Will Obama say "So help me God" ?

[FirmaFan]

I don't recall ever hearing anything ever come out that "goes against something the bible has claimed about the origins of life or the universe". I know that quite often things come out which go against some ignorant people's culturally-biased misconceptions about what the Bible says, but I've never seen anything come out against what the Bible actually says.

I guess that depends on who you ask, and what that person believes the bible "actually says". In reality, the only ones who can ever know what it "actually says" are the people that wrote it 3 to 4 thousand years ago. We don't speak their language, we don't know all the small cultural nuances that left no historical trace that was written into the bible. Everyone has their own idea of what the bible says, depending on what translation they read, what church they attend, and what moral common sense they possess. In the end, all interpretations of the bible are ignorant people's culturally-biased misconceptions about what the bible says.

It's evidence that there wasn't a global flood, yes. That's not evidence against the Flood, because the Bible doesn't claim it was global.

Again, depends on who you ask, and what their opinion of "what the bible really says." You are reconciling scientific, factual evidence with the bible by adapting your interpretation of the bible based on the evidence thus far. The evidence says there was no global flood, which means the bible doesn't say there was a global flood. But many people disagree with that interpretation of the bible (even biblical scholars).

Stating "It's not a factual text" is misleading and misrepresenting. It presents many things as facts which are facts, such as that the moon doesn't shine as brightly as the sun. Saying "It's not a science text" would be accurate, though.

Any piece of fiction ever written contains actual facts. If even a single noun that corresponds to something of known existence is written in it, it contains facts. I'll say something, then that is in no way misleading or misrepresenting. Bible = Literary fiction.

The sad "museum" in Kansas has little to do with the Bible, except insofar as it posts English translations of Bible verses here and there. Its interpretations have little to do with the Bible, because they're not based on scholarship of any sort -- such scholarship would have to start with finding out what the Bible is really meaning to say, and realizing that it isn't saying that there were six literal days, etc, etc. etc.

Proving that interpretations of the bible depends on who you ask. And again, no one can EVER know what the bible is "really meaning to say."

Um, if you're referring to the current POTUS, he's little different from "some rambling person on the street". His behavior, in fact, has shown that he's really not very familiar with the Bible at all.

My point about the current POTUS is that he is NOT a rambling person on the street. He is the highest government official in the country, and his interpretation of the bible motivated him to say that intelligent design (ie - the creation museum's interpretation of the bible) should be taught in schools. It was to show how the irrationalities of religion literally go all the way to the top. And his behavior is testament to the danger of religion, how it can take a person of logic and reason, and provide an outlet of logic that leads to completely irrational and insane actions. Bush himself says that the war in Iraq was a mission from god. But, you what, another mission from god was the 9/11 attacks. Bush may not be familiar with what the bible "actually says" but his misconceptions of the bible lead to some pretty dangerous things. Where do you think those misconceptions came from, because he didn't make them up himself. Those misconceptions are still being perpetuated even after their consequences have been witnessed.

Um, have you read Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis? He's a man who was convinced of the truth of Christianity by logic and reason, along with millions through the ages.

I don't care what millions of people through the ages think, or what C.S. Lewis thinks either. I care only about what the evidence shows. Logical pathways that lead to the truth of Christianity, even with extreme reason, but without evidence has no credence for me. Show me a million people who think the world is square, and show me one with a photo of it from space, and I'll side with the one guy with a photo every time.

 

[hotatlboi]

He didn't have to say "no one knows the century". He'd already indicated that men would be able to know the "season", and if you check out that concept, it includes waiting for, well, like ever. The phrase itself contains the meaning of uncertain time, not just in terms of the measures mentioned, but of long measures (considering that in apocalyptic terminology, "season" can indicate many, many years).

Sure, and if he planned to return when John was still alive but most of the other disciples were dead it would have been many years.

So this verse does totally negate the claim that the others say He thought He'd be back in their lifetimes. Taken with His statement to Peter, it's conclusive.

What's conclusive is that again, Occam's Razor is anathema to Christians. Rather than take the simplest most likely interpretation that fits the context best, you have to invent all kinds of other uncommon meanings for things to flesh out and eliminate the otherwise grave and damning errors the Bible contains.

 

[hotatlboi]

You're starting off by assuming that the ways you think are the only correct ways, and are infallible and omniapplicable.

No I am not. I said nothing of the sort, nor did I need to.

Whether I have the best possible answers is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to this discussion. Nice deflection technique to try and portray me as conceited.

I do not have the best possible most infallible answers of all time. What we are discussing is whether the knowledge that we currently have is more correct than the scientific statements made in the Bible.

There are two data points being referenced here, that's it. And yes, we do have the capacity to judge whether certain knowledge we have today is more correct than that put forward in the Bible. Who has the "infallible and omniapplicable" knowledge need not even enter the discussion. "Is the knowledge we have now different or more correct than what God said in the Bible" is the only question that needs answering. It's always the religious side that is quick to jump to absolutes because that's most often the only ways you can prop up your arguments.

 

[Kulindahr]

What I was claiming is that like many other wild claims in the Bible, the fact that we don't find any evidence does not lead me to believe those events were literal truth. That doesn't mean absence of evidence proves they were not, but it does mean that there is no compelling reason to believe them either.

Ah -- changing your position, now. What you were saying before was that the absence of evidence showed the claim to be false.

But that's a huge problem for you. If you didn't have to "interpret it a certain way" if understanding everything in the Bible was as simple as "pointing out what it says" we would be having this argument. I could simply point out that Genesis "says" the earth was created in 6 days. That's what it says. You have to interpret it differently to avoid rejecting it because you know that to be false. That's the case with most of the scientific errors in the Bible.

The statement in red is false. By that approach, the Bible also says "There is no God", and a lot of other things.
You're starting with some assumptions:
1. That the Genesis account is meant to convey scientific information.
2. That the statements about days are meant scientifically.
3. That God has to live over to your standards.

Have you ever heard anyone say, "It's hot as hell in here"? Did you stop to correct them, by either saying that there is no hell, so their statement was meaningless, or to ask them how they knew how hot hell was, and could they tell you?
No -- you recognized the "form of literature", and interpreted the statement accordingly.

Genesis 1 is a royal chronicle. The "days" are what could be called a literary device. Royal chronicles do not try to pass on scientific information; they're about summarizing the (great) act(s) of a monarch in a memorable fashion.

Was that an attempt to be funny? Nice try but total baloney. How am I trying to "preserve the Bible's worldview as my own". I think it's quite clear from my arguments that I totally reject the Bible's worldview. LMAO If you're just going to try to unsuccessfully portray me as a hypocrite then I don't see where this discussion is going.

<sigh>
Okay, you just demonstrated that you aren't just bad at paying attention to what others say, but to what you've said.
Please, just read the posts....

LMAO, your absurdities just keep getting better and better. it's not my position. It's fact. Insects do not have 4 legs. That isn't my position, we know this to be fact. God in the Bible says otherwise. That's all I'm saying.

What you're saying is that your imagination is limited by your worldview, and you refuse to accept anything that doesn't conform to your narrow little twenty-first century Western paradigm.
You're also saying you're not interested in hearing explanations for anything, i.e. that you don't want to be educated.
"Insects do not have four legs" is a statement totally dependent on the context it's used in. Depending on the context, "Monkeys have no legs" is true (think about it).

For someone who has supposedly translated the entire Bible from the original language, you don't seem to have that much more knowledge about it than a fundamentalist. You make the same logical errors and ridiculous arguments to avoid rejecting many demonstrably false parts of it.

And that just shows you aren't listening or reading. I haven't used any arguments fundamentalists would -- though you excel in applying their positions to support yourself.
You are so deeply trapped in a narrow worldview that you can't even see that there might be others.

 

[Kulindahr]

I completely agree. And if you look at the other usages of the world, they clearly are referring to a group of people of Jesus's time.

"This wicked generation", Matthew 12:45. "This generation seeks a sign", Mark 8:12. "This untoward generation," Acts 2:40. "But first must He suffer many things and be rejected of this generation", Luke 17:25.


Sure they can. We've got another classic example of you making the mistake of again completely ignoring any interpretation that doesn't fit your own viewpoint.

Jesus said "some of you will not taste death" until I come. This could have been referring to John.

He said "this generation" will not pass away. If he meant to return when John was still alive, that means his generation could not have all passed away (unless John was going to live for 900 years or something ridiculous like in the OT).

1. No, they don't -- just look at Matthew 1:1 (generation = origin), Matthew 1:17 (generation as 'metaphor'), Matthew 3:7 (generation = type of people), Matthew 11:16 (mixed meaning), Matthew 12"34 (generation = type of people), Matthew 12:39 (generation = type of people), and so on. In Matthew, the "generation = type of people" meaning predominates.

I notice you're also twisting the words to fit your position; "until I come" doesn't go with the quote you stuck it to.

BTW, He never said He intended to return when John was still alive, He made a statement to Peter that was meant to shock him back to sense, and the plain meaning of it was that it wasn't at all expected that anyone then alive would live till Jesus return.

 

[construct]

no one will change their mind, has anyone ever on the internet?

As a matter of fact, my mind has been changed about a number of things by reading and participating in forum conversations.

 

[hotatlboi]

Ah -- changing your position, now. What you were saying before was that the absence of evidence showed the claim to be false.

This discussion is going to go nowhere if you can't even read what I said. I'm not changing anything. This is what I said.

The Bible says that giants up to 40 feet tall once roamed the earth. This is completely unsupported by any other real historical, anthropological, or archeological findings.

It is unsupported, i.e. I have no valid reason to believe it, which is how I described my position in my last post. I never claimed the absence of any evidence proved it to be false.

The statement in red is false.

Would you like me to read to you from the Bible? No it isn't. As you said before in a previous response to me, "I'm just reading what it says".

By that approach, the Bible also says "There is no God", and a lot of other things.
You're starting with some assumptions:
1. That the Genesis account is meant to convey scientific information.
2. That the statements about days are meant scientifically.
3. That God has to live over to your standards.

So any statement God makes that happens to fall under a scientific category should be invalidated as it may be false? That does wonders to enhance the credibility of scripture.

Have you ever heard anyone say, "It's hot as hell in here"? Did you stop to correct them, by either saying that there is no hell, so their statement was meaningless, or to ask them how they knew how hot hell was, and could they tell you?
No -- you recognized the "form of literature", and interpreted the statement accordingly.

Genesis 1 is a royal chronicle. The "days" are what could be called a literary device. Royal chronicles do not try to pass on scientific information; they're about summarizing the (great) act(s) of a monarch in a memorable fashion.

[/quote]
Ok, but again you have the problem of people later in the Bible who very clearly didn't see it that way. Adam and Eve, the garden, etc was referenced as a real event (and the devil as the serpent) on more than one occasion.

Okay, you just demonstrated that you aren't just bad at paying attention to what others say, but to what you've said.
Please, just read the posts....

I know what I said, you seem to have trouble remembering, as indicated above. Which is why I definitely think this discussion is winding down.

What you're saying is that your imagination is limited by your worldview, and you refuse to accept anything that doesn't conform to your narrow little twenty-first century Western paradigm.

LOL, the 21st century Western paradigm is not narrow or limited. It is the greatest expanse of knowledge mankind has even achieved. It's sad that the religious fail to realize this.

You're also saying you're not interested in hearing explanations for anything, i.e. that you don't want to be educated.

I'm quite educated thank you very much, and for the record I have always loved learning.

"Insects do not have four legs" is a statement totally dependent on the context it's used in. Depending on the context, "Monkeys have no legs" is true (think about it).

Some things really don't have to be that complicated. "Context" is overemphasized by Christians because it's often only though contextual manipulation that they can try to explain away biblical errors.

And that just shows you aren't listening or reading. I haven't used any arguments fundamentalists would -- though you excel in applying their positions to support yourself.
You are so deeply trapped in a narrow worldview that you can't even see that there might be others.

I'm completely open to knowledge that I do not yet possess. But what you fail to realize is that the worldview of the Bible is far more limited than that which we have today. And no, I'm not going to reject things I know to be true today to try and hang on to a bronze age understanding of the world as correct. If someone presents me with compelling knowledge that contradicts what I currently believe, I will surely listen. But I do not find that knowledge in the Bible, despite careful and thorough reading of it.

 

[opinterph]

As a matter of fact, my mind has been changed about a number of things by reading and participating in forum conversations.

I share your experience, construct.

 

[opinterph]

i've read once, one guy hit the lotto twice in the row

I haven't had much luck with the lotto, but that's probably somehow related to the fact that I've never bought a ticket.

 

[construct]

Well, guys, let me throw a monkey-wrench into this discussion.

Both of you appear to agree that the Bible's construction of reality is radically different from modern constructs. I would suggest that the Bible's construction is not God's construction but the time-bound constructions of the writers. I would argue that no part of the Bible is directly applicable in modern times. It is nothing but an old document in the archive.

Likewise the modern constructs are not the end of knowledge. They are mere stopping-off points. These constructs will dissolve and their component parts will regroup into other constructs in the future.

(Yeah, I'm a Foucaultian among other things.)

 

[Kulindahr]

In the end, all interpretations of the bible are ignorant people's culturally-biased misconceptions about what the bible says.

Nonsense.
Merely learning the languages, studying the original cultures, and finding out the types of literature involved removes a great deal of ignorance.
Of course, that requires stepping out of your own worldview, which many are loathe to do.

Again, depends on who you ask, and what their opinion of "what the bible really says." You are reconciling scientific, factual evidence with the bible by adapting your interpretation of the bible based on the evidence thus far. The evidence says there was no global flood, which means the bible doesn't say there was a global flood. But many people disagree with that interpretation of the bible (even biblical scholars).
`
Any piece of fiction ever written contains actual facts. If even a single noun that corresponds to something of known existence is written in it, it contains facts. I'll say something, then that is in no way misleading or misrepresenting. Bible = Literary fiction.

Proving that interpretations of the bible depends on who you ask. And again, no one can EVER know what the bible is "really meaning to say."

My point about the current POTUS is that he is NOT a rambling person on the street. He is the highest government official in the country, and his interpretation of the bible motivated him to say that intelligent design (ie - the creation museum's interpretation of the bible) should be taught in schools. It was to show how the irrationalities of religion literally go all the way to the top. And his behavior is testament to the danger of religion, how it can take a person of logic and reason, and provide an outlet of logic that leads to completely irrational and insane actions. Bush himself says that the war in Iraq was a mission from god. But, you what, another mission from god was the 9/11 attacks. Bush may not be familiar with what the bible "actually says" but his misconceptions of the bible lead to some pretty dangerous things. Where do you think those misconceptions came from, because he didn't make them up himself. Those misconceptions are still being perpetuated even after their consequences have been witnessed.

All that points to ignorance, not irrationality. Bush speaks out of ignorance, so what he says really isn't useful for anything except to show that even people in high places can be ignorant.
He's following misconceptions as common as man, a pattern not confined to religion.

I don't care what millions of people through the ages think, or what C.S. Lewis thinks either. I care only about what the evidence shows. Logical pathways that lead to the truth of Christianity, even with extreme reason, but without evidence has no credence for me. Show me a million people who think the world is square, and show me one with a photo of it from space, and I'll side with the one guy with a photo every time.

Here you're saying that you "only care what the evidence shows" but you're not willing to look at evidence. Interesting.
Lewis, as many, many others, came to Christianity because of the evidence.

 

[Apollo]

Yes he will. He is a christian after all.

 

[Kulindahr]

What's conclusive is that again, Occam's Razor is anathema to Christians. Rather than take the simplest most likely interpretation that fits the context best, you have to invent all kinds of other uncommon meanings for things to flesh out and eliminate the otherwise grave and damning errors the Bible contains.

You have concepts stuck in your head that you can;t see beyond.

I'm not inventing anything. These are things that are fact, they're in the literature. Anyone who's done even a basic study of what we know about Genesis knows that the opening chapters make no claim to be literal or to contain scientific data.

If you want to apply Occam's Razor, here's the correct result for Genesis: don't introduce alien ways of thinking and thus complicate the issue.

The Bible doesn't contain any "grave and damning errors"; you only think that because you haven't actually bothered to see what it says. You're operating on the same interpretive principles that the Phelps clan does, namely that the King James Version was dictated in Heaven and delivered by a dove, using twentieth-or-so-century ways of thinking and meant to satisfy twentieth-or-so-century scientific itches.

You ignore motivation, human considerations, and anything else that gets in your way. That's a really stupid way to think that God would do things, so of course you're finding "errors".

 

[Apollo]

I still don't get why atheist fight religious people so much. I mean, your both the same people.

Or maybe I should say this, you both say the same shit, just different wording. I mean seriously, just shut the fuck up.

 

[construct]

Well, let's see. Where to begin. William of Occam was a Nominalist. Nominalism asserted among other things that philosophy and theology were separate fields and that propositions could be at the same time philosophically true and theologically false (or vice versa). Nominalists presented their views as a response to the Realists who held that truth was coherent and unified.

Occam's razor is a logical proposition that the explanation with the least parts is most likely the best explanation. Is Occam's razor applicable in the field of theology? Remember that one of the purposes of Nominalism was to liberate philosophy from the clutches of theology so that it could be established as a separate discipline.

 

[hotatlboi]

The Bible doesn't contain any "grave and damning errors"; you only think that because you haven't actually bothered to see what it says. You're operating on the same interpretive principles that the Phelps clan does, namely that the King James Version was dictated in Heaven and delivered by a dove, using twentieth-or-so-century ways of thinking and meant to satisfy twentieth-or-so-century scientific itches.

I don't "need" the Bible to satisfy any of my itches. My position is that if a book was written by a perfect all knowing all powerful being, it should read as such. It should stand the test of time and contain very compelling words that no one would have to question. Can you even imagine how much more infinity is than what we currently know? No, you can't. If God was infinite in all the ways the Bible claimed and he had spoken to man in such a profound way as the Bible would represent if it is that, I just think it would read more like that. We wouldn't see errors or things become outdated. We would see the foremost knowledge man has ever laid his eyes on.

But that's not what we see at all. What we see as construct excellently put it is "a time bound construction" of the writers of the period. We see this both in facts, and in other things such as morals and societal things (no perfect philosophy would tolerate slavery, misogyny, rape, genocide, etc). Regardless of whatever we might make of the scientific statements of the Bible I'm comfortable rejecting it for those reasons as well.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're starting off by assuming that the ways you think are the only correct ways, and are infallible and omniapplicable.

No I am not. I said nothing of the sort, nor did I need to.

You didn't say it; you did it. And right here you do it again:

What we are discussing is whether the knowledge that we currently have is more correct than the scientific statements made in the Bible.

If you can't see it, then you have a problem -- exactly the one I've been pointing out, that you are so stuck in your own little worldview that you can't even see that there might be others.

Whether I have the best possible answers is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to this discussion. Nice deflection technique to try and portray me as conceited.

No attempt to portray you as anything; I'm pointing out what it is you're actually doing.

I do not have the best possible most infallible answers of all time.

Maybe we're getting somewhere.
Answer this, then: can you tell me what sort of literature is present for the different places you've claimed errors in the Bible?

There are two data points being referenced here, that's it.

So says the mind which refuses to acknowledge he might not even be on the right plane.

And yes, we do have the capacity to judge whether certain knowledge we have today is more correct than that put forward in the Bible. Who has the "infallible and omniapplicable" knowledge need not even enter the discussion. "Is the knowledge we have now different or more correct than what God said in the Bible" is the only question that needs answering. It's always the religious side that is quick to jump to absolutes because that's most often the only ways you can prop up your arguments.

You're the one imposing absolutes! You keep demanding that the entire Bible conform to your perceptions of it, rather than bothering to investigate (you know, that 'scientific' passtime that yields knowledge?). You are quite good at tossing out cheap answers to questions not even being asked, answers that indicate you haven't really done any studying worth the name.

Just the way you pose the question shows your ignorance in the area -- that, and the way you keep dodging questions that seek to establish whether you know anything relevant.

 

[hotatlboi]

I still don't get why atheist fight religious people so much. I mean, your both the same people.

Or maybe I should say this, you both say the same shit, just different wording. I mean seriously, just shut the fuck up.

How about this, I'll shut the fuck up when I stop seeing people like Sarah Palin trying to dictate how my country should be run through religion.

If your religion does not affect me in a negative way, I could care less.

 

[Kulindahr]

As a matter of fact, my mind has been changed about a number of things by reading and participating in forum conversations.

Ditto that.

 

[Apollo]

How about this, I'll shut the fuck up when I stop seeing people like Sarah Palin trying to dictate how my country should be run through religion.

If your religion does not affect me in a negative way, I could care less.

If you don't like Sarah Palin, than stop sitting on your ass and get into politics.

One thing atheist aren't doing that their religous twins are doing, is getting deeply entrenched in politics. Sure they have lost footing thanks to Bush, but they fucking got to the congressmen who run this country.

Want that to end? Stop being whiny bitches and get into politics and become powerful. Sure it is a long process, but in the end, hey you win. Sure you sound exactly like the religious fundies, but you preach a different type of message.