OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[CookyPuss]

1. "All men are pigs." "Wives who consent to intercourse with their husbanbs are submitting to rape." "Men who stand to pee do so to show their dominance over women." You can thank your local feminazi for those zingers. All regarding human nature. All driven by craven stupidity and hatred for men.

2. As I understand Greek thinking, matter consisted of something like earth, wind, and fire. All observable or with sensible effects. I am not aware of any ancient culture or philosophy that stipulated matter consists of things unseen. Not saying there aren't any, but that I am unaware of them if there are any.

I'm going to avoid your first statement, but as for your second:

Leucippus theorized about atoms in the 5th century BCE.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leucippus/

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Questions for skeptics:

Never mind finding fault with this or that.

1. What does the bible tell you about human nature that is provably false?
2. What does the bible say (in EVERY original manuscript you cite, not just selective ones) that is not factual?
3. What does the bible tell you about your eternal destiny that it fails to equip you for?



4. How long did it take science to catch up with the bible in regard to:

a. anesthesia for major surgery?​

b. the design of the moon as a secondary light source​

c. the composition of the human body?​

d. knowledge of coagulation of the blood in newborn males?​

e. the fact that matter consists of elements that the naked eye cannot see?​

Well, lets see here.... What does the Bible say about human nature that is provably false.... Gosh, I don't know... sounds like a loaded question to me. 1 - we probably won't agree on what is human nature, 2 - even if we did, there is ALWAYS going to be an exception to whatever "rule" I might cite as to human nature. So, I'll say the answer to your first question is useless and is obvioulsy a set up and one which I won't take.

What does it say that's not factual? Well, here again, all we're going to do is argue about whether or not science is telling the truth or not. How about the whole creation in 7 days bit. There's absolutely NO support (save for the Bible itself) for the contention that the universe as created in 7 days. (Well, 6 and resting for 1). Here's another... the ability for a man to build an arc which would be home to 2 of every animal on the earth. Never mind the fact that Noah would have to travel to each corner of the earth and dig up 2 of everything prior to the rains coming (We know, for example, that Noah would have to travel to Australia to save the Kangaroo and/or Koala Bear, as there are none sitting around the middle east), I'm completely unconvinced 2 of everything would fit in a craft which meets these conditions: "The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits, the breadth of it 50 cubits, and the height of it 30 cubits"; that is, 450 x 75 x 45 feet. Indeed, I'm not convinced we could fit two of each animal found only in North America on such a craft. But, all that said, I'm sure you'll come back with something like this: "You can't prove they wouldn't fit" and fully expect that I'm not going to do the required research wich would affirm that the voume of 2 of every animal in the world exceeds the volume of this craft.... and you'd be right, I'm not going to do that research, as it would be - in my mind - a complete waste of time.

3 - what does it tell me about my desitiny that it fails to equip me for? I don't know. Lets assume nothing. So what?

4 - I don't care how long it took science to catch up to the bible. In fact, I embrace the "correctness" of the Bible on these sorts of issues as indica of some reliability of some kind. That is to say, I find it interesting that the Creation story, when read metaphorically, conforms to what scientists observe about how this universe began... a simple example of which would be "The LORD said let there be light" I can understand that as looking like "the Big Bang"
All that said, and as my answer to 2 should indicate, its being reliable in at least some part does not demand the conclusion that it is relaible in FULL. And, frankly, the New Test. is nothing but religious politics, far as I can tell. I call bullshit on the Papacy picking and choosing which accounts of Jesus to include in the Bible and which to ignore (ie the Gnostic Gospels). I won't say that the Papacy didn't use some sort of criteria, or even that their criterea was wrong. I'll simply say, because I think I know a thing or two about how man tries to control man, I'm in need of more convincing.

As with my statement above, I do not mean that the entirety of the New Test. is garbage. I simply mean I will not buy it "hook line and sinker" at the cost of what I see in the world.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

1. "All men are pigs." "Wives who consent to intercourse with their husbanbs are submitting to rape." "Men who stand to pee do so to show their dominance over women." You can thank your local feminazi for those zingers. All regarding human nature. All driven by craven stupidity and hatred for men.

Since Muck took on two, I'll take on one. (Hats off to Muck for avoidence. Me? I'm weak and have to do what I do) This says more to me about your relationship with your mother or some other woman in your life than it says about anything else. As I said above, I won't address your question because it's blatently loaded to produce no result and even to the extent that we can agree, isn't a proposition which would help answer any question regarding the validity of the Bible as the Word of God.

The phrase "All Men are Pigs" is not supposed to be read as a statement that All men, are in fact pigs. When I say "Michigan sucks" I do not mean Michigan literally sucks. I mean the place fucking sucks.

 

[CookyPuss]

This statement isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I'm sick of fundamentalist Christians making the rest of us look stupid.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This statement isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I'm sick of fundamentalist Christians making the rest of us look stupid.

My post really that bad? :p

 

[CookyPuss]

My post really that bad? :p

If you are a fundamentalist, I would hate to see what that makes some of the others.

Edit: Err, I got it. I meant that fundamentalist Christians tend to make non-fundamentalist Christians like myself look stupid by claiming to speak for all Christians.

 

[BayBuck]

This statement isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I'm sick of fundamentalist Christians making the rest of us look stupid.

I for one am sick of the loaded word "fundamentalist".

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I for one am sick of the loaded word "fundamentalist".

Well, some fundementalists bomb buildings with airplanes.. others just try to make us stupid.

You know, you never hear about a Hindu fundementalist.

Incidentally, how are you with the word "Liberal" Not so much a problem for you, I'm guessing.

 

[BayBuck]

Incidentally, how are you with the word "Liberal" Not so much a problem for you, I'm guessing.

Also loaded, but more acceptable to me because it is pejorative of a person's political beliefs, not their religious ones. "Fundamentalist" is a political term over-applied to a wide range of religious peoples. Plus, liberals call themselves liberals (except when they don the cloak of "progressivism") -- who calls themselves a fundamentalist?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Also loaded, but more acceptable to me because it is pejorative of a person's political beliefs, not their religious ones. "Fundamentalist" is a political term over-applied to a wide range of religious peoples. Plus, liberals call themselves liberals (except when they don the cloak of "progressivism") -- who calls themselves a fundamentalist?

I must confess, I wasn't expecting a legitimate answer. Was just sorta fucking around with ya.

 

[BayBuck]

I must confess, I wasn't expecting a legitimate answer. Was just sorta fucking around with ya.

Well, you actually made the good point that a person like myself might well spit out the word "liberal" as an insult while recoiling from the stereotypes of "fundamentalist", so I was kind of trying to reconcile that difference even to myself. Besides, you know we fundamentalists never catch the joke :tongue2:

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Well, you actually made the good point that a person like myself might well spit out the word "liberal" as an insult while recoiling from the stereotypes of "fundamentalist", so I was kind of trying to reconcile that difference even to myself. Besides, you know we fundamentalists never catch the joke :tongue2:

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

I must confess, I wasn't expecting a legitimate answer. Was just sorta fucking around with ya.

I refuse to believe that you, of all people, would engage in that sort of tomfoolery.

 

[scooter1369]

I refuse to believe that you, of all people, would engage in that sort of tomfoolery.

A lawyer not expecting a real answer?

 

[CookyPuss]

Also loaded, but more acceptable to me because it is pejorative of a person's political beliefs, not their religious ones. "Fundamentalist" is a political term over-applied to a wide range of religious peoples. Plus, liberals call themselves liberals (except when they don the cloak of "progressivism") -- who calls themselves a fundamentalist?

I apoligize for using a term that has become pejorative. The term did grow from a particular movement in Evangelical Christianity to which I am referring.

Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism, is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ...

The term fundamentalist, in the context of this article, derives from a series of (originally) twelve volumes entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth. Among this publication's 94 essays, 27 of them objected to higher criticism of the Bible, by far the largest number addressing any one topic. The essays were written by 64 British and American conservative Protestant theologians between 1910 and 1915.

LINK

I used the term fundamentalist to distinguish from the "Religious Right" or "Conservative Christians" which are purly political terms. FWIW, I have personally heard a number of persons refer to themselves as fundamentalist. However, now that I think about it, that was pre-9/11. I agree that the wider use of this term had muddied its meaning.

My aggravation is not with the movement itself. My frustration is that members of this movement often speak on behalf of all Christians.

My apologies if anyone was offended by the use of the term. That was not my intent. I am curious what the appropriate term would be. Evangelical Christian is not appropriate, because not all Evangelicals are Fundamentalists. If anybody could shed some light on this, it would be appreciated.