tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post115769157768794966..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: My Case Against ChristianityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20136486080426459552010-01-27T12:57:52.018-05:002010-01-27T12:57:52.018-05:00If you would, I'd like to know more evidence-b...If you would, I'd like to know more evidence-based opinions. You've debunked Christianity with a lot of "I believe" and "I believe". For example, I have read elsewhere that Islam was the religion that claimed the world was flat (in contrary to the variation in translation which says "like an egg") while Christianity referred to the world as a circle many years before the scientific discovery itself. <br /><br />I will not say more and I shall await your specific references to where contradictions are errant in the Bible =). <br /><br />One more thing regarding your more scientific approaches to the existence of God. First of all, you ventured into the star theory on the basis that "you believe evolution was the answer" and therefore supported your "unsupport" of the Christian God via the argument of the earth's age and more. I have read a number of books and I still find a lot of problems getting anywhere near the conclusion that evolution was logical in ANY sense. It became really quite ridiculous to me at some point, and yet I am very much willing to continue knowing more.<br /><br />Lastly, contradictions occur in us humans too, and even for us, one characteristic is interlinked with our other characteristics which forms a complicated web. Challenging your claim here would be lengthy. I will just say that it is entirely possible, even logical, the contradictory nature of the Christian God you found false.Carmen Thonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07885633609725827808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29511878945107416932009-06-29T22:59:27.976-04:002009-06-29T22:59:27.976-04:00The Bible is errant, and it provides a way to comp...The Bible is errant, and it provides a way to compensate for that fact.<br /><br />The Bible twice declares that it is errant. The first declaration is Matthew 13:33 which reads, "Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." The second declaration is Luke 13:21 which reads, "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."<br /><br />The Bible thrice mentions a way to compensate for the errancy. The first mention was at Deuteronomy 19:15 which reads, "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." The second was at Matthew 18:16 which reads, "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." The third mention was at 2 Corinthians 13:1 which reads, "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Their commonality, which is the way to remove the leaven, reads, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1165798783119606212006-12-10T19:59:00.000-05:002006-12-10T19:59:00.000-05:00I can understand how this can be a case against Ev...I can understand how this can be a case against Evangelical Christianity, but besides the last point it can't be a case against the Christian God. Also, the arguements don't mention the possibility of God revealing himself to humanity. Basically, I guess in order to reject the Christian God, one must reject the resurrection. <BR/>That is the cornerstone of Christianity, that is its foundation. Paul made that clear. <BR/>Because <I> if </I> the resurrection is true, then the claims Jesus made are true, thus God must be. If God seems contradictory then, well he must not be. I suppose this is my issue with stating that God doesn't exist from a philosophical perspective, becasue it can never take into account the possibilty of God revealing himself to humanity. <BR/><BR/>Of course, for the resurrection to be true, we first must have an account of it. That comes from Paul, Luke(whom was commended by Sir Ramsey, as a first-rate historian), Mark(the earliest known Gospel according to scholars), Matthew(considered the first testament by ancients), and John(who claimed to have been among Jesus's "inner circle"). So then I guess the ultimate debate for me comes down to how trustworthy these sources are. That is of course just my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1158558396308262282006-09-18T01:46:00.000-04:002006-09-18T01:46:00.000-04:00I've replied to certain lousy atheist arguments ab...I've replied to certain lousy atheist arguments about biblical cosmology in my paper:<BR/><BR/><I>Objections to Some Atheist / Agnostic "Proof Texts" of an Alleged Flat-Earth Biblical Cosmology</I> (vs. Ed Babinski)<BR/><BR/>http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/09/objections-to-some-atheist-agnostic.html<BR/><BR/>Invariably Ed commits the same mistake every time he tries to exegete the Bible (this is now the third time I have refuted him along those lines). He assumes a woodenly literalistic approach to the Bible (just as the fundamentalists he so despises, and once was, do), projects that onto the ancient Hebrews, assumes it is the only possible way to interpret the Bible, and then proceeds to reveal himself to be more ignorant and misguided than the ancient Hebrews were (i.e., in his imagination).<BR/><BR/>I must confess that this provides more than a little entertainment for us Christians, to see our strongest critics reason with such abominable method and rampant fallacies. I love few things more in apologetics than turning the table on folks who start out with a mission to embarrass and belittle Christians and the Bible, and showing how atrocious and unfairly selective their own reasoning is.<BR/><BR/>It's quite easy - with the benefit of modern science - to look down our noses at the ancient Hebrews, who didn't yet have such knowledge, that required the intellectual spade-work of centuries of reflection and building upon acquired natural knowledge.<BR/><BR/>But that is the folly of it: Ed wants to look down on the Hebrews and modern-day Christians, when in fact the Bible is not trying to present any particular scientific cosmology (rather, it presents a pre-scientific, phenomenological theistic metaphysic). In other words, he applies a standard to the Bible which is irrelevant to the Bible itself. He anachronistically and unfairly applies modern scientific standards to ancient Hebrew idiom, while at the same time making little or no attempt to understand the latter on its own terms.<BR/><BR/>Dave ArmstrongDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1158419787124915692006-09-16T11:16:00.000-04:002006-09-16T11:16:00.000-04:00I agree with your first two arguments. They are tw...I agree with your first two arguments. They are two of the many reasons I am no longer a Christian. (However, even when I was a Christian, I never took the mythical descriptions of the earth literally). <BR/><BR/>But, as to your third point. I too do not believe in the Christian concept of God. However, to always equate God with the Christian concept of God is giving too much creedence to Christianity.<BR/><BR/>As far as my beliefs go, I could be described as a hybrid of humanist and deist. I see no direct evidence for God and I believe that our best chance for survival as a species, and planet, lies within the secular means of reason, science, and ethics. <BR/><BR/>However, I still think there is "something is out there" whether it be a creator, or a spirit of life and love underlying reality, or that the universe is conscious. And, in some ways, the term God could be used to describe any of these things.Bill Bittnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05579039419982926534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1158043424907472212006-09-12T02:43:00.000-04:002006-09-12T02:43:00.000-04:00Dave writes:"A healthy dose of intellectual humili...Dave writes:<BR/><BR/>"A healthy dose of intellectual humility . . . would that many of my Christian brothers and sisters could be so blessed . . ."<BR/><BR/> You have to give me credit for at least trying! :-D <BR/><BR/>"Exactly, just as in any other literature. It's when double standards are brought to biblical interpretation, slanted towards the skeptical end, while neglecting sound hemeneutical principles, that trouble arises and error carries the day."<BR/><BR/> I try and avoid double-standards where I can and I appreciate it when Christians such as yourself do your best to point it out. I believe in using sound hermeutical principles and there are, indeed, sometimes where I think that some of my fellow skeptics are just plain wrong on some examples of biblical errancy. <BR/><BR/>"It should be applied when the text warrants it. If that is what you mean, I wholeheartedly agree."<BR/><BR/> I very much mean that.<BR/> <BR/>"Yes; precisely. But of course, the meanings of words and the latitude that they may have in Hebrew (or Greek in the NT) also are important factors."<BR/><BR/> I agree as well.<BR/><BR/>"That's just playing games and special pleading. I'm talking about serious, educated, informed biblical interpretation. But don't underestimate the power of predispositions. We all have them, whatever we believe. I freely admit that my Christian bias will predispose me to arrive at "Christian" conclusions about the Bible. But your atheist biases and general goals in debate with Christians lead you to be predisposed to accept any skeptical interpretation of the Bible that is handy. I've seen it 100 times, and I've seen biblical interpretation from atheists and agnostics silly and foolish enough to make the mosty wooden literalist fundamentalist grimace with disdain over the sheer ignorance."<BR/><BR/> Oh, I won't deny a bias on my part. And I won't accuse others of being biased and excuse myself from being biased. As I see it- the question becomes not so much of who is "biased" but does the bias interfere with one's ability to honestly consider opposing and disconfirming data or at least the possibility of it. <BR/><BR/> I won't criticize you for having any bias Dave and I won't criticize you for having anything that I am not willing to criticize myself for.<BR/><BR/>"If indeed that is true in a particular instance, you are right. My point is that one need not do this sort of special pleading. The skeptical / liberal / atheist counter-explanations are so atrocious and biasedl, due to a prior extremely critical eye towards the Bible, that it is usually easy to refute, just from common sense and the application of basic logic, even before one gets to serious biblical scholarship."<BR/><BR/> Well, I'd say that it depends on the sketpic/atheist. I tend to agree here. Dave, I think it would be best to point out that each side has its fair share of nutcakes and whack-job apologists. I can think of a number of people for whom I think shouldn't be writing for the atheist side and I, no doubt, can think of some Christians you probably wish would've gone into another vocation serving Christ then the one that they have chosen because of the shoddy scholarship they seem to pass off as serious and high-caliber. <BR/><BR/> For instance: Josh McDowell is a Christian author who is considered a laughing stock in skeptical circles. Unfortunately, our side seems to have a McDowell or two; atheists who are not the best, most informed skeptics in the world and who make atheists look dim-witted.<BR/><BR/> I don't like critiquing fellow atheists but Dan Barker is an excellent example. I think that he has some good points here and there but most of his arguments either leave me unimpressed at best or are downright uninformed, uneducated, and only make Barker look foolish, at worst. Don't get me wrong: I like the guy but it's just that his arguments leave a heck of a lot to be desired.<BR/><BR/> I just don't know how to go about expressing a criticism like this without feeling as though I am attacking Barker-which I am not trying to do by the way or betraying the loyality and would-be friendship of atheists who seem impressed by Barker and would consider themselves fans of his. <BR/><BR/>"Nothing personal . . . :-)"<BR/><BR/> No offense taken! :-D<BR/><BR/>"Mostly liberal, no doubt. One of the oldest tricks in the book is to utilize biblical scholars who no longer believe much of what is in the Bible, to bolster up skepticism. This is done by cults like Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, and atheists alike, and also by anti-Catholic Protestants, who cite liberal Catholics in order to "refute" orthodox Catholicism."<BR/><BR/> Some of the scholars I rely on are liberals. For example, when I study biblical cosmology, I tend to rely on Stephen C Meyer who is a liberal theologian. I am not trying to do it just to go against fundamentalists but I just find his arguments impressive. If a fundamentalist or mainstream conservative thinks that Meyer is wrong, I am open to criticisms about his work. Seriously! <BR/><BR/>"But this methodology is as silly as a Christian citing other Christians (rather than atheists) to give an accurate account of the best in atheist thought on any given topic. One must cite the best advocates of the opposing view, not the worst proponents, or those who are barely "proponents" at all."<BR/><BR/> I agree with you very much. I try to avoid citing the worst or even quasi-proponents of a given view but rather the chief scholars of a given view. I don't cite liberals just because they are liberals- it's usually because I find a given liberal's arguments quite persuasive. For instance, I would never cite Bishop Spong if I was going to write a scholarly paper on biblical cosmology. Spong is a liberal but I wouldn't cite him because I consider him a nonscholar (not necessarily a bad thing) and I don't find many of his arguments impressive or his methodology all that rigorous or scholarly (I am stunned that he, a Christian, would cite the scholarship of Michael Goulder, an atheist on genre criticism.) Rather, I would cite liberal scholars or skeptical scholars only if I find their arguments credible and persuasive and they have the necessary education and credentials such as liberal theologian Stephen Meyer and skeptical Bible scholar Robert M Price.<BR/><BR/>"Good for you. But if you use liberal sources, then I am just as entitled to suspect a sever anti-biblical bias, as you are to suspect a strong pro-biblical bias when I cite folks who are Christians and accept in faith and with reason the inspired status of the Bible, as God's revelation to man. Bias works both ways. I freely admit mine; I expect my dialogical opponents to do the same and not to play the game that only one side is biased and ignorant and guilty of lousy logic or otherwise bad thinking."<BR/><BR/> Dave, I only tend to cite a given scholar if I find that scholar's arguments persuasive or I think that the scholar has a good point. I don't pretend that one side is automatically biased and the other isn't. There are some conservatives who I think are good scholars such as Ben Witherington and others such as William Lane Craig who I have a hard time taking seriously.<BR/><BR/> Witherington, in my opinion, tends to be quite honest and his work, so far to my mind, is refreshing to read. I don't find myself wanting to rip my hair out reading Witherington the way I do when I read something by Bill Craig. I believe that Craig is such a spin-doctor, I would dismiss him as a complete joke if he didn't have a serious doctorate in theology and if he wasn't taken so seriously by many Christians. I believe that bias affects Craig in a negative way whereas it doesn't tend to affect Witherington in a serious way, as far as I can tell from reading both of their works as far as I have.<BR/><BR/> I look forward to hearing from you, Dave!<BR/><BR/> MatthewMatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301708892076758582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1158040844945773202006-09-12T02:00:00.000-04:002006-09-12T02:00:00.000-04:00Dave, The anaylsis which has led me to conclude t...Dave,<BR/><BR/> The anaylsis which has led me to conclude that the Bible teaches a flat-earth, geocentric cosmology can be found here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm<BR/><BR/> I though that rather than culling individual verses out, I could rather show you the study that has persuaded me that the Bible does, indeed, teach this.<BR/><BR/> I am just sorry it took longer than I said it was going to take. I was planning on having it up this past weekend but I let other things get in the way. Sorry about that!<BR/><BR/> MatthewMatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301708892076758582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1158024125049635972006-09-11T21:22:00.000-04:002006-09-11T21:22:00.000-04:00MG: I want to insert a word of caution here: my "c...MG: I want to insert a word of caution here: my "case" against Christianity is only as good as my sources of study and my thinking thus far. I don't pretend that my reasons are insermountable or that they can withstand scrutiny. I don't even know if all my arguments are indeed sound.<BR/>That's why I kept qualifying my remarks as "I believe.." not that it necessarily means that I know for a fact. I may be quite wrong on many of these points.<BR/><BR/>A healthy dose of intellectual humility . . . would that many of my Christian brothers and sisters could be so blessed . . . <BR/><BR/>MG: I agree with you about the poetic nature of Hebrew literature but I think that you would agree with me that we must also be careful of genre criticism of the Hebrew Bible as well. There are some passages which are meant to be understood as historical narration, even if the language and the idioms are poetic in themselves.<BR/><BR/>Exactly, just as in any other literature. It's when double standards are brought to biblical interpretation, slanted towards the skeptical end, while neglecting sound hemeneutical principles, that trouble arises and error carries the day.<BR/><BR/>MG: By the way- I am not denying any "phenomenological language" does at all exists in Hebrew literature, I am wary of people who attempt to apply such language to the Bible as an apologetic device. <BR/><BR/>It should be applied when the text warrants it. If that is what you mean, I wholeheartedly agree.<BR/><BR/>MG: If the genre and context demand phenomenological interpretations, that's fine as long as clear textual indicators are given. <BR/><BR/>Yes; precisely. But of course, the meanings of words and the latitude that they may have in Hebrew (or Greek in the NT) also are important factors.<BR/><BR/>MG: I just don't like it when some Christians treat all texts as "phenomeological" just because they wish to avoid a potential conflict between scientific findings. <BR/><BR/>That's just playing games and special pleading. I'm talking about serious, educated, informed biblical interpretation. But don't underestimate the power of predispositions. We all have them, whatever we believe. I freely admit that my Christian bias will predispose me to arrive at "Christian" conclusions about the Bible. But your atheist biases and general goals in debate with Christians lead you to be predisposed to accept any skeptical interpretation of the Bible that is handy. I've seen it 100 times, and I've seen biblical interpretation from atheists and agnostics silly and foolish enough to make the mosty wooden literalist fundamentalist grimace with disdain over the sheer ignorance. See, e.g., my exchange with a philosophy professor (Dr. Ted Drange): <BR/><BR/>Refutation of Atheists' Alleged Biblical "Contradictions" Concerning Salvation and Supposed Annihilationism and Universalism <BR/>http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ303.HTM<BR/><BR/>Or another treatment: <BR/><BR/>Examination of Atheist Bible Scholarship and Exegesis<BR/>http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/04/examination-of-atheist-bible.html<BR/><BR/>MG: To me- that's just dishonest methodology-especially if the genre and context are not demanding of it and the text gives no indication that such is the case.<BR/><BR/>If indeed that is true in a particular instance, you are right. My point is that one need not do this sort of special pleading. The skeptical / liberal / atheist counter-explanations are so atrocious and biasedl, due to a prior extremely critical eye towards the Bible, that it is usually easy to refute, just from common sense and the application of basic logic, even before one gets to serious biblical scholarship. <BR/><BR/>Nothing personal . . . :-)<BR/><BR/>MG: . . . my argument is dependent solely on the works of biblical scholar(s) who argue that the Bible does indeed endorse this kind of cosmology. <BR/><BR/>Mostly liberal, no doubt. One of the oldest tricks in the book is to utilize biblical scholars who no longer believe much of what is in the Bible, to bolster up skepticism. This is done by cults like Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, and atheists alike, and also by anti-Catholic Protestants, who cite liberal Catholics in order to "refute" orthodox Catholicism. <BR/><BR/>But this methodology is as silly as a Christian citing other Christians (rather than atheists) to give an accurate account of the best in atheist thought on any given topic. One must cite the best advocates of the opposing view, not the worst proponents, or those who are barely "proponents" at all.<BR/><BR/>MG: I would never try to play expert like myself in an area like this without the necessary credentials and study.<BR/><BR/>Good for you. But if you use liberal sources, then I am just as entitled to suspect a sever anti-biblical bias, as you are to suspect a strong pro-biblical bias when I cite folks who are Christians and accept in faith and with reason the inspired status of the Bible, as God's revelation to man. Bias works both ways. I freely admit mine; I expect my dialogical opponents to do the same and not to play the game that only one side is biased and ignorant and guilty of lousy logic or otherwise bad thinking.<BR/><BR/>Dave Armstrong<BR/><BR/>P.S. I'm cross-posting this on my blog (http://socrates58.blogspot.com)Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1158021376417628082006-09-11T20:36:00.000-04:002006-09-11T20:36:00.000-04:00Here are some helpful sources on the topic biblica...Here are some helpful sources on the topic biblical cosmology (I don't necessarily agree with everything in every article):<BR/><BR/>What Shape is the Earth In?: An Evaluation of Biblical Cosmology, by<BR/>J. P. Holding<BR/>http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html<BR/><BR/>BIBLE PASSAGES ON COSMOLOGY:<BR/>INTERPRETATIONS BY CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL CHRISTIANS<BR/>(Religious Tolerance.org)<BR/>http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl3.htm<BR/><BR/>Biblical cosmology (Wikipedia)<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology<BR/><BR/>Cosmology Rediscovered, Chuck Missler<BR/>http://www.direct.ca/trinity/cosmos.html<BR/><BR/>Does the Bible say Earth is Flat?: A Response to Paul H. Seely, J.P. Holding.<BR/>http://www.trueorigin.org/flatearth01.asp<BR/><BR/>DOES THE BIBLE TEACH A FLAT EARTH?<BR/>Gerardus D. Bouw<BR/>http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/flatearth/doesbibleteach.html<BR/><BR/>Dave ArmstrongDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157930156130217342006-09-10T19:15:00.000-04:002006-09-10T19:15:00.000-04:00Augustine was not a literalist inerrantist, which ...Augustine was not a literalist inerrantist, which is what my target was (see the last line of my previous post). You can be an inerrantist but not take everything literally, even the Genesis stories: I am not quite sure what it means to be an inerrantist about a metaphor, but it seems for political reasons it is useful in some circles to call yourself an inerrantist even if you don't take things literally.<BR/><BR/>Here is a <A HREF="http://ctlibrary.com/7839" REL="nofollow">quote from Augustine</A> on his nonliteralism: <BR/>"It struck me that it was, after all, possible to vindicate his [Ambrose's] arguments. I began to believe that the Catholic faith, which I had thought impossible to defend against the objections of the Manichees, might fairly be maintained, especially since I had heard one passage after another in the Old Testament figuratively explained. These passages had been death to me when I took them literally, but once I had heard them explained in their spiritual meaning I began to blame myself for my despair. … "<BR/><BR/>Nobody who has thought about the Bible deeply is a literalist inerrantist.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157861689389277142006-09-10T00:14:00.000-04:002006-09-10T00:14:00.000-04:00Traditional inerrantism is literalist inerrantism....Traditional inerrantism is literalist inerrantism. Victor's inerrantism is a more subtle form that I would not want to call inerrantism. But again, these are semantic quibbles to some degree. If you tell a person on the street you are an inerrantist, that is typically interpreted as literalist inerrantism. Hence, the term seems disingenous.<BR/><BR/>Albert: There is no single simple answer. you just have to use your reason and historical knowledge (including archeology and cross-referencing different historical texts besides the Bible), and your theological commitments to decide on how to interpret different parts of the Bible. In those cases where you have only the Biblical documents, you have to research their etiology and determine how reasonable the claims are. <BR/><BR/>I think you are wrong about the literalist stuff. Just read Augustine.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157852900065659942006-09-09T21:48:00.000-04:002006-09-09T21:48:00.000-04:00Vic, as a former inerrantist, I think inerrancy di...Vic, as a former inerrantist, I think inerrancy dies the death of a thousand qualifications. It's probably just a faith statement that makes little difference if exegesis can lead someone to believe Ruth is fiction. <BR/><BR/>Innerrantist claim that the Bible is without error so long as it's properly interpreted. But then we must wrangle about how to interpret the Bible, which solves little when it comes to the text itself.<BR/><BR/>Radamacher edited a book on Hermenutics and Inerrancy to look at this problem (I don't remember the exact title).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157845744010145982006-09-09T19:49:00.000-04:002006-09-09T19:49:00.000-04:00I should just point out that even inerrancy is def...I should just point out that even inerrancy is defined in ways that make that doctrine not completely idiotic, as participants over at my DI blog have pointed out. In fact I am not sure that the term inerrancy really does the work that most people suppose that it does. No one, for example, has given me an argument as to why inerrancy, as understood in the Chicago Statement, is incompatible with the view that an entire book of the OT, such as Ruth or Jonah, could not be fictional. Every believer at one time or another comes up against passages that are not narrowly true, and then maintains that they nevertheless are part of a wider truth. So it's important not to stereotype even inerraVictor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157831785833452132006-09-09T15:56:00.000-04:002006-09-09T15:56:00.000-04:00Dave says:"I don't necessarily want to get into a ...Dave says:<BR/><BR/>"I don't necessarily want to get into a huge debate on cosmology. I'm pretty busy with other things at the moment (one part-time job, maybe two starting up). I just wanted to see what you based your assertions on (the particular ones I mentioned)."<BR/><BR/> Oh, I understand. I am in a similar boat as I am still an undergraduate as of this time and I trying to avoid lengthy debates as of now. I will be happy to provide references.<BR/><BR/>"One thing at a time. If you can't defend your relatively minor assertions, then chances are you won't be able to defend your grand themes and rationales for rejecting the Bible and Christianity, because those are only as good as the weakest links that make them up."<BR/><BR/> I want to insert a word of caution here: my "case" against Christianity is only as good as my sources of study and my thinking thus far. I don't pretend that my reasons are insermountable or that they can withstand scrutiny. I don't even know if all my arguments are indeed sound. That's why I kept qualifying my remarks as "I believe.." not that it necessary means that I know for a fact. I may be quite wrong on many of these points.<BR/><BR/>"The key, in my opinion, to biblical cosmology is phenomenological language and the pre-scientific poetic nature of Hebrew literature. If one doesn't understand that (at least in its general outlines), then they have no hope of getting biblical cosmology (to the extent that it can be said to exist at all as a distinct "field") right."<BR/><BR/> I agree with you about the poetic nature of Hebrew literature but I think that you would agree with me that we must also be careful of genre criticism of the Hebrew Bible as well. There are some passages which are meant to be understood as historical narration, even if the language and the idioms are poetic in themselves. <BR/><BR/> By the way- I am not denying any "phenomenological language" does at all exists in Hebrew literature, I am wary of people who attempt to apply such language to the Bible as an apologetic device. If the genre and context demand phenomenological interpretations, that's fine as long as clear textual indicators are given. I just don't like it when some Christians treat all texts as "phenomeological" just because they wish to avoid a potential conflict between scientific findings. To me- that's just dishonest methodology-especially if the genre and context are not demanding of it and the text gives no indication that such is the case.<BR/><BR/>"These are very deep waters (no pun intended). If you haven't studied much about biblical literature in all its types, I suggest (in all sincerity, and trying to be helpful) that you avoid making grandiose statements. They may come back to haunt you."<BR/><BR/> I heed your suggestion. In fact, my argument is dependent solely on the works of biblical scholar(s) who argue that the Bible does indeed endorse this kind of cosmology. I would never try to play expert like myself in an area like this without the necessary credentials and study.<BR/><BR/> MatthewMatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301708892076758582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157825447089800042006-09-09T14:10:00.000-04:002006-09-09T14:10:00.000-04:00Liberal theology might be something but Christiani...<I>Liberal theology might be something but Christianity it ain't.</I><BR/><BR/>You are still accepting the terms of debate set by the simplistic thinking of the fundamentalists. Under your view, even Catholics wouldn't be Christians. E.g., St Augustine did not espouse an inerrantist/literalist reading of some parts of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>While I am sympathetic to anti- Christian arguments, what I've seen in this thread isn't compelling.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157816665576980822006-09-09T11:44:00.000-04:002006-09-09T11:44:00.000-04:00It seems to me that you do see the paradox between...<I>It seems to me that you do see the paradox between volition and omniscience. But instead of admitting it, you have invented a way for your god to be all knowing without giving up free will by trying to redefine what omniscience means</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, it is a paradox, I admit that. But not a contradiction. If you don't know the difference, then your confidence far exceeds your knowledge. In my response numbered 1 above, I resolve the paradox. Foreknowledge doesn't imply lack of freedom. This is obvious even in our own lives, as I show above. <BR/><BR/>Instead of responding to my main argument (#1, which I said was more compelling), you responded to the more speculative argument (#2 above). Whether we call what I discussed 'constrained omniscience' or impotent omniscience, or lack of omniscience, I don't care. The ideas are more important than the language. <BR/><BR/>So for purposes of discussion I'll concede the niggling semantic point: using the standard, folksy meanings of the terms, I do not think that God is omnipotent or omniscient, because of human free will (well,and he can't do things like make two an odd number).<BR/><BR/>I think a general point is important. Demologishing the version of Christianity that <I>you</I> grew up with might be cathartic and a psychological balm, but it doesn't refute Christianity. You should offer more general arguments such as the Problem of Evil, and general arguments against any supernatural beings. For instance, the fact that we have no evidence that they exist. These would get at Christianity proper, not just clip the dingleberries.<BR/><BR/>Again, see my analogy with the critique of evolutionary theory above.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157784535488489752006-09-09T02:48:00.000-04:002006-09-09T02:48:00.000-04:00None of my Christian friends are inerrantists. Whi...None of my Christian friends are inerrantists. While there may be lunatic fringe fundamentalists with such juvenile views, to act like bringing them down is to show Christianity has major problems is just incorrect. It's a straw man. <BR/><BR/>It would be like finding a problem with some kooky evolutionary theory from a fringy physicist, and saying that it shows evolution is wrong.<BR/><BR/>The more sensible Christians realize that much of the Bible is metaphor. They have to use their knowledge of history, science, and archeology to intelligently pick apart myth from historical fact. Nobody would dispute that some of the Bible is historically true. E.g., there is no reason to think Jesus did not exist, at least as a person.<BR/><BR/>Victor Reppert, over at Dangerous Ideas, discussed this recently. He is no inerrantist, but is certainly a Christian.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157782883197384282006-09-09T02:21:00.000-04:002006-09-09T02:21:00.000-04:00Wow. Everyone's so busy with their own mental mast...Wow. Everyone's so busy with their own mental masturbation that I can't believe anyone's even brought up the "starlight paradox." So simple and irrefutable! Thank you!Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15700238741656518116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157777649731315032006-09-09T00:54:00.000-04:002006-09-09T00:54:00.000-04:00Both post above explaining the apparent contradict...Both post above explaining the apparent contradiction between free will (volition) and omniscience are what I suspected. It is certainly an interesting argument, but I think it is flawed. I can think of two reasons why. The first is the most compelling.<BR/><BR/>1. Foreknowledge doesn't imply lack of freedom. I can argue by analogy: I know I am going to go to bed at 1AM tonight. I have planned it for a long time, as I have to wake up tomorrow for something. Let's say I do end up going to bed at 1AM. Does it mean I didn't choose to go to bed at 1AM, just because I knew I'd do it? Clearly not. I <I>could</I> have done otherwise. Because God's will is good, it's not like he has to change his mind (like I do: I might plan to go out studying tomorrow, but chances are I'll end up playing a video game instead. God wouldn't do that, but it doesn't mean he isn't free). So while God is free to do otherwise, since is is good, and sticks to his plans, he doesn't.<BR/><BR/>2. Human free will left God with constrained omniscience. That is, God graced us with free will, a divine (not natural) trait. In doing this, he knew he was giving up some knowledge of the future, of the human future. While he is omniscient about the past and present, he doesn't know what we will do because we are free. However, unlike God, we are flawed, and don't use our free will to carry out His plan (e.g., I might play video games instead of taking my kids to the park). God also gave up some of his omnipotence when he gave us free will: he cannot control our free will. He must only try to nudge it via miracles and the Bible, hoping that we exercise it correctly.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, the point is that since God doesn't know everything about the future (b/c of human free will), he still has to monitor and react to our actions in the present. For instance, if I become a Christian on my deathbed, he will decide then and there to let me into his Kingdom.<BR/><BR/>Praise Jesus!Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157775755333092812006-09-09T00:22:00.000-04:002006-09-09T00:22:00.000-04:00Hi Matthew,I don't necessarily want to get into a ...Hi Matthew,<BR/><BR/>I don't necessarily want to get into a huge debate on cosmology. I'm pretty busy with other things at the moment (one part-time job, maybe two starting up). I just wanted to see what you based your assertions on (the particular ones I mentioned).<BR/><BR/>One thing at a time. If you can't defend your relatively minor assertions, then chances are you won't be able to defend your grand themes and rationales for rejecting the Bible and Christianity, because those are only as good as the weakest links that make them up.<BR/><BR/>The key, in my opinion, to biblical cosmology is phenomenological language and the pre-scientific poetic nature of Hebrew literature. If one doesn't understand that (at least in its general outlines), then they have no hope of getting biblical cosmology (to the extent that it can be said to exist at all as a distinct "field") right. <BR/><BR/>These are very deep waters (no pun intended). If you haven't studied much about biblical literature in all its types, I suggest (in all sincerity, and trying to be helpful) that you avoid making grandiose statements. They may come back to haunt you.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157773744056218472006-09-08T23:49:00.000-04:002006-09-08T23:49:00.000-04:00Vynette wrote:"Could I just take you up on this on...Vynette wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Could I just take you up on this on point?<BR/><BR/>" I consider many passages claimed to narrate historical events to contradict each other...the infancy narratives....<BR/><BR/>The infancy narratives don't contradict each other. It is only the introduced doctrine of the 'virgin birth' and some translation games that make them appear contradictory.<BR/><BR/>Matthew gives the name of his adoptive father, Luke gives the name of his real (biological) father."<BR/><BR/> You could always wait until I actually explain what I have in mind before you comment you know. Quite honestly, the discrepancy that I have in mind actually doesn't involve the virgin birth directly. That you would give your solution to me before I have stated my thesis or made my case assumes that my discrepancy is about conflicting geneaologies. It's not about any geneaology whatsover nor does it involve a "virgin birth". Hell, the discrepancy that I have in mind allows for Mary to have had twenty kids before Jesus was born, so what does that say about your preemptive solution here?<BR/><BR/> Maybe next time you might want to wait until I actually make my case before you play critic?<BR/><BR/> MatthewMatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301708892076758582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157773363090505642006-09-08T23:42:00.000-04:002006-09-08T23:42:00.000-04:00"It seems you could be a Christian, given what you..."It seems you could be a Christian, given what you've said. Only Christians with an immature theology think the Bible is inerrant, for one. Believing in inerrancy is certainly not a precondition for being a Christian."<BR/><BR/> Perhaps not but I didn't say that it was. I just believe that Christians <I>should</I> believe that inerrancy is true if they are honest with their theology. I happen to agree with Christian scholar Norman Geisler who believes that inerrancy is axiomatic, the "doctrine of all doctrines" as he puts it in his tome <I>Systematic Theology</I>.<BR/><BR/>"Secondly, if the contradictions you mention are real, perhaps such conceptions of God are lacking, but not all conceptions of God. Maybe God doesn't have volition in the sense that we do, or the sense that we understand it."<BR/><BR/> Again, I appealed to biblically-based and theologically-defined conceptions <I>as I understand them</I>. It doesn't matter if God doesn't have volition in the sense that we do or in the sense that we understand it; all that matters, is what can be accurately constructed from the Bible, given sound exegetical study of the biblical texts which any responsible and honest theologian must engage in.<BR/><BR/>"Third, there is no obvious contradiction betwen being omniscient and having volition. Could you spell that out more? It is an interesting claim."<BR/><BR/> Certaintly. I actually plan to go into it in greater detail in a future article of mine but I can give you the gist of what I have in mind.<BR/><BR/> If God is omniscient, then God knows everything. If God knows everything, then God must know what he will do. If God knows what he will do, it's impossible for him <B>not</B> to do it and if God knows that he is not going to do something, then it is impossible for him to do it. <BR/> <BR/> If God knows everything and "everything" includes all the actions, thoughts, and any feelings on God's part, then God has a complete knowledge of his actions, thoughts, and feelings. If God has a complete knowledge, and this knowledge is constant, unchanging, and eternal, then God has no free will. If God has a complete knowledge of all of his actions, then God has no choice but to commit those actions. As long as God has a complete knowledge of all of his actions, God literally has no free will because it's impossible for him not to commit those actions. Ergo, God has no volition, no sense of freedom to choose, and no real volition as I see it.<BR/><BR/> MatthewMatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301708892076758582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157760767146532482006-09-08T20:12:00.000-04:002006-09-08T20:12:00.000-04:00Dave, I have glanced at your response on here. I ...Dave,<BR/><BR/> I have glanced at your response on here. I do fully intend to give a greater response in the near future, possibly tonight or tomorrow. I wanted to point out that I first intend to go through each of these arguments and make them into an article series. Thus, for instance, my argument that the Bible is externally errant because it conflicts with an old earth and distant starlight is the subject of an article series on the topic that I wish to pursue in greater detail. <BR/><BR/> My first planned article series is on internal errancy. If you would like to discuss biblical cosmology and science in greater detail, I can reorder my original list and that this can be the first topic of discussion we can engage in and hence the first for my article series if you wish.<BR/><BR/> Cheers!<BR/><BR/> MatthewMatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301708892076758582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157732185183834232006-09-08T12:16:00.000-04:002006-09-08T12:16:00.000-04:00You can find my case against Christianity several ...You can find my case against Christianity several places here, but <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-i-dont-believe-bible-is-gods-word_12.html" REL="nofollow">this is a good place to start</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1157724799927637782006-09-08T10:13:00.000-04:002006-09-08T10:13:00.000-04:00Could I just take you up on this on point?" I cons...Could I just take you up on this on point?<BR/><BR/>" I consider many passages claimed to narrate historical events to contradict each other...the infancy narratives....<BR/><BR/>The infancy narratives don't contradict each other. It is only the introduced doctrine of the 'virgin birth' and some translation games that make them appear contradictory.<BR/><BR/>Matthew gives the name of his adoptive father, Luke gives the name of his real (biological) father.Vynettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12913184949591715391noreply@blogger.com