Might I sugges than that you refrain from:

Offering opinions about the Bible;
Commenting on Bible stories;
Commenting on Christian doctrine with a Biblical basis.

I won't refrain any more than I'd refrain from doing the same to Scientologists. I have no respect for false beliefs.

In what way are they blind to the world about them?

I gave the reasons in my original post. There is so much evidence for the age of the Earth and for evolution that it transcends science. I imagine you would quip about then worshipping these theories, but they're no more worthy of worship than the el Nino cycles.

Then many other reasons. Such as saying every person on Earth was purely evil or that the red sea parted or people could walk on water and asses could talk. You have NO SUPPORTIVE REASONING to believe these things, yet you still do. This is blindness. Blind faith.

There is no legitimate argument that i have seen in support of belief in supernatural phenomena.

In that sense, the matter really is settled. The problem being that so many are willing and somehow able to convince themselves to be wrong. The source of all this is the inability to conceive that we are not the center of the world. That we are not the most important thing to ever exist. That we are not THE REASON for existence.

It is childish and silly. Blaming the universe because it does not conform to our imagination is beyond pointless. Even the most eloquent theologians i have read or heard come to the root... they just really wish it were true,and so are willing to perform mental gymnastics to remain in their misty world of magic and gods.

johnson1010 wrote:There is no legitimate argument that i have seen in support of belief in supernatural phenomena.

In that sense, the matter really is settled. The problem being that so many are willing and somehow able to convince themselves to be wrong. The source of all this is the inability to conceive that we are not the center of the world. That we are not the most important thing to ever exist. That we are not THE REASON for existence.

It is childish and silly. Blaming the universe because it does not conform to our imagination is beyond pointless. Even the most eloquent theologians i have read or heard come to the root... they just really wish it were true,and so are willing to perform mental gymnastics to remain in their misty world of magic and gods.

The problem is that the proof doesn't look like proof to you. Look at Romans 1:16, and the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Only something supernatural could have brought Jews and Greeks together at that time in history and in the intimacy that was the early church. Don't believe me? Read up on Antiochus IV Ephiphanes and what he did to Jerusalem and the Temple. There's your proof.

seespotrun2008 wrote:

No, you need to choose some controversy within your own world of Bible literalism or scholarship and find someone to debate you. Here is not a good hunting ground for that. I think you can't see that the gap is insuperable when it comes to the prospect for discussion.

I agree with you, Dwill. I do not think anyone is "scared" to discuss the Bible stahrwe. It is just seems that, and correct me if I'm wrong, when it comes to discussing the Bible with you it is not a discussion. Rather, it is you telling people how to interpret the Bible your way. Discussing any religious text is tricky because there are many, many people who still see it as religiously valid. There are many different discussions about how to interpret the text amongst the people who still see it as religiously valid. Then there are others who will see the text as pure myth equivalent to the Greek Gods. Sometimes it is almost impossible to find common ground. It gets exhausting because there are some arguments that have no end. At that point it just seems that you can keep arguing ad nauseam or you can agree to disagree and discuss other things.

I think what you say is true about ways to discuss the Bible as a text. There are many ways to do it, and it works, I think, as long as there are not fundamental divisions among the participants (see, for example, Bill Moyers' Genesis: A living Conversation). When the views of participants are conditioned by opposite perspectives, there is no chance for a meaningful, rewarding discussion. Stahrwe wants us to to believe that face-value Bible believers like him and non-believers like me can come together on some neutral ground where our opposite views won't get in the way, but I say this is impossible.

Be honest with me, aren't the comments that BT members make in multiple posts just their 'telling me' how I should interpret the Bible? I don't have any problem in a Bible discussion with someone stating their position. I will disagree if necessary but don't make stuff up. The protracted discussion we got into about day 4 wasn't that I disagreed with anyone, or they with me, it was based on an intransigence whereby my theory was not considered. It goes on with RT mis-stating it. If we get to an impass I am perfectly happy agreeing to disagree.

You are probably right, both sides are arguing ad nauseam. Just don’t make the assumption that people are afraid to discuss these topics with you. Some of us are just tired.

By the way, isn’t your news story kind of making the point opposite of what you are trying to make? Is it not just showing what the problem with religion is? There are many people who do not like religion period. It does not matter whether it is Christian or Muslim. The ironic thing is both religions are very similar. They both worship the same God. They just do it differently.

I think, as long as there are not fundamental divisions among the participants (see, for example, Bill Moyers' Genesis: A living Conversation).

I love Bill Moyers.

When the views of participants are conditioned by opposite perspectives, there is no chance for a meaningful, rewarding discussion. Stahrwe wants us to to believe that face-value Bible believers like him and non-believers like me can come together on some neutral ground where our opposite views won't get in the way, but I say this is impossible.

I agree with you, Dwill. I am sure there are many other things to find common ground on, just not this one.

stahrwe wrote:

Star Burst wrote:Religions display their ignorance every time it opens its wretched mouth and the lies spew forth. You would be better off trusting a rattlesnake at least you know the snake is going to bite you if you get to close where as religion will burn you at the stake or worse ask you for money....must be hell trying to satisfy some Gods that don't exist and then wonder why you get nothing in return.........

Or build a hospital for you
Or build a school for you
Or develop a written language for you
Or dig wells
Or feed you after a disaster
Or provide you with a place to sleep
Or take medical care to you for twenty years knowing that where you are going is dangerous

Asking for money is worse? How did you get so twisted?

Warning, in Star Burst's opinion something worse than a rattlesnake is ahead.

BY KATHY GANNON
Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan — They hiked for more than 10 hours over rugged mountains — unarmed and without security — to bring medical care to isolated Afghan villagers until their humanitarian mission took a tragic turn.

Ten members of the Christian medical team — six Americans, two Afghans, one German and a Briton — were gunned down in a gruesome slaughter that the Taliban said they carried out, alleging the volunteers were spying and trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. The gunmen spared an Afghan driver, who recited verses from the Islamic holy book Quran as he begged for his life.

Team members — doctors, nurses and logistics personnel — were attacked as they were returning to Kabul after their two-week mission in the remote Parun valley of Nuristan province about 160 miles north of Kabul. They had decided to veer northward into Badakhshan province because they thought that would be the safest route back to Kabul, said Dirk Frans, director of the International Assistance Mission, which organized the team.

The bullet-riddled bodies — including three women — were found Friday near three four-wheel drive vehicles in a wooded area just off the main road that snakes through a narrow valley in the Kuran Wa Munjan district of Badakhshan, provincial police chief Gen. Agha Noor Kemtuz told the Associated Press.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told the AP that they killed the foreigners because they were "spying for the Americans" and "preaching Christianity." In a Pashto language statement acquired by the AP, the Taliban also said the team was carrying Dari language Bibles and "spying gadgets."

Frans said the International Assistance Mission, or IAM, one of the longest serving non-governmental organizations operating in Afghanistan, is registered as a nonprofit Christian organization but does not proselytize.

Frans said the team had driven to Nuristan, left their vehicles and hiked for nearly a half day with pack horses over mountainous terrain to reach the Parun valley where they traveled from village to village on foot offering medical care for about two weeks.

Tom Little, one of the dead Americans, had spent about 30 years in Afghanistan, rearing three daughters and surviving both the Soviet invasion and bloody civil war of the 1990s that destroyed much of Kabul.

Little, an optometrist from Delmar, N.Y., spoke fluent Dari, one of the two main Afghan languages, Frans said. Little, along with employees from other Christian organizations, were expelled by the Taliban government in August 2001 after the arrest of eight Christian aid workers for allegedly trying to convert Afghans to Christianity.

He returned to Afghanistan after the Taliban government was toppled in November 2001 by U.S.-backed forces. Known in Kabul as "Mr. Tom," Little supervised a network of IAM eye hospitals and clinics around the country largely funded through private donations.

Little had been making such trips to Afghan villages for decades, offering vision care and surgical services in regions where medical services of any type are scarce.

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2010/08/08/143803 ... z0wUxe6pur

Your fantasy world must be one hell of a joint is all I can say...........every time I read something you post now I laugh..............

stahrwe wrote:

johnson1010 wrote:There is no legitimate argument that i have seen in support of belief in supernatural phenomena.

In that sense, the matter really is settled. The problem being that so many are willing and somehow able to convince themselves to be wrong. The source of all this is the inability to conceive that we are not the center of the world. That we are not the most important thing to ever exist. That we are not THE REASON for existence.

It is childish and silly. Blaming the universe because it does not conform to our imagination is beyond pointless. Even the most eloquent theologians i have read or heard come to the root... they just really wish it were true,and so are willing to perform mental gymnastics to remain in their misty world of magic and gods.

The problem is that the proof doesn't look like proof to you. Look at Romans 1:16, and the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Only something supernatural could have brought Jews and Greeks together at that time in history and in the intimacy that was the early church. Don't believe me? Read up on Antiochus IV Ephiphanes and what he did to Jerusalem and the Temple. There's your proof.

The 'proof' is not proof. Romans and Acts make much more sense if read as fiction than as fact. The writers of the New Testament fervently wanted to provide a story that could be believable to a mass audience. The Book of Acts is part of this myth-making, containing highly implausible accounts. A good source on these questions is Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus by Earl Doherty

Regarding day 4, the original simple point, which Stahrwe has spammed the board to deny, is that the seven day creation theory is laughable as an actual account, and even contains an internal contradiction in its claim that the sun was created three days after light. Effort to avoid this main point is based on a set of false creationist premises, aimed more at patching a tottering worldview than actual dialogue or learning.

Despite these problems, I don't agree that the matter is settled. We still have the problem of what communities will come to believe after Christianity. There is much within the Bible that remains valid. The secular claim that the Bible is irrelevant and obsolete is wrong. A revised scientific Christian faith is likely to emerge as an alternative to the traditional fantasy.

I am now reading The Sign and the Seal by Graham Hancock. He presents a compelling argument that it may be historically true that the Ark of the Covenant was taken to Ethiopia soon after the reign of Solomon. Hancock's method in exploring this outlandish claim is impeccably scientific. He goes to original source documents and locations and researches in depth in epics such as Parzifal and locations such as Chartres Cathedral to try to find out answers to his questions. This forensic style uses the best available tools of historical research. Hancock finds that the Knights Templar, who controlled the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for a century in the middle ages, provide an apparent link to this cyptic story of the presence of the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia. It shows that generally accepted ideas are often ill-informed, and that new research can deliver startling findings, if we apply sceptical and logical methods.

One of Hancock's important points is that Wolfram, the author of Parzifal apparently laid down clues about Ethiopia and the Biblical Ark of the Covenant in his text, with the intention of concealing them in a popular narrative and transmitting them in code to future generations.

It seems to me that the authors of the Bible did the same thing. They above all wanted to write a book that would be plausible to a mass audience, but could see that their main messages, of continuity with ancient mythology, were not amenable to the temper of the times and had to be concealed in a book that would preserve them until more enlightened days.

An example I gave in discussing The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy was the fish story in John 21, where Jesus tells them where to cast and they catch 153 fish. 153 is a quasi-magical number, used by Archimedes to make the Christian fish, which has a length to width ratio of root three, very close to 265/153. No ratios using smaller numbers are closer to the actual dimension. Similar analysis shows a cosmic ground for the holy city of Revelation in the physics of the Great Year.

Thought of this style is anathema to fundamentalist literal accounts of the Bible. Yet, once we start to read the text against a mythic cosmic framework, it all begins to fall into place. The mathematical symbolic language of groups such as the Pythagoreans informed the Biblical authors, but the hostility to such language was so intense that the authors elected to obscure their real meaning by code. So, it is far from settled that the epistemic status of the Bible is resolved. Yes, inerrancy is wrong, but that is just the start of an interpretative analysis.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Despite these problems, I don't agree that the matter is settled. We still have the problem of what communities will come to believe after Christianity. There is much within the Bible that remains valid. The secular claim that the Bible is irrelevant and obsolete is wrong. A revised scientific Christian faith is likely to emerge as an alternative to the traditional fantasy.

Lets hope that don't happen Robert. Hopefully it will die a long painful death and fade into mythological nothingness. I agree with the Secular claim that the bible is obsolete and irrelevant.....

Interbane wrote:For one, evolution.

For another, the age of the Earth and universe.

I thanked you by accident. But that's OK, I'll leave it as is. ;-p

Even if starting from a viewpoint that both evolution and the then necessary hundreds of millions of years are both things that have happened it doesn't settle the matter since there is a construct called ALLEGORY. What is settled is that the literal interpretation of the Bible is a deeply flawed position. The Sun doesn't rise; the planet moves around the Sun. The Bible therefore is wrong, unless that is you stop to consider that it isn't meant to be a science textbook but rather a communication to humanity concerning other weightier topics.