Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

#603
#603
Orange_Crush said:
fyp
Click to expand...

I don't disagree in that all of my opinions have been shaped by the arguments and thoughts of people more intelligent than I am. Perhaps this is nothing more than pseudo-humility, but it's my only way of attempting to overcome my deficiencies.

Congrats on discerning this, but it's not a real argument against any of the positions I've stolen from smart people.
 
#604
#604
Deputy Fife said:
I don't disagree in that all of my opinions have been shaped by the arguments and thoughts of people more intelligent than I am. Perhaps this is nothing more than pseudo-humility, but it's my only way of attempting to overcome my deficiencies.

Congrats on discerning this, but it's not a real argument against any of the positions I've stolen from smart people.
Click to expand...

Correct, but plenty of other arguments have been real enough. Usually, they've resulted in your crying into your keyboard, eeking mousy "big deal, you beat an idiot" responses, and then coming back with even more mindlessly copied paste jobs.

It's a tiring cycle that you seem completely comfortable with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#605
#605
Orange_Crush said:
I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

Let me refine that: I completely understand why certain beliefs, if people actually believe them to be true, would be comforting. What I can't begin to fathom is how someone could take comfort in something they know, deep down, is more than likely false.
 
#606
#606
Deputy Fife said:
Let me refine that: I completely understand why certain beliefs, if people actually believe them to be true, would be comforting. What I can't begin to fathom is how someone could take comfort in something they know, deep down, is more than likely false.
Click to expand...

Well then, your clarification indicates that you need to work on your comprehension skills.
 
#607
#607
Deputy Fife said:
Let me refine that: I completely understand why certain beliefs, if people actually believe them to be true, would be comforting. What I can't begin to fathom is how someone could take comfort in something they know, deep down, is more than likely false.
Click to expand...

How are you determining that these people "deep down" know what they believe is likely false? Also to me there is a big difference between "likely false" and "100% completely proven false".

I see no problem with someone having doubts and even coming to the conclusion that the evidence shows what they believe isn't true yet still finding comfort because there is a chance it's true. I would bet the vast majority of believers of all religions and beliefs have doubts. I would wager you'd find very few that are 100% completely sure that they are correct about everything.
 
#608
#608
VolsSportsFan said:
How are you determining that these people "deep down" know what they believe is likely false? Also to me there is a big difference between "likely false" and "100% completely proven false".

I see no problem with someone having doubts and even coming to the conclusion that the evidence shows what they believe isn't true yet still finding comfort because there is a chance it's true. I would bet the vast majority of believers of all religions and beliefs have doubts. I would wager you'd find very few that are 100% completely sure that they are correct about everything.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you're excluding Barney in order to reach this 100%? :)

j/k Deputy... I'm actually glad to see that you are at least attempting to have conversations with other posters rather than just posting "stuff". While I may not agree with your views, I recognize that you've actually softened your approach a bit in order to engage posters in lieu of just insulting them. :good!:
 
#609
#609
Roustabout said:
Yes, it's a long asked question. But it seems your conclusion ignores a vast amount of ink on the subject.Thus, I fail to see the contradiction.
You are talking about an issue of contingency. I would strongly suggest Ed Feser who does a good job of breaking down the prime mover arguments. I also have a close friend who wrote a paper on the subject. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Found the paper. Free pdf. It's basically a primer in understanding the nature of God, which is fundamental in dealing with the questions you are speaking of. The author is a personal friend of mine, so if you have any questions I have a forum where he would discuss. https://cmmorrison.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/makingdivinesimplicitysimple1.pdf
Click to expand...

Actually a fascinating read, but it reinforces the notion that it takes faith to get to the God discussed in the paper. Essentially what the church has done is to create a "being" that is above logic and therefore logical in its existence. It's a circular argument, but mind bendingly fun to consider. I enjoyed the article and will reread when I can give it more time.

I've enjoyed our discussions. You left the natural law debate untouched. You have argued, I believe, that homosexuality is morally wrong because it violates the natural law and, therefore, disparate treatment of gays is acceptable. I believe your basis was the the primary purpose of humans was pair bonding? I assume for the purpose of procreation, but I am not sure.

Once upon a time that may have been true, but I disagree with that notion now. The church has enough members to keep the coffers full and the world has more than enough. If it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals, should sterile couples be treated differently? I believe that your argument has to rely on the argument of procreation which would seem to render any orgasm occurring in a location other than the reproductively capable vagina of one's spouse to be immoral. As I write this, I find myself singing

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found

Every sperm is wanted
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#610
#610
VolsSportsFan said:
How are you determining that these people "deep down" know what they believe is likely false?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm guilty of projection in presuming that not everyone who professes to believe with all their heart that they'll go to heaven would maintain that under truth serum.

Also to me there is a big difference between "likely false" and "100% completely proven false".

I see no problem with someone having doubts and even coming to the conclusion that the evidence shows what they believe isn't true yet still finding comfort because there is a chance it's true. I would bet the vast majority of believers of all religions and beliefs have doubts. I would wager you'd find very few that are 100% completely sure that they are correct about everything.
Click to expand...

Such people have different ways of thinking than I do, but I'm only truly worried about the bolded contingent.
 
#611
#611
the old testament stories are true. stories concerning David, joseph, ruth, noah, etc. Christ himself referred to these stories in his teachings and essentially said they were true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#612
#612
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I'm assuming you're excluding Barney in order to reach this 100%? :)

j/k Deputy... I'm actually glad to see that you are at least attempting to have conversations with other posters rather than just posting "stuff". While I may not agree with your views, I recognize that you've actually softened your approach a bit in order to engage posters in lieu of just insulting them. :good!:
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm starting to realize that I'm not anything close to a Christopher Hitchens. I've shot my polemical bolt, time to try and actually learn something about other people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#613
#613
joevol320 said:
the old testament stories are true. stories concerning David, joseph, ruth, noah, etc. Christ himself referred to these stories in his teachings and essentially said they were true.
Click to expand...

Which portions of the Bible did Christ write? In fact, which people who knew Jesus wrote about him?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#614
#614
Deputy Fife said:
Let me refine that: I completely understand why certain beliefs, if people actually believe them to be true, would be comforting. What I can't begin to fathom is how someone could take comfort in something they know, deep down, is more than likely false.
Click to expand...

Go over to the FF, plenty of people believing in stuff they know wont happen. Listening to them we have at least 4-6 Heisman trophy winners on this team. And we should go something like 35-0, playing both college and NFL teams winning both titles. and that winning by anything less than 50 points is a disgrace. people believe and take comfort in that belief even when they know it will never happen. its kinda the basis for this board. we humans are a funny bunch.
 
#615
#615
LouderVol said:
Go over to the FF, plenty of people believing in stuff they know wont happen. Listening to them we have at least 4-6 Heisman trophy winners on this team. And we should go something like 35-0, playing both college and NFL teams winning both titles. and that winning by anything less than 50 points is a disgrace. people believe and take comfort in that belief even when they know it will never happen. its kinda the basis for this board. we humans are a funny bunch.
Click to expand...

In fairness we would be a top ten team with halfway competent coaching.

But yeah there is a delusional group that believes recruits are made inherently superior the minute they commit to us.
 
#616
#616
joevol320 said:
the old testament stories are true. stories concerning David, joseph, ruth, noah, etc. Christ himself referred to these stories in his teachings and essentially said they were true.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any of it true; although I agree it is a basis for believing them to be true.
 
#617
#617
This accessible video provides an excellent starting point in understanding the skeptical way of life:

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=752V173e31o[/youtube]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#618
#618
Deputy Fife said:
This accessible video provides an excellent starting point in understanding the skeptical way of life:

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=752V173e31o[/youtube]
Click to expand...

This video should be required viewing for middle school aged children. It will save them a lot of money and disappointment in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#619
#619
ClearwaterVol said:
Actually a fascinating read, but it reinforces the notion that it takes faith to get to the God discussed in the paper.
Click to expand...
No objection. The objection was to your claim that faith and logic are at odds. I think that has been thoroughly refuted. The real issue, i imagine, is how you are reading the term faith. If you are defining faith as believing in something contrary to the evidence, then i would agree that faith and logic are contradictory. However, in classical theology this NOT what faith means. Faith, in this context, is synonymous with trust or confidence in something or someone. If I say i have faith in my wife, i'm not saying i believe she exists even though it is contrary to the evidence. I'm saying i trust her. What i know about nature, humanity, morality, etc., gives me a myriad of reasons to trust that God (specifically the god of the bible) exists. It's not as if i don't have questions, i do. The difference is from which side i'm asking these questions.

Ultimately, the point in providing the article was to answer the issue of contingency and the free will of man, which as i recall, he definitely addresses.

Essentially what the church has done is to create a "being" that is above logic and therefore logical in its existence. It's a circular argument, but mind bendingly fun to consider. I enjoyed the article and will reread when I can give it more time.
Click to expand...
I would say they have discovered or had revealed, but whatever.

I've enjoyed our discussions. You left the natural law debate untouched. You have argued, I believe, that homosexuality is morally wrong because it violates the natural law and, therefore, disparate treatment of gays is acceptable. I believe your basis was the the primary purpose of humans was pair bonding? I assume for the purpose of procreation, but I am not sure.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by untouched?
Pair bonding is one issue, but there are others. Not sure that i would deem it as 'primary.' Also, when we move to an issue of morality we are venturing into different territory. I'm just amazed at how people are so quick to discard the biological conflicts that homosexuality presents.

Once upon a time that may have been true, but I disagree with that notion now. The church has enough members to keep the coffers full and the world has more than enough. If it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals, should sterile couples be treated differently? I believe that your argument has to rely on the argument of procreation which would seem to render any orgasm occurring in a location other than the reproductively capable vagina of one's spouse to be immoral.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't rely on procreation. Yes, humans are biologically designed for the opposite sex. This is a fact of nature, not an opinion. And, ideally, that would lead to procreation and a complementary family unit, which is optimum for raising children. Whether humans procreate is certainly necessary for the continuation of our species, but i fail to see how childless straight couples fall in the same category as same sex unions. I think you are incorrectly shifting the burden of proof. As i stated earlier, it's a fundamental issue. Fundamentally, a childless couple has not failed in regards to design and function. Now, if you've ever met a couple that wants children and is incapable, you know the difficulties and disappointment this presents. Is it bigoted to say they are deficient or defective? No, although it might be insensitive. But, They are dissappointed for this very reason.

Also, I think you need to be careful when you accuse of discriminating against homosexuals. I think all people have inherent value and worth. And unlike the atheist, i have an objective standard (not just an opinion) from which to ground that belief.
 
#620
#620
.

The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit.
— William Lane Craig
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#621
#621
Orange_Crush said:
Correct, but plenty of other arguments have been real enough. Usually, they've resulted in your crying into your keyboard, eeking mousy "big deal, you beat an idiot" responses, and then coming back with even more mindlessly copied paste jobs.

It's a tiring cycle that you seem completely comfortable with.
Click to expand...

Its an extremely rare occurrence for anyone to advance beyond basically paraphrasing everything they say from someone else. Not sure what the big about that is.
 
#622
#622
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#624
#624
Roustabout said:
No objection. The objection was to your claim that faith and logic are at odds. I think that has been thoroughly refuted. The real issue, i imagine, is how you are reading the term faith. If you are defining faith as believing in something contrary to the evidence, then i would agree that faith and logic are contradictory. However, in classical theology this NOT what faith means. Faith, in this context, is synonymous with trust or confidence in something or someone. If I say i have faith in my wife, i'm not saying i believe she exists even though it is contrary to the evidence. I'm saying i trust her. What i know about nature, humanity, morality, etc., gives me a myriad of reasons to trust that God (specifically the god of the bible) exists. It's not as if i don't have questions, i do. The difference is from which side i'm asking these questions.

Ultimately, the point in providing the article was to answer the issue of contingency and the free will of man, which as i recall, he definitely addresses.


I would say they have discovered or had revealed, but whatever.


Not sure what you mean by untouched?
Pair bonding is one issue, but there are others. Not sure that i would deem it as 'primary.' Also, when we move to an issue of morality we are venturing into different territory. I'm just amazed at how people are so quick to discard the biological conflicts that homosexuality presents.

No, it doesn't rely on procreation. Yes, humans are biologically designed for the opposite sex. This is a fact of nature, not an opinion. And, ideally, that would lead to procreation and a complementary family unit, which is optimum for raising children. Whether humans procreate is certainly necessary for the continuation of our species, but i fail to see how childless straight couples fall in the same category as same sex unions. I think you are incorrectly shifting the burden of proof. As i stated earlier, it's a fundamental issue. Fundamentally, a childless couple has not failed in regards to design and function. Now, if you've ever met a couple that wants children and is incapable, you know the difficulties and disappointment this presents. Is it bigoted to say they are deficient or defective? No, although it might be insensitive. But, They are dissappointed for this very reason.

Also, I think you need to be careful when you accuse of discriminating against homosexuals. I think all people have inherent value and worth. And unlike the atheist, i have an objective standard (not just an opinion) from which to ground that belief.
Click to expand...

Settle down. You have no OBJECTIVE truth. Again, who are Michaelangelos offspring. You are starting from a place of "truth" of which i disagree. I've met people that couldn't make the nfl and though they seemed disapointed i didn't find them defective. I assume you do.

If the primary purpose of a couple is to procreate, then a childless couple has failed. The primary purpose of procreation was for no other reason than to fund the cult. That is no longer a valid reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#625
#625
ClearwaterVol said:
If the primary purpose of a couple is to procreate, then a childless couple has failed. The primary purpose of procreation was for no other reason than to fund the cult. That is no longer a valid reason.
Click to expand...

Exactly, there's no reasonable argument for the superiority, on any level, of an arrangement like the Duggars vs. something like Stephen Fry and his partner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top