I don't think you're fully assimilating my argument that God could just be a liar. You are making a logical leap from "The Bible cannot be true" to "The God of the Bible cannot exist". Your error is between steps 3 and 4 - there is nothing stopping God from divinely revealing falsehoods and contradictions. Therefore, the Bible could be false while the God of the bible be true.
Oh, I get your argument, but it's only proving my point.
It comes down to definition. As defined by the Bible, that God cannot exist because its very nature as defined is in direct conflict with itself. If you are saying "Well, what if God lied?" then that's no obstacle at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Further, if your conclusion is that the bible isn't evidence of anything, that applies both for and against: you can't say "the Bible proves God *doesn't* exist". By saying the God of the Bible (and not the Bible itself) is "demonstrably false", that is exactly what you are doing.
Once again, the Bible proposes a god that cannot exist because of the very qualities is suggests it has. If a god did divinely inspire the Bible, the god of which the the Bible defines is not that god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
All you can really say is that the Bible cannot be literally true at all points, and that it is open to just about any interpretation of its supposed author.
Therein lies the problem - a book that endorses all viewpoints ultimately endorses none.
...It's a little bit like the way we suspend our belief for movies or books we know are fiction. As long as the art stays within the rules it itself has presented, we can't really argue with it, and we accept it.
But in this case, the theology isn't even playing by the rules it has laid out for itself. It's full of contradictions and cases against itself.
You seem to be assuming that ancient, biblical literature should work like what we recognize as "fiction". This suggests in the first place that there are common conventions in place that permit us to recognize clearly that the biblical literature is fiction.
What literary elements make clear to you that "fiction" is the best genre classification for these texts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daradon
In the movie example, the Bible would be a crappy movie full of contradictions and continuity errors. It would be a summer blockbuster that flops because IT MAKES NO SENSE. Even in it's own rules. Even if you start out by believing that yes, it's possible god may exist, yes it's possible that someone may rise from the dead, so you can enjoy the movie one ends up feeling cheated because it doesn't play by the rules it outlined.
So what are the rules?
Of course the Bible makes no sense if presume to interpret it like a movie, any more than if we understood the Star Wars Trilogy as a blueprint for inter-galactic trade relations!
It is a mistake to approach the Bible and to expect internal consistency or continuity, simply because these are matters that were rather superficial and unimportant in practically all ancient literature. We can fault the Church for imposing rules that imply continuity, but these fail to properly understand and to engage with the biblical literature on its own terms. The biblical authors simply did not share the same concerns for narrative or philosophical coherence, because none of them proposed and undertook to write a "Bible". A huge number of the stories, rules, songs and poems in the Bible were discrete and loosely connected, independent, literary products, that were brought together on the unifying principle that they are some way or another connected to varying ideas about God.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
......the Bible proposes a god that cannot exist because of the very qualities is suggests it has. If a god did divinely inspire the Bible, the god of which the the Bible defines is not that god...
I find that people make broad assumptions about what is meant by "divinely inspired", and end up with a concept that is both indefensible and contrary to what how it functions in the Bible. In actual fact, the word that this term is translated from appears only once in the entire Bible, and only a few more times in the entire collection of classical Greek literature. It is most literally interpreted "God breathed," but even this does not bring us much closer to its probable meaning.
Most Christians assume inspiration to mean something like "spoken"—the idea that God "breathed out" from his mouth the very words of the Bible, or something like "emanating from God's essence"—the idea that the Bible is infused with his character or being. The first definition is not probable, because it comes across as a very odd way to say that God dictated the words of scripture. If this is what Paul meant, then he would have certainly said that scripture is "God spoken" rather than "God breathed". The second definition is closer to how the term functions—that God's breath produces a special quality, but most conceptions also carry with it the unnecessary freight of being a perfect representation of his character. Human beings were said to have been animated in exactly the same fashion (Gen 2:7), and yet the Bible is pretty consistent in its presentation of humanity as tragically flawed.
Why do we assume a burden of perfection for one product of "divine inspiration" but not for another?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I find that people make broad assumptions about what is meant by "divinely inspired", and end up with a concept that is both indefensible and contrary to what how it functions in the Bible. In actual fact, the word that this term is translated from appears only once in the entire Bible, and only a few more times in the entire collection of classical Greek literature. It is most literally interpreted "God breathed," but even this does not bring us much closer to its probable meaning.
Most Christians assume inspiration to mean something like "spoken"—the idea that God "breathed out" from his mouth the very words of the Bible, or something like "emanating from God's essence"—the idea that the Bible is infused with his character or being. The first definition is not probable, because it comes across as a very odd way to say that God dictated the words of scripture. If this is what Paul meant, then he would have certainly said that scripture is "God spoken" rather than "God breathed". The second definition is closer to how the term functions—that God's breath produces a special quality, but most conceptions also carry with it the unnecessary freight of being a perfect representation of his character. Human beings were said to have been animated in exactly the same fashion (Gen 2:7), and yet the Bible is pretty consistent in its presentation of humanity as tragically flawed.
Why do we assume a burden of perfection for one product of "divine inspiration" but not for another?
IIRC, the word "spirit" is rooted in the word for "breath".
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
Oh, I get your argument, but it's only proving my point.
If you got my argument, you would see that it actually disproves your point, as long as your point is that the "Christian God as described by the Bible" is "demonstrably false". If you wanted to say "my idea of what the Christian God is, as described by my literal interpretation of the Bible, is impossible", well, that's defensible, but that's not the same thing.
If this sounds like quibbling, it's because this is all too commonly the type of argument that is trotted out to try to convince Christians that they are mistaken in their beliefs, and it is ineffective precisely because it argues as if all Christians base their belief on the inerrancy of the Bible, which the majority don't. It's also a variation on the "only idiots believe this garbage - are you saying you're an idiot?" argument, which understandably does not resonate with the person being called an idiot, and thus usually fails in its purpose no matter how elegantly put together.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
^ It is quite a lot of quibble, and I'm sorry but your argument simply does not hold up.
As far as trying to convince Christians, what would I convince them of? I'm the one holding the assertion of others that any god exists in doubt. And when presented with a concept, I'm providing reasons why the proof put forward for the existence of a god is invalid, and why I reject that existence claim as a result. Or, if a concept is unknowable, then I'll say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Hedging your bets is only a good strategy if you can figure out what you're betting on.
Exactly the problem with "Pascal's Wager". The problem is you're dealing with a nearly infinite number of possible answers. Nevermind that there are plenty of 'gods' out there... what if the answer isn't just 'one' god, but many? One god or none aren't the only possibilities.
Oh, I get your argument, but it's only proving my point.
It comes down to definition. As defined by the Bible, that God cannot exist because its very nature as defined is in direct conflict with itself. If you are saying "Well, what if God lied?" then that's no obstacle at all.
Once again, the Bible proposes a god that cannot exist because of the very qualities is suggests it has. If a god did divinely inspire the Bible, the god of which the the Bible defines is not that god.
Therein lies the problem - a book that endorses all viewpoints ultimately endorses none.
I think that if Schrodinger's Cat can be both alive and dead at the same time, God can hold two differing opinions on what superficially seems to be the same thing. You are holding God up to a standard that may not exist. Or perhaps it both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, and it depends on what we are looking for?
The Following User Says Thank You to Knalus For This Useful Post:
Yes, it is, but the word in 2 Timothy 3 is not "pneuma" (πνευμα), it is "theopneustos" (θεοπνευστος). The compound between the two roots can no longer be understood on the basis of what the roots mean, but on how the compound is used in contemporary literature. From its extremely rare and inconsistent usage elsewhere in Greek lit., it does not seem to convey the sense of "God's spirit". In its use here, it actually more closely aligns with the Hebraic sense that I have suggested, and ought to be translated with reference to "God's life-giving power".
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
^ It is quite a lot of quibble, and I'm sorry but your argument simply does not hold up.
Based on what? Restating your argument was not a refutation, and flat out assertion is even worse. You are overly enamored of the idea that the Bible describes a God that can't exist, without considering that if I assume that a God DOES exist, then the Bible can be inspired by that God, however imperfectly, inaccurately, or contradictory to itself. Since the implicit assumption of a believer is that God is indeed real, that argument carries no conviction with such a person.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Yes, it is, but the word in 2 Timothy 3 is not "pneuma" (πνευμα), it is "theopneustos" (θεοπνευστος). The compound between the two roots can no longer be understood on the basis of what the roots mean, but on how the compound is used in contemporary literature. From its extremely rare and inconsistent usage elsewhere in Greek lit., it does not seem to convey the sense of "God's spirit". In its use here, it actually more closely aligns with the Hebraic sense that I have suggested, and ought to be translated with reference to "God's life-giving power".
The way that I understand it is, that it is the force that pushes my lungs in and out. When that force is no longer there neither will I be here. In the mean time, to be aware of it feels very good.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
I won't be watching. In fact I doubt anyone is going to take 45 minutes out of thier busy day to watch this. The OP could have posted a condensed version of what the video had to say.
I won't be watching. In fact I doubt anyone is going to take 45 minutes out of thier busy day to watch this. The OP could have posted a condensed version of what the video had to say.
Yet millions of people would take 2 hours out of their "busy day" to watch some dork talk about fairy tales in church.
At least this vid is free!
The Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
Atheists are like those door knockers; they lack self confidence and spend their lifetime convincing others of their beliefs. Wow isn't that what athiests dislike the most about organized religion?
Atheists are like those door knockers; they lack self confidence and spend their lifetime convincing others of their beliefs. Wow isn't that what athiests dislike the most about organized religion?
