February 16, 200917 yr No Lannarebirth. It was not the agreement or disagreement that would not prove fruitful, but the nature of the discussion. It had already become disrespectful and would have deteriorated further... I didn't see that at all, but if you did, you forfeited an opportunity to put the discussion back on course. If by doing that you'd have caused the discussion to deteriorate that's down to your own debating skill and the quality of your argument.
February 16, 200917 yr Author You know what mate, I really sick of you having a go at me at every opportunity. If you have something to say about the topic that's great, otherwise please stop commenting on my personal style, I'm finding you rather irritating! The topic ran it's course.
February 16, 200917 yr You know what mate, I really sick of you having a go at me at every opportunity. If you have something to say about the topic that's great, otherwise please stop commenting on my personal style, I'm finding you rather irritating! The topic ran it's course. What are you talking about? Having a go at you at every opportunity? I think you must have me confused with someone else. edit: emoticon added for emphasis
February 16, 200917 yr You know what mate, I really sick of you having a go at me at every opportunity. If you have something to say about the topic that's great, otherwise please stop commenting on my personal style, I'm finding you rather irritating! The topic ran it's course. Anyway, I'm sorry the topic "ran its course". I think you've mentioned in the past that you have studied scripture for 30 years or something, and are a recognized scholar in that area. I really thought this thread might have been an opportuntity to learn something from your collected knowledge. Oh well, chok dee.
February 16, 200917 yr The argument goes something like this: If we are in a nondeterministic universe (free will), then even God doesn't know what will happen- therefore he's hardly the big cheese and nuts to him.Or if we are in a deterministic universe, and God knows all, sees all, can do all, then he would have known everything that would happen from the moment of creation- therefore it's all his responsibility. Or if we are in a deterministic universe and God doesn't know all, see all, or can do all, then nuts to him as in the first step. Hardcore fundamentalists tend to go into logical denial and simply refuse to engage when faced with this conundrum, or then we start hearing about the 'mystery.' Never fails. Don't get nasty mate! Just because your arguement makes no sense to me doesn't mean I disrespect your view, I just can't see it. It just sounds like a philosophy that won't get you anywhere. What IJWT is stating is not a philosophy, Suegha, it's a point of logic, or a syllogism (logical conclusion) if you will. The attributes most people assign God don't hold up to the cold light of logic, as the Epicurean riddle and other critiques of said attributes amply demonstrate. It is perfectly conceivable, logically, that if there is a supreme creator being, he/she/it could be both omnipotent and untruthful since truth is not a necessary attribute of omnipotence. The guy with the website is applying logic, albeit incompletely. To me there is very little about the Bible that is logical, at least when read literally, so I find it intriguing but ultimately nonconclusive when believers either exempt the Bible from logic, or try to make it it appear logical by circular, ie illogical, argumentation. Of course there is always the possibility that all of this is beyond human understanding and logic, in which case to each his own. That's why religion and science don't mix well, generally speaking, whether we're talking about Christianity, animism or Buddhism. It all comes down to personal interpretation in the end.
February 22, 200917 yr I hear this argument that if there is a god, it must be the God that the opponent refuses to obey, but insists on defining. Surely, the Bible probably gives lots of omni-everything attributes to God, but he may not be like Santa Claus in the Ray Stevens song ("He's everywhere!"). A god worthy of the title might restrict his own powers, presence, knowledge, etc. He might have a sense of humour. sabaijai, my point about Socrates and Caesar was not clear. Compared to almost every source of ancient literature ((Homer, Herodotus, Euclid, Socrates, Homer Simpson, et al, especially Al), no other source has half the number of ancient manuscripts that essentially agree with one another as to historical events, sayings of a founding father of logical or spiritual thought, etc. F. F. Bruce, in his book titled something like The Parchments and the Scrolls, made this argument. Yet no professor of classics would set aside the manuscripts of those writers as being worthless. Nonbelievers come in all flavours. So do believers.
February 22, 200917 yr First point taken, PB, except that 'most logical' doesn't necessarily mean the text contains any logic in terms of internal consistency or that it is 'logical' in the scientific sense. I don't get the point about the variety of believers and nonbelievers, is that somehow relevant? I make the same argument about Buddhist texts. If you're looking for a logical system, eventually the holes emerge and they can only be covered by resorting to mystical notions. To me it takes dignity away from a spiritual system when you begin subjecting it to scientific reasoning. It just doesn't wash, though every religion has its believers who try anyway, perhaps because they lack confidence in their own faith.
February 22, 200917 yr PB, the choice to limit oneself is still a choice- in other words, at one time this hypothetical Supreme Being may have been all-powerful/all-knowing but decided to give it up- OR this Being simply decided never to do things past certain limits. CHOOSING to do or not to do certain things, or to know or not to know certain things, does not make one any less responsible for the consequences of things which one HAS THE POWER to know and decide. It is simply another choice for which the chooser is responsible. Unless God is not all that much of a Supreme Being to begin with (because he never had power/knowledge/control anyway- and then why should we worry about him?), by this logic, he is still responsible for all the bad stuff- and if that bad stuff is an example of his sense of humour, I'm afraid I don't find him at all funny. So no, it just doesn't logically work to imagine a loving, good, all-powerful, all-knowing Supreme Being- too many contradictions- thus, the 'mystery.'
February 23, 200917 yr I hear this argument that if there is a god, it must be the God that the opponent refuses to obey, but insists on defining. Surely, the Bible probably gives lots of omni-everything attributes to God, but he may not be like Santa Claus in the Ray Stevens song ("He's everywhere!"). A god worthy of the title might restrict his own powers, presence, knowledge, etc. He might have a sense of humour.sabaijai, my point about Socrates and Caesar was not clear. Compared to almost every source of ancient literature ((Homer, Herodotus, Euclid, Socrates, Homer Simpson, et al, especially Al), no other source has half the number of ancient manuscripts that essentially agree with one another as to historical events, sayings of a founding father of logical or spiritual thought, etc. F. F. Bruce, in his book titled something like The Parchments and the Scrolls, made this argument. Yet no professor of classics would set aside the manuscripts of those writers as being worthless. Nonbelievers come in all flavours. So do believers. Al Bundy?
February 23, 200917 yr I love to say, "....et al, especially Al." Most folks end a list of people with etc. Never mind what Yul Brynner sang about "et cetera" in a movie about the king of Xanta. After Harry Nicolaides was deported this week, I even had to excise a quote from Anna Leonowens in my novel in order to prove it was not about Krungthep. So, I tampered with the extant manuscript in order not to commit the crime of less majesty. I am sure some scribes were tempted to mess with the manuscripts of biblical and Buddhist texts, too. Saint Jerome, in translating the bible into Vulgar Latin, knew a certain text had been added in Latin, and issued a challenge to find a Greek manuscript. Someone promptly forged such a manuscript, and Jerome included it.
February 23, 200917 yr Author Saint Jerome, in translating the bible into Vulgar Latin, knew a certain text had been added in Latin, and issued a challenge to find a Greek manuscript. Someone promptly forged such a manuscript, and Jerome included it. That was 1 John 5:7. A classic trinitarian text absent from modern translations.
February 24, 200917 yr To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication. Link
February 24, 200917 yr my Islamic neighbour , after I confessed to him I was athiest, tried to convert me to Islam. He was spouting various versers from the Koran , working himself up , he really believed his stuff. After mercifully letting him vent himself for about 10 minutes , i just told him, sorry mate, I respect you and your religion but its just not for me. He thinks I will burn in hel_l , he tried to describe hel_l to me. I don't give a crap. No use arguing with these people. Apart from his religious beliefs, he is a great guy. Now I dont even bring the topic of religion up. These nutters just want to argue if you dont agree with them. Its just not worth it.
February 25, 200917 yr The history of that phony addition to the Greek text only goes to show that liars will lie, and the truth with eventually triumph. Saint Jerome knew it was a forgery, but his challenge had tricked him into accepting it. For centuries, that addition was just too tempting as a (false) prooftext, to most rabid Trinitarians, who would not admit it is not Biblical. Scholarship finally won out. I am not an inerrantist. I believe God is perfect, but communication is not. As we say here in Thailand, my pen rots.
February 25, 200917 yr Re post by Mc2: I got the same thing in the past - once from a colleague, and once from a friend. Both were creationists and insisted the place has been around for only several thousand years (and at least one of them spoke of speaking in 'tongues'). Neither was a 'nutter' - both good people - but they were certainly fervent. It was impossible to move them from their PsOV in any respect - all inconsistencies were attributable to faults with man/inventions of man (eg carbon dating). When one's religious beliefs are so powerful as to blind one to facts that have been established to the satisfaction of human experience, the one and only good that these beliefs can carry is the comfort that they bring. Is that a sufficient basis? When one appreciates how devout/blind these people are with their faith, it is not at all difficult to understand how such types of people could be manipulated into accepting that something evil could be the will of the creator. As an extension of this, is there any reason why this power of belief conundrum should not be applied to more mainstream religions? Can it explain fanatical muslims or terrorist christians (crusades/invasions of conversion)? Murder/terrorism in the name of the creator? If a religion is good, shouldn't it be universally good? Why does the creator allow the mischief of man to go unchecked in the creator's name or will? Could it be that all religions are either imperfect or not understood perfectly, at least by some? Can anyone claim genuinely that his religion is perfect and that he understands it perfectly? If we can never achieve this, should we even try (given the dangers involved)? Would an omnipotent and omniscient creator really want us to take the risks associated with living to human perceptions of the creator's standards (given the dangers involved)? Of course, this all assumes that there is a sentient creator out there - not just good old mother nature. E: To clarify the response - PB got in before me
February 25, 200917 yr my Islamic neighbour , after I confessed to him I was athiest, tried to convert me to Islam. He was spouting various versers from the Koran , working himself up , he really believed his stuff. After mercifully letting him vent himself for about 10 minutes , i just told him, sorry mate, I respect you and your religion but its just not for me.He thinks I will burn in hel_l , he tried to describe hel_l to me. I don't give a crap. No use arguing with these people. Apart from his religious beliefs, he is a great guy. Now I dont even bring the topic of religion up. These nutters just want to argue if you dont agree with them. Its just not worth it. basically i respect all your points except the expression "these nutters".
February 25, 200917 yr To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.Link there's no such thing like the "King James Bible" apart from bedside drawers in hotels in continental/eastern Europe, Latin America, francophone Africa, Russia or the Philippines (to name a few but not all areas).
February 25, 200917 yr my Islamic neighbour , after I confessed to him I was athiest, tried to convert me to Islam. He was spouting various versers from the Koran , working himself up , he really believed his stuff. After mercifully letting him vent himself for about 10 minutes , i just told him, sorry mate, I respect you and your religion but its just not for me.He thinks I will burn in hel_l , he tried to describe hel_l to me. I don't give a crap. No use arguing with these people. Apart from his religious beliefs, he is a great guy. Now I dont even bring the topic of religion up. These nutters just want to argue if you dont agree with them. Its just not worth it. basically i respect all your points except the expression "these nutters". your right, it was wrong to use that phrase and I apologise .
February 25, 200917 yr Firstly Moss, I don't really think this should be in this thread. That said, what sort of stupidity is this? An atheist quotes the word of God to accuse Him (who he doesn't even believe in) of the devastation to the environment. Apart from the fact that it was a long time coming, it's only in the past 100 or so years that we've been wreaking the environment, these verses have a spiritual meaning lost to most readers and certainly to Atenborough. although being several weeks late i can't hold back but would like to add my two cents. -that "the words of GOD" do not belong into a thread with the subtitle "The veracity of Holy scripture" seems to be an utmost illogical statement. -"the atheist" does NOT quote the words of GOD. this is what was reported: Sir David has criticised the centuries-old idea running through the Judaeo-Christian tradition which assumes.. Sir David, 82, said the devastation of the environment has its roots in the first words that God supposedly uttered sorry Suegha but your argumentation is in my view a sorry twisting of obvious facts to suit your personal view. i also think it is extremely ignorant to believe that anybody has heard GOD uttering any words and then wrote them down. disclaimer: i strongly believe in one GOD and creator who has (according to logical thinking most probably) created our world exactly the way scientists describe with "evolution". the ways how GOD proceeded are not subjects open for discussions or to be judged by us humans! but not necessarily believe in words and hearsay, translated back and forth several times, and then fixed by some humans in stone, on cloth, papyros leaves or paper. thanks for not listening
February 25, 200917 yr To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.Link there's no such thing like the "King James Bible" apart from bedside drawers in hotels in continental/eastern Europe, Latin America, francophone Africa, Russia or the Philippines (to name a few but not all areas). What was that again?
February 25, 200917 yr To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.Link there's no such thing like the "King James Bible" apart from bedside drawers in hotels in continental/eastern Europe, Latin America, francophone Africa, Russia or the Philippines (to name a few but not all areas). What was that again? what part of "no King James Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians" do you want me to explain?
February 26, 200917 yr None, now I realise that was what you said. Do you have any statistical proof of this?
February 26, 200917 yr None, now I realise that was what you said. Do you have any statistical proof of this? Branch Number of Adherents Catholic 968,000,000 Protestant 395,867,000 Other Christians 275,583,000 Orthodox 217,948,000 Anglicans 70,530,000
February 26, 200917 yr I would assume (but may be wrong of course) that any Christian who is not a native English speaker would be referring to a Bible either in Latin, or translated into their native language.
February 26, 200917 yr God being English the true version of the Bible would naturally be in that language.
February 26, 200917 yr I would assume (but may be wrong of course) that any Christian who is not a native English speaker would be referring to a Bible either in Latin, or translated into their native language. ...and definitely not translated from any King James edition. therefore case "King James Bible in the hands of majority of Christians" closed. claimant's plea rejected, court cost to be borne by him. bailiff, what's next? Qumran? ancient biblical Hebrew? that's another easy one. who is the plaintiff and who the defendant?
Create an account or sign in to comment