Facebook Preachers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-12-2011, 09:19 AM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(25-12-2011 08:27 AM)Sharks9 Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 07:06 AM)Malleus Wrote:  Now wait a minute. It's either the word of god or it's not.

If it is the word of god, the one who knows everything, there is no excuse for it being so catastrophically wrong in almost everything that modern science can verify. Unless you think that the bible is right and science is wrong. If that's the case, say it so we can start laughing.

If it's not the word of god, let's drop the crap and talk reason.

BTW, dropping the Old Testament for major inconveniences leaves the Jesus part uncovered. Without the story of the original sin and everything that comes with it, it becomes difficult to explain the "fallen nature" and Jesus's sacrifice.

So tell us. Which one is it?

I still believe in an Adam and Eve and Original Sin, but it didn't happen 6,000 years ago.

I'm not dropping the OT, just saying it's less important than what Jesus did. I've often found that atheists think Christians need to take everything literally or just not believe it at all which is ridiculous.

Hooold your horses. You answer my "side dish" but leave out my main course. I will not fall in that trap even if I disagree with your side-dish answers. SO here it is again:

Quote:It's either the word of god or it's not.

If it is the word of god, the one who knows everything, there is no excuse for it being so catastrophically wrong in almost everything that modern science can verify. Unless you think that the bible is right and science is wrong. If that's the case, say it so we can start laughing.

If it's not the word of god, let's drop the crap and talk reason.

And no, you can't get away with literal vs poetic explanations. If you take Adam and Eve + the original sin literally you don't get to dismiss the rest of the chapter completely just because it's ridiculously wrong. The parts you take as literal are ridiculous too, but you have to keep them because you need them to explain Jesus, or else you would gladly dispose of them too. But they are part of a very naive and wrong text describing how everything was poofed into existence and that's all you really have as a starting point for your religion.

And I'm afraid this might be a point of no return. You may have to bail out to maintain your faith hoping that the damage hasn't been done and bury the thought, or you have to find an objective way of discerning what you can believe based on the bible. I warn you about the latter. You may find yourself, just like us, forced to drop it completely

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Malleus's post
25-12-2011, 09:38 AM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(25-12-2011 09:19 AM)Malleus Wrote:  And no, you can't get away with literal vs poetic explanations. If you take Adam and Eve + the original sin literally you don't get to dismiss the rest of the chapter completely just because it's ridiculously wrong. The parts you take as literal are ridiculous too, but you have to keep them because you need them to explain Jesus, or else you would gladly dispose of them too. But they are part of a very naive and wrong text describing how everything was poofed into existence and that's all you really have as a starting point for your religion.

And I'm afraid this might be a point of no return. You may have to bail out to maintain your faith hoping that the damage hasn't been done and bury the thought, or you have to find an objective way of discerning what you can believe based on the bible. I warn you about the latter. You may find yourself, just like us, forced to drop it completely

Since when do you get to decide what I believe? You can't tell me it's "all or nothing" and tell me if I think parts of Genesis aren't meant to be taken literally I need to abandon my faith.

Look at the link Starcrash put up, it's entirely plausible to believe in Adam and Eve and Original Sin without the entire story of Genesis being 100% literally true.

The Bible is the Word of God, but why wouldn't God be able to use stories to convey his message?

James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"

"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist." C.S. Lewis
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2011, 10:06 AM
RE: Facebook Preachers
I'll come back to the conversation after the holidays.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2011, 10:27 AM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(25-12-2011 09:38 AM)Sharks9 Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 09:19 AM)Malleus Wrote:  And no, you can't get away with literal vs poetic explanations. If you take Adam and Eve + the original sin literally you don't get to dismiss the rest of the chapter completely just because it's ridiculously wrong. The parts you take as literal are ridiculous too, but you have to keep them because you need them to explain Jesus, or else you would gladly dispose of them too. But they are part of a very naive and wrong text describing how everything was poofed into existence and that's all you really have as a starting point for your religion.

And I'm afraid this might be a point of no return. You may have to bail out to maintain your faith hoping that the damage hasn't been done and bury the thought, or you have to find an objective way of discerning what you can believe based on the bible. I warn you about the latter. You may find yourself, just like us, forced to drop it completely

Since when do you get to decide what I believe? You can't tell me it's "all or nothing" and tell me if I think parts of Genesis aren't meant to be taken literally I need to abandon my faith.

Oh, sorry. I didn't take the liberty to assume that you will pick a dishonest approach. In that case, yes, lame apologetics work just fine.

Quote:Look at the link Starcrash put up, it's entirely plausible to believe in Adam and Eve and Original Sin without the entire story of Genesis being 100% literally true.

OK, but first you should go to http://www.ironchariots.org and search the answer for your problem in their wiki. After that, I want you to learn Romanian because I have a few books you should read. I thought we were having a conversation between ourselves, not making each other debate what a 3rd party says. I don't want to spend hours debunking what I get there and when I finally get some head way you can tell me "oh yeah, they are wrong about that. My opinion is different"

Quote:The Bible is the Word of God, but why wouldn't God be able to use stories to convey his message?

Sure, the bible is full of things that can only be fairy tales. Now I want you to think hard and tell me an *objective* method that you can use to decide that some parts are not fairy tales. "I read and decide for myself" is subjective and one of the worst possible ways to knowledge.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2011, 11:11 AM (This post was last modified: 26-12-2011 08:02 AM by free2011.)
RE: Facebook Preachers
Malleus, I share your frustration. This is what bothers me more than anything. If all the evidence you have is the Bible then either take all the stories in both the OT and NT as literal or take them all as parables or metaphors but don't pick and choose and expect non-believers to respect your position. I have a good friend who says he doesn't belief in God or the bible but he goes to church because he likes the positive messages. I actually respect that more than someone that has Sharks9's position of I like this so I believe it's true. But the other stuff is silly so I don't believe it. And based on this my God is the right one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like free2011's post
25-12-2011, 11:33 AM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(25-12-2011 10:27 AM)Malleus Wrote:  Oh, sorry. I didn't take the liberty to assume that you will pick a dishonest approach. In that case, yes, lame apologetics work just fine.
What do you think an honest approach would be? Everything's true or everything's false is a ridiculous approach to have.

(25-12-2011 10:27 AM)Malleus Wrote:  OK, but first you should go to http://www.ironchariots.org and search the answer for your problem in their wiki. After that, I want you to learn Romanian because I have a few books you should read. I thought we were having a conversation between ourselves, not making each other debate what a 3rd party says. I don't want to spend hours debunking what I get there and when I finally get some head way you can tell me "oh yeah, they are wrong about that. My opinion is different"
You're not going to read a simple link and you expect me to learn Romanian? Hardly fair.

(25-12-2011 10:27 AM)Malleus Wrote:  Sure, the bible is full of things that can only be fairy tales. Now I want you to think hard and tell me an *objective* method that you can use to decide that some parts are not fairy tales. "I read and decide for myself" is subjective and one of the worst possible ways to knowledge.

Tell me, what *objective* method did you use to decide the entire Bible is false?

James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"

"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist." C.S. Lewis
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2011, 12:00 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
The easiest objective method to determining the statements of the bible is looking for it's claims, and then seeing if it meets those claims. In a pure logic sense it easily fails this as the claim of being the word of god who is perfect requires that the book not be so inconsistent as it's his word.

No you don't have to agree with it, but that's the simplest objective way to discount this book. Prove that it's not a sound argument and you have proven that you don't need it. Philosophers strive very hard to ensure that at the end of the day no matter how oddball their argument is, it is logically consistent within itself at the least. When even 1 single book of the bible can't keep logically consistent with itself it's definitely not perfect.

You're right sharks that black and white are silly ways to look at the world. Just because part is wrong doesn't mean it all is wrong. But to me, once the claim put forth by the bible is proven logically inconsistent then I can just look at the random messages as exactly what they seem to be. Different ideas passed by word of mouth that were written down.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
25-12-2011, 01:06 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(25-12-2011 11:33 AM)Sharks9 Wrote:  What do you think an honest approach would be? Everything's true or everything's false is a ridiculous approach to have.

I expect better standards of knowledge from an all-knowing god. Especially when he explains to bronze age people where they came from. Sure, when he tells them that he created the plants before he created the rest of the universe, that's poetic, but when he gets to the first man and woman and their original sin, an equally kooky and flawed story in itself, THAT is literal. Because you say so.


Quote:You're not going to read a simple link and you expect me to learn Romanian? Hardly fair.

It's called sarcasm. Look it up. I was making a point. Give me your best answers and spare me the homework. You give me homework answers, I do the same and oh, what a nice conversation *that* will be.

Quote:Tell me, what *objective* method did you use to decide the entire Bible is false?

I don't think the entire bible is false. However, unlike you, I have standards for choosing what I hold to be true from the bible.

For example, I can safely dismiss all miracles in the Bible for the following reasons:
1. God has conveniently stopped to perform crowd-convincing miracles before the video camera was invented. And, while in the past he did a lot of crazy stuff to make people trust what he says, now he seems to be remarkably shy whenever scientists want to take a look.
2. Witness accounts are not sufficient evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
3. Whenever supernatural claims have been put to a test (ranging from prayer to any kind of miraculous event) they failed miserably.
4. Every "holy" book that you reject is full of the same kind of miracles. I simply apply the same skepticism to your book.

Some things are true but they invariably fall under the "common knowledge of the era" category as follows:

History: The bible mentions some real political figures, some wars that really took place and some other events. I know they are true because an opposing party (different nation, different religion, same era) recorded the same events.
However: Moses never existed; the Exodus from Egypt never happened; the flood never happened, Nazareth never existed when Jesus supposedly lived. The first historical mention of Nazareth dates from the 17th century when the Catholic Church bought some land and called it Nazareth, basically to have an answer to the question "Ummm... sir? Where is this Nazareth the Bible talks about?" (I can give you an explanation about why the bible mentions a town that never existed, don't hesitate to ask if you want to)

Geography: Some places are accurate, others certainly are not. (see my Nazareth example)

Biology: The bible mentions a flora and a fauna consistent with the time and place where it was written. However, they forgot to mention penguins and kangaroos in the flood story. That would have been especially interesting, given the fact that they were supposed to see some weird shit they had never seen before on that ark. Instead they barely give examples of common animals they had.

Jesus, for example, was never mentioned in *any* contemporary chronicles written at the time when he supposedly lived and that is a big deal because, according to the bible, he stirred the waters hard enough to make himself noticeable and still, everybody misses him while mentioning other much less significant people.

Remember 9/11? Imagine that story never making the news because all media focused on 3 rapes, 2 murders, a bunch of car accidents and a new animal brought to the New York Zoo. Same thing with the 40000 babies killed by Herod and the census forcing all people to travel back to their place of origin, including pregnant women from Nazareth (lol).

The bible is not a reliable source of information. It's as useful as Spiderman comics for studying New York. Realizing that this is my primary source of god-related information, I was quite disturbed, to say the least. My logical reaction was to drop it like it's hot and look for some other reason to believe in God. Judging by where I am now, I will let you figure out what I found.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Malleus's post
25-12-2011, 03:38 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Malleus Wrote:  The bible is not a reliable source of information. It's as useful as Spiderman comics for studying New York. Realizing that this is my primary source of god-related information, I was quite disturbed, to say the least. My logical reaction was to drop it like it's hot and look for some other reason to believe in God. Judging by where I am now, I will let you figure out what I found.

Dude, I was totally mesmerized by your post and nodding my head all the way through. When I got to your Spiderman analogy I almost shot a load. Good stuff!

Thanks for putting my scattered thoughts into clarity. I'm going to be borrowing from this heavily as I'm writing and thinking through stuff.

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
25-12-2011, 08:07 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Malleus Wrote:  I expect better standards of knowledge from an all-knowing god. Especially when he explains to bronze age people where they came from. Sure, when he tells them that he created the plants before he created the rest of the universe, that's poetic, but when he gets to the first man and woman and their original sin, an equally kooky and flawed story in itself, THAT is literal. Because you say so.

Do you really think they would've understood evolution back then?


(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Malleus Wrote:  It's called sarcasm. Look it up. I was making a point. Give me your best answers and spare me the homework. You give me homework answers, I do the same and oh, what a nice conversation *that* will be.

Maybe use a sarcasm punctuation mark next time.

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/751364



(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Malleus Wrote:  For example, I can safely dismiss all miracles in the Bible for the following reasons:
1. God has conveniently stopped to perform crowd-convincing miracles before the video camera was invented. And, while in the past he did a lot of crazy stuff to make people trust what he says, now he seems to be remarkably shy whenever scientists want to take a look.
2. Witness accounts are not sufficient evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
3. Whenever supernatural claims have been put to a test (ranging from prayer to any kind of miraculous event) they failed miserably.
4. Every "holy" book that you reject is full of the same kind of miracles. I simply apply the same skepticism to your book.

Miracles would obviously be untestable or else they wouldn't be miraculous.

(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Malleus Wrote:  History: The bible mentions some real political figures, some wars that really took place and some other events. I know they are true because an opposing party (different nation, different religion, same era) recorded the same events.
However: Moses never existed; the Exodus from Egypt never happened; the flood never happened, Nazareth never existed when Jesus supposedly lived. The first historical mention of Nazareth dates from the 17th century when the Catholic Church bought some land and called it Nazareth, basically to have an answer to the question "Ummm... sir? Where is this Nazareth the Bible talks about?" (I can give you an explanation about why the bible mentions a town that never existed, don't hesitate to ask if you want to)

Please, there are numerous mentions of Nazareth or Nazarenes before the 17th century. Early Christians were often called Nazarenes as a reference to being followers of Jesus.

I would enjoy hearing why you think they made up a town.


(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Malleus Wrote:  Jesus, for example, was never mentioned in *any* contemporary chronicles written at the time when he supposedly lived and that is a big deal because, according to the bible, he stirred the waters hard enough to make himself noticeable and still, everybody misses him while mentioning other much less significant people.

No contemporary documents doesn't mean he doesn't exist. The Gospels were written only 40-60 years after his death and there are non-Christian sources that mention him such as Josephus.

(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Malleus Wrote:  Remember 9/11? Imagine that story never making the news because all media focused on 3 rapes, 2 murders, a bunch of car accidents and a new animal brought to the New York Zoo. Same thing with the 40000 babies killed by Herod and the census forcing all people to travel back to their place of origin, including pregnant women from Nazareth (lol).

Different time period, news wasn't nearly as prevalent then as it is now. Also, seeing as an estimated 6 to 20 children were killed, it's not surprising it might not have been recorded. But the idea that Herod would do something like that is completely consistent with his character as recorded by other historians.

(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Malleus Wrote:  The bible is not a reliable source of information. It's as useful as Spiderman comics for studying New York. Realizing that this is my primary source of god-related information, I was quite disturbed, to say the least. My logical reaction was to drop it like it's hot and look for some other reason to believe in God. Judging by where I am now, I will let you figure out what I found.

It's unfortunate you came to that conclusion, but I respect your opinion.

James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"

"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist." C.S. Lewis
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: