|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Hitch is dead | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
But you know little or nothing about the Bible authors' intent. You may know what Irenaeus, Polycarp, etc. believed the authors intended but that's no different than knowing what Tolkien believed about elves. Moby Dick was written as fiction. That was the authors intent. Edited by ringo, : No reason given."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
You can have fictional eyewitnesses to a fictional event, cited in a fictional account of a fictional event. You can't have eye witnesses to a fictitious event. You can't use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true.
GDR writes:
There are other stories about James Bond besides the ones written by Ian Fleming. They don't make James Bond more real.
Also it isn't as if this Gospel is written in isolation. There are the other Gospels, (this was probably the last one), in circulation as well as the Epistles. GDR writes:
Sure they do. May the Fourth be with you (Star Wars), Dungeons and Dragons, etc.
Also people don't build social constructs around fictitious writings. GDR writes:
That's like saying the Wright Brothers didn't have an airplane because it was years before anybody else had one. Also this is written a thousand years prior to that type of fiction being written."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
For our purposes here, it is one book. It is one canon, chosen by a group of people as "true". You can expect some agreement among its parts.
In the first place you can as the Bible isn't simply one book. GDR writes:
We're not discussing specifically whether or not the resurrection was real. My objection is to your claim that the Bible stories were "obviously" intended to be understood as real. There is nothing obvious about it. You have admitted yourself that the Bible does contain fiction, which is a direct contradiction of your original claim. As far as I am concerned the evidence for the resurrection is substantial. And you could not have picked a worse example anyway. We do not see stories about resurrections in the news.
GDR writes:
My starting point was theism. A lot depends on one's starting point of theism or materialiam."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
I think I've already answered that. It's fiction, like the talking snake or the resurrection. The Good Samaritan, however, is plausible where the other two are not - and its message is true.
Is the story of the "Good Samaritan" true? GDR writes:
That's the weakest part of your case. You've sanitized the parts you don't like for no other reason than that you don't like them.
There are many parts of the Bible that I don't believe are true such as the case of God either commanding or committing genocide or public stoning. GDR writes:
That doesn't wash. You know nothing of the authors' intentions. When I claimed that the Bible didn't contain fiction I was using the definition that in order for it to be fiction, it had to be intended to be understood as neither literally true or as a parable."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
You're thinking backwards, from the conclusion you want. The Bible tells you that Jesus is good and God can often be cruel. Therefore, Jesus is clearly not the perfect embodiment of God. I start with the belief that God's nature can be seen perfectly embodied by Jesus. So when I look at the accounts of God ordering genocide and public stoning I can see that it is consistently at odds with what we see in the teachings of Jesus, therefore I reject them."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LamarkNewAge writes:
No need to. I don't take either one of them seriously. Understand the time difference between Polycarp and Irenaeus ."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
I have more respect for Faith's version than I do for your made-up version. You and Phat clearly want a cutesy teddy bear of a God. You have no interest in the "God that is" (if there is one). You don't accept God as He is (if He is). You create Him in the image you want to see. I have often said to Faith, (I hope she gets allowed back), is that it is Christianity not Bibleianity. My faith is based on Jesus...."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
GDR writes:
That doesn't preclude it from being made up. Middle-of-the-road Mormonism is made up, isn't it?
First off, it isn't made up. It is consistent with middle of the road Anglicanism... GDR writes:
In other words, it's Biblical if you make up your own Bible, ignoring the parts of the actual Bible that you don't like.
... and for that matter it is Biblical if you don't try and turn the Bible into something essentially dictated by God. GDR writes:
I'm just going by YOUR source, which says He is. It seems that you insist that God has to be a genocidal tyrant."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
But you make up a cute and cuddly one. I prefer a relationship (or at least an open line) to the God W\ho Is. Why would the creator of all things seen and unseen have any interest in you? Even much lesser beings such as your President or your Governor or your Mayor have no interest in a relationship with you. The desire for relationship is strictly one-sided.
Phat writes:
You make Him up instead.
I don't limit Him to some ancient despot described in a book, either. Phat writes:
That isn't going very far at all. Questioning your own experiences, your own observations and your own conclusions is only step one. You need to be a lot harder on yourself than that.
I can't deny what I have experienced (without questioning my sanity) and I have even gone so far as to do that. Phat writes:
That isn't annoying. It's laughable. It's hubris. The belief that I have that will annoy people the most is that not only is Jesus necessary for life, empathy, and love to even exist but that He will judge the humanists for professing themselves to be wise when they are, in fact off the mark."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Not at all. I disparage Faith for having a view of scripture that directly contradicts scripture. I disparage you for having a made-up view of God that ignores most of scripture. Neither of you sees scripture for what it is.
You want it both ways. You want to disparage Faith for a inerrant view of Scripture and then at the same time disparage my belief in a Bible written by imperfect humans. GDR writes:
Pretty much. You have no rationale for your cherry-picking except what you want to hear. There are 66 books in the Bible from hundreds of sources over hundreds of years, and you want to insist that I give them all equal credibility."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
I see the Bible as 66 books - give or take, depending on the canon. The God depicted in the New Testament is not more accurate than the God depicted in the Old Testament. The alien overlord, if it exists, may or may not resemble any of the gods depicted in the Bible. There is certainly no valid rationale for choosing one personality over another.
How about you tell us how you see the Scripture as it really is. GDR writes:
And yet He said Himself that that was exactly not what He was doing.
Jesus Himself refutes much of OT teaching. GDR writes:
I don't buy that. Frankly, sometimes my understanding of Jesus has been exactly what I don't want to hear."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Been there. Done that. Put up or shut up. Now YOU get down off your arrogant high-horse and give us a valid rationale for choosing the cute-and-cuddly God of the New Testament over the war criminal of the Old Testament. And then you can give us a valid rationale for throwing out most of the New Testament too.
Phat writes:
As I have said many times: it is what it is; it says what it says. Why are you still in the dark about that? Enlighten us. What *is* it? Your answer will show your true colors."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
GDR writes:
The idea that we should love one another goes back to the Olduvai Gorge - and before that.
The idea that we should love one another goes back to Leviticus. GDR writes:
You conveniently ignore the occasions when God committed atrocities all on His own - the Flood, for example.
Then we have the books where various prophets tell their leaders that God is ordering them to commit ovarious atrocities including genocide. Phat writes:
And usually pretty clear about pointing out which ones were false. There's no indication that the ones advocating atrocities were false. The OT is full of accounts about false prophets."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Rationale. What do you mean by rational? A set of reasons. A logical basis.
Phat writes:
No. You felt "something" that you interpreted in the way you have been taught to interpret things. That's figurative, not literal.
Last night I was at church and literally felt the presence of the Holy Spirit. Phat writes:
That's an empty statement and unconnected to anything else in your post. God is not simply a character in the book."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Yes, every time you make an egregious excuse like "false prophets" you're going to be called on it. Do I have to go through all of the egregious commands in the OT every time it comes up."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024