What's the point of debating with Christians?

[postroad]

They decide which texts are literal and which are allegory. They decide what a word really means.

I find it a bit depressing. I could even cope with it if they came to a consensus. I'm thinking of Paul's use of the Hebrew Scriptures. He simply had no respect for context or even the correct rendering?

Apologists will claim he had the authority under Holy Spirit to do so. Are believers claiming the same authority when they bend the texts to fit their beliefs?

Is that what is meant by Spiritual discernment?

I find it particularly disturbing when I'm accused of eisegesis when assuming the literal interpretation of a text. I'm required to defend the plain reading and accused of attempting to force the text into a preconceived interpretation simultaneously?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by postroad]

Apologetics is nothing if not slippery especially when it comes to Biblical errors. I run into the same difficulties when pointing out to Christians problems in the Bible. Keep in mind that we are dealing with powerful preconceived notions that the Bible and its god are the ticket to eternal paradise for many people. What does truth matter when eternity is on the line?

But don't give up. Sometimes people come to their senses. I did.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 2 by Jagella]

Was feeling a bit glum today. It seems a bit overwhelming when the skeptic is required to defend the literal interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I'm thinking of all the texts that point to God ensuring perfect obedience to the Law.

It seems that none of them are to be read literally simply because it would be a violation of free will.

Therefore all the prophecies connected to this phenomenon are automatically disallowed as well.

I suppose it just makes God into a liar?

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by postroad]

I think that the key component here related to the good use of critical thinking is in acknowledging that you are dealing with folk who - whatever their particular preference of interpreting their preferable scripture (aka the bible) - is that they all appear to share the same faith-based beliefs and those are accordingly nonnegotiable.

Once one acknowledges that this is the case, then one can see more clearly that any interaction one has with Christians in questioning their nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs will be taken as an invitation and opportunity for them to proselytize their particular take on things, which is their main objective.

One is left feeling somewhat cheated of actual debate, and this can lead to depression about the hopelessness of it all, because of perceived trickery/underhandedness etc.

Acknowledging this is the actual circumstance allows for one to move on, by not engaging.

However, if one is an ex-believer and when you were a believer one had the tendency to proselytize whenever the opportunity afforded itself for one to do so, then this habit of trying to convert others to ones own way of thinking will continue on the new platform/position one chooses.

The ability to apply critical thinking to this problem shows one the necessary steps one must take to find solution.

There is no solution to be found in thinking oneself as some kind of 'messenger' or whatever, who has to use ones life time trying to convert folk to ones own way of seeing things. There is no shame in acknowledging that giving up is a wise choice for so many good reasons.

Find something which brings one JOY.

(Joy is great for combating depression.)

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by postroad]

Our souls cry out for God and so we seek out Christians. It's natural. Talking about God is a joy.

But what happened specifically Postroad? Maybe you, Jagella and I can get to the bottom of it?

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by Wootah]

Our souls cry out for God and so we seek out Christians. It's natural.

That could be considered a claim as it certainly is presented as a matter of fact.

However, if it were aimed at me, I would respond by seeing the attempt at triggering a response which allows for the Christian to then get about proselytizing their individual faith-based nonnegotiable belief systems.

The best reaction to such a claim is to ignore it for the bait-on-the-hook that it is, as I wrote in my last post;

Acknowledging this is the actual circumstance allows for one to move on, by not engaging.

All in all, the choice - as usual - is with the individual as to what they will actually DO.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 6 by William]

What else explains Postroad's posting and debating Christians and yet not getting satisfaction?

[Overcomer]

postroad wrote:

They decide which texts are literal and which are allegory. They decide what a word really means.

You make it sound like it's arbitrary. It isn't. Some of us have studied Bible exegesis and learned the rules of proper hermeneutics, rules that apply to ancient texts in general and to other forms of literature. This is why I always encourage people, Christian, atheist or otherwise, to post links to legitimate, scholarly sources so that we can all see the process used to arrive at the conclusions made.

Some things in the bible are to be taken literally. Others are to be understood allegorically. Here is a brief article that elaborates on five (there are more) principles of proper exegesis:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

Here is an article that talks about literalness and the Bible:

https://bible.org/article/taking-bible-literally

And here's a short article on the topic of allegories in the Bible:

https://www.compellingtruth.org/Bible-allegory.html

Note that, when it comes to allegory, we're talking about a literary tool. The Bible is full of all kinds of literary devices including hyperbole, chiasms, alliteration, paradoxes, apostrophes, metaphors, anthropomorphisms, personification, synecdoches, idioms and word play -- just to name a few.

You may be frustrated by Christians, but I can assure you that we're frustrated by people (not just non-Christians, but some Christians as well) who refuse to seriously study how to properly interpret the Bible, yet talk as if they are experts in the field. It's like talking about an engineering manual with someone who has never studied engineering. Every kind of literature, religious or non-religious, has rules to help with understanding and anybody who wants understanding needs to study those rules. If someone doesn't want to study the rules, that tells me that person isn't interested in understanding, but just wants to carry on believing what they believe whether it's true or not.

That includes studying the New Testament use of Old Testament passages by Paul and others. There are many books on the subject. Here are a couple of articles:

https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj13d.pdf

https://bible.org/article/hints-allegor ... quotes-old

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 6 by William]

What else explains Postroad's posting and debating Christians and yet not getting satisfaction?

He answered that in post #1:


"They (Christians) decide which texts are literal and which are allegory."

"They (Christians) decide what a word really means."

"I could even cope with it if they (Christians) came to a consensus."

"(Christians) Apologists will claim he had the authority under Holy Spirit to do so."

"I find it particularly disturbing when I'm accused (by Christians) of eisegesis when assuming the literal interpretation of a text."


Note - The word/s in parentheses were added by me.


There is absolutely no reason to enter into a guessing game when your question was answered 6 posts previous to you asking it.





Tcg

[postroad]

[Replying to post 4 by William]


I was never really a believer. I grew up in a conservative Christian environment but I always doubted. I began reading the Bible as soon as I could read and that only confirmed what I suspected. That being that there was something fishy.

I think perhaps I was more put off by the absurdity of some positions expressed today.

I'm not entirely sure why I gravitate to these sites in my slow time of the year. It feels like a game of chess more than anything. Sometimes I wouldn't mind a clear set of rules though.