"Much simpler to say...

[Dirk1540]

...it's a mistake."

Maybe the parsimonious answer is the best one.

So the moral of the story is that it’s inerrancy or nothing?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You have to be more specific if you want specific answers. What parts of those chapters and books don't fit with the overall message of the Bible, in your opinion?

Song of Solomon 7
7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
8 I said, “I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit.”

Spoiler

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I've read the entire Bible as I think most Christians have;

Erm, my understanding is that reading the Bible is what tends to drive Christians to atheism. That's what happened with me. And I don't know of many Christians at all that have legitimately read the whole Bible.

Are you from a small Christian town or something?

(it is much easier than War and Peace and held my attention much more than Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...yawn).

OK.

It does "fit together" as a theological work.

Then why do people disagree on major issues, such as the existence of Satan and/or hell, and even the divinity of Jesus?

However, the Bible should not be judged on the accuracy of it's information as if it is a textbook on science, history or archeology, etc.

Why not? God could have made it accurate, and yet did not. Why would he do that?

Rather it should be judged on what it has to say about purpose of life, the meaning of the world we live in and the the reality that lies beyond it.

And the general meaning of life on Christian theology is what, exactly?

1.) God hates sin, or dislikes it, or cannot look upon it - however you want to phrase it.

2.) God already has means by which he can give all Christians an eternal, sinless existence while maintaining their free will (???).

3.) Unbelievers would have been better off not having ever been created, since most (or at least some) theologies insist that a fate worse than death awaits them for all eternity.

4.) Demons would have been better off not having ever been created for the same reason.

5.) Believers would have been better off created instantly in heaven by virtue of the simple fact that heaven>earth by any metric one can propose.

6.) Jesus would have been better off had 3.), 4.), and 5.) above been actualized because his death (and/or separation from God the father) grieved Jesus deeply to the point of physical distress, and he prayed for the old "anything but this."

7.) The only entities left in existence, on Christian theology, who don't vastly benefit from this are God and the angels who chose the right side. While they would not really gain anything from heaven having been populated with saints instantly, they certainly would not have lost anything.

8.) Therefore, there is no conceivable purpose to the existence of earth, unless God is either apathetic or malevolent.

9.) But God is benevolent, and therefore there is no purpose to the existence of earth whatsoever on Christian theology.



So when you say that the Bible tells you about the purpose of life, what in the world are you talking about?

 

[jacks]

So when you say that the Bible tells you about the purpose of life, what in the world are you talking about?

Merry Christmas!

 

[Liza B.]

Song of Solomon 7
7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
8 I said, “I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit.”

Spoiler

"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."--James 1:17

It's only we who try to pervert sex and make it something it is not.

 

[Liza B.]

Erm, my understanding is that reading the Bible is what tends to drive Christians to atheism. That's what happened with me. And I don't know of many Christians at all that have legitimately read the whole Bible.

Are you from a small Christian town or something?

First, you now have at least two Christians on this thread who have told you they've read the entire Bible--this is the second time I've done it, every word, cover to cover. Second, what in the world does living in a "small Christian town" have one whit to do with anything?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."--James 1:17

It's only we who try to pervert sex and make it something it is not.

Thanks. But that doesn't address the issue. I'm asking how that ties in with the whole Bible. You gave a non-answer.

First, you now have at least two Christians on this thread who have told you they've read the entire Bible--this is the second time I've done it, every word, cover to cover.

OK. Therefore...?

Second, what in the world does living in a "small Christian town" have one whit to do with anything?

Doesn't matter. It was a question for someone else who is obviously not inclined to have a rational conversation on these apologetics forums.

 

[Liza B.]

Thanks. But that doesn't address the issue. I'm asking how that ties in with the whole Bible. You gave a non-answer.

That's not a non-answer. I guess it needs to be really spelled out...okay. In Genesis, woman is made for the man, as a companion. They are married from the beginning. God calls it all "good". Throughout the Bible there is no time that sex between married people is said to be sinful; in the OT there are only some regulations for cleanliness and the like. So why I should be shocked that human sexuality is being celebrated in the Bible I do not know. The Bible includes a lot of stuff that is the down low on the human condition. Good, bad, ugly and all shades in between. Human sexuality when used in the way God intended comes under the "good" category, and so is celebrated, hence the verse from James.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's not a non-answer. I guess it needs to be really spelled out...okay. In Genesis, woman is made for the man, as a companion. They are married from the beginning. God calls it all "good". Throughout the Bible there is no time that sex between married people is said to be sinful; in the OT there are only some regulations for cleanliness and the like. So why I should be shocked that human sexuality is being celebrated in the Bible I do not know. The Bible includes a lot of stuff that is the down low on the human condition. Good, bad, ugly and all shades in between. Human sexuality when used in the way God intended comes under the "good" category, and so is celebrated, hence the verse from James.

OK. Solomon, the author, had hundreds of wives and concubines. Is this "good"? Is this the way God intended it?

 

[Liza B.]

OK. Solomon, the author, had hundreds of wives and concubines. Is this "good"? Is this the way God intended it?

No. Nothing in the Bible, committed by humans save Jesus Christ, is perfect. Not from Moses, not from David, not from Solomon, not from Paul, not from anyone. That's one of the quiet points of the Bible.

That still does not mean sinful people cannot celebrate the good gifts God gives, because God is cool like that. We would not be. I mean look in 2017 how we're running around wagging fingers like the most veritable pursed-lipped Puritans that ever landed on our shores. It's ridiculous.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No. Nothing in the Bible, committed by humans save Jesus Christ, is perfect. Not from Moses, not from David, not from Solomon, not from Paul, not from anyone. That's one of the quiet points of the Bible.

OK. So the portion of Song of Solomon I quoted is not "good" because Solomon is violating the rules of sex that have been laid down. So the things being described are a perversion, right? (For the record, I don't think he is actually breaking any rules because the rules were extremely sexist, among other things. But I don't think you could bring yourself to concede this point.)

I asked how this is relevant to the Bible, and you "spelled it out" for me by pointing me to something irrelevant - the creation of man and woman, and their relationship being the way it is supposed to be (the complete opposite of a perversion).

That still does not mean sinful people cannot celebrate the good gifts God gives, because God is cool like that.

Uh... right.

We would not be. I mean look in 2017 how we're running around wagging fingers like the most veritable pursed-lipped Puritans that ever landed on our shores. It's ridiculous.

???

 

[Liza B.]

OK. So the portion of Song of Solomon I quoted is not "good" because Solomon is violating the rules of sex that have been laid down.

Human sexuality is a good gift of God even if humans pervert that gift, yes. The gift is good. Even if I concede that the groom is Solomon, and he did in fact have many wives, that does not diminish the gift of human sexuality one iota. It would be like saying feasting is a sin because some are gluttonous. It is what you DO with the feasting and the sexuality that makes the difference (by the way, I think it's kinda funny that atheists think we'll be so offended by verses about palm trees and breasts and stuff. I don't know, it just cracks me up. That's not offensive; it's real. The Bible is a very real book.)

(For the record, I don't think he is actually breaking any rules because the rules were extremely sexist, among other things. But I don't think you could bring yourself to concede this point.)

I read the -ist accusations and my eyes glaze over. No personal offense meant but that's the mob mentality of our time. -ists and -phobias. Yeah, I know. Everyone is an -ist or a -phobic, me too. I don't care. I really don't.

I asked how this is relevant to the Bible, and you "spelled it out" for me by pointing me to something irrelevant - the creation of man and woman, and their relationship being the way it is supposed to be (the complete opposite of a perversion).

Okay one thing I don't do is play games. This is probably obvious in my blunt style. You wanted to know how this all hangs together in the Bible and I told you right from Genesis through the NT. You can accept my answer or reject it, but you don't get to tell me what I told you is irrelevant because you didn't get an answer you liked.

???

In my experience atheist Leftists are the veriest pursed-lipped Puritans on our shores since the 17th century. The only thing they don't want to moralize and monitor is sexuality, but they sure do want to moralize and monitor what you THINK about everyone's sexuality. In every other particular, they get closer and closer to some kind of "thumpers" of religious texts.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Human sexuality is a good gift of God even if humans pervert that gift, yes. The gift is good. Even if I concede that the groom is Solomon, and he did in fact have many wives, that does not diminish the gift of human sexuality one iota. It would be like saying feasting is a sin because some are gluttonous. It is what you DO with the feasting and the sexuality that makes the difference (by the way, I think it's kinda funny that atheists think we'll be so offended by verses about palm trees and breasts and stuff. I don't know, it just cracks me up. That's not offensive; it's real. The Bible is a very real book.)



I read the -ist accusations and my eyes glaze over. No personal offense meant but that's the mob mentality of our time. -ists and -phobias. Yeah, I know. Everyone is an -ist or a -phobic, me too. I don't care. I really don't.



Okay one thing I don't do is play games. This is probably obvious in my blunt style. You wanted to know how this all hangs together in the Bible and I told you right from Genesis through the NT. You can accept my answer or reject it, but you don't get to tell me what I told you is irrelevant because you didn't get an answer you liked.



In my experience atheist Leftists are the veriest pursed-lipped Puritans on our shores since the 17th century. The only thing they don't want to moralize and monitor is sexuality, but they sure do want to moralize and monitor what you THINK about everyone's sexuality. In every other particular, they get closer and closer to some kind of "thumpers" of religious texts.

You seem to be brining a lot of baggage to this conversation. Which is fine I suppose. But your direct dodge on the other thread signals to me that I need to keep looking if I seek rational discourse. Disappointed, really.

 

[Liza B.]

You seem to be brining a lot of baggage to this conversation. Which is fine I suppose. But your direct dodge on the other thread signals to me that I need to keep looking if I seek rational discourse. Disappointed, really.

And you will make the rules as to what is rational, correct?

See what I mean?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And you will make the rules as to what is rational, correct?

See what I mean?

Actually, you were the one declaring what is rational. Because I was using "atheist lingo" you excused yourself from the conversation.

You may speak to me in atheist internet lingo; I can't stop you. But if you do, don't expect an answer.

Ideally, I would really like you to dig deep and stop typing in tropes and propaganda. "lack of belief", "positively assert"---these are fallbacks. I really don't mean to offend you but they're not worth my time.

 

[Liza B.]

Actually, you were the one declaring what is rational. Because I was using "atheist lingo" you excused yourself from the conversation.

I never said it wasn't rational. I said I wouldn't engage with it, mostly because it was a dodge.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I never said it wasn't rational. I said I wouldn't engage with it, mostly because it was a dodge.

You will have to walk me through how using precise language is a dodge.

 

[miknik5]

You're under no obligation to answer if you don't want to, but we'd all prefer if you would either give a straight answer or just say you don't know how those parts fit... the above serves no one.

Everything in the written word points to JESUS CHRIST

One can’t take HIM out of the equation because men today are still being born again of HIS SPIRIT

So, as the WORD says... there was always false “prophets” among the people

Those with the anointing of GOD recognize these false “prophets”

 

[miknik5]

Erm, my understanding is that reading the Bible is what tends to drive Christians to atheism. That's what happened with me. And I don't know of many Christians at all that have legitimately read the whole Bible.

Are you from a small Christian town or something?



OK.



Then why do people disagree on major issues, such as the existence of Satan and/or hell, and even the divinity of Jesus?



Why not? God could have made it accurate, and yet did not. Why would he do that?



And the general meaning of life on Christian theology is what, exactly?

1.) God hates sin, or dislikes it, or cannot look upon it - however you want to phrase it.

2.) God already has means by which he can give all Christians an eternal, sinless existence while maintaining their free will (???).

3.) Unbelievers would have been better off not having ever been created, since most (or at least some) theologies insist that a fate worse than death awaits them for all eternity.

4.) Demons would have been better off not having ever been created for the same reason.

5.) Believers would have been better off created instantly in heaven by virtue of the simple fact that heaven>earth by any metric one can propose.

6.) Jesus would have been better off had 3.), 4.), and 5.) above been actualized because his death (and/or separation from God the father) grieved Jesus deeply to the point of physical distress, and he prayed for the old "anything but this."

7.) The only entities left in existence, on Christian theology, who don't vastly benefit from this are God and the angels who chose the right side. While they would not really gain anything from heaven having been populated with saints instantly, they certainly would not have lost anything.

8.) Therefore, there is no conceivable purpose to the existence of earth, unless God is either apathetic or malevolent.

9.) But God is benevolent, and therefore there is no purpose to the existence of earth whatsoever on Christian theology.



So when you say that the Bible tells you about the purpose of life, what in the world are you talking about?

ONE TRUTH
ONE FOUNDATION
Standing firmly in that FOUNDATION is sufficient


Too many look for more to add to THE FOUNDATION making manifest that they never began on THE FOUNDATION to begin with

 

[Uber Genius]

Right.

Unfortunately for them, Carrier is a "real" historian, with a doctorate from Columbia in ancient history. It's why his book On the Historicity of Jesus hasn't been refuted by anybody with relevant degrees.

Carrier is a clown!

His approach destroys all history.

No other historian including Athiests like Dominic Crossen agree with his conclusion or his method.

Richard Carrier debated William Lane Craig in 2009. They met at Northwestern Missouri State University and Craig presented four historical facts universally accepted as historical facts by atheist and theist Jesus scholars alike. Carrier didn't engage any of the four facts at all. That's right zero premises, arguments, inferences regarding these facts.

Carrier would use sweeping generalizations,many ad hominem attacks rather than engaging, "Mary was psychotic, the apostles were hallucinating, Paul was schizophrenic," etc.

Had he been defending a master's thesis he would have already failed.

Although Carrier agreed to a debate about the resurrection his opening dialog was about the historical reliability of the gospels. Where does Carrier have an undergrad from? If one of my students tried the bate and switch he would be sitting down.

Carrier chose to argue a mid-20th century inference that the New Testament accounts of Jesus is just a myth but he ignores over 60 years of archaeological and historical discoveries that have forced virtually all historians to abandon that inference.

Again if he was giving a defense of this thesis to scholars to get a higher degree he would be walking home empty-handed for this rookie mistake.

He only fools those who don't understand scholarship. The debate is not without value though, as Carrier gives us textbook examples of ad hominem, strawman, false dilemma, sweeping generalization fallacies not to mention constant dodges. It is a rhetorical flourish that would impress any propagandist.