Coming Full Circle: Christianity to Atheism

[Xru]

You really are a fundy, huh? How does an 'extreme circumstance' change the fact that people are prone to conflict as well as 'getting along'? Besides, everybody has stress and everybody deals with it. Ever get a call at 4 am telling you that you are leaving over seas for an unknown amount of time in 5 hours? I have, do you seriously not think that causes stress on myself as well as my husband? Of course it did. Life is full of stress and managing it is the key to a lasting relationship.

I would guess that Whang is a young, highly educated person, who thinks rather highly of his intellect . .. but who has woefully little practical experience to temper all the sand that the educational system threw in his face.

If memory proves accurate, Whang is also in love with studies which are notoriously hard and sometimes impossible to interpret accurately or reproduce the results.

And . . . oh yes . . . let me look . . . Whang is also on my motor-head and zipper-head list.

[Xru]

It's ad-hoc because you're reading things into the text that aren't there or worse, stating maybe it's completely allegorical. Sure the context of the time is important but that's no excuse for the book to state outrageously absurd things that we know are untrue. The truth is that it's not meant to be taken as some mystery that only the Hebrews of then understand. It specifically states, without any hint of poetic allegory, how the universe and world came to be. You have start with the conclusion that the text was not stating things literally, then work from that conclusion. Well that's how bad science and philosophy work. You have reversed the critical method. One should start with the conclusion that text means what it's states.

Sorry LPOT . . . don't want to take your joy away from debating the motorhead . . . but . . . moving on . .

So SoR . . . you are well read on the exegesis of the Old Testament? You've read much of the codicology and paleography on the subject? Which authors might I inquire?

Of course you are familiar with the works of Kenneth E. Bailey regarding the exegesis of NT parables and how difficult it is to accurately understand parables and the text in general without immersing oneself in the cultural context of the time. So much the harder to understand what a reader of the OT might have understood the text to be saying 2500 years ago.

Are you asserting that you know what the Peasant's who read or heard these texts understood 2500 years ago?

If so I find that astonishing.

[Xru]

I see why so many people complain they can't put you on ignore. You are exhausting.

Why would you want to. LPOT is one of the more eloquent and knowledgeable apologists on TWeb.

Who wants to put her on ignore . . . you, Burp, Tass I'm sure and other of the more highly respected members of TWeb?

You might want to take a look at the number of stars she has and the number of amens she's racked up before you shoot off your stupid mouth like the idiot you are.

XruLPOT

[Sea of red]

There's several problems for your argument here and I will explain it, in detail to you, if you so desire.

First off ad hoc is more like the examples I pulled out that many YEC's resort to, such as the argument of the 'appearance of age' which is an attempt to explain away the evidence instead of explain the evidence. Second, I don't think you're well versed in literature styles and thus you are making another mistake. Let me try a few examples, how do we know that the movie Titanic is an historical fiction? The evidence does not come from the films themselves since it weaves in elements of the fiction with the historical elements, but the evidences comes from outside the film in the form of interviews from the actors, writer, and directors themselves. Reviews state that it is an historical fictional account. Likewise commentaries of the film tell us the same thing. Based on this information, we are able to determine that the movie Titanic is classic historical fiction, but we do not get this from the film itself, but from sources all outside the film itself. When it comes to Genesis, the biggest problem we run into is we do not have that commentary, interviews, etc that we have for things like the Gospel accounts, so thus the hardest thing is we are unable to determine many of the elements beyond what the Bible itself says and in truth, the rest of the Bible refers very little to nothing to the creation account beyond a hand full of references that read just as fine in the less literal as they do in the literal. My point here is this, you are basing your claims upon your ignorance of the Bible and literature in general. So your argument here about the 'clues' kind of falls flat when we look at modern examples and find there is very little clues within most books or movies about their fictional nature. Finally, let me cover your idea that one should assume that 'the text means what it states' and how utterly flat that claim falls too. One of my favorite movie and fictional series of all times Star Wars is deeply set in metaphor and you'll actually miss most of the message if you simply look at the 'plain message' in front of you instead of digging deeper into what it has to say about the fundamental nature of humanity. The primary difference between the Jedi and Sith is how they choose to act with the power they have, it does state that the 'dark side' does have its allure and Jedi have to be on guard for that, but it primary places the responsibility upon each person, which I think the Bible often does too. In fact, the majority of movies or books are the same way, you'll miss the message if you are stuck in the 'plain reading' mode. In conclusion, you're problem is that you're stuck in the same mode that people like Jorge are stuck in. You're so determined to look at the people in it's most literal form, you miss most of what is trying to teach and thus you end up with a goofy belief system and it's no wonder you left it behind when you saw reason. The problem I am finding is that you haven't dropped these goofy views of the Bible now, you just changed sides.

I was never really Christian to be honest. I was brought up Roman Catholic but it never took. I did however believe in a sort pantheistic/deistic god, but I abandoned that after like 14 - I only started calling myself an atheist after HS. Back to the topic, the movie Titanic is for all practical purposes fiction. It may very well be describing events that really did occur, but none of the story line is actual true (as I recall I haven't seen the movie since my Mother forced me). Just as the movies Casino and Good Fellas where using real characters that actually where mobster and using them in completely fictional stories. The story of Tommy getting clipped was completely hacked up in the movie, as was Henry Hills coke dealings, and that's just the beginning. Why was this done? To add more drama and suspense to the movie, as the historical account had boring elements in places. So since where comparing old fiction to new I don't see why we can't state the Bible has elements similar to Casino. And that's just it. What parts are historical and what parts aren't, Crystal? It seems to me you base this distinction purely off what Biblical stories have been shown to be impossibilities or which ones are still safe.

And it's too bad that I went into quite a bit of detail about it and you seem unable to actually refute it. I told you the differences and it can be pretty easy to spot to. How much references over the entire Bible is given to the story of Jonah and the whale, the tower of Babel, Noah's Ark, and Adam and Eve when compared to Moses, the kingdom of Israel, the ministry of Jesus, or the ministry of the apostles? Very little beyond some references to them as examples, which face it, work just as well if we take these stories in less literal forms as we do in the more literal forms.

And it's really too bad that Paul and Jesus both spoke of Noah's ark and Adam and Eve as being real events that happened. Frankly, Adam and Eve along with Noah's Ark are kinda important to the history of Judaism and the Hebrew people. If these stories are just poetic allegories, the people in them are fictional, then why to later prophets use these stories to further their agenda? If this stuff didn't really happen then you're on a circus wire of intellectual honesty. At some point you have to simply pick one or the other. Sure, you could always state that "well Jesus used Adam and Eve to make moral points about man" but that still doesn't imply that he thought the events weren't historical -- you have to shove words down his throat and/or reinterpret the sayings to fit beliefs you'll have regardless of whether you can harmonize these ideas.

The problem is not the Bible at all, the problem lies with your either/or mentality about it along with the lack of evidence outside the Bible to help us determine more about it. Much of the commentary about Genesis and how literal the creation story should be taken comes from about the 3rd century BC onward, that means 900 years after it was written (and I might add, that commentary doesn't take the Genesis accounts 100% literal either and much of the commentary about Jonah doesn't either).

The problem is the Bible -- end of story. Most of the commentary from Jewish and Christian figures suggest that these people did believe the stories of the Bible to be historical. Can you find an example of a church father questioning the account of Noah's Ark, or whether Adam and Eve lived? Maybe I missed it but such quotes don't exist. It's simply not there. That's just two stories of many. The problem is you want to have your cake and eat it too. Well, you can't.

I cut the next part because it covers the same points. But there is one thing I'd like to point out. Augustine appears to have been a YEC:

3) Isn’t it obvious from his City of God (De Civitate Dei) that Augustine believed that God created Man 6000 years ago?

Not quite, but a young earth definitely. Augustine wrote in De Civitate Dei that his view of the chronology of the world and the Bible led him to believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC [Ed. note: he used the somewhat inflated Septuagint chronology—see Biblical chronogenealogies for more information.]. One of the chapters in his City of God bears the title “On the mistaken view of history that ascribes many thousands of years to the age of the earth.” Would you like it clearer? Several pagan philosophers at the time believed that the earth was more or less eternal. Countless ages had preceded us, with many more to come. Augustine said they were wrong. This goes to show that theistic evolutionists who call in Augustine’s support do so totally out of context. All they allow themselves to see is his symbolic use of “day” in Genesis, and a very difficult philosophical doctrine of creation with ideas that develop. “Wonderful!” they think, “Augustine really supports our post-Darwinian theories!” It takes a superficial view of Genesis and Augustine to arrive at such conclusions. His instant creation, his young earth and immediate formation of Adam and Eve rule out Augustine’s application for this purpose.

No James, YEC's have a very inconsistent method that I have shown specific examples of. On the other hand, you haven't been able to prove that anything I said is 'ad-hoc' without anything more than simply asserting it. While on the other hand, I dug up examples and evidence to support my view with. Finally, no James I do not, that is either/or black and white fundy thinking that seems to be a left over from your Christian days. Just as this method doesn't work when applied to historical fiction such as the film Titanic it doesn't work with the Bible too. It's an absurd method that would get you no where when applied to anything else, so why only apply it to the Bible and nothing else? If anything the entire 'literal in everything' method is one of the most inconsistent and contradictory methods around and is only applied to the Bible and nothing else. Such nonsense should be thrown to the way side along with the goofy interpretations and goofy nonsense it brings with it.

Sorry Crystal, you just can't make this case without extraordinary fudging and cherry-picking of The Bible and what we know. You haven't actually give any kind of evidence that shows that your views have always been acceptable. In fact, the evidence is clear that the ancient Jews and Christians would've probably found you extreme, and likely seen you as a heretic. The examples you gave were false dichotomies that have nothing to do with this. I think comparing your belief systems core tales of history to Star-wars and the Titanic is just a little out there.

Finally, if the Bible is more about moral teachings and less about history, just leave at the moral teachings and discard all the supernatural stuff.

[Xru]

I always find it interesting when tools like SOR pick what posts they will or will not address or points in a post that they do or do not addressed.

Let me check . . . oh ya . . . on the zipper-head list. Added to motor-head list.

[pancreasman]

I always find it interesting when tools like SOR pick what posts they will or will not address or points in a post that they do or do not addressed.

Let me check . . . oh ya . . . on the zipper-head list. Added to motor-head list.

People have a right to talk to whom they want to talk to. People also have a reasonable right to not suffer posts they find abusive if they don't want to. The forum supports this by including an ignore feature to make the chat experience more pleasant. Regrettably, those who are moderators are unable to be ignored which does kind of spoil it a bit in a few cases.

[Xru]

People have a right to talk to whom they want to talk to. People also have a reasonable right to not suffer posts they find abusive if they don't want to. The forum supports this by including an ignore feature to make the chat experience more pleasant. Regrettably, those who are moderators are unable to be ignored which does kind of spoil it a bit in a few cases.

Guess you've set yourself up as abuse monitor P?

you're gonna be a busy man.

[pancreasman]

Guess you've set yourself up as abuse monitor P?

you're gonna be a busy man.

What? I can't read your posts.

[Xru]

What? I can't read your posts.

I don't give a rats behind what you do, yo.

[Xru]

People have a right to talk to whom they want to talk to. People also have a reasonable right to not suffer posts they find abusive if they don't want to. The forum supports this by including an ignore feature to make the chat experience more pleasant. Regrettably, those who are moderators are unable to be ignored which does kind of spoil it a bit in a few cases.

I don't flame anyone that's not asked for it over and over again, not a total idiot, mentally defective, stupid, ignorant, a Troll, or just too annoying to tolerate.

You want to see abuse follow Mountain Man around for awhile.

[pancreasman]

I don't flame anyone that's not asked for it over and over again, not a total idiot, mentally defective, stupid, ignorant, a Troll, or just too annoying to tolerate.

You want to see abuse follow Mountain Man around for awhile.

What? Are you talking?

[Xru]

oh . . . can't read now?

[Kane]

Guess you've set yourself up as abuse monitor P?

you're gonna be a busy man.

And now it's on record that there is a lot of abuse here, and that there really is no intention to change that.

Thank you for exposing that truth, Xru.

[Xru]

And now it's on record that there is a lot of abuse here, and that there really is no intention to change that.

Thank you for exposing that truth, Xru.

You're welcome.

[pancreasman]

I'm responsible for the health of my own mind and I get to decide what I find edifying to put in it. Others are free to do what they want. Ain't freedom grand?