God of the Bible as Flawed Human

do what, exactly? teach iano to read? got a favourite one? we could start a coffee house thread.

---

yeah?caught ya.in message 187 of the second coming thread, you said:

quote:

---

Most people here realise that if you want to talk about what the Bible says then you must presume (for the sake of argument) that it is the word of God.

---

in message 54 of this thread, you wrote:

quote:

---

for the record this is the pathway I take:

​

The Bible is Gods word > God doesn't contradict himself (otherwise he wouldn't God > apparently contradictory passages aren't actually > if I go look and consider I will find that they don't > I go look and consider and I find that they don't.

​

Basis of analysis: starting presumptions

---

the logic, of course, breaks down in several places -- your problem is that you cannot see past your own start presumption. you're just chasing your own tail.a real logical procedure goes like this:

• the bible is god's complete and inerrant word / god doesn't lie
• the bible contains contradictions
• reducto ad absurdum

it's called "proof by reduction to absurdity." i'll refrain from my math prof's standard crack at engineering students, but you really should take more math classes. unfortunately, this bit is actually based on TWO starting presumptions. the best we can tell is that one or both of them must be false.your logic breaks down completely when you make a third presumption: if it looks weird, i must not understand it. or rather:

• the bible is god's complete and inerrant word / god doesn't lie
• the bible contains contradictions
• i must not understand why they are not contradictions
• god wrote a deceptive text -- and thus lies
• reducto ad absurdum

logic does not agree with you, iano. even including your ad-hoc tangent, it still proves the same outcome. plus, it's basically calling yourself stupid. again, because the post was directed at schraf. and schraf can read them herself and undertstand what they mean. it's not like the words are difficult, or the grammar confusing. they're pretty plain statements.one says that is better to answer fools because otherwise they don't learn anything. the other says it's better to not answer fools, because you're a fool for answering them.they might be hard if english is not your native language. do you speak english as a second language, iano? again, because we can read. i really, really, cannot waste much more time here trying to teach you how to understand what a simple sentance says and means. this is kindergarten material, iano.if say "do something, because otherwise..." i am saying that it's better to do than not do. if i say "don't do something, so you don't..." i am saying that it's better to not do than to do.for instance:"don't drive drunk, so you don't into an accident." is it better to drive drunk, or not?"study for your test, because otherwise you'll fail the test." is it better to study for the test, or not?Edited by arachnophilia, : ad hoc

---

*sigh* I must have done something to annoy Arach. I suspect it was post 96 Well lets go see shall we? It's always good practice to put up the verse which on which an attempt to exposit is being made. This is the one you are dealing with. So lets have another look see. Something which I stand by, by the way. The analysis presented in the thread is plain old common sense. Ne'er a sniff of requiring anyone to believe it is the word of God in sight. Now to Arach - who has attempted to bludgeon his way through the thread using his education-in-all-thing textual. Anyway the following is supposed to show I contradict myself in what I have said above Adding a dash of context however give us this: I am rebutting Ringo in a different thread and pointing out an oft seen folly at EvCPeople start using the Bible to comment definitively on the character of God. But if you don't presume (for the sake of discussion) it to be the word of God in the first place, how can you use it in your definitive attack on him? If the Bible was actually licked off a stone by some nomad sheep herders - rather than being inspired by God himself, then it can hardly be trusted to comment accurately on Gods character. The sheep herder could have been making it up!"God is Evil and Cruel" they cry. "How do you know?" I ask. "Because the Bible tells us so!!" they respond. Go figure?Now Arach turns his attention to this thread. Surely more promise here? Disappointment looms here too I'm afraid to say. Ne're a truer word said. This is indeed how I approach the Bible - and one I recommend even for a curious non-believer who wants to figure out its truths. It is the basis I used for my own analysis and it seldom fails me. But it is not an approach that others find acceptable in discussion so there is little point in my including these assumptions in presenting an analysis of what these proverbs say. It would be like saying Godidit and we all know how far that gets you here.So, whilst my own assumptions help me understand what the bible says, if something it says does not require a person to hold those same assumptions then I would say something like: The assumption was required for me to analyse. It is not required in the (my own) analysis presented in the thread. And if you go look you'll see I never demanded one assumed such in the analysis
...
...
...
...The wisdom of Pr 26:5 says that I should answer Arachs folly: an ill-willed desire to hack and tear at an opponant in any deceitful way possibleThe wisdom of Pr 26:4 says I should not harmonise and accord with his folly in answering him.I have tried not to.

I don't follow these threads all that closely but it was my feeling that Iano did an pretty good job of explaining away the apparent contradiction.What I recall is that the prohibition on arguing with a fool was not saying that you don't argue with them but that you don't "stoop to their level". That is what I understood Iano to be saying with his explanation of "according to his foolishness".Do I misunderstand this? How do you understand it?

Why, thank you Ned

yes, here are the verses in question:

quote:

---

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

​

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

---

both contain the phrase in question, so you cannot use it to make a meaningful distinction between them. maybe it has a double meaning -- but iano has not attempted to argue that point at all.

---

Oh, I should learn not to jump in with a flawed memory of events. Ok, I don't see how the contraction can be explained away then.Thanks for the thanks Iano but I think you have to withdraw it now.

Ok, but can I hang onto the framed version I just put on my wall

round and round we go, where we stop, no one knows. this thread is making me dizzy. let me attempt to pick this apart, and explain the logical issue -- the same one you ignored above.let's pick this apart a little. schraf (as far as i know) is an athiest. in other words, she doesn't believe that god exists. how can she possibly be saying that god is evil and cruel, if he does not even exist? you are drawing a false conclusion that we are in some way attacking god.this conclusion, in itself, is based on your presumption that the bible is the word of god. because you think this way -- and practically worship the bible itself -- any "attack" on the bible and how it protrays god is also an attack on god. your faulty logic has created a false dichotomy between believing in god and attacking the bible. you've ironically left out the third possibility that leads you in a circle above -- what if the bible is not the word of god?in other words, you are drawing the wrong conclusion. we are talking about the bible's portrayal of god -- not claiming that it is accurate. belief that it is not the word of god is not a fault in our logic at all -- because we are not attacking god.i understand this toys with you. that's half the point -- we know you think the bible is the word of god, and that's why arguments from the bible should be effective against fundamentalists. because you believe it is god's word, we can counter your claims of "god is this" or "god is that" with the claims made by the bible -- and it used to be fun to watch you and others deny the claims made by the bible.and there's the real contradiction -- you claim to believe the bible as the word of god, but your own logic forces you to also deny it as such. you have reduced your position to one big absurdity. iano, you have been caught in an obvious untruth. you say that the basis for your analysis is that the bible is god's word. but then you say it is not required for your analysis.which is it?we will now enjoy watching you twist your own words.

---

Clearly prophecy is not your strong suit. Watch this space.

it's not your fault. iano has been intentionally obfusciating this as much as he can, to using faulty logic and semantics to misdirect from the obvious.see my Message 93 for my analysis of the verses in question. i brought them up to demonstrate the flaw in iano's reasoning regarding the bible -- the book of proverbs is not god's holy law, with a consistent message on how to live. it's a book... of... proverbs. we shouldn't expect to explain away the contradictions.there is another possibility, as i hinted at above. the phrase in question could have two meanings, and be a sort of play on words. but that requires a level of analysis into the subtext, and there is next to no way to tell without knowing the cultural context. jokes don't translate well -- but this one works just fine without the pun.

---

nor reading yours.

---

Huh?I think the idea of Darth Vader is of a cruel and evil character. I don't think Darth Vader really exists.Nice lesson on logic Arach but you seem not to get off to such a great start. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

don't be silly, he was just misunderstood...it's also nonsense because darth vader does not really exist. he is a character in a series of movies. no, what you mean to say is that in the movie series "star wars" darth vader is portrayed as a cruel and evil character. but usually, the word "character" implies the same usage. darth vader is not a cruel and evil person -- he is a cruel and evil character.suppose, for instance, you have a book about a real person. could the book portray the real person in a certain light? does the portrayal have to be accurate?can we analyze and talk about how the bible portrays god, without saying that god is all of those things? apparently not if you're a fundamentalist. but that just leads us to one conclusion. if the bible says god is cruel and evil, and the bible is the inerrant word of god, then god is cruel and evil. ...but i am not the one advancing this opinion. the logical disconnect comes first when you interpret someone's analysis of (what is to them) a fictional character as about a real entity, and second when you neccessitate that the account be 100% accurate.like i said, it's still faulty logic.

---

There is no 'prophecy' in the Bible, as the Christians understand the concept of prophecy. The Jewish concept is different. (not any more valid, but different)