This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

If Christianity is the absolute truth...

#81countzanderPosted 1/2/2013 1:21:51 AM
What makes one translation better than any other? You're basically just picking the one you like the most.


I prefer translations and interpretations that lend themselves to a coherent worldview. Such translations and what I like tend to coincide.

All this says is that God told people a lot. Not that he told all there is to tell or that he doesn't have other things he could add.


But it does seem to exclude any religion which trivializes Jesus' original message.

He's talking Revelations itself, not the ENTIRE Bible. It doesn't even say that God can't or won't give someone else a new prophesy about something before the end times.


It does apply to Revelation only, but that's the point. A future message cannot contradict what's already in the book.

This is a part of Paul's message to the church of Galatea. There's nothing to suggest that he's saying it's off limits for everyone to receive instructions or words from God.


The Book of Acts is addressed to a single man, but that doesn't mean it's not applicable to other Christians.
It seems more reasonable that Paul brought the issue up in that particular letter because the Galatians had issues the other churches didn't have. Had the problem been more widespread, Paul likely would have mentioned it several times. He just didn't need to.
Besides, theologically, the New Testament is meant is meant to be read by all Christians, not just those to whom they're addressed. Unless you're saying I should just ignore any Epistle that doesn't say "to countzander."

This is talking about the validity of things already revealed. It doesn't say that Allah can't reveal more things.


Not can't but won't.

"And if ye do it not [i.e. produce something similar to the Quran]--and ye can never do it--then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones."
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#82countzanderPosted 1/2/2013 1:21:53 AM
Furthermore, if you don't think God communicates with people in any shape or form, what are praying for when you ask God for guidance? What are you supposed to do when you reach a situation that the Bible doesn't really cover? Just wing it?


God supposedly knows everything; there's no need to pray, except, maybe, to experience God (or whatever it is my more orthodox fellow believers say.) If you're open-minded, you shouldn't reach a situation the Bible doesn't cover. You'll just modify your position to take into account new information. Unless an inter-dimensional warlord appears on the Mall in D.C. and claims to be Jesus or something.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#83Faust_8Posted 1/2/2013 5:25:36 AM
countzander posted...
Faust_8 posted...
You can't truly falsify Christianity but we've shown enough things in it to be false that it's a lot easier to accept that it's just all false.

Again, just because something isn't falsified doesn't justify believing in it. Elvis is alive, Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Flying Spaghetti Monster...none are falsified, none have any credible reason to believe in them. But yet people do...because they NEED to. It makes them feel good one way or another, and they've invested too much in it to just let it go because of purely intellectual means.


Except most of the things "showing" Christianity to be false are not convincing.


To someone who has staked part of their identity and ego in Christianity, I'm sure that's how it looks to you.
---
The supernatural says that if you act a certain way you might avoid suffering. But reality says you came from the stars...
#84lastheroPosted 1/2/2013 9:25:35 AM
I prefer translations and interpretations that lend themselves to a coherent worldview.

What you consider to be a coherent worldview and what others do can vary wildly. If there were any consensus, there wouldn't be as many translations as there are.

But it does seem to exclude any religion which trivializes Jesus' original message.

What trivializes Jesus message or not is going to depend a lot of the viewer. At best, it's a ban on contradicting his word - not a ban on having new revelation yourself.

It does apply to Revelation only, but that's the point. A future message cannot contradict what's already in the book.


It's a book about an even that happens at an unspecified time in the future. That's a lot of latitude.

Besides, theologically, the New Testament is meant is meant to be read by all Christians, not just those to whom they're addressed. Unless you're saying I should just ignore any Epistle that doesn't say "to countzander."



No. But just because Paul told the Galateans that they were in error doesn't mean every Christian after his is going to make similar errors. That doesn't follow.

Not can't but won't.

"And if ye do it not [i.e. produce something similar to the Quran]--and ye can never do it--then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones."


It's talking about if you doubt the words - if you don't consider them to be true. It's not a prohibition for coming up with new words - like the other works, it bars contradictions.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#85hunter_gohanPosted 1/2/2013 2:43:55 PM
countzander posted...
The point is that no one knows whether God exists, and neither side finds the opposing arguments compelling. So it's not fair to say religious people, and not atheists, choose their beliefs in spite of reason.


No one knows whether there's an invisible, intangible, heat-less fire breathing dragon who hides himself from certain people based on their mindset in my garage either. That's not a reason to believe it, nor does it mean it's just as reasonable to believe that dragon does exist then it is to roll your eyes at the person claiming that and walk away.

That doesn't mean we can't try. Some religions are more consistent with "reality" than others. Greek paganism, for example, teaches that the underworld is a physical place that a person can actually visit. The entrances are scattered around the Mediterranean. Christianity, on the other hand, doesn't say where the afterlife is located. Given that Greek paganism is at least theoretically falsifiable--we could use sound waves--it does not withstand scrutiny as well as Christianity.


It's a metaphor; it's not meant to be taken literally. Bam, same go to excuse the Abrahamic faiths use whenever something in their religion is proved to be complete baloney.

It does not agree well with reality unless you wantonly introduce strange interpretations.


How's that flat earth supported by pillars and surrounded by a solid firmament as claimed by a literal reading of the bible doing?
---
If you find yourself falling into madness -- dive. -Malkavian Clan Book 1st edition
We eat gods for breakfast. - Dr Egon Spengler
#86countzanderPosted 1/2/2013 4:38:18 PM
Faust_8 posted...
countzander posted...
Faust_8 posted...
You can't truly falsify Christianity but we've shown enough things in it to be false that it's a lot easier to accept that it's just all false.

Again, just because something isn't falsified doesn't justify believing in it. Elvis is alive, Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Flying Spaghetti Monster...none are falsified, none have any credible reason to believe in them. But yet people do...because they NEED to. It makes them feel good one way or another, and they've invested too much in it to just let it go because of purely intellectual means.


Except most of the things "showing" Christianity to be false are not convincing.


To someone who has staked part of their identity and ego in Christianity, I'm sure that's how it looks to you.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#87countzanderPosted 1/2/2013 4:47:31 PM
lasthero posted...
It's talking about if you doubt the words - if you don't consider them to be true. It's not a prohibition for coming up with new words - like the other works, it bars contradictions.


I don't know... Verse 23 sounds like a challenge to produce something similar to the Quran... "If you have doubts about the Quran, make a new one. Oh, wait, there's nothing wrong with it."
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#88countzanderPosted 1/2/2013 5:03:52 PM
hunter_gohan
No one knows whether there's an invisible, intangible, heat-less fire breathing dragon who hides himself from certain people based on their mindset in my garage either. That's not a reason to believe it, nor does it mean it's just as reasonable to believe that dragon does exist then it is to roll your eyes at the person claiming that and walk away.


God is more defensible than a dragon crafted for argument. In order for your analogy to work, you would have to add on characteristics until the dragon was nearly identical to the religious conception of God.
And then there's the fact that many intelligent people don't find atheistic arguments compelling in the first place. I for one think the arguments are based upon faulty assumptions.

It's a metaphor; it's not meant to be taken literally. Bam, same go to excuse the Abrahamic faiths use whenever something in their religion is proved to be complete baloney.


How do you know the Greek myths were meant to be interpreted metaphorically? Many characters in the Bible and even the early Christians thought some biblical stories to be metaphors. But what makes you think the Greeks thought the same?

How's that flat earth supported by pillars and surrounded by a solid firmament as claimed by a literal reading of the bible doing?


I was unaware that the Bible is a science book. Unlike the Greek myths, the Bible exists for "training in righteousness," not explaining how the world works.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#89hunter_gohanPosted 1/2/2013 5:20:51 PM
countzander posted...
God is more defensible than a dragon crafted for argument. In order for your analogy to work, you would have to add on characteristics until the dragon was nearly identical to the religious conception of God.


Who is to say this dragon isn't a god? They are exactly as defensible that's the point. The only extra "defense" you can throw forward for your god are logical fallacies such as Argumentum ad Populum or Argument from Age.

And then there's the fact that many intelligent people don't find atheistic arguments compelling in the first place. I for one think the arguments are based upon faulty assumptions.


What atheistic arguments? You mean "Just because it was written in a book doesn't mean it's true"?

How do you know the Greek myths were meant to be interpreted metaphorically? Many characters in the Bible and even the early Christians thought some biblical stories to be metaphors. But what makes you think the Greeks thought the same?


Because they were proven to be literally wrong, but the religion must still be right because I follow that religion. The exact same reason Christians have for declaring certain things in the bible as metaphor that were taking literally for a long time. Where is any character in the bible shown to think it's description of earth, the creation story, or the Exodus are metaphors?

I was unaware that the Bible is a science book. Unlike the Greek myths, the Bible exists for "training in righteousness," not explaining how the world works.


I was unaware that Hellenic texts were science books. They were there to impart stories and morals, not for explaining how the world works.
---
If you find yourself falling into madness -- dive. -Malkavian Clan Book 1st edition
We eat gods for breakfast. - Dr Egon Spengler
#90countzanderPosted 1/2/2013 6:07:30 PM
Who is to say this dragon isn't a god? They are exactly as defensible that's the point. The only extra "defense" you can throw forward for your god are logical fallacies such as Argumentum ad Populum or Argument from Age.


They aren't exactly defensible. The problem with the dragon is that it doesn't interact with the physical world, and there are no consequences for belief or disbelief. So what if it exists? My existence is the same either way. In order for an idea to be defensible, there needs to be some reason for defending it.

What atheistic arguments? You mean "Just because it was written in a book doesn't mean it's true"?


That's not an argument for atheism. That's just a miscellaneous argument for skepticism. Fortunately, I don't think a thing's being written down makes it true.

Because they were proven to be literally wrong, but the religion must still be right because I follow that religion. The exact same reason Christians have for declaring certain things in the bible as metaphor that were taking literally for a long time. Where is any character in the bible shown to think it's description of earth, the creation story, or the Exodus are metaphors?


Or maybe those early Christians were just wrong? I mean, a lot of Christians believe they'll go to heaven when they die, despite the idea not being in the Bible. To say that people just change their religion because they want to, even if you're right, is a genetic fallacy. The motivations of the believers say nothing about the validity of their beliefs.
The Greek pagans could have interpreted their stories as metaphorical, but even a superficial reading of the stories shows their myths were much more superstitious and unsalvagabe than anything in the Bible.

I was unaware that Hellenic texts were science books. They were there to impart stories and morals, not for explaining how the world works.


The story of Persephone explains where seasons come from. The story of Atlas explains why the sky doesn't fall. Zeus, the "God of Justice," was a rapist... But the Ancient Greeks considered rape a capital offense... The stories couldn't have been created to impart morals if the Greeks criminalized the behavior of the gods they worshiped. The former stories, among others, blatantly ascribe superstitious explanations to natural events, far surpassing anything in the Bible.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg