1
   

Any serious Christians left?

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 11:00 pm
No offense Timber, but I was talking to the original poster of the thread. Laughing
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 12:00 am
are they being killed off?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 07:00 am
maporsche wrote:
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.


Cogent, incisive commentary. Bravo. I can see why you think your input is important here.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 07:19 am
timberlandko wrote:
Really be interesting to see an objective, non-partisan, scholarly discussion pertaining to matters and issues biblical. Ain't very likely to happen, though.


Doktor S wrote:
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.


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. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 07:38 am
Thanks for saying that, heph. They probably won't take it as such an affront to their intellectual primacy, coming from you.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 07:42 am
Your welcome snood. Smile
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 07:42 am
timberlandko wrote:
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.
Will and Ariel Durant were experts on that stuff, timber; and they continued to practice Catholicism. Go figure.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 09:27 am
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.

Quote:
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. Twisted Evil

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.

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, and so does 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.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 09:33 am
timberlandko wrote:
. . .
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.
Tee Hee!

So, would they be correct in their belief only so long as they did not proselytize?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 10:13 am
Straw man, neo, even if only by implication - and I suspect you know that.
Proselytizing is neither study nor discussion. Things philosophic in their context, things of material nature in thier context. The respective considerations may influence one another, and properly so, but neither consideration outweighs or overrules the other. 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.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 10:34 am
timberlandko wrote:
Straw man, neo, even if only by implication - and I suspect you know that. . .
I've been suspect often. :wink:
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 12:27 pm
Bein' a suspect is no biggie - it ain't the charges that count, its the convictions :wink:
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 05:03 pm
husker wrote:
are they being killed off?


Hi Husker.

I don't know why, but this struck as terribly funny and gave me a much needed chuckle.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 05:06 pm
snood wrote:
Thanks for saying that, heph. They probably won't take it as such an affront to their intellectual primacy, coming from you.


ditto
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 08:45 pm
timberlandko wrote:
. . .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.
OK, back to biz, bird man. While it is true that credulity often masquerades as faith, the allegation that belief (faith) must be inconsistent with understanding is a fallacy ad lapidem.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 11:09 pm
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"?

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. Twisted Evil

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
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 11:09 pm
That's not throwing stones at all, neo, apart from the fact no allegation of inconsistency was made, rendering your criticism a straw man. Explicitly stated was only that belief and understanding may coexist so long as belief be not confused with understanding. They are not inconsistent, but neither is one the same as the other.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 11:50 pm
Re: Any serious Christians left?
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?

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

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?

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?

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?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 01:43 am
Re: Any serious Christians left?
Eorl wrote:
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.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 08:24 am
hephzibah wrote:
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"?

Dunno why that might need clarification - I'll just say it again ... " ...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...

Quote:
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. Twisted Evil

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

Yes, this one:
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.

Broad brush and straw man. As I said, " ... 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."

I submit in specific particular that many here, yourself among others, rarely demonstrate any qualification beyond unquestioning, uncritical acceptance and endorsement of their particular favored interpretation of the bible. A pointed example of precisely that, a declaration of faith - "what I believe" - offered as response to a question set calling not for what one believes (as that is a given, established more than well enough) but for explanation of by what criteria, on what logical basis, does one hold such beliefs, is to be found in A M's most recent post.

That post is a declaration of faith, complete with parroting of scripture ("referencing a component of the challenged claim as validation of that claim") in contrast to that the question called for, which was critical justification for the faith, or belief set, held, a declaration of faith further identified as such by multiple unambiguous statements of same ... "Everything we need to know from God (according to Him) is laid out in the Bible ... Since all scripture is God-breathed that tells me it is genuine ... We are supposed to look for the truth in the Bible ... I do believe the Bible is divinely inspired and protected ... I take the Bible as 100% truth. I have faith that it is all true ... - all of which amounts to the multiply circular absurdity: "I believe what I believe my particular bible tells me to believe because my interpretation of my particular bible tells me what to believe, and I believe my particular bible." It is not argument, it is not responsive reply, it is not even discussion; it is proselytizing through declaration of faith.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/09/2021 at 05:13:08