|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 138 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-25-10 | | cormier: I, <John, had a vision of a great multitude,
which no one could count,
from every nation, race, people, and tongue>.
<They stood before the throne and before the Lamb>,
<wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands>.Then one of the elders said to me,
“<These are the ones who have survived the time of great distress;
they have washed their robes
and made them white in the blood of the Lamb>. “For this reason they stand before God’s throne
and worship him day and night in his temple.
<The one who sits on the throne will shelter them>.
They will not hunger or thirst anymore,
nor will the sun or any heat strike them.
For <the Lamb who is in the center of the throne
will shepherd them
and lead them to springs of life-giving water>,
and <God will wipe away every tear from their eyes>.” |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | achieve: PS - I think the most contrasting and revealing points of fallacious reasoning can be found in "inconsistency" -- and friction in that regard in the relative lack of emotional control and subsequent revelation of motives that originate from eg dogmatic thinking, upbringing, peer-pressure.... True motives, inconsistencies. They always come to the surface and into the light, no matter how hard one tries to conceal, precisely because it CAN NOT be prolongingly conceiled, per definition, as it often results from insufficient self-reflection over longer stretches of time. |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | YouRang: <I guess you find it plausible to posit a bunch of if this, then that claims.> It's called logic, and it's always worked well for me. But if you find fault with it, you're welcome to point it out. < I note you don't cloak any of those questions in the realm of relative likelihood. But the original statement wasn't a vague "if", which I guess includes a 1 in a billion shot. Your exact words were: < It very well may be >> I only put the "if" in there this time out of respect for the fact that you have questioned the validity of my original statement. <I will also note you have changed the terms of the discussion from "infallibility" to "scribal errors". The original context was infallibitliy which simply is not amenable to obvious scribal errors. You managed to tweak the discussion to suggest some vague notion of undetected scribal errors, which in fact matters not a whit in infallibility terms.> Nonsense. I started this particular discussion myself in this post: OhioChessFan chessforum I said: <... Unlike many Christians, I don't give the Bible a "free pass" regarding its infallability or inerrancy.For example, there are a some blantant contradictions that Christians generally dismiss as "copyist errors". Fine, but what about copyist errors that didn't get caught because they didn't happen to contradict other scripture?> I mentioned infallability and inerrancy. The point about copyist errors was simply an example of why I think inerrancy is a doubtful claim. Frankly, I thought it was a minor point and I didn't expect it to go further. It did go further only because you tried to dismiss the subject of unknown errors with a statement about known errors: <OCF: The vast majority of Scribal errors are name spellings, and numbers involving a degree/power of 10.> And on it went, until now when you accused me of tweaking. <That is, known or not, scribal errors are not part of the equation of the original discussion of infallibility. If you deny that, you need not address your hypothetical undetected errors, since the already detected errors renders any further discussion moot.> I don't disagree. That is, one who believes that the original inspired words of God were infallable need not change their position because of scribal errors. I never said they did. I am saying that the Bible that we have today cannot rightfully be claimed as inerrant if only because the reality of scribal errors -- some known, and perhaps some not known. Does this really need to go further? |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | cormier: But a second time a voice from heaven answered,
‘What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.’
This happened three times,
and then everything was drawn up again into the sky.
Just then three men appeared at the house where we were,
who had been sent to me from Caesarea.
The Spirit told me to accompany them without discriminating.
These six brothers also went with me,
and we entered the man’s house.
He related to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, saying,
‘Send someone to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter,
who will speak words to you
by which you and all your household will be saved.’
As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them
as it had upon us at the beginning,
and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said,
‘John baptized with water
but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us
when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,
who was I to be able to hinder God?”
When they heard this,
they stopped objecting and glorified God, saying,
“God has then granted life-giving repentance to the Gentiles too.” |
|
Apr-25-10
 | | OhioChessFan: Okay, a set of yes/no questions regarding this claim: <<... Unlike many Christians, I don't give the Bible a "free pass" regarding its infallability or inerrancy.For example, there are a some blantant contradictions that Christians generally dismiss as "copyist errors". Fine, but what about copyist errors that didn't get caught because they didn't happen to contradict other scripture?> 1. Does the term "infallibility or inerrancy" presume there is some difference between the two? 2. Does the phrase "for example" imply an application to both "infallibility" and "inerrancy"? 3. Does your suggestion of copyist errors mean to suggest the Bible is neither infallible nor inerrant? 4. Do you agree with this statment I made: <scribal errors are not part of the equation of the original discussion of infallibility. > FWIW, to be clear, I believe the originals were in fact infallible and inerrant. |
|
Apr-25-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: The point about copyist errors was simply an example of why I think inerrancy is a doubtful claim. > Who claimed inerrancy? |
|
Apr-25-10
| | OhioChessFan: My head is spinning after reviewing this. I will go find some definitions and see if we are least discussing the same thing. |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan>
<1. Does the term "infallibility or inerrancy" presume there is some difference between the two?> Good idea to seek clarification of terms. I see "inerrancy" as a subset of "infallibility". Specifically, the absence of errors. "Infallibility" is broader, to include completeness and genuineness as the word of God, as well as inerrant. 2. Does the phrase "for example" imply an application to both "infallibility" and "inerrancy"? Specifically inerrancy, but infallibility by implication. As I stated before, one can make a distinction between the originals what we have today, although in a practical sense, the distinction is moot because we don't have the originals. <3. Does your suggestion of copyist errors mean to suggest the Bible is neither infallible nor inerrant? > Copyist errors (known and unknown) would render the Bible, as it exists today, as lacking both inerrancy and (therefore) infallibility. <4. Do you agree with this statement I made: <scribal errors are not part of the equation of the original discussion of infallibility. >> Yes.
<FWIW, to be clear, I believe the originals were in fact infallible and inerrant.> Okay. You accept that I would say it's a statement of faith based on reason, whereas you seemed to indicate earlier that it was "all reason". Whatever -- not worth a debate. :-\ <Who claimed inerrancy?> On a couple occasions, <playground player> made that claim. You may have noticed that my first post was addressed to him. |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | cormier: As the hind longs for the running waters,
so my soul longs for you, O God.
Athirst is my soul for God, the living God.
When shall I go and behold the face of God?
Send forth your light and your fidelity;
they shall lead me on
And bring me to your holy mountain,
to your dwelling-place.
Then will I go in to the altar of God,
the God of my gladness and joy;
Then will I give you thanks upon the harp,
O God, my God!
<Athirst is my soul for the living God.
Alleluia.> |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | cormier: whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.
The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice,
as he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
When he has driven out all his own,
he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him,
because they recognize his voice.
But <they will not follow a stranger;
they will run away from him,
because they do not recognize the voice of strangers>.” |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | cormier: <Jesus said again, “Amen, amen, I say to you,
I am the gate for the sheep>.
All who came before me are thieves and robbers,
but the sheep did not listen to them.
<I am the gate.
Whoever enters through me will be saved,
and will come in and go out and find pasture>.
A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy;
<I came so that they might <have life and have it more abundantly>>.” |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | Ladolcevita: Hello OhihoCF
Why are there a lot of "Jesuses",I mean gospels in your forum?0.0 |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | YouRang: A couple typos in my last post:
<As I stated before, one can make a distinction between the originals <and> what we have today,> <You accept that I would say it's a statement of faith based on reason, ...>, er.. just drop that in the trash and replace it with <I would say that you believe that as a statement of faith based on reason, ...> |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | playground player: <You Rang> My "reason" and "honest desire to seek truth without bias"--that's what I ought to have as my highest authority? "Reason" I suppose will serve, as long as I'm not sick, tired, in possession of false information, the victim of a hoax, hungry, angry, distressed, etc. As for seeking truth without any bias in my search, I very much doubt that's possible. I've never met anyone who's free from bias; I don't think I ever will. Man makes a lousy substitute for God, and the works of man an even poorer substitute. So, yes, I will continue to posit that God exists and that the Bible is His word. My reason tells me that my reason is insufficient--in fact, it tells me that all human reason is insufficient: especially when united with arrogance and self-deception. It would be easy for you to assume that I'm not using my reason, that I haven't searched for truth... but you would be making that assumption in the absence of any information. Take my word for it that it took me a long and tortuous journey to arrive at this position. <Ohio Chess Fan> You're right, of course. If you weren't, I wouldn't make a daily habit of Bible-reading and study. Certainly I find the Bible's argument convincing. Even so, there will always be those who will never be convinced no matter what they read or hear or see. There is not one hopeless, wretched, ridiculous foul-up or screw-up in this world that did not start as a fine product of human reason--usually by intellectuals and experts. |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | cormier: <<playground player>> <There is not one hopeless, wretched, ridiculous foul-up or screw-up in this world that did not start as a fine product of human reason--usually by intellectuals and experts.> about these i would say they will get to the God but the way(road) is obiously longer, harder, full of detour .... as heaven is actual because God is always present anytime, anyplace and in any circumtance, He is everywhere and always ready for is children ..... tks |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | YouRang: <My "reason" and "honest desire to seek truth without bias"--that's what I ought to have as my highest authority?> Well, we weren't really talking about "highest authority". We were talking about "axioms", e.g. statements that people can accept as self-evident, as a starting point for advancing one's reasoning. But even if you want to talk about highest authority, I don't think there's really much choice. Even if you decide that the Bible is the highest authority, you only arrive at that conclusion by using some semblance of reason, no? <"Reason" I suppose will serve, as long as I'm not sick, tired, in possession of false information, the victim of a hoax, hungry, angry, distressed, etc. > Okay, but how does accepting a religion as highest authority free you from those problems? Aren't there some people who accept some religion as their highest authority because they were given "false information"? How do you know apart from reason that you are not a victim of a hoax? <As for seeking truth without any bias in my search, I very much doubt that's possible. I've never met anyone who's free from bias; I don't think I ever will.> Quite true, although I stated, "a *desire* to seek truth without bias". The "without bias" part implies an acknowledgement that bias exists, that it's undesirable, and that one should put forth their best effort toward recognizing and eliminating it. An important point: Even if it isn't possible to search for truth perfectly and without bias, it still remains a perfectly acceptable *goal*. Thus, the *desire* to strive toward this goal itself makes a noble axiom, IMO. <It would be easy for you to assume that I'm not using my reason, that I haven't searched for truth... but you would be making that assumption in the absence of any information. Take my word for it that it took me a long and tortuous journey to arrive at this position.> I am making no assumptions about your personal journey. However since you say that you've gone through a long and tortuous journey to get to where you are, wouldn't you say that your journey involved you, using your reason in an honest desire seek truth without bias? |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | cormier: for myself <YouRang>> my journey ... well i caused myself many problems without knowing i was doing so .... God always took care of me but i wasn't reconnising Him, others were helping me but i was expecting better always better until i understood that i was helping them with all my heart but i wasn't making the full-up at the stream in my heart toward myself enought ..... now i know, tks |
|
| Apr-26-10 | | cormier: His foundation upon the holy mountains
the LORD loves:
The gates of Zion,
more than any dwelling of Jacob.
Glorious things are said of you,
O city of God!
I tell of Egypt and Babylon
among those who know the LORD;
Of Philistia, Tyre, Ethiopia:
“This man was born there.”
And of Zion they shall say:
“One and all were born in her;
And he who has established her
is the Most High LORD.”
<All you nations, praise the Lord. Alleluia.> |
|
Apr-26-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: er.. just drop that in the trash and replace it with > One home field advantage is deleting and recopying posts where I make an important typo, spelling error, etc. |
|
Apr-26-10
| | OhioChessFan: Science and peer review:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/art... |
|
Apr-27-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Ladolcevita> I'm not sure, but feel free to share your thoughts pro or con. I have no problems discussing these matters. |
|
Apr-27-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang> I am right back to where I started. Consider these two statements: 1. <<... Unlike many Christians, I don't give the Bible a "free pass" regarding its infallability or inerrancy. For example, there are a some blantant contradictions that Christians generally dismiss as "copyist errors". Fine, but what about copyist errors that didn't get caught because they didn't happen to contradict other scripture?> 2. <Copyist errors (known and unknown) would render the Bible, as it exists today, as lacking both inerrancy and (therefore) infallibility.> <If> you think copyist errors prove the Bible is not infallible, then what exactly is the point of statement #1? In fact, I addressed this before, and stand by it: <<That is, known or not, scribal errors are not part of the equation of the original discussion of infallibility. If you deny that, you need not address your hypothetical undetected errors, since the already detected errors renders any further discussion moot.>> In fact, you do deny that, so you need not address the undetected errors issue. You can sit there and say it's not a big deal, but you did take the occasion to take a shot at "many Christians" who don't have a problem with the detected copyist errors. If either detected or undetected errors prove the case, there is simply no reason for you to bifurcate the two. |
|
Apr-27-10
| | OhioChessFan: One more point:
<YouRang:
1. <... Unlike many Christians, I don't give the Bible a "free pass" regarding its infallability or inerrancy.For example, there are a some blantant contradictions that Christians generally dismiss as "copyist errors". Fine, but what about copyist errors that didn't get caught because they didn't happen to contradict other scripture?> > 2. <I am saying that the Bible that we have today cannot rightfully be claimed as inerrant if only because the reality of scribal errors -- some known, and perhaps some not known. Does this really need to go further?> And here you jump back to the "Bible of today". I am not aware of a single person who'd say the Bible we have today has no scribal errors. Every Christian I know who would say the Bible is inerrant would reference the original autographs. If you are aware of that, you are once against creating a false argument. If you want me to say "Yes, there are possibly some undetected errors in the Bible of today", sure, I'd agree with that. Maybe someone had 10 sons and not 1 son. Maybe someone had 1000 cattle and not 100 cattle. But that isn't even on the radar as far as my belief the original manuscripts being inerrant, which is really what the whole discussion is about. |
|
| Apr-27-10 | | achieve: <OCF> - from the <apologetics> link: <The scientific establishment’s stance is similar to that of a child who forms an exclusive club, one of the stipulations for membership being that all members must be “extremely smart.” The child then includes in the by-laws the statement that all smart people should think that he (the founding member) is always right. Thus, he concludes that those who do not think he is always right are not smart. Then, he proceeds to malign those not in the club based on the idea that they are not smart. And as proof that they are not smart, he states that it is obvious they are unintelligent because they are not members of his club. In reality, his motivation for castigating those outside his club is simply the fact that they disagree with him [...]> errr.... Summarized:
- Because your paper is unscientific you may not publish - Because you can not publish you can not be peer-reviewed - since your paper does not appear in scientific journals *because* it is not peer-reviewed, it must be dismissed as "unscientific" <"if a paper even <<< hints at something other than a “natural” explanation>>>, it is rejected as “unscientific” regardless of the facts or research presented in the paper">. I don't see room for ANY discussion, and advocate a complete listing of all ID papers that have been submitted to scientific journals in the past few decades, and examine on which grounds they were dismissed. Or else I'm gonna cry and start my own journal... ;)) <“Most telling, perhaps, is intelligent design’s near total failure to make any headway in the peer-reviewed publications that are the gateway to scientific success” (Wexler, 2006, p. 94).> ROFL |
|
| Apr-27-10 | | whatthefat: <<"if a paper even <<< hints at something other than a “natural” explanation>>>, it is rejected as “unscientific” regardless of the facts or research presented in the paper">.> Well, obviously. Any unnatural explanation is untestable, and thus outside the realm of scientific investigation. Science does not attempt to prove or disprove miraculous explanations, so of course they do not belong in scientific journals. Suppose I have an experimental result I cannot explain, so I write "We attribute this finding to a miracle." This provides no more information than simply saying "We are unable to explain this observation", and in fact the former statement is more presumptuous - just because I have been unable to find a natural explanation for the observation, does not preclude one from existing. To me, it's jaw-dropping to see the EXACT same misinformation about science being posted elsewhere as <OCF> has espoused here. Is there a common source, or is this just a very common misconception? I'd like to believe it's just ignorance, but from the discussion here, it looks to me more like a deliberate resistance to understand. I say that because it doesn't seem to matter how many times I or <YouRang> try to describe what the point of science actually is, it just doesn't go in. <Mar 10, 2010
whatthefat: True, science doesn't attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God. God is beyond the domain of science. By the same token, science cannot attempt to answer questions like "Why does the universe exist?", "Why are there two types of electric charge and not three?", "Why is gravity an attractive force and not a repulsive one?", "What is consciousness?", "Why are we here?", etc. Such questions must remain philosophical, for there is no means of objectively addressing them.> <Mar 23, 2010
YouRang: Science is all about understanding nature. As such, science will *always* seek a natural explanation for observed facts. This means that science will *never* accept a supernatural, or miraculous explanation -- even if that supernatural explanation should happen to be true. This is not a bias against religion. It's simply working within the realm of science, which requires its theories to be *testable* within nature. Of course miracles performed by God at his whim are not.> <Mar 25, 2010
YouRang: In the same sense, the ban on miracles in science is better called "working within the rules of science" than to call it a "bias against religion".> <Mar 25, 2010
YouRang: CREATION SCIENTISTS accuse natural scientists of developing non-miraculous theories out of a motivation to reject the miraculous explanations of creation given in the Bible. This accusation is unfair because scientists develop non-miraculous theories because those are the only kinds of theories that science *can* develop.> <Mar 30, 2010
YouRang: "In science, the term natural science refers to a **naturalistic approach** to the study of the universe, which is understood as **obeying rules or laws of natural origin**."> <Mar 31, 2010
YouRang: Failure to understand (or at least acknowledge) that natural science is about seeking *natural* explanations for observed facts. As such, miracles are - by definition - excluded from consideration. Their claim that miraclulous explanations should be considered is outside of bounds to science.> <Mar 31, 2010
YouRang: Science takes no position on miracles. They can't be proven or disproven within the realm of science. As for the idea that "miracles can't happen and never have" -- for some scientists it is a personal belief. For science itself, it is merely an assumption.> <Apr 1, 2010
YouRang: I've tried over and over to explain that miraculous explanations are excluded from natural science -- not by bias, but by definition. But I'll try again> <Apr 3, 2010
whatthefat: Science does not and cannot attempt to answer questions that lie beyond the realm of the physical universe, and thus makes no judgment on whether there is a God, whether there is an afterlife, and which of the many contradictory scriptures are correct. <YouRang> has already made this same point a number of times, and it is a critical point. It is probably the greatest stumbling block in dialogue between scientists and the religious.> continued... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 138 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
rreusser/...