Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Mar 4, '14 at 10:26am

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,834 posts

Some information for the next time you hear someone say how the Bible is unchanging.
Bible Hunters - Do you believe the the Bible is the inerrant unchanging word of God?


I think the significance of the passage is even more profound. The fact that he was not present in this scene tells us that he is recounting second-hand information from someone who was, but if "they told no one" is all he has to say (odd, because finding someone come back from the grave seems like something one should not omit), who could have told him about the grave scene? This whole thing reeks of a third-person omniscient narration.
 

Posted Mar 4, '14 at 10:41am

09philj

09philj

2,139 posts

That far side cartoon... you do understand that it is implying that god created evil for his own amusement?

 

Posted Mar 4, '14 at 11:26am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,800 posts

Knight

I think the significance of the passage is even more profound. The fact that he was not present in this scene tells us that he is recounting second-hand information from someone who was, but if "they told no one" is all he has to say (odd, because finding someone come back from the grave seems like something one should not omit), who could have told him about the grave scene? This whole thing reeks of a third-person omniscient narration.


Another explanation is that it was a completely made up story. We can pull parallels from earlier fictional stories that would suggest this as well.
 

Posted Mar 4, '14 at 1:34pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,834 posts

Another explanation is that it was a completely made up story. We can pull parallels from earlier fictional stories that would suggest this as well.


That sort of was my explanation, but whatever. As a preemptive measure, I'd like to point out now that there is no way to verify that the Quran and its interpretation have not changed, either.
 

Posted Mar 4, '14 at 11:34pm

amalager

amalager

27 posts

Hmmm. Interesting read. A bit long though. IMO, you need religion to tell you to be nice to others. Just respect what others believe in.

 

Posted Mar 4, '14 at 11:56pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,834 posts

Hmmm. Interesting read. A bit long though. IMO, you need religion to tell you to be nice to others. Just respect what others believe in.


Do you mean that religion needs to tell us to be nice, or that we need religion in order to be nice? If the latter, I advise you to start reading here.
 

Posted Mar 10, '14 at 10:01pm

anewbeginning

anewbeginning

334 posts

Hmmm. Interesting read. A bit long though. IMO, you need religion to tell you to be nice to others. Just respect what others believe in.


You do not need religion to tell you to be nice to others. Be nice to others. I just told you to be nice to others and I am not a religion, therefore you do not need religion to tell you to be nice to others. Unless if up until now you were in a position were none besides religion could tell you to be nice to others, in which you were correct.
 

Posted Mar 20, '14 at 8:29pm

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

9,474 posts

Moderator

This point was brought up in another thread, and MattemAngel did say if we discussed it there it would skew the topic to become more of this thread's nature (which I agree), so let's discuss it here, because I think it's a good idea to clarify what validation means in regards to religion.


I noticed that you ignored the Bible as a "reliable source," so you're already biased towards the question, which is essentially a flame war waiting to happen.


Can the Bible be used as a reliable source to explain Christianity? I don't think it is applicable. Invoking the Bible, the tool used as a foundation for Christian Lore and beliefs, as a reliable source for information we're inquiring is to be convicted of Circular Reasoning. You can't use one source to prove nor explain the very same source--we get nowhere. It requires multiple, outside data 'mining',if you will, to wholly verify whether or not this piece of lore took place.

It's the same for Endosymbiotic Theory, something that wasn't under scientific consensus until recently. They never used the original findings to prove the original findings (though it did set a course for other studies to have a crack at it). It had to take multiple independent verification to finally accept Endosymbiotic Theory into scientific consensus.
 

Posted Mar 20, '14 at 8:56pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,834 posts

From the other thread:

I noticed that you ignored the Bible as a "reliable source," so you're already biased towards the question


This is not (pron. not) indicative of any such bias. There are stringent limitations upon what sources can qualify as "reliable". At best, we may conclude that it meets two criteria; being a primary source, and having high spacial/temporal proximity to some of the events described. It falls far short of every other standard. It has no support from independent sources. It is derived from highly biased and conflicting accounts. It has been edited at length and rewritten several times over.
 

Posted Dec 8, '14 at 10:22pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,485 posts

[Continuing stuff from this thread]

@apldeap123

But I do have one question: Why did you decide to leave being a JW?

A biblical contradiction was pointed out to me here, with the conflicting reports of Jesus healing either one or two blind men on the way to or from a city, so I looked up what the JW stance on it was. They reconciled the city dilemma by stating that two cities with the same name were right next to each other, so he was walking between the cities when the healing occurred. As for the number of people healed, their response was basically that it doesn't matter, people make mistakes, who cares? But there's no point to covering one discrepancy and disregarding another whilst claiming that such stories are inerrant.
 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!