Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pick and Choose Fundamentalism
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 61 of 384 (430752)
10-27-2007 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by anglagard
10-27-2007 3:05 AM


anglagard writes:
Oops, King was Civil Rights, Mandela was anti-apartheid. Except for a handful of Arab nations, slavery has been illegal for quite some time. I believe the last 'major' nation (at the time) to officially outlaw slavery was Brazil in 1888.
I hadn't meant that to imply that King or Mandela were involved in the abolition of slavery. My point was that Christians were heavily involved in the abolition of slavery and that King and Mandela as Christians had also led civil rights movements.
anglagard writes:
This line of inquiry is however going far afield of my original intent in this thread, which is to discuss why every word in Genesis must be accepted literally and without thought, examination, or the exercise of critical thinking as being from the direct dictation of God while other books, such as Deuteronomy, Leviticus, or even the entire content of the NT can be ignored however the supposed adherent chooses.
Sorry. It is largely my fault it got off topic.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by anglagard, posted 10-27-2007 3:05 AM anglagard has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 62 of 384 (430754)
10-27-2007 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
10-26-2007 9:47 PM


Re: PaulK Doesn't Dig Eschatology
quote:
Paulk, you showed your ignorance in the Olivet Discourse that you don't dig eschatology being most of the educated escatological Drs of Divinity would have sided more with me in that debate than with you who tried to apply the prophecy to contemporary times when the proclamation was made including the 1900 year dispersement of the Jews worldwide.
Well of course you're going to be angry when I point out that you were grossly ignorant of a Bible passage you chose to discuss. Especially when you try to pretend to be an "expert".
But let us consider the fact. You use your self=-proclaimed status as an "expert" to try to stop people reading and understanding the Bible just as you appeal to unnamed "experts" here to try and prevent people knowing the truth. In our discussion these experts you appeal too did not provide you with valid points to counter my arguments or show any flaw in my reading. That is why you lost so very, very badly.
For all your alleged study of the Bible your sole claim to expertise is slavishly agreeing with the opinions of alleged experts you can't even name. I at least can produce valid arguments for my case from the text. Something you failed to do.
If I am igniorant because I don't know the arguemtns fo your unnamed "experts' then you are equally ignroant because you don't know them either ! At least my reading is based on what the Bible actually says, rather than the views of men who are in all likelihood twisting and misrepresenting the Bible to try to prop up their doctrines. Just as you did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 10-26-2007 9:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 63 of 384 (430755)
10-27-2007 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hyroglyphx
10-26-2007 9:22 PM


Re: What it all means
quote:
I agree, especially since its quite obvious that a large amount of text in the Bible is historically accurate. As a for instance, it was believed for a long time that the Hittite civilization was just a myth-- that no such people named the Hittites ever existed.
The argument entailed that, if the Hittite civilization was as vast and encompassing as the Bible claimed, why was there no direct evidence? Of course, soon after discovery after discovery was made pertaining to the Hittites, every bit as impressive as the Bible detailed.
Interestignly the only statement from a minastream source I have found on the subject is that people beleived that the Hittites were a minor Canaanite people - BASED ON THE BIBLE. So perhaps you can show us some people who denied that the Hittites existed and also Biblical statements showing that the Hittites were a great civilisation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-26-2007 9:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 64 of 384 (430782)
10-27-2007 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by GDR
10-27-2007 3:42 AM


GDR writes:
quote:
What does the resurrection have to do with His message of love?
From your perspective it there is no connection. From my perception it is an example of self-sacrificing love.
I'm glad you're so well-appraised about my perspective. But, yet again, you haven't answered the question. Of course His death (and more importantly, His life) can be seen as and example of self-sacrificing love. I'm asking about the resurrection.
What is it that makes the resurrection a deal-breaker for you? Why is it that the Genesis account can be taken as metaphor/fiction/typo and the resurrection accounts can not?
Something had to have happened and the most sensible conclusion to come to in my view is that they were relating their actual experience of the resurrected Jesus.
If a large event (creation) can be fictionalized, why not a small one (resurrection)?

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by GDR, posted 10-27-2007 3:42 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 10-27-2007 4:40 PM ringo has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 65 of 384 (430801)
10-27-2007 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ringo
10-27-2007 12:30 PM


Ringo writes:
I'm glad you're so well-appraised about my perspective. But, yet again, you haven't answered the question. Of course His death (and more importantly, His life) can be seen as and example of self-sacrificing love. I'm asking about the resurrection.
Because we don't have a deistic God that created us just to leave us on our own. It is evidence of a God that cared enough and loved enough to continue to interact with the creatures he created in his image.
Ringo writes:
What is it that makes the resurrection a deal-breaker for you? Why is it that the Genesis account can be taken as metaphor/fiction/typo and the resurrection accounts can not?
Without the resurrection I'd be left with Judaism or Theism. Without the resurrection Jesus would be just another failed messiah.
Obviously there was no one around at the time of creation. There were eye witness accounts of the resurrection.
Ringo writes:
If a large event (creation) can be fictionalized, why not a small one (resurrection)?
Is a metaphor or allegory fiction? I don't see the creation story as having been fictionalized.
Most people are not going to devote their lives for something they don't believe in. I don't see that there can be much doubt that the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected. Certainly you can argue that they were mistaken but there were still many eye-witnesses to the event that could have discredited their testimony if it was false.
I wonder why I have a feeling that you aren't going to agree with all this.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 12:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 4:55 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 66 of 384 (430802)
10-27-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by GDR
10-27-2007 4:40 PM


GDR writes:
It is evidence of a God that cared enough and loved enough to continue to interact with the creatures he created in his image.
Again, Jesus' life (and death) are "evidence of a God that cared enough and loved enough to continue to interact with the creatures he created in his image". I don't see that resurrection has anything to do with it.
Without the resurrection Jesus would be just another failed messiah.
What's the problem with that, though? The topic isn't about why you prefer Christianity to Judaism or some other brand of theism. It's about why you pick and choose certain parts of the Bible as being "fundamental", while other parts are not.
Is a metaphor or allegory fiction?
Yes.
I don't see that there can be much doubt that the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected.
Nor can there be much doubt that Frodo believed the ring was magic. The question is: Why do you have to buy into the magic ring to get anything out of the story?

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 10-27-2007 4:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by GDR, posted 10-27-2007 6:18 PM ringo has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 67 of 384 (430810)
10-27-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ringo
10-27-2007 4:55 PM


Ringo writes:
Again, Jesus' life (and death) are "evidence of a God that cared enough and loved enough to continue to interact with the creatures he created in his image". I don't see that resurrection has anything to do with it.
The biblical story begins with creation and ends with new creation. New creation being the new heaven and the new earth combining in a re-created existance. Christ returned to establish the roots of new creation as a part of God's plan for His creation. It is what you might call a necessary part of a long range plan.
I realize that if one believes in nothing but our physical universe then all that is nonsense, but just the same we don't seem to have a problem in believing that dark matter exists.
Ringo writes:
What's the problem with that, though? The topic isn't about why you prefer Christianity to Judaism or some other brand of theism. It's about why you pick and choose certain parts of the Bible as being "fundamental", while other parts are not.
Without the resurrection Christianity is nothing but a set of moral values. It ceases to be a faith. It ceases to be Christianity.
Ringo writes:
Nor can there be much doubt that Frodo believed the ring was magic. The question is: Why do you have to buy into the magic ring to get anything out of the story?
First off, I buy into the story because I believe it is true. I agree however, that loving your neighbour is still a good plan regardless of the resurrection.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 4:55 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 7:28 PM GDR has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 68 of 384 (430815)
10-27-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by GDR
10-27-2007 6:18 PM


GDR writes:
Without the resurrection Christianity is nothing but a set of moral values. It ceases to be a faith.
But there are plenty of faiths that don't rely on a resurrection of any kind.
It ceases to be Christianity.
The question still remains: Why does removing the resurrection make it cease to be Christianity but removing the literal six-day creation doesn't?

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by GDR, posted 10-27-2007 6:18 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 10-27-2007 7:46 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2007 8:05 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 72 by jar, posted 10-27-2007 8:14 PM ringo has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 69 of 384 (430817)
10-27-2007 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
10-27-2007 7:28 PM


Ringo writes:
The question still remains: Why does removing the resurrection make it cease to be Christianity but removing the literal six-day creation doesn't?
Whether creation happened in six days or in 14 billion years it still happened. If there is no resurrection Jesus is just another would be messiah and all of his followers would just have gone back to thier knitting or fishing.
Here is a paper that, if you are prepared to take the time, you might find interesting. It is by the current Anglican Bishop of Durham N.T. Wright.
The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 7:28 PM ringo has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 384 (430820)
10-27-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by GDR
10-26-2007 10:18 PM


Re: Biblical fundamentalism?
GDR writes:
I strongly disagree that the Bible supports fundamentalism.
The Bible doesn't support it's own basic fundamentals?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 10:18 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by GDR, posted 10-27-2007 10:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 384 (430824)
10-27-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
10-27-2007 7:28 PM


Ringo writes:
The question still remains: Why does removing the resurrection make it cease to be Christianity but removing the literal six-day creation doesn't?
Because without a resurrection Christianity becomes just another temporal lifestyle with no hope of an afterlife.
The length of the Genesis day was not established until the sun was created on day four of creation. Before that there was no basis for a 24 hour day.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 7:28 PM ringo has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 72 of 384 (430825)
10-27-2007 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
10-27-2007 7:28 PM


Club ByLaws
The question still remains: Why does removing the resurrection make it cease to be Christianity but removing the literal six-day creation doesn't?
Because one is included in the Club ByLaws, the other isn't. The different major Creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, list the minimal core beliefs required to belong to the club called Christianity.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 10-27-2007 7:28 PM ringo has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 73 of 384 (430827)
10-27-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hyroglyphx
10-26-2007 9:22 PM


Re: What it all means
As a for instance, it was believed for a long time that the Hittite civilization was just a myth-- that no such people named the Hittites ever existed.
This is a very common piece of propaganda spread by people who are extremely lax in their research. I did a small post on this very subject here that explains why this claim isn't all it seems.
You might find post 15 on that thread useful too:
Therefore our current designation of Hittite should be understood to represent an artificial categorisation of the peoples who lived under the political banner of Hattusa. (Ronald L. Gorny Environment, Archaeology, and History in Hittite Anatolia. Biblical Archaeologist, Volume 52, 1989, page 82)
So, yet again, this is another example of Fundy circular reasoning. Evidence for a people is found, the get named (incorrectly) as being the biblical Hittites, evidence is found that proves they were not 'Hittites' but the name was kept for convenience as everyone had been referring to them as Hittites, then voila, another 'amazing fact' to support the Bible.
This 'Hittite' claim is still being circulated as well, it is beyond me why people circulate garbage to try and support their beliefs.
Edited by Brian, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-26-2007 9:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 74 of 384 (430851)
10-27-2007 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
10-27-2007 7:54 PM


Re: Biblical fundamentalism?
Buzsaw writes:
The Bible doesn't support it's own basic fundamentals?
I see your point, but fundamentalism is a very nebulous term and I think that most here would see it as the part of Christianity that insists on a literal reading of all scripture.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 10-27-2007 7:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Elhardt
Junior Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 10-27-2007


Message 75 of 384 (430860)
10-27-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jaderis
10-25-2007 3:37 AM


Re: Never condemn others on a charge you do not understand yourself
Thanks for not answering my question at all. Again, why do some Christians take up such arms against sins such as murder, theft, adultery and homosexuality, but brush aside sins such as working on the sabbath, back-talking your parents or eating unclean foods?
I see nobody answered your question. I'll take a stab at it.
There are degrees of sin. There is a big difference between murder vs working on the sabbath. Even our legal system recognizes that, and you go to prison for murder but not for eating unclean foods.
Some things change. Pork used to be considered unclean. But today there is little danger in eating pork. Eating beef and chicken on the other hand have killed people with everything from mad cow disease to salmonella, maybe bird flew, and so on.
Imagine if everybody stopped working on the sabbath. Hospitals shut down and won't attend to that heart attack you may have just had. House on fire? Wait until tomorrow after the sabbath for the fire department to put it out. It's not practical to follow that law.
I'm sure parents are against their kids back talking to them, but what do you expect the parent to do? Stone their kids to death? That's illegal and the parents would go to jail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jaderis, posted 10-25-2007 3:37 AM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Taz, posted 10-27-2007 11:49 PM Elhardt has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024