Argument against Christianity

[skunk]

Again we will have to agree to disagree. As I said before. To me truth is absolute and not relative. Therefore the Bible is not simply a book of interest and value, but the inspired and inerrant word of God.Are you saying that the bible is not "a fascinating, poetical record of an ancient people, the NT in particular recording some deeply insightful and resonant human values and progressive social ideas and philosophy", and "a body of work of enormous interest and value"?

As for "inerrant", that is clearly not the case, since it contradicts itself frequently. It is the record of a changing concept of godhood, taboo and law, and a patchy, half-remembered, half-invented oral history.

[djellison]

.. the dreaded double post glitch...

Hey - at least you did one better than the bible, it posts stuff three times, and changes it twice.

[TwinCities Dan]

Are you saying that the bible is not "a fascinating, poetical record of an ancient people, the NT in particular recording some deeply insightful and resonant human values and progressive social ideas and philosophy", and "a body of work of enormous interest and value"?

(I am not a frequent PRSI reader but)

@ Skunk, I truly admire your online etiquette and composure, you are a wise man. I enjoy your comments immensely. :D

[imac/cheese]

I could be wrong, but it continues to sound like you do not understand the difference between interpretation and application. Let's use a scriptural example.

Of course there is a huge difference between interpretation and application. We try to interpret what a verse means so that we can apply that meaning to our lives. In human commincation application is often times very different from the intent of the original author. For example, let's say I pick up an advice book and appply some of the advice to my life. The original author has never met me so of course he never knew I would apply his advice to my specific situation. When we are discussing the communication of god who is outside of time and omniscient, the difference between his original intent and application is blurred. He already knew how I would apply a verse to my life, so could not that application be a part of his original intent?


However, to say it's okay for someone to read this verse or section of the Bible and apply their own interpretation, is simply not true.

I never said that we can simply apply our own interpretation to any verse we want to. I believe many interpretations are just plain wrong. I also believe that the possibility exists that many verses have more than one meaning.

[djellison]

The original author has never met me so of course he never knew I would apply his advice to my specific situation. When we are discussing the communication of god who is outside of time and omniscient, the difference between his original intent and application is blurred. He already knew how I would apply a verse to my life, so could not that application be a part of his original intent?.......... I believe many interpretations are just plain wrong. I also believe that the possibility exists that many verses have more than one meaning.

I was going to say 'but the author, acording to you, made, and thus has met EVERYBODY...' - but then I carried on reading, and indeed, you agree with that.

So if each persons interpretation is infact predetermined by God, then how can ANY interpretation be just plain wrong? If my interpretation of the bible ( an loosely related collection of fairy stories and wives tales that in no way provides evidence for the existence of any deity ) was known by God when the Bible was written.....then essentially - as I have mentioned preivous - this God of yours has never had any intention of allowing me to believe in him. Thus - if such a deity exists, his plan from day 1, has been for me to end up in his 'hell'.

[mscriv]

Actually I was questioning the reliability or validity of interruption, not translation.

Interruption can be used to "prove" almost any point. One such example: In 1845, two Presbyterian theologians, Jonathan Blanchard and Nathan L. Rice, debated the Bible’s view of slavery. Blanchard spoke against slavery; Rice for it. There was apparently no lack of Biblical "proof" to support both sides of the argument, as the debate went on four hours a day over a four day period as each speaker insisted their's was the only possible "correct" interpretation.

Within a few years the Civil War began and the Presbyterian Church split into North and South "branches", each using their interpretation to justify personal and regional beliefs throughout the duration of the war.

One hundred and fifty years later, conflicting interruptions of most any social issue are common, and (quite predictably) each side insists their's is the only possible "correct" interpretation. I'm extremely leery of anyone who claims to know the "one true" answer, because throughout history the "right" answer has changed many times.

Great post and valid thoughts although I believe your spellcheck changed interpretation to interruption at the beginning. I agree with you entirely that interpretation can be very difficult and since we are only human often people have differing views and seemingly can support those views. That's why I'm advocating that one must use every available resource in an effort to match their interpretation the the author's original intended meaning. It's a search for truth. The sad fact is that often our present context or our unwillingness to be open leaves us in the position that Jack Nicholson accused Tom Cruise of being in, "You can't handle the truth!" :D And I'm speaking to myself here as much as making a statement about others. There a definitely things about my faith with which I struggle and I make mistakes, quite often actually. Just don't tell anyone okay. ;)

Are you saying that the bible is not "a fascinating, poetical record of an ancient people, the NT in particular recording some deeply insightful and resonant human values and progressive social ideas and philosophy", and "a body of work of enormous interest and value"?

Again, I could be wrong, but I've tried to be pretty clear about where I stand and I have little doubt that you understand my position. Of course the Bible is fascinating, it does contain poetry, it is a record of ancient events and people, it does give us insight into human nature and values, it does contain philosophy/wisdom, and much much more. However, above all of this, I also believe it is the inspired, inerrant, revelation of God to his creation. I am confident from the discussion we have had so far that you do not share this view and that's okay. I respect your opinion, am enjoying our conversation, and don't believe in the least that this difference would hinder our ability to be like minded on other issues or even enjoy each other's company. Skunk will you be my friend? :D

When we are discussing the communication of god who is outside of time and omniscient, the difference between his original intent and application is blurred. He already knew how I would apply a verse to my life, so could not that application be a part of his original intent?

(Bold emphasis mine) As you stated in a previous post, the issue of God's sovereignty and man's free will is a much larger discussion.

[djellison]

It doesn't have to be a large discussion at all.

Just some consistency from religious types in explain what God is, what his power is, what he can do, can't do, and where man fits in to this mix.

From those principles we can establish that, if such a deity exists, what sort of deity it is.

Surely - with all the postulating, alleged 'hand of god' documentation (after all, one thing the bible is NOT, is brief) etc - surely those who believe in such a deity must be in a position to, in unison and agreement, explain the scale and scope of Gods abilities.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

What really sticks out to me is that Jesus was an aftermarket add-on. Judaism was here first. Then some people slapped on a Jesus bumper sticker and started a whole new religion piggybacking on Judaism. At one time Christianity was a new-age religion. It modifies Judaism and causes quite a few contradictions because of it. It completely changes who God was in the Hebrew Bible. Christians act like they were here first.

[zap2]

Christians act like they were here first.

Really? I don't get that at all from Xtians....I might not agree with Christianity, but I find the people who practice it know they share with Judaism, they just think they've perfected it.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Really? I don't get that at all from Xtians....I might not agree with Christianity, but I find the people who practice it know they share with Judaism, they just think they've perfected it.

A Christian friend of mine today was going off on all of these new-age religions and people changing Christianity to meet their needs. To me it seems no different than the way Judaism was hijacked by Christianity and Islam. Thats what got me thinking about this.

[zap2]

A Christian friend of mine today was going off on all of these new-age religions and people changing Christianity to meet their needs. To me it seems no different than the way Judaism was hijacked by Christianity and Islam. Thats what got me thinking about this.

Oh, thats actually good insight...I can see people doing that...I hear a lot of people make fun of scientology, and while yes I agree its crazy talk...Christianity doesn't seem to reasonable either