I answered the OP way back on page 2 and the topic I'm talking about with Lightbringer was the one brought up by him and in line with what the OP said.
I am not turning the thread into anything, why do you think I am?
Also why aren't you calling him out as well?
Regardless of that, I take this as an opportunity to invite you to join our discussion.
You did much more than that. You killed the original thread topic. I'm not here to defend his or your perspective on Bible. None of my business. But neither of you convincing each other of anything. Instead I noticed start of personal insults.
I think this is time either this thread returns to initial discussion or the thread gets closed.
You did much more than that. You killed the original thread topic. I'm not here to defend his or your perspective on Bible. None of my business. But neither of you convincing each other of anything. Instead I noticed start of personal insults.
I think this is time either this thread returns to initial discussion or the thread gets closed.
You're implying people left the thread after I started posting but I posted way back in page 2.
I addressed the original topic and as I said, the topic we're talking about is tied to the original topic.
If you wish to close the thread do it but before you start accusing me of things take your time to actually notice and appreciate the fact that I'm the one who's encouraging actual replies and arguments rather than empty trash talk
You're implying people left the thread after I started posting but I posted way back in page 2.
I addressed the original topic and as I said, the topic we're talking about is tied to the original topic.
If you wish to close the thread do it but before you start accusing me of things take your time to actually notice and appreciate the fact that I'm the one who's encouraging actual replies and arguments rather than empty trash talk
I noticed that you shifted the goalpost and stubbornly justifying doing that. The word religion doesn't mean bible only but let's for a second accept that Bible is word of some god and is accurate and whatever you said can verified. [The idea of god presented in the Bible still doesn't fit with the my idea of what a god should be nor I'm seeking one at the time. So don't go sending me PMs anyone] Now that, that's out of the way:
I say it's methodology still isn't same as sciences as the original post presented but based on word of mouth. What you can tell us about that in 100 words or less?
I noticed that you shifted the goalpost and stubbornly justifying doing that. The word religion doesn't mean bible only but let's for a second accept that Bible is word of some god and is accurate and whatever you said can verified. So? The idea of god presented in the Bible still doesn't fit with the my idea of what a god should be nor I'm seeking one at the time. Now that, that's out of the way:
I say it's methodology still isn't same as sciences as the original post presented but based on word of mouth. What you can tell us about that?
I wasn't the one who brought up the Bible remember? He acted, I reacted. No goals were shifted on my side. I merely latched on to problems presented already.
Feel free to comment on Lightbringer introducing issues of the problem of evil,divine attributes etc. I was the one sticking to the topic which was already introduced before. I did not change anything.
Also I do agree with you that religion (specifically Christianity) does not mean only Bible. What you're describing here is a doctrine named sola scriptura, which I don't endorse. This is quite clear given the fact that I based much of what I said in the debate on Church tradition and Church Fathers.
As for your criteria for being a legit god, you haven't explained them so there's nothing I could say about it.
Finally, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're asking me to illustrate the commonalities between science and Biblical scholarship.
The latter is, obviously, a branch of history so it boils down to the differences between scientific method and historical method.
I will say that the main difference is that while science deals with (or at the very least is based on) facts that can be repeatedly tested, history is about events that happened or lasted in the past and hence cannot be tested but only discovered.
However, at least in the modern day, they're both disciplines that strive hard to discover objective realities and need an objective and systematic methodology to reach that goal.
Some criteria that modern historians adopt are:
Criterion of antiquity: the earlier the source, the more reliable it is
Criterion of multiple and independent attestations: If several sources that are independent from one another tell us exactly the same story, then that story is very likely to be true
Criterion of embarrassment: if a source tells a story in which the author looks bad, then that story has a major probability of being true.
Another point in common between science and history is that they both leave space to speculations. With the data they possess, both a historian and a scientist can formulate theories and models. The multiverse on one hand and the Q source on the other are clear examples.
Finally, science and history can cooperate. If a historian needs to analyze a certain ancient manuscript, for example, she would most likely utilize instruments that science can give her.
Edit: Those perhaps are more than 100 words. You edited your post after I quoted it
I wasn't the one who brought up the Bible remember? He acted, I reacted. No goals were shifted on my side. I merely latched on to problems presented already.
Feel free to comment on Lightbringer introducing issues of the problem of evil,divine attributes etc. I was the one sticking to the topic which was already introduced before. I did not change anything.
What you're describing here is a doctrine named sola scriptura, which I don't endorse. This is quite clear given the fact that I based much of what I said in the debate on Church tradition and Church Fathers.
Nope. That's study based on linguistics, history, sociology and theology etc. But that's not my point either. I'm saying that unless you are claiming they both use exactly the same methods and can be tested in exactly the same way 100% of the times, this whole argument is redundant. Some commonalities aren't enough to claim they are identical.
The latter is, obviously, a branch of history so it boils down to the differences between scientific method and historical method.
I will say that the main difference is that while science deals with (or at the very least is based on) facts that can be repeatedly tested, history is about events that happened or lasted in the past and hence cannot be tested but only discovered.
That's my point. That's why the OP was wrong in the first place claiming that theories based on
history, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology are just the same as scientific ones.
However, at least in the modern day, they're both disciplines that strive hard to discover objective realities and need an objective and systematic methodology to reach that goal.
I appreciate their effort and still couldn't care less. I saw whole drama when someone was given sainthood. The way they created miracles in retrospect. I have seen similar cases in other religions too though among Hindus and modern Muslims usually it's just group of people and not organizations giving such titles in their case. At the end of the day all these religious people are adding faith and willingness to believe, in the mix.
Some criteria that modern historians adopt are:
Criterion of antiquity: the earliest the source, the more reliable it is
Criterion of multiple and independent attestations: If several sources independent from one another tell us exactly the same story, then that story is very likely to be true
Criterion of embarrassment: if a source tells a story in which the author looks bad, then that story has a major probability of being true.
Another point in common between science and history is that they both leave space to speculations. With the data they possess, both a historian and a scientist can formulate theories and models. The multiverse on one hand and the Q source on the other are clear examples.
Religion or biblilic study is not just history. It adds textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology. I hope you are just forgetting that part and not trying to mislead intentionally here.
History is fine but irrelevant to my point. Because we know how the history is written- from writer's perspective and depending upon who is going to pay for the book. Usually the winning side. And a lot of it gets politicized to no end.
Finally, science and history can cooperate. If a historian needs to analyze a certain ancient manuscript, for example, she would most likely utilize instruments that science can give her.
They can but if the " religious" historians are going to claim they use the same criteria and everything is already written, while some of them go on to argue that NASA is photo-shopping to make the earth a globe, they have no moral right to ask to use it's instruments. But that's just my opinion. Remember that if they do not represent all the religious people, neither do you. You cannot argue for them all, fine as your personal take on religion maybe.
I appreciate that you accepted religious books are arts subject not science.
Like I said, it doesn't work that way. YOU are the one that wastes his time and energy putting faith into something without any actual evidence if it even exists or not. It's not really the jobs of the non-believers to prove anything, since they are non believers.
But since you have been asked twice to prove Gods existence in this thread and can only reply with "Can you disprove God", you don't even know what you are believing in, and can only go by sheer faith on your emotions and just plain ignorance when being asked a simple yes or no question, I don't even think you even know what you believe in, and just want to believe just to believe.
But like I said, it's not my place to tell you how to live, so have fun believing in something that you can't prove.
Nope.*That's study based on linguistics, history, sociology and theology etc. But that's not my point either.*I'm saying that unless you are claiming they both use exactly the same methods and can be tested in exactly the same way 100% of the times, this whole argument is*redundant.*Some commonalities aren't enough to claim they are identical.*
I 100% agree, they're not a 100% same. Not sure which argument you're referring to as redundant.
That's my point. That's why the OP was wrong in the first place claiming that theories based on* history, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology are just the same as scientific ones.
I appreciate their effort and still couldn't care less. I saw whole drama when someone was given sainthood. The way they created miracles in retrospect. I have seen similar cases in other religions too though among Hindus and modern Muslims usually it's just group of people and not organizations giving such titles in their case. At the end of the day all these religious people are adding faith and willingness to believe, in the mix.
I don't see how fabricated miracles have much to do with the paragraph you quoted.
Religion or biblilic study is not just history. It adds textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology. I hope you are just forgetting that part and not trying to mislead intentionally here.*
Not forgetting but also not misleading. Just pointing out the similarities between history (which is one element of the studies in question) to natural sciences.
Also, those other branches like linguistics still aim for historical conclusions so history is kinda the relevant thing here.
History is fine but irrelevant to my point. Because we know how the history is written- from writer's perspective and depending upon who is going to pay for the book. Usually the winning side. And a lot of it gets politicized to no end.
They can but if the " religious" historians are going to claim they use the same criteria and everything is already written, while some of them go on to argue that NASA is photo-shopping to make the earth a globe, they have no moral right to ask to use it's instruments. But that's just my opinion. Remember that if they do not represent all the religious people, neither do you. You cannot argue for them all, fine as your personal take on religion maybe.
Just to point out that there are other concepts and you shouldn't be acting to be speaking for " religion" as whole when you are only referring to your personal understanding of it. Nothing more than that.
I 100% agree, they're not a 100% same. Not sure which argument you're referring to as redundant.
Not forgetting but also not misleading. Just pointing out the similarities between history (which is one element of the studies in question) to natural sciences.
But in that case you were only referring to a fraction of those Biblical studies. If you leave rest of it out, when it's the totality of it that makes it religion it's not honest.
Also, those other branches like linguistics still aim for historical conclusions so history is kinda the relevant thing here.
Theology too? Historical parts cannot be proven beyond a doubt even in current age of information technology when politics gets involved but whatever. Miracles and existence of god has no historical proof only historical claims.
Already did in rest of the paragraph. Did you stop reading at first line?
deadlift said:
jean grey said:
They can but if the " religious" historians are going to claim they use the same criteria and everything is already written, while some of them go on to argue that NASA is photo-shopping to make the earth a globe, they have no moral right to ask to use it's instruments. But that's just my opinion. Remember that if they do not represent all the religious people, neither do you. You cannot argue for them all, fine as your personal take on religion maybe.
But in that case you were only referring to a fraction of those Biblical studies. If you leave rest of it out, when it's the totality of it that makes it religion it's not honest.*
Historical parts cannot be proven beyond a doubt even in current age if information technology. There is little evidence of anything that predates written documents and even when written parts are often written by those who also had other goals in their mind not just recording the events like a machine and let their fancies affect the literature. Miracles and existence of god has no historical proof only historical claims.*
Jesus is almost universally recognized as having been an Israelite preacher, healer and an exorcist. A prophet who was christened by John the Baptist, who gathered followers, was tried for causing unrest among the Jews and was sentenced to death on the cross after which his followers have come to believe that he rose from the dead and carried on his message. This is not religious fantasizing. This is a historical fact.
You've already proved incapable of handling the arguments I presented and I've already indulged you long enough. You were the one who begged me to debate you. You failed to convince me or anyone of the points you were making.
The fact that a Mod can point out your inability to comprehend her points and stay on topic only supports what I was saying and why I originally didn't want to argue this any further.
That was the whole premise of OP that any of the people were arguing with. If you are finally accepting that you never addressed it till now , then you are also accepting that your arguments were redundant to thread topic.
Those studies then have no relevance in this thread if they are not to be conflated with religion. You are repeatedly accepting that most of what you have been arguing had little to do with the thread.
We are super done especially after seeing this statement of yours: "Good to see you're hiding behind a mod's back. " Being a mod has little to do with my ability to point the problems in your argument.
I've been thinking about this stuff lately, and you know... I found out that science and religion actually have a lot in common, a lot more than i thought. In *religion you have the bible and those who are devoted to it. To their accordance, god is real and everything written in the bible is true, and you shouldn't question the existence of god or sin, or else your soul will go to hell. Then when it comes to science, you'll have someone like Neil Degrasse (for example) give you their explanation why the moon landing was real, and you're not allowed to question it or come up with your own explanation or else you would be ignored or treated as an idiot. This goes for everything else, this was only an example.
People would rather blindly belive in something someone else says than their own intuition, than question said things, and do their own personal research, not entirely based on what someone else says. And often if you question people they'll just say oh well you just don't belive in science, you're just crazy etc. here! look, it's the evidence. Then they'll show you the exact same thing they blindly trust and follow. They limit themselves to think for themselves and it's a damn shame.
Why can't people do their own rational research and use logic based on their own personal experiences, research, and belives rather than someone else's? God is fake. Well, why can't we think of a possibility for god to exist instead of straight up saying it and claiming everything in the bible is bullcrap? The dinosaurs were real. Ok, why can't we question that either, find some actual bones ourselves and study them instead of saying oh this guy said it and he's an archeologist so it's true, here's the evidence, you're stupid, nice tin foil hat.
It's such a shame. It's always A or B, there is no C.
The same logic applies to pretty much everything else. This is one of the main reasons why society keeps going downhill and we see so many people rioting and calling eachother trash and racists etc.
Similar to how the relationships between languages can be represented in a genealogical tree, you can draw familial connections between the different concepts of belief. Mythology, religion, philosophy, science...they are all branches of the same tree, so obviously they share several characteristics. That doesn't take away though that they are very well different from each other and the way how you describe science is completely off the mark. It's quite ironic you're saying people should do their own research, but then make it obvious you actually don't understand at all how science works, but do drop statements about it.
No this is not science what you describe. You just described religion twice, so it's no wonder you think they are the same.
You are very well allowed to question deGrasse, but why would you? You are apparently under the impression that when scientists make statements, they are randomly choosing which ones and that you have to accept whatever they say without questioning for no reason. That's not the case. Hundreds of people were involved in preparing the moonlanding project on top of the actual people who participated in and witnessed it. Everything they did has been recorded in numerous archival records and many objects related to the project remain. All of these have thoroughly been researched multiple times by different people. deGrasse is an expert about all of these things, so we expect him to be speaking the truth when he says how the moonlanding happened.
That is not some kind of blind, irrational believe you make it out to be. That's common sense. When you eat in a 3-star restaurant do you question the abilities of the cooks to cook? When you go to the hospital to get surgery do you question the abilities of the doctors? When you bring in your car for repairs in a garage, do you question the abilities of the mechanics? No. Why? Because it's what they do, it's what they studied and worked for and we use that automatically as a guarantee of what they say and do. deGrasse is the same.
So yeah if someone then reasons that his intuition says that it weren't humans who manned the Apollo rocket, but highly intelligent capybara's, then yes that person is an utter idiot. Or why do you think we have specialists and experts who went through years of college and research? Because it's flat-out impossible for everyone to question and research everything. Not only would that render the point of doing it in the first place completely mute (after all if everyone questions everyone and everything, we will make zero progress as we don't believe what other people say), but it's also impossible. A society can't function that way, this is simply absurd and that's why we have people like deGrasse as they do that for us. Just like how we vote for the politicians we want to represent us, we expect that people who studied in specific fields know what they are talking about.
Why can't they think of a possibility for God to exist...what? The purpose of science is to find out the truth, not to make all the things you want, work. That's the exact opposite of science as scientists who manipulate their research to get the desired results are not preforming genuine scientific research. What you say doesn't even make sense.
Btw archeology is the study of the materialistic remains of human civilization. Paleontology deals with the fossils of everything before that. For both of them you also need to be knowledgable about geology, geography and history among other things. You can't even get the correct description, let alone that you should be going digging after fossils. Not only could that be, depending on where you are, against the law, but you could possibly irreversibly damage or destroy the things you find and contaminate the site, making it impossible for the people who do have the skill and knowledge to draw trustworthy conclusions.
Also people have been purposefully digging up fossils and objects for around 200 years and humanity has been working underground for millennia, which definitely resulted in them finding similar things unintentionally. This is currently done around the world by numerous experts of different origins, countries, ethnicities and beliefs, but almost all of them are on the same page here about dinosaurs. So if you then start questioning the existence of dinosaurs despite the overwhelming evidence and propose to dig them up yourself while knowing absolutely nothing about how that is done, then you deserve that tin foil hat.
Yes there have been times in history that disagreeing with the classical masters from a thousand years ago was considered sacrilege and that you should accept it without questioning, however that resulted in science making little progress. The moment they realized that, is when science started flourishing. And yes you always have progressive and conservative tendencies within scientific communities. However if something is true, it's true and the more research that will be done, the more that that will become obvious and eventually they will have no other choice than to accept it. Why? Because that's how science works. There are examples of scientists formulating theories that were discarded because they were too drastically different from the current conceptions. But when it appeared that after more research was done and that pointed towards the same direction, they accepted it. Likewise many of the most well-known theories are not exactly the same as when they were first formulated as due to new discoveries alterations had to be made.
What is NOT science however is irrationally questioning everything without reason and then playing for a wannabee expert in things you know nothing about.
While I find it nice to see that you responded to my post I can't help but notice that you didn't pay much attention to it as you misunderstood my argument right off the bat, and in the most basic way. I never said what's written in the Bible is purely a product of man working all on his own. Rather, I believe I was very explicit that God did speak, that God did inspire and assist. (Hence why I call my view progressive REVELATION, not progressive pondering.) What I was arguing against was the idea that the Bible (all of the combined canonical writings) were whispered word for word as a "cover-to-cover history“.
I absolutely affirm that God did speak to the authors of the Bible, but not with the goal of presenting them the entirety of revelation right away, but rather as working in the given limitations of the author in question and slowly shedding those limitations away as the generations went by.
I already said this before, all the texts were written by people who lived in a certain historical period, were influenced by it and recorded the events they witnessed through the lenses of it. For there to be human agency in the revelation process, the revelation must've inevitably been looked at through human eyes.
Now, I see you decided to actually provide some support for your fundamental assertion which underlies all your other arguments one way or another and you did this by attempting to show that the Biblical writings themselves show that God preached literally a cover-to-cover history. While I am going to tackle all of these in a moment I first want to stop and reflect on the fact that you merely pasted incomplete verses without even mentioning the texts from which they were taken.
This is a crucial point because every verse in the Bible is dependant on the general nature of the text from which it was pulled. I find this effort of yours to be deeply flawed and incomplete and I now run the risk of confusing the passage you provided with some other passage from some other text which you did not in fact quote.
Nonetheless, I will do your work for you, but you should really try to take more responsibility in your position. Now I will look at the individual verses. Needless to say, doing so will require quite a lot of text given how you shot-gunned me with literally a dozen verses.
I believe this verse is taken from the Book of Exodus and is referring to the decalogue being given to Moses. After I said this one sentence, any support that this may have seemed to give to your position immediately evaporates as this is referring to just one part of a narrative which was itself written from the perspective of Moses and this particular quotation is an announcement of God revealing the ten commandments to Moses.
It is NOT a statement of endorsement for everything that was written by every author in every of the religious texts found in the Bible. (There wasn't even such a body of texts to be confirmed at the time of this narrative) The verse is thus incomplete and taken out of context.
Now here you're quoting a verse from the Epistle to Timothy, one of the pseudodigraphical Pauline epistles written to an early Christian, Paul's disciple Timothy. I have a couple things to say about this:
1) All the verse says is that the scripture was breathed out by God, meaning inspired and theologically significant which I never denied but instead affirmed
2) Timothy too (much like Paul who was his mentor and whose theology he inherited), being a Christian, believes in the fundamental tenets of Christianity which I will mention later on in this post, so brace yourself before I get to that.
This is a quote from another epistle, namely to Hebrews, which was written by a Hellenistic Jew who converted to Christianity and for a long time attributed to Paul. I will again tell you to remember point (2) in my previous rebuttal as I will get to that later on.
Regardless, nothing here supports your fundamentalist views. All the verse says is that God spoke, He said something. Ironically, here we see the verse mention God speaking in "various portions and in various ways“ which actually lends slight credence over to what I've been saying. God talks to different people differently.
Again, this is another quote from the Exodus which portrays God revealing what is essentially the Law later presented in Leviticus and it has nothing to do with such a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible.
Just a passage from Deuteronomy which is a retelling of the Exodus story and a repeated affirmation of the law given to Moses by God. Has nothing to do with the topic.
This here is taken from the second book of Samuel and is a part of a greater recalling of David's days as a ruler. In this text David is again not talking about the same thing we are talking but is poetically describing his confidence and trust in God. He portrays all the troubles he faced as king, the pressures his enemies put on his kingdom and describes God as the "Rock“ on which he can rely on, the Lord who is his shield and sanctuary. This is what this particular verse refers to:
It is clear that he is referring to God's own instructions to him and help He has recieved during his rule rather than being an endorsement of a certain view on exegesis.
And finally, we get to the only verse here that seems to give some shred of support to what you're saying but this too is only if we take it at face value and ignore its origin. You are here quoting an enigmatic figure called Agur who is featured only in a single chapter of the Book of Proverbs and of whom nothing else is known. (Further pointing out that the Book itself isn't a history book that doesn't allow people to study it.)
Proverbs itself is a part of the larger collection of books called the Books of Wisdom or „Writings“ and interestingly enough, much like the Book of Psalms it doesn't present hard-cold dogma but personal philosophies. It's an excellent example of Jewish thought which was divided into multiple camps. For example the other books of Wisdom disagree with Proverbs, and even different people mentioned in the proverbs disagree with each other.
The book doesn't present infallible dogma but lessons on life, morality etc. Much like how Psalms are poetry which has for its purpose the use in liturgy, it is of a second-rate theological value, and the prophetical narratives (which are themselves conclusively trumped by the New Testament writings) take priority over it. (Even more so when the author you're quoting is an insignificant figure himself.)
Again, you're quoting Timothy here and I will tell you to stick to that point (2) for a bit longer. Also this is taken from a letter that is foreshadowing a moral and spiritual blindness and degradation. Just a few verses earlier, Paul talks about how terrible things will happen in the last times and how as Christians we must stick to sound teachings. The same message is also talked about immediately after the verse you provided hence you're hiding the original context of the letter.
A quote from Revelation, the last book added to the Biblical canon and the most controversial one of them all. Not to mention, you conveniently used the translation which says „book“ when it can alternatively be translated as "scroll“ which actually refers to the Revelation itself which John (supposedly) saw and does NOT refer to the entirety of the Biblical texts which we are talking about.
This would be crystal clear to anyone who bothered to actually read the Book of Revelation, and the fact that you come up with an objection like this constitutes, perhaps more than everything else you said, a knock down proof of your incompetence, your dishonesty. your bad faith and your hopelessness.
Another quote from the Pauline Epistles. This time it's Galatians and is actually referring (as it plainly says) to the Gospel which refers to the story of Jesus, the message of salvation which is again not something that has to do with the entirety of the Biblical texts.
Seeing how the last quote was a Pauline quote, and seeing how I've covered all the quotes you've provided, I think it's good time to shed some light on the mysterious point (2) which I brought up way back in your first point on Timothy.
What we're talking about here is a Christian Bible, not the Jewish Tanakh, not the Islamic Quran. The Christian Bible takes the Old Testament from Judaism and it ADDS onto it the New Testament, which is the revelation of Jesus Christ. When it comes to theological matters the New Testament ALWAYS takes priority over the Old Testament. The Old Testament is read and interpreted in the light of the New Testament. This is true for the Church today, for the Church of the past as well as for the early Christians (who are the authors of the New Testament texts) and even Jesus (the God of Christianity) himself.
The entire idea of Old and New Covenants is that of surpassing the old and going into the new. Jesus himself was crucified for spreading what the Jews considered heretical and his very notion of being a messiah, while expected by the Old Testament texts, is understood in a completely new light. Far from being a superior leader who will bring armies to defeat Israel's enemies, the messiah came to die the most humiliating death, rejected by the very people that expected him, in order to cast light in the darkness that was creeping over not just the Jews but humanity as a whole.
Right here, the most important apocalyptic event of them all was turned on its head and by none other than the God incarnate himself. The early Christians all believed this and they wrote the texts with such an understanding. Paul believed this too, so I found it particularly amusing that you quote him as he himself is a radical example of progressive revelation. A man who used to be a strict follower of Judaism turned the greatest apostle of them all.
Given how in Christianity the Old Testament is merely a foreshadowing of what is to come in its fullness all of those passages you quoted from it are completely overturned by the New Testament writings. And the New Testament writings are all product of the view that I just described. In fact, the entire history of the Biblical faith is that of radical change and progress. It started with Judaism but ended up transforming into a religion completely distinct from it. The first and last stages are unrecognizable. Christianity is as such fundamentally a message of change and progress from old understanding to a new one, it always was and still is.
You may think the message of change is merely giving in to the pressure of the secular but in reality it is the other way around. It is the worldview which I'm advocating here (which you condescendingly consider a mere product of not having read the Bible) that was the original view of the Church.
As St. Augustine of Hyppo, perhaps the most important of the Church Fathers, concluded: "I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church" (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 5)
It is instead the fundamentalism which you are proposing that came around in the early 20th century under pressure of secular discoveries on one hand and rogue liberal theology on the other.
On what basis do you conclude that revelation being progressive requires God not to work directly? The God we're talking about is a God who became incarnate, one of us, who lived with us, talked to us and died for us so we could be saved. It is absolutely impossible to get any more intimately and directly in contact with us than that.
Also, the "image of God“ is a subject of an ongoing debate between theologians (then again, pretty much everything is). The fact that God made man in his image doesn't mean he made him exactly the same. Obviously if this were the case there would be no difference between us and God. Whatever the meaning of that phrase may be it is to be found elsewhere such as the theory that it means having the ability to come to know God and love him, a higher purpose than that of other creations mentioned in Genesis or something else along those lines.
The supposed contradictions only exist if you approach the Christian theology uncritically.
The links might have broke after I copied the post from Word. Here are the links:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
And I am disheartened to see you actually believe a Christ myth theory. The idea that Jesus of Christianity didn't exist (while at most conceding merely some random person named Jesus as possibility) is a historically laughable one. If you actually did research you'd know that. I watched scholars debate, read their articles and checked the consensus. As far as scholarly circles are concerned, there is as much debate on Jesus' existence as there is on the Earth being flat, meaning on one side we have an overwhelming consensus of credible scholars who deploy universally accepted methods of research to reach a conclusion while on the other side we have a small circle of crackpots with an agenda and passion for conspiracy theories. If I were you, I'd take a minute and reflect on the fact that you have found yourself in the latter group.
Jesus is almost universally recognized as having been an Israelite preacher, healer and an exorcist. A prophet who was christened by John the Baptist, who gathered followers, was tried for causing unrest among the Jews and was sentenced to death on the cross after which his followers have come to believe that he rose from the dead and carried on his message.
This is not religious fantasizing. This is a historical fact. The fact that you don't know this and are actually telling others to look for the truth is an ironic one indeed.
If you're going to discredit what I'm saying because I linked you to Wikipedia… don't. Wikipedia is a reliable reference point and while it can theoretically be edited by anyone, it is also tightly moderated and any claim that lacks sources is regularly removed. Also, the only reason why I linked to Wikipedia is because you clearly haven't done any research yourself and are in need of a starting point that summarises the current state of affairs. (Not to mention the fact you yourself didn't point to any source for your claims so what gives you the right to question mine?)
Also, the verse you quote from Matthew further solidifies your utter ignorance of how the historians approach the case. Just because a document has elements of myth that doesn't mean it has no historic value. Furthermore, the verse you posted is almost certainly apocalyptic imagery added to the narrative recorded in Mark so as to glorify it. Nevertheless, I told you already, if you're going to resort to a flat-earth level of position then I will not waste my time on this issue with you. I've told you the state of the consensus and gave you 3 links rich with references to the most credible scholars working in the field. Further educating you on this issue is not something I will do here.
This is only true if your fundamentalist assumptions are true. You need to provide a sound justification as well as a rebuttal to my counterarguments to show how Christians and non Christians ought to interpret the Bible in a literalistic fashion, And you certainly haven't done so.
Far from proving my argument to be contradictory to the teachings within the Bible, you've demonstrated your lack of engagement with the material at hand on a stellar level. If I had to draw together the threads of this debate so far it'd be as follows:
You attempted to support your fundamentalistic assertion by pointing to the Bible as saying the same thing you did, but after actually presenting these verses in a complete and transparent matter it became clear that they fell a far cry from your hopes and aspirations.
Not only that, but I went on and explained how Christianity is fundamentally non-fundamentalist by pointing out that the authors of the New Testament texts themselves took a policy of reintepretation as well as pointing out even earlier disputes in theology among the Jewish people which wouldn't have arisen had they understood the Biblical texts as literal face-value truths. I further cemented my position in the fact that the very God we're discussing has definitively denied the expectations and prior understandings seen in the Old Testament and have shown how the entire history of the Christian message is rooted in such a reasoning. No amount of extrapolated verses is going to overturn that.
You hence have yet to adequately address my main as well as other objections such as you claiming to know what would be the best way for God to reveal himself which requires meeting a burden of proof impossible to bear.
When speaking about Jesus, you revealed yourself to be a proponent of the Christ myth theory and have thus lost any credibility on the topic of historical Jesus you might have had, and in response to my statement that science and theology are leading a constructive dialogue (which you'd know if you actually kept in touch with modern theology) you simply reiterated the very same fundamentalist assertion that you failed to justify.
Unlike yourself, who prefers to jump to conclusions about others having done so, I am more than happy to concede that you have read some chunks of your Bible, but reading the Bible in a shallow and surface-level way is worse than not reading it at all. The Bible is to be studied, not merely read and then accepted or rejected at face value while acting in a manner that would make a father of any exegesis roll in his grave.
So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is that the bible itself is unreliable and inaccurate? Lol and your the one defending Christianity in this debate?
Lmao. Jesus life has been recorded in the stones and in history's pillar, so it's not a false claim or any thing. It's fact. The questions in this thread are hilarious. "Why does the moon have no light" and "Why does moon go in the day". Moon is said to "rule" the night not "pass by" in night just like sun, so there's nothing contradictory in moon passing by the day when the sun is up. Peter book says for god one day is equal to 1000 years and 1000 years is equal to one day. The flipping of time is easy for god, he made it. You can always discharge and disarrange the toys and programs you yourself have created. You can only create something when you've the necessary tools for it. You can only beat usain bolt if you've legs yourself. There can only be an explosion when someone had the nuclear power behind it. The questions are endless but fear not, the answers too are endless. Infinity is not a trait of god but of humans. No matter how much we learn we will never be satisfied. Same happened in adam and eve. No matter how much trees he gave them to eat from, they just had to go for the wisdom tree. Mind you, god gave them the right to eat from tree of immortality only after they sinned was the flaming sword with a cherubim appointed to protect that tree. Regardless, I can assure you, that the final winner of this kind of debate will always be the man voting for god instead of science since the bible has all the answers which not even science have found out theoretically or substantially, yet. Science recently found out that mars red sand and atmosphere had high nuclear content and radioactive content in it. A possible nuclear war between satan and god? Interestingly, mars has some amount of water in the atmosphere. Maybe it was drained of its nice atmosphere to the said war? The answer to many of these questions are extremely simple and straight to the point, Infinity is not a trait of god, but a trait of humans. God is beyond infinity. Infinity is a concept or tool, god himself created. That is why he can flip time however he wants. Bible also says god loved the world so he send his only son...so how can he love a world he hasn't painstakingly created? Would you love an object dearly enough to kill your own son for it's sake, if you yourself didn't create it? It clearly says "God so loved the world" not "God so loved humans"... he painstakingly created the world in 6 days, 6 days is not just 6 days but 6000 years like the bible tells about the passage of time from god's perspective. Taking the time to create this vast world in 6000 years is more than enough for someone to kill his own son for. Don't forget Saint thomas's footprint is still in India's mountain. From that foot print water always comes out. A fountain of water. The story goes like this, thomas challenged the brahmins of india, when they were splashing water into the sky, and said these words according to historical records, "Why does the water you throw up, come down and not stay suspended up in the air? Your god can only do what his creation can do? Give me the water, Once I throw it up, It's not coming down until I say "Go down"".. and the water stood up in the air. These brahmins were the first christians in india and the proof of thomas's first miracle in india is the foot print from which water sprouts out. It's there to this day. Science cannot explain that. It's fact that john was boiled in oil by the roman emperor and there are historical records saying this. But do these records say he died from that event? No. All these are historical records which can believed as much as we believe the speech of a scientist. A game character don't get to decide what the player does with him, nor will the game character ever know what the player looks like or feels like or made like.
