A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2012, 11:02 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 10:55 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 10:12 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Having spent 3 years in seminary and 15 years as an expositor of the Bible, I've never heard of the stat: "real scholars accept that 99% is an accurate reflection of the original". Can you please give us some references to back up this statement? Even one reliable one?

That real scholars quote along with the ages for the various texts such as Caesar's writings is more or less straight from the Alpha Course book by Nicky Gumbel, I remember it well, as it was responsible for some assisted muddled thinking on my part when I was a teenager. I heard it a lot in Zim, so I was interested to see that FG also quoted it, I assume he got it from going on an Alpha course but possibly he got it second hand from someone else.

I heard about Alpha when I was still in the church. Pretty good way to bolster the faithful with platitudes and easy, faulty thinking.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
24-08-2012, 11:13 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 11:02 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  I heard about Alpha when I was still in the church. Pretty good way to bolster the faithful with platitudes and easy, faulty thinking.

They give you free food too. Swallow it all down together...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
24-08-2012, 02:42 PM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 07:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 07:25 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  I do not claim to be a scholar of texts, but real scholars accept that 99% is an accurate reflection of the original - not based on one or two documents, but considering 1000's of documents and on the basis of careful analysis come to conclusions, apparently based on various criteria.
To establish the accuracy, you may consider the following:
Manuscript , Date of oldest manuscript, Copies
Plato , 1200 years later , 7
Ceasar , 900 years later , 10
Aristotle , 1400 years later , 5
New Testament , 35 - 100 years later , 4000 - 5000

So from this it is evident that there is a wealth of information to verify the accuracy of the various manuscripts.
But the questions that have as yet not been answered is (1) what doctrine of the Christian faith is disputed based on so-called "gross inaccuracies" of the Bible and (2) What do you use as a yardstick to decide right from wrong and if so why?

You've got apples and oranges there. There is nothing but the non-original Biblical manuscripts, all of which post-date the alleged events, and no outside sources.

We have many outside sources regarding Roman emperors' lives.

Quote:
It seems to me that these questions beg an answer if we honestly want to deal with the issues at the core. It seems that there is no solid ground as basis for your decisions on right or wrong, and this fact is demonstrated by the rather absurd notions on "legal after-birth abortion" - murder. (This happens in any case with live babies left to die after birth as a result of botched abortions.) Is that the type of society we are creating?

What a bizarre argument. Very few people would take this seriously.

Moral philosophy can be grounded on reason and law grounded in consensus. To base morals on the Bible is very tricky since there are horrible morals, including infanticide, promoted in it.
You seem to miss the point somewhat. The claim is the Bible text being horribly corrupted and the challenge still remains – provide scholarly proof of such corruption that have any impact on doctrine.
The data provided is evidence of the wealth of information available to establish the original Bible text, and how information where really scant records are available and the date of the latest available manuscripts are 900+ years post the original is accepted as true to the original.
The question of historicity was never mentioned but if you are willing to spend the time, you could easily establish the historicity of Jesus and Christianity from some of the best historians at the time- outside Christendom. (Tacitus as one example). Thus your claim of no outside sources is somewhat misplaced.
As far as moral philosophy being based on reason is concerned, I would not use the word “grounded”. It is very obvious from even a very superficial evaluation of this statement that different people come to different conclusions on the same set of data. Thus reason does not set any parameters – apart from the specific set of “standards” that any person/group of person would hold at a certain time. You cannot then claim that this can be a standard, as that changes as the wind changes. No grounding – floating on air.
Consensus? Just as flimsy with whose consensus being the standard? So the majority rules, irrespective of whether they are swayed by emotion, self interest, ignorance or some or other motive? It is thinner than air. No wonder people have difficulty in distinguishing what is right or wrong. You cannot tell them with any certainty - none.
As far as bizarre is concerned, you are welcome to scrutinize some of the proposals by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. You may also read this: You may also want to look at eugenics and the methods proposed. Hitler was a great proponent.
This is the result of reason and consensus? You bet. I am sorry if I come across a bit strong. I have no problem with you as a person. You are most likely a fantastic person, loved by family and friends.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 02:48 PM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 02:42 PM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 07:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  You've got apples and oranges there. There is nothing but the non-original Biblical manuscripts, all of which post-date the alleged events, and no outside sources.

We have many outside sources regarding Roman emperors' lives.


What a bizarre argument. Very few people would take this seriously.

Moral philosophy can be grounded on reason and law grounded in consensus. To base morals on the Bible is very tricky since there are horrible morals, including infanticide, promoted in it.
You seem to miss the point somewhat. The claim is the Bible text being horribly corrupted and the challenge still remains – provide scholarly proof of such corruption that have any impact on doctrine.
The data provided is evidence of the wealth of information available to establish the original Bible text, and how information where really scant records are available and the date of the latest available manuscripts are 900+ years post the original is accepted as true to the original.
The question of historicity was never mentioned but if you are willing to spend the time, you could easily establish the historicity of Jesus and Christianity from some of the best historians at the time- outside Christendom. (Tacitus as one example). Thus your claim of no outside sources is somewhat misplaced.
As far as moral philosophy being based on reason is concerned, I would not use the word “grounded”. It is very obvious from even a very superficial evaluation of this statement that different people come to different conclusions on the same set of data. Thus reason does not set any parameters – apart from the specific set of “standards” that any person/group of person would hold at a certain time. You cannot then claim that this can be a standard, as that changes as the wind changes. No grounding – floating on air.
Consensus? Just as flimsy with whose consensus being the standard? So the majority rules, irrespective of whether they are swayed by emotion, self interest, ignorance or some or other motive? It is thinner than air. No wonder people have difficulty in distinguishing what is right or wrong. You cannot tell them with any certainty - none.
As far as bizarre is concerned, you are welcome to scrutinize some of the proposals by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. You may also read this: You may also want to look at eugenics and the methods proposed. Hitler was a great proponent.
This is the result of reason and consensus? You bet. I am sorry if I come across a bit strong. I have no problem with you as a person. You are most likely a fantastic person, loved by family and friends.

Tacitus lived after the 'events' - born 56 CE. There are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus. None.

There are no original texts, only copies and copies of copies and copies of copies of copies and ...

Hitler was a dictator; consensus obviously does not apply.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-08-2012, 02:53 PM
A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
I can imagine how fun this is going to get when BB decides to take part in the debate. Yes

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 03:49 PM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 02:53 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I can imagine how fun this is going to get when BB decides to take part in the debate. Yes

I'm waiting for him to come back. I don't have the text knowledge and frankly I don't care. But true believers sharing the joy of Christ tend to put me off my baby which I find really annoying, so if he can kindly explain that early church fathers were a bunch of power hungry geezers whose usefulness as a historical source is about as good as... well I can't think of a worse source than the bible actually... but then I can get back to feeding.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
24-08-2012, 04:01 PM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 02:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 02:42 PM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  You seem to miss the point somewhat. The claim is the Bible text being horribly corrupted and the challenge still remains – provide scholarly proof of such corruption that have any impact on doctrine.
The data provided is evidence of the wealth of information available to establish the original Bible text, and how information where really scant records are available and the date of the latest available manuscripts are 900+ years post the original is accepted as true to the original.
The question of historicity was never mentioned but if you are willing to spend the time, you could easily establish the historicity of Jesus and Christianity from some of the best historians at the time- outside Christendom. (Tacitus as one example). Thus your claim of no outside sources is somewhat misplaced.
As far as moral philosophy being based on reason is concerned, I would not use the word “grounded”. It is very obvious from even a very superficial evaluation of this statement that different people come to different conclusions on the same set of data. Thus reason does not set any parameters – apart from the specific set of “standards” that any person/group of person would hold at a certain time. You cannot then claim that this can be a standard, as that changes as the wind changes. No grounding – floating on air.
Consensus? Just as flimsy with whose consensus being the standard? So the majority rules, irrespective of whether they are swayed by emotion, self interest, ignorance or some or other motive? It is thinner than air. No wonder people have difficulty in distinguishing what is right or wrong. You cannot tell them with any certainty - none.
As far as bizarre is concerned, you are welcome to scrutinize some of the proposals by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. You may also read this: You may also want to look at eugenics and the methods proposed. Hitler was a great proponent.
This is the result of reason and consensus? You bet. I am sorry if I come across a bit strong. I have no problem with you as a person. You are most likely a fantastic person, loved by family and friends.

Tacitus lived after the 'events' - born 56 CE. There are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus. None.

There are no original texts, only copies and copies of copies and copies of copies of copies and ...

Hitler was a dictator; consensus obviously does not apply.
In the first instance your argument suggests what? That Jesus did not exist? You suggesting that one cannot trust the information of one of the most respected historians of the time, and that coincidentally agrees with other non-Christian sources? Even Bart Ehrman who has made a serious study laughs at the suggestion that Jesus never existed. It will be great if we may refrain from frivolous arguments that has no serious credibility.
True, there are no originals, but you may have noticed that this is the case with all of early writings - as graphically illustrated. The only difference is that much older versions of the texts of the Bible and much, much closer to the originals are available for study.
You still owe me an answer on texts that was corrupted that affects any Christian doctrine.
You may know that Hitler was supported by a large portion of the German people and there are still people today that believe he was right. To them, it is right. Who are you to argue? It is according to their "reason" and consensus.
Under what other conditions do reason and consensus not apply? So, it is not a fixed guide in any case. Do you suggest that all dictators are by definition bad? Maybe a lot of people will disagree with you in respect of for instance President Nazarbayev of Kazakstan.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 05:49 PM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2012 02:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(23-08-2012 01:03 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  I would appreciate your views on the basis for moral decisions.

In the final instance, you would admit that upon an honest evaluation of all arguments on both "sides", no one can claim insurmountable proof for the existence/non existence of a deity/god/God.

What the heck is a "real" scholar ? How did you determine that ? Did you do a poll to come up with 99%. Let's see the data and the questions.

The idea that there is an immutable, "non-compromisable" position, which emanates from Biblical texts is simply erroneous, as is the idea, theologically, that revelation was accomplished, and completed at any one historical point in the past. We all know about the long convoluted, very human process of the evolution of your supposed "dogma". For example, "biblical marriage".

■Marriage consists of one man and one or more than one woman (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

■Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines or sexual slaves in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

■A man might choose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or a relative (Lev 18:11, 20:17, Lev 20:14, Lev 18:18). The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is not in the Bible.

■If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21).

■A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29), unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).

■If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

■Women must marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).

■Women are the property of their fathers until married and the property of their husbands thereafter (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

■The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).

■Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

■Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

■It is better to not get married at all—although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

Many of these biblical traditions and laws are considered barbaric (and even criminal) now, yet this is how the Bible defines marriage in its text.

YOUR conceptions about what is or is not moral HAVE changed, many many times, AND much of what your Bible says, is simply barbaric. So if YOU can say, YOU do not in any way contradict the bible, and kill your children when they are disobedient, tell me where you live, and the cops can start digging up your back yard.

The Biblical texts have been changed many times. A good example is the "finding of Deuteronomy", by King Josiah. There are many many other re-assembling, and re-writes known to scholars. I assume you did not attend an academic institution which promoted any sort of objectivity, with regard to this subject, and is thus, a priori, dishonest, about any intellectual inquiry. (I can PROVE you are biased. Will you accept the challenge ?)





Of course the Bible texts which were "used" from the many available are thought to be consistent with the teachings of your early cult. (in fact there are huge contradictions, including the fact that salvation is absent in Mark), but the question is, what came first...the chicken or the egg. The church fathers, who are self-admitted liars, used the texts which supported their views, and discarded the others. Of course you think they are consistent.

What you "believe" is irrelevant, in terms of morality. We live in a free secular society. If you want to deny gay people their rights as a church body, that is your right. You cannot however deny a class of people the SAME rights you claim for yourself, under the constitution. There is simply no state interest which has been shown, (such as harm to the children), which would meet the legal standard, that was established in Loving v Virginia, (interracial marriage).

And yes, the "idea" that same sex behaviors are "unnatural" has changed, in human history. The human idea of "sexual orientation" did not arise in human culture until the late 19th Century. The injunctions in your Bible, were for assumed STRAIGHT people, NOT for (an unknown), class of gay people. Like it or not, science advances.

You "moral relativism" bullshit, is just that. What is good for someone who is gay, is NOT good for someone who is straight. You assume that what is good for one, in one instance, is good for everyone, in every instance. That is simply false. It's based on the fallacy of "natural law". Natural law has been debunked, especially on this subject.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...122106.htm

Some things are right and wrong for most people. Some things are not. Even YOU agree that killing humans is not always wrong in every instance. There is no such thing as moral absolutism. If so, tell that to the military, and tell them to lay down their arms, and get rid of the police, and when someone attacks your wife tonight, say "sorry, god says it's wrong to kill you". Yeah right.

Your "what is pleasing to god" assumes your god exists and thinks and acts in a temporal dimension, and in fact requires spacetime for that mental activity to "happen".
The sin paradigm is built on a mistaken interpretation of the Sumerian Chaos myths, which were really about Choas and Order, not "sin and disobedience". Your Jesus never said anything about the salvation" paradigm. He was, if he even existed, (and he probably did not, but was a combo mythological character, cooked up by the followers of his cult), an Apocalyptic preacher, (one of at least 20 we know of), who thought, like your Dead Sea Scrolls, the end of the age was immanent. It simply did not happen.

As there is also no insurmountable evidence for the 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto, I also do not look for, or await evidence for gods. I live life rationally, on the evidence for what there is.

I actually have a very Biblical view of morality. I think Martin Buber, (Jewish Philosopher/Talmudic scholar) got it right, in part 2 of Good and Evil, (the REAL view espoused in Genesis), just as the famous Christian Theologian, Paul Tillich says in "The Courage To Be", ...."what is moral, is the choice(s) one makes which promotes one's 'authentic' self." (That assumes a "healthy personality"). However the fundie baloney of "unchanging", (which has obviously changed radically through the years), "moral absolutism", is not helpful, when looking for guidance.

There is evidence, that morality is pre-programmed into us, genetically. Whether this is true or not, it has been proven that there is no such thing as free will, by Neuroscience. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
24-08-2012, 06:28 PM
A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
Bucky, this is seriously one of your best anti-apologetics posts I've read all the way through. Much more concise, while still providing supporting documentation, and much less snarkiness and condescending . Well stated, my insufferable know it all hero! Thumbsup

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
24-08-2012, 10:06 PM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Ba
(24-08-2012 04:01 PM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 02:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Tacitus lived after the 'events' - born 56 CE. There are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus. None.

There are no original texts, only copies and copies of copies and copies of copies of copies and ...

Hitler was a dictator; consensus obviously does not apply.
In the first instance your argument suggests what? That Jesus did not exist? You suggesting that one cannot trust the information of one of the most respected historians of the time, and that coincidentally agrees with other non-Christian sources? Even Bart Ehrman who has made a serious study laughs at the suggestion that Jesus never existed. It will be great if we may refrain from frivolous arguments that has no serious credibility.

The quotes are around 'events'. I doubt the commentary since it is not originals of eyewitness accounts - it is copies of copies of hearsay of hearsay.

Quote:True, there are no originals, but you may have noticed that this is the case with all of early writings - as graphically illustrated. The only difference is that much older versions of the texts of the Bible and much, much closer to the originals are available for study.
You still owe me an answer on texts that was corrupted that affects any Christian doctrine.

Read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus.

Quote:You may know that Hitler was supported by a large portion of the German people and there are still people today that believe he was right. To them, it is right. Who are you to argue? It is according to their "reason" and consensus.
Under what other conditions do reason and consensus not apply? So, it is not a fixed guide in any case. Do you suggest that all dictators are by definition bad? Maybe a lot of people will disagree with you in respect of for instance President Nazarbayev of Kazakstan.

Dictators are, by definition, bad.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: