Will Obama say "So help me God" ?

[Kulindahr]

We're not getting anywhere, your entire post is a hodgepodge of nonsense. I never claimed to have the best most reliable position. I never claimed to be correct in all things. Those are attitudes you are labeling me with.

I only said that given the state of knowledge today, it is readily apparent to me that some statements in the Bible are false. You obviously disagree with this, because you interpret the Bible to your needs to avoid any such problems. But it's my opinion that the simplest most likely correct reading of the Bible cannot escape certain problems which I have discussed at length. You're never going to agree with me, so I'll stop arguing.

To employ a nice theological term I picked up from the blessed Martin Luther:

Bullshit.

You project so much here, you can't even see what I'm saying. You've posted "responses" which have nothing to do with what you quoted from me, you pull out "meanings" that aren't in the words, and you've ignored every single simple question I've put that would have demonstrated you have some basic knowledge for even addressing this subject.
Instead you just keep demanding that the Bible has to conform to your way of looking at things, and by interpreting it according to your views and not its own, you see "errors". By refusing to look at the information I've provided, by only picking the definitions and interpretations that support your view, you've demonstrated that you don't even have an interest in the "simplest most likely correct reading of the Bible". You've definitely shown that you don't know what that is; you just cram the Bible into your worldview and pronounce that you're correct, like some sort of Pope.

Then you fall back on ad hominems, using a standard cliche attack employed by atheists all over -- the piece of excrementum tauri I pit in bold orange.

And that's why I objected to the original mocking proposal for what Obama ought to say: it's as arrogant, condescending, doctrinaire, and insulting as anything Sarah Palin would have to say in its place.

 

[longinus]

If I may, I just read through this thread, and I'd like to commend Kulindahr for his erudite and spirited defense of religious belief. You have the patience of Job, a quality I lack which makes it almost impossible for me to participate in these kinds of online debates.

 

[construct]

Well, you know, Kuli, the Bible itself points out errors in its own text. Jeremiah (or was it Ezekiel? I forget so badly) said, "You have heard it said of old, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge'; but I say that every man will suffer for his own sin" (or something to that effect). Who was it that talked about the sour grapes? Wasn't it the writer of Deuteronomy? Now who was right, the lawgiver or the prophet? Clearly the latter meant to contradict the former and to deny the truth of what had previously been taught.

Any theology that asserts the inerrancy of the Bible is an unbiblical theology.

 

[Kulindahr]

I believe that we can get very very close to what the bible actually says, but not exactly what was meant. You can't even do that with modern literature, which is why I was forced to sit through dozens of literature classes all throughout my education trying to determine what some piece of literature "actually means", finally realizing that many many interpretations of the same text can be all equally valid. My big question when in these classes: why not just ask the people who wrote it (mostly asked in my modern literature classes. I once got an answer to that question. It's way off topic, but highly amusing, let me know if you want to hear it).

Dang, you'd love what I did in English lit: I demonstrated, using all the standard rules, that Coleridge's Kublai Khan was about a sexual tryst....

Ever read about the time someone actually asked Ayn Rand what a passage in one of her books "meant"? It was on the order of 'the train rode smoothly across the steel of the new bridge", and after a long, involved, rather condescending monologue dealing with everything from everything in the book leading up to that point, she answered with the equivalent of, 'it means there was this train, and it was crossing a bridge, on rails of steel, and the ride was smooth'.

I'd love to hear the answer to your question!

They rationalize and justify their actions by what they believe the bible to mean. From what you have said previously, it appears that those who have not translated it from it's original languages (as you have claimed to have done...a claim I view with some skepticism. And, if true, skepticism, about the accuracy of the translation) are all, on some level, wrong about it. It doesn't matter if they are wrong or right about what the bible says, what matters is that it allows a logical pathway to allow an otherwise rational person to commit horrible acts.

I've got an entire file drawer full of my work translating things. Oh, I didn't do Hosea in the Hebrew; the Masoretic is a mess that's about as clear as someone speaking in tongues, and I skipped most of the "begats" as being boring, and skimped a lot in Chronicles 'cause so much is just a repeat of previous material, but I pounded my way through it.
I even had Genesis 1 memorized in the Hebrew once... and could deliver it with a Southern accent.

Rationalizing and justifying are favorite human hobbies; they get applied to political campaigns (as seen in this forum for the last campaign season), and they get applied to religion, too. The Bible explains and warns against it, but 'Christians' still do it, along with everyone else (it's enough to ask why they don't act more like they're redeemed).

And there's where I disagree that anything that the Bible says "allows a logical pathway to allow an otherwise rational person to commit horrible acts". What allows that is basic human nature: it's been done by people who believe numerous religions, and in modern times more so by people who believe in political ideologies. All of that's the same; it's human nature manifesting the desire to be right, to be in the Bible's word righteous, to dominate those who oppose in order to establish that rightness and righteousness.
And that's one bit of evidence that brought me back to Christianity: the Bible has deep insight into human nature, and lays out both the failings and the solution.

BTW, the solution isn't to beat others over the head with Bibles, however much the Sarah Palin types might like that approach.

I would absolutely love to see that evidence. Scientific evidence validating religious beliefs is my holy grail (pun intended).

Ha.

The first one that really caught at me is the fact that of all the Deluge accounts around the world, the only one with a boat that could actually survive on stormy high seas is the one in Genesis -- the proportions given for the Ark are just the right ones, a fact not known to nautical engineering till the nineteenth century. Coincidence seemed too convenient an explanation.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have no interest in getting into politics. You have to be an asshole to get anywhere in that profession lol.

That doesn't mean I can't value and strive for the kind of secular country unencumbered by religion that the founders sought.

I'm not sure "unencumbered by religion" is a very accurate depiction of what the founders wanted -- in fact, not very accurate at all. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and others all expounded upon the necessity of religion for a healthy civic life.

But that's a far cry from what I would call not just encumbered by religion, but shackled and strangled, which is what many, many 'evangelical' 'Christians' really desire.

 

[construct]

So, what are the principles of Objectivism? That there is a reality external to perception which is knowable and communicable in language which is translatable without slippage. (I think I've given a pretty good summary of Objectivist ontology, epistemology, and philosophy of language in a single sentence.) The Objectivist, like the Common-Sense Realist, would say things like, "Who's interpreting? I'm just reading."

Ayn Rand would have made a good Southern Baptist (apart from the god-thing).

 

[longinus]

Kul burns straw dummies well

Do tell! The only straw dummies I've seen here are supposed to represent all religious belief but look a lot more like extreme fundamentalist evangelicals.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, I'm quoting the kind of statement that brings me no closer to understanding or accepting your take on matters of faith. It contains no content to support your position, and it gives the impression you'd rather win the argument than change people's minds.

Of all your contributions to this forum, there is only one assertion you make which contains content, and is not merely an attempt to discredit someone else's contribution, and that is where you talk about a form of literature called a "royal chronicle" which I would infer from the context you would say is different from a work of fiction. That is worth discussing.

If all the atheists and fundamentalists "have it all wrong" then how are we to interpret it. As the proponent of the idea that there is a reasonable interpretation, I would add that I think the burden of proof falls to you. At the very least a decent respect for the curiosity of others who do not share your views should compel you to make a lucid case for your position.

In what you quote, I was merely describing behavior he'd abundantly demonstrated. I tend to assume that people are paying attention in a discussion such as this, so I don't make posts even longer by quoting every little bit that shows the point; in this case, the dodging and evading and such were pretty obvious, so I didn't inflict quotes on everyone.

Oh, there are a lot more assertions than that one, but it is rather key. It's the point at which the refusal to consider other worldviews before attacking is plainest. I've gone into it in some detail in the religion forum, where I was also, BTW, accused of sort of inventing it to make the Bible "win" or something -- as opposed to discovering it, and realizing that the Creation account was, after all, credible; it just wasn't scientific (the symposium on worldviews that I took may have been one of the best things I ever sat/worked through).
In brief, the point of a royal chronicle is to present an "act" of a king in a way that accurately portrays the achievement in an organized and memorable way, which can be interpreted literally when dealing with the purpose for which the chronicle was composed, but not beyond that, while not pretending to be literally accurate in either chronology (especially important to Genesis!) or similar details (we'd think of it as similar to a map drawn "not to scale" but in a way that makes the route very plain to the traveler).

I suppose that a great deal of my posts have been focused on the errors of the 'foe', but I didn't really want to go into lecture mode.

 

[Apollo]

I have no interest in getting into politics. You have to be an asshole to get anywhere in that profession lol.

That doesn't mean I can't value and strive for the kind of secular country unencumbered by religion that the founders sought.

The religious are very proactive in trying to convert everyone else (to save them from hell or whatever). Athiests/agnostics are generally far less vocal or caring about this, so I don't really see how you have grounds to bitch about hearing things from us.

So you want change, but your going to do nothing about it? I don't get some people I swear. I guess they just want to flex their freedom of speech rights. *sigh*

Fundamentalist Christians and Atheist speak the same message. That the other side is crazy, wrong, and out of their minds. They have similar tactics to try and make people disillusioned to the others side.

I found chi though, so I am outie on this thread.

 

[hotatlboi]

In what you quote, I was merely describing behavior he'd abundantly demonstrated.

You need to stop your personal war of words with me and you need to stop it now. I've said I'm not arguing anymore because it's not going anywhere, yet you continue your pathetic attempts to paint me as the antagonist in this discussion.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible, deal with it. It's not because I'm arrogant, stupid, closed-minded, self-righteous, or any of the other bullshit attitudes you are attempting to label me with.

If I was, I would still be a religious fundamentalist like my parents.

You are the one who is closed minded in refusing to accept different interpretations of the Bible. You've studied the Bible for yourself. Fine, I can respect that. My main beef is people who just believe whatever their parents/church tell them too and don't think for themselves.

Now you need to respect the fact that I've studied the Bible for myself and come to some different conclusions than you have. Let's leave it at that since we stopped getting anywhere with this pages ago.

 

[hotatlboi]

So you want change, but your going to do nothing about it? I don't get some people I swear. I guess they just want to flex their freedom of speech rights. *sigh*

Um, where did I mention "nothing"?

I'd like to be able to go to the moon too. That doesn't mean I can devote my life to studying spacecraft propulsion. We can only do what we can do. Politics is not for me as a career. That doesn't mean I lose the right to care about it at all. I vote and assist the campaigns of those I support.

 

[Kulindahr]

This whole discussion has answered one my questions about you as well. You care more about having the last word and throwing something out there to oppose anything you disagree with, rather than presenting a coherent argument for your position. That kind of arguing leads to mindless repetition, and circular discussions, some of which we've witnessed here, so I'll decline to participate further. have a good night.

No, I'm trying to teach -- in this case, that you've got false conceptions, are ignorant of a few things, and such.
I was never trying to "present a coherent argument for [my] position", I was trying to explain why you're wrong. You avoided every bit of substance, and just kept plowing ahead.

And like the poster said above me, if you are going to have a productive religious discussion you have to be somewhat openminded.

You demonstrated clearly that you aren't. I presented information -- and not only I -- which showed your errors, but you weren't interested, instead claiming you were right, ignoring what had been pointed out to you.
If I weren't open minded, I never would have studied and found out that I was ignorant of a lot of things about the Bible, and found out that both fundamentalists and atheists are, for the most part, barking up the same wrong tree: imposing their alien worldview on a text they haven't bothered to understand.
If you'd been interested in discussion, you'd have addressed the simple questions I put -- and not by choosing just the bits that supported your position.

This is the most closed minded statement anyone has uttered in this thread. Basically you are saying "you don't agree with my interpretation of things, so you are closed minded." That's the very definition of what you are labeling me as. I'm not closed minded. I was raised in a very religious home and believed the Bible for most of my life, but it was eventually through reason and evidence that I realized how errant the Bible was. Like I said, present me with compelling evidence that my position is wrong and I will change it. I've thoroughly studied the Bible and it contains no such evidence imo.

Rubbish.

You said "I'm completely open to knowledge that I do not yet possess", after ignoring numerous posts where people presented knowledge you did not possess. That proved that your claim was false.

The thing is, in spite of your claim, you've never actually studied the Bible -- you've demonstrated that by your failure to understand that Genesis doesn't make scientific claims. Clearly you've switched from one faith to another: the (I'm guessing) fundamentalism of your raising to the scientism so popular these days. That does no good.
The only evidence I need that your position is wrong is that which I've already given: the Bible is written in a wide variety of literary genres, and none of them conform to what you're demanding of it. You claim that the Genesis creation account has scientific errors, but it makes no scientific claims or statements. Then you invoke the argument right out of the fundamentalist handbook that "If an omnipotent, omniscient God said it, it has to be accurate in every detail", which is fallacious from either side of the aisle, because it ignores the fact that God is a person, not a machine, trying to communicate with ordinary people, not believers in scientism, and so He has little choice but to approach people where they're at, and not from some lofty plane aimed at satisfying critics millennia away.

In fact much of what you do is right from the fundamentalist handbook, which is why I presume that about your upbringing. Flinging about "you don't agree with my interpretation of things, so you are closed minded" when if you read that's not what I said at all is SO fundamentalist it's tragic -- as is ignoring what doesn't fit your argument (such as my presentation of the fact that 'genea' doesn't fit your position for it). What you've done is take the fundamentalist/literalist view of things and flipped it over -- leaving with the same errors at base.

 

[Kulindahr]

that would make my post on topic

when i buy the ticket i do wave it in a Signum Crucis sorta way

<groan>

No, just raise your hand before you say "So help me God".

I have a mouse in my house. I went to the store tonight, and I bought some d-CON Mouse-Prufe II. I hear the mouse eating my poison now. What does this tell about the nature of god and man?

That men kill what they don't like?

 

[hotatlboi]

^ Not even going to go there. Your interpretation of what I've said is fundamentally wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to explain it. Read my last post. This is a dead horse at this point.

Suffice it to say, no you didn't prove anything I said was wrong. You threw out accusations that I was wrong, arrogant and closed-minded for disagreeing with your conclusions. Anyway most of what has been said in this thread is opinion about different biblical interpretations, and therefore has no truth value.

I've chosen to take a simple reading of the Bible as the most likely scenario for how it should be interpreted. You've brought in all these literary genres and devices to explain away the parts that are false and keep the parts you like as more literal. I don't find that interpretation to be very compelling or accurate. Sure not every part of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, only an idiot would claim that, but there are parts that talk in very basic terms which I see as incorrect, and therefore errant and not of a divine source.

But I don't care too much about that. It's your inflexibility and disrespect for any interpretation that is not your own that hinders your argument. I'm willing to respect your interpretation even though I disagree with it. Are you willing to extend me the same courtesy?

 

[construct]

Meh!

Don't worry about it, hotatlboi. When I left Fundamentalism, my moderate friends described me as "a fundamentalist turned inside-out--a different theology with the same mean spirit."

I'm not saying I see that in you, but you're not the first to be characterized that way.

 

[hotatlboi]

Meh!

Don't worry about it, hotatlboi. When I left Fundamentalism, my moderate friends described me as "a fundamentalist turned inside-out--a different theology with the same mean spirit."

I'm not saying I see that in you, but you're not the first to be characterized that way.

yes I just feel like he's getting so invested in trying to prove his argument that it's getting a bit personal. He's never going to convince me, and I'm never going to convince him, so I say let's just dispense with the name calling.

 

[FirmaFan]

Ha.

The first one that really caught at me is the fact that of all the Deluge accounts around the world, the only one with a boat that could actually survive on stormy high seas is the one in Genesis -- the proportions given for the Ark are just the right ones, a fact not known to nautical engineering till the nineteenth century. Coincidence seemed too convenient an explanation.

Coincidence IS too convenient an explanation. It allows one to accept something as fact without actual evidence Coincidence is circumstantial, as in: yeah, it kind of fits, but is not actual physical evidence. If this is the level of "evidence" you claim I have not looked at, then you and I have a very different idea about what "evidence" is. If your claim is true about the measurements of the ark, and it is true that those are the measurements actually originally written, and not some translators interpretation of something different based on new found 19th century nautical knowledge, all that really says is that the knowledge of such engineering was available at the time the bible was written - would fit, as of all the facts of the world people of the bronze era had dead wrong simply because of their physical limitation to explore such areas of science, the ocean was readily available to them, as was wood - how coincidentally convenient.

 

[Kulindahr]

ok I know i said that was my last post, but I've got to respond to this because we may have something concrete here.

I absolutely most assuredly DO NOT believe that, you are 100% correct.

If the God of the Bible exists, and he chose to overtly display his majesty in any way that infinite power and knowledge would clearly enable him to, I think he would be FAR more effective in communicating with humanity than "doing it within the terms of their culture" lol.

I think that may be one of the fundamental disagreements between us that causes us to see the Bible differently.

cheers

Okay.
I'm going to presume you don't speak Chinese or know their customs.

If I came up to you speaking in Chinese, how much good would it do you? Paul makes that point in Corinthians, where he says it's useless to speak in a foreign language when there's no translator.

God can't speak to humans except from within their own culture. Even if it could be spelled in Hebrew, what good would it have done to have spoken of quarks, or for that matter photons, or gravity? How would it have helped to tell them that shooting stars aren't stars, that the earth goes around the sun, or any such thing? God wasn't interested in teaching them such things; those are minor details in the scheme of things.

You don't grasp that because you can't see that they had a different worldview, so you can't understand why you couldn't just walk in on some African tribe, and in order to teach them about hygiene, started discoursing on the germ theory of disease. That would be pointless; by the time you got anyone to grasp what you were saying, let alone believe you, thousands would be dead, and you'd be dead as well. The way to do it and be effective would be to tell them that there are invisible demons they didn't know about, that boiling water can drown those demons, and so on -- they'd get the point that hot water and soap and all are effective, which is the point of what you're trying to achieve.

Saying that God is bound to doing things that way isn't a limitation on God, it's a reality about human beings: we don't adjust quickly to new paradigms, if we do at all, so the only way to teach us is in baby steps, bridging from the way we look at things to something a little more correct. And when science isn't on the list of priorities for teaching, you don't bother with correcting their errors every step of the way.

If God was Chinese (still assuming you don't speak it), He'd have to speak to you in English, or you wouldn't get a single thing He was telling you. Cultural concepts are determinants of what language means, so if God started using English words in ways you'd never met, that wouldn't be much better than Chinese -- worse, in fact. No, he'd not only have to use English, He'd have to use the English you know and recognize, with all its colloquialisms, slang, misconceptions, everyday views of things, and so on. In other words, He'd have to adapt to your culture if He hoped to achieve anything at all.

That God in the Bible does so is another bit of evidence that brought me back: it's the only religion where God comes to man, on man's level, to communicate (at that point, the claim that God became man is only a simple extension of the whole thing to that reality). What other gods do is magic, and that seems to be what you want: for God to change people by the wave of a hand, so that they can comprehend something utterly past their culture and language and knowledge -- without even asking.

 

[hotatlboi]

Okay.
I'm going to presume you don't speak Chinese or know their customs.

If I came up to you speaking in Chinese, how much good would it do you? Paul makes that point in Corinthians, where he says it's useless to speak in a foreign language when there's no translator.

God can't speak to humans except from within their own culture. Even if it could be spelled in Hebrew, what good would it have done to have spoken of quarks, or for that matter photons, or gravity? How would it have helped to tell them that shooting stars aren't stars, that the earth goes around the sun, or any such thing? God wasn't interested in teaching them such things; those are minor details in the scheme of things.

You don't grasp that because you can't see that they had a different worldview, so you can't understand why you couldn't just walk in on some African tribe, and in order to teach them about hygiene, started discoursing on the germ theory of disease. That would be pointless; by the time you got anyone to grasp what you were saying, let alone believe you, thousands would be dead, and you'd be dead as well. The way to do it and be effective would be to tell them that there are invisible demons they didn't know about, that boiling water can drown those demons, and so on -- they'd get the point that hot water and soap and all are effective, which is the point of what you're trying to achieve.

Saying that God is bound to doing things that way isn't a limitation on God, it's a reality about human beings: we don't adjust quickly to new paradigms, if we do at all, so the only way to teach us is in baby steps, bridging from the way we look at things to something a little more correct. And when science isn't on the list of priorities for teaching, you don't bother with correcting their errors every step of the way.

If God was Chinese (still assuming you don't speak it), He'd have to speak to you in English, or you wouldn't get a single thing He was telling you. Cultural concepts are determinants of what language means, so if God started using English words in ways you'd never met, that wouldn't be much better than Chinese -- worse, in fact. No, he'd not only have to use English, He'd have to use the English you know and recognize, with all its colloquialisms, slang, misconceptions, everyday views of things, and so on. In other words, He'd have to adapt to your culture if He hoped to achieve anything at all.

That God in the Bible does so is another bit of evidence that brought me back: it's the only religion where God comes to man, on man's level, to communicate (at that point, the claim that God became man is only a simple extension of the whole thing to that reality). What other gods do is magic, and that seems to be what you want: for God to change people by the wave of a hand, so that they can comprehend something utterly past their culture and language and knowledge -- without even asking.

I'm not the one who's limited in my interpretation. Your entire post contains the assumption that an infinitely powerful being would have to use language to communicate with humans. Such a limitation would not exist. If an infinitely powerful being existed and wanted all people alive to know of his existence, such a disclosure would be effortless. The Bible even says this. So the book you've been defending just proved you wrong lol. The Bible says that the unbelievers will be humbled before God's majesty when he returns. No words would be necessary.

Again, your argument fails and all you have to say is that I am ignorant or don't understand your interpretation so that makes me wrong. oh well, im done here

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, and this separation became one of the foundations of the Prostestant Reformation and of continental Neo-Orthodoxy by way of Kant and Kierkegaard. It is also the reason that Karl Barth had to say "No" to Emil Brunner. There is no natural theology.

Poor Aquinas.