soul creator
Member
you guys should stop, he basically admitted that there's no way to discuss things with him :lol
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Official Religion Thread
- Thread starter U5230
- Start date
- Status
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Pandaman said:
My point is that a Wiki article is not authoritative by academic standards, just as an encyclopedia article is not. You don't cite encyclopedia articles or Wikis in work done at the graduate level. Ever. You cite reputable sources. I'm sure your professor agrees. The point is, you have to go to some sources the Wiki mentions and even then, have you have to further than that.
I never said that I was a genius.
In case you didn't notice, none of those sources you listed are of books, articles, etc. written from the position that Luke was not in error. What about the rest of the sources in the Wiki article, including the ones in support of a traditional viewpoint? But hey, if you're looking for a one-sided view, then by all means, knock yourself out with just the ones you mentioned.
Ugh, I have to retype this, work computers suck =/.
It helps in that it gives me an understanding of what you would need to see the merits of Evolution theory, specifically, speciation.JGS said:
=p You like the sound of a sentence that can easily be taken out of context to further the misunderstanding of Evolution theory?
My fault for not being clear, I meant what reason would you have for having walls preventing speciation?
I am not so much trying to disprove your beliefs as to clarify this jarring misunderstanding you have. I mean, I am not even really that educated in Evolution theory, but I can see that you are having either some serious problems understanding it - or you are being willfully ignorant.
You need much more than that :lol don't be silly.
Are you saying that you hold the efforts of religious people to make the words in the Bible fit their understanding of the natural world on the same level as the scientists who work only in this natural world and use no external (supernatural or otherwise) influences to help us better understand it?
DeusTrinitas
Banned
soul creator said:
Sort of. We're all still arguing on the level of presuppositions here and unless you are willing to grant someone his or her presuppositions for the sake of argument, you will get nowhere.
Dude Abides
Banned
DeusTrinitas said:
Especially when the presupposition is "I am right."
Do you have a rationalization for the mathematical error in the Bible that I pointed out upthread?
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Dude Abides said:
And what indication do you have that the intent of the passage is to give a precise equivalent for pi? It's clear that the numbers given are simply whole numbers, accurate to the degree of detail implied by such. If the diameter was ten cubits, the circumference would have been 31.46 cubits or if the diameter was a little less than ten cubits, then a little less than 31.46.
Dabookerman
Member
Deus. What is your Phd for? I mean could you explain to me briefly what was written in it? Am I making sense??
jdogmoney said:
Joke or not, this is kind of an important distinction.
DeusTrinitas said:
Well, technically yeah, since I don't have a girlfriend.
But let me ask you, are either the girlfriend or I "divinely inspired"?
DeusTrinitas said:
If you presuppose the Bible is perfect, and someone points out where it's not, we aren't going to grant that it's perfect.
Dude Abides
Banned
DeusTrinitas said:
What does the intent matter? The indisputable fact is that the passage contains three statements that cannot all be true under the basic laws of mathematics. Are you revising your position to admit that the Bible contains errors, but only unintentional ones?
DeusTrinitas said:
If that were true it would say 31 cubits across, not 30. 31 is a whole number.
What...
what the...
is that supposed to be a slight against them? are you proposing that Matthew was in error? or that an article should have suggested as much? or are you slightly an article solely for not conforming to your bias? all three of those options are insane, especially the matthew ones.
the traditional point of views? you mean the ones that attribute the census to a different governor or to a misquote? in short, to error? the ones that are addressed in order of appearance and list scholarly debate spanning centuries all to be summed up in the opening paragraph as 'most current scholars regard this as an error'.
yes, i could have done that. but that's what summaries are for in the first place.
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Dabookerman said:
Do you mean what am I studying (What is Systematic Theology?)? Or are you asking of what work it is composed (seminars, exams, etc.)?
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Dude Abides said:
No, I'm not revising my position.
There were a variety of closely similar lengths described as "cubit" in the ancient world, just as there were a variety of standards of measurement for anything in the ancient world. Even still, it is possible the circumference is describing the inner circumference for the area to hold the volume of water. 1 Kings 7:26 indicates a "handbreadth" of thickness, about 1/4 or so of a cubit, which would make the inner circumference about 29.85 cubits, producing a figure closer to pi.
Dude Abides
Banned
JGS said:
Wow, it's been reduced to "The Bible is inerrant and infallible, except when it comes to math, where it just kinda fudges things. For Almighty God, like for Barbie, math is hard."
DeusTrinitas said:
So are you changing your position from "The Bible is free of errors." to "The Bible gets it close enough for government work."?
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Pandaman said:
I'm saying that the careful scholar must weigh the arguments of both sides before coming to a conclusion. You listed only sources in support of the Bible being in error.
Pandaman said:
You are assuming a common historical fallacy--that the views of modern scholars, by virtue of being more current, are inherently more trustworthy than the views of older scholars. That isn't necessarily the case.
Count Dookkake
Member
Bats are birds.
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Dude Abides said:
You mistake "impreciseness" for "error." If you want to equate those two, that's your business. My position is that though the Bible is imprecise at times, it is not in error.
soul creator
Member
DeusTrinitas said:
well, you've already kind of given yourself the "ultimate" presupposition that no one could ever compete with. Everything can fit into your worldview, no matter how much of a contradiction it may seem to those holding reality-based presuppositions. That's kind of why a lot of religions hold so much appeal!
DeusTrinitas
Banned
soul creator said:
To be honest, I don't even see why we're arguing about that anymore. You all know that I think the Bible is free from error, so would it not be best to move on from that?
I'll post those sources I mentioned, sources from both sides of the argument, you guys can check them out on your own, and draw your own conclusions.
Other than that, I really don't see where else the current conversation on inerrancy can go.
DeusTrinitas said:
Really, to me it's kind of fascinating seeing someone who is obviously learned, be willfully ignorant. That's sounds harsher than I mean it, but I don't know any other way to word it. You have no reason to think the reasons you do other than the fact that you would like to believe it is true, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. In fact evidence to the contrary solidifies your belief because your belief says that people will one day point out evidence devaluing said belief.
Fascinating, and I wish it would work with me. I would tell everyone that my ability to sexually please women is unmatched on this planet, and one day there would be malicious evil women who would claim otherwise - thus cementing myself for eternity as the best lay evar.
Dude Abides
Banned
DeusTrinitas said:
I see, so your rhetorical strategy is just to characterize clear error as imprecision. Sophistry, in other words. If the Bible said "And Adam gave birth to offspring" presumably your response would be along the lines of "It is just imprecise. It's just stating that Adam was necessary for procreation."
This is NOT talking about evolution, just your view of me which to be hionest confusing me.
I don't have a jarring misunderstanding of it. I may not get the terms, but I don't need to. If anything you have a jarring misunderstanding of my view.
I would understand your point more if there was actually a point to it - like me asking questions, or actively disagreeing, but none of those are the case. It's odd.
I think I said that you can't compare the two. It's like saying a scientist has it harder than Spielberg because one makes movies while the other "toils". It's apples and oranges and a person's hard work has little to do with conversion work- something else made clear throughout the scriptures, but certainly applicable in the scientist world too. A scientist living and dying for his field has no impact on me if in the end it didn't prove anything.
However, I do think it takes effort to read the Bible even as literature especially when you don't want to. You should try it sometime.
Why do you feel I need anything? The only way you could think I don't see the merits of evolution (Since I've repeatedly said I do) is if you mean I don't accept it in it's entirety. This is the old for us or against routine which is a game I'm not interested in playing.Kinitari said:
How is it out of context? Nothing you put in that paragraph even remotely resembled what you were trying to get me to agree to later.Kinitari said:
Kinitari said:
Kinitari said:
I don't have a jarring misunderstanding of it. I may not get the terms, but I don't need to. If anything you have a jarring misunderstanding of my view.
I would understand your point more if there was actually a point to it - like me asking questions, or actively disagreeing, but none of those are the case. It's odd.
Kinitari said:
I think I said that you can't compare the two. It's like saying a scientist has it harder than Spielberg because one makes movies while the other "toils". It's apples and oranges and a person's hard work has little to do with conversion work- something else made clear throughout the scriptures, but certainly applicable in the scientist world too. A scientist living and dying for his field has no impact on me if in the end it didn't prove anything.
However, I do think it takes effort to read the Bible even as literature especially when you don't want to. You should try it sometime.
soul creator
Member
in other news, I now submit the level of theological discourse that is found on my facebook wall:
I'm sure this was just meant as a metaphor though. Obviously, no one literally believes that God is sitting up there somewhere like a football player in a strip club, deciding when to make it rain on us. This is just a fringe viewpoint, right?
edit: yes, I'm being slightly snarky, but I think this ties into the larger point of what people's religious beliefs actually are. I notice a lot of times that in some discussions, there's this idea that the vast majority of people arrive at religious beliefs through some sort of sophisticated analysis, and that things like creationists are just "caricatures" of believers.
But then I see stuff like that on my wall, and what some people in my family have believed growing up, and I wonder...
And of course, the most interesting part is that it's not like the person is "dumb" or anything, even though the claim that there is some invisible being personally involved with rainfall seems incredibly silly.
I'm sure this was just meant as a metaphor though. Obviously, no one literally believes that God is sitting up there somewhere like a football player in a strip club, deciding when to make it rain on us. This is just a fringe viewpoint, right?
edit: yes, I'm being slightly snarky, but I think this ties into the larger point of what people's religious beliefs actually are. I notice a lot of times that in some discussions, there's this idea that the vast majority of people arrive at religious beliefs through some sort of sophisticated analysis, and that things like creationists are just "caricatures" of believers.
But then I see stuff like that on my wall, and what some people in my family have believed growing up, and I wonder...
And of course, the most interesting part is that it's not like the person is "dumb" or anything, even though the claim that there is some invisible being personally involved with rainfall seems incredibly silly.
Dude Abides said:
Don't get me wrong. The size of a man forearm should certainly be inerrant. Rounding is a sign that the Almighty is flawed as sin. I'm saying you got one on the Bible. Errant God forbid if they make an adjustment while building.
Everyone knows it's only inerrant when it hits the 10th decimal.
Congratulations.
thelooseteeth
Member
soul creator said:
Not sure. I see this sort of thing from my family all the time. I wondered ever since I was young, if God has a plan from which nothing can deviate, why pray? I'm talking about for all the trivial nonsense I've had to endure throughout my life, such as for safety on a plane flight, or like above, good weather, etc.
Something goes right: Thank the Lord.
Something goes wrong: The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Fucking perfect.
I just don't understand why Speciation is such a hindrance, or something that is so impossible for you to accept.JGS said:
Again, that's my fault, I think I quoted one thing, and responded to another mixing them up. I assumed that you agreed that the Salamander split was an example of speciation, as now the two Salamanders can no longer have babies together.
Clarify your view for me then if that is the case.
I sincerely cannot understand your view on speciation, maybe I am reaching and making assumptions with some of my replies, but you are giving me very little to work with. So maybe if I ask clearly
What is your problem with the concept of speciation, or rather, the idea that birds for example are the descendants of reptiles?
I think we might have been arguing different things, I was arguing for understanding the natural world - Scientists do a much better job at this than biblical scholars, so when it comes to things like Evolution, I would rather take the words of Scientists than Biblical scholars.
I would probably rather read the Qu'ran first, and to be honest, if possible, read neither. That shit is boring.
soul creator
Member
JGS said:
I got to all the ____ BEGAT ______ stuff and wanted to shoot myself :lol
Count Dookkake
Member
ronito said:
I imagine many of them are afraid to read books that conflict with their position, so they project this failing onto others.
Also, many Christians have not read the bible, so they are understandably shocked when an atheist or person of another religion knows it.
Dude Abides
Banned
JGS said:
No decimals required. 30 = 31. Wonderful and mysterious are the ways of the Lord, just don't ask him to build a house for you because the front door will probably wind up too big for the frame and it will be a bitch to open when it's hot and humid.
Kinitari said:
I'm not sure there is a problem. I don't have aproblem with salamandars not being able to do it anymore. Quite frankly, I've never had this much of a discussion of a salamandars sex life ever.
Kinitari said:
I swear to God I don't have a view except that it's not worth arguing over. A religous can easily make an argument for God using evolution and science can show certain aspects of speciation.
Kinitari said:
Now we're getting somewhere. There is no reason for a bird to come from a reptile, creatively speaking. It makes for a good movie.
Kinitari said:
I disagree with this. I think everyone should have an equal appreciation of the natural world it's insulting to think that religious folk do not, and I think that if people observed and appreciated the natural world more, there would not be as much destruction of it- from both common man and brilliant scientists. The world is not exactly a much better place now just because of a scientific discovery.
Kinitari said:
Now you know how I fee with all this talk of mutant finches and sterile salamandars.
just kidding
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
Dude Abides said:
You see it, I see it, anyone that understands basic mathematics can see it. It's a factual error. A mistake.
Anyone attempting to justify it clear demonstrates they cannot accept that the bible has any such mistakes and if they can't accept a simple mathematical error, there's no point on approaching much broader issues and inconsistencies with the book. They just continue to pursue a delusion that stems from defending non facts.
Without making a blanket statement, how can someone not accept a simple factual error such as this?
If the bible had said 2 + 2 = 5, would they argue that blindly too and attempt to justify it?
JGS said:
There's no reason for a man to come back from death. It makes a good movie.
Spawn!
JGS said:
He said understand, not appreciate. You thing think religious folks understand more of the natural word than scientists?
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Kinitari said:
No offense taken. And it's not so much as that I would like to believe it is true as much as it is that it all goes back to a belief in a perfect God with whom I have personal relationship. And the Bible never says that one day people will point out evidence devaluing what the Bible says. It simply says that believers will be persecuted for their beliefs.
DeusTrinitas
Banned
ronito said:
Again, as I've said in this thread previously, all arguments concerning the Bible and Christianity all boil down to one basic epistemological question: "How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God?"
Right and I'm saying that the choices of "Yes it is completely unerring" or "No. There must be no god." are not sufficient.DeusTrinitas said:
There are plenty of people that believe in God and Jesus but believe that the bible was written by men who were not perfect. So while there are truths in there, to say there are no errs would entail that the men also had to be perfect and if they were perfect, then what was the point of Jesus?
I don't believe that to say the bible has no errors is a tenable position at all unless you're willing to tie yourself into knots to believe it so.
Drastic said:
Well, I apologize if I came across as harsh. However, what I said was true: in religious debates, due to the nebulous nature of interpretation, people can and will easily re-interpret things to be more socially acceptable. The aforementioned Sodom and Gomorrah example is the best one. This is done CONSTANTLY. You can see it in this thread.
As for your passage, I don't have a personal interpretation to make it more acceptable. I take it for what it is, God gets angry, God kills.
blame space
Banned
Does God still do that? Get angry and kill?jaxword said:
soul creator
Member
blame space said:
Jerry Falwell used to think so!
ronito said:
What was it someone said to me when telling me what I know? Proof is in the pudding. Cliff notes and skeptics blogs don't count which I imagine is how so many pass their Bible finals.
Now if a religious person is wrongfully accused of stuff, it should be assumed that non-religious would be too. But key indicators of some people's Biblical unscholarlyness:
1. Given the same tired responses arguing over 5% of the book, they are arguing atheist bullet points rather than Scripture
2. Why would anyone who dislikes something that much read it so often? I mean would it really be just to win arguments on the internet? OK.
3. If it was to find flaws,surely there would be more of them found then the several weak ones brought up here.
4. The ones I've accused haven't refuted it (yet) so no one needs to take it personal. They can take solace in the fact they have read it.
I actually expect people who read the Bible but don't have an interest in it to have more issues than they bring up. Warming up the same soup over and over indicatesa groupspeak and regurgitation of the same tired ideas when there can be more interesting ones.
Dabookerman
Member
DeusTrinitas said:
Late reply, but yeah that one :3
excelforward
Member
delete please
Damnit, I hate when I do that.
ronito used to be Mormon. Many - maybe even most - of the atheists in this topic used to be Christian and have at least some level of familiarity with the Bible.
And if the flaws being mentioned are weak ones, why haven't they been addressed sufficiently? I'm not really interested in a theological debate over Scripture - I'm more interested in hearing a justification for why someone believes in scriptural inerrancy when the Scriptures are inconsistent with one another.
JGS said:
ronito used to be Mormon. Many - maybe even most - of the atheists in this topic used to be Christian and have at least some level of familiarity with the Bible.
And if the flaws being mentioned are weak ones, why haven't they been addressed sufficiently? I'm not really interested in a theological debate over Scripture - I'm more interested in hearing a justification for why someone believes in scriptural inerrancy when the Scriptures are inconsistent with one another.
Peronthious
Member
DeusTrinitas said:
Thanks, that was a fascinating discussion, though I do feel that the two speakers were deliberately postured by the hosts. It felt like a Fox (or MSNBC!) interview where they have one speaker who speaks calmly and rationally about a topic and debates with someone who sounds over indignant and proselytizing. Still, I can look past that and recognize what Evans and Ehrman were getting at. The debate didn't really bring up anything that I wasn't already aware of; there are obviously many discrepancies in the Gospels and much discussion on their validity as historical documents. From a religious perspective, I probably lean more towards Evans than Ehrman, in that the Bible has enough information to recognize that some divine experience occurred. Where we differ, I think, is in the level of things we are able to assume from the available content. I can accept that Jesus had a powerful effect on those around him, something that is carried through in the spiritual language of the Gospels. What I cannot assume, which Ehrman and I think you can, is that this powerful effect must have included divine miracles that are accurately represented in the text. Given reality, I can't accept many of the specific events chronicled in the gospels, including most of the miracles Jesus is purported to have done and the resurrection and ascension, but something powerful must have happened to inspire those traditions. If you can set modern understanding of nature aside and believe in the infallibility of scripture, or at least of the origin document, while I may dispute it you certainly have the right to do so. I have no problem with your beliefs, and in fact I have more respect for you than for others who share them because you appear to at least be knowledgeable of your faith. There is a vast gulf between scholarly bible research and everyday devotional reading that should be mended if Christianity is to evolve into a modern understanding of the divine.
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Dabookerman said:
Okay, then, what am I studying for my PhD? What is Systematic Theology?
Essentially, Systematic Theology at its most basic is taking the knowledge we have about God and the Christian faith and organizing it systematically. The knowledge that we have, we obtain from various sources, most notably the Scriptures, philosophy, science, and ethics.
For example, the systematic theologian asks, "What do we know about the doctrine of salvation?" He then looks for knowledge about salvation to acquire from the above sources and places it into a logical, ordered system.
Thus, there are many subcategories that fall under systematic theology:
Theology proper (the study of God himself)
Christology (the study of Christ)
Pneumatology (the study of the Holy Spirit)
Soteriology (the study of salvation)
Anthropology (the study of the relation of man to God)
Ecclesiology (the study of the church)
Hamartiology (the study of sin)
Eschatology (the study of the "end times")
Etc.
Rich Uncle Skeleton
Member
DeusTrinitas said:
Absolutely. So what's the answer? It seems to me that it's possible to know it's not the word of God -- if it contains contradictions, statements that fly in the face of basic science, etc. -- but, even if you reject those arguments, what possible reason would there be to think that it is the case?
DeusTrinitas
Banned
Peronthious said:
Thanks for taking the time to watch or listen to the debate. And I appreciate you thoughtfully thinking about the issues Ehrman and Evans debated. You might want to look into other debates each has participated in. They are both usually very good speakers/debaters.
- Status