Spirituality
07 Jul 10
08 Jul 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi=================================
i keep getting to jericho.
why would the israelites lie about that genocide? i wonder. you have a people walking in the desert and now wagin a war of invasion. what would be the point of saying its god's will? maybe the make the israelites fight harder? maybe to get a country?
most civilians might not be too keen on murdering every woman and child of a man" (anyone believing he was swallowed hole by a whale is ignorant or insane). and so on.
why would the israelites lie about that genocide? i wonder. you have a people walking in the desert and now wagin a war of invasion. what would be the point of saying its god's will? maybe the make the israelites fight harder? maybe to get a country?
most civilians might not be too keen on murdering every woman and child of a conquered nation. saying its gods will might convince them.
i see a lot of reasons to lie in the bible. this was obvious and evil. but sometimes the lies aren't done to justify evil deeds. the noah flood lie was done to scare people into behaving themselves. the jonah lie was done to show how doubt and fear can "swallow a man" (anyone believing he was swallowed hole by a whale is ignorant or insane). and so on.
=============================
Fish, fish. It says a fish was appointed. A particularly large fish was appointed to the task of swallowing a man.
Now that's too difficult for God ? Give me a break. Did you read the first sentence in this Bible?
"In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)
But it is too hard for God to appoint an especially large fish to swallow a man ? Come on !
Now, the Jericho problem. This Hebrew Bible, the "Old Testament" simply does not read like national propoganda.
Even the conquest of Canaan doesn't read like national propoganda. And WHY would the Jews go out of their way to report that their greatest king, David, was a wife stealing murderer who commited adultery at the height of his royal career ?
National propoganda tends to conceal the things which are sources of embaressment.
If you can imagine Bill Clinton's phallus being carved on Mt. Rushmore beside the face of Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, for generations of Americans to remember him by, then you can imagine the Jews wanting to record in thier "inspired" sacred national chronicles that King David stole a faithful soldier's wife and had him murdered to cover up his adultery.
The Old Testament is too candid be taken simply as national self affirming propoganda.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by josephwAnd you seem to be suffering from the delusion that unbelievers do not exist. ie you believe that by claiming to be an atheist I am lying and deceiving. You believe I do not believe what I say. You are incorrect. I wouldn't label your delusion a mental disorder though. Maybe wishful thinking would be a better term.
Unbelievers suffer from a mental disorder. They assume that because they lie and deceive so does everybody else.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem just like it says in the Bible. The men who wrote the books contained in the Bible weren't liars. The liars are those who say the men who wrote the books of Bible lied.
Now don't go getting all riled up because you think I called you a liar. None of us were even here when the liars said the Bible is wrong. You simply believe a lie. Quite a few of them in fact.
First you state that anyone who says the Bible contains lies is a liar, then you admit that that is not necessarily so. Yet you cant seem to conceive the possibility that someone may simply be mistaken without any intent to deceive having taken place.
You sometimes post false statements, but I don't call you a liar unless I have good reason to think you know your statements are false and posted them with intent to deceive.
08 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI did not intend to give that impression.
That is not the impression I get from your comments. I get the impression that details were made up to manipulate the reader.
There are plenty of places in the Bible where the seam can be detected between theological concepts and historical details. The line is rather clear in most places.
Quite so, and to me, the line is clear here.
Perhaps you simply pre-suppose that certain miraculous things never could happen. Yet, you would like to glean something positive from the story. So your "filter" works to explain away what you have rejected a prior.
Yes I do make that pre-supposition. And you make the pre-supposition that the whole story is true - word for word. But then I didn't know there were any miraculous parts of the story (except maybe the star in the East). I am fairly sure that the bits about King Herod, the census, having to go back to their city of origin etc do not all match up with other recorded history.
The things I am saying to you are not meant disrepectfully. They are my own experience in years of personal Bible reading.
But they do seem to be an attempt at avoiding addressing the issues and blaming it all on me instead.
I fully accept that my position is based on the presupposition that the gospels are not necessarily the inspired word of God intended to be taken as literal truth. But I have tried to make that clear throughout the thread.
And if the above supposition is not made, there is really no point discussing it is there as it then must be assumed to be true regardless of what other evidence or reasoning may be available.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by galveston75What you mean, is he has never been able to to your satisfaction (which is not saying much as you are impossible to convince). The vast majority of people however are convinced that it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt that large parts of the Bible are not factual. Not everyone automatically assumes that it is therefore all lies however.
I'm not going to try and convence you to believe anything about the Bible. It stands on it own in reguards to history, science, etc. Man has tried for centuries to disprove it in every way possible but he has never been able to.
I wouldn't even go as far as Zahlanzi and accuse the writer of the Jerico story of lying. He could well have been simply embellishing a good story as has always been traditional in most parts of the world. The fact that it was untrue and the writer knew it was untrue does not necessarily mean he deserves to be called a liar.
08 Jul 10
7 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]
I did not intend to give that impression.
[b]There are plenty of places in the Bible where the seam can be detected between theological concepts and historical details. The line is rather clear in most places.
Quite so, and to me, the line is clear here.
Perhaps you simply pre-suppose that certain miraculous things never could happen. Yet, n must be assumed to be true regardless of what other evidence or reasoning may be available.
=============================
Quite so, and to me, the line is clear here.
==============================
It is clear that the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke intend to give an accurate historical backround to the birth of Jesus. You should not disguise your blatant mistrust of them as thier intentions to be fuzzy.
"Inasmuch as many have understaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us. Even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered to us,
It seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first, to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus, So that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)
I don't think you should portray your blatant mistrust of Luke's intention as anything else but that.
==========================
Yes I do make that pre-supposition.
=============================
So did I, for awhile. I was raised in that kind of atmosphere.
==================================
And you make the pre-supposition that the whole story is true - word for word.
==================================
I do regard it as reliable. But I did not always from the first instance of picking up a New Testament take it as so. Gradually, my skepticism gave way to the realization that it all stood together or fell together. And mostly I had met Jesus and decided that His integrity was beyond reproach.
And these apostles were His servants. I gradually gained confidence that though they are human beings, God can orchestrate their service to Him reliably.
It is not that the moment I started to read the Bible I had no a prior prejudice against the difficult to believe.
==================================
But then I didn't know there were any miraculous parts of the story (except maybe the star in the East). I am fairly sure that the bits about King Herod, the census, having to go back to their city of origin etc do not all match up with other recorded history.
===================================
This sounds to me like some textural skeptic of destructive higher criticism got to you first. I doubt that you did this historical ground work study yourself.
So who then did you trust to provide you with Roman census information that contradicted the Gospel accounts ? I think you probably proactively went to skeptical sources to let them be your guiding modis operandi for critiquing the Gospels.
====================================
But they do seem to be an attempt at avoiding addressing the issues and blaming it all on me instead.
=====================================
That is interesting. It appears to me that the avoidance of the issues and the blaming someone else instead, is coming from you.
When I encounter many people who do not let the Bible speak to their need for God and God's salvation, I encounter many many distractions to that matter and side issues.
Or am I incorrect that you are a self confessed atheist who would regard God as and God's salvation as a figment of someone's imagination a prior ?
As I asked, why is the default position concerning the details of the birth of God's Son met with expectation of deception and guile on the Gospel writer's part.
You said that was not your expectation. However, I still think it is, yet dressed up in a posture of objectivity.
=====================================
I fully accept that my position is based on the presupposition that the gospels are not necessarily the inspired word of God intended to be taken as literal truth. But I have tried to make that clear throughout the thread.
======================================
If you are talking about "intentions" it would be difficult to convince me that, for example, right or wrong, Luke INTENDS to, as he wrote:
1.) draw up a "narrative"
2.) his narrative is just one of "many" in existence at the time
3.) a narratice of matters previously reported by "eyewitnesses"
4.) report on what he has "carefully investigated"
5.) arrange his results in an "orderly fashion"
6.) underscore the "certainty" of what his reader has been told
7.) confirm the matters in which he has been "instructed"
Luke was a investagative reporter. The things were unusual - concerning the Son of God being born on the earth. And they merited careful investigation. His investigation involved "eyewitnesses".
Now, you do have every right to respond "Luke, you're lying to me!". But it should be clear that his intentions are not to present a fuzzy quasi philosophical / theological existential guesswork on metaphysical themes. Rather it is to give investigative confirmation to some "good news" about historical facts having taken place in Judea:
==================================
And if the above supposition is not made, there is really no point discussing it is there as it then must be assumed to be true regardless of what other evidence or reasoning may be available.
==============================
You have to put your trust in someone. Neither one of us was there to be eyewitnesses.
I am pretty sure that you proactively sought contradiction to the Gospel in skeptical sources. The bit about the Roman census information being inaccurate sounds like vintage skepticism designed to furnish not objectivity but denial of the Gospel message.
I think you proactively put your trust in that person. I don't think you had all this Roman history in you back pocket and suddenly noticed that Matthew and Luke didn't line up with what you already knew.
In other words, you were "evangelized" yourself by skeptical unbelievers, aggressively.
Isn't it so that being turned off by the idea of God to begin with, you became easy spoil to the aggressive intellectual recruitment into the camp of skeptics proclaiming there IS no "word of God" ?
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillI fully admit that I am no Bible scholar and that I have done no study on this matter. It is mostly vaguely remembered conversations from my childhood in an Anglican family.
This sounds to me like some textural skeptic of destructive higher criticism got to you first. I doubt that you did this historical ground work study yourself.
I note though that you don't actually dispute my points at all. You seem to admit that unless the story is taken as absolute truth because of your faith, my reasoning is sound and probably the best explanation.
You have to put your trust in someone.
No, actually you don't.
It is far more rational to listen to everyone and make your own judgement. Putting your trust in a given source is not the best route to the truth.
I am pretty sure that you proactively sought contradiction to the Gospel in skeptical sources. The bit about the Roman census information being inaccurate sounds like vintage skepticism designed to furnish not objectivity but denial of the Gospel message.
I haven't done any research on the subject and don't remember the source of that tidbit. Perhaps you could provide some sources that contradict me? I would be interested. Do you have any respectable source regarding independent comment on roman census'?
Isn't it so that being turned off by the idea of God to begin with, you became easy spoil to the aggressive intellectual recruitment into the camp of skeptics proclaiming there IS no "word of God" ?
As I said, I learnt most of this as a child in a Christian family, so you are barking up the wrong tree.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhitehead======================================
I fully admit that I am no Bible scholar and that I have done no study on this matter. It is mostly vaguely remembered conversations from my childhood in an Anglican family.
I note though that you don't actually dispute my points at all. You seem to admit that unless the story is taken as absolute truth because of your faith, my reasoning is sound and ...[text shortened]... rnt most of this as a child in a Christian family, so you are barking up the wrong tree.
No, actually you don't.
It is far more rational to listen to everyone and make your own judgement. Putting your trust in a given source is not the best route to the truth.
=============================
You may muse as long as you wish. You may weigh and compare and consider.
Eventually you will put your trust in one source of your thoughts or another.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziwell lets see, proper knob (no matter how wrong he is about the existance of god) uses proper debating techniques. he presents arguments, counterarguments, supports his claims. adjusts to what his opponents argues, reacts to them with new arguments. considers their points and if he is convinced by them, acknowledges them.
well lets see, proper knob (no matter how wrong he is about the existance of god) uses proper debating techniques. he presents arguments, counterarguments, supports his claims. adjusts to what his opponents argues, reacts to them with new arguments. considers their points and if he is convinced by them, acknowledges them.
you just yell the writers of t ...[text shortened]... better in their view(and your god's) than anyone else. i think i prefer the said moronic child
Why, thank you very much.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillNo, I won't. I just give them each some credit - or not. I don't 'put my trust' in them. I don't take their word as 'gospel truth'.
You may muse as long as you wish. You may weigh and compare and consider.
Eventually you will put your trust in one source of your thoughts or another.
08 Jul 10
5 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead=================================
I fully admit that I am no Bible scholar and that I have done no study on this matter. It is mostly vaguely remembered conversations from my childhood in an Anglican family.
I note though that you don't actually dispute my points at all. You seem to admit that unless the story is taken as absolute truth because of your faith, my reasoning is sound and rnt most of this as a child in a Christian family, so you are barking up the wrong tree.
I haven't done any research on the subject and don't remember the source of that tidbit. Perhaps you could provide some sources that contradict me? I would be interested. Do you have any respectable source regarding independent comment on roman census'?
===================================
Yes, I could go do some research on the Bethlehem and census complaint. I think with you, it would lead to an endless exercise of wack-a-mole.
"Well, I have this other problem over here. And I have this other problem over here. And I still have this other issue over here and this additional doubt over here."
And we go full circle until we come back around practically to the same place. The underlying issue of your innate mistrust of the Bible I am not likely to help. Off and on we have conversed now for how many years ? Perhaps two or three ?
Basically, you're governed by atheist philosophy. Any explanation besides communication of God to man is perferable.
For my own edification, as I have time, I might look up the Bethlehem complaint as, I often look up objections, to see what others have said about them.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhitehead================================
No, I won't. I just give them each some credit - or not. I don't 'put my trust' in them. I don't take their word as 'gospel truth'.
No, I won't. I just give them each some credit - or not. I don't 'put my trust' in them. I don't take their word as 'gospel truth'.
=================================
That is pretty much what I mean. I don't mean you will accept all your beliefs from one person necessarily. But you will eventually trust this and that person to inform your beliefs.
Whose in your arena of "trustees"? Some Charles Darwin, some Richard Dawkins perhaps, some Carl Sagan perhaps, maybe some Chris Hitchens, some Bertrand Russell maybe, maybe some Ayn Rand ... an array of men and women whose outlook on life is similar to what your's is. "No need for any gods".
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillWell of course it wouldn't make me a believer, but then you didn't join the thread with that in mind did you?
I think with you, it would lead to an endless exercise of wack-a-mole.
It might clear up some misconceptions I have (if that is what they are), or it might not - you never know.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by josephwwhy does it have to be black and white? why must the bible be 100% true? if there is one single lie in the bible does that mean jesus message is a lie as well? if you priest asks you to lead a holy life and be nice to your peers and then you see him drink a beer does it mean you should disregard the rest of his words?
[b]sure, the article doesn't say what it means about trusting the bible. is trusting the message of the bible or trusting that 100% of it is true.
Maybe God is only 99% honest! 🙄
You don't get it. If God has communicated His will, then why would it be so difficult to know the truth.
It's not! Not for the one who has trusted Christ as his savio ...[text shortened]... unbeliever. "The men who wrote that were lying".
Unbelievers have a mental disorder.[/b]
also you keep going on and on as how i reject god's word. i don't. you just think that the bible is 100% his word. i don't. i don't reject god i just reject the murderous barbarians that wrote the jericho story or the stoning of little girls.
08 Jul 10
My first hit when googling the subject got me here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm
It seems to agree with some of my points about the census - and the fact that some of the points in the story do not match historical records by others.
Of course I don't know the source of this material (though it has a few references).
Do you have any material that contradicts it? Ideally I would like to see something by someone who does not have prior interest in proving the Biblical story true.
08 Jul 10
Originally posted by galveston75again with the "if you reject 1 thing from the bible you reject it all".
I'm not going to try and convence you to believe anything about the Bible. It stands on it own in reguards to history, science, etc. Man has tried for centuries to disprove it in every way possible but he has never been able to.
So many, unlike yourself, are interested in God and a relationship with him, what the future is for us all, and many other wo ...[text shortened]... o worship him or to even acknowlege he exist.
But many in the past have felt that way too....
don't you see you are being illogical? jesus himself changed the laws. stoning sinners was such an established custom. jesus told them that he without sin should cast the first stone.
why didn't anyone else before him questioned whether it right to kill someone for even the smallest of mistakes? maybe because the bible is full of accounts of a vengeful god punishing an entire nation for the mistake of one man. now how come jesus changed that law into something more forgiving? could it be because god changed his mind? or the more logical aproach: god wasn't a monster to begin with. that the humans were monsters and god didn't actually tell them to slaughter and maim.