Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Feedback and site usage questions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
r~
Sage
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Purpose of this subforum

Post #1

Post by r~ »

Please change (or remove) the statement “that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority.”

It is clearly within the realm of Christian Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma to debate which Words of the Bible carry the authority of the Holy Spirit and which ones do not. This statement encourages the teachers of the laws that kill at the expense of the ministers of the new covenant.

I would expect a Christian site to do the opposite.

Peace
ItS
r~

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10561
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 504 times
Been thanked: 1152 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Post #21

Post by William »

Overcomer wrote: Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:34 pm
Overcomer wrote:
But the word "authoritative" is defined as "able to be trusted as being accurate or true".
To which William replied:
Which is all that it means. This does not mean that one cannot critique it. After all, that is what Christians are doing when they argue interpretations. They are not trusting the bible, but rather, they are trusting their particular interpretations of the bible and it is the interpretations which are being treated as authoritative and thus trusted as being accurate or true.
I understand what you're saying, but when Christians discuss the meaning of Scripture and refer to scholarship on the matter, they aren't suggesting that the Bible is not the Word of God. Nor are they questioning its authority. Their goal is to understand it better and, while doing so, remain respectful of it and its source, that is, God.

And I see a difference between "critique" (examining something critically which is what Christians have been doing for centuries) and "criticize" (attack, denounce, malign, deprecate, trash, belittle -- take your pick of these synonyms).
Are you seriously trying to say that when Christians have been critiquing [for centuries] they are not themselves attacking, denouncing, maligning, deprecating, trashing, belittling?
When you call the Bible nothing but mythology, you are denouncing it, something that you are free to do in the Apologetic Forum. So there is a place here for talking about Scripture as mythology. It just isn't the Theology and Doctrine Forum.
I see. You are of the opinion that referring to something as mythology is related to "attacking, denouncing, maligning, deprecating, trashing, belittling".
That is not the case. Referring to stories in the bible as mythology is truthful expression of actual facts. I have never referred to the overall book itself as mythology - just stories within it which clearly cannot be said to be 'true' any more than analogies can be said to be true.

Mythology is 1.
a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
"tales from Greek mythology"
Similar:
myth(s)
legend(s)
folklore
folk tales
folk stories
lore
tradition
stories
tales
mythos
2.
the study of myths.
"this field includes archaeology, comparative mythology, and folklore"

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18593
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Post #22

Post by otseng »

[Replying to William in post #22]

I like JRR Tolkien's take on it...

"the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths."
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/201 ... true-myth/

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10561
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 504 times
Been thanked: 1152 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Post #23

Post by William »

otseng wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 5:31 pm [Replying to William in post #22]

I like JRR Tolkien's take on it...

"the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths."
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/201 ... true-myth/
Did Tolkien explain why he thought the myth was true and really did happen, re Christ?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18593
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Post #24

Post by otseng »


User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Post #25

Post by Purple Knight »

otseng wrote: Thu May 20, 2021 5:31 pm [Replying to William in post #22]

I like JRR Tolkien's take on it...

"the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths."
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/201 ... true-myth/
The Bible is a collection of stories, and as stories with morals, it hardly matters whether they're true or not. If they provide good morals, it wouldn't matter that they were fictional. Likewise, if they provide horrid morals, if they happened to be true it would hardly make that situation any better.

As far as the stories go, what they say happened is the canon. If people can have these sorts of hypothetical discussions about Star Trek, and can't suspend their disbelief when it's the Bible, that's an indication of some sort of permeating bias, which, if held, is more than enough to discredit the arguments of someone arguing against theology.

This is a piece on whether First Contact reset the timeline.

I'll give you the answer right now: There is none, because it's fiction and the writers simply aren't that smart. They don't think about this stuff. But if you do, that makes it your canon, and you're free to suspend your disbelief and have the discussion, looking for evidence to support either position. And if you're suspending your disbelief, if you find hard evidence (in other words, a contradiction otherwise) then you're right whether the writers intended it or not, because what they wrote down became the canon of that universe.

TL;DR - There's no point discussing the canon of a particular universe if you're going to ignore the lore of that universe, and just tell the people wanting to have the discussion that it's fictional so there is no answer.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10561
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 504 times
Been thanked: 1152 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Post #26

Post by William »

[Replying to Overcomer in post #20]
I understand what you're saying, but when Christians discuss the meaning of Scripture and refer to scholarship on the matter, they aren't suggesting that the Bible is not the Word of God. Nor are they questioning its authority. Their goal is to understand it better and, while doing so, remain respectful of it and its source, that is, God.
In this subforum the canon of the Bible is considered authoritative with respect to the historical consensus of the canon's content.

While many Christians do indeed believe that the bible is the word of God - the canons content does not go so far as to make that claim. It is purely an invention of most Christian beliefs, to make that claim, perhaps even to give the bible that type of air of authority , but the practice of critiquing any biblical script is not nullified because the one critiquing does not happen to believe the cannon is 'the word of god'.
When I critique the bible stories, I assume [for the sake of argument] that they are true and then find the holes in said stories which make them appear to be fabricated.

Post Reply