Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 7:08 PM
269 online now:
dwise1, Faith, jar, JonF (4 members, 265 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,393 Year: 28,999/21,208 Month: 1,065/1,847 Week: 440/475 Day: 103/102 Hour: 2/8

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Catholics & Inerrancy
GDR
Member
Posts: 4365
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 31 of 89 (615001)
05-09-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tram law
05-09-2011 3:16 PM


Tram Law writes:

So why would it be a waste of time if there's no historical event?
3... 2...

Sorry, but that's gone right over my head. I do view the resurrection as an historical event if you are misreading what I wrote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 3:16 PM Tram law has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 3:40 PM GDR has responded

    
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2320 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 32 of 89 (615003)
05-09-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
05-09-2011 3:22 PM


I was referring to this paragraph:

In other words if the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not an historical event then all of Christianity is a waste of time. If the resurrection isn`t historical then Jesus was delusional and although the message he preached may ring true for us there is no real reason to give it any credibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 05-09-2011 3:22 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by GDR, posted 05-09-2011 3:58 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Stile, posted 05-12-2011 10:03 AM Tram law has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4365
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 33 of 89 (615005)
05-09-2011 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tram law
05-09-2011 3:40 PM


I absolutely am convinced that the resurrection was an historical event. I can't prove it so as I said "if it is an historical event".

The resuurection is the essential part of the Christian faith. Without it Christianity would not have come into existence IMHO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tram law, posted 05-09-2011 3:40 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ScientificBob, posted 05-10-2011 7:30 AM GDR has responded

    
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 34 of 89 (615082)
05-10-2011 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by GDR
05-09-2011 10:33 AM


GDR writes:

I have read a fair amount on the subject and have become convinced that it happened in the manner that we read about in the Gospels, Acts and Paul. I read a variety of authors but what I found most informative were the debates between N T Wright and members of the Jesus Seminar Dom Crossan and Marcus Borg. Essentially the members of the Jesus Semiar treat the resurrection as a kind of "visionary experience", whereas N T Wright as an historian and theologian argues that the only thing that makes sense of the rise of the Christian church is the fact that the resurrection is an actual historical event. I read books on the debate between Crossan and Wright and Borg and Wright. I found Wright's argument more convincing and that the JS position was in the final analysis based on the idea that the resurrection couldn't possibly have happened so they cast about for other explanations such as cognitive dissonance.

You know what I love about that paragraphe? How it exhibits reasoning with a clear presupposition that the bible is relevant.

GDR writes:

My belief then in how I read and understand the Bible is then based on that starting point. If the resurrection is true historically then Jesus isn't a crank and we should pay a great deal of attention to what He had to say, and what those who followed him had to say.

The keyword here is IF. All I see you and other theists do is simply assume that jezus, the human, existed. Assume he was crucified, assume he was born of a virgin, assume he was resurected, assume he was the son of god,...

It's all the same old blind faith. You are not justifying anything here. You are just repeating your faith.

GDR writes:

As Jesus was vindicated and shown to be the authentic messiah by His resurrection then I believe that it is through the lens of His ministry that we should understand all of the scriptures.

And here you changed your blind faith into a statement of fact - for no apparant reason - and continue on from there.

GDR writes:

When he says that he has come to fulfill the laws and the prophets, and tells us that they can all be summed up simply by loving God and loving our neighbour then it isn't that difficult to read that back into the Hebrew scriptures and discern what was of God and what wasn't.

Actually, that's very false. I don't see how one follows from the other. And it still requires you to trust on "fallible humans" to make the distinction. So I don't see how it changes anythng.
Also, you are clearly making an assumption that somehow, for some unspecified reason, the new testament is more thrustworthy then the old testament. Yet, it was also written by "fallible humans".
By the reasoning you give me, it could just as well be that the new testament is not thrustworthy and that the true god is the vengefull, hatefull, genocidal sociopath we all know from the old testament.

GDR writes:

Also of course Jesus' message is fleshed out considerably in the rest of the NT but that is a good place to start.

No. A good place to start would be to demonstrate the relevance/truthfullness of the bible ... without using the bible.

GDR writes:

In the end though we can choose to believe what we want

I heavily disagree with that. I do not "choose" what I believe. I don't even know how one would go about that.

Honestly, could you "choose" to believe in Thor?
I believe whatever convinces me. It seems physically impossible for me to simply "choose" to believe some idea on face value alone, let alone if there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary.

GDR writes:

Yes, I have to pick and choose what I believe is historical, metaphorical, literal and even pagan in the Bible

And here we are at the core of the issue. You do not have a rational methodology to do this picking and choosing. It's all based on whatever "feels good". Emotions, fuzzy feelings and blind faith are not pathways to truth.

GDR writes:

I see it this way. There is an in-born sense of morality in everyone. But I also see believe that when we turn to God,( as seen through Jesus), in trust for the way of life that He espoused that we somehow, in ways that are beyond my comprehension, connect with God's dimension through the Holy Spirit to strengthen us in our resolve, I think that the only verification that we can have is in what we experience ourself.

Do you consider this to be intellectually honest?
What's the use of blindly believing such things? How is it different from believing the same about the pink transcendend dragon under my house?
Again it boils down to rational reasoning. Blind faith is not a virtue, it's gullibility.

GDR writes:

Human laws say that I shall not speed. God's law is that I shall love. They are different. The law against speeding comes from the brain, but the law that we are to love is written by God on our hearts. IMHO.

This is again completely meaningless. And beside the point.
We were talking about the laws written in the old testament, not about imaginary laws written on our poetic heart. Poetic, because my heart has no writing on it - it just pumps blood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 05-09-2011 10:33 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 05-10-2011 10:15 AM ScientificBob has responded

    
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 35 of 89 (615083)
05-10-2011 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by GDR
05-09-2011 3:58 PM


GDR writes:

I absolutely am convinced that the resurrection was an historical event. I can't prove it

You don't see anything wrong with that sentence?

Let me help you...

How can you EVER be "absolutely" convinced of something... if you are unable to verify it...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by GDR, posted 05-09-2011 3:58 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 05-10-2011 10:18 AM ScientificBob has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4365
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 36 of 89 (615098)
05-10-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by ScientificBob
05-10-2011 7:29 AM


SB writes:

You know what I love about that paragraphe? How it exhibits reasoning with a clear presupposition that the bible is relevant.

Well seeing as how it's the largest selling book of all time I think we can assume it's relevant.

SB writes:

The keyword here is IF. All I see you and other theists do is simply assume that jezus, the human, existed. Assume he was crucified, assume he was born of a virgin, assume he was resurected, assume he was the son of god,...

It's all the same old blind faith. You are not justifying anything here. You are just repeating your faith.

Yes it is faith, but then we have faith in all sorts of things that can't be proven. You can't prove your wife loves you. You can't prove that the world is 14 billion years old. You can't prove that evolutionary theory is correct. You just look at what evidence there is and draw your own conclusions. When it comes to the veracity of the Christian faith we have come to different conclusions. I'm not trying to change your mind I'm just giving my views on Biblical inerrancy as we were asked to do in the opening post.

GDR writes:

As Jesus was vindicated and shown to be the authentic messiah by His resurrection then I believe that it is through the lens of His ministry that we should understand all of the scriptures.

SB writes:


And here you changed your blind faith into a statement of fact - for no apparant reason - and continue on from there.

Well I did have an apparent reason. I explained how I had come to the conclusion about the resurrection. I didn't claim that I could prove it as fact but that was my conclusion. Based on the conclusion that I came to I assumed it to be true and went on from there. As you reject the idea that the resurrection ever happened you would then presumably come to the conclusion that the rest would be rejected as well.

SB writes:

No. A good place to start would be to demonstrate the relevance/truthfullness of the bible ... without using the bible.

Others have done that and that isn't the point of this thread. I would suggest if you are really interested that you read "The Abolition of Man" by CS Lewis.

SB writes:

I heavily disagree with that. I do not "choose" what I believe. I don't even know how one would go about that.

You do love to argue don't you? You choose not to believe in God or gods. (I'm assuming your atheist based on your statements.) Any time you vote in an election you choose to believe that one party or individual is a better choice than another.

SB writes:

Do you consider this to be intellectually honest?
What's the use of blindly believing such things? How is it different from believing the same about the pink transcendend dragon under my house?
Again it boils down to rational reasoning. Blind faith is not a virtue, it's gullibility.

Would that be like the blind faith that the material world is all there is and that there is no god(s)?

SB writes:

my heart has no writing on it - it just pumps blood.

From Websters

a : PERSONALITY, DISPOSITION b obsolete : INTELLECT
: the emotional or moral as distinguished from the intellectual nature: as a : generous disposition : COMPASSION
b : LOVE, AFFECTION c : COURAGE, ARDOR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ScientificBob, posted 05-10-2011 7:29 AM ScientificBob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ScientificBob, posted 05-21-2011 5:49 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4365
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 37 of 89 (615099)
05-10-2011 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by ScientificBob
05-10-2011 7:30 AM


SB writes:

How can you EVER be "absolutely" convinced of something... if you are unable to verify it...

I'm absolutely convinced that the sun will rise tomorrow and that I'll be alive to see it. Verifying that is a little tougher.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ScientificBob, posted 05-10-2011 7:30 AM ScientificBob has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2011 4:09 PM GDR has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 38 of 89 (615143)
05-10-2011 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by GDR
05-10-2011 10:18 AM


I'm absolutely convinced that the sun will rise tomorrow and that I'll be alive to see it. Verifying that is a little tougher.

Again you are talking about faith. That isn't what ScientificBob was referring to.

Bob is referring to something you believe happened that is unverifiable. The future, by virtue of being the future, is unverifiable. Not the same thing at all.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 05-10-2011 10:18 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by GDR, posted 05-10-2011 5:27 PM Theodoric has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4365
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 39 of 89 (615147)
05-10-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Theodoric
05-10-2011 4:09 PM


Theodoric writes:

Again you are talking about faith. That isn't what ScientificBob was referring to.
Bob is referring to something you believe happened that is unverifiable. The future, by virtue of being the future, is unverifiable. Not the same thing at all.

Hmmmmmm.... that's me trying to think of a good come back when I know you're right and I'm wrong.

How about Caesar crossing the Rubicon? I believe it happened but I can't verify other than by what someone else has recorded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2011 4:09 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2011 7:55 PM GDR has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 40 of 89 (615156)
05-10-2011 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by GDR
05-10-2011 5:27 PM


How about Caesar crossing the Rubicon? I believe it happened but I can't verify other than by what someone else has recorded.

Nope.
There are many contemporary sources for Caesar crossing the Rubicon. There are none for the resurrection. None.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by GDR, posted 05-10-2011 5:27 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by GDR, posted 05-10-2011 9:24 PM Theodoric has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4365
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 41 of 89 (615157)
05-10-2011 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Theodoric
05-10-2011 7:55 PM


I'm not sure how you figure that. The contemporay sources would all be based on the original stories, as are contemporary sources that write about the resurrection.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2011 7:55 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2011 9:42 PM GDR has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 42 of 89 (615159)
05-10-2011 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by GDR
05-10-2011 9:24 PM


I'm not sure how you figure that. The contemporay sources would all be based on the original stories, as are contemporary sources that write about the resurrection.

No you are wrong. We know the provenance of many sources that were contemporary to Caesar that write about and attest to his life. We also have Caesars writings that we have provenance for.

We ain't got crap for Jesus. There is nothing AT ALL about the resurrection or anything about the life of Jesus until at least 40 years after his supposed death. Paul tells us almost nothing about the life of Jesus.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by GDR, posted 05-10-2011 9:24 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 05-10-2011 10:18 PM Theodoric has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4365
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 43 of 89 (615163)
05-10-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Theodoric
05-10-2011 9:42 PM


OK I see what you're getting at. There would still be eyewitnesses around when the first letters were written even if the stories weren't being told by those who were witnesses which is most likely the case.

The guys that got involved in this dedicated their lives to it which I can't see happening if they weren't convinced of the truth of the resurrection. In addition the faith grew rapidly and sustained that growth which I can't see happening if the resurrection is just a fable.

However, I think we're off topic and the stories are there. We can choose to believe or not. I personally find I believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Theodoric, posted 05-10-2011 9:42 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 05-11-2011 2:43 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Trae
Member (Idle past 1922 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 44 of 89 (615178)
05-11-2011 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by GDR
05-08-2011 5:24 PM


GDR writes:

If the Bible is read in the way that I'm suggesting that it should, and assuming I am correct, then we don't have to worry about misusing it. It is only when we try to turn the Bible into something else, such as an object of worship that we start to run into trouble. As a Christian it is God as revealed through Jesus and His Holy Spirit that I worship. The Bible tells that story with all of its triumphs and failures.

As I have said before Jesus said that by loving God and loving our neighbour all of the laws and prophets are fulfilled. It's pretty simple really and can also be summed up by Micah 6:8 when the question is asked what does God want of us. The answer is that we humbly love kindness and do justice.


So all the rest of the moral teachings of the Bible are suspect?
GDR writes:

and assuming I am correct,


Which just seems to bring everything back to if the Bible can be wrong in complete swatches of text, where is the justification for viewing it as nothing more than the work of tribal myth. Where is the authority?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by GDR, posted 05-08-2011 5:24 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-11-2011 8:25 AM Trae has responded
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 05-11-2011 2:22 PM Trae has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 45 of 89 (615187)
05-11-2011 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Trae
05-11-2011 7:28 AM


The bible is not literally inerrant in that it contains many historical errors, embellishments, omissions and contradictions. However, these errors are converted to non-errors when considered as part of a whole work. Much like taking a shot of tequila might be considered an error until you follow it with some salt and lemon. Or if you looked at a picture like this and said that the horse and dragon are not anatomically correct but then you see that they are precisely what was intended.

So the truth or perfect message is in there but it is only knowable after you believe that it is the perfect message and therefore faith is required. A shot of ether to get the engine going. After you accept it the authority is revealed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Trae, posted 05-11-2011 7:28 AM Trae has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Trae, posted 05-12-2011 5:46 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017