(06-14-2015, 02:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A decreasing and non-majority section of even Christians in our country, let alone the population as a whole. Also, the country is not indicative of the entire Christian population.

Regardless of all of that, the concept of Biblical inerrancy or literalism is irrelevant to the conversation, really. As I said, those who approach it that way are ignorant. Using it on the other side of the argument is just as ignorant.

(06-14-2015, 02:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:

Do you recognize the objects in the picture?  They're called "flat washers."  The look like a circle when viewed from above.  They are also flat.  They are so damn flat they included "flat" in the name.  Simple.  Logical.  Rational.  You won't even acknowledge the difference between a 2D object and a 3D object.  By rejecting simple, rational logic you reinforce the stereotype that Christians like you reject simple, rational logic.  Why? Because if the Bible claims itself to be true and something is proven incorrect then it casts doubts about what the Bible says about the afterlife and their faith as a whole.  That's scary.  Religion assuages the fear and doubt of many about what happens after death.  I'm not looking forward to death, but I don't fear what happens after.  So why would I need to prove the Bible wrong?  Simple: I don't.

If you want to believe in a virgin birth and reanimation of the dead that is your business.  If two dudes want to get married that is their business.  When two dudes can't get married because you believe in a virgin birth and reanimation of the dead then we have a problem.

(06-14-2015, 12:25 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did you ever have any discussions with WhoDeyJon?  He is a classic example of an evangelical inerrancy proponent who was very quick to point out to other Christians their interpretation of the Bible was incorrect if it wasn't inline with his beliefs.  He believed the Earth was formed in seven 24 hour Earth days because that is what the Bible says.  Any other belief is incorrect.  So if they Bible says you could see all the kingdoms from one mountain top then that is exactly what WhoDeyJon would tell us is correct.

Part of the problem with these discussions is ascertaining which type of Christian you are debating; a WhoDeyJon or a rfaulk34.  Some people are reasonable and others aren't.  My wife belongs to a UU church.  I'm not a member, but I go with her when I can.  (Nine year old daughter slept in so I'm at home with her today.)  What I like about the UU church is they accept all beliefs and they don't try to make anyone's beliefs to conform to a specific doctrine.  If all faiths were like that this Earth would be a much better place.

If people of every faith respected others beliefs and life choices while still disagreeing, I doubt I would be here typing any of this.  However, when I see people of one faith discriminating against others based upon their faith and trying to impose their religious beliefs on others through legislation I can't keep my mouth shut.

You seem to be a reasonable person, so if I have offended you I apologize.  My remarks aren't directed at reasonable people, but the WhoDeyJon's of the world regardless of their faith.

(06-14-2015, 12:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Two words...Biblical inerrancy.

(06-14-2015, 12:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your point being? Biblical inerrancy is a belief primarily held by evangelicals and is not a belief held by the majority of mainstream Christians or Jews. Using the phrase does nothing to negate anything I said.

(06-14-2015, 12:44 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: For the most part I agree.  Unfortunately, during the course of history humanity needed to develop the word "heresy" so we could communicate to others why a "heretic," such as Giordano Bruno was being burnt at the stake for believing the universe was infinite instead of Church doctrine.

(06-14-2015, 02:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:

Do you recognize the objects in the picture?  They're called "flat washers."  The look like a circle when viewed from above.  They are also flat.  They are so damn flat they included "flat" in the name.  Simple.  Logical.  Rational.  You won't even acknowledge the difference between a 2D object and a 3D object.  By rejecting simple, rational logic you reinforce the stereotype that Christians like you reject simple, rational logic.  Why? Because if the Bible claims itself to be true and something is proven incorrect then it casts doubts about what the Bible says about the afterlife and their faith as a whole.  That's scary.  Religion assuages the fear and doubt of many about what happens after death.  I'm not looking forward to death, but I don't fear what happens after.  So why would I need to prove the Bible wrong?  Simple: I don't.

If you want to believe in a virgin birth and reanimation of the dead that is your business.  If two dudes want to get married that is their business.  When two dudes can't get married because you believe in a virgin birth and reanimation of the dead then we have a problem.

(06-14-2015, 03:25 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Besides that if you go to the top of a mountain and look in all directions you have basically looked 360 degrees, which is a circle.   This seems to jive with their flat earth beliefs more so than trying to pretend they thought the Earth was a sphere.

(06-14-2015, 02:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Still millions of people in this country, including Rick Perry who wants to amend the Constitution based upon his religious beliefs.

I don't believe it is irrelevant at all.  I think it is very relevant.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on its relevance.

(06-14-2015, 03:24 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: And i'll continue to question man, believer or not, because he is fallible. 

I also understand your distaste for those that refuse to admit mistakes. 

(06-14-2015, 03:32 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Man wrote the bible, which seems to be the only record of God or Jesus ever saying anything.

(06-14-2015, 02:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You won't even acknowledge the difference between a 2D object and a 3D object.  By rejecting simple, rational logic you reinforce the stereotype that Christians like you reject simple, rational logic.

(06-14-2015, 03:43 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: And if i believe that parts of the bible are the Word of God, given through man; that doesn't dispute my belief that interpretations, given by men after the fact, are fallible. 

(06-14-2015, 03:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Scripture also states that he suspends the earth over nothing.

Now read what I wrote and add that to your little experiment. Suspend one of the washers and look at it from different vantage points (maybe like from the side).

Does it always appear in the shape of a circle? Now once you arrive at the no answer; do the same with  ball and let me know if it looks like a circle when viewed from vantage point.

(06-15-2015, 01:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did the verse say He sits above the circle of the Earth or beside the circle of the Earth?

(06-14-2015, 03:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Bringing them up in response to my posts is absolutely irrelevant. Seeing as I referred to them as ignorant and the only ones taking the literalist interpretation in the thread are those arguing in the position against religion, Christians that believe in Bible literalism/inerrancy are not a part of this conversation.

(06-15-2015, 01:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It said above because it was dealing in 3D. Why would it say beside; that represents 2D?

Of course you didn't answer the question posed. I wonder why?

(06-15-2015, 01:34 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And I've made an argument which doesn't deal with with a literal translation.  I don't believe in a God who would create Adam and Eve in innocence, create the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil he told them not to eat from, create the serpent who deceived them, and place them all together in the Garden of Eden fully knowing the Fall of Man would occur because they were innocent and without knowledge of good/evil/right/wrong and then get pissed off because Adam, Eve, and the serpent all did exactly what he knew they would do before Creation itself and punished them for doing what he knew they were going to do.  That is a classic example of setting someone up for failure.  He knew they were going to fail before Creation and allowed it.  That story is so illogical a Creator rational enough to create the human nervous system is too rational to act that irrationally.  Therefore, I reject the whole premise as nothing more than a myth no different than any of the other creation myths Christians reject as myth.

It is also said God cannot lie.  Yet, he told Eve if she ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil she would die.  She didn't die when she ate the Forbidden Fruit.  God lied.  But, whether a non-believer argues a literal interpretation or an allegorical interpretation, the believer will always argue for the opposite.

If Christians who didn't believe in inerrancy weren't a part of my life and the political landscape of this country then they wouldn't be a part of this conversation.  Until then, I'm including them.

(06-15-2015, 02:44 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: In the end, Adam and Eve had the option to do it the easy way or the hard way. You say it's illogical that God would create them the way He did, knowing they would fail; yet without the option to fail, free will doesn't exist. Free will exists so that each person chooses to accept Him, on their own. If free will was created so that they could choose, where is the logic in creating them without the ability to fail? 

All that said, let's assume He knew they would fail. I've always been one to advocate personal responsibility for one's actions. Them failing, even though He created the situation isn't God's fault because they had the option to follow His instructions or not follow them. Ultimately, they choose not to do what He said. The good news is, it didn't end there. Once they fell, he created a way for them to atone. Since the original fall, He did that not once, but twice. The second time making it so easy, all you had to do was simply ask His forgiveness, when previously you had to engage in sacrificing an animal. 

Where you see an irrational, illogical God, i see a God that loves man enough that he keeps making a ways for them to atone for their sins.

God didn't lie to Eve. In the beginning, they were not supposed to die. After the original sin, they did. So Him telling her that she would die doesn't necessarily mean she would die right away because he said "you will certainly die" not "you will instantly die".

People who see an illogical, irrational God, focus on the situation that caused the fall or the situation that caused a fail and they ignore how God kept creating ways for man to atone for his mistakes. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, a question(s) i have is; why would so many historical men write different books on the same subject, which would eventually become one book, to the point that so many millions of people would follow it and create followings and churches(ignoring for a second how that's not necessarily a good thing--the fracturing and differences), making it such a polarizing subject over thousands of years? Where else has a story been told, in the history of man, that has had the kind of effect on civilizations that the bible has? If we're speaking of illogical, it seems very illogical to me that something(s) written over a couple thousand years would be condensed into one book and it would have the kind of effect it has had...if it were indeed, fiction.

(06-15-2015, 02:44 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: In the end, Adam and Eve had the option to do it the easy way or the hard way. You say it's illogical that God would create them the way He did, knowing they would fail; yet without the option to fail, free will doesn't exist. Free will exists so that each person chooses to accept Him, on their own. If free will was created so that they could choose, where is the logic in creating them without the ability to fail? 

All that said, let's assume He knew they would fail. I've always been one to advocate personal responsibility for one's actions. Them failing, even though He created the situation isn't God's fault because they had the option to follow His instructions or not follow them. Ultimately, they choose not to do what He said. The good news is, it didn't end there. Once they fell, he created a way for them to atone. Since the original fall, He did that not once, but twice. The second time making it so easy, all you had to do was simply ask His forgiveness, when previously you had to engage in sacrificing an animal. 

Where you see an irrational, illogical God, i see a God that loves man enough that he keeps making a ways for them to atone for their sins.

Quote:God didn't lie to Eve. In the beginning, they were not supposed to die. After the original sin, they did. So Him telling her that she would die doesn't necessarily mean she would die right away because he said "you will certainly die" not "you will instantly die".


People who see an illogical, irrational God, focus on the situation that caused the fall or the situation that caused a fail and they ignore how God kept creating ways for man to atone for his mistakes. 

Quote:On another note, a question(s) i have is; why would so many historical men write different books on the same subject, which would eventually become one book, to the point that so many millions of people would follow it and create followings and churches(ignoring for a second how that's not necessarily a good thing--the fracturing and differences), making it such a polarizing subject over thousands of years? Where else has a story been told, in the history of man, that has had the kind of effect on civilizations that the bible has? If we're speaking of illogical, it seems very illogical to me that something(s) written over a couple thousand years would be condensed into one book and it would have the kind of effect it has had...if it were indeed, fiction.

Quote:On another note, a question(s) i have is; why would so many historical men write different books on the same subject, which would eventually become one book, to the point that so many millions of people would follow it and create followings and churches(ignoring for a second how that's not necessarily a good thing--the fracturing and differences), making it such a polarizing subject over thousands of years? Where else has a story been told, in the history of man, that has had the kind of effect on civilizations that the bible has? If we're speaking of illogical, it seems very illogical to me that something(s) written over a couple thousand years would be condensed into one book and it would have the kind of effect it has had...if it were indeed, fiction.