ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by Soulman

“Peacemaker…”

…apt.

If Clete is correct, then he should have no problem explaining how this particular episode “fits” in his “biblical worldview.” My prediction is that he’ll shift the blame. That this account, and many others, just as depraved, are glossed over and should NOT be read to children, under ANY circumstances, is the point. Much of the Bible isn’t fit for ADULTS to read.

Soulman, I apreaciate your questions. As Granite knows, I have been over this subject before,(trying to read the Bible to my young daughter) so I feel prepared for this subject. I also realize that I cannot speak for Clete. We should let him do that, if he desires to.

I do not recommend the plain scriptures to anyone but a mature reader. The unabridged Bible is not for everyone. However, just because the Bible is inapropriate material for an unsupervised child does not mean that an older reader cannot benifet from it. Therefor I feel that the position that you take in regards to it to me seems both biased and unreasonable. (I just so happen to not be a fan of unreasonable things.)

Originally posted by Soulman

Here’s a question: If The Holy Bible was a movie, with every scene depicted in all its Gibson glory, what “rating” would it receive?

The most extreme rating possible, I imagine, and I hope no one does that. God wasn't writing a movie-script you know. God was showing us what we are, which is just as accurate and depressing as the nightly news, character-wise. But let us be real with ourselves. I have kept an appearance of civility, but the truth is, I am no better than any of the people depicted on the nightly-news or in the Bible.

Originally posted by Soulman

Would Christians attend it, or picket it?

Picket, I would not - boycott I may, unless my curiosity got the better of me, as it often does. :chuckle:

Originally posted by Soulman

Let Clete defend this X-rated horror movie he likes dress up in Sunday-go-to-meetin’ clothes and call a “biblical worldview.”

Either you have a sadistic streak, or your period is due. I can't tell which, over the internet, though. Pleeese, don't bite my head off! :chuckle:

Originally posted by Soulman

Teaching a trusting child that snakes can sometimes talk, that the Bible, and only the Bible is true, and that they’ll go to hell if they don’t believe in Jesus, IS.

Nobody say ONLY the Bible is true. Anything that is reasonable is inspired by the Spirit of reason. AKA Wisdom. See Proverbs.

BTW, kids need to use their imagination. If it weren't for the "magic" in the Word of God, kids in Christian homes would lose that special part of themselves. Literally true or not, everyone needs those kind of "talking snake" stories. God made us that way.

Originally posted by Soulman


Resting in Me,
Soulman

:darwinsm:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by Balder

Hi, 1PeaceMaker,



I am somewhat familiar with string theory and superstring theory, but I haven't read much about the "master" theory that is developing out of them. These subjects are quite interesting to me, but I do not think the Biblical writers were talking about the P-brane when they were describing the hard vault of the sky...unless of course you believe that there is an ocean at the far edge of the universe, and that the hard P-brane separates that ocean from us (except, of course, when it rains).

Peace,
Balder

Ooooh, Dernit!:doh:
Dernit, dernit!:doh::doh:

I fergot to finish making my point in my previous post. My bad.

The firmament divides the waters' gathering spots of matter from the matter of other waters. Matter is formed when "water" (strings and other forms of vibrational of energy) gathers together via gravitons.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." The face of the deep was the singularity that was infinetly dense, infinetly hot... you know. I think you understand where I am coming from first the Logos is created. Then everything else in the universe.

The waters are then seperated from each other, via the Heavens.. there are waters under the earth, in separate dimentions, and there are waters over the earth, in comets, ateroids, other planets, and stars. And the heavens (plural) seperate all the different waters.


Now, you are so smart, you probably already know where I am going with this, so I am not sure if I should break it down, as to the possible theorys regarding this information's application to the flood story. But can you see where this is going? :think:

Now, back to the dudes writing the scrolls. Do I think they "got it?" Me personally? Nah, they probably were not thinking of "p" branes, although there is much of their ideas we cannot know, thanks to the "Holy" Roman Empire..

So let's assume for a moment that we've got these primative Bedoins, supposedly, writing a book. Now, like Einsteine, they don't know everything, but being inherently capable of all the attainments we are, they can be both spiritual poetic, and logical. So who's to say the Spirit of reason(wisdom) didn't inspire them to write down something that would be harmonious with their understandable worldveiw, and yet also harmonious with the ultimate truth?

What do you think, Balder? :think:

 

[Soulman]

Right on schedule, as predicted. Clete, asking a question in response to a question is not an answer; it's an attempt to shift blame (responsibility) away from yourself and back to the questioner.

Tell you what. I'll answer the question for you. The episode in question is “logically coherent” within the biblical worldview because talking snakes, stopping the sun, and X-rated scenes of betrayal, rape, and murder are normative in the biblical worldview. It may be "logically coherent" when compared to, say, smashing the skulls of infants, slaughtering women, and children, in battle, or carrying off captured virgins as “war booty”, but it hardly makes an obvious case for the "moral superiority" of the biblical worldview.

Soulman

 

[1PeaceMaker]

 

[Soulman]

Peacemaker:

The unabridged Bible is not for everyone. However, just because the Bible is inappropriate material for an unsupervised child does not mean that an older reader cannot benefit from it.

Understood. Yet, strangely enough, any child can purchase a Bible or have one happily given to them on request, no questions asked. No plain brown wrapper. No warning labels. In what way can an older reader “benefit” from this story? Are you a “better” person having been exposed to it? What is the “moral” of this story?

I am no better than any of the people depicted on the nightly-news or in the Bible.

I doubt that’s actually true, but you would know. Given the caliber of the character of the “heroes of the faith,” notorious for their serial moral failures, how difficult should it be to “live up” to the low standards of moral behavior routinely found in the Bible?

Either you have a sadistic streak, or your period is due. I can't tell which, over the internet, though. Pleeese, don't bite my head off!

Didn’t mean to direct that comment to you personally, but you’re shooting the messenger. In what way is characterizing the Bible as an X-rated horror movie “sadistic”? We’re already in agreement that an “unabridged” Bible is not suitable reading material for children. And that’s because…?

Nobody say ONLY the Bible is true. Anything that is reasonable is inspired by the Spirit of reason. AKA Wisdom. See Proverbs.

Sorry? NOBODY says only the Bible is true? That’s picking the pepper out of the fly doo-doo, don’t you think? I’d be willing to rephrase myself, to make the same point: “The only knowledge-wisdom that’s “true” is knowledge or wisdom conforming to the biblical worldview.” Okay?

Thanks for engaging.

Soulman

 

[Soulman]

Lighthouse:

There are other ways to find out you were deceived.

Ways other than a subjective experience of the written Word? Ways other than a subjective experience of the Holy Spirit? Is it fair to say that many of those who will hear the words “I never knew you” depended on the same “inner witness” as you? They were deceived. Others will be deceived. Isn’t that the object lesson?

I would think that the best you could say is that you THINK you’re saved, and HOPE you’re saved, but have no “real” assurance until you hear the words, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” If others, who merely “thought” they were saved are lost -- why not you?

Are you "immune" to deception? If so, what's your secret?

Thanks for engaging.

Soulman

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally posted by Soulman

Peacemaker:

Understood. Yet, strangely enough, any child can purchase a Bible or have one happily given to them on request, no questions asked. No plain brown wrapper. No warning labels. In what way can an older reader “benefit” from this story? Are you a “better” person having been exposed to it? What is the “moral” of this story?

It isn't porn, you must admit. So while I won't try to foist the concepts of rape, incest, etc. on my child, I would not freak if she picked up the Book as a 12 year old, or something. The details of any given encounter are not written like a detailed movie script.

Originally posted by Soulman

I doubt that’s actually true, but you would know. Given the caliber of the character of the “heroes of the faith,” notorious for their serial moral failures, how difficult should it be to “live up” to the low standards of moral behavior routinely found in the Bible?

Soulman, do you count yourself above anyone else? If you do, don't bother with the Bible. The Bible is for bad people. Or, for people to see who they truly are. if you haven't hit "rock bottom", you don't really know yourself yet.

Hey, maybe you are one of those lucky people who never wished someone would die, never felt dirty, never made a fool out of yourself, never acted like a lazy idiot, and never, never EVER took advantage of another human being.

Maybe you never acted like a total hypocrite.

If so, I am honored to have the pleasure of actually talking to you.

As for me, I am no different than the avarage Joe.(or rather, Jane) Strip me of all my decent upright training, and the positive peer pressure of others, put me in a compromized setting, and I will act like every other evil-doer out there by "nature".

Welcome to the real world.

Adam and Eve before the fall were pure potetentiality. They were neither mortal, nor immortal. The same is true of all who are born. What you grow into is caused by everything around and in you. You cannot take credit for what you are by nature(geneticly or whatever) and you cannot take credit for the influences around you. You can only choose. And, given that your choice is a mere response, to some degree you cannot even credit yourself with your own choices.

The same is really true to some degree of God, for we are made in His image. He does what he does because He is who He is. He is uncreated, so He isn't self-made. Ah, but now I digress..

Originally posted by Soulman

Didn’t mean to direct that comment to you personally, but you’re shooting the messenger. In what way is characterizing the Bible as an X-rated horror movie “sadistic”?

I think I was referring to your personal enjoyment, of taunting Clete. It seemed rather mean to me. You didn't need to do that to make a point.

Originally posted by Soulman

We’re already in agreement that an “unabridged” Bible is not suitable reading material for children. And that’s because…?

Because, I don't want to read it to them and have massive concepts fly over their heads, or unnessicarily disturb them. They need to first attain a certain level of complexity, laying the foundation for the knowledge they will receive.

Originally posted by Soulman

Sorry? NOBODY says only the Bible is true? That’s picking the pepper out of the fly doo-doo, don’t you think?

Alright, I made a blanket statement. Anything is possible. Some fool could actually think that, and we can rule out the possibility of anyone having that extreme form of illogic outside of a mental institution. So no, I am not picking stuff out of doo-doo.

Originally posted by Soulman

I’d be willing to rephrase myself, to make the same point: “The only knowledge-wisdom that’s “true” is knowledge or wisdom conforming to the biblical worldview.” Okay?

That does sound better, I must admit. And since to me, the Bible is a book of spiritual dimentions, it is that FIRST. If it is spiritually logical, then I can see other logic points start to line up. (see my post to Balder, on this thread)

Originally posted by Soulman

Thanks for engaging.

Soulman

And thank you.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Hey, I just wanted folks to know I edited post #442 to make it sound more.... sane and coherant.

 

[Balder]

Hi, 1PeaceMaker,

I also like studying these things, and I also see some parallels between modern theories and teachings in my own tradition of Buddhism. Perhaps these ancient writers were privvy to some of these "deep" truths about the nature of reality and had to express them in the language and metaphors of their day. But perhaps they were also wrong about some things. Wind and hail and other meteorological phenomena are not kept in storehouses; Mount Meru is not really at the center of 4 symmetrical continents.

In your example above, you appear to be using "water" in two ways -- one, as vibratory the superstring reality that underlies all matter; and two, as real water which is scattered across the universe (not really separated by a metallic vault). It appears to me as if you're really stretching the Biblical images, and ignoring certain parts of the Biblical picture to make your point, but I would be interested if you could build a coherent picture that takes account of the other images as well.

But let me be clear here: the reason I brought this issue up in the first place is to counter the claim that only a Biblical worldview is sufficient for explaining the universe, the laws of logic, the foundation of mathematics, the existence of matter and animals and people, the operation of morality, etc, etc. It seems to me that people are being awfully selective in making that claim, ignoring the very mythological nature of much of the Biblical worldview (which parallels many similar myths around the world and therefore is in no way unique). If the Bible truly represents the only coherent, logical, absolutely true portrait of the universe, including its nature, origin, and organization, then how do you account for its presupposing the mythological (and incorrect) worldview I've described above?

I do not have any desire to discredit the Bible or the insights or wisdom it may contain altogether; but I do rather strongly object to the pretension that the Biblical worldview is the only logical or coherent one, for the above reasons as well as many more.

Peace,
Balder

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Balder wrote,

In your example above, you appear to be using "water" in two ways -- one, as vibratory the superstring reality that underlies all matter; and two, as real water which is scattered across the universe (not really separated by a metallic vault). It appears to me as if you're really stretching the Biblical images, and ignoring certain parts of the Biblical picture to make your point, but I would be interested if you could build a coherent picture that takes account of the other images as well.

Maybe I will start a thread for that soon. You never know.

But let me be clear here: the reason I brought this issue up in the first place is to counter the claim that only a Biblical worldview is sufficient for explaining the universe, the laws of logic, the foundation of mathematics, the existence of matter and animals and people, the operation of morality, etc, etc. It seems to me that people are being awfully selective in making that claim, ignoring the very mythological nature of much of the Biblical worldview (which parallels many similar myths around the world and therefore is in no way unique). If the Bible truly represents the only coherent, logical, absolutely true portrait of the universe, including its nature, origin, and organization, then how do you account for its presupposing the mythological (and incorrect) worldview I've described above?

Balder,

The Bible is not a description so much of a physical universe, but a Spiritual one.

 

[Clete]

Soulman was asked to answer a question and explain his answer, he said...

Originally posted by Soulman
To answer your question, Clete, depends on the story, doesn’t it. Reading an age-appropriate “Bible story” to a child is not, in and of itself, “immoral.”

Teaching a trusting child that snakes can sometimes talk, that the Bible, and only the Bible is true, and that they’ll go to hell if they don’t believe in Jesus, IS.

This answers the question (sort of) but with no explanation so I responded...

Originally poster by Clete Pfeiffer
Why?

To which Soulman responded...

Originally posted by Soulman

Right on schedule, as predicted. Clete, asking a question in response to a question is not an answer; it's an attempt to shift blame (responsibility) away from yourself and back to the questioner.

I did not answer a question with a question you didn't ask a question you stated that, "Teaching a trusting child that...they’ll go to hell if they don’t believe in Jesus, IS [immoral]". So I'm asking you why, that all. Why is it wrong (immoral) to teach such a thing to a child?

Tell you what. I'll answer the question for you. The episode in question is “logically coherent” within the biblical worldview because talking snakes, stopping the sun, and X-rated scenes of betrayal, rape, and murder are normative in the biblical worldview. It may be "logically coherent" when compared to, say, smashing the skulls of infants, slaughtering women, and children, in battle, or carrying off captured virgins as “war booty”, but it hardly makes an obvious case for the "moral superiority" of the biblical worldview.

I will discuss the moral implications of this episode in Scripture with you when you have established that you have any grounds upon which to make such moral observations and judgments in the first place (which I do not believe you will be able to do). Until you have done so, any such discussion would premature and inappropriate.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

The Bible is not a description so much of a physical universe, but a Spiritual one.

But where it does describe the physical universe, it apparently gets it wrong in a number of significant ways.

Don't get me wrong, though, 1PeaceMaker. I'm not saying the Bible does not teach spiritual truths. I'm just challenging the presuppositionalist claim (put forward by Bahnsen, and propagated by Hilston and Clete, among others) that the Biblical worldview is the ultimately rational, logical, and factually accurate one, such that all other worldviews are necessarily disqualified.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Balder

But where it does describe the physical universe, it apparently gets it wrong in a number of significant ways.

Don't get me wrong, though, 1PeaceMaker. I'm not saying the Bible does not teach spiritual truths. I'm just challenging the presuppositionalist claim (put forward by Bahnsen, and propagated by Hilston and Clete, among others) that the Biblical worldview is the ultimately rational, logical, and factually accurate one, such that all other worldviews are necessarily disqualified.

They are disqualified because they cannot account for rationality, logic and the ability to know facts in the first place. You can debate all day long about what the Bible means here, or is that piece of Scripture over there to be taken literally of figuratively or whatever and you can do that till the cows come home but until you acknowledge that the Biblical world view in general is true then you can get nowhere in the discussion because you've thrown out the baby with the bath water! There is no reason to analyze the Bible if by having discarded the Bible as a basis for one's world view you've discarded the very ground upon which it makes any sense to analyze anything at all. You are attempting to examine your eye sockets by removing your eyes. It won't work.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Soulman

Lighthouse:

Ways other than a subjective experience of the written Word? Ways other than a subjective experience of the Holy Spirit? Is it fair to say that many of those who will hear the words “I never knew you” depended on the same “inner witness” as you? They were deceived. Others will be deceived. Isn’t that the object lesson?

Those people didn't depend on the witness of the Holy Spirit. They depended on themsleves, and their own good works. And their own senses, which is why they quit believing it in the first place. They never had faith.

I would think that the best you could say is that you THINK you’re saved, and HOPE you’re saved, but have no “real” assurance until you hear the words, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” If others, who merely “thought” they were saved are lost -- why not you?

I have assurance.

Are you "immune" to deception? If so, what's your secret?

No. I've been decieved before. But the Spirit witnessed to my Spirit and revealed to me what the word of God said.

Thanks for engaging.

Soulman

No problem.

 

[dotcom]

Originally posted by lighthouse

dotcom-
Royal_Lion04 is saying what I, and logos_x [his brother], said. Religion [as a system] is obsolete. A relationship with Christ is what matters. Not a religious system.

lighthouse,

First, what is religion as a system?
Second, what is relationship with Christ without a religion?

Religion is alive and strong. Are you guys also claiming Islam as a religion is obsolete?

 

[Lighthouse]

I will repsond tonight, dotcom. I have to go to work.

 

[Balder]

Hi, Clete,

They are disqualified because they cannot account for rationality, logic and the ability to know facts in the first place.

Have you investigated this personally, or do you have faith in what Hilston and Greg Bahnsen say? Hilston claims he can show my worldview to be incoherent and incapable of accounting for these things, and you may have faith that he will be able to do so, but he has not been able to do so yet.

You can debate all day long about what the Bible means here, or is that piece of Scripture over there to be taken literally of figuratively or whatever and you can do that till the cows come home but until you acknowledge that the Biblical world view in general is true then you can get nowhere in the discussion because you've thrown out the baby with the bath water!

My contention is that if you hold that the worldview recorded in the Bible contains the only valid set of presuppositions from which to operate, then you have to account for why the Bible presupposes a mythological and discredited cosmology. What is the Biblical worldview in general, apart from the specific claims it makes about the origin, structure, nature, and organization of the universe? Which Biblical presuppositions do you think I need to take for granted before I examine its other presuppositions as well?

There is no reason to analyze the Bible if by having discarded the Bible as a basis for one's world view you've discarded the very ground upon which it makes any sense to analyze anything at all. You are attempting to examine your eye sockets by removing your eyes. It won't work.

Isn't this begging the question? Are you saying that I have to accept the Bible as true, regardless of its specific contents, in order to even be able to analyze its contents?

Peace,
Balder

 

[Royal_Lion04]

Originally posted by dotcom

Originally posted by lighthouse



lighthouse,

First, what is religion as a system?
Second, what is relationship with Christ without a religion?

First: Religion as a system is man trying to reach "enlightenment" by his own means.

Second: A relationship is a covenant between God and us, sealed in the blood of Jesus Christ. Which is the opposite of religion: God comes to us, we can't get to Him. Try as we may it simply does not work! But God on the other hand can make a relationship with Him possible because of the of the sacrifice He made, not anything we have done.

Religion is alive and strong. Are you guys also claiming Islam as a religion is obsolete?

People may be practicing religion but as I said before It does not work. It will always fall short, because nothing we do is good enough.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from the law has been made known, to which the law and the Prophets testify. This righteousnes from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)

 

[Soulman]

Clete, perhaps you thought I was being rhetorical.

How does the episode between the Levite and his concubine [Judges 19 and 20] fit into your "biblical worldview"?

You followed with an ethics quiz, and I complied, but you failed to answer that particular question.

Where I derive my moral authority is beside the point. You are shifting responsibility for your beliefs away from the concrete (the episode in question) to the inconclusive “ether” of a debatable, philosophical abstraction. We are not discussing MY worldview, or the Buddhist worldview, or the “Frodian” worldview. We are discussing the "biblical" worldview.

Taken at face value, the episode in question appears “reprehensible,” yet nowhere is it treated as such in the context in which it is found (or anywhere else). In fact, the opposite is true. God shows his “approval” of the Levite’s conduct by overlooking his behavior, as well as his perjured testimony, and rewarding the Israelites (and the Levite) with a tarnished “victory” over Benjamin.

No one is questioning your ability to debate the “generalities” of your position. In fact, I would submit that you’ve already done so, effectively, given the bias and limitations of the presuppositional method and a “biblical worldview” at variance (to say the least) with the observable world. Apply your position to this specific case, and we'll see how it holds up.

Soulman

 

[billwald]

(jumping in)

>First: Religion as a system is man trying to reach "enlightenment" by his own means.

>Second: A relationship is a covenant between God and us, sealed in the blood of Jesus Christ.


This is an example of Christian Gnosticism: re-defining common words and terms in a non-standard way so that only insiders can understand them.

Second, then the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Mosiac covenants were also sealed in the blood of Jesus Christ, right?