The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Militant atheists imprison Christians in China and pull their fingernails out. Militant atheists execute Christians in North Korea.

The reasons why totalitarian regimes suppress dissent has been discussed in detail quite a few times here and elsewhere, so I imagine that a further round isn't going to achieve very much.

You're entirely free to believe that some kind of "militant" feeling induced by the lack of a belief that the christian deity, or indeed any other deity or deities, exist is what causes Chinese or North Korean guards to pull the toenails out of christians, atheists, buddhists and muslims.

However, it's a laughably inaccurate mental picture of the world and I think you're not only smart enough to do much better than that, but a good enough writer that you don't need to whip this arrant nonsense out of your back pocket every time that anybody even suggests the possibility that religion might inflame some credulous and combustible idiots to acts of violence.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

The reasons why totalitarian regimes suppress dissent has been discussed in detail quite a few times here and elsewhere, so I imagine that a further round isn't going to achieve very much.

You're entirely free to believe that some kind of "militant" feeling induced by the lack of a belief that the christian deity, or indeed any other deity or deities, exist is what causes Chinese or North Korean guards to pull the toenails out of christians, atheists, buddhists and muslims.

However, it's a laughably inaccurate mental picture of the world and I think you're not only smart enough to do much better than that, but a good enough writer that you don't need to whip this arrant nonsense out of your back pocket every time that anybody even suggests the possibility that religion might inflame some credulous and combustible idiots to acts of violence.

I have talked to the victims of these crimes, and some former perpetrators. Have you? Or are you simply discussing their motives on the basis of your ideological wishes?

Also, the bombers of abortion clinics are motivated by much more complex reasons than simply being believers.

I'm all for comparing like with like - something you guys seem very reluctant to do.

Turtwig

Emmm

This thread is about the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy riigghhttt????

Why are we debating stuff about human nutfaces? Let's face it, not everyone is good. There are bad Christians, just like there are bad Atheists heck there even are bad Buddhists (never actually thought that one possible) but the MAJORITY are nice down to earth decent people, so please leave this argument out. It's, well, silly.

All I'll say is this, every Christian surely must know someone who also claims to be Christian but has a different viewpoint on how to treat people; the same goes for Non-Christians there are nutcases in at least ONE branch of every tree, accept it, live with it, and please, pretty please can we get back on topic.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

J C, I will accept creationism if you can prove that Chewbacca is a not a wookie because if Chewbacca is wookie, creationism cannot be true

That DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It is dishonest and hypocritical to repeat the atheist mantra about militant Christians bombing abortion clinics while militant atheists write books.

Wow, well done for completely missing the point. :rolleyes:

It is not Sam calling someone like Dawkins a "militant atheist", it is JC (a Christian).

When someone like Richard Dawkins is called a "militant atheist", or JC calls a science teacher a militant atheist for refusing to teach ID in a classroom because it is scientific nonsense, is anyone supposed to take that seriously when other "militant atheists" are pulling fingernails out of children in China?

Leaving aside that it is difficult to do something in the name of atheism (Communism, secularism, humanism certainty) does anyone apart from JC seriously think that what someone like Richard Dawkins does (writes books as Sam pointed out) is equivalent to what the Chinese enforcers do?

I would certainly call a Christian who decides that God wants him to blow up abortion clinics a militant Christian. I wouldn't call you a militant Christian, or Jakkass or Fanny or NT Wright.

I would certainly call an atheist who decides to blow up a building because atheism told him to a militant atheist, though I've never heard of such a case (again confusing militant atheist with militant Communism is rather silly PDN, and something we have discussed at length)

What is being objected to is this ridiculous need that some people seem to have to paint the New Atheism movement (people like Dawkins, or Harris) or the Humanist movement as being "militant" simply because they speak their mind and have uncompromising ideas, and object to thinks like ID in science class rooms.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

No, but you are happy to use the strawman of militant Christians bombing abortion clinics. And while you continue to do so then it is inconsistent of you to object to my corresponding strawman of militant atheists torturing Christians.

You might get away with having your cake and eating it on other fora - but not here

It would be a fair comparison to say that militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens write books as do militant Christians like NT Wright and Rick Warren.

It would be a fair comparison to say that militant Christians bomb abortion clinics while militant atheists torture people in gulags.

It is dishonest and hypocritical to repeat the atheist mantra about militant Christians bombing abortion clinics while militant atheists write books.

In fact I was arguing that the use of the word militant is an ad hominem attack. It's no more valid when applied to christians than when applied to atheists. It's a vague word generally used to describe people who won't sit down and shut up by people who want them to sit down and shut up. Putting a case forward and refusing to accept as true things that have been conclusively proven not to be true (as in the case of creationism) is not militant

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I have talked to the victims of these crimes, and some former perpetrators. Have you?

I've been to North Korea, seen at first hand the grand religious personality cult that KJI and KIS created for themselves, seen perhaps 120,000 people perform at the bizarre Arirang Mass Games, spoken in Russian with North Korean soldiers and seen entire villages, down to kids of perhaps three or four, panning for gold in shallow streams in 35 degrees of heat. Not without a touch of pride, I must say that I also participated in the first known-successful attempt to drink the bar dry at the Yanggakdo_Hotel in Pyongyang. Have you?

Knob wars aside, you're as aware as I am of why totalitarian regimes suppress dissent and attempting -- honestly, as far as I can make out, since you do it so tirelessly -- to suggest that the primary motivation is the absence of belief in one or more deities does not do justice to your obvious intelligence.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'll never understand what state of mind it takes for otherwise intelligent people such as yourself to believe such unrestrained rubbish.

I hope you do one day.

1 Corinthians 1:18 wrote:

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I never knew you regarded me as intelligent :pac:

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

I've been to North Korea, seen at first hand the grand religious personality cult that KJI and KIS created for themselves, seen perhaps 120,000 people perform at the bizarre Arirang Mass Games, spoken in Russian with North Korean soldiers and seen entire villages, down to kids of perhaps three or four, panning for gold in shallow streams in 35 degrees of heat. Not without a touch of pride, I must say that I also participated in the first known-successful attempt to drink the bar dry at the Yanggakdo_Hotel in Pyongyang. Have you?

Psssh :rolleyes: .. bet you haven't met Mr. T

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

bet you haven't met Mr. T

Had him for breakfast

pts

robindch wrote: »

Had him for breakfast

Mmmm... tasty, however I pity the food!

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I hope you do one day.

Unfortunately, that probably never will happen.

I never knew you regarded me as intelligent

I do too, your knowledge of the bible and other things is impressive, your compassion and willingness to communciate towards others more so.

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Ok, I've must definitely have misunderstood this or it's context makes it mean something different, but that translate to me as :
Telling people who are dying about the cross is foolish?

Please by all means correct me, as even though I'm skeptical of it, I want to learn as much about the bible as possible - which is utterly ironic because I spent a good deal of time once trying to forget it all!:o

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Unfortunately, that probably never will happen.

Anything is possible.

Malty_T wrote: »

I do too, your knowledge of the bible and other things is impressive, your compassion and willingness to communciate towards others more so.

If it is something you read regularly enough you get the idea after a while, I have much more to learn about it though.

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, I've must definitely have misunderstood this or it's context makes it mean something different, but that translate to me as :
Telling people who are dying about the cross is foolish?

Yeah, it's contextual. If you read it with John 3:16 you will understand it more:

John 3:16 wrote:

‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

For those who have not accepted Christ, the Gospel is foolishness, for those who have it is the power of God as they are being saved by it's truth.

Malty_T wrote: »

Please by all means correct me, as even though I'm skeptical of it, I want to learn as much about the bible as possible - which is utterly ironic because I spent a good deal of time once trying to forget it all!:o

If you want to start learning about it, I'd recommend that you look to a site such as www.bibleplan.org and read the New Testament first, and then the Bible right through. Reading the New Testament will help you understand the differences between Jewish and Christian theology and how Jesus fulfilled much of the Jewish law.

Other posters may have other suggestions though

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I hope you do one day.

What understand why you believe in unrestrained nonsense? Or that you I too start believing in unrestrained nonsense "one day"?

Jakkass wrote: »

I never knew you regarded me as intelligent :pac:

After the quote from the good book you just gave me there I'm beginning to doubt it myself.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I hope you do one day.
[quote=1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

Oh so the bible tells us that anyone who doesn't believe the bible only thinks it's foolish because they're perishing instead of being saved like you?

Qur'an wrote:

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have
lost all spiritual good. (Koran 3:85)

And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers. (Koran 48:13)

Uh oh :P

Looks like there's a pretty big risk involved in rejecting either one

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What understand why you believe in unrestrained nonsense? Or that you I too start believing in unrestrained nonsense "one day"?

The latter and the former, with the exception of the view that it is "unrestrained nonsense" of course.

Edit: I'd actually say understanding why I believe, and believing yourself are synonymous. I'm not sure if anyone can fully understand Christianity without being involved in it themselves.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

After the quote from the good book you just gave me there I'm beginning to doubt it myself.

I thought it was rather straight forward. The Gospel is foolishness to non-Christians, but for Christians it makes sense and has cognitive value in their lives.

Turtwig

Sam Vines wrote:

Looks like there's a pretty big risk involved in rejecting either one

Not as big though as in the one rejecting both.;)

Soul Winner

They must be worth a few quid in China are they? Fingernails I mean :pac:

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

The latter and the former, with the exception of the view that it is "unrestrained nonsense" of course.

Why would you wish for me to be a believer in unrestrained nonsense (I know you don't think its that because you believe it)?

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: I'd actually say understanding why I believe, and believing yourself are synonymous. I'm not sure if anyone can fully understand Christianity without being involved in it themselves.

No a sane man can understand why an insane man is insane, for me the same stands for Christianity.

Jakkass wrote: »

I thought it was rather straight forward. The Gospel is foolishness to non-Christians, but for Christians it makes sense and has cognitive value in their lives.

Oh its straight forward and all too apparent to me.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote:

Uh oh :P

Looks like there's a pretty big risk involved in rejecting either one

Islam is a bit schizophrenic about this. In one section of the Qur'an it says that the Jews, Christians and Sabians are people of the book and will be honoured by Allah on the Day of Judgement, and in another it says we are toast.

Other people would say that Christianity and Judaism were Islam themselves. Muslims hold that Abraham and Jesus were Muslims, infact there is a quotation in Surah 5 that says that Jesus' disciples said "We are Muslims".

Anyhow, this belief only becomes major if one decides that the Qur'an has equal authenticity to the Biblical text. I personally don't. However, if you want to discuss the Qur'an, I would suggest that you do so in the Islam forum whereby Muslims would have a fair chance to contribute to the discussion.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I thought it was rather straight forward. The Gospel is foolishness to non-Christians, but for Christians it makes sense and has cognitive value in their lives.

"The idea that the earth is flat is foolishness to non-flatists, but for flatists it makes sense and has cognitive value in their lives."

You're basically saying that people tend not to think that their own beliefs are foolish. Well of course they don't because if they thought they were foolish they wouldn't hold them. Kind of a redundant statement no?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Islam is a bit schizophrenic about this. In one section of the Qur'an it says that the Jews, Christians and Sabians are people of the book and will be honoured by Allah on the Day of Judgement, and in another it says we are toast.

But scholars agree that these sections are metaphorical or allegorical and are not meant to be taken literally.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But scholars agree that these sections are metaphorical or allegorical and are not meant to be taken literally.

Which scholars? Sunni, Shia, Sufi, not to mention the sub sects of each. Again, if you wanted a real assessment of this, the best forum would be the Islam forum.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Which scholars? Sunni, Shia, Sufi, not to mention the sub sects of each. Again, if you wanted a real assessment of this, the best forum would be the Islam forum.

Me. I've decided I'm a scholar and I've decided that that part is not meant to be taken literally. Prove me wrong

edit: Also my mate Dave. We both agree, it's not meant to be taken literally

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Me. I've decided I'm a scholar and I've decided that that part is not meant to be taken literally. Prove me wrong

If this thread were entitled the The Qur'an, Creationism and Prophesy. I might feel somewhat obliged to discuss your interpretation of the Qur'an. Luckily this thread is about the Bible

I think it's a matter of manners when discussing religion to discuss holy books with their respective believers.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If this thread were entitled the The Qur'an, Creationism and Prophesy. I might feel somewhat obliged to discuss your interpretation of the Qur'an. Luckily this thread is about the Bible

I think it's a matter of manners when discussing religion to discuss holy books with their respective believers.

Lucky for you alright. You found a reason not to answer my question. Congrats

Of course if you point to a part of the bible that says that non-believers will perish then an equivalent part of the Koran that says that non-believers will perish is completely irrelevant :rolleyes:

Turtwig

Ya know s/he could still PM you the proof, that wouldn't be against thread dictum would it?;)

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Lucky for you alright. You found a reason not to answer my question. Congrats

A legitimate reason, it is off topic.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Of course if you point to a part of the bible that says that non-believers will perish then an equivalent part of the Koran that says that non-believers will perish is completely irrelevant :rolleyes:

By the way, I'm sure plenty of Muslims find Christian beliefs to be foolishness. It's a question of authenticity for me.

You should get the Islam forum to start "The Qur'an, Creationism, and Prophecy" thread.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Ya know s/he could still PM you the proof, that wouldn't be against thread dictum would it?;)

Admittedly my Qur'anic knowledge isn't as good as my Biblical knowledge. I've also lost my Abdullah Yusif Ali translation of the Qur'an

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

A legitimate reason, it is off topic.

You always find a legitimate reason to avoid difficult questions mate