Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

1…117118120122123…141

Comments

  • #3572
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    galljga1 wrote: »
    I do not have the energy to contradict this. It is in the book, it must be true, I give up and am saved.
    You don't have the energy to contradict this because it cannot be contradicted.
    katydid wrote: »
    Stories are not necessarily fictional.

    The reality of the Christian story, to those who believe, is that God became incarnate, lived, died and rose again, and showed us how to live.

    I thought that was fairly well known
    Many stories are entirely fictional ... and all stories are a mixture of fact and fiction ... or even spin.

    The reality, whether one believes it or not, is that Jesus Christ is God incarnate and died in perfect atonement for sin ... and everbody who wishes to obtain His perfect mercy, rather than His perfect justice, needs to ask for it.

    I'm not sure which is worse ... the outright denial of God by atheists ... or His 'packaging' in the sweet, nice-sounding ... but ultimately meaningless words of modernism, by well-meaning Christians.


  • #3573
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    You don't have the energy to contradict this because it cannot be contradicted.

    Many stories are entirely fictional ... and all stories are a mixture of fact and fiction ... or even spin.

    The reality, whether one believes it or not, is that Jesus Christ is God incarnate and died in perfect atonement for sin ... and everbody who wishes to obtain His perfect mercy, rather than His perfect justice, needs to ask for it.
    So the story of your life, that you tell your children or grandchildren, is partly fictional?

    But yes, SOME stories are entirely fictional and some are partly fictional. The story told in the gospels are the basis for the Christian story; and yes, they are a mixture of fact, fiction and spin. The Christian story, however, is what believers extract from the writings. If you read the gospel stories as fact, they clearly don't make sense, since there are so many contradictions. So you have to use your intelligence and common sense - God forbid, no pun intended!


  • #3574
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    J C wrote: »
    You don't have the energy to contradict this because it cannot be contradicted.

    Many stories are entirely fictional ... and all stories are a mixture of fact and fiction ... or even spin.

    The reality, whether one believes it or not, is that Jesus Christ is God incarnate and died in perfect atonement for sin ... and everbody who wishes to obtain His perfect mercy, rather than His perfect justice, needs to ask for it.

    I'm not sure which is worse ... the outright denial of God by atheists ... or His 'packaging' in the sweet, nice-sounding ... but ultimately meaningless words of modernism, by well-meaning Christians.

    It cannot be contradicted? You are actually contradicting it in the above.


  • #3575
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    katydid wrote: »
    So the story of your life, that you tell your children or grandchildren, is partly fictional?
    I don't tell stories about my life to my children ... I tell them what actually happened.
    katydid wrote: »
    But yes, SOME stories are entirely fictional and some are partly fictional. The story told in the gospels are the basis for the Christian story; and yes, they are a mixture of fact, fiction and spin. The Christian story, however, is what believers extract from the writings. If you read the gospel stories as fact, they clearly don't make sense, since there are so many contradictions. So you have to use your intelligence and common sense - God forbid, no pun intended!
    You're now conflating parables, which are clear analogies, with factual accounts of historical events ... both of which are found in the Bible.

    Stories and fables have their place, in making moral priniples more understandable ... but the Christian Faith isn't founded on stories or fables ... it's founded on the factual reality of a loving God who created us, incarnated Himself, loves us and has given us the choice of receiving His infinte mercy or His infinite justice ... when He comes to judge our behaviour and our sin.


  • #3576
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    galljga1 wrote: »
    It cannot be contradicted? You are actually contradicting it in the above.
    You're conflating my posting on the Egyptian plagues ... and my posting on the stories and fables of modernism.

    Two totally separate issues.


  • Advertisement
  • #3577
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    I don't tell stories about my life to my children ... I tell them what actually happened.

    You're now conflating parables, which are clear analogies, with factual accounts of historical events ... both of which are found in the Bible.

    Stories and fables have their place, in making moral priniples more understandable ... but the Christian Faith isn't founded on stories ... its founded on the factual reality of a loving God who created us, incarnated Himself, loves us and has given us the choice of receiving His infinte mercy or His infinite justice ... when He comes to judge our behaviour and our sin.
    When you tell your children about your life, you're telling them the story of what has happened to you.

    I am certainly not conflating anything. As I pointed out, the gospels have truths, fiction and spin. I didn't specify parable or anything else. I am very well aware of the difference between a parable and a factual account, some of which are true, some of which are exaggerated or spun.

    You can't understand the basic message of the gospels if you don't accept that the life of Jesus was a real, human one, and that his various "biographies" were written by different people with different writing styles, different agenda, and different experiences, using shared sources and outside sources. Of course what you outline is part of the message, but it's important to remember the humanity of Jesus


  • #3578
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    katydid wrote: »
    When you tell your children about your life, you're telling them the story of what has happened to you.

    I am certainly not conflating anything. As I pointed out, the gospels have truths, fiction and spin. I didn't specify parable or anything else. I am very well aware of the difference between a parable and a factual account, some of which are true, some of which are exaggerated or spun.
    What factual accounts are exaggerated or spun in the Gospels?

    Is this type of interpretation common within Anglicanism?
    katydid wrote: »
    You can't understand the basic message of the gospels if you don't accept that the life of Jesus was a real, human one, and that his various "biographies" were written by different people with different writing styles, different agenda, and different experiences, using shared sources and outside sources. Of course what you outline is part of the message, but it's important to remember the humanity of Jesus
    ... and yet you also believe the whole thing to be divinely inspired???
    Our omniscient God must have been going through a 'confused' period at the time, I guess!!!:rolleyes:
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by marienbad
    What do you mean ? Are you saying the Christian story is divinely inspired or what ?
    Yes. That's what I believe.

    katydid
    Yes. That's what I believe.


  • #3579
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭indioblack


    J C wrote: »
    You don't have the energy to contradict this because it cannot be contradicted.

    Many stories are entirely fictional ... and all stories are a mixture of fact and fiction ... or even spin.

    The reality, whether one believes it or not, is that Jesus Christ is God incarnate and died in perfect atonement for sin ... and everbody who wishes to obtain His perfect mercy, rather than His perfect justice, needs to ask for it.

    I'm not sure which is worse ... the outright denial of God by atheists ... or His 'packaging' in the sweet, nice-sounding ... but ultimately meaningless words of modernism, by well-meaning Christians.



    An interesting point. If we choose justice, perfect justice, need we fear the consequences?
    Perfect mercy should be the better option.
    Is there really a choice?
    If people accept these two options as real, I'd say there was no choice.
    The attitude of atheists, I think, is perhaps based on an inaccurate perception of what a god would be - and I'd be guilty of that, too.
    We may share spiritual elements with this god, if he exists, but I wonder, once again, if our notions of justice and morality would entirely correspond with his.


  • #3580
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    What factual accounts are exaggerated or spun in the Gospels?

    Is this type of interpretation common within Anglicanism?

    ... and yet you also believe the whole thing to be divinely inspired???
    Our omniscient God must have been going through a 'confused' period at the time, I guess!!!:rolleyes:
    We can't be sure what is exaggerated or spun, but it stands to reason that some must be, given the variance of accounts in some cases. Take the Resurrection, for example; who was there and what they saw differs. Which is not surprising, when you consider they were written at different times; and that each writer wanted to emphasise something different. In John's gospel, for example, Mary Magdalene plays a much more crucial role than in earlier gospels. She finds the body, she's the first person Jesus approaches. This gospel also contains a - probably symbolic - description of the race to the tomb between Peter and "the one whom Jesus loved most", John. The race, and their reactions to what they found there, are very significant. But not described elsewhere. Why? Because John had a particular theological slant.

    It's common within Christianity, not just Anglicanism, to read the gospels intelligently, with the full knowledge that they are man made documents. It doesn't mean one dismisses them or that they weren't divinely inspired. It's just plain silly to suggest that "God was going through a confused period" - God gave humans the freedom to act as they do. He didn't dictate a document word for word, as Mohammed claimed; he inspired them to write their version of what they understood had happened.

    It's up to us to use those texts wisely.


  • #3581
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    J C wrote: »
    You're conflating my posting on the Egyptian plagues ... and my posting on the stories and fables of modernism.

    Two totally separate issues.

    Educate me please. Apart from the bible, is there any verifiable historical evidence to back up the stories of the biblical plagues visited on Egypt? The existence of Moses? The mass exodus from Egypt? The parting of the red sea?


  • Advertisement
  • #3582
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    katydid wrote: »
    We can't be sure what is exaggerated or spun, but it stands to reason that some must be, given the variance of accounts in some cases. Take the Resurrection, for example; who was there and what they saw differs. Which is not surprising, when you consider they were written at different times; and that each writer wanted to emphasise something different. In John's gospel, for example, Mary Magdalene plays a much more crucial role than in earlier gospels. She finds the body, she's the first person Jesus approaches. This gospel also contains a - probably symbolic - description of the race to the tomb between Peter and "the one whom Jesus loved most", John. The race, and their reactions to what they found there, are very significant. But not described elsewhere. Why? Because John had a particular theological slant.

    It's common within Christianity, not just Anglicanism, to read the gospels intelligently, with the full knowledge that they are man made documents. It doesn't mean one dismisses them or that they weren't divinely inspired. It's just plain silly to suggest that "God was going through a confused period" - God gave humans the freedom to act as they do. He didn't dictate a document word for word, as Mohammed claimed; he inspired them to write their version of what they understood had happened.

    It's up to us to use those texts wisely.

    A much more reasonable approach. Not one that I agree with but at least it is not taking the bible as Gospel, pun intended.


  • #3583
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    galljga1 wrote: »
    A much more reasonable approach. Not one that I agree with but at least it is not taking the bible as Gospel, pun intended.

    It's a more common approach than you realise. Only unthinking people could read contradictory accounts in the gospels, and ancient myths, and accept them blindly. Even those who will tell you they don't contextualise do, when you push them...


  • #3584
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭indioblack


    katydid wrote: »
    It's a more common approach than you realise. Only unthinking people could read contradictory accounts in the gospels, and ancient myths, and accept them blindly. Even those who will tell you they don't contextualise do, when you push them...


    For those who believe in the biblical accounts literally I'd suggest that they simply incorporated that attitude when they were first taught religion.
    They aren't unthinking, just thinking differently.
    So much of religion is taught by rote, and accepted without question.
    A contradiction in scripture may be the consequence of different authors points of view or a desire to put their own slant on the story.
    Tales like the killing of the first-born in Exodus may serve some symbolic purpose - more likely they just confuse people.
    It would be more productive if the bible was tidied up!
    Assuming agreement could be reached on what should be excluded.


  • #3585
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    indioblack wrote: »
    Why should these people be penalised by god for the actions of their ruler?
    As for issuing a warning to everyone - well, pointless as it would have been, god can surely do that.
    You're right, Pharaoh was the boss, in this story he was responsible, so the compulsion to act should have been placed on him alone.

    Exodus makes it clear that the Pharaoh and the Pharaoh's henchmen were given several warnings before any of those warnings were acted upon.

    You accept that the King/Pharaoh/Chieftain in those times retained all power over their people.

    It is logical therefore that God would attempt to first persuade the person who retains that sovereign power, so that person in turn would persuade their subjects.


  • #3586
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    hinault wrote: »
    Exodus makes it clear that the Pharaoh and the Pharaoh's henchmen were given several warnings before any of those warnings were acted upon.

    You accept that the King/Pharaoh/Chieftain in those times retained all power over their people.

    It is logical therefore that God would attempt to first persuade the person who retains that sovereign power, so that person in turn would persuade their subjects.

    Apart from the bible, where is this documented? Taking the account of something that has allegedly happened 3500 to maybe 3800 years ago, from an ancient book literally is not the cleverest of approaches.


  • #3587
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    galljga1 wrote: »
    A much more reasonable approach. Not one that I agree with but at least it is not taking the bible as Gospel, pun intended.
    It certainly isn't taking either the Bible ... or its Gospels as Gospel ... and therein lies a very serious issue afflicting modernism.


  • #3588
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    It certainly isn't taking either the Bible ... or its Gospels as Gospel ... and therein lies a very serious issue afflicting modernism.

    Why?


  • #3589
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    hinault wrote: »
    God gives life, and with each life God separately gives each person free will.

    A slave doesn't have free will. A slave cannot obey his/her will.
    A slave only obeys the will of their master.

    Sorry I have only just got back to this but you are wrong again.

    A slave has free will and can obey his/her own will and disobey his/her master's, it's just that the slave risks punishment, from whipping, brandings etc. through to death. Just as you say we can disobey God and suffer God's punishment.


  • #3590
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Educate me please. Apart from the bible, is there any verifiable historical evidence to back up the stories of the biblical plagues visited on Egypt? The existence of Moses? The mass exodus from Egypt? The parting of the red sea?
    The plagues are recorded independently in Ipuwer Papyrus. for example.
    http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-ten-plagues.html

    http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match


  • #3591
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    The plagues are recorded independently in Ipuwer Papyrus. for example.
    http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-ten-plagues.html

    http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match

    Folk stories are usually based on real events. It doesn't mean that everything that is told in the story actually happened.


  • Advertisement
  • #3592
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    katydid wrote: »
    Why?
    Do you not think there is a problem if a Christian doesn't take the Gospels as Gospel i.e. the infallible Word of God?

    ... or is this just the way it is today in many Christian Churches, with everyone picking and choosing what they believe or disregard?


  • #3593
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    Do you not think there is a problem if a Christian doesn't take the Gospels as Gospel i.e. the Word of God?

    ... or is this just the way it is today in many Christian Churches?
    Who said they don't? They just use their common sense. Otherwise it's pretty confusing - different stories in different gospels...


  • #3594
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    katydid wrote: »
    Folk stories are usually based on real events. It doesn't mean that everything that is told in the story actually happened.
    Are you saying, as a Christian, that the revealed Word of God is a 'folk story' ... on a par with stories about Leprechauns and Unicorns???


  • #3595
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    katydid wrote: »
    Who said they don't? They just use their common sense. Otherwise it's pretty confusing - different stories in different gospels...
    Common sense is actually quite un-common, in my experience.

    Anyway, reporting historical events from different perspectives shouldn't cause any confusion, once it is reported accurately and truthfully, as is done in the Bible.


  • #3596
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    Are you saying, as a Christian, that the revealed Word of God is a 'folk story' ... on a par with stories about Leprechauns and Unicorns???

    Some of the OT is a folk story. Some is historical. Some is poetry. All written by humans, all inspired by God. And we have our God given intelligence to figure it the difference.


  • #3597
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    J C wrote: »
    Common sense is actually quite un-common, in my experience.

    Anyway, reporting historical events from different perspectives shouldn't cause any confusion, once it is reported accurately and truthfully, as is done in the Bible.


    But you admit that the accounts in the gospels differ? So which is correct? What, for example, is the true account of the visit to the tomb and finding the body of Jesus gone? If John is correct, then Mark is not accurate or truthful, right?


  • #3598
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    obplayer wrote: »
    Sorry I have only just got back to this but you are wrong again.

    A slave has free will and can obey his/her own will and disobey his/her master's, it's just that the slave risks punishment, from whipping, brandings etc. through to death. Just as you say we can disobey God and suffer God's punishment.

    St.Matthew's Gospel
    Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.
    Matthew sets a very high bar for one to believe. Can any follower of Jesus say that they attain, 24 hours per day 365 days per year, the standard recorded by Jesus in Matthews gospel? We can but try.

    A slave doesn't love his/her master.


  • #3599
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    katydid wrote: »
    But you admit that the accounts in the gospels differ? So which is correct? What, for example, is the true account of the visit to the tomb and finding the body of Jesus gone? If John is correct, then Mark is not accurate or truthful, right?

    This is where I have to take leave from people who take the bible literally. There are differing accounts of the same event, so, logically, it cannot be taken literally. Personally, I do not believe any of it but if one takes inspiration from it and lives a good life, as most Christians do, then the world is a better place.


  • #3600
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    J C wrote: »
    The plagues are recorded independently in Ipuwer Papyrus. for example.
    http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-ten-plagues.html

    http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match

    So a Papyrus that predates the birth of Moses is proof of the plagues? That is a bit of a leap, don't you think?


  • Advertisement
  • #3601
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    J C wrote: »
    Common sense is actually quite un-common, in my experience.

    Anyway, reporting historical events from different perspectives shouldn't cause any confusion, once it is reported accurately and truthfully, as is done in the Bible.

    Your post is a prime example of un-common sense: Katy is making the point that there ARE differing accounts of the same event in the bible. Which ones are reported accurately and truthfully?


Advertisement