|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

Default Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

November 18th, 2013, 10:44
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Don't worry, I don't consider any of your nonsense factual
That only means i have to repeat myself more.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#101

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

November 18th, 2013, 18:55
Reason really doesn't come into defenders of the Bible as it being flawless and written by God. It's faith, superstition, and blind trust. Not that I am without faith myself, but within reason.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#102

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,857

Default 

November 18th, 2013, 21:28
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Reason really doesn't come into defenders of the Bible as it being flawless and written by God. It's faith, superstition, and blind trust. Not that I am without faith myself, but within reason.
"Faith" though is one of those weasel words that has been coopted by religion to mean something entirely different to it's every day use. I have faith in my friends, because I know them from past experience, but you can't have "faith" in something before you've even ascertained that that something exists. Establishing that something actually exists is an essential first step and it requires evidence and experience. So the faith argument is just another weak cop out based on a confusion of language.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#103

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 974

Default 

November 18th, 2013, 21:35
I don't think so. Some people really believe things just because of feelings. To me, that's what faith is about. Trusting your feelings without direct evidence of truth. But, it can't be reasoned about.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#104

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,857

Default 

November 18th, 2013, 21:59
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
I don't think so. Some people really believe things just because of feelings. To me, that's what faith is about. Trusting your feelings without direct evidence of truth. But, it can't be reasoned about.
But everyone knows beyond a shadow of doubt that such feelings in other people have been and are delusional in the case of any beliefs but their own. Isn't it then the height of self aggrandising arrogance/stupidity to imagine oneself alone as uniquely able to perceive the truth? And isn't that misplaced confidence in one's own rightness one of the most harmful delusions that afflicts the planet?
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#105

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 974

Default 

November 18th, 2013, 22:10
Except there are groups of people with the same feelings. It's called organized religion. Much more worrisome, I think, and troublesome. Look no further than the Middle East.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#106

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,857

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 02:11
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Reason really doesn't come into defenders of the Bible as it being flawless and written by God. It's faith, superstition, and blind trust. Not that I am without faith myself, but within reason.
This is simply not true. If you can point out a real flaw in the bible, one that people cannot have an answer for then it would make that religion into a minority religion.

Originally Posted by Roq View Post
"Faith" though is one of those weasel words that has been coopted by religion to mean something entirely different to it's every day use. I have faith in my friends, because I know them from past experience, but you can't have "faith" in something before you've even ascertained that that something exists. Establishing that something actually exists is an essential first step and it requires evidence and experience. So the faith argument is just another weak cop out based on a confusion of language.
The word faith for religion probably came before faith for people as another form of trust. But i dunno.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#107

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 02:20
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
If you can point out a real flaw in the bible, one that people cannot have an answer for then it would make that religion into a minority religion.
Nope. Religious faith isn't based on reason. Nonsensical explanations are not reasonable.

I gave you a huge list of flaws already. The explanations you gave me in return were nonsensical.

Really Damian you're not convincing anyone here.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#108

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,857

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 02:23
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Nope. Religious faith isn't based on reason. Nonsensical explanations are not reasonable.

I gave you a huge list of flaws already. The explanations you gave me in return were nonsensical.

Really Damian you're not convincing anyone here.
I didnt answer it myself it woudl have been a waste of time. You gave me a huge list that wasnt worth my time. 50% of those flaws you could answer if you used your brain yourself. Lets meet half way find ten of those flaws in that list you dont think i could answer.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#109

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 02:33
Just the first ten on the list. The website you linked me too was pure nonsense. But go ahead, knock yourself out. Your explanations in the past have not been reasonable, just like the website you pointed us to.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#110

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,857

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 03:38
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Just the first ten on the list. The website you linked me too was pure nonsense. But go ahead, knock yourself out. Your explanations in the past have not been reasonable, just like the website you pointed us to.
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
This quote speaks as if light and darkness cannot exist without the sun. God for example IS light and could cover himself for darkness as seen in Exodus.


GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
This is talking about a specific type of plant. Plants that need work for them to flourish. In GE 2:4-9 i am referring to.


GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
That is an error in the KJV. IT was plu perfect in the NIV.

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.



GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
It never says they were created together. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Implies man was made first.


GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)
This is not even a contradiction. And the quote form this guy is absurd.


GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience as well as with the fact that God allegedly does not change his mind: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17.)
Gods mind can be changed. http://www.soulwinning.info/bd/does_god_repent.htm

However he doesnt repent. Repent means a change of his ways. The phase used to says that repent is "it repented the lord" meaning that it was forcing God to repent. But he didnt repent.

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.
Ah yes this one. I was taught this in my Church. "The Lord" in Exodus if you look at the original Hebrew word in the concordance, is "Yahweh". The Jews didnt like using that word because they didnt want to use it in vain so they changed it to "The Lord".

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.
He died spiritually. With that he could have lived forever. God is also merciful. God knew that man regretted his actions and was scared so he gave them time to repent if they could.

GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.
It doesnt say it is "wrong" it was a command given by God.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#111

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 03:41
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
That is an error in the KJV. IT was plu perfect in the NIV.

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
This is actually wrong. It talks about farm bird and animals. Apologies.
Last edited by Damian; November 19th, 2013 at 10:47.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#112

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 04:47
GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.
Ah yes this one. I was taught this in my Church. "The Lord" in Exodus if you look at the original Hebrew word in the concordance, is "Yahweh". The Jews didnt like using that word because they didnt want to use it in vain so they changed it to "The Lord".
I have to redo this one aswell. Yahweh is also the word they used there it seems.

This is the answer i am looking at i will try to make it concise as possible later.

Jewish Commentators

The Targum of Pseudo Jonathan and medieval Jewish commentaries take it similarly. TPJ says that the name was known to them, but it was just sounds as the Shekinah glory had not appeared to them. Rashi said that El Shaddai was God's characteristic of giving promises and YHWH showed the fulfillment of said promises. However, Rambam said that El Shaddai demonstrated the providential power of God while YHWH showed the miracle-working power. Umberto Cassuto said El Shaddai referred to God as the giver of fertility (because El Shaddai is connected to Gen 17:1-2 and other passages with being fruitful) while YHWH is the One who carries out those promises. The patriarchs knew the name but they had no experience of what was entailed in the name.

W. J. Martin has suggested this translation.

I am YHWH. I allowed myself to appear to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai. My name is YHWH. Did I not make myself known to them?
Martin argues that the translation of the key clause as a question is demanded by verse 4 beginning with "And also I established my covenant." That would seem to imply that the preceding clause ought to be taken in a positive sense and not a negative sense, such as "by YHWH I was not known to them."

My understanding of Exodus 6:3 is that they knew the name but now they would experience the character of YHWH.

*More information on the beth essentiae can be found in Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. If that is not on hand, Waltke/O'Connor's Hebrew Syntax should have an entry on it. You may also see Zondervan's Pictoral Encyclopedia of the Bible s.v. "Name".

shareimprove this answer
edited Apr 9 '12 at 14:32

answered Apr 8 '12 at 23:23

Frank Luke
8,51212350

This is a just-so story allowing you to make the text self-consistent. None of these readings is supportable. "Be-El Shaddai" is an artsy but acceptable way of saying "using El Shaddai". I don't like unlikely stretching of text to fit a theology, when the text is unfriendly to this reading. The grammar contortions by theologically minded people make their analysis untrustworthy. As for the connotation, Shaddai->fertility/providence Yahweh->Miracles/direct-action, I agree. The distinction between the personal Yahweh and the impersonal Shaddai is due to the different vision of God in J and E. – Ron Maimon Apr 9 '12 at 0:56
1
@RonMaimon, shem with the connotation of reputation is well supported throughout the Old Testament (I listed several). Are you saying this is not the case? Also, are you saying that the beth essentiae is nowhere found in the Old Testament? – Frank Luke Apr 9 '12 at 2:01

"Shem" as "reputation" absolutely does appear in certain places, in a way exactly analogous to the following English construction "do not besmearch my good name by saying I murdered", but it is the context that decides when "shem" means "name" and when it means "reputation". The context of this verse, referring as it is to names, not to reputations is not ambiguous. Likewise the "beth essentiae" is just a use of the word "in" in a slightly unusual poetic way, and it is not surprising or ungrammatical, nor does it change the meaning. It certainly doesn't make "be-Shaddai" a reputation. – Ron Maimon Apr 9 '12 at 2:29
4
@RonMaimon, the downvote is your prerogative. However, "intellectual dishonesty" implies that either I am committing plagiarism or I have written something that I know is false. I have listed my sources above, and I assure you that I do believe what I have written. I am not committing any kind of intellectual dishonesty. – Frank Luke Apr 10 '12 at 2:16
2
This is an excellent, well-supported answer. +1. – Gone Quiet Apr 11 '12 at 14:16
show 9 more comments

Did you find this question interesting? Try our newsletter
Sign up for our newsletter and get our top new questions delivered to your inbox (see an example).
up vote
5
down vote
In addition Frank Luke's excellent answer, I've found some additional material that might be of interest. Duane A. Garrett (coauthor of A Modern Grammar for Biblical Hebrew) writes on Exodus 6:2c-3:

But the Hebrew text, as Francis I. Andersen points out, contains a case of noncontiguous parallelism that translators have not recognized: “I am Yahweh…and my name is Yahweh.” The “not” is therefore assertative in a rhetorical question rather than a simple negative, and it should not be connected to what precedes it (1974:102). In fact, the whole text is set in a poetic, parallel structure beyond what Andersen notes (see fig. 1).

Figure 1

The Structure of Exodus 6:2c–3

A I am Yahweh.
B And I made myself known to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai.
A' And My name is Yahweh;
B' Did I not make Myself known to them?
Unlike modern poetry, which is typeset in very conventional and often obvious ways, Hebrew poetry was often indicated through parallelisms. It would be rash to say that the Garrett's interpretation is certain, since parallel thoughts can occur in prose and would not force B' to be a rhetorical question. But by the same token, it does provide a reasonable doubt that the author of Exodus asserts that Moses was the first to hear the Tetragrammaton.

He further quotes Andersen:

There is no hint in Exodus that Yahweh was a new name revealed first to Moses. On the contrary, the success of his mission depended on the use of the familiar name for validation by the Israelites—The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (1974:102).
A portion of the NET Bible note on this text addresses the question directly:

[The] texts of Genesis show that Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs (Gen 12:1, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:24, 26:12, 35:1, 48:3), and that he spoke to each one of them (Gen 12:7, 15:1, 26:2, 28:13, 31:3). The name “Yahweh” occurs 162 times in Genesis, 34 of those times on the lips of speakers in Genesis (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:340-41). They also made proclamation of Yahweh by name (4:26, 12:8), and they named places with the name (22:14). These passages should not be ignored or passed off as later interpretation.
Personally, I find it odd that the redactor of Genesis and Exodus (assuming of course that it was just one person) would have missed this obvious contradiction. In the context of the story, this is the first time God has spoken to His people for many generations. All of God's promises, which seemed certain to be fulfilled at the end of Genesis, have seemingly been destroyed within the first chapter of Exodus. In fact, God immediately emphasizes that it is His intention to remember the covenant He had made to the Patriarchs:

I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they lived as sojourners. Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the people of Israel whom the Egyptians hold as slaves, and I have remembered my covenant. Say therefore to the people of Israel, ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment. I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I will give it to you for a possession. I am the LORD.’—Exodus 6:4-8 (ESV)
The plagues are structured to show God's power against the pantheon of Egyptian deities and His authority over creation. The emphasis of the entire passage seems to balance a continuity with the God of Genesis with the discontinuity of what He is about to do. It seems that the Israelites have forgotten, but the story tells us that God has not forgotten His previous commitment to them. He is preparing to shake them up and out of slavery to another nation in order to establish a nation of His own.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#113

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 06:35
Damian, the key to Ex 6:3 is actually the Hebrew word Shem and how it was used by the ancient Jews. It indicates more the personal character inherent in the name (YHWH) rather than its more general usage. As a simplistic example, Damian is a fairly common name, however, when I refer to YOU as a specific Damian, there is more meaning to the name (for me at least) than if I were just using the name in a generic sense. As a further point, those elements of character and nature were often obtained through personal experience.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#114

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,338
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 08:53
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Damian, the key to Ex 6:3 is actually the Hebrew word Shem and how it was used by the ancient Jews. It indicates more the personal character inherent in the name (YHWH) rather than its more general usage. As a simplistic example, Damian is a fairly common name, however, when I refer to YOU as a specific Damian, there is more meaning to the name (for me at least) than if I were just using the name in a generic sense. As a further point, those elements of character and nature were often obtained through personal experience.
Wouldnt Abraham atleast have know YHWH like that? In the reference it talks about big names in Jewish history that have dealt with YHWH on a more personal level than other Jews at the time. If what you are saying is true and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all had the same relationship with God as other Jews wouldnt it be written in reference on all Jews?
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#115

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 11:21
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
This quote speaks as if light and darkness cannot exist without the sun. God for example IS light and could cover himself for darkness as seen in Exodus.
Errr no. Light is an electromagnetic wave that interacts with matter, whereas bible God is a character (fortunately fictional) who likes to turn people into pillars of salt and commit mass genocides. Seriously, what does it mean to say: "God IS light", it's simply nonsensical and makes no more sense than saying "God IS water".
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#116

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 974

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 13:06
The "fictional" character God is described as light in the bible.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#117

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 13:11
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
The "fictional" character God is described as light in the bible.
That is so hilariously self-referential …

Look - Bible is AT BEST allegorical, if it is literal, then 'real' Christians should be going around killing many more people for the affronts that are punishable by death. Why don't they? Because people pick and choose what is literal, and what was 'of the times'. Scholars disagree on major passages, and there are huge swaths of unexplainable or contradictory things.

Have faith all you want, but it is anti-intellectual to spend your energy on defending the Bible as if it was an excyclopedia.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#118

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,329

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 13:18
This turned boring fast
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#119

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,898

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 13:27
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
That is so hilariously self-referential …
LOL:

Skeptic: "How do you know that the bible is the true word of god?"

Christian: "Errh, well it says so in the bible"
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#120

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 974
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 18:58.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch