My Thoughts

Azrael · Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:29 pm

stahrwe wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: Wright ignores hermeneutics completely with respect to the Bible.

Wright has a strongly hermeneutical approach to the Bible. Balancing the text against historical archaeological evidence provides a real basis for speculation and interpretation. Ignoring the evidence leaves the reader in thrall to delusory traditional fantasies. It makes far more sense for Wright to analyse the evolution of the Abrahamic religions against a scientific archaeological framework, than for traditional theology to stick to the deposit of faith. Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.

You have to be kidding. Wright exemplifies precisely what one should not do when using a hermeneutical approach to study anything. The foundation of hermeneutics is that one a passage makes plain sense, no other sense is necessary. In other words, when the Bible refers to bread and fish, barring a COMPELLING reason to think otherwise, it is referring to bread and fish. As pointed out before by me, Genesis contains a straight-forward explanation for the transition from polytheism to monotheism that Abraham underwent. Wright totally ignores the story. Odd since it involves two thirds of the Book of Genesis.

As for faith vs evidence, I suggest that you visit the discussion: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. It proved to be a trainwreck for Interbane.


	Quote: Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.

Odd you should say that since the very religion you so blindly accept does the same thing. Pot calling the kettle black again.....

Robert Tulip · Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:57 am

Star Burst wrote:


	Robert Tulip wrote: Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.

Odd you should say that since the very religion you so blindly accept does the same thing. Pot calling the kettle black again.....

Are you suggesting that I make claims that are not backed by evidence? Examples?

DWill · Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:19 am


	stahrwe wrote: The Genesis discussion got bogged down with arguments about day 4.

Since you insist on taking that as astronomically true, what surprise is there to this? You miss out on the beauty and deeper meaning of this story by having to defend it as fact.


	Quote: The attempt to discuss Evil Bible stories got bogged down with an argument about the population of the ancient world. Why? The point of the Evil designation of the story had nothing to do with the population but it instantly was siezed on as a means of reinforcing the bedrock position that the Bible is wrong.

You're so extremely defensive about any statement in the Bible not being taken literally--even if it might lead to a richer meaning--that you see only intent to prove the Bible "wrong." Why didn't you just say in the first place that you didn't care about the question of population accuracy, that it was irrelevant to the larger meaning of these chapters? Then the discussion would have stayed more focused. My only reason for bringing that up was that it related to the perspective and bias of the writers of that part of the Bible. I've just brought up again with that last sentence why discussion between people who are so far apart on the basic assumptions is pointless.

stahrwe · Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:29 am

Robert Tulip wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: The foundation of hermeneutics is that one a passage makes plain sense, no other sense is necessary.

Truly Stahrwe, you make me laugh. Hermeneutics takes its name from the God Hermes, messenger of Zeus and Apollo. Like the planet Mercury, Hermes flits quickly between sun and earth, as god of communication and language. Put simply, hermeneutics is interpretation, providing the basis to find meaning in texts. As we read the Bible, we ask what the authors really meant by their statements. Jesus Christ instructs us to read parables as pointers to hidden wisdom. So your suggestion that Bible interpretation can be exhausted by a literal reading is absurd. But, granted, you have to posit this absurd argument to be consistent with your creationist fantasies.

I did not say that a literal interpretation exhausts the wisdom of the Bible. The rule I cited was just one of many tools included in a hermeneutic approach.


	Quote: the discussion: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. It proved to be a trainwreck for Interbane.


	robert tulip wrote: Interbane has been remarkably patient in drawing out your ability to ignore rational argument. This "trainwreck" comment is a further example of you re-writing the facts in line with your agenda. But then, literal faith needs blind confidence in order to believe objective falsity, such as the claim that Bible passages make plain sense.

This is precisely what I was talking about and why, with your mindset, you, Interbane, Geo, Johnsons1010, et al. will never progress passed the DK effect. Interbane insisted on attempting to discredit the Bible and therefore exclude it from the discussion. This is a common tactic and is a total diversion. It is intended to put the defenders of faith off balance and claim a higher ground. I showed that for what it was and introduced evidence, including evidence external to the Bible which, among other things demostrated that the Bible had things right. Instead of discussing the points, Interbane insisted on attempting in post after post to discredit the Bible. He never provided any evidence in support of his dismissal, just vague claims that the Bible had been revised so much it couldn't be trusted. It turns out that the Bible was accurate in the examples I provided but again, instead of discussing same it was post after tedious post of the same thing by Interbane. But the truly laughable thing is that after he impedes the discussion, and stuffs the thread with repetitious criticisms, I am the one who is accused of being dogmatic. This reminds me of the reaction the Pharisees had to Lazarus.

geo · Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:02 am


	stahrwe wrote: This is precisely what I was talking about and why, with your mindset, you, Interbane, Geo, Johnsons1010, et al. will never progress passed the DK effect. Interbane insisted on attempting to discredit the Bible and therefore exclude it from the discussion. This is a common tactic and is a total diversion. It is intended to put the defenders of faith off balance and claim a higher ground. . . .

Stahrwe, are you saying that yours is a faith-based position?

Interbane · Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:41 am


	Quote: This is precisely what I was talking about and why, with your mindset, you, Interbane, Geo, Johnsons1010, et al. will never progress passed the DK effect. Interbane insisted on attempting to discredit the Bible and therefore exclude it from the discussion.

Parroting the DK effect does not mean you aren't guilty of it. Truly, you are.

For the record, I never 'insisted on attempting to discredit' the bible. What I insisted was that you support it. Which you flailed about unable to do like an octopus with cerebral palsy.

Here's what you fail to understand; there is no argument needed to discredit the bible. Epistemically, the burden is first upon the person to support it. You hadn't filled that burden to begin with, which means the bible 'has no credit' which must be discredited. Using the Talmud, which is itself unsupported, does not fill the burden either. It's a case of tweedledee vouching for tweedledum. Here is a link.

stahrwe · Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:47 pm

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: This is precisely what I was talking about and why, with your mindset, you, Interbane, Geo, Johnsons1010, et al. will never progress passed the DK effect. Interbane insisted on attempting to discredit the Bible and therefore exclude it from the discussion.

Parroting the DK effect does not mean you aren't guilty of it. Truly, you are.

For the record, I never 'insisted on attempting to discredit' the bible. What I insisted was that you support it. Which you flailed about unable to do like an octopus with cerebral palsy.

In fact, I have cited specific evidence which supports the Bible, evidence which you have not been able to refute. Your sole rebuttal is to claim that the Bible is inadmissable based on self pertpetuating, non-supported claims within the atheistic community that the Bible has been revised to the point where it is no longer credible. Well, if that is the case, how can the prophecy about the restoration of Israel, predicted to the day in the OT have been so precise and correct? Oh, I remember, the Texas Sloppyshooter Fallacy.

As far as the DK effect goes, what is so amusing about it is how applicable it is to those who cite it as a disparragment of believers.


	interbane wrote: Here's what you fail to understand; there is no argument needed to discredit the bible. Epistemically, the burden is first upon the person to support it. You hadn't filled that burden to begin with, which means the bible 'has no credit' which must be discredited. Using the Talmud, which is itself unsupported, does not fill the burden either. It's a case of tweedledee vouching for tweedledum. Here is a link.

In the next few days, I will post a summary of the unrefuted evidence provided in the Epistemology discussion as a benchmark before continuing on.

geo · Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:13 pm


	stahrwe wrote: . . . In the next few days, I will post a summary of the unrefuted evidence provided in the Epistemology discussion as a benchmark before continuing on.

'Round and 'round it goes. Where it stops no one knows.

Just please start a new thread because this has nothing to do with Wright's book. In fact, I'd suggest that Chris remove this thread from the Wright topic altogether.

stahrwe · Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:33 pm

Robert Tulip wrote:

Star Burst wrote:


	Robert Tulip wrote: Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.

Odd you should say that since the very religion you so blindly accept does the same thing. Pot calling the kettle black again.....

Are you suggesting that I make claims that are not backed by evidence? Examples?

Yes,
The loaves and fishes.

The Cross in Revelation you had using the wrong consellation and claiming that Aquilla was a stand in for Scorpio because Scorpio couldn't be seen from the Northern Hemisphere*

*or something like that. From memory I did not go back and check.

The whole astrotheology thing is composed of surmise, suppostion, scripture sifting and directed assumption.

Azrael · Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:18 pm

Yeah right! Just like your Babble is composed of just that babble! False prophecy, lies, children killing, rape, murder should I go on...if this is the type of moron you worship you need to find another one...God killed roughly over 2 million people in the Babble, Satan killed what about 16..all Gods are based on star worship the Babble is no different....no wonder all politicians go to church its where they learn to twist words "depends on what you mean by sex"...............Bill Clinton

Azrael · Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:20 pm

geo wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: . . . In the next few days, I will post a summary of the unrefuted evidence provided in the Epistemology discussion as a benchmark before continuing on.

'Round and 'round it goes. Where it stops no one knows.

Just please start a new thread because this has nothing to do with Wright's book. In fact, I'd suggest that Chris remove this thread from the Wright topic altogether.

Yeah a good idea and remove my post above this one as well....this theological mythology don't belong on this thread or anywhere else for that matter...trash heap would be the nest place for it! :twisted:

Forum rules

My Thoughts Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!