A case for religion, and against AA.

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,768
6,336
126
Why do you say that? I find the Bible very compelling.

Many do, but only after Blind Acceptance. It is terribly flawed and internally inconsistent. All you have to do is to read it as you would a book you already disagree with to see how flawed it is. AKA, read it critically.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
A god, as Christians propose, would not write or inspire such a book and expect it to be compelling.

This is just your opinion.

I ask, not to turn as ask you for "evidence", but because you and others seem so sure about your atheism, and how wrong the religion you used to follow is...I just think that one cannot be so sure that "B" is so right, without being absolutely positive that "A" is totally wrong.

Sure assuredness peaks my personal interest. You seem just as sure about your atheism as I am about the existence of God.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,768
6,336
126
This is just your opinion.

I ask, not to turn as ask you for "evidence", but because you and others seem so sure about your atheism, and how wrong the religion you used to follow is...I just think that one cannot be so sure that "B" is so right, without being absolutely positive that "A" is totally wrong.

Sure assuredness peaks my personal interest. You seem just as sure about your atheism as I am about the existence of God.

I can't be sure that Atheism is correct, there might be gods. I can be sure that no Religion has given any evidence to support that their respective gods exist. Until something real is offered up, I am not moving from my position on the matter.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
Many do, but only after Blind Acceptance. It is terribly flawed and internally inconsistent. All you have to do is to read it as you would a book you already disagree with to see how flawed it is. AKA, read it critically.

Usually, when atheists say examine the Bible "critically", they mean from a position of disbelief.

How about an "open-mind", free from incredulity?
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
No, I mean critically , specifically #3, the way you would any other writing.

How do you know we haven't already? I know, because since we believe it, we must not have examined it critically.

The same thing can be said about why you don't believe it...you never gave the book a serious chance.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,768
6,336
126
How do you know we haven't already? I know, because since we believe it, we must not have examined it critically.

The same thing can be said about why you don't believe it...you never gave the book a serious chance.

lol

Do you accept it as "Inerrant"?
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
lol

Do you accept it as "Inerrant"?

If you mean inerrant as far as translation(s) are concerned, no...as their are missteps in translations.

As far as inerrancy as far as it being "truthful", yes, I do believe that.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
No, you are correct such a discussion can't take place. That's why I use the rules accepted by almost everyone, including yourself.

Do you reject the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita? Do you believe in Allah as described by Mohammed or Krishna?
you use no rules accepted by myself.....because I don`t seek proof concerning my beliefs. I also cannot explain anything that you would understand without you asking for proof of my "FAITH".......

thus all your questions about if I believe in any description of Allah is as you would point out and I quote -- are baseless......

I do not believe that Muslims and Hindu`s worship the same God as "Christians"!
To understands that statement you need to have an understanding of both the Old and New testament......not just the old testament as Atheists are so quick to jump on what the old testament says.

You cannot have a discussion or an open dialogue when one side makes the rules..as in asking for proof , yet when you ask an Atheist to support what they say they cannot do any better than we do when asked us prove there is a God......

For example you cannot prove that there is no God.....
I cannot prove to you that there is a God........
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,768
6,336
126
If you mean inerrant as far as translation(s) are concerned, no...as their are missteps in translations.

As far as inerrancy as far as it being "truthful", yes, I do believe that.

Who discovered the empty tomb, what happened, and what did they do afterwards?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Do you accept it as "Inerrant"?

another ridiculous question. why?

Because you need to have an understanding of both the old and New testament and how they compliment each other.....

It`s easy to pick and choose and take out of context what is being said......

But if you understand that during the old Testament times we were under the law and in New Testament times we are under what is called the Age of Grace....

But to an Atheist this is so far over your head...and for some they would call this ridiculous......or fairy tales....crap...etc....

You really need to stop asking questions and using proof that a Christian could accept without calling your so called proof baseless prove there is no God.....that all..a simple request.....
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
If you mean inerrant as far as translation(s) are concerned, no...as their are missteps in translations.

As far as inerrancy as far as it being "truthful", yes, I do believe that.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,768
6,336
126
another ridiculous question. why?

Because you need to have an understanding of both the old and New testament and how they compliment each other.....

It`s easy to pick and choose and take out of context what is being said......

But if you understand that during the old Testament times we were under the law and in New Testament times we are under what is called the Age of Grace....

But to an Atheist this is so far over your head...and for some they would call this ridiculous......or fairy tales....crap...etc....

You really need to stop asking questions and using proof that a Christian could accept without calling your so called proof baseless prove there is no God.....that all..a simple request.....

The Gospels themselves are inconsistent.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
actually no they are not.... what you call inconsistent we would call truthful and accurate and composed by writers with various views......

This is a bad topic to broach over the internet, as people will simply google "bible contradictions" as if they haven't been repeating what sandorski said as a slogan.

Most people, when confronted face-to-face unexpectedly, don't have a clue what passages "contradict" which....they just repeat what others say.

I will never again discuss this over the 'net...I only get people in person and I see how much they don't know about these "contradictions".
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy -- Biblical inerrancy can nbe a very complicated subject....this Wikipedia article just touches the tip of the subject....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran2.htm

Description of biblical inerrancy:

Followers of many religions believe that their own sacred texts are inerrant. This is particularly true within the conservative wings of the world's major religions. For example:

bullet Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants generally believe the entire Bible to be inerrant. Their belief in inerrancy is based, in part, on 2 Timothy 3:16 which states that the Scriptures are "God-breathed."


bullet Muslims generally believe the Qur'an to be dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel, with words that came from Allah. Thus, it is inerrant.


bullet Members of the Baha'i Faith believe that the writings of their founder, Baha'u'llah, are inerrant.

However, there are exceptions. For example:

bullet The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes four canonized scriptures: the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Many Mormons consider them to be inerrant in their original form: However, the Church does not teach that the Bible is the Will of God. It teaches that the Bible contains the Will of God. "...the Bible makes no claim to absolute inerrancy, and in fact specifically repudiates this notion." 1

Since the religious texts of various religions and denominations differ greatly from one another, only one of them (at most) can be truly inerrant. The rest must contain at least some errors.



Terms associated with biblical inerrancy:

There are a number of additional Christian terms that are often used in connection with "Inerrancy:"

bullet "Plenary" means that the Scriptures are sufficiently complete and adequate to communicate God's will to mankind.

bullet "Infallible" means that the Bible passages "never deceive nor mislead." They can be relied upon.

bullet "Authoritative" means that the Bible, as the expression of God's will to us, defines what we are to believe and how we are to conduct ourselves." Steven Ibbotson states: "The Bible is authoritative because it is God's inspired word to humanity." 5 From these beliefs logically flow that it is "binding on all people." Everyone will eventually have to "give an account for how they lived in light of its teaching." 2 This concept has obvious difficulties when it is applied to persons who have never heard of Jesus, the gospel, the Bible, or perhaps even Christianity itself.

bullet "Autograph copies" refer to the original, hand-written copies of the books of the Bible. It is important to remember that none of the original copies exist. We only have access to copies of copies of copies of.....

bullet "Inspiration" is the belief that God monitored the authors of the Bible and prevented them from making errors in their writings. More details

The linkage between biblical inspiration and inerrancy:

The two beliefs that:

bullet God inspired the authors of the Bible and that


bullet The Bible is inerrant,

are closely related. One flows logically from the other. If one is not true it is difficult to conceive of a way in which the other would be true.

bullet Liberal Christians generally believe that the authors and redactors of the Bible were not directly inspired by God, and that they wrote material that contains errors. They based their writing on their own life experiences and the findings of science. Their writings reflect their personal:


bullet Knowledge about events in their past, which would have had many inaccuracies.

bullet Knowledge of ancient stories, legends, and myths. These would have been of questionable accuracy. Some would have been passed down and/or adsorbed from nearby Pagan cultures.

bullet Knowledge about the nature of the universe, the nature of human sexuality, etc. This would have been often in error because the writers lived in a pre-scientific age.

bullet Customs based on ancient Hebrew and Jewish culture which may or may not reflect the will of God -- either then or today.

bullet Beliefs about the nature, expectations, location, attributes, etc. of God, and his will for humanity. These beliefs would differ among the various authors.

Since the authors were able to rely only on upon their personal experiences and understanding, one would expect that the Bible would be errant. For example:
bullet Some of the writings would describe probably describe mythical individuals who never lived.

bullet Some would describe events that never happened or which happened differently from what was written.

bullet The Mosaic Law would have reflected only the beliefs of the writer(s) of the Pentateuch. They were not laws delivered to humanity by God.

bullet One would expect that the moral, ethical, spiritual, and religious teachings found in Bible passages would show differences of opinion and a gradual evolution of belief over the ten centuries during which the books of the Bible were written.

bullet Some of the passages could be expected to violate the will of God at the time they were written or now.


Most liberal Christians find that their interpretation of biblical passages demonstrates all of these expectations.


bullet Conservative Christians generally believe that the authors and redactors of the Bible were inspired by God, and that they wrote material that was error-free.


bullet Since God inspired the authors, they must have written inerrant text. Otherwise, God would have been in error or lying when he influenced the text. Being prone to error is not a normally accepted attribute of God.

bullet Since the Bible is inerrant and since the authors of the Bible were only human beings, they must have been inspired by God. Otherwise their writing would have contained errors due to human fallibility.

Since the authors were inspired and their writings inerrant then one would expect that:
bullet The Bible would reflect the will of God for humanity.

bullet Since God does not change, the Bible would be consistent and all of the passages can be harmonized with each other. One can use one or more passages to interpret another.

bullet The Biblical themes would show an amazing consistency from Genesis to Revelation.


Most conservative Christians find that their interpretation of biblical passages demonstrates all of these expectations.


It appears that ones belief about the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible profoundly influences how one interprets biblical passages. There is little hope of agreement between the various wings of Christianity until a consensus is reached on the concepts of inerrancy and inspiration.
 
Last edited:

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
From Post #485 "Who discovered the empty tomb, what happened, and what did they do afterwards?"
what descrepancies....in the 4 gospels 4 different accounts that all pretty much line up .....I am sorry there is no descrepancy when you consider that 4 different authors wrote about this event...if anything it is 4 different authors corroborating the event of the empty tomb....sorry...try again!

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/20...-contradiction-who-discovered-the-empty-tomb/

It’s important to clarify between a biblical inaccuracy (what others often call a contradiction) and what a Gospel writer simply chose to include or emphasize in his account. A contradiction is to affirm and deny the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect. A contradiction regarding the eyewitness testimony cited would be, for instance, that “only Mary Magdalene went to the empty tomb” – something no Gospel writers say – and “Mary and the other Mary” (Matthew 28:1) went to the empty tomb.

To shed a bit more light on the biblical passage you cited, John mentions only Mary Magdalene explicitly at the tomb in his Gospel (John 20:1). But if we read carefully we see in the next verse (20:2) that Mary tells Peter, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb but we don’t know where they have put him!” This supports the other Gospels when they say that other women went to the tomb with Mary, perhaps following closely behind. As the NIV Study Bible says, the we “indicates that there were others with Mary (see Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10), though John does not identify them.” So when John wrote his Gospel, he only mentions one woman by name but uses the plural pronoun “we” to indicate that others were with her.

Further, if the Gospel writers, two of whom were among the Twelve disciples of Jesus, wanted to fabricate a story about the resurrected Christ, it is unthinkable that they would have put women at the tomb first. It is well established that a woman’s testimony in the ancient world was generally not considered to be credible and that they were for the most part not allowed to testify in a court of law. See, for instance, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, by William Lane Craig.

Another popular “contradiction” cited by critics involves how many angels were at the empty tomb. Some accounts mention one angel (Matthew 28:5), while others say two (John 20:12). However, a contradiction would have one account saying “only” one angel was at the tomb while another account says there were “two angels.” A closer reading of these two texts suggests that it is very plausible that Matthew focuses on the angel who spoke and “said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid’” while John focuses on how many angels the women saw; “and she saw two angels.”

Here’s a modern example of what I mean. The Chicago Bears play their arch-rival, the Green Bay Packers, twice a year during the regular season. Both major Chicago newspapers cover every game between these two teams, along with the Green Bay Press Gazette.

Will the reporter for the Chicago Tribune file the same story, report the same key events in the same order, and describe big plays all in the same way as the reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times or the Green Bay paper? Of course not. Will they agree on many key parts of the game? Yes. Yet they were all eyewitnesses to the game.

The Tribune might boldly proclaim that a key play in the second half was a forced turnover by Bears defense star Brian Urlacher, while the Chicago Sun-Times notes that Brian Urlacher and defensive lineman Julius Peppers both contributed to the tackle. Was the Tribune wrong to not include Julius Peppers assisting on the tackle? No, it was not important to the bigger story – victory of the Bears over the Packers! We can look at differences in eyewitness testimony in the Gospels the same way.

In fact, if we examine biographies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, other Presidents, or famous men or women in history we see that some biographers choose to emphasize various things about seminal moments in their life or Presidency that other biographers do not. Different details noted by different eyewitnesses, however, does not mean that these things did not happen.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,768
6,336
126
what descrepancies....in the 4 gospels 4 different accounts that all pretty much line up .....I am sorry there is no descrepancy when you consider that 4 different authors wrote about this event...if anything it is 4 different authors corroborating the event of the empty tomb....sorry...try again!

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/20...-contradiction-who-discovered-the-empty-tomb/

It’s important to clarify between a biblical inaccuracy (what others often call a contradiction) and what a Gospel writer simply chose to include or emphasize in his account. A contradiction is to affirm and deny the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect. A contradiction regarding the eyewitness testimony cited would be, for instance, that “only Mary Magdalene went to the empty tomb” – something no Gospel writers say – and “Mary and the other Mary” (Matthew 28:1) went to the empty tomb.

To shed a bit more light on the biblical passage you cited, John mentions only Mary Magdalene explicitly at the tomb in his Gospel (John 20:1). But if we read carefully we see in the next verse (20:2) that Mary tells Peter, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb but we don’t know where they have put him!” This supports the other Gospels when they say that other women went to the tomb with Mary, perhaps following closely behind. As the NIV Study Bible says, the we “indicates that there were others with Mary (see Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10), though John does not identify them.” So when John wrote his Gospel, he only mentions one woman by name but uses the plural pronoun “we” to indicate that others were with her.

Further, if the Gospel writers, two of whom were among the Twelve disciples of Jesus, wanted to fabricate a story about the resurrected Christ, it is unthinkable that they would have put women at the tomb first. It is well established that a woman’s testimony in the ancient world was generally not considered to be credible and that they were for the most part not allowed to testify in a court of law. See, for instance, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, by William Lane Craig.

Another popular “contradiction” cited by critics involves how many angels were at the empty tomb. Some accounts mention one angel (Matthew 28:5), while others say two (John 20:12). However, a contradiction would have one account saying “only” one angel was at the tomb while another account says there were “two angels.” A closer reading of these two texts suggests that it is very plausible that Matthew focuses on the angel who spoke and “said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid’” while John focuses on how many angels the women saw; “and she saw two angels.”

Here’s a modern example of what I mean. The Chicago Bears play their arch-rival, the Green Bay Packers, twice a year during the regular season. Both major Chicago newspapers cover every game between these two teams, along with the Green Bay Press Gazette.

Will the reporter for the Chicago Tribune file the same story, report the same key events in the same order, and describe big plays all in the same way as the reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times or the Green Bay paper? Of course not. Will they agree on many key parts of the game? Yes. Yet they were all eyewitnesses to the game.

The Tribune might boldly proclaim that a key play in the second half was a forced turnover by Bears defense star Brian Urlacher, while the Chicago Sun-Times notes that Brian Urlacher and defensive lineman Julius Peppers both contributed to the tackle. Was the Tribune wrong to not include Julius Peppers assisting on the tackle? No, it was not important to the bigger story – victory of the Bears over the Packers! We can look at differences in eyewitness testimony in the Gospels the same way.

In fact, if we examine biographies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, other Presidents, or famous men or women in history we see that some biographers choose to emphasize various things about seminal moments in their life or Presidency that other biographers do not. Different details noted by different eyewitnesses, however, does not mean that these things did not happen.


Nice bit of Apologist spin. Neglects to mention that one account tells the women to tell the Disciples to meet Jesus at some location(don't recall which) and another account says the women didn't speak of it at all. One recollection even talks of zombies in Jerusalem, something not mentioned at all in other gospels and, as one would expect if such a thing would happen, not one non-Biblical mention of such a thing.

These are not just different witnesses recalling an event, they are conflicting fabrications written by people merely telling stories they had heard 3rd hand.

Now investigate the other bookend of the story, Jesus Birth.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Nice bit of Apologist spin. Neglects to mention that one account tells the women to tell the Disciples to meet Jesus at some location(don't recall which) and another account says the women didn't speak of it at all. One recollection even talks of zombies in Jerusalem, something not mentioned at all in other gospels and, as one would expect if such a thing would happen, not one non-Biblical mention of such a thing.

These are not just different witnesses recalling an event, they are conflicting fabrications written by people merely telling stories they had heard 3rd hand.

Now investigate the other bookend of the story, Jesus Birth.
and thats why I don`t discuss things like this with people like you.....
you as an atheist always has something to say....that just is not true.

My beliefs are my own personal beliefs and you can say my responses are bogus or irresponsible.....yet we all but explained to you why there is what you call descrepancies when in fact there are no descrepancys!

You have your mind made up and you did not read the entirety of what I posted....

including the examples you claim that there are discrepancies when in fact there are none!

There are only discrepancies to the atheism who cannot prove there is no God yet also knows little to nothing about the scriptures and the relationship of the Old testament to the new Testament...

You proved my point by your response -- calling this an apologist response....that is so stupids any response you would call that....or ridiculous..or conflicting even when a good example is presented you.... you see my point...

I am not going to keep answering your questions when you answer our questions with an Ignorant statement or some idiotic response...

Have a good night!

Jesus really does Love you!!
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,768
6,336
126
and thats why I don`t discuss things like this with people like you.....
you as an atheist always has something to say....that just is not true.

My beliefs are my own personal beliefs and you can say my responses are bogus or irresponsible.....yet we all but explained to you why there is what you call descrepancies when in fact there are no descrepancys!

You have your mind made up and you did not read the entirety of what I posted....

including the examples you claim that there are discrepancies when in fact there are none!

There are only discrepancies to the atheism who cannot prove there is no God yet also knows little to nothing about the scriptures and the relationship of the Old testament to the new Testament...

You proved my point by your response -- calling this an apologist response....that is so stupids any response you would call that....or ridiculous..or conflicting even when a good example is presented you.... you see my point...

I am not going to keep answering your questions when you answer our questions with an Ignorant statement or some idiotic response...

Have a good night!

Jesus really does Love you!!

There are discrepancies, if those are not, then the word is meaningless.

Jesus, if he existed, died 2000 years ago, doesn't know any of us, never mind has an opinion of us.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,878
4,432
136
For example you cannot prove that there is no God.....
I cannot prove to you that there is a God........

This right here should be all any normal person needs to not believe. All it shows is you believe in fairy tailes and make believe as a child would.