(October 6, 2015 at 11:51 pm)Delicate Wrote: A common claim about Christianity is "There are so many interpretations of the Bible! How can you know if any of it is true!"

What people who make this claim don't realize is that the differences over interpretation account for a minuscule fraction of what the Bible really says. So, while the Bible's stance on certain issues might not be wholly precise, the main claims are pretty clear. 

For instance, it's pretty clear, not just from the Bible, but from historical record, that there was a man named Jesus. The Bible is pretty clear about most of his claims, and the basic facts of his life, etc.

The problem with people who make this claim is the overly broad and inaccurate generalizations.

The vast majority of discovered Biblical texts are for the most part identical to each other, and the minor discrepancies that do exist are over things like grammar and prepositions (like "on" versus "upon").

What knowledgeable atheists can rationally affirm is that only certain parts of the Bible might be ambiguous. The others are more or less clear.

You have confused the argument. The differences between translations of the Bible is largely irrelevant. The differences in interpretation (which leads to different theologies) is insurmountable.

Whilst I agree (of course since I've said it many many times) that Jesus is a historical person and some basic facts about him are well accepted, it's important to remember that claims pertaining to his birth, supernatural occurrences, and a post-death resurrection are all rejected by modern critical scholars. And that scholars don't wholly agree about what Jesus did and did not say either. He delivered the sermon on the mount as well as a number of parables, and other teachings. However we don't know if all of the things he said were his original thoughts or if they came from other sources. We also don't know whether he claimed to be the "son of god" - which is a very important aspect. Furthermore scholars disagree about how to interpret his references to the "Son of Man" - some say he is referencing himself, others say he is referencing another entity that he believes will be coming at the end of the age. Both sides agree that Jesus's usage of "Son of Man" is based on the one used in the book of Daniel.

If Genesis is wholly literal it teaches 6-day creationism. Some people argue that it is symbolic or a parable. In either case it isn't presented that way - and every parable in the Bible occurs in the physical world. There are only a handful of actual parables in the OT, and none of them are in the Pentateuch.

The thing is that creative-interpretation is the whole basis of dispensationalist theology. Without it the Genesis 12 Abramic covenant is a blatant lie from Jehovah. Why? Because it is an unconditional covenant that Jehovah later breaks (according to the Tanakh itself) long after Abraham has passed away believing God would fulfil the promise he made in Genesis 12.

(October 7, 2015 at 11:18 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(October 7, 2015 at 10:56 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Please enlighten me on my violation of logic...  And I wasn't being smug, just trying to be consistent.  Am I incorrect in believing that logic/reason should be consistent.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - was my point. You're comparing apples and oranges. That's not "consistent logic" - just childish "I know you are, but what am I?" kind of debating tactic.

If you really want to meet Richard Dawkins - you can. He has public appearances, book-signings and such. And there's little remarkable, or unbelievable about who he is and what he does. Plus - his theories regarding evolution are just as valid in the eyes of science, as they would be if Dawkins didn't actually exist.

No matter how hard one may want to - there is no confirmed way to meet god. And the claims that are being made about him are very outlandish and contrary to scientific understanding and common sense. And if he doesn't in fact exist - the vast majority of religious teachings is utterly useless and a giant waste of time.

Ok.. Is their an objective criteria for extraordinary claims? I find a lot of the claims of Dawkins extraordinary, but I only ask for standard evidence for these. Are you telling me I should stack the deck against those claims and deny the evidence if he finally does come and provide it.

I can understand being skeptical, but what claims of God do you think are contrary to Science. I do find Some of Dawkins claims contrary to science, So I can just dismiss his fairy tales, attribute the claims as legends right?

(October 7, 2015 at 11:36 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I can understand being skeptical, but what claims of God do you think are contrary to Science.

lol. Are you kidding me? Where do I even begin? Oh, that's right - at the beginning, so - the creation myths. The clearly fabricated version of history presented in the bible. The EXISTENCE OF MAGIC (aka. miracles). And so on, and so forth.

(October 7, 2015 at 11:36 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I do find Some of Dawkins claims contrary to science, So I can just dismiss his fairy tales, attribute the claims as legends right?

If you want to disprove Dawkins' claims - you can try. All you have to do is make a coherent argument, following scientific process - just as he did. Of course - that would be hard and would require reading more than one book...
Nah - better stick to magical thinking, that even a child is capable of.

Why is there many interpretations of the bible.....
Because the bible doesn't make sense and people draw up their on conclusion of a story that was made up
by a bunch of greedy goat herders who wanted to make money off of the stupid people in town and it
worked. Later on said people actually kept believing in goat herders lies and started adding their own bullshit into
said book while they had halluc- "visions" and added that shit in their and people started to be like oh this doesn't make
sense its made up and then they added hell to the bible and said morons went flooding back into believing in said goat herder bullshit.
So then you have a book that makes no logical sense no matter how hard you read it and its the same boring story over and over
you will get different interpretations of it because you can read the bible in many different ways because there is the same story with
different details.

(October 7, 2015 at 11:36 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: what claims of God do you think are contrary to Science.

Setting aside whatever it is you mean by "claims of God", compare the "method" (if it can even be called that) by which you arrive at explanations about phenomena in the world that involve God with those of science. They are antithetical; one requires justification through evidence and falsifiable hypotheses, encourages relentless self-criticism and peer review, includes safeguards against confirmation bias, holds no idea sacred or beyond reproach... the other relies on the poor use of logical argumentation, blind faith in dogmas, and mere intuition that otherwise unexplained phenomena and experiences are sufficient to confirm the truth of non-evident claims. Which one has proven itself to produce veritable knowledge? Which one repeatedly makes predictions to ensure that claims approximate to reality? Which proportions confidence in its accuracy to the clarity and weight of its evidence?

I'm starting to feel a tug on one of my lower limbs. Is this sensation being propagated throughout the hive mind?

(October 7, 2015 at 10:12 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: 7. Dawkins has neither committed genocide nor commanded people to commit genocide.

I say "if' for your benefit, if we as Christians are correct in what we believe then Dawkins is calling millions to an eternal punishment, a punishment far worse than wiping out mankind. Dawkins teaches people in the way of their punishment. If we're right then Dawkins is your enemy.

GC

Too big an "if" to take with any degree of seriousness, G-C.

Want some fries with that Pascal, GC?

(October 8, 2015 at 12:51 am)Godschild Wrote:

(October 7, 2015 at 10:12 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: 7. Dawkins has neither committed genocide nor commanded people to commit genocide.

I say "if' for your benefit, if we as Christians are correct in what we believe then Dawkins is calling millions to an eternal punishment, a punishment far worse than wiping out mankind. Dawkins teaches people in the way of their punishment. If we're right then Dawkins is your enemy.

GC

By being Christians you are wrong, so shut up.