AW yes.... Gods love

[bbrettle]

well, thats the only explanation i have , i dont know what else i could draw from it

[Timothy]

well, thats the only explanation i have , i dont know what else i could draw from it

So you are essentially using an argument from ignorance?

[DoktorZ]

well, thats the only explanation i have , i dont know what else i could draw from it

So you are essentially using an argument from ignorance?

You also read your assumptions into that text. Everyone does it. It is a confusing, sometimes self-contradictory text, so it is possible to bring multiple readings to it. That's why there have been so many religions based on it, often with competing claims. Don't go around calling people "ignorant" when the text itself is so obtuse.

[Minimalist]

God is depending on his followers to do his bidding ? it doesnt say the words "depending" its implied

and if he wasnt depending on them he would just do it himself

One wonders why 'god' doesn't simply do it himself? Doesn't seem like much of a trick for a 'god.'

[Timothy]

You also read your assumptions into that text. Everyone does it. It is a confusing, sometimes self-contradictory text, so it is possible to bring multiple readings to it. That's why there have been so many religions based on it, often with competing claims. Don't go around calling people "ignorant" when the text itself is so obtuse.

Firstly, I am not saying that one of bbrettle's personal qualities is general ignorance. Far, far, from it. I am saying that he is using an argument from a particular ignorance (not used derogatively, simply meaning "lack of knowledge") about the meaning and implication of the text which he brought up to argue his case. Rather than provide an argument to show that Mark 16:15, as originally intended, implies a necessary dependence of God on human beings, he argues that the only interpretation that he can think of implies this. What's more, he readily admits that this is the case.

You, yourself, make a claim about the text, that it is "confusing," "self-contradictory" and obtuse". Would you care to provide an argument for this? Perhaps you really mean to say that we must be skeptical about the original meaning of the text. In which case, again you should give an argument for this. That different people have come to different conclusions about the text's meaning says nothing about the text, whose original meaning may well have been crystal clear to it's first readers (more strictly, hearers).

I have nothing particular invested in this text - it is not a part of the Scriptures I read in any case, since the real ending of Mark is unfortunately lost to the mists of time - but I am invested in the discussion with bbrettle, who has raised an immensely important question from every perspective: emotionally, existentially, rationally and morally.

[DoktorZ]

You also read your assumptions into that text. Everyone does it. It is a confusing, sometimes self-contradictory text, so it is possible to bring multiple readings to it. That's why there have been so many religions based on it, often with competing claims. Don't go around calling people "ignorant" when the text itself is so obtuse.

Firstly, I am not saying that one of bbrettle's personal qualities is general ignorance. Far, far, from it. I am saying that he is using an argument from a particular ignorance (not used derogatively, simply meaning "lack of knowledge") about the meaning and implication of the text which he brought up to argue his case. Rather than provide an argument to show that Mark 16:15, as originally intended, implies a necessary dependence of God on human beings, he argues that the only interpretation that he can think of implies this. What's more, he readily admits that this is the case.

You, yourself, make a claim about the text, that it is "confusing," "self-contradictory" and obtuse". Would you care to provide an argument for this? Perhaps you really mean to say that we must be skeptical about the original meaning of the text. In which case, again you should give an argument for this. That different people have come to different conclusions about the text's meaning says nothing about the text, whose original meaning may well have been crystal clear to it's first readers (more strictly, hearers).

I have nothing particular invested in this text - it is not a part of the Scriptures I read in any case, since the real ending of Mark is unfortunately lost to the mists of time - but I am invested in the discussion with bbrettle, who has raised an immensely important question from every perspective: emotionally, existentially, rationally and morally.

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.

[Timothy]

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?
  

[Minimalist]

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.

Don't think that you are unique, Tim. We've had plenty of jesus freaks drop by with the same line of shit. Try to remember that most of us were indoctrinated from birth with that nonsense and have managed to escape.

[Zen Badger]

bbrettle is doing an internal critique of Christianity, and I've simply been respondng to his questions with what the Bible teaches to show that they are in no sense unaddressed or problematic given the Christian view.

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

Notice that none of his questions say anything like "What proof do you have that the Bible's view is true?" or "Why should we trust what the Bible says?"

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

As an aside I've always found it intriguing that the perfect creator of the whole universe managed to make such a complete balls up of his message to his creation.

You would think that he would've been able to make it clear, concise and immune to misinterpretation or mistranslation.

Instead of the muddled mishmash of contradictions, incest, genocide and intolerance that it actually is.

(If anyone turned up to their editor today with that under their arm they'd be rejected after the first page was read.)

And he would've been able to transmit it to more people than a bunch of unwashed goatherders in the middle of Bumfuck No-where.

[Napoléon]

I agree completely with DoktorZ "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".

I love the way christians make out that their holy book is so simple and clear to understand. If that was the case there wouldn't be 33,000 different variations of christianity alone would there?