Any Christians out there?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
If we insist on having God on our own terms, then we hold ourselves to be our own God.

That is suspect at best. I only insist on some REAL evidence. That is not in any way trying to be a god of any kind.

[Capt Dizle]

Ethelred,

Would you be open to the possibility that the Bible cannot be understood without the Holy Spirit? Are you open to the possibility that the spiritual world might exist?

[Capt Dizle]

I can understand where you are coming from Ethelred.

[ckweb]

Having problems editing . . . so I had to post my edited reply in a new post.

[ckweb]

Still having problems editing my posts . . . It keeps saying I have too many [img] tags. Except, I have none.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I try to keep the previous post in mind. Perhaps you are oversensitive. Kind of like me.

Did that count as a slight ad hominym attack?

Perhaps. Not really. This time you qualified it with "perhaps" and also indicated that it might apply to you as well. So, I don't really consider it an ad hominen.

Originally posted by Ethelred Most likely because you have different interests than I do. I am not evading when it is simply something I don't care about.

I don't care about the historicity of parts of the Bible for instance simply because I don't think the religion has a basis in reality so the history has little consequence to me. It does to you because you base your life on that religion.

It seems to me that you do care about it; if not, why would you spend so much of your time discussing it with people on this forum?

Originally posted by Ethelred
You last question did exactly that. You don't understand the idea that Jehovah is supposed to have controlled the content of the Bible even in translated forms. Its a basic Fundamentalist idea and without that idea the Bible remains the mere writings of men and therefor open to question and in need of corroboration. I think that also anwers your other questions which wouldn't have arisen if you had understood the concept behing a divinely directed Bible.

Trust me, I fully understand theories of inspiration and inerrancy. The reason I asked about "directed" because I wanted to see what theory of inspiration you were trying to represent. There are many: plenary inspiration, plenary-verbal inspiration, mechanical, etc. etc. Incidentally, you still have not answered what you mean by "directed," except in very vague terms. I need to understand your position on this point to argue the original point about your assumptions and my assertion that my methodological approach is better than that employed by Fundamentalists.

My question was a leading question, which was attempting to probe why you think the Flood narrative is so significant to biblical claims of divine intervention in history.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Nope you ARE still misunderstanding. Without some evidence that the writing have a special knowledge of Jehovah its looks just the same as other religious writings. You ARE still misconstuing the word 'special'. Special as in a special relationship with a real god. Since the things in the Bible that would qualify as 'special' in that the knowledge or the events would have to come from a god don't actualy match reality there is no evidence of that special relationship.

There simply is nothing special in imperfect writing. The is plenty of that elsewhere.

I am not miscontruing the word "special." I understand and have indicated that I understand a couple of times now by repeating your phrase: "special relationship with a real god." What I am asking and you have not answered yet, at least not in any significant way, is why does such a book have to be perfect?

What makes the Bible a real book on god if much of the special knowledge about that god shows a world that we don't actualy live in?

As I have indicated, I don't think that is the case. You seem to come to this conclusion that the Bible does not reveal anything "special" because you think Gen. 1-3 and Gen. 6-10 contradict science. If we set aside Fundamentalist claims about these chapters and look at the biblical text in a more authentic way, respecting it as an historio-cultural artifact, it tells us a great deal about the world that we actually live in. But, you just will not set aside the Fundamentalist claims.

Of course it is myth. But the people that wrote it didn't think so and neither did other authors of the Bible. All you showed was the story is a story. Look at how many people think that it isn't just on this thread alone. They think it was real. So did the person that wrote it down and the people that assembled it into the Bible we have today.

The Gilgamesh Epic may have had a single creator but is more likely that it was a tale told by many and modified by many before it was written down. Same for the Biblical Flood. It gained the aspects of an oral myth simply because it was one. That does not mean that the persons that wrote it down and the persons that chose to put it in the Bible didn't think it real by that time.

That the writers of other parts of the Bible thought the Flood real shows how the original people that put it into Jewish religious writings could also have easily thought it real.

Okay. Let me try explaining myself again by presenting my view on the Flood Story: it origins and its development.

The Flood Story in its present form in Gen. 6-10 is clearly a composite text. There are two separate Flood stories in Gen. 6-10, which I have broken down for you in a previous thread. These stories likely reflect two different oral traditions: one from the Northern Kingdom (the "E" source, which uses Elohim as the divine name) and one from the Southern Kingdom (the "J" source, which uses Y*W* has the divine name). The author who put them together in the composite form was obviously quite aware that his composite story was not an historical account of the events. Otherwise, why would he join two stories together that can be easily separated instead of composing one single story?

Now, whether the oral traditions that lie behind the composite story are in some way a reflection of some sort of historical event, I can not judge. But, it seems entirely likely that they evolved over time, perhaps from an experience of nomads living in the Black Sea area, circa 9000-10,000 B.C.E. Perhaps, it was even a man named Noah and his family that experienced a flood of that basin in that time and subsequently passed on the tradition in oral form. (The genealogies of the Bible do not permit the reconstruction of a chronology so it is entirely conceivable that the genealogies do in fact go back into a period around this time.) Obviously as time passed, the story became embellished, as most oral tradition eventually does. The story became one of a universal flood and instead of the preservation of a few livestock in a boat, all the animals of the world led two by two into a big ark were preserved. Reconstructing the development of particular elements of the story is a tenuous task. But, suffice it to say, the original story undoubtedly included a belief that their god had in some way preserved them from disaster and given them the promise that no flood would ever wipe them out again. Seeing as no flood has since; the god seems to have kept his word.

So, there is no inconsistency in the way the story is employed by authors in other books of the Bible. The composite text has become the accepted version of the story by that time. But, the ancients, however much they have been susceptible to believe even the most outrageous claims of the composite text, would almost certainly have been sensitive to the fact that it had evolved through transmission. What history in their time didn't evolve in this way? Read Herodotus or other ancient historians. One of the chief ways history was written in that time was to sift through myths and rumours, legends and stories. Eventually, the historians would commit to re-telling the story in a certain way but there is little doubt that they themselves realized the uncertainities in what they were reporting. The biblical authors being as much theologians as historiographers were also concerned with certain theological interpretations of the event. This in some respect guided how they selected and wrote their material too. In the final analysis, there can be little doubt that the people were aware of the legendary elements of the story. Could they pick out which parts were legendary, mythic and which parts were historical? Probably not. Did many people believe the whole story? Sure. But, this is the way history was done in the time.

Originally posted by Ethelred
I bet you can't find something of your that would support that statement. You made a statement about how I would respond finding out the Flood was real that directly contradicted what I had allready said I would do. You did NOT ask a question. You made a statement. A statement about me that contradicted what I said about myself in that very instance.

Here's a list of times I asked this question in slighty different ways throughout my last few posts:

Y'know, if there was a real, universal Flood, it wouldn't prove the existence of God to you so why do you even bother?!

I merely questioned why the issue of the Flood, if proved to have happened, would be of any value to you?

If science demonstrated conclusively that a universal Flood happened, it wouldn't prove that God caused it or that Noah built a ship and preserved the animals. So, I'm asking what's the point. You'd still have ample reason to be the skeptic you are.

So, if a Flood happened that would substantiate the Bible . . . what does that mean?

How does an historical Flood substantiate the Bible in a manner superior to the inscriptions I've listed that corroborate other historical events in the Bible?

Again, why would a world wide flood be one point for the Bible while you reject the efficacy of other historical events the Bible accurately portrays?

What would make a world wide flood, supported by scientific evidence, so special? I don't understand.

QUOTE] Originally posted by Ethelred
There wern't any in your contradiction of what I had allready said. The question mark was applied to:

Y'know, if there was a real, universal Flood, it wouldn't prove the existence of God to you so why do you even bother?!

"why would you even bother?" was the question. The statement was that it would not prove anything to me, which was the contradiction.

See I did take your previous statements into account. It is you that didn't.[/QUOTE]

Now I see how you read it . . . I never meant it the way you read it. The whole thing was a question to me. It was, however, a leading question, I'll admit.

Originally posted by Ethelred
That IS using ordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims. You are asking for a benefit of the doubt, that can only be justified by extraordinary evidence, based on purely ordinary evidence. On top of which we allready know that some of the extraordinary claims are just plain wrong.

I am using ordinary evidence to prove the trustworthiness of the Bible. That is it, that is all. I am asking if that should make it worthy of receiving the benefit of the doubt in its extraordinary claims, which are not testable. IMO, the answer is yes. IYO, the answer is no.

Originally posted by Ethelred
On top of which we allready know that some of the extraordinary claims are just plain wrong.

Nope. All we know is that the Fundamentalist's extraordinary claims for the biblical text are wrong. That is it, that is all.

Originally posted by Ethelred
The Flood is a real event in the context of the Bible. It is not just a fundamentalist claim as in EVERY case the Flood is mentioned in the Bible it is treated as real event. The Tower of Bable story makes no sense at all if there was no flood. The listing of decendents of Noah makes no sense if Noah was not supposed to have existed. It is ONLY your claim that the extraordinary event of the Flood is somehow not an extraordinary event that is in need of proof.

Simply not true.

I've explained above in what way the Flood might be a "real event" and gives rise to the present biblical story. In the context of the Bible, there are only a few select passages that elude to the story and it does not demand that the story as it exists in Gen 6-10 is an accurate recollection of all the historical events of the story.

Why does the Tower of Babel story require the Flood Story?

I never denied that Noah existed so his genealogies are appropriate.

So, again, I repeat, it is only a fundamentalist reading of the Flood Story that fails your check. My version works absolutely fine with the evidence you have given.

Originally posted by Ethelred
It isn't supported either so there is no reason to believe it real in all aspects. If there was support that would be different.

True. But, the degree to which a story can be corroborated, it has been and I think that should count for something.

Originally posted by Ethelred It remains irrelevant unless the religion is a true and correct one. Which requires evidence to support the relgious claims not the historical ones. For instance Joshua may have fit the battle of Jericho and the walls may even have come tumblin' down without a god being invovled. I am asking for evidence of the that god being involved. I am not seeing any. I am only seeing CLAIMS that it was involved.

They could IF the god was real. Where is the evidence for the god? Its an extraodinary claim. It still requires extraordinary evidence not just some ancient fallible man's say so.

The problem, of course, is you require "extraordinary proof" not just reasonable or probable determinations. I will definitely admit that your standard of proof is beyond my ability to meet. But, having said as much, this does not disqualify the judeo-Christian conception of God. Or, make more or less likely that he did or did not do things reported in the Bible.

Originally posted by Ethelred Except that you do so. Frequently. Asking me to give a benefit of the doubt for extraordinary claims based on purely ordinary things is something you do very often. In this latest post even.

Perhaps, you misunderstand what I am trying to get from you. I am not trying to get a conversion or to have you accept any of my views. What I asking by requesting "the benefit of the doubt" is a little respect. You dismiss the biblical text time and again as "nonsense" and so on. When in reality an educated, intellectual individual can reasonably hold to the essential accuracy and worth of the biblical text . . . the text deserves the benefit of the doubt. Now, whether or not the text is sufficient cause to believe in God and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, the answer for you might continue to be no.

Originally posted by Ethelred There is no such literature. Genesis is pretty obviously from a oral tales. As in pre-literate. So there are no comtemporary writings. Only contemporary oral tales that mostly were never written down.

Oh come on, Ethelred. You're splitting hairs and not very precisely either.

Originally posted by Ethelred I don't have to prove that all the authors thougt it real. Only those that refered to it. Which I did for all but Genesis in my previous posts and now I covered Genesis as well since there is no reason for the listing of Noah's ancestors if the author had not thought it real.

The other authors either:

Don't mention it and therefor we can't know what they thought so they are irrelevant to the issue.

Merely mention it which again doesn't tell us anything and therefor are irrelevant to the issue

Mention in such a way that is very clear that they thought it a real event.

There are no cases where it is clear that the author thought it just a story. Not even in Genesis since a listing of decendents is not needed for fictional people.

Oh please, you should know very well that I meant the authors you quoted in the previous thread.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Ethelred,

Would you be open to the possibility that the Bible cannot be understood without the Holy Spirit? Are you open to the possibility that the spiritual world might exist?

Sure. Now where is the evidence for it?

Humans are fully capable of convincing themselves of all kinds of strange things that aren't real. If they try hard enough some can even generate hallucinations. John Lilly managed to convince himself that he had contact with aliens in his sensory deprivation tank experiments. Thats the same John Lilly that did much of the fundamental research on dolphin intelligence. Also the man that helped inspire the movie Altered States. Also The Day of the Dolphin.

The thing is Christianity is NOT based on spirtual contact. Its based on teaching and everything else contained in the Bible. Since at least some of those things are not real I see no reason to consider it any differently than I do anyother religion that has a mix of reality and the non-real.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Sure. Now where is the evidence for it?

Humans are fully capable of convincing themselves of all kinds of strange things that aren't real. If they try hard enough some can even generate hallucinations. John Lilly managed to convince himself that he had contact with aliens in his sensory deprivation tank experiments. Thats the same John Lilly that did much of the fundamental research on dolphin intelligence. Also the man that helped inspire the movie Altered States. Also The Day of the Dolphin.

The thing is Christianity is NOT based on spirtual contact. Its based on teaching and everything else contained in the Bible. Since at least some of those things are not real I see no reason to consider it any differently than I do anyother religion that has a mix of reality and the non-real.

I can't provide evidence. If you want it you have to seek the face of God. I am sorry if you don't like that statement. I am not trying to offend.

As for you statement that Christianity is not based on spiritual contact, I disagree. Most of the people who identify themselves as Christians are probably not spiritual. I have seen scores of people converted with no more meaning than joining a social club.

But I hold to a real, risen Christ, a person, not a title, salvation not legend. This is based on my spritual experiences. They can have no meaning for you other than my declaration and testimony that God exists.

[AnnC]

Still evading the need for repentance, I see.

[java4me]

This is a really stupid argument, people may think or believe whatever they want. If you don't believe in god, well that is your own belief, if you do believe in god, that is your own belief also which you share with others like you. I think that the atheists should converse this on their own, because they have the same beliefs.

For me, I am a devoted Catholic and a very religous person, that is my belief, I share it with others like me, I would rather not argue about it...

[ckweb]

Originally posted by java4me
This is a really stupid argument, people may think or believe whatever they want. If you don't believe in god, well that is your own belief, if you do believe in god, that is your own belief also which you share with others like you. I think that the atheists should converse this on their own, because they have the same beliefs.

For me, I am a devoted Catholic and a very religous person, that is my belief, I share it with others like me, I would rather not argue about it...

I disagree. I think discussions of this nature further knowledge, test one's assumptions, and can encourage tolerance and understanding. Also, as a Christian, I think it is important to engage in these discussions in order to present the biblical message to others. Personally, I don't engage in these discussions to convert people or denigrate other people's viewpoints. I do it to inform others of my view and have it tested by others so that I can have a stronger assurance of the things I believe in. If you only converse with like-minded individuals, how are you stretched or encouraged to grow?

[Robert]

Ethelred:

The thing is Christianity is NOT based on spirtual contact. Its based on teaching and everything else contained in the Bible.

Your problem is that you make up your own rules.
You make up your own defenition of fundamentalism,
you make up your own defenition of christianity.

What are you trying? Your quote above about christianity is untrue and makes no sence. You obviously don't know anything about the Holy Spirit. Paul's letters, pentacostal, revelations, john's letters, the letter to the hebrews........

you talk and you talk and you talk but you don't know what you're talking about.
Re-read my post you replied earlier on, like I said "You didn't got the message"

of course your cheap reaction to that was "You don't understand anything of evolution" cheap answer, my brother does that as well. "Your hear needs to be washed, NO YOURS"

I was not joking when I said that, you really didn't got the message. I refuse to think about you as an idiot, I imagine you as a smart inteligent person, please don't make yourself look like a fool by stupid remarks like "You don't understand a little bit about evolution" *sigh*

now stop making your own rules, and act like you're all objective and neutral, and you would really believe in god if there were enough evidences......

you would not.
You would not believe in God if he was standing on your toes, facing you straight into the eye.

face it. Now debate on fair grounds with inteligent and straight arguments.

CyberShy

[ckweb]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Ethelred:

The thing is Christianity is NOT based on spirtual contact. Its based on teaching and everything else contained in the Bible.

Your problem is that you make up your own rules.
You make up your own defenition of fundamentalism,
you make up your own defenition of christianity.

What are you trying? Your quote above about christianity is untrue and makes no sence. You obviously don't know anything about the Holy Spirit. Paul's letters, pentacostal, revelations, john's letters, the letter to the hebrews........

you talk and you talk and you talk but you don't know what you're talking about.
Re-read my post you replied earlier on, like I said "You didn't got the message"

of course your cheap reaction to that was "You don't understand anything of evolution" cheap answer, my brother does that as well. "Your hear needs to be washed, NO YOURS"

I was not joking when I said that, you really didn't got the message. I refuse to think about you as an idiot, I imagine you as a smart inteligent person, please don't make yourself look like a fool by stupid remarks like "You don't understand a little bit about evolution" *sigh*

now stop making your own rules, and act like you're all objective and neutral, and you would really believe in god if there were enough evidences......

you would not.
You would not believe in God if he was standing on your toes, facing you straight into the eye.

face it. Now debate on fair grounds with inteligent and straight arguments.

CyberShy

I think Ethelred can be exhasperating at times and he is certainly dogged in his determination to represent his view of reality to the exclusion of others. But, I don't think you are being fair to him here. While I think his standard of proof is too high, he makes a fair point that physical evidence is lacking for many, if not all, of the extraordinary claims of the Bible. Without that proof and without making an attempt to seek God on a personal level, Ethelred is not going to believe in God. Fair enough, don't you say?

Also, he didn't make up a definition of Fundamentalism; he ended up quoting a dictionary! I'd say that's a pretty appropriate and authoritative source.

I do agree, however, that Ethelred is often condescending in his dismissive attitude towards the Judeo-Christian conception of God. He doesn't share loinburger's more "live and let live" attitude. Loinburger's attitude conveys a greater sense of mutual respect, I think.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by loinburger
The trouble, I think, is that spiritual writings (the Bible, the Koran, the Reg Veda, whatever) need to be analyzed to sift out the legitimate revelations from the questionable or the illegitimate revelations, but this analysis can only be effectively performed by those who acknowledge the existence of the spiritual and/or see the relevance of the spiritual. I couldn't effectively analyze somebody's revelations--I wouldn't know a legitimate revelation from an illegitimate one, and don't see how anybody else can tell the difference either. It's equivalent, in my mind, to differentiating between legitimate and illegitimate conceptions of the afterlife--obviously some conceptions are more correct than others, but I can't see any possible way to determine which are legitimate and which are illegitimate.

I agree wholeheartedly. A corollorary to that task is whether or not the rest of the text, which is not revelatory in nature, is reliable. Herein, I think the Bible holds up remarkably well, which is partly the basis for my faith. If you take a look at the Book of Mormon, on the other hand (an extreme example, I know, but still), almost nothing non-revelatory holds up. There is no evidence of the Native American tribes in that Book, no evidence that such tribes came from Israel, no evidence of their technology, etc. etc. This is part of the point I am trying to make with Ethelred.

[Robert]

ckweb:
this is what ethelred said,

SYLLABICATION: fun·da·men·tal·ism
PRONUNCIATION: fnd-mntl-zm
NOUN: 1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. 2a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture. b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Even they get it wrong in part though. Its often not organized in that respect. Especially in the US where many people are Fundamenatlists and never go to any church. They do it on their own. I think it comes from the time when people were spreading into new land and were often far from any organized churches.

I still haven't seen you offer an alternative term.

especially the bold part is the part where you can see he's making it up himself.

I'll reply more later, I have to go to eat