Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
<<< I feared this day as this may be a point of contention between us however I am not sure if this topic is better suited for another thread or if it fits within the scope of this thread as well.[/quote]
Nonsense brother!!! Contention between Calvinists and Arminians? May it never be =] We will not become enemies in any such exchange as far it depends upon me.

I have a couple things in that regard that I’m throwing out there for consideration. There have been a lot of “Christian” threads in this forum lately which obviously I think is fine. However, at some point we will lay ourselves open to the charge of monopolizing the PWI forum if we start too many threads.

I am in no way suggesting shame for the faith, but this is not a Christian site and we will in my opinion give unbelievers legitimate reason for resentment if we are perceived as occupying this space by force. What number turns boldness into obnoxiousness I don’t know. I also have no problem with this debate, I can’t count how many times I’ve had it in the past, but it will be the biggest one here yet wherever it happens. By biggest I mean furthest reaching theologically. EVERYTHING is subsumed under the umbrella of these critical doctrines. I will have exactly one ally that I’m aware of.

Guys like BackinAction and Anonym and maybe even Ephrem will find this group of topics exceptionally fascinating.

[/quote]
I am glad that this topic will not cause division. While I agree that this is a site where people of various backgrounds come together I hope that people who consider themselves Christians on this site and around the world make their best effort to represent Christ character in whatever we do.

462

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Cockney Blue’s understandably inaccurate attempt was:

Tiribulus’s revised actually Christian version is:

I hate to keep saying this, but I fully understand how mind numbingly stooopid this sounds to you. I remember when it did to me to too.[/quote]

And most atheists remember the time that they believed in God.

463

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No the Bible is not wrong, it is actually inerrant. However it is limited because of human ability.[/quote]

What do you mean by this?[/quote]

Inerrant = without error.

Human limitations, include wouldn’t know certain scientific equations that hadn’t come around yet, &c. As well the whole days thing days = era back in the day?

464

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
These threads are always interesting. They always turn into debates between theists and non-theists (and they get pretty vicious). Here’s the thing, neither side is definitively correct. Theists have no physical evidence of the existence of God and non-theists have no physical evidence for the non-existence of God. Neither side was around during the time of creation/start of everything. So when someone says “you’re wrong”, they aren’t being completely honest with themselves because they are just guessing (along with the rest of us). The best way to go about these discussions is to present your side of the argument with some evidence or logical reasoning and keep an open mind.

[/quote]

Except there is physical evidence, and don’t you think that theist have more of an open mind to the evidence than atheist since we believe in something that isn’t just a man walking down the street?

465

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
These threads are always interesting. They always turn into debates between theists and non-theists (and they get pretty vicious). Here’s the thing, neither side is definitively correct. Theists have no physical evidence of the existence of God and non-theists have no physical evidence for the non-existence of God. Neither side was around during the time of creation/start of everything. So when someone says “you’re wrong”, they aren’t being completely honest with themselves because they are just guessing (along with the rest of us). The best way to go about these discussions is to present your side of the argument with some evidence or logical reasoning and keep an open mind.

[/quote]

No one can definitively rule on the side of theism or atheism, but if you tell me we were created by a pink panda god who spoke to you and told you the world was flat and only 3,000 years old, I’m calling bullshit.

Abstract, universalist, concepts of the divine are impossible to refute or confirm, but specific religious dogma that attempts to describe, in detail, the specifics of the workings of the universe are not. We know Zeus doesn’t throw lighting bolts, it’s not a matter of having faith/belief or lack there of, if you take such a claim seriously.[/quote]

What is your point here?

466

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No the Bible is not wrong, it is actually inerrant. However it is limited because of human ability.[/quote]

What do you mean by this?[/quote]

Inerrant = without error.

Human limitations, include wouldn’t know certain scientific equations that hadn’t come around yet, &c. As well the whole days thing days = era back in the day?[/quote]

I’m sorry, Brother Chris, but that is simply not true (that the Bible is without error).

#1
1 Kings 7:23 “He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”

Incorrect: Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did “compass it round about.”

#2
Lev 11:20-21: “All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.”

Incorrect: Fowl do not go upon all four.

#3
Lev 11:6: “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud…”

Incorrect: Hare do not chew the cud.

#4
Deut 14:7: " “…as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof.”

Incorrect: For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare donâ??t chew the cud and they do divide the “hoof.”

#5
Jonah 1:17 says, “…Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights”

Incorrect: Matt 12:40 says “…Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly…” whales and fish are not related

#6
Matt 13:31-32: " “the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed whichâ?¦is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree.”

Incorrect: There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don’t grow into trees.

#7
Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

Incorrect: Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.

467

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
These threads are always interesting. They always turn into debates between theists and non-theists (and they get pretty vicious). Here’s the thing, neither side is definitively correct. Theists have no physical evidence of the existence of God and non-theists have no physical evidence for the non-existence of God. Neither side was around during the time of creation/start of everything. So when someone says “you’re wrong”, they aren’t being completely honest with themselves because they are just guessing (along with the rest of us). The best way to go about these discussions is to present your side of the argument with some evidence or logical reasoning and keep an open mind.

[/quote]

Except there is physical evidence, and don’t you think that theist have more of an open mind to the evidence than atheist since we believe in something that isn’t just a man walking down the street?[/quote]

Please present your best bit of physical evidence for the Biblical Gods existence. And please don’t say “look at the trees” or “you exist, there is your evidence”.

Considering we don’t even have contemporary evidence Jesus existed, I don’t know what type of evidence you hope to present.

468

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
<<< I am glad that this topic will not cause division. While I agree that this is a site where people of various backgrounds come together I hope that people who consider themselves Christians on this site and around the world make their best effort to represent Christ character in whatever we do. [/quote]
No. I firmly believe the doctrines of grace are the gospel, but those very doctrines forbid me from refusing fellowship with somebody without a biblically mandated reason. The character thing is all important and like you said not just on this site. I thank God he kept me above reproach since day one everywhere I’ve been online. I’ve had the handle of Tiribulus for 11 years on every site I’ve been a member of which are a couple dozen at least except arstechnica where I am gsmit1. I know there have been people at times who were really trying to dig up some dirt on me, but there is none anywhere. I don’t even have to try n remember. That is a great feeling and reason for my giving praise to God.

469

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

What do you mean by this?

Inerrant = without error.

Human limitations, include wouldn’t know certain scientific equations that hadn’t come around yet, &c. As well the whole days thing days = era back in the day?

I’m sorry, Brother Chris, but that is simply not true (that the Bible is without error).

#1
1 Kings 7:23 “He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”

Incorrect: Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did “compass it round about.”

#2
Lev 11:20-21: “All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.”

Incorrect: Fowl do not go upon all four.

#3
Lev 11:6: “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud…”

Incorrect: Hare do not chew the cud.

#4
Deut 14:7: " “…as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof.”

Incorrect: For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare donÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t chew the cud and they do divide the “hoof.”

#5
Jonah 1:17 says, “…Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights”

Incorrect: Matt 12:40 says “…Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly…” whales and fish are not related

#6
Matt 13:31-32: " “the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed whichÃ???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã??Ã?¦is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree.”

Incorrect: There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don’t grow into trees.

#7
Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

Incorrect: Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.

[/quote]

I won’t answer all of them, but inerrent only applies to the original mss and not the copy of the copies that we have now. So where a number might be wrong it is almost always due to a copyist error. some of your other verse (IE matt 4:8) are a problem if you are

  1. being too literal (by the way that word used in that verse for world in the greek can be taken figuratvly or literal.
    2.not allowing hyperbole.

Back in action I have a book that is on my list to read that I think you might find interesting
It is "10 Things I Hate About Christianity: Working Through the Frustrations of Faith "

He voices complaints about the Bible, but from what I understand he spent some time learning a few simple ways to study the text fairly and then come to a conclusion. Here is a sample of a review newsletter that I subscribe to that reviewed the book

“IÃ??Ã?¢??ll mention my single reservation about this chapter before summing up the positives. JasonÃ??Ã?¢??s view of historical epistemology is probably more skeptical than mine, as he says, Ã??Ã?¢??As much as I want it to be otherwise, the BibleÃ??Ã?¢??s trustworthiness and accuracy canÃ??Ã?¢??t be proven…The best that can be done is to offer evidence to build the case.Ã??Ã?¢?? I can imagine heÃ??Ã?¢??d say the same of just about any historical document, though, whether the Bible or the Annals of Tacitus. I tend to think that proof is possible, in a legal sense, in many instances. But thatÃ??Ã?¢??s a much larger subject for discussion than would have been intended for this chapter”.

As I said it seems like he is open and fair about it.

470

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m sorry, you were busy making so much sense.

Your all powerful, all loving god allows evil to exist, and will punish his most beloved creations for eternity if they dont think like you do.

He made the earth 6 thousand years ago, then made it so that every reliable form of dating consistantly shows objects to be much older – confusing people into thinking that the bible must be wrong, and condemning them to hell for their conclusion.

He gave humans paradise - then goes out of his way to set up the conditions under which man may easily disobey him and be cast out. Just for shits and giggles, not only does he put the forbidden fruit very close by, he allows the devil to talk eve into eating it. Yup, benevolent as hell.

But, of course, like darkness is the absence of light, and cold of heat, so is evil the absence of god… except that sort of destroys the “omnipresent” part of your sky wizard myth, to suggest there could be a place that god is not.

Also, there is a dome above the earth keeping the waters of heaven out, the sun and moon are in this dome, blah blah blah.

God created plants before the sun, even though plants need the sun to exist. He did this backwards, in a totally impossible way, to combat arguments that the genesis myth is a metaphor. Read that again: because the theory makes no sense, it is more reasonable. Also, god will go that far out of his way, but refuses proof of himself.

Because we already HAVE enough proof, as a poster in this thread said – proof being old, impossible stories that are impossible to verify and wildy rediculous explanations of the world around us. Proof in answered prayers - while the unanswered prayers are not supposed to affect our believing at all.

Sky wizard doesn’t exist. I’ll bet my soul on it. :P[/quote]

Put your soul where your mouth is…Prove that all that exists comes from utter nothingness and I’ll join you…[/quote]

Didn’t say that. I said there is no sky wizard. Higher power beyond our undertanding? Quite possibly.

I love the “Its my sky wizard white man in white robe Zeus inspired character God or its nothingness!” argument.

471

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m sorry, you were busy making so much sense.

Your all powerful, all loving god allows evil to exist, and will punish his most beloved creations for eternity if they dont think like you do.
[/quote]

Well what do you define as evil? What events would these include. G-d does not choose to punish creations for eternity. His creations choose it on themselves, we have free will, so if someone does something to separate himself from G-d, then that is not G-d’s doing, that is the persons fault since they have free will. You would not blame the parents of a 20 year old man, for him knocking over a corner store.
[/quote]

You bet your ass I would blame the parents if they were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Read that again:

OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, OMNIPRESENT.

Once you tack all these attributes to one entity, everything becomes his/her/its responsibility. Everything.

So, yes, if the parents KNEW the child was about to knock over the corner stone, had the POWER to stop it, and were EVERYWHERE (read: close enough) to stop it, then, yes, them allowing the child to knock it over was as much their decision as the childs.

Why do sky wizard fans make analogies where they compare god to some limited being and pretend like the analogy makes sense at all?

472

So when a man rapes a ten year old girl, we cant blame god, because the man was acting from his free will.

When a man tries to rape a ten year old girl and she manages to get away, that was god acting on the situation and proving his love.

Do any believers see the problem with this double standard? Please? Brains, anyone?

473

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< And most atheists remember the time that they believed in God.[/quote]
No they can’t. Atheism is the ultimate self delusion. In Romans 1, which I’ve quoted already a couple times, Paul tells me:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things

There remains in sinful men (and women, in case that isn’t clear) as well as creation at large universal testimony to the God-hood of God. They are contemporaneously everywhere confronted with it and unable to embrace it and yes that is completely just of God. There is no such thing as an atheist and all their protestations to the contrary serve only as the latest in a very long train of testimony to God’s truth. It is non disprovable and therefor not science as I have never claimed it was. In fact it probably is tautological from the standpoint of unbelief.

474

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So when a man rapes a ten year old girl, we cant blame god, because the man was acting from his free will.

When a man tries to rape a ten year old girl and she manages to get away, that was god acting on the situation and proving his love.

Do any believers see the problem with this double standard? Please? Brains, anyone?[/quote]

I don’t know if my God intervened directly or indirectly on behalf of any individual, whose escape from bad circumstances might be seen on the nightly news. Doesn’t stop me from feeling a bit of joy, and expressing itt to my God.

475

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Do any believers see the problem with this double standard? Please? Brains, anyone?[/quote]
Nope, not even slightly. No double standard whatsoever, but that’s a brainless guy like me so waddaya expect? God has rendered certain whatever comes to pass, good and evil, without in any way being responsible for evil. That’s even worse huh?

476

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Do any believers see the problem with this double standard? Please? Brains, anyone?[/quote]
Nope, not even slightly. No double standard whatsoever, but that’s a brainless guy like me so waddaya expect? God has rendered certain whatever comes to pass, good and evil, without in any way being responsible for evil. That’s even worse huh? [/quote]

Yup. It makes no sense.

If you want to believe it, feel free. But don’t try to pretend like you’re living in the real world as you do.

Oh, and keep talking to the sky wizard in your head… even though, he’s already “rendered certain” whatever will or will not happen, and he wont change his plan, so it doesnt matter what you do or dont ask for, because he’ll do what he wants anyway… except that he’ll always answer your prayers…

Yeah. No sense. Sorry.

477

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Yeah. No sense. Sorry.[/quote]

Well, ok.

478

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

What do you mean by this?

Inerrant = without error.

Human limitations, include wouldn’t know certain scientific equations that hadn’t come around yet, &c. As well the whole days thing days = era back in the day?

I’m sorry, Brother Chris, but that is simply not true (that the Bible is without error).

#1
1 Kings 7:23 “He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”

Incorrect: Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did “compass it round about.”

#2
Lev 11:20-21: “All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.”

Incorrect: Fowl do not go upon all four.

#3
Lev 11:6: “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud…”

Incorrect: Hare do not chew the cud.

#4
Deut 14:7: " “…as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof.”

Incorrect: For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare donÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??t chew the cud and they do divide the “hoof.”

#5
Jonah 1:17 says, “…Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights”

Incorrect: Matt 12:40 says “…Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly…” whales and fish are not related

#6
Matt 13:31-32: " “the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed whichÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¦is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree.”

Incorrect: There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don’t grow into trees.

#7
Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

Incorrect: Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.

[/quote]

I won’t answer all of them, but inerrent only applies to the original mss and not the copy of the copies that we have now. So where a number might be wrong it is almost always due to a copyist error. some of your other verse (IE matt 4:8) are a problem if you are

  1. being too literal (by the way that word used in that verse for world in the greek can be taken figuratvly or literal.
    2.not allowing hyperbole.

Back in action I have a book that is on my list to read that I think you might find interesting
It is "10 Things I Hate About Christianity: Working Through the Frustrations of Faith "

He voices complaints about the Bible, but from what I understand he spent some time learning a few simple ways to study the text fairly and then come to a conclusion. Here is a sample of a review newsletter that I subscribe to that reviewed the book

“IÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??ll mention my single reservation about this chapter before summing up the positives. JasonÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s view of historical epistemology is probably more skeptical than mine, as he says, Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??As much as I want it to be otherwise, the BibleÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s trustworthiness and accuracy canÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t be proven…The best that can be done is to offer evidence to build the case.Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? I can imagine heÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??d say the same of just about any historical document, though, whether the Bible or the Annals of Tacitus. I tend to think that proof is possible, in a legal sense, in many instances. But thatÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s a much larger subject for discussion than would have been intended for this chapter”.

As I said it seems like he is open and fair about it.[/quote]

Added to my Amazon wish list. Thanks Haney!

479

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Do any believers see the problem with this double standard? Please? Brains, anyone?[/quote]
Nope, not even slightly. No double standard whatsoever, but that’s a brainless guy like me so waddaya expect? God has rendered certain whatever comes to pass, good and evil, without in any way being responsible for evil. That’s even worse huh? [/quote]

Yup. It makes no sense.

If you want to believe it, feel free. But don’t try to pretend like you’re living in the real world as you do.

Oh, and keep talking to the sky wizard in your head… even though, he’s already “rendered certain” whatever will or will not happen, and he wont change his plan, so it doesnt matter what you do or dont ask for, because he’ll do what he wants anyway… except that he’ll always answer your prayers…

Yeah. No sense. Sorry.[/quote]
Au contraire. Thou knowest not what thous sayest. It most assuredly does matter what I do… and what you do. In fact it ONLY matters if what I’m saying is true. I’m living in the same world you are, only the God who is really there has breathed His life into my heart which gives me all these what from your perspective are bizarre whacked out hallucinations. I didn’t go looking for them in the beginning I assure you. He came to me.

480

[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< but from what I understand he spent some time learning a few simple ways to study the text fairly and then come to a conclusion. >>>[/quote]
Very important and will come into play as we get deeper into the decrees and election here as well (and eventually everything else I’m sure. It’s all part of a system) In some ways interpreting scripture is no different than interpreting any other old document. Though the bible is much more than A document.