Moderator: Community Team
jonesthecurl wrote:So should someone rewrite the bible now ?
What makes Lionz' and Viceroy's interpretations (which have dadddygringo's endorsements and which are actually pretty popular in the Christian community) any more or less right than yours or Night Strike's or that of any sect of Christianity?PLAYER57832 wrote:First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists or even just representative of those who think life on other planets might exist. I don't care what kind of idea you bring up, people will give all sorts of ideas on it. That's because we are all human.
No, I want a rational reason behind ignoring verse X, a rational reason for taking verse Y literally, and a rational reason for leaving verse Z open to hundreds of interpretations.Whoah, that is a pretty high standard you put forward.
Basically, you want a point by point detailed guidebook that gives you specifics on each aspect.
Viceroy and Lionz say that the Bible's predictive power is the justification for everything else in the book. For the Bible's predictive power to be a complete justification for the Biblical idea of the supernatural (that a omnipotent, omnipresent god created the world in 6 literal or figurative days depending on who you ask 6,000 or 6 billion years ago depending on who you ask and one day chose some girl to give birth to someone while apparently being a virgin(!) and that her son was actually god himself, but simultaneously god's son and he died and came back to life), there must be many predictions of major world events throughout the text that are proven true instead of a few isolated incidents. On top of that, since many religions and nonreligious sources make similar predictions, there has to be some reason which makes the Bible more believable than the Quran, Torah, Sports Illustrated, a scientific journal, a philosopher's writing, or literally any other source of predictions.#2-- basically yeah, except why does a prediction have to be repeated "throughout the text" a prediction stated once that comes true is enough...
#3 This is a pretty high standard, one you would not ask of science. That is, believing one faith doesn't mean that you say everything in every other faith is false. In fact, to persist, any religion must have portions of "the" truth. If Chemistry and Geology both predict something similar, it doesn't take away from either line of thinking, it tends to give more credibility to the prediction. Similarly, many religions dance around some of the same truths. You have to look at the whole, not just bits and pieces. One prediction, one idea that is true doesn't necessarily prove a religion correct. Often it just means multiple religions have grasped some fundamental truth.
See the first point I made. This part is particularly laughable, because it's an argument in favor of taking the entirety of the Bible literally.Or, put it another way... ever play telephone? Or just read the newspapers for science "facts". If you compare what is published in the journals to what is put forward was "fact" in the media, you get a wide range of variation. The Bible, for a Christian, is equivalent to the science journal. Church doctrine, dialogue, etc are more like the newsprint. Some are more accurate than others.
It's not scientific approach that's the problem, its a complete and total disregard for logic. As in my quote below:It just a false question. You want to set up demands that just don't exist. Religion is not science. Religious texts were not set up with the same fact standards as science. This doesn't mean fiction versus fact, it means that the people reading and viewing these texts have a very different way of viewing the world, percieving things than modern science does.
GreecePwns wrote:TL;DR Those on the religious side continue to dance around the glaring unfalsifiability and circularity problems of their belief, despite their best attempts to distract from it.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
jonesthecurl wrote:Then how successful has god been in spreading his word?
Just you?
You and some of the authorities you quote?
You and the Radio Church of God?
GreecePwns wrote:...there must be many predictions of major world events throughout the text that are proven true instead of a few isolated incidents.
Viceroy63 wrote:Prophecies revealed by fallen spiritual beings are never as accurate or far reached as those given by God through his word.
-Viceroy63
Viceroy63 wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:Then how successful has god been in spreading his word?
Just you?
You and some of the authorities you quote?
You and the Radio Church of God?
Hey, that is God's business not yours. You just worry about yourself and the final judgment that is appointed unto each one of us.
"A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened."
-Daniel 7:10
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"
-Hebrews 9:27
jonesthecurl wrote:P.S. whihc secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?
Woah, hold on there. All I said is that they weren't simply using the silly circular argument, "The Bible is true because the Bible says so." That doesn't mean I endorse everything they say. I agree with them that God exists and that the Bible is his word to man (I think players### would say the same, and she and I agree on almost nothing else) but there are various things that each of them have said with which I would not want to be associated.GreecePwns wrote:What makes Lionz' and Viceroy's interpretations (which have dadddygringo's endorsements and which are actually pretty popular in the Christian community) any more or less right than yours or Night Strike's or that of any sect of Christianity?PLAYER57832 wrote:First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists or even just representative of those who think life on other planets might exist. I don't care what kind of idea you bring up, people will give all sorts of ideas on it. That's because we are all human.
Viceroy63 wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:P.S. which secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?
Earl, You should look into things like that for yourself. I could be lying to you. anyone can. Don't take my word for it or anyone's for that matter. Don't even take the Bible's word for it (If you ever manage to read it and see for yourself), Just Google search it... Historians, Judas, 30 pieces of silver... And see what pops up?
Viceroy63 wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:P.S. whihc secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?
Earl, You should look into things like that for yourself. I could be lying to you. anyone can. Don't take my word for it or anyone's for that matter. Don't even take the Bible's word for it (If you ever manage to read it and see for yourself), Just Google search it... Historians, Judas, 30 pieces of silver... And see what pops up?
daddy1gringo wrote:Woah, hold on there. All I said is that they weren't simply using the silly circular argument, "The Bible is true because the Bible says so." That doesn't mean I endorse everything they say. I agree with them that God exists and that the Bible is his word to man (I think players### would say the same, and she and I agree on almost nothing else) but there are various things that each of them have said with which I would not want to be associated.GreecePwns wrote:What makes Lionz' and Viceroy's interpretations (which have dadddygringo's endorsements and which are actually pretty popular in the Christian community) any more or less right than yours or Night Strike's or that of any sect of Christianity?PLAYER57832 wrote:First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists or even just representative of those who think life on other planets might exist. I don't care what kind of idea you bring up, people will give all sorts of ideas on it. That's because we are all human.
I suppose I agree with a lot of what they both say about the Bible being consistent with archaeology and making unannily accurate predictions through history, but I really don't think that's a worthwhile line to take in a forum like this, and have not done so.
The point I would like to make from all this, and I think Players would agree with me here too, is that other than a very VERY, few beliefs that are the absolute common ground, any doctrrine expressed by any Christian is no excuse for rejecting Christ as savior.
You don't believe that Genesis is literal? Fine; dont. Lots of Christians don't. (I'll go out on a limb here) You don't believe that homosexuality is an aberration and a spiritual problem that can be healed? Fine; don't. Lots of Christians don't.
You wouldn't side with those who don't believe those things because you think they are being inconsistent, "cherry-picking", and compromising? Fine, don't. Take your stand with the hard-liners. I really don't care, and I don't believe God does either.
jonesthecurl wrote:P.S. which secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?
tzor wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:P.S. which secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?
Which "secular" historians covered Jerusalem at the time of Christ?
Which "secular" historians would cover "history" to that level of detail?
I'll give you a hint ... NONE!
Velleius Paterculus, a Roman historian, died a few years before the crucifixion. But he concentrated on Romans, not on non-Romans.
Flavius Josephus, was not even born until several years after the crucifixion and was a Jewish historian with a very large chip on his shoulder.
So if you look at the timeline of historians you will see that there are few, far between, and none around A.D. 33.
Viceroy63 wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:Then how successful has god been in spreading his word?
Just you?
You and some of the authorities you quote?
You and the Radio Church of God?
Hey, that is God's business not yours. You just worry about yourself and the final judgment that is appointed unto each one of us.
"A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened."
-Daniel 7:10
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"
-Hebrews 9:27
Viceroy63 wrote:Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors.
Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations, 6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord.
7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.
tzor wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:P.S. which secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?
Which "secular" historians covered Jerusalem at the time of Christ?
Which "secular" historians would cover "history" to that level of detail?
I'll give you a hint ... NONE!
Velleius Paterculus, a Roman historian, died a few years before the crucifixion. But he concentrated on Romans, not on non-Romans.
Flavius Josephus, was not even born until several years after the crucifixion and was a Jewish historian with a very large chip on his shoulder.
So if you look at the timeline of historians you will see that there are few, far between, and none around A.D. 33.
Viceroy63 wrote:Well yeah, that makes sense since anyone who claimed to be a Christian was put to death at the time. So would the works of anyone who wrote about it be burned as well most likely.
jonesthecurl wrote:P.S. whihc secular historians record the price for which Judas sold Jesus?
tzor wrote:crispybits wrote:They (the Catholic Church) thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely OK, and then they didn't, and what is the point of the Catholic Church if they say "well we couldn't know any better because nobody else did." Then what are they for?!?!
Actually they did not do any such thing. The first papal letter on slavery was, ironically, a few years before the New World was discovered and it was about the treatment of the natives of the Canary Islands.
Granted, the Catholic Church was not exceptionally vocal about slavery in the Americas and it didn't help that most of the letters by the Pope to the bishops in the Untied States were generally ignored, but it is wrong to say that the Catholic Church was ever a supporter of the racial generational slavery (wherein you owned not only the person but the children of said person) as practiced in the United States.
tzor wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:It just a false question. You want to set up demands that just don't exist. Religion is not science. Religious texts were not set up with the same fact standards as science. This doesn't mean fiction versus fact, it means that the people reading and viewing these texts have a very different way of viewing the world, perceiving things than modern science does.
I would disagree with one point; religious texts were written with the science of the day in the minds of the writers. The writings were not a "science" textbook, however. They were not strict history books as we generally consider history books today. The truth of the Bible does not imply that everything is scientifically correct. (Let's face it, a hundred years from now people will laugh at some of the things we believed were scientific "facts.") The books of the Bible need to be considered in the context they were written in and the purpose for the writing of the book in the first place.
tzor wrote:"The Bible tells us how to go to heaven; not how the heavens go."
Not understanding the purpose of a book of the Bible is the surest way of totally missing the point of the book of the Bible.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: pmac666