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
19-06-2014, 03:23 PM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2014 03:27 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.

As usual you evaded the question completely. He asked you to DEFINE a "god" not a Christian. You think with all that bullshit, we were going to miss that ?
"In-house" ... hahahahahahaha YOU WISH.
The very definition of a frustrated Presupositonalist. Waa waa waa.
Mommy they won't swallow my fucking apologetics I paid good money to learn. Waa waa waa.

And BTW, if it's just "goodness" and that is an essential element of it's nature in Reality, then it's not ALL of Reality, and does nothing to explain where (all of) Reality originated from, or how it got it's nature.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-06-2014, 03:29 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.

All that, and you completely failed to respond to a simple request: define "God".

Exemplary evasion, sirrah. Exemplary indeed.

Maybe we should go back to the good old days, when people killed each other over the word 'and'?

It's delightful how the likes of you can dishonestly leap from narrow exclusivity to broad solidarity so readily. Transparently disingenuous, but oddly charming. Good for you.

(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.

... as a self-professed Christian. I get that you're trying really hard to manufacture an idiotic diversion, but you're going to have to try harder than that. Your particular theology is, by definition, highly exclusive.

(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.

No, it does not. Can you even logic, bro?

(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You have yet to give a defense for this belief.

That's not directly relevant, but thanks for once again demonstrating a pathological inability to understand what "burden of proof" means.

(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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?

Indeed. Too bad none of them have those things.

(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

And your understanding of its textual history and cultural context are shallow and ignorant. Your point?

(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

That isn't a factual statement (it's quote of an opinion), nor is it relevant.

It is a sad state of affairs indeed when you are reduced to quote-mining a philosopher over two hundred years dead in order to support your steadfast ignorance.
(but protip: Hume was not, to put it lightly, a religious man)

(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

Indeed. It is a fact that he had opinions.

(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

True so far.

(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  4. Einstein's General Relativity has been verified to an accuracy of five decimal places.

This is a meaningless statement.
(but since you don't understand anything about physics, I'm not surprised you'd make it - it's classic copypasta)

(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  General Relativity demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter and shows that the three are co-relative.

That is patent nonsense. General relativity suggests no such thing.

You're not doing too well on those "facts", eh?

(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

Whoops! Turns out your "empirical data" is founded in ignorant misunderstandings.

Do you wish to revisit your pathetic attempt to debate me? You were utterly incapable of substantiating a single claim.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
19-06-2014, 03:47 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 03:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 03:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

As usual you evaded the question completely. He asked you to DEFINE a "god" not a Christian. You think with all that bullshit, we were going to miss that ?
"In-house" ... hahahahahahaha YOU WISH.
The very definition of a frustrated Presupositonalist. Waa waa waa.
Mommy they won't swallow my fucking apologetics I paid good money to learn. Waa waa waa.

And BTW, if it's just "goodness" and that is an essential element of it's nature in Reality, then it's not ALL of Reality, and does nothing to explain where (all of) Reality originated from, or how it got it's nature.

Do you not know what Christians mean when they use the term "God"?

If so, why do you ask me to define it?

I hope you are not an atheist who claims to have at one point and time been a Christian.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 04:05 PM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2014 04:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 03:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 03:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As usual you evaded the question completely. He asked you to DEFINE a "god" not a Christian. You think with all that bullshit, we were going to miss that ?
"In-house" ... hahahahahahaha YOU WISH.
The very definition of a frustrated Presupositonalist. Waa waa waa.
Mommy they won't swallow my fucking apologetics I paid good money to learn. Waa waa waa.

And BTW, if it's just "goodness" and that is an essential element of it's nature in Reality, then it's not ALL of Reality, and does nothing to explain where (all of) Reality originated from, or how it got it's nature.

Do you not know what Christians mean when they use the term "God"?

If so, why do you ask me to define it?

I hope you are not an atheist who claims to have at one point and time been a Christian.

That's what I thought. Exactly what I thought. You can't even try. Fail.
Instead of answering a question, all you can do is ask another inane question.
Each human brain means/references it's own set of meanings when it uses that word. It's one of the reasons there are so many sects in Jebus-land. There is no coherent definition of the three letter meme, pronouced "gawd". I do realize you are a rank beginner here, having come to religion late in life, and only as the only way you had to escape a life of poor choices. That put you in a very unique position. You are unable to be objective. You are the definition, of a "conflict of interest". You NEED religion. I get that. That's fine for you. But you shouldn't expect to impose the end results of your poor choices on others.

I'm not an atheist. I'm an igtheist, for precisely the reason you just confirmed. No definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

And you are totally wrong. I bought the whole "she-bang". Hook, line and sinker. Unlike you, I had the advantage of being a "cradle" Christian. I had no series of poor choices I needed to escape from. Then I got an education. I have many friends who remain in religion, and many outside of it. Fortunately, none of them are Fundamentalists.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 03:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I hope you are not an atheist who claims to have at one point and time been a Christian.

I am an atheist who still claims to be a Christian. You are not a Christian Jeremy. You are something else.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 04:17 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  All that, and you completely failed to respond to a simple request: define "God".

If you are ignorant as to what Christians mean when they use the term "God" then I would be happy to enlighten you.

If you do know what they mean when they use the term, then tell me why you ask me to define it?

(19-06-2014 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... as a self-professed Christian. I get that you're trying really hard to manufacture an idiotic diversion, but you're going to have to try harder than that.

No diversion. Surely you know that Christians do not limit themselves to only making religious truth-claims correct?

If you know this, then you know that self-professed Christians make many claims that are not religious in nature. If you had wanted me to provide you with a religious assertion that I as a Christian could not make without it being challenged by another Christian, you should have said that.

I get what you are asking, but I am pointing out that the phrasing of your question was ambiguous. It could be taken more than one way.

Not only that but I answered your question anyway when I gave you the proposition: "God exists." For the proposition is religious in nature.

Your only response to this was to ask me to define God which seems odd to me. It is as if you do not know what Christians are intending to convey when they use the term.




(19-06-2014 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your particular theology is, by definition, highly exclusive.

So? Your ideology is highly exclusive as well. So what?

(19-06-2014 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, it does not. Can you even logic, bro?

You said:

(19-06-2014 03:29 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.

Ok. Then answer this:

Why do you think that only the narcissistic or delusional would suggest that I, a Christian, am correct when I say that Christianity is true and every other religion is false?

(19-06-2014 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. Too bad none of them have those things.

This is demonstrably false. For Christian apologists put forth evidence, arguments, and facts in the defense of the Christian worldview.

You may not find them convincing, but to say that Christian apologists have no evidences, arguments, or facts for their views is simply false.

(19-06-2014 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And your understanding of its textual history and cultural context are shallow and ignorant. Your point?

My point is that you were wrong when you said I have never made an assertion based on anything but my feelings.

(19-06-2014 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That isn't a factual statement (it's quote of an opinion), nor is it relevant.

LOL....

IT IS A FACTUAL STATEMENT to say that David Hume said (x). It is a truth claim with a truth bearer, regardless of whether or not what he is reported to have said is true. It is nontheless true that he said (x).

I could say the moon is made of blue cheese and write this in a book and have it published. The moon may not be made of blue cheese, but it would be a fact that I wrote that proposition in a book which was published.

(19-06-2014 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It is a sad state of affairs indeed when you are reduced to quote-mining a philosopher over two hundred years dead in order to support your steadfast ignorance.
(but protip: Hume was not, to put it lightly, a religious man)

Protip?

I know who David Hume is and I am familiar with his views. His quote is what is called non-partisan testimony. He was not religious, or a Christian which IS WHY I USED HIM and his quote. It shows that I am not relying on just the views of people who share my worldview, but views of those who are opposed to it.

(19-06-2014 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. It is a fact that he had opinions.

Great. You just admit you were wrong when you said I have never asserted anything other than that which is based on my feelings.

(19-06-2014 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  True so far.

Great.

My point has been made.

(19-06-2014 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you wish to revisit your pathetic attempt to debate me? You were utterly incapable of substantiating a single claim.

Debate you on what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 04:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 03:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Do you not know what Christians mean when they use the term "God"?

If so, why do you ask me to define it?

I hope you are not an atheist who claims to have at one point and time been a Christian.

That's what I thought. Exactly what I thought. You can't even try. Fail.
Instead of answering a question, all you can do is ask another inane question.
Each human brain means/references it's own set of meanings when it uses that word. It's one of the reasons there are so many sects in Jebus-land. There is no coherent definition of the three letter meme, pronouced "gawd". I do realize you are a rank beginner here, having come to religion late in life, and only as the only way you had to escape a life of poor choices. That put you in a very unique position. You are unable to be objective. You are the definition, of a "conflict of interest". You NEED religion. I get that. That's fine for you. But you shouldn't expect to impose the end results of your poor choices on others.

I'm not an atheist. I'm an igtheist, for precisely the reason you just confirmed. No definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

And you are totally wrong. I bought the whole "she-bang". Hook, line and sinker. Unlike you, I had the advantage of being a "cradle" Christian. I had no series of poor choices I needed to escape from. Then I got an education. I have many friends who remain in religion, and many outside of it. Fortunately, none of them are Fundamentalists.

If you were a Christian, you should know what Christians mean when they use the term "God".

Nor did I confirm that there is no definition for God so this is just a lie.

Igtheism i.e. theological noncognitivism is based on the self-defeating principle of verification by the way. Thought you would like to know that.

We can debate it if you would like. I already invited one person who shared your beliefs to debate. He was unwilling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 04:34 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 04:22 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 04:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That's what I thought. Exactly what I thought. You can't even try. Fail.
Instead of answering a question, all you can do is ask another inane question.
Each human brain means/references it's own set of meanings when it uses that word. It's one of the reasons there are so many sects in Jebus-land. There is no coherent definition of the three letter meme, pronouced "gawd". I do realize you are a rank beginner here, having come to religion late in life, and only as the only way you had to escape a life of poor choices. That put you in a very unique position. You are unable to be objective. You are the definition, of a "conflict of interest". You NEED religion. I get that. That's fine for you. But you shouldn't expect to impose the end results of your poor choices on others.

I'm not an atheist. I'm an igtheist, for precisely the reason you just confirmed. No definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

And you are totally wrong. I bought the whole "she-bang". Hook, line and sinker. Unlike you, I had the advantage of being a "cradle" Christian. I had no series of poor choices I needed to escape from. Then I got an education. I have many friends who remain in religion, and many outside of it. Fortunately, none of them are Fundamentalists.

If you were a Christian, you should know what Christians mean when they use the term "God".

Nor did I confirm that there is no definition for God so this is just a lie.

Igtheism i.e. theological noncognitivism is based on the self-defeating principle of verification by the way. Thought you would like to know that.

We can debate it if you would like. I already invited one person who shared your beliefs to debate. He was unwilling.

I WAS a Christian. I KNOW how many (nonsensical) definitions there are. You answered nothing. You are able to define nothing. You evade everything. If you could, you would have. You didn't. You can't. You have demonstrated that.

There is no such thing as "theological noncognitivism" (whatever the fuck THAT might be, which you also did not define, per your usual MO). So ANYTHING which lacks a definition is "noncognitivism". We continue to see more of your problem. Use a big word, and hide behind its meaninglessness. Why would anyone debate the intellectually dishonest likes of you ? Face it, Germey. You've made a fool of yourself here.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-06-2014, 04:50 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(19-06-2014 04:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no such thing as "theological noncognitivism" (whatever the fuck THAT might be, which you also did not define, per your usual MO)....... We continue to see more of your problem. Use a big word, and hide behind its meaninglessness. Why would anyone debate the intellectually dishonest likes of you ? Face it, Germey. You've made a fool of yourself here.

Let us debate the issue then.

Is there such a thing as theological noncognitivism?

I say there is.

You say there is not.

Ready to go to the ring?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 04:52 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
I can't believe I didn't answer the OP's question.
Christians decided that the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally when a sufficiently large number of people, enlightened by science, began to doubt their faith. To preserve christianity, things slowly were considered "metaphors" or "analogies" or "allegories". Now there's the "Bible code" (although I haven't heard about it in several months).
Soon, the entire Bible will be considered by christians to be fully allegorical. This should be when we're colonizing the moon or whatever and atheists are the majority on the planet. Religion will slowly die out, and the Bible and all the other religious books will be seen as what they are: books.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: