-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biblical Contradictions
- Thread starter Mister Emu
- Start date
- Status
Melody
Well-Known Member
linwood said:
Well, here are a couple of definitions I pulled from Webster's and it sounds like several of the atheists on this board are actually agnostics. Forgive me, but I have this thing about clearly defining something so that we're not comparing apples and oranges.
Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity
Agnostic: : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
You are forgiven. But be advised that this is a recurrent and, for some of us tiresome, semantic debate which fails to distinguish between ontology and epistemology. In fact, meaningful 'isms' are more nuanced than your pocket dictionary and/or vernacular usage. Having said that, note this reference to the OED.Melody said:
I suggest that you temper your "thing about clearly defining something" with the realization that (a) definitions are rarely trivial, and (b) the map is not the territory. A person who deems the Supernatural in principal unknowable while asserting insufficient evidence to warrant belief in Deity (or teleology) is legitimately both agnostic and atheist irrespective of your "thing".
Melody
Well-Known Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
Thank you, but I didn't ask for your forgiveness, nor do I need it.
In order to carry on a meaningful dialogue about anything, you have to make sure you are talking about the same thing. I find that a dictionary is a good place to start since they start with common ground.
If you have one meaning for atheism and I have another, how can we possibly have a discussion? It would be like having a discussion on whether we like apples and an apple to you is actually a banana, whereas to me it's an apple as defined in the dictionary.
It depends, of course, on the contradiction. Did you have a particular one in mind? What about the contradiction between the Exodus/Conquest narrative and the archaeological record? Or between Luke's absurd anti-Pharisee fables and halakah? The former approximate folklore while the latter stands closer to antisemitic propaganda and should, presumably, be dealt with differently. What do you think?Corban said:
I thought I should get these out of the way now. The new covenant got rid of the ceremonial requirements of the old covenant.
meogi
Well-Known Member
Is there any way to do HTML in a post? The [.html] tag just seems to make it highlight brackets and stuff... unless it compiles the code after you submit (you'd think it'd do that on preview as well though)... anyway.
I'll just post a link to this guy's essay: http://ffrf.org/lfif/?t=stone.txt
Anyone have a response to it?
I'll just post a link to this guy's essay: http://ffrf.org/lfif/?t=stone.txt
Anyone have a response to it?
The "new covenant" is a piece of theological confection, a maneuver, reflecting the victory of Paul and the Gentile mission over the Jerusalem sect. The resulting "replacement theology" is little more than nascent antisemitism.Mister Emu said:
Pah
Uber all member
Mister Emu said:
... The new covenant got rid of the ceremonial requirements of the old covenant.
Then why is it canonized? What possiblre reason can there be for God not to get out the "latest word" without the ambiguity of the old. The Bible, as I understand it, is not a work in progress.
-pah-
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Ealier there was some talk about atheists not being able to study the Bible....hmm...
Let's take a closer look at this: how would a Christian study an ancient Hindu text? Well, the Christian doesn't believe in the Hindu legends etc., so obviously would not study it literally. They would have to take into account the authors, their philosophy, the cultural/historical context, etc. They would have to try to critically examine which elements are historical, and which are myths with religious/philosophical meaning. In other words, the Christian would have to use critical scholastic methods. This is precisely how an atheist would study the Bible.
There is no difference in how Christians and atheists look at the ancient religious writings/legends of past civilizations, except for one--Christians give a particular, canonized series of texts special rights to be interpreted in such a way that its inherent fallibility is completely ignored. In other words, the only people who are inherently biased in their study of the Bible are those who have a priori beliefs in its divine origins.
Let's take a closer look at this: how would a Christian study an ancient Hindu text? Well, the Christian doesn't believe in the Hindu legends etc., so obviously would not study it literally. They would have to take into account the authors, their philosophy, the cultural/historical context, etc. They would have to try to critically examine which elements are historical, and which are myths with religious/philosophical meaning. In other words, the Christian would have to use critical scholastic methods. This is precisely how an atheist would study the Bible.
There is no difference in how Christians and atheists look at the ancient religious writings/legends of past civilizations, except for one--Christians give a particular, canonized series of texts special rights to be interpreted in such a way that its inherent fallibility is completely ignored. In other words, the only people who are inherently biased in their study of the Bible are those who have a priori beliefs in its divine origins.
That is actually not quite accurate. I suspect that most atheists are "inherently biased" against the presumption of miracles. So, for example, rather than presume that the Synoptics prophecy the destruction of the Temple, we choose instead to date date them to after 72 CE.Mr_Spinkles said:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I see your point, but would that really be "bias" or just a critical analysis of an ancient mythological text? Would it really be objective not to conclude the miracles/prophesies are myths?Deut said:
It is bias. I know of nothing in the text itself that precludes an earlier date.Mr_Spinkles said:
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Hi all,
The web page that seemed to spawn this debate over intellectual bias in evaluation of facts mentions once crucial point that has been left out of this discussion.
Mr. Armstrong ADMITED bias towards believing Christian "evidence" since he was a believer.... what he objected to was the LACK of admission of bias towards an atheist view by the atheist he was debating.
I believe we all will show bias in a debate towards what we believe in, that's just human nature.
Scott
The web page that seemed to spawn this debate over intellectual bias in evaluation of facts mentions once crucial point that has been left out of this discussion.
Mr. Armstrong ADMITED bias towards believing Christian "evidence" since he was a believer.... what he objected to was the LACK of admission of bias towards an atheist view by the atheist he was debating.
I believe we all will show bias in a debate towards what we believe in, that's just human nature.
Scott
Mr Spinkles
Mr
So it's bias and unobjective to conclude that the Synoptics prophesying the exact date of the destruction of the Temple is unlikely?Deut. 32.8 said:
Yes, it is biased, although I'd be able to supply a more objective response if you could reference where I might find "the Synoptics prophesying the exact date of the destruction of the Temple".Mr_Spinkles said:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
How is it biased to doubt the prophesying powers/miracle accounts of authors who contradict each other/themselves and appear to fabricate stories and borrow things from other legends, and when scientifically no one has ever been shown to have miraculous/prophesying power?Deut said:
As for a reference where you might find "the Synoptics prophesying the exact date of the destruction of the Temple", I assumed there was such a reference when you said:
But I must have misunderstood you. :embarassed:
We are all biased.
- Status