...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[Strathos]

I would say the most important part of the Bible is the message of salvation via Christ atoning for our sins. If you accuse me of being arbitrary regarding which parts of the Bible I perceive as actual historical events, so be it, but IMO that is subordinate to the central message.

 

[bhsmte]

I would say the most important part of the Bible is the message of salvation via Christ atoning for our sins. If you accuse me of being arbitrary regarding which parts of the Bible I perceive as actual historical events, so be it, but IMO that is subordinate to the central message.

Not accusing you of anything, just curious how you choose to interpret the book.

 

[bhsmte]

"Well established biblical scholars" wouldn't use a flawed voting system ...

Jesus Seminar: Use of a flawed voting system

... unless they were scientists who worked for the IAU.

Yes indeed, there will always be critique, but the crux of what they discovered is what is important and it really is nothing new that hasn't already been discussed by biblical scholars who have the gonads to critique the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes indeed, there will always be critique, but the crux of what they discovered is what is important and it really is nothing new that hasn't already been discussed by biblical scholars who have the gonads to critique the bible.

I don't think it was a "discovery" until after it was [rig] voted on.

Else why a vote?

Do they blame this on the dictionary too, like they did Pluto?

Hey, look, I just noticed there's a lightbulb in my lamp. I think I'll call the household together and vote to see if there's a lightbulb in my lamp.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Why would a person, for example, who was a YEC ... and was convinced by science of deep time ... leave his faith?

Why wouldn't he simply become a TE?

I imagine that it probably varies from person to person. I did actually end up leaving my original religious group partially because of scientific issues with its theological dictates, although that of course wasn't the only reason. I doubt that it's the sole deciding factor for very many people, since there are usually other options.

Yes indeed, there will always be critique, but the crux of what they discovered is what is important and it really is nothing new that hasn't already been discussed by biblical scholars who have the gonads to critique the bible.

Without getting too into it, since my knowledge about the Jesus Seminar is pretty much limited to the Wikipedia article linked to here, I don't really know that their system was the most rigorous I can imagine from an academic standpoint. They apparently rejected all self-referential phrases or theological language unique to the gospels, which seems like it had to involve an automatic presupposition that Jesus didn't set Himself up as a messianic figure.

Speaking from a purely secular standpoint, without getting my religious beliefs involved in this too much, it seems like a bold assumption, given that there is pretty much universal agreement that Jesus was executed, and given that messianic figures weren't rare in the Levant at that time (and given that they tended to be executed by the Roman government, while random itinerant preachers did not). It would technically have been possible for Jesus to have been executed based off of false claims that he taught that he was the Messiah, but then the idea that his followers would have just rolled with it rather than protesting that he was innocent of the charge seems kind of unlikely.

 

[AV1611VET]

I doubt that it's the sole deciding factor for very many people, since there are usually other options.

Like some were never truly saved in the first place?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Like some were never truly saved in the first place?

Well, that's not really how I believe that salvation works, given that I'm Catholic. I think that might be better for general theology or soteriology than physical and life sciences, though.

 

[CabVet]

Like some were never truly saved in the first place?

No true Scotsman fallacy. Not to mention it breaks forum rules.

 

[CabVet]

I don't think even the Bible's worst critic thinks the Bible is 100% allegory.

Ok then, let me rephrase, when you see more than 50% as an allegory it becomes silly.

Why would a person, for example, who was a YEC ... and was convinced by science of deep time ... leave his faith?

Why wouldn't he simply become a TE?

I cannot speak for others, but in my case (and yes, being brought up in a Christian household and going to church every week at some point I was a YEC), the inconsistencies of Christianity and hypocrisy of its followers simply became to much for me. That is when I realized that Christianity was no different than Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion out there.

 

[super animator]

Ok then, let me rephrase, when you see more than 50% as an allegory it becomes silly.

silly as in take it literal silly or bible itself silly?

 

[CabVet]

silly as in take it literal silly or bible itself silly?

The entire religion I would say...

 

[super animator]

The entire religion I would say...

Meh, don't see how you came to that conclusion from conversion you spoke off. I thought you rather be a guy who rather view himself unaffiliated with it.

 

[CabVet]

Meh, don't see how you came to that conclusion from conversion you spoke off. I thought you rather be a guy who rather view himself unaffiliated with it.

What?

 

[super animator]

What?

nm

 

[bhsmte]

silly as in take it literal silly or bible itself silly?

Super,

When you take a critical objective look at the bible (and why shouldn't the bible be critiqued like any other book), it becomes very difficult to reconcile (using any logic) the following:

-The massive amount of contradictions
-The immoral teachings
-No knowledge of who actually wrote; matthew, mark, luke and john
-No original copies of new testament exist (only copies which are hundreds of years after Jesus lived)
-Massive amounts of errors in the copies we do have including; stories that were added centuries later for effect, stories that were deleted or changed for effect.
-Original copies of bible were written in Greek and Jesus's followers spoke Aramaic and were also illiterate.
-No writings exist of Jesus' plite, until at least 50 years after he died
-The contents of bible was determined by a group of people (the powers at be) and they chose what made it in the bible and what didn't and what also was deleted and or added.
-This was a mythical time of legends, in which it was common place for Gods to be developed by man.
-Crusifictions and rising from the dead were also common place

The bible smacks of being developed by man in an attempt to explain the world and to most importantly control people by fear, which is why the book uses a constant thread of intimidation of what happens to you if you don't believe and follow the rules. It is really no different than any other holy book in this regard.

Did Jesus exist? Yes, he probably did and was a real historical figure that was followed by illiterate people. When you start talking about virgin births and rising from the dead, is when the story gets a little overreaching, because there is no evidence of the same.

 

[super animator]

Super,

When you take a critical objective look at the bible

Which I rather research the material myself and forming my conclusions rather than take someones word on the internet which I don't know who he/she in real life. Nothing personal.

 

[bhsmte]

Which I rather research the material myself and forming my conclusions rather than take someones word on the internet which I don't know who he/she in real life. Nothing personal.

Couldn't agree more.

I have done quite a bit of research by reading interpretations from respected biblical scholars and by looking at the facts.

Plenty of good reliable sources out there, for those who want to really dig into the history of the bible.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would say the most important part of the Bible is the message of salvation via Christ atoning for our sins. If you accuse me of being arbitrary regarding which parts of the Bible I perceive as actual historical events, so be it, but IMO that is subordinate to the central message.

As Galileo put it, the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heaven's go.

 

[KWCrazy]

We show you evidence that supports evolution. You turn around and announce to the world that there is no evidence for evolution.

I said there is no proof, not there there is no evidence. Evidence can brought forward to support nearly any claim, however outlandish.

An honest person would show how the interpretation is actually false.

What would it matter when the person obviously has no knowledge or understanding in the first place? How does one interpret something he's never read and knows nothing about?

It's right next to the verse that supports the existence of atoms and relativity.

The Bible actually DOES speak of things unseen, but thank you for admitting that there are no passages which support T.E.

 

[Loudmouth]

I said there is no proof, not there there is no evidence. Evidence can brought forward to support nearly any claim, however outlandish.

So let's say that you are on a jury for a murder trial. The prosecution shows that the defendant's bloody fingerprint was found on the knife sticking out of the victim's chest. On top of that, the defendant's bloody shoe prints were found leading away from the crime scene. In the parking lot the scientists found prints that matched the tires found on the defendant's car. At the crime scene they also find fibers from defendant's clothes, and even his DNA. At the defendant's home they find clothes soaked with the victim's blood.

The defense attorney in his closing statements says that evidence can be brought forward to support nearly any claim, so you should just find the defendant not guilty. Would you be convinced? Or do you see the absolutely lunacy of your statement above?

What would it matter when the person obviously has no knowledge or understanding in the first place? How does one interpret something he's never read and knows nothing about?

How can someone claim that in interpretation is wrong if they don't even understand the material? How can you claim that an interpretation is wrong when YOU don't understand the material? Is that something an honest person would do?

The Bible actually DOES speak of things unseen, but thank you for admitting that there are no passages which support T.E.

The map is not the territory.