|
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 19th, 2013, 13:47
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
That is so hilariously self-referential …
Of course, the point is that there is no contradiction.


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.
This isnt true. The only reason why God/man killed all those people was because sin couldnt be stopped otherwise in the bible.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#121

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 13:48
This isnt true. The only reason why God/man killed all those people was because sin couldnt be stopped otherwise in the bible.
So God didn't have the power to stop sin except through mass slaughter?

Funny thing is that mass slaughter is still going on - and how are we doing on sin, do you think?
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#122

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,457

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 14:47
Except through Jesus or slaughter. Because before Jesus people could only get worse in the eyes of God.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#123

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 14:48
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
Of course, the point is that there is no contradiction.




This isnt true. The only reason why God/man killed all those people was because sin couldnt be stopped otherwise in the bible.
No, the point is that when you define a term using that term … you are NOT defining it … and also, when you can explain ANYTHING with 'um, because God' - you explain NOTHING.

What I am talking about is Old Testament things that describe what is acceptable or unacceptable. The oft-quoted Leviticus, which Christians often use as the defining hammer of their brutally discriminatory and hateful campaigns, are we to say that it was just for old times? Is it not literal and absolute truth as you have repeatedly claimed about everything in the Bible? You really need to make up your mind - either accept that vast swaths of the Bible are non-factual and irrelevant, or get to the nearest Walmart and start executing people with mixed fabrics because of the literal and absolute truth of the Bible.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#124

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,411

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 15:15
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
No, the point is that when you define a term using that term … you are NOT defining it … and also, when you can explain ANYTHING with 'um, because God' - you explain NOTHING.

What I am talking about is Old Testament things that describe what is acceptable or unacceptable. The oft-quoted Leviticus, which Christians often use as the defining hammer of their brutally discriminatory and hateful campaigns, are we to say that it was just for old times? Is it not literal and absolute truth as you have repeatedly claimed about everything in the Bible? You really need to make up your mind - either accept that vast swaths of the Bible are non-factual and irrelevant, or get to the nearest Walmart and start executing people with mixed fabrics because of the literal and absolute truth of the Bible.
I think you missed my post towards Dart. Also you are saying that God has to use natural means to do anything? In this case you are trying to put "no God" into "God".
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#125

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 15:54
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
I think you missed my post towards Dart. Also you are saying that God has to use natural means to do anything? In this case you are trying to put "no God" into "God".
What I am saying is that we cannot pretend to have a logical and rational discussion when any and all questions can be waved of with 'because … God'.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#126

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,411

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 18:36
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
Except through Jesus or slaughter. Because before Jesus people could only get worse in the eyes of God.
So, God didn't have the power to simply make people better?

Limitations, limitations.

How about creating a race that didn't behave in a way that would require you to slaughter them to make a point?

I mean, was that not sporting enough, or?
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#127

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,457

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 18:52
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
So, God didn't have the power to simply make people better?

Limitations, limitations.

How about creating a race that didn't behave in a way that would require you to slaughter them to make a point?

I mean, was that not sporting enough, or?
I think God is actually a set of siblings … the one from the old testament who loved random killing and torture for fun and sport and instituted nonsensical rules just for kicks … then another one who tried to better the world through love … and another one who stopped the first from returning by saying 'ooh, I got it, we can just let then slaughter each other in our name thinking they are doing good and just things while we sit up here and have a good laugh!'

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#128

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,411

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 19:14
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
What I am saying is that we cannot pretend to have a logical and rational discussion when any and all questions can be waved of with 'because … God'.
It wouldn't be out of line to point out that you also can't have a rational discussion when any and all answers are dismissed just because they contain "because … God", would it?

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#129

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,319

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 19:20
And really, I find it absolutely insane that anyone would attempt to impose "logical" and/or "rational" on a system that readily stipulates a basis in "faith" and "mystery". Sure, it doesn't make sense, but that's kinda the point, doncha think?

You're attempting to frame the discussion in terms wholly inappropriate to the topic. You might as well debate the aerodynamics of flight but mandate that it be done within the perceptions and understandings of a wombat.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#130

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,319

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 19:20
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
It wouldn't be out of line to point out that you also can't have a rational discussion when any and all answers are dismissed just because they contain "because … God", would it?
Actually that is very important and worth pointing out, so thanks!

Because it is critical that each side in a debate allow for the basic right of the other side to exist and maintain their belief system.

My point is that using God as some sort of magic wand to wave away errors, inconsistencies and so on is problematic to reasoned dialogue.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#131

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,411

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 19:28
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
My point is that using God as some sort of magic wand to wave away errors, inconsistencies and so on is problematic to reasoned dialogue.
Since the other side readily admits to a fundamental and foundational basis in "magic wand", why do you get to deny it from the conversation? You're guilty of the very problem you complain about.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#132

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,319

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 19:41
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Since the other side readily admits to a fundamental and foundational basis in "magic wand", why do you get to deny it from the conversation? You're guilty of the very problem you complain about.
Um, no. This started because there was a declaration of the Bible as an absolute, verbatim, unerringly accurate and logical document without any form of fallacy or inconsistency. Which aside from being laughable, also subjects it to a different level of scrutiny and logical dissection.

What I am saying is that you CANNOT use the word 'blue' to describe the color of something in one sentence, then 'red' in the next sentence, and then a few chapters later call it 'green' … and then claim that there is no inconsistency - and still attempt to pretend there is logic or reason. That is what is happening - we KNOW the bible was handed down orally, and then went through many translations … we know that not nearly all original texts exist, we KNOW that there are widespread scholarly debates about the meanings of words or phrases, we know that there were things chosen to be excluded from the bible, and on and on.

Personally, I have had many people say to me that ' the bible is the best attempts of men inspired by God to capture his word … but being the product of men it is flawed in scope and delivery. The basic teachings of Jesus are an attempt to put The Way in simple form of being good to others without judgment … and that should be our focus'. And I would be fine with that.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#133

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,411

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 22:44
OK, here are the easy ones. Your other explanations didn't make sense to me or I agreed with them.

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.
Redefinition of language to suit the Bible does pass the reason test.

Originally Posted by Damian View Post
That is an error in the KJV. IT was plu perfect in the NIV.
So the Bible is in error. Proves my point.

Originally Posted by Damian View Post
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.
If God is perfect and all-knowing then he should never change his mind. That would mean he is imperfect.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#134

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,991

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 23:36
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
Um, no. This started because there was a declaration of the Bible as an absolute, verbatim, unerringly accurate and logical document without any form of fallacy or inconsistency. Which aside from being laughable, also subjects it to a different level of scrutiny and logical dissection.

What I am saying is that you CANNOT use the word 'blue' to describe the color of something in one sentence, then 'red' in the next sentence, and then a few chapters later call it 'green' … and then claim that there is no inconsistency - and still attempt to pretend there is logic or reason. That is what is happening - we KNOW the bible was handed down orally, and then went through many translations … we know that not nearly all original texts exist, we KNOW that there are widespread scholarly debates about the meanings of words or phrases, we know that there were things chosen to be excluded from the bible, and on and on.

Personally, I have had many people say to me that ' the bible is the best attempts of men inspired by God to capture his word … but being the product of men it is flawed in scope and delivery. The basic teachings of Jesus are an attempt to put The Way in simple form of being good to others without judgment … and that should be our focus'. And I would be fine with that.
Strange, but I don't see where Damian said that. I've seen him say that supposed inconsistencies can be explained, but the only folks I see talking about absolutes are the one trying to tear down the concept. I'm reminded of people made from dried wheat stalks…

Secondly, it seems to be that, in yet another strawman, you're the only one demanding "logic and reason". I don't think I've seen Damian use those words. I think I've seen him use "faith" a few times, though. So, again, I submit to you that you're forcing the conversation to be framed in parameters that give the other side no room to manuever, whilst you complain about the very same deed being done to you. You're demanding logic and reason from a book that has a basis in faith and mystery. You expect logic and reason from a book where the main story is resurrection? Seems to me you're missing the point. Either you've got completely unreasonable requirements, a strange sense of reality, or an axe to grind.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#135

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,319

Default 

November 19th, 2013, 23:46
Actually, others have said that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Damian has said are reasonable explanations for all the inconsistencies in the Bible. 2 separate issues.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#136

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,991

Default 

November 20th, 2013, 00:11
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
you're the only one demanding "logic and reason".
If you aren't going to require "logic and reason" you could just as well say that Grimm's fairy tales are the infallible doctrine of the king of the fairies and you'd be on equal ground. Logic and reason (and evidence) are the basis of any kind of language that can have any claim of being about what is actually true.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#137

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 977

Default 

November 20th, 2013, 00:12
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
So, God didn't have the power to simply make people better?

Limitations, limitations.

How about creating a race that didn't behave in a way that would require you to slaughter them to make a point?

I mean, was that not sporting enough, or?
Then that would impose on free will.


Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
OK, here are the easy ones. Your other explanations didn't make sense to me or I agreed with them.

Redefinition of language to suit the Bible does pass the reason test.
Well it does the bible there does say God made light and darkness first and not the sun.



So the Bible is in error. Proves my point.
The interpretation is in error. The bible wasnt wrong.



If God is perfect and all-knowing then he should never change his mind. That would mean he is imperfect.
God can change his mind if man petitions him to do it. Like the story of Abraham and Sodom and Gommorah.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#138

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

November 20th, 2013, 00:13
Originally Posted by Roq View Post
If you aren't going to require "logic and reason" you could just as well say that Grimm's fairy tales are the infallible doctrine of the king of the fairies and you'd be on equal ground. Logic and reason (and evidence) are the basis of any kind of language that can have any claim of being about what is actually true.
This is correct. IF you want ot believe in the Grimms's fairy tales it i sup to you. I am only posting in regard to the contradictions of the bible.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#139

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401

Default 

November 20th, 2013, 00:14
BTW thank you DTEowner for explaining that better than i can.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#140

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401
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 22:48.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch