Yeah wait, I'm confused, so you're saying it makes sense to believe in evolution because there's evidence for it, and it makes sense to believe in the resurrection because there's no evidence against it?

5/12/2009 4:36:08 PM

Quote :

"I mean, how the fuck do bring yourself to believe in "zombie jebus"?"

If he's accepting the existence of an almighty god (who can break the laws of physics as he pleases) as an initial premise, and that Jesus is supposedly this god's son, there's not really any reason anything Jesus did would seem particularly impossible to him.

Nor would a 7-day creation, but when presented with evidence against that time frame, he is forced to reconcile it as a non-literal story.

Sort of goes back to that whole summation of your argument...

Quote :

""If God exists, why does He do X?" "Well, maybe He does it because Y." "That's stupid because God doesn't exist.""

...because you are fluctuating pretty wildly between the two.

Quote :

"Happy? Happy? You weren't happy and you concluded that it was because of a lack of religion? What?"

I too am wondering this. It really doesn't make sense.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 4:40:22 PM

Allow me to be very clear - I respect grumpy as one of the conservatives I've debated with who is, at least usually, respectful of others in these debates. Grumpy, just so you know, I'm not trying to pick or make fun of you. I'm honestly curious, from an outsider perspective, how religion works in different people's heads.

5/12/2009 4:53:17 PM

Quote :

"Good luck. That's a very good cause worth fighting for. "

I didn't say I'd have much success, but I'll try my best.

Quote :

"It's the same as those that want to convert people TO a religion. "

No, it really isn't. A religion is based on a fantasy story written down in an ancient book. There's absolutely no reason to believe in one religion over another, or any of them at all, because they're all created by humans. What I'm supporting - atheism, or a rejection of the belief in one of these particular Gods - can be derived purely through logic. There's no evidence that supports the existence of a God. None. I don't have to prove anything, because God cannot manifest in the real world, and cannot be observed. Now, if you have some proof, post it in this thread. I'm sure you will quickly become famous, if it is indeed valid proof.

Quote :

"And I was a confirmed agnostic for years, because that struck me as the most rational, logical thing. I stuck to that for a long time because I decided it was better to be miserable and "smarter" than the rabble than be happy and another delusional religious person."

So you were an agnostic. You thought that the existence of God could not be known. Now, you think it can be known. How exactly did you make that leap?

5/12/2009 4:59:12 PM

Quote :

"You weren't happy and you concluded that it was because of a lack of religion?"

No, that was not the conclusion that I reached. That paragraph was not well-conceived and misleading. Sorry. I did not convert to get happier -- in fact, one of the things that drew me to my denomination was its somber, serious tone, because I thought that life was a somber thing that out to be taken seriously. As it happened, I did end up being much happier after I started participating, but I hadn't previously given much thought to the possibility.

There was a point during my agnosticism that I became dissatisfied with several key aspects of my life, but my desire to be considered logical and intelligent caused me to dismiss certain alternatives out of hand. During this period I probably would have rejected religion even if I really thought it would make me happier, which, as I said, I didn't.

Quote :

"How about the fact that dead things are dead?"

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Quote :

"You don't really believe -- you've just (for some really fucked up reason, intentionally,) deluded yourself into believing."

I do really believe. And of course I fucking chose to believe it, just like I chose to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow and just like I choose to believe that you're a self-absorbed dick. I could have chosen to believe that the world would end today or that you're just trolling.

"Fitting in" was not a goal in my conversion. In fact, where I was at the time, it took me from the majority to the minority.

Quote :

"so you're saying it makes sense to believe in evolution because there's evidence for it, and it makes sense to believe in the resurrection because there's no evidence against it?"

I'm saying that this is part of the answer to your earlier question. In conjunction with the other things I mentioned it explains why I believe one thing is literal and the other is not.

Quote :

"How exactly did you make that leap?"

When I brought up that part of my life, it was to contrast with your life experience. Atheists and agnostics are always going on about how they were raised religious and got so happy when they left their faith. I just wanted to show that the trend is not universal.

Unfortunately, and I should have known better, it mostly served to divert the thread into a discussion about my personal experiences -- experiences which are going to remain personal. I've clarified my earlier statement, I'm not going to put out the intimate details of my life to be picked apart by a bunch of fucking hyenas like the wolfweb. What would be the point? What do you think the odds are that anything I wrote would make anybody in this thread say, "Wow, actually, that kind of makes sense." So how about we just accept it as a given that however I "made the leap," you think it's stupid and wrong.

5/12/2009 5:42:41 PM

Quote :

"Figurative language is used constantly, in written works and in speech. I don't understand why every other application of language in history is allowed to use it, but the Bible isn't. It's not about arbitrary designation, it's about attempting to reach a greater understanding. Religion doesn't have to be about blindly following ironclad rules"

The problem is that when it comes to the Bible, there is no indication whatsoever that any of the text was originally meant to be taken figuratively. In fact, the text was interpreted quite literally for the better part of the last two millennia. Furthermore, it is blatantly obvious that every "figurative" interpretation of the Bible stems not from some effort to find the true meaning of the text, but rather to reconcile and save face in light of its own historical or scientific deficiencies.



[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 7:57 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2009 7:54:16 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that when it comes to the Bible, there is no indication whatsoever that any of the text was originally meant to be taken figuratively."

Yeah, it sure is convenient with all the other texts, which of course include [figurative][/figurative] markers to let the reader know what's up.

Quote :

"Furthermore, it is blatantly obvious that every "figurative" interpretation of the Bible stems not from some effort to find the true meaning of the text, but rather to reconcile and save face in light of its own historical or scientific deficiencies."

New information improves our understanding. If the creator of the universe writes a book, then things you observe in the universe should inform your relationship with the book. They both come from the same author and are directly related to one another.

5/12/2009 8:22:46 PM

i'm trying to stay out of this argument, but...... "god" didn't write the bible.....

Some of the New Testament authors may be known (known, but not necessarily credible), but even claims that Moses wrote most of the Old Testament are laughable


also, the claim you've made a couple times, and that people use all the time to explain away the differences between the Old and New Testaments is basically "god can change his mind whenever he wants, and the NT shows that", or "Jesus changed things. Times were different in the OT. Jesus [who is actually just god, right?] changed all that" - well, it kind of destroys the moral superiority Christians claim to have when talking to non-Christians or atheists when they say "God is constant, and God's morals are constant. If God is not informing your morals, then they subject to change on a whim". Of course, according to the Bible itself, God's morals, or values, apparently change all the time too, or at least they did from the beginning of time until 2000 years ago, at which time, i guess whatever where the moral codes of the time were cemented in place for the rest of eternity, right?

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 9:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 9:13:51 PM

I know, I know, but "divinely inspires a book" seemed like an unnecessary degree of clarification.

5/12/2009 9:15:37 PM

Quote :

"i'm trying to stay out of this argument, but...... "god" didn't write the bible....."

Yeah, but God spoke to some guys back then, who went on to write the bible. That's basically the same as God writing it himself. I mean, nowadays, when someone says God spoke to them, I believe them wholeheartedly, and never question their mental state or integrity. It's sort of like a really long game of telephone. The more people that are playing (or in this case, translating), which in this case involves people of every language, culture, and background, over the span of about 6,000 years, the more confident you can be in the final message. But rest assured, God did speak to the original dude(s), who for whatever reason, were perfect and made no mistakes at all.

But really, it's not God's fault that his message was corrupted. It's not like he knew that humans would screw it all up and distort his original meaning. Plus, is it really reasonable to ask God to clarify himself? He can't just come down here and let us know what he meant. It's up to us to have faith in a book full of errors and contradictions if we want to go to heaven.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 9:31 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2009 9:30:10 PM

lol i love when people attack the validity of the scriptures and say they are full of contradictions. and bart ehrman is their source. lol.

and every contradiction they cite actually aren't contradictions at all. because they don't contradict each other. they just say different things.

and how people say that god's morals changed between the OT and the NT. those are the people i told to read the bible earlier in this thread. and someone responded with "maybe you should. not just the warm and fuzzy parts." to whoever that guy was, "maybe you should. not just the parts that make you angry and pretentious because you don't understand them."

God's morals never changed. His wrath is terrible. And people, including entire populations in the OT, have experienced it. Jesus didn't come along when God changed his mind. Jesus came along and had to bear God's wrath so others could be saved. But that's the gospel message and only bigots and kindergartners believe in those fairy tales, because smart people are too intelligent to consider the existence of anything other than what can be physically tested and proven. My b.

5/12/2009 10:54:31 PM

whatever helps you sleep at night dude.....

Quote :

"God didn't come along when God changed his mind. God came along and had to bear God's wrath so others could be saved."

there, fixed it for you

5/12/2009 11:16:12 PM

I thought some old Roman Emperor co-wrote much of the new testament along with Christian leaders as a way to force his social agenda onto the people while compromising with the early church to turn Christianity as the religion Rome.

5/12/2009 11:44:36 PM

Quote :

"lol i love when people attack the validity of the scriptures and say they are full of contradictions. and bart ehrman is their source. lol. and every contradiction they cite actually aren't contradictions at all. because they don't contradict each other. they just say different things."

Yes, they say different things - that's the problem. You can explain away any contradiction by saying "Oh, well it's a metaphor - it doesn't actually mean what it says, it means uhhh...somethin else." Do you understand why this takes away the meaning of the bible? This is a book that's supposed to be our only way to avoid eternal damnation. God couldn't write something contradiction-free, that every person would interpret in the same way? Or did he just want to mess with us?

Quote :

"and how people say that god's morals changed between the OT and the NT. those are the people i told to read the bible earlier in this thread. and someone responded with "maybe you should. not just the warm and fuzzy parts." to whoever that guy was, "maybe you should. not just the parts that make you angry and pretentious because you don't understand them.""

I have read the bible. I know the good parts and the bad parts. Reading scripture doesn't make me angry or "pretentious." God's morality clearly does change between testaments; the old testament god often becomes angry and kills millions of people. He commands that people be stoned for certain sins. In the new testament, he is a god of forgiveness and compassion. It's a total shift in personality.

Quote :

"But that's the gospel message and only bigots and kindergartners believe in those fairy tales, because smart people are too intelligent to consider the existence of anything other than what can be physically tested and proven. My b."

Are you willing to consider the existence of anything other than what can be physically tested and proven, except in the case of your religion? Do you walk around every day, worrying about the invisible monkey that's about to slap you in the face? It could exist, you know. Every one of your actions is based on what you have the ability to sense and react to.

5/13/2009 12:47:19 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, it sure is convenient with all the other texts, which of course include [figurative][/figurative] markers to let the reader know what's up."

Would you mind giving an example of a contemporary, purportedly non-fictional text in which it is, at any point, ambiguous as to whether the author is speaking literally or figuratively? I can think of one example, but it was written by a guy on a perpetual acid trip.

Quote :

"New information improves our understanding. If the creator of the universe writes a book, then things you observe in the universe should inform your relationship with the book. They both come from the same author and are directly related to one another."

Congratulations, you've just illustrated quite eloquently how circular logic is absolutely necessary in order to accept your religion.

Q: How do you know the Bible to be true?
A: Because God says so.
Q: How do you know that?
A: Because the Bible says so.

But would you mind addressing the point, which you essentially dodged, that figurative interpretations of selected biblical scriptures are always a post hoc attempt to save face? Do you accept that? If so, how do you still manage to find credibility in it? If not, can you provide a passage that you would interpret figuratively for reasons other than its blatant incompatibility with science, history, or reason?

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM. Reason : ]

5/13/2009 5:31:57 AM

Quote :

"Yes, they say different things - that's the problem. You can explain away any contradiction by saying "Oh, well it's a metaphor - it doesn't actually mean what it says, it means uhhh...somethin else." Do you understand why this takes away the meaning of the bible? This is a book that's supposed to be our only way to avoid eternal damnation. God couldn't write something contradiction-free, that every person would interpret in the same way? Or did he just want to mess with us?"

of course they say different things. they were written by dozens of different authors. none of these different things ever contradict each other to any significant degree, however.

Quote :

"the old testament god often becomes angry and kills millions of people. He commands that people be stoned for certain sins. In the new testament, he is a god of forgiveness and compassion. It's a total shift in personality."

No, it's not a shift in personality. God is still just as full of wrath as he ever was. Actually, Jesus talked a ton about hell. The only difference is that Jesus took the brunt of the wrath, so that people don't have to.

Quote :

"Are you willing to consider the existence of anything other than what can be physically tested and proven, except in the case of your religion? Do you walk around every day, worrying about the invisible monkey that's about to slap you in the face?"

Not the invisible monkey, no, because I have never heard anyone propose that as a legitimate belief system. If it is backed by thousands of years of philosophical and theological reasoning though, then I'll consider it.

5/13/2009 7:04:30 AM

Quote :

"If it is backed by thousands of years of philosophical and theological reasoning though, then I'll consider it."

What a gas! So tell me, what is it about Christianity's philosophical legacy that makes it superior to any of the other tribal dogmas still being kicked around today? Surely, as you say, you've considered this.

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 7:25 AM. Reason : ]

5/13/2009 7:24:50 AM

mainly the resurrection and the historical chronicles of the eye witnesses who clearly experienced some life-changing event that they all were willing to die for it (whereas they weren't a few days earlier, like peter, who denied Jesus) which led to the subsequent immediate and rapid growth of the church.

also

Quote :

"Not the invisible monkey, no, because I have never heard anyone propose that as a legitimate belief system. If it is backed by thousands of years of philosophical and theological reasoning though, then I'll consider it."

yeah i don't believe in love, hate, a sense of right and wrong, a sense of justice, etc either, because nothing metaphysical exists. undoubtedly.

5/13/2009 7:35:11 AM

It's both funny and sad watching some of you deluded christians attempt to explain your beliefs....
With your dodges, convenient cop-outs, circular logic, picking-and-choosing, etc., you truly are fools.

5/13/2009 8:05:56 AM

Quote :

"lol i love when people attack the validity of the scriptures and say they are full of contradictions. and bart ehrman is their source. lol. and every contradiction they cite actually aren't contradictions at all. because they don't contradict each other. they just say different things."

Can you provide some examples?

5/13/2009 8:25:49 AM

Quote :

"mainly the resurrection and the historical chronicles of the eye witnesses who clearly experienced some life-changing event that they all were willing to die for it (whereas they weren't a few days earlier, like peter, who denied Jesus) which led to the subsequent immediate and rapid growth of the church."

This is a story from the Bible. What I asked was how the Christian philosophy, with its thousands of years of rigorous debate under its belt, is superior to any other religion. What you've descirbed so far has an analogue in virtually every religion known to man - that it had early adherents, and a hero figure.

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 8:32 AM. Reason : ]

5/13/2009 8:29:47 AM

Quote :

"This is a book that's supposed to be our only way to avoid eternal damnation"

Perhaps god does not care how you interpret the bible or even if you are baptist, catholic, a jew, hindu, or muslim. As long as you live your life with good moral character and have faith

Quote :

"is superior to any other religion"

It is not. We essentially worship a zombie.

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 8:47 AM. Reason : a]

5/13/2009 8:46:39 AM

Quote :

"Can you provide some examples?"

we started this discussion in another thread somewhere. someone mentioned ehrman and linked me to a website where he notes that in one gospel account Jesus says A while dying on the cross and in another gospel account Jesus says B. OH NOES U MEAN JESUS SAID MORE THAN ONE SENTENCE!!1

Quote :

"This is a story from the Bible. What I asked was how the Christian philosophy, with its thousands of years of rigorous debate under its belt, is superior to any other religion. What you've descirbed so far has an analogue in virtually every religion known to man - that it had early adherents, and a hero figure."

Well just ignoring the false claim that you can automatically dismiss the bible as any sort of reliable text (because that's another debate entirely), the rise of the christian church is documented in plenty of other manuscripts as well and is unlike the rise of any other religion.

5/13/2009 9:02:01 AM

How did this become a discussion of the bible (which will end up nowhere)?

What I find interesting is the basic contradiction between, "Love your neighbor as yourself", and, "We'll torture them if it could save our lives". Most interesting is the fact that the more you go to chuch the more willing you are to go against everything you profess to believe in. Here's my take.

The biggest problem with humans is that we are herding animals and spend most of our time trying to figure out who is in the herd and who isn't.

As church-going members, people start to identify with an increasingly smaller group (christians, first, and then Baptists, etc.). The more conservative and restrictive the sect is the more they see themselves being attacked by the "others". The result is a disassociation with an increasing number of "others", and a willingness to treat them differently.

It wouldn't be hard to conclude that people that go to church more, who have stronger held beliefs, would be more willing to press the limits.

Of course this goes against everything that Jesus preached, but that's another story.

5/13/2009 9:15:34 AM

whenever i see ^you post i think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1esJHZvViuU

5/13/2009 9:33:03 AM

Quote :

"Well just ignoring the false claim that you can automatically dismiss the bible as any sort of reliable text (because that's another debate entirely), the rise of the christian church is documented in plenty of other manuscripts as well and is unlike the rise of any other religion."

The glut of historical inaccuracies contained within the Bible tells us all we need to know about it's efficacy as a historical document. In terms of its value as a historical document, it is comparable to something like Homer's Iliad.

As for the rise of the Christian Church, for starters, you're absolutely incorrect in stating that its "rise...is unlike the rise of any other religion." You're just utterly wrong on that point. But even if you weren't, how would that make it more philosophically appealing to you? Surely you're aware that the spread of Christianity was due entirely to tribal politics, imperialism, and coercion. Could you explain what any of that has to do with philosophy?

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 9:57 AM. Reason : ]

5/13/2009 9:55:37 AM

Quote :

"he notes that in one gospel account Jesus says A while dying on the cross and in another gospel account Jesus says B. OH NOES U MEAN JESUS SAID MORE THAN ONE SENTENCE!!1"

Ehrman takes all 4 Gospel's accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection and lays all the major points out side by side, so you can see the stories in parallel, instead of reading them serially like you usually do. When you compare the stories in each gospel directly to each other, you can see that they really aren't compatible with each other.

What you're referring to specifically is probably where Ehrman compares Jesus' words and actions while on the cross across the gospels, and the overall point is not just "oh no, the sentences in the gospel's don't match exactly," it's that each gospel tells a completely different story, with different meanings. In this case, you're probably referring to one gospel (I forgot which one) where basically through the whole crucifixion, Jesus is insolent and appears to not want to accept the punishment, which leads him to cry out "God, why have you forsaken me?". In another Gospel, though, Jesus is the perfect gentleman throughout the whole process and willing and quietly accepts all the punishment coming his way, which again leads to the famous line "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

Now, each story is powerful in its own way, and each has a lesson to tell. However, each of them taken as truth is just not possible - they're diametrically opposed to each other. And this is ignoring all of the other "small details" like if he was the only cross on the hill or if there were 2 thieves with him, if the crucifixion was the day before or the day after Passover, if it was in the morning or evening, etc. I think Ehrman's overall point about the Gospels is valid, in that for most Christians, there is an unwritten "5th Gospel." That is, if you ask the vast majority of Christians to tell you the crucifixion story, they will, probably unknowingly, just merge all 4 stories into one big 5th story that encompasses all the highlights from the other 4, while leaving out the details that contradict (the supposed hard facts like what day it was on), and including several parts that are contradictory, but only upon further retrospection (what Jesus said on the cross).

5/13/2009 10:18:52 AM

Quote :

"Surely you're aware that the spread of Christianity was due entirely to tribal politics, imperialism, and coercion. "

It wasn't spread entirely due to politics and imperial doctrine. Before it reached the Roman Emperor, it was spread by grass-roots evangelism. Christianity was initially a threat to the Roman empire.

Also, I just want to point out that this is a perfectly acceptable reason for loose interpretation of the bible.

5/13/2009 10:21:15 AM

Quote :

"It wasn't spread entirely due to politics and imperial doctrine. Before it reached the Roman Emperor, it was spread by grass-roots evangelism."

Pre-Constantine Christianity was rife with sectarian squabbling. And it was, ultimately, an effort to establish or maintain a particular social structure, which makes it political. The fact that it employed grassroots evangelism is a banal fact. Most sects did this in one way or another.

And, of course, none of this explains how Christianity is preferable from a philosophical standpoint. If an immediate and rapid rise in popularity were any measure of philosophical virtue, then you must surely lament all the wonderous twentieth century idealogies we've so hastily dispatched, such as Communism, or Fascism.

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 11:00 AM. Reason : ]

5/13/2009 10:56:31 AM

Quote :

"Would you mind giving an example of a contemporary, purportedly non-fictional text in which it is, at any point, ambiguous as to whether the author is speaking literally or figuratively?"

How would a contemporary book be of any use? Writing today is different from writing 2000 years ago, and so is the use of language.

Quote :

"Q: How do you know the Bible to be true? A: Because God says so. Q: How do you know that? A: Because the Bible says so."

Uh...never really said anything like that. I think I was pretty clear in the piece you quoted that things in the outside world disprove the literal truth of the Bible. I said that understanding one of a creator-god's works can be informed by looking at another of his works. And nowhere in this thread have I said I know anything.

Quote :

"that figurative interpretations of selected biblical scriptures are always a post hoc attempt to save face?"

I didn't dodge anything. I said it isn't (at least, for some of us) an "attempt to save face," I said it was a reasonable application of the outside world to our knowledge of the Bible. I said that understanding one of a creator-god's works can be informed by looking at another of his works.

Quote :

"What I find interesting is the basic contradiction between, "Love your neighbor as yourself", and, "We'll torture them if it could save our lives"."

I'm not sure I understand the contradiction. If torture hurts one of my neighbors and refraining from torture could allow the injury of dozens, you go with the one that helps the most of your neighbors.

Of course, I realize that this has probably never been the situation, and I'm opposed to our application of torture in the past few years because it seems to have poorly administered in a useless fashion. However, because we could conceivably capture someone with imminent attack knowledge, I'm OK with leaving most of our techniques on the table as a possibility. However, it should only be used with direct, specific presidential approval.

5/13/2009 12:27:47 PM

i think torture should be illegal ALL the time. and in those extraordinary circumstances (which have never been documented to have ever happened mind you) the person doing the interrogating could say "fuck it i'll torture because people's lives depend on it." that person would then go to trial for their crime. if the jury then decides that the application of the law would be unjust because the interrogator was acting in an extraordinary circumstance where torture was absolutely necessary to save lives, then they could use the jury nullification tool that is at their disposal.

5/13/2009 12:32:36 PM

Matt Taibbi, author of "The Great Derangement"

"Being anti-torture doesn’t make you pro-terrorist"
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/05/11/torture-is-fun/

agree with him or not on specific issues, Taibbi is great at cutting through bullshit and demolishing ridiculous talking points from either side of an issue.

5/13/2009 12:41:03 PM

Jesus' lineage isn't even the same in each book. Some show his connection to David through Joseph (who isn't even his real father, supposedly, since he's god's son), and some show his lineage through Mary, and those lineages are different.

http://everything2.com/node/917665

[Edited on May 13, 2009 at 1:24 PM. Reason : ,]

5/13/2009 1:23:03 PM

Quote :

"How did this surprise the OP? Seriously...."

5/13/2009 1:34:42 PM

Jesus saying "Forgive them" and "Why have you forsaken me?" are not opposed to each other. wtf. You don't think someone who is bearing the very wrath of God in order to save people he loves would have mixed emotions? Seriously. Weak Sauce.

And I'm talking about the rise of Christianity within the first century after Christ's death. You know, when those closest to him, having doubted/denied him just a few days earlier, are all of a sudden so convinced of something (resurrection perhaps?) that they are willing to be martyred for Christ. the early grassroots spread of Christianity (b/f Constantine hijacked the faith) is what I was referring to. So I'm not saying "oh, I believe christianity because it's popular." You asked me what sets Christianity apart from other religions. I simply pointed out that one thing is its early rise (the fact that its earliest followers witnessed something profound to make them have a sudden change of heart significant enough to make them martyrs for the cause).

5/13/2009 4:01:11 PM

Quote :

"Jesus saying "Forgive them" and "Why have you forsaken me?" are not opposed to each other. wtf. You don't think someone who is bearing the very wrath of God in order to save people he loves would have mixed emotions? Seriously. Weak Sauce."

it's not just the particular sentences he spoke on the cross, but the entire stories are different, just like i said earlier and just what Ehrman says in his books. Of course, you're simply picking and choosing what to argue against, which should be no surprise coming from a Believer.

I'm not sure why you discredit Ehrman's studies out of hand anyway. He came to his conclusions while in seminary, studying to become a pastor, after all. He entered seminary as an Evangelical, but decided to take a critical look at the Bible while studying it, something that the vast, vast majority of Christians never bother to do. He only came to his conclusions, and lost his faith, after realizing that any person who studies the Bible or just the NT as any kind of reliable historical document would come to the conclusion that it simply doesn't add up.

5/13/2009 4:23:43 PM

Quote :

"Of course, you're simply picking and choosing what to argue against, which should be no surprise coming from a Believer. "

no surprise coming from a nonbeliever that you have not presented a clear argument for these "different stories" you keep talking about. still waiting for them.

Quote :

" I'm not sure why you discredit Ehrman's studies out of hand anyway. He came to his conclusions while in seminary, studying to become a pastor, after all. He entered seminary as an Evangelical, but decided to take a critical look at the Bible while studying it, something that the vast, vast majority of Christians never bother to do. He only came to his conclusions, and lost his faith, after realizing that any person who studies the Bible or just the NT as any kind of reliable historical document would come to the conclusion that it simply doesn't add up."

Yeah, I know his story. Doesn't make his ideas any more groundbreaking or true. Anyway there are also many people who were looking for reasons to discredit Christianity and came to the conclusion that it's the only worldview that makes the most sense of things and converted.

5/13/2009 4:36:15 PM

Quote :

"How would a contemporary book be of any use?"

Because it would provide a better chance at determining whether or not the author was speaking literally or figuratively (through other works, interviews, memoirs, etc.) But, fine, now that we've established you can't think of a contemporary example, do you have any other example to back up your claim?

Quote :

"I said it isn't (at least, for some of us) an "attempt to save face," I said it was a reasonable application of the outside world to our knowledge of the Bible. I said that understanding one of a creator-god's works can be informed by looking at another of his works."

Yes, but you were trying to reconcile the Bible with outside knowledge under the premise that, since God created outside knowledge, one can simply view the it as just another work "from the same author." In other words, you are trying to authenticate the Bible through claims made in Bible (that God is the creator of the universe). This is called circular reasoning.

And again, you've dodged the question. How is it that you know when to interpret the Bible figuratively? Why is this type of interpretation only employed out of necessity, in order to save face? Why don't you consider Christ's divine nature, his miracles, his resurrection, and his dying for our sins to be figuratively written? That's what most of our founding fathers believed, as it happens.

5/13/2009 7:04:07 PM

Quote :

"But, fine, now that we've established you can't think of a contemporary example, do you have any other example to back up your claim?"

I will freely admit that I have not and will not look for any examples from any time period. They may not exist. Even if I came up with prominent ones that did exist, you would almost certainly disagree as to whether or not it was "at any point, ambiguous" as to the words being used figuratively. And maybe you're right, and the Bible is the only one in the whole world. If that's the case, so what? Uniqueness is not an automatic basis for being bullshit.

Quote :

"In other words, you are trying to authenticate the Bible through claims made in Bible (that God is the creator of the universe)."

No. I have not, am not, and will not try to authenticate the Bible based on observations in the world as we experience it. If there were concrete proof for the Bible's accuracy you may rest assured I would provide it, if nothing else to end this thread and other's like it. As you are well aware Christianity (and religion in general) is ultimately based on faith, which I already know you don't put much stock in.

But, when the discussion comes down to hypothetical questions about how God, if He exists, could do a certain thing, I can and generally will try to explain an answer. If you want to argue, "God does not exist, there's no evidence for it," then I don't have much to say to you. But if you argue, "God does not exist, because everything He has done doesn't add up in my mind," then I do have some things to say.

I do not try to prove the existence of God or the accuracy of the Bible, using the rest of the world or anything else as a basis.

Quote :

"How is it that you know when to interpret the Bible figuratively?"

I don't "know." I make my best guess, at least a somewhat informed one. I may be wrong, but the God I believe in strikes me as being forgiving of my failures in that regard.

Quote :

"Why is this type of interpretation only employed out of necessity, in order to save face?"

You keep saying "to save face" and that's not accurate.

I get new information and compare it with the old. "The old" is a book that was not intended to be a science text. If I compare a new science book with and old one, I know that the old one was not being figurative. It was trying to accurately describe the universe. But if I compare a new science text to an old text that was not intended as such, there exists at least the possibility that it was figurative.

Quote :

"That's what most of our founding fathers believed, as it happens."

So? Most of the founding fathers owned slaves. Among that ones that didn't were the most devoutly religious, including a belief in a more literal Christ story than the one you describe.

As to why I don't think the Christ story is figurative -- already answered that one in this thread, and I'm not one to repeat myself. But, to answer the criticism you're likely to give, I believe in my religion for reasons I don't really intend to share. So take my earlier-given answer within that context. If I believe in Christianity, obviously I'm going to believe in the central part of Christianity. You'll call me an idiot for believing, and that's fine. I won't mess with it, because it's not like there's any proof I could offer you that you would accept -- if there were, I would have fucking given it already.

5/13/2009 9:45:31 PM

Quote :

"No. I have not, am not, and will not try to authenticate the Bible based on observations in the world as we experience it."

Your belief in the Bible's authenticity, figuratively or literally, and despite its apparent internal and external contradictions, is rooted in your belief that a "creator-God" is the author of all things, thus rendering any discrepancies to be simply a product of our inability to fully comprehend God's message.

This is what you're saying, no?

The problem is that the "creator-God" concept you espouse is derived from the very text whose authenticity you use it to defend. That is circular reasoning.

Quote :

"I believe in my religion for reasons I don't really intend to share. "

Well, golly, I can't really argue with that, can I? Clearly no amount of rational deliberation can contend with the secret knowledge of the Believer.

5/14/2009 7:59:20 AM

GEE WHIZ U R SOOOO SMART

5/14/2009 8:02:50 AM

SURPRISE the "unavailable" person overseeing the "briefings" to congress on torture was none other than dick cheney. why did he want to keep his name out of the accounts of these briefings? perhaps because it would be exposed for the active lobbying that it was?

article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060203999.html?hpid=topnews

6/3/2009 12:58:15 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/18/AR2009071802065_5.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009071802309

Quote :

"Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 83 times over four or five days"

damnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

at first it was 83 times over a month period.

7/19/2009 12:01:50 PM

but it was only 83 applications of water up his nose! no big deal.

[Edited on July 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM. Reason : .]

7/19/2009 12:16:15 PM

i love waterboarding during sex

7/19/2009 4:46:43 PM