|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
 Posted - 12/31/2003 : 22:16:39 [Permalink]
|
| Woody, your ignorance is astounding. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2004 : 00:01:22 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich wrote:quote:
Woody, your ignorance is astounding.
As one of the moderators here, I'd be appreciative if the criticisms could be a little more constructive. Telling Woody that you think she's ignorant doesn't help anyone very much unless you also tell her why. For example, one might point out to Woody that her statements, in this particular thread, are indeed prejudicial in light of the fact that Hippy has stated that he's come to the SFN - in part - to "challenge his faith." I'd wager that that's a much more "open" attitude than Woody has experienced in the past, making her warning and other comments appear quite cynical. Treating him like another run-of-the-mill Bible thumper isn't constructive, either.
And I also think, as a moderator of this particular folder, that many of us (myself included) are losing sight of what this particular thread is supposed to be about. Even though I know it's going to take up more of your time, Hippy, digressions into ID, or about what Mount St. Helens allegedly teaches us, or anything else outside your original post for this thread are going to need to be started up as new threads elsewhere. For example, for Mount St. Helens, I would suggest the Creation/Evolution folder, since that's the way it seems to be going, anyway. I'll see if I can get something going in a little bit.
Discussing all these varied points in just one thread might be okay in a perfect world (in which digressions lasted only long enough to be dealt with, and everyone remembered to come back to the main topic), but this one isn't. Apologies to everyone for putting my "virtual" foot down, but otherwise I see this thread devolving into an even greater mess than it is already, very quickly.
With that in mind, to try to get things back on track (don't forget Rickm's post, though), I'd like to repost a bit of what I'd written previously:
Hippy wrote:quote:
About the only reason why I believe in the Bible is because it is easier for me to understand life coming from life, instead of life coming from no life.
To which I replied:quote:
One of the more important things that I believe is that "truth" isn't often easy to understand. It is okay to admit a lack of understanding of complex issues, and thus it is okay to say "I don't know" or "I don't have enough data to say for sure."
No offense meant, of course, but I'd like to know where in the Bible it says otherwise. What Biblical doctrine claims that only the things which are simple to understand are true? Doesn't Matthew claim that the path to salvation the one which is narrow and difficult, as compared to the wide and easy route of sin?
And I'd like to add, by way of clarification: do Matthew's comments apply only to faith, or more generally - as to knowledge as a whole? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2004 : 19:45:38 [Permalink]
|
I apologize. I do agree my statement was a little ambiguous.
Let me expand:
quote:
Woddy wrote:
"The bible is bunch of stories, stories, made up by people"
Then Woody wrote:
"I know nothing about the bible, therefore I can't argue about it."
Then how, may I ask, do you know it's all just a bunch of stories if you know nothing about it?
The reason I wrote "your ignorance is astounding" is because your lack of knowledge on a subject that you are trying to argue against is incredible. Have you ever opened a Bible, and dare I say, READ any of it? Judging from YOUR obvious misconceptions of it, apparantly not.
If I ran into this forum saying "I know nothing about science or evolution, but it is definitely a hoax!" I would be no better off than you are now. Please don't cheat yourself with your own quick judgements before making a better case for your own beliefs.
Anywho, I digress....let's get back to the original argument as Dave suggested.
*fixes collar*... |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 04:11:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
If I ran into this forum saying "I know nothing about science or evolution, but it is definitely a hoax!" I would be no better off than you are now. Please don't cheat yourself with your own quick judgements before making a better case for your own beliefs.
Unfortunately this is the average description of the fundies(tm) that come here with hit-and-run tactics, believing they are dropping a bomb, but are afraid to stay and face the music.
Hippy4Christ is one of the few exceptions so far, as well as Doomar, whom I haven't seen in a while though. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 07:17:49 [Permalink]
|
The way I see it, Woody has a legitimate point of view (and one I share.)
I see the Bible the same way: it's a book of parables and stories. How would it help me, personally, to read it? If I don't have faith in God to begin with, then I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. If I read the Bible, I'd probably be better prepared to argue with a Christian, but that's not a compelling reason for me to spend my precious time reading an exquisitely boring book. Plus, even if I started reading the Bible today, I'd be light years behind people who've read it and studied it their whole lives. So I wouldn't be much help anyway.
We're all ignorant of any number of things, but few of us appreciate being labeled "ignorant", even on the Internet. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 07:33:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
quote:
I know nothing about the bible, therefore I can't argue about it. I'm telling you, if you are trying to talk to people who defend it, you are wasting your time.
Well this seems rather prejudiced. And anyway, the value of this thread is that there are some people who aren't Christians simply because they think that we teach horrible things. I'm trying to show that the Bible doesn't teach horrible things, and in the meantime I'm working on whether or not it's true.
Dave: Thank you for your suggestions, although spring comes rather late up here. Perhaps I should rephrase my ID comment: if I can prove that the world is only a few thousand years old, then others would be hard-pressed to come up with another non-Intelligent design theory that fits those specifications. Not that I really believe that I can prove that the world is a few thousand years old, but I might be able to prove that either we can't tell the real age of the Earth, or that the common man can't see for himself the age of the Earth. I think that when I'm done with this thread I'll post another one on that topic. Here's a link listing the changes that were made by Mt. St. Helens. I've only skimmed it.
http://creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm
Later
Hippy
Hippy,
While the Bible itself does not teach a lot of horrible things, it does have some pretty questionable passages. These passages (such as the bulk of Leviticus) are widely considered as superceded by the "New Covenant". Snake/Woody has an arguementation style which predicates her being right even in the light of compelling evidence to the contrary. She has made her mind up about things and that's all there is to it.
That being said, the radical fundamentalist branch of Evangelicalism has consistently taken the Bible out of context to forward some pretty horrible things. In addition, mainstream Christianity has made some pretty questionable statements which are likewise taken out of context from the Bible. The disconnect I found between some established mainstream dogma and the text of the Bible caused me to abandon Christianity in favor of a belief system that I found rang more true for me philosophically. I based my analysis on reading the text of the Bible completely through multiple times and through reading sections of the Bible people would quote when making a difinitave statement about what the Bible says as well as surrounding text to determine context. The more radical the idea being proposed, the more likely it was that the passage was out of context.
We all have to choose the path that is most right for us. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 08:00:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
The way I see it, Woody has a legitimate point of view (and one I share.)
I see the Bible the same way: it's a book of parables and stories. How would it help me, personally, to read it? If I don't have faith in God to begin with, then I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. If I read the Bible, I'd probably be better prepared to argue with a Christian, but that's not a compelling reason for me to spend my precious time reading an exquisitely boring book. Plus, even if I started reading the Bible today, I'd be light years behind people who've read it and studied it their whole lives. So I wouldn't be much help anyway.
We're all ignorant of any number of things, but few of us appreciate being labeled "ignorant", even on the Internet.
Renea,
I agree that ivan's post calling Woody ignorant is improper. Without reading a book, though, one should explain how one comes to the opinion on that book. Is it based on the opinion of people who have read it? Is it based on a gut feeling based on an assumption of all religious texts? Is it based on analysis of religions in general which teach moral codes through parables?
I have read the Bible multiple times. I have found that it contains a number of parables, family lineages, and historical accounts. Unfourtunately for the historical accounts, the Bible has been heavily edited through it's existance. Most notably by the College of Cardinals of 1309 during the Babylonian Captivity. Prior to 1500, there were two versions of the Bible. One for Nobles and one for the pesantry. So the history of the particular religious text can also play a part in its analysis.
None of this requires you to read the Bible. But for your opinion of the text to be evaluated, it oftentimes helps to find out what you are basing your opinion on. It would be analogous to basing ones opinion of Islam based on the translation of the Qu'ran by E. Dennison Ross (who based his translation on the work of George Sales who was ardently anti-Muslim evidenced by the foreword to Sales' translation). |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 08:35:01 [Permalink]
|
Good points, Valiant.
I agree that sometimes it's hard to take people seriously when they admit little knowledge about a subject in which I'm knowledgeable or semi-knowledgeable. (sorry for the tortured sentence structure)
I have NO religious background. I have zero interest--at this stage of my life, anyway--in reading the Bible or developing my religious side.
The way I see it: if I don't believe in God, how could the Bible be anything BUT a collection of stories, parables, and possibly biased historical accounts? If I wanted to learn the history of people in that area of the world at that time, I would read scholarly books and at least (in theory, anyway) try to get an unbiased account. Maybe the Bible is a good source for history--I have no idea. It's so bloody boring...how does anybody wade through it long enough to tell? 
I freely admit my ignorance (for lack of a better word)regarding the Bible. But I also must confess a certain degree of apathy toward my ignorance. *sigh* Sometimes I suck. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 10:23:59 [Permalink]
|
Let me expand as it seems there are some misunderstandings.
I am not condemning Woody's opinion on the Bible, just the way it was brought forth. You cannot enter a forum with a thesis like Woody's, offer no evidence for your argument, have no knowledge of your subject and expect to be taken seriously.
If you want your arguments to be considered in any kind of debate, please try to give them a little credibility with some proof. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 11:50:55 [Permalink]
|
Here's my point of view, Renae, restated:
IF a skeptic/athiest/what-have-you has decided to spend a part of his/her time arguing against the views of fundamentalist Christians, he/she would be better off arguing against correct interpretations of Doctrine, instead of arguing against some position with which even fundamentalists disagree.
It is a fact, after all, that fundamentalists who attempt to rip apart evolution with a poor understanding of the concepts are often mocked and ridiculed. So, to be fair, those of us who choose to argue against the Bible's teachings should have a damn good understanding of it, or we should expect the same treatment that we can dish out.
Hippy, with this thread, has given us an opportunity to come to a better understanding of his interpretation of Christian Doctrine. And in that context, arguments with him about the validity of his sources, or about whether or not the Bible is "true," do nothing to actually exploit the opportunity as presented. All they're likely to do, as far as I can tell, is annoy Hippy and make it less likely that future "meetings of the mind" of this sort will occur.
What this thread should consist of is questions from people who have an active interest in what believers in the Bible actually think about the Bible. As skeptics, most of us here should be comfortable with the idea that our own judgements can be flawed or flat-out wrong, so here's a chance to ask a fundamentalist about contentious points of Christian doctrine, instead of assuming that we know what the "Christian answer" will be. The only assumption one has to make to use this opportunity correctly is to assume that Hippy knows his own personal belief system better than anyone else, which is undoubtedly true no matter how many times one has read the Bible.
Woody's protest appears to be that it's a waste of time to argue with a believer with the intent of changing his/her mind. Most of the time, I believe she's right. But, so far, I don't think anyone in this thread has been trying to dissuade Hippy from his beliefs in general (in particulars, yes, but he's said he came here to challenge his faith), and neither has Hippy been proselytizing with the intent of converting us poor heathens. As such, I'm not sure that Woody's point needed to be made in this thread at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 12:33:58 [Permalink]
|
Gotcha, Dave. 
My problem is that I part company with religious folks early in the game. I don't see why 1. Anyone would base their life on something external to them vs. internal truth 2. Anyone would base their life on 5,000 year old text (or however old the Bible is, sorry) and 3. Anyone would base their life on something as contradictory as the Bible.
Is there really a CORRECT interpretation of Christian doctrine? Don't denominations, churches, and even individuals all have a slightly different take on it?
Further, can't someone find contradicting Bible passages on pretty much every issue?
My understanding (albeit limited) of Jesus's teachings: Love one another, be kind/compassionate/tolerant/honest, and don't judge others. I've been accused of being too bottom-line, but what, beyond this teaching, does anybody need to know about being a Christian? I see the bulk of the quoting of Leviticus and arguing over Matthew as spiritual masturbation, and I'd rather see Christians out there LIVING Jesus's teachings--volunteering, working on their character, donating to charity, loving their family, etc.
My take on it only...and probably also not helpful to this thread. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 13:09:40 [Permalink]
|
I understand where you're coming from, too, Renae, and will leave most of your post for someone else to answer. I just want to comment on the "correctness" of any one interpretation of doctrine.
Obviously, for someone outside Christianity, what makes one interpretation better than another is often vague, or nit-picky, or defiant of common sense, or any of a number of other adjectives. And disagreements between different groups of self-identified Christians has led to bloodshed, so these doctrinal differences obviously aren't "trivial."
I won't pretend that Hippy is the World's Greatest Biblical Scholar (WGBS) - and don't think he would, either - but he's the one who stepped up to the plate, voluntarily and apparently honestly. For all I know, his interpretation of the Bible is held by him and him alone, but I've got a hard time believing that his views are unique.
So, given that he's here, and given that he's probably not completely wrong, I think we can learn something, at the very least. And if the One True WGBS happens to come along, perhaps he/she will tell us where and how Hippy's ideas diverge from the mainstream. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 13:36:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
Woody, your ignorance is astounding.
Someone who is ingnorant can learn but someone who makes insluting and rude comments will most likely always be an asshole.
Snake |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 13:51:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Telling Woody that you think she's he's ignorant doesn't help anyone very much unless you also tell her him why.
Well, we can't all be as highly intelligent as Ivan.
IMO, by making that remark he's implying he thinks he's better than anyone else. So why give reasons?
quote:
For example, one might point out to Woody that her his statements, in this particular thread, are indeed prejudicial in light of the fact that Hippy has stated that he's come to the SFN - in part - to "challenge his faith."
I'm not prejudicial, I've known Jews all my life, I know what they are like.
|
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
| Edited by - Woody D on 01/02/2004 15:09:47 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2004 : 14:01:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Good points, Valiant.
I agree that sometimes it's hard to take people seriously when they admit little knowledge about a subject in which I'm knowledgeable or semi-knowledgeable. (sorry for the tortured sentence structure)
I have NO religious background. I have zero interest--at this stage of my life, anyway--in reading the Bible or developing my religious side.
The way I see it: if I don't believe in God, how could the Bible be anything BUT a collection of stories, parables, and possibly biased historical accounts? If I wanted to learn the history of people in that area of the world at that time, I would read scholarly books and at least (in theory, anyway) try to get an unbiased account. Maybe the Bible is a good source for history--I have no idea. It's so bloody boring...how does anybody wade through it long enough to tell?
I freely admit my ignorance (for lack of a better word)regarding the Bible. But I also must confess a certain degree of apathy toward my ignorance. *sigh* Sometimes I suck.
The Bible, absolutely, is a poor history. The editing it has suffered through the years has rendered it contradictory to historical texts of the time. The Bible was not written as a memoir of the individual writers and there are several contradictions of events from gospel to gospel.
Study of the Bible and it's history isn't to gain an understanding for past events and people. It's to understand current people. Oftentimes when I am embroiled in a discussion with a raging fundie (of which Hippy isn't one, he's far too inquisitive of his own religion to be one), I have asked for text cites so that I could read those areas and determine context.
Since I started off as a Christian, I waded through the Bible as I was evaluating its relavance and congruence with church doctorine. People remain theists because they have a need for something higher than themselves and a need for mysticism. Since atheists do not have these needs, it is logical they would not have theological constructs. It's just a different path.
The way I see it, atheists have no interest in any religious text as it has no relevance to their life. Not so much that it renders the document a collection of stories, but that it has no relavence to the individual. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
