The Flood

[Skaloop]

Andy, the council's job was not to create an authoritive list of books. Its job was to create a list of authoritive books. There's a difference.

In other words, the books that they included in the canon were already authoritive.

I explain it this way:

Suppose you were put in a room with all different denominations of currency, and told to separate them into legal and non-legal tender.

Could you do it? Sure you could!

• One-dollar bill goes here.
• Two-dollar bill goes here.
• Three-dollar bill goes there.
• Five-dollar bill goes here.
• Eight-dollar bill goes there.
• etc.

Notice that the tender is already legal or non-legal, and it's just a matter of recognizing them and separating them.

I'm curious as to how the people sorting through the books knew how to tell the difference between the legitimate books and the non-legitimate books. Sorting money is based on the governmental guidelines regarding legal tender; upon what did the council base its judgements?

 

[Split Rock]

We're still playing that game. Ok...No, there not!

Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.
Thus an allegory is a story with two meanings, a LITERAL meaning and a symbolic meaning.


1. Man made from dust of the earth? Check.

So that's the literal meaning whats the symbolic or underlying meaning?

2. Woman made from his body part? Check.

So that's the literal meaning whats the symbolic or underlying meaning?

3. A Tree of "The Knowledge of Good and Evil?" Check.

So that's the literal meaning whats the symbolic or underlying meaning?

4. A talking snake? Check.

So that's the literal meaning whats the symbolic or underlying meaning?

5. A flaming sword? Check.

So that's the literal meaning whats the symbolic or underlying meaning?

Sounds like a parable to me! Not to me

I love these merry-go-rounds. They're so .... merry!

Is this really so hard for someone who has studied the Bible for years? Man goes into the soil when he dies, so Genesis has him come from the soil in the beginning. It makes a nice cycle. Eve comes from a piece of Adam's body, symbolizing that a man is incomplete without a woman (since she is a part of him). The Tree of Knowledge is obviously symbolic, representing the loss of innocence with the gaining of knowledge. The talking snake is the seduction of disobedience. The flaming sword represents God's wrath.

Do you really beleive there was a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? If so, what can you tell us about it?
1. Why did God make this tree?
2. What did it look like?
3. What kind of fruit did it bear?
4. How did it pass on its knowledge to Adam and Eve?
5. Where is it now?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm curious as to how the people sorting through the books knew how to tell the difference between the legitimate books and the non-legitimate books. Sorting money is based on the governmental guidelines regarding legal tender; upon what did the council base its judgements?

According to Wikipedia, the following four criteria were used:

1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

In addition, there were two basic factors:

1. Divine Inspiration
2. Apostolic Authority

 

[Skaloop]

According to Wikipedia, the following four criteria were used:

1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

In addition, there were two basic factors:

1. Divine Inspiration
2. Apostolic Authority

Bah, wikipedia can be edited by anyone; it's hardly reliable.

Just kidding. Thanks!

 

[AV1611VET]

[/list]Bah, wikipedia can be edited by anyone; it's hardly reliable.

Just kidding. Thanks!

LOL! Good one --- you had me there for a sec!

 

[Baggins]

Your ignorance is of other peoples thoughts and feelings which you seem quite smug in pointing them out.

You've already pointed out that one shouldn't attribute thoughts and feelings to people when you can't possibly know what they are thinking and feeling and now you are berating me for my ignorance, which we all share, of this.

get some consistency woman, you are all over the place, you can't chastise me for doing something and then chastise me for not doing it.

I can see why AV seems to be so persuasive to you

So I am smug in pointing out my ignorance of other peoples thoughts and feelings? Does that make any sense at all, even to you? Smugness isn't usually a feeling - there you go again assigning feelings to me that you can't possibly know I am feeling - associated with ignorance.

I'm sure it probably made sense to you; have you considered reading your posts through before hitting the submit button?

Now that was smug

You keep saying that, prove that my allegations of ostentation was regarding the answering of a technical question. I deny that.

Well you could always try and explain what you actually meant.

Here's what you actually said:

AV

I ask a very simple question --- and I need to be a NASA scientist to figure out your answer.

That's fine --- keep that technical stuff up --- you're not convincing anyone.

You

Some just love ostentation...theirs.

It certainly looks like you were using the word ostentation to describe the answer to AV's question.

What did you mean?

That is not how it comes across that is how you WANT it to come across. You want to find fault and insult creationists. Saying we have a "fear of knowledge" or that we are "proud of our ignorance". Those are all made up by you.

You certainly don't wish to learn anything about science, one explanation for that could be because it would undermine your literalist beliefs, the logical corrollary of that is that you fear the knowledge. You could also just be lazy or stupid. I'm sure there are also other reasons for ignoring scientific evidence. If you are not proud of your ignorance you are certainly not ashamed of it, AV positively revels in it as you can see from many of his posts on this thread, as you are his "audience" I assumed that you felt the same way, sorry if I was wrong.

Well I would have to point out specific individuals to do that and though "some" may revel in doing that, I don't.

Suitably cryptic, and not addressing the question

Just keep your eyes open and you'll see it. For those who do it they will know who they are.

Is it the illuminati?

I'm not ashamed of my ignorance. I admit it but I do not parade it around. That would seem to imply that I constantly applaud my ignorance. Or are you saying.....No, you tell me, What do you mean and give me an example please.

I already have, your cheerleading of AV. That would appear to be reveling in ignorance to me.

Or this for example:

Where is this information located? And how long does it take a zircon to go around the earth? and what the flip is a zircon anyway? And what does it matter in the scope of life?

There was no "pop" at erudition, I was simply contrasting that with ignorance. I have very often complimented several of you for your erudition and I don't retract that now. I, like anyone, could use more erudition but it would not prevent the misunderstandings regarding ostentation, for as you see, your erudition has not helped you regarding this matter has it? You still got it wrong.

You still haven't had a stab at explaining what you did mean. I have asked a number of times.

Let me point out for you a few thoughts or feelings you assigned to me. Without going back too far:

"proud of ignorance"

"fear of knowledge"

"inane ramblings"

We have both done it to each other, as I have quite clearly shown you have assigned feelings to me just as often as I have to you. Neither of us shows any signs of reigning it in.

And "inane ramblings" isn't assigning a thought or feeling to you, it was a criticism of your writing style.

So far you have berated me for assigning thoughts and feelings to people and then berated me for my ignorance of people's thoughts and feelings. Have you decided which upsets you most yet?

Of course not.

You don't think posting writing that ambiguous and difficult to decipher is your fault?

Just about everybody who converses with you finally runs into the buffers of a post like this where we are no longer debating any points but just what think you said and what people thought you said.

Why do you think that is?

I will indeed stick to the rocks, they give me a lot of pleasure and a comfortable lifestyle.

No ostentation there!

That was rather the point

You final line seems to be attributing things to me that you cannot possibly know about me. Something you just cautioned me against doing.

Mrs Pot meet Mrs kettle

Just a little what's good for the goose is good for the gander but you guys can't seem to handle that. You can dish it out but you can't take it.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

I don't have a problem with that, a little consistency from you might go some way to making your points less dismissable though. There seems little point in berating people for a perciceved crime and then commiting it yourself, there isn't actually a "sauce goose/gander" clause, complaining about something and then doing it yourself makes you look foolish.

 

[NailsII]

....

Are you trying to say that god made the earth 6,000 years ago out of old bits of rock that had cooled and been flying round space for around 4,5000,000,0000 years?
If so, how does this match the genesis account, with specific reference to the universe being 13,000,000,000+ years old?

 

[Nathan Poe]

According to Wikipedia, the following four criteria were used:

1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

1-3 sound like little more than a popularity contest, and having established that, 4 is a simple matter of toeing the party line.

In addition, there were two basic factors:

1. Divine Inspiration
2. Apostolic Authority

How does one check a document for divine inspiration?

 

[NailsII]

Andy, the council's job was not to create an authoritive list of books. Its job was to create a list of authoritive books. There's a difference.

In other words, the books that they included in the canon were already authoritive.

So how do you explain the missing gospels which were then (supposedly) destroyed to prevent them ever being examined and compared to the authorised version we have today?

 

[NailsII]

Nails, was I talking to you? Every post is not about every poster.

While I appreciate that this comment was not aimed directly at myself, it is an accusation which is commonly thrown at atheists in general. I have been on the receiving end of it myself, and to be honest I don't like it. I think it is rude, closed minded and totally false.
How strange that we non-believers must respect your faith, but our lack of faith is given no respect whatsoever.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing" - Darth Vadar

 

[FishFace]

Firstly, it really doesn't matter what someone tells me. I can find my own answers and make up my own mind and decisions.

Well if Animal Farm was a series of 66 books over a time frame of 1500 years and was penned by 40 different writers all of diverse backgrounds giving credit of their writngs to the One true God, and there were no contradictions or errors. Also, knowing that it was kept intact for 15 centuries, with all those who believed in it and commited themselves to the God that it spoke of, were changed and delivered from all manner of ailments and lifestyles and would lay down their lives for Him and it. Yes, I would believe the events really did take place for then, it would be the Bible rather than a story written by modern man.

Do you know any other book that has done that over the ages?

I don't know of any book that has done that over the ages. The Bible is full of contradictions if you read it as you read a normal book. What you do is read it with the intent to prove it has no errors in. You pass the language through the mangle of intellectual dishonesty, of course you're going to get something "consistent" out the other side. But it will also be ridiculously warped from the original words.

Not only that, but even if the Bible were error free in the sense of contradictions, it's just a book. We know books are fallible because they're written by people - you have to make the unsupported assumption that it was written by God to conclude that the map overrules the territory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you trying to say that god made the earth 6,000 years ago out of old bits of rock that had cooled and been flying round space for around 4,5000,000,0000 years?

Absolutely not --- some people inferred that from my bicycle thread; but my bicycle thread was only meant to show that an object (such as the earth) can have two different types of age: an existential age, and a physical age.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to Wikipedia, the following four criteria were used:

1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

In addition, there were two basic factors:

1. Divine Inspiration
2. Apostolic Authority

1-3 sound like little more than a popularity contest, and having established that, 4 is a simple matter of toeing the party line.

First-generation [anything] is much more than a "popularity contest," and certainly the first-generation apostles had little trouble establishing their credentials, as God gave them the ability to display their apostleship with "signs and wonders," as recorded in the book of Acts.

[bible]2 Corinthians 12:12[/bible]

How does one check a document for divine inspiration?

If you saw a legal-tender one-dollar bill today, would it's "authorship" be in question to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

So how do you explain the missing gospels which were then (supposedly) destroyed to prevent them ever being examined and compared to the authorised version we have today?

I'm not aware of any missing gospels that were destroyed to prevent them from ever being examined.

Unless you're referring to this incident:

[bible]Acts 19:19[/bible]

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumaturgy, I'm sorry to have to hold the Sword over your head, but you keep bringing this up.

[bible]Hebrews 6:4-6[/bible]

Are you telling us that you want us to believe that you:

1. Were once enlightened.
2. Tasted of the heavenly gift.
3. Made a partaker of the Holy Ghost.
4. Tasted the good work of God.
5. And the powers of the world to come.
6. Then fell away???

Is this what you're telling us?

Well, considering that I don't actually know what it would feel like to "taste the heavenly gift" nor do I know what "enlightenment" must feel like I can't really say I fulfilled all on your list.

However, and this is key, I believed there was a God. I believed Jesus existed. I believed Jesus suffered and died for my sins and on the 3rd day arose from the dead. And I knew I was justified by faith.
I had accepted Jesus into my heart. I attempted to live my life in accord with these principles.

Once, when I was starting to date the woman that is currently my wife I felt intensely happy and puzzled over if this feeling was God. Maybe the new agers were right, maybe "God is Love".

Then I realized I was just...happy.

So, I know what some fundamentalists are likely to do now, they'll find some way to tell me my belief was somehow "wrong", but they are fools. I did my best to understand God. I spent more than 30 years of my life in an attempt to "do it right" and "believe".

I spent literally hours every week constantly praying for forgiveness of my tresspasses, and I fought valiantly to quell the negative thoughts. I prayed about once every hour, maybe two or three times, thanking God for just about anything.

There was no "enlightenment" in the darkness that I was simultaneously fighting within myself. I had several other serious problems to deal with, and guess what, there were no angels of mercy, unless you count the doctors and hard-working scientists who ultimately gave me some degree of salvation.

Tasting of the Heavenly Gift? Felt more like being given the promise of a bottle of water, rather than an actual bottle of water. The taste was non-existant.

"The Power of the World to come"? That is best summarized by so many posters on here who, when backed into a corner in the debate, promise that God is gonna come down and give us what we got comin'! The "big threat", eternal damnation, God's Righteous Justice.

As I've said before, religion was actively corroding my mental faculties. It was providing no "heavenly gift" except my fear that I simply hadn't done it right and would pay eternally for it.

God wants you to come to him. I went much more than half-way. I was left like Vladimir and Estragon.

Waiting.

 

[AV1611VET]

We know books are fallible because they're written by people - you have to make the unsupported assumption that it was written by God to conclude that the map overrules the territory.

No, it's not an "unsupported assumption."

The Bible Itself claims it --- and that means that our "unsupported assumption" is backed - in writing.

 

[AV1611VET]

I spent literally hours every week constantly praying for forgiveness of my tresspasses, and I fought valiantly to quell the negative thoughts. I prayed about once every hour, maybe two or three times, thanking God for just about anything.

Been there --- done that --- my friend.

As one deacon in our church is fond of saying:

• I never used to worry about going to Hell until after I was saved.

 

[Inan3]

While I appreciate that this comment was not aimed directly at myself, it is an accusation which is commonly thrown at atheists in general. I have been on the receiving end of it myself, and to be honest I don't like it. I think it is rude, closed minded and totally false.
How strange that we non-believers must respect your faith, but our lack of faith is given no respect whatsoever.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing" - Darth Vadar

My comment was not made because he was an atheist. I have spoken to several atheists who don't exhibit the same meanness as others and then brag about it or take no blame for it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

First-generation [anything] is much more than a "popularity contest," and certainly the first-generation apostles had little trouble establishing their credentials, as God gave them the ability to display their apostleship with "signs and wonders," as recorded in the book of Acts.

That would be the book of Acts as written by...?

If you saw a legal-tender one-dollar bill today, would it's "authorship" be in question to you?

If I saw George Bush's face on it instead of George Washington's, its authorship most certainly would be in question. Having had plenty of experience with authentic legal tender, I'd like to think I'm competent enough to spot an obvious fake.

How much experience did the Council have with authentic divinely-inspired documents? What did they have to use for a comparison?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No, it's not an "unsupported assumption."

The Bible Itself claims it --- and that means that our "unsupported assumption" is backed - in writing.

So it's the Bible's unsupported assumption. Doesn't make a difference, really.