- This topic has 899 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi David
Stu: I do remember your olympian feats of apology in attempting to bring Genesis into line with reality. I also remember the message of that book being distorted out of shape in the process. Isn't this current pleading of your just a tiny bit hypocritical?
Quote You my friend are delusional. At least, when it comes to what genesis actually says, as opposed to what you want it to say.
Fantastic! I just read what it says in english. I accept there could be minor translation differences but I don’t see large-scale protests against it’s approximation to the ‘word’. You bend it out of shape then accuse me of some kind of dishonesty or mental inability. I redouble my accusation of hypocrisy in response to your further hypocrisy!Quote If all the days of genesis are also spoken of as one “day” then it is obvious they are not 24 hour periods, as you would like them to be. They are epochs of time, which both a dictionary will confirm is one meaning of “day” and which science agrees with.
If you define them to mean exactly one year or exactly two weeks, or goodness me, ‘one day’ then they do not match science. Since you can redefine Genesis in the way you want then it means nothing at all.Stu: You base your whole anti-democratic tirade on the inerrancy of a set of books that have been demonstrated to be very fallable.
Quote I didn't notice a tirade against democracy. ”They have taught Babylonian and Grecian philosophies instead of the pure Word of God and have contributed to the moral delinquency of entire nations by approving permissive life-styles that flout Bible principles”
What you call ‘moral delinquency’ would seem to be the choices that have been made by the free voting of people in democracies. Note that many dictatorships still require biblical-style conservative social values. There is a critical relationship between ancient Greece (and its philosophers like Plato) and modern democracies. Your tirade was certainly anti-democratic. Do you not believe people should be allowed to follow a ‘permissive lifestyle’ if they democratically want that option?Quote What I did notice was me pointing out that many have believed that we are living in the last days of this system of things and that before the end came, the end of religion as a whole would come. Decades ago, that seemed an impossible idea. Today, it is not. The waters of babylon are drying up today, just as they did back then, before she was conquered. .
That is definitely delusional.Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 26 2008,21:31) Hi Kj,
Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Back to go and do not collect $200
Just the beginning?So you DO view what bible God is doing to His creation as a game for Him, since you brought up the Monopoly thing. I can't imagine how it feels to be a pawn in the cosmic game of life, with God taking the white pieces and “satan” the black.
Hi KJ,
Your imagination runs wild.
But you are helpless to oppose God and wiser to obey.
You need to accept He is greater than you and your future is according to your response to His call.Quote (david @ Mar. 26 2008,23:59) Quote They were told they would die if they ate of the tree yet they had not seen death so they did not know what it was. How do you know they had not seen death? We know they hadn't seen human death.
That's another problem with the bible. You're left to assume so much to make it feasible. So while you surmise they did, I can also say they didn't. Since it is not “written” its all up in the air.Quote Quote Ah the fallacies abound. If God knows the future (He must because we read of so many prophecies) He then would know what actions Saul would take.
Does the ability to know the future mean you have to use that ability all the time? Again, you assume.
Then why would He make decisions He later regretted? Was that the times He chose not to look ahead and see what a screw up Saul was going to be?So we can further assume that God has made many bad choices since the dawn of time? Such a human God the bible portrays.
Quote Quote Also, as soon as Eve ate, she did not die, although God told her she would.
Really? God told her that “as soon as” you eat, you will die? hmmm.
No, but again, as A&E were naive, the automatic assumption by them is that eating would result in death, which we cannot say with any measure of certainty that they even knew what death was. Oh so many holes.Quote Quote Furthermore, why weren't Eve's eyes opened as soon as she ate the fruit? Why wait until Adam ate and then have it happen? Again, this is flawed.
Yes, because as we ALL KNOW, every OTHER TIME someone has done this, their eyes were opened instantly. Again, you are flawed and see what you want.
Could I not say the same of you? You view the whole story as some sort of reality when doing so requires you to make excuses. Anyone reading the story without some preconceived notion would see that the whole scenario was a setup for man's failure. Its like God wanted it to happen. But that is the bible God, a very human God. God in man's image.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 27 2008,03:00) Hi KJ,
Your imagination runs wild.
But you are helpless to oppose God and wiser to obey.
You need to accept He is greater than you and your future is according to your response to His call.
Nick,I hope by now that you might be getting the idea that your responses to many one here are turning into some sort of comedy relief? I don't know if many take you seriously any more because you avoid questions, dodge issues, and only respond with our need to obey God — which obviously means that the bible is your god since you mean that we should obey the bible — and respect “what is written”.
Your revolving list of 2-3 line answers needs refreshing.
Hi KJ,
We are facilitators trying to steer the arguments into some sort of forum for useful learning.
We do learn too from the responses from unbelievers how they think truth is vulnerable.
But of course it is eternal and ever inspired by and infused with the Spirit of our God.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 27 2008,03:24) Hi KJ,
We are facilitators trying to steer the arguments into some sort of forum for useful learning.
We do learn too from the responses from unbelievers how they think truth is vulnerable.
But of course it is eternal and ever inspired by and infused with the Spirit of our God.
Nick,Seriously, get real. 95% of your posts do not steer the forum to useful learning. They steer the forum to what you want people to believe.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 27 2008,20:24) Hi KJ,
We are facilitators trying to steer the arguments into some sort of forum for useful learning.
We do learn too from the responses from unbelievers how they think truth is vulnerable.
But of course it is eternal and ever inspired by and infused with the Spirit of our God.
I would go further than kejonn. Nick by your words you are actively seeking to deceive. Your aim is to shut down difficult questions, not to answer them. You must have as low an opinion of the intellect of those who would be duped by you as you do of the rest of humanity.What you consider to be 'useful learning' I think stopped being useful in about 300CE.
Stuart
Quote If you define them to mean exactly one year or exactly two weeks, or goodness me, ‘one day’ then they do not match science. Since you can redefine Genesis in the way you want then it means nothing at all. No stu, I define it as dictionies define it: “epoch.” “Epoch” agrees with science, stu.
And I am not redefining Genesis in the way I want. I am using genesis itself to understand that it was not referring to “24 hour periods” because all those “days” are called one “day.” In the genesis account, THEREFORE, it appears that it's referring to very unspecific periods of time.Quote Stu: I do remember your olympian feats of apology in attempting to bring Genesis into line with reality.
I would do a study of “false memories.” What I remember is you truly wanting Genesis to be referring to your definition of “day” while neither genesis nor science allows for it. You wanted it to be wrong. Unfortunately, in this case, because “day” is so general, it's a very difficult task you choose.Quote You bend it out of shape then accuse me of some kind of dishonesty or mental inability.
I am only accusing you of not understanding that words may have more than one definition. You seem blind to that fact.Quote Your tirade was certainly anti-democratic. Do you not believe people should be allowed to follow a ‘permissive lifestyle’ if they democratically want that option?
People can do whatever they wish. Question: do you think believe people should be allowed to follow the Bible if they democratically want that option?Quote That is definitely delusional.
which part? To think that the U.N. would ban religion? Is that delusional? Or is it delusional to think that 100 years ago or any time past that, the very idea of banning all religion was ludicris? Which part of my statement is delusional?Quote That's another problem with the bible. You're left to assume so much to make it feasible. So while you surmise they did, I can also say they didn't. Since it is not “written” its all up in the air. EXACTLY KEJONN. SO, “YOUR” assumptions mean nothing. And THEREFORE, this apparent contradiction is based on your assumptions and is meaningless.
Despite this being “all up in the air” as you say, you see it as a contradiction or a fault. Your bias and motivations are transparent.I said:
Quote Does the ability to know the future mean you have to use that ability all the time? Again, you assume. you responded:
Quote Then why would He make decisions He later regretted? then, I suppose you answer your own question:
Quote Was that the times He chose not to look ahead and see what a screw up Saul was going to be? Does the ability to know the future mean you have to use that ability all the time? Since you have no way to answer this, again, YOU ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and basing your “contraditions” on them!
Quote So we can further assume that God has made many bad choices since the dawn of time?
You sure do like to assume. I'm guessing this is why you get yourself into such trouble.Quote No, but again, as A&E were naive, the automatic assumption by them is that eating would result in death, which we cannot say with any measure of certainty that they even knew what death was.
And nor can we say as you do that they didn't know what death was. We don't know how long they were there before these things took place. We don't know how many dead animals they encountered. We know none of it. Yet, based on all this stuff we simply don't know, YOU ASSUME as you wish, to find contradictions and fault with the Bible. I think the fault often lies with people who like to assume.I said:
Quote Yes, because as we ALL KNOW, every OTHER TIME someone has done this, their eyes were opened instantly. Again, you are flawed and see what you want. your reply:
Quote Could I not say the same of you? NO, YOU CAN'T. Here's why: You came forth with all these CONTRADICTIONS, which as it turns out, are based on nothing more than blind assumptions.
In what I said above, I showed that clearly you have no idea what you're talking about when you stated that her eyes should have been opened instantly, so to speak. Because what are you basing that on? ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, but this particular assumption has nothing but wild speculation to back it up–no reference to anything similar.
My point was that you don't know, and you don't, so you can't in all honesty call this a fault or anything like that. All I'm saying it is definitely not a contradiction, not even close.Reading your posts, it's like I've stepped into the land of make believe, where logic no longer has any place. If you're going to say there is fault with something, at least attempt logically to show the fault, based on something other than your bias and assumptions which often have no basis in reality, since these are one time happenings.
Quote (david @ Mar. 27 2008,18:03) Quote That's another problem with the bible. You're left to assume so much to make it feasible. So while you surmise they did, I can also say they didn't. Since it is not “written” its all up in the air. EXACTLY KEJONN. SO, “YOUR” assumptions mean nothing. And THEREFORE, this apparent contradiction is based on your assumptions and is meaningless.
Despite this being “all up in the air” as you say, you see it as a contradiction or a fault. Your bias and motivations are transparent.
But in return, can I not say the same about yours? Either way uses the “argument from silence” which allows interpretation either way. You faith requires it to be your way when I see it differently.Quote I said: Quote Does the ability to know the future mean you have to use that ability all the time? Again, you assume. you responded:
Quote Then why would He make decisions He later regretted? then, I suppose you answer your own question:
Quote Was that the times He chose not to look ahead and see what a screw up Saul was going to be?
So when the bible God makes mistakes, to retain faith in His “perfection” we must always apply such logic to His failings.How are we to trust prophecy then? What if the prophecies were only looking so far ahead but did not take in account what would happen as the result of such prophecies coming true even a week after?
Do you not see the slippery slope you are sliding down with these excuses?
Quote Does the ability to know the future mean you have to use that ability all the time? Since you have no way to answer this, again, YOU ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and basing your “contraditions” on them!
Since you have no way to answer this, then the contradictions are every bit as real and valid as there supposedly not being a contradiction. Again, there are assumptions on both sides and the bible leaves it wide open to do so.Such is the work of a perfect God?
Quote Quote So we can further assume that God has made many bad choices since the dawn of time?
You sure do like to assume. I'm guessing this is why you get yourself into such trouble.
What trouble? I'm not into any trouble that I am aware of. Oh, unless you mean my lack of belief in the view of God presented in the bible. I can't see any trouble in that, just your imagined trouble that you suppose I'm in.Its 2008 David, time to stop looking at cave paintings and drop the superstitions.
Quote Quote No, but again, as A&E were naive, the automatic assumption by them is that eating would result in death, which we cannot say with any measure of certainty that they even knew what death was.
And nor can we say as you do that they didn't know what death was. We don't know how long they were there before these things took place. We don't know how many dead animals they encountered. We know none of it. Yet, based on all this stuff we simply don't know, YOU ASSUME as you wish, to find contradictions and fault with the Bible. I think the fault often lies with people who like to assume.
Yet aren't you also assuming as you try to fill in the obvious missing pieces that allow me to assume what I do? Thus the assumption is on both sides, and the incomplete stories allow this to occur. Again, how can such incomplete narratives be the work of a perfect God? Very imperfect primitive man, certainly.Quote I said: Quote Yes, because as we ALL KNOW, every OTHER TIME someone has done this, their eyes were opened instantly. Again, you are flawed and see what you want. your reply:
Quote Could I not say the same of you? NO, YOU CAN'T. Here's why: You came forth with all these CONTRADICTIONS, which as it turns out, are based on nothing more than blind assumptions.
You love that word, yet you fail to see that you are applying your own assumptions that fall in line with your theology. There is nothing there to answer the question so its wide open to speculation of all sorts. That is why thousands of years later, people are still debating the meaning. Why? Because the story is incomplete and full of holes.Quote In what I said above, I showed that clearly you have no idea what you're talking about when you stated that her eyes should have been opened instantly, so to speak. Because what are you basing that on? ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, but this particular assumption has nothing but wild speculation to back it up–no reference to anything similar.
So were they opened in two days? Two years? Two minutes? Two seconds?
Just read the ordering — the women ate, her eyes were not opened, the man ate, then both of their eyes were opened.Quote My point was that you don't know, and you don't, so y
ou can't in all honesty call this a fault or anything like that. All I'm saying it is definitely not a contradiction, not even close.
Did I ever say the story was full of contradictions? You are inserting this word. I said its full of faults, and room to place as much of the blame on God because so many pieces are missing. That is why it can't be the words of a perfect God because He would not leave room for such assumptions to ever be made. You so soon forget that this story was written by men in 800-700 BCE. These men did not have our modern mindset, and such stories held more power back then amongst people who thought they had the favor of some tribal deity. Today, unless you are dogmatic they really look rather silly.Quote Reading your posts, it's like I've stepped into the land of make believe, where logic no longer has any place. If you're going to say there is fault with something, at least attempt logically to show the fault, based on something other than your bias and assumptions which often have no basis in reality, since these are one time happenings.
You believe in the literal reading of the A&E story and you accuse me of living in the land of make believe
?Hi KJ,
Really,
That is very high.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:Wow, just because someone posing as Paul stated this, it must be true! In any case, does the verse say that all scripture is 100% true and infallible? No, it says it is inspired and profitable. From http://earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html
- 2 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.
If you read the rest of that link, you'll find that scholars are certain that both 1&2 Timothy are not the writings of Paul, and were written around 100-150 CE.
Quote But in return, can I not say the same about yours? Either way uses the “argument from silence” which allows interpretation either way. You faith requires it to be your way when I see it differently. KEJONN,
You were trying to prove the Bible in error or find fault with it. But in reality there is no fault, or at least, nothing that can be proven at fault based on the scriptures you've chosen.
You were saying: “It's wrong and this is why.” But your “why” is based on assumptions that have no merit. So your argument was meaningless.
I believe the Bible is the word of God. But, unlike you, I don't use these particular scriptures that are open to assumptions to prove or disprove anything.
That is the difference.
Unlike you, I was not saying: “This is the truth” and this scripture is why it is the truth.
You were doing this, saying it is in error and this scripture is why.Yet, as you now state, there is “interpretation either way.” So, why pick this scripture? Why mention it at all if it is proof of nothing?
Do you now understand what I am saying? Sure, you can say over and over again that I have done the same thing, but this is untrue. If I were saying that that particular scripture is some kind of proof that the Bible is the word of God and faultless, then …THEN you could say what you are about me. I have said no such thing. All I have said is that you can't DISPROVE anything from the scriptures you've chosen, and you can't.
Yet, you state these scriptures as some kind of proof, yet, they are open to “intpretation” either way, you say. So your proof is very weak. Really, it was not proof of anything at all.
Since it was you that started on with these scriptures, and since these scriptures prove nothing, one must wonder why you mentioned them at all?
Hi KJ,
You mean this Marcion?
Wikipedia
Marcionism is the dualist belief system that originates in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144.[1] Marcion affirmed Jesus Christ as the savior sent by God and Paul as his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and Yahweh. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. This belief was in some ways similar to Gnostic Christian theology, but in other ways quite different and unique.Marcionism was denounced by its opponents as heresy, and written against, notably by Tertullian, in a five-book treatise Adversus Marcionem, written about 208. However, the strictures against Marcionism predate the authority, claimed by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, to declare what is heretical against the Church. Marcion's writings are lost, though they were widely read and numerous manuscripts must have existed. Even so, many scholars (including Henry Wace) claim it is possible to reconstruct and deduce a large part of ancient Marcionism through what later critics, especially Tertullian, …
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_marcion.html
He seems an excellent fellow to follow
I don't say.Quote (david @ Mar. 27 2008,20:00) Quote But in return, can I not say the same about yours? Either way uses the “argument from silence” which allows interpretation either way. You faith requires it to be your way when I see it differently. KEJONN,
You were trying to prove the Bible in error or find fault with it. But in reality there is no fault, or at least, nothing that can be proven at fault based on the scriptures you've chosen.
This is where you are hitting the disconnect. I am not trying to “prove” anything because with religious faith, proof is a fleeting and unobtainable thing. I am merely showing that the bible account of creation and the fall of man is open to much skepticism because it leaves way too much unanswered. That is why I can no longer accept it as the true origin of man.Quote You were saying: “It's wrong and this is why.” But your “why” is based on assumptions that have no merit. So your argument was meaningless.
Empty words David. You are saying much but giving no real reason to hold your view as more valid than mine unless you already fall on that side of the theological fence.Quote I believe the Bible is the word of God. But, unlike you, I don't use these particular scriptures that are open to assumptions to prove or disprove anything.
You don't? Then why are you debating me?Quote That is the difference.
Unconvincing.Quote Unlike you, I was not saying: “This is the truth” and this scripture is why it is the truth.
You were doing this, saying it is in error and this scripture is why.
Yes, I see fallacies. And you've done almost nothing to address such fallacies beyond providing your own assumptions. Two humans providing assumptions don't go very far.Quote Yet, as you now state, there is “interpretation either way.” So, why pick this scripture? Why mention it at all if it is proof of nothing?
Because without the supposed “fall of man”, there is no reason for Jesus, is there? The Jesus story hinges on the this passage because Jesus is supposed to “redeem” us from “original sin”. Yet the idea of “original sin” is flawed.Quote Do you now understand what I am saying? Sure, you can say over and over again that I have done the same thing, but this is untrue.
How so? You've yet to prove this to be untrue beyond you saying so.Quote If I were saying that that particular scripture is some kind of proof that the Bible is the word of God and faultless, then …THEN you could say what you are about me. I have said no such thing. All I have said is that you can't DISPROVE anything from the scriptures you've chosen, and you can't.
See above. I'm not attempting to disprove, but I am showing that there are some glaring holes in the story. And with such holes, the whole thing is in doubt. All sorts of beliefs and theologies hinge on this story being true.Quote Yet, you state these scriptures as some kind of proof, yet, they are open to “intpretation” either way, you say. So your proof is very weak. Really, it was not proof of anything at all. Since it was you that started on with these scriptures, and since these scriptures prove nothing, one must wonder why you mentioned them at all?
See above. You did very little to strengthen your case. All you did was focus on what wasn't there. Just as I did.Hi KJ,
Marcion wrote the first canon apparently.
http://www.marcion.info/Others disagree with his choice of books.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 27 2008,20:01) Hi KJ,
You mean this Marcion?
Wikipedia
Marcionism is the dualist belief system that originates in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144.[1] Marcion affirmed Jesus Christ as the savior sent by God and Paul as his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and Yahweh. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. This belief was in some ways similar to Gnostic Christian theology, but in other ways quite different and unique.Marcionism was denounced by its opponents as heresy, and written against, notably by Tertullian, in a five-book treatise Adversus Marcionem, written about 208. However, the strictures against Marcionism predate the authority, claimed by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, to declare what is heretical against the Church. Marcion's writings are lost, though they were widely read and numerous manuscripts must have existed. Even so, many scholars (including Henry Wace) claim it is possible to reconstruct and deduce a large part of ancient Marcionism through what later critics, especially Tertullian, …
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_marcion.html
He seems an excellent fellow to follow
I don't say.
Hey, I didn't say anything positive about him, I'm just providing scholar's work.I recognize this approach however. It is an attempt to divert by attacking the character of a person. You'd make a fine campaign manager, you mudslinger you
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
