Any serious Christians left?

snood wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Snood, Snood, Snood...........

I'm very disappointed. For one, I never stated that he couldn't talk about the bible. For two, he plainly asked for people who were either "for / against" the bible to feel free to talk. For three, jokingly or not, the "Is it against the law yet?" comment was completely unnesessary unless he was trying to make a point that he felt as though it was being challenged, which of course in the USA it isn't.

Get your panties out of a bunch.

I wear boxer briefs, and I'm not the only one who has expressed skepticism about this discussion. So sorry for your disappointment.

Get your boxer briefs out of a bunch, or pull them out of your ass, or whatever.

Really be interesting to see an objective, non-partisan, scholarly discussion pertaining to matters and issues biblical. Ain't very likely to happen, though.

Not so long as people that believe it literally true on any level are allowed to participate, anyway. The problem with believing something so abstract as the bible 'true' is the heavy amount of exegesis necessary to solidify the often times contradictory book into one 'true' message. The other problem is that the 'truth' arrived at by each believer (or sect of believers) is often times completely different than the 'other guys'.
No one standing in such a specious position can make honest claims to either objectivity or non-partisanship.

Arella Mae wrote:

I would love to talk about the Bible. Where do you want to start?

I suppose a good place to start would be an overview of Sumerian, Ugaritic, Arian, and Egypyian mythologies from around the 6th into the 2cd millenia BCE.

LOL It cracks me up sometimes that "non-christians" appear to think they are they only one's "qualified" to talk about the bible.

"Christians aren't qualified to talk about it because they "believe" it. Yet "non-christians" are qualified to talk about it because they don't "believe" it.

Not only that though...

They are also qualified to talk about the things they do "believe" as well...

Seems like a bit of a double standard to me.

Will and Ariel Durant were experts on that stuff, timber; and they continued to practice Catholicism. Go figure.

. . .

neo wrote:

Will and Ariel Durant were experts on that stuff, timber; and they continued to practice Catholicism. Go figure.

Go figure what? The Durants, in common with any number of other serious scholars, did not proselytize, and by their writings clearly understood and accepted the bible in its myriad variations for what it, in its myriad variations, in the contexts of its manifold cross-curtural development and evolution, demonstrably is. So, for instance, did devout Jew and noted archaeologist Yigael Yadin, or devout Catholic, respected theologian, and noted biblical scholar Fr. Thomas Tobin, SJ. There is a huge difference between professions of faith and arguments for faith - a distinction evidently lost on many who participate in discussions of this sort on these boards.

Straw man, neo, even if only by implication - and I suspect you know that. . .

are they being killed off?

Thanks for saying that, heph. They probably won't take it as such an affront to their intellectual primacy, coming from you.

. . .The difficulty encountered by many religionists is failure to recognize and accept that very simple concept. Theist belief can coexist with materialist understanding, so long as one does not confuse belief with understanding. There's the rub.

hephzibah wrote:

LOL It cracks me up sometimes that "non-christians" appear to think they are they only one's "qualified" to talk about the bible.

"Christians aren't qualified to talk about it because they "believe" it. Yet "non-christians" are qualified to talk about it because they don't "believe" it.

Straw man. Many Christians are "qualified" to "talk about it" ... and many do, cogently, intelligently, and objectively. On the other hand, biblethumpers - biblical literalists - chiefly but not exclusively of the fundamentalist evangelical Christian persuasion, whether qualified or not in the academic sense, exceedingly rarely demonstrate any qualification beyond unquestioning, uncritical acceptance and endorsement of their particular favored interpretation of the bible.

hephzibah wrote:

Not only that though...

They are also qualified to talk about the things they do "believe" as well...

Seems like a bit of a double standard to me.

No "double standard" involved at all; just lack of understanding on the part of any who hold such "belief". The problem of misapprehension evidenced by such a statement lies precisely in the "beliefs" of one who would issue and/or endorse such a statement.

Anyone want to talk the christian bible? For ..against..whatever? Is this against the law yet?

Jeremiah wrote:

Anyone want to talk the christian bible? For ..against..whatever? Is this against the law yet?

OK. Let's assume there is a god, and that he spoke to prophets and that Jesus was his son, etc.

What, then, is the purpose of the bible?

The purpose of the Bible is to tell us how we are supposed to live our lives and why. Everything we need to know from God (according to Him) is laid out in the Bible.

Is there a bit in the bible that specifies which other bits of the bible are genuine? (ie some kind of table of contents?)

2 Timothy 3:16 ~ All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the Man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Since all scripture is God-breathed that tells me it is genuine.

Is it possible that parts of (any given version of) the bible are sacred and that other parts are corruptions, either deliberate or intentional by well meaning interpreters or by villians with their own purposes?

I know that you can read something once in the Bible and get an understanding of it and then go back and read later and get a deeper understanding of it. That's why we are supposed to study it. We are supposed to look for the truth in the Bible.

Is there a part of the bible that says that the written text of the bible is somehow sacred, or did the god perhaps intend that his message be passed by word of mouth, and by actions and example? Is it still sacred after bad translation and editing?

That's a good question Eorl. I do believe the Bible is divinely inspired and protected. Now, does that mean every single word? I'm not sure. But I do believe that the plan of salvation has never changed. I believe the basic message of Jesus Christ has stayed the same no matter what.

Answers among it's followers (which includes most christians) vary between each word being totally holy and sacred, to a mixture of fiction, history and delusion.

Does anyone dare claim to know the answer? If so, why?

I don't know that I know "thee" answer, Eorl but I do know that if anyone allows their own agenda to enter into the interpreting or reading the scripture then it varies greatly. Me? I take the Bible as 100% truth. I have faith that it is all true. I can't answer for others though.

Nice to see you again, Eorl.

timberlandko wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

LOL It cracks me up sometimes that "non-christians" appear to think they are they only one's "qualified" to talk about the bible.

"Christians aren't qualified to talk about it because they "believe" it. Yet "non-christians" are qualified to talk about it because they don't "believe" it.

Straw man. Many Christians are "qualified" to "talk about it" ... and many do, cogently, intelligently, and objectively. On the other hand, biblethumpers - biblical literalists - chiefly but not exclusively of the fundamentalist evangelical Christian persuasion, whether qualified or not in the academic sense, exceedingly rarely demonstrate any qualification beyond unquestioning, uncritical acceptance and endorsement of their particular favored interpretation of the bible.

Ok. So how does one become labeled as a "bible thumper"?

Quote:

timberlandko wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

Not only that though...

They are also qualified to talk about the things they do "believe" as well...

Seems like a bit of a double standard to me.

No "double standard" involved at all; just lack of understanding on the part of any who hold such "belief". The problem of misapprehension evidenced by such a statement lies precisely in the "beliefs" of one who would issue and/or endorse such a statement.

What statement are you refering to Timber? Mine? LOL

LOL It cracks me up sometimes that "non-christians" appear to think they are they only one's "qualified" to talk about the bible.

"Christians aren't qualified to talk about it because they "believe" it. Yet "non-christians" are qualified to talk about it because they don't "believe" it.