Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,557 Year: 4,814/9,624 Month: 162/427 Week: 75/85 Day: 12/12 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catholics & Inerrancy
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4339 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 23 of 89 (614871)
05-08-2011 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by GDR
05-03-2011 4:03 PM


GDR writes:
If the OT laws didn't fit within those parameters then they were not to be followed, and I would suggest weren't of God in the first place.
Then why were they in the scriptures? And more importantly: why are they STILL in the scriptures? Even after god himself (apparantly) came to earth to correct it?
GDR writes:
I would be interested to know why it is that anyone believes that we should take all of the scriptures literally
Because you can't have your pie and eat it to. How are you gonna decide which parts you are gonna take literally and which not? If you give the same excuse as above (ie: if it's not "loving", it ain't good), then I can only conclude that you pick and choose and only believe what you WANT to believe and what makes your deity of choice look good.
Because truth be told, Jezus also literally said that not one yota of the old laws (which IS the old testament) would be changed.
Truth is that you do not have a rational methodology to differentiate between what is alledgelly "true" scripture and what isn't. All you have is emotional argumentation.
GDR writes:
When he referred to the scriptures it was about love and relationship
It was also about how the old testament still applies.
Like Trae hinted in the message above this one, all it would have taken was for Jezus to sit down with his apostles and go through the scriptures - scratching out everything that wasn't ok.
Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by GDR, posted 05-03-2011 4:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 05-08-2011 5:39 PM ScientificBob has replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4339 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


(1)
Message 28 of 89 (614926)
05-09-2011 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
05-08-2011 5:39 PM


GDR writes:
He came to earth to fullfill the scriptures which is not the same thing as correcting them
It's also not the same thing as rendering them invalid...
GDR writes:
As I have said before that only is a problem if you understand the Bible as a book supernaturally dictated by God as opposed to being a book written by fallible human beings telling a story of their culture's expereinces of God.
This would mean that we can not trust the bible to be representative of god. And that statement would also apply to the new testament.
So if that is the case, everything you have to say about jezus or anything related to christianity, is by definition worthless.
Again: you can't have your pie and eat it to.
Either the bible is not supernatural in origin and made by fallible humans or it isn't.
If you are gonna use the "it's made by fallible humans" argument to completely ignore the brutality of the old testament, then the same goes for the new testament. And so we are back to the point I raised: you seem to only believe what you WANT to believe. Your methodology to choose which parts you are gonna trust and which not consists entirely and exclusively of whatever "feels good" to you.
If you disagree with this... You are gonna have to demonstrate to me why the new testament is relevant and the old isn't.
Clearly, the argument of "it's made by fallible humans" to ignore the old testament doesn't work, as that would also reflect on the new testament in exactly the same way.
I find it rather strange that you are trying to argue that the bible is not thrustworthy while it is the only source that talks about your deity of choice.
GDR writes:
He also said that, (and I know I'm repeating myself), that all of the laws were fullfilled by loving God and neighbour.
To me, that seems to be contradictory statements.
Anyhow... what does it even mean that "all the laws are fullfilled"?
How do you "fullfill" laws that propose death as a punishment for gay sex? And how does that "fullfillment" do away with said law? Does it mean that from then on it is ok to have gay sex? Does it mean that from then on gay sex is non-existant? What does it mean?
GDR writes:
The thing is you are treating the law as we think of them in human terms
What other terms are there for humans to think in?
And, as you clearly stated, you believe that the bible is not supernatural in origin and thus written by fallible humans. Are you now proposing that we should think in "non-human" terms about things written and interpreted by humans? And what would that "non-human" term be? Supernatural terms? What would that be like? And how did that rational come about?
GDR writes:
Jesus is talking about a law written on our hearts
Poetically, I can appreciate such statements. Kind of like the in-born sense of basic morality as a natural result of empathy. But that is not what you mean, isn't it? I think you mean it quite literally, don't you?
So how do we verify such things?
GDR writes:
Human laws and God laws are two different animals
Yet, they seem to have the exact same origins: human brains.
As you clearly noted, the bible is not supernatural and a work of humans. That means that everything in it necessarily comes FROM humans. No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 05-08-2011 5:39 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 05-09-2011 10:33 AM ScientificBob has replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4339 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 34 of 89 (615082)
05-10-2011 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by GDR
05-09-2011 10:33 AM


GDR writes:
I have read a fair amount on the subject and have become convinced that it happened in the manner that we read about in the Gospels, Acts and Paul. I read a variety of authors but what I found most informative were the debates between N T Wright and members of the Jesus Seminar Dom Crossan and Marcus Borg. Essentially the members of the Jesus Semiar treat the resurrection as a kind of "visionary experience", whereas N T Wright as an historian and theologian argues that the only thing that makes sense of the rise of the Christian church is the fact that the resurrection is an actual historical event. I read books on the debate between Crossan and Wright and Borg and Wright. I found Wright's argument more convincing and that the JS position was in the final analysis based on the idea that the resurrection couldn't possibly have happened so they cast about for other explanations such as cognitive dissonance.
You know what I love about that paragraphe? How it exhibits reasoning with a clear presupposition that the bible is relevant.
GDR writes:
My belief then in how I read and understand the Bible is then based on that starting point. If the resurrection is true historically then Jesus isn't a crank and we should pay a great deal of attention to what He had to say, and what those who followed him had to say.
The keyword here is IF. All I see you and other theists do is simply assume that jezus, the human, existed. Assume he was crucified, assume he was born of a virgin, assume he was resurected, assume he was the son of god,...
It's all the same old blind faith. You are not justifying anything here. You are just repeating your faith.
GDR writes:
As Jesus was vindicated and shown to be the authentic messiah by His resurrection then I believe that it is through the lens of His ministry that we should understand all of the scriptures.
And here you changed your blind faith into a statement of fact - for no apparant reason - and continue on from there.
GDR writes:
When he says that he has come to fulfill the laws and the prophets, and tells us that they can all be summed up simply by loving God and loving our neighbour then it isn't that difficult to read that back into the Hebrew scriptures and discern what was of God and what wasn't.
Actually, that's very false. I don't see how one follows from the other. And it still requires you to trust on "fallible humans" to make the distinction. So I don't see how it changes anythng.
Also, you are clearly making an assumption that somehow, for some unspecified reason, the new testament is more thrustworthy then the old testament. Yet, it was also written by "fallible humans".
By the reasoning you give me, it could just as well be that the new testament is not thrustworthy and that the true god is the vengefull, hatefull, genocidal sociopath we all know from the old testament.
GDR writes:
Also of course Jesus' message is fleshed out considerably in the rest of the NT but that is a good place to start.
No. A good place to start would be to demonstrate the relevance/truthfullness of the bible ... without using the bible.
GDR writes:
In the end though we can choose to believe what we want
I heavily disagree with that. I do not "choose" what I believe. I don't even know how one would go about that.
Honestly, could you "choose" to believe in Thor?
I believe whatever convinces me. It seems physically impossible for me to simply "choose" to believe some idea on face value alone, let alone if there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary.
GDR writes:
Yes, I have to pick and choose what I believe is historical, metaphorical, literal and even pagan in the Bible
And here we are at the core of the issue. You do not have a rational methodology to do this picking and choosing. It's all based on whatever "feels good". Emotions, fuzzy feelings and blind faith are not pathways to truth.
GDR writes:
I see it this way. There is an in-born sense of morality in everyone. But I also see believe that when we turn to God,( as seen through Jesus), in trust for the way of life that He espoused that we somehow, in ways that are beyond my comprehension, connect with God's dimension through the Holy Spirit to strengthen us in our resolve, I think that the only verification that we can have is in what we experience ourself.
Do you consider this to be intellectually honest?
What's the use of blindly believing such things? How is it different from believing the same about the pink transcendend dragon under my house?
Again it boils down to rational reasoning. Blind faith is not a virtue, it's gullibility.
GDR writes:
Human laws say that I shall not speed. God's law is that I shall love. They are different. The law against speeding comes from the brain, but the law that we are to love is written by God on our hearts. IMHO.
This is again completely meaningless. And beside the point.
We were talking about the laws written in the old testament, not about imaginary laws written on our poetic heart. Poetic, because my heart has no writing on it - it just pumps blood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by GDR, posted 05-09-2011 10:33 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 05-10-2011 10:15 AM ScientificBob has replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4339 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 35 of 89 (615083)
05-10-2011 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by GDR
05-09-2011 3:58 PM


GDR writes:
I absolutely am convinced that the resurrection was an historical event. I can't prove it
You don't see anything wrong with that sentence?
Let me help you...
How can you EVER be "absolutely" convinced of something... if you are unable to verify it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by GDR, posted 05-09-2011 3:58 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 05-10-2011 10:18 AM ScientificBob has not replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4339 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 70 of 89 (616411)
05-21-2011 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
05-10-2011 10:15 AM


GDR writes:
Well seeing as how it's the largest selling book of all time I think we can assume it's relevant.
Argument ad populum? Really? So... we should trust the bible because "a lot of people believe it"? Seriously?
Sales of Mein Kampf have also been through the roof you know... so, according to your logic, what should we conclude from that?
GDR writes:
You can't prove your wife loves you
If she didn't, she wouldn't be concerned with me and leave.
GDR writes:
You can't prove that the world is 14 billion years old
That's because it isn't. The world is 4.6 billion years old, which CAN be proven. The universe is at least 13.7 billion years old, which can ALSO be proven.
GDR writes:
You can't prove that evolutionary theory is correct
Evolution is a FACT. Common ancestry is a FACT. The phylogenetic tree is a testament to that fact.
Natural selection is the theory, which CAN be demonstrated to be a viable mechanism (genetic algoritms and stuff).
Evolution theory is as proven as a scientific theory can be.
GDR writes:
You just look at what evidence there is and draw your own conclusions.
*ahum* TESTABLE conclusions.
GDR writes:
Well I did have an apparent reason. I explained how I had come to the conclusion about the resurrection.
Yes, by saing that you simply "believe" it. And from that point on, you started treating it as a fact. Which it most certainly isn't. Facts are verifiable.
GDR writes:
I didn't claim that I could prove it as fact but that was my conclusion. Based on the conclusion that I came to I assumed it to be true and went on from there
It amazes me that you can say this and even seem to be proud of it. You really don't see anything wrong with such reasoning? You just "assume" it was true and went from there? Come on now...
Talk about a priori conclusions...
GDR writes:
As you reject the idea that the resurrection ever happened you would then presumably come to the conclusion that the rest would be rejected as well.
I reject the claim of resurerection because there is not a shred of evidence for it. There isn't even a shred of evidence that jezus, the human, ever even existed. And when we look around in nature, we never see dead things come back alive days after dieing.
The rational position here is obviously to reject the claim.
GDR writes:
You choose not to believe in God or gods. (I'm assuming your atheist based on your statements.)
Maybe you can "choose" what undefendable things you believe, but I can't do that. I can only believe what convinces me.
There is nothing convincing to me about any religion.
GDR writes:
Any time you vote in an election you choose to believe that one party or individual is a better choice than another.
This is a seriously flawed analogy. My political preference is a subjective personal choice and has NOTHING to do with claims about reality, history, etc.
GDR writes:
Would that be like the blind faith that the material world is all there is and that there is no god(s)?
1. Please don't strawman me.
2. non-existance is assumed until existance is demonstrated. That is the rational way to reason.
Consider this: I claim there is an invisible rock in the middle of the high way. Will you slam your breaks? Off course, you won't. So you will just drive on, assuming no such rock is there. Disbelief is the default position.
I do not claim that no gods exist. However, nobody seems to be able to prove that gods do exist. Hence, I operate under the assumption that they don't. Just like you would not slam your breaks on the highway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 05-10-2011 10:15 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by GDR, posted 05-21-2011 6:47 PM ScientificBob has replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4339 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 84 of 89 (616964)
05-25-2011 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by GDR
05-21-2011 6:47 PM


GDR writes:
I didn't say that was a reason to believe it. I only said that it makes it relevant.
That's still an argument ad populum. I'ld argue that the contents of your book (as a guide of reality) would only be relevant if it can be shown to be relevant... not because people believe it to be the case.
GDR writes:
Maybe she stays for some reason other than love. You choose to believe she stays because she loves you.
I don't "choose" that. SHE tells me that she loves me. And her actions seem to be in line with that statement. I trust her. And therein lies the difference. This trust is NOT blind. This trust is earned. Could I be wrong? Sure. Anybody can be wrong.
But to equate my trust that my wife speaks the truth with your blind faith in a magic sky daddy is simply asanine.
GDR writes:
Actually I knew that. I wrote world when I should have written universe. I agree with both of your statements.
I have no disagreement with any of that either except to say that in the end believing in evolution, even though all the evidence we have points in that direction, is still not the same as believing that 2 + 2 = 4. I would call myself a theistic evolutionist but that would be giving me far too much credit.
This baffles me. If you agree with these statements, then WHY did you state the opposite? You clearly and literally stated that these are things that can't be proven, and now suddenly you agree that they CAN be proven? Seems blatantly contradictory.
Anyhow, glad that you changed your mind about that then.
GDR writes:
None of our beliefs about god(s) or lack of god(s) are testable but we all come to some conclusion.
Yes. Would you say that both conclusion are of equal value? Be carefull here. I will use your answer against you if I can. :-)
ps: this statement might hold (somewhat) in context of very vague god-concepts... not so much when you go to specific scripture... lots of claims in their that ARE testable.
GDR writes:
In the example that you are referring to, I did look at the case that was being made for the resurrection and believed it to be true. In the scientific sense it couldn't be proven, but as I just said, it can't be disproven either
Lots of things can't be "disproven". Do you believe all of them?
ps: 'disproving' is something that you can only do AFTER some kind of testable framework has been defined or AFTER there was an attempt at offering some kind of evidence in support of a claim. You then 'disprove' said claim/idea by falsifying it through a test or by showing how the offered evidence is invalid.
It always comes back to the burden of proof. Theists have made their claims. But they haven't met their burden of proof. In reality, it's not even the atheist turn to respond. In reality, atheists are STILL waiting for theists to meet their burden of proof. I just thought I'ld add that.
GDR writes:
The Bible is an ancient text. Somebody, or for that matter, several somebodies wrote it. They say that the resurrection happened. That is evidence
No, it's not evidence. It's an unverifiable anecdote. Like people saying that Elvis lives, that they've been abducted and probed by aliens, that they saw bigfoot,....
Anecdotes are NOT evidence.
Secondly, the bible IS the claim. You only know about it because the bible says it. In essence, what you are saying here, is that the bible is evidence of the bible. It's called circular reasoning...
GDR writes:
They may be mistaken, they may be lying or they may be writing about what really happened. So we do have evidence which we can choose to accept or reject as you have done.
Again, we do not have evidence. We only have baseless claims in the form of anecdotes from decades, centuries after the alledged fact. And it's a translation of copies of copies of translations of copies of translations. With nothing outside of the bible to back it up.
Hardly compelling, ha?
GDR writes:
The Christian belief is that the resurrection was a once only occurrence that was outside the bounds of what we consider to be natural.
Do you consider that to be a rational belief?
Honestly... what is the most plausible here?
That some incredibly magical, supernatural, unprecedented and never repeated event occured...
Or that these people are just wrong/deluded/lied to/lying?
Honestly...
GDR writes:
I guess I'm not convinced that the only thing that can be considered as evidence is that which is testable.
Would you stand by that statement if you were wrongfully accused of a murder and about to be sentenced to life in prison based on only an anecdote and no direct/verifiable/testable evidence at all?
Again: honestly... would you?
GDR writes:
The material world does exist and we know a great deal about how it exists, but there remains the big philosophical question, which is why does it exist at all. Why is there something instead of nothing?
I don't see how that question has another answer then the how question...
It's like asking "why are there mountains?" The answer to that seems to be the same as the answer to "how do mountains form?".
But I suspect that you are trying to look for purpose where there isn't any (or at least: where there doesn't seem to be any).
GDR writes:
You may not claim that no god(s) exist but it seems to me that you are claiming that if they do that we can't know anything about them.
No. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. At least in context of gods like the judeo-christian one. A god that interferes with the natural world SHOULD be detectable.
In the end though, wheter we could know about them/him or not would entirely depend on the definition of said god(s). If you define him/her/them as an entity that 'exists' outside of space time and without ANY interaction with the natural world... then yes, we can't know about them.
But that would be deism. Theistic gods would necessarily interact with the natural world (listening and responding to prayers, resurecting dead humans, revealing scripture, etc etc etc).
And again, as far as theistic gods are concerned... we have the scriptures... we can test the stuff contained therein. We might not be able to test your deity of choice directly, but we CAN test things in the natural world attributed to that deity through scriptures.
GDR writes:
That proof or argument doesn't exist but neither does it exist for what you believe.
That's because there isn't something that I believe... that's exactly the point. There is something that I DO NOT believe - because of lack of evidence.
And once more, we come back to the burden of proof and you trying to shift it.
You don't have evidence that Thor doesn't exist. Right? So you know how it is to NOT believe something (for which there is no positive evidence) without evidence.
Your god is no different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by GDR, posted 05-21-2011 6:47 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by GDR, posted 05-25-2011 7:40 PM ScientificBob has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024