At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-06-2014, 09:12 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(17-06-2014 08:26 PM)LandShark Wrote:  

(16-06-2014 07:36 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I will compile some references for you and send them to you in a PM sometime tomorrow. I am about to go to bed now.

Sooooooooo.....Did it happen yet?

not yet

Just because YOU believe in fairies doesn't mean anybody else should.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 10:33 AM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(17-06-2014 09:12 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  
(17-06-2014 08:26 PM)LandShark Wrote:  


Sooooooooo.....Did it happen yet?

not yet

I apologize for not doing as I said I would. I took my girlfriend out to eat for her birthday and got home late last night. I ask your forgiveness for failing to do as I said I would.

I will have your references to you before 12am est 6/19/14
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
18-06-2014, 10:46 AM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(18-06-2014 10:33 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(17-06-2014 09:12 PM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  not yet

I apologize for not doing as I said I would. I took my girlfriend out to eat for her birthday and got home late last night. I ask your forgiveness for failing to do as I said I would.

I will have your references to you before 12am est 6/19/14

Happy birthday to your girl friend Smile.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
18-06-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(18-06-2014 10:46 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(18-06-2014 10:33 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I apologize for not doing as I said I would. I took my girlfriend out to eat for her birthday and got home late last night. I ask your forgiveness for failing to do as I said I would.

I will have your references to you before 12am est 6/19/14

Happy birthday to your girl friend Smile.

Thanks! We went to Chilis restaurant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
18-06-2014, 05:13 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  To be fair, I made a slight assumption there.

This was what I was getting at.

(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Perhaps you should ask the relevant theological authorities? They have, as it happens, at least as much justification for their beliefs as you do for yours.

So?


(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Okay. Demonstrate it.

(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is not a single claim you can make, as a self-professed Christian, that is not disputed by other self-professed Christians.
Would a Christian say: "Nope!" If I were to tell them that God existed?

Would a Christian say: "Nope!" If I were to tell them that they existed?

(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If it were true (protip: it is), it means that any possible thing you might claim - founded, inevitably, on nothing more than personal subjective experience - is countered by personal subjective experience to the contrary.

If I say spaghetti is tasty then yes, anybody Christian or not, could say, nah, its nasty.

What is your point?

(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have never made a single assertion founded on anything but your own woeful, ignorant feels.

Wrong again. Would you like me to tell you why you are wrong?

(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed it does not.

Good.

(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It means that a great many people have reasons which are, to them, at least as compelling as your reasons are to you.

So?

(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Thus, from the perspective of one who believes neither, neither is more compelling.

So?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 07:34 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(18-06-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is not a single claim you can make, as a self-professed Christian, that is not disputed by other self-professed Christians.
Would a Christian say: "Nope!" If I were to tell them that God existed?

Define "God".

(protip: there is some slight disagreement on that front)

(18-06-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Would a Christian say: "Nope!" If I were to tell them that they existed?

Define "exist". That is, of course, not a religious question, and thus irrelevant both to their identification as Christians and to my question.

But, points for another feeble attempt at transparent evasion. I guess everyone's got some talent; I'm glad we found yours.

If you are really so idiotically disingenuous as to insist, I freely assert that out of the hundreds of millions of self-professed Christians a great many of them disagree with you regarding any and every possible philosophical or metaphysical point you care to make. But that is, of course, irrelevant.

(18-06-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If it were true (protip: it is), it means that any possible thing you might claim - founded, inevitably, on nothing more than personal subjective experience - is countered by personal subjective experience to the contrary.

If I say spaghetti is tasty then yes, anybody Christian or not, could say, nah, its nasty.

What is your point?

You claim to possess privileged religious truth. So do billions of others. Nothing besides either powerful narcissism or equally powerful delusion would suggest you to be the correct one.

You're chock-full of both, so that does explain a lot.

(18-06-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 08:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have never made a single assertion founded on anything but your own woeful, ignorant feels.

Wrong again. Would you like me to tell you why you are wrong?

Please do.

I have yet to see you present any substantiation - yet alone coherent justification - for anything you believe.
(but don't feel bad - all religion is like that)

One might recall your inconceivably daft forays with the cosmological argument, wherein you insisted that things were true just because you said so, and congratulated yourself when your unfalsifiable presuppositions were not disproven.

(18-06-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So?

So, thank you for keeping us entertained with your boundless nonsense.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-06-2014, 07:42 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
Please don't encourage trolls to hijack our threads by engaging with them. Just ignore them.

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(18-06-2014 07:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-06-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Would a Christian say: "Nope!" If I were to tell them that God existed?

Define "God".

(protip: there is some slight disagreement on that front)

(18-06-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Would a Christian say: "Nope!" If I were to tell them that they existed?

Define "exist". That is, of course, not a religious question, and thus irrelevant both to their identification as Christians and to my question.

But, points for another feeble attempt at transparent evasion. I guess everyone's got some talent; I'm glad we found yours.

If you are really so idiotically disingenuous as to insist, I freely assert that out of the hundreds of millions of self-professed Christians a great many of them disagree with you regarding any and every possible philosophical or metaphysical point you care to make. But that is, of course, irrelevant.

(18-06-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If I say spaghetti is tasty then yes, anybody Christian or not, could say, nah, its nasty.

What is your point?

You claim to possess privileged religious truth. So do billions of others. Nothing besides either powerful narcissism or equally powerful delusion would suggest you to be the correct one.

You're chock-full of both, so that does explain a lot.

(18-06-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Wrong again. Would you like me to tell you why you are wrong?

Please do.

I have yet to see you present any substantiation - yet alone coherent justification - for anything you believe.
(but don't feel bad - all religion is like that)

One might recall your inconceivably daft forays with the cosmological argument, wherein you insisted that things were true just because you said so, and congratulated yourself when your unfalsifiable presuppositions were not disproven.

(18-06-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So?

So, thank you for keeping us entertained with your boundless nonsense.

I will respond to this tomorrow. I am off to bed now. Goodnight. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 11:18 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
undefined



"If what you say is actually true, I would want to know it too. ... You can convince me, and if it is true I want you to convince me ... and I will thank you for convincing me."

AronRa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXJHVB7pROE
9:18
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 03:12 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(18-06-2014 07:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "God".

(protip: there is some slight disagreement on that front)

There is no disagreement among Christians i.e. (people who adhere to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. -Courtesy of Wikipedia, emphasis mine) about whether God exists. Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God. - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism/

So a Christian, who is a monotheist, believes God exists.

Thus if I, as a Christian asserted to a Christian that knew I was a Christian the proposition: "God exists." They would not say: "Nope!", They would say: "indeed!" or "He is Risen!" or "I agree."

Maybe you want to argue that there are Christians who do not believe in God. If this is your only recourse I will simply reply that when the word is used as a noun in reference to a person, it, at minimum, means someone who is a theist. A person cannot be a Christian and an atheist at the same time. A person cannot both believe in God and not believe in God at the same time.

Or maybe you desire to argue that not all Christians have the exact same view of who God is, to which I would respond by saying: "Thank you, you have just proved the very thing you are arguing against."

For if you were to say that some Christians disagree on the nature of God (an assertion you have yet to substantiate but even if you did would be moot) you assume that these people who are in disagreement believe at least that a God exists whose nature would be a matter of dispute between them. People who do not believe God exists do not argue about God's nature. People who do not believe in God do not argue about whether or not God is timeless or eternally enduring throughout infinite time. These are "in-house" discussion among THEISTS.



(18-06-2014 07:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That is, of course, not a religious question, and thus irrelevant both to their identification as Christians and to my question.

Ahh now you move the goalposts. No where in your post to which I replied, did you state the claim had to be religious in nature.

Let me refresh your memory:

(18-06-2014 07:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is not a single claim you can make, as a self-professed Christian, that is not disputed by other self-professed Christians.


You stated:
(18-06-2014 07:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is not a single claim you can make, as a self-professed Christian....

The above says nothing about a religious claim but rather, a single claim.

Christians make non-religious truth claims all the time, in fact, far more than they do religious truth-claims.

For example: "My car won't start." or "I have $1,000 dollars in my savings account." or "I exist." or "You exist."

None of the above are religious in nature and yet Christians make claims like this frequently.

So when you said that there is not a single claim I could make as a Christian that is not disputed by other Christians, this just seems to me to be indefensible.

Maybe you have run across Christians that do not think they exist? BlinkFacepalm



(18-06-2014 07:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You claim to possess privileged religious truth. So do billions of others. Nothing besides either powerful narcissism or equally powerful delusion would suggest you to be the correct one.

This assertion assumes religious pluralism is true. You have yet to give a defense for this belief.

It seems to me that the EVIDENCE and ARGUMENTS and FACTS would dictate which religion is correct no?

Is this not how we determine truth from falsehood?

(18-06-2014 07:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Please do.

I have yet to see you present any substantiation - yet alone coherent justification - for anything you believe.
(but don't feel bad - all religion is like that)

One might recall your inconceivably daft forays with the cosmological argument, wherein you insisted that things were true just because you said so, and congratulated yourself when your unfalsifiable presuppositions were not disproven.

This is what you said:

(18-06-2014 07:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have never made a single assertion founded on anything but your own woeful, ignorant feels.

This is demonstrably false because I have made numerous assertions here that were not based on my feelings.

For example, I have stated in this very thread that:

The Bible is an anthology of literary works. This is not founded upon my feelings, but rather is a statement of fact founded on examining the various constituents of the Bible.

I have made numerous factual statements like:

Skeptic David Hume admits: " I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause." (in J.Y.T. Greig, ed., The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols. New York: Garland, 1983), 1:187.

This can be found in my defense of the Kalam.

The above is a factual statement based on what David Hume actually said. Thus, my "ignorant woeful feels" have nothing to do with the statement.

I have stated that:

1. The universe is expanding.
2. Radiation from the afterglow of the explosion of the Big Bang was detected in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs in New Jersey.
3. Einstein's discovery of General Relativity is well known to those in the scientific community.
4. Einstein's General Relativity has been verified to an accuracy of five decimal places. General Relativity demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter and shows that the three are co-relative.


All of the above are assertions I have made based not on my feelings, but on empirical data.

Thus your assertion that I have never made a single assertion founded on anything other than my ignorant woeful feels is false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: