Biblical literacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2014, 09:16 AM
RE: Biblical literacy
(26-02-2014 06:54 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 06:36 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Maybe you should get some Biblical literacy before starting a thread on it. Just sayin...

Yo, AlphaMut,

(1) Are you still here?

(2) Anyone's allowed to ask any kind of question they want here. You're a guest here. This isn't YOUR house. You don't make the rules.

Actually, I don't have a problem with what he specifically said there, because it is true; however, in a broader context, I've noticed that he hasn't actually addressed the topic at hand. He tends to pick at the low-hanging fruit in terms of what he can prove wrong, but isn't generally interested in a discussion about his own beliefs.

This is largely why I stopped reading his posts. He doesn't really add anything. He just nitpicks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:14 AM
RE: Biblical literacy
(26-02-2014 07:03 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  I always did believe that until the mid 1800s...

Witches live a LONG time. Unsure

Angel

"If you're going my way, I'll go with you."- Jim Croce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: Biblical literacy
(26-02-2014 09:16 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Actually, I don't have a problem with what he specifically said there, because it is true; however, in a broader context, I've noticed that he hasn't actually addressed the topic at hand. He tends to pick at the low-hanging fruit in terms of what he can prove wrong, but isn't generally interested in a discussion about his own beliefs.

This is largely why I stopped reading his posts. He doesn't really add anything. He just nitpicks.
True right now. I'm in taxes. From 1.1 - 4.15 that's all I have time for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 12:19 PM
RE: Biblical literacy
(25-02-2014 03:00 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Throughout the years of church history, a literal translation of Genesis was understood; however, it was not taken literally (read the writings of Augustine). It wasn't until the cultish behavior of Ellen G. White in the mid 1800s that YEC started to creep its way into Christian theology. Now, YEC has its unevolved tentacles wrapped tightly around fundamental Christianity.

I'm going to have to disagree with that.

It was only by the mid-1800s that there was anything comprehensive presented as alternative to Biblically-inspired natural history. Creationism didn't exist as an explicit school of though prior to that point in the West because it was already the only game in town.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 01:07 PM
RE: Biblical literacy
(24-02-2014 09:36 PM)donotwant Wrote:  Am I the only person here who thinks that who ever wrote the gospels wanted us to understand em literally and people who make tortured interpretations are stupid?
I think when the dude wrote about 6 days creation he actually mean 6 days. And people like WLC are making their own new religion.

The trouble with citing the gospels, or the bible in general, as evidence of anything, is that you have to contend with two facts. The first is that the bible itself has no foundation in evidence, and often contradicts itself. The second is that the bible can be interpreted to mean literally ANYTHING. Who can say the writers of the bible intended this or that? The purpose of the writers, the interpretation of their writings, and the resulting behaviors and beliefs of the readers, seem to be as various as the individuals themselves.

I have noticed, especially recently, that this variation takes place in every area of religious belief. Even members within the same religious faith, have different and unique conceptions of what god is, and what his nature is. This variety exists in prayer relationships, conceptions of the devil and other minor entities, conceptions of what faith is, etc... It is not so much a matter of one true religion or god fulfilling people's needs, rather there are an infinite number of gods and religions created by the individual believers, in their minds, which fulfill their needs directly.

Just as an example of how ridiculous and easy interpretation can be, go to a local bookstore and find a random shelf. Take a book from the shelf and open it to a random page. Read a paragraph or two. Now, try to relate the passage to your life. How can it help you? What wisdom or metaphor can it hold for you? I don't think you have to possess even the small amount of creativity that I possess in order to come up with at least five hidden metaphors for your life. In this way, I can find interpretive meaning in any text. Using an ancient mystical religious text only makes it easier since people expect difficulty in understanding, which re-enforces the need for the interpreter. The Catholic Church dominated Christianity for many years be excluding the individual members from interpreting the scripture themselves. In this way they could maintain the illusion of one consistent deity giving commands to his earthly servants. Protestantism destroyed this illusion, and exposed interpretation of scripture for the selfishly motivated sham that it is.

This is all significant to me because I don't think it is consistent with the actual existence of such a deity. I would expect uniform experiences and doctrines all independently verified through heavenly communication to each individual. I would expect no hierarchy within the church, since none would be necessary. I would expect complete agreement on a very clearly written holy text. I would expect the systematic worship of the same god, with the same attributes. The chaos that I see in reality leads me to believe that god is a man made creation designed for its utility, not as fact.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Phoenix's post
26-02-2014, 02:21 PM
RE: Biblical literacy
(26-02-2014 12:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 03:00 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Throughout the years of church history, a literal translation of Genesis was understood; however, it was not taken literally (read the writings of Augustine). It wasn't until the cultish behavior of Ellen G. White in the mid 1800s that YEC started to creep its way into Christian theology. Now, YEC has its unevolved tentacles wrapped tightly around fundamental Christianity.

I'm going to have to disagree with that.

It was only by the mid-1800s that there was anything comprehensive presented as alternative to Biblically-inspired natural history. Creationism didn't exist as an explicit school of though prior to that point in the West because it was already the only game in town.



Hmmm.... only game in town. Yanno - I didn't look at it that way but you're absolutely right about that.Thumbsup

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 02:37 PM
RE: Biblical literacy
Quote:This is all significant to me because I don't think it is consistent with the actual existence of such a deity. I would expect uniform experiences and doctrines all independently verified through heavenly communication to each individual. I would expect no hierarchy within the church, since none would be necessary. I would expect complete agreement on a very clearly written holy text. I would expect the systematic worship of the same god, with the same attributes. The chaos that I see in reality leads me to believe that god is a man made creation designed for its utility, not as fact.
First, that god is not what you would expect, and the chaos you see in interpretation, argue against the position that god is a man made creation designed for utility.

Second, note Proverbs 25:2:
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

The Bible itself says that its wisdom is concealed. Varying interpretations are therefore not surprising.

I wouldn't argue against you if you said that there were as many concepts of the god of the Bible as there are Christians. So what? If I note disagreement among scientists on some point of evolution, the response is typically Yeah, but they all believe in evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 04:10 PM
RE: Biblical literacy
(26-02-2014 02:37 PM)alpha male Wrote:  First, that god is not what you would expect,

God may be many things to you, perhaps not what you, or what you believe about what I, expect, but you saying so isn't evidence. You are merely presenting me with your perspective, which reinforces my initial criticism.

Quote:and the chaos you see in interpretation, argue against the position that god is a man made creation designed for utility.

I am not sure what you intend to say here, since the grammar is a bit out of sorts. If you are trying to say that the chaos of conflicting world views is somehow an argument or world view in and of itself, I would say you are reflecting the incoherence of your own view onto mine. The controversy speaks to a lack of clarity, clarity which I think is reasonable to expect from a god, especially the one described in all three of the modern popular monotheistic religions.

It is neither complex nor unreasonable to expect a consistent, self identifying, uniform, revelation, rather than the man made chaos of conflicting fictions. The fact that there is such conflict between religious factions, especially when it occurs on topics of basic doctrine within a sect, makes human error far more likely than the work of a perfect deity.

Quote:Second, note Proverbs 25:2:
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

The Bible itself says that its wisdom is concealed. Varying interpretations are therefore not surprising.

Bible passages are evidence of nothing, especially when they are the only thing asserting their own authority. The Koran makes a number of claims about god in similar fashion with equal authority. Why should I assume these have truth or worth?

That said, the passage leaves a lot to be desired. It implies that the ambiguity of belief and sectarian conflict is the result of god, not men. How likely do we really think that is? It implies that god's concealment of truth is worthy of glory. Who is there to notice or assign glory but human beings? Are we to understand that god wants us to notice and glorify him for being deceptive and ambiguous? Pettiness, vanity, and stupidity all make their home in such an idea.

Fundamentally, your view is that this concealment is designed and desired by god, if not his followers also. We know this to be false since it is in direct conflict with other doctrines, such as the mandate to convert nonbelievers. Why would so many religions work so hard to spread the "truth" of their faith, if really it was god's will that that faith remain ambiguous and nebulous? What a ridiculous game of "red light, green light" we have to play. Spread the gospel, but don't make it too clear or easy to understand, otherwise they might not glorify the mysteriousness of god. While your at it, make Dark Phoenix's point even more by engaging in sectarian warfare with other faiths, who are simultaneously doing the exact same thing, for the exact same reasons.

Quote:I wouldn't argue against you if you said that there were as many concepts of the god of the Bible as there are Christians. So what? If I note disagreement among scientists on some point of evolution, the response is typically Yeah, but they all believe in evolution.

This is the ghost of an actual point, but it falls apart when one examines the differences between science and religion. Scientists may argue over the details and processes that form Evolutionary Biology, but they admit a great deal of information that they do not yet possess, but that they look forward to discovering using the scientific method and a system of peer review. Their dissenting positions are based on actual tangible evidence and reason, with an understanding that there is more that will soon be learned which may resolve the conflict.

Religions are world's apart from that. They possess conclusions with no tangible evidence or convincing philosophy, which they claim to know as truth. There is never to be any new information. The worship of today is a mere echo of the last few thousand years. There is no evidence to compare or contrast since all one would gain is measure of the quality of unqualified arguments.

Even an opinion on evolution that is in conflict with another opinion is not an interpretation. It is an educated and informed position based on the evidence available at the time. Evolution as a whole would remain a consistent picture of fact regardless.

An opinion on god is contrived by the believer. Since there any many unique believers, god appears unique to each believer. It would go much the same if one thousand people were asked to describe their imaginary childhood playmate.

Once again, your argument is a reflection of your own fallacies. Science is not created like mythology, it is formed based on experiments and evidence. Viewing science in the way that you seem to, does it no justice, and displays your ignorance of how it functions.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dark Phoenix's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: