Let's analyze "Defeaters: The Problem of Science" - a sermon by Joe Coffey

[DWill]

No one says it better than "God's secretaries"

I don't get the "God's secretaries."

[stahrwe]

No one says it better than "God's secretaries"

I don't get the "God's secretaries."

If I can't get BT to read the Bible perhaps BT might read a book about the Bible by and about people who actually know something of it.

The 'lady of shallot' might be referring directly to the authors of the books of the Bible but it is also a reference to a book:

God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible (P.S.) [Paperback]
Adam Nicolson

From Publishers Weekly
The King James Bible remains the most influential Bible translation of all time. Its elegant style and the exalted cadences of its poetry and prose echo forcefully in Shakespeare, Milton, T.S. Eliot and Reynolds Price. As travel writer Nicolson points out, however, the path to the completion of the translation wasn't smooth. When James took the throne in England in early 1603, he inherited a country embroiled in theological controversy. Relishing a good theological debate, the king appointed himself as a mediator between the Anglicans and the reformist Puritans, siding in the end with the Anglican Church as the party that posed the least political threat to his authority. As a result of these debates, James agreed to commission a new translation of the Bible as an olive branch to the Puritans. Between 1604 and 1611, various committees engaged in making a new translation that attended more to the original Greek and Hebrew than had earlier versions. Nicolson deftly chronicles the personalities involved, and breezily narrates the political and religious struggles of the early 17th century. Yet, the circumstances surrounding this translation are already well known from two earlier books-Benson Bobrick's Wide as the Waters and Alister McGrath's In the Beginning-and this treatment adds little that is new. Although Nicolson succeeds at providing insight into the diverse personalities involved in making the King James Bible, Bobrick's remains the most elegant and comprehensive treatment of the process.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Booklist
*Starred Review* The quip about the Bible being the greatest book ever written by a committee is just a quip, but the English Bible that King James I commissioned in 1604 really was committee work. Each of six committees, or companies, as they were called, was charged with translating a different portion of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The Translators (their official title, and as such, capitalized) were far-from-saintly Anglican clergymen and scholars, selected to exclude radical Puritan sentiments from the finished translation (James had had enough of Puritan divisiveness while on the throne of Scotland). Their handiwork was to be the preferred pulpit Bible, so it had to be accessible in vocabulary and tonally. In that respect, the Translators succeeded so brilliantly that their style remains the quintessence of sacred prose to this day. Religious utility wasn't, however, the primary original purpose of the King James Version. Rather, the KJV was an element of James' grand dream of forging a harmoniously united realm out of the faction-ridden one he inherited from Elizabeth I. In that respect, the book was a failure, for not until after the Puritan American colonies embraced it (ironically, given its anti-Puritan conception) did England accept it. Nicolson tells the KJV's story so well that his book may prove to be the KJV's indispensable companion for years to come. Ray Olson
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

[Chris OConnor]

This thread is about Joe Coffey's sermon. Every time you make a post here on an unrelated topic Joe Coffey is getting an email prompting him to come back here to see the comment. I suggest you guys make off-topic comments in other threads.

[stahrwe]

This thread is about Joe Coffey's sermon. Every time you make a post here on an unrelated topic Joe Coffey is getting an email prompting him to come back here to see the comment. I suggest you guys make off-topic comments in other threads.

Is the discussion over? I never did see any specific errors pointed out with the exception of the minor one I identified. Most of the other criticisms related to generalities or personality. I admit to being mystefied by the 'smarmy' comment. Joe Coffey does not seem smarmy to me at all.

[Chris OConnor]

What smarmy comment?

The discussion isn't over yet.

[VMLM]

It seems to me in these discussions that (as I wrote the original poster, Chris) we are all asking the wrong questions. There is something that divides believers in a supreme being and non believers that has nothing or little to do with intellect, science, faith or inculcation. It is if the wiring in some (lets say the believers) is needy in a way that is not present in non-believers.

The wrong questions. Atheists try to make Christians understand that there is no God while Christians pity Atheists for their godlessness. We're all so worried about who's right that we're all forgetting that it doesn't really matter so long as we can live together, and maybe understand one another.
Why don't We believe? Why do They believe? These two questions seem much more interesting to me. Do you realize that Our Atheism is a direct result of Christianity? We're nothing but the historical result of two world wars, industrialism, the Enlightenment and the Renaissance as they affected the medieval Christian dogma and philosophy. In a way all we represent is a failure of the Christian religion to adapt to modern times.

Check out South East Asia for example, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam coexist. What you'll find in most countries is that a mixture of the ideas in both the Buddhist and Hindu religions predominates (Christianity is not dominant, and Islam tends to be marginalized). Gods reincarnate, Buddha is the son of a god, is protected by Nagas or is himself a divine reincarnation. Their religions have moved with their culture and forms an intricate part of it, in more "modern" places you'll find their metaphysical philosophy is increasingly Buddhist, as it conforms more readily with the needs of their contemporary culture. I can honestly say that I've never met an Atheist in the places I've been that wasn't an Occidental (Originating/living in Europe or the Americas).

In fact, I'd have to say that the actual question of whether God, that is Our God, exists is superfluous and we'd all do well to stop arguing about it immediately. Honestly us Atheists are nothing but a historical fluke, if the belief system we grew up in had adapted more readily to the historical accidents which affected occidental culture we wouldn't be having this conversation. Is this good? Bad? I don't know, I don't really care, but it's awesome. We're living the transformation of a religion! We have been since the Renaissance... We're witnessing the birth of Atheism as a religious movement, not just a personal choice. How will it develop? How will it affect the other world religions? How will it affect our way of life (or rather that of our descendants)? Will it simply die out and Christianity be swallowed and assimilated by other religions?

What I feel we should be worrying about is just living together... seriously. We don't believe in God, some people do. Let's all live with that and make the most of it.

EDIT: Sorry Chris, I realize I'm way off-topic here... But I liked the Lady's post . It got me thinking... I couldn't help it xD.

[stahrwe]

What smarmy comment?

The discussion isn't over yet.

on 11/16/10 the lady shallot posted that JC (hmmm odd initials) was a bit smarmy in his presentation.

[lady of shallot]

I was referring to the book by Adam Nicholson which I thought I had said in a post.
Yes, Chris, Starwe is right, I did mean the whole presentation, not just a specific comment.

I don't think I agree with you VLMN. It would seem reasonable that all religions over all time would have had their atheists. Not just Christianity. I also don't agree that atheism is a religious movement (although I do understand what you mean by saying that) nor do I think it is a choice. I didn't awaken one morning and say, "Hey, guess I'll stop believing in God!"
I do not choose atheism. I AM an atheist.
I also think we do live together atheist and believer. Certainly I don't love my religious siblings less, nor they me, because we do not share the same religious views.
I wish someone would address my comments about the "wiring" of us.

Also am I the only woman on this topic?

[stahrwe]

It seems to me in these discussions that (as I wrote the original poster, Chris) we are all asking the wrong questions. There is something that divides believers in a supreme being and non believers that has nothing or little to do with intellect, science, faith or inculcation. It is if the wiring in some (lets say the believers) is needy in a way that is not present in non-believers.

The wrong questions. Atheists try to make Christians understand that there is no God while Christians pity Atheists for their godlessness. We're all so worried about who's right that we're all forgetting that it doesn't really matter so long as we can live together, and maybe understand one another.
Why don't We believe? Why do They believe? These two questions seem much more interesting to me. Do you realize that Our Atheism is a direct result of Christianity? We're nothing but the historical result of two world wars, industrialism, the Enlightenment and the Renaissance as they affected the medieval Christian dogma and philosophy. In a way all we represent is a failure of the Christian religion to adapt to modern times.

I see you are a member of the Robert Wright I just make stuff up as I go along club. Atheism is a direct result of Christianity; Really? And just what exactly about Christianity is outdated?

Check out South East Asia for example, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam coexist. What you'll find in most countries is that a mixture of the ideas in both the Buddhist and Hindu religions predominates (Christianity is not dominant, and Islam tends to be marginalized). Gods reincarnate, Buddha is the son of a god, is protected by Nagas or is himself a divine reincarnation. Their religions have moved with their culture and forms an intricate part of it, in more "modern" places you'll find their metaphysical philosophy is increasingly Buddhist, as it conforms more readily with the needs of their contemporary culture. I can honestly say that I've never met an Atheist in the places I've been that wasn't an Occidental (Originating/living in Europe or the Americas).

I suggest that you google:
Hindu on Christian violence
Buddhist on Christian violence
of course there is no need to do it for Islam but check out the area you are citing anyway.

Additionally, in mainland China Christians are a minority, the state religion being atheism but check out violence against Christians there. If you have trouble doing so, let me know, I have decades of first hand observations recorded by a missionary friend of mine.

How about Christians in Iraq? Certainly they are a minority there, checkout what is happening to them there now.

In fact, I'd have to say that the actual question of whether God, that is Our God, exists is superfluous and we'd all do well to stop arguing about it immediately. Honestly us Atheists are nothing but a historical fluke, if the belief system we grew up in had adapted more readily to the historical accidents which affected occidental culture we wouldn't be having this conversation. Is this good? Bad? I don't know, I don't really care, but it's awesome. We're living the transformation of a religion! We have been since the Renaissance... We're witnessing the birth of Atheism as a religious movement, not just a personal choice. How will it develop? How will it affect the other world religions? How will it affect our way of life (or rather that of our descendants)? Will it simply die out and Christianity be swallowed and assimilated by other religions?

As an atheist, who or what exactly is "Our" god?
You are right about your prediction that Christianity will decrease, but it will not be replace by atheism, it will be replaced by a universal humanist church which will be an amalgum of all religions and atheism. What makes your post ironic is that you have actually parrotted what the Bible predicts the spiritual state of the world will be before Jesus comes back. I commend you to the Left Behind book series, or if you prefer not to read the books, checkout the DVD series.

What I feel we should be worrying about is just living together... seriously. We don't believe in God, some people do. Let's all live with that and make the most of it.

EDIT: Sorry Chris, I realize I'm way off-topic here... But I liked the Lady's post . It got me thinking... I couldn't help it xD.

Where?

[lady of shallot]

I neglected to say that in the post by VLMN, he appears to be chiding us for discussing atheism. But why should we not? Why does a discussion have to be considered an argument? Why should we be muffled? This site offers an atheism forum and a religious forum. Christians, and other religious people can assemble together to worship or just have kinship in a specific setting at a specific time. Atheists are denied such an outlet. It isn't even so much so they can discuss their disbelief but to have a setting that is absent the spoken or even unspoken presence of a belief system. For instance when I read the obituaries, which I do now that I am getting old, often there is a statement such as "so and so went home to be with the lord" or that the person's faith was very important to them and they went to church 3 times a day etc etc. I don't mind that the person did this or that their relatives believe they are home with the lord. It is the assumption that these are universally admirable beliefs and habits. Can you imagine (for instance) my obituary reading, "so and so died with the full knowledge that this is the end of the trail for her and her life is complete"