Do Christians apply logic consistently?

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:20 am

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:38 am

It seems like everyone is trying to argue about the accuracy of something that was written a minimum of twenty years after the actual events occurred.
I remember back in high school doing an experiment, the teacher whispered something to a student at one end of the room and then told that person and every one else to pass it on until the message got to the far end of the classroom and then that person would tell the message to see how it changed after a very short period and few people interpreting it. Needless to say the end message was radically different from the beginning message.
It is ridiculous to think that a story passed on from human to human especially when no formal methods seem to have been followed, such as the Icelandic Eddas or even other oral tales such as that of Beowulf that the story wasn't altered in probably great ways.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:53 am

Given what we know about astro physics that doesn't make any sense.

So you agree with me that this claim, which is a claim made within Christianity, is nonsensical. Good start.

The rest of your whole post was an utter waste of time yammering on about how I don't understand the bible or Christianity as well as you do. Get off your high horse. Your only correct point is, yes, I see it as about as relevant and instruction as a comic book.
The complexities of Christianity are not lost on me. However based upon the many posts of your that I have read, those complexities confuse you often and lead you far from the original post and out into lala land arguing the validitiy of various documents with Goat.
Very little original thinking and instead a simple cutting and pasting debate form.

Metacrock · Post by **Metacrock** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:06 am

Wyvern wrote:It seems like everyone is trying to argue about the accuracy of something that was written a minimum of twenty years after the actual events occurred.
I remember back in high school doing an experiment, the teacher whispered something to a student at one end of the room and then told that person and every one else to pass it on until the message got to the far end of the classroom and then that person would tell the message to see how it changed after a very short period and few people interpreting it. Needless to say the end message was radically different from the beginning message.
It is ridiculous to think that a story passed on from human to human especially when no formal methods seem to have been followed, such as the Icelandic Eddas or even other oral tales such as that of Beowulf that the story wasn't altered in probably great ways.

That experiment is not analogous. The Gospel oral tradition was not passed on by wishipering. It was told openly in front of the whole commune and the eye witnesses were lsitening and when someone madea mistake they were corrected. Do the experiement that way you will be amazing how much is kept right. We actually did that in my class. We did it both ways and the controled way none of the facts were lost. We used a Newspaper article and in the open controled version the article was repeated word for word.

Metacrock · Post by **Metacrock** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:11 am

Cmass wrote:
Given what we know about astro physics that doesn't make any sense.

So you agree with me that this claim, which is a claim made within Christianity, is nonsensical. Good start.

It's not meant to be a historoy book or a science text book. It's a theological communicae. The ponit of it is the point about God not about the accruacy of how the world was made.

The rest of your whole post was an utter waste of time yammering on about how I don't understand the bible or Christianity as well as you do. Get off your high horse. Your only correct point is, yes, I see it as about as relevant and instruction as a comic book.

You are not saying anything. You are certainly not proving understand the bible by attacking me. Let's see some understanding.

The complexities of Christianity are not lost on me. However based upon the many posts of your that I have read, those complexities confuse you often and lead you far from the original post and out into lala land arguing the validitiy of various documents with Goat.

I understand it a lot better than you do. What you are calling "complexities" are just the typical atheist steriotype. You have no real understanding of the nature of theology. But tha'ts not the ponit.I didn't say all that to offend you, I was trying to get over the idea that just taking the bible litterally is no measure of Chrsitianity as a belief system.

Very little original thinking and instead a simple cutting and pasting debate form.

you don't know what you're talking about. my thinking is far more original than anything you've hread by any Christian except the great theolgoians like Schlairmacher or Kirkegaard (to whom I am not compariing myself, they are head and shoulders above me).

But you are taking this personally. You must derive some aspect of your self image from your alledged abilityt o debunck the bible. thats' very sad. Becasue you could boost your self esteem much more effectivley by understanding the bible.

It is not clever to say "O the bible is silly and old and says things modern people can't accept." Everyone knows that, there's no depth of insight there. You could not mount a defense of the bible in a million years. I have. I have made a coherent modernist defense of the bible, you couldn't. but let us not go down this road. i was not trying to inslut you it doesn't matter who is most cleaver. the point is, there is a defense to be made and you are not getting it.

Metacrock · Post by **Metacrock** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:33 am

You are trying to judge the truth of Christiantiy as a belief system by how you relate to the Bible. That's a mistake because the common proetestant understanding of the Bible in America is a departure from the historical understanding of the Bible in Chruch history. The idea of "inerrency" as modern American prots defend it did not exit before the 19th century. It is not in any creed and was not endorsed by any council. It was the invention of Warefeild and Darby.

It is that antiquated notion of inerrency that prevents Christians from being able to say "Yea God wouldn't order the murder of infants, 1 Sam is out to lunch." INstead they must defend murder as ultimate love because they are stuck with a foolish concdept that the Bible has to be inerrent.

The first thing we have to do is to change our model of understanding revelation. Revelation is not a word for word rendition of memos from the boss. Revleation is a ersonal existential realization that emerges from encountering the divine.

the Bible is a collection of works that were chosen because they spoke to the bishops and Rabbis (in the case of OT canon collected at Jamina in 90AD) not becasue they dazel with scientific insight that ancient people coudl not know, but because they are artifacts of huamn-divine encoutner. They are colored by the lenze through which they were viewed, an ancient near eastern culture more than 2000 years ago. But there is something in them that cause the reader (and redactor) to say "hey I see in this my own experince of God."

In spite of the ancient undersatanding and ancient world and near eastern approach to life, which is very foreign to our own, they also refelct universal truths and themes because they are a refelection of the way in which the people who wrote and who redacted them understood their own experinces of the divine.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:39 am

Metacrock wrote: It is not clever to say "O the bible is silly and old and says things modern people can't accept." Everyone knows that, there's no depth of insight there. You could not mount a defense of the bible in a million years. I have. I have made a coherent modernist defense of the bible, you couldn't. but let us not go down this road. i was not trying to inslut you it doesn't matter who is most cleaver. the point is, there is a defense to be made and you are not getting it.

Have you ever thought that it isn't that they don't 'get' it, but they don't agree with what you say? Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they dont' get what you are trying to say.

Metacrock · Post by **Metacrock** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:42 am

goat wrote:
Metacrock wrote: It is not clever to say "O the bible is silly and old and says things modern people can't accept." Everyone knows that, there's no depth of insight there. You could not mount a defense of the bible in a million years. I have. I have made a coherent modernist defense of the bible, you couldn't. but let us not go down this road. i was not trying to inslut you it doesn't matter who is most cleaver. the point is, there is a defense to be made and you are not getting it.
Have you ever thought that it isn't that they don't 'get' it, but they don't agree with what you say? Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they dont' get what you are trying to say.

I dont' see any evidence that you get it. you didn't read carefully becasue I said just carpoing about the bible is not an idication that you do get it. saying the Bible fails here the Bible fails there is indication that you don't geti t.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:05 pm

I understand it a lot better than you do. What you are calling "complexities" are just the typical atheist stereotype. You have no real understanding of the nature of theology. But that's not the point.I didn't say all that to offend you, I was trying to get over the idea that just taking the bible literally is no measure of Christianity as a belief system.

You are not really saying anything here.
Also, it is clear that I understand theological issues better than you do. Nah, nah, nah. You have no understanding of the nature of God. The whole thing is far more subtle and complex than you think it is. Typical of flawed Christian thinking; "Internet Christians". It seems you are getting defensive because your dogma is in question. I can see how this might frighten you and cause you to attack me.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:13 pm

You are trying to judge the truth of Christiantiy as a belief system by how you relate to the Bible. That's a mistake because the common proetestant understanding of the Bible in America is a departure from the historical understanding of the Bible in Chruch history. The idea of "inerrency" as modern American prots defend it did not exit before the 19th century. It is not in any creed and was not endorsed by any council. It was the invention of Warefeild and Darby.

Metacrock, where do you get your information about Christianity?
How do YOU "relate" to the Bible? I relate to it as a collection of ancient myths and stories and judge the religion partly based upon that as well as the actions, writings and speeches given by various Christians.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:19 pm

The first thing we have to do is to change our model of understanding revelation. Revelation is not a word for word rendition of memos from the boss. Revleation is a ersonal existential realization that emerges from encountering the divine.

the Bible is a collection of works that were chosen because they spoke to the bishops and Rabbis (in the case of OT canon collected at Jamina in 90AD) not becasue they dazel with scientific insight that ancient people coudl not know, but because they are artifacts of huamn-divine encoutner. They are colored by the lenze through which they were viewed, an ancient near eastern culture more than 2000 years ago. But there is something in them that cause the reader (and redactor) to say "hey I see in this my own experince of God."

In spite of the ancient undersatanding and ancient world and near eastern approach to life, which is very foreign to our own, they also refelct universal truths and themes because they are a refelection of the way in which the people who wrote and who redacted them understood their own experinces of the divine.

How is this a grand defense of the bible? These are opinions - and there are many Christians who do share these opinions.