04-23-2002, 12:53 PM | #861 | |||||||||
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
Quote:
Actually, some, if not most fundementalists deny the existence of biblical contradictions. It is really entertaining to see some of the reconciliations that they provide, that in their eyes make the problematic passages sensible or coherent. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||
04-23-2002, 01:50 PM | #862 |
Swan-buggerer
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The rainy, grey north
Posts: 69
|
Would you be so kind as to give a few examples of these? (contradictions)
Um, I don't understand - you are stating a contradiction between the verses in Samuel, and Chronichles, and I ackowledged their confusing nature. Have you not given yourself an example already? There is also confusion about the day of Christ's resurrection, which boils down to the difference in cultures interpretations of which day 'The Sabbath' was. There are others, but if you don't believe the bible is accurate, why are you even interested? It's all hogwash to you anyway, right? Your needs aren't the issue here, contradictory text is. You're right, but since you're attempting to validate your own opinions as everyone else in this thread has, I'll throw mine in too As for your question, I'll say it again: there are contradictions in the Bible that can't be wholly explained. I don't pretend to understand them all. If you plan on positing evidence about historical events such as tribal relocations and other non-mythical and non-supernatural events, don't bother. As I said before: quote: ...the Bible (which probably has some truthfulness, regarding certain historical events...) I have no such sources. Mine simply evaluate the Bible's accuracy as compared to the other historic documents we consider canon for basing higher thought on. They also show how the potential for errors (especially the New Testament) are very small when comapared to these same sources. Hmmm, I also never thought that omnipotence meant omnibenevolence - neither does the dictionary..Omnipotence: "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful." This certainly leaves room for wrath. It is shown in several instances in the Bible (again, whose accuracy you doubt, making much of our debate moot) where God is shown to be wrathful. And yes, I am saying exactly that: we cannot know the mind of God because of his omnipotence - a trait we humans do not posses. How can we possibly know an ominpotent mind if we are not ourlseves, omnipotent? Being one that doesn't question why, my evidence/knowledge/what-not is pretty meaningless to you. I do ask the why, and have come to my own conclusions based on that fundamental part of my nature. Your nature is one that questions the how, and I can't provide you anything that would be valuable for you to gain insight as to why I beleive what I do. Somone else of like mind will have to do that. If you're ever interested in reading pro-christian works. I'd highly suggest "Mere Christianity" by C.S.Lewis. A short, but very logical, and methodical approach to understanding God's existence on a very basic level. At least read it to disprove it. Regards, - Lelond
__________________
- Lelond, your friendly neighborhood Adan Last edited by Lelondul : 04-23-2002 at 02:19 PM. |
04-23-2002, 03:09 PM | #863 | |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Quote:
This debate has really helped me define a few issues for myself. Although I can't really participate without: a) entangling myself in my arguments untill I can't remember which side is up and b) making a total fool out of my self, I hope you do keep up this debate. I've enjoyed reading all (uck) 44 pages, since they are really interesting.
__________________
We are not things. |
|
04-23-2002, 03:50 PM | #864 | ||||||||
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Andúril : 04-23-2002 at 03:56 PM. |
||||||||
04-23-2002, 04:06 PM | #865 | |
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
Quote:
But if you choose to take a back seat, and merely observe, I have absolutely no problem with that. |
|
04-23-2002, 04:49 PM | #866 |
Swan-buggerer
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The rainy, grey north
Posts: 69
|
One thing that the Bible never deviates from, contradicts, or otherwise confusticates is what it takes to be saved from our sinful nature. The main message, as it was intended, is there in crystal clarity. Just because you can sift through a 2000+page book and find some inconsistencies (which have nothing to do with salvation mind you), doesn't mean has no truth.
'Higher thought' was perhaps too general a phrase, I meant thought that does or leads one to, question our being, how we got here, and why. That is how I am able to worship something I can't understand. What I can understand is what is ultimately vital, and understandable to all who believe the Bible is historically accurate. Damn it - this is the last time I get into a spiritual debate at work! I'll post my sources later tonight if nothing unforseen happens.... take care, - Lelond
__________________
- Lelond, your friendly neighborhood Adan Last edited by Lelondul : 04-23-2002 at 04:50 PM. |
04-23-2002, 08:30 PM | #867 | |||
The Insufferable
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,333
|
First, Todays amusement:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Based on your statement, anyone who believes something at face value, and refuse to accept evidence otherwise is intellectually weak. What does that say about those people who repeatedly claim that athiesm and evolution should be taken as fact, despite evidence to the contrary? What does that say about those evolutionists who claim that to disagree with their viewpoint is 'ignorant', 'perverse', or best of all 'wicked'? What does that say about those posters in this thread who automatically assume that anyone who purports to disagree with thier viewpoint are engaging in religious, 'anti-science' propaganda. What I hope you see is, the knife cuts both ways. I've given you my (excellent) reasons for believing that God is much more reasonable than Nature. You have not (as far as I can tell) given any reasons to believe otherwise. Anyway. Subjectivism, truth, etc, etc. I thank you for clearing up what you believe. You understand that I got a wacky impression from some of the things you said. Now, I'd like to apply this to the question of the hour. Everyone participating in this thread has a (subjective) opinion. Some of us are Theists, and some are Naturalists. Now, I've given my reasons for believing that philosophical naturalism is flawed in principle. I have also asked repeatedly that you attempt to resolve them. You (collectively) haven't made much of an effort, and certainly haven't had a great amount success. However, you don't seem to have changed your minds. Is there some reason of this? Or are you merely sticking to the subjective, a priori assumption that naturalism is true? I'll leave that where it lies... What I have seen is a large amount of speculation based on what God is supposed to be like, and whether or not he can actually be that. And even though I do have my own beliefs, I haven't taken my argument that far yet. I will be happy to do so- once we've all agreed that the source of all reality is far less likely to be the total system than it is to be a single, concrete, literal, thinking, entity with a definite character, who created everything else. This would, of course, move us to the sort of thing that Anduril has been getting at all along. Making a concerted study of that sort of thing would be more to my liking than repeating myself and waiting for you guys to answer. I doubt it would be as easy. What do you say?
__________________
Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned Last edited by Wayfarer : 04-23-2002 at 09:30 PM. |
|||
04-23-2002, 09:29 PM | #868 | |||
The Insufferable
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,333
|
More humour:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, back to serious matters: Quote:
What we have is the conflict of two modern schools of thought: Literalists and, uh, Metaflorists. Or something . The one believes that every word of every sentance should be taken literally. Which seems odd, when you consider that this would mean my last sentance depicted them picking up words and carrying them somewhere. On the other end of the spectrum, you have people who assume that, since people use metaphors, we should read between the lines of everything. I can't think of anything witty to say, except for the observation that this statement must have some hidden meaning. I, along with most reasonable people, take the route I like to call, well, being reasonable. Which means that I understand the comparison of men to lions and rocks, or of women with fawns and young birds, to be meant metaphorically. But when I get an obvious, in your face statement like 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', I assume it means what it says. Having taken care of that particular quandry, I am afraid that I am not in possesion of any citations regarding the accuracy of the bible. However, the number and precision of different copies of the bible that have been found are greater than any ancient book. Anyway. The many purported contradictions in the bible seem to be rather desperate attempts on the part of critics. The one which you quoted is actually one of the few which presents any problem. However, as noted, this is rather a difference between modern though (concerned with direct causes) and hebrew thought (concerned with ultimate causes). In any case, it's not particularly convincing as an argument. Aswith most of these cases, it's a matter of overinterpritation.
__________________
Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned |
|||
04-23-2002, 09:44 PM | #869 | |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Quote:
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords Last edited by BeardofPants : 04-23-2002 at 09:46 PM. |
|
04-23-2002, 10:41 PM | #870 | |
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
PART ONE
Wayfarer
we HAVE answered your queries about evolution, we have the evidence that was provide is tangible. YOU have FAILED to convince us. Eventhough anduril and yourself i engaged in some through logic discussions what I have seen from you is bad science HAVE been refuted one these points many times WHERE HAVE YOU PROVEN THE EXISTANCE OF YOUR CHRISTIAN GOD Quote:
then you tried with the design with the design argument You failed there because A) its a false analogy that there is a significant resemblance between the natural objects and ones we know have been designed. B) evolution which you have failed to discredit in another alternative. C) it does not in ANYWAY SOLELY support your christain god. 1)why not a team of lesser gods?, 2)does not support an all powerful one all knowing or all good, hardly. to many design flaws if we lowly humans can see that if this is the best possible world that it.s !@#$%^ up then you go to the first cause argument A) everything has a first cause EXCEPT god. so you say what caused god? well he is self created always was. Hell the universe could have always been. B) there is no highest number it can go on forever, why not in the past? C) even if something god like was the first cause STILL does prove your CHRISTIAN god. does not support an all powerful one all knowing or all good, At least you only resorted to the telelogical and cosmological arguments and did fall into that supreme idoicy of theoloegical debate the ontological argument. YOU HAVE FAILED to PROVE your CHRISTIAN GOD. with logic At BEST you have shone support for more than one god or a lesser god.
__________________
About Eowyn, Does anyone know what her alias Dernhelm means? She was kown as dernhelm because of her exclaimation when she realized that the rider's headgear was heavy and obscured her sight. 'Dern Helm" Culled from Entmoot From Kirinski 57 and Wayfarer. Last edited by afro-elf : 04-23-2002 at 11:01 PM. |
|
04-23-2002, 10:45 PM | #871 |
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
do you wish to move on to the problem of evil?
the prblems of miracles? the gamblers argument NAH lets deal with the previous post first
__________________
About Eowyn, Does anyone know what her alias Dernhelm means? She was kown as dernhelm because of her exclaimation when she realized that the rider's headgear was heavy and obscured her sight. 'Dern Helm" Culled from Entmoot From Kirinski 57 and Wayfarer. Last edited by afro-elf : 04-23-2002 at 10:57 PM. |
04-23-2002, 10:49 PM | #872 | |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
Quote:
While I agree that yes, our arguments are subjective, our conjecturing is based on viewable, empiracle objective observation. Can you honestly say the same? Your evidence is based on historical interpretation, and dubious at that. And I'll say it again, subjectivity, to some extent, is needed to understand the human psyche... provided it is backed up with empiracle data. Also: Thanks A-E, for the defence. Later Edit: Click here to find out which box you fit into.
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords Last edited by BeardofPants : 04-24-2002 at 01:49 AM. |
|
04-23-2002, 11:14 PM | #873 |
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
CHEERS TO WAYFARER
I just wanna say
That one good thing about wayfarer is though we may draw blood here. It does not affect our friendly banter on other threads kudos kid
__________________
About Eowyn, Does anyone know what her alias Dernhelm means? She was kown as dernhelm because of her exclaimation when she realized that the rider's headgear was heavy and obscured her sight. 'Dern Helm" Culled from Entmoot From Kirinski 57 and Wayfarer. |
04-24-2002, 01:02 AM | #874 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
Name is pointless and irrelevant to this discussion. What does it say about religious people who call atheists "doomed sinners")and the "wicked" moniker usually comes from the other side of the house)? What does that have to do with intellect? Just bad manners, really? If someone denies a well proven and documented scientific fact based on one's religious beliefs founded in mythology (age of the earth in billions of years vs 600 year old noah with giant boat floating on an additional 5 mile deep layer of water on the earth) would be displaying the weakness of which we speak. It would be an anti-science position. As for the "propaganda" reference; seems to be propping up this straw man of the theist poster as victim of slander. You have been guilty of the "ad hominem" strategy as any poster on this thread. Yes, anyone who accepts concepts without evaluating the evidence, both pro and con, is exhibiting intellectual weakness. I don't think it is a crime; just annoying
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
04-24-2002, 01:42 AM | #875 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
I have no reason and would find no satifaction in resolving all your problems with "philosophical naturalism"; not without getting paid. I have addressed many issues such as the inaccuracy of the biblical text with respect to the age of the earth and the nature of the universe. The other atheist posters have provided a good deal of fact and reason to support the various aspects of the non-theist view of reality. I've provided references to you for the notable texts that provide the level of detail that is inappropriate for posting. You say that you haven't taken your argument that far; you have declared your belief in god and continue to hypothesize about how god operates. What do you call that; just playing "god's advocate". All the labels you use may be useful for you to draw a black an white picture, but it is sophistry. What you see in the way of speculation with regard to the nature of god is coming from the theists. The atheists are defining their reasons why god doesn't exist. You don't seem to understand what a priori means. Example: I believe god exists, therefore evolution is not possible because god created everything. As opposed to: We found fossils; we discovered DNA which agrees with Darwin's theory on the origin of species; we confirmed the geologic record using radiometric dating, therefore evolution is a theory that is well founded in physical evidence. So, all you ask is that once we agree that reality was created by a single, concrete(?), entity; then we can discuss whether or not god exists? HHHHMMMM. Doesn't really make sense if you think about it. Sounds like a topic for the theist thread.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
04-24-2002, 02:48 AM | #876 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
Hrmmm.
Before I even bother, all of you people have to prove to me that you exist first.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
04-24-2002, 02:49 AM | #877 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
"I think, therefore I am."
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
04-24-2002, 02:56 AM | #878 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
Can you prove to me that you're thinking?
You might be a hallucination you know. But assuming that you aren't, can you prove that it's actually you doing the thinking, and you aren't instead merely listening and reacting to a pre-programed litany under the illusion of free will?
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
04-24-2002, 03:27 AM | #879 | ||||||
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I already stated that there may be some truth to the bible. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
04-24-2002, 03:29 AM | #880 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
|
"You're all just a pack of cards!"
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness... Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ... |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Religious Knowledge Thread | Gwaimir Windgem | General Messages | 631 | 07-21-2008 04:47 PM |