is it part of your belief to reject data that opposes your belief?

[Pegg]

For example:

When the bible says that it is worst to eat pig that to rape women or own slaves it sounds bad at first.

Cursing 42 young people to be mauled by bears because they called you "baldy" only makes sense after careful deliberation too.

you see, when you put bible accounts like this, of course its only natural to reach a very negative conclusion

 

[rusra02]

we always need to keep bible accounts in their proper context and take all things into consideration. I find that a lot of what Dawkins, for example, says about the bible are often taken out of context and all the information about the account is not provided...so the picture he paints of a bible account appears to be as bad as he describes it

...and then you read the 'full' account, and you find the context and you realize that Dawkins has made the very common error of not giving you the full story.

I believe that when you know why God took a certain action and you take all the details into account, a reasonable conclusion can be reached.

I guess what you are describing, Pegg, is evolutionists quote-mining, something they accuse those who disagree with them of doing.

 

[McBell]

you see, when you put bible accounts like this, of course its only natural to reach a very negative conclusion

He views the bible through a set of special goggles that is of a different color than yours.

 

[McBell]

I guess what you are describing, Pegg, is evolutionists quote-mining, something they accuse those who disagree with them of doing.

Still a bit upset with your quote mining be called out for the dishonesty it is?

 

[Thief]

The rest of the book expounds on what is meant by man's "dominion" vs. God's dominion over man.

I don't think it was intended for you to have license to do as you please.

oops...
God gave Man dominion.
Have you noticed how He is willing to stand back and let things happen?

You don't believe in freewill?

 

[Thief]

simple question. is it part of your belief to reject data that opposes your belief? i have recently had a bible discussion with a fundamentalist christian. as it turns out his ultimate "argument" in response to the various biblical contradictions i pointed out to him was that no matter how immoral or contradictory god's actions seem, we MUST ALWAYS assume they are not.

we must always assume that negative data regarding god is actually positive data that only looks negative to us, because we do not see the big picture, do not have a full understanding, and are too limited to understand, and/or judge god/the bible.

the bible states that god is moral, therefore we must dismiss any data that says otherwise. and then he compared our limited understanding to that of a bear in a bear trap, or a baby being treated by a doctor....

he says that we are under the false impression that some of the things god did (as described in the bible) are evil, just like the bear is under the false impression that you are trying to hurt it, when all you are trying to do is free it, or the baby is under the impression that the doctor is trying to hurt it, when he is only trying to treat it.

whats your take?

Theologically, the state of God's morality is indeed assumed.
But under assumption...are we completely helpless to know God?
No...I don't think so.

We are each an agent of mind and heart.
For now we seem to be on our own....each to his motivation.

But as we step away into the next life....
Would it be a good thing to have a Greater Morality standing over each one?

Biblical accounts show God to have some kind of mindset.
Sorting through what to hold true and what to 'hope not'....is the trick.

Whatever you believe of God...may be waiting for you.

Perhaps we DO have control, as we crossover.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Lots of atheist do the same thing. Try talking to a person who believes Jesus was a myth and watch them ignore evidence and more evidence.

 

[9Westy9]

the computer says no

 

[Me Myself]

you see, when you put bible accounts like this, of course its only natural to reach a very negative conclusion

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I clearly said that it is only apparently bad that eating pig is worst than rape and slavery.

And Eliseous cursing to death by bear mauling the youngsters because of his pride has a really good context too.

Actually I was expecting you to explain this context

 

[Orias]

Well that all sounded a bit vague. Was that on purpose or are you getting tired?

On purpose?

I simply answered your questions.

What I meant about man having dominion over the earth is that it is stated, what you say about God having dominion over man and bla bla bla is a completely and entirely different argument.

It is a rare occurrence for me to point out the logical strawman.

Take no offense... I enjoyed your civil discourse. I am sleepy. Having a smoke and retiring for the night. --- perhaps another time?

No offense taken.

After all, your argument was spawned on the intent to discredit my signature.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I guess what you are describing, Pegg, is evolutionists quote-mining, something they accuse those who disagree with them of doing.

Christians quote-mine the bible moreso than anyone else. If they're going to do it, why not anyone else? Pick a verse here, one there, and come up with a doctrine to suit one's needs. That's apparently how biblical interpretation works.

 

[cablescavenger]

simple question. is it part of your belief to reject data that opposes your belief? i have recently had a bible discussion with a fundamentalist christian. as it turns out his ultimate "argument" in response to the various biblical contradictions i pointed out to him was that no matter how immoral or contradictory god's actions seem, we MUST ALWAYS assume they are not.

we must always assume that negative data regarding god is actually positive data that only looks negative to us, because we do not see the big picture, do not have a full understanding, and are too limited to understand, and/or judge god/the bible.

the bible states that god is moral, therefore we must dismiss any data that says otherwise. and then he compared our limited understanding to that of a bear in a bear trap, or a baby being treated by a doctor....

he says that we are under the false impression that some of the things god did (as described in the bible) are evil, just like the bear is under the false impression that you are trying to hurt it, when all you are trying to do is free it, or the baby is under the impression that the doctor is trying to hurt it, when he is only trying to treat it.

whats your take?

I adjust my belief system every day based on the information I take in.

I try and keep the information feeding my beliefs as up to date as possible, by reading articles and books, watching the news and documentaries and discussing them with others.

Some bits will get a little outdated and some forgotten about altogether, but I don't worry too much about losing small amounts of information, it will be updated or built on later.

What I try not to do is refer to a book written in ancient times by the barely literate and insist that any new information is false.

 

[Renji]

Doctrinally, my faith doesn't say to go and reject it (and no, I'm not a fundamentalist), but to test it and discern if it's "true". But of course, my faith warns me to be careful: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." -1 John 4:1.

In terms of other things like those concerning science and other things that aren't found in the Bible, I wouldn't worry:

Philippians 4:8- Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
And yeah, as stated earlier in this thread (and I really like the wording):

“One cannot always say with certainty, especially from the Old Testament, what is factual or historical or literal, and what is meant only as a lesson. We do not claim all the Bible to be literal, but we (the Catholic Church) claim it all to be the inspired Word of God and that is why we accept it and embrace it.”

 

[Renji]

Christians quote-mine the bible moreso than anyone else. If they're going to do it, why not anyone else? Pick a verse here, one there, and come up with a doctrine to suit one's needs. That's apparently how biblical interpretation works.

Well, that is expected.
2 Peter 3:16- He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[rusra02]

Christians quote-mine the bible moreso than anyone else. If they're going to do it, why not anyone else? Pick a verse here, one there, and come up with a doctrine to suit one's needs. That's apparently how biblical interpretation works.

Quoting scriptures from various parts of the Bible that pertain to a certain subject is not wrong or quote-mining, so long as the scriptures are not twisted or taken out of context. Jesus and the apostles quoted texts from various places in the Hebrew scriptures to discuss certain subjects. The Bible itself warns against twisting the Scriptures to fit our personal ideas. (2 Peter 3:16) The thousands of sects all claiming to be Christian are mostly due to replacing Bible truth with personal philosophies and traditions of men.(Matthew 15:1-9)

 

[Corkscrew]

simple question. is it part of your belief to reject data that opposes your belief? i have recently had a bible discussion with a fundamentalist christian. as it turns out his ultimate "argument" in response to the various biblical contradictions i pointed out to him was that no matter how immoral or contradictory god's actions seem, we MUST ALWAYS assume they are not.

we must always assume that negative data regarding god is actually positive data that only looks negative to us, because we do not see the big picture, do not have a full understanding, and are too limited to understand, and/or judge god/the bible.

the bible states that god is moral, therefore we must dismiss any data that says otherwise. and then he compared our limited understanding to that of a bear in a bear trap, or a baby being treated by a doctor....

he says that we are under the false impression that some of the things god did (as described in the bible) are evil, just like the bear is under the false impression that you are trying to hurt it, when all you are trying to do is free it, or the baby is under the impression that the doctor is trying to hurt it, when he is only trying to treat it.

whats your take?

I find it as just another testament to mans’ ability to rationalize.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Quoting scriptures from various parts of the Bible that pertain to a certain subject is not wrong or quote-mining, so long as the scriptures are not twisted or taken out of context. Jesus and the apostles quoted texts from various places in the Hebrew scriptures to discuss certain subjects. The Bible itself warns against twisting the Scriptures to fit our personal ideas. (2 Peter 3:16) The thousands of sects all claiming to be Christian are mostly due to replacing Bible truth with personal philosophies and traditions of men.(Matthew 15:1-9)

That would be great, if there was any real way to tell who's version is right and who's is wrong. Every denomination says the same thing you just said. So where's the manual on what is the proper way to interpret the Bible?

 

[connermt]

simple question. is it part of your belief to reject data that opposes your belief? i have recently had a bible discussion with a fundamentalist christian. as it turns out his ultimate "argument" in response to the various biblical contradictions i pointed out to him was that no matter how immoral or contradictory god's actions seem, we MUST ALWAYS assume they are not.

we must always assume that negative data regarding god is actually positive data that only looks negative to us, because we do not see the big picture, do not have a full understanding, and are too limited to understand, and/or judge god/the bible.

the bible states that god is moral, therefore we must dismiss any data that says otherwise. and then he compared our limited understanding to that of a bear in a bear trap, or a baby being treated by a doctor....

he says that we are under the false impression that some of the things god did (as described in the bible) are evil, just like the bear is under the false impression that you are trying to hurt it, when all you are trying to do is free it, or the baby is under the impression that the doctor is trying to hurt it, when he is only trying to treat it.

whats your take?

I'm sure that's taught to various people. But it's been my experience that it's more about "fear of being wrong about X belief" than anything else.
People are so lazy these days they accept so much that's spoon fed to them as absolute truth that when anything comes up that might change their POV, they don't listen or flat out refuse to entertain the idea.
To me, those people are cowards and have no faith. If their faith is so strong - so unshakable - they shouldn't be fearful. Yet they are.
Just more proof that christianity is the drug of the gullible, senseless and mentally unstable masses IMO.

 

[Pegg]

That would be great, if there was any real way to tell who's version is right and who's is wrong. Every denomination says the same thing you just said. So where's the manual on what is the proper way to interpret the Bible?

John 14:. 26 'But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach YOU all things...'

The real question to ask is does God give holy spirit to every denomination....obviously if they all have holy spirit, they will all be taught by it, yet with so many different beliefs it points to the fact that not all have holy spirit.

so find the holy spirit is, and you'll find the truth.

 

[bigbadgirl]

I reject all beliefs that defy common sense or cannot be proven, no matter what its source. If you can prove it to me, then I'll believe. Simple.