Burning a Bible - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

09/11/2010 09:08:43 PM · #203

(*stamps feet, shakes fists!*)

There will be NO agreeing in rant! What are you thinking???

(Off to sulk in the corner....)

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/11/2010 09:10:54 PM · #204

Originally posted by Melethia:

(*stamps feet, shakes fists!*)

There will be NO agreeing in rant! What are you thinking???

(Off to sulk in the corner....)

Fine then... I choose to disagree with you...how's that. :O)

Ray

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

09/11/2010 09:12:08 PM · #205

That's better.

Wait...

No - you can't agree to not agree. Or to disagree... or... or...

Aahhhhhh (runs away screaming...)

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

09/11/2010 09:57:05 PM · #206

LOL... Rant actually has a dress code.

And it's definitely a suit.. But the kind without a tie. :)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/11/2010 09:58:23 PM · #207

Originally posted by coryboehne:

LOL... Rant actually has a dress code.
And it's definitely a suit.. But the kind without a tie. :)

I've never seen a rant that ended in anything BUT a tie!

FireBird

09/12/2010 12:09:50 PM · #208

Originally posted by Louis:

I don't care what you believe, so long as you don't shove it down my throat.

I believe in Chocolate Cake. I won't shove it but I'll offer you a fork. Maybe a spoon if you'd like a little ice cream with your cake.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/12/2010 12:26:51 PM · #209

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by Louis:
I don't care what you believe, so long as you don't shove it down my throat.
I believe in Chocolate Cake. I won't shove it but I'll offer you a fork. Maybe a spoon if you'd like a little ice cream with your cake.

Mmmmmm ... some chocolate cake with a scoop of coffee ice cream sounds like the ideal Sunday morning breakfast to me -- thanks for the idea ... :-)

09/12/2010 02:04:41 PM · #210

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:
It ain't nonsense. It's one of the most indefensible and well-known fallacies relating to religious belief. Authorities deriving their authority from themselves are inherently fallacious. Really, you don't get that?

I'm not stating something stupid like the Bible is authoritative to everybody because Christians say so.

Oh, but you ARE... and even if you're talking about only Christians believing it, you're still resorting to fallacy. Let's look at it from several angles:

1. That "the Christian faith takes the Bible as authority" is itself a fallacy of overwhelming exception. The reason so many different Bibles exist is because Christians DON'T agree on which parts are authoritative. Offer any quote a Christian doesn't particularly like and he'll ask which version of the Bible you're using. People generally consider dictionaries authoritative on the meaning of words, but you can clearly see in this thread alone that pointing to a dictionary is all but useless when it comes to what people want to believe.

2. If diehard Trekkies believe that dilithium exists because Star Trek says so, the belief is a fallacy because it's self-referencing. Whether or not they believe it within their ranks does not change this fact, and merely being a Trekkie is not proof that a person believes dilithium is real (some do and some don't).

3. The belief itself conflicts with the underpinnings of Christianity. For example the "motivation" of expressing devotion to God, as Muslims or Jews have been taught he wants, is widely considered less important to Christians than the deeds of say, baptism, communion or professing faith in Jesus. Thus, born-again Christian Jeffrey Dahmer goes to heaven while Mohandas Gandhi goes to hell. Heck, look at your own example: "Isaiah quotes God by announcing that the sacrificial system is far inferior to being right in your heart"... yet God must sacrifice Jesus because being right in your heart is not enough!

I was waiting for Yanko to clarify his intent, but you still had to rely on fallacy.

09/12/2010 09:03:49 PM · #211

Originally posted by scalvert:

1. That "the Christian faith takes the Bible as authority" is itself a fallacy of overwhelming exception. The reason so many different Bibles exist is because Christians DON'T agree on which parts are authoritative. Offer any quote a Christian doesn't particularly like and he'll ask which version of the Bible you're using. People generally consider dictionaries authoritative on the meaning of words, but you can clearly see in this thread alone that pointing to a dictionary is all but useless when it comes to what people want to believe.

So read the Bible in the original languages like me. Then you don't have to worry about versions or translations.

Originally posted by scalvert:

yet God must sacrifice Jesus because being right in your heart is not enough!

Being "right in your heart" is more desirable to God than works, but neither will get you into heaven. Jesus died on the cross because we are not capable of earning salvation, either by our heart or our deeds. If you only had to do some nice things or be "right in your heart" without Jesus then we could all get into heaven on our own merits. The thoughts of our hearts are "evil continually" (Gen 6:5) and our righteous acts are like "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). The only way to the Father is through Jesus (John 14:6).

09/12/2010 09:15:31 PM · #212

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

So read the Bible in the original languages like me. Then you don't have to worry about versions or translations.

You can't figure out a thesaurus in English, but you're fluent in Aramaic and Hebrew?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If so, then people born into other cultures and the vast majority of the planet's population for over 1000 years after Jesus would be condemned to eternal torment upon "creation" simply because they didn't know. So much for a loving, compassionate god.

09/12/2010 09:33:38 PM · #213

Originally posted by scalvert:

You can't figure out a thesaurus in English, but you're fluent in Aramaic and Hebrew?

I read my two thesauri correctly. You're the one that thought the synonyms listed in an entry are synonyms of the entry word's definition rather than the entry word itself. Did you read post #178? I can read Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. Neither language is used or spoken today, so technically I am not fluent since I don't speak them.

Originally posted by scalvert:

My advice to you is study the Bible and theology before you start drawing conclusions. That way there is a smaller chance that you'll make yourself sound foolish. Learn about all of God's characteristics before you judge him. You can pass by a parent spanking their child at the local mall and conclude that they are violent and evil, but you might be surprised to find that the parent is actually very loving and gentle if you took the time to get to know them. Unfortunately, many people choose to judge God without taking the time to get to know him.

Message edited by author 2010-09-12 21:34:11.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

09/12/2010 09:57:18 PM · #214

Christians do not consider the Bible to be authoritative. You heard it here first folks and you heard it from Shannon. We better amend that Wiki pronto!

09/12/2010 10:04:01 PM · #215

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by scalvert:
You can't figure out a thesaurus in English...

You're the one that thought the synonyms listed in an entry are synonyms of the entry word's definition rather than the entry word itself.

Confirmed.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

My advice to you is study the Bible and theology before you start drawing conclusions. That way there is a smaller chance that you'll make yourself sound foolish.

So if Jeffrey Dahmer had faith in Jesus and Gandhi did not, only the former goes to heaven according to your concept of a loving and compassionate god? While I appreciate your concern that open ridicule of such a concept might sound foolish to you, I'll take my chances.

09/12/2010 10:19:38 PM · #216

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Christians do not consider the Bible to be authoritative. You heard it here first folks and you heard it from Shannon.

You still think this isn't a hasty generalization fallacy? OK...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

In the end, it would be far more accurate to portray Jefferson, Franklin and company as "liberal Christians" than "deists" when using the modern meaning of both terms.

You have now personally argued that Jefferson was a Christian, and that Christians consider the Bible to be authoritative. Thus, I'm sure you'll agree to argue all your points about God from this authoritative source. Have fun!

Message edited by author 2010-09-12 22:20:22.

09/12/2010 10:56:10 PM · #217

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by scalvert:
You can't figure out a thesaurus in English...

You're the one that thought the synonyms listed in an entry are synonyms of the entry word's definition rather than the entry word itself.

Confirmed.

lol... you go on and keep using a thesaurus that way. You claimed that proselytize is a synonym of preach. So tell me... when I search for preach at Thesaurus.com, why is proselytize not listed as a synonym?
ETA: And while you're working on that, why don't you also explain to me why some thesauri don't even give definitions?

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
My advice to you is study the Bible and theology before you start drawing conclusions. That way there is a smaller chance that you'll make yourself sound foolish.

So if Jeffrey Dahmer had faith in Jesus and Gandhi did not, only the former goes to heaven according to your concept of a loving and compassionate god? While I appreciate your concern that open ridicule of such a concept might sound foolish to you, I'll take my chances.

That's a ridiculous question. If Charles Darwin was a musician would he have written On the Origin of Species? Dahmer did not have faith in Jesus so the questions is absolutely pointless. My concept of a loving God is this: God loves those who love him.

Message edited by author 2010-09-12 23:00:13.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

09/12/2010 11:15:32 PM · #218

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Christians do not consider the Bible to be authoritative. You heard it here first folks and you heard it from Shannon.

You still think this isn't a hasty generalization fallacy? OK...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the end, it would be far more accurate to portray Jefferson, Franklin and company as "liberal Christians" than "deists" when using the modern meaning of both terms.

You have now personally argued that Jefferson was a Christian, and that Christians consider the Bible to be authoritative. Thus, I'm sure you'll agree to argue all your points about God from this authoritative source. Have fun!

Hey. Your own fallacy to draw conclusions from the individual to the many.

Of course we could go back and dig up some Adams quotes again. Sometimes "authority" denotes a prime ranking.

....so great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens in their country and respectful members of society."

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a utopia, what a paradise would this be region be..."

I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole though because it's ridiculous. Again, only a fool would go about saying that Christianity does not hold the Bible as authoritative. I'd better qualify that and say I'm not calling Shannon a fool directly, but I am saying that he is foolish to pursue this line of argument.

But wait, does this mean he concedes that our founding fathers were Christians? :P And wasn't the previous argument that Jefferson and Co. couldn't be Christians because of how they viewed the Bible (among other reasons)? That the fact Jefferson ripped up and edited the Bible showed us clearly that he wasn't Christian?

To even further invalidate the argument, I am unaware in the history of questioning the canon of Christian scripture of anybody questioning the authority of the book of Matthew. Even further, since I was quoting Jesus, even Jefferson, who would have discarded 95% or more of the Bible, would have kept the Sermon on the Mount as something to pay attention to.

Message edited by author 2010-09-12 23:35:05.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/12/2010 11:56:52 PM · #219

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You claimed that proselytize is a synonym of preach. So tell me... when I search for preach at Thesaurus.com, why is proselytize not listed as a synonym?

Look up "ignoramus" at Thesuarus.com: Definition: simpleton. Synonyms: fool... Now look up "simpleton": Definition: fool. Synonyms: simpleton... Look up "fool": definition: stupid or ridiculous person. Synonyms: ignoramus, simpleton... Notice anything? A one-word definition *IS* a synonym! Look up the verb "shoot" at Thesaurus.com, and you won't find "photograph," but if you reverse the terms "shoot" is listed as a synonym of "photograph." You can find such common, obvious synonyms missing in any thesaurus, but look up proselytize as the main entry at freedictionary.com, Microsoft Encarta, hyperdictionary.com and many others, and you'll see preach listed as a synonym. Time to move on.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Maybe I don't know how to read a thesaurus...

Evidently not.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

And while you're working on that, why don't you also explain to me why some thesauri don't even give definitions?

For the same reason some dictionaries don't give synonyms: it's not their primary function.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Dahmer did not have faith in Jesus so the questions is absolutely pointless.

Fail.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/13/2010 12:02:52 AM · #220

The great failing of thesauri is that people tend to assume they are objectively authoritative. People tend to assume that all synonyms are equally synonymous, and you, Shannon, of all people, know this is not true. You also know that thesauri reflect changes in usage, not precision of language. You just choose to ignore it in this case.

But no matter what you say or believe, proselytization and preaching are not always (or even usually) the same thing, and the distinction is a valid and valuable one.

R.

09/13/2010 12:36:52 AM · #221

Originally posted by scalvert:

I guess it's just a simple matter of us using different thesauri then.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Dahmer did not have faith in Jesus so the questions is absolutely pointless.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Fail.

That's news to me. In that case then, it is conceivable that Dahmer would be saved and Gandhi wouldn't be. As Greg Laurie says, "Heaven isn't for good people, heaven is for forgiven people". Sometimes the worst sinners become the most faithful Christians. St. Paul persecuted the church and killed Christians and Augustine was a fornicator. You can look at people like that and say, "They don't deserve to go to heaven! How can a loving God let him/her into heaven?". And you're right, nobody deserves to go to heaven. But by the love and grace of God, some of the undeserving are saved based on Jesus' righteousness. I look at that and say, "Wow, God is SO loving that even HE/SHE was forgiven!" That's just the transforming power of the Gospel and the unconditional love of God.
ETA: Some people just have a really, really hard time wrapping their mind around the concept that God doesn't function like we always want or expect. What God thinks we deserve is a lot different than what we think we deserve.

Message edited by author 2010-09-13 00:42:01.

09/13/2010 12:51:57 AM · #222

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Your own fallacy to draw conclusions from the individual to the many.

Of course! I'm just pointing out how stupid it is. Calling the Bible authoritative to Christians is a hopelessly hasty generalization because there are so many very different Bibles, each of which is considered authoritative to some and worthless to others. If I say the yellow pages are the authoritative reference for business phone numbers, that's technically true, but also meaningless aside from the generalization itself. Much of the big picture information may match across books, but ask for anything beyond the broadest terms and, well... good luck.
If I ask 20 different people to give me the phone number for the best pizza restaurant, I can get 20 completely different answers and still say only a fool would claim the yellow pages aren't the authoritative reference for business phone numbers. Fun, ain't it? A Boston resident wouldn't consider a San Francisco yellow pages authoritative any more than a Pentecostal would consider the Jefferson Bible authoritative.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Of course we could go back and dig up some Adams quotes again. ....so great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens in their country and respectful members of society."

Again? You're quoting John Quincy Adams, born in 1825.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But wait, does this mean he concedes that our founding fathers were Christians? :P And wasn't the previous argument that Jefferson and Co. couldn't be Christians because of how they viewed the Bible (among other reasons)? That the fact Jefferson ripped up and edited the Bible showed us clearly that he wasn't Christian?

I freely acknowledged that they considered themselves Christians, but only to the extent that they believed a regular human named Christ offered some good adviceâ�� NOT at all the mystical interpretation common in modern Christianity. They completely rejected the idea of Jesus as a supernatural savior, and therefore must have been condemned to hell. Now... do you think acceptance of this "authoritative" source is a reliable indicator of whether people believe Jefferson went to hell?

09/13/2010 01:00:09 AM · #223

Originally posted by scalvert:

I wouldn't expect you to know this, but when evangelical Christians say that the Bible is authoritative, they are referring to the Scriptures as they were originally written and as they were originally interpreted. Virtually all evangelical Christians agree that the Bible in its original languages is infallible, while few (if any) argue that their English translation of choice is infallible. The only branch of Christianity (not evangelical) that believes their English translation is infallible is the Catholic church, which uses the King James Version.