Posted                          

quote:

---

Please quote that big assumption by anyone on this thread, especially me.

---

quote:

---

You necessarily do (create a faulty iconoclastic systematic theology) because of your assumption above. A judge who murders..

---

quote:

---

There is no scientific basis for saying that the rocks lie. I couldn't care less on who believes what, that is no authority for me unless it is based on science.

---

quote:

---

I'm reinventing nothing.

---

quote:

---

The concept of an afterlife where deeds are weighed in the balance is entirely pagan.

---

quote:

---

We killed Jesus on God's behalf then.

---

quote:

---

I think you are mistaken in that.. In what way?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

That sounds very unlikely given that the main proponents of PSA lived since the Reformation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
]You are reposing a lot of trust in Science then. Science is limited knowledge, a moving target. Your own precious evolutionary assumptions viz, that macro evolution occurred, are not proven, and untestable. Dinos are..how old? Why did Mary Schweitzer fine real blood in a T Rex bone? Dating methods? Why such variations and just using the dates that suit our assumptions? Scientists are humans who tenaciously cling to careers. Berlinski is amusing on this. The penalty for publicly doubting evolution is academic Siberia.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
@Martin 60:
I am sick of this particular game of whackamole.[ ]After this, I will not be repeating myself. It is obvious that we disagree..peace good Capulet!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:

---

Martin60: Please quote that big assumption by anyone on this thread, especially me.

---

---

quote:

---

Jamat: The continued use of ‘Ptolemaic’ suggests that any conservative theology is superseded by present knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Jamat: This assumption is disputed.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:

---

You necessarily do (create a faulty iconoclastic systematic theology) because of your assumption above. A judge who murders..

---

That is like saying the dispenser of justice or the one charged with pronouncing sentence, is guilty of the crime he pronounces sentence for. Not true.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is no scientific basis for saying that the rocks lie. I couldn't care less on who believes what, that is no authority for me unless it is based on science.

---

You are reposing a lot of trust in Science then.

---

quote:

---

Science is limited knowledge, a moving target.

---

quote:

---

Your own precious evolutionary assumptions viz, that macro evolution occurred, are not proven, and untestable.

---

quote:

---

Dinos are..how old?

---

quote:

---

Why did Mary Schweitzer fine real blood in a T Rex bone?

---

quote:

---

Dating methods?

---

quote:

---

Why such variations

---

quote:

---

and just using the dates that suit our assumptions?

---

quote:

---

Scientists are humans who tenaciously cling to careers.

---

quote:

---

Berlinski is amusing on this. The penalty for publicly doubting evolution is academic Siberia.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm reinventing nothing.

---

It seems to me you are.

---

quote:

---

Jesus as a cuddle toy is not the Biblical Jesus

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:

---

The concept of an afterlife where deeds are weighed in the balance is entirely pagan.

---

Very disputable.

---

quote:

---

I’m reminded of the fate of Korah who went down alive to Sheol.

---

quote:

---

The Jews did have a concept of afterlife that is very evident in the Psalms.

---

quote:

---

To say they got it from paganism is to assert something unproven.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:

---

We killed Jesus on God's behalf then.

---

I think we would’ve but the text clearly says he released his own spirit before that happened.

---

quote:

---

Roman hands crucified Jesus but crucifixion did not kill him.

---

quote:

---

Interestingly no one is ever held accountable for the death of Jesus which is probably because he chose where and when to die.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think you are mistaken in that.. In what way?

---

Because on balance he is far from the monster you caricature.

---

quote:

---

I recently reread the creation story. Nature was very good, Man was provided for as were all living things. There is no need IMV to justify a being who reached out of eternity to provide an undeserved salvation to a humanity who pretty well all deserve judgement. John 3:16.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd add, btw, on the subject of Dinosaur blood, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer , that she didn't find blood in dinosaur bones. She found the remains of blood cells - proteins. This was surprising, but it wasn't (a) impossible according to the age of the animal, nor (b) blood, not, indeed (c) evidence against the commonly accepted period during which T. rex lived.

What it was, however was evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, as the sequenced proteins showed close links to those of extant birds.

That some creationist liars have chosen to try to tell you that Schweitzer's work somehow is a problem for mainstream science speaks volumes. You've been lied to by your creationist sources again Jamat - and if memory serves this is why you got your arse handed to you on a plate last time - you tried raising hoary old creationist canards. Why do you not see the pattern here? The lying professional Creationism machine is a lying bunch of lying liars who lie. Consistently, Repeatedly. Depressingly.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd add, btw, on the subject of Dinosaur blood, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer , that she didn't find blood in dinosaur bones. She found the remains of blood cells - proteins. This was surprising, but it wasn't (a) impossible according to the age of the animal, nor (b) blood, not, indeed (c) evidence against the commonly accepted period during which T. rex lived.

What it was, however was evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, as the sequenced proteins showed close links to those of extant birds.

That some creationist liars have chosen to try to tell you that Schweitzer's work somehow is a problem for mainstream science speaks volumes. You've been lied to by your creationist sources again Jamat - and if memory serves this is why you got your arse handed to you on a plate last time - you tried raising hoary old creationist canards. Why do you not see the pattern here? The lying professional Creationism machine is a lying bunch of lying liars who lie. Consistently, Repeatedly. Depressingly.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd add, btw, on the subject of Dinosaur blood, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer , that she didn't find blood in dinosaur bones. She found the remains of blood cells - proteins. This was surprising, but it wasn't (a) impossible according to the age of the animal, nor (b) blood, not, indeed (c) evidence against the commonly accepted period during which T. rex lived.

What it was, however was evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, as the sequenced proteins showed close links to those of extant birds.

That some creationist liars have chosen to try to tell you that Schweitzer's work somehow is a problem for mainstream science speaks volumes. You've been lied to by your creationist sources again Jamat - and if memory serves this is why you got your arse handed to you on a plate last time - you tried raising hoary old creationist canards. Why do you not see the pattern here? The lying professional Creationism machine is a lying bunch of lying liars who lie. Consistently, Repeatedly. Depressingly.

---

She found what shouldn't be there 80mill years later. Iron acts like formaldehyde? So what? If the argument is that iron could have done this then it is circular. Ie We KNOW how old, therefore blah blah. Findings are multiply confirmed since 2005. I'm sure she's right BTW but this is geologic time..quite a stretch.

Karl, I respect your view (ie the fact that you hold it not the content of it )and also those of other Christians who believe as you. To me evolution is denied by scripture besides being obvious bullshit and an emperor with no clothes.
I am not BTW, convinced or impressed by creationism as an 'ism'.

@Martin60. Tell it to the hand. I'm done.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The bible is not a science book, nor was it meant to be. It is not a challenge to faith to accept this, but a weakness to reject it.

---

There is no room, no need for faith whatsoever with flat, cookbook, Ptolemaic woodenism.

The rocks don't lie.

[ 12. October 2016, 09:39: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The bible is not a science book, nor was it meant to be. It is not a challenge to faith to accept this, but a weakness to reject it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So simple Nick, so simple. And to invert it destroys it. Creates tohu and bohu. Authors confusion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
One thing I find interesting about this particular mindset compared to others is how sticky it is and how it resists efforts to contextualise.

For example, I'm reading a novel where the main character is a Maasai living in the city. I don't know much about Maasai, but according to the novel they have a complex and well-developed mythical worldview including quite an odd (to our ears) Nativity-type birth narrative.

The character in the novel is depicted as being a bit torn by circumstance, but has obviously contextualised his upbringing - so he accepts the stories as being part of his identity without the rigid insistence that Ntemelua really did pop out of his mother's womb with full command of the language and then disappear up a cow's bottom to hide from bandits.

The details about the Maasai may be wrong, I have no idea. But I'm sure there is a truth here about how myths and traditions are held and contextualised in the face of other realities.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Gamaliel wrote on a different thread on July 10:
Here's a question ...

Why DOES the Bible have to be internally consistent?

How does it make it any less the Bible if it isn't?

Why should we expect it to be internally consistent? Because of divine inspiration?

If something is divinely inspired then does it have to be internally consistent at every conceivable point otherwise its divine inspiration can be called into question?

How does that work?

The Bible isn't the Quran or the Book of Mormon. It wasn't 'dictated'. It didn't drop from the sky ready formed.

I can see what Jamat is getting at when he accuses folk here of acting as if they have 'evolved' to a higher plane or level of understanding - but I'm not sure that's what's going on here.

It's more a case of Jamat's overly rigid and inflexibly literalist approach fitting the stereotype to a tee.

Or am I missing something?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

I think that if you can dent the Bible by proving it is self-contradictory, then you also dent its credibility so it is important.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

How does that in any way undermine its status as the holy scriptures of the Christian faith?

It only does so if you insist upon it doing so.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed.

If it can be shown to be inconsistent at one point, however minuscule, then the whole edifice must come crashing down and great would be the fall thereof ...

---

quote:

---

The most dangerous thing about fundamentalism is not that it sometimes teaches wacky ideas, like that the world is barely 6,000 years old or that dancing is sinful. The most dangerous thing is that it insists that such ideas are all inviolably necessary components of the faith. Each such idea, every aspect of their faith, is regarded as a keystone without which everything else they believe — the existence of a loving God, the assurance of pardon, the possibility of a moral or meaningful life — crumbles into meaninglessness.

My classmate's church taught him that their supposedly "literal" reading of Genesis 1 was the necessary complement to their "literal" reading of the rest of the Bible, which they regarded as the entire and only basis for their faith. His belief in 6-day, young-earth creationism was not merely some disputable piece of adiaphora, such as …

Well, for such fundamentalists there is no "such as." This is why they cling to every aspect of their belief system with such desperate ferocity. Should even the smallest piece be cast into doubt, they believe, the entire structure would crumble like the walls of Jericho. If dancing is not a sin, or if the authorship of Isaiah turns out to involve more than a single person at one time, or if the moons of Jupiter present a microcosm that suggests a heliocentric solar system, then suddenly nothing is true, their "whole groundwork cracks, and the earth opens to abysses."

This was, roughly, what was going on in my poor classmate's head as he stared at those rocks, which had been carefully put in place by some ancient citizen of Jericho thousands of years before the tiny literal god of the fundies had gotten around to creating the universe.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
or b.) the aim of the game wasn't strict factual accuracy, so the Church Fathers weren't that bothered.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
To me the interesting question is how the more obvious discrepancies didn't get edited out.

Faced with two competing genealogies of Jesus, the Church Fathers had the option of only selecting one of the gospels as canonical. Or they could have used a harmonised form of the gospels such as the Diatesseron, which omits the genealogies. Or they could have chopped off the verses with the genealogies in (I think there was some awareness of textual variation in gospel manuscripts even at that date).

But they decided to leave both genealogies in place. Which suggests either a.) the elaborate arguments to prove that there isn't a contradiction (e.g. because one genealogy is Mary's) are in fact correct, or b.) the aim of the game wasn't strict factual accuracy, so the Church Fathers weren't that bothered.

And similarly with the differences between Samuel and Chronicles. There must be a reason why, despite already having a comprehensive history of Israel and Judah in Samuel / Kings, the Jews thought 'Ooh, let's add this new-fangled Chronicles to the list as well'.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Bible's credibility doesn't depend on its being internally consistent at every conceivable point.

Why should it?

Why should the whole thing unravel if there are different accounts of the same event or if some of the details in the genealogies don't 'match' exactly?

How does that in any way undermine its status as the holy scriptures of the Christian faith?

It only does so if you insist upon it doing so.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Blogger Fred Clark wrote a piece a while back about a classmate's crisis of faith when confronted with artifacts older than the Creationist universe, and touched on a similar theme.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Chronicles represents a more dualist understanding; God is no longer author of evil and so it's Satan who gets this job in the parallel version in Chronicles.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure. What makes you think I don't have similar reactions, thoughts and impressions when I read the scriptures?

We don't have to have a completely internally-consistent set of scriptures to approach the Bible in the way you've just described.

---