Thread: Why Christians are not just a load of backwards imbeciles.

All around the interwebs I have noticed that most non-Christains are extremely hostile to all Christians, automatically vilifying them without really knowing what Christians believe, and before they know that apart from the central tenants of the faith there is a great amount of disagreement within Christianity on issues such as the age of the Earth/universe.

Not all of us believe that the world was created in seven literal days, and that those who believe otherwise will burn in hell.

Personally, I think that everything proven by science to be true is true. I am not entirely sure of my position on evolution: I am considering it as a possibility. I see no reason why man's body could not possibly have arisen by natural means. I believe that everything in the Bible is true, but I am open to varying interpretations of the text.

I'm just so tired of everyone calling us all backwards, sub-70-IQ hicks.

Sorry if I seem like I'm just going all over the place and not going anywhere, but I'm just eager to see what you all think about this subject.

Originally Posted by Rickrold

I believe that everything in the Bible is true, but I am open to varying interpretations of the text.

Well here is our first problem.

"True" in what sense?

As in, as a historical reference, as a way to live one's life and find salvation, and as accurate prophecy.

Originally Posted by Rickrold

As in, as a historical reference, as a way to live one's life and find salvation, and as accurate prophecy.

So if you accept everything in the Bible as true, you would have to see the creation stories as true, correct?

"Day" does not have to be literal. Also, it may or may not be an allegory. I am not closed to discussion.

P.S. - I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!

Originally Posted by Rickrold

"Day" does not have to be literal. Also, it may or may not be an allegory. I am not closed to discussion.

P.S. - I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!

I didn't mention anything about days as of yet.

In order to rid ourselves of confusion, why don't you tell me exactly what parts of the creation stories you see as true?

All of them.

Now I know you're going to say that I'm contradicting myself. An allegory can still be defined as expressing a total and definite truth.

Originally Posted by Rickrold

All of them.

Now I know you're going to say that I'm contradicting myself. An allegory can still be defined as expressing a total and definite truth.

Good prediction. How can you see evolution as a possibility if you believe everything in the creation stories, which state God created man and animals, are true?

Did you read my last post or not?

Originally Posted by Rickrold

Did you read my last post or not?

"An allegory can still be defined as expressing a total and definite truth."

An allegory is a sort of symbolic narrative. If the creation stories are allegories, yet are still total and definitely true...what's the point of calling it an allegory? Why not just call it the truth?

Originally Posted by Rickrold

It's the truth represented in a non-literal form.

God created the heavens, earth, animals, and man, but not literally?

A little clarity would help.

Women must marry their rapists. Slavery is fine. Kill disobedient children.

How do you 'interpret' these little gems?

Nice Douglas quote though.

Originally Posted by Xei

Women must marry their rapists. Slavery is fine. Kill disobedient children.

How do you 'interpret' these little gems?

Nice Douglas quote though.

Those are all a part of the 'Old Covenant' that was in effect before the death of Christ. That covenant is no longer in effect.

And thanks.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

"An allegory can still be defined as expressing a total and definite truth."

An allegory is a sort of symbolic narrative. If the creation stories are allegories, yet are still total and definitely true...what's the point of calling it an allegory? Why not just call it the truth?

It's the truth represented in a non-literal form.

Originally Posted by Rickrold

Those are all a part of the 'Old Covenant' that was in effect before the death of Christ. That covenant is no longer in effect.

Says who?

Originally Posted by Rickrold

Those are all a part of the 'Old Covenant' that was in effect before the death of Christ. That covenant is no longer in effect.

Does it matter? Isn't the fact that they were in effect at some point just as disturbing?

How does he make it difficult?

As for all of these other points, I will do some research and come back later with an answer; I am still recovering from the narrow-mindedness of YEC and don't have everything sorted out.

I'm sorry- he only makes it difficult for people who use their brains and question things.

Not to derail your logical thread in which you make logical conclusions that are scientific and logical, Chayba, but to go back to something that was posted earlier...

Originally Posted by Rickrold

How does he make it difficult?

The better question is what has he done to make it easy? The answer is, apparently, absolutely nothing.

First of all, he forgot to write the Bible in every language, necessitating translations which inherently are prone to mistranslations. You can blame humans for the mistranslations and misunderstandings all you want, but the truth is that god should have known better. It was short sighted beyond what I would even expect from a half-competent human, let alone a god. Secondly, the Bible is written in such a way that it "requires interpretation." This is about as egregious of an error as not writing it to be readable to all people in that it's not clear which parts require interpretation or how we're supposed to interpret them. If it was clearly applicable and, well, just made sense it wouldn't really need interpretation. But it's glaringly obvious that the Bible should not be taken literally. Some of it is outright insanity. Some of it seems barbaric even for the time it was written. And yet as a couple of the examples given in this thread show, are apparently specific instructions. Are they metaphorical specific instructions? You say that some of those rules don't apply anymore. Okay, so why didn't god release a memo stating they should be removed? That'd be convenient, but for whatever reason he seems to be fine to leave them in there, despite knowing that: 1. They don't apply anymore and no longer accurately represent Christianity, even though the Bible is held to be the source from which Christianity is derived. 2. Are quite disgusting, turning people away from the religion. 3. Make it appear that the books of the Bible were written by ancient savages, rather than a god.

Basically nothing that god has supposedly done makes any sense nor is at all consistent with his description. While it may seem obvious to you that your religion is true, to an outsider every brand of Christianity seems mostly the same, yet with important differences. Yet they all claim to be derived from the same book and nigh identical arguments are given in support of their truth. Not only that, people of other religions entirely provide essentially identical arguments in support of theirs. So what we're left with is what appears to be a bunch of ancient myths which are all claimed to be 100% true, yet all incompatible with each other, all proved by the same types of bad arguments. Your religion is not special. It does not stand out and I reckon not going to appeal to the average non-religious person any more than any other religion. They all seem equally false.




PS

(I realize no one has said this, but I'm just mentioning this in anticipation of it/as a related thought)

"God works in mysterious ways" is an excuse used when you realize that your idea of god is incompatible with reality or inconsistent with itself. That line might reassure you, but don't waste my time with it. Saying "god works in mysterious ways" is what you do to ignore the complications and inconsistencies presented by your mixed up idea of god rather than accepting the simple answer which removes all such mysteries and inconsistencies; God does not exist.

Originally Posted by Rickrold

Those are all a part of the 'Old Covenant' that was in effect before the death of Christ. That covenant is no longer in effect.

Jesus: 'every jot and tittle is still true'. And how do you interpret this?

God created all of those things, but not necessarily in the "BAM - there it was" way that it seems in imply when read in a literal manner. Cosmic, animal, and possibly even human evolution may have been used by God to bring about his creation.

Certain passages in Genesis are written in a manner that expresses non-literal truth as if it were literal. This was once common among ancient Eastern writers but is unseen today.

Originally Posted by Rickrold

God created all of those things, but not necessarily in the "BAM - there it was" way that it seems in imply when read in a literal manner. Cosmic, animal, and possibly even human evolution may have been used by God to bring about his creation.

Certain passages in Genesis are written in a manner that expresses non-literal truth as if it were literal. This was once common among ancient Eastern writers but is unseen today.

Okay. So what evidence do you have that shows 1) God exists, and 2) God had a role in creating man and animals (in this case using natural processes)?

Originally Posted by Rickrold

God has always existed. He is incorporeal and outside of science.

What proof do you have that this 'gospel' is true?

1) Self-contradiction there, Rickrold. And where does it say he has always existed? You said so yourself, everything has to start somewhere. If you can't provide proof the the Bible says directly, "God has always existed," then you need to realize then we may be stretching beyond the history that Christians want to believe. Ground rule for me: You cannot imagine, conceive, or know the absolute beginning of everything. Period.

2) It was probably eliminated from the 4th century meeting when they cut out hundreds of books out of the original Bible. Look it up.

EDIT: Here's the best I could find: click here to see what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Rickrold

God has always existed. He is incorporeal and outside of science.

If God cannot be detected through the means of science, that means he can't, in any way at all, influence any events in our universe. Or to be more accurate, he doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Marvo

If God cannot be detected through the means of science, that means he can't, in any way at all, influence any events in our universe. Or to be more accurate, he doesn't exist.

I think its better to say: if its outside of science, its outside of evidence, and thus its probably outside of existence. Or, at least, there's no point in discussing the factual existence of it.

Originally Posted by Marvo

If God cannot be detected through the means of science, that means he can't, in any way at all, influence any events in our universe. Or to be more accurate, he doesn't exist.

This is not true. This is called scientism, in which natural science is held to be the only valid avenue of knowledge. It is one thing to say that everything that science has proven to be a fact is true, but it is quite another thing to say that everything that is true can be proven by science.