Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did you read my actual question?
I did. That's what spurred me to say what I did. your "obvious knowledge" obviously doesn't extend to responsible exegesis. For if it did, you would quickly understand that these "flaws" are completely meaningless and don't diminish the truth of the metaphors one iota.
Crap, I thought you packed up your toys and left. I have very little interest in discussing anything with you at this time. However I will address a point. Your evaluation of DR Zacharias is very revealing. He is infinately more qualified than you are to address the issues of love, freewill, and objective morality. Your evaluation of his position says way more about you than him. He is one of not the most universally repected and admired philosophers alive. Both sides value his scholarship and no one doubts his sincerety or qualifications. He has a masters and two doctorates plus another doctorate in Law. He also has quite a few honorary doctorates. How many do you have? He has been invited to address the UN and several presidents. He has given closed door counsel to many countries highest officials including Russia's. He was a student of eastern philosophy and actually grew up in it only to realise it's incoherency. He has authored many best sellers as well as dozens of other works. How many you got? Only the greatest eggotism and arrogance would lead anyone to dismiss his claims and produce the delusional belief that someone lacking his education is qualified to meaningfully critique his impeccable grasp of philosophy. Many of the people we quote he has met. Many of the giants in his field look up to him, even enemies realise they should listen intently. Before you go for your illogical dismissal of my statements based on nothing but ineptitude realise there that there are only two men I have ever heard of that are this universally respected, Him and Billy Graham, (and perhaps mother Theresa). Dismiss all three and you will indeed have struck out.
Me, leave? lol, I'll outlive you, as well.
And, by the way, Zacharias has no best sellers; what list of bestsellers do you believe it appears on?. It's not the Times. Please cite what book appeared as such. It's nice that he's written a number of books; he's got a lot of heinousness to make excuses for with your religion. However, and dare I say, there's another fallacy in appealing only to one author, without any real citation [the link you gave was a summary of a summary by another a"author", who makes even worse mistakes]. Besides, if we are creating some arbitrary hierarchy of 'who is qualified to make any statements on the Nature of Evil', then you are at the bottom of that continuum, and I am above you on it, since I also have a degree, am a registered minister, have a logical fallacy published, and have written a book. Therefore by your own logic [and I cringe to call it that], you must take my opinion as authoritative, Im afraid.
Of course we can. I will use all your weak defenses against you; cry more if you don't like it. The idea of not 'sinking to anothers' level' is a cultural concept that has been drilled into us for a long time, and it reveals the 'white knight's weakness: foes know they will avoid doing the same despicable things back to them, and work that to advantage. Unfortunately for you I am not a white knight, and will sink as deep as you go, and in the end, do it better.
Cart before the horse, you see.
Just because it's in the Lord's Prayer doesn't grant it any wisdom, nor truth.
You are discussing theology with a God.
Humorous note: you have yet to answer my question to you. In the midst of your balloon-juice here, you have failed to provide a reasonable, coherent, intelligent, and theologically-sound argument why Jesus did not have to die for our sins.Of course we can. I will use all your weak defenses against you; cry more if you don't like it. The idea of not 'sinking to anothers' level' is a cultural concept that has been drilled into us for a long time, and it reveals the 'white knight's weakness: foes know they will avoid doing the same despicable things back to them, and work that to advantage. Unfortunately for you I am not a white knight, and will sink as deep as you go, and in the end, do it better.
BTW, 'responsible exegesis' leads to whatever conclusions come from the text, even if it shows that text to be blatantly in moral error. The flaws are not meaningless, especially in a text with so many liars promoting it as an unquestionable moral basis, and who tend themselves to be the worst fiends. Pretending they are meaningless, shows your bias. It's not just factual flaws the bible contains. But, hey, try talking down it's flaws. Nothing it says matters, really, right? Especially when it says something questionable; especially then.
And speaking of your bias: I observe with a few chuckles that you never speak to Robin and correct him on all his false statements about the Bible being without error. Yet you admit them freely to me. Double standard much? Bias much? When will you correct him on all his hyperbole, when will you lay it down for a fellow believer that the bible is flawed, in tems of historicity and mere fact? How strange that you remain so silent in that regard.
Although, I must then also ponder: by 'responsible', do you actually mean, we higher thinkers must not expose the more morally corrupt concepts the book accidentally [or a-purpose] brings to light, to the awareness of those morally weak enough to act on such heinous ideas? Is that what you actually mean? Do you actually mean that the morally vapid must never be made aware of all the ugliness hidden [or in plain sight] in the text which purports to be from the God of the entire universe itself? Because such individuals would actually act upon these convoluted, fiendish moral examples themselves, with the unshakeable idea in their minds that, for example, the murder of millions can be justified by deific fiat?
Oh, I am afraid that that cat's been out of the bag for a loooong time already, much to the horror of all mankind.
Humorous note: you still never addressed the question, whose pondering you felt the need to barge in on, and which someone else asked of you. The answer probably frightens you, and im sure we'll hear 'it doesn't matter'.
Finally, a small semantic note: I did not call you an idiot to lessen some truth in your argument; I called you that, based on your argument. It was an observation after the fact, not as a method of argumentation. Therefore, not really an ad hom at all.
:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:
Just because you say "that's how God behaves" does not mean it is true. On what do you base that assessment? How did you arrive at it? Is your assessment decidedly one-dimensional, based upon what you choose to read into one book? It certainly appears so.
That's right. But that's not what was believed when the story was first authored. Since new information has come to light, the story has been reauthored to reflect that information. We author the story. And we author it based upon our understanding at the time. As we evolve, the stories must evolve.
It's a metaphor, for pete's sake! A story. Imagery. Don't make it into something it's not, and then try to use it as valid argument. The issue in the story is humanity trying to cross the line to Divinity. It always happens. The issue is part of what it is to be human. The truth is there. The details change as our understanding grows. That's what it means to reauthor a story.
Point out one place in this post:
In which an ad hominem was made. You're accusing yourself of sinking to a level to which I never went.
That's right. But the factual flaws are only part of the total exegesis. To highlight them, ignoring the rest of the information, is not good exegesis. Your statement that:
shows that you are unwilling to exegete, according to the definition you just gave. Exegesis attaches no agenda to the outcome. You have an agenda. You want to "prove" that "the bible is unreliable." That would be "eisegesis."
They are meaningless in the establishment of theological truth. They're "static," so to speak, that have to be filtered.
Pot, meet Kettle (once again). Here's what you would answer, if I had posted the above statement:
but yet you whine that I'm not being fair in my comments?
Lies can only be brought to light through truth, not more lies. To say that "The God of Genesis is immoral, because he murdered a bunch of people," is a lie. It's just irresponsible exegesis. Responsible exegesis reveals that the story is a metaphor, pointing to the theological position that God always saves us. That's the truth of the story. It's told from the POV of the remnant -- those who have been systematically screwed by the establishment. The story cannot be properly understood from the position of the establishment. It must be understood from the position of the disenfranchised. Your "revealing of the 'flaws'" does no good.
It's still name-calling, and against forum rules.Finally, a small semantic note: I did not call you an idiot to lessen some truth in your argument; I called you that, based on your argument. It was an observation after the fact, not as a method of argumentation. Therefore, not really an ad hom at all.
can you shed some light as to what was believed when these stories were first authored.
we are not talking about since though, we are talking about what was understood then.
of course i use it as a metaphor silly!!