Karma reasons for concrete message



    Global Moderator

    Posts: 6749
  • Darwins +485/-5

You don't get to say "Believe the right things, or elsee" followed by "Well, it's all a matter of interpretation."  The very facts that: the texts are open to a range of interpretation, that extensive scholarship in textual criticism, dead languages, ancient culture and idiom, history, mythology, etc. are necessary to grapple with those texts in an intelligent manner falsify the claim that there is a One, True Omnimax God who is very picky about what humans believe and practice, who revealed the One, True Way through One, True Book.  Or at least, it would prove that such a deity--requiring that we get exact right answers on the Celestial Quiz, then blindfolding us with a veil of subjective interpretation and forcing us to try to pin the tail on his invisible ass under threats of torture (by his human minions now, or by him after we die)--is a gigantic douchebag.  And how many Christians would admit to worshiping a gigantic douchebag?

That's just absolute nonsense. You're telling me that, because there are some passages in the bible that are difficult to understand, or difficult to know how to accurately interpret, the central claims of Christianity are falsified and the central theme of the bible is un-knowable? You're a smart person, but even a pretty dumb person can read the bible and know with absolute certainty that it teaches:

* there is one God
* God created the world and everthing and everyone in it
* God gave humans rules to live by, and we broke them from day one and continue to do so
* God promised a saviour
* Jesus was that saviour
* Jesus died and was resurrected
*No one comes to God but through Jesus

Believing those things...diferent kettle of fish. Clearly.
I think the 'unknowable-ness' that Kcrady would be alluding to would be the 'knowing what to believe is true' part.  The argument, I think, is that the central themes of the bible cannot be known as true.  If you've got a book that's got, say, 20 claims regarding objective reality in it, you'd be hard pressed to say that any of those claims are correct if, say, 25% of the claims are strictly demonstrably false, 10% of the claims are vague and/or confusing, and 50% of the claims are principally unknowable.  Unless, of course, you look at other sources to validate or invalidate those claims.

Yes, indeedy.  It may well be that the Bible is crystal clear that (to pick one) "God created the world and everthing and everyone in it".  But the Bible also says that the health of a goat's offspring depends on what it sees when it conceives.  If we can discount one of those assertions as being false, then there is no reason at all to assume that any other assertion it makes is true - indeed, wisdom would speak against it.  Find one error or inconsistency in a book, and you should take less notice of any other claims that it makes.

If this was a textbook, or a biography, or an encyclopedia, and you found numerous contradictory entries, would you place full reliance on another entry that you hadn't found to be contradicted?  Or would you think "damn, this book had a whole load of errors in it - I'd best not believe anything it says".  What special criteria are you applying to the Bible that says that multiple contradictory claims mean the few uncontradicted claims should be taken seriously?
Changed Change Reason Date
median :) Yes, it is always a double standard with theists April 11, 2013, 02:05:44 PM