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

The Skeptic's Bible

#11ThuggernautzPosted 2/2/2013 1:03:14 PM
almasbaby posted...
He wants nobody to mistake who he is and what the extent of his power is.


Then perhaps he should be able to show everyone at every time irrefutable evidence for his existence and power, and not have the Bible read like a violent fable written by a person with multiple personality disorder about an ethereal being who appears to be bipolar and incredibly narcissistic.

Perhaps He shouldn't have allowed the multiple historical inaccuracies which diminish the validity of other claims, especially the unverifiable ones. Lastly, the story is boring. I'd much rather read some Asimov.
#12JonWood007Posted 2/2/2013 2:41:26 PM
Dathrowed1 posted...
Jon, the Yale courses are not an impartial source. The basis for the arguments they present are born from higher criticism, Christians who didn't believe the bible was God's word.


The thing is, they're theologically neutral. They tell it like it is. They explain how the Bible came to be historically and in its original context. They don't accept a theological position, no, but that's the difference between theology and religious studies. And if such a perspective seems to undermine a theological context, then so be it. Seems like you don't like it because it's not taught from your point of view.

While I guess it is true no perspective is truly unbiased, courses like this at least attempt to do so. The alternative would be to teach it from a blatantly biased theological perspective.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#13Dathrowed1Posted 2/2/2013 3:19:16 PM
JonWood007 posted...
Dathrowed1 posted...
Jon, the Yale courses are not an impartial source. The basis for the arguments they present are born from higher criticism, Christians who didn't believe the bible was God's word.


The thing is, they're theologically neutral. They tell it like it is. They explain how the Bible came to be historically and in its original context. They don't accept a theological position, no, but that's the difference between theology and religious studies. And if such a perspective seems to undermine a theological context, then so be it. Seems like you don't like it because it's not taught from your point of view.

While I guess it is true no perspective is truly unbiased, courses like this at least attempt to do so. The alternative would be to teach it from a blatantly biased theological perspective.


They give an explanation on how they believe the bible came to be. It is built on guesses, are guesses to be considered facts now? It has nothing to do with my point of view, I just don't want people to get the wrong idea that the info presented to them are the facts.
---
sig