DescentBB

Stryker wrote:It seems everyone on here has the smug view that they know it all. WE DON'T.

Quite the contrary, my point is that we don't know it all, but overzealous Christians think they do.

Stryker wrote:There is oodles of evidence that there IS a God. Mountains of it. A universe of it.

Really? Give me factual evidence that proves the existence of God. There is a universe. There are mountains. That does not mean there is a God.

Stryker wrote:Dcrazy, if you're gonna complain about circular logic, how about this:

There is matter. How did it get there? It's always been there. But how did it get to always be there? It's always been there.

Eh? Am I the only one that sees that both of these points of view are using somewhat circular logic?

You're misunderstanding the matter argument. First of all, scientists do not claim to know everything about matter, especially not going to far to claim that it's always been there. Hell, nobody's sure if the universe has been around forever. We don't know if time is linear or if it is possible to jump around. We don't know these things, and that's why scientific observations are called theories, unlike in religion where unsubstantiated claims can, and often are, called truths.

Stryker wrote:I do not let a "book" dictate my every belief. My every belief is founded on God's Word. If you believe it's "just another book", I'm sorry for you. It is not just a book; it's the most-sold, most-published, most-produced, most-translated "book" in the world.

It's more than a "book". It's a "book", more than half of which is comprised of 5,000-year-old stories that were told by word of mouth until language was invented, and the other half of which was written at least 40 years and up to 200 years after the events described therein took place. It is a "book" written by men to guide and convert. The Gospels themselves were written by four men with different audiences and different takes on the meaning of Jesus's existence. It's a powerful book, it's a meaningful spiritual guide, but you cannot blatantly assert that it is "God's Word". You have to prove that God exists first. See step 1.

Stryker wrote:About everyone's smug little "different, not bad" theology: People who kill others are different. Does that make them bad?

Also, everyone on this earth is "different". Thus, by simple logic, we all have something in common: we are different. Therefore, we are similar in that respect.

Definitely not arguing with you here. Different is not always to be condoned. There is a reason that over the course of human history we have developed the concept of a society, where people are held to certain standards to enjoy the benefits of mutual respect and care.

Stryker wrote:I believe every word of the Bible. There are a few parts, such as many of Jesus' parables, that are figurative because HE TOLD THEM AS FIGURATIVE STORIES. The rest is quite clearly literal. The story of "Jonah and the whale" is quite clearly misnamed. The Bible never said Jonah was swallowed by a whale; it said he was swallowed by a "giant fish". There's a difference.

Do you believe every word of Job? Because, you know, like Jonah's story, it was made up.

Stryker wrote:Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt? Why the heck not? You're dealing with an infinite God that created the universe. He can probably make salt statues.

You have to prove God exists before you can use his existence as justification that the "pillar of salt" was the work of God. Inductive versus deductive reasoning. If it were a firsthand account (i.e. YOU yourself saw Lot's wife changed into a pillar of salt) then you could use it as evidence of an outside force (God, some universal salt-making force, whatever... take your pick). However, since you are working with a millenia-year-old document that went through generational transitions, you have no basis in fact for the events described.

Stryker wrote:Kazillion things in the Bible that you would think was bunk? Bad grammar, (;)) bad theology. The Bible is the Word of God; it has no reason or need to lie.

I sound like a broken record. You need to prove that God exists before you can use the argument that the Bible is the word of God. Therefore you cannot use the Bible as proof that God exists!

Stryker wrote:I'm with Thorne on this one. But I think both sides need to step back and smell the hypocrasy--it's emanating from some of you like the smell of dead fish. Neither is pleasant.

Which is the purpose of analytical reasoning. See above post.

Stryker wrote:I don't claim to know it all. I do the best I can with my own logic. But sheepdog, if you believe in one part of the Bible, how can you not believe in another? The whole purpose of the Bible is to tell a story--the story of Jesus' death, resurrection, and the future glory to come. If you do not believe in one part of this story, the entire story seems to become very unstable. If one part of the Bible is wrong, who's to say that one of the gospels isn't wrong? Genesis? Romans? Once you start thinking that "well, this part can't be right" you put yourself on a slope that eventually leads to the conclusion that none of it can be right.

The only reason you are so afraid of that "slope" is that you blindly believe that it's the wrong path to travel. You can't be afraid to question your own beliefs. If Einstein were afraid of questioning his environment, he never would have said that time, not velocity, changed for a moving observer. Likewise, you cannot wholly accept something as true unless you willingly release yourself from its comfort.

Stryker wrote:Homophobia? Get over it guys. I don't think any of us are afraid of gays because of their sexuality--if anything, gays are to be feared because of the militant radicalism that rewrites out school textbooks, attempts to erase our national heritage, and threatens to destroy the whole concept of democracy. Gays need to get over their heterophobia, if anything. They have freedom to do whatever they like--just don't thrust yourself in front of us and tell us that you need special privilidges and rights because you perform unnatural acts with another homo.

Despite the derogatory tone, I agree. In general, people need to stop labeling the mainstream as "wrong" and the deviant as "right".

Stryker wrote:And thus, I garner the typical hoard of liberal, anti-christian, and/or "you're an idiot" posts.

listen clown shoes...
this topic is friggin' dead as far as i'm concerned. i'm not anti-christian... i was diggin' up an old joke. i'm not a liberal. all these people want is money, just like heterosexuals. i believe in EQUALITY and that means for single heterosexuals like myself who don't get to reap the financial benefits of marriage.

if you take away any benefit OR penalty for choosing a particular relationship there would be no debate at all. this includes benefits/penalties from insurance companies and government agencies. (and that greedy assumption i'm gonna buy you a blender because you delude yourself with this concept of monogamy.)

you are arguing from a religious perspective. my argument is from a financial perspective. you're talking about â??gods willâ??. i'm talking about dollar signs, baybay.

so put a sock in it... you sexy beast.

Stryker, let me first start out by saying that I'm a practicing Catholic. Let me then say that using the type of arguments you're using won't get you anywhere. Many people, both here and in the real world, don't believe in God, or that the Bible is anything more than a collection of ancient writings. There's nothing wrong with this view; as you yourself said, diversity makes the world a better place. However, if you're trying to have a discussion with someeone who doesn't believe in God, you can't use the argument of the Bible as being divinely inspired, because, frankly, it doesn't make any sense. It's like arguing who the MVP of the World Series was with a person who has absolutely no interest in baseball; the discussion is pointless. Instead, follow the advice of DCrazy and others and step outside of yourself. Look at things from the other side's point of view, and reformulate your arguments. Remember, it's only by questioning one's faith that one can become stronger in it.

As for the literal interpretation of the Bible, there are many people out there, myself included, who would disagree that every word of the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate. The Bible is composed of many different types of literary styles written down by many people over many years. It includes such forms as parables, allegories, poems, songs, narrative accounts, genealogies, and epistles. Not everything in the Bible was written to be historically accurate; it's often the message behind the words that matters. For instance, do I believe that the universe was created exactly as laid out in Genesis about 6000 years ago? Do I think that there were people who lived over 700 years? Do I think Lot's wife was actually transformed into a pillar of salt? No. This doesn't harm my faith in any way, however. I belive that the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired, and I believe that much of theh Bible is literally true, but I also recognize that parts of it are not meant to be literally true. Saying that the Bible has to be taken completely literally or not at all ignores the actual purpose of much of the Bible.

Stryker wrote:And thus, I garner the typical hoard of liberal, anti-christian, and/or "you're an idiot" posts.

People like you, who assume binary "If he disagrees, he is an idiot" and who toss around labels represent everything that's wrong with this country today.

What Bible-thumpers conveniently forget is that America was founded in part on religious freedom. Insomuch as you might want it to be, there is no "church" that rules the country. The Pope is not in control of everyone's lives. We are no longer in the Dark Ages. No sir, America was built on tolerance and understanding. It's a deplorable shame that some holier-than-thou nuts believe it's their godly duty to convert everyone to their line of thought, and thus instill the same kind of religious tyranny that pervades over the Middle East.

Practice tolerance. I don't hate you for your Biblical views. I hate those who try to foist them on everyone and assume they either "get it" or are idiots.

Stryker wrote:There is oodles of evidence that there IS a God. Mountains of it. A universe of it. Dcrazy,

Then you should have no problems proving it. Let us hear from your cornucopia of overwhelming evidence.

Wheee, I think the can of worms has just been opened.

Top Gun wrote:Do I think that there were people who lived over 700 years?

Everyone knows that's not what that means when the Bible says those people lived that long. I've spent many a long hour trying to figure out what that plain speech really means. I'm sure there's some mystical meaning encoded in there somewhere, I'm just not looking hard enough. Sergeant Thorne stares at the page 'til he starts to look like Marty Feldman.

To say you believe every word in the Bible, as Thorne points out, is a loaded phrase intrinsically. The Bible, like any good book, can be interpreted in many ways. One person reading it does not walk away with the same impression as another person does. Hence, so much of Christian science is based on these interpretations and trying to figure out exactly what was meant.

The Bible should challenge its readers to think and consider what it presents for themselves, rather than taking everything at face value.

Thorne didn't point out sh*t. Thorne was being totally sarcastic. 700+ years old is 700+ years old. Interpretation is just a way of making the Bible say what you (editorially, as well as personally) want it to say/can accept, instead of what it clearly says! Then there's figurative speech/writing.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Interpretation is just a way of making the Bible say what you (editorially, as well as personally) want it to say/can accept, instead of what it clearly says!

Maybe clearly to you. I'd be hard pressed to find that every Christian in this country believes in the exact same definition.

Kyouryuu wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Interpretation is just a way of making the Bible say what you (editorially, as well as personally) want it to say/can accept, instead of what it clearly says!

Maybe clearly to you. I'd be hard pressed to find that every Christian in this country believes in the exact same definition.

You'd be absolutely right, Kyouryuu.

It's because the Bible, whoever wrote it aside, is like any classic piece of literature. Just because you read "To Kill a Mockingbird" and see it one way doesn't mean the next person will. Same for "Moby Disk," "Of Mice and Men," "The Catcher in the Rye," and so on. There are entire courses dedicated to reading and analyzing these great literary works. If everyone came to the same conclusion, there'd be nothing to talk about. Fortunately, there are many different perspectives on the table. A black person reading "Mockingbird" could arrive at a very different reaction than a white person, for example. Some readers might think Holden Caulfield is an angsty self-centered brat, but others might feel he is ultimately compassionate.

The best literature doesn't tell us exactly what to think and the best readers are willing to be challenged by the authors and submit their own conclusions. Literature would be a pretty dull study if everyone thought the same way.

I know this is off the posted topic, but the current discussion about Biblical interpretation is something I feel strongly about.

Stryker wrote:I believe every word of the Bible. There are a few parts, such as many of Jesus' parables, that are figurative because HE TOLD THEM AS FIGURATIVE STORIES. The rest is quite clearly literal...

Stryker, I don't know exactly what you mean by 'the rest', but it sounds like you feel as strongly as I do about the truth of Biblical scripture, and the importance of good interpretation. I hope you get a chance to study or even take some courses in Biblical studies (exegetical/hermeneutical interpretation). I'm not a theologian by any means (my majors in college were Math & Physics), but I had the chance to take three or four good courses with some excellent teachers.

If you're interested, I would highly recommend this book: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. It's one that I still refer to at times, especially if I'm looking at a passage where it's tough to see if the meaning is primarily literal, poetic, figurative, apocalyptic, etc. It's really amazing to see how many different types of writing comprise the Bible, and how much you can get from this kind of study.

Kyouryuu wrote:...the Bible, whoever wrote it aside, is like any classic piece of literature... There are entire courses dedicated to reading and analyzing these great literary works. If everyone came to the same conclusion, there'd be nothing to talk about. Fortunately, there are many different perspectives on the table. A black person reading "Mockingbird" could arrive at a very different reaction than a white person, for example...
The best literature doesn't tell us exactly what to think and the best readers are willing to be challenged by the authors and submit their own conclusions.

If you're taking Biblical scripture from a purely literary point of view, I think I'd agree with you.

However, from my perspective as a Christian, the Bible is unique from other literary works; it reflects an Absolute Truth that is not totally open to subjective interpretation. This is not to say that different people cannot get different depths of meaning from the same passage; what it means is that the interpretation is not just up to the individual. For example, if I were to read and somehow personally interpret part of the Bible as saying "good=evil", the truth of the matter still stands despite my 'own conclusions'.

By the way, "To Kill a Mockingbird" is one of my favorites; people can come away from such a powerful story with a variety of impressions.

Top Gun wrote:The Bible is composed of many different types of literary styles written down by many people over many years. It includes such forms as parables, allegories, poems, songs, narrative accounts, genealogies, and epistles. Not everything in the Bible was written to be historically accurate; it's often the message behind the words that matters. ... This doesn't harm my faith in any way, however. I belive that the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired, and I believe that much of theh Bible is literally true, but I also recognize that parts of it are not meant to be literally true. Saying that the Bible has to be taken completely literally or not at all ignores the actual purpose of much of the Bible.

Well said!

There's a guy who used to go out to the graduate school I attended, and preach/debate with students who passed by. I always admired his dedication, but there were times that he got mired in arguments about things like the exact dates of the original events in the Old Testament; it made me want to scream "You're missing the point!", since the real meaning of the events usually got lost in the debate.


Anyway, that's my three cents.