Repentance

mashedbanana

Peregrinus wrote: »

But clearly, mashedbanana, if someone of ordinary intelligence and thoughtfulness can in good faith come up with an understanding which is different from the one you think is "so very very obvious", is that not evidence that the meaning you think is so very very obvious not, in reality, so very very obvious as you think?

Am I detecting a hint of a mock to your post Peregrinus? I didnt join the conversation to be mocked, nor would I engage in mocking.

mashedbanana

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't hit the ball back yet such as to be in danger of tennis.

The ball points out that different people take different meanings (and different multiple meanings since scripture isn't single dimensional when it comes to meaning). The meaning appears obvious to them and they can't understand why the other person can't see what they see.

Since they both claim "obvious" there's no particular reason to suppose what's obvious to one of them, e.g. you, is the correct view just because it's obvious to you.

And so we are left with different interpretations. Whilst you can argue your interpretation a better one (and you need to provide reasons why this is so) you can't simply claim "obvious to me and that's good enough".

Well thank you thank you thank you. You have also made my point in a better way then I ever could. You summed it up beautifully at then end. 'You need to provide reason why this is so' Exactly!!!!!! Backing up with ....further pieces of scripture.... thats my point!

If I make a claim on a piece of scripture, and say thats it, 'this' is what it means. I would need to provide other pieces to 100% back up my point.

I have seen others unable to do so, yet will try to ram home their version of a piece of scripture. With nothing at all...to back it up. but will insist on their own version. Thus, what I call 'twisting' scripture to suit themselves. But I mentioned this yesterday you see!

antiskeptic

mashedbanana wrote: »

Well thank you thank you thank you. You have also made my point in a better way then I ever could. You summed it up beautifully at then end. 'You need to provide reason why this is so' Exactly!!!!!! Backing up with ....further pieces of scripture.... thats my point!

If I make a claim on a piece of scripture, and say thats it, 'this' is what it means. I would need to provide other pieces to 100% back up my point.

I understood you to be saying that the obviousness (to you) of the meaning was sufficient. Fair enough if that's not what you're saying

But nothing changes. Alternative views will support their view of a particular piece of scripture with others pieces of scripture. Unfortunately, those supporting pieces of scripture themselves need their meaning supported by yet other pieces of scripture. In practice, the discussion becomes unwieldy and neither view can "100% back up" their point.

And so you are simply left with alternative views, all supposing themselves the right view, all toting scripture which they say supports their view. All saying "it's obvious".

That's an observable fact. And so the term "different interpretations". By all means suppose your own interpretation the correct one. But you're standing in a long line of like (if differing in interpretation) minds.

I have seen others unable to do so, yet will try to ram home their version of a piece of scripture. With nothing at all...to back it up. but will insist on their own version. Thus, what I call 'twisting' scripture to suit themselves. But I mentioned this yesterday you see!

There are some who do that. But there are many more who could argue you and your view (and me and my view) into the dust such is their depth of scriptural knowledge / knowledge of Hebrew and Greek / knowledge of the culture of the day / etc.

What would happen to your obvious meaning then?

antiskeptic

generic2012 wrote: »

I still think we should beat our wife at least once, just in case, so I can hold my head up high and say I'm a good Christian when I reach the pearly gates. I wouldn't say I'm the best Jeremiah 48:10 (NAB) 'Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.', I don't know if I'd be a good enough Christian to commit mass murder 'This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' 1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB, to kill my family '"Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:29 NLT), kill the children of sinners, "Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants." (Isaiah 14:21 NAB), kill people who work on Sunday, my cheeky children, blasphemers (like the ones on this thread), maybe a gay person etc.

But I could definitely be a good enough Christian to beat my wife and children. I think we should all band together. In this day and age with all the atheists, humanists, secularists and what have you, I think we should show the world that just because a book was written 3,000 years ago and given to desert goat herders, doesn't mean it's not relevant! It is still totally relevant! I know I will be making the world a better place by beating my wife and children and maybe killing a few people here and there.

Are you familiar with the term theological illiteracy? It means that whilst you can read the words on the page, you haven't the first iota about how to fit the puzzle they present you, together.

generic2012

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you familiar with the term theological illiteracy? It means that whilst you can read the words on the page, you haven't the first iota about how to fit the puzzle they present you, together.

Don't be silly, why would God send us a puzzle? He either tells us what to do or he doesn't. You can't just pick and choose the parts you like, you either follow the bible or you don't. Christian or not. It's in black and white you can decide whether to be saved or not.

antiskeptic

generic2012 wrote: »

Don't be silly, why would God send us a puzzle?

All it need be is intricate. Then it will by nature be a puzzle.

He either tells us what to do or he doesn't.

Indeed. How do you decide which parts are addressed at 'us' and which are not? Or are you merely assuming that all parts are addressed to 'us'

You can't just pick and choose the parts you like, you either follow the bible or you don't.

Where in the Bible does it say that I need follow the whole Bible?

It's in black and white you can decide whether to be saved or not.

Reference to that passage?

generic2012

antiskeptic wrote: »

All it need be is intricate. Then it will by nature be a puzzle.

A watch is intricate, it is not a puzzle. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. How do you decide which parts are addressed at 'us' and which are not? Or are you merely assuming that all parts are addressed to 'us'

The parts that are written are for us, why else would they be written? I don't plan on teaching my dog to read any time soon and I don't know of any one has taught any other animals to read so call me mad but I believe it was written for mankind. Unless when you say 'us' you mean post modernist spouters?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where in the Bible does it say that I need follow the whole Bible?

Jesus endorses the Old Testament - "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44), the Prophesies of the New Testament - But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. (John 16:13-14) Jesus saying it has to be followed for ultimate redemption - (English Standard Version) For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:18)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Reference to that passage?

When some one says 'it's in black and white', that means it's written down. So the commandments are written in the bible. All you have to do is follow them.

Deuteronomy 28:1-68 - “And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God. Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl."

antiskeptic

generic2012 wrote: »

A watch is intricate, it is not a puzzle. etc.

It is to a non-watchmaker trying to figure out how it all works.

The parts that are written are for us, why else would they be written?

An assumption isn't an answer to the question. Nor is another question.

Jesus endorses the Old Testament

He does. But not in the way you claim.: that I need to follow the whole Bible. Not in the passage you quote anyway.

- "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44), the Prophesies of the New Testament - But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. (John 16:13-14)

Jesus saying it has to be followed for ultimate redemption - (English Standard Version) For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:18)

Nowhere is redemption dealt with in that passage. And nowhere is there a reference to following scripture in that passage. And so there certainly isn't following all of the Bible unto redemption in the passage.

When some one says 'it's in black and white', that means it's written down.

I know that. I was asking where it was written down that you could chose to be saved.

So the commandments are written in the bible. All you have to do is follow them.

For what, salvation?

Deuteronomy 28:1-68 - “And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God. Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl."

This doesn't talk of salvation. Besides, if following the commandments is going to save you then you can't be saved because no one follows the commandments.

Now, if you can find a passage which says "try your best to follow the commandments (even if you fail from time to time) and you will be saved" you might be getting somewhere.

generic2012

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is to a non-watchmaker trying to figure out how it all works.

I'll leave the goal posts where you've moved them. Oxford Dictionary: Puzzle : noun: game, toy, or problem designed to test ingenuity or knowledge. Unless you think watches within this definition? I'll prepare for more moving the goalposts.

antiskeptic wrote: »

An assumption isn't an answer to the question. Nor is another question.

Oh sorry, didn't think I'd have to join the dots for you, bare with me hear. The Bible was written. Mankind are the only beings on this earth that can read. Therefore the bible was written for mankind. I consider myself a part of mankind. Therefore the Bible was written for us.

antiskeptic wrote: »

He does. But not in the way you claim.: that I need to follow the whole Bible. Not in the passage you quote anyway.

- "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44), the Prophesies of the New Testament - But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. (John 16:13-14)

You've included two parts out my three in that quote. I'll break this down for you as well, I'll do it in a way that will result in less words. Part 1 (Luke 24:44) The Old Testament is true. Part 2. (John 16:13-14) The New Testament is true. Part 3 (Mathew 5:18) Follow the Bible.

Out of curiosity, how do you pick the parts of the Bible that suit you and what is your rationale for it?


Nowhere is redemption dealt with in that passage. And nowhere is there a reference to following scripture in that passage. And so there certainly isn't following all of the Bible unto redemption in the passage.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know that. I was asking where it was written down that you could chose to be saved.

[sic]
Choose to follow the commandments.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Besides, if following the commandments is going to save you then you can't be saved because no one follows the commandments.

TOTAL non-sequitur! That makes zero sense. If I follow the commandments I will be saved, if you don't you will rot in hell for eternity.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Now, if you can find a passage which says "try your best to follow the commandments (even if you fail from time to time) and you will be saved" you might be getting somewhere.

What relevance has that to anything? I never suggested anything remotely similar to that. It seems like an idea of yours, perhaps you would be better finding this get out clause for yourself?

antiskeptic

generic2012 wrote: »

I'll leave the goal posts where you've moved them. Oxford Dictionary: Puzzle : noun: game, toy, or problem designed to test ingenuity or knowledge. Unless you think watches within this definition? I'll prepare for more moving the goalposts.

1. a game, toy, or problem designed to test ingenuity or knowledge.
   "those who solve this puzzle in the shortest time are eligible for awards"
   
   
   • a jigsaw puzzle.
     "so the pieces of the puzzle fall into place"
     
     
   
   
   
   
2. 2.
   a person or thing that is difficult to understand or explain; an enigma.
   "the meaning of the poem has always been a puzzle"
   
   
   
   
   
   

I don't think reading further down the definition of a puzzle is shifting goalposts. Do you?

Oh sorry, didn't think I'd have to join the dots for you, bare with me hear. The Bible was written. Mankind are the only beings on this earth that can read. Therefore the bible was written for mankind. I consider myself a part of mankind. Therefore the Bible was written for us.

Your contention is that we are bound by all of it. It is for us, in it's totality, to follow and obey. I'm asking how you figure it is for us in that regard.

You've included two parts out my three in that quote. I'll break this down for you as well, I'll do it in a way that will result in less words. Part 1 (Luke 24:44) The Old Testament is true. Part 2. (John 16:13-14) The New Testament is true. Part 3 (Mathew 5:18) Follow the Bible.

I'll break it down even further that will result in less words. Part 1 doesn't say the Old Testament is true, it says that what is written about Jesus must be fulfilled. If circumventing that flaw we might look further at part 2 and 3

(Not that it being "true" means we are bound to follow it's tenets I might add). That it is true that God issued those commandments to the Israelites doesn't necessarily mean they are relevant to the matter of my salvation today.

Out of curiosity, how do you pick the parts of the Bible that suit you and what is your rationale for it?

Similar to what you attempt in part 1-3. Let the Bible comment on the Bible. Only in more rigorous fashion than the loose way you've threaded your conclusion together. By puzzling .. as it were.

Choose to follow the commandments.

TOTAL non-sequitur! That makes zero sense. If I follow the commandments I will be saved, if you don't you will rot in hell for eternity.

Where does it say that following the commandments will result in salvation? For you, I mean.

What relevance has that to anything? I never suggested anything remotely similar to that. It seems like an idea of yours, perhaps you would be better finding this get out clause for yourself?

I'm not supposing that following the commandments has anything to do with my being saved so I don't need the "get out clause" of doing my best to follow them. Or doing pretty well in following them. They aren't relevant to my salvation in other words.

So do you follow all the commandments, 24/7?

Peregrinus

mashedbanana wrote: »

Am I detecting a hint of a mock to your post Peregrinus? I didnt join the conversation to be mocked, nor would I engage in mocking.

No, you are not detecting a hint of mock. My question is a perfectly serious one. If different people honestly and carefully arrive at different understandings of a text, then clearly the text does not have a single obvious meaning. At most, you can say that there's only one meaning obvious to you.

hinault

generic2012 wrote: »

I think that's a step too far! sorry! but I don't think salvation costs €500! The Bible is the word of God so surely the answer is in there somewhere!?

The Bible is the word of God.

If you're a Catholic you ought to know that the institution of the Catholic Church is authorised by Jesus Christ to proclaim the Bible and the Bible's meaning to Catholics and non-Catholics.

In that context, the Catechism brings clarity to the Bible and it's teaching and it is an excellent resource in my humble opinion.

I don't subscribe to the view that, in reading the Bible, it is easy to understand or to interpret Biblical teaching.
It is anything but, in my opinion.

Therefore I recommend that you read your Catechism which references the various Biblical writings throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament, through direct quotation.

In that way, you will gain a better Catholic understanding of the what the Bible teaches by reference to the Catechism.

Peregrinus

There is no mainstream Christian tradition which teaches that salvation is achieved through reading, understanding and following the bible. (Which is perhaps fortunate, when we consider that the majority of Christians who have ever lived could not read.) Nor is their any Christian tradition which treats the bible as a sort of instruction manual for how to be saved; anyone who has actually read the bible for more than a few minutes can see that it is nothing like an instruction manual.

The mainstream Christian tradition is that salvation is effected by the grace of God, through Jesus Christ. It is in the encounter with Jesus that we are saved. The proclamation of scripture is one, but only one, of the ways in which we encounter Jesus. We also encounter him in the church (the Body of Christ) and in the sacraments.

mashedbanana

We are all instructed to live in peace, and harmony, love. It's as simple as that. I regularly read my bible, and I do actually use it as a guide on how to live my life. Whether it is to do with forgiveness, or keeping a cool head, by that I mean, ....ya, be angry, but don't sin in your anger.

In my opinion (which I'd hope I'm still entitled to) this conversation, has branched out into something that resembles 'tit for tat'. Forever changing. If we are all seeking the one and the same Messiah of the Bible, then surely there would be no conflict, and we'd all agree? no?

But this isn't so? Is it because we all come from different....churches? I'm not Roman Catholic. I was raised in a RC home, but my grandparents were Church of Ireland.

I have no intention of arguing, there were a few points made, that I could challenge, but whats the point? people will believe whatever they want, have a ding dong about it, and come away from it feeling chuffed with themselves...why?

I'll have to just learn, that there is no point getting involved in discussions like this, no good comes from it. It causes conflict, at the very least it causes discomfort.

God Bless :-)

Peregrinus

mashedbanana wrote: »

We are all instructed to live in peace, and harmony, love. It's as simple as that. I regularly read my bible, and I do actually use it as a guide on how to live my life. Whether it is to do with forgiveness, or keeping a cool head, by that I mean, ....ya, be angry, but don't sin in your anger.

In my opinion (which I'd hope I'm still entitled to) this conversation, has branched out into something that resembles 'tit for tat'. Forever changing. If we are all seeking the one and the same Messiah of the Bible, then surely there would be no conflict, and we'd all agree? no?

Actually, no. The fact that we agree on the centrality of faith in Jesus Christ doesn’t mean that we have to agree about everything. What’s supposed to characterise relationships between Christians is not that they agree about everything, but that they love one another.

mashedbanana wrote: »

I'll have to just learn, that there is no point getting involved in discussions like this, no good comes from it. It causes conflict, at the very least it causes discomfort.

I honestly think you’re being a bit gloomy here, mashedbanana. Disagreement is not conflict. We learn from people’s differing viewpoints, and engaging with them helps us to advance our own understanding. It seems to me that, if we’re to be a church, we not only can but should discuss things with one another – not necessarily with a view to convincing one another, but rather in support of one another.

mashedbanana

i have seen more conflict, and pecking, then support ....since this thread started unfortunately. Read it all from the start, to see what I mean.

generic2012

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. a game, toy, or problem designed to test ingenuity or knowledge.
   "those who solve this puzzle in the shortest time are eligible for awards"
   
   
   • a jigsaw puzzle.
     "so the pieces of the puzzle fall into place"
     
     
   
   
   
   
2. 2.
   a person or thing that is difficult to understand or explain; an enigma.
   "the meaning of the poem has always been a puzzle"
   
   
   
   
   
   

I don't think reading further down the definition of a puzzle is shifting goalposts. Do you?

I don't see how you can think this helps your argument? You said anything intricate is a puzzle, I said a watch is intricate but not a puzzle, you said it's puzzling to a non-watchmaker, I re affirmed my point with a definition. You've added another definition but it is totally irrelevant to either argument?

antiskeptic wrote: »

So do you follow all the commandments, 24/7?

Yes.

antiskeptic

generic2012 wrote: »

I don't see how you can think this helps your argument?

Watch ... (no pun intended)

You said anything intricate is a puzzle, I said a watch is intricate but not a puzzle, you said it's puzzling to a non-watchmaker..

..so far so good.

I re affirmed my point with a definition. You've added another definition but it is totally irrelevant to either argument?

I didn't add the definition. It was there for you to pick but you chose to ignore since to accept "watch: an example of a puzzle" would mean accepting "Bible - an example of puzzle" which would take us back to the point where you said God wouldn't send us a puzzle.

When in fact it seems he did.

Yes.

You follow all the commandments 24/7??

In the easier-to-follow Old Testament sense or in the somewhat more impossible sense elaborated upon by Jesus in the New Testament (e.g. lusting being adultery and anger (the unrighteous type that is) being murder?

antiskeptic

mashedbanana wrote: »

We are all instructed to live in peace, and harmony, love. It's as simple as that. I regularly read my bible, and I do actually use it as a guide on how to live my life. Whether it is to do with forgiveness, or keeping a cool head, by that I mean, ....ya, be angry, but don't sin in your anger.

In my opinion (which I'd hope I'm still entitled to) this conversation, has branched out into something that resembles 'tit for tat'. Forever changing. If we are all seeking the one and the same Messiah of the Bible, then surely there would be no conflict, and we'd all agree? no?

But this isn't so? Is it because we all come from different....churches? I'm not Roman Catholic. I was raised in a RC home, but my grandparents were Church of Ireland.

I have no intention of arguing, there were a few points made, that I could challenge, but whats the point? people will believe whatever they want, have a ding dong about it, and come away from it feeling chuffed with themselves...why?

I'll have to just learn, that there is no point getting involved in discussions like this, no good comes from it. It causes conflict, at the very least it causes discomfort.

You might consider avoiding thanking others posts if wanting to un-involve yourself from the discussion.

generic2012

Puzzle is a noun, a watch is not a puzzle. That's what we disagreed on.

You moved the goalposts to include the verb, puzzling, in which case, like the English language for certain people, practically anything can be puzzling.

You originally said anything intricate is a puzzle. That's what we disagreed on, you still haven't backed up your claim. You've only changed your claim to anything intricate can be puzzling. I look forward to you avoiding the issue that you said that anything intricate is a puzzle.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You follow all the commandments 24/7??

In the easier-to-follow Old Testament sense or in the somewhat more impossible sense elaborated upon by Jesus in the New Testament (e.g. lusting being adultery and anger (the unrighteous type that is) being murder?

New and Old Testament. People that talk of the Harsh Old Testament and nicer New Testament seem to not realised that Hell was only invented in New Testament time.

antiskeptic

generic2012 wrote: »

Puzzle is a noun, a watch is not a puzzle. That's what we disagreed on.

You moved the goalposts to include the verb, puzzling, in which case, like the English language for certain people, practically anything can be puzzling.

I'm afraid I did no such thing. A watch is a noun-puzzle in the same way a jigsaw is a noun puzzle. According to the dictionary, if not yourself.

2.
a person or thing that is difficult to understand or explain; an enigma.
"the meaning of the poem has always been a puzzle"

I would agree that almost anything would be puzzling to someone somewhere (which would make almost anything a potential noun-puzzle to a least someone). The example chosen however, a watch, would be considered by everyone (other than someone intimate with that device) an honest to goodness noun-puzzle.

Similarly, the Bible would have to be considered a noun-puzzle given the intricacies involved in it

New and Old Testament. People that talk of the Harsh Old Testament and nicer New Testament seem to not realised that Hell was only invented in New Testament time.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this claim. I was merely asking did you follow the commandments as expounded upon by Jesus. 24/7

generic2012

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm afraid I did no such thing. A watch is a noun-puzzle in the same way a jigsaw is a noun puzzle. According to the dictionary, if not yourself

According to the dictionary, or any other sensible definition, a watch is not a puzzle. A puzzle is designed to be solved. A watch is a watch, it is not designed to be solved, it would be called a puzzle if it was. The same as the bible. Both could be attempted to be solved but ultimately it is mere mental masturbation, as it is not the bible/a watches purpose to be solved. It is what it is. If for some reason you don't feel comfortable with the fact that a watch is designed to tell you the time, but you don't like what it's telling you, you can of course come up with lots of ridiculous notions that circumnavigate reason and come with various conclusions from these notions, but a flawed starting point will of course lead to flawed conclusions.

You may not like the time but it's the time whether you like it or not.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure of the relevance of this claim. I was merely asking did you follow the commandments as expounded upon by Jesus. 24/7

It wasn't meant to have any specific relevance, just a passing point.

antiskeptic

generic2012 wrote: »

According to the dictionary, or any other sensible definition, a watch is not a puzzle. A puzzle is designed to be solved...

Not according to the second definition which has no such qualification regarding intent. It recognizes that some things are intrinsically puzzling and so declares them puzzles. Noun puzzles.

Let's stick to the formality of what the dictionary says since what's "sensible" to you sounds like baloney to me.

-

To clarify so: you follow the Commandments, as expounded upon by Jesus, 24/7?

generic2012

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not according to the second definition which has no such qualification regarding intent. It recognizes that some things are intrinsically puzzling and so declares them puzzles. Noun puzzles.

Let's stick to the formality of what the dictionary says since what's "sensible" to you sounds like baloney to me.

Oh yeah, you're right, I must of read that wrong, sorry for the confusion. A watch is, indeed, by definition a puzzle.

generic2012

I've spent a lot of time in prayer over the last few days and, by the help of God, I've come to a conclusion. The pope is, by the law of God, infallible, everything he says is true. Pope Francis says that atheists go to heaven. I think converting me to atheism is God's way of easing my nerves and calming the turmoil I've been going through trying to come to terms with the mixed instructions from the Bible.

So, by the hand of God, I've decided to become an atheist.

It will take a long time to get used to and I'm going to have to think about things I didn't have to think about before, like the ethics of; gay marriage; pre marital sex; masturbation; circumcision etc. it was nice to be able to answer all those topics by just saying I'm a Christian. But I think God gave me the ability to handle rational thought so I should be all right.

All in all it seems to be the handiest way in to heaven, which is why we're all doing this at the end of the day anyway.

I'll probably still hang about these forums but imput have to be from an atheist point of view, God Bless.

Benny_Cake

generic2012 wrote: »

But I could definitely be a good enough Christian to beat my wife and children. I think we should all band together. In this day and age with all the atheists, humanists, secularists and what have you, I think we should show the world that just because a book was written 3,000 years ago and given to desert goat herders, doesn't mean it's not relevant! It is still totally relevant! I know I will be making the world a better place by beating my wife and children and maybe killing a few people here and there.

generic2012 wrote: »

So, by the hand of God, I've decided to become an atheist.

It will take a long time to get used to and I'm going to have to think about things I didn't have to think about before, like the ethics of; gay marriage; pre marital sex; masturbation; circumcision etc. it was nice to be able to answer all those topics by just saying I'm a Christian. But I think God gave me the ability to handle rational thought so I should be all right.

All in all it seems to be the handiest way in to heaven, which is why we're all doing this at the end of the day anyway.

I'll probably still hang about these forums but imput have to be from an atheist point of view, God Bless.

Mod note: Unless you have a contribution to make other than wasting the time of moderators and trolling other posters, then don't bother. And don't post on this thread again.

Brian Shanahan

mashedbanana wrote: »

It's there in black & white. There is zero room for confusion. As a rule, if I don't quite 'get' the meaning of a particular verse, I would read a few of the verses before it and after it. Then it just clicks! I get it.

Well then how do you explain the many and vast contradictions (e.g. genesis has two mutually incompatible creation myths)?
The bits that are flat out wrong (genesis, both creation stories are horrifically false)?
That quite a bit of the old testament was stolen from other cultures (e.g. the first creation myth and flood myth in genesis were both stolen from the Babylonian creation myths)?
That the rest of the old testament is an ex post facto embiggening* of what were a minor tribe on the very fringes of extant civilisation in the Middle East for all of their history?
That most of the "miracles" in the new testament were the same as the "miracles" in the old testament only slightly more exaggerated, as if to say to the Jews, "look our Jesus is much better than your Elijah or Moses"?
Or that the most complete retelling of Jesus' life was written two centuries after his death (John)?
Or that the writers of all the four gospels were twisting events like mad to try and get the Jesus mythos to conform to "prophecies" in the old testament, some of them (like the whole "Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant") based on mistranslations or deliberate fabrications of old testament writings?
Or, finally, that over the many centuries since massive changes were made to different versions in order to justify positions taken by people in power at the time of those changes (e.g. the KJV had many passages rewritten to justify the position of "divine and absolute rule of kings", because James VI&I was then engaged in an attempt to wrest power back from parliament)?

You see that's the thing I don't get about people who say they look to the bible for guidance in their lives: It is impossible to know what in the book is worth using, what is truth or lies, what is meant to be literal or allegorical and what is just flat out people making stuff up because they believed that it had to happen that way for their religious beliefs to hold true.

antiskeptic

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well then how do you explain the many and vast contradictions (e.g. genesis has two mutually incompatible creation myths)?
The bits that are flat out wrong (genesis, both creation stories are horrifically false)?
That quite a bit of the old testament was stolen from other cultures (e.g. the first creation myth and flood myth in genesis were both stolen from the Babylonian creation myths)?
That the rest of the old testament is an ex post facto embiggening* of what were a minor tribe on the very fringes of extant civilisation in the Middle East for all of their history?
That most of the "miracles" in the new testament were the same as the "miracles" in the old testament only slightly more exaggerated, as if to say to the Jews, "look our Jesus is much better than your Elijah or Moses"?
Or that the most complete retelling of Jesus' life was written two centuries after his death (John)?
Or that the writers of all the four gospels were twisting events like mad to try and get the Jesus mythos to conform to "prophecies" in the old testament, some of them (like the whole "Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant") based on mistranslations or deliberate fabrications of old testament writings?
Or, finally, that over the many centuries since massive changes were made to different versions in order to justify positions taken by people in power at the time of those changes (e.g. the KJV had many passages rewritten to justify the position of "divine and absolute rule of kings", because James VI&I was then engaged in an attempt to wrest power back from parliament)?

You see that's the thing I don't get about people who say they look to the bible for guidance in their lives: It is impossible to know what in the book is worth using, what is truth or lies, what is meant to be literal or allegorical and what is just flat out people making stuff up because they believed that it had to happen that way for their religious beliefs to hold true.

There's an inconvenient fly in the ointment you might have a stab at extracting.

It's the lack of explanation as to why it is that so many people, including some who are far, far more intelligent, analytical, forensic, skeptical, studious than you or I, don't seem to have anything like the kind of problems with the Bible that you have. People who come to utterly different conclusions about it's substance, veracity and worth than you do.

It's not as if the conclusions you've come to are the only conclusions to be arrived at. Not as if the arguments which have convinced you are objectively the most compelling. Nay, smarter folk than you think other than you. And that demands an answer.

And an answer that doesn't simply presuppose a crutch. Because if smarts are trumped by the need for a crutch, then atheists fall by the same sword since the atheists denial of ultimate meaning is as much a way of dealing with the question of meaning as is the religionists striving to obtain some.

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's an inconvenient fly in the ointment you might have a stab at extracting.

It's the lack of explanation as to why it is that so many people, including some who are far, far more intelligent, analytical, forensic, skeptical, studious than you or I, don't seem to have anything like the kind of problems with the Bible that you have. People who come to utterly different conclusions about it's substance, veracity and worth than you do.

It's not as if the conclusions you've come to are the only conclusions to be arrived at. Not as if the arguments which have convinced you are objectively the most compelling. Nay, smarter folk than you think other than you. And that demands an answer.

And an answer that doesn't simply presuppose a crutch. Because if smarts are trumped by the need for a crutch, then atheists fall by the same sword since the atheists denial of ultimate meaning is as much a way of dealing with the question of meaning as is the religionists striving to obtain some.

Even those that accept the bible come to different conclusions, otherwise you would not have 33000 different versions of christianity. For something that is supposed to the be insprired word of god it is pretty badly written if a) you need to have a bullsh1t qualification in theology to make head or tail of it and, b) it is so badly written that every single person reading it can come up with a different meaning.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Even those that accept the bible come to different conclusions, otherwise you would not have 33000 different versions of christianity. For something that is supposed to the be insprired word of god it is pretty badly written if a) you need to have a bullsh1t qualification in theology to make head or tail of it and, b) it is so badly written that every single person reading it can come up with a different meaning.

MrP

This is only a problem if you start out with the preconception that anythign inspired by God must be something like "The Little Book of Trite Platitudes" that you can buy in any newsagents for €4.95 and read in thirty minutes or so.

But why would you start out with that preconception? Surely the role of religion, and its appeal for people, is that it offers a framework for approaching some of life's really knotty issues to do with meaning, value, and The Point Of It All? Those are some tough questions and - unless you're exceptionally stupid - you don't expect trite answers to tough questions.

The Little Book of Trite Platitudes exists (though it probably doesn't have that exact title). Funnily enough, it hasn't yet become the basis of a major world religion that endures for a couple of millenia. Odd, that, isn't it?