He's an atheist pretending to be a Christian. I think it's so he can use Christianity as a way of controlling others. (Like Gary Oldman's character in "The Book of Eli".)
Agreed. If worship of Ganesha fit his needs of the moment, he could easily fit that into his "theology". And he would disavow it the moment it no longer suited his needs.
Aw, someone is pissed off that I don't believe in Republican Jesus....:)
I realized several years ago, after being turned off by the church for many, many years, that I don't like people inserting themselves between me and my savior...in particular, insecure people who feel the need to have more people think they same way they do and have the exact same faith. I've never understood why they need others to justify their faith. I don't need anyone because ultimately we face our Creator on alone. It was then that I felt my faith much deeper by simply reading the Bible, interpreting it for myself and leaving others alone to pursue their own faith and path to God. One could say I am a religious libertarian:)
I think being a follower of Christ is more than the simple, 8 year old version that is considered "true" Christianity. Christ himself said that we will do his works and greater than these and that we have to do is believe in Him and His message.
Interesting that I have to tell a "rugged individualist" like NMN that thinking for yourself and not listening to personal spokesomodels for Jesus is what God has intended for each of us all along. Thinking for yourself, NMN...gasp! Must be the (made up and non existent) devil!
That's why I put up this video, actually. Our vanity as humans assumes that we are more important than all of the rest of the things that God has done. We aren't. In fact, we are pretty insignificant considering the history of the universe.
What I don't believe in is your interpretation of the Bible, NMN. That's where the problem resides. I don't accept your insertion between me and my savior. In fact, I reject it completely.
Not everything in the Bible is false. Not everything in the Bible is true either.
What gives you the right to declare yourself as the accurate interpreter of the Bible? Again, I reject you and other Christian conservatives completely as any kind of authority over anyone else's faith but your own. That's also why the Carnegie reference is a straw man and (surprise!) heading off at the pass. People's faith is their business. I'm not interested in controlling anyone. But we all know who is and attempts to do so with a certain degree of success which is why you are characterizing me that way:)
It's all about making a choice to believe, not be yelled at at to turn or burn.
Yes, NMN, I am a spy and part of some sort of secret plot. Look out!
I'm interested in what you think about this video and Neil. Truly, a great thinker of our time. If humans have only been a part of our universe for such a short amount of time, why do we have such vanity and assume that we are the most important thing to God?
Further, consider this (from the National Atheist Party website)
The National Atheist Party does not seek to inhibit the religious practices or beliefs of any group, but is committed to the idea that religious preference is a private matter and has no place in the government or workplace. We support the separation of church and state, and seek to ensure its strictest interpretation.
Even as a Christian, I support this as long as they aren't anti-religion and are pro-inclusiveness. Ironic that atheists embody Christ's teachings more than many Christians!
What gives you the right to declare yourself as the accurate interpreter of the Bible?
Uhhh, because being a Christian pretty much means you have to believe the bible is the literal word of God. Therefore claiming parts of the Bible as not true is pretty much makes you not a Christian.
That's not someone getting between you and God, that's you rejecting the word of the 'Christian God'.
Doesn't mean you don't believe in God, just means that calling yourself a Christian while actively rejecting Christian dogma is much akin to calling yourself a Muslim while denying that Mohamed is God's prophet.
If humans have only been a part of our universe for such a short amount of time, why do we have such vanity and assume that we are the most important thing to God?
You mean His saying so and His actions demonstrating so aren't enough? Um…
Re. the cartoon: good job at completely missing the point. (Not at all unexpected.)
Your entire argument so far has been "I want to believe what I want to believe and ignore the parts of the Bible I want to ignore, and I don't allow anyone to tell me different." That does nothing to address why either of these statements is (supposedly) inaccurate:
"I believe in the God of the Bible" (based on your claim that you're a Christian, as gd pointed out)
"Everything the Bible teaches about God is false" (based on your constant posting of and agreement with claims made by atheists)
Please blow our minds and actually address the point for once!
2 - Rules of grammar define how those words relate to each other.
3 - Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing.
Of course, you demonstrate your hatred of the third rule every day by constantly twisting what we write ("Voices in Your Head"), so it's not at all surprising that you do not understand these concepts.
Therefore claiming parts of the Bible as not true is pretty much makes you not a Christian.
But NMN has already done that. Ask him about sin.
That's not someone getting between you and God, that's you rejecting the word of the 'Christian God'.
Now you are putting yourself between me and God. Why does NMN have the accurate interpretation of the Bible and I don't? Because I am Markadelphia?
I'm not claiming that NMN isn't a Christian because he is obsessed with sinning. He believes that Christ rose from the dead and is the son of God. After that, he need not do anything else. He will be saved. It's called justification by faith alone (see: Martin Luther) and that means that Jesus is for everyone who believes.
You mean His saying so and His actions demonstrating so aren't enough?
in a book written by men who fail continually and can't truly comprehend everything that is God because He is...well, God. I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that you know what God thinks or what His plan is for us.
Words do mean things but the problem is, NMN, that those words have evolved over thousands of years from different religions. As we have evolved as a species, those words also carry different meaning. Healing, for example, is much different now than it was during the time of Christ. Would you rather take your daughter to a doctor from the 1st century AD or one from today? The answer is obvious and that's why your characterization of me is way off. "You will do my works and greater than these..." remember?
Is Martin Luther Christ? Does he speak with the voice of God? If not, why would you listen to his word above that of the actual word of God in the Bible?
Again, you can claim to be a Muslim all you want, but if you reject Mohamed as the prophet then BY DEFINITION you are not a Muslim.
You can claim to be a Christian all you want, but if you reject the word of the Christian God then BY DEFINITION you are not a Christian.
But NMN has already done that.
Quote?
Now you are putting yourself between me and God.
No I am not. You can have whatever faith you want. You just cannot self define words to suit you mood. Christian, BY DEFINITION, follows the words of Christ and God as set out in the Christian Bible.
You do not disagree with the intent of certain phrases, or the translation of certain parts. You categorically state that parts are WRONG. That is absolutely a rejection of the writings in the Bible and hence a rejection of the word of God.
You can reject those certain parts of the Bible ALL YOU WANT TO. Be happy, that is your faith. But that faith, BY DEFINITION, is not and cannot be called Christianity - because you REJECT those things that actually define that faith.
in a book written by men who fail continually and can't truly comprehend everything that is God because He is...well, God. I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that you know what God thinks or what His plan is for us.
Core tenet of Christianity - that book is the word of God. Another rejection. If you do not follow the core tenets of a religion you, BY DEFINITION, are not a follower of that religion.
It's called thinking outside of the box, juris, and I think that's just what God wants us to do. He actually says it in the Bible..."you will do my works and greater than these..."
GD, when was the last time you read the Bible? Take some time and sit down with it as it is most certainly not an "all or nothing" prospect. Within the Bible itself, God evolves. The entire chapter of Hebrews 8 explains this quite well. Further, certain ceremonial law is thrown out in favor of Jesus. So, no, not everything in the Bible should be followed, particularly large parts of the Old Testament. Remember, "keep my commandments."
I realize you like to "win" at stuff like this but you clearly are very ill informed on the actual text. There is no asterisk after Romans 10:9-10. This is the essence of justification by faith and faith alone which is why I mentioned Luther. He, like myself, grew tired of the church being the sole and only allowed interpreter of the Bible. The Bible is for everyone and it does not matter what your station in life is or if you even belong to a church. Christ is for everyone and no one gets to tell you what the "right" interpretation is of the Bible.
That's my main beef with NMN and others like him. I'm surprised that a libertarian like yourself is so bent on obeying authority without question.
Really? Where did you read that? The Enquirer or the Bible? Huh, almost like the Bible is the word right?
Further, certain ceremonial law is thrown out in favor of Jesus.
Uhhh, yeah - that's the CHRIST part of Christian.......
tired of the church
I did not say anything about THE CHURCH. I specifically said, and was specifically referencing YOU and your repeated rejection of the Bible. The Bible is not the Church. The Church is not the Bible.
no one gets to tell you what the "right" interpretation is of the Bible.
No one except God. You know, the guy that wrote the book.
Like I said - and nothing I've said here contradicts this - so pay attention. You can believe and interpret the Bible in any manner you wish. But if you do it in such a manner that is contradictory to Christianity then you cannot call yourself a Christian. You want to make up your own religion you need to find your own name for it as Christianity is already taken.
“I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal. 3:6) is His own unqualified affirmation. He cannot change for the better, for He is already perfect; and being perfect, He cannot change for the worse.
Man's relationship may change but God does not. He is perfect and doesn't 'evolve'. Dang, just like everything else, you have very little understanding.
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. … knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. — 2 Peter 1:17, 20–21
or this?
Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. He speaks about these things in all his letters in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures. — 2 Peter 3:15–16
or this?
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. — Jesus, Matthew 5:18–19
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. — 1 Corinthians 2:12–13
Or maybe this?
First, they were entrusted with the spoken words of God. What then? If some did not believe, will their unbelief cancel God’s faithfulness? Absolutely not! God must be true, even if everyone is a liar, as it is written:
That You may be justified in Your words and triumph when You judge. — Romans 3:2b–4
or this?
but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith — Romans 16:26
or this?
If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. — 1 Corinthians 14:37–38
How about this?
Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; … For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. — 1 Thessalonians 4:1–3, 7–8
How about this?
If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. — 1 Timothy 6:3–5
or this?
having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. — 2 Timothy 3:5–8
or this?
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. — 2 Timothy 4:3–4
or this?
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. — Hebrews 1:1–2
What about this?
And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” — Jesus, Luke 24:25
Or this?
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” — Jesus, John 5:46–47
You could have saved yourself the time and trouble, NMN, because my interpretation doesn't matter. How I interpret the Bible has on relevance in your life just like your interpretation has none in mine. The Bible, and specifically Jesus, speaks to many people in a variety of ways. That's the beauty of being a Christian.
Do you honestly think that God made us all different only to turn around and tell us to all think and be the same way?
Amusing that NMN is more concerned with me than juris, the atheist. Isn't he going to burn in hell and shouldn't you try to save him, NMN? Remember, I don't need saving, I already believe, stronger now than I ever have because I used to think that I had to believe in Republican Jesus is order to be a "true" Christian. Now that I know just how much of a lie that is, my faith is stronger than ever and honestly keeps me going.
2) Juris can read what I write and (hopefully) learn from it. (An honest person is capable of learning.) Why do you think I bother with you at all?
3) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. — Matthew 23:15 (see also 2nd Timothy 3:5 and Romans 2:24)
So much for your rabbit trail, which was just another method of running away from the point. And that point is this: you have repeatedly made the claim that only your "interpretation" matters:
- You have a claimed I am wrong about sin because: "your interpretation"
- You have claimed God could not have written the Bible because: "your interpretation"
- You have claimed God wants us "out of the box" because: "your interpretation" (of something that isn't even in the Bible)
- You have claimed many, many other things that directly contradict clear statements in the Bible because: "your interpretation"
Therefore, once again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of these passages? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth? (My bet: Another dodge/running away.)
NMN, you use the Bible as one giant warning sign stemming from a place of fear. I've shown you passage after passage that clearly illustrates that all you need to be saved is to believe. That's it. There are no "sinners in the hands of an angry God" anymore. We are now in a period of Grace, thanks to Jesus.
You can't accept this because you need the threat of hellfire to prevent you from sinning. Great. I don't. For me, God and Jesus come from a place of love choice, and peace, not hatred, anger, and paranoia. I have no problem if the latter is what you think is best for you. For me, it's not and I see YOU as ignoring large swaths of the New Testament so you can justify your faith.
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? — Romans 6:1–2
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? — Romans 6:15–16
I see someone who is desperately trying to convince me that his interpretation of the Bible is the right one and wants to "win." Further, this convincing betrays a very deep insecurity of faith which I don't understand. If you truly have made peace with Jesus, you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to convince me of your faith.
How is it even possible to "interpret" those passages in a way that directly contradicts what they clearly say? You have made YOUR interpretation the issue. Only YOU can say what that interpretation is and how it works.
Therefore, once again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of these passages? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth?
I see someone who is desperately trying to convince me that his interpretation of the Bible is the right one and wants to "win."
Uh M, all he has done is quote the scripture you claim guides your own faith. I'm now just a bit curious, why do you bother to call yourself a Christian is you don't accept either the Bible or Church teaching as authoritative? Do you even understand "heresy" as a concept?
I'm wondering how when he says "all you need to be saved is to believe" he's referencing a book that he himself calls wrong and written by fallible humans.
If that's the case - why does he think the one part he is keying his faith upon is the 'correct' part?
This is all very easily solved, NMN. Do you believe that every single word in the Bible is accurate and should be followed to the letter? My answer is no. And, if you read the Bible, you will know that this still means you are a Christian.
I'm not going to get into a Bible quoting war again with you, NMN, because, as I have said many times, my interpretation doesn't matter. And you are just going to ignore what doesnt suit your narrative (Hebrews 8, for example). Further, yours is not the "correct one" and by thinking that it is, you are essentially saying that millions of people are not Christian.
M, if you believe the Bible is false in some cases and true in others, how do you discern? So Jesus made some pretty bold claims about who he is, what makes his statements the 'True' part? What if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all conspired to make the Jewish faith go away by writing about the Christ? You base your entire faith on a flawed book you pick and choose what you think might be true and not? Might as well believe in Allah and Mohammed or any other joke religion. Your faith seems based on nothing but whims and cultural mores.
So M's claim to Christianity is like his claim to critical thinking - it is a status he desires therefore he claims it even if he possesses/exercises none of the relevant characteristics.
Narcissism squared.
Really puts that constant projective whining about juvenile attitudes in perspective.
I find it interesting (and rather predictable) that you, an atheist who likely has not examined the Bible in any serious way, is simply taking NMN's word for it. So much for an informed opinion. Ah well, as long as you "beat me" at blog comments, eh?
an atheist who likely has not examined the Bible in any serious way,
Part of the reason I am a non-believer is that I couldn't square the contradictions in the Bible which in the Protestant tradition I was raised in is the infallible word of God. At least Catholics rely first on church teachings. You see dumbshit, I probably know the Bible and Church history better than you (not that it takes a great deal of knowledge to trump you).
And I have no problem squaring the contradictions and was raised in a Presbyterian church that was more proggressive. Further, I applaud people like Rob Bell who point out that traditional interpretations of the Bible may not be accurate.
Markadelphia's method of "squaring contradictions" seems to fall into one of three methods:
1) He simply asserts that it is not a contradiction. No evidence, no analysis, not even offering the slightest reasoning. Just "because The Great and Powerful Mark says so. Kneel!"
2) "So what?" It doesn't matter that it contradicts. He doesn't care. He's right anyway.
3) "But it's supposed to contradict!" He seems to think matters of faith are supposed to be irrational.
Bottom line, even a clear and direct contradiction simply does not bother him in the slightest. The perfect example is right in this thread:
Markadelphia:There are no "sinners in the hands of an angry God" anymore. We are now in a period of Grace, thanks to Jesus.
The Bible:Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
It doesn't get any more directly contradictory than that, yet Mark continues to insist without explanation that he is fully justified in such "interpretation".
Mark, you will stand before Jesus and you will answer to him for your abuse of scripture. I truly pity you, but you are earning what you will receive.
Juris, for the record, I have seen many claimed contradictions, but on closer examination, not one has been an actual contradiction. Some fall into the category of anachronism—where modern journalism standards are applied to a time period when such standard did not exist; some into misunderstandings of the culture at the time, place, and audience of writing; and most of the rest fall into spin—interpreting passages in the worst possible light, contrary to their context and/or genre (poetry, story telling, wisdom literature, etc.), or simply interpreted in a way that creates a contradiction when there is a valid interpretation without contradiction. In short, I have yet to see any claimed "contradiction" which is actually a contraction.
In addition, the notion of "without error" applies to the original autographs, not the copies. We know that there are copying errors because we can compare them to each other. Even so, because of the vast number of copies available, we have full confidence that what we have contains only a handful of questionable passages (the woman caught in adultery, the ending of Mark, and a few others), and every other instance of unknowns is variations in spelling (of the color vs. colour variety) or swapped words which don't change meanings. Not one of the known variants has any effect on any major doctrine of Christianity.
Short version: we know there are copying errors, we know what they are, they don't change anything. Therefore, we can trust what is taught about God.
Once again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of the posted passages? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth? (Three days, and counting.)
I have seen many claimed contradictions, but on closer examination, not one has been an actual contradiction.
I'm not interested in defending what I do, or do not, believe. They are contradictions - unless logic isn't really timeless. That you have resolved them to your satisfaction is fine by me. As I said, that was part of it, not all of why I don't believe in Levant monotheism.
That's a lie, and you know it. Every assertion you make about the Bible is based on your "interpretation". Every response you make to posted scripture is either to ignore it or contradict it because of your "interpretation." Your "interpretation" IS. The. Point.
Is everything written in the Bible true…
What do you know of truth? You can't even deal with simple truths such as the meaning of words on a page. You have some nerve, Mark!
Furthermore, you are also demanding more answers of me when you will not answer my questions.
Therefore, in response to your question: No, I will not answer your question until you answer mine and demonstrate basic reading skills.
Once again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of the posted passages*? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth? (4 days, and counting.)
* 2 Peter 1:17, 20–21, 3:15–16; Matthew 5:18–19; 1 Corinthians 2:12–13, 14:37–38; Romans 3:2b–4, 16:26; 1 Thessalonians 4:1–3, 7–8; 1 Timothy 6:3–5; 2 Timothy 3:5–8, 4:3–4;Hebrews 1:1–2; Luke 24:25; John 5:46–47; Romans 6:1–2, 15–16
Juris, it is not necessary to abandon logic to demonstrate that claimed contradictions aren't. In fact, it has usually been my experience that I have to enforce logic (including attention to detail) which is being abandoned by the challenger.
For example, I frequently see challenges that are similar in concept to "Witness 1 says the perp was wearing a baseball cap. Witness 2 says the perp has long flowing brown hair. That's a contradiction." That's a distorted definition of "contradiction." Similar kinds of claims are frequently made against the Bible, but as in this example, they are not contradictions.
that was part of it, not all of why I don't believe in Levant monotheism.
I was not familiar with the term "Levant montheism" before you used it, so I had to look it up. After doing so, I can say that I don't accept that either. It's a theory which assumes that the God of the Bible is made up by humans, an idea I reject, in part because it violates Occam's Razor.
Still, I understand your basic point. It has been my experience in many cases, and conclusion in others that rejection of Christianity usually has very little to do with claimed "contradictions" or other rationalizations, but with something much more deeply felt.
In fact, its safe to say that such a deeply felt and held issue is what drives Mark to the positions he insists on. He clearly doesn't choose his positions based on evidence or logic. In fact, I noticed over on TSM he admitted that he actively rejects the idea that knowledge is justified true belief. Every argument he makes screams "rationalization of a priori conclusions", not "carefully examined ideas and facts."
I do hope that someday whatever it is that drives you to reject God can be appropriately dealt with and that you will choose to follow Him. Since this is not the appropriate place to discuss such issues, all I can do here is assure you that actual Christianity (not the Markified distortion) is intellectually honest, rigorous, and factually true.
is intellectually honest, rigorous, and factually true.
That is actually something of a heresy, though quite common to American evangelicals. Christianity is faith, not intellect - in this regard I hold more to Augustine than Aquinas (though the latter's debt to Greek thought is more explicit). The Book of Job is perhaps the best internal biblical treatment of the difference.
You have faith, hold to that faith and do not attempt to treat it as something that it isn't.
No, I will not answer your question until you answer mine and demonstrate basic reading skills.
Right. Because you know that the answer is that not everything in the Bible is true and some of it has been proved false or, at the very least, lacking in understanding of the world and the universe. Since you have set yourself up to believe every single thing in the Bible, this is terrible for you. But guess what?
You don't have to believe that everything in the Bible is true to be a Christian:)
(Note: myopenid.com is apparently dying. Now I'm trying AIM, again as Not My Name. Results may be inconsistent.)
some of it has been proved false
It is not possible to even make such a claim when you cannot even accurately read and understand what is written. When you read your own meaning into someone else's writing and then attack the imposed meaning as false, that is a classic example of the Straw Man Fallacy.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
…
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.
Therefore:
Once again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of the posted passages*? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth? (5 days, and counting.)
* 2 Peter 1:17, 20–21, 3:15–16; Matthew 5:18–19; 1 Corinthians 2:12–13, 14:37–38; Romans 3:2b–4, 16:26; 1 Thessalonians 4:1–3, 7–8; 1 Timothy 6:3–5; 2 Timothy 3:5–8, 4:3–4;Hebrews 1:1–2; Luke 24:25; John 5:46–47; Romans 6:1–2, 15–16
Demonstrate how your "interpretation" of those passages is accurate—thus not a straw man—only then you can rationally argue that they are wrong; not before.
That is a common misunderstanding, even among far too many committed Christians. But that is actually a culturally imposed meaning of the word "faith" as meaning "blind faith". (Note that this phrase is common because of the necessity of distinguishing faith without any kind of proof from common faith.)
When you hand someone your car keys, you do so based on confidence that they will not damage, destroy, or steal your car. But you will not do so without at least some reason to trust that person. No one I know would hand their car keys to a random stranger on the street. That is the common meaning of faith in everyday English.
When you look at the Bible, you find that God does not demand blind faith, He actually gives all the evidence necessary to generate that trust. Here is an excellent article that explores several (but not all) instances where God provides evidence:
You're also probably familiar with Gideon's fleece, another example of giving evidence.
The Bible also repeatedly tells us to seek knowledge and to gain understanding; to study the world around us. Wisdom is highly praised, with one entire book focused on that single subject. Encouraging these skills is incompatible with a "blind faith" mindset.
There are other key concepts taught in the Bible which are incompatible with the idea of "blind faith". For example:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. — John 20:30–31
Notice the key word here: "signs". "Sign" is another word for "evidence". It's something Jesus/God did to show that He really is who He claimed to be. That word appears 41 times in the New Testament (as translated by ESV), and in the vast majority of those instances it is synonymous with "giving evidence".
In the article I linked, Greg mentioned that the word translated as "faith" is the Greek word "pistis". Here is the beginning of an in–depth examination of the meaning of this word in its various forms in Greek:
Faith, Persuade, Belief, Unbelief
The words dealt with here are basically concerned with that personal relationship with a person or thing which is established by trust and trustworthiness (including their negation). If this relationship comes about through persuasion or conviction, the vb. peithomai is used. The perf. tense pepoitha expresses the firm conviction and confidence that has come about. The words of the pistis group are derived from the same verbal stem. They denoted originally the faithful relationship of partners in an agreement and the trustworthiness of their promises. In a broader sense they came to denote the credibility of statements, reports and accounts in general, both sacred and secular. In NT Gk. they gained a special importance and specific content through their application to the relationship with God in Christ: the trusting acceptance and recognition of what God has done and promised in him.
See also Possessions art.
(peithō), convince, persuade; (peithomai), obey, believe; (pepoitha), be convinced, trust; (pepoithēsis), trust, confidence; (peithos), persuasive; (peitharcheō), obey; (peismonē), persuasion; (apeitheō), be disobedient; (apeithēs), disobedient; (apeitheia), disobedience; (pithanologia), persuasive speech, art of persuasion.
Classical1 The stem peith- (pith-, poith-) has the basic meaning of trust (cf. Lat. fido, fides). The same stem is also the basis of the formations with pist-. Trust can refer to a statement, so that it has the meaning to put faith in, to let oneself be convinced, or to a demand, so that it gets the meaning of obey, be persuaded. The original intrans. act. peithō (trust) became trans., to convince, persuade (already in the time of Homer), first through the pass. (be convinced, persuaded). The meaning to trust was taken over with both the above-mentioned branches from the mid. pass. peithomai. Only the 2nd perf. pepoitha retains in the act. the original intrans. meaning (strictly, to have taken hold of trust with the effect continuing into the present). It has the present meaning of trusting firmly, relying upon. The mid. pass. of the 1st perf. pepeismai (strictly, to have been convinced, or to have convinced oneself) likewise means to be convinced. The noun pepoithēsis (trust, confidence), derived from pepoitha is late Gk.
2 The adj. peithos (persuasive), derived from peithō is found nowhere in Gk. except 1 Cor. 2:4, where another reading has the noun peithō (art of persuading, see under 4) which is common in Gk. but does not occur elsewhere in the NT. From the same stem as peithō comes pithanos (convincing, trustworthy) and from it pithanologia (persuasive speech, art of persuasion) for persuading through appearances in contrast to apodeixis (proof, cf. Plato, Theaet., 162e; 1 Cor. 2:4). The earliest and in the NT sole occurrence of peismonē (persuasion, persuasiveness) is Gal. 5:8. The vb. peitharcheō (obey) is current from the time of Sophocles, and is derived from the adj. peitharchos (obeying a superior, the government, or an authority [archē]).
3apeitheō (be disobedient) and apeitheia (disobedience) are derived from apeithēs (disobedient) also in classical Gk.
4 The active meaning convince, persuade, is especially characteristic of Gk. thought. It is significant that Peitho (art of persuading, see above 2) is regarded as a goddess. But peithō can also extend the meaning of persuade to include lead astray, corrupt. The mid. pass. meaning of trust, rely on, can also refer to God in secular Gk. From the meaning to allow onself to be convinced comes the variant to have faith (in another). From the meaning let oneself be persuaded comes the use in the sense of follow (another), be obedient, obey (Plato, Apol., 29d: “I will obey God rather than you”). On pepoitha cf. Aeschylus, Eum., 826, where Athene says to the chorus of the Eumenides: kagō pepoitha Zēni (“I too rely upon Zeus”).
— “FAITH, PERSUADE, BELIEF, UNBELIEF,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1:587-588.
That isn't what I meant at all, sorry if you chose to interpret it that way.
If I misinterpreted what you wrote, it certainly wasn't intentional. That's what it seemed you meant. Feel free to clarify.
As you may have guessed from what I posted, I'm convinced the Biblical view of Christianity is faith and intellect.
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. — Matthew 22:37
The analogy I prefer is this: Think of an extension ladder. The lower level is knowledge. In order for it to work correctly, it has to be firmly planted in reality. By definition, knowledge directly connects to reality. Likewise, the lower level of a ladder is designed to make the best possible connection with the ground so that it can do its job.
But the lower level of the ladder can only get you so far. Likewise, knowledge can only get you so far. We cannot know the future, nor what is outside of the physical universe. (Heck, we have a hard time with knowing what's in the physical universe!) That's where the upper portion of an extension ladder comes in as faith.
In order for faith to work correctly, it must be connected to knowledge in much the same way as the extension must be firmly connected to the lower portion of the ladder. When it's properly connected, the extension continues in the same direction as the lower part. Likewise, faith exercises trust based on knowledge. (See my example of the car keys.)
For Christianity, we have knowledge that Jesus was no ordinary man—via the signs He performed, prophecies He fulfilled, resurrection from the dead, etc. But it's possible to know all that, and still not trust Him. So it takes the knowledge that He is the one to be trusted, and the faith to actually do so.
(Note: By contrast, Mormonsim and Islam—among others—both require belief without evidence, or even in spite of evidence. When Mohammad was asked for a sign/miracle to authenticate his claims, he basically said, "it's a sin to ask Allah for a sign.")
I'm okay that we see the world differently, hope you are too.
It is your choice what you believe. I can't force you, nor would I want to. I hope you understand why I hope you change your mind. ;-)
My extension ladder includes warning stickers all over the place. At least one of them says to never use the upper portion by itself. You certainly can't plant it in midair, and the bottom can easily slip because it doesn't have any traction features. That's a great way to get a severe injury.
Likewise, you can severely hurt yourself if you try to exercise faith without knowledge. Cults are a prime example. Con men also play on this—"You know you can trust me."
Confidence without knowledge is a terrible thing; our host being an extreme example.
I hope you understand why I hope you change your mind. ;-)
Yes, you have a genuine concern for my eternal soul. I appreciate that sentiment. If you were just some simple-minded religious thunderer **cough** M **cough**, I wouldn't be nearly as respectful.
I will say I don't think you give an honest and fair comparison of religions because you don't have an objective viewpoint to do so. You already know what is the true religion and that all others are false. That isn't a huge problem as long as you don't try to say that you are intellectually objective about it - in which case you aren't being honest. After all, you would not want to infringe on our host's turf.
I will say I don't think you give an honest and fair comparison of religions because you don't have an objective viewpoint to do so. You already know what is the true religion and that all others are false.
Just a couple of quick things:
First, the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct. I have really extensive reasons to think Christianity is true. Every other religious viewpoint I've examined falls apart very quickly, though obviously some fall apart more quickly than others.
Once again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of the posted passages*? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth? (6 days, and counting)
Or will you just let readers reach the obvious conclusion that everyone but you has reached by comparing your claims to the actual text of the Bible? That is, whatever religion you hold to, it certainly isn't Christianity.
* 2 Peter 1:17, 20–21, 3:15–16; Matthew 5:18–19; 1 Corinthians 2:12–13, 14:37–38; Romans 3:2b–4, 16:26; 1 Thessalonians 4:1–3, 7–8; 1 Timothy 6:3–5; 2 Timothy 3:5–8, 4:3–4;Hebrews 1:1–2; Luke 24:25; John 5:46–47; Romans 6:1–2, 15–16
the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct.
I hear that a lot from evangelicals. The problem here is that you don't understand what the law of non contradiction means and are applying falsely. Essentially, the LONC states that two contradictory statements can't be both true in the same sense at the same time. Example: the two propositions Mark is a communist and Mark is not a communist cannot both be true.
The problem, however, is that if time is not specified, than the LONC is ambiguous. I could have been a communist and then decided to not be one in which case I was and then I wasn't.
As is true of all axioms of logic, the law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the grounds that any proof or disproof must use the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, in order to verify or falsify the laws of logic one must resort to logic as a weapon, an act which would essentially be self-defeating
So, your supposition above is ridiculous. Only one or none? You could say, using LONC, that either Christianity is or is not correct. It can't be both. That would essentially be applying the law correctly. But stating that the LONC exists doesn't immediately make Christianity the one true, religion.
And, really, this whole conversation is silly. Why do you need to have logic (and you don't because you are misusing it) to justify your faith? It makes you look terribly insecure. I don't need logic to tell me that Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins. I have faith and that's all I need.
As to your other comment, I don't know how many times I can say that my interpretation doesn't matter. I think you need to sit down and think about why God made us all with different perceptions.
First, the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct.
You know, I'm trying to give you every out from this conversation I possibly can. If you can't extend me a little courtesy, I'm going to lose some of that respect.
First, the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct.
What's wrong with that juris?
If
Religion A has the position that has the only possible version of a deity
And
Religion B has the same position
Then is there is a deity then only one of those could be correct.
If there is no deity then the atheist position is the only possible correct one.
If there is a deity and no existing religion has the specifics correct then the non-contradiction thesis is still correct. There can be only one possible TRUE position.
So, your supposition above is ridiculous. Only one or none? You could say, using LONC, that either Christianity is or is not correct. It can't be both. That would essentially be applying the law correctly. But stating that the LONC exists doesn't immediately make Christianity the one true, religion.
Mark, you said a bunch of stuff without actually reading what NMN actually said.
He never said the the LONC makes Christianity the correct religion.
You could say, using LONC, that either Christianity is or is not correct. It can't be both. That would essentially be applying the law correctly.
That is correct.
But stating that the LONC exists doesn't immediately make Christianity the one true, religion.
That is not my claim. Reread my original sentence. It's about as clear as I can make it. Here, I'll make it easy for you:
the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct.
If Christianity is true (and I have sound reasons to conclude that) then the Law of Non-Contradiction means that all other contradictory religious worldviews are necessarily false. Likewise, if another religion is actually true, then all other religions which are not that religion would necessarily be false.
I don't know how many times I can say that my interpretation doesn't matter.
I don't accept that claim for the simple reason that you don't believe it either. How can I know you don't believe it? Because you keep arguing that your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong, and that can only work if your interpretation does matter. For example, in this very thread you said…
What I don't believe in is your interpretation of the Bible, NMN.
…
What gives you the right to declare yourself as the accurate interpreter of the Bible? Again, I reject you and other Christian conservatives completely as any kind of authority over anyone else's faith but your own.
…
But NMN has already [claimed part of the is not true]. Ask him about sin. (Only works if your interpretation is the only correct one.)
And in keeping with the Law Of Non-Contradiction theme, only one "interpretation" of something written can be correct. That means that either your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong, your interpretation is wrong and mine is correct, or neither interpretation is correct. You understand this because it is a necessary part of your claims that I am wrong.
I've said this before: Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the onlyvalid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?
Two religions cannot both be the one single true religion. That much is correct. What NMN asserts is that there must be one religion that is correct, and conveniently it is the one he subscribes to. There is absolutely no requirement of logic that there be even one true religion and that all others are false. It is completely logical that all religions are equally wrong (which is itself independent of whether or not God actually exists or is a creation of human spiritual and/or social need).
Aquinas was a much more clever fellow than any of us, and even he couldn't work out a purely logical proof of God and therefore the truth of Christianity per logic.
A Christian should be satisfied with grace; Job is really an excellent lesson.
First, the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct.
I took 'no existing' to read as non-existence of a deity. Reread that does literally mean no existing religion, which would suppose that a deity does exist.
A worldview which includes the conception of the supernatural. This includes all views on wether or not there is a god and, when appropriate, what that god is like. This includes atheism.
GuardDuck correctly understood my point. Either only one concept of god or non-existence of god is correct, or they are all wrong. When I shortened to simply "religion", I was intending that to continue to mean "religious worldview". Hey, that gets awkward after a while!
Juris is right. I do think Christianity is The One Right Religious Worldview. But not from mere personal preference, but because there is extensive evidence to suggest that it fits reality better than any other worldview. Furthermore, by the LONC, that means that of course I consider other worldviews to be false! I have to.
Now, that doesn't mean that their claims should not be honestly evaluated. Is it logically possible that Christianity is not actually correct? Of course! Is it logically possible that another religious worldview is correct? Of course! In order for me to honestly make the claim that Christianity is the One True Religious Worldview, it is necessary to honestly evaluate other claims.
Heck, I'll take it one step further:
And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, … And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. — 1 Corinthians 15:14–15, 17
If Jesus of Nazareth did not actually physically rise from the dead (as a real event in history), then Christianity is false and should not be believed.
That last part of your comment is true, NMN (Romans 10: 9-10) I believe that Christ is the son of God, he rose from the dead, and he is our savior. I have faith and that's all the justification I need to be saved (Luther). Logic is not needed. Only faith.
Certainly, I can attempt to live my life as Jesus detailed in Matthew 5 but do fall short as I am a flawed human. Thankfully, Christ died for our failings so God forgives us if we have faith. This is known as Grace.
Having said all of that, how am I not a Christian? Your explanations this far don't make sense given the very simple basics I have asserted here.
Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the onlyvalid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?
Now, that doesn't mean that their claims should not be honestly evaluated.
I would contend that having accepted Christianity as the one true, you cannot honestly evaluate the others since you a priori know them to be false. You would first have to disavow your belief before you could honestly consider whether the others might be valid. Otherwise all you are doing is rationalizing (and defending) your existing belief.
You would first have to disavow your belief before you could honestly consider whether the others might be valid. Otherwise all you are doing is rationalizing (and defending) your existing belief.
Are you doing that with atheism? How about gun rights?
Yeah, we're not going down that rabbit hole, NMN. I asked a simple question that requires no further information from me. Explain why I am not a Christian based on my stated faith above.
Are you doing that with atheism? How about gun rights?
Atheism doesn't require me to believe any specific thing for me to face a conflict in evaluating various religious beliefs.
As to rights (not just gun), I have a Lockean view and can work that forward from two premises: self autonomy and non-aggression. It is certainly possible to come to the pretty much the same conclusion from alternative premises.
Of course Belgian waffles are sweet! Between all the sugar in the waffle itself, the fruit and syrup on top, plus all the whipped cream, it's enough to cause a sugar high simply by looking at it.
Atheism doesn't require me to believe any specific thing for me to face a conflict in evaluating various religious beliefs.
atheism 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
It is a view you hold about god. Pretending that a view you hold is actually not a view isn't being very honest.
The only possible neutral view is agnosticism, as in, "I don't know." And even among agnostics, there are precious few that have absolutely no assumptions about the supernatural.
Here's the thing, I'm okay with you working from your point of view, as long as you're honest about it. Because doing so is normal for humans. This isn't just my view, I've read other people at TSM saying the same thing. It's recognizing your own positions and making sure that position does not create a bias in your analyses that is an important skill in real (as opposed to Marky's version) Critical Thinking.
Ultimately, some sort of bias is always going to exist — after all, we are all humans and we all have our passions, desires, and preferences. We wouldn’t even be debating particular issues unless we cared about them in some way, so the very fact that we are participating in a debate or discussion is itself evidence of some sort of bias.
Having a bias, however, is not the same as allowing one’s reasoning and arguments to succumb to bias. An important hallmark of critical thinking is that a person makes a sincere effort to recognize and acknowledge their biases, ultimately taking them into account when weighing evidence and logic so as to ensure that those biases don’t unfairly tip the scales in an inappropriate direction.
…
Neither bias nor vested interest are themselves fallacies or flaws in reasoning — they are simply a part of being human. They can, however, cause a person to commit fallacies or other flaws in reasoning as they seek to defend a position that depends more upon their biases than upon logic.
Because of this, charging a person of having a bias does not therefore refute or undermine any of their arguments. Everyone has a bias, so saying that a particular person has a particular bias isn’t news, and alleging that a particular bias is the “real” reason for them holding a particular position isn’t very persuasive. If you can demonstrate that there are no reasonable arguments for their position, then you might have something — but that, obviously, requires dealing with the arguments they offer independently of whether there is bias or not.
In short, then, bias is probably something that is most important when evaluating your own arguments because only you can really tell to what degree your position has been influenced by your biases. You can ask another to double-check their biases, but beyond that all you can do is address their arguments as stated. If you refuse to do so and simply allege that their arguments, being biased, don’t merit response, then you probably aren’t acting in good faith.
Yes, agnosticism would probably be more correct (about me) than atheism - particularly since everyone thinks you have to be a Dawkins-esque jerk if you say you are an atheist.
I definitely don't accept the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God.
The Islamic god is not the Judeo-Christian God. I'm sure you already know that, Juris. What was that about not being a "Dawkins-esque jerk"? Or your accusation that I'm not making an "honest and fair comparison of religions"?
Follow your own standards, Juris.
I definitely don't accept the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God.
This statement contradicts this statement:
You would first have to disavow your belief before you could honestly consider whether the others might be valid. Otherwise all you are doing is rationalizing (and defending) your existing belief.
Are you willing to examine your own assumptions and prejudices in order to avoid bias and make honest assessments as I quoted yesterday? Please take a look at your last few posts in that light.
I'm perfectly willing to end the discussion with you, Juris. But I can't leave the kind of underhanded slaps you keep throwing out go unanswered.
Correction: I should not have said those two statements contradict, because they aren't direct contradictions; as in, at the same time, in the same way. They are, however, in conflict because the second demands repudiation of the first.
All monotheist religions argue that they have access to the ONE god. Obviously they can't all be correct. As I understand it, Islam claims to worship the same singular God as Judaism - whereas Christians worship the trinitarian single God, but claim that also is the same God as Judaism (and Islam). Different names do not imply different Gods.
This statement contradicts this statement:
I also don't accept the Hindu pantheon. Therefore it isn't the contradiction you think it is. But you caught that yourself.
I don't mind that you have faith, just don't confuse faith with reason. They aren't the same thing. It is possible to live with one or the other as your fundamental guidance - but not both. They can't be interchanged.
I don't mind that you have faith, just don't confuse faith with reason. They aren't the same thing. It is possible to live with one or the other as your fundamental guidance - but not both. They can't be interchanged.
Exactly. There is no logic in faith and NMN is trying to strengthen his argument by saying there is which is total BS. Again, all about "winning" which comes from the same type of insecurity you find in adolescent males.
I should also note there are challenges, if not outright problems, with relying foremost on reason. There are definitely questions that can't be answered - and that is an area that faith has no problem handling.
Did you read the article I linked to? The author says the same things I wanted say as a part of my argument, but he says it better than I could. (Plus linking to it saved me a whole lot of writing.) If you didn't read it, you missed the majority of my case.
I wrote the following for Mark, but since he's playing his usual "run away from foundational principles games", I didn't post it. But reason/logic is part of the discussion with Juris, I think it's time to post this:
Logic is not needed.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. — John 1:1
Translation is a difficult business. Sometimes there is no word in the destination language which perfectly matches the meaning contained in the original language. John 1:1 is a perfect example of this difficulty.
In this passage, the word translated as "Word" is logos (λογος). While "Word" is an accurate translation, it has only a fraction of the meaning of logos in Greek.
In Greek culture, logos had far more meaning than a simple "word". If John had wanted the meaning directly equivalent to the English "word", he would have used the Greek word lexis (λεξις). But apparently he wanted that full meaning associated with logos, which is reflected in the writings of the early church fathers trained by John and the other apostles.
So what is that full meaning? Let's start here:
A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals . . .
The goal of argumentative writing is to persuade your audience that your ideas are valid, or more valid than someone else's. The Greek philosopher Aristotle divided the means of persuasion, appeals, into three categories--Ethos, Pathos, Logos. … Logos (Logical) means persuading by the use of reasoning. This will be the most important technique we will study, and Aristotle's favorite. We'll look at deductive and inductive reasoning, and discuss what makes an effective, persuasive reason to back up your claims. Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough. We'll study the types of support you can use to substantiate your thesis, and look at some of the common logical fallacies, in order to avoid them in your writing. … Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.
Logos (Greek for 'word') refers to the internal consistency of the message--the clarity of the claim, the logic of its reasons, and the effectiveness of its supporting evidence. The impact of logos on an audience is sometimes called the argument's logical appeal. … Or The Shorthand Version:
Logos: the logic used to support a claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument.
In fact, did you know where our English word "logic" comes from?
from Old French logique (13c.), from Latin (ars) logica, from Greek logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word".
In Greek culture, logos had far more meaning than a simple "word".
Oh indeed. Christianity is as much if not more Greek than Judaic. That isn't a feature IMO. The problem of body-soul dualism doesn't exist in classical Judaism - it comes from the Greeks. See this.
And funny how translation impacts the message. From your link, the writer casually discusses the translated Word without the consideration you just gave. In fact that site considers every word of the Bible infallible (not just in message but in detail), translated or not - an understandable bias for believers but an assumption that cannot stand as reason. I said this was a heresy (per classical Christian teaching) common amongst American evangelicals and dammit if you didn't prove me correct.
Let me clarify, because I see I was overly concise.
The heresy is that American evangelicals indulge in a form of gnosticism - knowing God as opposed to believing in God. What I wrote might have been interpreted as saying Biblical infallibility is a heresy when it isn't (at least not in the majority of Protestant sects). Whether those Protestant sects are heretical in the first place is of course another matter.
Gnosticism is yet another Greek theological concept, foreign to classical Judaism.
If you don't mind my asking NMN, you do believe in the trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), yes?
I gotta say, that takes the cake, Juris. Looking at evidence to tell the difference between who is trustworthy and who is not is exactly the same as gnosticism? Seriously?!? Gnosticism is the Trootherism of world religions, but you claim that any use of evidence and logic is exactly the same thing?!?
Fine. You've convinced me. I take back my accusation that you are honest about your position. Here is why:
• Your assertion that I (but not you) must abandon everything I know before I can evaluate anything honestly (compare that assertion to this). That's a blatant double standard.
• You claim you don't actually have a position, but you most certainly do. That position is expressly anti-Christian, yet ironically, absolutely holding to Roman Catholic anti-protestant doctrine.
• You accurately pointed out a direct contradiction between Islam and Christianity (though you're wrong about Judaism) but claimed they are exactly the same, knowingly violating the Law of Non-Contradiction.
• And now I've been spending the last couple of days repeatedly having to say "No, that's not what I wrote. Go read it again," because you seem to insist on misunderstanding or misrepresenting my position.
Between all that, I feel like I'm arguing with a variation of Mark. My apologies for my initial misrepresentation of you.
I disagree. I don't profess a particular position that starts with rejecting all competing views. I really can see the possibility that Hinduism is as valid as Christianity - can you?
That position is expressly anti-Christian, yet ironically, absolutely holding to Roman Catholic anti-protestant doctrine.
No, I merely present the actual history of Christianity. I get that evangelicals don't cotton to that - because that history causes problems to logic-based arguments for their beliefs. I kept saying to you - stick to faith, but you wanted to push reason.
From your last link "...rather than subject the truth of what God has revealed to the misguided dictates of unaided and fallen human reason...".
And you want to accuse me of double standards?
This is why I usually avoid talking religion with believers.
I don't profess a particular position that starts with rejecting all competing views. I really can see the possibility that Hinduism is as valid as Christianity - can you?
I agree. There are many paths to God and it's not for me to judge someone else's path. I know what is right for me yet somehow, to people like NMN, that means I'm not a Christian. This makes no sense because I don't think that NMN is not a Christian. He does what is right for him. He certainly falls short quite a bit of things like Matthew 25:40, for example, but that doesn't mean he is going to hell.
The Bible speaks to him differently than it does to me. God made us to have different perceptions for a reason. Would He honestly make us that way only to all conform and be mindless autonomatons? Odd that you would want that, NMN, considering you are a "rugged individualist."
You are still claiming to be a Christian, aren't you? Even a heretical one, right?
ReplyDeleteHe's an atheist pretending to be a Christian. I think it's so he can use Christianity as a way of controlling others. (Like Gary Oldman's character in "The Book of Eli".)
ReplyDeleteAgreed. If worship of Ganesha fit his needs of the moment, he could easily fit that into his "theology". And he would disavow it the moment it no longer suited his needs.
ReplyDeleteHe's an atheist pretending to be a Christian.
ReplyDeleteAw, someone is pissed off that I don't believe in Republican Jesus....:)
I realized several years ago, after being turned off by the church for many, many years, that I don't like people inserting themselves between me and my savior...in particular, insecure people who feel the need to have more people think they same way they do and have the exact same faith. I've never understood why they need others to justify their faith. I don't need anyone because ultimately we face our Creator on alone. It was then that I felt my faith much deeper by simply reading the Bible, interpreting it for myself and leaving others alone to pursue their own faith and path to God. One could say I am a religious libertarian:)
I think being a follower of Christ is more than the simple, 8 year old version that is considered "true" Christianity. Christ himself said that we will do his works and greater than these and that we have to do is believe in Him and His message.
Interesting that I have to tell a "rugged individualist" like NMN that thinking for yourself and not listening to personal spokesomodels for Jesus is what God has intended for each of us all along. Thinking for yourself, NMN...gasp! Must be the (made up and non existent) devil!
That's why I put up this video, actually. Our vanity as humans assumes that we are more important than all of the rest of the things that God has done. We aren't. In fact, we are pretty insignificant considering the history of the universe.
Let's see if I've got this straight about your claims:
ReplyDeleteI believe in the God of the Bible
… and …
Everything* the Bible teaches about God is false
… are not contradictory statements.
* Or is that "Everything but one statement is false"?
Truly a dizzying intellect.
Another Straw Man...
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't believe in is your interpretation of the Bible, NMN. That's where the problem resides. I don't accept your insertion between me and my savior. In fact, I reject it completely.
So which statement is wrong? And why?
ReplyDeleteNot everything in the Bible is false. Not everything in the Bible is true either.
ReplyDeleteWhat gives you the right to declare yourself as the accurate interpreter of the Bible? Again, I reject you and other Christian conservatives completely as any kind of authority over anyone else's faith but your own. That's also why the Carnegie reference is a straw man and (surprise!) heading off at the pass. People's faith is their business. I'm not interested in controlling anyone. But we all know who is and attempts to do so with a certain degree of success which is why you are characterizing me that way:)
It's all about making a choice to believe, not be yelled at at to turn or burn.
Why does this make me think of Mark's view of the Bible?
ReplyDeleteYes, NMN, I am a spy and part of some sort of secret plot. Look out!
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in what you think about this video and Neil. Truly, a great thinker of our time. If humans have only been a part of our universe for such a short amount of time, why do we have such vanity and assume that we are the most important thing to God?
Further, consider this (from the National Atheist Party website)
The National Atheist Party does not seek to inhibit the religious practices or beliefs of any group, but is committed to the idea that religious preference is a private matter and has no place in the government or workplace. We support the separation of church and state, and seek to ensure its strictest interpretation.
Even as a Christian, I support this as long as they aren't anti-religion and are pro-inclusiveness. Ironic that atheists embody Christ's teachings more than many Christians!
What gives you the right to declare yourself as the accurate interpreter of the Bible?
ReplyDeleteUhhh, because being a Christian pretty much means you have to believe the bible is the literal word of God. Therefore claiming parts of the Bible as not true is pretty much makes you not a Christian.
That's not someone getting between you and God, that's you rejecting the word of the 'Christian God'.
Doesn't mean you don't believe in God, just means that calling yourself a Christian while actively rejecting Christian dogma is much akin to calling yourself a Muslim while denying that Mohamed is God's prophet.
If humans have only been a part of our universe for such a short amount of time, why do we have such vanity and assume that we are the most important thing to God?
ReplyDeleteYou mean His saying so and His actions demonstrating so aren't enough? Um…
Re. the cartoon: good job at completely missing the point. (Not at all unexpected.)
Your entire argument so far has been "I want to believe what I want to believe and ignore the parts of the Bible I want to ignore, and I don't allow anyone to tell me different." That does nothing to address why either of these statements is (supposedly) inaccurate:
"I believe in the God of the Bible" (based on your claim that you're a Christian, as gd pointed out)
"Everything the Bible teaches about God is false" (based on your constant posting of and agreement with claims made by atheists)
Please blow our minds and actually address the point for once!
To add to gd's excellent post:
ReplyDelete1 - Words mean things.
2 - Rules of grammar define how those words relate to each other.
3 - Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing.
Of course, you demonstrate your hatred of the third rule every day by constantly twisting what we write ("Voices in Your Head"), so it's not at all surprising that you do not understand these concepts.
Therefore claiming parts of the Bible as not true is pretty much makes you not a Christian.
ReplyDeleteBut NMN has already done that. Ask him about sin.
That's not someone getting between you and God, that's you rejecting the word of the 'Christian God'.
Now you are putting yourself between me and God. Why does NMN have the accurate interpretation of the Bible and I don't? Because I am Markadelphia?
I'm not claiming that NMN isn't a Christian because he is obsessed with sinning. He believes that Christ rose from the dead and is the son of God. After that, he need not do anything else. He will be saved. It's called justification by faith alone (see: Martin Luther) and that means that Jesus is for everyone who believes.
You mean His saying so and His actions demonstrating so aren't enough?
ReplyDeletein a book written by men who fail continually and can't truly comprehend everything that is God because He is...well, God. I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that you know what God thinks or what His plan is for us.
Words do mean things but the problem is, NMN, that those words have evolved over thousands of years from different religions. As we have evolved as a species, those words also carry different meaning. Healing, for example, is much different now than it was during the time of Christ. Would you rather take your daughter to a doctor from the 1st century AD or one from today? The answer is obvious and that's why your characterization of me is way off. "You will do my works and greater than these..." remember?
justification by faith alone (see: Martin Luther)
ReplyDeleteIs Martin Luther Christ? Does he speak with the voice of God? If not, why would you listen to his word above that of the actual word of God in the Bible?
Again, you can claim to be a Muslim all you want, but if you reject Mohamed as the prophet then BY DEFINITION you are not a Muslim.
You can claim to be a Christian all you want, but if you reject the word of the Christian God then BY DEFINITION you are not a Christian.
But NMN has already done that.
Quote?
Now you are putting yourself between me and God.
No I am not. You can have whatever faith you want. You just cannot self define words to suit you mood. Christian, BY DEFINITION, follows the words of Christ and God as set out in the Christian Bible.
You do not disagree with the intent of certain phrases, or the translation of certain parts. You categorically state that parts are WRONG. That is absolutely a rejection of the writings in the Bible and hence a rejection of the word of God.
You can reject those certain parts of the Bible ALL YOU WANT TO. Be happy, that is your faith. But that faith, BY DEFINITION, is not and cannot be called Christianity - because you REJECT those things that actually define that faith.
ReplyDeletein a book written by men who fail continually and can't truly comprehend everything that is God because He is...well, God. I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that you know what God thinks or what His plan is for us.
Core tenet of Christianity - that book is the word of God. Another rejection. If you do not follow the core tenets of a religion you, BY DEFINITION, are not a follower of that religion.
I find it just a little bit amazing that a purported Christian claims the universe has no purpose.
ReplyDeleteThen again, I shouldn't be surprised that M's grasp of faith is as tenuous as his grasp of science.
It's called thinking outside of the box, juris, and I think that's just what God wants us to do. He actually says it in the Bible..."you will do my works and greater than these..."
ReplyDeleteGD, when was the last time you read the Bible? Take some time and sit down with it as it is most certainly not an "all or nothing" prospect. Within the Bible itself, God evolves. The entire chapter of Hebrews 8 explains this quite well. Further, certain ceremonial law is thrown out in favor of Jesus. So, no, not everything in the Bible should be followed, particularly large parts of the Old Testament. Remember, "keep my commandments."
I realize you like to "win" at stuff like this but you clearly are very ill informed on the actual text. There is no asterisk after Romans 10:9-10. This is the essence of justification by faith and faith alone which is why I mentioned Luther. He, like myself, grew tired of the church being the sole and only allowed interpreter of the Bible. The Bible is for everyone and it does not matter what your station in life is or if you even belong to a church. Christ is for everyone and no one gets to tell you what the "right" interpretation is of the Bible.
That's my main beef with NMN and others like him. I'm surprised that a libertarian like yourself is so bent on obeying authority without question.
Within the Bible itself, God evolves
ReplyDeleteReally? Where did you read that? The Enquirer or the Bible? Huh, almost like the Bible is the word right?
Further, certain ceremonial law is thrown out in favor of Jesus.
Uhhh, yeah - that's the CHRIST part of Christian.......
tired of the church
I did not say anything about THE CHURCH. I specifically said, and was specifically referencing YOU and your repeated rejection of the Bible. The Bible is not the Church. The Church is not the Bible.
no one gets to tell you what the "right" interpretation is of the Bible.
No one except God. You know, the guy that wrote the book.
Like I said - and nothing I've said here contradicts this - so pay attention. You can believe and interpret the Bible in any manner you wish. But if you do it in such a manner that is contradictory to Christianity then you cannot call yourself a Christian. You want to make up your own religion you need to find your own name for it as Christianity is already taken.
And who decided what is "contradictory to Christianity?" You? NMN? I know I don't.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, Mark's demonstrating his problem with "words mean things".
ReplyDelete'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
It's called thinking outside of the box, juris, and I think that's just what God wants us to do.
ReplyDeleteBook, chapter, verse?
Within the Bible itself, God evolves.
ReplyDelete“I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal. 3:6) is His own unqualified affirmation. He cannot change for the better, for He is already perfect; and being perfect, He cannot change for the worse.
Man's relationship may change but God does not. He is perfect and doesn't 'evolve'. Dang, just like everything else, you have very little understanding.
So what's your "interpretation" of this?
ReplyDeleteFor we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. … knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
— 2 Peter 1:17, 20–21
or this?
Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. He speaks about these things in all his letters in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.
— 2 Peter 3:15–16
or this?
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
— Jesus, Matthew 5:18–19
Or how about this?
ReplyDeleteNow we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
— 1 Corinthians 2:12–13
Or maybe this?
First, they were entrusted with the spoken words of God. What then? If some did not believe, will their unbelief cancel God’s faithfulness?
Absolutely not! God must be true, even if everyone is a liar, as it is written:
That You may be justified in Your words
and triumph when You judge.
— Romans 3:2b–4
or this?
but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith
— Romans 16:26
or this?
If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
— 1 Corinthians 14:37–38
How about this?
Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; … For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
— 1 Thessalonians 4:1–3, 7–8
How about this?
If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
— 1 Timothy 6:3–5
or this?
having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.
— 2 Timothy 3:5–8
or this?
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
— 2 Timothy 4:3–4
or this?
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
— Hebrews 1:1–2
What about this?
And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!”
— Jesus, Luke 24:25
Or this?
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
— Jesus, John 5:46–47
It's called thinking outside of the box
ReplyDeleteWhich of course is why you are so desperate to "win".
You could have saved yourself the time and trouble, NMN, because my interpretation doesn't matter. How I interpret the Bible has on relevance in your life just like your interpretation has none in mine. The Bible, and specifically Jesus, speaks to many people in a variety of ways. That's the beauty of being a Christian.
ReplyDeleteDo you honestly think that God made us all different only to turn around and tell us to all think and be the same way?
Yep, just as expected, you ran away from all those passages. Did you even notice their common theme?
ReplyDeleteNor can you even cite any support for your "out of the box" claim.
ReplyDeleteThat's the beauty of being a Christian.
ReplyDeleteActually, that's pretty heretical, but you just go right ahead and call yourself anything you want.
Amusing that NMN is more concerned with me than juris, the atheist. Isn't he going to burn in hell and shouldn't you try to save him, NMN? Remember, I don't need saving, I already believe, stronger now than I ever have because I used to think that I had to believe in Republican Jesus is order to be a "true" Christian. Now that I know just how much of a lie that is, my faith is stronger than ever and honestly keeps me going.
ReplyDelete1) Juris is honest about his own worldview.
ReplyDelete2) Juris can read what I write and (hopefully) learn from it. (An honest person is capable of learning.) Why do you think I bother with you at all?
3) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
— Matthew 23:15 (see also 2nd Timothy 3:5 and Romans 2:24)
So much for your rabbit trail, which was just another method of running away from the point. And that point is this: you have repeatedly made the claim that only your "interpretation" matters:
- You have a claimed I am wrong about sin because: "your interpretation"
- You have claimed God could not have written the Bible because: "your interpretation"
- You have claimed God wants us "out of the box" because: "your interpretation" (of something that isn't even in the Bible)
- You have claimed many, many other things that directly contradict clear statements in the Bible because: "your interpretation"
Therefore, once again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of these passages? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth? (My bet: Another dodge/running away.)
NMN, you use the Bible as one giant warning sign stemming from a place of fear. I've shown you passage after passage that clearly illustrates that all you need to be saved is to believe. That's it. There are no "sinners in the hands of an angry God" anymore. We are now in a period of Grace, thanks to Jesus.
ReplyDeleteYou can't accept this because you need the threat of hellfire to prevent you from sinning. Great. I don't. For me, God and Jesus come from a place of love choice, and peace, not hatred, anger, and paranoia. I have no problem if the latter is what you think is best for you. For me, it's not and I see YOU as ignoring large swaths of the New Testament so you can justify your faith.
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
ReplyDelete— Romans 6:1–2
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
— Romans 6:15–16
Compare this claim by Markadelphia…
ReplyDeletein a book written by men who fail continually and can't truly comprehend everything that is God
…with comments 9:52, 9:55, and 10:17. What do you see?
I see someone who is desperately trying to convince me that his interpretation of the Bible is the right one and wants to "win." Further, this convincing betrays a very deep insecurity of faith which I don't understand. If you truly have made peace with Jesus, you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to convince me of your faith.
ReplyDeleteAnother dodge.
ReplyDeleteHow is it even possible to "interpret" those passages in a way that directly contradicts what they clearly say? You have made YOUR interpretation the issue. Only YOU can say what that interpretation is and how it works.
Therefore, once again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of these passages? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth?
I see someone who is desperately trying to convince me that his interpretation of the Bible is the right one and wants to "win."
ReplyDeleteUh M, all he has done is quote the scripture you claim guides your own faith. I'm now just a bit curious, why do you bother to call yourself a Christian is you don't accept either the Bible or Church teaching as authoritative? Do you even understand "heresy" as a concept?
I'm wondering how when he says "all you need to be saved is to believe" he's referencing a book that he himself calls wrong and written by fallible humans.
ReplyDeleteIf that's the case - why does he think the one part he is keying his faith upon is the 'correct' part?
This is all very easily solved, NMN. Do you believe that every single word in the Bible is accurate and should be followed to the letter? My answer is no. And, if you read the Bible, you will know that this still means you are a Christian.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to get into a Bible quoting war again with you, NMN, because, as I have said many times, my interpretation doesn't matter. And you are just going to ignore what doesnt suit your narrative (Hebrews 8, for example). Further, yours is not the "correct one" and by thinking that it is, you are essentially saying that millions of people are not Christian.
M, if you believe the Bible is false in some cases and true in others, how do you discern? So Jesus made some pretty bold claims about who he is, what makes his statements the 'True' part? What if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all conspired to make the Jewish faith go away by writing about the Christ? You base your entire faith on a flawed book you pick and choose what you think might be true and not? Might as well believe in Allah and Mohammed or any other joke religion. Your faith seems based on nothing but whims and cultural mores.
ReplyDeleteYay, you "win!"
ReplyDelete(snore)
So M's claim to Christianity is like his claim to critical thinking - it is a status he desires therefore he claims it even if he possesses/exercises none of the relevant characteristics.
ReplyDeleteNarcissism squared.
Really puts that constant projective whining about juvenile attitudes in perspective.
I find it interesting (and rather predictable) that you, an atheist who likely has not examined the Bible in any serious way, is simply taking NMN's word for it. So much for an informed opinion. Ah well, as long as you "beat me" at blog comments, eh?
ReplyDeletean atheist who likely has not examined the Bible in any serious way,
ReplyDeletePart of the reason I am a non-believer is that I couldn't square the contradictions in the Bible which in the Protestant tradition I was raised in is the infallible word of God. At least Catholics rely first on church teachings. You see dumbshit, I probably know the Bible and Church history better than you (not that it takes a great deal of knowledge to trump you).
And I have no problem squaring the contradictions and was raised in a Presbyterian church that was more proggressive. Further, I applaud people like Rob Bell who point out that traditional interpretations of the Bible may not be accurate.
ReplyDeleteMarkadelphia's method of "squaring contradictions" seems to fall into one of three methods:
ReplyDelete1) He simply asserts that it is not a contradiction. No evidence, no analysis, not even offering the slightest reasoning. Just "because The Great and Powerful Mark says so. Kneel!"
2) "So what?" It doesn't matter that it contradicts. He doesn't care. He's right anyway.
3) "But it's supposed to contradict!" He seems to think matters of faith are supposed to be irrational.
Bottom line, even a clear and direct contradiction simply does not bother him in the slightest. The perfect example is right in this thread:
Markadelphia: There are no "sinners in the hands of an angry God" anymore. We are now in a period of Grace, thanks to Jesus.
The Bible: Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
It doesn't get any more directly contradictory than that, yet Mark continues to insist without explanation that he is fully justified in such "interpretation".
Mark, you will stand before Jesus and you will answer to him for your abuse of scripture. I truly pity you, but you are earning what you will receive.
Juris, for the record, I have seen many claimed contradictions, but on closer examination, not one has been an actual contradiction. Some fall into the category of anachronism—where modern journalism standards are applied to a time period when such standard did not exist; some into misunderstandings of the culture at the time, place, and audience of writing; and most of the rest fall into spin—interpreting passages in the worst possible light, contrary to their context and/or genre (poetry, story telling, wisdom literature, etc.), or simply interpreted in a way that creates a contradiction when there is a valid interpretation without contradiction. In short, I have yet to see any claimed "contradiction" which is actually a contraction.
In addition, the notion of "without error" applies to the original autographs, not the copies. We know that there are copying errors because we can compare them to each other. Even so, because of the vast number of copies available, we have full confidence that what we have contains only a handful of questionable passages (the woman caught in adultery, the ending of Mark, and a few others), and every other instance of unknowns is variations in spelling (of the color vs. colour variety) or swapped words which don't change meanings. Not one of the known variants has any effect on any major doctrine of Christianity.
Short version: we know there are copying errors, we know what they are, they don't change anything. Therefore, we can trust what is taught about God.
Once again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of the posted passages? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth? (Three days, and counting.)
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation does not matter, NMN.
ReplyDeleteIs everything written in the Bible true or are there some things that are false?
I have seen many claimed contradictions, but on closer examination, not one has been an actual contradiction.
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in defending what I do, or do not, believe. They are contradictions - unless logic isn't really timeless. That you have resolved them to your satisfaction is fine by me. As I said, that was part of it, not all of why I don't believe in Levant monotheism.
My interpretation does not matter, NMN.
ReplyDeleteThat's a lie, and you know it. Every assertion you make about the Bible is based on your "interpretation". Every response you make to posted scripture is either to ignore it or contradict it because of your "interpretation." Your "interpretation" IS. The. Point.
Is everything written in the Bible true…
What do you know of truth? You can't even deal with simple truths such as the meaning of words on a page. You have some nerve, Mark!
Furthermore, you are also demanding more answers of me when you will not answer my questions.
Therefore, in response to your question: No, I will not answer your question until you answer mine and demonstrate basic reading skills.
Once again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of the posted passages*? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth? (4 days, and counting.)
* 2 Peter 1:17, 20–21, 3:15–16; Matthew 5:18–19; 1 Corinthians 2:12–13, 14:37–38; Romans 3:2b–4, 16:26; 1 Thessalonians 4:1–3, 7–8; 1 Timothy 6:3–5; 2 Timothy 3:5–8, 4:3–4;Hebrews 1:1–2; Luke 24:25; John 5:46–47; Romans 6:1–2, 15–16
Juris, it is not necessary to abandon logic to demonstrate that claimed contradictions aren't. In fact, it has usually been my experience that I have to enforce logic (including attention to detail) which is being abandoned by the challenger.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I frequently see challenges that are similar in concept to "Witness 1 says the perp was wearing a baseball cap. Witness 2 says the perp has long flowing brown hair. That's a contradiction." That's a distorted definition of "contradiction." Similar kinds of claims are frequently made against the Bible, but as in this example, they are not contradictions.
that was part of it, not all of why I don't believe in Levant monotheism.
I was not familiar with the term "Levant montheism" before you used it, so I had to look it up. After doing so, I can say that I don't accept that either. It's a theory which assumes that the God of the Bible is made up by humans, an idea I reject, in part because it violates Occam's Razor.
Still, I understand your basic point. It has been my experience in many cases, and conclusion in others that rejection of Christianity usually has very little to do with claimed "contradictions" or other rationalizations, but with something much more deeply felt.
In fact, its safe to say that such a deeply felt and held issue is what drives Mark to the positions he insists on. He clearly doesn't choose his positions based on evidence or logic. In fact, I noticed over on TSM he admitted that he actively rejects the idea that knowledge is justified true belief. Every argument he makes screams "rationalization of a priori conclusions", not "carefully examined ideas and facts."
I do hope that someday whatever it is that drives you to reject God can be appropriately dealt with and that you will choose to follow Him. Since this is not the appropriate place to discuss such issues, all I can do here is assure you that actual Christianity (not the Markified distortion) is intellectually honest, rigorous, and factually true.
is intellectually honest, rigorous, and factually true.
ReplyDeleteThat is actually something of a heresy, though quite common to American evangelicals. Christianity is faith, not intellect - in this regard I hold more to Augustine than Aquinas (though the latter's debt to Greek thought is more explicit). The Book of Job is perhaps the best internal biblical treatment of the difference.
You have faith, hold to that faith and do not attempt to treat it as something that it isn't.
No, I will not answer your question until you answer mine and demonstrate basic reading skills.
ReplyDeleteRight. Because you know that the answer is that not everything in the Bible is true and some of it has been proved false or, at the very least, lacking in understanding of the world and the universe. Since you have set yourself up to believe every single thing in the Bible, this is terrible for you. But guess what?
You don't have to believe that everything in the Bible is true to be a Christian:)
You don't have to believe that everything in the Bible is true to be a Christian:)
ReplyDeleteWell your idiot-syncretic distortions don't exactly promote the faith.
(Note: myopenid.com is apparently dying. Now I'm trying AIM, again as Not My Name. Results may be inconsistent.)
ReplyDeletesome of it has been proved false
It is not possible to even make such a claim when you cannot even accurately read and understand what is written. When you read your own meaning into someone else's writing and then attack the imposed meaning as false, that is a classic example of the Straw Man Fallacy.
From that link you keep using without understanding:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
…
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.
Therefore:
Once again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of the posted passages*? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth? (5 days, and counting.)
* 2 Peter 1:17, 20–21, 3:15–16; Matthew 5:18–19; 1 Corinthians 2:12–13, 14:37–38; Romans 3:2b–4, 16:26; 1 Thessalonians 4:1–3, 7–8; 1 Timothy 6:3–5; 2 Timothy 3:5–8, 4:3–4;Hebrews 1:1–2; Luke 24:25; John 5:46–47; Romans 6:1–2, 15–16
Demonstrate how your "interpretation" of those passages is accurate—thus not a straw man—only then you can rationally argue that they are wrong; not before.
Christianity is faith, not intellect
ReplyDeleteThat is a common misunderstanding, even among far too many committed Christians. But that is actually a culturally imposed meaning of the word "faith" as meaning "blind faith". (Note that this phrase is common because of the necessity of distinguishing faith without any kind of proof from common faith.)
Take a look at the dictionary definition of "faith":
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
When you hand someone your car keys, you do so based on confidence that they will not damage, destroy, or steal your car. But you will not do so without at least some reason to trust that person. No one I know would hand their car keys to a random stranger on the street. That is the common meaning of faith in everyday English.
When you look at the Bible, you find that God does not demand blind faith, He actually gives all the evidence necessary to generate that trust. Here is an excellent article that explores several (but not all) instances where God provides evidence:
Solid Ground: Faith
You're also probably familiar with Gideon's fleece, another example of giving evidence.
The Bible also repeatedly tells us to seek knowledge and to gain understanding; to study the world around us. Wisdom is highly praised, with one entire book focused on that single subject. Encouraging these skills is incompatible with a "blind faith" mindset.
There are other key concepts taught in the Bible which are incompatible with the idea of "blind faith". For example:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
— John 20:30–31
Notice the key word here: "signs". "Sign" is another word for "evidence". It's something Jesus/God did to show that He really is who He claimed to be. That word appears 41 times in the New Testament (as translated by ESV), and in the vast majority of those instances it is synonymous with "giving evidence".
In the article I linked, Greg mentioned that the word translated as "faith" is the Greek word "pistis". Here is the beginning of an in–depth examination of the meaning of this word in its various forms in Greek:
ReplyDeleteFaith, Persuade, Belief, Unbelief
The words dealt with here are basically concerned with that personal relationship with a person or thing which is established by trust and trustworthiness (including their negation). If this relationship comes about through persuasion or conviction, the vb. peithomai is used. The perf. tense pepoitha expresses the firm conviction and confidence that has come about. The words of the pistis group are derived from the same verbal stem. They denoted originally the faithful relationship of partners in an agreement and the trustworthiness of their promises. In a broader sense they came to denote the credibility of statements, reports and accounts in general, both sacred and secular. In NT Gk. they gained a special importance and specific content through their application to the relationship with God in Christ: the trusting acceptance and recognition of what God has done and promised in him.
See also Possessions art.
(peithō), convince, persuade; (peithomai), obey, believe; (pepoitha), be convinced, trust; (pepoithēsis), trust, confidence; (peithos), persuasive; (peitharcheō), obey; (peismonē), persuasion; (apeitheō), be disobedient; (apeithēs), disobedient; (apeitheia), disobedience; (pithanologia), persuasive speech, art of persuasion.
Classical 1 The stem peith- (pith-, poith-) has the basic meaning of trust (cf. Lat. fido, fides). The same stem is also the basis of the formations with pist-. Trust can refer to a statement, so that it has the meaning to put faith in, to let oneself be convinced, or to a demand, so that it gets the meaning of obey, be persuaded. The original intrans. act. peithō (trust) became trans., to convince, persuade (already in the time of Homer), first through the pass. (be convinced, persuaded). The meaning to trust was taken over with both the above-mentioned branches from the mid. pass. peithomai. Only the 2nd perf. pepoitha retains in the act. the original intrans. meaning (strictly, to have taken hold of trust with the effect continuing into the present). It has the present meaning of trusting firmly, relying upon. The mid. pass. of the 1st perf. pepeismai (strictly, to have been convinced, or to have convinced oneself) likewise means to be convinced. The noun pepoithēsis (trust, confidence), derived from pepoitha is late Gk.
(continued…)
ReplyDelete2 The adj. peithos (persuasive), derived from peithō is found nowhere in Gk. except 1 Cor. 2:4, where another reading has the noun peithō (art of persuading, see under 4) which is common in Gk. but does not occur elsewhere in the NT. From the same stem as peithō comes pithanos (convincing, trustworthy) and from it pithanologia (persuasive speech, art of persuasion) for persuading through appearances in contrast to apodeixis (proof, cf. Plato, Theaet., 162e; 1 Cor. 2:4). The earliest and in the NT sole occurrence of peismonē (persuasion, persuasiveness) is Gal. 5:8. The vb. peitharcheō (obey) is current from the time of Sophocles, and is derived from the adj. peitharchos (obeying a superior, the government, or an authority [archē]).
3 apeitheō (be disobedient) and apeitheia (disobedience) are derived from apeithēs (disobedient) also in classical Gk.
4 The active meaning convince, persuade, is especially characteristic of Gk. thought. It is significant that Peitho (art of persuading, see above 2) is regarded as a goddess. But peithō can also extend the meaning of persuade to include lead astray, corrupt. The mid. pass. meaning of trust, rely on, can also refer to God in secular Gk. From the meaning to allow onself to be convinced comes the variant to have faith (in another). From the meaning let oneself be persuaded comes the use in the sense of follow (another), be obedient, obey (Plato, Apol., 29d: “I will obey God rather than you”). On pepoitha cf. Aeschylus, Eum., 826, where Athene says to the chorus of the Eumenides: kagō pepoitha Zēni (“I too rely upon Zeus”).
— “FAITH, PERSUADE, BELIEF, UNBELIEF,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1:587-588.
But that is actually a culturally imposed meaning of the word "faith" as meaning "blind faith".
ReplyDeleteThat isn't what I meant at all, sorry if you chose to interpret it that way. I'm okay that we see the world differently, hope you are too.
That isn't what I meant at all, sorry if you chose to interpret it that way.
ReplyDeleteIf I misinterpreted what you wrote, it certainly wasn't intentional. That's what it seemed you meant. Feel free to clarify.
As you may have guessed from what I posted, I'm convinced the Biblical view of Christianity is faith and intellect.
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
— Matthew 22:37
The analogy I prefer is this: Think of an extension ladder. The lower level is knowledge. In order for it to work correctly, it has to be firmly planted in reality. By definition, knowledge directly connects to reality. Likewise, the lower level of a ladder is designed to make the best possible connection with the ground so that it can do its job.
But the lower level of the ladder can only get you so far. Likewise, knowledge can only get you so far. We cannot know the future, nor what is outside of the physical universe. (Heck, we have a hard time with knowing what's in the physical universe!) That's where the upper portion of an extension ladder comes in as faith.
In order for faith to work correctly, it must be connected to knowledge in much the same way as the extension must be firmly connected to the lower portion of the ladder. When it's properly connected, the extension continues in the same direction as the lower part. Likewise, faith exercises trust based on knowledge. (See my example of the car keys.)
For Christianity, we have knowledge that Jesus was no ordinary man—via the signs He performed, prophecies He fulfilled, resurrection from the dead, etc. But it's possible to know all that, and still not trust Him. So it takes the knowledge that He is the one to be trusted, and the faith to actually do so.
(Note: By contrast, Mormonsim and Islam—among others—both require belief without evidence, or even in spite of evidence. When Mohammad was asked for a sign/miracle to authenticate his claims, he basically said, "it's a sin to ask Allah for a sign.")
I'm okay that we see the world differently, hope you are too.
It is your choice what you believe. I can't force you, nor would I want to. I hope you understand why I hope you change your mind. ;-)
One further thought on the analogy:
ReplyDeleteMy extension ladder includes warning stickers all over the place. At least one of them says to never use the upper portion by itself. You certainly can't plant it in midair, and the bottom can easily slip because it doesn't have any traction features. That's a great way to get a severe injury.
Likewise, you can severely hurt yourself if you try to exercise faith without knowledge. Cults are a prime example. Con men also play on this—"You know you can trust me."
Confidence without knowledge is a terrible thing; our host being an extreme example.
I hope you understand why I hope you change your mind. ;-)
ReplyDeleteYes, you have a genuine concern for my eternal soul. I appreciate that sentiment. If you were just some simple-minded religious thunderer **cough** M **cough**, I wouldn't be nearly as respectful.
I will say I don't think you give an honest and fair comparison of religions because you don't have an objective viewpoint to do so. You already know what is the true religion and that all others are false. That isn't a huge problem as long as you don't try to say that you are intellectually objective about it - in which case you aren't being honest. After all, you would not want to infringe on our host's turf.
I will say I don't think you give an honest and fair comparison of religions because you don't have an objective viewpoint to do so. You already know what is the true religion and that all others are false.
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of quick things:
First, the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct. I have really extensive reasons to think Christianity is true. Every other religious viewpoint I've examined falls apart very quickly, though obviously some fall apart more quickly than others.
Now, about my statements about signs in this thread, see here for Islam, and here on Mormonism.
So what's it going to be Mark?
ReplyDeleteOnce again the question is, what is "your interpretation" of the posted passages*? Or will you simply admit that you are just making stuff up out of whole cloth? (6 days, and counting)
Or will you just let readers reach the obvious conclusion that everyone but you has reached by comparing your claims to the actual text of the Bible? That is, whatever religion you hold to, it certainly isn't Christianity.
* 2 Peter 1:17, 20–21, 3:15–16; Matthew 5:18–19; 1 Corinthians 2:12–13, 14:37–38; Romans 3:2b–4, 16:26; 1 Thessalonians 4:1–3, 7–8; 1 Timothy 6:3–5; 2 Timothy 3:5–8, 4:3–4;Hebrews 1:1–2; Luke 24:25; John 5:46–47; Romans 6:1–2, 15–16
the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct.
ReplyDeleteI hear that a lot from evangelicals. The problem here is that you don't understand what the law of non contradiction means and are applying falsely. Essentially, the LONC states that two contradictory statements can't be both true in the same sense at the same time. Example: the two propositions Mark is a communist and Mark is not a communist cannot both be true.
The problem, however, is that if time is not specified, than the LONC is ambiguous. I could have been a communist and then decided to not be one in which case I was and then I wasn't.
It's also important to consider this:
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/AristotlePNC.pdf
As is true of all axioms of logic, the law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the grounds that any proof or disproof must use the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, in order to verify or falsify the laws of logic one must resort to logic as a weapon, an act which would essentially be self-defeating
So, your supposition above is ridiculous. Only one or none? You could say, using LONC, that either Christianity is or is not correct. It can't be both. That would essentially be applying the law correctly. But stating that the LONC exists doesn't immediately make Christianity the one true, religion.
And, really, this whole conversation is silly. Why do you need to have logic (and you don't because you are misusing it) to justify your faith? It makes you look terribly insecure. I don't need logic to tell me that Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins. I have faith and that's all I need.
As to your other comment, I don't know how many times I can say that my interpretation doesn't matter. I think you need to sit down and think about why God made us all with different perceptions.
First, the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I'm trying to give you every out from this conversation I possibly can. If you can't extend me a little courtesy, I'm going to lose some of that respect.
First, the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with that juris?
If
Religion A has the position that has the only possible version of a deity
And
Religion B has the same position
Then is there is a deity then only one of those could be correct.
If there is no deity then the atheist position is the only possible correct one.
If there is a deity and no existing religion has the specifics correct then the non-contradiction thesis is still correct. There can be only one possible TRUE position.
So, your supposition above is ridiculous. Only one or none? You could say, using LONC, that either Christianity is or is not correct. It can't be both. That would essentially be applying the law correctly. But stating that the LONC exists doesn't immediately make Christianity the one true, religion.
ReplyDeleteMark, you said a bunch of stuff without actually reading what NMN actually said.
He never said the the LONC makes Christianity the correct religion.
You could say, using LONC, that either Christianity is or is not correct. It can't be both. That would essentially be applying the law correctly.
ReplyDeleteThat is correct.
But stating that the LONC exists doesn't immediately make Christianity the one true, religion.
That is not my claim. Reread my original sentence. It's about as clear as I can make it. Here, I'll make it easy for you:
the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct.
If Christianity is true (and I have sound reasons to conclude that) then the Law of Non-Contradiction means that all other contradictory religious worldviews are necessarily false. Likewise, if another religion is actually true, then all other religions which are not that religion would necessarily be false.
I don't know how many times I can say that my interpretation doesn't matter.
I don't accept that claim for the simple reason that you don't believe it either. How can I know you don't believe it? Because you keep arguing that your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong, and that can only work if your interpretation does matter. For example, in this very thread you said…
What I don't believe in is your interpretation of the Bible, NMN.
…
What gives you the right to declare yourself as the accurate interpreter of the Bible? Again, I reject you and other Christian conservatives completely as any kind of authority over anyone else's faith but your own.
…
But NMN has already [claimed part of the is not true]. Ask him about sin. (Only works if your interpretation is the only correct one.)
And in keeping with the Law Of Non-Contradiction theme, only one "interpretation" of something written can be correct. That means that either your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong, your interpretation is wrong and mine is correct, or neither interpretation is correct. You understand this because it is a necessary part of your claims that I am wrong.
I've said this before: Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?
Correction: "[claimed part of the is not true]" should read "[claimed part of the Bible is not true]"
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with that juris?
ReplyDeleteTwo religions cannot both be the one single true religion. That much is correct. What NMN asserts is that there must be one religion that is correct, and conveniently it is the one he subscribes to. There is absolutely no requirement of logic that there be even one true religion and that all others are false. It is completely logical that all religions are equally wrong (which is itself independent of whether or not God actually exists or is a creation of human spiritual and/or social need).
Aquinas was a much more clever fellow than any of us, and even he couldn't work out a purely logical proof of God and therefore the truth of Christianity per logic.
A Christian should be satisfied with grace; Job is really an excellent lesson.
Ah, I see.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read
First, the Law of Non-Contradiction means only one (or no existing) religious worldview can be correct.
I took 'no existing' to read as non-existence of a deity. Reread that does literally mean no existing religion, which would suppose that a deity does exist.
Hmmm, so apparently clarfication is needed.
ReplyDeleteDefinition: worldview
a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it.
— from here plus here
Definition: religious worldview
A worldview which includes the conception of the supernatural. This includes all views on wether or not there is a god and, when appropriate, what that god is like. This includes atheism.
GuardDuck correctly understood my point. Either only one concept of god or non-existence of god is correct, or they are all wrong. When I shortened to simply "religion", I was intending that to continue to mean "religious worldview". Hey, that gets awkward after a while!
Juris is right. I do think Christianity is The One Right Religious Worldview. But not from mere personal preference, but because there is extensive evidence to suggest that it fits reality better than any other worldview. Furthermore, by the LONC, that means that of course I consider other worldviews to be false! I have to.
Now, that doesn't mean that their claims should not be honestly evaluated. Is it logically possible that Christianity is not actually correct? Of course! Is it logically possible that another religious worldview is correct? Of course! In order for me to honestly make the claim that Christianity is the One True Religious Worldview, it is necessary to honestly evaluate other claims.
Heck, I'll take it one step further:
And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, … And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
— 1 Corinthians 15:14–15, 17
If Jesus of Nazareth did not actually physically rise from the dead (as a real event in history), then Christianity is false and should not be believed.
Yes, I really think that.
That last part of your comment is true, NMN (Romans 10: 9-10) I believe that Christ is the son of God, he rose from the dead, and he is our savior. I have faith and that's all the justification I need to be saved (Luther). Logic is not needed. Only faith.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, I can attempt to live my life as Jesus detailed in Matthew 5 but do fall short as I am a flawed human. Thankfully, Christ died for our failings so God forgives us if we have faith. This is known as Grace.
Having said all of that, how am I not a Christian? Your explanations this far don't make sense given the very simple basics I have asserted here.
Mark:
ReplyDeleteAuthors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?
Now, that doesn't mean that their claims should not be honestly evaluated.
ReplyDeleteI would contend that having accepted Christianity as the one true, you cannot honestly evaluate the others since you a priori know them to be false. You would first have to disavow your belief before you could honestly consider whether the others might be valid. Otherwise all you are doing is rationalizing (and defending) your existing belief.
You would first have to disavow your belief before you could honestly consider whether the others might be valid. Otherwise all you are doing is rationalizing (and defending) your existing belief.
ReplyDeleteAre you doing that with atheism? How about gun rights?
Yeah, we're not going down that rabbit hole, NMN. I asked a simple question that requires no further information from me. Explain why I am not a Christian based on my stated faith above.
ReplyDeleteAre you doing that with atheism? How about gun rights?
ReplyDeleteAtheism doesn't require me to believe any specific thing for me to face a conflict in evaluating various religious beliefs.
As to rights (not just gun), I have a Lockean view and can work that forward from two premises: self autonomy and non-aggression. It is certainly possible to come to the pretty much the same conclusion from alternative premises.
Yeah, we're not going down that rabbit hole, NMN.
ReplyDeleteOf course Belgian waffles are sweet! Between all the sugar in the waffle itself, the fruit and syrup on top, plus all the whipped cream, it's enough to cause a sugar high simply by looking at it.
Atheism doesn't require me to believe any specific thing for me to face a conflict in evaluating various religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteatheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
It is a view you hold about god. Pretending that a view you hold is actually not a view isn't being very honest.
The only possible neutral view is agnosticism, as in, "I don't know." And even among agnostics, there are precious few that have absolutely no assumptions about the supernatural.
Here's the thing, I'm okay with you working from your point of view, as long as you're honest about it. Because doing so is normal for humans. This isn't just my view, I've read other people at TSM saying the same thing. It's recognizing your own positions and making sure that position does not create a bias in your analyses that is an important skill in real (as opposed to Marky's version) Critical Thinking.
Ultimately, some sort of bias is always going to exist — after all, we are all humans and we all have our passions, desires, and preferences. We wouldn’t even be debating particular issues unless we cared about them in some way, so the very fact that we are participating in a debate or discussion is itself evidence of some sort of bias.
Having a bias, however, is not the same as allowing one’s reasoning and arguments to succumb to bias. An important hallmark of critical thinking is that a person makes a sincere effort to recognize and acknowledge their biases, ultimately taking them into account when weighing evidence and logic so as to ensure that those biases don’t unfairly tip the scales in an inappropriate direction.
…
Neither bias nor vested interest are themselves fallacies or flaws in reasoning — they are simply a part of being human. They can, however, cause a person to commit fallacies or other flaws in reasoning as they seek to defend a position that depends more upon their biases than upon logic.
Because of this, charging a person of having a bias does not therefore refute or undermine any of their arguments. Everyone has a bias, so saying that a particular person has a particular bias isn’t news, and alleging that a particular bias is the “real” reason for them holding a particular position isn’t very persuasive. If you can demonstrate that there are no reasonable arguments for their position, then you might have something — but that, obviously, requires dealing with the arguments they offer independently of whether there is bias or not.
In short, then, bias is probably something that is most important when evaluating your own arguments because only you can really tell to what degree your position has been influenced by your biases. You can ask another to double-check their biases, but beyond that all you can do is address their arguments as stated. If you refuse to do so and simply allege that their arguments, being biased, don’t merit response, then you probably aren’t acting in good faith.
— Bias and Vested Interest
Yes, agnosticism would probably be more correct (about me) than atheism - particularly since everyone thinks you have to be a Dawkins-esque jerk if you say you are an atheist.
ReplyDeleteI definitely don't accept the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God.
Sorry to foil you again, NMN:) Too bad you can't come up with a response that is higher in maturity than a 12 year old.
ReplyDeleteGiven that I believe that Christ rose from the dead and is the son of God, what else do I need to do to be saved?
Too bad you can't come up with a response that is higher in maturity than a 12 year old.
ReplyDeleteNo, brussel sprouts do not belong on belgian waffles! They supposed to be sweet, not healthy!
(Who are you to say that my interpretation of what you write is wrong?)
the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God.
ReplyDeleteThe Islamic god is not the Judeo-Christian God. I'm sure you already know that, Juris. What was that about not being a "Dawkins-esque jerk"? Or your accusation that I'm not making an "honest and fair comparison of religions"?
Follow your own standards, Juris.
I definitely don't accept the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God.
This statement contradicts this statement:
You would first have to disavow your belief before you could honestly consider whether the others might be valid. Otherwise all you are doing is rationalizing (and defending) your existing belief.
Are you willing to examine your own assumptions and prejudices in order to avoid bias and make honest assessments as I quoted yesterday? Please take a look at your last few posts in that light.
I'm perfectly willing to end the discussion with you, Juris. But I can't leave the kind of underhanded slaps you keep throwing out go unanswered.
Correction: I should not have said those two statements contradict, because they aren't direct contradictions; as in, at the same time, in the same way. They are, however, in conflict because the second demands repudiation of the first.
ReplyDeleteThe Islamic god is not the Judeo-Christian God.
ReplyDeleteAll monotheist religions argue that they have access to the ONE god. Obviously they can't all be correct. As I understand it, Islam claims to worship the same singular God as Judaism - whereas Christians worship the trinitarian single God, but claim that also is the same God as Judaism (and Islam). Different names do not imply different Gods.
This statement contradicts this statement:
I also don't accept the Hindu pantheon. Therefore it isn't the contradiction you think it is. But you caught that yourself.
I don't mind that you have faith, just don't confuse faith with reason. They aren't the same thing. It is possible to live with one or the other as your fundamental guidance - but not both. They can't be interchanged.
I don't mind that you have faith, just don't confuse faith with reason. They aren't the same thing. It is possible to live with one or the other as your fundamental guidance - but not both. They can't be interchanged.
ReplyDeleteExactly. There is no logic in faith and NMN is trying to strengthen his argument by saying there is which is total BS. Again, all about "winning" which comes from the same type of insecurity you find in adolescent males.
I should also note there are challenges, if not outright problems, with relying foremost on reason. There are definitely questions that can't be answered - and that is an area that faith has no problem handling.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely questions that can't be answered - and that is an area that faith has no problem handling.
ReplyDeleteSigh. Please go back and reread my analogy of the extension ladder where I said basically the same thing.
OK, I guess I missed something. I thought you were arguing that reason supports faith, etc. as opposed to operating in different domains.
ReplyDeleteDid you read the article I linked to? The author says the same things I wanted say as a part of my argument, but he says it better than I could. (Plus linking to it saved me a whole lot of writing.) If you didn't read it, you missed the majority of my case.
ReplyDeleteI wrote the following for Mark, but since he's playing his usual "run away from foundational principles games", I didn't post it. But reason/logic is part of the discussion with Juris, I think it's time to post this:
ReplyDeleteLogic is not needed.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
— John 1:1
Translation is a difficult business. Sometimes there is no word in the destination language which perfectly matches the meaning contained in the original language. John 1:1 is a perfect example of this difficulty.
In this passage, the word translated as "Word" is logos (λογος). While "Word" is an accurate translation, it has only a fraction of the meaning of logos in Greek.
In Greek culture, logos had far more meaning than a simple "word". If John had wanted the meaning directly equivalent to the English "word", he would have used the Greek word lexis (λεξις). But apparently he wanted that full meaning associated with logos, which is reflected in the writings of the early church fathers trained by John and the other apostles.
So what is that full meaning? Let's start here:
A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals . . .
The goal of argumentative writing is to persuade your audience that your ideas are valid, or more valid than someone else's. The Greek philosopher Aristotle divided the means of persuasion, appeals, into three categories--Ethos, Pathos, Logos.
…
Logos (Logical) means persuading by the use of reasoning. This will be the most important technique we will study, and Aristotle's favorite. We'll look at deductive and inductive reasoning, and discuss what makes an effective, persuasive reason to back up your claims. Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough. We'll study the types of support you can use to substantiate your thesis, and look at some of the common logical fallacies, in order to avoid them in your writing.
…
Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.
Logos (Greek for 'word') refers to the internal consistency of the message--the clarity of the claim, the logic of its reasons, and the effectiveness of its supporting evidence. The impact of logos on an audience is sometimes called the argument's logical appeal.
…
Or The Shorthand Version:
Logos: the logic used to support a claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument.
— Ethos, Pathos, and Logic
In fact, did you know where our English word "logic" comes from?
from Old French logique (13c.), from Latin (ars) logica, from Greek logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word".
— Online Etymology Dictionary
The meaning of logos doesn't stop there*, either. But I will stop here because that's sufficient to make my point.
(* More here. The best summary I've seen said something like, "the organizing principle of the universe.")
I'm still waiting for the reason why I am not a Christian:)
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeleteWhy oh why do you want to put brussel sprouts on belgian waffles? Why not try chocolate chips instead?
(Who are you to say that my interpretation of what you write is wrong?)
In Greek culture, logos had far more meaning than a simple "word".
ReplyDeleteOh indeed. Christianity is as much if not more Greek than Judaic. That isn't a feature IMO. The problem of body-soul dualism doesn't exist in classical Judaism - it comes from the Greeks. See this.
And funny how translation impacts the message. From your link, the writer casually discusses the translated Word without the consideration you just gave. In fact that site considers every word of the Bible infallible (not just in message but in detail), translated or not - an understandable bias for believers but an assumption that cannot stand as reason. I said this was a heresy (per classical Christian teaching) common amongst American evangelicals and dammit if you didn't prove me correct.
Let me clarify, because I see I was overly concise.
ReplyDeleteThe heresy is that American evangelicals indulge in a form of gnosticism - knowing God as opposed to believing in God. What I wrote might have been interpreted as saying Biblical infallibility is a heresy when it isn't (at least not in the majority of Protestant sects). Whether those Protestant sects are heretical in the first place is of course another matter.
Gnosticism is yet another Greek theological concept, foreign to classical Judaism.
If you don't mind my asking NMN, you do believe in the trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), yes?
I gotta say, that takes the cake, Juris. Looking at evidence to tell the difference between who is trustworthy and who is not is exactly the same as gnosticism? Seriously?!? Gnosticism is the Trootherism of world religions, but you claim that any use of evidence and logic is exactly the same thing?!?
ReplyDeleteFine. You've convinced me. I take back my accusation that you are honest about your position. Here is why:
• Your assertion that I (but not you) must abandon everything I know before I can evaluate anything honestly (compare that assertion to this). That's a blatant double standard.
• You claim you don't actually have a position, but you most certainly do. That position is expressly anti-Christian, yet ironically, absolutely holding to Roman Catholic anti-protestant doctrine.
• You accurately pointed out a direct contradiction between Islam and Christianity (though you're wrong about Judaism) but claimed they are exactly the same, knowingly violating the Law of Non-Contradiction.
• And now I've been spending the last couple of days repeatedly having to say "No, that's not what I wrote. Go read it again," because you seem to insist on misunderstanding or misrepresenting my position.
Between all that, I feel like I'm arguing with a variation of Mark. My apologies for my initial misrepresentation of you.
Maybe it's not that you are arguing with a "variation of Mark." Think about what the common denominator is in both scenarios:)
ReplyDeleteThat's a blatant double standard.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I don't profess a particular position that starts with rejecting all competing views. I really can see the possibility that Hinduism is as valid as Christianity - can you?
That position is expressly anti-Christian, yet ironically, absolutely holding to Roman Catholic anti-protestant doctrine.
No, I merely present the actual history of Christianity. I get that evangelicals don't cotton to that - because that history causes problems to logic-based arguments for their beliefs. I kept saying to you - stick to faith, but you wanted to push reason.
From your last link "...rather than subject the truth of what God has revealed to the misguided dictates of unaided and fallen human reason...".
And you want to accuse me of double standards?
This is why I usually avoid talking religion with believers.
Think about what the common denominator is in both scenarios:)
ReplyDeleteLook to the beam in thy own eye before concerning yourself with the mote in your brother's eye.
I don't profess a particular position that starts with rejecting all competing views. I really can see the possibility that Hinduism is as valid as Christianity - can you?
ReplyDeleteI agree. There are many paths to God and it's not for me to judge someone else's path. I know what is right for me yet somehow, to people like NMN, that means I'm not a Christian. This makes no sense because I don't think that NMN is not a Christian. He does what is right for him. He certainly falls short quite a bit of things like Matthew 25:40, for example, but that doesn't mean he is going to hell.
The Bible speaks to him differently than it does to me. God made us to have different perceptions for a reason. Would He honestly make us that way only to all conform and be mindless autonomatons? Odd that you would want that, NMN, considering you are a "rugged individualist."