Had a Run-In with a Famous Atheist

[Dannager]

ummm me kan reade

Oh, I'm sure you can. But can you interpret properly? I think that's probably the area you need to work on.

ah...but there again, the entirely of the Tanakh is *inspired* by G-d...men just held the pens

What makes you think this is correct? Even if the Bible were inspired by God, men still could have written their own stories and thoughts into it.

 

[Deamiter]

What makes you think this is correct? Even if the Bible were inspired by God, men still could have written their own stories and thoughts into it.

Indeed, this ENTIRE mode of interpretation (that the Bible was dictated by God) is based on the ASSUMPTION that "God Breathed" in 2Timothy means dictated. Of course most Bibles translate it as "inspired" (when not literally translated) and when we are inspired to write a particular novel or compose a song, we USUALLY mean in terms of the basics, not the details.

I totally admit that "God breathed" COULD be interpreted as "dictated" but I see nothing to support such an idea -- particularly when authors (in the Bible) mention that a particular point is of their own understanding and not given directly from God.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Oh, I'm sure you can. But can you interpret properly? I think that's probably the area you need to work on.

What makes you think this is correct? Even if the Bible were inspired by God, men still could have written their own stories and thoughts into it.

I still am so amazed that people who have faith in an all powerful G-d doubt His ability to keep the message of His word to us as infallible as He is...

 

[vossler]

I still am so amazed that people who have faith in an all powerful G-d doubt His ability to keep the message of His word to us as infallible as He is...

Yes, but what you forget is that this approach allows one to not be accountable to His Word because whenever the text doesn't jive with our personal feelings or desires then when can either say the Word isn't from God or that we've somehow misinterpreted it. It's all quite convenient, don't you think?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Yes, but what you forget is that this approach allows one to not be accountable to His Word because whenever the text doesn't jive with our personal feelings or desires then when can either say the Word isn't from God or that we've somehow misinterpreted it. It's all quite convenient, don't you think?

Good Point!!

 

[Gwenyfur]

True. But if we use a big enough stick, and hit hard enough, I suppose the horse might still have some mileage left in it.

We'll see.

yup there's still meat on this one

 

[Dannager]

I still am so amazed that people who have faith in an all powerful G-d doubt His ability to keep the message of His word to us as infallible as He is...

And I'm amazed that people are still unwilling to take a look at a contextual interpretation of the Bible and instead resort to a ridiculous completely literal interpretation that isn't supported by anything, and I mean anything other than a few fundamentalist sects of Christianity. Not empirical evidence, not logic, not context, not the Bible itself and not theological consistency.

Yes, but what you forget is that this approach allows one to not be accountable to His Word because whenever the text doesn't jive with our personal feelings or desires then when can either say the Word isn't from God or that we've somehow misinterpreted it. It's all quite convenient, don't you think?

You're right, because my conviction that the earth is more than 6,000 years old is based on an ulterior conviction designed to completely undermine the faith. Where the heck do you get these crazy ideas? What kind of "feeling" or "desire" could I have that would cause me to oppose a literalistic interpretation of the Genesis account if it weren't for it not actually being empirically sound.

 

[Breetai]

...statistically most atheists are caucasoid.

What the heck?

 

[Gwenyfur]

And I'm amazed that people are still unwilling to take a look at a contextual interpretation of the Bible and instead resort to a ridiculous completely literal interpretation that isn't supported by anything, and I mean anything other than a few fundamentalist sects of Christianity. Not empirical evidence, not logic, not context, not the Bible itself and not theological consistency.

OOOhhhh I dunno...perhaps because it is literal and supports itself quite well...if you know how to read it and interpret it's original languages...

You're right, because my conviction that the earth is more than 6,000 years old is based on an ulterior conviction designed to completely undermine the faith. Where the heck do you get these crazy ideas? What kind of "feeling" or "desire" could I have that would cause me to oppose a literalistic interpretation of the Genesis account if it weren't for it not actually being empirically sound.

I know this part wasn't directed at me...but I'm going to mouth off anyhow...

Perhaps it stems from the need to believe that man isn't so inherintly evil after all? That maybe it wasn't original sin that caused mankind to need salvation...and if the creation story isn't true then maybe...just maybe the laws of G-d are also not literal but left open to individual interpretation as well...leaving the way free for people to decide for themselves what is right and wrong...leading to the amoral society we see today...

 

[shernren]

Perhaps it stems from the need to believe that man isn't so inherintly evil after all? That maybe it wasn't original sin that caused mankind to need salvation...and if the creation story isn't true then maybe...just maybe the laws of G-d are also not literal but left open to individual interpretation as well...leaving the way free for people to decide for themselves what is right and wrong...leading to the amoral society we see today...

You know, Jesus Himself did a lot of that stuff you call "figurative interpretation" with the Torah. He said that murder isn't just murder, but also being angry with your neighbor; He said that adultery isn't just physical contact but mental fixation as well. He quite fairly turned the Law upside-down wherever He saw fit (good examples being John 7 and, surprise surprise, Mark 10), but this is the same guy who said that He had come not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. So His idea of fulfilling the Law is interpreting it figuratively? Hmmm.

The fact is that evolution nowhere near absolves man of sin. Evolutionists still believe that there are things which are right to do, and things which are wrong to do, and that one should do right things and not do wrong things. They will even believe that what is right and wrong is determined by standards quite independent of individual feelings. And to a theist (whether evolutionist or not) these standards will quite often reside in God. To me evolution poses no problem for the doctrine of original sin, and my acceptance of evolution has nothing to do with my wanting to absolve myself of the concept of sin.

It has a lot more to do with the banal and pedantic matter of believing that our physical reality is real.

 

[holyman1178]

OOOhhhh I dunno...perhaps because it is literal and supports itself quite well...if you know how to read it and interpret it's original languages...

I know this part wasn't directed at me...but I'm going to mouth off anyhow...

Perhaps it stems from the need to believe that man isn't so inherintly evil after all? That maybe it wasn't original sin that caused mankind to need salvation...and if the creation story isn't true then maybe...just maybe the laws of G-d are also not literal but left open to individual interpretation as well...leaving the way free for people to decide for themselves what is right and wrong...leading to the amoral society we see today...

you seem to always somehow juxtapose Evolution/Atheism with the concept of morality as if the acceptance of the verifiable discipline of evolution equates with a lack of morals.

thats simply not true... i read on an interview at the website for "A Call to Sanity"



Interviewer: This may be addressed in your book, but the question is, "If someone is an Atheist, meaning they don't believe in a God or Supernatural Realm, how do they have a sense of morality or right from wrong?"
Jason Yeldell: This is a great question that I am sure many have. It is indeed addressed in the book, but of course I will answer. These types of questions may seem very simple, but in actuality their explainations are quite involved and require alot of prerequisite info about rational atheism. But, to answer you in a nutshell, the rational atheist understands that what we humans define as a "value system" based on morals, is really nothing but feelings about actions, thoughts and behaviors that are tied into our evolutionary history as a species, but explained culturally. Meaning that, what we humans identify as "morality" is simply an aid to the survival and reproduction of our species! Throughout the course of human evolution, certain thoughts, actions and behaviors were found to not be socially advantageous and so in turn over time have become ingrained as taboo or "immoral" For example, the act of stealing from a fellow member is not "socially advantageous" for the species because it possibly made family units weaker and susceptible to predation. Similarly, what we would call "philanthropy" or "helping fellow humans" is socialy advantageous because it streghthens bonds between individuals and ultimately strengthens a social group on a whole. Thus, being cooperative and helping out fellow man over time has yielded more benefit than detriment and thus became seen as what we would call "good", "right" or "moral". Basically, morality has nothing to do with a supernatural realm or "God", one can be what we consider "moral" irrespective of their philosophical views on life!

 

[holyman1178]

double post.. my bad

 

[vossler]

You're right, because my conviction that the earth is more than 6,000 years old is based on an ulterior conviction designed to completely undermine the faith. Where the heck do you get these crazy ideas? What kind of "feeling" or "desire" could I have that would cause me to oppose a literalistic interpretation of the Genesis account if it weren't for it not actually being empirically sound.

If only it were that simple. If it were we could easily call you a heretic or as you say someone who's purpose is to undermine the faith. No Satan is far too clever and all he needs to do is to get you to believe something other than the truth and then in turn you'll unconscientiously accept myths. That's exactly what 2 Timothy 4:1 - 4 is referring to:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 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.
​

It's the Word which we're to teach and use as our plumb line, not science or any other man-made standard. Whenever we deviate from it then we open ourselves up to falling into Satan's trap.

 

[vossler]

You know, Jesus Himself did a lot of that stuff you call "figurative interpretation" with the Torah. He said that murder isn't just murder, but also being angry with your neighbor; He said that adultery isn't just physical contact but mental fixation as well. He quite fairly turned the Law upside-down wherever He saw fit (good examples being John 7 and, surprise surprise, Mark 10), but this is the same guy who said that He had come not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. So His idea of fulfilling the Law is interpreting it figuratively? Hmmm.

True, but let's not forget that in the process He never abolishes the literal.

 

[Assyrian]

Did he uphold the literal crush the head of the serpent promise in Gen 3? Literal Sabbath observance also went out the window.

 

[vossler]

Did he uphold the literal crush the head of the serpent promise in Gen 3? Literal Sabbath observance also went out the window.

So are you saying that murder and adultery are now out the window and are now figurative events?

 

[Dannager]

Goodness, I hope the day never arrives when all Christian religion decides that a literal interpretation is the one intended. That will be the day that I leave the Christian faith once and for all.

 

[vossler]

Goodness, I hope the day never arrives when all Christian religion decides that a literal interpretation is the one intended. That will be the day that I leave the Christian faith once and for all.

Don't worry, it doesn't appear you will ever take much of Scripture to be literal and as it stands right now the 'Christian faith' is more than willing to oblige you.

I did notice you didn't respond to my previous post and that wasn't even a literal response. Hmmm....

 

[powie]

If only it were that simple. If it were we could easily call you a heretic or as you say someone who's purpose is to undermine the faith. No Satan is far too clever and all he needs to do is to get you to believe something other than the truth and then in turn you'll unconscientiously accept myths. That's exactly what 2 Timothy 4:1 - 4 is referring to:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 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.
​

It's the Word which we're to teach and use as our plumb line, not science or any other man-made standard. Whenever we deviate from it then we open ourselves up to falling into Satan's trap.

Oh yeah, I forgot that Satan planted dinosaur bones to tempt Christians from the path.

I would like, also, to point out the absolute irony of your post. In denouncing science on the internet, the internet being a product of science.

 

[Assyrian]

So are you saying that murder and adultery are now out the window and are now figurative events?

Sure. If you figure you'd like to, you're already guilty

But more seriously, my reply was in answer to:

True, but let's not forget that in the process He never abolishes the literal.

I never claim that every literal meaning is abolished, but some clearly are. No snakes were harmed at Calvary. We don't get circumcised and Sabbath observation is no longer a command.

Pointing out that some OT commands remain in force in their literal meaning does not tell us he never abolished the literal. It just means some things in the bible were always meant literally. We never denied that.