Tinduriel Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Still I fail to see the sense in this whole debate. You have just proven that if one deliberately misinterprets the bible one will come to conclusion that there is some serious fallacies in it. As neat and wonderous as it might be there is not any reason in it. :lol: There are many ways to interprete the bible and then come to the same conclusion, but originally it wasn't meant to be interpreted that way. And nowdays the church has taken a new POV on the bible. They take it metaphoracly(sp), this way they can avoid the flawes of the bible pretty good. And they say that this is the right way to interprete the bible. Do you really believe that it's the right interpretation of bible to take it as a historical fact? I seriously doubt it and if someone does take the bible in the way described in this thread they should reconsider their approach to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 6, 2004 Author Share Posted February 6, 2004 Flawed argument. The bible states these events clearly. The only reason for reinterperting it is if you can't stand the fact that your God is evil. Concession accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinduriel Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Ummh what exactly is flawed argument? Do you mean this: "And nowdays the church has taken a new POV on the bible. They take it metaphoracly(sp), this way they can avoid the flawes of the bible pretty good. And they say that this is the right way to interprete the bible."? If so it wasn't even an argument I merely stated that the church usually says so conserning the events. Could you answer my earlier queston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 6, 2004 Author Share Posted February 6, 2004 Concession accepted. The church does that because they have recognized that the God presented by their own bible is a barbaric murderer whose idea of "justice" is completely inappropriate for any civilized society. When even the Christian church has to deny their own book, that should be a sign that there's a reason for it. You've just proved my point quite nicely. And I don't really see what question you're asking me that I haven't answered. Did you mean: Do you really believe that it's the right interpretation of bible to take it as a historical fact? I seriously doubt it and if someone does take the bible in the way described in this thread they should reconsider their approach to it. In which case if you had read all of my arguments, you would notice that I have already answered you. Yes, this is how you have to interpert the bible for two reasons. 1) It was written as literal truth, and accepted that way for hundreds of years. Nowhere does it state that the events it describes are merely metaphors for the truth. This interpertation was added much later because any reasonable person can see that the bible is a book of evil if interperted literally. 2) (the more practical reason) If you don't consider the bible this way, the debate becomes a discussion of the accuracy of the bible, not of its contents. If you can deny its accuracy, that is a much easier argument to make than to argue that genocide is morally right. By doing this, you concede my initial debate. If you want to bring in the idea of inaccuracy, post your concession and we'll get started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinduriel Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 And I don't really see what question you're asking me that I haven't answered. Did you mean: Do you really believe that it's the right interpretation of bible to take it as a historical fact? I seriously doubt it and if someone does take the bible in the way described in this thread they should reconsider their approach to it. In which case if you had read all of my arguments, you would notice that I have already answered you. Yes, this is how you have to interpert the bible for two reasons. 1) It was written as literal truth, and accepted that way for hundreds of years. Nowhere does it state that the events it describes are merely metaphors for the truth. This interpertation was added much later because any reasonable person can see that the bible is a book of evil if interperted literally. Now isn't it logical to assume that whoever wrote the bible did want it to be taken as a literal fact. So that would be the right intrepretation. Now how many times does the bible state that God is allpowerfull, allknowing and perfect being. And I believe the bible also states that God is good. From this, could one maybe come to conclusion that God's morals are good. You'll probably respond: No, what can be taken as a fact is that God himself sayd so, couldn'd that be a lie. Yes it could. It's been a long time when I last read the bible, but I have the impression that the bible states that God is perfect, good etc. just as normal text, not only when God himself says so. Come to think at it, Im not sure at all that it's so. Hmm maybe I should check that out, but I haven't got the time nor the will. Edit: It is also logical to assume whoever wrote the bible meant God's words to be taken as truth. This would mean that God is perfect, good etc. So God's morals are good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 6, 2004 Author Share Posted February 6, 2004 Hmm maybe I should check that out, but I haven't got the time nor the will. So you're just making up "might be" facts without any evidence to support them, and you refuse to even look it up? Concession accepted. Do not repost this argument until you find those examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinduriel Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 You answer so fast and I like to edit my post this confuses things. I try and clear things up then. "It was written as literal truth, and accepted that way for hundreds of years. Nowhere does it state that the events it describes are merely metaphors for the truth. This interpertation was added much later because any reasonable person can see that the bible is a book of evil if interperted literally." As I said in the Edit also God's word was written as literal truth, and those were too accepted that way for hundreds of years. So why not take God's words as a literal truth. If you take events in the bible as historical facts with the same reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 6, 2004 Author Share Posted February 6, 2004 Because we don't have to, and it would make the whole point of the debate invalid. We have to consider the bible an accurate historical record or there's nothing to debate. If the bible's events aren't unarguable fact, I can counter your whole "God created us which gives him authority" argument with three simple words: "God doesn't exist." We consider the bible an unbiased historical report of what happened. Everything that is stated in the bible happened, no more, no less. If you read my other post, I've explained this. We have 100% proof that God claimed he was good. What is not proven is that God is telling the truth when he says this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinduriel Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Still I fail to see the sense in this whole debate. You have just proven that if one deliberately misinterprets the bible one will come to conclusion that there is some serious fallacies in it. You could have restricted the debate more easily. Just say in the opening post that you are right :D. I should perhaps start a thread and state in the opening post that we shall take God's words in the bible as literal truth and then I could proof that God is good and he/she/it exist. But there would be no sense in it. If we are to take the bible as you have said, I believe I have stated this earlier, you are completely right, we can and we should question Gods morality. Off-Topic1: And BTW im not a religious person and do not consider myself a christian. Off-Topic2: The bible is full of contradictions I know, but it really comes down to how you interprete it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 6, 2004 Author Share Posted February 6, 2004 The debate is not about whether we can question God's morality. Despite Darnoc and Hundinman's arguing, this was stated in the initial post, so there can be a debate. The debate is about what answer we get when we do so. If you're going to complain, at least pay enough attention to complain about the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.