Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sometimes the search for truth leads to faith, Lois. People genuinely seeking the truth may often find faith if they will allow themselves to be open to all possibilities.(this speaks to the open mindedness you are talking about, which BTW I predict a few people may try to turn around on you). Remember what is says in the bible? Who is the way, the truth, and the life? And the Bible also says "seek and ye will find" and "knock and the door will be opened".Those truly seeking the truth and are are willing to go anywhere it may lead them may find their way to faith. It has happened before.
Oh, I agree completely, if you seek you will find, 100% I have faith that this is the case, so the problem, or the disconnect,isn't so much the seeking as it is the seeker. What if you were single, went on blind dates every Friday and every time you pulled up to her house you first took a dump on her front lawn? That's my view of a certain percentage of posters when it comes to this subject. They will never get past the taking a dump phase, and it just will never occur to them to say, take a different path, because this how they do if you will, this is who they are. They are never truly seeking truth or faith, just trying to find ways to disprove what they already believe does not exist. Which in my opinion is a complete waste of time, but to each his own. You want to shit on lawns, go for it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, but you're not going to like it.I said they have an equal conviction to mine.Therefore you are wrong in supposing I attributed different value sets.Now just prove I said there is a 100% fact that God exist, and you win.Sorry in advancebtw, God does existAnd any chance I can to show Little Dickie Dawkins, who sells books, to be a fool, I do so. Because he is. While he sells books.
Hey BG, I'll let you in on a secret. I'm God and I've been taking notes.You're OK...... but a lot of people are screwed.You are the man.
Link to post
Share on other sites

BG & I don't often see eye to eye on politics but I love him anyway. He was the first person to actually welcome me on this forum. Guess LMD you can blame him for my continued presence driving you crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't normally get involved in the religious discussions, but I just have to say that this is the worst argument ever. By this standard, nothing can ever be proven false. Think the world is flat, but evidence indicates otherwise? Well, maybe God just distorted the light to make it *appear* that the earth is spherical, just to test our faith.The argument that an all-powerful being *could have* done something a certain way as a justification for ignoring physical evidence is an appeal to nihilism as proof.
But this isn't what I'm saying at all. I am asking for physical evidence that the Bible is wrong about something. I agree with you that it's bad when people use this argument and I am not.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes the search for truth leads to faith, Lois. People genuinely seeking the truth may often find faith if they will allow themselves to be open to all possibilities.(this speaks to the open mindedness you are talking about, which BTW I predict a few people may try to turn around on you). Remember what is says in the bible? Who is the way, the truth, and the life? And the Bible also says "seek and ye will find" and "knock and the door will be opened".Those truly seeking the truth and are are willing to go anywhere it may lead them may find their way to faith. It has happened before.
The problem with this is the assumption that coming to any conclusion different from your own makes that seeker wrong. "People genuinely seeking the truth" also come to other faiths, and some of them come to no faith at all. Can you acknowledge that their truth may be the genuine truth for them, without giving up your own genuine truth?As for me, I don't want everyone to be a Buddhist. I don't want Christians to "admit" they're wrong. I don't want atheists to "admit" that they're wrong either. I found my truth only after reading dozens of books of faith, including not only the bible but also sutras, Jewish kabbalah, lots of Hindu Vedanta, and scholarly books analyzing all of them, outlining how they came to be the way we have them today but also what was left out, who fought over each interpretation, and what the earliest believers thought, before the books were written. I find early Christianity (from 100 AD to the Reformation) extremely interesting, and have read probably dozens of books on the subject. [As an intellectual snob, I confess that I find it disappointing that very few "believing" Christians seem even half as interested in learning the whole story of their faith as I am. Why not?]I just want Christians to concede that there may be more than one truth, and that's something many Christians will not do. Some will, and some might pay lip service while believing that their truth is the only right one, and many will adamantly insist that there is one truth, they have it, and everyone else is wrong and if only they were "genuinely" seeking or if only they would "open their hearts," then they too could have the one truth.This isn't a rhetorical question, NOR IS IT a criticism. I'm just asking, honestly: can you believe in multiple co-equal truths, or does your faith forbid that?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with this is the assumption that coming to any conclusion different from your own makes that seeker wrong. "People genuinely seeking the truth" also come to other faiths, and some of them come to no faith at all. Can you acknowledge that their truth may be the genuine truth for them, without giving up your own genuine truth?As for me, I don't want everyone to be a Buddhist. I don't want Christians to "admit" they're wrong. I don't want atheists to "admit" that they're wrong either. I found my truth only after reading dozens of books of faith, including not only the bible but also sutras, Jewish kabbalah, lots of Hindu Vedanta, and scholarly books analyzing all of them, outlining how they came to be the way we have them today but also what was left out, who fought over each interpretation, and what the earliest believers thought, before the books were written. I find early Christianity (from 100 AD to the Reformation) extremely interesting, and have read probably dozens of books on the subject. [As an intellectual snob, I confess that I find it disappointing that very few "believing" Christians seem even half as interested in learning the whole story of their faith as I am. Why not?]I just want Christians to concede that there may be more than one truth, and that's something many Christians will not do. Some will, and some might pay lip service while believing that their truth is the only right one, and many will adamantly insist that there is one truth, they have it, and everyone else is wrong and if only they were "genuinely" seeking or if only they would "open their hearts," then they too could have the one truth.This isn't a rhetorical question, NOR IS IT a criticism. I'm just asking, honestly: can you believe in multiple co-equal truths, or does your faith forbid that?
This is not possible. Anyone that admits this isn't a Christian.... other than in name only.
Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note, I attended the funeral today for my friend's three-and-a-half year old daughter, so go easy on me. They're holding up okay and no doubt will continue to do so, but I'm about cried out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I simply don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that an all-powerful God would make a planet that was already 'mature'.
The argument that an all-powerful being *could have* done something a certain way as a justification for ignoring physical evidence is an appeal to nihilism as proof.
But this isn't what I'm saying at all. I am asking for physical evidence that the Bible is wrong about something. I agree with you that it's bad when people use this argument and I am not.
Actually, you are using precisely that argument. Presented with an earth older than the bible says it is, you say, well, God *could have* created a mature earth.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, you are using precisely that argument. Presented with an earth older than the bible says it is, you say, well, God *could have* created a mature earth.
No.. it isn't. I'm not ignoring physical evidence to further any goals. I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm asking for physical facts of our world that are contradicted in the Bible. I'm discussing this with VB from an objective viewpoint... not my own. My thinking, from early in the conversation, that a hypothetical God could create a mature earth has nothing do to with the current question. What are some physical facts of the Earth that are contradicted in the Bible. It's a valid point that Hblask made that someone could say, "Well, maybe God just distorted the light to make it *appear* that the earth is spherical, just to test our faith." and I agree that we should discuss that if that argument comes up. I don't think that type of argument will come from anyone here.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No.. it isn't. I'm not ignoring physical evidence to further any goals. I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm asking for physical facts of our world that are contradicted in the Bible. I'm discussing this with VB from an objective viewpoint... not my own.
if the bible actually puts the earth at 6000 years old (I don't know if it does), then all of the dating technology we have today contradicts what is in the bible. but I'm sure we're just going in circles here.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there is some slight of hand going on in your last series of posts regarding your usage of the words "prove" and "disprove". More on that later. For now, I wonder if you could tell me, did Joseph have two fathers? Because according to MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.Jacob was his father. But... LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.So, Choose Your Own Adventure! 1. do you claim translation error or some other human mistake in copying the book after god wrote it? If so, turn to page 45 where we will then have to begin questioning everything else in the bible2. do you bite the bullet and fall back on "its possible he had TWO fathers!" you can't disprove that he didn't! in which case, turn to page 34 where we will continue the discussion about the futility of radical skepticism and how it doesn't solve your dilemma
If you notice... the ENTIRE genealogy is completely different in Matthew and Luke. This is because Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph and Luke is the genealogy of Mary. The reason that the say 'Joseph' in Luke is because it was culturally correct to mention the man's name and not the woman's... but the point is the same. In the first three chapters of Luke, Mary is mentioned like 10+ times and the genealogy in Luke are Mary's ancestors. Remember... Jews trace their lineage through the mothers... so it was important to establish that Jesus' natural lineage through his mother went back to David.
The book of Matthew was written to the Jewish people.The book of Mark was written to the RomansThe book of Mark was written to the Greek/GentilesThe book of John was written to the ChristiansEach book had a different readship, and as such, to the Jews, the bloodline is passed through the father, which is why the geneaology of Christ focused on the Father son relation to establish His lineage from David, since the Bible clearly said the Messiah would come from the tribe of DavidThe book of Luke gave a greek explanation of the bloodline through the bloodline of His mother, who was a direct descendant of David, thus making the prophecy true as well, but less important to a people who didn't care as much about the Jewish laws about firstborn sonship etc.Think of this. If the Bible was written by man, and they couldn't fix this so called error, then wouldn't there be a slew of other problems? In other words there is a textual critism method called something pretty cool, but means basically, " You attribute intelligence to the author when a 'conflict' exist. you give him the benefit of the doubt till proven otherwise.
Okay, you've both explained WHY you think the contradiction is there. But that actually doesn't take "not one jot or one tittle," as Jesus said, from the fact that there IS a contradiction there. If the bible never contradicts itself, then who is Joseph's father?Btw, BG, Jews are not patrilineal. Orthodox Jews are still matrilineal and certainly bible-era Jews were matrilineal. Only Reform Jews consider either parent's Judaism to be equal in terms of bloodline. You're right about the different readerships, and to a Jew, Jesus did come from the tribe of David because Mary did.Brvheart, how do you conclude that Luke says, "son of Heli" but is talking about Mary's genealogy? Where's your evidence for this? I know you're not alone in this interpretation, because I've certainly seen it elsewhere, but where is the evidence that backs it up? All you have are the words in black and white, "Joseph, the son of Heli." I understand that you're saying, well, obviously it must mean Mary, but you're not backing that conclusion up with any evidence at all except that it happens to explain away a seeming contradiction -- and the fact that an interpretation is convenient does not make it evidence. Where in the bible does it say that it is "culturally correct" to say "son" when what you mean is "daughter"? Are you suggesting that every time a genealogy says "son of" it might actually mean "daughter of" or is it just this one time? Is every story in the bible starring men really a story about women, because it was "culturally correct" to name their husbands?
Link to post
Share on other sites
if the bible actually puts the earth at 6000 years old (I don't know if it does), then all of the dating technology we have today contradicts what is in the bible. but I'm sure we're just going in circles here.
It doesn't... and we are.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"not one jot or one tittle," as Jesus said
I've never heard this. What's the reference for this verse?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never heard this. What's the reference for this verse?
Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."It's not at all connected to this argument; I didn't intend to imply that. I was just struck by the phrase and always remembered it. I was just using it as an intensifier, to say that explaining the contradiction doesn't take away from the fact that it's there.I'm sure it's only found in the King James version, since it's antique language. But maybe that's why it struck me. I did after all work for a Shakespeare theatre -- and when Shakespeare's company is called the King's Men, it is the same King James who is responsible for the King James bible. The language of the KJV is Shakespeare's language.The funeral this afternoon had a light moment related to that. About half the people attending were from the theatre or from the local college's masters program in Shakespeare, which is closely linked to the theatre. The minister was giving the altar call, and said, "Don't be afraid. Nobody will laugh at you. It won't make you weird. You won't start talking like King James." Then he paused, looked out over us, and said, "Well, a lot of you do that anyway."
Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't... and we are.
Brvheart's right. The 6,000-year-old date comes from a Bishop Ussher, a 17th-Century Anglican bishop. He added up all the generations named in the bible and did the math. You can read his methodology here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology It's embraced by Young Earth Creationists today, but whatever else it is, it certainly isn't a claim the bible directly makes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."It's not at all connected to this argument; I didn't intend to imply that. I was just struck by the phrase and always remembered it. I was just using it as an intensifier, to say that explaining the contradiction doesn't take away from the fact that it's there.I'm sure it's only found in the King James version, since it's antique language. But maybe that's why it struck me. I did after all work for a Shakespeare theatre -- and when Shakespeare's company is called the King's Men, it is the same King James who is responsible for the King James bible. The language of the KJV is Shakespeare's language.The funeral this afternoon had a light moment related to that. About half the people attending were from the theatre or from the local college's masters program in Shakespeare, which is closely linked to the theatre. The minister was giving the altar call, and said, "Don't be afraid. Nobody will laugh at you. It won't make you weird. You won't start talking like King James." Then he paused, looked out over us, and said, "Well, a lot of you do that anyway."
Well, I guess I agree that it has nothing to do with the current topic. The genealogies of Mary and Joseph aren't a part of the first five books of the Old Testament, which is what that verse is about. That's funny about the pastor. I'm fairly surprised that there was an alter call at a funeral. I've never heard of such a thing. That must be a deep south thing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Brvheart, how do you conclude that Luke says, "son of Heli" but is talking about Mary's genealogy? Where's your evidence for this? I know you're not alone in this interpretation, because I've certainly seen it elsewhere, but where is the evidence that backs it up? All you have are the words in black and white, "Joseph, the son of Heli." I understand that you're saying, well, obviously it must mean Mary, but you're not backing that conclusion up with any evidence at all except that it happens to explain away a seeming contradiction -- and the fact that an interpretation is convenient does not make it evidence. Where in the bible does it say that it is "culturally correct" to say "son" when what you mean is "daughter"? Are you suggesting that every time a genealogy says "son of" it might actually mean "daughter of" or is it just this one time? Is every story in the bible starring men really a story about women, because it was "culturally correct" to name their husbands?
My 'evidence' is that nobody questioned this at the time. Wouldn't the people putting the canon together notice this? They did. And it wasn't weird for them. The entire point of the passage is to prove to the Jews that Jesus was in the lineage of David. As you point out, this would HAVE to be through the mother for Jews to care. They wouldn't have had that proof without Luke 3 being about Mary. If that isn't evidence enough, then nothing will be. I don't have video of any of the events in question.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's funny about the pastor. I'm fairly surprised that there was an alter call at a funeral. I've never heard of such a thing. That must be a deep south thing.
Oh, gosh yeah. The last two funerals and the last wedding I went to all had altar calls. If you're sitting in a church down here, you're going to hear an altar call, no matter why you're there. I've never been to church bingo, but I would not be the least bit surprised if the evening had an altar call in it.On the plus side, you get Southern gospel music. Nothing prettier.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Brvheart's right. The 6,000-year-old date comes from a Bishop Ussher, a 17th-Century Anglican bishop. He added up all the generations named in the bible and did the math. You can read his methodology here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology It's embraced by Young Earth Creationists today, but whatever else it is, it certainly isn't a claim the bible directly makes.
yeah, I had no idea where the claim came from or whether it had any substance to it. I don't belong in this discussion, as I am pretty much unwilling to do any research. I get my learnins from the documentary series Cosmos.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, gosh yeah. The last two funerals and the last wedding I went to all had altar calls. If you're sitting in a church down here, you're going to hear an altar call, no matter why you're there. I've never been to church bingo, but I would not be the least bit surprised if the evening had an altar call in it.On the plus side, you get Southern gospel music. Nothing prettier.
This is all pretty funny to me. I need to take a trip down south.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you use the word truth the same way I do.
....or, in that sentence, the word Christian.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let me rephrase that sentence a bit. I don't want to _force_ anyone to concede anything.However, I think there are Christians who would disagree with brvheart there. Now, apparently that means he has a beef with those fellow Christians, but that's not my problem. I will say that when you draw the line in such a way that you can exclude even fellow believers, you might not be bearing witness to God's allegedly all-encompassing love really convincingly.And you might not be aware that this would be why some people consider Christians "holier-than-thou" and that they think themselves superior to others. You can say as often as you want, "No, no, we don't think we're superior." But the fact remains that you think you're right and everyone else is wrong. As long as you believe that right is superior to wrong, then yeah, there's a sense of superiority creeping in there.The wisest Christians I've observed were the ones who wanted to show love in their every act and who wanted to simply model Christ-like behavior in their lives. They weren't concerned with being right or wrong, but were very concerned with being kind and loving. I'm thinking Martin Luther King, Thomas Merton, Reinhold Niebuhr, as well as some people in my own family. And they generally believed in "many paths, one goal."

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is all pretty funny to me. I need to take a trip down south.
Being raised down here, I still haven't fully realized how different churches elsewhere are. Back in the 1980s, Sam Waterston of Law & Order was in a TV show called I'll Fly Away. Every time it was mentioned, TV Guide used to put in brackets "the title comes from a Southern spiritual." And I was always like, "Who doesn't know that???" But I never realized the song was regional. Now I realize nearly all the great hymns I know are regional Southern gospel -- "I'll Fly Away," "The Old Rugged Cross," "When the Roll is Called Up Yonder," (that one's a giveaway because of "yonder"), etc.At my grandmother's funeral, there was a beautiful song sung. I looked all over the web for it, to no avail. When I finally asked my aunts and uncles, they all recognized the song and could sing it for me, but had never seen it written down in a hymnal. Turns out, it was a strictly regional song, written locally to Southwest Virginia and sung only in maybe a fifty-mile radius or so.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...