Can the Bible reveal absolute truth? [Archive]

zooloo

30th July 2007, 05:00 PM

This Guy

30th July 2007, 06:10 PM

John 3, 16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Mark 16,16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Just an example of the "no contradictions" ;)

One group reads John 3, 16, and says only believing is required. Another group reads John, and Mark, and says, yes, you must believe, but you must also be baptized. They see no contradiction. Believing is required, but so is baptism.

If this represents a contradiction or not, I'll leave to others to decide. But at best, it shows that there is a lot of room for interpretation in the bible. Seems strange that god would inspire a book to guide his chosen people, and allow those inspired writers to write in such a way as to allow so many different interpretations.

Cain and Able both made an offering to god. God was pleased with one, but not the other.

Genesis 4
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

Taken together, it would appear that god does expect us to follow his will.

But, if we read on we see -

6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Implying that doing well (however that is defined) is enough.

You have folks that love their neighbor, and then you have the Phelps, who seem to hate everyone that isn't them. Both use the bible to back up their actions.

Yep, it's a pretty screwed up mess IMHO.

I'm of the opinion that if you really try, and you pick out the right verses, you can back up just about anything using the bible as your guide.

fuelair

30th July 2007, 06:17 PM

Gord_in_Toronto

30th July 2007, 06:40 PM

Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand. Mark Twain

triadboy

30th July 2007, 08:07 PM

If the Bible cannot provide a definitive answer it cannot reveal the "single" (Absolute?) truth.

Why do we expect a mish-mosh of stories and myths written by ancient people [900BC - 350AD] to provide a 'life' truth?

Cello Man

30th July 2007, 08:33 PM

Absolute truth by what standard? Assuming the Bible is wholly perfect (it isn't), what else could you compare it to to establish its "absolute" truth? That implies that the standard for capital-P-Perfection is something which the Bible would be measured against, not a quality that it possesses. Kinda takes the supposed word of God down a few notches when you realize that it's not immune to literary criticism, to say nothing of critical thinking in general which tears it to shreds and then asks for seconds.

And yes, with all the Bible's internal contradictions, you could support any number of mutually exclusive moral positions with scripture. One part says thou shalt not kill. Another says you should kill someone for working on the Sabbath. Not only is it just a-ok, you are in fact compelled to do so.

Speaking as a former retail worker who worked more than a few Sundays, I have a bit of a problem with that idea. Not just for saving my own skin, but I don't exactly feel the urge to stone people to death who don't agree with me. In fact I find the idea morally reprehensible.

If the Christian God exists, then it's his fault for giving me this pesky conscience that defies his own will.

slingblade

30th July 2007, 09:12 PM

Absolute truth is hard to find. Subjective truth is much, much more common. Even the things we know we know, might not be known in the future, when we will know more.

So....no, I doubt it.

Jorghnassen

30th July 2007, 09:26 PM

I'm pretty sure some of those "x begat y" have to be true...

Carnegiea

30th July 2007, 09:52 PM

“He [the Lord] is good, his love endures forever” -- 1 Chronicles 16:34

“I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.” -- Exodus 20:4

YouBelieveWHAT?

30th July 2007, 10:44 PM

TWO groups of Christians?

Hundreds more like - possibly even thousands!

One thing I find very difficult to understand is how a bunch of stories written to give an insignificant tribe of goat-herders a mythical glorious past ever got to to become what it is today.

I've tried to read the bible, but keep getting bogged down in nonsense. If anybody's read - and understood :) - the bit in Ezekiel (I think) where Gunderscored is ranting about demolishing a wall, then about some cushions that he's taken a dislike too, can they please explain it to me?

Is this one of the bits of the bible that you're supposed to read as an allegory? A parable? A parody even? What? Is there a cherry-pickers guide to the bible?

I also wonder just how all of these ministers, vicars, priests, rabbis, etc, etc manage to get around the "thou shalt not work on the Sabbath" law?

OK - that's enuff for now...

YBW

MINISTERofTRUTH

30th July 2007, 11:08 PM

The sole purpose of the Bible is to not reveal the absolute truth, but instead it is designed to make believers out of people.

In truth, you die.

Avoid truth, by being a believer, and you can live forever.

And so it is actually SATAN who offers eternal life, SATAN is the guy who sacrifices JESUS who happens to be the living truth. With Jesus out of the way, truth is out of the way, belief then rules, and eternity comes to life.

Those who believe, never can reach the truth, for they are many steps away from truth, thanks to being believers.

JJM 777

31st July 2007, 12:22 AM

As for "Bible revealing the truth" vs. "beliefs of Christians", just an example:

- Old Testament: priests must be males of Aaronic genetic lineage.
- New Testament: church leader must be "a man of one wife".
- Catholic Church: priest must be an _unmarried_ man (man of no wife at all).
- Reformed churches and synagogues have begun to allow female priests or rabbis since 1980's or so.

Analyze this. :hb:

TWO groups of Christians?
Possibly he referred to the true Christians vs. the heretics.

In other words, ___write_your_church_name_here___ vs. the other churches.

Most notably, Catholic Church vs. the other churches.

a mythical glorious past
The history reported in Bible is mostly as accurate (with the usual exaggerations) as history written any elsewhere in that period. Archeological findings from Syria, Egypt etc. mention many events reported in the Bible.

Is there a cherry-pickers guide to the bible?
Yes, it is called "gospel of glory". Ask Pat Robertson or Benny Hinn for more information.

I also wonder just how all of these ministers, vicars, priests, rabbis, etc, etc manage to get around the "thou shalt not work on the Sabbath" law?
This issue was mentioned by Jesus et al, that Temple workers are expressly expected to work on Sabbath.

joobz

31st July 2007, 12:34 AM

Can the Bible reveal absolute truth?
no.

Bri

31st July 2007, 09:35 AM

If the Bible cannot provide a definitive answer it cannot reveal the "single" (Absolute?) truth.

Your definition of "absolute truth" would require "absolute proof" would it not? Although I think your definition of "truth" is different than that used by the Christian groups you speak of, I think that most Christians would agree with you that the Bible doesn't offer absolute proof as most would agree that Christianity is a religion based on faith.

-Bri

zooloo

31st July 2007, 10:33 AM

Your definition of "absolute truth" would require "absolute proof" would it not? Although I think your definition of "truth" is different than that used by the Christian groups you speak of, I think that most Christians would agree with you that the Bible doesn't offer absolute proof as most would agree that Christianity is a religion based on faith.

-Bri
My definition of absolute truth in this context would be a single answer. We haven't reached the consideration of absolute proof. So for now that's a moot point.

The fact that conflicting views can be supported fully by the Bible and with no way to determine which is actually true shows a problem with regarding the Bible as a source of absolute truth.

Christianity is a religion based on the Bible, faith comes later.

(PS. Thank you to everyone who has answered)

Bri

31st July 2007, 10:47 AM

The fact that conflicting views can be supported fully by the Bible and with no way to determine which is actually true shows a problem with regarding the Bible as a source of absolute truth.

Your point is well-taken, but I think most Christians would agree with you. Most Christians would also agree that fundies are nuts for the same reasons you think they are (i.e. they tend to vastly overstate the strength of their evidence).

Christianity is a religion based on the Bible, faith comes later.

I'm not a Christian myself, but I'm not sure Christians would agree with this. I think most would agree that they have faith that the Bible presents certain basic truths, but few (including the literalists) would claim that the Bible contains absolutely provable facts.

ETA: I guess what I'm getting at is that you're using the term "absolute truths" differently than a Christian probably would. Whereas you use the term to mean something that is absolutely provable, a Christian would use the term to mean something that is true but not necessarily provable. Therefore, a Christian (even a Bible literalist) would likely not think the point made in the OP is much of a revelation because they don't require proof to believe the Bible to be true (that's why they call it "faith").

-Bri

H3LL

31st July 2007, 10:55 AM

Bats are birds.

It's true :)

.

Nim Chimpsky

31st July 2007, 11:43 AM

I think a more important question is why they think they have to use the word TRUTH when referring to their beliefs. Much in the same way the 9/11 "TRUTH" movement uses the same term, they are all covering up the actual inadequacy of their position. They have zero actual evidence so they have to use the word to give an illusion of validity.

Truth is connected to reality and fact. Religion is neither of these.

zooloo

31st July 2007, 11:52 AM

Your point is well-taken, but I think most Christians would agree with you. Most Christians would also agree that fundies are nuts for the same reasons you think they are (i.e. they tend to vastly overstate the strength of their evidence).

I'm not a Christian myself, but I'm not sure Christians would agree with this. I think most would agree that they have faith that the Bible presents certain basic truths, but few (including the literalists) would claim that the Bible contains absolutely provable facts.

ETA: I guess what I'm getting at is that you're using the term "absolute truths" differently than a Christian probably would. Whereas you use the term to mean something that is absolutely provable, a Christian would use the term to mean something that is true but not necessarily provable. Therefore, a Christian (even a Bible literalist) would likely not think the point made in the OP is much of a revelation because they don't require proof to believe the Bible to be true (that's why they call it "faith").

-Bri
For Christians faith follows the Bible otherwise it would be "Faith in what?"

Even if a Christian has "faith" that their doctrine is the correct one somebody else has "faith" that the other person is certainly going to Hell and that they themselves are not. Again this just leads to stalemate and trading quotes.

I'm not asking if there is absolute proof for the common doctrine, it is that the common doctrine is missing. Asking for absolute proof is a hurdle we haven't yet reached.

Christians may agree the Bible contains certain basic truths but they cannot agree what those basis truths are and the Bible offers no definite answer (If it did conflict wouldn't arise).

I appreciate my phrasing leaves something to be desired, if I restate my question is would be: As there are Christian doctrinal differences, this shows there is no definitive answer, the Bible cannot be said to reveal the Truth.

Cheers all, your answers are helping me to form a clearer idea of what I am thinking.

Bri

31st July 2007, 12:08 PM

I think a more important question is why they think they have to use the word TRUTH when referring to their beliefs.

I think what you're getting at is that truth is independent of belief. Whether or not I believe something makes no difference as to its truth. Nor does whether or not I can prove it. If it is true, it is true whether or not it can be proven. I doubt many Christians claim to be able to prove what they believe to be true. At the same time, you are likely unable to prove it to be false, making the following also an overstatement:

Truth is connected to reality and fact. Religion is neither of these.

-Bri

fuelair

31st July 2007, 12:15 PM

Bats are birds.

It's true :)

.
"Birds are batty! hahaha ha ha hahaha ha ha hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!"
W. Woodpecker ca.1948

RenaissanceBiker

31st July 2007, 12:19 PM

Signature.

Bri

31st July 2007, 12:21 PM

Christians may agree the Bible contains certain basic truths but they cannot agree what those basis truths are and the Bible offers no definite answer (If it did conflict wouldn't arise).

Nor would Christians call it "faith" if the Bible offered a definite answer. So far, you haven't said anything that a majority of Christians would likely disagree with, unless I'm misunderstanding.

I appreciate my phrasing leaves something to be desired, if I restate my question is would be: As there are Christian doctrinal differences, this shows there is no definitive answer, the Bible cannot be said to reveal the Truth.

I believe I understood what you were getting at. My point is that I don't think most Christians would disagree since most will readily admit that their beliefs are based on faith.

-Bri

David Swidler

31st July 2007, 12:41 PM

Bats are birds.

It's true :)

.

We must read ancient texts from a completely different societal context as if they followed the same taxonomic rules that we do.

It's true. :)

zooloo

31st July 2007, 01:10 PM

Nor would Christians call it "faith" if the Bible offered a definite answer. So far, you haven't said anything that a majority of Christians would likely disagree with, unless I'm misunderstanding.

I believe I understood what you were getting at. My point is that I don't think most Christians would disagree since most will readily admit that their beliefs are based on faith.

-Bri
Sorry I missed your point I think.

The conclusion of my statement is that the Bible cannot be a source of truth in any meaningful way. Which I assume Christians would not agree with.

Bri

31st July 2007, 01:14 PM

Sorry I missed your point I think.

The conclusion of my statement is that the Bible cannot be a source of truth in any meaningful way. Which I assume Christians would not agree with.

No, I don't assume they would agree, if you're saying that the Bible cannot be a source of truth. While undoubtedly not ALL beliefs based on the Bible can be true (given that there are conflicting beliefs), you seem to be implying that the Bible cannot be the source of ANY truth, which seems to be unfounded.

-Bri

zooloo

1st August 2007, 03:42 AM

No, I don't assume they would agree, if you're saying that the Bible cannot be a source of truth. While undoubtedly not ALL beliefs based on the Bible can be true (given that there are conflicting beliefs), you seem to be implying that the Bible cannot be the source of ANY truth, which seems to be unfounded.

-Bri
The Bible may contain some truth, such as "...the distance form A to B is X" but that is all.

The Bible cannot offer an objective moral truth, nor can it be a guide on how to please its God and avoid damnation.

Bri

1st August 2007, 04:54 AM

zooloo

1st August 2007, 12:02 PM

Why are trivial truths the only possible truths in the Bible? It is possible that one or more Christian sects have it entirely correct. In addition, the Bible seems pretty clear about certain things that are common among nearly all Christian beliefs ("thou shalt not murder") so it's possible that those are the things that please God, if he exists.

It's true that not all Christians who believe that their particular brand of Christianity is the only one that will save one from damnation can be correct. If that's what you're saying, I'll grant you that.

-Bri
Trivial truths are the only possibility because the Bible gives no definitive answer to "important" truths, hence the conflicts of doctrine. Some Christians may say the 10 Commandment alone will please God but others do not.

Yes I am saying not all versions of Christianity can be correct, also it cannot be determined which version is correct by using the Bible. This reduces the Bible to being just another book with no apparent special properties.

Bri

1st August 2007, 12:30 PM

Trivial truths are the only possibility because the Bible gives no definitive answer to "important" truths, hence the conflicts of doctrine. Some Christians may say the 10 Commandment alone will please God but others do not.

Arguably, the various sects of Christianity all have common "important" beliefs based on the Bible, but the Bible offers no proof as to which, if any, of those sects are correct concerning those aspects in which they differ. However, any of them might be 100% correct, in which case the Bible would indeed contain many "important" truths. And it may even contain many "important" truths if none of them are 100% correct. It would be incorrect to say that the Bible cannot contain important truths, since in fact it may.

This reduces the Bible to being just another book with no apparent special properties.

Although there is no definitive evidence that the Bible has any special properties, the truth is that we really don't know if the Bible has any special properties or not. If in fact the Bible is the word of God, then it certainly has special properties (if nothing else, the fact that it is the word of God). True enough though, whatever special properties the Bible might have, they're not apparent.

Your argument merely implies that Christians believe based on faith (rather than fact) that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God (literal or not), and that their interpretation of the Bible is the "correct" one. In other words, it "reduces" Christianity to a faith-based religion.

-Bri

zooloo

1st August 2007, 03:51 PM

Arguably, the various sects of Christianity all have common "important" beliefs based on the Bible, but the Bible offers no proof as to which, if any, of those sects are correct concerning those aspects in which they differ. However, any of them might be 100% correct, in which case the Bible would indeed contain many "important" truths. And it may even contain many "important" truths if none of them are 100% correct. It would be incorrect to say that the Bible cannot contain important truths, since in fact it may.

Although there is no definitive evidence that the Bible has any special properties, the truth is that we really don't know if the Bible has any special properties or not. If in fact the Bible is the word of God, then it certainly has special properties (if nothing else, the fact that it is the word of God). True enough though, whatever special properties the Bible might have, they're not apparent.

Your argument merely implies that Christians believe based on faith (rather than fact) that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God (literal or not), and that their interpretation of the Bible is the "correct" one. In other words, it "reduces" Christianity to a faith-based religion.

-Bri
I would have thought an important truth would by definition be 100% correct.

The Bible may contain important truths or it may not. If it does they are not made explicit and it must contain non-truths hence the conflicts amongst Christians. The Bible cannot be used to determine between what it states it true and what it states is false. So as a reliable source of the truth it fails.

The London A to Z may contain important truths (Other then directions) because we don't know that it doesn't. This can be said for any book so the Bible has no distinct role.

If Christianity is reduced to a faith based religion or not is a side issue. The book that governs it offers no way to determine which of the various opinions is the correct one, they are all supported by the Bible to the satisfaction of those who do believe. To follow an incorrect version is to damn oneself to everlasting torment if one has faith in one's view or not.

How or why Christians believe the Bible to be true I do not comment on.

How or why Christians arrive at the conclusions they do I do not comment on.

I merely observe that view based directly on the Bible are contradictory and that contradiction cannot be resolved by the Bible. The absolute truth is definitive, the Bible is not definite therefore it cannot reveal absolute truth.

Bri

1st August 2007, 04:42 PM

I would have thought an important truth would by definition be 100% correct.

You misunderstood. I said that if no Christian sect is 100% correct in their beliefs, that still wouldn't preclude the Bible from containing "important" truths.

The Bible may contain important truths or it may not.

I completely agree. In fact, that's what I've been saying all along. But doesn't that statement contradict your earlier statement that the Bible cannot contain important truths?

If it does they are not made explicit and it must contain non-truths hence the conflicts amongst Christians.

It's no secret that the Bible is not explicit. However, it doesn't follow logically that if some truths in the Bible are not explicit, that it must contain non-truths.

The Bible cannot be used to determine between what it states it true and what it states is false. So as a reliable source of the truth it fails.

No argument there. A Christian who believes something in the Bible to be true (particularly something that cannot be proven true) holds a faith-based belief. Hence, Christianity is a faith-based religion.

The London A to Z may contain important truths (Other then directions) because we don't know that it doesn't. This can be said for any book so the Bible has no distinct role.

What sort of distinct role would you expect it to have? More to the point, what distinct role do you think Christians believe that it has that it doesn't have?

If Christianity is reduced to a faith based religion or not is a side issue. The book that governs it offers no way to determine which of the various opinions is the correct one, they are all supported by the Bible to the satisfaction of those who do believe.

Yup. Christianity is a religion based on faith.

To follow an incorrect version is to damn oneself to everlasting torment if one has faith in one's view or not.

That would depend on what the truth actually is, and this we will probably never know unless God exists and chooses to tell us.

How or why Christians believe the Bible to be true I do not comment on.

How or why Christians arrive at the conclusions they do I do not comment on.

I merely observe that view based directly on the Bible are contradictory and that contradiction cannot be resolved by the Bible.

The views are based on interpretations of the Bible which are contradictory. It is true that these contradictory interpretations cannot be resolved by the Bible (or for most of them any other source that we know of). That's why they are faith-based beliefs. If they could be resolved, they would instead be fact-based beliefs.

The absolute truth is definitive, the Bible is not definite therefore it cannot reveal absolute truth.

To reveal absolute truth requires absolute proof. No, you won't find absolute proof of much in the Bible. Otherwise, Christianity wouldn't be faith-based.

-Bri

zooloo

2nd August 2007, 03:02 AM

Thank you for taking the time to respond Bri, it is certainly helping me focus and clarify what I'm thinking.
You misunderstood. I said that if no Christian sect is 100% correct in their beliefs, that still wouldn't preclude the Bible from containing "important" truths.
My poor phrasing, it would be better if I said: If the Bible does contain important truths they are not revealed.

It is true it may contain "important" truths but that could be said for anything else.
It's no secret that the Bible is not explicit. However, it doesn't follow logically that if some truths in the Bible are not explicit, that it must contain non-truths.
If there are contradictory truths all supported fully by the Bible only one of them can be true and thereby the others are not true.

That's why I can assert there are non-truths in the Bible.
What sort of distinct role would you expect it to have? More to the point, what distinct role do you think Christians believe that it has that it doesn't have?

The Bible is considered to be the infallible word of God and contain very important objective truths given by God. The Bible is the guide by which one should lead one's life in order to attain a place in Heaven and avoid damnation to Hell.
Yup. Christianity is a religion based on faith.
Christianity is a religion based on the Bible. Their faith is that the Bible is the Word of God. Faith comes second to the Bible.
That would depend on what the truth actually is, and this we will probably never know unless God exists and chooses to tell us.
Certainly, we can never know what the truth is by reference to the Bible. By the time God reveals Himself it's too late, either you opted for the right version by luck and chance or you didn't.

So what is the usefulness of the Bible?
The views are based on interpretations of the Bible which are contradictory. It is true that these contradictory interpretations cannot be resolved by the Bible (or for most of them any other source that we know of). That's why they are faith-based beliefs. If they could be resolved, they would instead be fact-based beliefs.
For at least some Christians the faith is faith in the Bible as fact.
To reveal absolute truth requires absolute proof. No, you won't find absolute proof of much in the Bible. Otherwise, Christianity wouldn't be faith-based.

The issue of absolute proof is one not reached yet, if it is required or not is an issue yet to come.

The Christians faith is that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

One again Bri, thank you. I'm getting a bit bogged down with all the quote things above, if I have (and I think I may have) missed a point please bear with me.

I appreciate the time you have spent on answering.

Bri

2nd August 2007, 08:09 AM

Thank you for taking the time to respond Bri, it is certainly helping me focus and clarify what I'm thinking.

My pleasure. And by and large I agree with you, it's just that I'm not sure Christians would disagree.

My poor phrasing, it would be better if I said: If the Bible does contain important truths they are not revealed.

What do you mean by "revealed?" If you mean "proven" I agree. If you mean "stated in such a way that there is no possible variance in interpretation" I also agree.

It is true it may contain "important" truths but that could be said for anything else.

If there are contradictory truths all supported fully by the Bible only one of them can be true and thereby the others are not true.

That's why I can assert there are non-truths in the Bible.

That misinterpretation is possible could also be said for most anything else. However I wouldn't necessarily refer to possible misinterpretation as evidence of non-truth of the Bible, but rather non-truth of the interpretation.

The Bible is considered to be the infallible word of God and contain very important objective truths given by God. The Bible is the guide by which one should lead one's life in order to attain a place in Heaven and avoid damnation to Hell.

Not all Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, nor do they all believe that being Christian is a prerequisite for heaven. However, it's true that most if not all Christians believe that the Bible is the guide by which one should lead one's life, and indeed it fulfills that role for those who use it as a guide by which they lead their lives.

Those who believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God do so based on faith, not fact. It's quite evident -- even to Bible literalists -- that differing (and sometimes conflicting) interpretation of the Bible are possible. They accept their given interpretation on faith. If they believed the Bible to provide actual proof of their interpretation, indeed it would fulfill that role poorly. But I don't know of any Christian who believes that the Bible provides such proof.

Christianity is a religion based on the Bible. Their faith is that the Bible is the Word of God. Faith comes second to the Bible.

A distinction without a difference. If a Christian's faith is that the Bible is the word of God, then the Christian religion is based on faith (that the Bible is the word of God).

Certainly, we can never know what the truth is by reference to the Bible. By the time God reveals Himself it's too late, either you opted for the right version by luck and chance or you didn't.

So what is the usefulness of the Bible?

Those who have opted for one version over another don't believe they have done so by luck or chance. They have faith that they have done so because of God.

For at least some Christians the faith is faith in the Bible as fact.

Faith in the Bible as fact? This is some dicey wording, because it has several meanings. The Bible IS fact (i.e. it exists), but I'm sure that's not what you mean. If you mean that Christians have faith that their interpretation of the Bible is true in the same way that one might believe that the existence of UFO's is true, then it's still a faith-based belief unless one has some compelling evidence. If you mean that Christians believe that what is stated in the Bible is provable fact, I would disagree that many if any Christians believe that.

The issue of absolute proof is one not reached yet, if it is required or not is an issue yet to come.

I was responding to your statement that "[t]he absolute truth is definitive, the Bible is not definite therefore it cannot reveal absolute truth."

Can you name a single absolute truth for which there isn't an absolute proof?

Most Christians will admit there is no absolute proof of their beliefs in the Bible or elsewhere. They don't require absolute truth of the Bible, at least not in the way you mean it.

One again Bri, thank you. I'm getting a bit bogged down with all the quote things above, if I have (and I think I may have) missed a point please bear with me.

I appreciate the time you have spent on answering.

Not a problem -- it's my own fault, since I started this point-by-point response.

-Bri

Beerina

2nd August 2007, 09:16 AM

Bri

2nd August 2007, 09:20 AM

> The Bible IS fact (i.e. it exists)

Which Bible? :)

Show me a Bible -- any Bible -- and I'll show you a Bible that exists.

-Bri

zooloo

3rd August 2007, 07:51 AM

Bri... phew, thank you.

My use of the word "revealed" us to avoid saying "It doesn't contain the truth" because the argument is simply, it might. Which is stalemate time.

I agree with your definition, if somebody disagreed I wouldn't argue the point much.

My use of the word truth, I am having a problem with phrasing. It's considering the Bible as a source of a rather unique truth, I'm not sure what to call that truth.

The best I have so far is using Truth with a capital T to distinguish it as THE truth, unfortunately that statement doesn't really make sense. Generally I am happy to accept whichever definition suits you/them.

It's the special singular truth of the Bible I am referring to. "How to get to Heaven" could be it or an aspect.

On the Bible being fact. It is those Christians who seem to take the Bible as fact, Creationists for instance, are those who I would wish to take issue with.

I would wish to take issue with them because they are actively promoting misinformation which I believe to be at best undesirable and at worst harmful.

These extremists refer back to the Bible and one simply winds up in circular arguments going nowhere if trying to debate with them. My intention is to find a statement that avoids this circular trap.

My statement, slightly revised:

Christians support their beliefs with the Bible.
There are conflicting Christian beliefs.
This shows the Bible has no definitive answer.
So the Bible cannot be said to reveal the Truth.

No entirely delighted but thank you for your valuable input to improve it.

Bri

3rd August 2007, 09:03 AM

OK, well substituting "proven" or "stated in such a way that there is no possible variance in interpretation" for "revealed" in "if the Bible does contain important truths they are not revealed" forms statements that nearly all Christians would agree with.

So, I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying that Christians wouldn't agree with.

It's the special singular truth of the Bible I am referring to. "How to get to Heaven" could be it or an aspect.

OK, let's use "how to get to heaven" as an example. Christians accept, on faith, that the Bible can tell them how to get to heaven. Of course, different Christians accept, again on faith, different interpretations of the Bible and therefore come to different (and sometimes contradictory) means by which to get to heaven. Christian sect "A" believes that the only way to get to heaven is to belong to sect "A" and sect "B" believes that the only way to get to heaven is to belong to sect "B". They can't both be right. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are both wrong either. I think each will generally agree that they're not both right and that they have faith that it's the other who is wrong.

On the Bible being fact. It is those Christians who seem to take the Bible as fact, Creationists for instance, are those who I would wish to take issue with.

I would wish to take issue with them because they are actively promoting misinformation which I believe to be at best undesirable and at worst harmful.

If your issue here is that you feel that some Christians are dishonest about the strength of the evidence concerning creation, I will agree with you (and many, many Christians will also agree with you). An honest Christian will admit that their belief in creation is based on faith since there is little hard evidence to support it. That's not to say that creationism cannot be true -- it's possible that it is true. But the belief in creation is a faith-based belief like much of Christianity. And a vast majority of Christians have no problem with that, and in fact faith is a major tenet of Christianity. Some might even go so far as to say that those who insist that their beliefs are not based on faith are blasphemers for their lack of faith.

These extremists refer back to the Bible and one simply winds up in circular arguments going nowhere if trying to debate with them. My intention is to find a statement that avoids this circular trap.

I'm afraid that as long as they admit that their belief in the accuracy of their particular interpretation of the Bible is based on faith, there's not much arguing with them. The real fight is with the minority of Christians who overstate their argument, such as the Intelligent Designers who attempt to equate a faith-based belief with a belief based on evidence (i.e. a scientific theory).

My statement, slightly revised:

Christians support their beliefs with the Bible.
There are conflicting Christian beliefs.
This shows the Bible has no definitive answer.
So the Bible cannot be said to reveal the Truth.

No entirely delighted but thank you for your valuable input to improve it.

I still think it's purposely vague, to the point of being inaccurate. I think if you were to clarify it, you'd see that you have a statement that nearly all Christians would agree with, except perhaps those who don't admit that their beliefs are based on faith. You are better off enlisting those Christians of faith in the fight against the likes of the Intelligent Designers rather than turning them off by making inaccurate blanket statements about the Bible.

-Bri

zooloo

3rd August 2007, 10:00 AM

...forms statements that nearly all Christians would agree with.

So, I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying that Christians wouldn't agree with.

Some Christians may agree but the more literalist one's, in my experience, certainly don't. It those who wouldn't agree I am considering.

The intention of my statement is to show that the Bible is cannot be used to determine truth. If it cannot be used to determine truth, it cannot be used to support truth .

(By the belief that Bible is: self-contained, it cannot be tested and it is not contradictory)

OK, let's use "how to get to heaven" as an example. Christians accept, on faith, that the Bible can tell them how to get to heaven. Of course, different Christians accept, again... that they have faith that it's the other who is wrong.

Only one can be right and the Bible cannot be used to show which one is right and which one is wrong. As the Bible fully supports both views it fails as a source of truth.

It may or may not contain a truth but because it isn't definite it cannot be used as a source for truth.

I'm afraid that as long as they admit that their belief in the accuracy of their particular interpretation of the Bible is based on faith, there's not much arguing with them. The real fight is with the minority of Christians who overstate their argument, such as the Intelligent Designers who attempt to equate a faith-based belief with a belief based on evidence (i.e. a scientific theory).

The people I speak of will say that evolution is a faith just like the Bible is. Their idea of faith is slightly peculiar.

I still think it's purposely vague, to the point of being inaccurate. I think if you were to clarify it, you'd see that you have a statement that nearly all Christians would agree with, except perhaps those who don't admit that their beliefs are based on faith. You are better off enlisting those Christians of faith in the fight against the likes of the Intelligent Designers rather than turning them off by making inaccurate blanket statements about the Bible.

-Bri

I don't wish to hunt people down and destroy their beliefs. What I am attempting is put put the Bible outside the realm of debate (Unless of course it's obviously relevant).

My (intended) statement would never be accepted but neither can they refute it. Anything they can say to dismiss the opposing view those who oppose can do likewise.

It pre-empts them quoting the Bible at me to support their case. That just leads to a "Yes it is", "No it isn't" dead-end.

Is it anymore than a rhetorical device? Perhaps not, I hope it is a solid argument against the supposed reality of the Bible. If it's a just an awkward question then that will do.

(I've shifted from Truth to truth, this is intentional. It may or may not be permanent)

Cheers.

Hourglassmemory

3rd August 2007, 11:17 AM

Not to my knowledge, no.
Unless you've been told otherwise by those who really (repeat, "really") want to believe that it is, indeed the absolute truth.

zooloo

3rd August 2007, 11:29 AM

drkitten

3rd August 2007, 12:03 PM

Yes it's those who really believe the Bible is true.

The literalists. Their view being that the Bible is true, there are no contradictions in the Bible (If you think there are you're deceived), the Bible is self-contained (Can't be compared to outside reference), the Bible cannot be tested (Any of your perceived errors are deception), it is literally the Word of God.

I'm not sure that this is a fair description of any sizable group of Christians. Even the most rabid and fanatical sola scriptura fanatics usually acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit entering into people's hearts and guiding them in the proper understanding of Scripture. What fundmentalists typically reject is the idea that oral tradition -- i.e. the teachings handed down by an organization like the Catholic Church -- is binding, but not that the Bible itself is all-inclusive.

Bri

3rd August 2007, 12:35 PM

Some Christians may agree but the more literalist one's, in my experience, certainly don't. It those who wouldn't agree I am considering.

The intention of my statement is to show that the Bible is cannot be used to determine truth. If it cannot be used to determine truth, it cannot be used to support truth .

(By the belief that Bible is: self-contained, it cannot be tested and it is not contradictory)

Only one can be right and the Bible cannot be used to show which one is right and which one is wrong. As the Bible fully supports both views it fails as a source of truth.

It may or may not contain a truth but because it isn't definite it cannot be used as a source for truth.

Even literalists would agree with the statement "if the Bible does contain important truths they are not proven" because -- as you said yourself -- they hold the belief that the Bible "cannot be tested" which would certainly preclude it from being proven. Furthermore, if the Bible had been tested and proven to be true, then Christianity wouldn't be a faith-based religion, it would be a fact-based religion (which probably wouldn't be a religion at all).

The statement "if the Bible does contain important truths they are not stated in such a way that there is no possible variance in interpretation" is obvious given the existence of different sects of Christianity. Unless you can find a Christian who doesn't admit that there are differing opinions among Christians, you can hardly suggest that Christian literalists believe the above statement to be false.

The people I speak of will say that evolution is a faith just like the Bible is. Their idea of faith is slightly peculiar.

Sure, there are some Christians who deny the evidence, but most will simply say that the available evidence pointing to evolution isn't definitive (and they'd be right). Christians have faith that the Bible is the word of God, therefore their belief in creation as written in the Bible is based on faith.

Those who claim that evolution is faith are usually trying to equate evolution and Intelligent Design, but of course they fail to mention the fact that the available evidence points to evolution whereas there is no evidence of ID.

I don't wish to hunt people down and destroy their beliefs. What I am attempting is put put the Bible outside the realm of debate (Unless of course it's obviously relevant).

My (intended) statement would never be accepted but neither can they refute it. Anything they can say to dismiss the opposing view those who oppose can do likewise.

It pre-empts them quoting the Bible at me to support their case. That just leads to a "Yes it is", "No it isn't" dead-end.

Is it anymore than a rhetorical device? Perhaps not, I hope it is a solid argument against the supposed reality of the Bible. If it's a just an awkward question then that will do.

(I've shifted from Truth to truth, this is intentional. It may or may not be permanent)

Cheers.

Do people really quote the Bible at you in order to argue about the requirements for heaven or to push creation? It seems pretty clear that you needn't make any grand argument in return -- just say "I have no reason to assume that the Bible is the word of God" and leave it at that.

Otherwise, I'm not sure that the "supposed reality of the Bible" that you're trying to make an argument against isn't a chimera. Christians who use "because the Bible says so" to argue to anyone but other Christians are starting off on shaky ground. Unless you already accept the premise that the Bible is the word of God, it is fairly obvious that such arguments don't hold water. In other words, the Bible is only "within the realm of debate" when Christians argue with other Christians.

In order to "prove" creation (or disprove evolution), a Christian would have to resort to other types of arguments (ones that are not based on the Bible) such as "the human eye is too complex to come about by evolution" or "the banana is perfectly designed for us to eat" or "what caused the Big Bang?" Whatever you think of those arguments they aren't based on passages of the Bible.

So, I'm just not sure who would be the intended recipient of your argument. A Christian arguing with another Christian already accepts the premise that the Bible is the word of God. And it seems fairly obvious that arguing with a non-Christian who doesn't accept the premise requires a different strategy than "because it's in the Bible."

-Bri

zooloo

3rd August 2007, 04:21 PM

drkitten and Bri,

The Chrsitians in question come to another forum I visit, the forum could be considered as broadly atheist.

Some are interesting to debate with, it was while debating with one that the purpose of this thread came to mind.

The Christian visitors use the Bible to verify several strange ideas, criticism of those ideas prompts variations of Bible quotes and "You don't understand the Bible because...".

The statement as I roughly have it is cannot be refuted by quoting the Bible or doubting my abilities regarding the Bible.

It's trying to find a way that says "Quoting the Bible as fact doesn't prove your point because..." that is robust enough to stand-up to testing.

Please bear in mind this is in response to people who have made some odd statements derived from the Bible, they have started the debate. The logical answer is to them is "Prove it, please". From then on it's often interesting but eventually is boils down to "You can't prove the Bible's isn't true".

Perhaps I can't, but at least I show you can't determine the truth by reference to the Bible. (I am talking about strange truths.)

I thought if it's sloppy thinking on my behalf the people here will point it out. I have certainly benefited from people's kind help. I've re-written it but not well enough to post.

Cheers

RandFan

3rd August 2007, 05:03 PM

Why are trivial truths the only possible truths in the Bible? It is possible that one or more Christian sects have it entirely correct.Have what entirely correct? Since the Bible is often contradictory your statement doesn't make sense in reference to the Bible. If you mean that one or more Christian sects are in possession of truth as it relates to God's intent then that is possible but I'm not sure what that has to do with the Bible. If you are saying that there exists some individual or individuals who have correctly identified that which is metaphorical and that which is literal and which statements or events are correct (given that there are many contradictions) then I would concede that it is possible. However, there is no objective means to come to such a conclusion. What you are talking about is blind luck.

In addition, the Bible seems pretty clear about certain things that are common among nearly all Christian beliefs ("thou shalt not murder") so it's possible that those are the things that please God, if he exists.(emphasis mine) Really? You really believe that? I don't. I believe that many Christians believe that the Bible is clear about that but it is demonstrable that it is not.

Thou shalt not kill --Exodus 20:13

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. --Numbers 31:17

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. --Numbers 15:32, 36

The Bible is replete with filicide, infanticide, homicide, etc. The Bible is in all actuality a bloody tale and much of it is by the hand of God or by the command of God.

Those who say that the Bible is clear about murder are either ignorant of the Bible or they are lying.

Bri

3rd August 2007, 07:19 PM

Have what entirely correct? Since the Bible is often contradictory your statement doesn't make sense in reference to the Bible.

Do you really think that the Skeptic's Annotated Bible lists something that theologians weren't aware of and hadn't considered and explained hundreds of years ago? Read the Talmud sometime. The old Jewish rabbis were quite thorough in pointing out apparent contradictions in the Old Testament and positing explanations.

I've never seen a clear case of the Bible contradicting itself that couldn't be explained by translation and interpretation. Ancient Hebrew wasn't an exact language, and there are many words for which we don't have exact translations for other than from the context in which they appear. There is quite a bit of wiggle-room, even among Bible literalists, for resolving such apparent contradictions.

Perhaps David Swidler will grace us with a reply to your post in more detail, because he is much more familiar than I am with this topic. Meanwhile, you can Google just about any contradiction and find at least one explanation. Do you have an example that has no possible explanation (surely "thou shalt not kill" isn't your best shot)?

(emphasis mine) Really? You really believe that? I don't. I believe that many Christians believe that the Bible is clear about that but it is demonstrable that it is not.

I meant that there are areas of the Bible about which most Christians agree, that nearly all Christians interpret similarly.

Thou shalt not kill --Exodus 20:13

"Thou shalt not murder" is closer to the original Hebrew. As you pointed out, killing is allowed in many instances in the Bible, particularly in wartime and as punishment for certain crimes.

-Bri

Bri

3rd August 2007, 07:41 PM

The Chrsitians in question come to another forum I visit, the forum could be considered as broadly atheist.

Some are interesting to debate with, it was while debating with one that the purpose of this thread came to mind.

The Christian visitors use the Bible to verify several strange ideas, criticism of those ideas prompts variations of Bible quotes and "You don't understand the Bible because...".

Well, you have pointed out that not all Christians interpret the Bible the same way. But I should think that fairly obvious. There are many replies to that argument as you'll see the first time you try to use it on a Christian intent on shifting the burden of proof. The most likely would be "well, God told [me/the leader of my sect/the founder of my sect/someone who lived a long time ago who passed it on to my sect] to interpret it this way and other interpretations are wrong (and anyone who says otherwise is going to burn in the pits of hell for eternity) -- you can't prove it's not true".

The statement as I roughly have it is cannot be refuted by quoting the Bible or doubting my abilities regarding the Bible.

It's trying to find a way that says "Quoting the Bible as fact doesn't prove your point because..." that is robust enough to stand-up to testing.

Again, what's wrong with "Quoting the Bible as fact doesn't prove your point because you can't prove that the Bible is the inerrant word of God"?

Please bear in mind this is in response to people who have made some odd statements derived from the Bible, they have started the debate. The logical answer is to them is "Prove it, please". From then on it's often interesting but eventually is boils down to "You can't prove the Bible's isn't true".

If you allowed them to shift the burden of proof to "well you can't prove it's not true" then you've pretty much lost the argument. The truth is that you likely can't prove it's not true, but that's not the point. The point is that in order to use Bible verses to prove anything, they first have to prove that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Demand that they get back to you when they have that proof, then you will consider Bible quotes to be fact!

-Bri

qayak

3rd August 2007, 07:48 PM

I've never seen a clear case of the Bible contradicting itself that couldn't be explained by translation and interpretation. Ancient Hebrew wasn't an exact language, and there are many words for which we don't have exact translations for other than from the context in which they appear. There is quite a bit of wiggle-room, even among Bible literalists, for resolving such apparent contradictions.

This makes it even worse. You have just gone from having some contradictions in the bible to stating that the bible is absolutely useless because no one knows exactly what the meaning behind the original words was. This means that any "interpretation" or "translation" is far more likely to be wrong than it is to be right.

Trying to understand the bible is a great way to waste a lifetime.

I meant that there are areas of the Bible about which most Christians agree, that nearly all Christians interpret similarly.

According to your earlier statement, similarly does not mean correctly. Once again, any interpretation is most likely wrong.

"Thou shalt not murder" is closer to the original Hebrew. As you pointed out, killing is allowed in many instances in the Bible, particularly in wartime and as punishment for certain crimes.

For instance, the crime of believing in a different skyjockey. It also didn't apply to one of the in group killing someone outside the group.

The point is, both "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" must be wrong because the bible clearly allows both.

MINISTERofTRUTH

3rd August 2007, 08:02 PM

What good would it be if the Bible contained truths ?

The religious folk tend to be believers.

If one was able to look at the complete truth, then one would have to step back and look off to the side to then be able to look upon a mere belief, since beliefs are not directly connected to truths, hence they are beliefs.

Truths are therefore beyond the scope of mere beliefs.

TRUTH is BEYOND BELIEF !

If one chooses to be a believer, then the axis of the mind is set and fixed as it now looks toward beliefs.

Therefore if you present a truth to a believer, with truth being something that lies beyond the limited mental scope of a believers mind, this truth will be rejected as nonsense, or as lie.

What I have just said is the truth.

Do you disagree ? Do you say that it is just a load of nonsense, or that it is a lie.

Bri

3rd August 2007, 08:11 PM

This means that any "interpretation" or "translation" is far more likely to be wrong than it is to be right.

Unless someone has some particular insight into the meaning, which is precisely what each Christian sect likely believes.

Trying to understand the bible is a great way to waste a lifetime.

I won't argue with you there.

According to your earlier statement, similarly does not mean correctly. Once again, any interpretation is most likely wrong.

I never said any Christian was correct in his or her beliefs. I said that one or more possibly could be, a point with which you seem to agree.

The point is, both "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" must be wrong because the bible clearly allows both.

Murder is unjustified killing. Anyone who believes that the Bible is the word of God likely also believes that killing mentioned in the Bible is justified and therefore not murder. That said, many examples of killing in the Bible can be interpreted metaphorically. Some are obviously meant to be when read in context.

The particular example of "thou shalt not kill" is a fairly weak one as far as Bible contradictions go.

-Bri

RandFan

3rd August 2007, 08:24 PM

Do you really think that the Skeptic's Annotated Bible lists something that theologians weren't aware of and hadn't considered and explained hundreds of years ago?No. Though I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. What does this have to do with my point?

I've never seen a clear case of the Bible contradicting itself that couldn't be explained by translation and interpretation.?

How about "thou shalt not kill"?

For a lot more: A List of Biblical Contradictions (http://forums.randi.org/A List of Biblical Contradictions)

Ancient Hebrew wasn't an exact language, and there are many words for which we don't have exact translations for other than from the context in which they appear. There is quite a bit of wiggle-room, even among Bible literalists, for resolving such apparent contradictions.Not really. This is true for a few items but it takes a large dose of salt and a suspension of disbelief for most.

Meanwhile, you can Google just about any contradiction and find at least one explanation. I can only give you one of the greatest movie lines ever.

That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong. --Nick Naylor

Bri, there is an ancient Hebrew tradition of debate. Scholars were at various times required to take both sides of an argument, defend one position one day and the other position a different day. Here's the trick though, just because both sides can be argued doesn't mean that both sides are correct. At the risk of patronizing let me repeat.

Just because both sides can be argued doesn't mean that both sides are correct.

Do you have an example that has no possible explanation (surely "thou shalt not kill" isn't your best shot)? In all honesty Bri, it's the best. I think it requires a great deal of dishonesty at worst or cognitive dissonance at best to think one can reconcile "thou shalt not kill" with murdering children.

I would honestly like to see you reconcile the Psalmist's praise of murdering children or the comand of Moses to murder innocent women and children.

Go for it.

I meant that there are areas of the Bible about which most Christians agree, that nearly all Christians interpret similarly.If you are vague enough and move the goal posts enough then I guess that it can be said that most, at some time, in some ways, sorta interpret "similarly" (whatever that means). Why have the churches fragmented so much? What was Martin Luther's protestatation about? That there are some areas that most agree with doesn't mean much. It just demonstrates the evolutionary fitness of those concepts. In fact just about everything has been disputed at one time or other. The vote at the Nicean council was not unanimous.

"Thou shalt not murder" is closer to the original Hebrew. As you pointed out, killing is allowed in many instances in the Bible, particularly in wartime and as punishment for certain crimes. Do you honestly think war justifies murdering children? Really? Innocent women? I find that offensive and overly apologetic. "Thou shalt not murder" is meaningless when you can find an excuse to kill another human being.

Did you even bother to read the quotes?

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. --Numbers 31:17

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. --Numbers 15:32, 36

The Bible is replete with filicide, infanticide, homicide, etc. The Bible is in all actuality a bloody tale and much of it is by the hand of God or by the command of God.

Those who say that the Bible is clear about murder are either ignorant of the Bible or they are lying.

So, killing a man who is gathering wood for a fire to feed his family isn't murder?

Killing children ISN'T murder?

Help me out here?

Bri

3rd August 2007, 08:48 PM

How about "thou shalt not kill"?

Please select one quote that you feel best contradicts "thou shalt not murder" (since we've already established that "kill" is not an accurate translation). Is it the one about dashing babies on rocks? Please read it in context and make sure that it is utterly impossible that it's a metaphor of some sort, or that no other explanation is possible.

Just because both sides can be argued doesn't mean that both sides are correct.

Have you read the entire thread? I was pointing out that the Bible is vague enough that it can be interpreted in different ways, one of which could possibly be correct. I'm not saying that the Bible is correct, or that any particular interpretation is correct. Only that one might possibly be.

So, I agree that just because both sides can be argued doesn't mean that both sides are correct. But one of them might be.

-Bri

RandFan

3rd August 2007, 09:13 PM

Please select one quote that you feel best contradicts "thou shalt not murder" (since we've already established that "kill" is not an accurate translation).No, we haven't "established" that. I have heard this argument and it may very well be correct so I will concede it for argument sake.

Is it the one about dashing babies on rocks? Please read it in context and make sure that it is utterly impossible that it's a metaphor of some sort, or that no other explanation is possible.

Bri, there is an explanation for EVERYTHING. I can't honestly say that there is no explanation for the BTK killer, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy or Richard Speck. I'm sure that there are explanations for all of those murders.

Are they reasonable?

Every single one of my examples are disgusting. I will repeat, I find it offensive that someone try and justify the notion that dashing children against rocks for happiness would be some kind of metaphor and therefore justifiable. If you can justify such rhetoric then you can justify what the BTK killer did.

That said, if you want to play this game I'm amenable.

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. --Numbers 31:17

I'm very familiar with this scripture. I know what the context was. I know the purpose. Moses ordered the killing of children (most of us would call it murder). I'll let you use the euphemism "kill" if you want.

Ok, justify it.

Have you read the entire thread? I was pointing out that the Bible is vague enough that it can be interpreted in different ways, one of which could possibly be correct. I'm not saying that the Bible is correct, or that any particular interpretation is correct. Only that one might possibly be.Therein lies the problem. That is the reason I responded in the first place. One of them "might" be. I can't imagine a worse way for god to impart his message to humans.

Which one is correct and how would we know? Of what value is it to hide truth in a batch of untruths?

So, I agree that just because both sides can be argued doesn't mean that both sides are correct. But one of them might be.Which *begs the question, what difference does it make?

*begs the question is an evolving idiom.

qayak

3rd August 2007, 10:09 PM

The particular example of "thou shalt not kill" is a fairly weak one as far as Bible contradictions go.

No, as Randfan so excellently pointed out, it isn't. The bible makes the statement "Thou shalt not kill/murder" as if it actually means it but a large part of the rest of the bible is concerned with circumventing this simple rule.

It is further contradicted by the fact that god is supposed to be a loving god and the bible a moral highroad for good people to follow.

I suggest that the only reason you see this as a weak contradiction is because you are applying your own morality to the subject of killing/murdering as any reasonable human being would do. The question then becomes, what is the point of the bible and god if they cannot even steer you right on such an important topic?

qayak

3rd August 2007, 10:16 PM

I never said any Christian was correct in his or her beliefs. I said that one or more possibly could be, a point with which you seem to agree.

I agree but that I do is meaningless. Which one has it right and how do you know? There is no way to tell so not only do we have someone guessing at a meaning to a passage but we have to guess again to decide if they are right. That makes it pretty unlikely we will be right, somewhere around 0% I imagine.

It is more accurate to assume they are all equally wrong and discard them all. It is morally better for us to weigh each situation than it is to try and guess and second guess which supposed interpretation of 2000 year old writings, based on ignorance, apply.

zooloo

4th August 2007, 05:16 AM

Bri,

What happens is what is happening to this thread.

There is now a circular argument about killing people that will never be resolved. This is what I'm trying to side-step.

If you point out the Bible is not true they will quote the bit that says the Bible is true.

My statement is intended to stop that, my reply would be that other Christians think otherwise and they quote the Bible to say so. "They are wrong!" is always the reply, the repose is to point out they say that about them.

At that point I'd suggest they discuss their differences with those who believe them. The fact remains there are differences and they cannot be resolved by reference to the Bible. (The Bible is self-contained in their view).

This is so we move away from my understanding and my interpretation as being ways to seemingly refute my opinion. It's nothing to do with me.

These people do quote the Bible as if it is fact. For instance extreme creationists believe the world is no more than 10,000 years old because the Bible says so - no other reason than that. It is an unusual mind-set.

RandFan

4th August 2007, 09:50 AM

There is now a circular argument about killing people that will never be resolved. This is what I'm trying to side-step.What do you mean by circular?

zooloo

4th August 2007, 01:39 PM

RandFan

4th August 2007, 02:01 PM

By circular I mean you quote each other to stalemate. Neither party has a definitive quote that convinces the other.

It will never be resolved.

The following is a rough idea of my reply if somebody said a person should be persecuted because the Bible says so and because the Bible says so they must be persecuted. With no other reason.

"You may say that but other groups of Christians disagree. They too base their view on the Bible. The Bible doesn't give a definite answer on who is right. As the Bible doesn't give a definitive answer it cannot decide this issue. For that reason, please provide something that isn't Bible based."

...or something like that ;)I think you miss the point. That a consensus isn't made doesn't mean that both sides are equal or that the issue is beyond resolution. In fact it's not.

Reasonable people can disagree with many things. A person cannot reasonably disagree that:

The bible documents god ordering people to kill women and children (many women and children on more than a few occasions). That is not metaphorical. That is not a misinterpretation.
People who are ostensibly speaking with god order the killing of children and the enslavement and degredation of women.
God ordering people to kill other innocent people cannot be reconciled with thou shalt not murder.BTW, I'm quite familiar with the apologetics of the genocide carried out by the Israelites. It is not reasonable. There is no perspective that would justify god ordering the killing of an infant. I can accept that ancient peoples had a perspective that I don't share and therefore I'm prepared to judge them in the light of their times (it's still morally reprehensible) but once you insert god into the mix (he who is the same yesterday, today and forever) then it just doesn't square.

In all honesty, if one can justify the killing of women and children by individuals who are ostensibly talking to god then anything can be justified.

Please note that I have been very careful to use the term "killing" as it pertains to the acts of the Israelites and not murder. I think it is in fact murder but I'm happy to stick with the term "killing".

zooloo

4th August 2007, 02:11 PM

It doesn't matter what the Bible says. It doesn't offer a definitive answer, it cannot decide the issue.

:)

RandFan

4th August 2007, 02:40 PM

It doesn't matter what the Bible says. It doesn't offer a definitive answer, it cannot decide the issue.

:)

You are missing the point. Public policy is being made based on biblical philosophy and ethics. There are people in this forum who don't understand that the bible is fundamentally flawed and contradictory. There are people who don't quite grasp that biblical ethics include raping, killing and enslaving foreigners. That biblical ethics include the killing of children.

Simply dismissing the bible in a religious forum populated by a number of Christians and people who base their faith on scripture and also many bible literalists is really not helpful. I'm sorry.

Please read the thread title? It's asking a question. If you think the answer is no to the question of the thread then cool. Thanks for your opinion. However this is a skeptics forum. We are after a bit more than opinion.

'k?

zooloo

4th August 2007, 02:57 PM

RandFan

4th August 2007, 03:26 PM

I would say my point is that you cannot use the Bible as a meaningful reference.

My statement says why it cannot be used and this cannot be refuted.

BTW, I started the thread, it's my title. I think you may have come in to the thread at a non-representative point.I read the OP before responding though I confess that when I responded to you about the title it didn't occur to me that you had started the thread.

So, let me see if I understand you.

It is your position that the Bible cannot reveal absolute truth.
It is your position that the Bible cannot be used to illustrate to believers logical inconsistency.
It is your position that discussions centered on the Bible are pointless regardless of the POV or the purpose of those discussions.
Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.Is that about right?

zooloo

4th August 2007, 03:42 PM

I read the OP before responding though I confess that when I responded to you about the title it didn't occur to me that you had started the thread.

So, let me see if I understand you.

It is your position that the Bible cannot reveal absolute truth.

Yes.

It is your position that the Bible cannot be used to illustrate to believers logical inconsistency.

Not to their satisfaction if they insist there are no contradictions

It is your position that discussions centered on the Bible are pointless regardless of the POV or the purpose of those discussions.

Pretty much. I believe the Bible has little to do with the real world.

Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Yes, but I am willing to change my mind.

RandFan

4th August 2007, 04:12 PM

It is your position that the Bible cannot reveal absolute truth.

Yes.
It is your position that the Bible cannot be used to illustrate to believers logical inconsistency.

Not to their satisfaction if they insist there are no contradictions
It is your position that discussions centered on the Bible are pointless regardless of the POV or the purpose of those discussions.

Pretty much. I believe the Bible has little to do with the real world.
Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Yes, but I am willing to change my mind.If the Bible didn't hold so much sway over public policy and debate I would agree with you that the Bible has little to do with the real world. Sadly it does very much have to do with the real world. People who believe that the Bible is the literal or infallible word of god vote and direct public policy.

Before and during much of the civil rights movement it was thought pointless to debate issues of race. People couldn't imagine that Blacks would ever get to use the same fountains as white folks much less become Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc., etc..

I think you sell people short when you truly believe that they are immune to logic and reason when it comes to the bible. The zeitgeist changes imperceptibly at times but it only changes when it is challenged.

With all due respect I find attitudes like yours counter productive and just plain wrong. Not to mention arrogant, patronizing and condescending to believers.

If I honestly thought as you did I would never make an argument in the religion forum and I have to say that I can't for the life of me figure out your purpose here.

You have all of the evidence you need to change your mind. Perhaps you are like those you think so little of.

FTR, I was a seminary graduate and I served a 2 year mission. I came to this forum a believer in god, a dualist and a proponent of intelligent design. It took me a year or more of debating but I changed my mind because there were people here who made reasoned arguments and in the long run I could not deny the persuasion of their arguments.

I can honestly say that I'm damn glad they did not take your attitude.

Cheers,

RandFan

zooloo

4th August 2007, 04:25 PM

Agreed the Bible has something to do with the real world in as much some people in influential places believe it to be true. I would argue the Bible itself has no bearing on the real world.

The rest of your post, what is it you think I am doing/done that is so reprehensible?

RandFan

4th August 2007, 04:42 PM

I don't think I said reprehensible, did I?

Actually I think I said counter productive, presumptuous and arrogant.

It is your position that discussions centered on the Bible are pointless regardless of the POV or the purpose of those discussions.

In any event, it was, in large part, discussions centered on the Bible that led to my becoming an atheist. Yes, it is true that I'm only an anecdote but I think it demonstrates that it is in fact possible. Having converted my wife and others using such arguments it is difficult for me to agree with you. Again, I realize that those are but anecdotes. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

zooloo

4th August 2007, 05:02 PM

AT the time I was going to justify what I wrote and say except when relevant. It was so obvious to me I didn't, I should have done.

So yes, sometimes debating the Bible is relevant.

Sometimes it is not.

On converting people, yes I agree people can change their minds if they wish to. I would add if they do not wish to they can stick to some very strange ideas.

ETA: I just re-read my post, my reply was "Pretty much...". Possibly a cultural difference here, by pretty much I mean - mostly, in general, not absolutely, near enough.

Bri

5th August 2007, 08:28 AM

Bri, there is an explanation for EVERYTHING. I can't honestly say that there is no explanation for the BTK killer, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy or Richard Speck. I'm sure that there are explanations for all of those murders.

Are they reasonable?

Have you been reading the thread, or just the last few posts? I have not commented on how reasonable any explanation is.

The OP was stating that the Bible cannot be true because there are different (and sometimes conflicting) interpretations of it. My point was simply that it does not follow that the Bible is necessarily untrue due to conflicting interpretations of it (that at most one or more of the interpretations are incorrect), and that it would not be a valid argument against a Christian using Bible quotes as an argument to say that there are multiple interpretations of the Bible since the Christian obviously believes theirs to be the correct interpretation, generally based on the belief that they have been given some particular insight directly or indirectly by God.

As for your point, yes I agree that there are many places where the Bible seems to contradict itself. However, they have all been pointed out openly by theologians, and possible explanations have been presented for each of them. Depending on how it is interpreted, it is possible that the Bible true. In fact, even for literalists, it is possible that the Bible is true much less those who don't take the Bible literally. If you really want to argue that it's impossible for the Bible to be true at any level, then the burden of proof would be on you to show that there is no possible explanation for any apparent contradiction. Can you?

Furthermore, the author of the OP wants to use the argument against Christians quoting the Bible rather than first putting the burden on them to prove that the Bible is the word of God. I believe that accepting the burden of proof is a losing approach, and is not possible to disprove the Bible using the argument that there are different interpretations of the Bible, since it is possible that one or more interpretations is correct.

-Bri

Bri

5th August 2007, 08:34 AM

I agree but that I do is meaningless. Which one has it right and how do you know? There is no way to tell so not only do we have someone guessing at a meaning to a passage but we have to guess again to decide if they are right. That makes it pretty unlikely we will be right, somewhere around 0% I imagine.

I agree. Now, please read the thread.

It is more accurate to assume they are all equally wrong and discard them all. It is morally better for us to weigh each situation than it is to try and guess and second guess which supposed interpretation of 2000 year old writings, based on ignorance, apply.

I agree, but this argument won't work against a Christian who believes the Bible to be the word of God. It is possible that the Christian is correct, therefore you cannot prove them incorrect by stating that there are multiple (and sometimes conflicting) interpretations of the Bible.

Now, please read the thread and argue against what I wrote, and not what you wish that I had written.

-Bri

Bri

5th August 2007, 08:44 AM

Bri,

What happens is what is happening to this thread.

There is now a circular argument about killing people that will never be resolved. This is what I'm trying to side-step.

And you see that quoting Bible contradictions cannot and will not prove to a Christian (or anyone else for that matter) that the Bible is false, because there are always explanations that resolve apparent contradictions. Yes, some of the explanations require a great deal of faith to rectify, but a Christian who already accepts the Bible as the word of God has little problem accepting things on faith. And it is not impossible that they are correct.

Noting that there are different (and often contradictory) interpretations of the Bible gets you no further in disproving the Bible, since it is likely possible that their interpretation is the correct one. Yes, you could tell them to run along and discuss it with other Christians who oppose their viewpoint, but that would only work if you know that there are different interpretations of the particular passage they're quoting (there are many instances where Christians are largely in agreement).

Your best bet is to leave the burden of proof with the Christian, where it belongs. In order for them to quote verses from the Bible as fact, they must first prove that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Otherwise, simply say that you see no reason to assume the Bible to be true.

-Bri

zooloo

5th August 2007, 09:13 AM

My statement is intended to show the Bible cannot be used as a source for truth because it is indefinite.

If I ask for proof that the Bible is true generally the Bible is quoted, prophesy claimed, prove it's not true and other diversions. It's not good argument and it just hits stalemate.

The Bible may contain the Truth. In the instances I'm referring to, for the sake of argument I do not dispute it's truth.

My intention is to form a statement that shows why the Bible is not reliable when defining truths. It is phrased to pre-empt the usual learnt answers, hopefully by avoiding the reactionary answers the person may come to understand the point.

The problem being with habitual answers is that they are automatic and don't involve thinking or consideration. It has happened that when a person is removed from their customary environment they get a new perspective on what is actually important in their lives and what is not.

That's about it - I wish to avoid habitual reactionary responses and start thinking.

(What the differences are doesn't matter, that just leads to quote-swapping anyway)

Cheers Bri and RandFan.

zoo

RandFan

5th August 2007, 09:49 AM

Have you been reading the thread, or just the last few posts? I have not commented on how reasonable any explanation is.

The OP was stating that the Bible cannot be true because there are different (and sometimes conflicting) interpretations of it. My point was simply that it does not follow that the Bible is necessarily untrue due to conflicting interpretations of it (that at most one or more of the interpretations are incorrect), and that it would not be a valid argument against a Christian using Bible quotes as an argument to say that there are multiple interpretations of the Bible since the Christian obviously believes theirs to be the correct interpretation, generally based on the belief that they have been given some particular insight directly or indirectly by God.

As for your point, yes I agree that there are many places where the Bible seems to contradict itself. However, they have all been pointed out openly by theologians, and possible explanations have been presented for each of them. Depending on how it is interpreted, it is possible that the Bible true. In fact, even for literalists, it is possible that the Bible is true much less those who don't take the Bible literally. If you really want to argue that it's impossible for the Bible to be true at any level, then the burden of proof would be on you to show that there is no possible explanation for any apparent contradiction. Can you?

Furthermore, the author of the OP wants to use the argument against Christians quoting the Bible rather than first putting the burden on them to prove that the Bible is the word of God. I believe that accepting the burden of proof is a losing approach, and is not possible to disprove the Bible using the argument that there are different interpretations of the Bible, since it is possible that one or more interpretations is correct.

-BriI'm sorry Bri but this just isn't going to fly.

It is possible to believe that the Bible is the word of god. It could be but if it is it is riddled with contradictions.
As to the contradictions it's not the case that they all can be explained due to translation errors.
May point ISN'T that the Bible SEEMS to contradict itself. This is a very important point and I don't want you to get away with that. It is a fact that it demonstrably and fundamentally contradicts itself.
It's true that Bible Scholars can find explanations for the contradictions. Humans can find explanations FOR ANYTHING. Are the explanations reasonable? No. In many if not most cases they simply are not reasonable. Killing children can't be reconciled with thou shalt not murder.
Saying "the Bible is true" or "not true" is an imprecise statement and a bit of a strawman on your part. No one I know of is making that argument. That would be like saying Gone with the wind is not true. Parts of it are true.
The point of the contradictions is to demonstrate that while the Bible contains truth it isn't infallible. Even if we accept that parts of it are translated incorrectly the fact is that the Bible contradicts itself on many occasions that cannot be reconciled or simply explained away. If they could you would be able to reconcile Moses ordering the killing of children with thou shalt not murder. I note you have decided not to try your hand at that.

Bri

5th August 2007, 11:47 AM

It is possible to believe that the Bible is the word of god. It could be but if it is it is riddled with contradictions.

If the Bible could be the word of God, then it could have no irreconcilable contradictions (unless your definition of "God" here is different than the Christian definition). All so-called contradictions that I've ever seen can be and have been reconciled by pointing out an impreciseness of translation or a different interpretation. Google any of the Bible quotes in your previous posts and you'll see what I mean. Is it a stretch? Perhaps in some cases. Are they necessarily wrong? Of course not.

As to the contradictions it's not the case that they all can be explained due to translation errors.

I don't recall saying that they can all be explained by translation errors (but the example you gave can be). I said most can be resolved either due to vagueness of translation or interpretation.

May point ISN'T that the Bible SEEMS to contradict itself. This is a very important point and I don't want you to get away with that. It is a fact that it demonstrably and fundamentally contradicts itself.

So prove that the Bible contradicts itself. "Thou shalt not murder" doesn't seem to cut it since the examples you provided are obviously not considered examples of murder by the Bible. But if you think one of those examples if clearly considered murder elsewhere in the Bible, please tell me which is your best example. I won't derail this thread or waste my time by answering each and every quote related to killing that you can come up with. Please choose the one that you think is the best. Is it the one about dashing the babies on rocks? Is it the one about Moses being commanded to kill women and children? Which one do you think best "demonstrably and fundamentally" contradicts "thou shalt not murder?"

It's true that Bible Scholars can find explanations for the contradictions. Humans can find explanations FOR ANYTHING. Are the explanations reasonable? No. In many if not most cases they simply are not reasonable. Killing children can't be reconciled with thou shalt not murder.

If it's true that there are explanations, then they are not necessarily contradictions. Are you honestly saying that because you don't find a particular explanation reasonable, that nobody could possibly find it reasonable? That sounds awfully similar to what you've accused others of on this thread, which is simply saying that they are wrong because you disagree with them. People can and have found what they consider to be reasonable explanations for every contradiction I've ever seen. I often disagree as to how reasonable the explanations are, but unfortunately that's just my opinion.

Saying "the Bible is true" or "not true" is an imprecise statement and a bit of a strawman on your part. No one I know of is making that argument. That would be like saying Gone with the wind is not true. Parts of it are true.

When did I say the Bible is entirely true or entirely not true? I said that it is not impossible that some interpretation of the Bible is entirely true. My entire argument has been concerning the OP, where zooloo felt that showing that there are different and contradictory interpretations of certain passages in the Bible is enough to prove that the Bible isn't true to a Christian. Given that a Christian presumes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, zooloo would have to show that no interpretation of a particular passage can possibly be true, and I don't think he can do that.

The point of the contradictions is to demonstrate that while the Bible contains truth it isn't infallible. Even if we accept that parts of it are translated incorrectly the fact is that the Bible contradicts itself on many occasions that cannot be reconciled or simply explained away. If they could you would be able to reconcile Moses ordering the killing of children with thou shalt not murder. I note you have decided not to try your hand at that.

Is that the best one? Are you referring to Numbers 31:17? I'll be happy to provide some explanations if that's the best example you have. You may want to Google it first though, and make sure that there is no possible way to reconcile this with "thou shalt not murder" before committing to that one.

Otherwise, do you have evidence of the "fact" that "the Bible contradicts itself on many occasions that cannot be reconciled or simply explained away?" I'll accept a single example of a contradiction that cannot be reconciled or explained. In a previous post you seemed to think it was the one about the babies dashed on the rocks from Psalms. Are you now saying that it's Numbers 31:17?

-Bri

RandFan

5th August 2007, 01:29 PM

If the Bible could be the word of God, then it could have no irreconcilable contradictions (unless your definition of "God" here is different than the Christian definition). All so-called contradictions that I've ever seen can be and have been reconciled by pointing out an impreciseness of translation or a different interpretation. Google any of the Bible quotes in your previous posts and you'll see what I mean. Is it a stretch? Perhaps in some cases. Are they necessarily wrong? Of course not.Yes. Necessarily wrong. It requires cognitive dissonance to reconcile most of the contradictions. They can't be excused the way you are trying to. And the post hoc reasoning of, well if the bible is the word of god then...

That's spurious.

I don't recall saying that they can all be explained by translation errors (but the example you gave can be). Not they can't. You simply declare that they can be. Bri, this is not argument. You are just asserting something.

I said most can be resolved either due to vagueness of translation or interpretation. Regardless, it's not true.

So prove that the Bible contradicts itself. "Thou shalt not murder" doesn't seem to cut it since the examples you provided are obviously not considered examples of murder by the Bible. I'm sorry Bri but trying to justify killing innocent children as not being murder is intellectually dishonest. What is murder? This is to render the word murder meaningless.

But if you think one of those examples if clearly considered murder elsewhere in the Bible, please tell me which is your best example.:mad:

Bri, you asked this before and I gave you an example (I don't have a best example).

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. --Numbers 31:17

Bri, do you see the text in red? THAT IS MY EXAMPLE.

If it's true that there are explanations, then they are not necessarily contradictions. Are you honestly saying that because you don't find a particular explanation reasonable, that nobody could possibly find it reasonable?No, I'm saying that no reasonable person would find them reasonable.

I said that it is not impossible that some interpretation of the Bible is entirely true. Therein lies the problem. If it can only be said of the Bible that some "interpretation" of it is true then what is the point of the Bible? What purpose does it serve. None.

Is that the best one? Are you referring to Numbers 31:17? I'll be happy to provide some explanations if that's the best example you have.:mad:

You've asked this question before. Stop it. Just explain it and stop dragging it out.

For crying in the dark. Just do it.

In a previous post you seemed to think it was the one about the babies dashed on the rocks from Psalms. Are you now saying that it's Numbers 31:17? :mad: NO!

When you gave me an option I made it quite clear it was Numbers 31:17.

Please stop the dance and get on with it, ok? Fair enough?

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. --Numbers 31:17

Any questions? Are we clear?

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. --Numbers 31:17

Please explain how killing children is NOT murder and can somehow be justified?

RandFan

5th August 2007, 01:39 PM

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. --Numbers 31:17

Please explain how killing children is NOT murder and can somehow be justified?

BTW, let's give this example some perspective.

George Bush: General Shinseki, I want you to kill ever Iraqi male child.
General Shinseki: Isn't that murder?
George Bush: The lord told me that I was to prosecute this war. I have his blessing.
General Shinseki: Even if I believe that, how can anything that god can do render the killing of children not murder?

Your mission, Bri, is to answer the General's question. How can god render the killing of innocent children into something that is not murder? Would it be reasonable for Christians to believe that if George Bush ordered the intentional slaughter of Iraqi children that it would not be murder?

qayak

5th August 2007, 02:16 PM

I I agree, but this argument won't work against a Christian who believes the Bible to be the word of God. It is possible that the Christian is correct, therefore you cannot prove them incorrect by stating that there are multiple (and sometimes conflicting) interpretations of the Bible.

No argument will work against a christian who believes the bible is the work of god. Their belief is based on faith and it isn't likely to changed by a brief, reasoned argument with anyone. That is usually something that happens over a long period and at a time when the individual is ready . . . much like any addiction.

It is not possible that the christian is correct. We know who wrote the bible and it wasn't god. It is possible that the bible is the inspired word of god but with the history as we know it, it is highly improbable.

The point of arguing with a christian is to plant the seed of doubt that will eventually lead to their figuring it out. That and to influence anyone they are hanging with who's beliefs are not so rooted. To give them other options to the blind faith of the evangelizing christian.

And finally, there is no other argument to made under the circumstance. Even if the argument doesn't work.

RandFan

5th August 2007, 02:29 PM

No argument will work against a christian who believes the bible is the work of god. Their belief is based on faith and it isn't likely to changed by a brief, reasoned argument with anyone.Yes, when you start with the proposition that the Bible is the word of god then there are no unexplainable contradictions in the Bible. Those are not possible. I think this is Bri's point. What she is unwilling to accept is that to explain many of the contradictions requires cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty.

You can't start with the proposition that the Bible is the word of god and therefore it has no contradictions. That is unreasonable. It is fallacious. One must first figure out if the Bible has contradictions.

pgwenthold

5th August 2007, 03:07 PM

Please select one quote that you feel best contradicts "thou shalt not murder"

I don't need a quote. The fact that an omniscient, omnipotent being would give a tautologically flawed "commandment" in the first place is contradictory enough.

Murder is "killing when it is wrong to kill" or "illegal kill." That makes this commandment, "Thou shalt not murder" akin to "Thou shalt not kill when killing is illegal"

Duh. The whole point of it being illegal means that you can't do it. So why have a commandment against it? You need a commandment to say "Thou shalt not do what that aren't allowed to do"? Is that all the better this supposed god can come up with?

Perhaps you can accept that God is the supernational equivalent of Barney Fife, because that is what you have made him out to be. (Barney Fife's 1st rule of the Mayberry jail: Obey all rules)

A commandment that says "Thou shalt not murder" completely contradicts the idea that God (or the bible) provides moral guidance. In fact, a commandment that says "Thou shalt not murder" puts the decision of what is allowed up to society, and, if society says it's not murder, then God is ok with it.

Absolute morality? Not from the bible. Your statements show that.

RandFan

5th August 2007, 03:24 PM

I don't need a quote. The fact that an omniscient, omnipotent being would give a tautologically flawed "commandment" in the first place is contradictory enough.

Murder is "killing when it is wrong to kill" or "illegal kill." That makes this commandment, "Thou shalt not murder" akin to "Thou shalt not kill when killing is illegal"

Duh. The whole point of it being illegal means that you can't do it. So why have a commandment against it? You need a commandment to say "Thou shalt not do what that aren't allowed to do"? Is that all the better this supposed god can come up with?

Perhaps you can accept that God is the supernational equivalent of Barney Fife, because that is what you have made him out to be. (Barney Fife's 1st rule of the Mayberry jail: Obey all rules)

A commandment that says "Thou shalt not murder" completely contradicts the idea that God (or the bible) provides moral guidance. In fact, a commandment that says "Thou shalt not murder" puts the decision of what is allowed up to society, and, if society says it's not murder, then God is ok with it.

Absolute morality? Not from the bible. Your statements show that.Good post.

pgwenthold

5th August 2007, 03:41 PM

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. --Numbers 31:17

Bri, do you see the text in red? THAT IS MY EXAMPLE.

ISTR another example where God ordered the destruction of the Amalekites. Kill everyone, he said, including the babies and even the livestock. Why? Because their ancestors, some 400 years prior, had opposed the Israelites invasions into their land.

I am trying to think of a good analogy for this but I can't even do it. It would be sort of like, 200 years from now, wiping out the Indians because they fought US taking their land. Or maybe it would be like wiping out all of England now because the Red Coat army tried to prevent the US from becoming independent in 1776 (note that this is only 150 years too soon to be a good comparison). Would it be murder if the US would invade England and kill every man, woman, child, and sheep? Darn straight, it would. It would be evil like never seen. Yet, this is what the Israelites did, and claimed that "God told them to do it."

Now, even if it was something that acceptable back then (for tribes to kill each other based on long-standing grudges), it is not acceptable now. So where does the "absolute" part come in?

The Israelites' attack on the Amalekites completely destroys anything of the "bible is absolute truth" nonsense. It was either murder, which produces the contradiction with "Thou shall not murder" (both cannot be true), or it was allowed then but illegal now, in which case it is not absolute.

newlyfound

5th August 2007, 04:49 PM

Please select one quote that you feel best contradicts "thou shalt not murder"

Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
-Exodus 21:17-

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. -Exodus 31:15-

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. -Exodus 35:2-

(I wonder why this had to be said twice in the same book)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
-Leviticus 20:10-

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. -Leviticus 20:13-

A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.
-Leviticus 20:27-

anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death. -Leviticus 24:16-

Whenever the tabernacle is to move, the Levites are to take it down, and whenever the tabernacle is to be set up, the Levites shall do it. Anyone else who goes near it shall be put to death. -Numbers 1:51-

So Moses said to Israel's judges, "Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor."
-Numbers 25:5-

Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.-Numbers 35:17-

***this one is such sad pathetic joke, the bible reserves the right to kill and stone anyone for literally a yes or a no 'type of crime', but it thinks it is a major crime for anyone that even dares to hod a stone maybe solely intended for self defense. Just how does this add up?!***

That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, -Deuteronomy 13:5-

On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.-Deuteronomy 17:6-

***here, basically if 2 decide to gang up against an innocent person for any reason, that's it, that person has earned the right to "go"***

The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death.
-Deuteronomy 17:12-

***again, here, if a person is innocent and attempts to speak up, they are in contempt and now need to go twice not just once!!!***

ETC.

If these offenders have committed just such "horrendous crimes" in the eyes of the bible and its lord, why can't they first be counselled? why do they have to be butchered straight up with god being so loving and his love just soooo endures for ever???

The only thing the bible offers is the illusion of truth. And that, by its own standards is a double crime. Since it is bad enough to mislead in pre-meditated way, now not only the bible is lying but it insists that it is not while the opposing party is the one that is. :) talking about adding the insult to the injury...

Mark

5th August 2007, 05:09 PM

As far as I can tell, the only absolute truth the Bible shows is its own inaccuracy.

Absolutely.

YouBelieveWHAT?

5th August 2007, 10:47 PM

And what about The Flood (TM) ?

God decides to destroy all of His creation shortly after making it, because the humans are "wicked".

All of them?

Well, no, there's this Noah fellow, and he's OK - one of the good guys. :)

So - because He's not noted for giving second chances, it's all destroyed, even though there was clearly another way....

Why didn't He think of knocking up a virgin, and sending His son down to sort out the mess?

Presumably, the Christian response is that God made it all, so it's up to Him what he does with it - ignoring good parenting, responsibility and all of the other good stuff that He's quite clearly lacking.

Oh - and the only good guy that God could find - what about him?

After the Ark had landed, all he really wanted to do was go on a bender - yup, he god real drunk!

Some role model, huh?

YBW

RandFan

5th August 2007, 11:14 PM

Why didn't He think of knocking up a virgin, and sending His son down to sort out the mess? Yep, why couldn't an omniscient omnipotent god figure out a way not to drown infants, toddlers and young children? Hell, if he really had to kill everyone why not just snap his fingers and instantly vaporize everyone but Noah and his family? Why the collective horror of mass killing of kids? BTW, are infants, toddlers and young children wicked?

How do you get a Christian to say "whoa, that's just messed up"? It's nearly impossible because Christian reasoning is post hoc. A true believer first figures out what they believe and then rationalizes that belief, god is good and who are humans to question god, therefore if god kills children then it must have been for a good reason.

Of course, this is the same reasoning of the suicide bomber. God wouldn't expect someone to murder innocent children unless it he had a good reason. Right?

YouBelieveWHAT?

6th August 2007, 03:25 AM

Very true - and just think of the poor, innocent animals.

Mind you, I tihnk I read in His Biography some time ago, that if a guy has "relations" with an animal, that the animal was killed? So - I guess they were all involved with the wickedness as well. :)

It's probably just as well that it never happened. :)

Presumably this is an allergy, and we're supposed to be warned by God not to touch His pint, or give Him funny looks, huh?

BTW - the "allergy" is deliberate, before the grammar police arrest me :) - at the moment I'm reading a book about Peter Cooke, the comedian and satirist, and there are some scripts from his sketches included. The "allergy" comes from where Pete & Dud are discussing the garden of Eden. :)

YBW

Bri

6th August 2007, 06:06 AM

RandFan, pgwenthold, newlyfound, YouBelieveWHAT?, et al:

I consider this discussion of Bible contradictions to be a derail of this thread, since the topic of the thread concerned how to argue against Christians intent on quoting the Bible as the source of truth. Specifically, zooloo had asked for comments about his argument that since certain passages in the Bible are interpreted in different (and often contradictory) ways by different groups of Christians, that the Bible could not be used by any one of them as a source. I pointed at that whichever group of Christians he was arguing with would simply hold that their interpretation was the correct one.

As a side-note, I pointed out that it is not impossible that some interpretation of the Bible could be entirely correct, and it would be difficult if not impossible to convince a Christian that their particular interpretation was incorrect, much less to use the fact that there are multiple interpretations to prove the Bible incorrect. I suggested that in my opinion, the better route would be to not allow a Christian to shift the burden of proof to begin with by asking them to first prove that the Bible is the inerrant word of God rather than accepting the premise that the Bible is fact. In my opinion, it's rather counterproductive to shift the burden of proof to yourself by trying to prove that the Bible is not fact.

I thought that a rather benign side-note, but I have apparently stirred up a bees nest, a nest that seems to have been poked at before in another thread. Since I wanted to respond, but did not want to continue the derail any longer than necessary, and since there was already a lengthy discussion of this topic in another thread, I asked RandFan to hit me with his best shot and provide what he felt was the most solid contradiction in the Bible, one that he felt could not be explained by translation or interpretation. RandFan chose Numbers 31:17 and said that it contradicted "thou shalt not murder."

I agree that Numbers 31:17 certainly seems like a contradiction to me personally. Nonetheless, I had no trouble finding several explanations. I will provide them in the following post, but first I want to say that I will NOT comment or respond to comments about how reasonable the explanations are. The point I'm making by continuing this derail for one more post -- the ONLY point I'm making -- is that a Christian might find one or more explanations reasonable, and therefore to argue that you can prove the Bible false based on Numbers 31:17 would be futile.

-Bri

JoeEllison

6th August 2007, 06:15 AM

Christians don't follow the Bible absolutely, and don't even claim it is a good idea to do so. So, since not even Christians really believe that the Bible is absolute, why should anyone else?

Bri

6th August 2007, 07:44 AM

OK, so here are some of the explanations from a quick Internet search. There are more, I'm sure.

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. --Numbers 31:17

The women were ordered to be killed since it was the Midianite women who were responsible for inciting the Israelites to sin, not the men. Most people therefore have a problem with the killing of the young boys in this passage rather than the women.

pgwenthold already hit on the most basic explanation, that the Bible doesn't really define "murder" other than perhaps killing that is punished by God in the Bible. So, pgwenthold has already alleviated the contradiction with "thou shalt not murder." As far as Christians are concerned, they only need to show how this case differs from other cases of murder in order to alleviate the contradiction.

Nonetheless, it would certainly seem that killing children would be wrong. The following are explanations that I found from a quick Google search (RandFan, you did Google "Numbers 31" before choosing this one, right?):

God didn't give the command to kill the male children, Moses did. There is no indication of whether or not God approved. There is also no indication of whether or not the orders were actually carried out.
There was no means for assimilating foreign boys into the Israelite society, and male slaves (even children) would have represented a severe risk to the society.
The male children were spared a fate worse than death. Without the adults, they would have slowly died of exposure, thirst, or starvation.
The male children who survived would have been fated to a life of immorality.
The male children would have taken vengeance on the Israelites (as they would have felt bound by the ancient Near East's code of honor), so they were a clear danger to the Israelites.
The sins of the Midianites against God was severe enough to wipe the entire nation off the face of the earth. The Bible mention sins committed by the Midianites (particularly the women), including seducing the Israelite men, but it is unclear whether those sins are specifically the ones that warranted the destruction of the entire nation or whether they did something even more severe in addition that caused their destruction.
Numbers 31:7 states that the Israelites killed "every male" (the Hebrew does not use the usual word for "men" here), indicating that most of the boys were casualties of the war and only a few boys were left who hid among the female children.
The boys and women were eventually spared. There is mention of the young girls being taken as captives in Numbers 31:35, but no mention of the fate of the women and boys.
The Midianite parents would have been legally and ethically responsible for this situation falling upon their children.
The situation was forced upon the Israelites by the unprovoked treachery of the Midianites (although the Israelites were also punished by a plague that killed nearly as many of them as the Midianites).
The fact that not a single Israelite death occurred during the war is a clear indication that the passage is not meant to be taken as historical fact, but rather a tale about the severity of the sin of idolatry.
The Midianites were a threat to the very survival of the young nation of Israel. The Midianites represented a continual and exceptional savage threat that would not go away and had to be finally dealt with. Furthermore they had also again called on the services of Balaam who in disobedience to God had again taken up his activities against Israel (Numbers 31:8). The threat could not be contained, they had rejected any treaty, and therefore had to be entirely eradicated. Only the young girls posed no future danger to the Israelites.

Again, I will not be discussing how reasonable these explanations are. My point here is that there are explanations that Christians can use to resolve apparent conflicts in the Bible. These would certainly prevent one from proving the Bible to be false to the satisfaction of a Christian who believes the Bible to be true. I consider my point made, and (hopefully) the derail ended.

-Bri

newlyfound

6th August 2007, 08:33 AM

A true believer first figures out what they believe and then rationalizes that belief.

Do you mind if I use this quote as a signature quote, I really like it? thank you.

Mark

6th August 2007, 08:41 AM

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Some translations phrase it "...dasheth the little ones heads against the stones."

Yep...the God of the Bible sure loves all the chilluns. No endorsement of murder there.

J. Arthur Hastur

6th August 2007, 08:46 AM

I'm concerned by who would be qualified to judge what is 'absolute truth'.

newlyfound

6th August 2007, 08:56 AM

So we either take the c**** that's in the bible or "who would qualify to judge what is 'absolute truth'"?, someone has just answered the 64,000$ question!!!!
Unlike what the bible and church (as well as the rest of them) works to make one believe, and that is they are uncapable of using their heads and managing their lives without the cunnings of church. People can make a good use of the brain cells that are upstairs. Common sense, honesty, treat others as you would want them to treat you, etc. life is very very very simple. Church is the one that works to complicate it.

pgwenthold

6th August 2007, 08:57 AM

I'm concerned by who would be qualified to judge what is 'absolute truth'.

This is a separate point. In order to determine whether the bible CAN reveal absolute truth, you have to compare what the bible has said against something that you know IS "absolute truth."

J. Arthur Hastur

6th August 2007, 09:00 AM

pgwenthold

6th August 2007, 09:11 AM

I don't know that the argument is pointless, but the idea of the bible "revealing absolute truth" is certainly pointless. Even if the bible can reveal absolute truth, it is also clear that it can reveal, at best, "relative" truth, and, in a worse light, absolute falsehoods. Thus, the only way the bible can be shown to be "absolute truth" is if said absolute truth is already known so that part of the bible can be verified as absolute truth. Of course, that means that said absolute truth is already known, such that the bible has not actually revealed it.

So then, Bri, these discussions DO matter. If the bible can be shown to be wrong, then it means that it is not absolutely reliable, and nothing in it can be taken to be absolutely true without verification. Thus, the bible cannot give us absolute truth we have not obtained from another source.

Bri

6th August 2007, 09:14 AM

This is a separate point. In order to determine whether the bible CAN reveal absolute truth, you have to compare what the bible has said against something that you know IS "absolute truth."

While I agree with most of your comments, the fact is that Christians accept that the Bible is the word of God (or at the very least inspired by the word of God) on faith. In other words, when quoting Bible verses, they are assuming the truth of the Bible as a premise.

To refute an argument based on a premise you can either find flaws in the logic that leads from the premise to the conclusion, or you can simply question the validity of the premise. In this case, the latter makes a lot more sense to me.

Of course, if your intention isn't simply to refute their argument, but rather to actually persuade them to abandon their faith, you'll probably have to take on the burden of proof (in other words, disprove the Bible). Obviously, not an easy task.

But zooloo was specifically talking about Christians who were using Bible quotes to "prove" creation, or to show that if you do X or don't do Y you're going to hell. In that case, I wouldn't bother to take on the burden of proof, but instead make sure it remains solidly where it should be. I don't see how pointing out that certain passages in the Bible can have multiple, contradictory interpretations will really help much.

So then, Bri, these discussions DO matter. If the bible can be shown to be wrong, then it means that it is not absolutely reliable, and nothing in it can be taken to be absolutely true without verification. Thus, the bible cannot give us absolute truth we have not obtained from another source.

I never said these discussions don't matter -- I said they were off-topic. I also doubt that it's possible to disprove the Bible.

-Bri

J. Arthur Hastur

6th August 2007, 09:25 AM

On the contrary, many points in the bible are very easy to disprove, archaeologically speaking.

Roboramma

6th August 2007, 09:31 AM

Bri, doesn't the fact that you can always offer some explanation (however weak in some cases) to explain away inconsistencies actually make the same point?

A slave-holder looks at the bible and interprets certain passages to mean that slavery is biblically justified. Someone who opposes slavery looks at the bible and explains away the slave-holder's passages, and finds some of his own that back up his view.
Great!
How do we tell which of them has the correct view of the bible?
How do we make that sort of determination on not just one issue (I think it may be possible on this one), but on all of the other ones where the inconsistencies are greater?

Is there some way to tell which parts of the bible are metaphor and which aren't? When "kill the children" means just that, and when it's a lesson that we should take away about the importance of disipline (or whatever)?

Can one go to the bible with no previously held moral ideas and come away with a self-consistent moral framework?
Would two such people find the same moral framework?
If not, in what sense can the bible be a source of truth for anyone?

I think that's what the OP was saying, though he'll correct me if I'm wrong, and I think the point still stands.

Bri

6th August 2007, 09:32 AM

You can't start with the proposition that the Bible is the word of god and therefore it has no contradictions. That is unreasonable. It is fallacious. One must first figure out if the Bible has contradictions.

I don't know if it's unreasonable to accept something at true without proof, but most of us do so to varying degrees every day. It's not that often that we actually encounter something for which there is undeniable, definitive evidence. That's what separates "fact" from "opinion" or "faith."

Christians accept the Bible as true without proof, and most readily admit their belief is based on faith.

-Bri

Bri

6th August 2007, 09:53 AM

Bri, doesn't the fact that you can always offer some explanation (however weak in some cases) to explain away inconsistencies actually make the same point?

Sure, you definitely have a point. The Bible can certainly be used to provide an excuse for just about anything you might want to do. Most religions don't advocate the use Bible passages in isolation for that very reason.

Can one go to the bible with no previously held moral ideas and come away with a self-consistent moral framework?
Would two such people find the same moral framework?
If not, in what sense can the bible be a source of truth for anyone?

I think that's what the OP was saying, though he'll correct me if I'm wrong, and I think the point still stands.

I agree with the point, and even that it's a valid point to make. I just don't think it's the most effective argument for zooloo to use against a Christian who insists on using Bible passages in order to "prove" something. Someone who spouts Bible verses already assumes (based on faith) that their particular interpretations of those Bible verses are true. They will probably cite some divine inspiration (not by them personally but probably by someone who founded or was considered important to their sect) that allows them to hold the belief that they are right and others are wrong.

I think that's what zooloo is essentially suggesting in pointing out that other Christians have come to a different conclusion on various passages in the Bible. But given that the person he is arguing with likely thinks that they have some insight that others don't have, I'm not sure it will get him very far.

I think he's probably better off saying something along the lines of "But isn't that just your opinion?" or "What evidence do you have?" to the very premise of the Bible being the truth -- in other words, make sure the burden of proof remains with them and that they don't state an opinion as a fact.

-Bri

zooloo

6th August 2007, 10:17 AM

Bri,

What you say is my opinion is right enough. Although the advice you give doesn't work with the real hardcore types.

What I aim to do is not argue if the Bible is true or not but to put it to one side and take it out of the discussion.

Asking the hardcore to prove the Bible is true they will quote the bit that says "The Bible is true". I know as well as you that this is a poor argument but it is one they stick to.

In essence I'm saying "The bible is indefinite and offers no final word if your Christianity or the other is the right version that both of you sincerely believe, so lets put the Bible to one side and discuss the issue further."

Just saying "That's your opinion" or "Please prove it" already has automatic answers from Christians that don't involve them considering the point raised.

The way this thread has gone, which I don't object to, is an example of how we wind up picking over tedious detail in the Bible. It is this I seek to avoid by sensibly putting the Bible off-limits.

Regards.

Bri

6th August 2007, 11:07 AM

Asking the hardcore to prove the Bible is true they will quote the bit that says "The Bible is true". I know as well as you that this is a poor argument but it is one they stick to.

So, ask them how they know that part of the Bible that says that the Bible is true is true. Perhaps they can find someplace in the Bible that states:

1. The following sentence art true.
2. The previous sentence art true.

In essence I'm saying "The bible is indefinite and offers no final word if your Christianity or the other is the right version that both of you sincerely believe, so lets put the Bible to one side and discuss the issue further."

Depending on what verse(s) of the Bible they're quoting, they will put the burden of proof on you to find another Christian group that disagrees, and then ask you to prove the other group to be right. By and large, a lot of Christians agree on a large part of the Bible, or at least don't directly oppose the beliefs of another group (the exception being "if you don't belong to my sect, you're going to burn in hell"). Even if you're able to find another Christian group that disagrees, you probably won't be able to prove them right or wrong to the satisfaction of the person you're arguing with.

But if you don't believe me, try it and see.

Just saying "That's your opinion" or "Please prove it" already has automatic answers from Christians that don't involve them considering the point raised.

The way this thread has gone, which I don't object to, is an example of how we wind up picking over tedious detail in the Bible. It is this I seek to avoid by sensibly putting the Bible off-limits.

I'm afraid that will happen either way. However, asking them to prove each point they make from the Bible is true does avoid picking through details. Just keep saying the same thing over and over again for each quote they give you to prove another one: Is that fact, or just your opinion? If you think it's fact, provide the evidence (if the evidence is from the Bible, repeat from "Is that fact..."). If opinion, then so is anything you base upon it. Thanks for playing.

-Bri

pgwenthold

6th August 2007, 11:24 AM

I never said these discussions don't matter -- I said they were off-topic. I also doubt that it's possible to disprove the Bible.

But it's not off-topic. In order to be able to conclude that the bible can reveal absolute truth, you have to make a case that it is all absolute truth, or that it is obvious which parts are not absolute truth.

Places where the bible is either wrong or demonstrates a sliding moral scale rules out the possibility that it is all absolute truth. It is either not true, or not absolute.

The destruction of an entire race is a good example of this. You can be all the apologist for it that you want, but that doesn't help. Even if such an act were acceptable back then, it would clearly be an act of evil today. Thus, even if it didn't violate a commandment against murder then, it does today. Hence, the commandment against murder is not absolute, and is subject to societal standard ("absolute" =/= "subjective").

That's your own (unsupported) apologetic, Bri, granted for the sake of argument, and it shows that the bible cannot be trusted to reveal absolute truth. Therefore, the only way to know if something in the bible is absolute truth, you have to compare it to something that you know independently is absolute truth, such that it is not revealed from the bible.

And what "faith" has to do with this is beyond me. To mention "faith" in a discussion about determining absolute truth has to be a joke. To be generous, all it takes is a single instance of faith being wrong to make it unreliable. Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples. For example, consider that every single sect has differences in their faith doctrine, sometimes completely contradictory. Since not all can be right, we know that faith must be wrong on occasion. Thus, faith cannot reliably provide absolute truth.

To be more honest about faith, I think it is almost a sure way to know something is wrong, to believe it on "faith."

Bri

6th August 2007, 12:27 PM

But it's not off-topic.

It's off-topic insofar as zooloo asked if a particular argument he came up with would be valid against a Christian intent on quoting the Bible as truth. His argument didn't have to do with Bible contradictions per se.

Places where the bible is either wrong or demonstrates a sliding moral scale rules out the possibility that it is all absolute truth. It is either not true, or not absolute.

If you could definitively and undeniably prove the Bible was wrong, I agree, it would show that you cannot use the Bible as a source of truth. But I suspect that you can't.

I think zooloo was attempting to take another approach, but I don't think his will work for similar reasons.

That's your own (unsupported) apologetic, Bri, granted for the sake of argument...

What is?

...and it shows that the bible cannot be trusted to reveal absolute truth. Therefore, the only way to know if something in the bible is absolute truth, you have to compare it to something that you know independently is absolute truth, such that it is not revealed from the bible.

I know the Bible cannot reveal absolute truth, at least not as you and I mean it. Christians know it too, which is why they call it "faith" and not "fact." I don't think it's a big surprise to most Christians that their religion is based on faith.

And yes, it's important to point that out whenever a Christian quotes the Bible as fact. However, in my opinion, all this about how two different interpretations might conflict one another doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Why not just point out that the Bible cannot be considered to be fact without evidence?

And what "faith" has to do with this is beyond me. To mention "faith" in a discussion about determining absolute truth has to be a joke.

I don't think anyone in this discussion has confused faith with absolute truth. Just the opposite in fact -- provable fact equates to absolute truth.

To be generous, all it takes is a single instance of faith being wrong to make it unreliable. Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples. For example, consider that every single sect has differences in their faith doctrine, sometimes completely contradictory. Since not all can be right, we know that faith must be wrong on occasion. Thus, faith cannot reliably provide absolute truth.

Sure, but that's like saying that an opinion cannot reliably provide absolute truth. An opposing opinion might be right and yours might be wrong. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an opinion. Would it prevent you from thinking that George Bush is a bad president knowing that someone else thinks he's a great president? I doubt it would stop a Christian from interpreting a passage of the Bible one way just because another Christian interprets it differently.

To be more honest about faith, I think it is almost a sure way to know something is wrong, to believe it on "faith."

I know you're being facetious here, but just because there is no proof doesn't make something necessarily wrong. Most of us have beliefs based on varying amounts of faith and evidence.

It's not necessarily wrong to have faith-based beliefs. It's wrong to mistake yours for fact. Which is where I think some fundamentalists tend to go wrong.

-Bri

RandFan

6th August 2007, 05:23 PM

Again, I will not be discussing how reasonable these explanations are. Bri, I have said over and over and over and over, of course there are explanations. That was conceded from the beginning. The point is, are the explanations reasonable. If not then the contradictions remain.

My point here is that there are explanations that Christians can use to resolve apparent conflicts in the Bible. I have said time and again that Christians can and do rationalize anything they want. This ISN'T the point.

These would certainly prevent one from proving the Bible to be false to the satisfaction of a Christian who believes the Bible to be true. I consider my point made, and (hopefully) the derail ended.If the point had been that Christians can rationalize any belief or behavior they like then there would not have been a debate. That's not the point of this discussion.

By your logic Bri, how are we to say that the killing fields of Pol Pot or the purges of Stalin are inconsistent with modern morality or any sense of morality for that reason?

ETA: Edited to remove provacative commentary.

RandFan

6th August 2007, 06:02 PM

I don't know if it's unreasonable to accept something at true without proof, but most of us do so to varying degrees every day. If this were the first time you and I had discussed faith I could let this slide with just a simple explanation but the fact that we have discussed this issue at length really burns me. You are engaging in fallacy.

It's very difficult if not impossible to know something absolutely. Humans rely on intuition and logic (inductive and deductive) to make decisions.

I don't know that my insurance will pay in the event of a loss but I make my payments anyway. Why? Inductive reasoning, it's reasonable based on what I know about the insurance industry, the news media, government regulators and our courts.

I don't "know" absolutely that the sun will come up tomorrow but using inductive reasoning I can be pretty sure that it will based on past history (the sun has always risen). It is for this reason that I will not live in fear that the sun might not rise tomorrow.

Intuition is an internal function, intuition is the result of uncounsious calculations that our brain makes based on our life's experiences. It's faulty but it does a pretty good job.

In order to live in this world we have to make a lot of decision based on incomplete evidence. We must rely on intuition and inductive reasoning to survive. This CAN be reasonable. But we have to be careful. Just because a course of action has not killed us and or seems to have achieved the desired results doesn't mean that it is in fact good for us.

Now, when is a decision NOT reasonable? Well, when we use faulty logic.

Example: Smoking has not killed me and it always makes me feel better. When I get a cold I smoke more and the cold goes away faster. My friends don't smoke and they are less healthy than me, take more sick time and are not as active. Therefore, smoking is good for one's health.

FTR, this was conventional wisdom at one time.

People often rationalize behavior post hoc. They first decide what it is they believe and then come up with reasons to justify what they believe with out first questioning that belief and using logic to analyze the belief. To avoid this we must first question our held beliefs (maybe smoking isn't healthy).

It's not that often that we actually encounter something for which there is undeniable, definitive evidence. That's what separates "fact" from "opinion" or "faith." This is just an excuse for ignorance. Adopting this stand would allow for all kinds of bigotry and backward thinking.

Sheriff: Why did you shoot your neighbor?
Suspect: He was going to kill me.
Sheriff: You shot him in the back, while he was sleeping, in his own bed.
Suspect: So, you can't prove that he wasn't going to kill me.
Sheriff: What reason do you have that he was going to kill you?
Suspect: He has been really mean to me lately.
Sheriff: And?
Suspect: And I had a feeling.
Sheriff: A feeling?
Suspect: Yeah, look, prove that he wasn't going to kill me.

Bri, can you prove the suspect was unreasonable?

Christians accept the Bible as true without proof, and most readily admit their belief is based on faith.

So, David Koresh's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh) actions were reasonable?
Jim Jones' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones)actions were reasonable?

I'm sorry Bri, faith can't excuse any and all actions.

Judge: So why did you kill your daughter?
Defendant: I have faith in god.
Judge: That doesn't answer the question.
Defendant: I believe in the Old Testament.
Judge: So?
Defendant: So it says that adulterers should be put to death and my daughter had sex with a man that was married.

RandFan

6th August 2007, 06:03 PM

Do you mind if I use this quote as a signature quote, I really like it? thank you.By all means. As a former true believer I speak with some experience.

RandFan

6th August 2007, 06:08 PM

A blast from the past.

Just to point out that I have been making the same point for some time now. Just because you can find a justification for behavior doesn't make it correct.

I can only give you one of the greatest movie lines ever.

That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong. --Nick Naylor

Bri, there is an ancient Hebrew tradition of debate. Scholars were at various times required to take both sides of an argument, defend one position one day and the other position a different day. Here's the trick though, just because both sides can be argued doesn't mean that both sides are correct. At the risk of patronizing let me repeat.

Just because both sides can be argued doesn't mean that both sides are correct.

In all honesty Bri, it's the best. I think it requires a great deal of dishonesty at worst or cognitive dissonance at best to think one can reconcile "thou shalt not kill" with murdering children.

newlyfound

6th August 2007, 06:09 PM

By all means. As a former true believer I speak with some experience.

Me too, so I definitely recognized my old self there. Thank you so much.

RandFan

6th August 2007, 06:10 PM

I agree that Numbers 31:17 certainly seems like a contradiction to me personally. There is no "seems" about it. It is a contradiction and equivication and justification won't change that.

The only way you can overcome the contradiction is to assert a "reasonable" explanation. To date none have been given.

RandFan

6th August 2007, 06:25 PM

God didn't give the command to kill the male children, Moses did. There is no indication of whether or not God approved. There is also no indication of whether or not the orders were actually carried out.
There was no means for assimilating foreign boys into the Israelite society, and male slaves (even children) would have represented a severe risk to the society.
The male children were spared a fate worse than death. Without the adults, they would have slowly died of exposure, thirst, or starvation.
The male children who survived would have been fated to a life of immorality.
The male children would have taken vengeance on the Israelites (as they would have felt bound by the ancient Near East's code of honor), so they were a clear danger to the Israelites.
The sins of the Midianites against God was severe enough to wipe the entire nation off the face of the earth. The Bible mention sins committed by the Midianites (particularly the women), including seducing the Israelite men, but it is unclear whether those sins are specifically the ones that warranted the destruction of the entire nation or whether they did something even more severe in addition that caused their destruction.
Numbers 31:7 states that the Israelites killed "every male" (the Hebrew does not use the usual word for "men" here), indicating that most of the boys were casualties of the war and only a few boys were left who hid among the female children.
The boys and women were eventually spared. There is mention of the young girls being taken as captives in Numbers 31:35, but no mention of the fate of the women and boys.
The Midianite parents would have been legally and ethically responsible for this situation falling upon their children.
The situation was forced upon the Israelites by the unprovoked treachery of the Midianites (although the Israelites were also punished by a plague that killed nearly as many of them as the Midianites).
The fact that not a single Israelite death occurred during the war is a clear indication that the passage is not meant to be taken as historical fact, but rather a tale about the severity of the sin of idolatry.
The Midianites were a threat to the very survival of the young nation of Israel. The Midianites represented a continual and exceptional savage threat that would not go away and had to be finally dealt with. Furthermore they had also again called on the services of Balaam who in disobedience to God had again taken up his activities against Israel (Numbers 31:8). The threat could not be contained, they had rejected any treaty, and therefore had to be entirely eradicated. Only the young girls posed no future danger to the Israelites.
Why are humans so often inhuman? Easy, they find justification for their inhumanity. Having god on your side doesn't hurt either.

No one said that god did give the command. Only that there is no condemnation of Moses for slaughtering children. Moses was god's prophet. Moses spoke to god. Didn't Moses know?
This is so transparent as to be laughable. Nuremberg comes to mind. Why did you kill them? Ahhhh.... well, uh, we couldn't assimilate them so we killed them.
(see #2)
Presumptuous (and disgusting).
Toddlers and infants don't have that ability to remember.
Then the Muslims were reasonable to fly planes into the twin towers.
Sorry Moses, some of the infants were hiding with the girls, what should we do? Oh, well go back and kill them. (come on Bri).
There is no proof that the boys were spared and this is really lame (I don't honestly know if the massacre did take place. That the god's "prophet" ordered the killing of children is disgusting beyond words in and of itself)
Unbelievable. You really posted that? It's the parents fault? Bri.
(see 10)
Again, I don't know if the massacre took place. That Moses ordered such a slaughter and that it is in the Bible without ANY CONDEMNATION is disgusting and is in direct conflict with "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
BS, pure and utter BS. It didn't happen and if it did it couldn't be helped.Bri, how many of those would work in a court of law? How many could George Bush get away with today?

Bush: Oh, I only ordered them to kill the children, I didn't really mean for it to happen.

Get real.

Bri

6th August 2007, 07:53 PM

Bri, I have said over and over and over and over, of course there are explanations. That was conceded from the beginning. The point is, are the explanations reasonable. If not then the contradictions remain.

Reasonable to you? Of course not (I never expected them to be). Reasonable to a Christian? Yes, almost certainly one or more would be. And, yes, that is the point. Please read the entire thread.

-Bri

Bri

6th August 2007, 08:34 PM

[...lengthy rant omitted...]

I'm sorry Bri, faith can't excuse any and all actions.

I agree, and beautifully argued by the way.

Problem is, I didn't write or even imply that faith could excuse any action, much less any and all actions!

See how easy it is to win an argument against me? Just argue against things I didn't say and happen to disagree with.

-Bri

Bri

6th August 2007, 08:40 PM

Just to point out that I have been making the same point for some time now.

You noticed that you've been making the same point over and over again too? Whew! I thought it was just me! I'm pretty sure this is what zooloo had in mind when he said that certain discussions end up going around in circles.

Just because you can find a justification for behavior doesn't make it correct.

Again, I totally agree. For the second -- maybe third? -- time.

-Bri

RandFan

6th August 2007, 09:37 PM

Reasonable to you? Of course not (I never expected them to be). Reasonable to a Christian? Yes, almost certainly one or more would be.

Only if the Christian is unreasonable.
I have said over and over that a Christian could justify anything (you re-read the thread).

RandFan

6th August 2007, 09:38 PM

I agree, and beautifully argued by the way.

Problem is, I didn't write or even imply that faith could excuse any action, much less any and all actions!

See how easy it is to win an argument against me? Just argue against things I didn't say and happen to disagree with.

-BriWithout faith you can't overcome the contradictions. I'm affraid that you have painted yourself into a corner.

autumn1971

6th August 2007, 11:04 PM

Well, my bible gets the publisher right. The table of contents seem to reflect the order of the books correctly. As far as I have investigated, the pages appear to have been numbered sequentially. All of these things are shown by my bible to be "true".

Oh, wait, the actual text? Absoloute bollocks.

Roboramma

7th August 2007, 03:03 AM

I think that's what zooloo is essentially suggesting in pointing out that other Christians have come to a different conclusion on various passages in the Bible. But given that the person he is arguing with likely thinks that they have some insight that others don't have, I'm not sure it will get him very far.

I think he's probably better off saying something along the lines of "But isn't that just your opinion?" or "What evidence do you have?" to the very premise of the Bible being the truth -- in other words, make sure the burden of proof remains with them and that they don't state an opinion as a fact.Ah, now that I understand it I think you have a good point. It is hard to get someone to reconsider their interpretation of the bible simply by saying that other people have had different interpretations. If they read it a certain way, they'll probably feel that the way that they are reading it is justified by the text, even if they formed their opinion of what it's saying based on their own prior viewpoint.
That's a hard thing to see. In fact (in areas other than the bible, obviously) I have the same problem, I think.

zooloo

7th August 2007, 03:53 AM

It's hard to get someone to reconsider their reading of the Bible full stop (Period) :D

By using other people's versions as comparison I can avoid arguing the minutiae.

Trying to keep the burden of proof on the Bible quoter hits a wall because they already have Bible "answers" prepared. They are not apt answers.

Getting the Bible quoter to concede there are differing opinions on the Bible's content is in itself a huge step forwards.

I don't believe I have come up with a unique point but it is in an unfamiliar form, this unfamiliar form tries to avoid the quoter simply stating standard learnt responses and move them to where they have to think and consider.

Bri

7th August 2007, 06:01 AM

Only if the Christian is unreasonable.

Oh, I see. So, again if someone disagrees with you, they are unreasonable.

I have said over and over that a Christian could justify anything.

This is now the fourth time I've agreed with this comment. Why do you keep repeating it as if it's something that I've ever disagreed with?

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2007, 06:05 AM

Without faith you can't overcome the contradictions. I'm affraid that you have painted yourself into a corner.

Ummm... Since without faith you cannot believe the Bible to be true to begin with, I suppose you're right that without faith you cannot resolve apparent contradictions in the Bible. So what? I don't recall saying otherwise.

It also requires faith to claim that it is impossible for the Bible to be true.

Unless you enjoy arguing with yourself, please respond to what I've said and not what you wish I had said.

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2007, 06:10 AM

Ah, now that I understand it I think you have a good point. It is hard to get someone to reconsider their interpretation of the bible simply by saying that other people have had different interpretations. If they read it a certain way, they'll probably feel that the way that they are reading it is justified by the text, even if they formed their opinion of what it's saying based on their own prior viewpoint.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Except that they probably believe (again, based on faith -- the same reason they believe the Bible is the word of God to begin with) that they or someone associated with their particular group have some sort of divine inspiration for knowing how the Bible should be interpreted.

That's a hard thing to see. In fact (in areas other than the bible, obviously) I have the same problem, I think.

What other areas?

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2007, 06:22 AM

By using other people's versions as comparison I can avoid arguing the minutiae.

Well, let us know how effective it is!

Trying to keep the burden of proof on the Bible quoter hits a wall because they already have Bible "answers" prepared. They are not apt answers.

They have answers that are not from the Bible? If their answers are from the Bible, make sure you keep the burden of proof on them that their Bible is fact.

Getting the Bible quoter to concede there are differing opinions on the Bible's content is in itself a huge step forwards.

I should think that would be fairly obvious given that there are so many forms of Christianity, all based on different interpretations of the same Bible.

I don't believe I have come up with a unique point but it is in an unfamiliar form, this unfamiliar form tries to avoid the quoter simply stating standard learnt responses and move them to where they have to think and consider.

It might work, but I can see how it will probably backfire.

In my opinion, pointing out conflicting interpretations is going to take the burden off of them and place it on you because they will likely ask you to prove your argument by presenting the other interpretations, proving those other interpretations to be correct, and proving those other interpretations to be in conflict with theirs (i.e. proving their interpretation to be incorrect).

Seems much more straightforward to ask them to simply prove their Bible to be the word of God, then prove that their interpretation of their Bible is correct before quoting anything from their Bible as fact.

-Bri

pgwenthold

7th August 2007, 06:42 AM

Ummm... Since without faith you cannot believe the Bible to be true to begin with,

Why not? Totally begging the question here. Does it require faith to believe in God? Yes, probably, but that is because there is no good evidence for God, including the fact that the bible is unreliable.

So you get down to: you have to have faith because the bible, inter alia, is objectively unreliable. However, if you have faith, it all makes sense. Therefore, the bible gives us absolute truth.

zooloo

7th August 2007, 07:14 AM

Well, let us know how effective it is!

In a trial of one it was effective, in so far as they stopped blindly quoting the Bible at me.

They have answers that are not from the Bible? If their answers are from the Bible, make sure you keep the burden of proof on them that their Bible is fact.

For them the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it so and being the word of God it must be right seems to be enough proof for them. I am aware this is a bad argument.

I should think that would be fairly obvious given that there are so many forms of Christianity, all based on different interpretations of the same Bible.

Quite surprisingly not so. There people have a very mono version of the Bible, they're aware of Catholics (Hell bound) but that's about it. Other than that the doctrinal conflicts are something they're very vaguely aware of.

It might work, but I can see how it will probably backfire.

In my opinion, pointing out conflicting interpretations is going to take the burden off of them and place it on you because they will likely ask you to prove your argument by presenting the other interpretations, proving those other interpretations to be correct, and proving those other interpretations to be in conflict with theirs (i.e. proving their interpretation to be incorrect).

What the differences are don't matter it is that there are differences.

By discussing the differences we just get back to nit-picking over the Bible which is what is being avoided.

Seems much more straightforward to ask them to simply prove their Bible to be the word of God, then prove that their interpretation of their Bible is correct before quoting anything from their Bible as fact.

Doesn't work, they merely travel down well worn learnt responses without any thinking or consideration.

Bri

7th August 2007, 07:49 AM

Why not? Totally begging the question here. Does it require faith to believe in God? Yes, probably, but that is because there is no good evidence for God, including the fact that the bible is unreliable.

Yes, right. It requires faith to believe in God because of the lack of evidence for God.

So you get down to: you have to have faith because the bible, inter alia, is objectively unreliable. However, if you have faith, it all makes sense. Therefore, the bible gives us absolute truth.

I think that "absolute truth" is the same as "absolute fact" and requires absolute proof (unless you are using a definition that differs from mine). As RandFan is fond of pointing out (and he's right), very little is known to be absolute fact because there is absolute proof for very little. However, there is a preponderance of evidence for a lot of things, so much so that we take them as "fact" when technically they aren't absolute fact.

Faith is generally defined as belief without proof, although some would say that it's a belief without a preponderance of evidence (although the amount and quality of evidence that constitutes "preponderance" is subjective). Faith is probably considered to be a continuum (i.e. it would take more faith to believe in something for which there is less evidence). There are other words that we also use to express belief with different amounts of evidence, such as "impression," "opinion," and "knowledge."

In this case, there is little evidence that the Bible is true (i.e. is the word of God) and some evidence against it. Maybe even a preponderance. Therefore, yes, belief that the Bible is the word of God (and therefore true) is certainly a faith-based belief. Christians generally admit that readily, and in fact faith is one of the main tenets of Christianity. Christians are prone (as are all of us) to overstate the amount and quality of evidence and claim something to be fact when it is not fact.

So to respond to your comment: without absolute proof that the Bible is the word of God, I don't believe that the Bible can be a source of absolute truth as I've defined it above. However, that is not to be confused by the fact that it is not impossible that some interpretation of the Bible is absolutely true (for example, it is not impossible that God exists and has provided some divine intuition to some person to allow them to interpret the Bible correctly), which I think is the statement that has vexed RandFan so.

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2007, 07:58 AM

In a trial of one it was effective, in so far as they stopped blindly quoting the Bible at me.

I fear that the price you will pay will be a shifting of the burden of proof.

For them the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it so and being the word of God it must be right seems to be enough proof for them. I am aware this is a bad argument.

Worse than a bad argument, it is a fallacy and they know it. To say that something is true because it claims to be true is just silly. I suggest that you not allow them to get away with such silliness.

If you suspect that they are sincere in not seeing the fallacy of that logic (in which case I doubt it's worth arguing with them anyway), you could try to provide them an example: "This sentence is true." Is the sentence true because it claims to be? Could it possibly be false? Does the existence of this sentence change their answer: "This sentence is true and the previous sentence is false." If the second sentence can be false, then so can the first (the only "evidence" that either is true is the self-reference). If the second sentence cannot be false then the first sentence must be false. Similarly, the Bible cannot be fact if the only evidence that the Bible is true is contained within the Bible itself.

Quite surprisingly not so. There people have a very mono version of the Bible, they're aware of Catholics (Hell bound) but that's about it. Other than that the doctrinal conflicts are something they're very vaguely aware of.

They're also aware that while they believe that Catholics are hell bound, Catholics believe that they are going to hell for not being Catholic, right?

What the differences are don't matter it is that there are differences.

By discussing the differences we just get back to nit-picking over the Bible which is what is being avoided.

That is EXACTLY what I suspect will happen in practice. Or worse, they will shift the burden to you to provide evidence that these other interpretations are correct and that their interpretation is incorrect.

Doesn't work, they merely travel down well worn learnt responses without any thinking or consideration.

Just because a response is automatic doesn't make it necessarily incorrect, so treat it as you would any other response and ask for evidence. If it is based on the Bible (as it probably is) then you need to ask them for external evidence that the Bible is fact.

-Bri

zooloo

7th August 2007, 08:14 AM

I fear that the price you will pay will be a shifting of the burden of proof.

They believe they have proof - the Bible is proof.

Worse than a bad argument, it is a fallacy and they know it. To say that something is true because it claims to be true is just silly. I suggest that you not allow them to get away with such silliness.

Not allowing them to get away with such silliness is what I am attempting

They're also aware that while they believe that Catholics are hell bound, Catholics believe that they are going to hell for not being Catholic, right?

When you say it tot hem, yes. Otherwise it is not an active consideration.

They have a very mono-view.

That is EXACTLY what I suspect will happen in practice. Or worse, they will shift the burden to you to provide evidence that these other interpretations are correct and that their interpretation is incorrect.

I don't have to prove who is correct, it is their existence that matters. Arguing who is correct gets to nit-picking time again.

My observation would be that "...with an open-mind both sides seem equally convincing".

Just because a response is automatic doesn't make it necessarily incorrect, so treat it as you would any other response and ask for evidence. If it is based on the Bible (as it probably is) then you need to ask them for external evidence that the Bible is fact.
-Bri

In these instances the quote seldom address the question and more seldom actually goes any way towards answering it. The main point is that they are not giving the question any heed or consideration whatsoever but relying on learnt responses.

The Bible doesn't need external evidence it stands on it's own and is proof of itself. Indeed the Bible cannot be tested (or contradicted). - this is not my view, I am well aware of the obvious responses.

pgwenthold

7th August 2007, 08:42 AM

zooloo

7th August 2007, 08:59 AM

Yeah.

:)

Bri

7th August 2007, 09:00 AM

To reiterate what Zooloo has said, the fact that there are competing interpretations of the bible rules out any chance of anyone gleaning "absolute truth" from it. The only way to determine which interpretation is correct is to compare it to an external standard of truth that is already known, which means the bible doesn't reveal it.

Again, they likely take it on faith that their interpretation is correct, for the same reasons they take it on faith that the Bible is true to begin with.

And no, faith is not an "external standard of truth." It has the same problem.

Yup, absolutely right. That's exactly my point -- the argument about multiple interpretations has the exact same problem as the argument about the Bible not being fact. Unfortunately, if a Christian takes the Bible to be true based on faith, I see no reason why they would have a problem taking their interpretation of the Bible to be true based on faith.

Why not eliminate the extra complexity of the argument by just pointing out that faith isn't an external standard of truth of the Bible?

Once it is determined that the bible contains material that cannot be interpreted inequivocally, it means the entire bible cannot be accepted unequivocally, and therefore everything must be confirmed by an external standard. As such, it cannot reveal anything we did not already know.

The fact that the Bible cannot be accepted unequivocally is another way of stating that it must be accepted on faith. Which shouldn't cause too much concern for a Christian. The Bible can only reveal what we didn't already know if you accept as a premise that the Bible is true, as Christians undoubtedly do.

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2007, 09:20 AM

My observation would be that "...with an open-mind both sides seem equally convincing".

That's a decent response, if for nothing else than because you're trying to get them to see things from your point of view by using an illustration of their thought process as it would relate to other Christians trying to convince them that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong. For a similar approach, see below. Just make sure they don't try to change the burden of proof with something like "well, if both sides seem convincing, you can't prove that my side is wrong" and then chalking that up as a "win" and using that "revelation" to continue quoting the Bible.

In my opinion, it's best to approach this sort of conversation by asking hypothetical questions ("Say another Christian quotes the Bible as the reason for holding a specific view that conflicts with your view that is also based on the Bible -- what would it take to convince you that yours is wrong and theirs is right?") and having them answer.

The Bible doesn't need external evidence it stands on it's own and is proof of itself. Indeed the Bible cannot be tested (or contradicted). - this is not my view, I am well aware of the obvious responses.

I guess it all hinges on what they hope to accomplish by the discussion. The good news is that Christians sometimes want to convince others of their beliefs, and sometimes make claims that should be expected to bear the burden of proof, such as the ones you mentioned earlier in the thread ("you are going to burn in hell" or "creation is true, evolution is false").

Claiming that the Bible is unfalsifiable (that it cannot be tested or contradicted) doesn't help their case. At best, it means that there is no way to know if it is true or not.

Consider the following claims: "There is a teapot orbiting Venus right now." or "Invisible unicorns exist." Both are currently unfalsifiable, but Christians don't generally hold them to be fact. For that matter, other religions have their holy books that are as unfalsifiable as the Bible (for exactly the same reasons), but Christians wouldn't hold them as fact without some additional evidence (evidence not contained within the book itself).

Therefore, in order to convince you of creation, they have to either convince you that the Bible is true using evidence external to the Bible, or else convince you of creation by using evidence external to the Bible.

-Bri

ETA: You're probably familiar with unfalsifiability and the other arguments that I've presented, so I should point out that I wasn't trying to be condescending by (re)stating them. I was just trying to give you some ideas as to how you might try to convey them to the Christians you refer to who might not be familiar with them.

Bri

7th August 2007, 10:10 AM

<oops...ignore this post>

Roboramma

7th August 2007, 10:16 AM

What other areas? Oh, it's not that interesting. I just think that I can let my own prior beliefs influence my conclusions from time to time. More often than I'd like, though I try to avoid it. For instance I have strong opinions about environmentalism and sometimes when I hear people suggesting that there are no meaningful environmental issues talk I notice myself starting to turn off. Even on JREF when I read threads with people I disagree with, after a while I start turning off when reading their posts and I have to force myself to go through them.

But since I do it, I can understand how others do it too...

On the other hand I think its something worth working very hard to avoid. But so it goes.

Bri

7th August 2007, 12:23 PM

I just think that I can let my own prior beliefs influence my conclusions from time to time. More often than I'd like, though I try to avoid it.

Well, your prior beliefs are a part of who you are, so I'm not sure you can altogether avoid allowing who you are to influence your opinions from time to time (it becomes a problem is when you allow prior beliefs to influence your opinions despite available evidence to the contrary). Furthermore, I've read some of your posts before and you have always seemed to question your own beliefs and recognize them for what they are.

For instance I have strong opinions about environmentalism and sometimes when I hear people suggesting that there are no meaningful environmental issues talk I notice myself starting to turn off.

If your opinion is that there are important environmental issues that need to be addressed (such as global warming) I think the evidence is on your side. Certain theists argue against environmental issues, privately on the grounds that they believe that God created the world for us and we can't possibly harm it, and publicly (believe it or not) they will join forces with the minority of scientists and deny the significance of the available evidence.

The good news is that I think most theists don't deny the evidence concerning the environment and global warning. Lately there has also been movement among theists (including church leaders) towards the belief that God wants them to protect the environment.

Even on JREF when I read threads with people I disagree with, after a while I start turning off when reading their posts and I have to force myself to go through them.

This is a normal reaction, and you are right to avoid acting on it and forcing yourself to judge an argument based on its merits rather than on preconceived notions.

But since I do it, I can understand how others do it too...

On the other hand I think its something worth working very hard to avoid. But so it goes.

Understandable, perhaps, but as you pointed out, closed-mindedness is something to avoid.

-Bri

zooloo

7th August 2007, 04:14 PM

Just came across this, another one from Bertrand Russell:

“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”

Mark

7th August 2007, 04:31 PM

The Bible is inaccurate and full of contradictions; this is inarguable.

Therefore, if it is indeed the Word of God, we are all in the hands of a divine idiot. A scary thought.

Personally, I think it is largely the work of a bunch of neolithic philosophers/priests hoping to a) find some order in existence, and/or b) avoid honest work.

RandFan

7th August 2007, 05:54 PM

Oh, I see. So, again if someone disagrees with you, they are unreasonable.That is not my position.

There are positions that reasonable people can disagree on.
Killing children is not one of those things.
That a Christian can find an explanation to justify their cognitive dissonance is not, in and of itself, REASONABLE.

RandFan

7th August 2007, 06:04 PM

Ummm... Since without faith you cannot believe the Bible to be true to begin with, I suppose you're right that without faith you cannot resolve apparent contradictions in the Bible. So what? I don't recall saying otherwise.

It also requires faith to claim that it is impossible for the Bible to be true. Non sequitur. The truth of either proposition has no bearing on the other. The statement "the bible is true" is meaningless. True in a literal sense? True in a metaphorical sense?

Further, I can have faith that Tom Cruise is my father but it is not reasonable. To state that it requires faith to claim that it is impossible for Tom Cruise to be my father doesn't shed any light on the truth value of the proposition that Tom Cruise is my father.

This is a red herring Bri.

Bri

7th August 2007, 07:19 PM

The Bible is inaccurate and full of contradictions; this is inarguable.

Problem is, it's clearly not inarguable. Lots of people are quite capable of arguing about it and apparently do so.

-Bri

RandFan

7th August 2007, 07:23 PM

Problem is, it's clearly not inarguable. Lots of people are quite capable of arguing about it and apparently do so.

-BriThat's not what Mark meant by "inarguable". To say that something is "inarguable" is to say that it can't be reasonably argued. Any position can be argued for. Not every position can be reasonably argued for.

I can argue that the temperature of the sun is 100 degrees Celsius but is that reasonable?

Bri

7th August 2007, 07:27 PM

The statement "the bible is true" is meaningless. True in a literal sense? True in a metaphorical sense?

Could it be that you're not starting to see my point?

Further, I can have faith that Tom Cruise is my father but it is not reasonable.

That depends on what reasons you might have to believe it, and what evidence there is for or against it. It may not be a reasonable belief, but then again it may.

To state that it requires faith to claim that it is impossible for Tom Cruise to be my father doesn't shed any light on the truth value of the proposition that Tom Cruise is my father.

This is a red herring Bri.

Again, I totally agree.

I never said that the fact that it requires faith to claim the impossibility of something sheds any light on the truth value of the probability of the thing being true. Please argue against what I said (if you disagree) and not what you wish I had said.

-Bri

RandFan

7th August 2007, 07:32 PM

That depends on what reasons you might have to believe it, and what evidence there is for or against it. It may not be a reasonable belief, but then again it may.I'm older than Tom Cruise.

I never said that the fact that it requires faith to claim the impossibility of something sheds any light on the truth value of the probability of the thing being true. Please argue against what I said (if you disagree) and not what you wish I had said.

-BriI can only use inference to divine your intention of using your words. If you are not being clear then it is not my fault. If my arguments are not relevant to your intention then I have no idea what your intent is.

The Bible is full of contradiction.
It is not reasonable to deny that fact.
An otherwise reasonable person might deny that fact but it requires cognitive dissonance and unreasonableness in that instance.
Humans employ things like faith and justification to create cognitive dissonance.

Mark

7th August 2007, 07:34 PM

That's not what Mark meant by "inarguable". To say that something is "inarguable" is to say that it can't be reasonably argued. Any position can be argued for. Not every position can be reasonably argued for.

I can argue that the temperature of the sun is 100 degrees Celsius but is that reasonable?

Exactly, Randfan (and a warm "Howdy!" to you...).

Bri, if you would like, I will be happy to provide examples where the Bible is flat out, inarguably wrong in its facts.

Start with the value of pi, which the Bible gives as 3.0. Yes, one can argue all day that 3.0 is correct...but it is NOT correct and never will be. I can argue 2 + 2 = 22, but I will simply be wrong no matter how much I argue; in other words, it is NOT opinion.

Bri

7th August 2007, 08:00 PM

I'm older than Tom Cruise.

Then no, to believe you are Tom Cruise's child is impossible, and therefore clearly unreasonable.

I can only use inference to divine your intention of using your words. If you are not being clear then it is not my fault. If my arguments are not relevant to your intention then I have no idea what your intent is.

I'm sure it's my fault that I'm not being clear enough, but because I seem to be prone to that (particularly in conversations with you) you may want to ask if you're unsure.

Since you said that you read the thread, I assumed you realized the context of the discussion, which concerned how to best argue with a Christian intent on quoting the Bible as true. I pointed out that few Christians would be swayed by an argument that essentially boiled down to the obvious fact that their interpretation of the Bible is based on faith. Unless zooloo could prove the Bible to be absolutely false or all possible interpretations of it to be absolutely false, he would be wise not take on the burden of proof in such arguments. My point that is it not impossible that one or more interpretations of the Bible are entirely true (that God exists and provided one or more people with the ability to know exactly how to interpret the Bible) was in that context, to illustrate that zooloo very likely cannot prove beyond any doubt that a particular interpretation of a passage is false.

That's where you stepped in, disagreeing with me. Since you claimed you understood the context of the discussion, I assumed you were saying that you could disprove any possible interpretation of certain contradictions in the Bible. I challenged you to provide such a contradiction that couldn't possibly be rationalized, You provided an apparent contradiction, and I supplied lots of possible rationalizations (and there were plenty more to be found, I'm sure). You then apparently changed the rules and said that they had to be rationalized to your satisfaction rather than to a Christian's satisfaction. Yes, I completely agree that the contradiction you provided will never be rationalized to your satisfaction, but that has little to do with the discussion we were having.

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2007, 08:07 PM

That's not what Mark meant by "inarguable".

I suspect that is true, but then "inarguable" is clearly not the correct term. So what term should he have used in its place do you think?

To say that something is "inarguable" is to say that it can't be reasonably argued.

Not quite. According to Webster (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=inarguable):

inarguable - not arguable : not open to doubt or debate

It is clear that this issue is open to doubt and debate, and is arguable.

Any position can be argued for. Not every position can be reasonably argued for.

Clearly that is true. A position that is impossible certainly cannot be reasonably argued for. What is your definition of "reasonable" as in "The Bible is inaccurate and full of contradictions; this cannot be reasonably argued"?

Bri, if you would like, I will be happy to provide examples where the Bible is flat out, inarguably wrong in its facts.

No thanks. Read the thread. We've already been there.

-Bri

RandFan

7th August 2007, 08:23 PM

Not quite. According to Webster (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=inarguable):I'm sorry but there is no contradiction between what I said and Webster's definition. ANYTHING can be argued. By your logic there is no such word. We can argue whether I'm the son of Tom Cruise but it really isn't an arguable point.

You are confusing contradiction with argument.

An argument is a premise or series of premises intended to establish a definate proposition.

It is clear that this issue is open to doubt and debate, and is arguable.No.

A position that is impossible certainly cannot be reasonably argued for.To be pedantic, scientifically, nothing is impossible.

Tom Cruise could have used a time machine to go back in time to be my father.

It's still not a reasonable position though.

RandFan

7th August 2007, 08:29 PM

Mark

7th August 2007, 09:56 PM

It is clear that this issue is open to doubt and debate, and is arguable.

-Bri

This issue may be; that the Bible is riddled with factual errors most certainly cannot be argued with in any reasonable sense.

Bri

8th August 2007, 04:56 AM

Tom Cruise could have used a time machine to go back in time to be my father.

It's still not a reasonable position though.

Do you have reason to believe he may have done this?

-Bri

Bri

8th August 2007, 04:59 AM

Given that there are clear contradictions in the bible it can't be said that one or more Christian sects have it entirely correct (as it relates to the Bible). That's not a controversial statement. Nothing has been argued to counter that.

Do you understand the word "possible?" You are wrong. It is possible that any one or more of the explanations presented in an earlier post is correct. It is also possible that another one is correct.

Now whether or not it could possibly be reasonable to believe that one is correct would depend on your definition of "reasonable." What is your definition?

-Bri

Bri

8th August 2007, 05:02 AM

This issue may be; that the Bible is riddled with factual errors most certainly cannot be argued with in any reasonable sense.

They can and have been argued with. Whether the arguments are "reasonable" is up to the individual to decide. There are many possible explanations for your pi example, for instance.

Do a Google search. I'm not going there again, at least not in this thread.

-Bri

Mark

8th August 2007, 06:39 AM

They can and have been argued with. Whether the arguments are "reasonable" is up to the individual to decide. There are many possible explanations for your pi example, for instance.

Do a Google search. I'm not going there again, at least not in this thread.

-Bri

Either you are being obstinate or have never read the book.

As I said, the value of pi (merely one example) is not, and never will be 3.0). Arguing that is it is would not be reasonable.

Bri

8th August 2007, 07:09 AM

Either you are being obstinate or have never read the book.

As I said, the value of pi (merely one example) is not, and never will be 3.0). Arguing that is it is would not be reasonable.

And you apparently didn't read what I said. There are explanations for why the Bible is worded the way it is (and no, it doesn't explicitly state that pi = 3.0).

Take a look at here (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/%CE%A0_%3D_3) on the SkepticWiki on this very site if you don't believe me, particularly the section Quick Mathematical Analysis.

I will no longer discuss specific Bible contradictions in this thread. My point was already made in a previous post, which you seem to have missed.

-Bri

Mark

8th August 2007, 07:26 AM

And you apparently didn't read what I said. There are explanations for why the Bible is worded the way it is (and no, it doesn't explicitly state that pi = 3.0).

Take a look at here (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/%CE%A0_%3D_3) on the SkepticWiki on this very site if you don't believe me, particularly the section Quick Mathematical Analysis.

I will no longer discuss specific Bible contradictions in this thread. My point was already made in a previous post, which you seem to have missed.

-Bri

You claim there is an answer, then declare that you will no longer discuss it.

OK. Maybe I'll start another thread.

Bri

8th August 2007, 08:05 AM

You claim there is an answer, then declare that you will no longer discuss it.

I claimed there was an answer AND posted a link to it from a skeptic site (SkepticWiki) within a section of the site entitled "Biblical Errors" (reserved specifically for articles written for the sole purpose of exposing Biblical errors and contradictions), in an article about the precise example you keep bringing up as an error that cannot possibly be argued against.

The "pi error" is presented as somewhat of a joke:

Sometimes this argument is made in jest as a way to point out the problems of interpreting the Bible in a woodenly literal fashion.

Of course, we all know that few if any Christians interpret the Bible in "a woodenly literal fashion," even Bible literalists. Within that very article several resolutions are provided. So, even skeptics intent on exposing Bible contradictions must admit that the example is a rather poor one, much less an example of an error that cannot possibly be resolved by a Christian.

OK. Maybe I'll start another thread.

I believe a link to a rather lengthy thread on the very topic was posted by RandFan previously in this thread. He also provided what he felt was the strongest contradiction he could think of after reading (and probably participating in) that thread. I'm fairly sure that RandFan was already aware of the one about pi when he suggested a different one, but he can certainly correct me if I'm wrong.

-Bri

Mark

8th August 2007, 08:15 AM

I claimed there was an answer AND posted a link to it from a skeptic site (SkepticWiki) within a section of the site entitled "Biblical Errors" (reserved specifically for articles written for the sole purpose of exposing Biblical errors and contradictions), in an article about the precise example you keep bringing up as an error that cannot possibly be argued against.

The "pi error" is presented as somewhat of a joke:

Of course, we all know that few if any Christians interpret the Bible in "a woodenly literal fashion," even Bible literalists. Within that very article several resolutions are provided. So, even skeptics intent on exposing Bible contradictions must admit that the example is a rather poor one, much less an example of an error that cannot possibly be resolved by a Christian.

I believe a link to a rather lengthy thread on the very topic was posted by RandFan previously in this thread. He also provided what he felt was the strongest contradiction he could think of after reading (and probably participating in) that thread. I'm fairly sure that RandFan was already aware of the one about pi when he suggested a different one, but he can certainly correct me if I'm wrong.

-Bri

In I Kings the Bible very specifically states that ratio of the circumference to the diameter is 30:10 cubits. That means pi is 3.0.

So, if the bible is not wrong about pi, then it is wrong about the given dimensions. Take your pick.

Bri

8th August 2007, 08:24 AM

In I Kings the Bible very specifically states that ratio of the circumference to the diameter is 30:10 cubits. That means pi is 3.0.

So, if the bible is not wrong about pi, then it is wrong about the given dimensions. Take your pick.

Yawn. Sorry, I must not have gotten enough sleep last night.

READ THE ARTICLE.

-Bri

RandFan

8th August 2007, 08:39 AM

Do you have reason to believe he may have done this?

-BriLike Christians, it could be wishful thinking and or Faith.

RandFan

8th August 2007, 08:43 AM

Do you understand the word "possible?" You are wrong.No, I am NOT wrong. Yes I DO understand the word "possible". Anything is possible.

It is possible that any one or more of the explanations presented in an earlier post is correct.I've allready demonstrated why those are all unreasonable.

It is also possible that another one is correct.Killing children is not ok especially for a suposed deity. That is NOT controversial.

I will say it again, humans can justify anything.

Now whether or not it could possibly be reasonable to believe that one is correct would depend on your definition of "reasonable." What is your definition?What is yours? Give me a "reasonable" explanation for killing innocent children?

Bri

8th August 2007, 08:59 AM

Like Christians, it could be wishful thinking and or Faith.

I'm glad to hear you acknowledge that your belief is based on faith rather than fact.

No, I am NOT wrong. Yes I DO understand the word "possible". Anything is possible.

Then don't imply that there are contradictions that cannot possibly be explained. If you are only implying that they cannot be reasonably explained, then explain what you mean by "reasonably" and I might agree. Otherwise, I can only agree that they cannot be explained to your satisfaction.

-Bri

Mark

8th August 2007, 09:02 AM

Yawn. Sorry, I must not have gotten enough sleep last night.

READ THE ARTICLE.

-Bri

*giggle*

Do the math.

RandFan

8th August 2007, 09:05 AM

I'm glad to hear you acknowledge that your belief is based on faith rather than fact. This is a cheap shot. We are discussing a hypothetical here. I don't hold that belief. I'm trying to demonstrate why similar Christian beliefs are unreasonable. Time machines are theoretically possible. I can find explanations to justify belief. Is the position "reasonable"? No.

Then don't imply that there are contradictions that cannot possibly be explained. I've said over and over that anything can be explained. Not everything can be reasonably explained. There are no reasonable explanations for killing children that would square the killing of children with the commandmant. If there were you could name me one. Instead you post possible explanations that are not reasonable.

If you are only implying that they cannot be reasonably explained, then explain what you mean by "reasonably" and I might agree. Otherwise, I can only agree that they cannot be explained to your satisfaction. Bri, this is realy simple, explain a situation where intentionaly killing children is reasonable to you.

Mark

8th August 2007, 09:08 AM

Bri, this is realy simple, explain a situation where intentionaly killing children is reasonable to you.

Can't help pointing out that, according to the Bible, one such is when they are killed by throwing them against stones.

I wonder what Hannibal Lechter would think of that?

Bri

8th August 2007, 09:19 AM

This is a cheap shot. We are discussing a hypothetical here. I don't hold that belief. I'm trying to demonstrate why similar Christian beliefs are unreasonable.

I'm aware that it's not a belief you actually hold. It wasn't meant to be a cheap shot.

Time machines are theoretically possible. I can find explanations to justify belief. Is the position "reasonable"? No.

Define "reasonable" and I'll let you know.

I've said over and over that anything can be explained. Not everything can be reasonably explained. There are no reasonable explanations for killing children that would square the killing of children with the commandmant. If there were you could name me one. Instead you post possible explanations that are not reasonable.

Define "reasonable." I might agree with you. However, your repeated assertion about the passage in Numbers advocating the killing of innocent children is a straw man and you know it. Nearly every explanation I posted take exception to at least one part of that assertion.

Bri, this is realy simple, explain a situation where intentionaly killing children is reasonable to you.

I'm not sure whether what I find to be reasonable or not has to do with the thread. I'm also not sure about your definition of "reasonable." So at the risk of another derail: If one or more children are holding loaded guns to the head of myself or a loved one and threatening to pull the trigger, I would consider it reasonable to intentionally kill them if I could.

-Bri

Mark

8th August 2007, 09:29 AM

Define "reasonable." I might agree with you. However, your repeated assertion about the passage in Numbers advocating the killing of innocent children is a straw man and you know it. All of them take exception to at least one part of that assertion.

Psalm 137:9 is completely unequivocal. Murderers of children are blessed. That's what it says.

RandFan

8th August 2007, 09:41 AM

Define "reasonable" and I'll let you know.What do YOU think reasonable means?

However, your repeated assertion about the passage in Numbers advocating the killing of innocent children is a straw man and you know it.Why is it a strawman? That is ridiculous.

Nearly every explanation I posted take exception to at least one part of that assertion. The explanations were pathetic and ridiculous. They wouldn't hold up in a court of law. Not a single one of them and you know that.

I'm not sure whether what I find to be reasonable or not has to do with the thread.Simple, if you can't find a reasonable explanation then perhaps you should be willing to accept that it is likely that there is none.

I'm also not sure about your definition of "reasonable." So at the risk of another derail: If one or more children are holding loaded guns to the head of myself or a loved one and threatening to pull the trigger, I would consider it reasonable to intentionally kill them if I could. I meant in the context of this scripture. I note that you had to come up with a scenario not related to the scripture. Can you give me a reasonable explanation for killing children who are not an immediate threat to you?

Jennie C.

8th August 2007, 09:51 AM

I asked this in another thread and I would like to repeat it here to avoid possible hijacking

Christians base their beliefs on the Bible.
There are conflicting Christian beliefs.
This shows the Bible has no definitive answer.
So the Bible cannot be said to reveal absolute truth.

Not sure how well I've put it but I would be genuinely interested any responses

My thinking behind this is:

There are two groups of Christians, each group believe they will go to Heaven and the other group will go to Hell.

Both groups believe this because it is written in the Bible which means it is fact.

If an expert from each group discuss the conflict they reach stalemate. One quotes "White" the other quotes "Black". The answer is "This quote explains Black" the reply "No, this explains Black". Back and forth.

Both groups support their view by reference to the Bible, indeed that is why they hold their view.

Neither group can prove their point to the satisfaction of the other.

There are no contradictions in the Bible so both cannot be right.

The Bible doesn't offer a definitive answer, if it did there would be no conflict.

If the Bible cannot provide a definitive answer it cannot reveal the "single" (Absolute?) truth.

Your opinion would be a kindness. Thank you.

Hi zooloo,

I had a few days off from the fora (which means I was swamped with other things), so thanks for the pointer to your thread.

Without having read it yet (and I will), I'll repeat my answer from the other thread.

The Bible is truth. People's interpretations of it vary widely. Because we're talking about faith here, they have a natural tendency to think their interpretations are correct. But that doesn't make the Bible mean anything different from what it really means.

I make no "guesses" as to anyone's destiny but my own. Having said that, I have some suspicions about, say, Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler.

Jennie C.

8th August 2007, 09:59 AM

I've tried to read the bible, but keep getting bogged down in nonsense. If anybody's read - and understood :) - the bit in Ezekiel (I think) where Gunderscored is ranting about demolishing a wall, then about some cushions that he's taken a dislike too, can they please explain it to me?

Is this one of the bits of the bible that you're supposed to read as an allegory? A parable? A parody even? What? Is there a cherry-pickers guide to the bible?

I also wonder just how all of these ministers, vicars, priests, rabbis, etc, etc manage to get around the "thou shalt not work on the Sabbath" law?
YBW

I think your passage about the cushions from Ezekiel is really from Hezekiah.

Ummmmm, the sabbath is Saturday. Orthodox rabbis probably don't work on Saturday. Ministers, vicars and priests aren't subject to a Jewish law.

Jennie C.

8th August 2007, 10:06 AM

> The Bible IS fact (i.e. it exists)

Which Bible? :)

There are many variants in which books they accept as canon (and probably which translations and/or original ancient texts as valid originals (at least, as original-as-still-exists anyway).)

And it's not just reformation splitoffs, either. There are plenty of existing ancient Christian church lines that never joined up with Rome.

I'm not so sure that there are "many" variants as to which books are accepted as canon. I'm pretty sure the only difference is that the RC church accepts the Apocrypha, and the protestant (to use a loose term for "everybody else") does not.

Okay, I'm not sure about the Orthodox, though I could ask my niece's husband. Nor am I familiar with *every* denomination, but I don't think there are "many" variants of the canon. I think there are two: them as accept the apocrypha and them as don't

The RC church decided at the Council of Trent, with no language scholars in attendance to accept it.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 10:10 AM

The Bible is truth.Really? Which part? And when did you last take part in a stoning?

I make no "guesses" as to anyone's destiny but my own. Having said that, I have some suspicions about, say, Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler.Both going to Hell, you say? If there were such a thing, that would be my guess... :jaw-dropp

Jennie C.

8th August 2007, 10:12 AM

On the Bible being fact. It is those Christians who seem to take the Bible as fact, Creationists for instance, are those who I would wish to take issue with.

I'm not much for labels, but you can call me a creationist if you like. I believe the story of the creation of the universe as told in Genesis.

I'm not a scientist, so can't argue physics and such. With that disclaimer have at me :)

(still catching up, obviously)

Jennie C.

8th August 2007, 10:15 AM

An honest Christian will admit that their belief in creation is based on faith since there is little hard evidence to support it. That's not to say that creationism cannot be true -- it's possible that it is true. But the belief in creation is a faith-based belief like much of Christianity. And a vast majority of Christians have no problem with that, and in fact faith is a major tenet of Christianity. Some might even go so far as to say that those who insist that their beliefs are not based on faith are blasphemers for their lack of faith.

-Bri

I'll agree that my belief in creation is based on faith, but for someone who believes that the universe happened through chance, needs to admit that that is also a leap of faith. They can't prove that either.

(not arguing with you Bri, your post just sparked the thought).

Mark

8th August 2007, 10:26 AM

pgwenthold

8th August 2007, 10:32 AM

Bri

8th August 2007, 10:49 AM

What do YOU think reasonable means?

I've answered all of your questions (although perhaps not to your satisfaction). You used the word as the crux of your argument. To paraphrase, I provided a list of possible explanations, but you indicated that no explanation could possibly be a reasonable explanation. Please correct me if I got it wrong. Otherwise, please explain what you mean by "reasonable" in this context.

Why is it a strawman? That is ridiculous.

I did explain. Nearly all of the explanations explained why the killings weren't advocated by the Bible, why the children weren't innocent, why the killings weren't unjustified. At least one suggested that the passage was meant to be taken figuratively. One even suggested the possibility that the killings didn't occur! All of them clearly gave reasons why the killings did not conflict with "thou shalt not murder."

The explanations were pathetic and ridiculous.

Equally clear is that you are of the opinion that the explanations were pathetic and ridiculous, something that was never in question.

Simple, if you can't find a reasonable explanation then perhaps you should be willing to accept that it is likely that there is none.

Again, what I find to be reasonable differs from what someone else might find to be reasonable, so my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Of course, if you define what you mean by "reasonable" I may agree with you.

I meant in the context of this scripture. I note that you had to come up with a scenario not related to the scripture. Can you give me a reasonable explanation for killing children who are not an immediate threat to you?

The scenario was related to the scripture in every way that you requested.

Can you show me where it says in the scripture that they wouldn't be a threat to the Israelites if they were allowed to live?

-Bri

Mark

8th August 2007, 10:51 AM

The Bible is truth.

Really.

Leviticus 20:14 20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

Corinthians 15:36 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die (ask a biologist about that one).

1 Samuel 6:19 6:19 And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter. (God killed over 50,000 people for looking into the Ark.)

1 Samuel 2:8 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them. (The Earth is on Pillars? They must be really big...I wonder where they are?)

Ezekiel 7:2 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land. (The world must be flat to have corners.)

So, if the Bible is truth, then I ask whose truth is it? Because to believe this stuff you HAVE to interpret it; you absolutely cannot take it literally. Then whose interpretation is correct? Yours? Mine? Pope Benedict's? Peter Popoff's?

I have to wonder why God, in all his omnipotence, can't write a simple, declarative sentence.

Or, we could look for truth in Occam's Razor and simply accept that the simplest solution is this book was written by a bunch of primitives with (maybe) good intentions.

Bri

8th August 2007, 10:58 AM

I'll agree that my belief in creation is based on faith, but for someone who believes that the universe happened through chance, needs to admit that that is also a leap of faith. They can't prove that either.

(not arguing with you Bri, your post just sparked the thought).

I think I understand what you're saying, but who thinks that the universe happened by chance? You don't seem to understand the theory of evolution, for which there is plenty of actual physical evidence. So, no, I wouldn't say that belief that the theory of evolution is true is a belief based on faith but rather a belief based on the evidence.

What evidence do you have that the Bible is true other than the Bible itself, which seems to be your only source for belief in creation? Or do you have some other source of evidence that you haven't mentioned yet?

-Bri

Jennie C.

8th August 2007, 12:42 PM

So, to summarize: the bible is truth, but everyone has a different opinion on what that truth is.

Well, I don't know that everyone has their own unique opinion, but I won't pick nits if you won't.

I doubt if any human understands everything about the Bible. Personally, that's okay with me. I don't mind a God who is so much smarter than I that he can say things I don't completely understand.

Heck, you want to get into varying interpretations of the US Constitution? It's the law of the land, therefore, the legal "truth." Does the fact that people disagree with their interpretations make it no longer the law of the land?

Jennie C.

8th August 2007, 12:45 PM

I think I understand what you're saying, but who thinks that the universe happened by chance? You don't seem to understand the theory of evolution, for which there is plenty of actual physical evidence. So, no, I wouldn't say that belief that the theory of evolution is true is a belief based on faith but rather a belief based on the evidence.

What evidence do you have that the Bible is true other than the Bible itself, which seems to be your only source for belief in creation? Or do you have some other source of evidence that you haven't mentioned yet?

-Bri

Umm, evolution of species is not, (i think), the answer to the first cause. I said the universe, not the giraffe. I can name a person who believes it was by chance. I'm pretty sure Steven Hawking does. And I know Carl Sagan did (hmmm, it could be that when he died, he learned a whole lot in a hurry, couldn't it).

Mark

8th August 2007, 12:54 PM

I'm pretty sure Steven Hawking does. And I know Carl Sagan did (hmmm, it could be that when he died, he learned a whole lot in a hurry, couldn't it).

Could be. There's no evidence for it, of course.

Jennie C.

8th August 2007, 01:41 PM

Could be. There's no evidence for it, of course.

Not my point, well, maybe it is.

My point was that when it comes to first cause, there has to be a leap of faith. My leap says God. Sagan's (for example) said chance.

Others may say turtles of course (as in, all the way down).

Bri

8th August 2007, 01:52 PM

Umm, evolution of species is not, (i think), the answer to the first cause. I said the universe, not the giraffe. I can name a person who believes it was by chance. I'm pretty sure Steven Hawking does. And I know Carl Sagan did (hmmm, it could be that when he died, he learned a whole lot in a hurry, couldn't it).

I apologize for assuming you were talking about evolution rather than about first cause.

It's true that there's not much evidence as to what, if anything, may have caused the Big Bang. Scientists often use the phrase "we don't know" to describe a situation in which we don't have enough evidence to point to any particular theory as being the most probable. Admitting that you don't know is not the same as having a belief based on faith though.

There is plenty of actual evidence for the Big Bang. So am I to understand that you believe in the Big Bang, but just believe it to have been caused by God instead of something else (or nothing)?

-Bri

Mark

8th August 2007, 04:37 PM

Not my point, well, maybe it is.

My point was that when it comes to first cause, there has to be a leap of faith. My leap says God. Sagan's (for example) said chance.

Others may say turtles of course (as in, all the way down).

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The preponderance of the available evidence points to chance, so that is the most likely to be true. To assign it to some sort of "God," does indeed require a leap of faith, which simply means believing with no evidence.

I can go in your direction as far as saying that I am not technically an atheist, because one cannot measure the absence of God; so I would not be prepared to say the question has been answered with certainty. I will say, though, that if the God of the Bible is real, we are in the hands of someone very dangerous and unstable.

I have read the Bible cover to cover 3 times and it truly makes no sense to me, taken as a whole.

RandFan

8th August 2007, 08:33 PM

I provided a list of possible explanations... This was never, ever, about possible explanations as I said from the outset that one of the hallmarks of humanity is to justify (explain) behavior.

Otherwise, please explain what you mean by "reasonable" in this context. I think you are being obtuse.

Let's say that I kill a group of children at the park tomorrow. I don't know them and they don't present an immediate threat to me.

What REASON could I give that would not land me in jail or a psychiatric ward?

I did explain. Nearly all of the explanations explained why the killings weren't advocated by the Bible, why the children weren't innocent, why the killings weren't unjustified. And I have explained why these ARE NOT REASONABLE. None of them would keep me out of jail today if I used them to explain why I killed a group of children that were not an immediate threat to me.

At least one suggested that the passage was meant to be taken figuratively.Cop out. There is nothing at all that would make it figurative.

One even suggested the possibility that the killings didn't occur! Even if this were true IT'S STILL a contradiction. It tells a story about killing children. How does that reconcile with "thou shalt not kill"?

All of them clearly gave reasons why the killings did not conflict with "thou shalt not murder."No. None that would keep anyone out of jail. A judge would reject each and everyone of them. Why would a judge do that? Come on Bri? Why? Because they are "unreasonable"?

Can you show me where it says in the scripture that they wouldn't be a threat to the Israelites if they were allowed to live? Judge, prove to me that the kids were not a threat to me?

Sorry Bri, that just isn't going to fly. You are treading on thin ice here. The ball is in your court. If you can't come up with a "reasonable" explanation, one that could or would cause other reasonable people to say "yeah, I buy that" then you are just unwilling to honestly access the situation.

Killing children is unreasonable. The scripture is unreasonable. That you have to retreat to metaphor or fiction only illustrates the silliness and irrationality of the Bible.

The Bible is supposed to be the word of god and people can't even come to a consensus as to whether murdering children is ok, a metaphor or just fiction.

Which is it?

BTW, did god drown babies and children in the flood?
Did god KILL the first born of Egypt?

Fiction? Irrational? Unreasonable?

You choose but nothing gets you out of the woods on this... unless you can give us a scenario where we could kill children that are not a direct threat to anyone today and everyone would agree that it was ok.

Can you do that?

If you can't Bri then you don't have an argument.

RandFan

8th August 2007, 08:51 PM

My point was that when it comes to first cause, there has to be a leap of faith. My leap says God. Sagan's (for example) said chance.No. Sagan held that the THEORY could be wrong. It wasn't a mater of faith with him. It was just a hypothesis that fit the data. That is the way science works. One observes the world and formulates hypothesis based on the data and then they test the hypothesis. If the evidence falsifies the hypothesis then it is discarded. No one is praying to the big bang, sprinkling big bang water, cutting the tips of the penis's for the big bang, mutilating young girls for the big bang, etc., etc..

God is a leap of faith because it doesn't answer anything other than to say god did it. It can't be tested. There is nothing about the god hypothesis that is revealed by underlying data.

BTW, there isn't a single scientific hypothesis for the universe which also separates science from religion. It's not sacrilege to come up with a competing theory. Sagan would not be offended and demand an apology from those who disagree with the Big Bang theory.

Why This Universe? Toward a Taxonomy of Possible Explanations (http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/skeptic13-2_Kuhn.pdf)

qayak

8th August 2007, 08:55 PM

Heck, you want to get into varying interpretations of the US Constitution? It's the law of the land, therefore, the legal "truth." Does the fact that people disagree with their interpretations make it no longer the law of the land?

So your argument is that the US Constitution has as many interpretations as the bible. This fact should give you a pretty good indication that the bible is simply the words of men just like the US constitution . . . unless you believe it was divinely inspired too!

qayak

8th August 2007, 09:11 PM

I can name a person who believes it was by chance. I'm pretty sure Steven Hawking does. And I know Carl Sagan did (hmmm, it could be that when he died, he learned a whole lot in a hurry, couldn't it).

I'm pretty sure you misread both Hawking and Sagan. First cause is not chance. That's like saying the first cause of one's lottery win was chance when in fact it was buying the ticket. Chance doesn't cause anything.

Of course, you could be getting your information about Sagan's and Hawking's words from a religious source which would rely skew their actual meanings. I think if you went are read, or re-read, what they said, both claim a natural cause fo the universe, not a supernatural one.

Believe it or not, according to a couple Jehovah's Witness books I have, Carl Sagan was a great believer in their faith and in their god. Richard Feynman too. :rolleyes:

Roboramma

8th August 2007, 11:18 PM

I think that Hawking would be the first to say that once we get to the point of the singularity, we can't really say anything, yet. I think that's why it's called a singularity.
Which doesn't mean we never will be able to.

And it certainly doesn't mean that we can say something about it, and that it was put there by god.

As Bri pointed out, there's a difference between saying "I don't know." and saying, "I do know."

All I'm saying, Jennie, is that while we do know a lot about how complexity arose in the universe, we don't know where the universe came from. But niether do you.
I think it was Hawking who said, "Why does the universe go to all the trouble of existing?" or something like that. I, and I think many people here and many people in science, are as interested in answering that question as you.
The problem is that while many people have made guesses, some more and some less well founded, no one has answered it yet.

Which I find sort of cool, actually. It's an interesting universe, and I look forward to learning more about it. :)

RandFan

9th August 2007, 12:00 AM

Which I find sort of cool, actually. It's an interesting universe, and I look forward to learning more about it. :)Have you checked out the link I posted?

Why This Universe? Toward a Taxonomy of Possible Explanations (http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/skeptic13-2_Kuhn.pdf)

It's really very good (a bit dry for those who don't care about such matters).

HTML version. (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ugZ53505Q1YJ:www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/skeptic13-2_Kuhn.pdf) It's not formated as well as the PDF so I recomened the PDF.

Bri

9th August 2007, 05:49 AM

This was never, ever, about possible explanations as I said from the outset that one of the hallmarks of humanity is to justify (explain) behavior.

Of course it was. You commented on a statement I made to zooloo. In the context of my statement, that's exactly what you were implying. If you weren't, then it is clear you hadn't read the context of my statement when you commented on it, and you should concede that point and move on. If you want to continue to argue about how "reasonable" the explanations in the list are, you'll have to define "reasonable."

I think you are being obtuse.

Let's say that I kill a group of children at the park tomorrow. I don't know them and they don't present an immediate threat to me.

What REASON could I give that would not land me in jail or a psychiatric ward?

Talk about an example that has nothing whatsoever to do with the scripture! Why are all your children made of straw?

And I have explained why these ARE NOT REASONABLE. None of them would keep me out of jail today if I used them to explain why I killed a group of children that were not an immediate threat to me.

Oh, well there's a definition of "reasonable" I've not seen before! Unfortunately, I'm not sure how applicable the litmus test of whether one would go to jail in a modern American court would be to Biblical times.

Sorry Bri, that just isn't going to fly. You are treading on thin ice here. The ball is in your court. If you can't come up with a "reasonable" explanation, one that could or would cause other reasonable people to say "yeah, I buy that" then you are just unwilling to honestly access the situation.

I consider many Christians to be reasonable. Many of these explanations I already provided would be reasonable to a Christian. If you're using a different definition of "reasonable" I'd love to hear it. Until then, you're not going to convince me that they are "unreasonable" to a Christian, nor that there are no other "reasonable" explanations possible. Sorry.

Now, if your intent is to prove to me that the explanations are unreasonable to you, then you've succeeded. I conceded that point a long time ago.

Killing children is unreasonable.

Again, that statement is blatantly false. I provided an example in a previous post at your request that disproves it even using your above definition of "reasonable" (that it might get me off in an American court of law). Please stop throwing out the same straw man. Killing children without justification might be unreasonable, depending on your definition.

BTW, did god drown babies and children in the flood?
Did god KILL the first born of Egypt?

You already provided your best example of a supposed contradiction in the Bible that you said could not be resolved. Then you changed it to reasonably resolved (while refusing to define what you mean). Now you're actually going to attempt to change the subject by throwing out more examples when I explicitly said I wouldn't talk about other examples.

You choose but nothing gets you out of the woods on this... unless you can give us a scenario where we could kill children that are not a direct threat to anyone today and everyone would agree that it was ok.

Can you do that?

Can you show me in the scripture where it says they weren't a threat to the Israelites if they were to be let go? If not, that seems to be another straw man, at least in reference to those explanations that claim that they were a threat.

If you can't Bri then you don't have an argument.

You were the one arguing against something I said (apparently out of context, but you continue to argue so it's not entirely clear). It sounds to me that your arguments consist mainly of vague terms that you refuse to define in context and/or straw men.

-Bri

Jennie C.

9th August 2007, 06:46 AM

I apologize for assuming you were talking about evolution rather than about first cause.

It's true that there's not much evidence as to what, if anything, may have caused the Big Bang. Scientists often use the phrase "we don't know" to describe a situation in which we don't have enough evidence to point to any particular theory as being the most probable. Admitting that you don't know is not the same as having a belief based on faith though.

There is plenty of actual evidence for the Big Bang. So am I to understand that you believe in the Big Bang, but just believe it to have been caused by God instead of something else (or nothing)?

-Bri

I believe in the Big Bang in the sense that it occurred at one time (instead of the old -now dis-credited? is it?- "steady state" theory that the universe was always around. And yes, I'm saying God caused it.

To me the Big Bang goes "In the beginning"

Jennie C.

9th August 2007, 06:49 AM

So your argument is that the US Constitution has as many interpretations as the bible. This fact should give you a pretty good indication that the bible is simply the words of men just like the US constitution . . . unless you believe it was divinely inspired too!

Now you're being silly. It was an analogy. And I think you know that.

Jennie C.

9th August 2007, 06:51 AM

I'm pretty sure you misread both Hawking and Sagan. First cause is not chance. That's like saying the first cause of one's lottery win was chance when in fact it was buying the ticket. Chance doesn't cause anything.

Of course, you could be getting your information about Sagan's and Hawking's words from a religious source which would rely skew their actual meanings. I think if you went are read, or re-read, what they said, both claim a natural cause fo the universe, not a supernatural one.

Believe it or not, according to a couple Jehovah's Witness books I have, Carl Sagan was a great believer in their faith and in their god. Richard Feynman too. :rolleyes:

The reason I haven't been specific about what Sagan or Hawking said is I can't remember which one I heard referenced. But a paraphrase was that given enough time, even a cockroach could build a rocket and fly to the moon. I interpreted "enough time" as enough randomness.

qayak

9th August 2007, 07:20 AM

Now you're being silly. It was an analogy. And I think you know that.

It maybe an analogy but I don't see why it is silly. In fact, I see it as quite revealing about the bible. We have all the same problems with the bible that we do with other documents written by man with no influence from any god . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Bri

9th August 2007, 07:23 AM

I believe in the Big Bang in the sense that it occurred at one time (instead of the old -now dis-credited? is it?- "steady state" theory that the universe was always around. And yes, I'm saying God caused it.

To me the Big Bang goes "In the beginning"

You mentioned that you believe in creation as described in the Bible. How do you reconcile the Big Bang with the description in the Bible?

-Bri

qayak

9th August 2007, 07:23 AM

The reason I haven't been specific about what Sagan or Hawking said is I can't remember which one I heard referenced. But a paraphrase was that given enough time, even a cockroach could build a rocket and fly to the moon. I interpreted "enough time" as enough randomness.

You "heard" referenced.

It would be nice if you could find the reference, or get it from your source, so we could look at it. I'm betting it doesn't say what you said it does so you were either mistaken or misled.

Darth Rotor

9th August 2007, 07:42 AM

I asked this in another thread and I would like to repeat it here to avoid possible hijacking

Christians base their beliefs on the Bible.
Only that, of course.
There are conflicting Christian beliefs.
Indeed.
This shows the Bible has no definitive answer.
It shows that people often look at the same thing and see it differently.
So the Bible cannot be said to reveal absolute truth.
Who said it did?

DR

Roboramma

9th August 2007, 08:25 AM

Have you checked out the link I posted?

Why This Universe? Toward a Taxonomy of Possible Explanations (http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/skeptic13-2_Kuhn.pdf)

It's really very good (a bit dry for those who don't care about such matters).

HTML version. (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ugZ53505Q1YJ:www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/skeptic13-2_Kuhn.pdf) It's not formated as well as the PDF so I recomened the PDF.
Thanks Randfan :). The links aren't working for me right now, but I think it's my messed up connection - I'll try again tomorrow.

Jennie- did you get a chance to read my post? Not sure if you missed it. Anyway, I think that one of the points there is that scientists don't say that the universe arose by chance. They say they don't know how it arose, which is very different. It's true that some might suggest that it arose by chance (maybe, I don't know that much) for instance, I've heard the idea that the universe is a "vacuum fluxuation" but I don't understand it that well, and it's still very much a hypothesis. There are others.

We may never know the answer, but as I said, that doesn't mean we do know the answer and that it's dog.

Bri

9th August 2007, 08:30 AM

Now you're being silly. It was an analogy. And I think you know that.

As qayak pointed out, the Constitution was clearly written by men, and therefore clearly does NOT represent the legal "truth" at all. It can be and has been challenged, and can even be modified.

I do agree with you that the fact that there are multiple (sometimes conflicting) interpretations of the Bible does not necessarily indicate that the Bible was written by men rather than by God. But it does mean that nobody can claim to understand whatever truth the Bible might contain. Therefore, the Bible cannot be a source of fact, even for those who believe it to be the word of God.

So this gets us back to the original post of this thread and zooloo's concern. Why do so many people argue about the origins of the universe and about evolution by quoting the Bible as if their interpretation of those quotes are fact? There doesn't seem to be any point in quoting Bible verses since we have no idea whether any particular interpretation of the verse is accurate, particularly when actual physical evidence is available that contradicts the interpretation.

-Bri

Jennie C.

9th August 2007, 10:08 AM

You mentioned that you believe in creation as described in the Bible. How do you reconcile the Big Bang with the description in the Bible?

-Bri

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." BANG!

(not that it necessarily sounded like that :D )

Jennie C.

9th August 2007, 10:12 AM

Thanks Randfan :). The links aren't working for me right now, but I think it's my messed up connection - I'll try again tomorrow.

Jennie- did you get a chance to read my post? Not sure if you missed it. Anyway, I think that one of the points there is that scientists don't say that the universe arose by chance. They say they don't know how it arose, which is very different. It's true that some might suggest that it arose by chance (maybe, I don't know that much) for instance, I've heard the idea that the universe is a "vacuum fluxuation" but I don't understand it that well, and it's still very much a hypothesis. There are others.

We may never know the answer, but as I said, that doesn't mean we do know the answer and that it's dog.

Okay, the alternate (one of many, o'course) theory is, we just don't know. I disagree. Sorry.

However, as Bri pointed out on another tendril of this thread, I think we're getting off the subject of zooloo's post. S/he seems to be taking a day off, so before I confuse the thread any more, I'll wait until I get a reply. This thread arose because of something we were discussing on another one.

Not implying in any way that others aren't "allowed" to comment. But I don't think zooloo was talking about first causes or contradictions. Maybe so, but it wasn't how it appeared to me.

Jennie C.

9th August 2007, 10:19 AM

As qayak pointed out, the Constitution was clearly written by men, and therefore clearly does NOT represent the legal "truth" at all. It can be and has been challenged, and can even be modified.

I do agree with you that the fact that there are multiple (sometimes conflicting) interpretations of the Bible does not necessarily indicate that the Bible was written by men rather than by God. But it does mean that nobody can claim to understand whatever truth the Bible might contain. Therefore, the Bible cannot be a source of fact, even for those who believe it to be the word of God.

So this gets us back to the original post of this thread and zooloo's concern. Why do so many people argue about the origins of the universe and about evolution by quoting the Bible as if their interpretation of those quotes are fact? There doesn't seem to be any point in quoting Bible verses since we have no idea whether any particular interpretation of the verse is accurate, particularly when actual physical evidence is available that contradicts the interpretation.

-Bri

It's obviously true that there can be multiple interpretations of many, most?, passages in the Bible. But if we are going to discuss first cause, I would submit that Genesis 1:1 is not open to said multiple interpretations. Someone in this thread asked for a simple, declarative sentence. S/he didn't say about what in particular (or I forgot), but there's one.

I really don't want to argue about what the first cause was. I was simply trying to get a concensus that whatever one thinks it is, there is a leap of faith involved. As has been said, we don't know. And yet, we make all sorts of assumptions (conflicting) starting from some point that has to be taken on faith. In God or Nature or the Great Pumpkin.

Bri

9th August 2007, 10:23 AM

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." BANG!

(not that it necessarily sounded like that :D )

So you ignore all but the first line of the account of creation in the Bible?

-Bri

Bri

9th August 2007, 10:32 AM

I really don't want to argue about what the first cause was. I was simply trying to get a concensus that whatever one thinks it is, there is a leap of faith involved. As has been said, we don't know. And yet, we make all sorts of assumptions (conflicting) starting from some point that has to be taken on faith. In God or Nature or the Great Pumpkin.

(emphasis mine) Not everyone makes assumptions about the origins of the universe.

While I agree that to believe any theory of the origins of the universe requires some faith given the rather limited evidence we have, to say "I don't know, but my opinion is that the evidence points towards (fill in the blank)" is not equal to the statement "I know for a fact that God created the universe."

The latter is clearly a faith-based statement, because it isn't based on evidence. Furthermore, that particular example is false since it's clearly an opinion and not fact. It doesn't sound like you're denying that, but please correct me if I'm wrong. In other words, do you admit that your belief that the universe was created by God is not fact?

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

-Bri

zooloo

9th August 2007, 02:51 PM

The Bible is truth. People's interpretations of it vary widely. Because we're talking about faith here, they have a natural tendency to think their interpretations are correct. But that doesn't make the Bible mean anything different from what it really means.

Hello Jennie C. (Cheers for link, will look)

Thank you for popping in.

For the sake of argument I will accept the Bible is truth. The problem is when we try to establish what that truth is.

Christians base their beliefs on the Bible.
There are conflicting Christian beliefs.
This shows the Bible has no definitive answer.
So the Bible cannot be said to reveal the truth.

The Bible may well contain the truth but it is so obscured it may as well not.

This is why the Bible has no useful purpose when deciding something.

(I want to say "something important" but that phrase isn't right, I accept there are some things you could use the Bible to decide - I want to say trivial things without using the word trivial.)

Everyone else, hello. Thank you all. This has been an extremely useful thread for me.

When there is some issue of what the Bible says I've been rephrasing my "It doesn't matter if the Bible is true or not, it's out of bounds because it's unreliable".

It is a useful way to avoid arguing about the authenticity of the Bible but exclude it when appropriate.

qayak

9th August 2007, 05:49 PM

I really don't want to argue about what the first cause was. I was simply trying to get a concensus that whatever one thinks it is, there is a leap of faith involved. As has been said, we don't know. And yet, we make all sorts of assumptions (conflicting) starting from some point that has to be taken on faith. In God or Nature or the Great Pumpkin.

There is no leap of faith for someone who understands the evidence of the Big Bang. What came before the big bang is also not a leap of faith. The reasoning goes like this.

1- At this point, we do not know what the universe was like before the Big Bang so we do not know what caused it. there are several theories on it but no evidence to really support any. We maybe able to know more in the future (there was that article a few weeks ago).

2- However, everything we see now has a natural explanation. Everything back to the Big Bang has a natural explanation. With everything having a natural cause and nothing having a supernatural cause, it is probable that whatever caused the Big Bang and whatever was there before, had a natural, not supernatural, cause.

Conclusion: the universe most likely exists because of natural phenomenon and not because a god created it.

RandFan

9th August 2007, 09:41 PM

Of course it was. You commented on a statement I made to zooloo. In the context of my statement, that's exactly what you were implying. If you weren't, then it is clear you hadn't read the context of my statement when you commented on it, and you should concede that point and move on. If you want to continue to argue about how "reasonable" the explanations in the list are, you'll have to define "reasonable."

Talk about an example that has nothing whatsoever to do with the scripture! Why are all your children made of straw?

Oh, well there's a definition of "reasonable" I've not seen before! Unfortunately, I'm not sure how applicable the litmus test of whether one would go to jail in a modern American court would be to Biblical times.

I consider many Christians to be reasonable. Many of these explanations I already provided would be reasonable to a Christian. If you're using a different definition of "reasonable" I'd love to hear it. Until then, you're not going to convince me that they are "unreasonable" to a Christian, nor that there are no other "reasonable" explanations possible. Sorry.

Now, if your intent is to prove to me that the explanations are unreasonable to you, then you've succeeded. I conceded that point a long time ago.

Again, that statement is blatantly false. I provided an example in a previous post at your request that disproves it even using your above definition of "reasonable" (that it might get me off in an American court of law). Please stop throwing out the same straw man. Killing children without justification might be unreasonable, depending on your definition.

You already provided your best example of a supposed contradiction in the Bible that you said could not be resolved. Then you changed it to reasonably resolved (while refusing to define what you mean). Now you're actually going to attempt to change the subject by throwing out more examples when I explicitly said I wouldn't talk about other examples.

Can you show me in the scripture where it says they weren't a threat to the Israelites if they were to be let go? If not, that seems to be another straw man, at least in reference to those explanations that claim that they were a threat.

You were the one arguing against something I said (apparently out of context, but you continue to argue so it's not entirely clear). It sounds to me that your arguments consist mainly of vague terms that you refuse to define in context and/or straw men.

-Bri

Bri,

You are being intellectually dishonest.

There are no strawmen.
There is no moving of goal posts.
There is no changing of my claim.
There is no confusion as to what is being discussed.
You are trying to make it so but it won't fly.The discussion at hand is that there are contradictions in the Bible. There are clear contractions in the Bible. You think that you can come up with some explanation to show that there are no contradictions. You can't.

Reasonable:

There is a reason I'm using the word "reasonable". If we don't stick to this standard THEN ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. We need a standard to understand what it is that we are talking about.

If I say that Tom Cruise is my father and you say that he is not then a reasonable standard to make a decision as to whether my story is contradicted by the facts.

Just because you can flap your lips and type words doesn't mean that the explanations you are giving are reasonable.

RandFan: I'm the son of Tom Cruise.
Bri: You are older than Tom Cruise. That fact would contradict your claim.
RandFan: Tom Cruise used a time machine to go back in time and impregnate my mother.
Bri: Ok, well, that's an explanation I guess there is no contradiction then.

Bri, anything could be explained.

I use the example of a court of law for a very good reason. If you say that I'm judging ancient times by modern understanding you are right. However you miss the point.

Who said "thou shalt not kill"? God. What kind of God? An omniscient God. An absolutely just God. Bri, do you think modern day morality is some how more enlightened than the morality of unchanging and an absolutely just God?

Who ordered the killing of the Amalekite children? Moses.
Who gave the commandment "thou shalt not kill"? God.
Who did god give the commandment to? Moses.

Thou shalt not kill contradicts killing children. No strawman. No confusion. It's simple and straightforward.

The Amalekite children were not a direct threat to the Israelites. How could tiny children be a direct threat to the Israelites? They can't. You are grasping at anything to avoid simply admitting that there is at least one clear contradiction in the bible.

BTW, there are many more but clearly you haven't the stomach to defend them with silly and stupid explanations. You know that it is nearly impossible defending this stinker.

It's not working Bri.

Christians believe that God is absolutely just. So let's consider a few premises:

God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
God is absolutely just.
God forbade murder.
The Amalekite children were not a direct threat to the Israelites.
Moses, who spoke with god, ordered the killing of Amalekites children.Please to tell me which of the above premise are wrong?

Conclusion: The command to murder children WAS in direct conflict with God's law. There IS a clear contradiction.

RandFan

9th August 2007, 10:18 PM

Thanks Randfan :). The links aren't working for me right now, but I think it's my messed up connection - I'll try again tomorrow.If you can't get it let me know and I will find a way to get it to you. It's really a great source, if you care about stuff like that. :)

RandFan

Bri

10th August 2007, 05:11 AM

If you can't get it let me know and I will find a way to get it to you. It's really a great source, if you care about stuff like that. :)

It is a great source. Thanks for posting the link (it worked for me).

-Bri

Bri

10th August 2007, 06:13 AM

There is a reason I'm using the word "reasonable". If we don't stick to this standard THEN ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. We need a standard to understand what it is that we are talking about.

Unfortunately, the common definitions of "reasonable" do not represent any objective standard. In particular, what you find reasonable certainly might differ from what I find reasonable which might differ from what a Christian finds reasonable. So you must have a different definition. Please post it, and I may agree with you.

If I say that Tom Cruise is my father and you say that he is not then a reasonable standard to make a decision as to whether my story is contradicted by the facts.

The only way I could determine whether your story is true would be to look at the evidence. The only evidence you've presented is your belief at this point, since you haven't shown me any evidence of a time machine. Without such evidence, I can either take your word for it or not. However, even if I don't believe you, that doesn't mean you're not telling the truth. It's possible that you had seen it with your own eyes, that you grew up with Tom Cruise as a father, or any other evidence that you can't present to me or that I wouldn't find compelling. In short, your belief might be perfectly reasonable.

Just because you can flap your lips and type words doesn't mean that the explanations you are giving are reasonable.

I agree that they are most certainly not reasonable to you.

RandFan: I'm the son of Tom Cruise.
Bri: You are older than Tom Cruise. That fact would contradict your claim.
RandFan: Tom Cruise used a time machine to go back in time and impregnate my mother.
Bri: Ok, well, that's an explanation I guess there is no contradiction then.

Not quite a valid representation of the conversation. Particularly, that last line represents your newest straw man rather than anything I've argued thus far. Replace it with this, perhaps:

Bri: You haven't presented any evidence of a time machine, and I find it unlikely that a time machine exists. However, I can't rule out the possibility that you might have a good reason for believing as you do. If you have additional evidence you'd like to present, I might change my mind. Until then, I'll have to disagree with you as to the likelihood of your assertion.

Bri, do you think modern day morality is some how more enlightened than the morality of unchanging and an absolutely just God?

I think the circumstances of the ancient Israelites was quite different than ours are now. As an example, we have the ability to jail people we want to remain safe from. The ancient Israelites had no way to do that.

Who ordered the killing of the Amalekite children?

BTW, there are many more but clearly you haven't the stomach to defend them with silly and stupid explanations. You know that it is nearly impossible defending this stinker.

I haven't defended the validity of any explanation I presented other than to say that some people can and do find them reasonable. You haven't refuted the fact that there are explanations for each and every contradiction you could possibly come up with, so why go through a litany of contradictions when my point was made for what you said was the most solid one?

Instead, you wish to utilize the straw man that my goal is to defend the explanations, for which throwing out a multitude of contradictions until you hit on one that I can't defend might be valid. No, as I've explained over and over again, my goal is to show that the contradictions can be explained to the satisfaction of a Christian. I have already conceded that they cannot be explained to your satisfaction.

Christians believe that God is absolutely just. So let's consider a few premises:

God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
God is absolutely just.
God forbade murder.
The Amalekite children were not a direct threat to the Israelites.
Moses, who spoke with god, ordered the killing of Amalekites children.Please to tell me which of the above premise are wrong?

Which explanation are you interested in discussing? I suspect that there are more premises than you're listing here, but all of them probably disagree with one or more of your premises.

Conclusion: The command to murder children WAS in direct conflict with God's law. There IS a clear contradiction.

The first sentence seems to be another premise of your argument, not the conclusion. And at least one explanation (specifically the one that suggests that God may not have approved of Moses' command) agrees with this premise, but shows why the conclusion (the last sentence) doesn't follow.

-Bri

Bri

10th August 2007, 06:59 AM

When there is some issue of what the Bible says I've been rephrasing my "It doesn't matter if the Bible is true or not, it's out of bounds because it's unreliable".

It is a useful way to avoid arguing about the authenticity of the Bible but exclude it when appropriate.

It's a valid argument, but as you've already seen, Jennie C. has already attempted to circumnavigate it:

...I would submit that Genesis 1:1 is not open to said multiple interpretations.

She has attempted to shift the burden of proof by asking her opponent to prove that there are conflicting interpretations of the specific passage in question instead of her proving that the passage is fact.

-Bri

zooloo

10th August 2007, 07:09 AM

I don't think Jennie C has had an opportunity to reply yet, unless I've missed it.

The point on Genesis 1.1 may find common agreement but what that extrapolates to differs. There may be superficial agreement but it quickly diverts.

Genesis 1.1 on it's own isn't stating something useful and certainly doesn't refute the Bible being of little practical benefit in deciding anything.

Bri

10th August 2007, 08:20 AM

zooloo

10th August 2007, 09:23 AM

If she wishes to believe that she is welcome. It's not an issue that's going anywhere. It is simply a way of saying "I don't know".

It is what people elaborate and conclude beyond that is where issues arise.

Bri

10th August 2007, 09:42 AM

Jennie C.

10th August 2007, 11:29 AM

It's a valid argument, but as you've already seen, Jennie C. has already attempted to circumnavigate it:

She has attempted to shift the burden of proof by asking her opponent to prove that there are conflicting interpretations of the specific passage in question instead of her proving that the passage is fact.

-Bri

Really, did I do all that? Didn't mean to. It just really sounds like a "simple, declarative sentence" to me.

Jennie C.

10th August 2007, 11:31 AM

No, Jennie C. hasn't replied to your post yet. Others brought up the same argument, and Jennie readily agreed that there are multiple (conflicting) interpretations of at least parts of the Bible. However, it has been less clear whether admitting conflicting interpretations will prevent Jennie from claiming any interpretation of the Bible to be fact.

Either way, as expected, it didn't prevent Jennie from using Genesis 1:1 as a basis for the belief that the universe was created by God.

-Bri

It didn't prevent me from using Genesis 1/1 as a basis for MY belief that the universe was created by God. I have no control over what anyone else believes

(i can't even fool (control her belief) my 4-year old granddaughter on such things as my cat has sent her a "hello." she said "all he ever says is 'meow'")

Bri

10th August 2007, 11:44 AM

Really, did I do all that? Didn't mean to. It just really sounds like a "simple, declarative sentence" to me.

I was just pointing out to zooloo that his argument doesn't preclude anyone from using quotes from the Bible, and your post was an example of that. While there are multiple interpretations possible (which zooloo believes should preclude anyone from making conclusions based on any particular interpretation of the Bible), you have gotten around it by asserting that no other interpretations are possible for Genesis 1:1.

It didn't prevent me from using Genesis 1/1 as a basis for MY belief that the universe was created by God. I have no control over what anyone else believes

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Could you please respond to my posts here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2849773#post2849773) (#205) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2849809#post2849809) (#206)?

Thanks!

-Bri

Jennie C.

10th August 2007, 11:45 AM

I agree, but it is unclear if she's really saying "I don't know" or if she believes it to be fact. If it's just speculation, then any elaboration or conclusion based on it would also be speculation rather than fact. Which I'm also fine with, as long as everyone understands it to be what it is.

-Bri

Oh, I'm not saying 'i don't know' about whether I believe whichever the particular topic was (the Bible as truth or the creation of the universe by God).

Yes, I believe both of those things. I even believe that there was a worldwide flood which, among other things, very probably created the Grand Canyon.

I guess my first answer to zooloo's OP is the same. Flawed human understanding draws many interpretations of the Bible. Some are correct, some are not. I would hazard that many, perhaps most, are partially correct. By study (which I don't do enough) and comparing scripture with scripture, one can learn to understand more.

As I've said elsewhere -perhaps on the other thread- I really don't have a problem with a God that can write things that I can't understand. I'd have more of a problem with one that I could completely comprehend.

Jennie C.

10th August 2007, 11:52 AM

double post

Jennie C.

10th August 2007, 11:59 AM

So you ignore all but the first line of the account of creation in the Bible?

-Bri
No, I believe the entire description of creation as found in Genesis (hmm, there are some references in Job too, "when the morning stars sang together" etc. okay, those too).

I think this was the other post you wanted me to reply to. When I clicked your links, the screen did some weird scrolling that seemed to point to the same one.

I had answered your question:

You mentioned that you believe in creation as described in the Bible. How do you reconcile the Big Bang with the description in the Bible?

-Bri
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." BANG!

So when you asked about the Big Bang, I was merely replying to the first cause thing.

I'm guessing (which means probably wrong) that your next question will be "which account in Genesis?" and bring up Genesis 5. I don't see a contradiction there, the 5th chapter is just a lot shorter account.

zooloo

10th August 2007, 12:01 PM

I guess my first answer to zooloo's OP is the same. Flawed human understanding draws many interpretations of the Bible. Some are correct, some are not. I would hazard that many, perhaps most, are partially correct. By study (which I don't do enough) and comparing scripture with scripture, one can learn to understand more.

Why the Bible has many interpretations doesn't matter.

It remains a fact that it does have many interpretations and the Bible doesn't determine who is right and who is wrong.

Something contradictory and inconclusive cannot be a useful reference for the truth.

Jennie C.

10th August 2007, 12:01 PM

Bri

10th August 2007, 12:05 PM

I said they made assumptions based upon their belief of the first cause. For instance, my assumption is that after God created the heavens & earth, he said, "Let there be light." And guess what, there was.

Someone who admits "I don't know" isn't making an assumption (in fact, quite the opposite). You made an assumption (and it happens to be based on little if any evidence outside of the Bible), and is therefore an assumption that is not based on fact.

Others assumptions, I assume (:)) are that some other agency caused the universe to begin. Do they know what caused the Big Bang? No, they don't. But since they assume it wasn't God, they base subsequent theories of what happened afterward leaving God out of the equation.

You are correct that they don't know, and they admit as much. Not assuming it was God is not the same as having an assumption.

At most, they are speculating as to what may have caused the Big Bang, but not assuming any theory to be fact. Are you speculating that the Big Bang was caused by God, or are you assuming it to be fact?

I submit that whatever was the first cause (I'm using that phrase and the Big Bang synonomously), choosing whether to believe it was God or some other agency is a leap of faith. Because you (one, not you personally) do not know and cannot prove what it was.

True, someone who chooses in light of a lack of evidence is only stating an opinion. Those who don't choose don't make any assumption -- they admit that they don't know.

So do you agree that your belief is opinion and not fact?

-Bri

Jennie C.

10th August 2007, 12:09 PM

Why the Bible has many interpretations doesn't matter.

It remains a fact that it does have many interpretations and the Bible doesn't determine who is right and who is wrong.

Something contradictory and inconclusive cannot be a useful reference for the truth.

Oh! not theology here, logic! It seems to me whether there are different interpretations of whether something is true or not, that doesn't change whether it's true. For instance, the fact that people used to interpret that the earth was flat didn't change the fact that it's round (or, i should say spherical, with a little oblateness).

(and I was wrong, you were including contradictions in your discussion, I thought you were only talking about interpretation).

Jennie C.

10th August 2007, 12:17 PM

Someone who admits "I don't know" isn't making an assumption (in fact, quite the opposite). You made an assumption (and it happens to be based on little if any evidence outside of the Bible), and is therefore an assumption that is not based on fact.

Oh, I freely admit my belief in God's creation is based solely on the Bible. (well, of course the beautifully intricate design of the thing is pretty amazing for some chance concatenation of molecules has some convincing power, but that's not proof and I don't claim it is)

You are correct that they don't know, and they admit as much. Not assuming it was God is not the same as having an assumption.

ok, I'll rephrase: They speculate that it is some agency other than God. This causes them to make subsequent speculations that leave God out of the equation.

At most, they are speculating as to what may have caused the Big Bang, but not assuming any theory to be fact. Are you speculating that the Big Bang was caused by God, or are you assuming it to be fact?

Okay, if you like "speculate" better than "assume," that's okay with me. I'm not sure why we need to pick that nit, but it's still okay.

I am not doing either with the creation however. It's a belief based on the Bible.

True, someone who chooses in light of a lack of evidence is only stating an opinion. Those who don't choose don't make any assumption -- they admit that they don't know.

So do you agree that your belief is opinion and not fact?

-Bri

My belief is belief. I'm not sure why we're getting so tangled up in the semantics. Now we've got opinion, assumption and speculation. Yes, there are shades of meaning there, but they seem quite minimal to me.

(I could refer to my belief as knowledge, but that would only complicate things further, make me sound arrogant or start a really intricate doctrinal discussion. I don't want to do the first two, and am uncertain if anyone here wants to do the third).

Bri

10th August 2007, 12:22 PM

No, I believe the entire description of creation as found in Genesis (hmm, there are some references in Job too, "when the morning stars sang together" etc. okay, those too).

OK, so are you asserting that there are no conflicting interpretations possible of the rest of Genesis as you did of Genesis 1:1? If there ARE conflicting interpretations (and there are) then are you admitting that your belief is just opinion and not fact?

I think this was the other post you wanted me to reply to.

Yes, thanks.

I had answered your question ... So when you asked about the Big Bang, I was merely replying to the first cause thing.

My question concerned the rest of Genesis, and the rest of the Big Bang theory. The Bible doesn't say anything about "BANG" and certainly the rest of the account in Genesis seems to disagree with the actual evidence that points to the Big Bang.

Given that there are differing interpretations of the rest of Genesis, whatever interpretation you choose to believe is certainly not fact and is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, the Big Bang theory is supported by plenty of actual evidence. So do you agree that your belief in creation as described in Genesis is a faith-based belief, and is not fact?

I'm guessing (which means probably wrong) that your next question will be "which account in Genesis?" and bring up Genesis 5. I don't see a contradiction there, the 5th chapter is just a lot shorter account.

No, I'm well-aware of the explanations for the differences in the two creation accounts. There is one difference between the two accounts that I've never seen explained, but that's a discussion for another thread. I'm more interested in why some people think their interpretations of the Bible are fact rather than opinion.

-Bri

zooloo

10th August 2007, 12:31 PM

Oh! not theology here, logic! It seems to me whether there are different interpretations of whether something is true or not, that doesn't change whether it's true. For instance, the fact that people used to interpret that the earth was flat didn't change the fact that it's round (or, i should say spherical, with a little oblateness).

(and I was wrong, you were including contradictions in your discussion, I thought you were only talking about interpretation).
The Bible, like many things, may contain the truth but it cannot be ascertained or verified so as a reference to truth is offers no help.

On conflict or contradiction - either will do, but you're right I should stick to one or the other. I choose conflict. :)

Darth Rotor

10th August 2007, 12:36 PM

Killing children is not ok especially for a suposed deity. That is NOT controversial.

Just because you say so, Rand? Just because you use all caps?

Yes it is indeed OK, as measured by the authority, if that deity is the ultimate authority. If the ultimate authority, then any act by said deity, answerable to no one and nothing regarding the beginning or ending of that being's own projects is by beings own law OK.

He didn't say "We won't kill one another" he said "thou shalt not kill/murder." That was a directive, not a consensus. Furthermore, in the OT example listed, there appears to have been a laying down of punishment on some straying humans more than once. Did God ever say "I won't kill you if you piss me off enough?" I don't think so, but I am willing to be shown where He might have.

I try to grasp: who are you, or I, to say what is or isn't OK at the deity level, if the presumption is that the deity level being is the "Original Cause" (however unlikely you feel that to be) of the Big Bang.

See, for example, ants attempting to judge me on how OK it is for me to spray Raid on their hive. Let them bitch, the Raid is coming.

Mind you, I tend to agree that this puts God's relationship with humans into a curious version of love, tough love, and the occasional "throws hands up in disgust and break project in half." For a crude analogy, see a potter's (or other craftsman) getting frustrated with a project and destroying it. This of course raises the question on the nature of omnipotence.

If you claim this God directed pest control is inconsistent with the concept of "all benevolent" God then yes, that's a problem. For us. The humans.

If God's deal is "God loves you, God expects you to obey" then not obeying holds a risk of some dimension, given the power relationships involved.

If one does not agree that it is OK for God to do what God does, I wonder what anyone thinks they can do about it?

Bitch and whine?

Yes, we surely can. Hell, many people do.

If, on the other hand, this Ultimate Authority is somehow accountable to humans, then we have a different kind of contradiction on our hands. Your argument seems to indicate that God is accountable to humans, but I may be incorrectly reading your remarks. If I got that correctly, I am curious to why you would take that position.

DR

Bri

10th August 2007, 12:44 PM

I am not doing either with the creation however. It's a belief based on the Bible.

My belief is belief. I'm not sure why we're getting so tangled up in the semantics. Now we've got opinion, assumption and speculation. Yes, there are shades of meaning there, but they seem quite minimal to me.

Belief based solely on the Bible without any evidence is by definition speculation (opinion). The reason I even bring up "semantics" is that it's not just semantics. There are different types of belief.

Generally, us humans have to rely on logic to determine what is most likely to be the truth when there is no definitive evidence. In order to decide whether or not we believe something, we examine the evidence and tend to believe whatever the majority of the evidence points. For example, I don't believe in the tooth fairy because the evidence would point to no tooth fairy. Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

The point being that I cannot prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. If someone wants to believe in the tooth fairy, I can't prove them wrong. On the other hand, if that person tries to use the existence of the tooth fairy to "prove" that the money under my pillow wasn't placed there by my parents when I was a kid, I would tell him that in order to convince me of such a thing, he would first have to first prove the existence of the tooth fairy. Until then, I take his belief in the tooth fairy as speculation (and I hope that he does too), and therefore the most logical conclusion is that my parents put the money under my pillow. Even if he still believes in the tooth fairy (for whatever reason) I would hope that he would understand where I'm coming from and would not insist on the use the existence of the tooth fairy to try to prove his theory that my parent's weren't responsible for the money under my pillow until he can first prove the existence of the tooth fairy. It would be disingenuous of him to assume that his speculation is true.

Do you understand what I'm saying? So, it is important for anyone quoting the Bible as part of an argument for something else (for example, evolution) to realize that there is little reason for anyone to accept those quotes as fact, and those quotes certainly cannot be used to prove anything. There may be sources of actual evidence against evolution, but the Bible isn't one of them.

(I could refer to my belief as knowledge, but that would only complicate things further, make me sound arrogant or start a really intricate doctrinal discussion. I don't want to do the first two, and am uncertain if anyone here wants to do the third).

You could refer to your belief as knowledge, but that would be inaccurate at best, disingenuous at worst. You can only have knowledge of evidence, and your belief is not based on evidence -- it's based on faith.

That's why I asked if you realize that your belief that any interpretation of the Bible is true (and indeed your belief that the Bible itself is the word of God) is not actually fact.

-Bri

Mark

10th August 2007, 04:14 PM

If one does not agree that it is OK for God to do what God does, I wonder what anyone thinks they can do about it?

Bitch and whine?

At the very least, refuse to worship such a violent deity. At the very least.

Civilized Worm

10th August 2007, 04:35 PM

If God's deal is "God loves you, God expects you to obey" then not obeying holds a risk of some dimension, given the power relationships involved.

"My husband loves me, he only beats me when I've done something to deserve it"

zooloo

10th August 2007, 04:38 PM

Apparently God's psychotic tendancy is "tough love".

Jennie C.

13th August 2007, 10:22 AM

OK, so are you asserting that there are no conflicting interpretations possible of the rest of Genesis as you did of Genesis 1:1? If there ARE conflicting interpretations (and there are) then are you admitting that your belief is just opinion and not fact?

My question concerned the rest of Genesis, and the rest of the Big Bang theory. The Bible doesn't say anything about "BANG" and certainly the rest of the account in Genesis seems to disagree with the actual evidence that points to the Big Bang.

Given that there are differing interpretations of the rest of Genesis, whatever interpretation you choose to believe is certainly not fact and is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, the Big Bang theory is supported by plenty of actual evidence. So do you agree that your belief in creation as described in Genesis is a faith-based belief, and is not fact?
-Bri

Okay, Genesis doesn't say bang. I'm not sure even those who call it the big bang think it went bang, necessarily. My feeling has always been that the term refers to the first cause happening suddenly, at one time. I simply submit that what bang sounds like is Genesis 1:1.

Evidence of the big bang? Really? I think just backward inferences to it. I'm saying I look at the subsequent evidence and see God. Others look at the subsequent evidence (meaning the earth and the rest of the universe) and see some other agent. They have no idea what caused the big bang, they just see an event.

I've always said my belief in creation as told in Genesis was faith-based. At least I don't think I ever said otherwise, nor did I intend to. I'm just maintaining that, as described in the paragraph above, anyone who sees the first cause as an agency other than God is also making a leap of faith. Because they don't know the cause.

(I notice no one in this discussion has put forth another cause, they've just rejected chance. I thought that was the most logical other cause to infer.)

(and speaking of bangs and trees in the forest, I've always maintained that the tree does make a sound whether anyone hears it or not: sound being formed of the waves disturbed by the tree: but that's really opinion, not Biblical)

zooloo

13th August 2007, 10:55 AM

Bri

13th August 2007, 11:30 AM

Okay, Genesis doesn't say bang. I'm not sure even those who call it the big bang think it went bang, necessarily. My feeling has always been that the term refers to the first cause happening suddenly, at one time. I simply submit that what bang sounds like is Genesis 1:1.

My point isn't the sound it may or may not have made.

The Big Bang theory concerns mainly what happened after the "bang" and not what caused it. Genesis describes something very different than what the evidence seems to indicate occurred. Specifically, Genesis describes an order of events occurring over 6 days that don't seem to agree with the evidence.

When asked if you believed in the Big Bang theory, you replied:

I believe in the Big Bang in the sense that it occurred at one time (instead of the old -now dis-credited? is it?- "steady state" theory that the universe was always around. And yes, I'm saying God caused it.

To me the Big Bang goes "In the beginning"

That's a little bit misleading, since it seems as though the only part of the Big Bang theory you agree with is that the universe hasn't always existed. In other words, a more direct and accurate answer to the question "Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?" would have been "no."

Evidence of the big bang? Really? I think just backward inferences to it.

I don't understand what you mean by "backward inferences to it." Yes, there is evidence of the Big Bang theory (that the universe started from a tremendously dense and hot state, and has been expanding ever since). There is also significant evidence of subsequent evolution on this planet that would seem to disagree with the account of creation in Genesis.

I've always said my belief in creation as told in Genesis was faith-based. At least I don't think I ever said otherwise, nor did I intend to. I'm just maintaining that, as described in the paragraph above, anyone who sees the first cause as an agency other than God is also making a leap of faith. Because they don't know the cause.

I'm glad that you've made it clear that your belief is based on faith rather than evidence. You also said something about the Bible being "truth," although I may have misinterpreted your statement:

The Bible is truth. People's interpretations of it vary widely.

In fact, the Bible is not "truth" although you believe it to be (based on faith). The only thing we know about the Bible is that it might be true and it might not be true. Furthermore, even if the Bible is true, as you pointed out, people's interpretations of it vary widely. Therefore, no interpretation of the Bible can be considered "truth" since there are a variety of ways to interpret any passage, and they can't all be correct. Again, the best we could say about a particular interpretation of the Bible is that it might be true and it might not be true.

Because we don't know that the Bible is true, nor can we know if any particular interpretation of it is true, you can understand that Bible verses cannot be used to prove anything. Do you disagree?

(I notice no one in this discussion has put forth another cause, they've just rejected chance. I thought that was the most logical other cause to infer.)

Chance is a possibility. Another is that it was an uncaused cause (there is some evidence that uncaused causes exist). Nobody has actually put forth any cause as "truth" in this thread, because the truth is that there is little evidence upon which to base any assumption at this point.

(and speaking of bangs and trees in the forest, I've always maintained that the tree does make a sound whether anyone hears it or not: sound being formed of the waves disturbed by the tree: but that's really opinion, not Biblical)

Is sound the waves themselves, or only the perception of those waves in our ears and brains? If the latter, there is no sound without perception of the waves.

-Bri

Jennie C.

14th August 2007, 07:29 AM

Another cause has not been proposed, the answer is "I don't know"

In the same way if we ask the cause of God you will say something on a variation of "I don't know".

Even if it seems compelling their must be a creator then why choose God as that creator. The Bible is not unique is claiming to describe the beginning of the Universe, there are other versions all as verifiable as your local cultural version.

There is nothing definitive to say it was the Christian god that began it all, or indeed any god.

No, if you ask me the cause of God, I will say that he is eternal, therefore there is no first cause for God. But I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the creation of the universe.

We'll have to agree to disagree that there's nothing definitive to say that it was God, because my reply would be that the definitive for that is the Bible. And then we've argued in a circle. (not that I regard this as an argument, but to say we've "discussed in a circle" sounds silly :) )

It seems that without an agreement as to the existence of God and the truth of the Bible, we can't really get anywhere. That's too bad.

Bri

14th August 2007, 08:00 AM

It seems that without an agreement as to the existence of God and the truth of the Bible, we can't really get anywhere. That's too bad.

But you admit that your acceptance of the premise that the Bible is the word of God is based entirely on faith, correct? In other words, you believe it to be true, but you can't provide evidence to support that belief.

This is exactly the dilemma that I was pointing out near the beginning of this thread. In these discussions, you either accept based on faith (as a Christian does) the premise that the Bible is the word of God (in which case you allow quoting Bible verses as the truth), or you don't accept this premise.

If the purpose of the discussion is for an atheist to convince a Christian to change their beliefs, the atheist would first have to disprove the Christian's premise (to the satisfaction of the Christian) that the Bible is the word of God is false. If the purpose of the discussion is for a Christian to convince an atheist to change their beliefs, the Christian would first have to prove their premise (to the satisfaction of the atheist) that the Bible is the word of God.

-Bri

zooloo

14th August 2007, 10:29 AM

No, if you ask me the cause of God, I will say that he is eternal, therefore there is no first cause for God. But I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the creation of the universe.

We'll have to agree to disagree that there's nothing definitive to say that it was God, because my reply would be that the definitive for that is the Bible. And then we've argued in a circle. (not that I regard this as an argument, but to say we've "discussed in a circle" sounds silly :) )

It seems that without an agreement as to the existence of God and the truth of the Bible, we can't really get anywhere. That's too bad.
No first cause for God is saying "I don't know", maybe phrased as "It just is" but it's still I don't know.

The Bible may say it is God, several holy books say it is their god. With an open mind all seem equally compelling. To talk about the creation of the universe and say God did it means we must ask what created God. If you introduce a factor into an argument that fact becomes part of the argument.

It is because we cannot come to agreement on the truth of the Bible that the Bible is shown to be an unreliable source for the truth. The Bible doesn't give definitive answers and conflicting conclusions are possible.

Civilized Worm

14th August 2007, 03:45 PM

I have to admit I expected some reaction from the believers to my comparison of their god to a wife beater.

Jennie, do you accept all the scientific claims made by the Bible?

Jennie C.

15th August 2007, 10:58 AM

Gang, I didn't want you to think I "went away" after my last. I can't post now (well, other than this), but I'll be back soon.

Bri

15th August 2007, 11:06 AM

Thanks, Jennie C. I for one look forward to reading your responses.

-Bri

RandFan

17th August 2007, 10:02 PM

Unfortunately, the common definitions of "reasonable" do not represent any objective standard. In particular, what you find reasonable certainly might differ from what I find reasonable which might differ from what a Christian finds reasonable. So you must have a different definition. Please post it, and I may agree with you. Bri, I like you, I really do so please forgive me but this is dishonest. Using your logic the actions of the BTK killer are "reasonable", and perhaps they are, to someone, but not reasonable people. It's true that there are few if any absolutes. I don't subscribe to absolute morality and don't expect anyone else to. However, most reasonable people can look at the actions of the BTK killer and decide that killing children was wrong. We don't need to ring our hands about that. Christians don't either. They know what the BTK killer did was wrong. There in lies the contradiction. Some people want to imagine a world where it's ok to kill children sometimes but not other times. This is irrational and incoherent.

You are being irrational and incoherent.

I think the circumstances of the ancient Israelites was quite different than ours are now. As an example, we have the ability to jail people we want to remain safe from. The ancient Israelites had no way to do that.You really think this justifies killing children? I think that dishonest Bri. I think you better than that. Wanting to win an argument is poor reason to try and justify the killing of innocent children that do not present an immediate threat to anyone. You are rationalizing and you know better.

I haven't defended the validity of any explanation I presented other than to say that some people can and do find them reasonable. You haven't refuted the fact that there are explanations for each and every contradiction you could possibly come up with, so why go through a litany of contradictions when my point was made for what you said was the most solid one?You have no coherent point. All killing is justifiable to someone. The problem is that you are not being coherent. If we accept the justifications that you have listed then we have to be willing to justify all killings. It's called coherency and it is precisely why there is a contradiction.

Instead, you wish to utilize the straw man that my goal is to defend the explanations, for which throwing out a multitude of contradictions until you hit on one that I can't defend might be valid. No, as I've explained over and over again, my goal is to show that the contradictions can be explained to the satisfaction of a Christian.Not coherently. To accept the explanation one would have to accept any justification for just about anything.

I have already conceded that they cannot be explained to your satisfaction.Now THIS is a strawman.

The first sentence seems to be another premise of your argument, not the conclusion. And at least one explanation (specifically the one that suggests that God may not have approved of Moses' command) agrees with this premise, but shows why the conclusion (the last sentence) doesn't follow.This is nonsensical.

Bri

18th August 2007, 07:03 AM

Bri, I like you, I really do so please forgive me but this is dishonest.

I like you too, RandFan, which is why I try not to resort to personal attacks. Specifically, even if my argument is flawed, that does not make it dishonest. In this case, it isn't my argument we're talking about, it's yours since you made the claim that the passage you quoted clearly condones murder of children, in direct conflict with "thou shalt not murder."

Using your logic the actions of the BTK killer are "reasonable", and perhaps they are, to someone, but not reasonable people. It's true that there are few if any absolutes. I don't subscribe to absolute morality and don't expect anyone else to. However, most reasonable people can look at the actions of the BTK killer and decide that killing children was wrong. We don't need to ring our hands about that. Christians don't either. They know what the BTK killer did was wrong. There in lies the contradiction. Some people want to imagine a world where it's ok to kill children sometimes but not other times. This is irrational and incoherent.

I agree that the actions of the BTK killer clearly contradict "thou shalt not muder." Unless you can show that the actions of the BTK killer are sufficiently similar to those of the Israelites in the passage, and unless you can also show that the Bible clearly condones the actions of the Israelites in the passage, this example doesn't support your claim in the least.

You are being irrational and incoherent.

I doubt that I'm being irrational or incoherent in pointing out that you haven't supported your claim, but it's possible that my argument is irrational or incoherent. Of course, you have yet to show that to be the case. It's possible that you're using definitions of "irrational" and "incoherent" that I'm not familiar with. Please define your terms and I may agree with you.

You really think this justifies killing children? I think that dishonest Bri. I think you better than that. Wanting to win an argument is poor reason to try and justify the killing of innocent children that do not present an immediate threat to anyone. You are rationalizing and you know better.

Again, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your comments to my argument rather than implying dishonesty on my part. Personally, I'd be delighted if you could come up with a clear contradiction in the Bible, so "wanting to win an argument" is certainly not my motivation.

But your best example seems to have fallen short, I'm afraid. Specifically, I've named several key differences between the examples you've suggested and the situation described in the passage you quoted from the Bible. It's going to be up to you to support your claim that the passage you quoted clearly condones murder of children, in direct conflict with "thou shalt not murder."

You have no coherent point. All killing is justifiable to someone. The problem is that you are not being coherent. If we accept the justifications that you have listed then we have to be willing to justify all killings. It's called coherency and it is precisely why there is a contradiction.

"If we accept the justifications that you have listed then we have to be willing to justify all killings" is an excellent example of an incoherent argument. Unless you believe that the justifications listed apply to ALL killings (they clearly don't -- they apply to the killings mentioned in the passage you quoted), then clearly they cannot justify ALL killings. Which makes the your statement false.

Now, if you want to provide an example of unjustified killing that is clearly similar to the situation in the passage and then show how the passage clearly condones such killing, you may have a point. So far I haven't seen you post one.

Not coherently. To accept the explanation one would have to accept any justification for just about anything.

I don't believe so. One would only have to accept one of the justifications listed (or some other one) for the particular situation described in the passage.

Now THIS is a strawman.

No, unfortunately, this is the crux of the argument. You made a blanket claim about how the killing in the passage cannot be justified. Unfortunately, that claim seems to be false. Even if it was true, you would also have to show that the Bible is clearly condoning the killing.

This is nonsensical.

Saying so does not make it so. Please provide some evidence of the validity of your claim.

-Bri

RandFan

18th August 2007, 09:37 AM

...since you made the claim that the passage you quoted clearly condones murder of children, in direct conflict with "thou shalt not murder."To be pedantic, no but I could have made such an argument.

However mine is ever so much simpler.

The bible says "thou shalt not kill".
According to the bible Moses, an emissary of an omniscient, omnipotent all just god ordered the killing of innocent children.That can't be reconciled.

I agree that the actions of the BTK killer clearly contradict "thou shalt not muder." Unless you can show that the actions of the BTK killer are sufficiently similar to those of the Israelites in the passage, and unless you can also show that the Bible clearly condones the actions of the Israelites in the passage, this example doesn't support your claim in the least. I don't need to show that the bible clearly condones the actions of the Israelites. I only need to demonstrate that killing innocent children is wrong and that a prophet (one who talks to god) ordered the murder of children. That's it.

If a person says killing children is wrong but then justifies the actions of Moses then that person is being inconsistent.

At the end of the day that is all that is needed to demonstrate the contradictory nature of the Bible. If the Bible had condemned Moses and saw to it that he was punished (Like David in the Bathsheba affair) then there would not be a contradiction.

As it is, there is.

But your best example seems to have fallen short, I'm afraid. Specifically, I've named several key differences between the examples you've suggested and the situation described in the passage you quoted from the Bible. It's going to be up to you to support your claim that the passage you quoted clearly condones murder of children, in direct conflict with "thou shalt not murder." To begin with, I told you that I don't have a "best" example. That's just a rhetorical device on your part.

In any event, I only need to demonstrate the following.

That the bible states that killing (murder) is wrong.
Killing innocent children that don't present an immediate threat is in fact wrong (it's murder).
The bible gives an account of god's prophet ordering the murder of all of the male children of an entire group of people that are no direct threat to him (today we call this genocide and for good reason).
There is no condemnation of Moses for his actions in the bible.
The bible is per se contradictory.No, unfortunately, this is the crux of the argument. You made a blanket claim about how the killing in the passage cannot be justified. They cannot reasonably be justified. Anything can be justified. Not everything can be reasonably justified. This is where you continue to go wrong time and time again. You keep falling back on the notion that someone somewhere has come up with an explanation.

I'll say it again, DUH! There are and always will be justification and explanations for the evil that humans do. That you can find such justifications is not at all surprising. The problem is that the explanations can't reconcile the contradiction.

...you would also have to show that the Bible is clearly condoning the killing.No, I would only have to show that according to the Bible Moses is an emissary of god who orders the killing (murder of children). That's really it. If Moses were punished for his actions then you would have a point. But you have a fatal flaw in your argument. Christians believe that god is omniscient and omnipotent. They believe that Moses talked with god. How the hell can Moses possibly order the killing of children? It can't be reconciled. The Bible is ostensibly a source of morality. Question, is killing all of the innocent male children of a tribe of people moral or immoral?

One only need answer that question to resolve this issue.

Here is what you would need to do Bri, demonstrate that one could follow the bible today and justifiably kill all of the children of a race of people based on any of the "explanations" that you gave. Can you do that? Could you do that in such a way as not to be tried for war crimes in the Hague? If humans can figure out what is immoral and take steps to try and prevent genocide then wouldn't an emissary of god be able to do the same?

I'm sorry for my comments that were directed at you personally. However, one cannot follow the scripture in question today without receiving moral condemnation from the rest of the world.

Given that Moses was ostensibly a prophet of an omniscient and omnipotent god then it is safe to say that Moses should have known better.

You simply don't have a leg to stand on.

Saying so does not make it so. Please provide some evidence of the validity of your claim. I'm afraid the ball is in your court on that one. You are the one that made a silly claim. Stating that my conclusion "appears to be a premise" is nonsensical and is not in itself an argument.

You will need to support YOUR claim.