I would like to know the meaning behind some scriptures because they came to my attention while visiting

Godisimaginary.com

Many of the examples the website gives are clearly placed out of context, yet, some do not appear to be. Perhaps someone could explain the following to me:

Luke 18:18-22

tells us that we must "Sell everything" in order to get into heaven. I don't know about you, but i don't think too many people are eager to sell EVERYTHING they own.

Luke 14:26-33

tells us that we need to hate everyone in order to be Jesus' disciple.

which contradicts things like

Luke 10:25-28

Mathew 18:2-3

tells us we need to be like a "child" in order to inherit God's kingdom.

John 3:3-8

What is this passage trying to say?

Jesus is clearly wrong when he says "The wind blows wherever it pleases, you hear its sound but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going." because we certainty CAN tell where the wind is going and coming from.

Mathew 5:17-20

it says your rightness must surpass that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law in order to enter heaven. The Pharisees practiced some 600 laws that included animal sacrifice, no one does this today..

the 4th commandment:

Exodus 20:8-9

says that no one should work on the sabbath day.

HOWEVER, the bible tells us that we must "put to death" - Exodus 31:15 anyone who works on the sabbath.



Leviticus 20:10

tells us that anyone who commits adultery should be put to death

Mathew 18:7-9

says a bunch of strange things, it says that if your hand or foot causes you to sin, then you should cut it off, and if your eye causes you to sin you should "gouge it out and throw it away"

which is completely wrong, cutting your hand off will accomplish nothing.

1 Corinthians 14:34

says woman should not be allowed to speak in the church because it is "disrespectful"

this seems ridiculously sexist.

There are many examples of sexism, and slavery in the bible, this is repulsive to modern society, however in the bible, God says that his word is "forever".

I am curious about your answers, and do not doubt that there are simple explications to these remarks.

If this is overdone in this forum, just let me know and point me to the right place and i will delete this thread.



[This message has been edited by Cyr0xos (edited 10-30-2006).]

quote:Mathew 18:7-9

says a bunch of strange things, it says that if your hand or foot causes you to sin, then you should cut it off, and if your eye causes you to sin you should "gouge it out and throw it away"

which is completely wrong, cutting your hand off will accomplish nothing.

It's a metaphor! Even Literalist Christians knows that.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

It bothers me when people want to pick and choose what is real and what is a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

quote:Originally posted by AnAsTaSiO:

It bothers me when people want to pick and choose what is real and what is a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

I agree. Like those Christians who use passages from the Old Testament to prove homosexuality are wrong, and then when you point out atrocities in the Old Bible (such as stoning men for working on the Sabbath), they say "Oh, but that's the Old Testament, we don't follow that since Jesus came along." Then why the fuck are you using it to prove homosexuality is wrong? WTF?

quote:Originally posted by AnAsTaSiO:

It bothers me when people want to pick and choose what is real and what is a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

I would say the only two things you should take literally in the bible are the two new commandments Jesus gives in the gospels. Everything else is ancient hocus-pocus and metaphors, the old testament is just

even more ancient hocus-pocus and metaphors.

And to whoever said you can't pick and choose for different parts of the bible, well that's impossible not to because the bible is a collection of many books from different places and cultures and times so you have to examine each in a seperate context if you want to find the the specific historical meaning of the stories in the bible, which is possible since they are usually directed towards something relevant to the time they were written.

The reason its pertinent now is that we can use the bible's stories to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

quote:Originally posted by w33d:

I would say the only two things you should take literally in the bible are the two new commandments Jesus gives in the gospels. Everything else is ancient hocus-pocus and metaphors, the old testament is just

even more ancient hocus-pocus and metaphors.

And to whoever said you can't pick and choose for different parts of the bible, well that's impossible not to because the bible is a collection of many books from different places and cultures and times so you have to examine each in a seperate context if you want to find the the specific historical meaning of the stories in the bible, which is possible since they are usually directed towards something relevant to the time they were written.

The reason its pertinent now is that we can use the bible's stories to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

No offense man, but that is bullshit. How can one claim to be a follower of the bible and then choose to only accept those things that they hold true.

Christians believe that jesus was crucified, but what if I take that as being a metaphor.

It's either all or nothing. If not, you are a hypocrite.

Edit: I might of misintepreted your words, if so, my bad.

[This message has been edited by AnAsTaSiO (edited 10-30-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by AnAsTaSiO:

No offense man, but that is bullshit. How can one claim to be a follower of the bible and then choose to only accept those things that they hold true.

It makes it a lot easier to defend. That's reason enough.

quote:Originally posted by sketchy:

It makes it a lot easier to defend. That's reason enough.

I am sure that is true in most people's eyes. They rather make excuses to follow something they want to believe rather then seeing the obvious flaws.

quote:Originally posted by AnAsTaSiO:

It bothers me when people want to pick and choose what is real and what is a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

quote:No offense man, but that is bullshit. How can one claim to be a follower of the bible and then choose to only accept those things that they hold true.

Christians believe that jesus was crucified, but what if I take that as being a metaphor.

It's either all or nothing. If not, you are a hypocrite.



Hi AnAsTaSiO,

As some of the people here know, i am one of the ones that take the Bible as literal. I believe in a literal Creation by God about 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve, a Flood that covered the whole earth & the only survivors being Noah's family and the animals aboard the Ark, etc.

I'm only pointing that out so you understand my POV.

When you talk to someone, how do the two of you know what the other person is saying?

Context, right?

When you read something, how do you know what the author meant?

Context? Style of writing? Maybe a dictionary?

Well, those are some of the things used to understand what is being conveyed when trying to understand God's Word.

It's called 'hermeneutics'., where you get the meaning from the text or context.

So, in the example givin of "pluck your eye out" or "cut off your hand", the understanding is not a "pick an choose" sorta thing, but an understanding of the message that is being conveyed.

A much better example of an understanding of figure of speech would be Ezekiel chapter 16 (atleast in my oppinion):

In that chapter, God is telling His prophet what to tell the people of Israel. God describes Israel and "her actions" in terms of a person's life (in this case, a female) as one follows down an immoral life, with God as a faithful husband.

Read it for yourself, and see if you come to the same conclusion... that it is meant to be understood as non-literal.

Some of the other ways that are included in how to understand the Bible are:



a. who was doing the talking

b. who was the intended audience

c. culture

d. history

e. the words that are used (original language) and the meanings those words were used in other passages

Another thing that gets used, unfortunately, is eisegesis. That is when the understanding is given, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas or bias, instead of the meaning of the text.

And, IMO, there is a very fine line between eisegesis and presuppositions. And a good example of this is the debate between OEC and YEC vs. the creation/evolution debate.

Hope that helped,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

I agree. Like those Christians who use passages from the Old Testament to prove homosexuality are wrong, and then when you point out atrocities in the Old Bible (such as stoning men for working on the Sabbath), they say "Oh, but that's the Old Testament, we don't follow that since Jesus came along." Then why the fuck are you using it to prove homosexuality is wrong? WTF?

A suggestion, Twitch, is that the next time a Christian tells you that "we dont follow the OT.. " (or whatever)

Ask them if they can show you where they were released from that particular OT teaching or practice.. and why.

Most wont know, but dont get too critical of them, for the particular ignorance. It might help them to grow in understanding.

If they do know (and then show you), then you might grow in understanding.

Win-win situation, i would think.

God Bless,

johnny

QUOTE Originally posted by Cyr0xos:

I would like to know the meaning behind some scriptures because they came to my attention while visiting

Godisimaginary.com

Many of the examples the website gives are clearly placed out of context, yet, some do not appear to be. Perhaps someone could explain the following to me:

Hi Cyr0xos,

God Willing, i'll try some.

Just a question before starting. Do you have access to a Bible? What version? If you have a Bible, i suggest that you read the verses that you are presenting here. In this way, you can compare the answers that i give (or anyone else) and see if it is close to your understanding.

This would also make you alittle more familiar with what might be said, so that if the answer given does not match your understanding, you can ask questions and maybe understand it better.. or, maybe you'll help the person explaining it, understand better.

Luke 18:18-22

tells us that we must "Sell everything" in order to get into heaven. I don't know about you, but i don't think too many people are eager to sell EVERYTHING they own.

Jesus was talking to a Jewish leader. My guess is that the person was a religious leader. We know from the text that He was Jewish, since Jesus told him that he knows the Law (mosaic), and he responds that he kept all the Law (or, atleast the ones that Jesus mentioned). But look at vs.19, where Jesus eludes to a commandment that the man doesnt seem to follow... the first command, Thou shalt have no other god's before Me.

Only God is good.

In other words, if only God is good, and the man calls Jesus good, either the man just sinned or Jesus is God.

If Jesus is God, then the man should do what he was told.

If Jesus is not God, then the man should not have called Jesus 'good'.. and thus sinned.

And since we understand from the text that the man knew the Law, he would have known that the answer to his original question to Jesus (how could he inherit eternal life) was, "ya gotta keep the WHOLE LAW, ALL THE TIME"... and since it's not possible for us to not sin, then Jesus shows him that he is holding his love for his money, higher than his love for God (and God's commands).



Either way, in verse 22 when Jesus tells him to sell all he has and follow Him... and then in vs. 23, we see that the man was "very sorrowful", we get the implication that the man was going to keep sinning, and therefore, not "inherit eternal life".

Your original statement, Cyr0xos,

quote:"Luke 18:18-22

tells us that we must "Sell everything" in order to get into heaven. I don't know about you, but i don't think too many people are eager to sell EVERYTHING they own"

has to be looked at from two different perspectives, in order to understand, and then answer:

Perspective 1)

The man was living under the LAW, so he could only be justified from keeping the LAW.

Perspective 2)

Christians believe that Jesus is 'good', and therefore God, and that Jesus kept the LAW perfectly for us, in order that He can justify (and has justified)us by His Grace.

The way i presented it here, it is easy for us to think, "well, if Jesus has already justified us, then we can do what ever we want, and still be saved".. but with that attitude, is that really following Him?

Keep that in mind as you look closer at these next two, for yourself.

quote:Luke 14:26-33

tells us that we need to hate everyone in order to be Jesus' disciple.

which contradicts things like

Luke 10:25-28

That's all for now.

God Bless your understanding,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Well, those are some of the things used to understand what is being conveyed when trying to understand God's Word.

It's called 'hermeneutics'., where you get the meaning from the text or context.



You've just described her point exactly, I imagine. The interpretation of the text, and the interpretation of whact actually is metaphor and what is literal, is entirely subjective. You simply interpret some passages as metaphors and others as not (picking and choosing which ones). Yet you've still arrived at those conclusions subjectively. You lack a method of arriving at a conclusion objectively.

The case for wanting to read Mathew 18:7-9 as literal is as valid as wanting to read it metaphorically.

To claim that you interpret the bible as literal when you in fact do interpret many things as metaphors (just maybe in a lesser quantity than others) makes the claim lose its meaning.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You've just described her point exactly, I imagine. The interpretation of the text, and the interpretation of whact actually is metaphor and what is literal, is entirely subjective. You simply interpret some passages as metaphors and others as not (picking and choosing which ones). Yet you've still arrived at those conclusions subjectively. You lack a method of arriving at a conclusion objectively.

The case for wanting to read Mathew 18:7-9 as literal is as valid as wanting to read it metaphorically.

To claim that you interpret the bible as literal when you in fact do interpret many things as metaphors (just maybe in a lesser quantity than others) makes the claim lose its meaning.

Hi Rust,

Ya, you have a good point (esp Re. Mathew 18:7-9).. but then again, that's part of the reason that i said that i thought a better example was Ez. Chapter 16.

I was just trying to give a basic understanding of what is used to understand the text. I dont know the extent of AnAsTaSiO's background, so i felt it was better to start where i did, since she (? you say, "her") had said, "You can't have it both ways", but there are many places in Scripture, that are very clear that some type of figure of speech is used. (Ez 16, for example, another is in Judges, but i dont recall Ch/vs.. but it speaks of talking trees, and it is a person-Jotham, IIR, telling a story, that is used as a curse... it's not the talking trees that are the indicator that it's metaphor, but the whole passage, contextually).

You are very right though, when you say "interpretation of the text proves her point", since i have to use other things (like context and dictionaries), since i am not the author's mind. And the only way it could be objective, is if each and every person that reads it, were the mind of God (or the human author, IF, in fact, the Bible is not God's Word).

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

another is in Judges, but i dont recall Ch/vs.. but it speaks of talking trees, and it is a person-Jotham, IIR, telling a story, that is used as a curse... it's not the talking trees that are the indicator that it's metaphor, but the whole passage, contextually).



I just checked, it's in Chapt. 9

If you admit that it is ultimately up to interpretation, then that not only puts into question the importance of claiming to be a biblical literalist - if you do in fact believe there are metaphors then the difference between you and someone you'd call a non-literalist would be that of degrees - but also the bible itself. It seems rather foolish for a god to provide a book that aims to express his will while not also providing an absolute method by which to interpret the book so as to make its meaning, and its teachings not subject to interpretation and/or corruption.

Your analisis of the bible would be as valid as someone who reads the bible and ends up concluding that it is not to be taken literally (or rather, that some of the passages which you take literally are actually metaphors), and thus not meant to teach that the Christ is the one true Savior of humanity - the oppossite of general Christian beliefs.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 10-30-2006).]

To be honest Rust,

if what you said, was said by someone else, i would know how i would respond. But since it was you, i'm not sure how to reply, because you and i have some mutual history, and we can generally see each others perspective... and, that we both tend to analyse minute points of posts (i think you, more and better than i). Because i'm not sure how to reply, i'm going to do it as if we are just friends having a conversation... so i'm not going to worry so much about how my statements can be attacked.

You had said that i lack a method of arriving at an objective conclusion. Maybe so, but i dont think that it is just me, or even just folks that try to understand God's Word. I've said before that the presuppositions that i take, is that God exists and that the Bible is His Revealed Word. So i do try to interpret based on those presuppositions, before anything else.

Some people, when they "decide" that Gen chapts. 1-11 must be metaphor or myth, are trying to add a third presupposition to their understanding, that being what science "says" (of course, i'm talking about believers here). How a believer interprets a Biblical account, is ultimately based on those two or three starting points. I think even athiests and agnostics use a form of all three, but in a different order and worth. Allow me to generalize a few examples..

The agnostic says, i'm not sure if God exists so i cant be sure of the bible.. but i trust science (or, i trust my own understanding, and i see little-to-no evidence.

The athiest says, i trust science (or naturalism/materialism) so much that god cant exist, so the bible is at best, literature.

I've already given an example of YEC (myself).

OEC says that he is unwilling to sacrifice any of the three, and look for ways to harmonize all.

I've said in the past that i have more respect for the athiest than the agnostic.. in my view, the OEC is almost the Christian counter-part of an agnostic (trying to fence sit, until better info comes along) (i say "almost" because as long as that person has accepted Christ, he is atleast saved)

As far as my claim as a literalist vs. the degree of interpreting metaphors; well, the things already mentioned: presuppositions and hermeneutics... if a verse says, "heaven is like..." then it's pretty certain that the text is drawing a mental picture.

But if the verse says, "God said to His prophet...", then wouldnt it be fair to understand that the author intended it to be meant that God really did communicate to His prophet?

Check out www.biblicaltraining.org (http://www.biblicaltraining.org)

it's free, but you have to register w/ an e-mail address

The site is seminary classes, on audio.

Go to "leadership education" and then "biblical hermeneutics"

I think it can explain better, the ways to approach an understanding of the Bible.

There are alot of other things there that i think you might enjoy or atleast find interesting.

Gotta get some more stuff done around the house, before it gets dark. Be back later.

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I've said before that the presuppositions that i take, is that God exists and that the Bible is His Revealed Word. So i do try to interpret based on those presuppositions, before anything else.

Why do you first come to the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His Revealed Word? Why not the Koran, or some other holy book?

Better yet, why not first gather evidence and then come to a conclusion?

quote:Originally posted by Cyr0xos:



Luke 14:26-33

tells us that we need to hate everyone in order to be Jesus' disciple.

which contradicts things like

Luke 10:25-28



Hi Cyr0xos,

Note:

i happened to have heard a comment today, about these, and i thought it might be a good way to explain it... so, again, this defense is not mine... wish it were, but it aint.



For these two, let's look at something else.

First i'll post the verses that you quote, then 'the something else'...

The parts bolded are to point to what is commonly thought to be the contradiction.

quote:Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

Luk 14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.



quote:Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Luk 10:28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.



Now the 'the something else':



Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

So, in effect, Luke 14:26 seems to be saying, "hate your loved ones"... that is to say, treat your loved ones like enemies. But in Mat 5:44, our enemies should be treated with love... how much love?.... Luke 10:27 says to love them as if they were ourselves....

But, as the same verse in Luke says, Love God with ALL that you have.

There doesnt seem to be a contradiction here, but an emphasis.

God Bless,

johnny



OH YA... i almost forgot.. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



Martini,

You said, " quote:Why do you first come to the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His Revealed Word? Why not the Koran, or some other holy book?

Better yet, why not first gather evidence and then come to a conclusion? "

and this was a question reguarding presuppositions...

Are you telling me, even after your statement here, that you have no presuppositions... that you always come to a conclusion after gathering evidence?

I'm really not trying to be a prick here. I'm just trying to point out that your statement alone proves that you drew a conclusion with out (complete) evidence (it was based on your "hermenuetical approach" to my use of 'presupposition'). But, how do you know that i havent gathered evidence? Did i come into the world with presuppositions? Or, if i havent come to some conclusion before i die, then what?

You might be wondering (and i hope that you are), why did i include this response in something that seems to be a different topic?

In the verses we just looked at, take a closer look at

quote:Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

My presuppositions are that foundation.

The athiest's presuppositions are his foundation.

The agnostic is the man that could not finish because he hasnt even layed the foundation.

I dont know what, of those three, you most closely fit, and for the vast majority of my posts, i have tried to not maliciously attack another poster or a poster's posts.

There are only two that i can think of, and only one of those was truely out of malice.

The other was more to make a point.

Rust was the one i tried to make a point to.. IIR, and i think my comment to him was something like, sit down and shut up, ya might learn something.. funny huh? concidering he might be the most learned on Totse.. or atleast one of the most. Since then he has more than earned my respect.. not that we often agree.

Shhhh... dont tell him, cuz we got history, and i'd hate for him to know of that respect.

The other person was Snoopy... and then, only when he attacked another poster.

So please keep in mind that i am not here for the sake of arguement or for the sake of winning arguements or even for the sake of convincing anyone that my belief is right.

Only God has the ability to convince that He is. My "job" here is only in terms of "The Great Commission" and my "job description" is a serf and sower (more like a sower's helper... Jesus is the Sower)

As far as "the Koran or some other holy book"

maybe that answer will be given some other time and thread. I'd hate to get off topic. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

God Bless you all,

johnny

One more for the OP:

Mathew 18:2-3

tells us we need to be like a "child" in order to inherit God's kingdom.



i'm not sure about this one, so i looked at 4 different Commentaries (Gill, Geneva, Clarke, and Henry)

i'm not completely convinced that they're completely right, but what they all said is somewhat plausible.

They all said to the effect of 'humility' and 'unencumbered by the drive for power and prestige'... like a child.

One said that the arabic has this, not as "as a child" but as "this child".

i guess i'm falling back to my old "lazy ways", when i look at a commentary prior to looking at the Strong's definitions of the words and the rest of the chapter, before looking at Commentaries.

My apologies to you, Cyr0xos. i'll look at it again when i'm feeling alittle less "half-assed".

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

and this was a question reguarding presuppositions...

Are you telling me, even after your statement here, that you have no presuppositions... that you always come to a conclusion after gathering evidence?

Yes. Let's say I see a woman with a fur coat on walking out of a very expensive store. I may presuppose that she's rich, but at least it's based on some evidence. If you ask me what that evidence is, I will tell you that she is wearing expensive clothes and leaving an expensive store. I will need more evidence to come to a definite conclusion, but at least I have some evidence.

Taking a book such as the Bible that has so much evidence as not being holy or divine going against it and saying "that the presuppositions that i take, is that God exists and that the Bible is His Revealed Word" is a whole different level.

So how about answering my questions:

Why do you first come to the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His Revealed Word? Why not the Koran, or some other holy book?

Better yet, why not first gather evidence and then come to a conclusion?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I'm really not trying to be a prick here.

No, you're not, and I appreciate that. You're one of the more pleasant posters to have a friendly debate with.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I'm just trying to point out that your statement alone proves that you drew a conclusion with out (complete) evidence (it was based on your "hermenuetical approach" to my use of 'presupposition'). But, how do you know that i havent gathered evidence?

What conclusion did I draw without evidence? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you said that you started with the presupposition that God exists and that the Bible is His Revealed Word. You're statement is my evidence. If I'm somehow misunderstanding you, that's another story, but I didn't draw any conclusions here without evidence.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

My presuppositions are that foundation.

The athiest's presuppositions are his foundation.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I find that generally to be untrue of the atheists that I know and know of.

We are atheists because we are skeptical and we don't start off believing something without evidence. Presuppositions are not our foundation.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



You had said that i lack a method of arriving at an objective conclusion. Maybe so, but i dont think that it is just me, or even just folks that try to understand God's Word.

It's the nature of analyzing a piece of text after it has been created. It does apply to everybody else, yet there is a very important difference. Those trying to analyze Shakespeare or Cervantez aren't making claims about Science, life, or the afterlife. They can admit they were wrong in a heartbeat, because their beliefs are unimportant in the large scope of things. This is not the case with those analyzing the bible. They do make claims about Science, about life and the after-life and they obviously aren't too fond of changing their deeply held beliefs.

quote:

Some people, when they "decide" that Gen chapts. 1-11 must be metaphor or myth, are trying to add a third presupposition to their understanding, that being what science "says" (of course, i'm talking about believers here). How a believer interprets a Biblical account, is ultimately based on those two or three starting points. I think even athiests and agnostics use a form of all three, but in a different order and worth.



You are using the same presupposition but in the oppossite sense when you believe that Science is wrong in order for the account to be literally possible. In fact, to be accurate, they need not presuppose anything of Science since they don't need to believe "what Science says"; they can merely feel - after reading Genesis - that the accounts are supposed to be taken metaphorically and not literally, and this based on the same "evidence" you use (i.e. context...).

quote:

As far as my claim as a literalist vs. the degree of interpreting metaphors; well, the things already mentioned: presuppositions and hermeneutics... if a verse says, "heaven is like..." then it's pretty certain that the text is drawing a mental picture.

But if the verse says, "God said to His prophet...", then wouldnt it be fair to understand that the author intended it to be meant that God really did communicate to His prophet?

It may seem obvious to you because you hold that position, but the truth is that it could very well be that the opposite is truth. Since you have no objective way of determining this, you must rely on what is, at best, your own opinion of what is "obvious" which varies from person to person.

This is what leads me to one of the main points of my previous post, which I don't think you addressed:

It seems extremely foolish for an omniscient and omnipotent being to essentially create the Bible while not also creating an objective method of arriving at what the Bible is saying. In failing to do so, the Christian god has deliberately made it so that misinterpretation, corruption and mistakes occur in the reading and understanding of the Bible. To then sentence us based on what we believe the Bible says, when he has made it impossible for us to be certain of whether or not we're mistaken in our interpretation, is rather malicious of him.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I believe in a literal Creation by God about 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve, a Flood that covered the whole earth & the only survivors being Noah's family and the animals aboard the Ark, etc.

Hahahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha.

xtreem5150ahm Thank you for your time and effort. Your opinion on Mathew 18:7-9 makes sense, and is the way I initially viewed it. I understand that the bible is not 100% literal or 100% figurative. Still, the real problem occurs during the process of interpreting which is which. Still, we digress into the whole 'interpretation relativeness' of the bible...

--------



Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

So, in effect, Luke 14:26 seems to be saying, "hate your loved ones"... that is to say, treat your loved ones like enemies. But in Mat 5:44, our enemies should be treated with love... how much love?.... Luke 10:27 says to love them as if they were ourselves....

But, as the same verse in Luke says, Love God with ALL that you have.

There doesnt seem to be a contradiction here, but an emphasis.



--------

You seem to make the jump between hate your loved ones and enemies should be treated with love.

Now, I am probably not alone here, but I think that is a stretch to make that comparison.

Why would the author make the language so circuitous? I think this is either the product of translation errors, or diverging viewpoints between the authors.

The way you explain the example is rather complex, and seems too complex to be the intended meaning of the text. The bible is suppose to be written for most everyone to understand, and yet, this example requires some analysis.

Still, thank you for your time, i am still trying to read all of these posts here, there seems to be a few different topics going on, thats okay.

I am still curious about the needless sexism and hostility shown in the bible.



EDIT: as a background on myself, i was a Jehovah's Witness for many years until i finally realized that i was practicing something that was flawed, and closed-minded. I respect the Jehovah's Witness because they are truly moral people; they are just a little deluded and narrow-minded.



[This message has been edited by Cyr0xos (edited 11-01-2006).]

I'm not a fan of the bible, but your arguement is flawed.

First of all, you only told us what those passages were interpreted as. You didn't give us the real passages to interpret ourselves.

Second, you copied and pasted. Did you come up with any of that on your own?

Third, why does it bother you that people want to take the bible seriously? If that's what gets them off, let them go for it.

maybe its just me, but people attempting to defend the bible always seem dodgy to me. Their reasoning and explanations often lack any definitive meaning and they always don't like to answer a question, but prefer to phrase it into another form which they will then attempt to answer.

Use this method of reasoning in just about anywhere else will just make you look like a fool. Apparently, it don't work this way for religions.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



As some of the people here know, i am one of the ones that take the Bible as literal. I believe in a literal Creation by God about 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve, a Flood that covered the whole earth & the only survivors being Noah's family and the animals aboard the Ark, etc.



Please don't ever mention that....I always can't help but laugh whenever someone says something like that. Its beyond stupidity. Its like you are talking to a friend and suddenly he says, "YOU MEAN THE LETTER AFTER A is B?!? REALLY??"

Its a toss-up between laughing and crying

QUOTE Originally posted by Martini:



Yes. Let's say I see a woman with a fur coat on walking out of a very expensive store. I may presuppose that she's rich, but at least it's based on some evidence. If you ask me what that evidence is, I will tell you that she is wearing expensive clothes and leaving an expensive store. I will need more evidence to come to a definite conclusion, but at least I have some evidence.

Good morning Martini,

I'm gonna try to keep these brief, since my wife and i are going away for the day, and leaving shortly after the kid/step-kid go off to school... did i mention, i'm on vacation, which is why i didnt respond sooner.. had some "winterizing" of the house to do yesterday.

Anyway, in reguard to your rich furlined woman, you are still using presuppositions, when drawing the conclusion that she might be rich.

You were not born with the understanding that rich people wear fur, nor that rich people can afford fur, or even that only the rich like fur.

Presuppositions are things you use to understand what you percieve. And you get presuppositions from past expirience. Presuppositions can change as you gather more evidence and understandings.. they also change if they fail to provide answers.

Just as an aside, when i stated what my presuppositions were, reguarding God, the Bible and YEC, they are held, in part, because they answer (to me) questions concerning my worldview, better and more convincingly than the evidence of evolution and long age. The evidence for evolution and long age is, to me, too weak to overthrow my worldview. So, my presuppositions still stand. And because they still stand, so do my worldview.



Taking a book such as the Bible that has so much evidence as not being holy or divine going against it

And you are basing this on what? A few claims that there are contradictions? Things that the presuppostions of your worldview can answer away as <ancient superstitions, plagerized and contorted myths, modern "crutchs for the weak", misunderstanding of natural explainations that are attributed to supernatural, etc.> ?

and saying "that the presuppositions that i take, is that God exists and that the Bible is His Revealed Word" is a whole different level.

No, the presupp's that i take, are taken by me from study... it's not "blind faith".

So how about answering my questions:

Why do you first come to the conclusion that God exists and that the Bible is His Revealed Word? Why not the Koran, or some other holy book?

There is two major ways i need to answer this. The natural and the supernatural.

I have said in the past on Totse, that i wont discuss the second with anyone online, or with anyone that does not know me well. If someone doesnt know me well, then my testimony is "just another crazy story from a whacko". I even share it with very few Christians, since i dont know their level of Faith, so i dont want them to think, "why has this not also happened to me?"... thus, it might be a way to hurt their Faith, rather than to help it.

So, when i dont explain the "why?", i have good reason.

Now, the short answer about the natural. Because i've studied. Not exhaustively. I'm still studying. But the more i study, the more the puzzle pieces fit together.

There is a third part to answering.. and this is the most important...

Because faith has been given me, by the Holy Spirit. I realise that that answer doesnt do anything for you, but it fits with my worldview and my presuppositions.

Ok, gotta go now.. maybe tonight or tomorrow i can tackle a little more.

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Just as an aside, when i stated what my presuppositions were, reguarding God, the Bible and YEC, they are held, in part, because they answer (to me) questions concerning my worldview, better and more convincingly than the evidence of evolution and long age. The evidence for evolution and long age is, to me, too weak to overthrow my worldview. So, my presuppositions still stand. And because they still stand, so do my worldview.

There is so much evidence to support an old Earth and evolution, that to deny this evidence is perverse. The overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution. And we aren't talking about a radical new theory here still being disputed...this is a theory (yes, I know Evolution is fact AND theory both) that has stood the test of time, being picked at by peer reviewed scientist for over a century. And yet, all this evidence, all this proof, this huge body of facts...all this still doesn't constitute "proof" to the faithful. It's sad, really.

quote:Originally posted by firekitty751:

I'm not a fan of the bible, but your arguement is flawed.

First of all, you only told us what those passages were interpreted as. You didn't give us the real passages to interpret ourselves.

Second, you copied and pasted. Did you come up with any of that on your own?

Third, why does it bother you that people want to take the bible seriously? If that's what gets them off, let them go for it.

Did you direct that at me?

If so, I copied and pasted nothing. I provided the reference scripture (assuming you either had a bible, or knew how to look it up online).

and for your third point, i will link you to a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

quote:Originally posted by Cyr0xos:



and for your third point, i will link you to a video: ht tp://www.y outube.com /watch?v=w 4fQA9mt-Mg (http: //www.yout ube.com/wa tch?v=w4fQ A9mt-Mg)

Hi Cyr0xos,

My apologies that some of the posts i've made, have been not been strickly to the spirit of this thread and it's original topic. Most of the time, the tangent conversations on TOTSE, do tend to be somewhat pertinent, atleast to a degree.

In reguard to this video, i'm not sure that i can respond without going extremely far beyond the scope of the thread.

With that said, i'd like to say two things about the video. I will not defend nor comment further, these things.

1) The author of the video is presenting his case incomplete... just like taking Bible difficulties out of context.. that's ok, though, i'd imagine that he would have more than what's presented on his video, to defend his statements. Non the less, it is still propaganda. (not that that is necessarily bad, he is presenting his case.. we all do that.. but the problem here is the perception of the viewers, since it it not as objectively stated, but presented as such)

2) America is a democracy (ya, well, we claim to be, anyway). And being such, it is the majority that allows for deity statements on monies and the Pledge, and laws, etc.

It's ok that anyone disagre or comment on this post, but i will not defend it or even comment on it.

Again, my apologies,

johnny

QUOTE Originally posted by Cyr0xos:



Mat 5:44

, Luke 14:26 .... Luke 10:27



--------

You seem to make the jump between hate your loved ones and enemies should be treated with love.

Now, I am probably not alone here, but I think that is a stretch to make that comparison.

Why would the author make the language so circuitous? I think this is either the product of translation errors, or diverging viewpoints between the authors.

The authors of Mat 5:44

, Luke 14:26 are both recording these statements and attributing them as Jesus' statements. So either Jesus was contradicting Himself, or there might be another way of understanding it. You've provided a couple of possibilities (translation errors, or diverging viewpoints ) but there are others, one being that it could be exagerated language.



One clue might be the other verse we mentioned, Luke 10:27. Who made this statement, and why?

The 'who' can be found in verse 25, it was a lawyer (expert in Mosaic Law).

The 'why' is that it was the lawyer's reponse to Jesus question, (vs.26) "Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? "

So what we have here, is the lawyer answering according to scripture (Law). (Dueteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18)

After that, the lawyer wants to know who his neighber is, and Jesus then tells the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jew's didn't like Samaritans (for reasons in Biblical history)... but Jesus uses a "hated people" in his story, to show love of neighbor, to a lawyer that should have been able to discern what 'love' and 'neighbor' means.

But then we look at what the same author (luke) records Jesus' words reguarding "hating father, mother, wife, kids, etc" i.e. loved ones. Now, considering that according to

Dueteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, we are supposed to love God above all things and our neighbor as ourselves, we see a few things in the Luke 14:26 passage.

First, we see that if Jesus is being consistant, He is equating Himself with God (because of "love God above all things" per Deut.... in otherwords, "loved ones" would be a subset of "all things" and our love for God should be greater than anything else), so Jesus is, in effect, saying we should love Him (Jesus) above all things.

Next, we see that if Jesus is consistant (in terms of "neighbor" meaning all people, including those that are considered "hated"), loving 'loved ones' and loving 'hated ones' is the same, it is still loving 'neighbor'.

This is just like the rich man that was already mentioned, love God above all things, including riches and loved ones.

Jesus is claiming to be God in His statement, " If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Hope that helped,

johnny



The way you explain the example is rather complex, and seems too complex to be the intended meaning of the text. The bible is suppose to be written for most everyone to understand, and yet, this example requires some analysis.

Still, thank you for your time, i am still trying to read all of these posts here, there seems to be a few different topics going on, thats okay.

I am still curious about the needless sexism and hostility shown in the bible.



EDIT: as a background on myself, i was a Jehovah's Witness for many years until i finally realized that i was practicing something that was flawed, and closed-minded. I respect the Jehovah's Witness because they are truly moral people; they are just a little deluded and narrow-minded.



[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:I believe in a literal Creation by God about 6000 years ago

I've got one word for you: dinosaurs!

Ooops, sorry, the window for reply is too small and i pushed this too far down.. thought i was done.

quote:

The way you explain the example is rather complex, and seems too complex to be the intended meaning of the text. The bible is suppose to be written for most everyone to understand, and yet, this example requires some analysis.

While it is true that anyone should be able to understand, there are still levels of understanding.

As has been mentioned, we are a few centuries removed from the original audience, so we need to understand some things from that perspective.

Here is an example of something in our day and age..

I dont know how old you are, or where you live and grew up, but in the U.S. there is an idiom that young people use, that means "the police". That term is "five-0". You might or might not know what this term means, if you hear it on the street (or in a song), but many (most, probably) people using it or hearing it nowdays, have no idea where it came from or why it means "cop" or "police"... incase you dont, it's from a TV show in the late '60s or early '70s called "Hawaii Five-0". Hawaii was the 50th state, and the show was a "cop" show about the police force in Hawaii.

Now transfer that to the Bible. It records a period of some 4000 or so years, across cultures and languages. Even the first century Jews needed to analyze the OT for the intended meaning.

Still, thank you for your time, i am still trying to read all of these posts here, there seems to be a few different topics going on, thats okay.

You're welcome. Hope some of them helped.

And thank you for allowing some discussions that, although they are pertinent, are not quite the intent of your original post.

It is very gracious of you, and again, thanks.

I am still curious about the needless sexism and hostility shown in the bible.

I didnt read that far down in your first post, so right now atleast, i'm not sure the extent or example that you mean. If i (or anyone else) dont get to it, there are other places that you can ask your questions, and get better answers than Totse.



EDIT: as a background on myself, i was a Jehovah's Witness for many years until i finally realized that i was practicing something that was flawed, and closed-minded. I respect the Jehovah's Witness because they are truly moral people; they are just a little deluded and narrow-minded.

Thanks for sharing that. Although i agree with you that their teaching is flawed, i too, have respect for them.. mainly, in living out the Command of witnessing to the world.

johnny

Wouldn’t God, being all powerful, had made sure that the book is comprehensible to all with no confusion whatsoever in all times and all parts of the world, considering it is meant to be such an important, literally life-saving work?

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

There is so much evidence to support an old Earth and evolution, that to deny this evidence is perverse. The overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution. And we aren't talking about a radical new theory here still being disputed...this is a theory (yes, I know Evolution is fact AND theory both) that has stood the test of time, being picked at by peer reviewed scientist for over a century. And yet, all this evidence, all this proof, this huge body of facts...all this still doesn't constitute "proof" to the faithful. It's sad, really.



I have to agree. It's really quite depressing.



[This message has been edited by Twitch_67 (edited 11-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

I've got one word for you: dinosaurs!

This says nothing.



I'm going to try to keep this response as close to the confines of the title of this thread, and also try to keep it in harmony of what has already been mentioned in this thread.

Belief in long ages is based, in part, on ones presuppositions, worldview, and evidence interpretation. Also, often, that belief is based on other's representation and presentation of their findings. (just like any religion)

To put it a different way, let's look at something David Hume says must be the test for anything meaningful (he was talking, i think, about the Christian faith and miracles, but it also applies here) :

" If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school of metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames; For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. "

Quoted from Ravi Zacharias "Jesus Among Other Gods" p.62-63, who was quoting Anthony Flew, On Human Nature and the Understanding p.163

Ravi points out (i'm making a half-assed combination of quote and paraphrase in this next "quote" of Ravi):

quote:that people use Hume's statement as a means to disreguard all religion as "sophistry and illusion" because its "volume of divinity" does not stand the test of math or science. Unless its statements fits into either of these categories, it must be "tossed into the flames."

Ravi goes on to point out that (again, my half-assed combination of quote and paraphrase):

quote: Hume's test itself, doesn't pass the test. Hume's statement is neither scientifically verifiable nor mathematically sustained, so should we also then, "toss it into the flames"?



(Now it's me talking in Totse world again)

How can we emperically verify the past? We can make assumptions, and we can verify those assumptions.. but even those verifications are subject to a person's worldview. If they fit outside that worldview, people tend to reject the outcome, and look for answers that fit within the worldview.

I was being upfront with my presuppositions.

Alot of people arent upfront with theirs. I've run into people that claim that it is their presuppositional belief that science is fact (over the Bible), but after talking to them, they reveal that one of the main reasons that they believe science over God, is not as much that they trust science over religion, but that they want to reject the implications of Sin and a Sovereign God...

As if closing ones eye and denying God's existance will cause God to not exist.



One friend in particular, denies religion (not God, specifically or necessarily) because when he was young, he asked some very difficult questions, and did not get answers that he felt were good enough. He felt (at about 6 years old) that the pastor and the sunday school teacher should have known the "correct" answer (the correct answer according to a six year old). He has said to me that (again, paraphrased. i dont recall the actual words that were used.) "they might have been right", but how would they have been able to know how much he, @ 6yrs. old, could understand?; so he felt that the answers were inadaquate. But does he search for answers now (he's 30)? I dont know, atleast outside of the few conversations that we've had. But at this point, he still rejects it, based mostly on the answers he got when he was 6. He is very smart and has a college degree.. almost seems ironic to me.

Maybe, it could be that if he stopped relying on the reason for rejection, he knows that he might have to change things in his life that he has become comfortable with.

I wonder how many other people live their current worldview simply because they fear the consequences of change. (and this is really the crux of the implications of Pascal's Wager)

It boils down to what a person's worldview will allow them to accept as evidence. How that worldview allows them to interpret evidence. And if they are willing to accept the implications of a change of worldview.

As a sinful human being, from the perspective of the Christian worldview, i suspect that it would be easier to fall down to a worldview void of God (if God truely does not exist), than it would be for a anti-theist to change to a Christian worldview, if that person found "sufficient" (for him) evidence that God does, in fact, exist.

Our belief in long ages or short, our belief in the existence or non-existence of God.. does not cause the truth. But those beliefs are from an interpretation (well, according to Christian theology, this statement is false... but then we have to discuss Calvinism vs. Arminiism (sp?), and Christian theology and Doctrine.. so it's close enough for now)

johnny

Totally. People are just scared to believe in your fairy tale.

QUOTE Originally posted by Martini:



And we aren't talking about a radical new theory here still being disputed...this is a theory (yes, I know Evolution is fact AND theory both) that has stood the test of time, being picked at by peer reviewed scientist for over a century. And yet, all this evidence, all this proof, this huge body of facts...all this still doesn't constitute "proof" to the faithful. It's sad, really.

/QUOTE

Sorry Martini, this arguement fails.

God's Word has stood the test of time but would you allow that as my sufficient arguement?

You say that the ToE has withstood over a century of peer review picking...

Other scientific theories have, at one time, have stood the test of time, only to be overturned by new thoughts and evidence.

But would you allow, as my sufficient arguement, that the Bible has withstood millenia of attempts to disprove it? To a greater degree than anyother Holy Book.



You say:

quote:And yet, all this evidence, all this proof, this huge body of facts...all this still doesn't constitute "proof" to the faithful. It's sad, really.

Yet i see proof and evidence that support the Truth of God's Word. Would you cry with me, over how sad it is when it's rejected by the non-believer?

No?... i didnt think so.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Totally. People are just scared to believe in your fairy tale.

And when you find that the things that you think are fairy tales are really true, you will still be scared.

I just read this:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html

and i think that my reply to Twitch's "dinosaur" post is basically saying the same thing. (although, Plantinga's statement is better, stronger, faster... no, that's the 6 million dollar man.. but i do think Plantinga's is much better than mine.)

Thoughts?

xtreem5150ahm: thank you for your comments once again. Okay, unlike most people who would probably still find some sort of argument to make, I accept your explication.

quote:With that said, i'd like to say two things about the video. I will not defend nor comment further, these things.

Well, the video is pretty flawed, however, it DOES show some basic reasons why an Atheist must care about religion -- it affects everyone in this country in many ways.

quote:Next, we see that if Jesus is consistant (in terms of "neighbor" meaning all people, including those that are considered "hated"), loving 'loved ones' and loving 'hated ones' is the same, it is still loving 'neighbor'.

Okay, I will accept this. I still think that it could of been said more easily though -- an all-powerful God should of predicted the change in culture and language, and in some way, helped make the language more... lasting.

quote:Now transfer that to the Bible. It records a period of some 4000 or so years, across cultures and languages. Even the first century Jews needed to analyze the OT for the intended meaning.

Yes, but with an all-powerful God who is believed to have a 'purpose' for EVERY SINGLE BEING AND ANIMAL... should of interfered somehow with the translation of the text and allowed for it to be more time-transcending.

-- Of course, there are those who believe God does not interfere with the world after he initially created it...

quote:I didnt read that far down in your first post, so right now atleast, i'm not sure the extent or example that you mean. If i (or anyone else) dont get to it, there are other places that you can ask your questions, and get better answers than Totse.

Yea, lets move on to another point.

Totse is great, contrary to popular belief, there are actually some very intellectual people here.

quote:Thanks for sharing that. Although i agree with you that their teaching is flawed, i too, have respect for them.. mainly, in living out the Command of witnessing to the world.

I absolutely understand that. The Jehovah's Whitenesses are very strict to their beliefs, they are not as corrupt as many other religions -- like catholicism (sorry if you are catholic). They are good people who do not deserve the ridicule they receive.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



(Now it's me talking in Totse world again)

How can we emperically verify the past? We can make assumptions, and we can verify those assumptions.. but even those verifications are subject to a person's worldview. If they fit outside that worldview, people tend to reject the outcome, and look for answers that fit within the worldview.

So then you believe we shouldn't try murderers in a court of law because it's impossible to empirically verify the past, huh? Or is it that you suddenly dispute Science when it utterly refutes your religious beliefs, but then decide it is the correct method of verification when it conveniences you or your family?

Sorry, but even if we accept this notion of yours as true, it still doesn't prove your point. Logical contradictions cannot be escaped. If "old age" belief were wrong, we would expect to see a contradiction in logic, since it makes claims that are ultimately based on logic. No such contradiction exists. We can verify the age of the universe mathematically, and the proof of such rests on logic.

Also, can I expect an answer for my previous post?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-03-2006).]

Why can't we empirically verify the past?

And why does a person's worldview matter? A person's worldview should not be an issue when it comes to trial and observation. Those who deny the scientific process are unarguably closed-minded.

Rust,

As per your request, i'll take a stab at answering you (i intended to anyway since i never know if there are more "life vests needed to be tossed to you", but i just happened to get to other posts first)

and i intend to respond to your later post too.



QUOTE Originally posted by Rust:

It may seem obvious to you because you hold that position, but the truth is that it could very well be that the opposite is truth.

Not that i disagree that it might be a possibility, it just seems as though you are cheating, since you already said that the interpretation of text is subjective.

Since you have no objective way of determining this, you must rely on what is, at best, your own opinion of what is "obvious" which varies from person to person.

And that's why the starting beliefs (meaning here, the understanding of Gen. chapt. 1)matter so much. Even though this is also a subjective interpretation, this is the building block of the whole Bible. As i've said in the past, the hardest verse in the Bible is Gen 1:1 . Also, in one of our past discussions, you called this "circular reasoning", and IIR, i disagreed with you at that time. I've given that conversation alot of thought since then, and i think you might be right, but it is no less than a materialist's starting point.

This is what leads me to one of the main points of my previous post, which I don't think you addressed:

i'm gonna break these down, if you dont mind.. if you feel that it minimizes the intent of what you mean, please point it out.

It seems extremely foolish for an omniscient and omnipotent being to essentially create the Bible while not also creating an objective method of arriving at what the Bible is saying.

I'm not saying that God has or hasnt made an objective way to determine Truth. I believe He has, but how do you know for certain that He hasnt?

i'm asking you if it's possible that the only way to objectively discern Truth is through Faith in Him?

Is it possible that the degree of Truth revealed, is proportional to the degree of an individual's Faith in Him, coupled with whatever plan He has for that person's life?

(compare Abraham's appearant blind faith in sacrificing his son Isaac to Doubting Thomas, who said that he would not believe unless he touched Jesus side and hands)

Why is it, that the Christian (or theist, i guess would work) claims to know that God exists?

Could it be possible that God reveals Truth more often to those who Trust Him to a greater degree? (Yes, i realize that this begs the question of Faith's that are directly opposed and contradictory to one another, and the fanatics of said faiths).

But to call it foolish, isnt that making the assumption that you know more than God does? Or that you atleast know God's plan and motivation for anything He does, thus, atleast equating yourself to God's level?

You dont believe in God, but are there people in the world that are either as smart or smarter than you, that you've thought they were wrong until you found out what that person's plan was? Or the other direction; Has anyone ever thought you foolish, until your way worked out better than what they would have done?

In failing to do so, the Christian god has deliberately made it so that misinterpretation, corruption and mistakes occur in the reading and understanding of the Bible.

I very cautiously and hesitantly agree. The reason for the caution is by me agreeing, i think that it could be understood by those viewing, to thinking that i'm dangerously close to calling God wrong or evil. I'm not.



He does say in His Word that He has made it so that it is not straightforward and crystal clear, especially to those that already dont put their trust in Him:

quote:Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

There were two other verses that i was looking for, that basically said to the effect that because the people had chose to not do His Will, He would make it harder for them to know Him... one was OT and one, NT, but i couldnt remember the right words to search with.. these were the ones that came instead. So although these dont support my thoughts on "Truth proportional to trust", they do show that God has purposed difficulty in understanding His Word and His ways.

That still doesnt prove your next points..



quote:To then sentence us based on what we believe the Bible says, when he has made it impossible for us to be certain of whether or not we're mistaken in our interpretation, is rather malicious of him

Impossible?.. isnt that a statement an agnostic would make?

I'm not touching the "malicious" right now, any farther than i already have, since that brings us right in the middle of the free-will/Prob. of Evil arguement, and we both know each others stand on it. Although we both know that it's a crucial issue from either side of the arguement, it's a futile debate between you and i, since neither one is willing to budge... and we both think our side is right.

But, according to His Word, we are not sentenced because of what we believe or dont believe that His Word says. We are already condemned at birth (i know, there are Christians that dont think this,.. but, what do they hold as their foundational understanding?). It is Jesus work on the cross that makes it possible for us to be released from our sentence, and the Grace is given by our Trust in Him, and our Trust (Faith) in Him is given us by the Holy Spirit. (Boy, that really sounds Calvinistic, which you know that i disagree with, but we can discuss that someother time, in some other thread)

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

You had said that i lack a method of arriving at an objective conclusion. Maybe so, but i dont think that it is just me, or even just folks that try to understand God's Word.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the nature of analyzing a piece of text after it has been created. It does apply to everybody else, yet there is a very important difference. Those trying to analyze Shakespeare or Cervantez aren't making claims about Science, life, or the afterlife.

Nor was Shakespeare (as far as i know) and i dont know who Cervantez is nor his work, but since you say that those that analyze his work arent making claims of science or metaphysics, i hardly think that it is comparable to the Bible's claims or the claims of those drawing conclusions of what the Bible claims.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

They can admit they were wrong in a heartbeat, because their beliefs are unimportant in the large scope of things.

Concerning the claims that they make, reguarding Shakespeare or Cervantez?

Well certainly, unless those writers had made claims comparable to the Bible. (i've read very little Shakespeare and to my knowledge, none of Cervantez, so at best, i plead ignorance)

This is not the case with those analyzing the bible. They do make claims about Science, about life and the after-life

Does the Bible make claims in these areas? If so, wouldnt it be acceptable to draw conclussions of these claims? and if they are convincing to the person, is it not fair for that person to state these claims?

Sure, you and i are talking about objective and subjective interpretation, but even if the interpretation can not be decided, it does not necessarily bare on the truthfulness or falseness of the author and the original text. You do not believe that the Judeo-Christian God is the ultimate Author; I do. But our belief does not bare the truthfulness of who the author is, or what he meant. As i've said before, only the author has the objective stance of the meaning. Who do you suppose has a better idea of what Shakespeare meant? Someone that studies his work nowdays, or a close personal friend?

and they obviously aren't too fond of changing their deeply held beliefs.

This is true of any and all worldviews. The only variables are the character of the person and the level at which that person believes the belief that he holds true.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people, when they "decide" that Gen chapts. 1-11 must be metaphor or myth, are trying to add a third presupposition to their understanding, that being what science "says" (of course, i'm talking about believers here). How a believer interprets a Biblical account, is ultimately based on those two or three starting points. I think even athiests and agnostics use a form of all three, but in a different order and worth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are using the same presupposition but in the oppossite sense when you believe that Science is wrong in order for the account to be literally possible.

I think you might have misread that part of the post. Right before the part that you quoted, i had said, "I've said before that the presuppositions that i take, is that God exists and that the Bible is His Revealed Word. So i do try to interpret based on those presuppositions, before anything else."

I also had said, "How a believer interprets a Biblical account, is ultimately based on those two or three starting points."

What i am meaning by this is, my two presuppositions not only determine how i look at the Bible, they also determine how i look at the world (or, atleast that i how i try, but as a human being, i'm not always consistant).

But the Christian that has that third presupposition ("science says") uses what that third presupp.(science)says, to determine what the Bible says.

In fact, to be accurate, they need not presuppose anything of Science since they don't need to believe "what Science says"; they can merely feel - after reading Genesis - that the accounts are supposed to be taken metaphorically and not literally, and this based on the same "evidence" you use (i.e. context...).

Maybe they can, and even maybe some do.. but in general, those that interpret the Bible as Myth or Metaphore will give the same or similar objections that the materialist gives i.e. dinosaurs, starlight-time, lack of evidence for Biblical Flood (or minimized to being a local flood), etc.

Which indicates that it is trust of science over trust in God... it's an attempt at harmonizing, but turns out to be trying to "serve two masters" but choosing one over the other.



I hope i addressed everything. I just noticed that it wasnt in the same order, cuz i just deleted stuff on the end that i had already addressed. If i missed something, point it out please.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by Cyr0xos:

Why can't we empirically verify the past?

And why does a person's worldview matter? A person's worldview should not be an issue when it comes to trial and observation. Those who deny the scientific process are unarguably closed-minded.

Hi Cyr0xos,

just the bolded part for now, since i'm going to try to address the other part in the next response to Rust.

The answer to

"A person's worldview should not be an issue when it comes to trial and observation. Those who deny the scientific process are unarguably closed-minded"



is because of the nature of the scientific process. Science "says" that it can make no claims about anything outside of the natural, observable universe, which includes morals and the Supernatural. These are things that cannot be measured or observed unless the "Supernatural" allows.



How can the Eternal God be measured or repeatable, by definition?

Sorry. There are holes in my post here, that anyone can drive convoys of trucks through (and i'd be thankful if people were gentile with it) That last post to Rust was a bit tiring.

Night,

johnny

OH, ok, maybe one more..



QUOTE Originally posted by Rust:

So then you believe we shouldn't try murderers in a court of law because it's impossible to empirically verify the past, huh? Or is it that you suddenly dispute Science when it utterly refutes your religious beliefs, but then decide it is the correct method of verification when it conveniences you or your family?

Is science the only way that we try murderers? Is the murderer being tried, beyond the life time of those prosecuting? or defending? Or giving judgement? Or the eyewitnesses testifying?

Did i even say that it was impossible to empirically verify the past?

IIR, you are from Puerto Rico (or someplace warm). I'm not sure how courts work where you're from, but it seems that in the U.S., a person is found guilty or inocent, not on true or false, but on the perception of the evidence given by the prosecution & defense and the perception by the jury (or judge) of how well that evidence is presented and refuted. It's possible the innocent can be convicted and the guilty can be set free.

Sorry, but even if we accept this notion of yours as true, it still doesn't prove your point. Logical contradictions cannot be escaped. If "old age" belief were wrong, we would expect to see a contradiction in logic,

the key word is 'expect' to see a contradiction... that does not mean that a contradiction will exist.

Just for a cheap example, what does it take for a fossil to be formed? the right conditions, little bit of water, lot a time... or could a lot of water and a (relatively) short time with the right conditions do the trick?

since it makes claims that are ultimately based on logic. No such contradiction exists. We can verify the age of the universe mathematically, and the proof of such rests on logic.

already addressed this, in the part that you quoted:

quote:We can make assumptions, and we can verify those assumptions.. but even those verifications are subject to a person's worldview. If they fit outside that worldview, people tend to reject the outcome, and look for answers that fit within the worldview.

This is the same thing that Creation Science is accused of. The long age assumption does not fit with that worldview. So it makes different assumptions, verifies according to the interpretation of the (same) evidence, and if the outcome is different than the predicted assumption (the YEC worldview) it

rejects the outcome and looks for answers that fit inside that worldview.

The main difference is only what is allowed per the worldview. Naturalistic does not allow for explainations outside the box. Christian Theist not only allows for God outside the box, it believes that God created the box.

Now, back to whether the past can be empirically verified...

If no one is left alive to be eyewitnesses, then all we can do is go by the assumptions that things in the past happen then just as they do today (or by the assuptions of the worldview that someone has).

I'm not bringing up the Creation/evolution debate here, for the sake of discussing it.. i'm bringing it up for the point that there is the possibility of an eyewitness account and that things might not be as they were in the past.

For the sake of arguement i'm using the word 'if';

if God exists, and the Bible is His account of what happened, then He already told us that there are things in the past that are different from how we see things now. One of those things is a Global Flood. Lotta water, little bit of time.

(again, i am not arguing here, for the sake of a Global Flood, just the fact that eyewitness testimony and worldview assumptions are what would be used to verify the past)

If your worldview denies the existance of God or if your worldview places science above the belief in God, then you have no other choice than to interpret evidence based on the confines of your worldview... the only other choice is to change the worldview to fit the evidence..

i already stated that my presuppositions place God and His Word as my foundations, the only other worldview that is consistant to itself,(in this reguard) is the atheist worldview.

ok, that's enough for me tonight.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by Cyr0xos:

I would like to know the meaning behind some scriptures because they came to my attention while visiting

Godisimaginary.com

Many of the examples the website gives are clearly placed out of context, yet, some do not appear to be. Perhaps someone could explain the following to me:

Luke 18:18-22

tells us that we must "Sell everything" in order to get into heaven. I don't know about you, but i don't think too many people are eager to sell EVERYTHING they own.

What Jesus said was for that person in particular. However, the homilitical message would be to understand that holding onto things of the world is what will keep many from the kingdom of God. Jesus is just seeking our understanding of the treasures of the earth and treasures of heaven.

quote:

Luke 14:26-33

tells us that we need to hate everyone in order to be Jesus' disciple.

Actually the word hate was poorly translated from the original Greek text. There isn't an english word for it but the best explanation of the word is "love less" or in other words we must love our parents less then we love God.

quote:

which contradicts things like

Luke 10:25-28

Mathew 18:2-3

tells us we need to be like a "child" in order to inherit God's kingdom.

meaning we must accept it like a child - consider how most children accept things. Unconditionally, without strings or pre-conceived notions.

quote:

John 3:3-8

What is this passage trying to say?



Jesus is clearly wrong when he says "The wind blows wherever it pleases, you hear its sound but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going." because we certainty CAN tell where the wind is going and coming from.

Can we really pinpoint the original start of a breeze? Or when and where it ends? All we know is where we are standing when it goes by us. Jesus was speaking in a parable. He was saying you can't pinpoint the kingdom of heaven and say here it is or there it is as the kingdom of heaven is within us. It is the spiritual world that is unseen but we know it is there.

quote:

Mathew 5:17-20

it says your rightness must surpass that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law in order to enter heaven. The Pharisees practiced some 600 laws that included animal sacrifice, no one does this today..



Righteousness is acredited to someone by the level of their faith. The religion of the Pharisees did not require faith but adherence to laws and rules. Jesus was saying that we must live by faith and not by rules and laws. It is by believing in God does one arive at true righteousness in the eyes of God. Live to please God and not to please man. Jesus was saying to live by faith and not by dogmatic religion. THat is how your "righteousness will surpass that of the dogmatic ritualistic theologin.

quote:

the 4th commandment:

Exodus 20:8-9

says that no one should work on the sabbath day.

HOWEVER, the bible tells us that we must "put to death" - Exodus 31:15 anyone who works on the sabbath.



This one will take a long time to answer. To start with , the bottom line is Jesus came to fullfil the law - The law of the sabath is fullfilled in Jesus - In Him is the Sabath rest.

Supporting that answer would require providing a great deal of scripture but if you want it, I'll get it.

quote:

Leviticus 20:10

tells us that anyone who commits adultery should be put to death



Levitical law was given to the Jews as their Moral, ceremonial and civil laws. We as gentiles do not follow Jewish ceremony or civil laws. We do follow the moral laws and are given our own set of civil and ceremonial laws by Jesus. Jesus ended the laws of stoning. "He without sin cast the first stone" remember?

quote:

Mathew 18:7-9

says a bunch of strange things, it says that if your hand or foot causes you to sin, then you should cut it off, and if your eye causes you to sin you should "gouge it out and throw it away"

which is completely wrong, cutting your hand off will accomplish nothing.

If you are a alchoholic and work in a bar - it would be in your best interest to stop working in the bar if you became sober. Otherwise you will likely be tempted to continue to drink. The passage is saying if there is something in life that is a vice and is not beneficial to your walk with God then it is better to get rid of it or remove it.

quote:

1 Corinthians 14:34

says woman should not be allowed to speak in the church because it is "disrespectful"

this seems ridiculously sexist.

The epistle was written specifically to the Corinthian church at the time. This is one thing that "modern" life has turned upside down. We are moving more towards a matriarchy and your attitude is a testimony to it. God created a model of social and family order. Within it is the model for prosperity, peace, joy, etc. Outside of it generally leads to the opposite in time. Today's feminism and "new world order" blame "religion" and men for the problems of the world. It is a bit more complicated then that though.

quote:

There are many examples of sexism, and slavery in the bible, this is repulsive to modern society, however in the bible, God says that his word is "forever".

I have to add that the bible also speaks of curses upon a people that stray from the biblical model of life. One of those curses is to be lead by women and youth. THink it through before you respond in an emotional way.

quote:

I am curious about your answers, and do not doubt that there are simple explications to these remarks.

If this is overdone in this forum, just let me know and point me to the right place and i will delete this thread.





I hope I helped -

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I believe in a literal Creation by God about 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve, a Flood that covered the whole earth & the only survivors being Noah's family and the animals aboard the Ark, etc.



I honestly had to stop reading all replies after that remark. In response to the topic, Christians went from believing every single word of the Bible to now many of them believing a very small portion of it. How else would you expect an organization created by corrupt Romans to be used for the purpose of world domination to be after 2000 years? It's all a lie, and people are slowly realizing it. Soon the sheep will go from believing half of the Bible to believing about 5% of it, and eventually it will be a memory. People know that the Bible says a bunch of shit which is physically and scientifically impossible, and it's core is actually evil, by Christian standards of the word. Sending the vast majority of the humans who ever lived to an everlasting realm of torture couldn't be any more evil, this a huge contradiction. Too many contradictions, errors, and fairy tales are in the Bible for intelligent people to believe it, and theres no excuse with our freedom of information of history and science to still believe in this crumbling hoax.

quote:Originally posted by Ra-deus:

I honestly had to stop reading all replies after that remark. In response to the topic, Christians went from believing every single word of the Bible to now many of them believing a very small portion of it. How else would you expect an organization created by corrupt Romans to be used for the purpose of world domination to be after 2000 years? It's all a lie, and people are slowly realizing it. Soon the sheep will go from believing half of the Bible to believing about 5% of it, and eventually it will be a memory. People know that the Bible says a bunch of shit which is physically and scientifically impossible, and it's core is actually evil, by Christian standards of the word. Sending the vast majority of the humans who ever lived to an everlasting realm of torture couldn't be any more evil, this a huge contradiction. Too many contradictions, errors, and fairy tales are in the Bible for intelligent people to believe it, and theres no excuse with our freedom of information of history and science to still believe in this crumbling hoax.

Ra-deus,

Did you really stop reading after that post?

Do you think that you were the only one that thought that statement was anti-intelligent?

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Not that i disagree that it might be a possibility, it just seems as though you are cheating, since you already said that the interpretation of text is subjective.

How am I cheating? It is precisely because the interpretation varies from person to person that we cannot be certain which interpretation of the text is correct given that the authors of said text are not alive. As such, you must admit that the other interpretation is possibly the correct one.

quote:

Also, in one of our past discussions, you called this "circular reasoning", and IIR, i disagreed with you at that time. I've given that conversation alot of thought since then, and i think you might be right, but it is no less than a materialist's starting point.



What do you mean by "no less than a materialist's starting point"?

quote:Yes, i realize that this begs the question of Faith's that are directly opposed and contradictory to one another, and the fanatics of said faiths).

If you realize this, then you realize that your point ceases to be valid. If there were an objective/certain way of arriving at the true meaning of the Bible, there would not be so many different interpretations. In fact, the interpretations would not be dependent on our subjective means! Moreover, you cannot say that this method is faith of God, because not only are there countless people who claim to have faith in god while having contradictory beliefs, but "having faith in god" as a way of arriving at the truth would still be dependent on our interpretation of the bible! You would have arrived at that conclusion via a certain interpretation of the bible, which you're not certain is true to begin with.

quote:

But to call it foolish, isnt that making the assumption that you know more than God does? Or that you atleast know God's plan and motivation for anything He does, thus, atleast equating yourself to God's level?

You dont believe in God, but are there people in the world that are either as smart or smarter than you, that you've thought they were wrong until you found out what that person's plan was? Or the other direction; Has anyone ever thought you foolish, until your way worked out better than what they would have done?

It's using reason to analyze the situation so as to arrive at a conclusion. Am I not allowed to do this? That sort of defeatist reasoning is not indicative of discussion or debate.

quote:I very cautiously and hesitantly agree. The reason for the caution is by me agreeing, i think that it could be understood by those viewing, to thinking that i'm dangerously close to calling God wrong or evil. I'm not.



He does say in His Word that He has made it so that it is not straightforward and crystal clear, especially to those that already dont put their trust in Him

So then you agree that he has deliberately made it so that there exists confusion, and misinterpretation when reading the bible? That's a step. Now what is left to prove is that this makes it malicious of him.



quote: Impossible?.. isnt that a statement an agnostic would make?

I'm not touching the "malicious" right now, any farther than i already have, since that brings us right in the middle of the free-will/Prob. of Evil arguement, and we both know each others stand on it. Although we both know that it's a crucial issue from either side of the arguement, it's a futile debate between you and i, since neither one is willing to budge... and we both think our side is right.

I'm agnostic in that I do not believe that absolute knowledge of the existence (or non-existence) of a god is impossible to be attained. That has nothing to do with anything else.

quote:

But, according to His Word, we are not sentenced because of what we believe or dont believe that His Word says. We are already condemned at birth (i know, there are Christians that dont think this,.. but, what do they hold as their foundational understanding?). It is Jesus work on the cross that makes it possible for us to be released from our sentence, and the Grace is given by our Trust in Him, and our Trust (Faith) in Him is given us by the Holy Spirit. (Boy, that really sounds Calvinistic, which you know that i disagree with, but we can discuss that someother time, in some other thread)

He actually does.

"31Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come,"

In a literal interpretation of the bible, it is made clear that blaspheming against the holy spirit is an unforgivable sin. Whether we believe that blaspheming against the holy spirit is forbidden, and therefore whether we go on to blaspheme against the holy spirit, depends entirely on our interpretation of what the bible says.

God is therefore, unequivocally sentencing us depending our or belief of what the bible actually says, since it is that belief and interpretation which tells us what we must and mustn't do in order to be saved "in the age to come".

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Is science the only way that we try murderers? Is the murderer being tried, beyond the life time of those prosecuting? or defending? Or giving judgement? Or the eyewitnesses testifying?

Did i even say that it was impossible to empirically verify the past?



1. Jurisprudence uses Science as the method to incriminate an accused of a crime, yes. Eyewitnesses, finger prints, footprints DNA evidence, blood splatter, the physical trauma of the victim, the cause of death... all of those are part of Science, and many of them are absolutely necessary in the trial of a crime. The cause of death for example, is absolutely necessary as it is that which shows whether the deceased died of natural causes (no crime) of whether there was something/someone else involved (a crime).

2. According to you, the time line means little because the "world view" of those using Science would interfere with the gathering of evidence to such an extent as to make evidence meaningless. If that's not what you were arguing, then you have no point because that means we can use Science and mathematics to verify that the age of the universe is greater than what you say it is.

quote:IIR, you are from Puerto Rico (or someplace warm). I'm not sure how courts work where you're from, but it seems that in the U.S., a person is found guilty or inocent, not on true or false, but on the perception of the evidence given by the prosecution & defense and the perception by the jury (or judge) of how well that evidence is presented and refuted. It's possible the innocent can be convicted and the guilty can be set free.

Yes, I am from Puerto Rico and the system of law here is exactly the same as in the U.S.

Whether the innocent can be found guilty or not is not up to debate; it's whether or not we should use Science in criminal trials. If you believe that the past cannot be empirically verified, or that the "world views" of people will necessarily trump the truth of evidence, then the reasonable conclusion would be that Science should not be used in trials either.

However, if you believe it is possible to use Science to empirically test the past, and that the worldviews of those using Science do not have to trump the truth (as proven in the court of law each and every day), then that would mean that we can use it to test the age of the universe and arrive at a valid conclusion.

Which one is it?

quote:

the key word is 'expect' to see a contradiction... that does not mean that a contradiction will exist.



It certainly does. We use mathematics to prove the age of the universe. A mathematical error is a logical contradiction. If the age of the universe we've calculated is wrong, there must be an error in the mathematics we've used.

quote:

Just for a cheap example, what does it take for a fossil to be formed? the right conditions, little bit of water, lot a time... or could a lot of water and a (relatively) short time with the right conditions do the trick?

The better the conditions, the less amount of time needed. The fact of the matter is, that a relatively long time is still needed, especially in bad conditions - where we have found fossils in.

quote:

The main difference is only what is allowed per the worldview. Naturalistic does not allow for explainations outside the box. Christian Theist not only allows for God outside the box, it believes that God created the box.

No, the main difference is that Creation Science starts with the assumption that the bible is correct and then forces the evidence to fit that, while Science analyzes the evidence and then arrives at a conclusion.

In fact, there is a humongous amount of incentive in Science to prove that the age of the universe we currently believe is wrong. Scientists wish they could prove the current figure wrong, as that would make them instantly famous across the world; not to mention unimaginably rich.

quote:

If no one is left alive to be eyewitnesses, then all we can do is go by the assumptions that things in the past happen then just as they do today (or by the assuptions of the worldview that someone has).



Trials do not necessarily need an eye witness. They still use Forensic Science in the criminal case in those trials. Moreover, we still use assumptions with an eyewitness. Namely that he's not lying, that he actusally saw the event, and that the reality has not changed from the time he saw the event, to now.

You've yet to answer the question, Do you approve the use of Science to empirically test the past in criminal trials?

quote:

If your worldview denies the existance of God or if your worldview places science above the belief in God, then you have no other choice than to interpret evidence based on the confines of your worldview... the only other choice is to change the worldview to fit the evidence..

The other choice is precisely the most lucrative choice for a Scientist. Like I said, proving an established theory of Science wrong is the way to become successful, famous and rich in the scientific arena. The same cannot be said of a Creation "Scientist" - his incentive lies in forcing the evidence to fit his religious beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by Cyr0xos:

I would like to know the meaning behind some scriptures because they came to my attention while visiting

Godisimaginary.com

Many of the examples the website gives are clearly placed out of context, yet, some do not appear to be. Perhaps someone could explain the following to me:

Luke 18:18-22

tells us that we must "Sell everything" in order to get into heaven. I don't know about you, but i don't think too many people are eager to sell EVERYTHING they own.

Luke 14:26-33

tells us that we need to hate everyone in order to be Jesus' disciple.

which contradicts things like

Luke 10:25-28

Mathew 18:2-3

tells us we need to be like a "child" in order to inherit God's kingdom.

John 3:3-8

What is this passage trying to say?

Jesus is clearly wrong when he says "The wind blows wherever it pleases, you hear its sound but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going." because we certainty CAN tell where the wind is going and coming from.

Mathew 5:17-20

it says your rightness must surpass that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law in order to enter heaven. The Pharisees practiced some 600 laws that included animal sacrifice, no one does this today..

the 4th commandment:

Exodus 20:8-9

says that no one should work on the sabbath day.

HOWEVER, the bible tells us that we must "put to death" - Exodus 31:15 anyone who works on the sabbath.



Leviticus 20:10

tells us that anyone who commits adultery should be put to death

Mathew 18:7-9

says a bunch of strange things, it says that if your hand or foot causes you to sin, then you should cut it off, and if your eye causes you to sin you should "gouge it out and throw it away"

which is completely wrong, cutting your hand off will accomplish nothing.

1 Corinthians 14:34

says woman should not be allowed to speak in the church because it is "disrespectful"

this seems ridiculously sexist.

There are many examples of sexism, and slavery in the bible, this is repulsive to modern society, however in the bible, God says that his word is "forever".

I am curious about your answers, and do not doubt that there are simple explications to these remarks.

If this is overdone in this forum, just let me know and point me to the right place and i will delete this thread.





Those things that you are put to death for are before Jesus came. Therefore the punishment's WERE valid, when people needed to pay for there sins. However now Jesus has paid for everyones sins, therefore we can be forgiven through Christ. Thats why these "sacrifices" are not needed.

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

I agree. Like those Christians who use passages from the Old Testament to prove homosexuality are wrong, and then when you point out atrocities in the Old Bible (such as stoning men for working on the Sabbath), they say "Oh, but that's the Old Testament, we don't follow that since Jesus came along." Then why the fuck are you using it to prove homosexuality is wrong? WTF?

Because they are rules. Stoning to death was a sacrifice, after Jesus everyones sins are paid dor, so these sacrifices do not need to be paid.

quote:Originally posted by owned:

Stoning to death was a sacrifice, after Jesus everyones sins are paid dor, so these sacrifices do not need to be paid.

Stoning was not done as a sacrifice, but as a punishment. The Bible does not say that being stoned to death would be considered payment for one's sins.

Thanks for your reply Interest -- that cleared many things up.

Regarding the 4th commandment:

Exodus 20:8-9

says that no one should work on the sabbath day.

Is this still a valid commandment?

Hi all,

After reading Rust's responses, i decided to re-read the whole thread (i'm not done. I've only just started). I'm re-reading so that i can get back to the frame of mind that i had when i wrote what i did, and just as a refresher of what has been said so far, by everyone.

Because of this re-reading, i noticed that i wrote something that did alter the meaning of one of my posts (large or small.. but still altered the meaning...

Consider this as an edit.

Here is what i originally said:

quote:So, in the example givin of "pluck your eye out" or "cut off your hand", the understanding is not a "pick an choose" sorta thing, but an understanding of the message that is being conveyed.

A much better example of an understanding of figure of speech would be Ezekiel chapter 16 (atleast in my oppinion):

In that chapter, God is telling His prophet what to tell the people of Israel. God describes Israel and "her actions" in terms of a person's life (in this case, a female) as one follows down an immoral life, with God as a faithful husband.

Read it for yourself, and see if you come to the same conclusion... that it is meant to be understood as non-literal.

Some of the other ways that are included in how to understand the Bible are:

a. who was doing the talking

b. who was the intended audience

c. culture

d. history

e. the words that are used (original language) and the meanings those words were used in other passages

Another thing that gets used, unfortunately, is eisegesis. That is when the understanding is given, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas or bias, instead of the meaning of the text.

And, IMO, there is a very fine line between eisegesis and presuppositions. And a good example of this is the debate between OEC and YEC vs. the creation/evolution debate.

and here is the change, bolding used to show what is being edited:

quote:So, in the example givin of "pluck your eye out" or "cut off your hand", the understanding is not a "pick and choose" sorta thing, but an understanding of the message that is being conveyed.

A much better example of an understanding of figure of speech would be Ezekiel chapter 16 (atleast in my oppinion):

In that chapter, God is telling His prophet what to tell the people of Israel. God describes Israel and "her actions" in terms of a person's life (in this case, a female) as one follows down an immoral life, with God as a faithful husband.

Read it for yourself, and see if you come to the same conclusion... that it is meant to be understood as God literally telling His prophet to use a representation that is non-literal, used to draw a parallel.

Some of the other ways that are included in how to understand the Bible are:

a. who was doing the talking

b. who was the intended audience

c. culture

d. history

e. the words that are used (original language) and the meanings those words were used in other passages

Another thing that gets used, unfortunately, is eisegesis. That is when the understanding is given, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas or bias, instead of the meaning of the text.

And, IMO, there is a very fine line between eisegesis and presuppositions. And a good example of this is the debate between OEC and YEC vs. the creation/evolution debate.



Note: in the part that i said,

"Some of the other ways that are included in how to understand the Bible are:"

The word 'Some' should be bolded, since these are not an exhaustive list. They are some of the major ones used for understanding the text from the text.

Sorry for the mistake.

Back to preparing for a response to Rust. I gotta do this kinda quick, since there's less than two days of vacation left http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

johnny

Hi Rust,

I hope i included everything. I went back through the thread, and it was too much checking back and forth, so copied the discussion in notepad. I've always hated the small reply box and the frequently checking the whole thread for reference. This is the reason for this experiment with notepad. I intended to re-write and condense everything in the reply box, but i am going to experiment with just copying the notepad back into the reply box... i hope it isn't too much of a mess. And i hope it's not too much of an inconvenience to you.

I tried to highlight your most recent responses by bolding the phrase, "Rust's reply" or a variation of it.

So here we go again, "just two friends discussing".. and here goes with the experiment.

quote:R:

It may seem obvious to you because you hold that position, but the truth is that it could very well be that the opposite is truth.

x:

Not that i disagree that it might be a possibility, it just seems as though you are cheating, since you already said that the interpretation of text is subjective.

Rust's Reply:

How am I cheating? It is precisely because the interpretation varies from person to person that we cannot be certain which interpretation of the text is correct given that the authors of said text are not alive. As such, you must admit that the other interpretation is possibly the correct one.

What i was trying to say is it seems that you are objectively stating that it is subjective.

Just a goofy example:

If interpretation is objectively subjective (or subjectively objective) (?) then it would be as completely true for me to understand what you said as meaning "Rust agrees with John" and someone else could, just as completely true, understand it to mean that "Rust and John both have red hair" and even someone else would be equally correct at coming to the conclusion of what was said, as meaning "Rust disagrees with John".. or any other meaning.

Doesnt that make it entirely pointless in communication?... in effect, it would make all writing and communication pointless.

HOWEVER, I do realize (after reading your reply) that you were not stating "objectivly subjective", but rather pointing out possibilities.... i.e. two contradictory religions can not both be true, but have an equal possibility of being true, OR there is also the possibility they could both be wrong.

Since you are alive, i can ask you, am i understanding you better this time around?



quote:R:

Since you have no objective way of determining this, you must rely on what is, at best, your own opinion of what is "obvious" which varies from person to person.



x:

And that's why the starting beliefs (meaning here, the understanding of Gen. chapt. 1) matter so much. Even though this is also a subjective interpretation, this is the building block of the whole Bible. As i've said in the past, the hardest verse in the Bible is Gen 1:1 . Also, in one of our past discussions, you called this "circular reasoning", and IIR, i disagreed with you at that time. I've given that conversation alot of thought since then, and i think you might be right, but it is no less than a materialist's starting point.



Rust's Reply:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, in one of our past discussions, you called this "circular reasoning", and IIR, i disagreed with you at that time. I've given that conversation alot of thought since then, and i think you might be right, but it is no less than a materialist's starting point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you mean by "no less than a materialist's starting point"?

A materialist's starting point is either

a) the only thing that exists is matter and natural forces

b) trust in their own understanding of matter and natural forces

or

c) a combination of a. and b.

Because this worldview denies the Supernatural, it can only find answers in the natural... and thus is circular... it is still relying on what the worldview allows or is foundational to.



quote:R:

This is what leads me to one of the main points of my previous post, which I don't think you addressed:

x:

i'm gonna break these down, if you dont mind.. if you feel that it minimizes the intent of what you mean, please point it out.

R:

It seems extremely foolish for an omniscient and omnipotent being to essentially create the Bible while not also creating an objective method of arriving at what the Bible is saying.

x:

I'm not saying that God has or hasnt made an objective way to determine Truth. I believe He has, but how do you know for certain that He hasnt?

i'm asking you if it's possible that the only way to objectively discern Truth is through Faith in Him?

Is it possible that the degree of Truth revealed, is proportional to the degree of an individual's Faith in Him, coupled with whatever plan He has for that person's life?

(compare Abraham's appearant blind faith in sacrificing his son Isaac to Doubting Thomas, who said that he would not believe unless he touched Jesus side and hands)

Why is it, that the Christian (or theist, i guess would work) claims to know that God exists?

Could it be possible that God reveals Truth more often to those who Trust Him to a greater degree? (Yes, i realize that this begs the question of Faith's that are directly opposed and contradictory to one another, and the fanatics of said faiths).

Rust's reply:

quote:

*****************

Yes, i realize that this begs the question of Faith's that are directly opposed and contradictory to one another, and the fanatics of said faiths).

*******************

If you realize this, then you realize that your point ceases to be valid.

No, i realize that it begs the question... this is back to your point of possibilities.

quote: Still Rust's reply:

If there were an objective/certain way of arriving at the true meaning of the Bible, there would not be so many different interpretations.

Why? Even you and i have come to some agreement of what is said in the Bible, concerning God confounding understanding (although we have not agreed on motive or malice).

Not only that, but if you think that there is a possibility that you are wrong, and God exists (and also the possibility that the Bible is His revealed Word), then wouldnt there also be the possibility that Satan could also be attempting to cause confusion?

And these possibilities do not even bring into the picture that people dont always search for answers themselves or to keep searching in order for even better understanding or refuting. (you've seen this here on Totse, from both sides of the arguement) How often has been the case that people cut & paste something like "1001 contradictions in the Bible", and then claim that the Christian that defends the claims is just twisting meaning or parroting "fixed answers"...

That last statement is, in no reguards, cutting down anyone in this thread, except for possibily me... since i too, have been accused of not doing my homework and just continuing to blindly use 'AIG' arguements that supposedly have already been refuted... (i say, "supposedly", since many that have been "refuted" have also provided a counter, back and forth and many are still ongoing)



quote: Again, still Rust's reply:

In fact, the interpretations would not be dependent on our subjective means! Moreover, you cannot say that this method is faith of God, because not only are there countless people who claim to have faith in god while having contradictory beliefs, but "having faith in god" as a way of arriving at the truth would still be dependent on our interpretation of the bible! You would have arrived at that conclusion via a certain interpretation of the bible, which you're not certain is true to begin with.

This is what i was referring to by "realizing a question begging". I hope the above was a good enough answer.



quote:

x:

But to call it foolish, isnt that making the assumption that you know more than God does? Or that you atleast know God's plan and motivation for anything He does, thus, atleast equating yourself to God's level?

You dont believe in God, but are there people in the world that are either as smart or smarter than you, that you've thought they were wrong until you found out what that person's plan was? Or the other direction; Has anyone ever thought you foolish, until your way worked out better than what they would have done?

Rust's Reply:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But to call it foolish, isnt that making the assumption that you know more than God does? Or that you atleast know God's plan and motivation for anything He does, thus, atleast equating yourself to God's level?

You dont believe in God, but are there people in the world that are either as smart or smarter than you, that you've thought they were wrong until you found out what that person's plan was? Or the other direction; Has anyone ever thought you foolish, until your way worked out better than what they would have done?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's using reason to analyze the situation so as to arrive at a conclusion. Am I not allowed to do this? That sort of defeatist reasoning is not indicative of discussion or debate.



Sure you are allowed to do this.. but my answer is not defeatist reasoning.

If God exists and if that God is the God of the Bible (being His Word), then He is the God with infinite knowledge. We are finite, with finite knowledge. How can we, with finite knowledge, rightly call Him foolish? Even if the reasoning used were perfect (logic, being one of the quantities that philosophers consider objective... math, i think, is the other quality), then it still falls on finite beings making the conclusion.



quote:

R:

In failing to do so, the Christian god has deliberately made it so that misinterpretation, corruption and mistakes occur in the reading and understanding of the Bible.



x:

I very cautiously and hesitantly agree. The reason for the caution is by me agreeing, i think that it could be understood by those viewing, to thinking that i'm dangerously close to calling God wrong or evil. I'm not.

He does say in His Word that He has made it so that it is not straightforward and crystal clear, especially to those that already dont put their trust in Him:



Rust's Reply:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I very cautiously and hesitantly agree. The reason for the caution is by me agreeing, i think that it could be understood by those viewing, to thinking that i'm dangerously close to calling God wrong or evil. I'm not.

He does say in His Word that He has made it so that it is not straightforward and crystal clear, especially to those that already dont put their trust in Him

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So then you agree that he has deliberately made it so that there exists confusion, and misinterpretation when reading the bible? That's a step. Now what is left to prove is that this makes it malicious of him.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were two other verses that i was looking for, that basically said to the effect that because the people had chose to not do His Will, He would make it harder for them to know Him... one was OT and one, NT, but i couldnt remember the right words to search with.. these were the ones that came instead. So although these dont support my thoughts on "Truth proportional to trust", they do show that God has purposed difficulty in understanding His Word and His ways.

That still doesnt prove your next points..



I just left this in, for the sake of record. Since your question, "So then you agree that he has deliberately made it so that there exists confusion, and misinterpretation when reading the bible?" appears to already have been answered, i'm going to understand it as a retorical question... In effect, you are just confirming that i agree that God's Word does say that it's deliberate confusion, by God.



quote:

R

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To then sentence us based on what we believe the Bible says, when he has made it impossible for us to be certain of whether or not we're mistaken in our interpretation, is rather malicious of him

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

x:

Impossible?.. isnt that a statement an agnostic would make?

I'm not touching the "malicious" right now, any farther than i already have, since that brings us right in the middle of the free-will/Prob. of Evil arguement, and we both know each others stand on it. Although we both know that it's a crucial issue from either side of the arguement, it's a futile debate between you and i, since neither one is willing to budge... and we both think our side is right.

Rust's Reply:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impossible?.. isnt that a statement an agnostic would make?

I'm not touching the "malicious" right now, any farther than i already have, since that brings us right in the middle of the free-will/Prob. of Evil arguement, and we both know each others stand on it. Although we both know that it's a crucial issue from either side of the arguement, it's a futile debate between you and i, since neither one is willing to budge... and we both think our side is right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm agnostic in that I do not believe that absolute knowledge of the existence (or non-existence) of a god is impossible to be attained. That has nothing to do with anything else.

Fair enough.

quote:

x:

But, according to His Word, we are not sentenced because of what we believe or dont believe that His Word says. We are already condemned at birth (i know, there are Christians that dont think this,.. but, what do they hold as their foundational understanding?). It is Jesus work on the cross that makes it possible for us to be released from our sentence, and the Grace is given by our Trust in Him, and our Trust (Faith) in Him is given us by the Holy Spirit. (Boy, that really sounds Calvinistic, which you know that i disagree with, but we can discuss that someother time, in some other thread)

Rust's Reply:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, according to His Word, we are not sentenced because of what we believe or dont believe that His Word says. We are already condemned at birth (i know, there are Christians that dont think this,.. but, what do they hold as their foundational understanding?). It is Jesus work on the cross that makes it possible for us to be released from our sentence, and the Grace is given by our Trust in Him, and our Trust (Faith) in Him is given us by the Holy Spirit. (Boy, that really sounds Calvinistic, which you know that i disagree with, but we can discuss that someother time, in some other thread)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He actually does.

"31Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come,"

In a literal interpretation of the bible, it is made clear that blaspheming against the holy spirit is an unforgivable sin. Whether we believe that blaspheming against the holy spirit is forbidden, and therefore whether we go on to blaspheme against the holy spirit, depends entirely on our interpretation of what the bible says.

God is therefore, unequivocally sentencing us depending our or belief of what the bible actually says, since it is that belief and interpretation which tells us what we must and mustn't do in order to be saved "in the age to come".

No. Let's use a hypothetical (and pardon the story, cuz i suck at storytelling.. but i like pirates and warm, tropical places):

Consider a tribe on a remote island, that has never heard of the Bible, or what it says. The very first contact it has with anyone from outside the tribe is a pirate that has heard of the Bible but thinks it's just fairy tales. He befriends them and teaches them his language and learns theirs. (Still, absolutly nothing God related has been conveyed). One day, while they all sit around eating, a coconut falls on the pirate's head, and he blasts forth with profanities, one being that of blasphemy of the Spirit. Everyone laughs cause it was funny and they were friends, so they could laugh at each other. It just happens that the only thing that the natives could remember was the phrase that blasephemed the Spirit,, and they just thought the tone was funny, so they used it as the "new fad saying", and everyone used it, with laughter.

Now, along comes some missionaries (who never happened to hear the natives ever use this "new fad saying"), and taught them all, including the pirate, what God's Word says. Each and every one of them believes and confesses, including the pirate.

They sit, eating again.. and again with the coconut.. and the blasphemy. Afterwards, no laughter... crying. They now know that they are not saved. /story



According to the verses you quoted, at what point are the tribe and pirate condemned? I dont know for sure, but bearing in mind, from only the verses you quoted, i would think that they were condemned from the first time they used the "new fad saying". They only understood their fate, after they came to believe.

But, bearing in mind other verses of Scripture, they were condemned from birth... and only from the Saving Grace of Christ's work on the cross, did anyone of them have the opportunity of "the loop-hole" i.e. in your terms..what they believed what God said in His Word.

(i'm sorry if this offends anyone. I too, have loved ones that died, probably, unsaved).

I'm not God, so i can not know for certain who is condemned, or if God "grades on a curve" and allows more "leniency" in His Judgement. (given newborns or tropical tribes that never had a chance to know, or etc.). The camps are not in agreement on this, and neither have i understood anything in Scripture that defines it one way or the other, for me.

This is where i trust that since God is Just, He has this worked out, Justly.

Again, sorry if this experiment becomes just a mess.

I'm leaving out the rest of the conversation, since there you didnt add anything new.. if i'm mistaken, point it out.

God Bless,

johnny

Second attempt at editing, in order to correct a bolding tag error that i can not find, so i put an end bold tag where it looks like the problem might be.

First attempt was the same thing, but since our internet seems to go out at inopportune times (as if, any time fits that), i dont know if it would have worked.

I hope that there's no need for the charm of the third time.

edit #3, and still didnt find anything. Removed the end bold from the last edit, deleted the lines of dashes up to the problem, and replaced em with *******, hoping that maybe some character was imbedded

and now deleted... crossing fingers.

This is the last attempt, unless i think i figure it out or think i see it..



[This message has been edited by xtreem5150ahm (edited 11-05-2006).]

YAAAAAY.... it looks like it work... i'm gonna have to try crossing my fingers more often. LOL

have fun in hell

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

2. According to you, the time line means little because the "world view" of those using Science would interfere with the gathering of evidence to such an extent as to make evidence meaningless. If that's not what you were arguing, then you have no point because that means we can use Science and mathematics to verify that the age of the universe is greater than what you say it is.

But there is less possibility that what happened in the recent past has changed from the now. And a greater possibility of verifying due to memory (or records)



quote: Whether the innocent can be found guilty or not is not up to debate;

What do you mean, "up for debate"?

There are cases that end up being overturned, so either they were wrongly convicted or wrongly released.

There was a case not far from where i live, where the guy was convicted, spent 17 yrs (i think) in prison, and it was overturned, and he was freed.

Now, to be fair, i'll also tell you that he has been accused of a different rape and murder (that happened since he was freed)... which lays question about the first.. or it lays question about the county possibly framing him, because he was suing for the time he spent in prison.

If you are interested in confirming my claim, the guy's last name is Avery. I dont recall his first. And he lives in Wisconsin... just incase you want to google it.

quote:it's whether or not we should use Science in criminal trials. If you believe that the past cannot be empirically verified, or that the "world views" of people will necessarily trump the truth of evidence, then the reasonable conclusion would be that Science should not be used in trials either.

Let's see if i'm understanding you )or atleast the term) correctly. "Empircally verified" means that it is verified by experiment or expirience, right? But arent experiment and expirience subject to interpretation?

We can look at two footprints and compare them by measuring (experiment) and observation (expirience), but we still have to interpret the sameness or differentness.

That's an easy example, but what of things from the past? How can we verifiy that our conclusions are correct? We can only assume that they are. The farther back in time, the more difficult it can be.

quote:However, if you believe it is possible to use Science to empirically test the past, and that the worldviews of those using Science do not have to trump the truth (as proven in the court of law each and every day), then that would mean that we can use it to test the age of the universe and arrive at a valid conclusion.

Which one is it?

How do you know that it is a valid conclusion? You dont. It is, at best, the best conclusion that you can arrive at, given what is known so far. Unless you have a time machine, you are making assuptions based, in part, by your presumptions.

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the key word is 'expect' to see a contradiction... that does not mean that a contradiction will exist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It certainly does. We use mathematics to prove the age of the universe. A mathematical error is a logical contradiction. If the age of the universe we've calculated is wrong, there must be an error in the mathematics we've used.

Or something incomplete with what is expected to be found. Reguardless.

Is it possible.. has it ever happened, that a conclusion, based on math. that has been math. confirmed, has later been found to be in error, after some new evidence has been found?... perhaps, say, the age of the universe, for example?

Here is an example of what i'm saying (not the best example, just an example):

From the "Guinness Book of Answers"published 1991 (this is a British book, and i think the term "million years" there means the same as thousand in the US.. not sure though)

"The universe is thought to have originated between 15,000 and 20,000 million years ago..."

From the "The New York Public Library SCIENCE DESK REFERENCE" copyright 1995

"...In general, accepted values are between 15 and 18 billion years old (although some astronomers have set the date to 12 billion years based on recent satellite data)."

I realize that these books are just reporting what was the view at the time, my point (and i already admitted that it was not the best example) is the "based on recent satellite data" ('recent' relative to the printing of that sentence in that book).

If you are saying that the age of the universe has not been calculated wrong in the 15-20 billion year range, then the "satellite data" mentioned should not have even been considered, since it should have had a contradiction. (granted, 3 to 7 billion year range is smaller than the range between 6,000 and 15 billion).

And, IIR, when i was a wee lad, they said that the age of the universe was less than 10 billion, but i havent been out of school THAT long.

All i'm saying is, in order to arrive at the right conclusion, you have to have the right premise.



quote:quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for a cheap example, what does it take for a fossil to be formed? the right conditions, little bit of water, lot a time... or could a lot of water and a (relatively) short time with the right conditions do the trick?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The better the conditions, the less amount of time needed. The fact of the matter is, that a relatively long time is still needed, especially in bad conditions - where we have found fossils in.

This isnt a fossil, but it does show that the right conditions can make it possible for a fossil to form pretty quick.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp

But these are fossils, and they show that a very rapid burial had to have occured, even though we cant tell how fast they formed:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp



quote:quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The main difference is only what is allowed per the worldview. Naturalistic does not allow for explainations outside the box. Christian Theist not only allows for God outside the box, it believes that God created the box.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, the main difference is that Creation Science starts with the assumption that the bible is correct and then forces the evidence to fit that, while Science analyzes the evidence and then arrives at a conclusion.

I'll let this one slide, since i can not prove or disprove your claim. I can point to some scientists (secular) that have forced, but all that proves is that scientists are human.

quote:In fact, there is a humongous amount of incentive in Science to prove that the age of the universe we currently believe is wrong. Scientists wish they could prove the current figure wrong, as that would make them instantly famous across the world; not to mention unimaginably rich.

some of those scientist that i made claim about in the above, were in the pharm. field, and their "forcing" was motivated by greed, time pressures, fame, etc.

When a scientist puts on the white lab coat, it doesnt loose them from being human (anymore than a collar does for a member of the clergy). Sure, you can say that science eventually "finds them out", but some of the ones i made claim about, held out for quite a few years. (and granted, i only know about them from a magazine article.. i didnt verify the truth of the article, so it is possible that it was lying... it did give references that could be checked out though)



quote:quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If no one is left alive to be eyewitnesses, then all we can do is go by the assumptions that things in the past happen then just as they do today (or by the assuptions of the worldview that someone has).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trials do not necessarily need an eye witness. They still use Forensic Science in the criminal case in those trials. Moreover, we still use assumptions with an eyewitness. Namely that he's not lying, that he actusally saw the event, and that the reality has not changed from the time he saw the event, to now.

True.

But the conviction or not of the individual is also in the balance of how well the case has been presented and defended, and how the jury or the judge percieve the presentation.

I've always told myself that if i was ever innocently accused of a crime, i would want trial by judge.. cuz he is more aware of lawyers techniques... hope i never need to find out.

quote:You've yet to answer the question, Do you approve the use of Science to empirically test the past in criminal trials?

the use of it? sure.

In a criminal trial, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Still, the answer is yes.

But let's say that you and i are opposing lawyers in a case. Part of our job would be to show to the jury, why a particular evidence (harmful to our own side) is weak or irrelavant, while at the same time, show why evidence, that helps the perception of our side, is stronger and more relevant. We could even know that a particular piece of evidence is crucial to one side or the other, but it would be our job to present our side in the strongest light... even if it means manipulating the jury... even in jury selection... one case in point, i think, would be Larry Flynt.. his lawyers tried to keep out of the jury, anyone that admitted being Christian.



quote:quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If your worldview denies the existance of God or if your worldview places science above the belief in God, then you have no other choice than to interpret evidence based on the confines of your worldview... the only other choice is to change the worldview to fit the evidence..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other choice is precisely the most lucrative choice for a Scientist. Like I said, proving an established theory of Science wrong is the way to become successful, famous and rich in the scientific arena. The same cannot be said of a Creation "Scientist" - his incentive lies in forcing the evidence to fit his religious beliefs.

I'm speculating here:

The scientist has to eat, too. He's got bills to pay, retirement to think of, student loans to pay off, etc. He's not (in general) going to go outside of

common thinking, unless he is very certain that his "radical view" have merit. And he is going to make even sure that they have merit, if he thinks the conclusion proves a young age, before he mentions them and tries to convince others... else he knows that it could mean career suicide, or worse-- he could have the stigma of being a ...shudder.. Creation Scientist. And even if he is right, he knows that it could take years after his death, before anyone finds merit in his rebelness. Not only that, but he has already been indoctrinated in the current thinking.. so chances are that, if he were going to gamble with his career, because of his indoctrinated worldview, that radical rebel would be slight.

Sure, he has the chance of "successful, famous and riches", but he knows this is a gamble.

Still speculation:

The incentive of the Creation Scientist could very well be the same as the Regular <trademark> Scientist e.g. fame, success, riches but it is not necessarily true that the incentive is mere "forcing the evidence to fit his religious beliefs". It very well may be possible that the incentive is truth, and that the current thinking views Creation Science as a "forcing the evidence to fit his religious beliefs" per their worldview. And another thing against the Creation Scientist is that the secular world knows the ramifications if it is true. That is to say, if it is true that the universe is less than 10k yrs, it is a good (or, atleast, "an") indicator that the Bible is true, and the implication an eternity in Hell is more than possible.

Who wants to give up sex, drugs and rock&roll? There fun... um, sorry, i meant to say that one would have to decide between God and self.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

HOWEVER, I do realize (after reading your reply) that you were not stating "objectivly subjective", but rather pointing out possibilities.... i.e. two contradictory religions can not both be true, but have an equal possibility of being true, OR there is also the possibility they could both be wrong.

Since you are alive, i can ask you, am i understanding you better this time around?

I'm highlighting possibilities which are based on different interpretations of a text. I'm limiting the scope to possible interpretations that follow the rules of grammar and the lexicon; though even if I didn't limit myself there, it would still support my point.

The whole point being that since we cannot very what the author meant, we cannot rule out possible interpretations of the text. Should we consider it a metaphor, a simile, an exaggeration? Should we consider it literally? We cannot rule those out, and because of this the true intent and meaning of the text is not known. That's my point.

quote:

Because this worldview denies the Supernatural, it can only find answers in the natural... and thus is circular... it is still relying on what the worldview allows or is foundational to.

That's not circular if they admit the possibility of the supernatural and simply hold the materialist position because there is currently absolutely nothing to support the idea of the supernatural existing.

Circular reasoning is using what you want to prove, to prove your conclusion. Belief that god exists because bible is the word of god, is circular reasoning.



quote:No, i realize that it begs the question... this is back to your point of possibilities.

... which means you have no point unless you explain how there could exist other people with "faith" that have contradictory interpretations. Until you do, your point is not valid.

quote:Why? Even you and i have come to some agreement of what is said in the Bible, concerning God confounding understanding (although we have not agreed on motive or malice).

Not only that, but if you think that there is a possibility that you are wrong, and God exists (and also the possibility that the Bible is His revealed Word), then wouldnt there also be the possibility that Satan could also be attempting to cause confusion?

If there exists contradictory interpretations, then there are two reasonable possibilities that I see:

1. There is no objective/certain way of arriving at the true meaning of the Bible

2. There is an objective/certain way of arriving at the true meaning of the bible, but the way to utilize that objective/certain method, is not clear.

Either of those makes my point, as it would either mean god deliberately made it so that there is no certain way, or deliberately made it so that the certain way is not known (by one or more people).



quote:Sure you are allowed to do this.. but my answer is not defeatist reasoning.

If God exists and if that God is the God of the Bible (being His Word), then He is the God with infinite knowledge. We are finite, with finite knowledge. How can we, with finite knowledge, rightly call Him foolish? Even if the reasoning used were perfect (logic, being one of the quantities that philosophers consider objective... math, i think, is the other quality), then it still falls on finite beings making the conclusion.

It's not defeatist to you, because it helps you rule out any questioning of your god. The point I'm making is that even if he does exist, and even if he possesses omniscience, I can only be reasonably expected to use the faculties given to me (logic and reason) to characterize him and his actions; thus why I maintain that those actions are foolish of him.

quote:According to the verses you quoted, at what point are the tribe and pirate condemned? I dont know for sure, but bearing in mind, from only the verses you quoted, i would think that they were condemned from the first time they used the "new fad saying". They only understood their fate, after they came to believe.

You are proving my point. You yourself aren't even certain of when they would be sentenced! This uncertainty in the interpretation of the Bible is all I need to prove my point!

It is precisely because this uncertainty exists that I could possibly be condemning my soul for all eternity without even knowing it. You yourself could be interpreting the bible erroneously and thus, you yourself could be condemned based on what you believed of the bible (contrary to what you said initially: " we are not sentenced because of what we believe or dont believe that His Word say").

Since this uncertainty exists, to then condemn us based on our beliefs (which are inherently linked to our interpretation of the bible - it is that interpretation which tells us what we must and must not do in order to be saved) is malicious.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

But there is less possibility that what happened in the recent past has changed from the now. And a greater possibility of verifying due to memory (or records)

Yes, yet that refutes absolutely nothing.

The uncertainty you speak of still exists, as do the conflicting "worldviews". Moreover, the judicial process is not subject to peer-review, or verification outside the trial (besides a handful of possible appeals). Scientific inquiry is.

My whole point is that similar uncertainty exists in jurisprudence yet you seem perfectly content to applying forensic Sciences there. It is only when Science questions your religious belief that you trot out this complaint about "worldviews" and the trouble of empirically verifying the past.

quote:What do you mean, "up for debate"?

There are cases that end up being overturned, so either they were wrongly convicted or wrongly released.

What I mean by "that's not up for debate" is that I'm not debating this. I acknowledge that there have been innocent people found guilty and guilty found innocent. That neither proves your point, nor refutes mine.

quote:That's an easy example, but what of things from the past? How can we verifiy that our conclusions are correct? We can only assume that they are. The farther back in time, the more difficult it can be.

Actually, "sameness" and "difference" can be mathematically determined. These footprints are actually shapes, and the differences between shapes can be mathematically ascertained. There is no "interpretation" necessary beyond mathematics.

quote:How do you know that it is a valid conclusion? You dont. It is, at best, the best conclusion that you can arrive at, given what is known so far. Unless you have a time machine, you are making assuptions based, in part, by your presumptions.

Correct, yet you yourself are not willing to admit even that. You do not say "the best conclusion so far given the humongous amount of evidence is that the age of universe is vastly more than 12,000 years".

You're not just admitting that the interpretation might be incorrect but are taking it as true for the time being, you go one step further and contradict all the physical evidence, all the Science, and all the mathematics, to arrive at your religious conclusion.

quote:All i'm saying is, in order to arrive at the right conclusion, you have to have the right premise.

You are correct, and we've arrived at the correct premise, or one which is indisputably close to it, using mathematics.

Those incorrect figures you cite are partly the result of a lack of these methods because they had not been developed at that time. Now, however, they are. To claim that the universe is 12,000 years old is to do away with all of mathematics.

quote:This isnt a fossil, but it does show that the right conditions can make it possible for a fossil to form pretty quick. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp

But these are fossils, and they show that a very rapid burial had to have occured, even though we cant tell how fast they formed: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp

[NOTE: Both links you gave were of the "fossil hat"

so I can't really reply to the other point.]

The "fossil hat" shows exactly what I said. Given good conditions, fossilization can occur relatively quickly. Great. That does not refute Science, because we have fossils in environments with bad conditions, conditions which make it so that the fossilization must have taken a very large amount of time.

quote:some of those scientist that i made claim about in the above, were in the pharm. field, and their "forcing" was motivated by greed, time pressures, fame, etc.

When a scientist puts on the white lab coat, it doesnt loose them from being human (anymore than a collar does for a member of the clergy). Sure, you can say that science eventually "finds them out", but some of the ones i made claim about, held out for quite a few years. (and granted, i only know about them from a magazine article.. i didnt verify the truth of the article, so it is possible that it was lying... it did give references that could be checked out though)

You're making my point for me. I know full well that scientists are human and that they can be motivated by greed - a quest for money or fame. It is exactly because of this that Scientists today have an incentive to refute evolution. Greedy scientists would dream of refuting evolution, as that would make them instantaneous celebrities in Science. They would literally become millionaires in a couple of weeks; they would win the Nobel Prize and would have all the history and Science textbooks re-written to include such a momentous occasion.

If you acknowledge that Scientists can be motivated by greed (as I do) then you are forced to acknowledge that if evolution is not being proven wrong by Science, it isn't because of a lack of incentive for doing so since the scientist that manages to do so would instantly fulfill his/her lust for money and fame; it must be then, because evolution is so greatly supported by the facts.

quote:the use of it? sure.

In a criminal trial, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Still, the answer is yes.

But let's say that you and i are opposing lawyers in a case. Part of our job would be to show to the jury, why a particular evidence (harmful to our own side) is weak or irrelavant, while at the same time, show why evidence, that helps the perception of our side, is stronger and more relevant. We could even know that a particular piece of evidence is crucial to one side or the other, but it would be our job to present our side in the strongest light... even if it means manipulating the jury... even in jury selection... one case in point, i think, would be Larry Flynt.. his lawyers tried to keep out of the jury, anyone that admitted being Christian.

Given all of this, then, it seems that you are quite content with allowing Science to be used when it supports you (the safety of you and your family in this case) and conveniently do away with Science the moment it refutes your religious beliefs.

quote:I'm speculating here:

The scientist has to eat, too. He's got bills to pay, retirement to think of, student loans to pay off, etc. He's not (in general) going to go outside of

common thinking, unless he is very certain that his "radical view" have merit. And he is going to make even sure that they have merit, if he thinks the conclusion proves a young age, before he mentions them and tries to convince others... else he knows that it could mean career suicide, or worse-- he could have the stigma of being a ...shudder.. Creation Scientist. And even if he is right, he knows that it could take years after his death, before anyone finds merit in his rebelness. Not only that, but he has already been indoctrinated in the current thinking.. so chances are that, if he were going to gamble with his career, because of his indoctrinated worldview, that radical rebel would be slight.

Sure, he has the chance of "successful, famous and riches", but he knows this is a gamble.

You'd have a point if the Scientists could not "pay his bills", "eat", and/or "secure his retirement" by claiming the opposite the truth of the matter is that he certainly can. He can become rich in doing so actually.

Look at Dembski, Behe, or "Dr.Dino" for example. All extremely successful individuals in their pseudo-scientific pursuits. The fact is that publishing a book criticizing evolution is a guaranteed best-seller because that is what the religious right in the U.S. wants to hear.

Any Scientist doubting evolution would not be comitting "career suicide" in that he would become greatly more successful monetary wise.

quote:The incentive of the Creation Scientist could very well be the same as the Regular <trademark> Scientist e.g. fame, success, riches but it is not necessarily true that the incentive is mere "forcing the evidence to fit his religious beliefs". It very well may be possible that the incentive is truth, and that the current thinking views Creation Science as a "forcing the evidence to fit his religious beliefs" per their worldview. And another thing against the Creation Scientist is that the secular world knows the ramifications if it is true. That is to say, if it is true that the universe is less than 10k yrs, it is a good (or, atleast, "an") indicator that the Bible is true, and the implication an eternity in Hell is more than possible.

I cannot arrive at any other conclusion when they routinely ignore evidence, contradict evidence, ignore the peer-review process, lie, cheat, and manipulate information for their purposes.

Being a Christian who supports "Intelligent Design" or "Biblical Creationism" is a one-way ticket to success in America. Being a Scientist which supports evolution, is not.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You are proving my point. You yourself aren't even certain of when they would be sentenced! This uncertainty in the interpretation of the Bible is all I need to prove my point!



Hi Rust,

Not much time so i'm only replying to the above part, which was addressing this:

quote:

According to the verses you quoted, at what point are the tribe and pirate condemned? I dont know for sure, but bearing in mind, from only the verses you quoted, i would think that they were condemned from the first time they used the "new fad saying". They only understood their fate, after they came to believe.



quote:It is precisely because this uncertainty exists that I could possibly be condemning my soul for all eternity without even knowing it. You yourself could be interpreting the bible erroneously and thus, you yourself could be condemned based on what you believed of the bible (contrary to what you said initially: " we are not sentenced because of what we believe or dont believe that His Word say").

But according to the whole of Scripture (OT & NT), the theme, in reguard to condemned, is that from the point of A & E's Original Sin, humanity is condemned. It is Christ's work on the Cross that allows one to be "uncondemned". The verses that you provided are an "exception".. meant as a warning.

So, in the tribe/pirate story, viewing it from only the verses you provided, what i said still stands (and, if you look back, i did qualify that statement, with the same or similar bolding).

However, i would be proving your point (to a degree) in this (which was also in that same post):

quote:(i'm sorry if this offends anyone. I too, have loved ones that died, probably, unsaved).

I'm not God, so i can not know for certain who is condemned, or if God "grades on a curve" and allows more "leniency" in His Judgement. (given newborns or tropical tribes that never had a chance to know, or etc.). The camps are not in agreement on this, and neither have i understood anything in Scripture that defines it one way or the other, for me.

This is where i trust that since God is Just, He has this worked out, Justly.

I say, "(to a degree)" because:

1) we are finite, trying to understand the Word of the Infinite God.

2) as per an earlier posts in this thread, the disagreement of the camps is based on:

a)what is taken as the foundational Truth

b) reading a person's presuppositional bias into the text (in other words, what one holds as primary..trust in God or trust in self understanding... other people have used the term, "willingness to compromise")

here is one of the places that it was mentioned in this thread:

quote:

Another thing that gets used, unfortunately, is eisegesis. That is when the understanding is given, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas or bias, instead of the meaning of the text.

And, IMO, there is a very fine line between eisegesis and presuppositions. And a good example of this is the debate between OEC and YEC vs. the creation/evolution debate



quote:Since this uncertainty exists, to then condemn us based on our beliefs (which are inherently linked to our interpretation of the bible - it is that interpretation which tells us what we must and must not do in order to be saved) is malicious.

Not malicious at all. Free-will, even a minute amount, still leaves human responsibility. Which, in the statement of yours that i just quoted, you are implying a free-will of sorts... namely, our beliefs and our interpretation. (i understand your position on "no free-will if God is omnimax", and i'm not bringing that into this post. I'm am only explaining in terms of this quote above).

catch ya later, gotta go.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

But according to the whole of Scripture (OT & NT), the theme, in reguard to condemned, is that from the point of A & E's Original Sin, humanity is condemned. It is Christ's work on the Cross that allows one to be "uncondemned".

No, according to your interpretation of the scripture. That's the whole point. You cannot be certain your interpretation is true, as the other interpretations are possible.

quote:Not malicious at all. Free-will, even a minute amount, still leaves human responsibility. Which, in the statement of yours that i just quoted, you are implying a free-will of sorts... namely, our beliefs and our interpretation. (i understand your position on "no free-will if God is omnimax", and i'm not bringing that into this post. I'm am only explaining in terms of this quote above).

"Responsibility" cannot be reasonably pinned on human beings if there is no objective way of arriving at what the bible's true meaning, or if that way is unknown, or deliberately complicated, obtuse, and confusing.

To use an analogy, imagine a lab rat in an experiment. The rat can take one of two different paths (A and B). If the rat takes one of the paths, he will be rewarded (lets say path A), and if he takes the other path(path B), he will be punished. The instructions, explaining which path leads to which outcome, are either non-existent, or deliberately made confusing and lending themselves to misinterpretation.

How is it the rat's fault that he chose path B when the correct instructions detailing what path is the righteous one are either non-existent, or purposely designed for failure? It isn't.

If god has made it so that there is no objective way of arriving at the bible's meaning (which you've yet to prove that there is), or if the bible can be misleading, and confusing and can be interpreted differently - leading to a multitude of conflicting and contradictory beliefs - (all of which you apparently admit to) then the Christian god is disturbingly malicious if he decides to condemn man.

We have an omnipotent and omniscient being which must, by its very definition, have the ability to prevent any and all suffering while preserving free will, as well as giving us clear, objective and easy-to-follow instructions of what the righteous path is, and he has deliberately refused to do so. You may not like admitting it, but that's malicious.

QUOTE Originally posted by Rust:

"Responsibility" cannot be reasonably pinned on human beings if there is no objective way of arriving at what the bible's true meaning, or if that way is unknown, or deliberately complicated, obtuse, and confusing. /quote

Hi again,

I dont think that i said that there is no objective way of arriving at the Bible's true meaning. In fact, i said:

quote:You had said that i lack a method of arriving at an objective conclusion. Maybe so, but i dont think that it is just me, or even just folks that try to understand God's Word.

that quote might be weak and could be understood that i am relying on presuppositions, but then there is this (to Martini),

quote:There is two major ways i need to answer this. The natural and the supernatural.

I have said in the past on Totse, that i wont discuss the second with anyone online, or with anyone that does not know me well. If someone doesnt know me well, then my testimony is "just another crazy story from a whacko". I even share it with very few Christians, since i dont know their level of Faith, so i dont want them to think, "why has this not also happened to me?"... thus, it might be a way to hurt their Faith, rather than to help it.

So, when i dont explain the "why?", i have good reason.

Now, the short answer about the natural. Because i've studied. Not exhaustively. I'm still studying. But the more i study, the more the puzzle pieces fit together.

There is a third part to answering.. and this is the most important...

Because faith has been given me, by the Holy Spirit. I realise that that answer doesnt do anything for you, but it fits with my worldview and my presuppositions.

which ties into this (which also answers your question about "no objective way of.., misleading.., and confusing,.. malicious "} :

quote:I'm not saying that God has or hasnt made an objective way to determine Truth. I believe He has, but how do you know for certain that He hasnt?

i'm asking you if it's possible that the only way to objectively discern Truth is through Faith in Him?

Is it possible that the degree of Truth revealed, is proportional to the degree of an individual's Faith in Him, coupled with whatever plan He has for that person's life?

(compare Abraham's appearant blind faith in sacrificing his son Isaac to Doubting Thomas, who said that he would not believe unless he touched Jesus side and hands)

Why is it, that the Christian (or theist, i guess would work) claims to know that God exists?

Could it be possible that God reveals Truth more often to those who Trust Him to a greater degree? (Yes, i realize that this begs the question of Faith's that are directly opposed and contradictory to one another, and the fanatics of said faiths).





My apologies for going on and on, but i wanted it clear that i dont think that i said it is impossible for an objective understanding of God's Word (although i will remind you that i did say that we are finite, trying to understand the infinite.. that means that all human understanding about anything, is limited).

*************

Now, reguarding malice, here is an excerpt from a "Official Rules" from some sweepstakes:

quote:3. General Conditions: Entrants agree to abide by the terms of these official rules and by the decisions of xxxxxxxxx, which are final and binding on all matters pertaining to this sweepstakes.

I'm guessing that you've heard the old saying that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". With God being both Creator and Law Giver, He has the right to condemn or forgive. He can be Just or Merciful.

He gave Adam and Eve a straightforward command and they chose to disobey. Would you or i have made a different choice? Doubtful.

Does our claim that we just didnt understand or that the rules werent clear, release us from the consequences? Not if He is Just.

Did He provide a means of Mercy? His Son, Jesus the Christ is that means.

here is the provision:

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.[/quote]



If you think it is all on the interpretation of the reader, then "Ask... Seek... Knock".



OT:

quote:Jer 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

Jer 29:12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.

Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Jer 29:14 And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.

NT:

quote:Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

and again:

quote:Luk 11:7 And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee.

Luk 11:8 I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.

Luk 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

Luk 11:10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.





To use an analogy, imagine a lab rat in an experiment. The rat can take one of two different paths (A and B). If the rat takes one of the paths, he will be rewarded (lets say path A), and if he takes the other path(path B), he will be punished. The instructions, explaining which path leads to which outcome, are either non-existent, or deliberately made confusing and lending themselves to misinterpretation.

How is it the rat's fault that he chose path B when the correct instructions detailing what path is the righteous one are either non-existent, or purposely designed for failure? It isn't.

I disagree that this analogy fits, for the reason that it is not proved that it is malice of the person performing the experiment. It is also not proved that the rat has no possible way to discern the choices or the outcome.

Whether or not the rat understands the choices or the rules, the rat will still be punished if choice (B) is taken... that is set out in the rules of the experiment, not out of malice.

If god has made it so that there is no objective way of arriving at the bible's meaning (which you've yet to prove that there is),

and you've yet to prove that there isn't

or if the bible can be misleading, and confusing and can be interpreted differently - leading to a multitude of conflicting and contradictory beliefs - (all of which you apparently admit to) then the Christian god is disturbingly malicious if he decides to condemn man.

No.

He is Just in the fact that He does what He said He would do.

He is Merciful in the fact that He provided a way for us to avoid what we deserve... however obscure or missing you think it is.

We have an omnipotent and omniscient being which must, by its very definition,

you forgot "Just".

"Ask... Seek... Knock",

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Hi again,

I dont think that i said that there is no objective way of arriving at the Bible's true meaning.

I know that you didn't, which is why I mentioned that you have yet to prove that this objective method exists, which means not only did I recognize that you believed it existed, but that I recognized that you have yet to support that belief with any meaningful evidence.

Moreover, I include the possibility of it existing in my argument.

quote:

I disagree that this analogy fits, for the reason that it is not proved that it is malice of the person performing the experiment. It is also not proved that the rat has no possible way to discern the choices or the outcome.

Whether or not the rat understands the choices or the rules, the rat will still be punished if choice (B) is taken... that is set out in the rules of the experiment, not out of malice.

1. The analogy doesn't say anything of malice of the person performing the experiments, only what he has done. Malice is the conclusion that I am forced to make after reviewing what he has done.

2. Who said anything about "no possible way to discern the choices or the outcome"? Nobody. I said that either the objective method doesn't exist, or that if it does, it is obtuse, and lends itself to misinterpretation. Can they possibly dissect what the correct path is? Sure, the problem is that the "manual" lends itself for countless contradictory interpretations, and is itself very confusing.

quote:

and you've yet to prove that there isn't

I don't have to. My argument doesn't rest on the non-existence of such a method. Of course, it would help, but it's not necessary at all. As you should be able to see, I'm including the possibility that such a method does exist in my argument.

You on the other hand, rely entirely on the existence of such a method yet you've not substantiated that claim at all.

quote:

No.

He is Just in the fact that He does what He said He would do.

He is Merciful in the fact that He provided a way for us to avoid what we deserve... however obscure or missing you think it is.



He could have said something else entirely, and done that! He could have provided a better way for us to avoid what we deserve, one that is not confusing, and not unknown to countless people in the world, and one that doesn't lends itself to a myriad of contradictory information.

Doing what you say you were going to do has absolutely nothing to do with justice, or being just. Not doing unnecessary harm, and being fair in your judgments, does. The word "fair" cannot be used to describe what you say the Christian god has done, because it is nothing close to it.

quote:

you forgot "Just".

He is just because he says he is just? Sorry, but I'm not in the business of using circular logic to save my dying beliefs. I'm in the business of using reason, and it is unreasonable to claim that a man that deliberately allows unnecessary suffering to exist, and deliberately punishes his creation after creating a "manual" which is unnecessarily confusing, and lends itself to unnecessary misinterpretation, is "just".

If you see my continued use of the words "deliberately" and "unnecessary", it's because anything he does is both deliberate - in that he knows exactly what he is going to do - and "unnecessary" - in that he can always do something else.

Death, rape, disease, torture, war, famine, - all of those, are deliberate and unnecessary.

I think Rust won this one.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I think Rust won this one.

first, why?

second, who said it was a contest?

quote:Originally posted by Cyr0xos:

Thanks for your reply Interest -- that cleared many things up.

Regarding the 4th commandment:

Exodus 20:8-9

says that no one should work on the sabbath day.

Is this still a valid commandment?

I'm sorry I missed this..my work keeps me very busy and I try to check in here as often as possible.

The problem with the religious legalists are the interpreation of the "laws". You see in Jesus's time, the religious rulers were considered to be like the lawyers of today. They wrangled over the definition of the law and intrepreted it in their ways. They usually mis-interpreted it and heaped a great yoke on those who live under it. They became inprisoned by the laws of God when they were intended to free people from the bondage of sin. In return the laws became the bondage and the religious leaders were guilty of holding the chains.

There are many accounts of when Jesus said they didn't understand what God intended for them. For example: he would perform miracles on the Sabbath day and the religious leaders condemned him for it.



One of the greatest things Jesus did was interpret the law by His own life. Through it we understand God's intentions of the laws and not man's interpretations.

Jesus basicaly said it is right to do good works on the Sabbath and rest from our evil ways. Whereas some believe Sunday is the day to be good so we can be all messed up for the rest of the week. However, in Jesus is the Sabath rest and that is a 24/7 calling.

Jesus did not come to change the laws but to fullfill it. In His life He interprets to us what the commandments mean. We are to rest from doing evil and do good in all of our days. Within it we will find the rest God has ordained for us.

Jesus' interpretation is the right one to listen to. Thoese interpretations lie within the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It is not easily seen but for those have eyes...etc. I highly encourage you to study those gospels to understand the Sabbath rest.

[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 11-16-2006).]

Hi Rust,

I know, i know.. we were talking about a method for understanding His Word..

I just feel like working on this for now:

Doing what you say you were going to do has absolutely nothing to do with justice, or being just.

For me, no. But the Sovereign God, yes. He says, in effect; "Adam, Eve-- dont eat from that tree. If you do, I will allow you to die".

That is an absolute law. If He fails to allow death, then He is being a liar and therefore, unjust.

Not doing unnecessary harm, and being fair in your judgments, does.

There is no way to know that it was unnecessary, without knowing whatever it is that God knows and plans (apart from what He reveals).

The word "fair" cannot be used to describe what you say the Christian god has done, because it is nothing close to it.

I might have used the word 'fair', but i dont recall and right now i'm not going to look back.



He is just because he says he is just?

Well, actually, yes. However, He doesnt only say that He is Just... He follows through with what He says. (but, since you dont believe in Him, then i guess you & i get to have these discussions... and others get entertainment from us)

Sorry, but I'm not in the business of using circular logic to save my dying beliefs.

Who says that i'm even trying to save my belief? Who says it's dying? Why save something that isnt dying?....

Oh sorry, i misread... it is your dying belief that needs saving, but you dont use circular logic.... how bout a lifesaver? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I'm in the business of using reason, and it is unreasonable to claim that a man

man?

that deliberately allows unnecessary suffering to exist,

unnecessary? Again with knowing what God knows?



and deliberately punishes his creation after creating a "manual" which is unnecessarily confusing, and lends itself to unnecessary misinterpretation, is "just".

And that "manual" also allows for a correct interpretation... based, in part on the foundations of the worldview... and as i said before, more so on the Holy Spirit.

Now, i'm assuming that you would say that the Holy Spirit is, at best, a subjective approach (or, atleast a non-objective method). But this example might (i hope) be able to show how a foundation could be objective from within, but viewed as subjective from the outside (just trying to use some terms or ideas that were mentioned in one of our past chats... i had said that it looks circular from a non-believer's POV, but from the Christian it was a straight line.. i dont know if you remember).. ok, here is the example that i hope works:

Close your eyes... are they closed? (if you read that, then... nevermind, let's start over lol

Close your eyes and picture a red ball.

OK, do it again.

Did you repeat the experiment?

Ok, now you have objective proof that the red ball was in your mind's eye, but no matter how hard you try, i dont think you can convince me that you saw an image of the red ball... all i have to go on, is your word... i can do the experiment myself, but there isnt a way that we could prove that what we saw, was the same thing. We could paint a picture, and it might be similar, but all that would prove is that we both already knew what a red ball looked like.. we cant prove to each other, that we objectively saw that red ball.

But if i had never seen a ball, let alone a red one, you would still have that objective proof that you had seen it in your minds eye, but i would, at best, view this as subjective proof, and at worse, think you were making up the whole story... and then i would say, "i dont believe in "balls", red or otherwise. Moreover, there are others that say that it is a "ball" of a different color. But you know, objectively, that you saw what you saw... and if there are others that claim different color "balls", only one can be right..atleast for this analogy (lol, the temptation to use "blue")

(i know this analogy falls short, since the "ball" is not helping anyone understand its existence nor does the "ball" inspire a Holy Book... it's just an example to try to help you understand... the analogy fails for other reasons too, like i said, it is just an attempt at helping you understand)

The point being, if you dont believe in God, what kind of proof would you consider (or atleast allow) to be objective?

I was reading an article, tonight, on Newcomb's Paradox (Newcomb's Paradox is a more advaced version of the example that you give here on Totse, as a refutation of free-will or an omnibenevolent God), and i realized that the controversy is mostly from the secular, in that they wanted to rearrange the riddle to be "two boxer's", while at the same time trying to defeat the existence of Nozick's "being" as an omniscient God.. they want it all, but in rearranging, they end up with the booby prize, due to their greed and refusal to accept the (possibility) of the omniscient.

Here's the article if you're interested (maybe you'll come to a different understanding than me):

http://tinyurl.com/u8yp8

Going to bed now, have a good night.

God Bless,

johnny

ps. there is still time to choose the life Saviour



Edit to remove bolding error. This time it was me that forgot to close a tag.

Also removed an old included quote that i thought might have contained the problem as a hidden tag... not sure if there was a hidden tag, but it's gone now and my error is also fixed, so with fingers crossed, this should work. LOL



Edit #2, changed "Newton" to "Newcomb".

Wow, maybe i need to stay off the sugar and caffine LOL.

[This message has been edited by xtreem5150ahm (edited 11-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



For me, no. But the Sovereign God, yes. He says, in effect; "Adam, Eve-- dont eat from that tree. If you do, I will allow you to die".

That is an absolute law. If He fails to allow death, then He is being a liar and therefore, unjust.

You've proven absolutely nothing with that example. Nothing in that example shows how "doing what you say" is being "just"; you just said it did!

quote:

There is no way to know that it was unnecessary, without knowing whatever it is that God knows and plans (apart from what He reveals).



If god is omnipotent, then by definition he must be able to have more than one choice of action for any given scenario - if he doesn't, he must have the power to make another choice possible. If he has two or more choices, then choosing any one of them is not absolutely necessary; he can always choose the other choice(s). In fact, he must possess the power to make it so that it isn't absolutely necessary!

quote:

I might have used the word 'fair', but i dont recall and right now i'm not going to look back.

I used the word fair in describing what a just action is defined as. You didn't argue with what I said, is that because you don't believe he isn't fair?

quote:

Well, actually, yes.

Circular logic.

quote: However, He doesnt only say that He is Just... He follows through with what He says. (but, since you dont believe in Him, then i guess you & i get to have these discussions... and others get entertainment from us)

You've yet to show how "following through with what you say" is conclusive of being "just".

quote:

Who says that i'm even trying to save my belief? Who says it's dying? Why save something that isnt dying?....

Oh sorry, i misread... it is your dying belief that needs saving, but you dont use circular logic.... how bout a lifesaver? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Well that's the conclusion I'm forced to arrive at given that you use circular logic to explain your beliefs. Or is that you like being illogical?

quote:

man?

Man, being, substance, variable X, etc.

quote:

unnecessary? Again with knowing what God knows?

See above. I don't have to know what god knows to make that conclusion. It is absolutely necessary that that be the case if he is to be omnipotent.

If he is omnipotent then he must have the power to make a scenario have more than one possible choice. If there is more than one possible choice, then not a single choice is absolutely necessary: he can always chose the other possible choice(s).

quote:

And that "manual" also allows for a correct interpretation... based, in part on the foundations of the worldview... and as i said before, more so on the Holy Spirit.

So? That doesn't refute my argument. Russian roulette also allows for you to come out unscathed - does that mean Russian roulette isn't a disgusting and unspeakable act? No.

It's the fact that he deliberately made it so that the "manual" is prone to contradictory and wrong information that makes it a truly disgusting thing to do.

quote:

The point being, if you dont believe in God, what kind of proof would you consider (or atleast allow) to be objective?

1. What I believe is not important in this discussion. It's what you believe which is important. What you believe means that he deliberately made a "manual" which is unnecessarily confusing and prone to contradictory information and then is damning us to suffer for all of eternity.

2. I've already allowed for an objective method of arriving at what the bible truly meant, to exist. Whether I actually believe that to be the case or not is rather unimportant - it neither supports nor refutes your argument.

quote:

ps. there is still time to choose the life Saviour

Well if your interpretation of the bible - on which that claim of yours hinges on - is based on a book prone to mistakes, confusion and contradictory information, then I see no reason to trust your assertion. If I were a gambling man, I'd bet on the opposite of what you just said!



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-26-2006).]

quote:ps. there is still time to choose the life Saviour

If I were a gambling man, I'd bet on the opposite of what you just said!

Well, are you a gambling man?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Well, are you a gambling man?

You must be, considering you've rejected all other religions that contain threat of punishment and equal validity (note: none) to the one you have selected.

*worships Zeus as a precaution*



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 11-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Well, are you a gambling man?



A regular Maverick; Pascal would be proud.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

A regular Maverick; Pascal would be proud.

Am i to take it then, that you have already made your bet? And that bet is that there is no time left in which to choose? In effect, just waiting for the roulette ball to stop?

If this is so, then the only reason for me to continue is not for your sake, but for the sake of ones watching, that might still have time to wager.

I disagree. And along with my prayer for you, i will still try to toss you a life vest that fits.

It never was my responsibility (to you or anyone other human) to prove God or defend the Bible.. to you or anyone else. God is the One that does the proving and defending.. in whatever manner He chooses.

My responsibility lies in following the Great Commission and in giving an answer to the reason of hope in me. The answers and the lack of answers are the only ones that i could give you (if you want to look at it from a materialistic POV, that's fine.. then it means that i can no longer go into the past and change the answer.. what's been answered is the answer)



1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Please read Ezekiel 18:1-32.

***********

Now, on a more fun note - since we have no time left in which to waste time, then let's waste the lack of time LOL

What did you think of that article on Newcomb's Paradox?

God Bless you Rust,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Am i to take it then, that you have already made your bet? And that bet is that there is no time left in which to choose? In effect, just waiting for the roulette ball to stop?



The bet was placed for me: logic, evidence and reason make the bet. Sadly, it seems that if you're god exists, he wants absolutely nothing to do with any of those.

quote:It never was my responsibility (to you or anyone other human) to prove God or defend the Bible.. to you or anyone else. God is the One that does the proving and defending.. in whatever manner He chooses.

You see, that's the problem - you don't even know that! For all you know, it is your responsibility to defend the bible and your salvation depends on it.

quote:What did you think of that article on Newcomb's Paradox?

You should know full well what my position on theological fatalism is by now. I think the interpretation you gave in your previous post is wrong. If we're dealing with an omniscient god, then choosing B is the only wise choice.

quote:You should know full well what my position on theological fatalism is by now. I think the interpretation you gave in your previous post is wrong. If we're dealing with an omniscient god, then choosing B is the only wise choice.

I agree, B is the only wise choice. However, most of the philosophers that have been trying "solve" this for almost 4 decades, have been trying to 1)maximize their gain 2)fool the predictor since they see, after having chosen B, there is still a thousand bucks to gain. And 3) feel as though they are left without a choice, since they think that their choice is already chosen for them.

At what point do you think that my interpretation was wrong-- since we both agree that what the wise choice is (when dealing with omniscience)?

I'm pretty sure you know what i'm driving at here... we came to a similar "wisest choice" reading the same text, contextually... whether it was objective or subjective didnt matter (just like the red ball).. we had a similar foundational understanding i.e. we have both been through previous discussions with each other, on choice being free or forced.



I asked to be "on call" tomorrow, so i might have off, so i might be able to try and pick this up again tomorrow for a while... that is, if you want.

God Bless and good night,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I agree, B is the only wise choice. However, most of the philosophers that have been trying "solve" this for almost 4 decades, have been trying to 1)maximize their gain 2)fool the predictor since they see, after having chosen B, there is still a thousand bucks to gain. And 3) feel as though they are left without a choice, since they think that their choice is already chosen for them.

Their discussion hinges on the "predictor" not being omniscient, only really good in predicting. The "wisest" choice then varies based on the probability of the predictor making the correct choice. This is precisely why "Newcomb's Paradox" is often taken as a fallacy.

quote:

At what point do you think that my interpretation was wrong-- since we both agree that what the wise choice is (when dealing with omniscience)?

When you start claiming that the "secular" want both choices because of their greed; implying not only that the non-secular would not want to maximize their profit (or not be greedy), but that the best choice for profit would be two-boxes. If the predictor is omniscient, then the best choice profit-wise would in fact be box B - which, according to you - would make this choice of yours equally greedy...

quote:

I'm pretty sure you know what i'm driving at here... we came to a similar "wisest choice" reading the same text, contextually... whether it was objective or subjective didnt matter (just like the red ball).. we had a similar foundational understanding i.e. we have both been through previous discussions with each other, on choice being free or forced.

We came to a similar choice because as a speaking community, humans often read and write literally - especially in logic problems such as these. The fact remains, however, that the possibility of other interpretations exists.

quote:Their discussion hinges on the "predictor" not being omniscient, only really good in predicting. The "wisest" choice then varies based on the probability of the predictor making the correct choice. This is precisely why "Newcomb's Paradox" is often taken as a fallacy.

Ya, i caught that from the .9 and the .1.

But i also caught "but it is of obvious interest for the metaphysician and philosopher of religion as well. For it is almost irresistable to identify Nozick's "being" with an omniscient God and to construe Newcomb's Paradox as an illustration of the problem of theological fatalism" and the quotes of Hillel & Margalit and also Don Locke's comments which are similar to the presentation you give in here when arguing against freewill if God is omniscient..



quote:When you start claiming that the "secular" want both choices because of their greed; implying not only that the non-secular would not want to maximize their profit (or not be greedy), but that the best choice for profit would be two-boxes.

Ya, that was alittle outta bounds, since there are non-secular that would fit in the greedy column, and there are secular that would choose the 'one-box' choice.

quote:If the predictor is omniscient, then the best choice profit-wise would in fact be box B - which, according to you - would make this choice of yours equally greedy...

True.

quote:We came to a similar choice because as a speaking community, humans often read and write literally - especially in logic problems such as these. The fact remains, however, that the possibility of other interpretations exists.

But are they valid interpretations? And it still comes down to foundations. Since english isnt your first language, what types of "methodology" did you use when learning english... especially when understanding figures of speech? I mean, not everything you read is literal. How did you come to understand non-literal and draw meaning from it?

johnny

ps. sorry for not getting back to this yesterday. I did have off but i just goofed off most of the day.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Ya, i caught that from the .9 and the .1.

But i also caught "but it is of obvious interest for the metaphysician and philosopher of religion as well. For it is almost irresistable to identify Nozick's "being" with an omniscient God and to construe Newcomb's Paradox as an illustration of the problem of theological fatalism" and the quotes of Hillel & Margalit and also Don Locke's comments which are similar to the presentation you give in here when arguing against freewill if God is omniscient..

If the "predictor" is omniscient it is exactly the same problem of theological fatalism that has been expressed here before countless times. Newcomb's Paradox isn't specifically special for that regard, it is special for the two seemingly reasonable, yet mutually exclusive, choices which at first glance seem to pose a conundrum.



quote:But are they valid interpretations? And it still comes down to foundations. Since english isnt your first language, what types of "methodology" did you use when learning english... especially when understanding figures of speech? I mean, not everything you read is literal. How did you come to understand non-literal and draw meaning from it?

They are valid in that they can certainly be made from reading the material; they can be said not to be valid if they don't express the author's true intention. The point being that the intention is unknown, specifically with a dead author.

As for how I understood figures of speech, I understood them based on the context. That changes nothing; though that may be the most common way to interpret something, it certainly isn't the only way - which is my point. The very fact that we can see a myriad of contradictory interpretations in the bible already shows, at the very least, that the correct method of interpretation is not made clear to readers.

"arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"

Never a truer word spoken about God.

This is from "the god delusion" by Richard Dawkins.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The very fact that we can see a myriad of contradictory interpretations in the bible already shows, at the very least, that the correct method of interpretation is not made clear to readers.

That's an excellpent point by itself.

You would think god could have written his all-important divine word so that even the true believers wouldn't be arguing over what it all means.

i could not decide whether to put this post here or in one of jackketch's threads. i think it is more relevant here...

In light of jackketch's recent topics, i thought it might be time again to toss another log on the fire...

http://tinyurl.com/y2ohf9

The one area that i either misunderstand or disagree with (in the above link) is in the section "Interpret the Old Testament in Light of the New Testament" where it states:

quote:In view of this, a key interpretive principle is that one should always interpret the Old Testament in view of the greater light of the New Testament

Although i am not completely at odds with that statement, it seems to me that since we are not first century eye witnesses, we have to also understand the NT in light of the foundational Truth of the Pentateuch < the 1st eleven chapters of Genesis < (and more specifically) Genesis 1:1 (and i think i've mentioned words to this effect in an earlier post in this thread).

It does seem as though the author of the article does imply this thought in the section "The Example of Jesus Christ".

jackketch tells the TOTSE community to read the Bible as if one is reading a newspaper (from an untrusted government).. there are merits to his method or suggestion. However, the foundational presuppositions that a reader brings to this approach WILL determine the understanding. i.e. if one does not believe in the historicity and the Divinity of Jesus the Christ, then the understanding of any of the Supernatural will be tossed aside... This seems to be just as unobjective of an approach as Christians are accused of making... but then again, Christians are not the ones claiming to be unbias.... the foundational Truth for Christians is that God exists and that He has revealed Truth to humankind through His Word.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

i could not decide whether to put this post here or in one of jackketch's threads. i think it is more relevant here...

In light of jackketch's recent topics, i thought it might be time again to toss another log on the fire...

http://tinyurl.com/y2ohf9

The one area that i either misunderstand or disagree with (in the above link) is in the section "Interpret the Old Testament in Light of the New Testament" where it states:

Although i am not completely at odds with that statement, it seems to me that since we are not first century eye witnesses, we have to also understand the NT in light of the foundational Truth of the Pentateuch < the 1st eleven chapters of Genesis < (and more specifically) Genesis 1:1 (and i think i've mentioned words to this effect in an earlier post in this thread).

It does seem as though the author of the article does imply this thought in the section "The Example of Jesus Christ".

jackketch tells the TOTSE community to read the Bible as if one is reading a newspaper (from an untrusted government).. there are merits to his method or suggestion. However, the foundational presuppositions that a reader brings to this approach WILL determine the understanding. i.e. if one does not believe in the historicity and the Divinity of Jesus the Christ, then the understanding of any of the Supernatural will be tossed aside... This seems to be just as unobjective of an approach as Christians are accused of making... but then again, Christians are not the ones claiming to be unbias.... the foundational Truth for Christians is that God exists and that He has revealed Truth to humankind through His Word.

God Bless,

johnny



Of course everyone who studies the bible will bring their own bias to it. Nor do I think I have ever claimed to be unbiased.Neither do I reject the supernatural outright, rather I think it is beholden upon me as a 'christian' and 'seeker of truth' to try and understand what the author said and how he meant it.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



Of course everyone who studies the bible will bring their own bias to it. Nor do I think I have ever claimed to be unbiased.Neither do I reject the supernatural outright, rather I think it is beholden upon me as a 'christian' and 'seeker of truth' to try and understand what the author said and how he meant it.



i agree. And since i didn't have a major contention with the method you suggested to the other members, my deciding factor on where to post this was based more on the content of this thread.

i do apologise if you felt it was an attack on you.

i do have a couple of things i might discuss or atleast ask, concerning your threads, but if i do, i'll put them in the proper thread.

johnny

If we can't/don't even know for a fact that a one true method of interpreting the bible exists, then debating the validity of different methods is ultimately meaningless.

You'd first have to show that arriving at an objective method for interpretation is at all possible and then proceed to conclude which method that is.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

i agree. And since i didn't have a major contention with the method you suggested to the other members, my deciding factor on where to post this was based more on the content of this thread.

i do apologise if you felt it was an attack on you.

i do have a couple of things i might discuss or atleast ask, concerning your threads, but if i do, i'll put them in the proper thread.

johnny



Sorry if I sounded short (that's what happens when one tries to cook and post at the same time!).

No I didn't feel in anyway attacked.I'm just wound up, bummed out and not up to speed (ie I need a dose of oc6!)

Am I right in thinking you are the same xtreem who handed me my theological arse a couple of times back when i used to post here regular?

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 12-16-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If we can't/don't even know for a fact that a one true method of interpreting the bible exists, then debating the validity of different methods is ultimately meaningless.

You'd first have to show that arriving at an objective method for interpretation is at all possible and then proceed to conclude which method that is.

I tend to the view that the bible should be subjected to all the normal scholarly rules of evidence that apply to any other

historical work.

That was badly expressed but I guess you'll know what I mean.

ie Was the account contemporary/eyewitness?What is the texts 'sitz im Leben', who wrote it and with what objective? Has it been altered? blah blah blah.

Which theologians call the 'historical-critical' method and every other non theological scholar/historian considers simple bloody common sense.

Yet even that "common sense" method is not objective by any means. You cannot show how that method is any more closer to the truth than a totally different method of reading, interpreting and understanding what is written in the bible.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Yet even that "common sense" method is not objective by any means. You cannot show how that method is any more closer to the truth than a totally different method of reading, interpreting and understanding what is written in the bible.

At the risk of sounding insulting (and I'm not), the destination tends to define the journey. ie the assumption that there is a 'truth' that might be attained will also colour any objectivety.

Personally and I stress that it is purely my personal feeling, I find all interpretations of the bible somewhat suspect (inculding my own) if there is no historical, proveable (within the normal rules of evidence), fact to base it on.

Unfortunately such 'solid' facts are rare in the study of the NT.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If we can't/don't even know for a fact that a one true method of interpreting the bible exists, then debating the validity of different methods is ultimately meaningless.

You'd first have to show that arriving at an objective method for interpretation is at all possible and then proceed to conclude which method that is.

This works both ways Rust. It's the presuppositions that one brings to the table. The difference is, if God exists, there is an objective reference point. If God is not, then all things are relative, including the interpretation of science.

Couple of examples (i appologise in advance for any misspellings in the first.. they would be mine) :

quote: Jesus among other Gods Ravi Zacharias (p. 172)

...If this order is contrasted with that of the naturalist, the following pattern emerges. The impersonal universe brought itself into being and just happened to strike upon the conditions in which life could arise--the elimination of any ultimate purpose. Somehow over time, in order to thwart disease and destruction and to survive, procreation brought multiplication--the materiality and amorality of sex. Codes were developed that were mutually beneficial--the cultural and relative nature of morality.

Every assertion in that paradigm flies in the face of reason and intuition. It is scientifically and existentially incoherent. Take just the first. Bare nothing has never been known to produce something. Can one scientifically explain how a state of absolute nothingness can bring about intelligent processes and results? However one wants to disagree on the processes, the fact is that this is an ontologically haunted universe. By that, I mean that the ultimate cause of our being and our very mode of thinking demand that what we are and how we came to be cannot just be dismissed as "it happened." There is intelligibility running through our veins, and from that we cannot run.

the second example is taken from another forum:

quote:If there is no god, then really morality is nothing but an evolved set of behaviors, that can't have much importance. Why is the cliche 'no man is an island,' a reason for something to be relevant now? I don't see the logical connection. And if love is merely chemicals in the brain, why does your family really mean something to you? It is just chemicals working on those neurons when you see your family; they aint really important.

I haven't read Camus, but from what I hear, I think his nihilistic view of our efforts and the meaninglessness of life is pretty close to what I am asking you here. Love is brain chemistry; so is happiness, saddness, lust and filial devotion. Our achievements will be forgotten quite quickly. Go through a graveyard in England and look at the names of the people there---they had lives, hopes,and dreams. Who cares now about their hopes? Their accompllishments? Who really cares if they treated their family good or bad? Who cares if they were YEC or evolutionist, atheist or theist? If there is no god, none of all this debate matters. Little in life really matters....

...Your 'care' is nothing more than brain chemistry. Take a couple of pills and it will go away. Why does brain chemistry make your friends and family so important that you want to fight YEC and defend atheism? it seems utterly absurd to defend anything if atheism is right. If atheism is right, we are not much more than sophisticated marionettes who mouth meaningless gibberish that we think is so cosmically important.

Why does Dawkins care so much that religion be bashed? His care in that regard is nothing more than more brain chemistry. Could we cure his atheism with a change in brain chemistry? Could we cure my theism?

The absolute absurdity of life as an atheist is what made me move away from that nihilistic abyss. If all my hopes, dreams, desires, loves, knowledge etc is only brain chemisty, it doesn't seem very important. Why is my brain chemistry so much more important than yours? Why does your brain chemistry make you think that your brain chemistry is better than mine?...

...Fine neither do I, but I wonder why my brain chemistry makes me think my philosophical views (which is more brain chemistry) are true or false. Doesn't that strike you as the most absurd thing for brain chemistry to do? Knowledge, philosophy, world views, all of it is nothing but brain chemistry. Even your desire to fight YEC is nothing but brain chemistry. How can mere brain chemistry bring about such a feeling of importance to these issues?...



The second example was about a slightly different topic and i only included one side of the conversation, and only a small portion of it. The person i quoted happens to be a geophysicist. He is an OEC (booo, hisss jk) I know this doesnt matter, just thought i would let you know alittle about the person... oh ya, his name.. Glenn Morton.

I with held the reference because it doesnt matter. If you would like to read the whole thread, just ask and i'll be happy to include the link.

Anyway, what he said about brain chemistry is the point of this example. If natural origins, then how can we determine an objective reference point of anything? Including knowledge and observation. Similar to something i've said several times in Totse... "if God does not exist, nothing really matters"... which was basically the point that started the response that G. M. made (and i just quoted).

The point being, without God, there is no absolute reference of anything... nothing is objective.. and a presupposition that science is objective is self-defeating. But it is placing science as a "god" and as an (almost, or rather, an incomplete) objective, absolute authority... based on random, accidental cause.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



Sorry if I sounded short (that's what happens when one tries to cook and post at the same time!).

No, you didnt sound short, it's just that i wasnt sure how my post would be percieved and i felt that it could be taken as an indirect sneek attack since it was not directed in your thread... it was not meant as any attack, sneek or otherwise and i was just trying to explain my actions.



quote:Am I right in thinking you are the same xtreem who handed me my theological arse a couple of times back when i used to post here regular?

Well, i'm the same xtreem that used to be more regular, but i never felt as though i handed anyones arse to them. And even though we may have disagreed at times, i do respect (most of http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) ) your posts... as i also respect Rust's and many others (even when i disagree).

you mentioned "(ie I need a dose of oc6!)"... substitute for coffee??.. speaking of which, i gotta go pee, and then i gotta get somethings done around the house before i have a fight with my wife (and so far, we have never had a fight... i'd like to keep that ball running)

God Bless,

johnny

Hmmm...I don't think so.

xtreem, those quotes are for another discussion. They have little to do with interpretations of the bible, and the lack of an objective method of arriving at the bible's true meaning. Whether the atheist world view would mean everything is meaningless of subjective is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

If you cannot prove that we can arrive at an objective method of arriving at the bible's true meaning, then discussing how we should interpret the bible is utterly meaningless. Contradictory, mutually exclusive interpretations would remain equally valid - which ultimately means that we are not one step closer to concluding what the bible truly says, and thus not one step closer to salvation (if we're to believe the theist). All of this then pertains the my initial point, of the maliciousness inherently involved in making salvation possibly hinge on the interpretation of a book for which there is no known objective method of understanding and which is deliberately and unnecessarily designed to create confusion.

Not to play devil's advocate here (pun so intended) but one has to remember that the Bible went from Arameic to latin to german to english. Take my post put it in the google translator run it through that many layers of language barrier and see what you get. Now of course, people are much better translators than google but you get the point. Also we must remember that the bible has been modified and changed MANY times over the ages to justify actions of leaders and supress people. There are even rumors of changes made in the past centuries! The bible is hardly an accurate reference material for true christianity.

quote:Originally posted by blackarmchair:

Not to play devil's advocate here (pun so intended) but one has to remember that the Bible went from Arameic to latin to german to english.

Wrong. And even if you were correct I can't name a single modern bible translation that didn't go back to the source documents and retranslated them.(btw the majority of NT sources are in Koine.)

Of course the source documents aren't originals themselves but copies of copies.

QUOTE Originally posted by Rust:

xtreem, those quotes are for another discussion. They have little to do with interpretations of the bible, and the lack of an objective method of arriving at the bible's true meaning. Whether the atheist world view would mean everything is meaningless of subjective is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

If you cannot prove that we can arrive at an objective method of arriving at the bible's true meaning, then discussing how we should interpret the bible is utterly meaningless. Contradictory, mutually exclusive interpretations would remain equally valid - which ultimately means that we are not one step closer to concluding what the bible truly says, and thus not one step closer to salvation (if we're to believe the theist). All of this then pertains the my initial point, of the maliciousness inherently involved in making salvation possibly hinge on the interpretation of a book for which there is no known objective method of understanding and which is deliberately and unnecessarily designed to create confusion.[/QUOTE]

Good morning Rust,

ya, they were from other discussions. But the points still pertain.

The points made were objective reference points.

If God does not exist, then even words have no meaning(s)... all things are subjective... subjective to differences (and randomness) in brain chemistry perhaps.

IIRC, up until about the 15th or 16th century the main method used was the Quadriga (i personally think it is still used to some extent, or atleast some of the "answers" found from this method still are around). One of the main problems of Quadriga is that it lead to exactly the problems that you describe, namely a large range of interpretations and understandings.

Today, a large number of the misinterpretations or conflicting interpretations are caused (worldly speaking, not spiritually speaking) from presuppositions... what is held as the foundation.. and the level of that foundational holding.



i.e. long age vs. short age;

myth-legend-fabrication-borrowing vs. the revealed, inspired Word of God

As example, i've "talked" briefly w/ G. Morton (OEC, geophysicist) reguarding his belief in a local Flood (approx. the size of the Med. Sea.. he's written an article or two about this).

(disclaimer.. this is in a nutshell, and it is my opinion as to why he holds this belief. Like i said, SHORT STORY and MY OPINION.. there is more to it, but i'm just using it as example)

My opinion is that, although he believes the Bible is God's inspired, revealed Word, he trusts his own (and scientifically agreed upon) understanding of geology over and above the plain reading of the Noachian account... and uses that presupposition to interpret his understanding of the Word.

I'm not being totally fair with G.M... but like i said, "nutshell & my opinion" and there is more reasons to it than this.

Reguarding a objective method of Bible interpretation, in our brief discussion, it seems as though he uses pretty much the same method i do (mind you, i am not formally trained, and it also is outside his field). The difference in our understanding is not the method we use, but rather what we bring to the table (our presuppositions and worldview) is what colors our understanding of the interpretation.

I've said before that for the most part, i agree w/ the understanding of the Bible that Wisconsin Lutheran Synod teaches. This is not because i've been told by my pastor what to think (as some here in Totse often accuse Christians of), but it is because of my own study (again, speaking worldly, not spiritually). I say "for the most part" since i've also said that i disagree w/ WLS (actually, WELS) reguarding the book of Revelation. My disagreement stems, i think, from my lesser understanding of Scripture (in particular, study of Prophecy...specifically, Eschatology)...reguardless, my point here is that there are many things that are understood as symbols that i understand as being more literal (still some symbology(sp?)) but until i learn more, i'll usually concede reguarding end-times. What i'm trying to say here is that my understanding of Genesis colors my understanding of the rest of the Bible, and carries into my understanding of the interpretation of Revelation.



jackketch says, "read the book".

That's the start.



i've already mentioned the method now used(or rather, the basic parts of the method). It seems as though you disagree (or maybe didnt notice that they were mentioned), which is why i keep trying different approachs to explain... it's more for the "audience" than for you, since i figure you are a catalyst (in other words, i think it's doubtful that there is anything short of God, Himself, that would be higher than your expectation of evidence of His existence).

Anyway, some of the parts that i mentioned are:

Context, style of writing (genre), dictionary (what the words mean; their origins; etc), history (cultural background), understanding the original audience, .... the method is called hermeneutics. Just like in science: Observation, Interpretation, Application.

Some things that i dont recall mentioning are syntax and grammatical structure, understanding of the geography and politics of the time, understanding (and recognising) euphamisms and 'slang', asking questions, allowing Scripture to interpret itself (what does it say about a subject in other parts?, if, say, Paul "says"... what other things does he say reguarding the same or similar things?).

Most of these we do in day to day communication but some we dont even realize that we do it... like, for instance, 'dictionary'.. in day-to-day communicating we tend to use the "little dictionary in our head"... sometimes it's wrong and maybe we realize it because of context, in which case we ask questions-- sometimes outloud and sometimes just in our head.

There are other parts to hermeneutics but those are just some of the basics.

In science, one observes (which includes some tests); then interpretation (which includes more testing but also comparing to what one already knows); then one applies the observations and interpretations to rules ("Facts are stupid things," he would say, "until brought into connection with some general law.")

I'm not giving you the scientific method since you already know that.. i'm just trying to show you a bridge between the ideas.

In hermeneutics one also observes, interprets and applies. Observe the audience, author, politics, geography, verse and surrounding verses, background, etc. Interpret the basic meaning, grammar and syntax, and context again. Apply (compare) to what the whole of Scripture says (and how does this understanding apply in todays world).

There is another part to hermenutics (which i'm sure that i've already mentioned earlier in this thread... if i havent, then shame on me), which is the hardest to "prove" or to show. Even from the POV of the theist (read here as, Judeo-Christian) interpreter, due to Sin and the 'nature of sin' (read here as, level of trust in God). That element is the Holy Spirit (which is also a function of sola Scriptura... if God is the author, then we allow Him to help us understand).

I realize that that last statement sounds wacky, but hear me out.

If God exists and the Bible is His Word, then who better to help understand His Word then God?]

If God exists and the Bible is His Word, then He has told us exactly that in His Word... that the Holy Spirit will guide us in understanding His Word. And this is the principle behind sola Scriptura.

I know that sounds wacky and i cant think of a better way to say it... sorry. I also realize that although this should be the most important part, a non-believer as yourself would find that next to impossible to accept as 'objective'... again, sorry. I dont know how explain it better. I hope it makes enough sense.. atleast for now.



At anyrate, when you said:

quote:If you cannot prove that we can arrive at an objective method of arriving at the bible's true meaning, then discussing how we should interpret the bible is utterly meaningless.

This is exactly the point i was making with the whole <<ultimate meaning/science/(random)brain chemistry/"This works both ways">> post.

If God does not exist, there is no way to know the meaning of anything. And i've tried many ways in this thread to lead you to discover this on your own... i guess i'll just have to keep trying (again, worldly speaking).

My prayers are with you.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Wrong. And even if you were correct I can't name a single modern bible translation that didn't go back to the source documents and retranslated them.(btw the majority of NT sources are in Koine.)

Of course the source documents aren't originals themselves but copies of copies.



Although i cant recall the specifics, i do seem to remember something about a translation of some several fragments (and piecing in the most likely missing words or characters). Then later, when more (and quite older manuscripts) were found, a re-translation was done.

When the two translations were compared, the meaning was almost identical and the "most likely missing words" were very close to that of the older and more complete manuscripts. IIRC, it was either in Isaiah or Daniel... i'll see if i can find the article again, but i dont even remember if i saw it in one of my books, a library book or online or whatever....

maybe you might have an idea?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Although i cant recall the specifics, i do seem to remember something about a translation of some several fragments (and piecing in the most likely missing words or characters). Then later, when more (and quite older manuscripts) were found, a re-translation was done.

When the two translations were compared, the meaning was almost identical and the "most likely missing words" were very close to that of the older and more complete manuscripts. IIRC, it was either in Isaiah or Daniel... i'll see if i can find the article again, but i dont even remember if i saw it in one of my books, a library book or online or whatever....

maybe you might have an idea?



(pizza is in oven http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) )

You are repeating almost word for word one of the many christian 'myths' about the Dead Sea Scrolls. So i assume that is what you meant?

BTW the is a whole heap of difference between the DSS manuscripts and the masoretic text.

for example (http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-1.htm)



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 12-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



ya, they were from other discussions. But the points still pertain.

The points made were objective reference points.

Actually no, which is why I said these pertain to another discussion.

What was said was whether an objective form of interpreting the bible exists. Whether an "objective reference point" exists in the universe or not does not mean that there is (or is not) an objective way of interpreting the bible. For example, what if Allah is a the one true god? An "objective reference point" would arguably exist then, yet that "objective reference point" has nothing to do with the Christian bible (or any objective method(s) of interpreting it).

These are two very different discussions that simply do not belong with each other.

The discussion is:

Does an objective method of interpreting the bible exist? If not, then how is a judgment based on the interpretation of a book which can and will vary (out of necessity) be at all good or just? If yes, then how can there be so many contradictory interpretations?

Moreover, if you admit that the bible was deliberately (and needlessly) created to cause confusion, then how is our judgment not again malicious?

All of these questions have little to do with there being an "objective reference point" in the world, because the presence or lack of one does not imply the presence or lack of an objective method of interpreting the Christian bible. Even the existence of the Christian god does not necessarylly mean an objective way of interpreting the bible exists - the only clues for that are based on an interpretation of the bible in the first place!

As for hermeneutics, I already understand what hermeneutics is, and it is not objective in the least. The interpreter itself is essential in how the interpretation will turn out, which proves that it is subjective (just as you note that your interpretation of Genesis will influence the rest of biblical study, much like Science will influence Morton in his beliefs).

quote:If God exists and the Bible is His Word, then who better to help understand His Word then God?]

If God exists and the Bible is His Word, then He has told us exactly that in His Word... that the Holy Spirit will guide us in understanding His Word. And this is the principle behind sola Scriptura.

1. The very claim that the Christian god exists and that the holy spirit exists, is based on an interpretation of the bible!

2. If we hold this argument as valid, then the very fact that there are so many contradictory interpretation means that either there is no Christian god (by virtue of the holy spirit not guiding anyone), or there is a holy spirit but his guidance isn't enough which leaves us in the same exact place.

xtreem5150ahm, what do you have to say about the mountains {no pun intended} of evidence we have that says the earth is a lot MORE than 6000 years old?

Does your 'God' often try to mislead you? If so, he is lying and is thus sinning. Or is your god above sin, much like a president who is above the law?

My conclusion; if the earth really is 6000 years old, then god is an evil being who has purposely mislead his 'creations' to keep them under his control. Either that or god doesn't exist.

I choose to believe the latter.

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

xtreem5150ahm, what do you have to say about the mountains {no pun intended} of evidence we have that says the earth is a lot MORE than 6000 years old?

Does your 'God' often try to mislead you? If so, he is lying and is thus sinning. Or is your god above sin, much like a president who is above the law?

My conclusion; if the earth really is 6000 years old, then god is an evil being who has purposely mislead his 'creations' to keep them under his control. Either that or god doesn't exist.

I choose to believe the latter.



I can't speak for xtreem but i doubt he thinks that the bible says that the world is only 6k old.

I don't know why so many people still seem to think that that is somehow christian doctrine.

*note to self. If I ever get chance I need to take a piss on Ushers grave *

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



I can't speak for xtreem but i doubt he thinks that the bible says that the world is only 6k old.

I don't know why so many people still seem to think that that is somehow christian doctrine.

*note to self. If I ever get chance I need to take a piss on Ushers grave *



quote:As some of the people here know, i am one of the ones that take the Bible as literal. I believe in a literal Creation by God about 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve, a Flood that covered the whole earth & the only survivors being Noah's family and the animals aboard the Ark, etc.

from page 1

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

As some of the people here know, i am one of the ones that take the Bible as literal. I believe in a literal Creation by God about 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve, a Flood that covered the whole earth & the only survivors being Noah's family and the animals aboard the Ark, etc.

from page 1



I stand corrected http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

I only joined this thread by chance on page 3 (serves me right for not reading the whole thing!)

But i should add that all the points he lists EXCEPT the 6000 year bit are all supported by scripture. (No i'm not saying they are factual just that they are in the book).

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

But i should add that all the points he lists EXCEPT the 6000 year bit are all supported by scripture.

The 6000 year bit is also supported by scripture, unless you want to get into God's year and day being different than ours, in which case, Jesus wasn't in his early thirties when he died; he was thousands of years old, Noah was tens of thousands years old, etc.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by jackketch:

But i should add that all the points he lists EXCEPT the 6000 year bit are all supported by scripture.

The 6000 year bit is also supported by scripture, unless you want to get into God's year and day being different than ours, in which case, Jesus wasn't in his early thirties when he died; he was thousands of years old, Noah was tens of thousands years old, etc.



The only way you can claim it is supported by scripture is to use the Knight-jump exegesis beloved of christians...what in theological language is known as 'arse raping the scripture'.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

The only way you can claim it is supported by scripture is to use the Knight-jump exegesis beloved of christians...what in theological language is known as 'arse raping the scripture'.

I'm not arse raping anything. The genealogy of Jesus can be traced back to Adam. It's clear that Adam existed only a few thousand years before Jesus using the Bible.

I assume you're saying that getting the details from say Adam to Seth in one part of the Bible, and then getting the details from Seth to Enos in another, is some sort of disingenuous way to gather information called Knight-jumping? I'm not seeing it.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by jackketch:

The only way you can claim it is supported by scripture is to use the Knight-jump exegesis beloved of christians...what in theological language is known as 'arse raping the scripture'.

I'm not arse raping anything. The genealogy of Jesus can be traced back to Adam. It's clear that Adam existed only a few thousand years before Jesus using the Bible.

I assume you're saying that getting the details from say Adam to Seth in one part of the Bible, and then getting the details from Seth to Enos in another, is some sort of disingenuous way to gather information called Knight-jumping? I'm not seeing it.

Oh dear...next you'll be claiming the Bible supports the notion of a virgin birth.

*hopes you were just playing devil's advocate and that infact you do know something about the bible, your peschitta from bruschetta so to speak.*

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Oh dear...next you'll be claiming the Bible supports the notion of a virgin birth.

Oh dear...I'm afraid you're avoiding the subject.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by jackketch:

Oh dear...next you'll be claiming the Bible supports the notion of a virgin birth.

Oh dear...I'm afraid you're avoiding the subject.



Yes I am. I have a horribly feeling that the sentence "It's clear that Adam existed only a few thousand years before Jesus using the Bible." was meant seriously.

Which means either you're some kinda christian (and therefore shouldn't be let near the Bible on principle) or you don't have enough knowledge of the bible to make it profitable for me to discuss with you.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Yes I am. I have a horribly feeling that the sentence "It's clear that Adam existed only a few thousand years before Jesus using the Bible." was meant seriously.

Which means either you're some kinda christian (and therefore shouldn't be let near the Bible on principle) or you don't have enough knowledge of the bible to make it profitable for me to discuss with you.

I'm not any kinda Christian, but why shouldn't Christian's be allowed near the Bible? I realize that this is some lame attempt at sarcasm. I'm guessing that you think a Christians are horrible at interpreting anything correctly, but you've got it down just fine?

Whether or not you find it profitable enough to discuss it with me or not is your business. Maybe next time, you should make someone answer a few questions about their knowledge of the Bible before you get someone else half way into a conversation and waste their time.

I have enough knowledge to know that the genealogy of Jesus can be traced back to Adam. I'm pretty sure that you're aware that this can be done, no? If not, I'll be happy to show you how it can be done. If you don't need me to show you and you're aware that it can be, how do you refute it? That is, if answering me is profitable enough for you.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

(pizza is in oven http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) )

You are repeating almost word for word one of the many christian 'myths' about the Dead Sea Scrolls. So i assume that is what you meant?

BTW the is a whole heap of difference between the DSS manuscripts and the masoretic text.

for example (http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-1.htm)



i've been looking for about 5 hours.. well, i got kinda sidetracked and read a ton of Wikipedia articles about manuscripts, DSS, LXX, MT and such. Some of it was refresher but much was new to me. Five or ten years ago i would have been bored silly reading that stuff. My, how tastes change over the years!! I dont think i've ever read that much on that particular subject all at one clip.... it was enjoyable!!

You were right, the article was mentioning the DDS. Although it was written by a Christian, it is debatable as to the amount of myth it portrayed... nearly everything that was in the article was also on Wiki.. although i did notice that some of the article is based off of 1950's and 60's references, which more modern concensus doesnt completely agree with anymore.. for instance, that the DDS were written by the Essenes (sp?).. but i guess i cant throw stones since i was relying on memory and my version was worse than the outdated view of the article's author. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Here's the article:

http://tinyurl.com/h6e8p



Oh ya, for what it's worth, i do believe in a young earth... 6K-10K (leaning more toward the lower end). The geneology line is only part of that reason (although, maybe a fairly large part). There may have been some gaps in the line, but it does not make sense for there to be millions and billions of yrs. for several reasons.. but that's for a future thread (or past, since i've stated many of those reasons a few times).

Gonna answer DXM User and then draw a bath for Annie and I.. she'll be home from work in a half hour.

Good night,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

xtreem5150ahm, what do you have to say about the mountains {no pun intended} of evidence we have that says the earth is a lot MORE than 6000 years old?

Does your 'God' often try to mislead you? If so, he is lying and is thus sinning. Or is your god above sin, much like a president who is above the law?

My conclusion; if the earth really is 6000 years old, then god is an evil being who has purposely mislead his 'creations' to keep them under his control. Either that or god doesn't exist.

I choose to believe the latter.

Hi DXM User,

I'm going to make this brief and i'm not going to use any effort resembling scientific plausability... i'm only going to use half-assed speculation and conjecture.

As per some of my other posts in this thread, the answer to your, "the mountains of evidence" question is -- presuppositions.. yours and mine, actually.

In fact, even in your post there is hints of your's. You are presupposing that the earth has the appearence of age (and that science confirms this).

By "looks old" i am meaning that you are thinking that God created w/ the appearance of vast age but at the same time telling us that it is young.... and for the sole reason of distorting the facts (one way or the other)... since i'm not going to spend much time in this answer, how about a possible alternative to that thought? Is it possible that God might have Created it the way He Created it for the sole reason that He was creating a work of art? And could it be us that have the interpretation wrong?

As far as "above the law?"... Your making another presupp. You are presupposing that He is subject to the same Law that is imposed on us. God does not violate His Nature... in fact, that in itself is part of His Nature (dont read into this as Nature being the same as nature). Besides that, if He did violate His Nature, who would be His Judge?... see, again there is a presupposition that God is subject to anything lesser than Himself ... and that there is anything greater than God.

Now lets look at your conclusion: "I choose to believe the latter."

This is the issue at hand, really.

In your post you use accusations of God being misleading, a liar, criminal (law breaker), evil or non-existent.

Do you see 'it'? Do you see the other 'it'? How 'bout the third 'it'?

The first 'it' is the presupp. that God is inferior (and this is the smaller --in terms of your arguement-- of the "it's")

The second 'it' is the use of the presumption of evil in order to refute the existence of God. In order to do that you have to assume that evil exists. The only way that you can assume evil exists is to assume the existence of good. And to do that, you have to assume an absolute moral law and an absolute moral law Giver. If there is no absolute moral law Giver (God) then there is no moral absolute. If no moral absolute then no good or evil... what then is your question? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Which segues right smack into the last 'it'. You were accusing God. What about your own responsibility?.. do you see 'it' yet?

You accuse God but you say, "I choose to believe the latter."... namely, that you choose to believe that He does not exist...

the key words are, "I choose".

Hmmm, i spent more time than i planned.

Good night, sleep tight.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Is it possible that God might have Created it the way He Created it for the sole reason that He was creating a work of art? And could it be us that have the interpretation wrong?

That's naive thinking. That's a kind of OJ logic: I killed her because I love her.

Think about it. We have these tools that are tried and true. After THOUSANDS of years of designing, researching, and carrying out experiments, we have drawn these conclusions based on total evidence; 800 years ago it was blasphemy to say that the Sun was the center of our solar system. Nowadays it's common knowledge. Why? Because science gives us tools which further our understanding of tangible properties of the universe.

There is no debating science. The rules written out and described in science books are written thus because they have been PROVEN; the Bible has NOT been proven. Rather, it is just as reliable as any other religious text.

In simple terms, we do NOT have the interpretation wrong, or else your god has tried to pull the blinds over our eyes.

There are fossils of now-extinct animals in sediment over 200,000 years old. How do we know the sediment is really that old? Because we studied how long it takes for soil to be put down, and then compacted. We know roughly how old something is by what layer of soil we find it in. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

What you're saying is that god made the earth the way it is, and it just so happens that the pieces come together to give us the impression that the earth is billions of years old.

What utter, complete nonsense. I suppose next you'll try to convince me that the earth is flat.

quote:As far as "above the law?"... Your making another presupp. You are presupposing that He is subject to the same Law that is imposed on us. God does not violate His Nature... in fact, that in itself is part of His Nature (dont read into this as Nature being the same as nature).

Then I could just as easily say you are making the pre-supposition that all that is written is the undeniable truth; you now have to compete with The Quran, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Talmud, and the Vedas. Who says you're right?

Science is universal. It views the universe objectively and draws from hard evidence that can be observed.

The Bible is not. It views the universe in a superstitious way, and even goes so far as to pretend to 'know' things about the universe that science has decisively proven WRONG.

quote:The second 'it' is the use of the presumption of evil in order to refute the existence of God. In order to do that you have to assume that evil exists. The only way that you can assume evil exists is to assume the existence of good. And to do that, you have to assume an absolute moral law and an absolute moral law Giver. If there is no absolute moral law Giver (God) then there is no moral absolute. If no moral absolute then no good or evil... what then is your question?

What the hell are you rambling about? If god exists and speaks to us through The Bible, then by HIS RULES he is evil for deceiving us. It's as simple as that. Nice try though.

I 'choose' to believe because I have the choice; by choosing science over religion, I am choosing fact over fiction. I am choosing evidence over superstition.

And most importantly of all, I'm choosing logic instead of mindless worship.



I find it sad how religion can make people so small-minded.

[This message has been edited by DXM User (edited 12-18-2006).]

Well, ok... just cause this one looks fun.. and cause bath time got nixed.

Rust, if you dont mind.. i'm just having alittle fun.. i'll try to get back to our conversation sometime this week.



PLAY BALL....

QUOTE Originally posted by DXM User:

That's naive thinking. That's a kind of OJ logic: I killed her because I love her.

First thing's first. I did say that i was not going to give any effort resembling scientific plausability. I also said that i was going to use half-assed speculation.

Second. You didnt answer the question; Is it possible that creation could be art? Even if that creation is a Creation by God... is it possible?

Think about it.

I have.

We have these tools that are tried and true. After THOUSANDS of years of designing, researching, and carrying out experiments, we have drawn these conclusions based on total evidence;

Like i said.. this looks like fun.

Total evidence, huh?

Guess all the scientists are now unemployed.. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Let's try this one, since you claim total evidence (based on experiments, no less)...

What was before the Big Bang?

Just to throw in alittle something..

1. We have reason to believe that all events have a cause.

2.The Big Bang is an event.

3.Therefore, we have reason to believe that the Big Bang has a cause.

What was the cause of the Big Bang... remember- total evidence.

And before that cause?

Infinite regression doesnt work in your worldview or mine... but hey, you said, "total evidence".

800 years ago it was blasphemy to say that the Sun was the center of our solar system. Nowadays it's common knowledge. Why? Because science gives us tools which further our understanding of tangible properties of the universe.

No, no, no.... you cant say, "total evidence" and then say. "further our understanding of..."

There is no debating science.

Sorry, but i call bull-shit.

In a nutshell the scientific method is self-correcting. If it is self-correcting then science is a preformed debate amongst itself.

If not, then we should still be a geo-centric society... time to burn you at the stake, heretic!! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

The rules written out and described in science books are written thus because they have been PROVEN; the Bible has NOT been proven. Rather, it is just as reliable as any other religious text.

I'm going to get serious for just a little bit and then back to play time.

Did you know that there is a particular passage (well, several, actually) that does prove the Bible as God's Word?

I'll give you a hint at the one that i'm refering to... it's in the OT.

Please, if anyone knows the passage, DO NOT POINT IT OUT!!

As jackketch said, "read the book".

Ok, back to fun time.

In simple terms, we do NOT have the interpretation wrong, or else your god has tried to pull the blinds over our eyes.

Crap... i'd like to do this the fun way, but i can see that we have to get alittle serious again..

You really didnt comprehend the last post, did you??

You missed the part of 'human responsibility' didnt you?

You missed the part of 'presuppositions' too.

You also missed the part of 'presumption of evil' and 'Sovereignty of God' (that would be the part where you presume that God is inferior).

I'm wondering if the only thing you read in the post was, "Extreme [sic] is a YEC, therefore he hasnt thought of anything"... that's fine if you think that, but please atleast read the post.

Can we get back to fun now?

There are fossils of now-extinct animals in sediment over 200,000 years old. How do we know the sediment is really that old? Because we studied how long it takes for soil to be put down, and then compacted.

WOW... with that kind of job security (200 K yrs) i'm surprised to hear of so many scientists in the unemployment line... tell ya what... i'll put in a good word at UPS.

I know i'm getting alittle hunched over after a week of Christmas delivery at UPS.. i suppose a 200,000 year old scientist would get alittle compacted... but i hardly see the relevance to talking bad about soil.. and why would they want to put it down anyway?

We know roughly how old something is by what layer of soil we find it in. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Good thing that it's not hard to grasp, considering your batting average with:

1)half-assed speculation and conjecture

2)'it' #1

3)'it' #2

etc.

What you're saying is that god made the earth the way it is,

STRIKE four?... i thought baseball was only 3 strikes and out... must be that new math..

oh wait, i see.. words have no meaning. The reciever gives them there meaning... darn Clinton and his, "it all depends on what the word 'is', is"... or are you too young to remember that?

Maybe that's not a strike cuz i dont think there was a pitch to that effect.. stop swinging at flies, you might hurt someone.

Let me ask you this:

Where in my post did i say (or did you get the impression that i said) that God made the world as we see it today?

OR,

was that another presupposition?

Based on what you perceive a YEC arguement for the Biblical 'kinds' (meaning species) reguarding evolution?... and you just got it mixed up with the YEC arguement of the state of the world, pre-Flood and post-Flood?

What ever... now, keep your eye on the ball.

and it just so happens that the pieces come together to give us the impression that the earth is billions of years old.

Remember, it's your choice.

If you face the wrong way, your libal to hit the ball in the wrong direction. Face the pitcher, not the catcher.... problem is, you think that the guy with the mask and pads on is the pitcher.

What utter, complete nonsense. I suppose next you'll try to convince me that the earth is flat.

Now your just getting ridiculous... http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

And even if i believed that, i would first have to convince you of taking a remedial reading and comprehension class...

the class room is right next to the one i'll be in.. remedial spelling and grammar. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Thanks, that was fun... play again in a week or so??



FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE SARCASTICALLY IMPAIRED... this was done in fun

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

nd comprehension class...

the class room is right next to the one i'll be in.. remedial spelling and grammar. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Thanks, that was fun... play again in a week or so??



FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE SARCASTICALLY IMPAIRED... this was done in fun

johnny

You made it into remedial? Damn! I'm working on it and hope to be up to that level real soon http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Have a good Mithras-mas, dude :P

Second. You didnt answer the question; Is it possible that creation could be art? Even if that creation is a Creation by God... is it possible?

Then I could just as easily say you are making the pre-supposition that all that is written is the undeniable truth; you now have to compete with The Quran, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Talmud, and the Vedas. Who says you're right?

Although i am not thoroughly familiar with any of the above, i think i could hold my own with most people on the Quran and the Vedas. The Talmad is basically a commentary, so i'm not worried there, cause that would basically be a discussion on OT theology. I've never looked at the Tibetan Book of the Dead, but i'm not worried there either.

But here's the thing.... i have not denied that i have (and make) presuppositions. In fact, i'm pretty much upfront about it... that is how you decided to challenge my post, isnt it?... the fact that i said that i believe the earth is young?

Science is universal.

Even in science, science is not known to be universal... consider the exact moment before the Big Bang. It's speculated that the laws of physics break down... the key word is 'speculated' (atleast for now).

It views the universe objectively and draws from hard evidence that can be observed.

Science does no such thing. It's the scientists that try to be as objective as they can.. atleast in principle. And even at that, it still requires interpretation.

And you said it yourself, that science gives us tools to further our understanding.

The Bible is not. It views the universe in a superstitious way,

You regressed from presupposing to mere speculation.

jackketch says, "read the book"



and even goes so far as to pretend to 'know' things about the universe that science has decisively proven WRONG.

Good to see that you only made a small step backwards... now your back to presupposing...

This presupposition is that God does not exist... or that the Bible is not His revealed Word.

What the hell are you rambling about? If god exists and speaks to us through The Bible, then by HIS RULES he is evil for deceiving us. It's as simple as that. Nice try though.

Awww... back off of fun time again? what a shame...



Pay attention...

# 1. when raising the question of evil, you always have to have God in the paradigm.

If God doesnt exist, there is no absolute moral law; if no absolute moral law then there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil.

#2. You are assuming that He is decieving. IOW, you are presuming a few things in that assumption...

1st presumption-- that the laws (commandments) that apply to us, also apply to God.

2nd presumption-- that God has gone against His Nature.

3rd presumption-- that the purpose that God had for Creating the world in the way He Created, was intended to decieve (This one here is a very small presumption, since it could be argued that He just hasnt given enough evidence in order for us to understand it correctly.. which would lean toward you premise... sorta... but then that begs the question, how much evidence is needed)

4th presumption-- that science is above God (or i'll even give you a lesser assumption here: that our understanding of science is sufficient to prove God's non-existence... not much of a concession, is it?... OH YA, you said, "total evidence".)

5th presumption-- even if you could prove, via all the above presumptions, that He was deceptive, we could do anything about it.

6th presumption-- (and this is a biggy) You are presuming God in order to refute Him.

I 'choose' to believe because I have the choice; by choosing science over religion, I am choosing fact over fiction. I am choosing evidence over superstition.

Good, back to fun again...

Try this:

Prove that you have choice.

I believe we have choice, but apart from the Bible, i cant prove it. All i can prove is that i can percieve a fork in the road (future). I can perceive possible consequences of my future "choice". I can realize the path i'm on (present). I can look back and realize that i atleast have a perception that i made a choice and i can see if my percieved consequences of the particular path i'm on, are close to what is my new present....

But i can not know for certain if i actually could have chose the other path.. i can assume that it was possible, but i cant know for sure.

OK, next fun... if natural origins.. you know, random accident.. uncaused first cause and all that... then all our feelings and perceptions are simply chemical reactions.. at what point do you or can you know what is fact or fiction? And what does it matter?

Having fun yet? I hope so, i know i am.

And most importantly of all, I'm choosing logic instead of mindless worship.

Sorry, but i can say the same thing. You worship science. I logically worship the God that brought me to logic.



I find it sad how religion can make people so small-minded.



I find it sad that those that think that the ones worshipping the Infinite God are smaller minded than themselves.... but i find it even more sad knowing that there are loved ones that will choose not to believe... my biological dad WAS one of those... no need to feel sad about him any longer.. too late for that.

Thanks, that was fun... play again in a week or so??



FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE SARCASTICALLY IMPAIRED... some of this was done strictly

in fun

God Bless,

johnny



ps. if things are alittle out of order, it's cuz i had hit the submit reply button and the puter froze, so i copy/pasted my reply and hit the 'back' button and noticed that you had edited- -- added some stuff. So i hit ctrl-v and responded to the new stuff and realized that i missed a section.. i didnt proof read everything the second time.

pss. this wwas part of an edit (do to an edit of DXM) from last night that would not submit. It didnt submit again this morning. I'm thinking it mite of been too long so i deleted out much of the already submitted post (from this edit)

gotta go to work now, i hope this works

johnny

You actually managed to say NOTHING.

I notice this from Christians a lot --- they throw as much bullshit out the window at you as possible so they don't have to come up with any hard facts/evidence.

"Second. You didnt answer the question; Is it possible that creation could be art? Even if that creation is a Creation by God... is it possible?"

Yes, possible, but it's more likely that there just isn't a God to begin with.

How many religions have failed? Oh, that's right, ALL OF THEM. At least, excluding the ones we have today.

I'm waiting for the day humans stop being superstitious (holding mankind back) and wake up to the sweet smells of science and logic.

*sniff sniff* I smell evolution http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:I'm waiting for the day humans stop being superstitious (holding mankind back) and wake up to the sweet smells of science and logic.

I'm not a Christian, before you accuse me of being one, but most people need something to believe in to affirm life. Most people wouldn't be able to handle a cold, logical, objective world because people are not robots.

What you will get is a bunch of people with differing, half-assed utilitarianism values in an uncertain world. That's why so many people like sports, the rules are grounded. Unlike the rules in one's life. We need a set of rules and beliefs to understand the game coherently enough to even disagree with it and change it.

I'm not saying we should believe in a supernatural God however, since I'm a humanist, I think we should believe in people and morals.

And I've been ranting and probably won't make any sense.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I'm not a Christian, before you accuse me of being one, but most people need something to believe in to affirm life. Most people wouldn't be able to handle a cold, logical, objective world because people are not robots.

What you will get is a bunch of people with differing, half-assed utilitarianism values in an uncertain world. That's why so many people like sports, the rules are grounded. Unlike the rules in one's life. We need a set of rules and beliefs to understand the game coherently enough to even disagree with it and change it.

I'm not saying we should believe in a supernatural God however, since I'm a humanist, I think we should believe in people and morals.

And I've been ranting and probably won't make any sense.

Woah bitch slow the fuck down! Who said anything about morals?

You think I need religion to tell me it's wrong to steal, to lie, to cheat, to rape, to kill? You think I wasn't raised with the same human emotions/feelings as everybody else?

Science doesn't have to unfeeling, or 'cold'. In fact, I find science to be the most comforting concept, more comforting than any deity could ever be. The mere fact that there is order in the universe, a set of rules that will never be defied, makes me happy. Once we've set out all the rules that apply to the universe, we'll know everything there is to know, and we can turn the benefits back to humanity.

I don't see religion doing this. I see religion making excuses for the shortcomings of man, and stealing credit for progress.



You will NOT find a cure for cancer by sitting around and praying. Getting off your ass and actually doing something is the only way to get anything done.

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:



Science doesn't have to unfeeling, or 'cold'. In fact, I find science to be the most comforting concept, more comforting than any deity could ever be. The mere fact that there is order in the universe, a set of rules that will never be defied, makes me happy. Once we've set out all the rules that apply to the universe, we'll know everything there is to know, and we can turn the benefits back to humanity.



Despite being a non scientist (I grew up with one- my old man started out as a tea boy and worked/studied his way up to be head chemist in one of this country's leading labs) I have to admit I know the feeling you describe. I used to get it when i was actively studying the bible in a scientific manner (ie hist.crit.theology and not the bibliology of the average christian!).

We know only a few solid facts but those are comforting..if not to christians.

QUOTE Originally posted by jackketch:

You made it into remedial? Damn! I'm working on it and hope to be up to that level real soon http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

It took quite a few yrs to finally spell ov.. errr, off.... errr, 'of' right. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)



Have a good Mithras-mas, dude :P

LOL ,, thanks... U2

QUOTE Originally posted by DXM User:

You actually managed to say NOTHING.

Or you managed to understand nothing.

I notice this from Christians a lot --- they throw as much bullshit out the window at you as possible so they don't have to come up with any hard facts/evidence.

Nothing in your post was hard fact/evidence.

The closest you came was the part of compacted layers of soil.

And if you re-read and think about some of the answers, you might be surprised.

Yes, possible, but it's more likely that there just isn't a God to begin with.

Boy, that sounds like an objective outlook. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

How many religions have failed? Oh, that's right, ALL OF THEM. At least, excluding the ones we have today.

Hmmm.... maybe they failed due to not following the One True God. (lol.. i like this, "throwing stuff out the window at you".

Let me know if i actually hit you with something... i'll dial 911.



I'm waiting for the day humans stop being superstitious

So is God.

(holding mankind back)

Oh please. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

and wake up to the sweet smells of science and logic.

You havent shown one bit of logic in your post. Nor have you been able to comprehend the little that was thrown your way.

*sniff sniff* I smell evolution http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)[/B]

No. What you smell is last nights cole slaw. ... all day long my nose hairs have been burning.

OK.. your serve.

A hint for those of you with User as a last name, and DMX for a first name... it's a different ball game. LOL

quote:Nothing in your post was hard fact/evidence.

The closest you came was the part of compacted layers of soil.

Wow. Fucking idiocy. You see facts and look right past them; you'd rather believe a fairy-tale written to keep populations under control.

Christians like you are just... what's the word... PITIFUL.

And yet you're still allowed to vote... swaying decisions the way of sheer lunacy...

No wonder you guys vote for Bush.

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

Wow. Fucking idiocy. You see facts and look right past them; you'd rather believe a fairy-tale written to keep populations under control.

Christians like you are just... what's the word... PITIFUL.

And yet you're still allowed to vote... swaying decisions the way of sheer lunacy...

No wonder you guys vote for Bush.

I'm going to bed right after this post, so any reply will have to wait until atleast tomorrow night.

If i'm looking right past the "facts" you claim are already posted (in this thread), why dont you point them out to me? I'm willing to allow "facts" that you posted, in this thread, to other users since there are so few.

Just wondering... is one of those "facts" that only Christians voted for Bush?

Or maybe that Christians only voted for Bush?

LOL

Just wondering, you're about 15- 17, arent you?.... try not to get so bent outta shape, you got alot more life left.



johnny

Good morning Rust,

Thanks for your patience and thanks also for letting me have alittle fun with DMX.



quote Originally posted by Rust:

Actually no, which is why I said these pertain to another discussion.

What was said was whether an objective form of interpreting the bible exists. Whether an "objective reference point" exists in the universe or not does not mean that there is (or is not) an objective way of interpreting the bible. For example, what if Allah is a the one true god? An "objective reference point" would arguably exist then, yet that "objective reference point" has nothing to do with the Christian bible (or any objective method(s) of interpreting it).[/b]

My claim of "an objective reference point" includes the possibility that Allah is the God.. or any other god that did the Creating of everything. The point of the Morton quote is that if natural origins, then all human thought and perception is merely random chemical reactions in the brain and body (or i could say, the random origin of those chemicals).

These are two very different discussions that simply do not belong with each other.

The discussion is:

Does an objective method of interpreting the bible exist?

I dont recall, and i'm not going to look back in the thread to check (it's almost time to go to work) but i dont think i've actually said that there is an obj. meth. of interp. for the Bible... or that i've denied it (if i recall incorrectly, point it out please). One of the things i've been trying to do before making that ascertion, is to establish (in our discussion) whether any obj. ref. pt. exists.

Catch ya later,

God Bless,

johnny

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-planet.html

There is the URL of an argument BY A CREATIONIST HIMSELF who feels very strongly that you're a fucking idiot.

http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/News____9220.aspx

Here is a news story detailing the last 740,000 years of Earth's history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth

"There is no support for a "young Earth" theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations, which Young Earth Creationists and the staff of United States Representative and creationist Mark Souder claim is often due to discrimination and censorship."

Read the fucking article. [side note: Adam and Eve wouldn't have had bellybuttons; even Christian ARTISTS fuck their own stories up]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_Creationism

Here's 'Old Earth Creationism', which I still think is bullshit, but it's FAR more plausible than a 6000 year-old earth.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

A story on radiometric dating.



If you can read all those things and still doubt that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, you're a fucking thicko and shouldn't be allowed to spread your genes.

Gonzo Journalism is kinda like the bible...

I didn't read the replies, but thanks to the OP for making us athiests look like fucking idiots. Congrats.

http://tinyurl.com/fzkdr

Needless, to say, the above letter was never responded to...

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

It's a metaphor! Even Literalist Christians knows that.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Most literast christians actually believe Jesus was a deity like figure. That he could turn water into wine. Most of them don't understand the christian bible is a fucking history book. There were many people who wrote about Jesus during that time. But, the First Council of Nicea only used the 4 because they represented Jesus as a seity/godlike figure. They attempted to rid the world of any documents showing Jesus as and I quote, "just human".

quote:Originally posted by Fuck the FBI:

Most literast christians actually believe Jesus was a deity like figure. That he could turn water into wine. Most of them don't understand the christian bible is a fucking history book. There were many people who wrote about Jesus during that time. But, the First Council of Nicea only used the 4 because they represented Jesus as a seity/godlike figure. They attempted to rid the world of any documents showing Jesus as and I quote, "just human".

True. In fact, it's rumored that the Catholics (with the help of the Illuminati) had all the documents in the catacombs DESTROYED because if they had leaked, Christianity would have flopped, and their political influence would have gone away entirely.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



My claim of "an objective reference point" includes the possibility that Allah is the God.. or any other god that did the Creating of everything. The point of the Morton quote is that if natural origins, then all human thought and perception is merely random chemical reactions in the brain and body (or i could say, the random origin of those chemicals).

I know what you're arguing. I'm telling that what you're currently arguing has nothing to do with there being an objective method of interpreting the bible, which is what I was arguing since the beginning.

Whether there is an objective reference in the world does not mean that there is an objective method of interpreting the bible. My comment on Allah was to show you just that: how an objective reference point could in fact exist (Allah) yet that does not mean that there is an objective method of interpreting the bible.

quote:

I dont recall, and i'm not going to look back in the thread to check (it's almost time to go to work) but i dont think i've actually said that there is an obj. meth. of interp. for the Bible... or that i've denied it (if i recall incorrectly, point it out please). One of the things i've been trying to do before making that ascertion, is to establish (in our discussion) whether any obj. ref. pt. exists.

Catch ya later,

God Bless,

johnny

As far as I understand, you said the objective method of interpetation would be reached through the guidance of the holy spirit - to which I already gave you a reply.

If you're trying to establish whether any objective reference points exist, then I'm telling you that is futile. An objective reference point does not imply an objective method of interpreting the bible. Even if you manage to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that an objective reference point exists in the world (which I think you and I both know you're not going to do), you would still have failed to prove that an objective method of interpreting the bible exists; hence why the discussion is irrelevant in this thread. Only if you were arguing that nothing exists objectively in the world (which would preclude the existence of an objective method of interpretation) would that be relevant, and you're not.

Hey Rust, let's break the believer http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

It's our duty as the enlightened ones (you know, the 90% of the world's population who know ANYTHING) to keep these mental midgets from pulling us all under.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by owned:

Those things that you are put to death for are before Jesus came. Therefore the punishment's WERE valid, when people needed to pay for there sins. However now Jesus has paid for everyones sins, therefore we can be forgiven through Christ. Thats why these "sacrifices" are not needed.

Why would go suddenly change his mind if he was all powerful, and knew what would happen in the future.

Please, its fucking pathetic.

Don't debate with these retards.

Forget the contradictions. Forget the moral inconsitancies.

the xtreem guy thinks Noahs ark happened.

He thinks all the billions of insect, plant and animal species were kept alive on one boat. He thinks all humans that exist come from one incestuous family.

He believes somehow a magical amount of water covered the entire earth and then magically disappear.



Why would god only communicate once through the bible?

Why would he flood, smite, do many miracales, send down angels, then suddenly stop as soon as we had science to explain the bullshit the bible said.

It doesnt exist.

Just like zeus doesnt exist, just like thor doesnt exist.



MAN MADE FUCKING GOD YOU IDIOTS

It's a story, thats it, do animals worship god?

No.

Evolution disproves god.

Every fucking thing disproves god.

Rust, for fucks sake, why are you wasting your time.

hey buddy. Post the real scripture and then tell us. I go to church,(although my faith is slipping dramatically) and then try to defend it. What you're saying here is your own interpretation. Post the actual verses and then try to defend them.

I read your post and laughed, because you don't look deeply enough into it. The Bible is full of metaphors, and literals as well.

TY.



[This message has been edited by Sonofjango615 (edited 12-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Sonofjango615:

hey buddy. Post the real scripture and then tell us. I go to church,(although my faith is slipping dramatically) and then try to defend it. What you're saying here is your own interpretation. Post the actual verses and then try to defend them.

I read your post and laughed, because you don't look deeply enough into it. The Bible is full of metaphors, and literals as well.

TY.



That's the point we're trying to make! People choose some parts to be 'metaphorical', some parts to be literal. YOU CAN'T FUCKING DO THAT. That's like reading a history textbook and deciding that the 1849 Gold Rush was a metaphor for capital investment!

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

That's the point we're trying to make! People choose some parts to be 'metaphorical', some parts to be literal. YOU CAN'T FUCKING DO THAT. That's like reading a history textbook and deciding that the 1849 Gold Rush was a metaphor for capital investment!



BY the same token you can't read a book of poetry and then complain that it can't be taken literally.

Scholars divided the bible up in roughly 3 types of writing, history,poetry and prophecy.

Knowing which is which is part of learning to read the scripture in a scientific manner.

For example no one (well almost no one) would expect the phrase 'my lover comes, leaping of the hills, bounding over the mountains' to be taken literally.

You have to judge the written by what the author intended to convey. Shakespeare on the whole wasn't writing history and neither was St. John.

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

Hey Rust, let's break the believer http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

It's our duty as the enlightened ones (you know, the 90% of the world's population who know ANYTHING) to keep these mental midgets from pulling us all under.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Sorry, but don't bring me into your bullshit. If there is any Christian that doesn't deserve the verbal abuse you're giving, it's xtreem5150ahm.

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

That's the point we're trying to make! People choose some parts to be 'metaphorical', some parts to be literal. YOU CAN'T FUCKING DO THAT. That's like reading a history textbook and deciding that the 1849 Gold Rush was a metaphor for capital investment!

Yeah however the bible is a collection of books, more like a library, there's some history, some poetry, some teachings, proverbs etc., so your analogy doesn't hold. That said, it's the literalists who need to make their case for reading all of it literally cause it's bleeding obvious that a lot of it's not. Some examples from Gospel of John: "John 7:38 New International Version (NIV)

Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."" is obviously metaphorical, can there be any argument on that?

quote:"These things have I spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly of the Father."(John 16:25) makes it absolutely clear, does it not?

And further when: quote:"His disciples said to him, 'See now you are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speech!'"(John 16:29) makes it clear there is also much that may be read literally.

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Scholars divided the bible up in roughly 3 types of writing, history,poetry and prophecy.

Knowing which is which is part of learning to read the scripture in a scientific manner.

You would think god would make his message fairly straight-forward, succinct, unambiguous. Lucky for us he sent plenty of nice people to explain it for us simple folk.

Basing anything on the Bible let alone a belief would be insane...but people do it, i never understood why.

The bible, most noticeably the new testament is just a collection of gospels religious leaders of the time deemed fit to suit their own ends, the ones that fit their own beliefs and the ones that kept them in charge were let in...others were said to be heresy.

If you read through forgotten gospels such as those from Mary, Thomas, Peter or even the gnostics you see a very different picture painted from the ones in the holy scriptures that were let in.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Sorry, but don't bring me into your bullshit. If there is any Christian that doesn't deserve the verbal abuse you're giving, it's xtreem5150ahm.

Idiocy is the #1 qualifier for an ass-kicking.

Don't you read the papers?

Then you're in desperate need of one.

quote:Originally posted by DXM User:

ht tp://www.r aptureread y.com/rr-p lanet.html (http: //www.rapt ureready.c om/rr-plan et.html)

There is the URL of an argument BY A CREATIONIST HIMSELF who feels very strongly that you're a fucking idiot.

htt p://www.sw eden.se/te mplates/cs/News____9220.aspx (http: //www.swed en.se/temp lates/cs/N ews____922 0.aspx)

Here is a news story detailing the last 740,000 years of Earth's history.

http ://en.wiki pedia.org/ wiki/Young _earth (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Young_ earth)

"There is no support for a "young Earth" theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations, which Young Earth Creationists and the staff of United States Representative and creationist Mark Souder claim is often due to discrimination and censorship."

Read the fucking article. [side note: Adam and Eve wouldn't have had bellybuttons; even Christian ARTISTS fuck their own stories up]

http ://en.wiki pedia.org/ wiki/Old_Earth_Creationism (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Old_Ea rth_Creati onism)

Here's 'Old Earth Creationism', which I still think is bullshit, but it's FAR more plausible than a 6000 year-old earth.

http: //www.gate .net/~rwms /AgeEarth. html

A story on radiometric dating.



If you can read all those things and still doubt that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, you're a fucking thicko and shouldn't be allowed to spread your genes.



Hi DMX,

This post is in a slightly less playful mode.

Just so you know, this info. is not new to me. Over the yrs. (i'm 41) i've read many similar things (and comprehended). And also, so you know, it's not because i have not given it any thought or because i was told by some church authority that i hold to YEC... in fact, it's only been about 5 yrs or less that i found out that the WELS (Wis. Evengelical Lutheran Synod.. which i've been a member practically my whole life) does hold to more literal understanding of Scripture.. including the first 11 Chapters of Genesis... it's nice to know that one agrees with the faith that they are apart of... and not based on "blind following". Although, as humans, we all do the "blind" thing on many parts of our noetic structure.. which is part of what i was trying to point out to you in the other posts.

i'm not saying that you havent thought about it, but there were many parts in your post that pointed to an acceptance of what science "says" in the same manner that you ridiculed me for doing, when i claim to hold a YEC belief.



Both positions can be rational.

However, both positions can be equally immature if held simply cuz a human authority figure "says so".... this is not a bad thing-- this is how most people start out in life and education i.e. Mom & Dad said "such and such" and it's believed because of a level of trust and authority.



Another point in my goofing around post, is that all people have presuppositions. And sometimes we are not even aware that they are presuppositions. Some of those presupps. are even thought of as something called, "basic beliefs".



Anyway, the most serious thing that i said to you is that you should relax alittle... you have a long (hopefully) journey ahead of you. If you get so bent outta shape so easily, you wont enjoy life for very long.



On that note, i would like to add something for you to concider:

If you had the ability to comprehend things more than any other person in the world, would there really be a point in getting all worked up and upset with others that have a far less ability to comprehend?

Or would you have a more enjoyable life if you learned to love others simply for who they are?

And always keep in mind that the other person just might be accepting you (short-comings and all) just as you are --- none of us are perfect except God, and He is willing to accept us if we trust Him.

God Bless,

johnny

Thank you Rust, for the kind word.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If you're trying to establish whether any objective reference points exist, then I'm telling you that is futile.

Hi Rust,

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I get burnt out at times, and this was one of those.

I was also (slightly) involved in another convo on another board.

Not that i'm any less burnt out, but i felt i atleast owed you somesort of response, since you have always given me that courtesy.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that you and i are both trying to get a particular concession before giving into a smaller concession (atleast, in our own view). Maybe you weren't, i dont know. But i'm guessing that i was probably transparent to you... on the off chance that it wasnt seen, i was trying to get you to concede that interpretations of science was as subjective or objective as interpretations of the Bible, given which origin is true (natural or divine).

Anyway, i'm going to exit this thread w/ the confidence that this topic will eventually resurface... as so many of these discussions do.

God Bless,

johnny