 |
Off The Map Discussion Board for Christians, Atheists and People In-between
(closed to new posts - to participate in ongoing discussion visit our sites otmatheist.com and conversationattheedge.com)
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David S
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 1029
Location: Where the crowd isn't
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Stephan wrote: | David, let me pose this. You talk to several witnesses of the same event. They agree on the major events, but there are discrepencies among them regarding a few details. Do you decide the whole event never happened? Or do you decide maybe the witnesses had a different perspective, or might have gotten a fact or two wrong, but the main point of their testimony was valid?
This is how I see most of the "discrepencies" in scripture. Does the number of cock crows change the meaning of the story? Does the number of days Jesus was in the tomb change the meaning of the story? I don't think so. |
Stephan, a few responses...
- Both the 3 days/3 nights and the cock crowing were prophecies of Jesus. These are hardly "details" especially considering how the bible suggests detecting false prophets by failed prophecies.
- I mentioned in a previous post that difference in details between eyewitnesses is an important tool used by investigators to detect lies. If an event never happened but there was collusion by witnesses to invent an event, the main points of testimony will agree but important details will differ. Investigators will hit witnesses on these sorts of details to uncover the lie that the larger event didn't happen as stated. Did this happen with the gospels? I don't know, but I see a lot of discrepancies in very important details.
- I've made the point before that this isn't an ordinary document. This is supposedly the singular communication of a god to men. As such it should withstand higher scrutiny. Yet it doesn't seem to withstand even lower standards of scrutiny. It does not seem likely to me that such is the work of a god.
- And finally, even if the stories were impeccable and without discrepancy we're still looking at a miraculous supernatural event. A rational person should take a simpler, more likely explanation before a less likely supernatural one. There are many mundane explanations (that generally boil down to the claimed event being a legend) that are more likely. So for myself I wouldn't be convinced even if the stories were consistent. You yourself might use this same logic if someone was to approach you today with a written, consistent, supernatural claim with various witnesses or whatever for another religion. Why would you believe some extraordinary impossible claims just because someone wrote and claimed that they were real? I don't think that you would. And what if the claims additionally had dozens of apparent discrepancies? ... well you can answer that one yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cully
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 82
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My reply to Rick was rude. I admitted it. I apologized for it, and Rick has forgiven me. Please do not blame others for my statements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom in Sacramento
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, David, here are some examples of what I would consider to be rude. I "bolded" them to make them easy to spot.
| Quote: | | Yes it's irrational to think someone would write inconsistently about an actual event. Finding discrepancies in details between supposed eyewitnesses is how investigators determine “eyewitnesses” are colluding about a lie. That's why it seems more likely to me that rather than this being eyewitness writings of a guy who came back to life and flew up to heaven, it's not an actual event but inconsistent writings written much later from legendary stories. We've got thousands of examples of error-ridden legendary stories written through history yet no confirmed examples of dead people coming back to life complete with earthquakes and other zombies walking around etc. This is cut and dried myth to an objective observer. We wouldn't even be spending so much time on something so obviously mythical if it wasn’t for the sad situation that so many people happen to believe it on tradition. |
"Irrational" -- this is a value judgment of people who have more education on the subject than you and who've spent a lot more time than you, and who care about the text a lot more than you. You may disagree with their findings or explanations, and with your background, I would, too. But there is no need for name calling in a community seeking civil discourse.
"Cut and dried myth" -- assuming that you are using the term in its common usage aas opposed to its technical literary usage, this is another example of name calling about things that some in the "community" care about. We know you disagree. You don't need to be rude to remind us.
"Obviously mythical" -- again assuming common parlance, you're calling names about something that people smarter than you or I have found otherwise. You don't have to agree, just don't be obnoxious. It hurts your cause.
"Sad situation" -- another value judgment that is unnecessary.
If you could write without using adjectives, you'd be a better and more persuasive writer. (If that is something you care about. BTW, I had to learn this lesson, too, a long time ago. My boss made me re-write everything that contained adjectives.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom in Sacramento
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David,
A couple comments to your response to Stephan
-- While it may be true that, under certain circumstances differences in details may indicate some sort of collusion, it is far more common that differences in details are the result of different people's perspectives. case in point, I was assaulted last week and there was a witness. We disagreed on the color of the perp's shirt. The other guy thought it was a red plaid. I thought it was a gray sweatshirt. Not even close. But my mind was on other things than what the perp was wearing at the time.
-- Your point about the document. If I may suggest it, given your background, I, too, would probably cite this. But I suggest that your conclusion is the result of (I'm sorry if this is too close) a cult-based, or sect-based, understanding of the means and mechanism of scripture's inspiration. The teachings of your church background is inconsistent with the historical patterns of teaching of the Christian Church on the subject. (This is a whole 'nother topic by itself.) This is another example where the truth is far, far more complex than you apparently want it to be; far too complex to dismiss with simplistic black-and-white analyses. It is find to disagree with the complex analysis once it has been engaged. But it lacks integrity to criticize it for being simplistic and then criticize a complex explanation.
-- Regarding the issue of supernaturalism, I actually agree with your premise...if you factor into the equation ALL of the necessary evidence. If the Biblical text contains fabrications, the writers knew it. But there were people dying for their beliefs in the story at the time of the writings. Why would people risk their lives for a lie? The story is about a man and a movement that aims to exhort people to a higher level of morality. Why would they lie to do this? If they lied to do this, how could they possibly keep it all a secret?
Finally, I'd suggest that, in fact, the gospels are consistent in the "very important" details. Where you seem to find problems is in the very trivial details. They all agree that Jesus was divine, that He gave His life, and that He was resurrected. Those are the important details. Cock crows are trivia. That doesn't mean that it is unreasonable to question the trivia. But it does mean that it is still trivia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siamang
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1144
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ir wrote: |
Siamang, are you willing to say that atheists also hold the views they hold because of 'internal need'? If not then perhaps it is a little disrespectful to assume that Christians do? |
I mean no disrespect. I do hold the views I do because of an internal need. I'm honest about it. I need to be believing in something I think is true. I'm sure I'm no different than any Christian.
I don't say that "what I believe IS true." I try not to be arrogant, and I think that would be arrogant.
I don't think it's disrespectful to say that Christians have that same need. Enlighten me if I am wrong about that, or seeing it from a self-serving point of view.
| Quote: | | It may simply be priority of belief; the belief in the Bible being true is strong enough that if a Christian encounters something the Bible says which is outside his/her normal experience, he/she will look for an explanation other than 'the Bible is wrong'. The last explanation considered will be 'the Bible is wrong'. Not necessarily because of internal need but because it's a strongly held belief. |
Here I don't quite follow you. Is a strongly held belief in the veracity of the Bible not an internal need? Don't people need to believe that their worldview is true?
| Quote: | | Quote: | This can't possibly be true.
This absolutely must be true. |
I think the first tenet is misconstrued. It is not 'this can't possibly be true' but 'this seems outside my normal experience'. It's like if you were driving along and saw a pink cow. You wouldn't think "this can't possibly be true". You'd think "I don't have an immediate explanation for this". And then if you are the sort of person who likes to have explanations (which a lot of people are) - you might run down the list of possibilities - "maybe I've developed a problem with my color vision; maybe that strange farm across the way has been doing some strange genetic experiments" - or whatever. But I don't think "this can't possibly be true" is actually your starting point. |
I don't think it's any christian's starting point. It may be a point they eventually reach, when dealing with some of the more extreme aspects of some of the stories in the Bible. Okay, Methuselah lived almost 1000 years. That's pretty extreme. In fact, it's so extreme that it bears little resemblance to reality.
So immediately there's an internal conflict. Methuselah isn't Jesus. He isn't Moses. He isn't described to have any special powers bestowed by God. He isn't particularly important in the Bible, except for the single fact that he lived almost a thousand years. So people start to try and figure something out about him. How is it possible that this impossible thing happened? He isn't important in the Bible, so why did God give him that lifespan? It seems strange. Some people say "there was more oxygen then, and people lived longer." Some people say "before the flood, people lived longer." Some people say "there was a mistranslation that counted lunar years, and he just lived to be 78." I imagine someday I'll read someone saying that in those days, years were much shorter because the earth spun around the sun faster.
There are lots of ways to explain the answer. Far, far more ink has been used in "explaining" Methuselah than was used to chronicle his life in the Bible in the first place. Entire websites are devoted to explaining him, and I haven't found one which relies on the words "myth" or "legend."
| Quote: | I think the Christian approach of carefully looking for linguistic/cultural explanations is more rational than the atheist 'dismiss it out of hand based on my 21st century view of the world'.
|
I'm not saying "dismiss it out of hand." My point is far more nuanced (I hope!).
What I'm saying is, "isn't it fascinating how people of all sides react to this?" I'm saying, Why come up with an answer of "poetry" or "turn of phrase" or "overly-literal demands of modern readers?"
What draws people to make explainations? Why not say, "He lived 900 years. Deal with it."?
And the reason is, the internal conflict. The internal need for the believer to believe that what he reads is true. Some if not all of this stuff has to square with the beliver's idea of reality.
On the age of the earth, I've asked this of believers, and it's fascinating to me... These are some people who belive that the story of Genesis is correct, if not literal. They say that the 6 days were not six literal days, but six periods of time.
Now this makes science fans like me happy, because the fewer people who think the world is 6000 years old, the better.
But I ask them, "I get where Scripturally, people arrive at the figure of 6000. But where, scripturally do you get an age of the earth approaching the scientific figure of 4.5 billion years?"
They say, each day in the creation account refers to a "period of time." I say, great, how did you arrive at the figure 1 day = 750,000,000 years? Why not the other way? Why not 1 day = 1 second?
Well, there isn't a scriptural reference for that conversion factor. Obviously, and I'm not trying to be pedantic.
What I'm saying is, the pressure for longer creation days doesn't come from inside scripture, or inside Christian belief. The pressure comes from trying to square a piece of poetry with a scientific finding, or a common-sense finding that, face it, the earth looks a heck of a lot older than a few thousand years.
That's the phenomenon I noticed in this thread, and a phenomenon that I find fascinating. The fact that people TRY to square it, and not say "well, it's a story." No, it's not enough that it's a story. It has to be literally innaccurate, but still, somehow, at it's core, absolutely true.
It's that dichotomy that I find fascinating. Holding two contadictory thoughts in the head at the same time, and yet holding them both to be absolutely true. The creation of man BOTH took 6 days AND 4.5 billion years.
That's what I find fascinating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siamang
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1144
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tom in Sacramento wrote: |
And what is the response of these now revealed psuedo-intellectual wannabes? They ridicule the explanation because it doesn't agree with their small little world view. They ridicule the answer because it uses technical terms that look to them like "big words". They insist that an explanation be as utterly simplistic as their poverty-riddled little world views. |
If I am among the people who have disappointed you in this thread, I hope my post above will explain myself better. If not, please continue to engage me. I'll learn it eventually.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siamang
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1144
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To clarify, It's not that the just believe that Genesis is a story that illuminates philosophical truths about God's purpose for us in creation.
No, it's that they LITERALLY parse out the 6 days. They don't say, "well, Genesis is a story about creation, but we know creation took 4.5 Billion years."
Instead they take pains to INCLUDE the number "6 days" into their answer. That's the dichotomy. Even when they know it's 4.5 billion years, they still can't drop those 6 days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ir (Helen)
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 609
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Siamang wrote: | I mean no disrespect. I do hold the views I do because of an internal need. I'm honest about it. I need to be believing in something I think is true. I'm sure I'm no different than any Christian.
I don't say that "what I believe IS true." I try not to be arrogant, and I think that would be arrogant.
I don't think it's disrespectful to say that Christians have that same need. Enlighten me if I am wrong about that, or seeing it from a self-serving point of view. |
Ok - if that's what you meant, yes, I think Christians also need to believe that what they believe is true.
| Quote: | | Here I don't quite follow you. Is a strongly held belief in the veracity of the Bible not an internal need? Don't people need to believe that their worldview is true? |
Yes - I didn't realize that was all you meant. In that case I think we are saying the same thing. Before I thought you were alluding to some internal need Christians have and atheists don't have - some internal need other than the need to believe that what they believe is true.
| Quote: | | There are lots of ways to explain the answer. Far, far more ink has been used in "explaining" Methuselah than was used to chronicle his life in the Bible in the first place. Entire websites are devoted to explaining him, and I haven't found one which relies on the words "myth" or "legend." |
...because that's not an acceptable explanation to Bible-believing Christians.
| Quote: | I'm not saying "dismiss it out of hand." My point is far more nuanced (I hope!).
What I'm saying is, "isn't it fascinating how people of all sides react to this?" I'm saying, Why come up with an answer of "poetry" or "turn of phrase" or "overly-literal demands of modern readers?"
What draws people to make explainations? Why not say, "He lived 900 years. Deal with it."?
And the reason is, the internal conflict. The internal need for the believer to believe that what he reads is true. Some if not all of this stuff has to square with the beliver's idea of reality.
On the age of the earth, I've asked this of believers, and it's fascinating to me... These are some people who belive that the story of Genesis is correct, if not literal. They say that the 6 days were not six literal days, but six periods of time.
Now this makes science fans like me happy, because the fewer people who think the world is 6000 years old, the better.
But I ask them, "I get where Scripturally, people arrive at the figure of 6000. But where, scripturally do you get an age of the earth approaching the scientific figure of 4.5 billion years?"
They say, each day in the creation account refers to a "period of time." I say, great, how did you arrive at the figure 1 day = 750,000,000 years? Why not the other way? Why not 1 day = 1 second?
Well, there isn't a scriptural reference for that conversion factor. Obviously, and I'm not trying to be pedantic.
What I'm saying is, the pressure for longer creation days doesn't come from inside scripture, or inside Christian belief. The pressure comes from trying to square a piece of poetry with a scientific finding, or a common-sense finding that, face it, the earth looks a heck of a lot older than a few thousand years.
That's the phenomenon I noticed in this thread, and a phenomenon that I find fascinating. The fact that people TRY to square it, and not say "well, it's a story." No, it's not enough that it's a story. It has to be literally innaccurate, but still, somehow, at it's core, absolutely true.
It's that dichotomy that I find fascinating. Holding two contadictory thoughts in the head at the same time, and yet holding them both to be absolutely true. The creation of man BOTH took 6 days AND 4.5 billion years.
That's what I find fascinating. |
I still disagree that people hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time. They do not say the creation of man took both 6 days and 4.5 billion years. They say 'the text says 6 days', 'science says 4.5 billion years'; how do we reconcile these? They are not contradictory unless they cannot be reconciled. So I disagree with your saying a priori that they are contradictory.
And by asserting they are contradictory, you are dismissing out of hand that they are reconcilable, aren't you? That's how it seems to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David S
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 1029
Location: Where the crowd isn't
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tom in Sacramento wrote: | | While it may be true that, under certain circumstances differences in details may indicate some sort of collusion, it is far more common that differences in details are the result of different people's perspectives. case in point, I was assaulted last week and there was a witness. We disagreed on the color of the perp's shirt. The other guy thought it was a red plaid. I thought it was a gray sweatshirt. Not even close. But my mind was on other things than what the perp was wearing at the time. |
In your example of the shirt, one of you was wrong. That's all we're saying about discrepancies in the bible. When there's a conflict, some version (if not all of them) are wrong. That and neither of you were inspired of god (I assume) in your witnessing of the assault nor making supernatural claims that are supposed to be believed over more likely mundane explanations. If either of those were true people should expect more from your witness.
| Quote: | | -- Your point about the document. If I may suggest it, given your background, I, too, would probably cite this. But I suggest that your conclusion is the result of (I'm sorry if this is too close) a cult-based, or sect-based, understanding of the means and mechanism of scripture's inspiration. [...] |
This whole statement is highly offensive and inaccurate. I've made no statements based even remotely on anything LDS (and you won't see me making any). I'm making statements drawn from a non-supernatural worldview. Please deal with the actual arguments made and not the biases in your mind. I claim it's reasonable to expect a communication from a god would be significantly different than something man-made. If you disagree you might try to make a case for why.
| Quote: | | Why would people risk their lives for a lie? The story is about a man and a movement that aims to exhort people to a higher level of morality. Why would they lie to do this? If they lied to do this, how could they possibly keep it all a secret? |
People die for lies all the time. I'm sure you'd agree that every martyr for every religion but the one you happen to believe, died for a lie. Besides, your comment is off the point--we don't even know who wrote the gospels as they are anonymous. We simply don't know how the author's died.
| Quote: | | Finally, I'd suggest that, in fact, the gospels are consistent in the "very important" details. Where you seem to find problems is in the very trivial details. They all agree that Jesus was divine, that He gave His life, and that He was resurrected. Those are the important details. Cock crows are trivia. That doesn't mean that it is unreasonable to question the trivia. But it does mean that it is still trivia. |
All I can do is repeat that the cases we're looking at are specific prophecies of Jesus. If you think Jesus' prophecies are trivial details, what pray tell isn't a trivial detail? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ir (Helen)
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 609
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Siamang wrote: | To clarify, It's not that the just believe that Genesis is a story that illuminates philosophical truths about God's purpose for us in creation.
No, it's that they LITERALLY parse out the 6 days. They don't say, "well, Genesis is a story about creation, but we know creation took 4.5 Billion years."
Instead they take pains to INCLUDE the number "6 days" into their answer. That's the dichotomy. Even when they know it's 4.5 billion years, they still can't drop those 6 days. |
Because it's in the Bible text.
One is what it says, the other is what it means. You call that a dichotomy but plenty of Christians consider the two reconcilable.
What's wrong with parsing out the 6 days? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David S
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 1029
Location: Where the crowd isn't
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tom,
Well now I see what you think is rude. I wasn't trying to be rude, I meant to be factual as viewed from a rational/non-supernaturalist viewpoint.
[edited to delete detailed rebuttle]
I deleted the more detailed rebuttle in this post so as to not let the topic get further derailed. I think my comments that Tom posted above can be viewed and judged as they are. Obviously Tom doesn't care for my views on this topic but I said nothing personal nor nothing overly rude beyond me stating my opinions on the subject matter. I think my comments should appear fine compared against others made on this thread (even many by Tom). In my view there's little reason to let this further detract from the topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eliza
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 800
Location: Seattle WA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:11 am Post subject: dead horse (and it won't rise in 3 days) |
|
|
This horse is pretty well beaten, you guys. At the risk of offending everyone, I'll step in and point out that the "discussion" is looking like this:
The Christians believe core truths in the Bible, which may or may not include believing every statement in the Bible literally; many (but probably not all) think the Bible was written so long ago that at least some of the wording/phraseology may have had different (including less literal) meanings or nuances before our time. Their belief in the Bible is closely related to their faith, which is real and is repected/respectable to them as a basis for their beliefs and for discussions like this.
The skeptics/atheists find statements in the Bible which do not fit with other statements in the Bible, and/or do not fit with experiences they have had or know about or read about in sources they believe are more reliable than the Bible. They do not believe in a Christian God and are not comfortable accepting things "on faith". They are imbued in and respect modern scientific/rational approaches, including "proof" they can believe in and literal interpretations.
No, I can't prove it. I can only perform a qualitative analysis based on statements herein. But only after I file an application with the Institutional Review Board and you all sign informed consent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siamang
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1144
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ir wrote: | | I still disagree that people hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time. They do not say the creation of man took both 6 days and 4.5 billion years. They say 'the text says 6 days', 'science says 4.5 billion years'; how do we reconcile these? They are not contradictory unless they cannot be reconciled. |
There would be no need to reconcile them if they weren't contradictory.
| Quote: | | So I disagree with your saying a priori that they are contradictory. |
You disagree that 6 days and 4.5 billion years are contradictory?
What's your definition of contradictory?
| Quote: | | And by asserting they are contradictory, you are dismissing out of hand that they are reconcilable, aren't you? That's how it seems to me. |
I'm not saying they're irreconcilable. I'm saying that they REQUIRE reconciliation to some. If the value weren't contradictory, THEN reconciliation would be moot.
For example, if the text said "Creation took many eons" and science said 4.5 billion years. That's my definition of not contradictory. No need to reconcile them, they say the same thing, and the only difference is a rounding error.
| Ir wrote: | | Siamang wrote: | To clarify, It's not that the just believe that Genesis is a story that illuminates philosophical truths about God's purpose for us in creation.
No, it's that they LITERALLY parse out the 6 days. They don't say, "well, Genesis is a story about creation, but we know creation took 4.5 Billion years."
Instead they take pains to INCLUDE the number "6 days" into their answer. That's the dichotomy. Even when they know it's 4.5 billion years, they still can't drop those 6 days. |
Because it's in the Bible text.
One is what it says, the other is what it means. You call that a dichotomy but plenty of Christians consider the two reconcilable.
What's wrong with parsing out the 6 days? |
Nothing's wrong with it. I do find it fascinating, though. Do you not see the phenomenon?
Instead of saying "Well, the ancients believed it was 6 days, but we now know it's 4.5 billion years." They don't drop one in favor of the other. They don't call one "myth" or "oral tradition" and the other "science." They INCORPORATE the science into their biblical belief, and change their reading of the Bible, but still in away that INCLUDES those 6 days. They do a big math problem to figure out how long each of those 6 days was. They just won't let go of that 6!
I sometimes see it as straining credibility, but hey, I'm not the guy trying to make people come to Christianity. If I was, I'd probably say that to an outside observer it looks like tap-dancing. If I were a militant atheist, I'd say, "keep it up!" 
It's like if the bible said that all good people were brown-eyed. Then you learned scientifically that good people could have eyes of any color.
So you now assert that "the essence of brownness is found in all eye-colors."
Instead of discarding your old belief, you incorporate the new information into your old belief.
I'm not saying it's wrong. I can't judge that. It might all be right. What the heck do I know?
But these people will swear up and down and right to your face that 6 days is both literally incorrect, and yet utterly perfectly true at the same time.
They don't discard the science and just go with the biblical answer. But they don't do the opposite either. They try to find a middle way, but it's a middle way that makes my head swim! Why wouldn't you choose one or the other?
It's fascinating to me.
Last edited by Siamang on Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlindholtz
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Sacramento, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
David,
Wrt my comment,
| Quote: | | -- Your point about the document. If I may suggest it, given your background, I, too, would probably cite this. But I suggest that your conclusion is the result of (I'm sorry if this is too close) a cult-based, or sect-based, understanding of the means and mechanism of scripture's inspiration. |
I am sorry to have offended. It was not my intent. Please forgive me. I feared that I might be treading on sensitive ground, which is why I apologized in the initial writing. I have known a lot of LDS folks, including several who have kicked it over. And as a result of our conversations have understood that the "orthodox" LDS view of divine inspiration is a different sort of critter than the "orthodox", umm, Creedal Christian view.
I, of course, don't know you beyond what you've written. But you wrote, in your intro
| Quote: | | I was raised as a Christian and had quite a bit of formal training and study so you can normally assume I'm well versed in Christianity |
So my assumption was that your knowledge of Christianity was rooted in LDS teaching rather than in Creedal Christian teaching. (No value judgment intended or implied. Just different.)
If that was an unwarranted assumption, it was at least based on your own self-description. But, in any case, I am sorry to have given offense. It was not my intent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlindholtz
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Sacramento, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ir nails it!
| Quote: | I still disagree that people hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time. They do not say the creation of man took both 6 days and 4.5 billion years. They say 'the text says 6 days', 'science says 4.5 billion years'; how do we reconcile these? They are not contradictory unless they cannot be reconciled. So I disagree with your saying a priori that they are contradictory.
And by asserting they are contradictory, you are dismissing out of hand that they are reconcilable, aren't you? That's how it seems to me. |
The only way they become irreconcilable, for an atheist, is if the atheist adopts the same narrow, literal, literarily ignorant (descriptive, not judgmental) view of scripture that the stark raving fundamentalists hold. The fundies insist on a literal interpretation and regard the text as equivalent to a God-blessed science book.
What several of the Christians on the list have been saying is that that is an ignorant view of the Bible. The Bible needs to be understood in terms of its literary, historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts. When you do that, a lot of your issues will vanish like fog on a warm summer morning.
I find it ironic in the extreme that atheists are making common cause, even if negatively, with the fundamentalists. It seems that politics isn't the only thing that can produce strange bedfellows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
