Agent Monkeysee on 29/1/2004 at 20:15
Quote:
Originally posted by rossmac16 Oh, and I'm disappointed no one's brought up Anselm's ontological argument.
I expected better from TTLG.
We're not arguing about the existence of God or not, we're arguing about the text of the Bible. The Ontological Argument isn't relevant.
fett on 29/1/2004 at 20:20
I'm not playing the peanut gallery - justify your intellectual arrogance however you want, but you still prove the exact point I'm trying to make, which is why it's useless to have this conversation with people who approach the whole issue already knowing all there is to know. Whatever. I'm not surprised or upset, just disappointed at the predictability of the whole thing. The condensention, the arrogance, the undermining of my 'pretending to know things about the Bible,' the ever subtle intimation that I feel I'm being attacked and am looking for pity, picking hairs out of your butt to escape real issue, etc. I could write a book on it. I used to do it to people - it was a swell way to get out of a sticky arguement I couldn't win. It still baffles me.
GBM - yeah, I think he was either a fruitcake, or possibly actually who he said he was. If he in fact used the words the writers say he did, there's no way around the guy thinking he was actually God. That's exactly where the problem comes in for Christianity - it's a pretty radical idea that's much more difficult to accept than most religious or spiritual concepts. I think if more people really understood this, there would be far fewer Christians, and much more hostility toward the institution itself.
Uncia on 29/1/2004 at 20:21
Harry Potter will make one hell of a religion in 2000 years.
Rug Burn Junky on 29/1/2004 at 20:33
Ya know, I've found that the only people who feel that the word "arrogant" is an insult are insecure pantywaists.
If it helps you get to sleep at night, please feel free to comfort yourself with the thought that I, and others, are just dismissing you because we're being intellectually dishonest and avoiding real issues that we can't win against your superior intellect.
I am fairly comfortable with the fact, however, that really, you're just babbling, since I've watched you do it for three pages on this thread.
the_grip on 29/1/2004 at 20:41
Jenesis, i think i probably made the blunder... i probably just read it wrong. i'm with ya.
Quote:
I'm amazed that we're not cutting each other's throats out
Heh, i was just thinking, "Yet..." when i hit the refresh button. That didn't take too long (unfortunately).
Quote:
the only thing each reference verifies is the particular historical event and doesn't confer validity to other elements of the book
Agreed. Granted, there are some Christians who try to use the whole concept of authenticty to brow-beat people into believing, but that's so way off target that it shouldn't even be mentioned. It's faith that saves, not historical facts, and that faith comes from God, not man.
Quote:
We scoff at the loopy bullshit that people pull out of it, like "God'll tell you that it's all true, and then you'll just know."
You and the other members of "we" are definitely entitled to your opinion. i don't call it bullshit... i truly believe that man believes in the Bible because God works faith in his/her heart.
Quote:
the credibility of the work as a whole MUST be questioned and it should be treated as legend
i don't think anyone is going to try to say that we can historical prove that God appeared as a pillar of fire in the desert during the Exodus as is recorded. That's where the faith comes in. However, that does not change the non-spiritual historical accounts, and my schtick here is that this is used to try and
discredit the Bible more often than not. The whole Old Testament is basically the story of the nation of Israel and its history. Of course, the focus is on God, but it is how God acted during certain historical events, what he said, how he showed grace/mercy or discipline/judgement, etc. It is those historical events that are questioned to try to invalidate the Bible, and that's where it gets downright silly. Say hell no to the faith aspects, but fett is right, archeology is making a mockery of the anti-historical arguments (i.e. research the city of Jericho).
Quote:
you can't ever prove everything.
Couldn't agree more, but that doesn't give the grounds to just throw up your hands in the air and quit.
Quote:
where did God ever say in the Bible that getting angry was necessarily bad?
He doesn't. There is such a thing as righteous anger, it's just that none of us are righteous. Have you ever felt anger without some form of hatred in your heart?
Quote:
I find it strange that he struck down whoever that chick was because she didn't want to become the mother of Jesus.
Not sure where you're getting that story from... never heard of it.
Quote:
One of the proper reactions for any reasonably intelligent person when faced with inane chatter is smirking bemusement, and trust me when I tell you that my facial expressions right now reflect that in full force.
:erm:
RBJ, call yourself non-hostile as much as you like, but there is a reason that most arguements you get in result in people pointing out your hostility.
Quote:
I, and others, are just dismissing you
If you're dismissing it, then why do you feel the need to troll on in?
Quote:
Serious historical and archeological scholars did not merely dismiss it as pure fiction, they rightfully questioned its veracity.
That's the whole point this thread has taken... why is the Bible's historical account "rightfully" questioned when archeology bears so much of it out as true?
Quote:
think if more people really understood this, there would be far fewer Christians, and much more hostility toward the institution itself.
Definitely. Tons of horrible stuff has been done in the name of Christ. To make matters worse, the definition of Christian to society these days is someone who's generally pretty nice (or at least is not mean) and who maybe goes to church every now and then. The truth is "going to church" has nothing to do with being a Christian, nor does being nice. Those both flow out from it, but do not consitute the core of it.
fett on 29/1/2004 at 20:55
Quote:
"They have a cave troll..."
Remember how it bashed everyone in sight, then was confused that they shot it through the throat?
I need to brush up on my name-calling technique. Pantywaist! Wow! Are you 12?
My superior intellect has been saying all along, "In my opinion," "In my experience," and "I'm still looking into these things."
Done.
ANYWAY:
grip is right - faith is an entirely different issue and I expect people to think it's crazy because it absolutely is. My issue is with historians and those who make sweeping statements about contradictions and myths when they don't know what they're talking about. It's embarassing when grown-ups regurgitate something they learned in 10th grade humanities class and haven't thought about it any further. Then they get jobs at universities. Bah!
Rug Burn Junky on 29/1/2004 at 21:00
Quote:
Originally posted by the_grip :erm:
RBJ, call yourself non-hostile as much as you like, but there is a reason that most arguements you get in result in people pointing out your hostility.
Maybe I'm just a poor misunderstood soul who's being persecuted?
Or maybe, just maybe, because some of you take this shit far too seriously. See my post above.
Quote:
If you're dismissing it, then why do you feel the need to troll on in?
Because being silent in the face of ridiculous arguments ain't noble. It lets pious, sanctimonious pricks think that they've actually made a point, when they should be disabused of that notion as quickly as possible. Other people have displayed just as much sneering at the christian dickwaving in this thread, I've at least done you the favor of being pretty straightforward about it.
Trust me, it's for your own good.
Quote:
That's the whole point this thread has taken... why is the Bible's historical account "rightfully" questioned when archeology bears so much of it out as true?
That's really what it boils down to.... because the historical account of EVERYTHING is questioned until it can be verified in some sense. Some of us like our proof, you know, to make sense. Until you understand that, you're really missing the boat on science.
Archeology ain't a matter of faith.
And besides, the veracity of bible with respect to certain historical facts is so utterly irrelevant it's mindblowing that you think you've said anything worthwhile. It's a meaningless point that you've brought up. I mean hell, Mein Kampf accurately described a few facts about Germany in the '20's, does that mean we should all slap on swastikas and goosestep down to Washington?*
*w00t! I got the first Godwin Moment!
the_grip on 29/1/2004 at 21:13
Quote:
I've at least done you the favor of being pretty straightforward about it.
If by straightforward you mean rude, then i would prefer the less straightforward approach. i think everyone's being straightforward here, you and me included, and the thread didn't get any nasties until you showed up. Is there a trend here? Or is it that some people just can't stand the fact that there are Christians in the world, and thus they feel that the Christians need a good thrashing?
Quote:
Archeology ain't a matter of faith.
Forgive me if i'm wrong, but aren't we saying the same thing here?
Quote:
the historical account of EVERYTHING is questioned until it can be verified in some sense
i haven't disputed that in the least. What i'm saying is to dismiss verifiable truths (read: NON-SPIRITUAL EVENTS) is an error.
Quote:
And besides, the veracity of bible with respect to certain historical facts is so utterly irrelevant it's mindblowing that you think you've said anything worthwhile. It's a meaningless point that you've brought up. I mean hell, Mein Kampf accurately described a few facts about Germany in the '20's, does that mean we should all slap on swastikas and goosestep down to Washington?*
You either are just trying to argue for the hell of it, or i think you've missed the point entirely. For example (as has been mentioned), scholars refuse to use the Bible as a historical document because it threatens them. Historians and archeologists have made important discoveries that the Bible already made reference to... however, they refused to even consider the historical accuracies until some other source pointed it out. How is that progress?
Quote:
Some of us like our proof, you know, to make sense.
Exactly my point.
fett on 29/1/2004 at 21:15
Wow RBJ - you really are noble. Even if you say so yourself. I didn't see it before. I will try to be more like you. Especially as it applies to being sanctimonious.
We're trying to have a conversation - bug off.
*Zaccheus* on 29/1/2004 at 21:15
Quote:
Originally posted by Rug Burn Junky When one starts talking about the entire world being underwater, talking snakes, virgins having kids, people walking on water, replicating fish like you're on freaking Star Trek, communicating with bushes and entire seas splitting in half just so a few people wouldn't have to swim, then yes, the credibility of the work as a whole MUST be questioned and it should be treated as legend, until one can independently verify each and every claim made.
Try going back in time a few hundred year and explain your every day life. They'd think you mad! Things which are radically outside our everyday experience will always seem insane, until you start experiencing those kinds of things yourself, and meet folks who have done the same.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jenesis Jesus can't be talking about the cross here, because He hasn't mentioned it yet.
You are correct, of course, but I believe he was getting them to understand the need for the cross. What Jesus is saying is that we need to be *this* good to satisfy God.
The way I see it is this: On the one hand it is a guide to how we should live, on the other hand it demonstrates that we are in need of salvation.
Consider also John 3:16; where Jesus talks about 'giving his life' quiet early on.
Quote:
If he in fact used the words the writers say he did, there's no way around the guy thinking he was actually God. That's exactly where the problem comes in for Christianity - it's a pretty radical idea that's much more difficult to accept than most religious or spiritual concepts. I think if more people really understood this, there would be far fewer Christians, and much more hostility toward the institution itself.
I completely agree.
BTW, there are jewish rabbies who have accepted Jesus as the messiah simply because of their studies of the Old Testament.
