First Question

[midniterider]

"A scholar of English Literature, medieval and Renaissance, science fiction author,

apologist, friends with T. S. Eliot and J.R.R. Tolkien and atheist who converted to Christianity."

 

--

 

L Ron Hubbard, science fiction author and creator of Scientology. Heckuva guy.

 

 

[Ravenstar]

When was L.Ron Hubbard ever a christian?  Wait, what?

 

Oh.. is that Hubbard talking about Lewis? I'm confused.

[midniterider]

When was L.Ron Hubbard ever a christian?  Wait, what?

 

Oh.. is that Hubbard talking about Lewis? I'm confused.

 

Just poking at the Xian's quote about CS Lewis being a sci fi author and Christian. Heck, L Ron was a sci fi author and started his own Scientology religion.

[Ravenstar]

ya, I read dianetics when I was 15

 

never came across as a christian, thought he was an atheist actually

[MerryG]

ya, I read dianetics when I was 15

 

never came across as a christian, thought he was an atheist actually

 

I think midnightrider's just saying that if somebody's going to make an argument from authority based on the religious views of a prominent SF/fantasy writer, L. Ron Hubbard has exactly as much credibility as C.S. Lewis.

 

Which is, of course, absolutely no credibility at all.

 

MR, forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth.

[Ravenstar]

Ya.. I agree, nope, no worries  

[midniterider]

 

ya, I read dianetics when I was 15

 

never came across as a christian, thought he was an atheist actually

 

I think midnightrider's just saying that if somebody's going to make an argument from authority based on the religious views of a prominent SF/fantasy writer, L. Ron Hubbard has exactly as much credibility as C.S. Lewis.

 

Which is, of course, absolutely no credibility at all.

 

MR, forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth.

 

 

You pulled what I was thinking out of the murk of my swamp of a brain. "Argument from authority", exactly. thanks. :-)

[ironhorse]

Before going further here, I am still unable to post links

or copy/paste in this forum. I am active on six other forums and

have never had any problem like this.

 

Any help would be appreciated.

[mymistake]

The unpardonable sin is a person's final rejection of Christ and his offer

of forgiveness and life.

 

I disagree.  The unpardonable sin is rejecting Jesus Christ's gay nature.  If you don't believe Jesus was gay then you won't go to heaven.

[duderonomy]

Before going further here, I am still unable to post links

or copy/paste in this forum. I am active on six other forums and

have never had any problem like this.

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

No wonder you can't answer my question in #88., LOL. 

 

You might be having the same problem I had. I even started a thread in Totally Off Topic (I Can't Quote) about it.

 

I'm not sure still what the deal is, or was. I know it wasn't this website itself. I'm using IE 10, I think, and I had to call someone younger than me to make some adjustments to my new computer. I think one of them was updating Adobe Reader or something.

That may or may not help you, but it's all I have right now.

 

Until you figure it out, you might have to just do the quoting manually, if you can, like MM suggested to me in my thread.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Before going further here, I am still unable to post links

or copy/paste in this forum. I am active on six other forums and

have never had any problem like this.

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

No wonder you can't answer my question in #88., LOL. 

 

You might be having the same problem I had. I even started a thread in Totally Off Topic (I Can't Quote) about it.

 

I'm not sure still what the deal is, or was. I know it wasn't this website itself. I'm using IE 10, I think, and I had to call someone younger than me to make some adjustments to my new computer. I think one of them was updating Adobe Reader or something.

That may or may not help you, but it's all I have right now.

 

Until you figure it out, you might have to just do the quoting manually, if you can, like MM suggested to me in my thread.

 

Download Chrome or Firefox; that will clear up the quoting issue.

[waitingongod]

Fernweh, "Are you a bible literalist or do you choose to make the

bible mean whatever feels good to yourself?"

 

There are dozens to scripture telling the reader to study the scriptures.

 

-Psalms 119:48  "meditate on the word'

-Proverbs 2:9  "Incline your heart to understanding"

-Acts 17:11 "search the scriptures to see if these things are true"

-Romans 15:4 "written for our learning"

-1 Timothy 4:5 "meditate on these things"

 

I believe the Bible is God's message to us. It covers a few thousand years written by people

who lived centuries apart. The scriptures must be understood by the context, the time period,

who is speaking and to whom the verse (context) is addressed. One must also be aware

of when symbolism is being used and whether the text be taken literally or metaphorically.

 

I have tried to do my best to not twist the scripture to suit my view. There are several

warnings about how some will do this.

And how do you know that the writers of the various books didn't twist the scriptures to suit their view?

[ironhorse]

Before I dive back into the fray....

 

Thanks to all of you who helped with my c/p and link problem.

I'm on Google Chrome now and it's working fine.

[falemon]

Before I dive back into the fray....

 

Thanks to all of you who helped with my c/p and link problem.

I'm on Google Chrome now and it's working fine.

Glory, you have exercised you free will and ability to make your own decisions to escape the bondage imposed by ie.

 

Now you just need to use those skills somewhere else, .. I wonder where

[sdelsolray]

 

sdelsolray, "A C S Lewis acolyte. My, My, My. No wonder he can't think for himself."

 

A scholar of English Literature, medieval and Renaissance, science fiction author,

apologist, friends with T. S. Eliot and J.R.R. Tolkien and atheist who converted to Christianity.

 

Yeah, I admire him and continue to read his work.

You seem to avoid rational thinking, and accomplish this by allowing your emotions to infect your intellect.  Ignoring CS Lewis' frequent use of local fallacies in his writing is strong evidence supporting this conclusion.  Lewis is writing to folks such as you, who are intellectually lazy and unwilling (or unable) to put rational thinking ahead of their religious faith.

 

Of course, that's fine, for you.  For others…not so much.

 

As further evidence of your avoidance of rational inquiry, please revisit post #94 in this thread (you did not respond to it).

 

Another example is the following post from earlier in this thread (you did not respond to it either):

 

…

-I read Darwin's book way back as a teenager in my father's library and I read it several

 times since then. I have read many books on evolution written by evolutionists. I don't

 believe it.

 

…

 

 

To which I inquired at post #96 in this thread:

 

Perhaps you can explain why you do not "believe it".

 

1)  Is it because, after your exhaustive study and research, you have falsified the biological theory of evolution utilizing the scientific method?

2)  Is it because the explanations and predictions of the biological theory of evolution conflict with your religious faith (see above for a "faith" discussion)?

3)  For some other reason?

 

Please try to avoid injecting logical fallacies into your explanation, such as the argument from incredulity fallacy, the mere assertion fallacy, unless, of course, your rely on such logical fallacies for your belief.

 

Thank you in advance for your honesty.

 

 

 

 

 

Third request for an answer to some very simple questions.  After all, you claim to be well versed in the biological theory of evolution.  The answer to my simple questions should be easy-peasy…if you are honest and wish to disclose that honesty.

[duderonomy]

 

Before I dive back into the fray....

 

Thanks to all of you who helped with my c/p and link problem.

I'm on Google Chrome now and it's working fine.

Glory, you have exercised you free will and ability to make your own decisions to escape the bondage imposed by ie.

 

Now you just need to use those skills somewhere else, .. I wonder where

 

 

I'm still on IE and now it's working fine.

 

ironhorse, you do know, don't you, that by downloading Google Chrome, you have sold your soul to the devil? I never gave in to the

pull of Google, nor did I give in to the pull from those Firefox people.

 

Oh, and if you can only answer one of my questions, please let it be the first one.

[mydisplayname]

 

 

ironhorse, you do know, don't you, that by downloading Google Chrome, you have sold your soul to the devil? I never gave in to the

pull of Google, nor did I give in to the pull from those Firefox people.

 

 

duderonomy speaks the truth. You should have read the fine print.

 

[ironhorse]

 

I read the discussion you posted.

 

Here's my take on it.

 

Judas threw the coins back. The priest could not use the money

because it was "blood money." They used it to purchase a pauper's

field to be used for burial. So with his own money Judas indeed

purchased a field.

 

Tom gave twenty dollars to his wife. She bought lottery tickets.

Tom bought him a life of luxury!

As I said, you can only harmonize Matthew's and Acts' accounts of Judas' money if you make words mean what they do not mean. Acts 1:18 says "Now, this man acquired/bought a field from the wages of unrighteousness..."

 

According to Matthew, once Judas rejects the 30 pieces of silver, the money is not his. The priests' buying the field with that money is not equivalent to "this man acquired/bought a field..." Judas does not own the field in Matthew.

 

I've seen that lottery ticket analogy elsewhere, btw. Did you get it from a Christian website? It's a false analogy. Husband and wife can be treated legally as an "entirety", each having ownership of the same property. That does not hold between Judas and the priests. Fail.

 

There are many such contradictions or other problems in the Bible. You can let them be indicators of the different agenda, etc. of the different writers - which is what an objective reader would judge them to be. Under the theory that the bible is inerrant, though, you can only resolve such contradictions by stretching the plain meaning of the text. Keep reading the Bible, ironhorse, and you may find yourself getting to the point where the number of stretches that you have to put onto the text starts to seem like special pleading. Many people have abandoned inerrancy just by studying the Bible itself.

 

-----------------

edited to add:

Just came across this website, which replies to contradictions alleged by the guy on yet another website:

 

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/DefendingTheGospels.htm

 

About the two accounts of Judas' money, John McClymont, defending inerrancy, says:

 

"The field was brought by the priests with Judas' money, for strangers and possibly Judas himself to be buried in. When Acts says Judas acquired a field with the proceeds of his wickedness, the Greek (ektesato) need not imply that Judas bought the field himself: it is compatible with the state of affairs where Judas de facto "gets" a field for his own burial as a result of the priests buying it for him with his own money. Judas acquired the field not by buying it himself, but in the sense that the field was bought for him."

 

The stuff bolded was bolded by me. I say only, "John, listen to yourself."

 

"This man bought/acquired" does not mean "the priests bought/acquired for this man." The money was no longer "Judas' own money" in the Matthew account.

 

If these texts are inspired by the Holy Spirit, that means that they say what the Holy Spirit wants them to say. Why does anyone saddle the Holy Spirit with wanting contradictory accounts, which require shit like the above to try to reconcile them?

 

 

 

"All scripture is God breathed.." 2 Timothy 3:16

To understand one must take into account the context, the time, the speaker, the purpose and the

individual writing styles of the authors.

 

I think that God allowing humans to write the story of his message over centuries of time is a lot

cooler than God dropping golden tablets from the sky all at once.

[Fernweh]

 

 

I read the discussion you posted.

 

Here's my take on it.

 

Judas threw the coins back. The priest could not use the money

because it was "blood money." They used it to purchase a pauper's

field to be used for burial. So with his own money Judas indeed

purchased a field.

 

Tom gave twenty dollars to his wife. She bought lottery tickets.

Tom bought him a life of luxury!

As I said, you can only harmonize Matthew's and Acts' accounts of Judas' money if you make words mean what they do not mean. Acts 1:18 says "Now, this man acquired/bought a field from the wages of unrighteousness..."

 

According to Matthew, once Judas rejects the 30 pieces of silver, the money is not his. The priests' buying the field with that money is not equivalent to "this man acquired/bought a field..." Judas does not own the field in Matthew.

 

I've seen that lottery ticket analogy elsewhere, btw. Did you get it from a Christian website? It's a false analogy. Husband and wife can be treated legally as an "entirety", each having ownership of the same property. That does not hold between Judas and the priests. Fail.

 

There are many such contradictions or other problems in the Bible. You can let them be indicators of the different agenda, etc. of the different writers - which is what an objective reader would judge them to be. Under the theory that the bible is inerrant, though, you can only resolve such contradictions by stretching the plain meaning of the text. Keep reading the Bible, ironhorse, and you may find yourself getting to the point where the number of stretches that you have to put onto the text starts to seem like special pleading. Many people have abandoned inerrancy just by studying the Bible itself.

 

-----------------

edited to add:

Just came across this website, which replies to contradictions alleged by the guy on yet another website:

 

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/DefendingTheGospels.htm

 

About the two accounts of Judas' money, John McClymont, defending inerrancy, says:

 

"The field was brought by the priests with Judas' money, for strangers and possibly Judas himself to be buried in. When Acts says Judas acquired a field with the proceeds of his wickedness, the Greek (ektesato) need not imply that Judas bought the field himself: it is compatible with the state of affairs where Judas de facto "gets" a field for his own burial as a result of the priests buying it for him with his own money. Judas acquired the field not by buying it himself, but in the sense that the field was bought for him."

 

The stuff bolded was bolded by me. I say only, "John, listen to yourself."

 

"This man bought/acquired" does not mean "the priests bought/acquired for this man." The money was no longer "Judas' own money" in the Matthew account.

 

If these texts are inspired by the Holy Spirit, that means that they say what the Holy Spirit wants them to say. Why does anyone saddle the Holy Spirit with wanting contradictory accounts, which require shit like the above to try to reconcile them?

 

 

 

"All scripture is God breathed.." 2 Timothy 3:16

To understand one must take into account the context, the time, the speaker, the purpose and the

individual writing styles of the authors.

 

This is how cults start.

 

I think that God allowing humans to write the story of his message over centuries of time is a lot

cooler than God dropping golden tablets from the sky all at once.

 

Both are equally ridiculous.

 

[ironhorse]

"All scripture is God breathed.." 2 Timothy 3:16
To understand one must take into account the context, the time, the speaker, the purpose and the
individual writing styles of the authors.

This is how cults start. ~Fernweh

I think that God allowing humans to write the story of his message over centuries of time is a lot
cooler than God dropping golden tablets from the sky all at once.

Both are equally ridiculous. ~Fernweh

 

To study the scriptures correctly is how a cult starts? Can you explain?

 

Both are ridiculous? How would you like God to send his message to us?

[Fernweh]

"All scripture is God breathed.." 2 Timothy 3:16

To understand one must take into account the context, the time, the speaker, the purpose and the

individual writing styles of the authors.

 

This is how cults start. ~Fernweh

 

I think that God allowing humans to write the story of his message over centuries of time is a lot

cooler than God dropping golden tablets from the sky all at once.

 

Both are equally ridiculous. ~Fernweh

 

To study the scriptures correctly is how a cult starts? Can you explain?

 

Both are ridiculous? How would you like God to send his message to us?

 

 

He could start by actually being real.

[mymistake]

"All scripture is God breathed.." 2 Timothy 3:16

To understand one must take into account the context, the time, the speaker, the purpose and the

individual writing styles of the authors.

 

This is how cults start. ~Fernweh

 

I think that God allowing humans to write the story of his message over centuries of time is a lot

cooler than God dropping golden tablets from the sky all at once.

 

Both are equally ridiculous. ~Fernweh

 

To study the scriptures correctly is how a cult starts? Can you explain?

 

Both are ridiculous? How would you like God to send his message to us?

 

By coldly watching humans struggle for 100,000 years and then appearing to the most backward part of humanity to inspire vague scriptures that take thousands of years to spread and then remain completely unconvincing.

 

No wait, that is how Christians would have us believe God sent his message.  Any other way would have been better.  

[moanareina]

Before going further here, I am still unable to post links

or copy/paste in this forum. I am active on six other forums and

have never had any problem like this.

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Yeah because you don't post links by copying and pasting in this and also many other forums.

It is not too hard but you might need to be a little nerdy to find out...just play with the symbol's above your post...

[moanareina]

OK...

 

My question:

 

How do yo study scripture correctly? What edition do you need to do so? The ancient greek one? Or hebrew? What background knowledge would you suggest? What parts of the bible are to take literally and what parts are symbolic and why?

 

I have seen cults explaining their wicked theories all backed up with scriptures and you could not even say they had interpreted it the wrong way...

 

So what tells you, you are studying scriptures right and everyone else isn't?

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

I read the discussion you posted.

 

Here's my take on it.

 

Judas threw the coins back. The priest could not use the money

because it was "blood money." They used it to purchase a pauper's

field to be used for burial. So with his own money Judas indeed

purchased a field.

 

Tom gave twenty dollars to his wife. She bought lottery tickets.

Tom bought him a life of luxury!

As I said, you can only harmonize Matthew's and Acts' accounts of Judas' money if you make words mean what they do not mean. Acts 1:18 says "Now, this man acquired/bought a field from the wages of unrighteousness..."

 

According to Matthew, once Judas rejects the 30 pieces of silver, the money is not his. The priests' buying the field with that money is not equivalent to "this man acquired/bought a field..." Judas does not own the field in Matthew.

 

I've seen that lottery ticket analogy elsewhere, btw. Did you get it from a Christian website? It's a false analogy. Husband and wife can be treated legally as an "entirety", each having ownership of the same property. That does not hold between Judas and the priests. Fail.

 

There are many such contradictions or other problems in the Bible. You can let them be indicators of the different agenda, etc. of the different writers - which is what an objective reader would judge them to be. Under the theory that the bible is inerrant, though, you can only resolve such contradictions by stretching the plain meaning of the text. Keep reading the Bible, ironhorse, and you may find yourself getting to the point where the number of stretches that you have to put onto the text starts to seem like special pleading. Many people have abandoned inerrancy just by studying the Bible itself.

 

[snipped]

 

 

 

"All scripture is God breathed.." 2 Timothy 3:16

To understand one must take into account the context, the time, the speaker, the purpose and the

individual writing styles of the authors.

 

I think that God allowing humans to write the story of his message over centuries of time is a lot

cooler than God dropping golden tablets from the sky all at once.

 

What you say is not relevant to the problem of the contradiction betw Matt and Acts re Judas' money. Above I spoke about taking into account the individuality of the authors.

 

Your thoughts about what method of revelation would be cooler than what other method are not relevant to anything.

 

I conclude that you cannot resolve the above-mentioned contradiction except by making words mean what they do not mean. When you find yourself doing that repeatedly to save each of two contradictory Bible passages, you come to realize that the inerrantist presupposition falls of its own weight.