlefield is the emotive argument: "you are unloving, therefore I am right" - the subjective, ad hominem approach, which ultimately is the symptom of a failed argument.
[3 Wrote] Just as you accuse me of generalizing or exaggerating, you do the same in your writings - painting all skeptics & non believers with the same brush. Your tone implies that skeptics exist at level beneath your own.
In my experience, I have found sceptics to be very unpleasant people dedicated to the destruction of the Faith to which I have been committed my entire life. I admit that my experiences have been less than pleasant, and this colours my perceptions of scepticism generally. I acknowledge that you are not a typical sceptic - from what I have observed - in that you seem to desire faith and belief, even whilst holding a philosophical position (and making identical arguments) to those who are opposed to belief in the supernatural.
[3 Wrote] I would like nothing better than to wake up one morning finding that *poof* something supernatural happened overnight and I now believe in and can serve God you know.
Despite your perceptions of me as being "arrogant" and "uncompassionate" (sorry, I cannot help placing those words in parenthesis), I would sincerely love to have a dialogue with you on this issue. The reasons why we can believe in God are many; there is a strong philosophical basis; the argument from morality, and I believe, a powerful scientific argument. Furthermore, God himself attests his existence all around us in the "second book of Christianity" - the Creation, as well as in the Bible, the Holy Scriptures of God.
[3 Wrote] I look at my happy go lucky religious friends and I envy their simple faith.
Simple faith, yes, but a simple Faith? No.
[3 Wrote] In MY experience, being a skeptic doesn't come easily. It's not an easy way out, as you have implied. Setting aside tradional, cultural beliefs takes courage.
Whilst you persist in believing that Christianity is a traditional and cultural phenomenon, you will continue to believe a lie. I remember reading an excellent discourse by a Dutch theologian who explained why this argument has no philosophical validity, and that is underlying logic actually cancels itself out. I will see if I can dig up the paper and refresh my memory on the precise argument, so that I can discuss this with you in more detail.
[3 Wrote] It would definitely be beneficial for all if you could find it in your christian heart to have a bit of empathy for others who don't believe as you do.
I know what it is to have no faith, and to see doubt everywhere. I know what it is to be uncertain of all things; to be a dweller in shadow, a citizen of gloom. And I do sympathise. However, my first perogative and concern is not you as an individual, but is God and his truth. I will always zealously defend this from unfounded distortions, because I am a believer, as the hymn says (not in Hymns Old and New):
We believe that we shall see You, when You come, In your glory Lord! We remember, We celebrate. We believe.
Doxology: Almighty and Everlasting God! You are our Salvation, for there is no redemption in any other. And we know that you are mighty in word and deed, so that you can do all things above what we think or ask. To us belongs no praise, or glory, or honour. It all belongs to You, Majestic LORD, King of Heaven (whom we adore, now and forever)!
|
|
|
Post by Bump on Jul 26, 2007 3:16:57 GMT -5
Bump
|
|
|
Post by Bump on Jul 26, 2007 3:17:25 GMT -5
Bump
|
|
3
Senior Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by 3 on Jul 26, 2007 8:54:44 GMT -5
Thank you, Glory in Truth, for a less abrasive tone & an explanation that helps me understand your stance.
|
|