Flying Spaghettit Monsters and Invisible Pink Unicorns
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Nonsense. It is quite simple to prove someone's existence.
You can't prove your own without assuming something more important so don't get cocky.:)
Chris Austin wrote:
Like what perchance?
Whether science is the best method for discovering things.
Chris Austin wrote:
You can't name a single scientist worth his salt that makes such a claim.
Quite true but plenty of people on this forum are quite prepared to dismiss, ridicule and deny things they are 99% ignorant of and of which they have no understanding whatsoever. I'll leave their worth as scientists for you to judge.
Chris Austin wrote:
This is a very silly and uninformed argument.
You can say that again.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can't prove your own without assuming something more important so don't get cocky.
Sure I can. "I think therefore I am." It takes much more assumptions to prove that I don't exist in any "Through The Looking Glass" manner.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Whether science is the best method for discovering things.
And what are the measurable alternatives?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
You can apply what you like to irrational nonsense religions but in the context of Christianity :-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the supernatural aspects are certainly not
An absurd statement as the historical texts are crammed full of supernatural acts from creation itself to the religious cook off on Mount Carmel through just about every recorded event in Jesus' life to Paul and Silas getting out of jail and ending with Revelation a miraclous vision of future history.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Add to that the inaccuracy of historical texts
In the case of the Bible there simply isn't any.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
widespread misinterpretation of obvious metaphor as literal truth
Such as?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
acceptance of relatively modern additions -- and omissions -- as divinely inspired
I would not call anything 1800+ years old as such. Besides what exactly is the contradiction between new and divinely inspired?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the fact that which mythology you believe is largely an accident of birth
I can point to several million Chinese Christians who would disagree. You simply can't lump Christianity in with 'religion' , throw mud and expect it to stick to anyone but yourself.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can apply what you like to irrational nonsense religions but in the context of Christianity
And you truly do not see any irony in the fact that members of other religions see Christianity as an "irrational nonsense religion"?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
An absurd statement as the historical texts are crammed full of supernatural acts from creation itself to the religious cook off on Mount Carmel through just about every recorded event in Jesus' life to Paul and Silas getting out of jail and ending with Revelation a miraclous vision of future history.
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified? Who was the observer and author of this historical text?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the case of the Bible there simply isn't any.
Have you actually read the Bible? Both testaments? You see no contradictions, no inaccuracy, nothing that could possibly be in the least bit subjective?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Such as?
Genesis? Revelations?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I would not call anything 1800+ years old as such. Besides what exactly is the contradiction between new and divinely inspired?
What is the evidence of divine inspiration? (And not all changes are that old.)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I can point to several million Chinese Christians who would disagree.
Yes, Judaism and Islam also exist in China. They were brought by missionaries -- who were undoubtedly Christian, Jew, and Muslim through accident of birth, by the way -- and are still a relatively tiny minority.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You simply can't lump Christianity in with 'religion'...
Christianity being, in fact, a religion, yes, I can.
-
Ah yes.. pink unicorns. If I told you I believed in invisible pink unicorns, you'd think I'm a dumbass. But if I told you I believed in burning and talking bushes, or that walking on water was possible, I'd be perfectly ok in doing so. Strange isn't it? Kaiser, I'm really not interested in your pseudo intelligent babble, so keep it to yourself.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
The bible actually mentions Unicorns and Dragons too. Of course Red says these parts should not be taken literally though. :rolleyes: This is off topic, but check out the Universe Today site for October 12th. http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/12/astrosphere-for-october-12th-2008/
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can't prove your own without assuming something more important so don't get cocky.
Sure I can. "I think therefore I am." It takes much more assumptions to prove that I don't exist in any "Through The Looking Glass" manner.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Whether science is the best method for discovering things.
And what are the measurable alternatives?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
Sure I can. "I think therefore I am."
:laugh:Wasn't it you who was complaining just a moment ago about circularity of reasoning:laugh:If you think that proves anything then just worry about reasoning at all to start with.
Chris Austin wrote:
And what are the measurable alternatives?
I assume you mean the scientifically measurable alternatives so that you can evaluate the alternatives to science in term of science thus invalidating any comparison and proving nothing? Just checking but that is what you were about to suggest isn't it:laugh::laugh: I shouldn't tease but you make it too easy.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
The bible actually mentions Unicorns and Dragons too. Of course Red says these parts should not be taken literally though. :rolleyes: This is off topic, but check out the Universe Today site for October 12th. http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/12/astrosphere-for-october-12th-2008/
I Have No Username wrote:
The bible actually mentions Unicorns and Dragons too. Of course Red says these parts should not be taken literally though.
And those are the saner parts...
I Have No Username wrote:
This is off topic, but check out the Universe Today site for October 12th.
Real nice picture you shot there! Ok, that settles it. The budget for next fall includes a telescope...
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Sure I can. "I think therefore I am."
:laugh:Wasn't it you who was complaining just a moment ago about circularity of reasoning:laugh:If you think that proves anything then just worry about reasoning at all to start with.
Chris Austin wrote:
And what are the measurable alternatives?
I assume you mean the scientifically measurable alternatives so that you can evaluate the alternatives to science in term of science thus invalidating any comparison and proving nothing? Just checking but that is what you were about to suggest isn't it:laugh::laugh: I shouldn't tease but you make it too easy.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Wasn't it you who was complaining just a moment ago about circularity of reasoning
I'm glad you have a sense of humor. I was trying to hit that nail right on the head.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
assume you mean the scientifically measurable alternatives so that you can evaluate the alternatives to science in term of science thus invalidating any comparison and proving nothing? Just checking but that is what you were about to suggest isn't it
Not necessarily. But since you brought it up, if you aren't using a set of proven standards to measure progress, how do you know if you are discovering things or making them up in your head? I think it is a valid question that is worth more than just dismissing.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
The bible actually mentions Unicorns and Dragons too. Of course Red says these parts should not be taken literally though. :rolleyes: This is off topic, but check out the Universe Today site for October 12th. http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/12/astrosphere-for-october-12th-2008/
I Have No Username wrote:
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/12/astrosphere-for-october-12th-2008/
Great Shots. Did you get any of Jupiter this summer?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can apply what you like to irrational nonsense religions but in the context of Christianity
And you truly do not see any irony in the fact that members of other religions see Christianity as an "irrational nonsense religion"?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
An absurd statement as the historical texts are crammed full of supernatural acts from creation itself to the religious cook off on Mount Carmel through just about every recorded event in Jesus' life to Paul and Silas getting out of jail and ending with Revelation a miraclous vision of future history.
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified? Who was the observer and author of this historical text?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the case of the Bible there simply isn't any.
Have you actually read the Bible? Both testaments? You see no contradictions, no inaccuracy, nothing that could possibly be in the least bit subjective?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Such as?
Genesis? Revelations?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I would not call anything 1800+ years old as such. Besides what exactly is the contradiction between new and divinely inspired?
What is the evidence of divine inspiration? (And not all changes are that old.)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I can point to several million Chinese Christians who would disagree.
Yes, Judaism and Islam also exist in China. They were brought by missionaries -- who were undoubtedly Christian, Jew, and Muslim through accident of birth, by the way -- and are still a relatively tiny minority.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You simply can't lump Christianity in with 'religion'...
Christianity being, in fact, a religion, yes, I can.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And you truly do not see any irony
Of course I see the irony, it's simply unfounded.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified?
Genesis.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Who was the observer
God, a 100% reliable witness.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
and author of this historical text?
Moses under divine inspiration, probably actually transcribed by Aaron.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Have you actually read the Bible?
Yes
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Both testaments?
Yes
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You see no contradictions, no inaccuracy
There are none.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
nothing that could possibly be in the least bit subjective?
Everything can be considered subjective by anyone who chooses to. Doesn't mean they're right of course. There are many misunderstandings of Genesis and Revelation and in fact every book in between. Many people do fail to distinguish symbolism from the literal in both directions. Only the Spirit of God can interpret the word of God. All mans attempts and all his understanding is to some degree incomplete and flawed.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
who were undoubtedly Christian, Jew, and Muslim through accident of birth
You cannot be a Christian by accident of birth for 2 simple reasons. No birth is an accident in the sight of God and no one becomes a Christian by being born once, only by being born again of the Spirit of God can you become a Christian. Repeating this nonsense just shows a lack of understanding.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Christianity being, in fact, a religion, yes, I can.
Only by utterly misunderstanding everything that it is. There is simply nothing useful that can be applied to the generalisation 'religion' much beyond a simple definition because they have so little in common. Failure to recognise this just disqualifies you from passing comment anyway.
Nothing is
-
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument only appeals to multiculturalists who are dumb enough to think that stupid ideas warrant equal consideration.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument only appeals to multiculturalists who are dumb enough to think that stupid ideas warrant equal consideration.
You have it bass ackwards. The whole reason the FSM was created was to point out that stupid ideas (Intelligent Design in this case) don't deserve equal consideration.
-
I Have No Username wrote:
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/10/12/astrosphere-for-october-12th-2008/
Great Shots. Did you get any of Jupiter this summer?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You can apply what you like to irrational nonsense religions but in the context of Christianity
And you truly do not see any irony in the fact that members of other religions see Christianity as an "irrational nonsense religion"?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
An absurd statement as the historical texts are crammed full of supernatural acts from creation itself to the religious cook off on Mount Carmel through just about every recorded event in Jesus' life to Paul and Silas getting out of jail and ending with Revelation a miraclous vision of future history.
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified? Who was the observer and author of this historical text?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the case of the Bible there simply isn't any.
Have you actually read the Bible? Both testaments? You see no contradictions, no inaccuracy, nothing that could possibly be in the least bit subjective?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Such as?
Genesis? Revelations?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I would not call anything 1800+ years old as such. Besides what exactly is the contradiction between new and divinely inspired?
What is the evidence of divine inspiration? (And not all changes are that old.)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I can point to several million Chinese Christians who would disagree.
Yes, Judaism and Islam also exist in China. They were brought by missionaries -- who were undoubtedly Christian, Jew, and Muslim through accident of birth, by the way -- and are still a relatively tiny minority.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You simply can't lump Christianity in with 'religion'...
Christianity being, in fact, a religion, yes, I can.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified? Who was the observer and author of this historical text?
Christianity is not based on Genesis and Genesis lays no claim to first-hand accounts like many other biblical books. Christianity is based on the New Testament. It is a set of first-hand eyewitness accounts and being Christian is every bit as reasonable and "logical" as believing that Cleopatra was the ruler of Egypt. In fact, there are more first hand accounts of Christ's life than Cleopatra's. But let's not let that get in the way!
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
I Have No Username wrote:
The bible actually mentions Unicorns and Dragons too. Of course Red says these parts should not be taken literally though.
And those are the saner parts...
I Have No Username wrote:
This is off topic, but check out the Universe Today site for October 12th.
Real nice picture you shot there! Ok, that settles it. The budget for next fall includes a telescope...
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Wasn't it you who was complaining just a moment ago about circularity of reasoning
I'm glad you have a sense of humor. I was trying to hit that nail right on the head.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
assume you mean the scientifically measurable alternatives so that you can evaluate the alternatives to science in term of science thus invalidating any comparison and proving nothing? Just checking but that is what you were about to suggest isn't it
Not necessarily. But since you brought it up, if you aren't using a set of proven standards to measure progress, how do you know if you are discovering things or making them up in your head? I think it is a valid question that is worth more than just dismissing.
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
if you aren't using a set of proven standards to measure progress
Who's talking about measuring? you're thinking scientifically again.
Chris Austin wrote:
or making them up in your head?
If you don't know if you're making things up in yor head then you have a serious problem:)
Chris Austin wrote:
think it is a valid question that is worth more than just dismissing.
Of course. I hope you begin to see my point, science is your paradigm, your way of thinking, you cannot escape it, neutrally evaluate it, or even apply the tests of science to science itself. This is not a critisism but it is precisely the warning I gave earlier, don't impose the limits of your own thinking on external reality and refuse to look beyond the boudaries you've set. You cannot use science to evaluate Christianity any more than you can use science to evaluate science, or climb outside your own head or eat the universe for breakfast. It's what is known as a domain error. Christianity is the exterior domain and all arguments should proceed from there.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Christianity is not "arbitrary" like the Spaghetti Monster in that it is based on historical texts. You know...Kind of like our understanding of Socrates.
While there are parts of Christianity that are based on historical texts, the supernatural aspects are certainly not. Add to that the inaccuracy of historical texts, the widespread misinterpretation of obvious metaphor as literal truth, the acceptance of relatively modern additions -- and omissions -- as divinely inspired, and the fact that which mythology you believe is largely an accident of birth, and you'll understand why more rational people find religious satire humorous.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
While there are parts of Christianity that are based on historical texts, the supernatural aspects are certainly not.
I thought you said you've read the Bible. Apparently you lied.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument only appeals to multiculturalists who are dumb enough to think that stupid ideas warrant equal consideration.
You have it bass ackwards. The whole reason the FSM was created was to point out that stupid ideas (Intelligent Design in this case) don't deserve equal consideration.
James L. Thomson wrote:
You have it bass ackwards. The whole reason the FSM was created was to point out that stupid ideas (Intelligent Design in this case) don't deserve equal consideration.
That was the point I made[^]. However, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is widely used by atheists as a parody against theism (as it was here).
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified? Who was the observer and author of this historical text?
Christianity is not based on Genesis and Genesis lays no claim to first-hand accounts like many other biblical books. Christianity is based on the New Testament. It is a set of first-hand eyewitness accounts and being Christian is every bit as reasonable and "logical" as believing that Cleopatra was the ruler of Egypt. In fact, there are more first hand accounts of Christ's life than Cleopatra's. But let's not let that get in the way!
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Christianity is not based on Genesis and Genesis lays no claim to first-hand accounts like many other biblical books. Christianity is based on the New Testament. It is a set of first-hand eyewitness accounts and being Christian is every bit as reasonable and "logical" as believing that Cleopatra was the ruler of Egypt. In fact, there are more first hand accounts of Christ's life than Cleopatra's. But let's not let that get in the way!
I was responding to Matthew's assertion that creation was the subject of an historical text.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
While there are parts of Christianity that are based on historical texts, the supernatural aspects are certainly not.
I thought you said you've read the Bible. Apparently you lied.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
I thought you said you've read the Bible. Apparently you lied.
You fail to differentiate between the historical and the mythological.
-
James L. Thomson wrote:
You have it bass ackwards. The whole reason the FSM was created was to point out that stupid ideas (Intelligent Design in this case) don't deserve equal consideration.
That was the point I made[^]. However, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is widely used by atheists as a parody against theism (as it was here).
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
James L. Thomson wrote:
You have it bass ackwards. The whole reason the FSM was created was to point out that stupid ideas (Intelligent Design in this case) don't deserve equal consideration.
That was the point I made[^]. However, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is widely used by atheists as a parody against theism (as it was here).
How exactly does that contradict the "stupid ideas don't deserve equal consideration" theme?
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And you truly do not see any irony
Of course I see the irony, it's simply unfounded.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
In which historical text is the biblical creation myth verified?
Genesis.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Who was the observer
God, a 100% reliable witness.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
and author of this historical text?
Moses under divine inspiration, probably actually transcribed by Aaron.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Have you actually read the Bible?
Yes
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Both testaments?
Yes
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You see no contradictions, no inaccuracy
There are none.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
nothing that could possibly be in the least bit subjective?
Everything can be considered subjective by anyone who chooses to. Doesn't mean they're right of course. There are many misunderstandings of Genesis and Revelation and in fact every book in between. Many people do fail to distinguish symbolism from the literal in both directions. Only the Spirit of God can interpret the word of God. All mans attempts and all his understanding is to some degree incomplete and flawed.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
who were undoubtedly Christian, Jew, and Muslim through accident of birth
You cannot be a Christian by accident of birth for 2 simple reasons. No birth is an accident in the sight of God and no one becomes a Christian by being born once, only by being born again of the Spirit of God can you become a Christian. Repeating this nonsense just shows a lack of understanding.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Christianity being, in fact, a religion, yes, I can.
Only by utterly misunderstanding everything that it is. There is simply nothing useful that can be applied to the generalisation 'religion' much beyond a simple definition because they have so little in common. Failure to recognise this just disqualifies you from passing comment anyway.
Nothing is
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Of course I see the irony, it's simply unfounded.
And with that, we're neck-deep in the stuff.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Genesis.
Creation myth != historical text.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
God, a 100% reliable witness.
At least as reliable as Odin, Zeus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Moses under divine inspiration, probably actually transcribed by Aaron.
You should examine at some point a metaphorical interpretation of the biblical creation myth. You might find it interesting.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There are none.
Talk to a theologian, talk to a bible scholar...hell, fire up Google and search for "biblical contradictions". Then explain away. It is a book, written by many men, and, while it may contain truth, is not without flaw.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Everything can be considered subjective by anyone who chooses to. Doesn't mean they're right of course.
Within the context of human experience, "this water is cold" is subjective, while "this water is wet" is not. You can call objectivity a universally held subjective view if you are so philosophically inclined.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There are many misunderstandings of Genesis and Revelation and in fact every book in between. Many people do fail to distinguish symbolism from the literal in both directions. Only the Spirit of God can interpret the word of God. All mans attempts and all his understanding is to some degree incomplete and flawed.
But much of the Bible is not the literal, dictated word of God, but the recollections of men, and their attempts to put into words their understanding and interpretation of the word of God. Thus, by your own assertions, the Bible is flawed. In any case, while it is certainly a document of historical relevance, it is not an historical document.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You cannot be a Christian by accident of birth for 2 simple reasons. No birth is an accident in the sight of God and no one becomes a Christian by being born once, only by being born again of the Spirit of God can you beco
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Of course I see the irony, it's simply unfounded.
And with that, we're neck-deep in the stuff.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Genesis.
Creation myth != historical text.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
God, a 100% reliable witness.
At least as reliable as Odin, Zeus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Moses under divine inspiration, probably actually transcribed by Aaron.
You should examine at some point a metaphorical interpretation of the biblical creation myth. You might find it interesting.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There are none.
Talk to a theologian, talk to a bible scholar...hell, fire up Google and search for "biblical contradictions". Then explain away. It is a book, written by many men, and, while it may contain truth, is not without flaw.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Everything can be considered subjective by anyone who chooses to. Doesn't mean they're right of course.
Within the context of human experience, "this water is cold" is subjective, while "this water is wet" is not. You can call objectivity a universally held subjective view if you are so philosophically inclined.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There are many misunderstandings of Genesis and Revelation and in fact every book in between. Many people do fail to distinguish symbolism from the literal in both directions. Only the Spirit of God can interpret the word of God. All mans attempts and all his understanding is to some degree incomplete and flawed.
But much of the Bible is not the literal, dictated word of God, but the recollections of men, and their attempts to put into words their understanding and interpretation of the word of God. Thus, by your own assertions, the Bible is flawed. In any case, while it is certainly a document of historical relevance, it is not an historical document.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You cannot be a Christian by accident of birth for 2 simple reasons. No birth is an accident in the sight of God and no one becomes a Christian by being born once, only by being born again of the Spirit of God can you beco
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Creation myth != historical text.
Except in this case.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
At least as reliable as Odin, Zeus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The difference being they don't exist, are the fictional creations of men. Not the creators of everything.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You should examine at some point a metaphorical interpretation of the biblical creation myth. You might find it interesting.
Why do you assume that I haven't. The word is bilge.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Talk to a theologian, talk to a bible scholar...hell, fire up Google and search for "biblical contradictions". Then explain away. It is a book, written by many men, and, while it may contain truth, is not without flaw.
It is beyond the complete understanding of all of these so how would they, or you, or I, know. "All scripture is God breathed", not subjectively but objectively and historically. Who can testify to this but God himself and so he does. Who is able to qualify, to interpret, to evaluate scripture, only God.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Thus, by your own assertions, the Bible is flawed.
Don't put words in my mouth and certainly not blasphemy. Utter unmitigated nonsense. You have have no concept of what divine inspiration is.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And failing to recognize the vast commonalities disqualifies you from reasoned discourse on the subject.
You see only the commonalities because they are all the unimportant, false, insignficant, man-made fluff, whereas you don't know, understand, or see, the things that are important sadly.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.