jay pettitt on 29/1/2004 at 22:55
Absolutely no problem here with the bible being used as a historical reference. Its a vaslty significant book that has its origins spread over thousands (?) of years. I can see no reason why somebody would want to ignore it, regardless of beliefs. Heck, its made enough history all by itself. I'd be a bit worried if it was one's only historical reference though....
fett on 29/1/2004 at 22:57
John D. - some of that McDowell info is outdated and/or unverified. Most of it's ok - but he's not always as honest as one would hope.
There's also some great books by Randall Price dealing with Biblical archaeology that are very well-balanced. Randall also worked on the Quamran finds and shares many of my frustrations about the bible's seeming irrelevance to modern archaeology.
Oh sorry - I forgot, that's all in my head...
*Zaccheus* on 29/1/2004 at 23:02
Yes, McDowell's book is good as a first introduction, but it's quite old now.
Gingerbread Man on 29/1/2004 at 23:03
Quote:
Originally posted by *Zaccheus* That's very funny GBM, but you are now talking about friends of mine and their problems. Way to be sensitive.
I wasn't making a joke, Godboy. That's a deadly serious question backed up by a row of smiling teeth.
Why is it that a schizophrenic who claims God has told him to do something unusual like give away all his possessions get a straitjacket and a veinful of SSRI, while a devout Christian gets put on the short list for sainthood?
If it's because science has labelled the schizophrenic as a delusional psychotic, then you lose points for believing science over faith. If it's because of skepticism or jealousy, you lose points for hypocrisy. If it's because God doesn't talk to anyone in a blatant obvious "This is God speaking. Can I have a word with you?" way, and only the delusional think he does, then you either have to accept the possibility that the madman is not as articulate in his descriptions of the way he believes God is trying to get him to do something as hundreds of years of cross-translating and refining scholars have been or you have to start drawing straitjackets on all your iconography.
* Überdonkey * on 29/1/2004 at 23:05
Quote:
What if God really is telling people to kill? Telling them to deface public property? Telling them that a gigantic pair of scissors is coming to cut the string that holds the sky up?
I don't see how that's any more insane than God telling people to go on pilgrimages or give up their worldly possessions in favour of a life of austere devotion. Maybe being insane means hearing voices in your head that tell you to do things which fall outside the boundaries of normalcy, acceptability and social functionality? In this case, of course.
/edit: just saw the above post..
Well if God told you something, and then a "madman" tells you God told him something else, it would be reasonable to discount his opinion, as you don't need to take the opinions of madmen into account.
If God didn't tell you anything, and a madman told you God told him something which is contradictory to any "reasonable" reading of the Bible or whatever, you could still discount his opinion, because madmen can be expected to hear voices, and these voices can be discounted, as they are "madmen voices".
If a madman tells you something reasonable which he says God told him, you can believe what you wish, as the madness and the "God-speak game" become indistuingishable.
Would you agree?
Eshaktaar on 29/1/2004 at 23:25
Only slightly OT: Has anybody seen the British 2-part TV series The Second Coming (here's a (
http://www.totaltelly.co.uk/dvd_secondcoming.html.php) link)?
It's about a normal bloke who one day claims to be God's son. After pulling off some miracle to get the attention, he announces to the world that the Old and New Testament are outdated and that a new, Third Testament needs to be written within five days, otherwise it's Judgement Day. The film is very thought-provoking, especially the ending.
theBlackman on 29/1/2004 at 23:32
Quote:
Originally posted by * Überdonkey * Well if God told you something, and then a "madman" tells you God told him something else, it would be reasonable to discount his opinion, as you don't need to take the opinions of madmen into account.
Would you agree?
No!. The given outlook is that "GOD" doesn't talk to people. If you say "GOD" talks to you, then you are labeled a "Madman".
Who's to say "who" the madman is. Jesus said God spoke to, and through him. If such a claim was made today, no matter how legitimate, the speaker would be labeled "mad".
A "madman" is anyone who falls outside of what "society" considers "normal, average" behavior. This, of course, excludes those rare Geniuses and other phenomanally gifted persons. Eccentricity is permitted. Having a conversation, or receiving direct communication with GOD in real time is not.
Psychiatric BS aside, only the "madman" and GOD know who's correct.
jay pettitt on 29/1/2004 at 23:34
I only saw the bit with the big 'are you responsible enough to play god' speach at a neighbours house (we dont have a telly.) Was it Christopher Eccleston? - That was powerfull drama.
Eddit - oh yes, checked your link - it was CE. He made a first rate jude the obscure aswell.
*Zaccheus* on 29/1/2004 at 23:37
Quote:
Originally posted by Gingerbread Man I wasn't making a joke, Godboy. That's a deadly serious question backed up by a row of smiling teeth.
Why is it that a schizophrenic who claims God has told him to do something unusual like give away all his possessions get a straitjacket and a veinful of SSRI, while a devout Christian gets put on the short list for sainthood?
Ok, fair enough.
Time for concrete examples then:
(a) My mate has no idea I'm worried about a specific issue (call it XYZ). No one knows, cause I have not told anyone. When we pray together, he gets this really strong feeling that I am worrying about XYZ and prays out loud that I would not be concerned about it. Out of all the stuff he could pray, he prays that.
(b) My mate goes to the bank because he believes God has told him that a cheque will materialise in his hand. He goes to the bank - no cheque.
These are both examples of stuff that has really happened.
In the circumstances, I'd consider that (a) came from God, and (b) did not.
BTW, most christians I know experience God talking to them (or 'communicating with them' if you like) like this: You suddenly know something you did not know before and you know that it came from God. But hearing an actual voice is entirely biblical ( Samuel 3:1-14; ).
Eshaktaar, I'd point you at Matthew 24:24-27; and Galtians 1:8; ... which basicly say that there will be imposters who claim to be the 'returned' jesus and who will do miracles in order to deceive people, but that even if an angel from heaven should declare a 'new gospel', we should not follow it but stick to what Jesus taught.
Stitch666 on 29/1/2004 at 23:53
Quote:
Originally posted by *Zaccheus* In the circumstances, I'd consider that (a) came from God, and (b) did not.
Make sure you have a chaperone anytime you navigate the real world or you will be robbed fucking blind.
Also, you kept true to form and didn't answer GBM's question.
