Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you apply the same questionable rigour to all ancient writings? There is very good evidence that Beowulf is based on real places and real people - does that mean you believe in Grendel? Grendel's mother? There is a lot of corroborative evidence for Homer's work - do you therefore accept that Polyphemus was real? The Sirens? Scylla and Charybdis? And what about the Greek Gods?
The fact remains, whether one likes it or not, Bible contains an accurate depiction of events, corroborated by archaeology, nor is it a case of 'some of these stories', for you have just read how entire books are considered to be accurately portrayed. It seems to me that you only dispute those which have a supernatural element. Even in those cases ...[text shortened]... the Christ, after a detailed study of the text, an accurate portrayal is readily discernible.
No of course you don't, you apply your critical faculties when examining texts other than the bible. I prefer to view all ancient texts in this way, rather than picking one out to swallow whole based on some arbitrary adoption of faith.
3 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAlas the folly of the rationalist knows no bounds, let us therefore ask you Cat dude, what archaeological evidence exists for these personages that you mention, for whereas the majority of those persons are clearly mythological, the Bible deals with real people, concerning real events, it gives times, dates and the ruling monarch.
Do you apply the same questionable rigour to all ancient writings? There is very good evidence that Beowulf is based on real places and real people - does that mean you believe in Grendel? Grendel's mother? There is a lot of corroborative evidence for Homer's work - do you therefore accept that Polyphemus was real? The Sirens? Scylla and Charybdis? A way, rather than picking one out to swallow whole based on some arbitrary adoption of faith.
Indeed which one of the apostles was a mythical being? Which King of Israel a figment of the imagination? Indeed which details of the gospel accounts will you use to support a mythological evaluation? That Pilate did not exist? That Herod was not a cruel and vindictive person? Do tell!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat possible purpose could be served in us furthering this discussion? You will never view the bible critically and with reason whatever points I raise, and I will never accept that god, should he exist, would require that I forgo the use of the sense, reason and intellect with which he saw fit to equip me.
Alas the folly of the rationalist knows no bounds, let us therefore ask you Cat dude, what archaeological evidence exists for these personages that you mention, for whereas the majority of those persons are clearly mythological, the Bible deals with real people, concerning real events, it gives times, dates and the ruling monarch.
Indeed which o ...[text shortened]... luation? That Pilate did not exist? That Herod was not a cruel and vindictive person? Do tell!
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIndeed, for when one lays claim to examining the Bible, with ones intellect, one needs to examine its contents, shall we do that? Pick any gospel account you like, anyone, and the very details shall reveal an integrity and factuality which dispels any notion of myth. Shall we start with the Widow of Nairn and the resurrection of her only child? Perhaps the healing of the man at the pool of Siloam? where would you like to start using your equipment to look at scripture critically? What purpose would be gained? You might actually learn something which instils confidence in the ancient text rather than diminishing it 🙂
What possible purpose could be served in us furthering this discussion? You will never view the bible critically and with reason whatever points I raise, and I will never accept that god, should he exist, would require that I forgo the use of the sense, reason and intellect with which he saw fit to equip me.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieStart at the beginning.
Indeed, for when one lays claim to examining the Bible, with ones intellect, one needs to examine its contents, shall we do that? Pick any gospel account you like, anyone, and the very details shall reveal an integrity and factuality which dispels any notion of myth. Shall we start with the Widow of Nairn and the resurrection of her only child? Pe ...[text shortened]... ually learn something which instils confidence in the ancient text rather than diminishing it 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou seem like a nice enough guy Robbie, but to be honest I'm really not that interested in discussing the historical veracity of the bible with you. Our views on this material are simply irreconcilable.
there were no humans 'in the beginning', how can we look at these human elements if there were none, or are you talking about the beginning of the gospel accounts?
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatphew i am actually not a little relieved, for i was picturing in my mind having to write endless scrolls of stuff, take care - Robbie 🙂
You seem like a nice enough guy Robbie, but to be honest I'm really not that interested in discussing the historical veracity of the bible with you. Our views on this material are simply irreconcilable.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThen I guess you are saying your palaeontologist friend
I suspect he would be rather impolite in his dismissal of your argument.
is an atheist. Right? Then God said, "Let the waters teem
with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above
the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." And God
created the great sea monsters, and every living creature
that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their
kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed
them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters
in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
Genesis 1:20 -22 (New American Standard Bible)
Even if reptiles are included in these sea creatures, birds
are clearly a separate category. Notice they were created
after their kind, they did not evolve into another kind.
So are you going to believe the Holy Bible or your
palaeontologist friend?
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsHe's not an atheist, no. The bible says a lot of stuff. I'll don't understand why anyone would choose to believe it all, however.
Then I guess you are saying your palaeontologist friend
is an atheist. Right? Then God said, "Let the waters teem
with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above
the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." And God
created the great sea monsters, and every living creature
that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their
kind: and God ...[text shortened]... ind.
So are you going to believe the Holy Bible or your
palaeontologist friend?
RJHinds
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoNo, I was saying that these discussions are between humans and naturally they place humans at the top. If some other beings were discussing it, they would place themselves at the top. They'd probably all say that being able to discuss it is the cheif qualification. I meant no insult to anyone.
I will be thankful if you clarify what you mean by"Not that this applies to to you,---the highest example."
I take it that it was a clumsy effort to chuck some mud by trying to describe me as a less intelligent specimen of humans.
If so,I must reluctantly conclude that the so called science lovers are quite irrational when it comes to disputing a friendly challenge to their positions.
Originally posted by Taoman".., then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet."
My take on it is that even "final" truths cannot be finally defined, just got near.
Another way of saying that is that truth is even in the opposing "untruth" in some form also.
"Emptiness" from a Buddhist perpective, does not mean there is nothing, just that it is finally so ineffable, so great and embracing and mysterious in quality, that it cannot be ...[text shortened]... y human size, trying to "possess" God, although it is common and understandable.
And it is therefore perfectly reasonable to believe God communicates with us.
"We need to stop bringing the Divine down to our puny human size,.."
It would be arrogantly presumptuous to think we could.
"My take with a lot of theist views is not that they are basically wrong, but just need to expand their vision of the greatness of the Divine Reality."
How so?
You see, this is something I've attempted to discuss in this forum for years now, but am unable to drive the concept home. ANYTHING to be known about God comes from God. We cannot drag it out of Him or ascend to Him to retrieve it. We cannot DO anything, SAY anything, BEG, BOROW, or STEAL anything to get one thing from God. God gives, we receive. But we are stubborn. We find whatever excuse we can to live in unbelief. We all do it. Me maybe more than any.
I possess God, and He possesses me because He said so.(But only when I believe)(Because He said so)
How could it be otherwise?
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwSimilarly I am unable to drive the following concept home:
[b]".., then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet."
And it is therefore perfectly reasonable to believe God communicates with us.
"We need to stop bringing the Divine down to our puny human size,.."
It would be arrogantly p e said so[/b].(But only when I believe)(Because He said so)
How could it be otherwise?[/b]
ANYTHING to be known about Hakash the magic pot that creates universes comes from Hakash. We cannot drag it out of her or ascend to her to retrieve it. We cannot DO anything, SAY anything, BEG, BOROW, or STEAL anything to get one thing from Hakash. Hakash gives by magic voodoo rays, we receive. But people are stubborn and choose to believe in false gods. They find whatever excuse they can to live in unbelief of Hakash.
1 edit
As I was riding through the desert, i came upon a beautiful little house, it had a verdant garden teaming with all manner of creatures, adequate water with a self filtering mechanism, abundant food in the cupboards, fuel in the basement, looking around i could not help but wonder, how did it get here, by blind chance?, nay the sun has been too long on my neck, for every house is constructed by someone.