Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2013, 04:35 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
That's what I think. It's not that creationists/fundamentalists don't care for science or are incapable of understanding it, it's that they really want the Bible to be true because the stories being true is what lends credence to their beliefs. If the stories are true, then they can rely on the Bible as an authoritative work. They can point to a story where God intervened and say "This is proof of what he commands of us!" It would make it a solid foundation for belief.

I find religion in general absurd in this age, but it's not just the people who stick their heads in the sand to hide from science that aren't being rational, but also the ones who accept the work of scientists. On the one hand they are thinking logically about how the world works, and on the other they believe in something with massive implications that changes everything we know about the universe on what can be reduced to a "He said so" basis. I know that kind of thought is common, but I see a double-standard. Basically, someone with a scientific background who also chases ghosts is crazy, but someone with a scientific background who is also a Christian is a respectable scientist. I think they're both crazy, to be honest. Tongue

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2013, 03:47 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
You forget that many branches of Christianity, including Catholicism, claim divine authorship of the Bible. Although some branches of Christianity use this to take all the words literally, others use it to justify the truth found in the allegorical descriptions in the Bible, such as Job. By your standard Job should not be in the Bible since it not literal history, yet it is. This is because every time someone wrote one of the books in the bible, they were inspired by God to do so. Most denominations say this means that all of what is written is true either literally, I.e. historically, or figuratively, which includes allegory, teachings on morals and allusions to the end times and this writing is free from error. most denominations do not believe, however, that translators and transcribers are free from error.
The Catholic Church believes that ST Jerome was inspired when he assembled the Vulgate so that the Bible was free from error in terms of Faith and Morals.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2013, 03:53 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(14-10-2013 03:47 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  The Catholic Church believes that ST Jerome was inspired when he assembled the Vulgate so that the Bible was free from error in terms of Faith and Morals.

a. So what if they're wrong ?

b. But refreshingly not free from error in terms of facts ?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2013, 05:50 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(14-10-2013 03:47 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  You forget that many branches of Christianity, including Catholicism, claim divine authorship of the Bible. SNIP Most denominations say this means that all of what is written is true either literally, I.e. historically, or figuratively, which includes allegory, teachings on morals and allusions to the end times and this writing is free from error. most denominations do not believe, however, that translators and transcribers are free from error.
The Catholic Church believes that ST Jerome was inspired when he assembled the Vulgate so that the Bible was free from error in terms of Faith and Morals.

If something can be true either literally, historically, figuratively, allegorically, morally or by allusion from end times, ANYTHING can be seen as "true" so long as you can find a moral, historical fact, neat allegory, or allusion from end times in the story.

That definition of TRUTH, in my view, is just fucking stupid.

That would mean that Goldilocks and the Three Bears is Truth because I found a moral in the story that it's good not to be greedy. Congrats, you just eviscerated the concept of truth completely.

Is that what you mean by "facts should not get in the way of Truth?" Sounds straight from Stephen Colbert. Maybe you mean to say, "Facts should not get in the way of Truthiness."

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Skippy538's post
14-10-2013, 06:01 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(11-10-2013 07:37 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  No.

It's not that black and white.


Actually, it is.

Quote:Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

H. L. Mencken

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
15-10-2013, 01:05 AM (This post was last modified: 15-10-2013 01:09 AM by ClydeLee.)
Re: RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(14-10-2013 06:01 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 07:37 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  No.

It's not that black and white.


Actually, it is.

Quote:Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

H. L. Mencken

That's one critical event.

But that's not the same as the message of the Bible has to be a literal account or not.

A vast majority can be metaphorical and function to liberal christianity as long as that Jesus scenario happened.

Of course, it's quite extra chaotic that way since that means God sat around until he decided to show up for a bit, and never be clear in message like he was before Jesus.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 10:47 AM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
Quote:That's one critical event.

Subtract it. Then tell me what you've got left.

I'll wait.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 11:43 AM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(15-10-2013 10:47 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:That's one critical event.

Subtract it. Then tell me what you've got left.

I'll wait.

Actually there are 2 critical events for the christian doctrine. #1 the fall of man: If Adam is a parable for hunter/gatherer transition (as I have heard claimed) then where does that all important original sin come from? Without the garden with the apple there is nothing to forgive and no reason God needs a human sacrifice. Now since we know that the story of Adam is at best a parable and in all likelihood simply mythology it eliminates the need for Jesus.

The second is the Resurrection. Which of course has it's own problems (naming the manner and timing and details and history etc) Remove both leaves you with nothing, no need for saving and no scapegoat to do the saving. The house of cards falls to the ground.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 12:13 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
(11-10-2013 06:51 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  I'm wondering how educated people who don't believe in the Bible literally can continue calling themselves Christian...

My wife is this type of Christian. I can't speak for everyone (heck, I'm probably unintentionally putting words into her mouth), but she's partially explained her stance to me:

Basically, she believes the Bible is the account of people that was inspired by their own experiences. So, not only does she not believe that the Bible is God's literal word on paper, she doesn't even believe that God was directly influencing the authors. From what I can tell, God allowed the Bible to get filled with all sorts of metaphors, contradictions, and other blatant falsehoods because of [reasons we can't understand], but the greater meaning is one of love, compassion, and Jesus*. If the Bible says one thing and observable reality says another, she will go with what she can observe. So, she believes in the big bang and evolution (and that God caused the big bang).

I asked her pretty much the same question of why she believes in God and Jesus if she's willing to let everything else go, and her response is basically that she can "feel" God in a strong way and she knows he's there**. I told her I used to get those same feelings, but that I also got them from plenty of other things, and she insists her feelings are stronger (I have no idea on what she bases this comparison).

I haven't gone into it in much more detail than that, mostly because our differing religious views (I was Christian when we got married) have been a strain on the marriage in the past, and I don't like wading back into that territory.


So, in short, while I don't really consider these arguments to be any more compelling than any others I have heard for God's existence, that seems to be how she approaches it. I imagine if you ask any other random Christian who falls under this broad category, you'll likely get a different answer.


*Technically, she's assuming a narrative, reading the Bible and editing it to fit the narrative, and then claiming that her particular reading is evidence of the narrative.

**Technically, this is just evidence of a feeling, and not of God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Demi-Christians or whatever you call them...
TarzanSmith Wrote:You forget that many branches of Christianity, including Catholicism, claim divine authorship of the Bible. Although some branches of Christianity use this to take all the words literally, others use it to justify the truth found in the allegorical descriptions in the Bible, such as Job. By your standard Job should not be in the Bible since it not literal history, yet it is. This is because every time someone wrote one of the books in the bible, they were inspired by God to do so.

At least Joseph Smith claimed to have met an angel. He didn't just *feel* what God wanted; he (supposedly) talked to a representative of God and then had stories copied from magical plates.

With just divine inspiration, at best all you can have are beliefs coming from men telling contradicting stories written as attempts to explain feelings claimed to have come to them from a god they never saw. It's a religion based on the beliefs of men who... felt things.

In the modern age we call that schizophrenia.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: