|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Back off Sydney
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My agenda, which you prefer to slander, is simply to find truth. Once a particular religious viewpoint becomes more important than truth, you're shagged.
That noble sentiment obviously explains why you have had to resort to posting this piece of profundity on the Death of Darwinism thread.
"Simply find truth"? Give me a break. You're simply a bullying loud-mouth that likes throwing his weight around. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you square in the face.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Karl a loudmouth?? Pot: meet kettle!
Karl may be a loudmouth, but he's certainly interested enough in dedication to the truth in continuing to attempt to reason with the crop of idiots spewing out the usual nonsense on the Death of Darwinism thread when nobody else has the energy. I lose the will to live even reading two pages of it. But somebody has to deal with such things here so that nobody reading it is led astray by facile quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo. It's a tough job.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Justinian and Karl think this means the Bible claims that pi is EXACTLY 3. Now if any of my 14 year old maths pupils or my GCSE physics kids couldn't see why that was wrong, I'd want them put in remedial classes.
I don't- it was a cheap shot at a dead horse. On the other hand, that you need to resort to gymnastics (especially with the locusts) and have not touched the two accounts of creation provides strong evidence for the case that it is not unambiguous- and if it is unambiguous (as is the issue here), it supports rape of war captives and genocide.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My agenda, which you prefer to slander, is simply to find truth. Once a particular religious viewpoint becomes more important than truth, you're shagged.
That noble sentiment obviously explains why you have had to resort to posting this piece of profundity on the Death of Darwinism thread.
And I said it was profound where? But your unbelievable arrogance in thinking that you, who by your own admission know bugger all about palaeontology, might have hit on something that all the mainstream palaeontologists had never thought of, put it straight into my mind.
quote:
"Simply find truth"? Give me a break. You're simply a bullying loud-mouth that likes throwing his weight around. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you square in the face.
Neil
Weight? What fucking weight? What the fuck are you talking about? I can't post here anymore "effectively" or "heavily" than you can; indeed, one of the interesting differences between internet and real life discussions is that the loud and opinionated cannot dominate by shouting down the other side. This is why creationists generally avoid written debates, by the by.
The only weight around here is the cogency and content of a shipmates' posts. If you are being spanked to within an inch of the existence of your delicate arse in the Darwinism thread, it's because your posts have neither. Deal with it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I don't- it was a cheap shot at a dead horse. On the other hand, that you need to resort to gymnastics (especially with the locusts) and have not touched the two accounts of creation provides strong evidence for the case that it is not unambiguous- and if it is unambiguous (as is the issue here), it supports rape of war captives and genocide.
Since you use such poor arguments as the one with pi, is it worth bothering with any of your others? Your seemingly unwise selection of arguments speaks against you.
Anyway - I will bother.
I'd hardly call it gymnastics with the locusts - more trying to understand what the phrases used actually mean. We can't assume a 1-1 correspondance between ancient Hebrew and English. Ditto, incidentally, with Ge 1-2, where the word "yom" obviously means something different to the English word "day" in the light of its use in 2v4, which then throws doubt on the classic understanding of Ge 1 to refer to a period of 144 hours.
Incidentally, and I know this one is controversial, I fully agree that the Bible supports genocide in one (and only one) particular historical context, and it is made clear that it is only in that context (Dt 20 applied to wars other than the conquest of Canaan).
I was struggling with this the other day. I'm still not completely there yet. But if I was preaching on one of those passages, I'd probably dwell for a while on the horrors of what was involved, then ask what reason could be so overwhelmingly important for God to order it. And as far as I can tell, the Bible gives two reasons. One was judgement on the inhabitants of the land for their sin (which I know you don't like, but which I happen to believe is important). The other was to keep God's people holy. So I'd then go towards thinking about how awful sin is - that it deserves genocide; how important personal and corporate holiness is - that in that context it was even worth killing people for, then probably bring people back to the cross, the forgiveness that is offered there and our response of striving to be holy.
Custard
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Gosh, Custard. How do you know that such an awful thing might not be required by your god again, to keep his people holy, or whateverthefuck rationalization you used for Canaan?
It's quite amusing how your inconsistant interpretation of the bible is causing it to evolve into toilet paper.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
I was struggling with this the other day. I'm still not completely there yet. But if I was preaching on one of those passages, I'd probably dwell for a while on the horrors of what was involved, then ask what reason could be so overwhelmingly important for God to order it. And as far as I can tell, the Bible gives two reasons. One was judgement on the inhabitants of the land for their sin (which I know you don't like, but which I happen to believe is important). The other was to keep God's people holy. So I'd then go towards thinking about how awful sin is - that it deserves genocide; how important personal and corporate holiness is - that in that context it was even worth killing people for, then probably bring people back to the cross, the forgiveness that is offered there and our response of striving to be holy.
What the FUCK?
Canaan's sin "deserved genocide"? Did you really mean that?
Custard - that's just horrible. Really fucking horrible. And very very scary.
Think again, for Christ's sake.
[ 14. June 2004, 23:27: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Strewth.
I'll just go and cut off my dick. And pluck my eyes out. Just in case.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by philo25:
Linzc, not only do you appear to have some problems accepting what the Bible says, confusing your partial rejection of what it's saying as what is it saying, now you also appear to have problems understanding what the word 'offensive' means.
If you can't recognise the mountain of assumptions that you make in talking about "what the Bible says" then go away and come back when you have been educated enough to open your trap.
quote:
I have already apologised for any offence I made, which was unintentional. And by the way, we are in Hell so do stop crying. Don't you understand that if you keep on whining about me offending you, while at the same time calling me a pissant, patronising, fuckwit etc, that you are in fact the one being offensive, and deliberately so? Still, your self-contradictory views on theology don't appear to embarass you, so I guess I shouldn't expect any different with regards your view of other people's and your own offensiveness. I'm interested in the debate, and I do argue my points at least, without substituting arguments for swearing.
Grow up you sanctimonious twat. I recognise that lacking the brains to take a regular crap, you have to do it online and that you have no idea that others find your steaming pile offensive - that's why I'm pointing it out to you. I engage with your mindless drivel, not because my feelings are hurt, but as a public service.
Now as you seem to have vaguely recognised, this is Hell - if you're interested in debate, go to purgatory and I'll meet you there. In the meantime, if I want to be offensive to little maggots popping their fundamentalist heads in where they're unwanted I will do so, and as a mere aside will at the same time demolish the tottering pile of blocks that you have the temerity to call an argument.
quote:
Smiley faces indicate that I'm trying to be jocular with any forthright opinion I'm making, it means I'm noticicing what I'm saying maybe controversial.
Translation - I am saying something I think may be offensive and am attempting to ameliorate its impact by using smilies. Oh wait... wasn't that what I just said?
quote:
By Lovely-Linzc
quote:
Personally I would rather say that the Bible points to the Word of God, which I think enables one both to acknowledge its uniqueness as well as its humaness.
'Points'? I personally would not like to follow anything unless I'm pretty sure what the Word of God is.
Awww, crap! I forgot you were a theological illiterate. Go read some Barth, or do some basic theology, please.The point I was making is that rather than seeing the word of God within the Bible, I see the Bible as revealing the Word of God. The term 'point' isn't the important bit - use 'directs us to', 'reveals', 'shows us' if you like. But the issue is that it is the Word of God = Christ, who is the ultimate revelation; and the purpose of the Bible is to bring us into relationship (another possible replacement for 'point') with Him. This formulation thus acknowledges the absolute uniqueness of the Bible, as our authoritative introduction to God-in-Christ, yet enables us to understand that the Bible is a human work, not the divine cookbook you so desire.
quote:
...if we only think that the Bible points to the Word of God, then how do we know if the Resurrection was real or not, what if God was not pointing in the right direction that day and Paul relied on his own feelings? If we're not even sure if what is reported in the Bible is real, then we won't know if what Jesus said was real or imagined. Then how can we trust him if he claims he is the Son of God?
Well rounded positions are not your strong point are they? Either the Bible is a divinely dictated manual or its entirely untrustworthy. Whoever claimed that nothing in the Bible is 'real'? And surely, having said that my belief is that the purpose of the Bible is to reveal the Word, that might give even a pea-brain like you a clue that I take Jesus' claims to be the Son of God as a faith position. My faith is in God-in-Christ. Yours seems to be in the Bible. And as for the resurrection, to the extent that the resurrection is the logical and necessary outcome of the belief that Christ is the Word of God, to that extent I can be sure of the resurrection (however we understand that mystery). Again, my faith is in the Word, not the book.
quote:
I reckon it's important in the light of the arguments put forward by Rook and Linzc to ask ourselves what it is that makes a Christian, Christian. I feel Linzc definition of the Bible pointing to the Word of God would not be accepted by any of the martyrs, Popes, ABC's or even the majority of Christians worldwide, still less Paul and the Apostles. It's not neccessarily the case that the majority within a group is always right of course, but it's a good indication in imo.
While you're away doing that theology study, throw in some reading comprehension and logic too. I have never defined a Christian on this thread. I talked about what I understand the Bible to be. These are not the same.
But anyway, from your vast knowledge of martyr's popes, ABC's or Paul and the apostles, tell me which of them is unhappy with the concept that the purpose of the Bible is to direct us toward Christ the Word. Which of the august company disagrees?
So take your snide attempts to define me out of the Kingdom and shove it alongside the rest of your crap.
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What the FUCK?
Canaan's sin "deserved genocide"? Did you really mean that?
Custard - that's just horrible. Really fucking horrible. And very very scary.
Sorry folks, but that's the conclusion I am increasingly coming to on reading the Bible. That's how bad sin is.
I believe in the kind of God who is so holy that even perfect created beings cannot so much as look at him. I believe in the God who, when he descended on Sinai, it any person or animal so much as touched the mountian, it had to be killed.
So Sodom and Gomorrah get totally wiped out by a meteorite or something because of their sin, the Canaanites get wiped out because of theirs (though some find various cunning ways out of it), later the nation of Israel gets judged heavily because of theirs. Before all of that, the vast majority of the world population get killed in a flood, which even in the NT is used as a warning for mockers (e.g. 2 Peter 3).
And then probably the grimmest of all, Revelation 14:19-20
19The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. 20They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.
So yes, I think it is the consensus of the Bible writers that sin deserves genocide, and hence that we all deserve genocide, but that God is holding off so that we can come to repentance. So how amazing it is that that same God humbled himself to come to earth as a man and died for us! Wow.
Custard
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
So. If people sin, all their children deserve to be put to death.
Frankly, Custard, I don't think much of this God.
If ever you, Sharkshooter and Philo et al convince me that your version of Christianity is the real one, I will be apostate before you can blink, believe you me. It's frankly fucking disgusting.
[ 15. June 2004, 08:16: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Frankly, Custard, I don't think much of this God.
You see, it always boils down to this, doesn't it? You say:
"I really don't want to believe in the God of the Bible"
But then elsewhere you rant and scream and try to chase people off the boards, and accuse them of being sanctimonious and holier than thou for suggesting that, horror of horrors, you don't believe the Bible is true because you don't want to.
Yawn.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Haven't we had this out on the "What if I'm right?" thread?
It's not a case of not wanting to believe in this God, it's a case of finding Him impossible to do anything with except kow-tow in terror. Loving such a monster is impossible. But we've been there, done that.
But since you're here, tell me exactly how I should love this God with all my heart, mind and soul, when I know he's going to torture many of those I love most for eternity in the pits of Hell, short of a pre-frontal lobotomy. I'm all ears.
Try to chase people off the boards? What the fuck are you talking about? I'm more concerned with the way your lot are trying to run me and my kind out of the church.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
I was wondering when we were going to see the Sydney opera house again on this thread. Then Custard posted:
quote:
Sorry folks, but that's the conclusion I am increasingly coming to on reading the Bible. That's how bad sin is.
I believe in the kind of God who is so holy that even perfect created beings cannot so much as look at him. I believe in the God who, when he descended on Sinai, it any person or animal so much as touched the mountian, it had to be killed.
So Sodom and Gomorrah get totally wiped out by a meteorite or something because of their sin, the Canaanites get wiped out because of theirs (though some find various cunning ways out of it), later the nation of Israel gets judged heavily because of theirs. Before all of that, the vast majority of the world population get killed in a flood, which even in the NT is used as a warning for mockers (e.g. 2 Peter 3).
And then probably the grimmest of all, Revelation 14:19-20
19The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. 20They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.
So yes, I think it is the consensus of the Bible writers that sin deserves genocide, and hence that we all deserve genocide, but that God is holding off so that we can come to repentance. So how amazing it is that that same God humbled himself to come to earth as a man and died for us! Wow.
and Lep added:
quote:
You see, it always boils down to this, doesn't it? You say:
"I really don't want to believe in the God of the Bible"
and behold the antipodean theology of evangelism sails back into view.
Which Bible and which God are we talking about then? Not the God of love who is revealed in scripture. Yes, sin is serious - so serious Jesus died in our place to deal with it. So serious God dealt with it godself. But to take the OT genocide passages and use them in this argumnmt is to distort the picture of God the Bible reveals. Here's why some evangelicalks find 'Sydney' theology unbiblical.
How to approach those tricky OT passages then? Not as an example of what to do in all circumstances, nor as an indication of the totality of God's nature. Perhaps a good hermeneutical approach might be to say 'this is a big problem'!
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
Mr. Karl “I search for the truth” Backslider has clearly never heard of the engineering concepts of measurement tolerances or the rounding of figures. A rounded-off value of Pi = 3 is within 5% of the correct answer.
If the actual diameter of the Bronze Sea was 9.7 cubits, and its actual circumference 30.4 cubits, then pi comes out near enough to 3.14. If I round off those dimensions to the nearest integer, I arrive at 10 and 30.
In a descriptive literary text that predates decimal notation and is clearly not a manufacturing specification or a mathematics textbook, the figures given are sufficiently accurate for the writer’s purpose. There is no error here.
It’s back to school for Karl, I think.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Which Bible and which God are we talking about then? Not the God of love who is revealed in scripture. Yes, sin is serious - so serious Jesus died in our place to deal with it. So serious God dealt with it godself. But to take the OT genocide passages and use them in this argumnmt is to distort the picture of God the Bible reveals. Here's why some evangelicalks find 'Sydney' theology unbiblical.
How to approach those tricky OT passages then? Not as an example of what to do in all circumstances, nor as an indication of the totality of God's nature. Perhaps a good hermeneutical approach might be to say 'this is a big problem'!
Excuse me? Charles, is it now your new tactic to find any theology you don't like and label it "Sydney evangelicalism" simply because its not "Charles Read evangelicalism"? I have never been to Sydney. I have read one book by Peter Jensen, which I thought was pretty dull. I do not even belong to the C of E, and think the whole Sydney project is, in that sense, quite misguided.
Similarly, I do find the genocide passages a problem. Of course I do. I struggle with the whole issue of what God is actually like daily. Perhaps, just perhaps, saying "this is a problem" is as unsatisfactory basis for some of us for being a Christian, as is "the Bible must be mistaken" or "I don't accept this is what God could be like so I don't believe this bit". Simply because I am trying to understand texts in the context of the whole Bible, while still asserting they are non-contradictory does not make me a disciple of some people who live on the other side of the world, who I have never met and have no connection with.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Mr. Karl “I search for the truth” Backslider has clearly never heard of the engineering concepts of measurement tolerances or the rounding of figures. A rounded-off value of Pi = 3 is within 5% of the correct answer.
If the actual diameter of the Bronze Sea was 9.7 cubits, and its actual circumference 30.4 cubits, then pi comes out near enough to 3.14. If I round off those dimensions to the nearest integer, I arrive at 10 and 30.
In a descriptive literary text that predates decimal notation and is clearly not a manufacturing specification or a mathematics textbook, the figures given are sufficiently accurate for the writer’s purpose. There is no error here.
It’s back to school for Karl, I think.
Neil
He's heard of them, and couldn't really give a fuck. Your constant harping on about this one shows you are running scared from the more serious inaccuracies and contradictions in Scripture.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He's heard of them, and couldn't really give a fuck. Your constant harping on about this one shows you are running scared from the more serious inaccuracies and contradictions in Scripture.
It's odd.
I can see lots and lots of contradictions betweeen your view of God and the Bible, and between your view of one bit of the Bible and your view of another bit of the Bible.
But I can't see lots of contradictions between (my "inerrantist" view of) the Bible and itself.
Custard
(Who, by the way, is an Anglican, has never been to Sydney, but heard one talk done by Philip Jensen sometime in the late 90s)
[ 15. June 2004, 10:03: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Since you've decided to weigh on this one as well...
The obvious one would be:
"Thou shalt not commit murder" - backed up by a series of statements about not shedding innocent blood.
Contrast this with a series of commands to massacre men, women and children in Canaan.
Sounds pretty darned contradictory to me. The only way out of it is to call it "execution" and somehow justify the execution of babies. Do try.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
There is a quite subtle point being missed in the citing of the holiness passages, and it is this: the Holy God, before whom no-one can stand, who dwells in inapproachable light chooses to come down to Sinai and make himself known. Mike Riddell makes the point that Jesus, near the end of the Sermon on the Mount, cites the Levitical injunction to "be holy because I am holy", and then the God-Man immediately goes out to heal the sick, preach the good news and eat at table with sinners.
Do people really not get that the good news is actually that the awe-ful, holy, inapproachable God actually wants to embrace us sinners as his children without demanding that they be anything close to perfect and not ever let us go? Is that how distorted the "gospel" has become in some quarters?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:
And as far as I can tell, the Bible gives two reasons. One was judgement on the inhabitants of the land for their sin (which I know you don't like, but which I happen to believe is important). The other was to keep God's people holy.
How does committing genocide keep one holy? Were the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge or the Bosnian Serbs improved by their actions? Of course not. Killing people routinely is not morally improving. Any textbook on the psychology of war will tell you as much.
Surely our exemplar of holiness is our Lord Jesus Christ, whom when confronted with the woman taken in adultery told her accusers: "Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone" and told the woman: "neither do I condemn thee". Can you really imagine our Lord engaging in indiscriminate massacres of a civilian population?
Goodness and holiness are not about following orders. They are about forming certain character traits. A good person is someone who reacts almost instinctively in a given situation just as a good footballer is someone who will strike the ball in the correct way without having to think very much about it. Routinely slaughtering other human beings does not allow one to develop the sort of character traits that we are supposed to imitate in our Lord. You cannot be involved in genocide and not be changed for the worse.
I'd really expect an omniscient deity to have a better grasp of human psychology.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Why is it that you bend over backwards to find a way to understand the noted massacres as part of the inerrant word of God that reveals something about his nature...
yet...
Do not show any respect to one of the fucking plainest bits in scripture:
"This is my blood"
"This is my body"
I'll tell you why: because you do what you accuse the liberals of doing. It's pick and choose - this is be taken literally and this isn't.
Call me back when you decide to reverence the Blessed Sacrament ya fucking hypocrites.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
quote:
Excuse me? Charles, is it now your new tactic to find any theology you don't like and label it "Sydney evangelicalism" simply because its not "Charles Read evangelicalism"?
Yes. I have been rumbled. My basic theological position is 'neo-charismatic, post-feminist, everyone-except-me-is-a-heretic'.
Or...
look at the OP....
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
I feel like a kitten walking into a dog fight. There may be blood.
Those texts that are producing high blood pressure ( massacres, God of vengence and wrath, literal Revelation...etc)......aren't they taken from the Historical or the Prophetic books of scripture and isn't history and prophecy prone to interpretation and muddied waters at the best of times?
Or am I missing something?
Do people really think that history (as come down through the ages ) is always The Truth and that prophecy/ dreams are The Truth as well?
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If those historical texts form part of an inerrant Scripture, inerrancists are forced to treat them as The Truth.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
In what other area of human life is "history" not subject to opinion?
And why should Dreams and Prophecy = Dictated Truth?
And why should I be asked to hand in my evangelical card for believing so?
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Do not show any respect to one of the fucking plainest bits in scripture:
"This is my blood"
"This is my body"
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly pay this bit of Scripture the greatest respect in realising this CANNOT be taken literally, as Jesus was actually standing there, body real, blood pumping as he said these words. Thus, unless he was performing some sort of surgical ritual that is not mentioned in the text, I CAN'T take it literally. Gosh, maybe I'm not a raving fundy after all.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
In what other area of human life is "history" not subject to opinion?
And why should Dreams and Prophecy = Dictated Truth?
And why should I be asked to hand in my evangelical card for believing so?
Ah, but I agree with you. You need to ask the inerrancists these questions.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
There is a quite subtle point being missed in the citing of the holiness passages, and it is this: the Holy God, before whom no-one can stand, who dwells in inapproachable light chooses to come down to Sinai and make himself known. Mike Riddell makes the point that Jesus, near the end of the Sermon on the Mount, cites the Levitical injunction to "be holy because I am holy", and then the God-Man immediately goes out to heal the sick, preach the good news and eat at table with sinners.
Do people really not get that the good news is actually that the awe-ful, holy, inapproachable God actually wants to embrace us sinners as his children without demanding that they be anything close to perfect and not ever let us go? Is that how distorted the "gospel" has become in some quarters?
I agree ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
God accepts us despite what we are like.
I'd also add as a parenthesis that those who then reject that awesomely gracious revelation of God don't have much to look forwards to. Matthew 11:21 and all.
Custard
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
......but isn't it good that God decides that and not any other human being?
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Karl apologies, ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) the penny dropping did not apply to you.....
[ 15. June 2004, 12:54: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
"The Inerrancists".....?
Could someone who is happy with accepting this title please explain?
In a straightforward way.
(when you've returned from work, finished class, or woken up)
[ 15. June 2004, 12:58: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Do not show any respect to one of the fucking plainest bits in scripture:
"This is my blood"
"This is my body"
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly pay this bit of Scripture the greatest respect in realising this CANNOT be taken literally, as Jesus was actually standing there, body real, blood pumping as he said these words. Thus, unless he was performing some sort of surgical ritual that is not mentioned in the text, I CAN'T take it literally. Gosh, maybe I'm not a raving fundy after all.
So he's just talking figuratively?
Mate, if the Holy Awsome God is saying "This is... Me" then how can anyone gainsay him, literalism or not aside?
Anyway, to imply that the literal understanding of those words would require a surgical ritual is to misunderstand the whole of faith.
Faith occurs in a locus of revealed mystery. Literalism destroys the real meaning behind the words. Can't see the wood for the trees and all that...
[ 15. June 2004, 13:53: Message edited by: Nunc Dimittis ]
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
philo25
Shipmate
# 5725
|
Posted
quote:
Grow up you sanctimonious twat. I recognise that lacking the brains to take a regular crap, you have to do it online and that you have no idea that others find your steaming pile offensive - that's why I'm pointing it out to you. I engage with your mindless drivel, not because my feelings are hurt, but as a public service.
Oh dear. Linzc, your problem is that I disagree with you. Now, plenty of people here manage to disagree and debate without being quite so juvenile. It appears to me that everything you accuse me of you suffer from yourself. So, if you like I will go and read your beloved Barth, and perhaps you could read up on a bit of Freud and learn what 'projection' means in a psychoanalytical context.
quote:
You've pointed out in Anselm's post the distinction between those who see the Bible as an unambiguous and authoritative revelation and those who see that the Bible contains the word of God*. Those of us in the second camp are there because that has seemed to be the best position according with what the Bible says about itself ..
You say that you accept that the Bible points us to God's Word, and so, once you read God's Word, what do you then think about it? That's the crux of the issue. Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your general position, but are you claiming that the Bible is God's Word, but that we don't necessarily have to follow God's guidance for us in there? Or would you question whether God has given us any guidance? Forgive me but I don't understand the position of accepting that the Bible contains God's word, but that the Bible is not itself authoritative. How can something that contains God's word, not be?
quote:
So take your snide attempts to define me out of the Kingdom and shove it alongside the rest of your crap.
Oh please. All I'm doing as you well know is standing up for the con evo interpretation of the Bible; we beleive like all Christians that anyone who accepts Jesus as their Lord and Saviour is saved. I've mentioned that before. What we do have problems with though is 'Ultra-Liberals' attempting to water down God's guidance for us once we have accepted him, that's all, neither I nor any other person on this thread has indicated that 'Ultra-Liberals' (using that term for the sake of brevity) are not saved or are to be written out of the Kingdom, merely that we feel their interpretation of God's guidance for our lives has been watered down and influenced by modern societies expectations. There's a subtle difference!
P.S. Well done Custard for sorting out the pi and four legged issue! I feel some people are being quite pedantic in expecting the ancient Hebrew paleontogy system, such as it was, to be exactly the same as ours. Even we have changed our classification system over the last 10 years, from 'Kingdoms' to 'Domains', whereby genetic similarities are given preeminance in classifying over outward similarities of the creatures. I'm sure Custrard would explain that better than me if anyone has any questions regarding that. In any case, I'm sure everyone here would agree that the main purpose of the Bible is not be a science manual, but a spiritual manual showing us the way to salvation.
Posts: 246 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Do not show any respect to one of the fucking plainest bits in scripture:
"This is my blood"
"This is my body"
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly pay this bit of Scripture the greatest respect in realising this CANNOT be taken literally, as Jesus was actually standing there, body real, blood pumping as he said these words. Thus, unless he was performing some sort of surgical ritual that is not mentioned in the text, I CAN'T take it literally. Gosh, maybe I'm not a raving fundy after all.
And then you get mad at us for reasoning out which bits to take literally or not. That's not fair, is it, hey?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Lep, dude, the text itself doesn't say this. You are applying at least one outside tool - reason, and a material scientific reason at that - and maybe even others.
You may well be right. But that's not the substance of this argument.
The point is, you're still applying tools from outside the actual text to justify your interpretation of it.
Which is absolutely fine and dandy.
What is not so tickertiboo is this insistence you of denying others the same freedom, or to expect them to take your chosen texts as read when you yourself quite clearly don't take all texts in the same way.
If it is permitted for you to bring God-biven human reason (for that is what you are doing) to this then it is perfectly legitimate for others to bring it to other texts.
To deny this simply won't do, young man.
Someone less kind than I might even suggest it was hypocritical.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm more concerned with the way your lot are trying to run me and my kind out of the church.
What are you talking about Karl? Are Sydney diocese planting in Chesterfield or what ?
[ 15. June 2004, 14:22: Message edited by: The Black Labrador ]
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
philo25
Shipmate
# 5725
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Since you've decided to weigh on this one as well...
The obvious one would be:
"Thou shalt not commit murder" - backed up by a series of statements about not shedding innocent blood.
Contrast this with a series of commands to massacre men, women and children in Canaan.
Sounds pretty darned contradictory to me. The only way out of it is to call it "execution" and somehow justify the execution of babies. Do try.
Karl many of the people that were massacred worshipedd false Gods such as Ball and even sacrificed their children to these idols. Of course it's a shame that there people were massacred. But I'm sure God would have saved those among them that genuinely sought God, like Rahab for instance.
Another point is, I believe God used Israel as a vehicle to bring knowldge of God and his Son to all mankind. As such I believe it was necessary for Israel to exist and grow strong in order that it would survive as a nation (albeit under Roman occupation and various exiles before that) to the point where Jesus was born in this world. Now, since the law is no longer stictly applicatle but has itself been fulfilled in Jesus's coming, we no longer have to slaughter, in fact we are now expressly commanded not to, and this is entirely compatible with an innerant viewpoint.
Karl, you mentioned earlier there was a contradiction between 'Thou shall not kill' and the various massacres etc. The commandments applied only to Isrealites and those aliens living with/amongst them, not to Canaanites and other people-groups. As I mentioned earlier I believe it was necessary to establish Isreal as a country in order for Judaism to survive to the point where Jesus was born, unfortunately the massacres of people already living on the land promised to Moses and the Isrealites appears to have been necessary. Others may disagree with that conclusion of course, but given that all kinds of things were going on in Canaan like child-sacrifice etc., I reckon it wasn't such a bad thing that those God-less practices were wiped out. In any case, these days because our Kingdom we strive for is no longer Isreal, but God's heavenly Kingdom, such issues over territory and ethnic groupings are now (or ought to be) completely irrelevant, and we certainly are not asked to undertake any genocides. The Crusades were unbiblical, since they reject Jesus' teachings.
--------------------
Genesis 29:20
So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.
Posts: 246 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
There are a lot of terrible practices going on in all sorts of places. Would it really be a good thing to nuke those places? Wipe out the sinful practices?
"Some of the people..." - so why massacre all of them? That's what's so unacceptable about all of this. If someone committed a massacre today and claimed God told them to do it, most rational people would assume they were either lying or insane. But if you accept it could happen, how do you know? Perhaps God was pissed off with our financial practices and sent Bin Laden to do His work? How do you know He didn't?
This "essential that Israel survive as a nation" justification is ends-justifies-means ethics at its worst.
Faithful Sheepdog - if I thought that Sydney Fundamentalists were the only people who wish all the liberals would fuck off and die I'd be a happier man.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Had to add -
quote:
Of course it's a shame that there people were massacred.
I was trying to think what this reminded me of. Then I realised - it's when Edmund Blackadder, during his trial for witchcraft says "But mother, I'll be burned!", to which his mother replies "Yes, that would be a pity".
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
If it is permitted for you to bring God-biven human reason (for that is what you are doing) to this then it is perfectly legitimate for others to bring it to other texts.
To deny this simply won't do, young man.
Someone less kind than I might even suggest it was hypocritical.
Good job you are so kind then dyf.
I don't think anyone (well, not me at least) denies that there is a role for reason in understanding the scriptures. The discussion (here, briefly, and in Dead Horses at length)is about whether certain bits of the Bible can be said to be describing events as having happened, when they did not, because our reason tells us so. This, IMO, elevates reason to a role of authority above Scripture, and that's why I'm not happy with the route.
To be fair, though, you probably knew I'd say something like this, as I hope you didn't really think that I hadn't thought about this before. And I think I know what you'd say in response to what I say. And it is all a downward spiral to the glue factory. I was just defending myself against the allegation that I ignore bits of the Bible.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Philo25:
quote:
Karl many of the people that were massacred worshipedd false Gods such as Ball and even sacrificed their children to these idols.
So if killing children is so deplorably wicked, why did God command it. Why is it horrendous and blasphemous to murder children in the name of Baal but right and proper to murder children in the name of Yahweh.
The trouble with inerrantism is that it leads to relativism. An action that is deplorable by one set of people is laudable when performed by another. Fundamentalism is baptised nihilism.
quote:
Of course it's a shame that there people were massacred.
Well now, the fairy responsible for handing out a sense of irony* wasn't invited to your Christening, was she?
*The fairy responsible for a command of the English language stayed at home to wash her hair as well.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by philo25:
Karl many of the people that were massacred worshipedd false Gods such as Ball
Really? Well then fuck 'em, eh? Especially if it was that Johnny Ball - nasty piece of deity filth him with his "think of a number" mumbo-jumbo. I will not bow the knee nor suffer it to be bowed to ageing childrens presenters.
quote:
Of course it's a shame that there people were massacred.
But they were pagans!!! Take that pity back and put it to good use, like in defence of those poor persecuted Fundies not lucky enough to live in Sydney.
quote:
But I'm sure God would have saved those among them that genuinely sought God, like Rahab for instance.
Be careful, brother. ScRRRipture has nothing to say on that score - do not presume upon God's mercy.
quote:
Another point is, I believe God used Israel as a vehicle to bring knowldge of God and his Son to all mankind. As such I believe it was necessary for Israel to exist and grow strong in order that it would survive as a nation (albeit under Roman occupation and various exiles before that) to the point where Jesus was born in this world.
After which point they can go screw themselves too, eh? After all, they'd done their job - if they fail to get the message themselves, they can scarcely expect God's continued help and protection. Fair's fair.
quote:
I believe it was necessary to establish Isreal as a country in order for Judaism to survive to the point where Jesus was born, unfortunately the massacres of people already living on the land promised to Moses and the Isrealites appears to have been necessary ... given that all kinds of things were going on in Canaan like child-sacrifice etc., I reckon it wasn't such a bad thing that those God-less practices were wiped out.
Damn right it was necessary - what you feeling so sorry for them for? After all, as you so clearly articulate, they deserved no better. It was a GOOD thing all those men, women and children were slaughtered - innocent, guilty, whatever. God knows his own. The best way to wipe out Godless practices is just to wipe out the people that perpetrate them. Yes, siree - that'll learn them.
What? You think I misrepresent you here? Well, I've news for you, pal - that's just how all that stuff comes across.
[Cross-posting woth lots of other chaps, but many hands, etc.]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I don't think anyone (well, not me at least) denies that there is a role for reason in understanding the scriptures. The discussion (here, briefly, and in Dead Horses at length)is about whether certain bits of the Bible can be said to be describing events as having happened, when they did not, because our reason tells us so. This, IMO, elevates reason to a role of authority above Scripture, and that's why I'm not happy with the route.
Holy Scripture does not and cannot have authority in its own right. It must derive that authority from some external source.
The most visible source is that the Councils of the Church applied their reason to determine that the preceding three centuries of experience of the Church was that certain texts are inspired by God, and others, although profitable for study are not.
Do you have a fundamental problem with this fact? If not, then you need to recognise that the very existence of the canon of Scripture owes itself to the input of human reason.
[ 15. June 2004, 15:20: Message edited by: Ham'n'Eggs ]
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
It's threads like this that remind me why, and make me glad that, I'm a misanthrope.
Keep up the good work, Custard, Philo, and Lep. With your continued efforts, I am given hope that the intelligent fringe of humanity will not be afflicted by christianity for too much longer. For who would voluntarily swallow the pile of shit that you've demonstrated your faith to be, other than the foolish and monumentally stupid?
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Oh Rook. You are so sweet.
I can see now why you host Hell, and post almost nowhere else. So much easier to insult a point of view that is (contra your post) held by many intelligent people in the world (even if Custard, Philo and I may not be among them) than to actually engage with it.
Just you keep spitting bile in every direction, scrabbling away in your little cave, to hide from
the light. It's really just....well...endearing. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Still no advice on how, should I be persuaded that the massacre monster God is the real one, I go about loving him.
Ah well.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Still no advice on how, should I be persuaded that the massacre monster God is the real one, I go about loving him.
Ah well.
I could at this point give you advice abpout elephants and variable numbers of blind men, or about Augustine, who struggled on this very point, and how he came to come to terms with it through an argument about context, but I'm sure I've told you before (and they didn't cut any ice with you then), and besides, I wouldn't be insulting you.
So best I don't post, really.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
