AW yes.... Gods love

[DoktorZ]

I'm afraid I don't have time to go over this massive book with you. There are many books, articles, and websites offering examples of contradictions within holy texts. If you are going to continue asserting that this holy text is transparent, and subject to a consistent reading, then I believe you are being disingenuous and frankly aren't worth speaking to. In my experience, most religious people who come to atheist message boards are engaged in conscious acts of deception.

• The word "text" in my original simply refers to Mark 16:15, not Scripture as a whole.
  
• I have not anywhere asserted, let alone continued to assert, that the whole of Scripture is "transparent" or "consistent". To make such a claim would require me to have cross-matched every subset of verses of Scripture - which is plainly an absurd project.
  
• That you decide to make premature judgements about my character and intent on this forum says a lot more about you than it does about me. Rather than wasting time in such a manner, why not address the topic of the thread in some kind of relevant way?
  

You claimed that his reading of that passage was "ignorant," therefore you assume that the reading is transparent. In fact, inherent in your claim is that his putative "ignorance" is a lack of contextualization, which demands readings outside of Mark 16:15--i.e., the wider scriptures. Already, you are engaging in obfuscation, word-play, and "boundary policing." I took a short look at your other posts here, and I find similarly suspicious behavior.

If a band of KKK members showed up to a black pride event, I'd be suspicious that they're not there to serve tea. Any believer who shows up on an atheist message forum is probably, although not necessarily, up to something. I've never encountered a believer in this context who did not, at some point, get caught up in a lie.

Rather than wasting time pushing your beliefs around atheist forums, why don't you go back to church?

[Timothy]

Well, yes we know the christian view, "The bible is right no matter what because the bible says so"

How exactly is that the "Christian view"?

---

I love the way christians make out that their holy book is so simple and clear to understand.

Who exactly are you talking about? As I've already said, I make no claims like that of any sort. Like any collection of ancient texts, it requires study to find out what the intended meaning was. That is because the books of the Bible were not written to us in our time and culture, but to other people in other times and cultures different from our own.

Now, does that mean that there is nothing that translates easily into our language today? Not at all.
Does it mean that the original audiences would have found its meaning ambiguous? Again, in no way.
Does it mean that every interpretation of the Biblical texts is equally valid? Of course not. We find out the original intent by carefully weighing the reasons for and against the different interpretations, given knowledge about the original languages, the historical context, etc.

Let's go back now to the actual thread now, and bbrettle's argument (or rather, lack thereof) that Mark 16:15 implies the God needs humans to do things for Him. Is anyone willing to argue (according to the usual standards of interpreting ancient texts) that this verse, as originally intended, implies this?

---

You claimed that his reading of that passage was "ignorant," therefore you assume that the reading is transparent. In fact, inherent in your claim is that his putative "ignorance" is a lack of contextualization, which demands readings outside of Mark 16:15--i.e., the wider scriptures. Already, you are engaging in obfuscation, word-play, and "boundary policing." I took a short look at your other posts here, and I find similarly suspicious behavior.

I've already explained my intent with respect to saying that bbrettle was using an argument from ignorance. The question raised by bbrettle's claim (which is now rapidly being avoided by this shoal of red herrings) is "Does Mark 16:15 imply that God is dependent on humans?" Simply reading the text prima facie, there is no mention that God does depend on humans, or anything remotely analogous. I asked bbrettle to give a reason why he thought the text did imply what he said it did. He states perfectly clearly that "I don't know what else I could draw from it." It is an explicit statement about a lack of knowledge.

I've said nothing about the transparency of Mark 16:15 or any other text, or the necessity of a canonical reading from other texts of Scripture in order to understand the meaning of Mark 16:15. I have no desire to obfuscate and every desire to make my communication as clear as I can make it. Point out anything I have said which you deem to be deliberate concealment, ambiguity, word-play or "pushing of beliefs" and I will quite happily explain to you in even clearer terms what I have been trying to say.

[Zen Badger]

Well, yes we know the christian view, "The bible is right no matter what because the bible says so"

How exactly is that the "Christian view"?

You mean it isn't ????

"cos that is the position of every christian i've debated on forums, bar none.

In fact I've debatede christians who's belief in the bible seemed to be more important to them than belief in god.

And are you going to answer these questions?

....."What proof do you have that the Bible's view is true?" and "Why should we trust what the Bible says?"

[KichigaiNeko]

Sorry Tim the bible isn't that ancient ...the KJV is only 400 odd years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_...es_Version

[Timothy]

You mean it isn't ????

"cos that is the position of every christian i've debated on forums, bar none.

In fact I've debatede christians who's belief in the bible seemed to be more important to them than belief in god.

How odd. I've never met any Christian who would say "The Bible is right because the Bible says so." Most Christians will happily say "The Bible is right" or "The Bible is inspired by God" or "I trust the Bible because of X, Y and Z," but not the curiously circular statement you used.

And are you going to answer these questions?

....."What proof do you have that the Bible's view is true?" and "Why should we trust what the Bible says?"

Are your questions referring to the Bible's views on the particular questions raised in this thread, or to the overarching "Why even take the Bible seriously at all?" question? If it's the latter, it would take a very long time to give you a sufficient answer, but the former I could have a stab at.

---

Sorry Tim the bible isn't that ancient ...the KJV is only 400 odd years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_...es_Version

The Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Version, the King James Bible or simply the KJV, is an English translation by the Church of England of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and completed in 1611."

[Minimalist]

And here we go again......

[Napoléon]

Are your questions referring to the Bible's views on the particular questions raised in this thread, or to the overarching "Why even take the Bible seriously at all?" question? If it's the latter, it would take a very long time to give you a sufficient answer, but the former I could have a stab at.

Why would the latter take so long? Doesn't seem too much of a complex question to me.

[bbrettle]

please excuse me for my few days i will not be logged on im in the middle of moving out of State! therefore wont have much time on for a couple weeks just letting everyone know thanks for all the input

[Minimalist]

We'll cover for you while you're gone. This one doesn't seem to have much on the ball anyway.

[Timothy]

Are your questions referring to the Bible's views on the particular questions raised in this thread, or to the overarching "Why even take the Bible seriously at all?" question? If it's the latter, it would take a very long time to give you a sufficient answer, but the former I could have a stab at.

Why would the latter take so long? Doesn't seem too much of a complex question to me.

There are a number of complexities involved because it is a big "worldview" question, and so there are fundamentals within the question itself ("Why should we believe that the Bible is true?") having to do with truth, knowledge and rational obligations (responsible belief) which the Bible itself actually addresses. This means there are issues for both parties (those who trust the Bible and those who don't) with respect to how these things are defined and ontologically grounded which, without reflection, can lead to circular reasoning.

---

please excuse me for my few days i will not be logged on im in the middle of moving out of State! therefore wont have much time on for a couple weeks just letting everyone know thanks for all the input

Best of luck with the move - look forward to continuing after you get back.