[quote]TQB wrote:
Hell, St Paul and St James, Jesus brother, the leader of the Church at the time, argued about these points. Should we be more presumtious?
[/quote]
I agree. Some of the disciples who knew Jesus personally and listened to his sermons on a regular basis disagreed with each other and were rebuked for not getting the point so to speak.
How can we assume they got it right years after Jesus was crucified?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
True. Muslims have no problem with polygamy. The Shi’a have a thing called a temporary marriage, where you basically go to your imam and say, “I want to bone this woman,” and your marriage can last an hour or longer.
Immanuel Kant allowed God back into his philosophical framework on ethical grounds alone. He realized it was necessary to have God to have an ethics. God is a “regulative necessity.”[/quote]
As you know, there have been many societies that believe polygamy is acceptable (not just Muslim).
Interesting about Kant. I tried to read him years ago, couldn’t get into it.
[quote]new2training wrote:
How can we assume they got it right years after Jesus was crucified? [/quote]
Well, you can’t forget the role the Holy Spirit plays in our faith.
I just found this last night. You guys have to see this shit.
Chris Langan is a self-taught mathematician with an IQ somewhere between 190 and 210. That means the average genius is basically retarded in comparison. He dropped out of college and has worked as a bouncer at a bar for the last 20 years, doing math and physics in his spare time. He says the existence of God can be proven mathematically, albeit not the God of organized religion (he’s basically a pantheist), and has advanced an argument called the “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.” He is a proponent of intelligent design.
[quote]I agree with your assertion that interpretation allows for inaccuracies and personal views to be interjected. I’m not sure how you can say that you don’t believe it was interpreted though. On every level it is interpreted. By witnesses, by listeners who retold the stories, by writers, by translators, etc.
If nothing else it is interpreted by the reader himself. Hence the bear mauling argument. The text is there in black and white. Yet, among just a few people on the internet, we can’t reach a consensus on what it means. And there are very intelligent people on both sides of the debate.
Oh, and evidence of a common, well documented, and coherent message is not the same as evidence of inerrancy.
To each their own though. [/quote]
When we say, “inerrant”, we mean the original monographs inspired by the Holy Spirit. We believed that these have been preserved to the point where no textual variants in any of the New or Old Testament manuscripts lead to doctrinal confusion.
As far as the bear mauling the kids, I wouldn’t argue that the bear left them alive nor would I argue that it just happened by chance. It seems clear from the text that God sent them as a judgment upon these kids. But I deny that each person will arrive at an entirely different understanding of each text.
The core doctrines of the Christian faith are clear from the text, and there is a tradition of writings dating back to the time of Jesus demonstrating that. The Apostle’s Creed, for example, is believed to have dated back to the first century church and is preserved until now as an understanding of Christian doctrine.
Certain texts are less clear than others, to be sure, but we can still understand the meaning of the Bible. Moreover, the Holy Spirit has promised to clarify the truths in the Bible to the Christian church.
I think there are many reasons the Bible should be believed. I think this is a good summary:
[quote]new2training wrote:
TQB wrote:
Hell, St Paul and St James, Jesus brother, the leader of the Church at the time, argued about these points. Should we be more presumtious?
I agree. Some of the disciples who knew Jesus personally and listened to his sermons on a regular basis disagreed with each other and were rebuked for not getting the point so to speak.
How can we assume they got it right years after Jesus was crucified? [/quote]
The Bible says they did. Jesus explained everything to them on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
new2training wrote:
How can we assume they got it right years after Jesus was crucified?
Well, you can’t forget the role the Holy Spirit plays in our faith.[/quote]
Sloth,
You’re right, and good point.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
I just found this last night. You guys have to see this shit.
Chris Langan is a self-taught mathematician with an IQ somewhere between 190 and 210. That means the average genius is basically retarded in comparison. He dropped out of college and has worked as a bouncer at a bar for the last 20 years, doing math and physics in his spare time. He says the existence of God can be proven mathematically, albeit not the God of organized religion (he’s basically a pantheist), and has advanced an argument called the “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe.” He is a proponent of intelligent design.
[/quote]
Talk about misquoting,
“I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.”
So? He “believes” in evolution and that gawd used it as a tool to create us.
Which isn’t unusual and really fine with me.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
new2training wrote:
The Bible says they did. Jesus explained everything to them on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection.[/quote]
Rationally speaking, you cannot use a text to authenticate itself. You either believe it or you don’t.
In other words, it is still a matter of faith. Which I have no problem with.
[quote]So? He “believes” in evolution and that gawd used it as a tool to create us.
Which isn’t unusual and really fine with me. [/quote]
So you’re not an atheist?
[quote]new2training wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
new2training wrote:
The Bible says they did. Jesus explained everything to them on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection.
Rationally speaking, you cannot use a text to authenticate itself. You either believe it or you don’t.
In other words, it is still a matter of faith. Which I have no problem with.
[/quote]
Sure you can. If the text is self-contradictory (i.e. it violates the laws of logic), it can’t be true. There are various other ways as well, which are discussed in the video.
My basic argument is that, if there is such a thing as right or wrong, then there must be a God. If there is a God, and morals are a morals because they correspond to the nature of a God who wills good, then he will punish those who violate these morals. Man violates these morals, therefore man is guilty before God, and God will punish the guilty because God is not apathetic towards evil. The only resolution presented to man’s guilt before God is the explanation given in the Bible.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Talk about misquoting,
“I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.”
So? He “believes” in evolution and that gawd used it as a tool to create us.
Which isn’t unusual and really fine with me.
[/quote]
I agree.
And pantheism is a hair-width away from atheism. Grossly oversimplifying, it is calling the Universe or Nature “God,” so that we live in and are all part of and made up of “God.” It is an impersonal God, though, one with which you cannot have a spiritual relationship; most variations of pantheism also don’t provide for an afterlife.
Pantheist Bonus: You get to claim Einstein is on your side and not talk out of your ass.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
If there is a God, and morals are a morals because they correspond to the nature of a God who wills good, then he will punish those who violate these morals.[/quote]
Morals are not some absolute concept dictated by an imaginary deity.
They are a consensus of what the community to which we belong deems acceptable behavior. Human beings are social animals. We have always lived in groups. Throw random humans together in a room, wait a bit and groups will form.
The worst thing that could happen to early man was to be ostracized; to be kicked out of his tribe. It invariably meant death.
“Moral” behavior became whatever would be acceptable to the rest of the tribe, and “immoral” behavior, whatever would get you “cast out”.
Religions are no more than extended tribes to which people can feel good about belonging, with the various acceptable behaviors written down and attributed after the fact to a mythical divine being.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
When we say, “inerrant”, we mean the original monographs inspired by the Holy Spirit. We believed [/quote]
That’s my point. It’s a belief. Well founded in your mind. Maybe not in someone elses.
[quote]
The core doctrines of the Christian faith are clear from the text, and there is a tradition of writings dating back to the time of Jesus demonstrating that. The Apostle’s Creed, for example, is believed to have dated back to the first century church and is preserved until now as an understanding of Christian doctrine.
Certain texts are less clear than others, to be sure, but we can still understand the meaning of the Bible. Moreover, the Holy Spirit has promised to clarify the truths in the Bible to the Christian church.
I think there are many reasons the Bible should be believed. I think this is a good summary:
5 Reasons God Exists - YouTube [/quote]
I am not saying that the core doctrines of the faith are not clear. They are very clear to me. I am saying that I don’t take every word, chapter, and verse literally as the word of God. So either you believe it is the direct word of God or the interpretation of fallible men. I believe in the latter. God forgive me if that is a heresy.
Like Jefferson, I believe there are parts of the Bible that seem to be more of human invention than divine revelation.
Thanks for sharing the link. I will have to view it at home.
By the way, your knowledge of the Bible and its history is impressive and far exceeds my own.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
If the text is self-contradictory (i.e. it violates the laws of logic), it can’t be true.[/quote]
Exodus 15:3 - The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Romans 15:33 - Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
2 Kings 2:11 - And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
John 3:13 - No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.
[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
If the text is self-contradictory (i.e. it violates the laws of logic), it can’t be true.
Exodus 15:3 - The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Romans 15:33 - Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
2 Kings 2:11 - And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
John 3:13 - No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.[/quote]
This contradictory quoting could go on for weeks.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
new2training wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
new2training wrote:
The Bible says they did. Jesus explained everything to them on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection.
Rationally speaking, you cannot use a text to authenticate itself. You either believe it or you don’t.
In other words, it is still a matter of faith. Which I have no problem with.
Sure you can. If the text is self-contradictory (i.e. it violates the laws of logic), it can’t be true. There are various other ways as well, which are discussed in the video.
My basic argument is that, if there is such a thing as right or wrong, then there must be a God. If there is a God, and morals are a morals because they correspond to the nature of a God who wills good, then he will punish those who violate these morals. Man violates these morals, therefore man is guilty before God, and God will punish the guilty because God is not apathetic towards evil. The only resolution presented to man’s guilt before God is the explanation given in the Bible. [/quote]
I edited the my post that you quoted. I see you got to it before that. I didn’t want you think I edited it after I saw your response. The edit didn’t change my point though.
I look forward to seeing the video. I’ll keep an open mind.
Thanks for the summary. It has two basic formulas that I would expect.
God - Law - Sin - Non Belief - Punishment.
or
God - Law - Sin - Belief - Forgiveness.
[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
If there is a God, and morals are a morals because they correspond to the nature of a God who wills good, then he will punish those who violate these morals.
Morals are not some absolute concept dictated by an imaginary deity.
They are a consensus of what the community to which we belong deems acceptable behavior. Human beings are social animals. We have always lived in groups. Throw random humans together in a room, wait a bit and groups will form.
“Moral” behavior became whatever would be acceptable to the rest of the tribe, and “immoral” behavior, whatever would get you “cast out”.
[/quote]
Pookie,
Relativism? Right?
Thanks
[quote]belligerent wrote:
I just found this last night. You guys have to see this shit.
Chris Langan is a[/quote] fraud.
[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
If there is a God, and morals are a morals because they correspond to the nature of a God who wills good, then he will punish those who violate these morals.
Morals are not some absolute concept dictated by an imaginary deity.
They are a consensus of what the community to which we belong deems acceptable behavior. Human beings are social animals. We have always lived in groups. Throw random humans together in a room, wait a bit and groups will form.
The worst thing that could happen to early man was to be ostracized; to be kicked out of his tribe. It invariably meant death.
“Moral” behavior became whatever would be acceptable to the rest of the tribe, and “immoral” behavior, whatever would get you “cast out”.
Religions are no more than extended tribes to which people can feel good about belonging, with the various acceptable behaviors written down and attributed after the fact to a mythical divine being.
[/quote]
Now you’re arguing a cultural relativism. Various tribes throughout history have taken extermination of other tribes as a value. I guess they were right to do so. You’re also just using the term “morals” descriptively now. You’re describing what these societies do, not what they ought to do.
Really these are just preferences of this particular society, not morals. Some societies preferred to sacrifice their children, others preferred to eat people. Really, within your framework, there’s no reason they ought to have changed.