Home

TheSinner.net

the Bible

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

the Bible

Postby ParisInTheAutumn on Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:48 pm

I'm not religious but I was procrastinating (like i am now) and started reading various material on christianity. I was originally under the impression, from going to sunday school and through general exposure of christianity that christians believed the stories of the bible actually took place, like the talking snake, Noah building an ark for all animals etc, but quite a lot of the modern literature seemed to say those stories were symbollic/abstract to teach various lessons.

Since St Andrews has quite a lot of christians i was wondering what they thought, also what is the official stance on that?
ParisInTheAutumn
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:04 pm

That there is no official stance because there is no such thing as a Christian position on anything - it depends on what strand of Christianity (Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, 7th Day Adventist, Etc, Etc) and in most strands on the individual's own reading.
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Senethro on Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:46 pm

Taking the bible literally is like a litmus test for detecting a nutter.

Whats the Jewish position on the equivalent part of Genesis? Image
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Tue May 01, 2007 7:43 am

The equivalent part of Genesis? You mean Genesis?

Same answer applies, only more so, there's no central position because there's no structure or hierarchy - every strain of Judaism, every Temple and every Jew will have his own take.
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Eliot Wilson on Tue May 01, 2007 9:43 am

Is this just a cunning ploy to try to get Paul back on here?

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."
Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."
Eliot Wilson
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 11:09 am

Re:

Postby inshaala on Tue May 01, 2007 10:29 am

lol

well - ask a creationist... they are always fun to listen to :)

[hr]

Ich will dass ihr mich versteht
Ich will dass ihr mich versteht
inshaala
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:16 am

Re:

Postby ParisInTheAutumn on Tue May 01, 2007 6:13 pm

Quoting Senethro from 23:46, 30th Apr 2007
Taking the bible literally is like a litmus test for detecting a nutter.

Image


but surely to take it as symbolic/abstract is equally non-sensical?
ParisInTheAutumn
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Ellkie on Tue May 01, 2007 6:57 pm

Quoting parisintheautumn from 19:13, 1st May 2007
Quoting Senethro from 23:46, 30th Apr 2007
Taking the bible literally is like a litmus test for detecting a nutter.

Image


but surely to take it as symbolic/abstract is equally non-sensical?


Why is it non-sensical to derive meaning from a symbolic story? Every religion does it. Stories are used to explain things such as the begining of the world, why you should be a good person, why you suffer and why you are rewarded. The parables teach wisdom and morals. Why is that non-sensical? Childrens fairy tales teach morals. Poetry, literature, all have symbolic meaning. Whats wrong with that!!!?

[hr]

It's all GEEK
It's all GEEK
Ellkie
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:52 pm

Re:

Postby sweet on Tue May 01, 2007 8:26 pm

Christian religious education was a big part of my schooling (back in the day) and we were always taught that many of the stories were symbolic, and that a large part of Jesus' teachings were deliberately intented to be allegorical. Example - the tale of the Good Samaritan (who helps suffering stranger) roughly means "help out people even if they aren't of your own religion/ethinic group." Also, the Bible tale of the creation of earth wasn't read literally, each of the creation "days" lasting rather, er, longer than the conventional day.
sweet
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:46 am

Re:

Postby DrAlex on Tue May 01, 2007 8:50 pm

Quoting sweet from 21:26, 1st May 2007
Also, the Bible tale of the creation of earth wasn't read literally, each of the creation "days" lasting rather, er, longer than the conventional day.


Indeed, how can you have a "day" if there is no Earth to revolve around the sun?

[hr]

The Sinner: Where no one ever learned "if you haven't got any thing nice to say, don't say anything at all."
The Sinner: Where no one ever learned "if you haven't got any thing nice to say, don't say anything at all."
DrAlex
 
Posts: 2201
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:40 pm

Re:

Postby Senethro on Tue May 01, 2007 9:03 pm

Quoting DrAlex from 21:50, 1st May 2007
Quoting sweet from 21:26, 1st May 2007
Also, the Bible tale of the creation of earth wasn't read literally, each of the creation "days" lasting rather, er, longer than the conventional day.


Indeed, how can you have a "day" if there is no Earth to revolve around the sun?

[hr]

The Sinner: Where no one ever learned "if you haven't got any thing nice to say, don't say anything at all."


Just don't even start thinking about it man, they're nuts. It doesn't have to make sense except in bizarro world.
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re:

Postby Mr Comedy on Tue May 01, 2007 9:48 pm

I don't care if the stories in Genesis are allegorical or not, as this doesn't detract from the central message of the bible.

Personally, I believe that Genesis 1 & 2 are clearly allegorical - they are written in a different style, and as some people have pointed out the Hebrew is ambigious - day could mean either 24 hours or an indefinite period of time. However, you'll meet creationists who argue differently.

However, there is solid non-Biblical evidence for other stories, such as the Israelite exodus through the Red Sea, a worldwide flood (as seen by virtually every other ancient culture having an account of a flood event embedded in their mythology), the collapse of the walls of Jericho etc.

In terms of the times of Jesus, there is massive amounts of evidence for everything he did recorded through the writings of historians, ancient diary keepers etc. Several of the places and records are also backed up in the archelogicial records. Jesus is mentioned and referenced extensively across accounts of the day - all pointing to him being a person who lived and died according to what scripture says.
Even a historian would be forced to pay attention to the Bible: Sir William Ramsay was a massive biblical skeptic, until he examined the archelogy and geography of the region. He found that in the books of Luke "out 32 countries, to 44 cities, and 9 islands, there were no errors." This lead him to conclude "Luke was a historian of the first rate".
I'll accept that historical evidence is no reason to believe that which cannot be proved for archeology - e.g. Jesus is the Son of God and died for sins, and is the only way to heaven, but the fact that every piece of evidence we can see checks out massively increases the possibility that the things we cannot know the answer to check out as well. Indeed, if we could categorically refute an aspect of the gospels, I would renounce my faith as I cannot believe in an infallable God and a fallable gospel.

Given that the archelogical and historical data all checks out, I'd encourage anyone to seriously read and contemplate the teachings of the Bible. If you conclude in your analysis that the Bible cannot be true, and is clearly wrong, then fair enough.
However, with the Bible having very clear teaching with clear actions attached, not investigating and contemplating it could be a grave mistake. If the Bible still checks out nearly 2000 years since it was written despite massive advances in our historical, scriptural and archelogical knowledge, then it is worth considering if it should have an impact yourself.

If anyone is interested I'd reccomend the books of Luke or Mark as excellent start points to investigate the claims of Jesus and the Bible further. I'd also be happy to reccomend reference material on extra-biblical evidence for anyone who is really interested to see if the sources check out.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung
"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung
Mr Comedy
 
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 5:43 pm

Re:

Postby Senethro on Tue May 01, 2007 10:44 pm

Waitaminit Mr. Comedy, you just put yourself in the nuthouse.

A worldwide flood? Are you seriously going to try to back that up?

Quoting Mr Comedy from 22:48, 1st May 2007but the fact that every piece of evidence we can see checks out massively increases the possibility that the things we cannot know the answer to check out as well.


Why?

I'd encourage anyone to seriously read and contemplate the teachings of the Bible. If you conclude in your analysis that the Bible cannot be true, and is clearly wrong, then fair enough.
However, with the Bible having very clear teaching with clear actions attached, not investigating and contemplating it could be a grave mistake. If the Bible still checks out nearly 2000 years since it was written despite massive advances in our historical, scriptural and archelogical knowledge, then it is worth considering if it should have an impact yourself.


How come you were so lucky as to get the only correct version of the only correct religion first time?


Quoting Mr Comedy from 22:48, 1st May 2007
I don't care if the stories in Genesis are allegorical or not, as this doesn't detract from the central message of the bible.

Indeed, if we could categorically refute an aspect of the gospels, I would renounce my faith as I cannot believe in an infallable God and a fallable gospel.


So part of the text is infallible and part is not? Thats a nice shield to hide behind. "The only bits that are right are the ones I say so."
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re:

Postby Mr Comedy on Wed May 02, 2007 7:59 am

Unfortunately Senethro, your fervency is only exceeded by your own ignorance.

A worldwide flood? Are you seriously going to try to back that up?


How would you then explain that ancient and geographically disparate cultures from the Babylonians to the Aboriginals in Australia and the Native Americans all talk about a worldwide flood?
Or that the Babylonians (who would have little need to lie about these things) have an almost identical flood story?
Seems like a massive coincidence to me. Indeed if we applied reasoning to this then this part of the Bible warrants closer examination.


How come you were so lucky as to get the only correct version of the only correct religion first time?


This statement took me a while to unravel, but it took me a long time of personal research to believe in the Bible. I've also read other religious texts such as the Qu'ran and the Bahavad Gita, and none have the accuracy or historical dependency that the Bible has. This is something I doubt you've taken the time to do.

Quoting Mr Comedy from 22:48, 1st May 2007
I don't care if the stories in Genesis are allegorical or not, as this doesn't detract from the central message of the bible.

Indeed, if we could categorically refute an aspect of the gospels, I would renounce my faith as I cannot believe in an infallable God and a fallable gospel.


So part of the text is infallible and part is not? Thats a nice shield to hide behind. "The only bits that are right are the ones I say so."[/quote]

You've condensed my argument here to produce something I didn't say. Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly allegorical, as close textual analysis will reveal. However, the central message of Genesis is a divine God creating the world. Whether you believe in a literal 7 day creation, evolution or an old earth, this central tenant remains unchanged.

My point is - I don't believe in a fallable biblical record. However, even if Noah never built an Ark or creation didn't take 7 literal days, the central message of the Bible remains unchanged.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung
"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung
Mr Comedy
 
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 5:43 pm

Re:

Postby Haunted on Wed May 02, 2007 8:19 am

Alot of geologically separate cultures have myths about Dragons too

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn
Genesis 19:4-8
Haunted
User avatar
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:05 am

Re:

Postby Senethro on Wed May 02, 2007 8:24 am

Quoting Mr Comedy from 08:59, 2nd May 2007
Unfortunately Senethro, your fervency is only exceeded by your own ignorance.

A worldwide flood? Are you seriously going to try to back that up?


How would you then explain that ancient and geographically disparate cultures from the Babylonians to the Aboriginals in Australia and the Native Americans all talk about a worldwide flood?
Or that the Babylonians (who would have little need to lie about these things) have an almost identical flood story?
Seems like a massive coincidence to me. Indeed if we applied reasoning to this then this part of the Bible warrants closer examination.


Blah blah blah you've got plenty ignorance yourself here. Rather than hoping that unreliable cultural relics are sufficient evidence, how about pointing out all the erosion features in the landscape caused by flowing water? Presumably this flood happened since the last Ice Age and should have obliterated many of the features ice erosion sculpted, yes?
Additionally, where did the water come from? Where did it go?

none have the accuracy or historical dependency that the Bible has. This is something I doubt you've taken the time to do.


But I'm not so smug as to think I've the right answer before beginning an investigation. Furthermore, I wouldn't know where to begin as the numbers of religious texts and alternate versions is so high, I couldn't possibly make such a strong claim as you do. Because such a strong claim means you've investigated every possible deity, right?

Quoting Mr Comedy from 22:48, 1st May 2007
My point is - I don't believe in a fallable biblical record. However, even if Noah never built an Ark or creation didn't take 7 literal days, the central message of the Bible remains unchanged.
[/quote]
In two sentences you make a strong statement of faith and in the next you indicate willingness to shift the goalposts at a moments notice.

Damn, moving targets are hard to hit. But let me think about this, I'll get back to you.
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re:

Postby Mr Comedy on Wed May 02, 2007 9:09 am

You are confusing the issue here.

I believe in an infallable Bible.

However, if certain tenants of the Bible were disproved (which they haven't), the message of the Bible remains unchanged (e.g that of an omnipotent God who died for sins etc).

These two are stand alone points. I haven't shifted the goalposts, but, if you were able to disprove some small area of the Bible then it doesn't invalidate the entire message.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung
"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung
Mr Comedy
 
Posts: 2922
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 5:43 pm

Re:

Postby Senethro on Wed May 02, 2007 9:18 am

Quoting Mr Comedy from 10:09, 2nd May 2007
You are confusing the issue here.

I believe in an infallable Bible.

However, if certain tenants of the Bible were disproved (which they haven't), the message of the Bible remains unchanged (e.g that of an omnipotent God who died for sins etc).

These two are stand alone points. I haven't shifted the goalposts, but, if you were able to disprove some small area of the Bible then it doesn't invalidate the entire message.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung


Wow...

I mean...

Did you see that?

Actual non-ironic doublethink.
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Wed May 02, 2007 9:19 am

The similarity between the Babylonian flood story and that of Genesis is easily explained. Genesis was first written down after the Babylonian exile of the Jews, and in common with all religions everywhere the period of time between the beginning of all things and the first actual bit of known history was made up by the writers based on stories they had heard.

I often wonder about Christianity - your life would be a great deal easier if you worked solely from the New Testament, so much of the Old contradicts it because it's essentially the holy book of another faith onto which the gospels and the rantings of Paul have been grafted. There's no sound or logical reason to keep the two together, unless you're claiming that Christ's legitimacy rests on the God of the Jews - which is blatantly inconsistent with Christianity's claim that he WAS God himself.
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Super Jock on Wed May 02, 2007 9:52 am

Senethro, I'm non christian too, but I don't for a minute say I'm more likely to be correct than someone who has actually done research on the matter. Your only argument is to make Mr Comedy who is making a perfectly legitimate argument by presenting facts, look foolish, and it's not working, so please try something new.

I'm reading the old testiment at the moment, though very slowly, and what ever is the truth, i'm pretty sure it's not the old testiment taken in a completely literal sence. But reading between the lines still allows some of it's story to be worth the read. So like Mr Comedy said at the start I think, yeah give the bible a read sometime.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37104907
Super Jock
User avatar
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:47 pm

Next

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

cron