| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2013 03:27:45 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But time and time again, there are those of us who simply ask for you believers to acknowledge that all of what's offered up in the bible as not word for word truth and the word of God. And various sects within your ranks don't even agree. |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
That is a bit of a tall order Jeb. We all find our place in the world and think and act based on our beliefs. It is fair to ask someone to defend those beliefs, but to ask them to reconcile variations of that faith that differ from their own is an impossible task. If they were reconcilable, they would not be a different sect. |
I didn't state that clearly enough......
It makes it more difficult for me as an outsider to understand Christianity when Christians don't have enough of the same beliefs in common to all be one group.....Christians.
Just as a f'rinstance.......if I'm not a Christian at all, how do I tell which Christians have the most truth?
You want me to follow your lord and master? So do those guys over there......who's right? You're going to tell me you are, they're going to tell me they are........I'm going to see two groups of Christians who don't agree, and pretty much get the idea that maybe they don't have any more clue than I.......but I *know* I don't have a clue what happens after I die.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:34:20 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
If you believe the bible is "divinely inspired" then you should believe everything in it is "true" and should be taken literally. |
I think that's a false dichotomy. I can believe that the bible is inspired, but when the author of Song of Songs declares that his lover's breasts are like two fawns, I don't think she literally has two baby deer spouting from her chest... |
That's a simile, a form of speech, entirely different than say, the story of Noah, which some take literally. Is the story of Noah to be taken literally? If no, what else is not to be taken literally and who decides? |
If we're willing to accept simile in the Bible, why not allegory? That's a figure of speech too... |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:45:17 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
If you believe the bible is "divinely inspired" then you should believe everything in it is "true" and should be taken literally. |
I think that's a false dichotomy. I can believe that the bible is inspired, but when the author of Song of Songs declares that his lover's breasts are like two fawns, I don't think she literally has two baby deer spouting from her chest... |
That's a simile, a form of speech, entirely different than say, the story of Noah, which some take literally. Is the story of Noah to be taken literally? If no, what else is not to be taken literally and who decides? |
If we're willing to accept simile in the Bible, why not allegory? That's a figure of speech too... |
That's kind of the point we've been arguing, though the believers don't hear that. It's a good book, with lots of good ideas and decent ways to be. The only reason we ask tough questions is because believers say things to us that's just not right. A friend of mine steadfastly remains firm in his belief that the world is no more that 6000-7000 years old, and that there is no way that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago.
I'm pretty sure Louis & Mary Leakey would raise an eyebrow at that idea, too.
Just don't try to convince us that these stories are the absolute, incontrovertible word of God.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 03:50:14 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
If you believe the bible is "divinely inspired" then you should believe everything in it is "true" and should be taken literally. |
I think that's a false dichotomy. I can believe that the bible is inspired, but when the author of Song of Songs declares that his lover's breasts are like two fawns, I don't think she literally has two baby deer spouting from her chest... |
That's a simile, a form of speech, entirely different than say, the story of Noah, which some take literally. Is the story of Noah to be taken literally? If no, what else is not to be taken literally and who decides? |
Those are good questions. But let me ask you this, (and it might get a gasp from some of my Christian friends), "who cares?" Does my Christian life and beliefs really change based on whether I believe in a global flood or a local flood or no flood at all? Does the message of deliverance and redemption change? Has the inspired message of God been snuffed out? Nobody will miss out on heaven because they didn't believe in a literal Noah's Ark (or vice versa). Nobody ever eulogized someone's life with, "he lived a very good life, except for his lack of belief in the ark which makes it all for naught."
So, for me, all of those stories are on one side of a line. A side that doesn't matter. The only story I need to believe as literal truth is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because, as Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, what we preach doesn̢۪t mean anything. Your faith doesn̢۪t mean anything either." |
Exactly!, You have "chosen" which parts of the bible you want to take literally. It is "faith" alone! Why is there ever any need for debate? You cannot debate blind faith. If we use our rational "god-given" logic, we would have to come to the conclusion that the bible, old and new testament, are all wonderful inspirational stories/histories/poems/etc and are worthy of study and discussion. If you believe in the new testament, I don't really believe you can reject the old testament, as it is there, in the old testament, that the prophesies were made about a "messiah". If there were no prophesies in the old testament to be fulfilled, there would be no new testament.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:03:03 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
If you believe the bible is "divinely inspired" then you should believe everything in it is "true" and should be taken literally. |
I think that's a false dichotomy. I can believe that the bible is inspired, but when the author of Song of Songs declares that his lover's breasts are like two fawns, I don't think she literally has two baby deer spouting from her chest... |
That's a simile, a form of speech, entirely different than say, the story of Noah, which some take literally. Is the story of Noah to be taken literally? If no, what else is not to be taken literally and who decides? |
If we're willing to accept simile in the Bible, why not allegory? That's a figure of speech too... |
I think the story of Noah is an allegory, but do the literalistic believers? :-) Which stories in the bible are allegorical and which are to be taken literally and who gets to decide? Those are my questions. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:10:04 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
If you believe the bible is "divinely inspired" then you should believe everything in it is "true" and should be taken literally. |
I think that's a false dichotomy. I can believe that the bible is inspired, but when the author of Song of Songs declares that his lover's breasts are like two fawns, I don't think she literally has two baby deer spouting from her chest... |
That's a simile, a form of speech, entirely different than say, the story of Noah, which some take literally. Is the story of Noah to be taken literally? If no, what else is not to be taken literally and who decides? |
If we're willing to accept simile in the Bible, why not allegory? That's a figure of speech too... |
I think the story of Noah is an allegory, but do the literalistic believers? :-) Which stories in the bible are allegorical and which are to be taken literally and who gets to decide? Those are my questions. |
i don't really care so long as it isn't being used to stifle scientific learning or dictate policy. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:16:50 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I seem to remember that some versions of the Bible (how can the "divinely inspired literal word of God" have "versions" anyway?) list one of the Commandments as "Thou shalt not murder" and others as "Thou shalt not kill." Until someone finds those stone tablets we'll never know which is "true." |
I'm pretty sure neither "murder" nor "kill" were used as it was in Hebrew. If you show me that the Hebrew words differ, then maybe we're onto something. |
I believe the languages of the Bible are Aramaic and Greek, not Hebrew ... and you still don't know what was on the tablets. |
Paul. The whole old testament was written in Hebrew. The specific word you are looking for, BTW, is "ratsach" (transliterated) and is both found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:19:03 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I think the story of Noah is an allegory, but do the literalistic believers? :-) Which stories in the bible are allegorical and which are to be taken literally and who gets to decide? Those are my questions. |
I think those are fine questions and I know lots of people who love to argue and argue and argue, but I've stopped because, short of the resurrection, I don't care. The message is the same and so I've stopped sweating it.
Do you believe that light is literally a particle or literally a wave or literally both? Does it keep you from letting your lamp allow you to read? |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:37:25 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I think the story of Noah is an allegory, but do the literalistic believers? :-) Which stories in the bible are allegorical and which are to be taken literally and who gets to decide? Those are my questions. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think those are fine questions and I know lots of people who love to argue and argue and argue, but I've stopped because, short of the resurrection, I don't care. The message is the same and so I've stopped sweating it. |
Doesn't that get you into hot water with some of your brethren? Or is that a statement you would keep to yourself?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you believe that light is literally a particle or literally a wave or literally both? Does it keep you from letting your lamp allow you to read? |
Really bad analogy since you can scientifically analyze what electricity is and how it works.
No proof whatsoever of Noah.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:38:14 PM · #110 |
The point is that Jesus didn't speak English(unless you are Mormon), the bible needed to be translated, and subjectively at times, perhaps for emphasis.
Too bad they didn't have google translate- much of the "true message" may have been lost, but bias may have dissipated as well.
If you have a second, check out this cool translation exercise. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:46:57 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you believe that light is literally a particle or literally a wave or literally both? Does it keep you from letting your lamp allow you to read? |
Really bad analogy since you can scientifically analyze what electricity is and how it works.
No proof whatsoever of Noah. |
I think it's a good analogy because even though we can do that, you have no true understanding of what those experiments and the mathematics mean (no offense, but neither do I). You take it, in a manner, on faith. Plus, to add to the fun, the latest study I saw appeared to prove that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time which is deliciously paradoxical, but there it is. For those who love science, physics is a good bridge to spiritual things because some of it requires a bit of "faith" (used in quotes because I mean something analagous but not equal to spiritual faith). |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:49:11 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Doesn't that get you into hot water with some of your brethren? Or is that a statement you would keep to yourself? |
I was forthright in my explanation of things when talking about evolution, for example, and I was still voted in as an elder of my church (ie. on the board of directors). I think people are a bit more accomodating than often portrayed in our little world of DPC Rant. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:50:28 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For those who love science, physics is a good bridge to spiritual things because some of it requires a bit of "faith" (used in quotes because I mean something analagous but not equal to spiritual faith). |
What are you talking about? I don't require any faith to believe in physics. Aside from mathematics, it's about as pure as they come. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:50:34 PM · #114 |
awesome.
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 16:50:57. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:52:12 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
The point is that Jesus didn't speak English(unless you are Mormon), the bible needed to be translated, and subjectively at times, perhaps for emphasis.
Too bad they didn't have google translate- much of the "true message" may have been lost, but bias may have dissipated as well.
If you have a second, check out this cool translation exercise. |
True. But that's a whole different kettle of fish and a problem that many churches are well aware of. Our own church, for example, when listing "what we believe" will make the distinction and say, "That the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, were verbally inspired by God, inerrant in the original writings, and that they are supreme and final in authority, faith, and life." You can see your point is not missed on them. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:54:04 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Plus, to add to the fun, the latest study I saw appeared to prove that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time which is deliciously paradoxical, but there it is. |
It's the wave-particle duality. All it requires is a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:55:52 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was forthright in my explanation of things when talking about evolution, for example, ... I think people are a bit more accomodating than often portrayed in our little world of DPC Rant. |
So, what is your response when some "true believer" insists that the Earth (and all the Universe and dinosaur fossils) was created a literal 6000 years (as we know them) ago? |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:58:11 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was forthright in my explanation of things when talking about evolution, for example, ... I think people are a bit more accomodating than often portrayed in our little world of DPC Rant. |
So, what is your response when some "true believer" insists that the Earth (and all the Universe and dinosaur fossils) was created a literal 6000 years (as we know them) ago? |
the correct answer would be that's how long man has been around, there is no written account before then, so whatever happened before man learned to write is theory.
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 16:59:19. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:59:05 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Our own church, for example, when listing "what we believe" will make the distinction and say, "That the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, were verbally inspired by God, inerrant in the original writings, and that they are supreme and final in authority, faith, and life." You can see your point is not missed on them. |
You seem to omit the explicit disclaimer "Our version, however, have almost certainly been altered if not corrupted by generations of traslational, typographic, and interpretive errors."
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 16:59:24. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 05:14:01 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Our own church, for example, when listing "what we believe" will make the distinction and say, "That the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, were verbally inspired by God, inerrant in the original writings, and that they are supreme and final in authority, faith, and life." You can see your point is not missed on them. |
You seem to omit the explicit disclaimer "Our version, however, have almost certainly been altered if not corrupted by generations of traslational, typographic, and interpretive errors." |
Naw. But I get blue in the face when I mention textual criticism. This is coming from the guy who didn't know the OT was in Hebrew... ;) |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 05:17:11 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was forthright in my explanation of things when talking about evolution, for example, ... I think people are a bit more accomodating than often portrayed in our little world of DPC Rant. |
So, what is your response when some "true believer" insists that the Earth (and all the Universe and dinosaur fossils) was created a literal 6000 years (as we know them) ago? |
Often it's polite silence. I know people who do believe in a literal 6000 year old earth. I think a few are also elders of our church. If they want to discuss it, I'll have a discussion and let them know I feel otherwise. I've only ever experiened civil discussions about it. I've yet to find a time when it mattered while discussing the praxis of our faith. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 05:18:49 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
the correct answer would be that's how long man has been around, there is no written account before then, so whatever happened before man learned to write is theory. |
Geology, the decay of Carbon-14 and the fossil record are not theories. They exist independently of the written word. certain facts exist outside human explanation. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 05:26:03 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Plus, to add to the fun, the latest study I saw appeared to prove that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time which is deliciously paradoxical, but there it is. |
It's the wave-particle duality. All it requires is a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Problem solved. |
Actually this experiment went beyond that. Look it up on ArXiv. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 05:35:16 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Just because people don't take the bible literally and/or belive that it was "divinely" inspired, does not mean they do not believe in God. |
Perhaps... but Christianity has, for the most part, dismissed other beliefs that they later incorporated into their own religion if only to further their own ambitions.
My father never believed in a Christian defined God, but his views were summarily dismissed as there is no acceptance by Christians that supreme beings such as the "Gitche Manitou" was worthy of consideration.
Sad thing about a lot of Christians is that they truly to not adhere to the teachings of Christ.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 05:39:58 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Our own church, for example, when listing "what we believe" will make the distinction and say, "That the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, were verbally inspired by God, inerrant in the original writings, and that they are supreme and final in authority, faith, and life." You can see your point is not missed on them. |
You seem to omit the explicit disclaimer "Our version, however, have almost certainly been altered if not corrupted by generations of traslational, typographic, and interpretive errors." |
Naw. But I get blue in the face when I mention textual criticism. This is coming from the guy who didn't know the OT was in Hebrew... ;) |
I could be wrong in this regard, but I seem to recall that most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew...not all of it. There is a difference.
Ray |
|
