Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:28:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1401 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> Peter Callaway wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > Oh stop. Give up will you?
> >
> > Why should I? This is something I strongly believe in which is being
> > challenged in a civil discussion, so lugnet.off-topic.debate T&C's
> > notwithstanding, I'm entitled to speak.
>
> Yes indeed you are, but you're wrong and it's not just me thats
> disagreeing with you. You're just repeating your arguments over and over
> but they've been discredited.
One of the arguments that has been repeated over and over here is the issue of
the gender of God, and how to address God, which I think we'll all have to
agree to dissagree on. I've stated my case on what I have researched and
believe. You think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong. So who's wrong? It's a
circular argument.
> > You're bored with it? Don't read it.
> >
> > > You don't know for sure what Jesus did or didn't do or what he did or
> > > didn't say. You can only take the word of people dead almost 2000 years
> > > now, who recorded things in languages many translations removed from the
> > > one you're referring to.
> >
> > Not true, at Bible college language classes in Greek and Hebrew use copies
> > of the original texts and translate them directly. So Greek-English and
> > Hebrew-English is not "many translations removed".
>
> How do you know these are copies of the original texts? How do you know
> that errors haven't crept in over the years? How do you know the meaning
> of the language hasn't changed? You can't answer any of these questions
> satisfactorily without leaning on revealed truth, or on additional
> eyewitness accounts.
How many eyewitness accounts does it take? What one person writes may
contradict what another person writes. So who do you believe? The person who's
writings match your own preconceptions? Or the person who's writings you can
verify from other independent sources. Or do you just look at it and say "Ha!
Caught you out!"? I have researched this to my own satisfaction with sources
other than the Bible.
> > And once again, the accounts of Jesus' life in the four gospels are
> > eyewitness accounts (except for Luke, although he wrote on behalf of
> > eyewitnesses because he was educated - a Doctor I think - and could write),
> > and are just as credible as any other eyewitness account of any historical
> > event in .... well, history. Just because it involves something YOU don't or
> > won't believe doesn't make it any less credible.
>
> But they're inconsistent. You can't stand there and claim that the bible
> is literal truth when it contains significant internal inconsistencies.
> We've been over this before. Those that claim that the bible has
> something important to teach us in its allegories and that it's not
> critical that we accept it word for word are going to get a lot farther
> with most intelligent people than those who insist that we accept a
> document with no tracability and no mechanism for proving or disproving
> it as revealed truth. That's for the gullible.
When you're dealing with the creation of the universe in 7 days, sure, we
weren't there. But when you're dealing with a man who walked and talked on
this earth, who was seen and heard by thousands and thousands of people, and
whose actions and words are chronicled in Roman and Greek as well as Jewish
historical texts, that's different.
I don't want anyone to accept blindly what the Bible teaches, nor do I think
does God. We're more intelligent than that. Particularly these days when we're
confronted with a wealth of information about absolutely everything you'd be
stupid if you accepted something without researching it adequately to your
satisfaction. If you're satisfied that you've adequately proven to yourself
that the Bible is inconsistent, untruthful and alot of rubbish, and infact
that God doesn't even exist, then good for you. Me, I've researched it and am
satisfied that it speakes the truth. So it was a Friday that Jesus fed the
5,000 and not a Thursday (come to think of it, it probably was since the kid
had fish and not lamb or beef). That doesn't change the context of the message
he preached to the people that day.
> See, when you're dealing with eyewitness accounts, there's no way to
> prove them one way or another. You can only look for inconsistencies or
> congruences and you can never be 100% sure of their veracity. You also
> can't use them to predict anything meaningful. Unlike, say, an assertion
> about what the atomic weight of carbon is, which can be tested,verified, and
> used to make predictions that affect things in this reality.
True, eyewitness accounts are often shot down in flames in a court of law. But
(and at the risk of sounding like the inflexible fundamentalist that I am) I
have satisfied myself that there are enough reputable eyewitness accounts of
Jesus' very existence and what he did and said, and consequently I believe it.
Clive Cussler (a very entertaining author) in his book "Sahara" weaves into
his story that Abraham Lincoln was not shot at the theatre, but was kidnapped
and placed aboard a Confederate ironclad which somehow ended up stranded in
the middle of the Sahara Desert, where he and the crew died and became
mummified in the dry heat. Wow, that sounds highly feasable, and alot more
interesting than the "shot in the theatre" story. What do you have to prove it
really was AL in the theatre that night? Eyewitness accounts, a doctors report
(easily forged), and an assassin (highly questionable ethical standards). Yet
I bet nearly all of the US believes without question that AL was shot and is
now burried where he lies. What conclusive proof is there of that (and I ask
this question honestly, as I honestly don't know. I'm not taking a shot at
American history, just using an example you can relate to on a fundamentally
important level)?
> I'm not going to get dragged into this again. Go review what was said
> before. But know this, while you're welcome to believe what you want,
> and under the current T&C you're welcome to say what you want here,
> you're not getting any traction with me as long as you stick to your
> current line.
I realise that, and think that this thread has pretty much run it's course.
> I've got you pegged as an inflexible fundamentalist. Probably not a fair
> characterization but you did it to yourself, based on what you've been
> saying. Go read some C.S. Lewis if you want to see how to convert the
> unbelievers, he does a far better job at it than just making bald
> unsupportable assertions.
Fundamentalist, maybe. The fundamentals are what's important. I'm sure your
familiar with a particular set of scenes from Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
where the gourd and the sandal were doing battle for deitic supremacy.
Unfortunately too many people get caught up in this kind of behaviour (not
necessarily with gourds and sandals) and lose sight of the bigger picture.
Inflexible, definitely not. To be a Christian today it is necessary to be
extremely flexible, understanding, tolerant and forgiving. Given that I'm a
Christian it's no secret what my stance is on homosexuality (a view formed
well before I became a Christian, mind you), yet in this country it is
actually illegal to have that stance. Yet the Gay and Lesbian community think
nothing of abusing, degrading and generally dumping on the Church. Is that
fair? No, but it's the law. Why? Because the Gay and Lesbian community have
adopted a political agenda of equality for their "type". That's their right,
but they are now engaging in reverse discrimination to make up for lost time,
and the Church is considered a soft target. That's just one example. I could
go on, but it sounds like you're sick of me already.
> An easy way to silence me is to say "Yes, the bible is not literally
> word for word correct and it does have inconsistencies in it, but it's
> still important and there is still stuff to learn from it."
>
> Say that and I'm done. But if my pegging is right, you won't be able to.
> Prove me wrong.
I don't believe verbatim every word in the Bible, becasue not all of it can be
proved to my satisfaction. Alot of it, particularly the Old Testament, is a
chronicle of the early Israelite nation, interspersed with laws, records,
procedures, etc. Moses didn't sit down and say "I think I'll write the first
five books of the Bible", nor did Matthew say "Wow, I can really make a name
for myself and write the first book of the New Testament. Better get it
published before Mark, Luke or John do theirs".
I think (and I could be wrong, inflexibility notwithstanding) that the Bible
as I know it was collated in about the third century AD. Probably what
compelled the people who did it to do it was, after reading all the
scriptures, they thought "Wow, this really great, but if we organise it like
this, hey, it makes even more sense!" (poetic licence taken in the dialogue).
And don't accuse me of backpedalling either, because I have never claimed that
the Bible should be taken word for word without question. All of my scripture
teachers have always encouraged me to prove it for myself. And that's what I
have done. The fact that I can't convince you of it is proof that I have
chosen my vocation wisely - I'm a civil engineer, not a minister - and not a
product of my supposed inflexible fundamentalist stance.
As for the stuff that can't be proven, or appears a little inconsistent. Given
the nature of the stuff that can be proven, and the subject matter of that
proof, to quote Denholm Elliot in Last Crusade, "At my age, I'm prepared to
take a few things on faith".
Pete Callaway
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Yes indeed you are, but you're wrong and it's not just me thats disagreeing with you. You're just repeating your arguments over and over but they've been discredited. (...) How do you know these are copies of the original texts? How do you (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
