The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[hardheadjarhead]

Hey, this is getting pretty depressing!

Oh, don't worry about it too much, Arnisador. 'Tis a myth in any event. Sadly reflective of human nature, however. We can find instances of such inhumanity in Darfur right now.

This whole argument shows me how much spin inerrantists will put on the Bible...stretching what it says to support what they believe.

Here's a web definition for spin that fits this perfectly:

In public relations, spin is a usually pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one's own favor of an event or situation that is designed to bring about the most positive result possible. While traditional public relations relies more on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics to sway audiences away from widespread (and often commonsense) perceptions.

Operating with prior assumptions of the Bible's infallible truth, inerrantists do backflips in their efforts to rationalize Biblical difficulties and to avoid the stress of cognitive dissonance. Its a psychological defense mechanism that requires a rather sad kind of intellectual dishonesty, because the arguments they use are pathetically ill-reasoned.

From what I've seen many inerrantists will read nothing that will shake their faith...showing in essence rather weak faith. Nor will they allow their children such freedom. Its much easier for them to criticize 150 years of Biblical scholarship than to actually read some of the more uncomfortable articles and books on the topic. Bertrand Russell? Dismiss him! Read C.S. Lewis instead. Thomas Paine? That filthy little atheist. Here, spend some time with Robert Shaeffer. The Higher Criticism? Yuck...you're better off with the "scholarly" Josh McDowell.

And, in a way, this behavior is understandable. Their world is shrinking. We read that mandatory prayer isn't making any headway in the courts; Gay rights have been advanced in Massachussetts; the sodomy laws througout the country have been overturned; the "Intelligent Design" court case will surely get shot down in Pennsylvania; stem cell research is being backed by their elected representatives; a woman's right to choose hasn't been seriously compromised and likely won't be; censorship has been turned back time and again and prudery is on the ropes; their "born again" President has been a disappointment.

Some of them seem scared. That also shows to me a lack of faith.


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

There is one thing I always enjoy about discussions like this, those that pertain to literalist and absolutist readings of agrarian mythologies --- and the emerging logical defenses of such mythic-membership systems.

They always, without exception, foster within me a greater appreciation of Occam's Razor.

Oh, and big ups for the cognitive dissonance reference there. My social psychology professor would get a chuckle out of that one.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

This whole argument shows me how much spin inerrantists will put on the Bible...stretching what it says to support what they believe.

Here's a web definition for spin that fits this perfectly:

In public relations, spin is a usually pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one's own favor of an event or situation that is designed to bring about the most positive result possible. While traditional public relations relies more on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics to sway audiences away from widespread (and often commonsense) perceptions.

Operating with prior assumptions of the Bible's infallible truth, inerrantists do backflips in their efforts to rationalize Biblical difficulties and to avoid the stress of cognitive dissonance. Its a psychological defense mechanism that requires a rather sad kind of intellectual dishonesty, because the arguments they use are pathetically ill-reasoned.

From what I've seen many inerrantists will read nothing that will shake their faith...showing in essence rather weak faith. Nor will they allow their children such freedom. Its much easier for them to criticize 150 years of Biblical scholarship than to actually read some of the more uncomfortable articles and books on the topic. Bertrand Russell? Dismiss him! Read C.S. Lewis instead. Thomas Paine? That filthy little atheist. Here, spend some time with Robert Shaeffer. The Higher Criticism? Yuck...you're better off with the "scholarly" Josh McDowell.

And, in a way, this behavior is understandable. Their world is shrinking. We read that mandatory prayer isn't making any headway in the courts; Gay rights have been advanced in Massachussetts; the sodomy laws througout the country have been overturned; the "Intelligent Design" court case will surely get shot down in Pennsylvania; stem cell research is being backed by their elected representatives; a woman's right to choose hasn't been seriously compromised and likely won't be; censorship has been turned back time and again and prudery is on the ropes; their "born again" President has been a disappointment.

Some of them seem scared. That also shows to me a lack of faith.


Regards,


Steve

Wow, and yet you argue without the slightest offer of fact or proof and instead rely upon presumptions and assumed "likely" events. Your assumptions of whom your arguing with show further your blinded "faith" to your own belief system. Lebeling me as an "inerrant" who refuses to read certain material, who favors censorship, hates gays and scientific advancement makes you feel better about being unable to present me with valid proof of your claims. I'm actually none of those things you listed and yet seem to be able to present logical arguments to disprove all of your alleged contradictions. I'm stretchign nothing, I'm assuming nothing, I'm working off straight factual data, your the only one here offering "more than likely" scenarios as truth. You have completely missed the mark on labeling me and have thus showed your ignorance to not only this arguement, but to those whom you confine in your bigoted labels. Offering personal attacks of those whom you disagree with makes it easier to swallow when you can't offer logical explinations to disprove their beliefs. Again, it seems your statement about not caring what one believes was actually false, eh?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

You have completely missed the mark on labeling me and have thus showed your ignorance to not only this arguement, but to those whom you confine in your bigoted labels.

Again, 7Star...this isn't all about you. That post was directed to a group of people who have as yet to step into the 21st century...in fact, they have yet to step into the 17th century.

Why would I even assume you're an inerrantist Christian (thus including you in the lable) in the first place? You wrote in post #233:

"Actually you dont know if I am a Christian."

After that I've been operating under the assumption you're a "Jew for Jesus," or that rare atheist that just happens to believe in the Resurrection. Or something.

As to my being a bigot, one definition I've found is this:

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.

My stance on intolerance is stated in the thread on intolerance started recently.




Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

Again, 7Star...this isn't all about you. That post was directed to a group of people who have as yet to step into the 21st century...in fact, they have yet to step into the 17th century.

Why would I even assume you're an inerrantist Christian (thus including you in the lable) in the first place? You wrote in post #233:

"Actually you dont know if I am a Christian."

After that I've been operating under the assumption you're a "Jew for Jesus," or that rare atheist that just happens to believe in the Resurrection. Or something.

As to my being a bigot, one definition I've found is this:

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.

My stance on intolerance is stated in the thread on intolerance started recently.




Regards,


Steve

Well, your being heavily disingenuous at best. Your making blanket statements about a group of people who make the same arguments that (oddly enough) I make. Then you run back and say, well 7star, I'm not talking about you, just people who make the same points you make. You label me as an "inerrant" then attack that group of people (whom you have confined in your label). You speak of my arguements as those which are "stretched" and "spun" by these radical groups, but then say...."7star, this isn't just about you" - disingenuous at the very best.

Truth is, my political affiliation, "faith", and belief system is going to be quite different from many of these people your refering to, but your dissmissing the points because of them. The facts still stand as presented here in this thread. Because someone you do not like makes the same points in no way makes them incorrect or irrelevant.

The argument here has been contradictions within the bible and you base your points on your dislike of radical "christian" groups, or political affiliations opposite your own, or those who choose to live a certain way opposite of your own choosing. This is in effect a great big, hug, massive strawman. What do the beliefs of these radicals have to do with this discussion? Answer is, nothing. But its a great way to take the focus off your argument and plead to the emotions of those reading.

7sm

 

[Marginal]

Well, your being heavily disingenuous at best. Your making blanket statements about a group of people who make the same arguments that (oddly enough) I make. Then you run back and say, well 7star, I'm not talking about you, just people who make the same points you make. You label me as an "inerrant" then attack that group of people (whom you have confined in your label). You speak of my arguements as those which are "stretched" and "spun" by these radical groups, but then say...."7star, this isn't just about you" - disingenuous at the very best.

Yet coyly hiding your own personal opinion while arguing for an unsupportable point of view you "may" or "may not" agree with is sincere argumentatin'?

 

[7starmantis]

Yet coyly hiding your own personal opinion while arguing for an unsupportable point of view you "may" or "may not" agree with is sincere argumentatin'?

Argumentation or debate? I'm not hiding anything, but even if I was, what does my personal opinion have to do with supportable facts? Opinions, suppositions, and assumptions only cloud true honest debate. My opinions being out of this arguement only help me to present factual points and not ones I have some emotional connection to. To speak of those arguing from their personal beliefs you would have to start with those who keep attacking groups or organizations they disagree with, which I have not done in this thread.

As for "unsupportable", re-read this thread, they are very supportable and quite grounded in simple fact, not personal agendas or opinions.

7sm

 

[kenpo tiger]

As for "unsupportable", re-read this thread, they are very supportable and quite grounded in simple fact, not personal agendas or opinions.

OBSERVATION: I think part of the problem is that you and the others who are being the most vociferous in this thread are freely citing and quoting from your *pet* versions of the Bible. Therefore, of course your arguments are supported by you but discounted by the others. For the sake of debate, it's refreshing to read each of the interpretations and the interpretation of the interpretation (!) by each of you. However, to see each person's answers as a personal attack isn't quite right. I think things are getting *lost in translation* between the two of you (and others.)

 

[mantis]

OBSERVATION: I think part of the problem is that you and the others who are being the most vociferous in this thread are freely citing and quoting from your *pet* versions of the Bible. Therefore, of course your arguments are supported by you but discounted by the others. For the sake of debate, it's refreshing to read each of the interpretations and the interpretation of the interpretation (!) by each of you. However, to see each person's answers as a personal attack isn't quite right. I think things are getting *lost in translation* between the two of you (and others.)

you should realize by now that they're not off to prove anything, they're debating for the sake of argument only! <br /> just get your popcorn and watch!

 

[heretic888]

you should realize by now that they're not off to prove anything, they're debating for the sake of argument only! <br /> just get your popcorn and watch!

This is a misconception that many people have.

Simply put, you can't "prove" anything in a debate --- even if one party "wins", it does not necessarily mean they are "right". In fact, you can't "prove" anything in any way whatsoever. You can provide evidence, logic, and arguments that support your position, but never do you absolutely "prove" anything to be true.

That is the difference between science and dogma --- broadly speaking, of course.

Rather, debates like this exist as a type of communal peer-review and public appraisal that, over long stretches of time, can lead to gradual changes in the public's perceptions of reality. Any changes that take place will be in the very long-term, you can't expect short-term changes here.

Personally, I engage in such discussions because its a topic that interests me and I enjoy them on an intellectual level. That's enough for me.

Laterz.

 

[mantis]

This is a misconception that many people have.

Simply put, you can't "prove" anything in a debate --- even if one party "wins", it does not necessarily mean they are "right". In fact, you can't "prove" anything in any way whatsoever. You can provide evidence, logic, and arguments that support your position, but never do you absolutely "prove" anything to be true.

That is the difference between science and dogma --- broadly speaking, of course.

Rather, debates like this exist as a type of communal peer-review and public appraisal that, over long stretches of time, can lead to gradual changes in the public's perceptions of reality. Any changes that take place will be in the very long-term, you can't expect short-term changes here.

Personally, I engage in such discussions because its a topic that interests me and I enjoy them on an intellectual level. That's enough for me.

Laterz.

okay, you made a point!
but in 19 pages of debate i expect some one say "oh you are making a point" or change someone's view.
you just changed me with this last post of yours!

 

[heretic888]

okay, you made a point!
but in 19 pages of debate i expect some one say "oh you are making a point" or change someone's view.
you just changed me with this last post of yours!

Well, I can't speak for anyone else here, but...

I really don't have any expectations concerning changing the viewpoints of others. In fact, as a general rule, I pretty much take it for granted that no matter how much logic and evidence I gather to support my position, the chances are pretty nil that someone's mind is going to be changed who believes the exact opposite.

It is, after all, much harder to open a locked door than it is to open one that is pulled to. You're not likely to change others' minds if they weren't at least partially leaning in your direction to begin with.

As such, I don't make it a personal crusade to change the minds of others. I think intellectual discourse exists of its own validity and is a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself.

Y'know, that whole dictum about the journey versus the destination. This is something many obsessed with "converting" others fail to comprehend.

Laterz.

 

[mantis]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else here, but...

I really don't have any expectations concerning changing the viewpoints of others. In fact, as a general rule, I pretty much take it for granted that no matter how much logic and evidence I gather to support my position, the chances are pretty nil that someone's mind is going to be changed who believes the exact opposite.

It is, after all, much harder to open a locked door than it is to open one that is pulled to. You're not likely to change others' minds if they weren't at least partially leaning in your direction to begin with.

As such, I don't make it a personal crusade to change the minds of others. I think intellectual discourse exists of its own validity and is a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself.

Y'know, that whole dictum about the journey versus the destination. This is something many obsessed with "converting" others fail to comprehend.

Laterz.

okay fair enough
but i mean, i didnt learn anything new
and they didnt learn anything new either
looks like they all have their ears clogged, and their eyes shut and they only rigidly presented their ideas until it became a series of "interesting" personal attacks.
it's all your fault my friend, you started this thread hehe

 

[heretic888]

it's all your fault my friend, you started this thread hehe

Damn straight!!

 

[Marginal]

As for "unsupportable", re-read this thread, they are very supportable and quite grounded in simple fact, not personal agendas or opinions.

7sm

Facts as set by your own personal definition of the word.

 

[7starmantis]

OBSERVATION: I think part of the problem is that you and the others who are being the most vociferous in this thread are freely citing and quoting from your *pet* versions of the Bible. Therefore, of course your arguments are supported by you but discounted by the others. For the sake of debate, it's refreshing to read each of the interpretations and the interpretation of the interpretation (!) by each of you.

We seem to be all quoting from the "original" greek now, that wouldn't be anyones "pet" version. My version and anyone elses version says the same thing. We are addressing contradictions held within the bible itself, they should be contradictions in any version. Also, I'm not looking for interpretations, thats allowing personal belief and opinion interfere, but I'm looking for pure fact on what the verses say.

I'm also not really looking to change anyones mind, I enjoy the intellectula discussion and the topics, thats all.

Facts as set by your own personal definition of the word.

No, you dont seem to be reading the posts. Fact as set by the accepted deffinition of the word. If you are alluding to the fact that my points and "facts" are wrong, simply post a logical verifiable post that proves them incorrect and we'll be cool. Otherwise your just mouthing off because you dont like my points. It seems you have missed the posts where I explain my stance is not neccessarily that of what I'm arguing and have even said its quite different. I'm just offering facts from the bible that discount the alleged contradictions held within the bible itself.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

I think heretic888 stated it well. One doesn't expect to "win" a debate like this--one hopes for a slight change of position, or renewed understanding of or openness to the other side's viewpoint. Over time, public discussions like this may shift the "center of mass" of the public's beliefs. This is part of the enormous benefit of the free exchange of ideas that drives the First Amendment.

Plus, it can be fun!

 

[Navarre]

Plus, it can be fun!

Apparently! This is the longest thread in history. It should have its own web address and a billboard about it on the interstate.

 

[mantis]

I think heretic88 stated it well. One doesn't expect to "win" a debate like this--one hopes for a slight change of position, or renewed understanding of or openness to the other side's viewpoint. Over time, public discussions like this may shift the "center of mass" of the public's beliefs. This is part of the enormous benefit of the free exchange of ideas that drives the First Amendment.

Plus, it can be fun!

im only hoping to learn
but the way this is going
im only learning how to shut people up and fire personal attacks
i mean, hey, it's good in a way, and we're in a MA forum after all

 

[heretic888]

Apparently! This is the longest thread in history. It should have its own web address and a billboard about it on the interstate.

Actually, the original "Historical Jesus" thread that Paul and I participated in some years ago was quite a bit longer than this.

Laterz.