(December 26, 2009 at 9:51 pm)theVOID Wrote: No... I was being snide.

Ah ok. +1 to you then.

(December 26, 2009 at 9:51 pm)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:I don't dismiss anyone else's understanding at all.

Then why was the first thing you did not a defence of your position but an attack on my 'lack of understanding'?

That's the way you took it. I was generalising. I was specific about a foolish perspective which if it applies, you wear. It didn't have to imply 'you' or anything 'personal'.

(December 26, 2009 at 9:51 pm)theVOID Wrote:

Quote: I'm totally open to any opinion. It is fact that the bible's purpose is not to present literal facts about history. What _is_ it's intent is theology. Yeah, if you suggest something else I'm afraid I've gotta pull out the joker card. How can't I? If I started quoting Lassie the dog on particle physics I'd hope that you would call me a twat.

You haven't shown being open at all, every time i've seen you talking about, like in the chat box with Amorpha for example, you came up with the exact same dismissive excuses you always do by claiming that her conclusion required more background knowledge.

I merely piped in saying that for me it wouldn't be understandable without some background info (which I expanded on in reply to Amph's PM). This is info widely available from many sources all with differing explanations to help understand what is being said.. nothing secret or only obtainable if you believe first (I don't think that applies to the OT).

(December 26, 2009 at 9:51 pm)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:You don't have to cherry pick... absolutely everything in the bible is primarily allegorical. That there may be literal accuracy or not is completely irrelevant to the actual message.

Did Jesus rise from the dead or not?

If yes then BY WHICH STANDARD do you decide the validity of the supernatural claims? - I have asked you that question numerous times over the last few months and have not once received an answer.

Yes he did. But the physical proof of that event is irrelevant. The point of it is how it affects me and how I act on that. I believe it happened - I can't ever know.

So. The standard by which I decide the validity is separate from the historical event. It is primarily the logic rather than the historicity that motivates me to adopt the position of belief.

(December 26, 2009 at 9:51 pm)theVOID Wrote:

(December 26, 2009 at 9:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Good point. But where in the bible does God say that he exists/ I am? He didn't write he book, he inspired it.

Your stupidity actually hurts my brain...

Existence is simply not nothing, therefore If he exists there is a God and if not then there is no god. If you claim that he doesn't exist then by definition you believe in nothing...

To quote Rabbit:

"My take would be that it is not possible to give sufficient meaning to the word "god" and the sentence "god exists". The term “god” does not refer to an actual concept, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration."

So the bible's stupidity hurts your brain. I actually appreciate the honesty of it. It does not falsely identify God and for this reason you call it stupid.

You're acting like a clown fr0d0.
The posts you make seem really pointless and time wasting at times, almost like the gruelling task of paddling up stream . . .
Are you trying to wear us out with your slow backwards propaganda. Wear us down in a bid to persuade us to think like you?
Diabolical

(December 27, 2009 at 7:04 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

theVOID Wrote:Did Jesus rise from the dead or not?

If yes then BY WHICH STANDARD do you decide the validity of the supernatural claims? - I have asked you that question numerous times over the last few months and have not once received an answer.

Yes he did. But the physical proof of that event is irrelevant. The point of it is how it affects me and how I act on that. I believe it happened - I can't ever know.

We both know you don't know it's true, but do you have any sort of methodology that you can apply to the scriptures to differentiate the literal from the allegorical or do you just cherry pick based on your own authority?

Quote:So. The standard by which I decide the validity is separate from the historical event. It is primarily the logic rather than the historicity that motivates me to adopt the position of belief.

I was never talking about verifying their validity historically, i was asking if you have any way to differentiate between the literal and allegorical miracle claims. Why is the story of the resurrection of Jesus any more appropriate to believe than the story of the parting of the red sea, or the burning bush or the taking snake?

(December 26, 2009 at 9:51 pm)theVOID Wrote:

(December 26, 2009 at 9:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Good point. But where in the bible does God say that he exists/ I am? He didn't write he book, he inspired it.

Your stupidity actually hurts my brain...

Existence is simply not nothing, therefore If he exists there is a God and if not then there is no god. If you claim that he doesn't exist then by definition you believe in nothing...

To quote Rabbit:

"My take would be that it is not possible to give sufficient meaning to the word "god" and the sentence "god exists". The term “god” does not refer to an actual concept, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration."

So the bible's stupidity hurts your brain. I actually appreciate the honesty of it. It does not falsely identify God and for this reason you call it stupid.
[/quote]

The statement God exists on it's own is meaningless - but i'm not taking in general, i am talking to you specifically, your god with the attributes you give him, which i already understand to a degree from reading your posts here over the last few months.

(December 27, 2009 at 8:03 am)theVOID Wrote:

(December 27, 2009 at 7:04 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

theVOID Wrote:Did Jesus rise from the dead or not?

If yes then BY WHICH STANDARD do you decide the validity of the supernatural claims? - I have asked you that question numerous times over the last few months and have not once received an answer.

Yes he did. But the physical proof of that event is irrelevant. The point of it is how it affects me and how I act on that. I believe it happened - I can't ever know.

We both know you don't know it's true, but do you have any sort of methodology that you can apply to the scriptures to differentiate the literal from the allegorical or do you just cherry pick based on your own authority?

I can apply an allegorical approach to the whole thing, as because as I say, that's the real point of it. If you want finer...

I use common sense mostly, but you could also use these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_he...rmeneutics

(December 27, 2009 at 8:03 am)theVOID Wrote: Why is the story of the resurrection of Jesus any more appropriate to believe than the story of the parting of the red sea, or the burning bush or the taking snake?

Only Jesus' resurrection would require belief. The others can be understood without belief.

I'm as skeptical as you about the talking snake.. I see it as clearly allegorical: because the rest of the story fits so well with an allegorical message.

The burning bush could have been an actual event - then interpreted by Moses who was meditating on the mountain at the time after all. It wouldn't be unusual to experience a trance like state. All that's important from the encounter is the message delivered - and to me the amazing statement that we can see where God has been but never 'see' God.

The parting of the Red Sea seems fantastical. Those stories, from my position of ignorance, I take as grossly embellished. I don't like to speculate, but I guess it could mean something like a low tide enabled one group to cross then the tide came in and the following group drowned. It's like the evidence for god in creation... if you accept 'God' then everything is proof. In the same way natural phenomenon, and circumstantial evidence, can be interpreted as divine intervention.

(December 27, 2009 at 8:03 am)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:

(December 26, 2009 at 9:51 pm)theVOID Wrote:

(December 26, 2009 at 9:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Good point. But where in the bible does God say that he exists/ I am? He didn't write he book, he inspired it.

Your stupidity actually hurts my brain...

Existence is simply not nothing, therefore If he exists there is a God and if not then there is no god. If you claim that he doesn't exist then by definition you believe in nothing...

To quote Rabbit:

"My take would be that it is not possible to give sufficient meaning to the word "god" and the sentence "god exists". The term “god” does not refer to an actual concept, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration."

So the bible's stupidity hurts your brain. I actually appreciate the honesty of it. It does not falsely identify God and for this reason you call it stupid.

The statement God exists on it's own is meaningless - but i'm not taking in general, i am talking to you specifically, your god with the attributes you give him, which i already understand to a degree from reading your posts here over the last few months.

The specific Christian (my) concept of God is not specific enough to formulate an accurate enough description to attribute 'being' to.

(December 27, 2009 at 3:33 am)theVOID Wrote: That would be the case for the layman Christian, but i wouldn't say it about all apologists.

No problem, I'll say it. That would be the case for all apologists.

---

(December 27, 2009 at 9:43 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I use common sense mostly,

Translation; "It's my own authority."

and Frodo, your sense is not very common.

(December 27, 2009 at 9:43 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I can apply an allegorical approach to the whole thing, as because as I say, that's the real point of it. If you want finer...

I use common sense mostly, but you could also use these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_he...rmeneutics

What exactly is the common sense that says it a more solid belief that a man rose from the dead and bodily ascended into the sky than it is to believe that the waters of the sea were parted or that a snake could speak Hebrew? None of them have any grounding in objective reality so what makes you think one is more valid than the others? I'm yet to see you demonstrating the steps of your process, so please give us all some enlightenment fr0d0.

Quote:

(December 27, 2009 at 8:03 am)theVOID Wrote: Why is the story of the resurrection of Jesus any more appropriate to believe than the story of the parting of the red sea, or the burning bush or the taking snake?

Only Jesus' resurrection would require belief. The others can be understood without belief.

I can understand the idea of a resurrection just as clearly as the idea of a talking snake - they both require Faith to believe, so why do you accept one and not the other? What specifically is your standard?

Quote:I'm as skeptical as you about the talking snake.. I see it as clearly allegorical: because the rest of the story fits so well with an allegorical message.

The story of Jesus also fits well with an allegorical message, so where is the standard to differentiate?

Quote:The burning bush could have been an actual event - then interpreted by Moses who was meditating on the mountain at the time after all. It wouldn't be unusual to experience a trance like state. All that's important from the encounter is the message delivered - and to me the amazing statement that we can see where God has been but never 'see' God.

Moses (who didn't actually live) tripped himself out - I can buy that, but i don't see how your hallucinatory insights are valid teachings for a world view.

Quote:The parting of the Red Sea seems fantastical.

More fantastical than the entire world going dark for 3 hours because a man was resurrected 4 days after he died and was pulled into the sky? It seems a much more mundane event to me.

Quote: Those stories, from my position of ignorance, I take as grossly embellished.

So you chose to believe that these stories are embellished but the story of the resurrection is not, and you have absolutely no evidence favouring either? As long as you admit you don't have any reasoning behind your decision we can move on.

Quote: I don't like to speculate

It would do you a world of good. Time to start thinking for yourself mate.

Quote:, but I guess it could mean something like a low tide enabled one group to cross then the tide came in and the following group drowned.

Have you seen photos of this ocean?



That is where the leading theologians who have studied it believe they crossed... Yeah, really likely the tides.

Quote:It's like the evidence for god in creation... if you accept 'God' then everything is proof.

If you in future have nothing but appalling logic and want to use it to support a claim please don't bother, it's really rather irritating to have to point it out time and time again.

Quote: In the same way natural phenomenon, and circumstantial evidence, can be interpreted as divine intervention.

No, only the perversion of these things could possibly be intervention. The rest is the probabilistic nature of the universe.

Quote:The specific Christian (my) concept of God is not specific enough to formulate an accurate enough description to attribute 'being' to.

Saying "The Christian God exists" in not meaningless as It has been given the attributes such as omnipotence, omnipresence, omni-benevolence, transcendent etc which are absent from simply stating "God Exists"

(December 27, 2009 at 10:24 am)theVOID Wrote:

(December 27, 2009 at 9:43 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I can apply an allegorical approach to the whole thing, as because as I say, that's the real point of it. If you want finer...

I use common sense mostly, but you could also use these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_he...rmeneutics

What exactly is the common sense that says it a more solid belief that a man rose from the dead and bodily ascended into the sky than it is to believe that the waters of the sea were parted or that a snake could speak Hebrew? None of them have any grounding in objective reality so what makes you think one is more valid than the others? I'm yet to see you demonstrating the steps of your process, so please give us all some enlightenment fr0d0.

You obviously disregarded the link then. I'll wait for you to get back to me with reasoned response to that.

(December 27, 2009 at 10:24 am)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:

(December 27, 2009 at 8:03 am)theVOID Wrote: Why is the story of the resurrection of Jesus any more appropriate to believe than the story of the parting of the red sea, or the burning bush or the taking snake?

Only Jesus' resurrection would require belief. The others can be understood without belief.

I can understand the idea of a resurrection just as clearly as the idea of a talking snake - they both require Faith to believe, so why do you accept one and not the other? What specifically is your standard?

The snake requires no belief being pure allegory. That'd be like saying you needed to believe in the existence of the invisible pink unicorn to get the point of the analogy... you don't.

(December 27, 2009 at 10:24 am)theVOID Wrote: Moses (who didn't actually live) tripped himself out - I can buy that, but i don't see how your hallucinatory insights are valid teachings for a world view.

Yet it is accepted valid teaching, and is in my mind, pretty awesome.

(December 27, 2009 at 10:24 am)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:The parting of the Red Sea seems fantastical.

More fantastical than the entire world going dark for 3 hours because a man was resurrected 4 days after he died and was pulled into the sky? It seems a much more mundane event to me.

& we take a holiday in the ridiculous isles...

(December 27, 2009 at 10:24 am)theVOID Wrote:

Quote: Those stories, from my position of ignorance, I take as grossly embellished.

So you chose to believe that these stories are embellished but the story of the resurrection is not, and you have absolutely no evidence favouring either? As long as you admit you don't have any reasoning behind your decision we can move on.

Yes, lets be ignorant together...

(December 27, 2009 at 10:24 am)theVOID Wrote:

Quote: I don't like to speculate

It would do you a world of good. Time to start thinking for yourself mate.

..and this.. is la la land...

(December 27, 2009 at 10:24 am)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:, but I guess it could mean something like a low tide enabled one group to cross then the tide came in and the following group drowned.

Have you seen photos of this ocean?

Did you get that from answers in genesis?

(December 27, 2009 at 10:24 am)theVOID Wrote: That is where the leading theologians who have studied it believe they crossed... Yeah, really likely the tides.

Listen to you getting all theological on me

(December 27, 2009 at 10:24 am)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:It's like the evidence for god in creation... if you accept 'God' then everything is proof.

If you in future have nothing but appalling logic and want to use it to support a claim please don't bother, it's really rather irritating to have to point it out time and time again.

And what would that be You disagree with the conclusion. I don't use the argument personally but to counter equally appalling logic that because there is no God there is no evidence.

(December 27, 2009 at 10:24 am)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:The specific Christian (my) concept of God is not specific enough to formulate an accurate enough description to attribute 'being' to.

Saying "The Christian God exists" in not meaningless as It has been given the attributes such as omnipotence, omnipresence, omni-benevolence, transcendent etc which are absent from simply stating "God Exists"

Seems you're arguing with yourself on that one.

I suppose fr0d0 believes that I'm beyond the reach of "god".

No just rational thought TW

(December 28, 2009 at 7:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No just rational thought TW

What is that, some sort of attempt at getting me to want your opinion?
lol