chefranden Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 My real question is this. Do you think it is reasonable or understandable that many people would have a hard time believe much of the bible with stories like these? Can it even seem slightly reasonable to dismiss the whole bible when it contains these stories that are often accepted as fact? Can you understand why people would not believe the bible as factual? Well, Kevin, Taylor's got you there. Even the good book says that God made the story foolish to trip certain people up. 1 Corinthians 1:20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 KH> You are requiring that the virgin birth be a naturalistic event. It is not. You are ruling out anything unless it has a naturalistic explanation. By this logic then a rock giving birth IS just as sensible....anything is sensible if your argument is "its a miracle" You have still not shown me a standard of "good" by which we can judge any sacrifice. perhaps good is not the best word....how about. Workable, or practicle. After all, ancient religions...including Judaism, believed in blood sacrfices based on the bad science that the "soul" was containted in a persons blood. God required blood payment for sin and allowed people to substitue thier own blood with that of a cow of chicken or whatever. To me this just doesn't make much sense. How is god magicly ALLOWED to forgive sin because someone spread entrails and blood on an alter. The all powerful god hands are tied to forgive sin untill some kills a goat...this is just absurd.... of course high theology was a late development in judaism. KH> I'll let the readers read your post and determine if I'm right. You fell into the EVP and are now trying to deny it. Haha, other people had already posted that you misread me before I even wrote that post....its not my fault that my writing goes over your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 KH> I don't think hell is an anthropic torture chamber, but it is a place of seperation from God and torment; torture is external, torment is internal. If I'm not bothered by the non-existence of God now, why would I be bothered then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I quote my self Kevin To compare mental concepts with things you are claiming physically exist shows the tentative grasp you have of logic. I fail to see how you misread this. I was clearly stating that the items you were comparing were incompatible...not that emperical proof is the only proof that should be trusted...its not my fault you can't read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 KH> Calvinism and Arminianism are not forms of Christianity. They are views within Christianity that are peripheral to the essentials. Remember Augustine's great adage: "In Essentials, Unity. In non-Essentials, Liberty. But in all things, Charity". No, the problem is that you don't have defined what you mean with Christianity. Do you mean the Christians that believe "Jesus was son of God, physical resurrected, and only through him you get salvation and forgiveness from sins" then you have come closer to what you try to say with your premise. But you generally say Christianity you will include versions of Christianity that for instance don't believe in the trinity and hence don't see Jesus as son of God! So please specify the full definition of what kind of Christianity you are addressing. KH> Paul breaks the paradox by declaring "this statement is true". IOW, though a lying Cretan could be lying about Cretans, Paul affirms it as a general rule apart from the lying Cretan! No, he makes the paradox. It isn't a full paradox, because the only solution is that Cretans sometimes lie and sometimes tell the truth, and hence Epimenides was lying and not telling the truth. But I knew you wouldn't get this. Because I haven't met one Christian that understands it. You say, Paul was right, Paul said the truth, and Paul said that Epimenides was telling the truth, but Epimenides said that all Cretans (and he was one himself) always lie. So Epimenides by his own words was not telling the truth, and hence Paul was wrong. Let's see, should we do it this way. P1) I say that I always lie P2) Bob say I tell the truth If Bob is right, that means that I'm telling the truth about always lying. Which leads to that I'm lying and Bob is wrong. A paradox. The key is that I'm lying when I'm saying that I always lie, because I don't "always" lie, only sometimes, and in this instance I do, because I don't always lie. A perpetual liars statement is always false, is it not? So how can it be true. And Bob is not intentionally lying, but P2 is false, because Bob is wrong. And there are other solutions to the paradox, one is to combine them into one predicate: "this statement is true and this statement is false", which is in its whole a false statement, And that least to that the hole phrase, including Paul's comment is all together a false statement. --edit-- (For instance, Buridan and Peirce agree that the liar's sentence is false.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 If I steal a truckload of Cinnamon Toast Crunch breakfast cereal and someone finds out and turns me in to the authorities, how can I be convicted of theft if all of those "proof of purchase" things on the side of each box are in my possession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Both camps agree on the soteriological essentials. Don't be silly. Christians have demonstrated many times the central nature of your peripherals by being more than willing to kill each other over them. And it is percisely over the essentials of salvation that that the 2 camps dissagree. My old Church was pretty damned sure Calvinists were hell bound when I was in it. Thirdly, I don't think it is difficult to determine literal from figurative in Scripture. We can study the literary genre and usage. By the way, just because something can be misinterpreted does not mean it is false. On the other hand just because you can interpret a text doesn't make it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 This guy is quite anoying....not many christians make me mad enough to cus anymore. But for crying out loud, the last 3 of my posts he responded to he twisted what I said or even directly misquoted me in order to make me look like an idiot. So much for christian morals...this guy is quite willing to lie in order to win an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 KH> At least the Virgin Birth makes sense in the religio-historical context of the view (the Incarnation, prophecies, etc). Being born from a rock is not only more miraculous, it's stupid! I'd like to see you say this to a bunch of armed Roman Soldiers circa 1CE. (Now were's my damned time machine.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 This guy is quite anoying....not many christians make me mad enough to cus anymore. But for crying out loud, the last 3 of my posts he responded to he twisted what I said or even directly misquoted me in order to make me look like an idiot. So much for christian morals...this guy is quite willing to lie in order to win an argument. Christianity is belief in lies, it's based on lies, so it's natural to become a liar when you get adjusted to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Science is often misunderstood and misinterpreted by the layman. So it is useless? Shakespeare is misunderstood and misinterpreted. So it's useless? So what is your point here? Religion is only for the clergy? Was the Church right to try to keep scripture out of the hands of the common bloke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 So what is your point here? Religion is only for the clergy? Was the Church right to try to keep scripture out of the hands of the common bloke? Hey, he is on to something...if we were not allowed to read the bible all of us would probably still be christians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 So what is your point here? Religion is only for the clergy? Was the Church right to try to keep scripture out of the hands of the common bloke? Hey, he is on to something...if we were not allowed to read the bible all of us would probably still be christians Yup. I think that's the reason why the Catholic Church was so against translating the Bible to English. They couldn't make up their own interpretations anymore. Basically Protestantism took Christianity from the Clergy's hands into the hands of the individual. And that was a disaster... Heck... It was a disaster before that too, so it really didn't make any difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 so the REAL reason exchristians are growing isn't because of statments like his opening post....but because we are better educated about what the bible really says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 KH> At least the Virgin Birth makes sense in the religio-historical context of the view (the Incarnation, prophecies, etc). Being born from a rock is not only more miraculous, it's stupid! here's another question to anyone. Kevin, don't answer this until you answer my last question. Where is the line drawn between miraculous and stupidity? How is Elijah ascending to heaven on a fiery chariot with flying horses a miracle but a baby born from a rock stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Well, Kevin, if you're really interested in finding out what "Phrases That Breed Ex-Christians" are, you might just want to go back and read your own posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 "In Essentials, Unity. In non-Essentials, Liberty. But in all things, Charity". Augustine I think. Nice motto, but what essentials are agreed on? Where is the Unity that derives from them? What prevents protestants from getting back with Rome, since there are only peripheral things seprating them? Why can't the Holy Spirit hold y'all together in the face of these minor things that people have killed each other over in order to defend the faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Yeah, after all it was Augustine who thought ALL sex was evil...from what I've read he thought it was pretty essential that people NOT enjoy sex for any reason. Though to be honest he might have felt that was a non-essential, if anyone knows of a passage where he clearly stated it one way or the other I'd be interested in seeing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Wasn't Augustine the most fervent Hedonist ever before his conversion? Shit on that, easy as hell for a man who probably had sex in ways we're only just now rediscovering to say some shit like 'don't have sex at all, I'm celibate...Now.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 LOL your right he was a total perv before his conversion. Its probably why he identified the worst sin as being sexual....he had sex on the brain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideawake42 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Hey Kevin...answer me this. Where does "evil" come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 here's another question to anyone. Kevin, don't answer this until you answer my last question. Where is the line drawn between miraculous and stupidity? How is Elijah ascending to heaven on a fiery chariot with flying horses a miracle but a baby born from a rock stupid? Or a talking bush, a talking snake, frogs falling from the sky, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 And the satyrs. Don't forget the satyrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 And the satyrs. Don't forget the satyrs. I didn't even know those were mentioned in the bible. I'm seeing more fiction in the "good book" every second! Why didn't they mention this in sunday school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 oh you know how it is mwc. when ever we bring up a valid point, especially words that come from the bible, it gets ignored. for example: when you listed the original words hell was mistakenly translated from to amy marie. she addressed everyone else except for that. and she still continued to say, "be afraid of hell" to ricky18. Yeah, I've come to expect it really, and considering the lengths old KevinH has gone through to twist around the words of others in the thread I don't really care. I've learned that xians have pretty damned selective vision when faced with facts (that just keep on coming and coming). Maybe they'll get lucky and all this shit in the middle east will destroy any/all evidence that will disprove their fantasies once and for all and they can live in happiness? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts