Jump to content

Atheist Geocachers?


Recommended Posts

... Everytime I talk to an atheist, the conversation ALWAYS turns into either a) I am not as smart as they are or :huh: I'm ignorant...

 

I bump into that quite often. Athiests focus on how "stupid" I must be to not think their way. Variations of the faithfull focus on my lack of higher eligntenment since clearly I would think their way if I were.

Link to comment

I find that in my life when a non-belief in traditional Christian values is expressed...

 

I find that I don't trust most folks who feel they can just philosophize their own moral code. It’s usually built on rationaliziation and ignorance. A lot of people get hurt as a result. When you ask them questions it doesn't take long to find the utter lack of foundation for their values. Normally they can't see the problem or the contractions. The "It's all about me" philosophy does seem to play a big part most times.

 

 

ME TOO!!! I don't think people should philosophize their own moral code. That is where extremists come in and those people are not good for anyone. They usually do harm to the greater name of the cause they associate with.

 

But I didn't say I had no moral code. So I don't know why I was quoted. I even brought up Ptah-Hotep and everything.

 

I don't think we are on the same page. When I talk about philophizing their own code I'm talking inventing it from scratch for their own purpose. When it comes to moral code as a whole you have to talk about it, discuss it, argue over it. That's another thing. If for no other reason than morals and ethics become law.

I'm confused. :huh: Are you saying that anyone that bases their ethics on something other than a organized religion has no ethics? Or are you talking about people that make up their 'ethics' as they go?

Link to comment

... Everytime I talk to an atheist, the conversation ALWAYS turns into either a) I am not as smart as they are or :huh: I'm ignorant...

 

I bump into that quite often. Athiests focus on how "stupid" I must be to not think their way. Variations of the faithfull focus on my lack of higher eligntenment since clearly I would think their way if I were.

I think everyone who does that is an intolerant <family friendly> and there are lots of them on both sides of the fence.

 

I will gladly talk to anyone about how I do and don't believe without any name calling or judgement. We all need to have more respect for each other regardless of who or what we are. In fact I am not a Christian but I have argued for the rights of Christian cachers here in these forum. Intolerance is ignorance no matter what you believe.

Link to comment

Everytime I talk to an atheist, the conversation ALWAYS turns into either a) I am not as smart as they are or :D I'm ignorant...

 

That is just too general. All conversations where people are opposed go that way. Repub vs Demcrats, Women vs. Men, Patriots vs. the Steelers, ect... and the feeling is mutual.

 

I don't agree. I've got a friend who is completely opposed to me in politics as well as religion and we somehow manage to converse with each other without thinking the other is stupid. I think he is wrong, but he certainly isn't stupid.

 

I use to be an atheist, but now I am a Christian. My IQ has remained the same during the transition :huh:

Link to comment

I don't think we are on the same page. When I talk about philophizing their own code I'm talking inventing it from scratch for their own purpose. When it comes to moral code as a whole you have to talk about it, discuss it, argue over it. That's another thing. If for no other reason than morals and ethics become law.

 

ohh, so instead of saying "my life is yours, mold me", I am then forging my own path on selfishness and manipulation for my self-purpose? Okay then. We just disagree.

Link to comment

Everytime I talk to an atheist, the conversation ALWAYS turns into either a) I am not as smart as they are or :D I'm ignorant...

 

That is just too general. All conversations where people are opposed go that way. Repub vs Demcrats, Women vs. Men, Patriots vs. the Steelers, ect... and the feeling is mutual.

 

I don't agree. I've got a friend who is completely opposed to me in politics as well as religion and we somehow manage to converse with each other without thinking the other is stupid. I think he is wrong, but he certainly isn't stupid.

 

I use to be an atheist, but now I am a Christian. My IQ has remained the same during the transition :huh:

 

I don't think you are stupid and I think we are conversing just fine. I was a Christian and now I am a non-Christian.

Link to comment

Everytime I talk to an atheist, the conversation ALWAYS turns into either a) I am not as smart as they are or :D I'm ignorant...

 

That is just too general. All conversations where people are opposed go that way. Repub vs Demcrats, Women vs. Men, Patriots vs. the Steelers, ect... and the feeling is mutual.

 

I don't agree. I've got a friend who is completely opposed to me in politics as well as religion and we somehow manage to converse with each other without thinking the other is stupid. I think he is wrong, but he certainly isn't stupid.

 

I use to be an atheist, but now I am a Christian. My IQ has remained the same during the transition :D

:huh:

Thanks, I needed that.

You are correct. I use to be a Christian, in fact I was a minister, and now I'm (for lack of a better word) an atheist and my IQ didn't change either.

 

I just wish everyone could realize that instead of trying to shove their views down other peoples throats. I will calmly talk to anyone that wants to. I'm not going to force it on them nor do I want them to force it on me.

This is the first time I have post to any thread in these forums that has dealt with any religious theme except to defend Christians' right to cache as they see fit.

In fact XopherN71 and myself debated the issue of Christian related swag for some extent not so long ago.

Link to comment

...I'm confused. :huh: Are you saying that anyone that bases their ethics on something other than a organized religion has no ethics? Or are you talking about people that make up their 'ethics' as they go?

 

Make them up as they go.

Then I have to agree that ethics with a basis in belief (not I did not say based on religious belief) are not true ethics. Ethics to be of any effect must be based on the idea that, "my actions will and do effect others and therefore effect me, so I must be responsible for my actions.' Whether you base that on a religious belief or on a realization that we are all connected together, it must have a foundation.

Link to comment

At least I recognize that my religion is a "religion"... Let me get this straight, you are correct and everything you believe is "fact" and anyone that believes otherwise must be ignorant and stupid...

 

No, actually it is the other way around. Religions are the ones who claim to hold the ultimate truth, and the scientific method is the opposite of that. My consent to the facts are entirely provisional. However, in some cases the weight of evidence is so overwhelming that to without provisional consent would be foolish. Gravity is a good example.

Link to comment

Okay I am sorry on the Non Christian thing. I wasn't thinking with others who believe in God to an extent. Yes I am a Pagan. I used to be a Christian, married to a preacher (he is not one any more), and can disscuse the bible really well with people. But I finally opened my eyes when I saw how some people not all treat others in a church if they do something wrong. Or even how they treat people that don't believe the way they do. I could not handle it. Mine is very peaceful and I can relax and be one with myself and what is around me.

So yes I still would love for there to be a caching group for believes that don't believe in God, Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, and what ever the Hindu and Budda Gods are called. So let's hope we can get this back where it was suppose to go in the first place.

Link to comment

At least I recognize that my religion is a "religion"... Let me get this straight, you are correct and everything you believe is "fact" and anyone that believes otherwise must be ignorant and stupid...

 

No, actually it is the other way around. Religions are the ones who claim to hold the ultimate truth, and the scientific method is the opposite of that. My consent to the facts are entirely provisional. However, in some cases the weight of evidence is so overwhelming that to without provisional consent would be foolish. Gravity is a good example.

 

Here is the beauty of that. Religion may very well hold the ultimate truth. Atheists likewise claim another ultimate truth. Since the scientific method has no means whatsoever to tackle the hypothesis of religion or atheism, it can't even tackle the question. The scientific method is just that. A Methodology on how to go about things with some built in assumptions. Like you point out, it has no answers. That doesn't stop people from finding them just the same.

 

Gravity may or may not be a good example. As it happens there isn't enough in the universe just now per current theories so they look for dark matter. Heck cause and effect isn't even a solid concept anymore.

Link to comment

....I finally opened my eyes when I saw how some people not all treat others in a church if they do something wrong. Or even how they treat people that don't believe the way they do. ...

Your eyes were opened when you saw that people are only human? No faith or philosophy has a sure fire method for keeping people from being base. Free will has it's costs.

Link to comment

Sorry that this thread went south. I certainly didn't mean for that to happen with my original post. It might be worth trying another thread just to see where it goes. It might need a better title though as the one for this thread just seems to have been a bit too open for interpretation, discussion and other stuff.

 

Since many of the on topic posts seem to be related to science and a possible coin maybe that is a topic that could have some traction.

 

We all make many choices every day which reflect our beliefs. Many of us make choices to associate with organizations that reflect our beliefs and value systems. Many do not. This would likely be an undesireable existance for most of us if we did not have our freedom of choice. Let us all celebrate the fact that we have a choice...for now.

 

Each reader of this thread can and should examine their choices and ask if those choices are consistent with the reader's beliefs, regardless of what they may be. Choose wisely and follow your beliefs.

Link to comment

My final post to this topic...

 

Did the mason and christian threads have to go through this?

 

No.

 

Very sad that there can't be mutual respect, there is NO REASON this thread shouldn't have turned out the same way. I did NOT go into either of those threads and question their beliefs, instead I made my own where I 'thought' I could have a similar discussion but that's just not acceptable I guess.

 

Pathetic.

Link to comment

If everyone had the common goal of finding the "truth" and not just believing whatever makes your ego feel good, we would all be on common ground and be able to have a conversation. Everytime I talk to an atheist, the conversation ALWAYS turns into either a) I am not as smart as they are or :) I'm ignorant... that's plain scary. The BAD Christians that I know don't even make other people feel that way..

If someone were to show you that there is a blatant flaw in the Bible would quit believing?

 

It's why I stopped believing. When I finally sat down to read the Bible in its entirity I didn't find one flaw. I found many. The word of a perfect God would be flawless. Instead what I found was a book filled with errors, contradictions and inconsistencies and one that is open to numerous interpretations (which is why there are thousands of Christan sects, with often widely varying beliefs all based in the Bible). Not to mention the varying translations, which sometimes completely change the meaning of passages depending on which translation you are reading.

 

I can't believe that a perfect God would allow such a flawed book to be presented as his word.

 

I don't count myself as an atheist, because I don't have enough faith to be one. But I'm absolutely certain that the Christian God is the greatest hoax of all time.

 

Count me as a sometimes deist, sometimes agnostic, but I don't want to join any geocacher sub group of like minded people. Here I'm just a geocacher and I'd rather hang with other geocachers regardless of their religious beliefs or fraternal associations (Hey, any Tekes out there?). Besides I find life more stimulating

when I'm with people with differing beliefs and politics. I rarely learn anything from people who agree with me.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

If everyone had the common goal of finding the "truth" and not just believing whatever makes your ego feel good, we would all be on common ground and be able to have a conversation. Everytime I talk to an atheist, the conversation ALWAYS turns into either a) I am not as smart as they are or :) I'm ignorant... that's plain scary. The BAD Christians that I know don't even make other people feel that way..

If someone were to show you that there is a blatant flaw in the Bible would quit believing?

 

It's why I stopped believing. When I finally sat down to read the Bible in its entirity I didn't find one flaw. I found many. The word of a perfect God would be flawless. Instead what I found was a book filled with errors, contradictions and inconsistencies and one that is open to numerous interpretations (which is why there are thousands of Christan sects, with often widely varying beliefs all based in the Bible). Not to mention the varying translations, which sometimes completely change the meaning of passages depending on which translation you are reading.

 

I can't believe that a perfect God would allow such a flawed book to be presented as his word.

 

I don't count myself as an atheist, because I don't have enough faith to be one. But I'm absolutely certain that the Christian God is the greatest hoax of all time.

 

Count me as a sometimes deist, sometimes agnostic, but I don't want to join any geocacher sub group of like minded people. Here I'm just a geocacher and I'd rather hang with other geocachers regardless of their religious beliefs or fraternal associations (Hey, any Tekes out there?). Besides I find life more stimulating

when I'm with people with differing beliefs and politics. I rarely learn anything from people who agree with me.

 

I've questioned various leaders over the years with many many questions of inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are usually because of bad translation or misinterpretation. Can you point out the #1 inconsistency you are referring to. Don't need a list, just the biggest and bestest you can come up with.

Link to comment

At least I recognize that my religion is a "religion"... Let me get this straight, you are correct and everything you believe is "fact" and anyone that believes otherwise must be ignorant and stupid...

 

No, actually it is the other way around. Religions are the ones who claim to hold the ultimate truth, and the scientific method is the opposite of that. My consent to the facts are entirely provisional. However, in some cases the weight of evidence is so overwhelming that to without provisional consent would be foolish. Gravity is a good example.

 

I don't disagree with science. What I disagree with is people taking unproven theories and trying to pass them off as science. All scientists everywhere should be disgusted by this practice. Science is all about observation, testing and proving. Telling me that life started as pond scum is pure speculation and cannot be proven and has never been proven. Believing that requires faith and is not true science.

Link to comment
The mason and Christian threads aren't putting down atheists. And they don't exist for the sole purpose of stickin' one to the other groups.

 

Oh PLEASE, give me a break... that statement is so wrong it's not even funny, go back and look who started the thread on it's off topic roll and throwing accusations.

 

I've requested that this topic be closed or deleted, it's so far off topic I can't even stand it anymore.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment
The mason and Christian threads aren't putting down atheists. And they don't exist for the sole purpose of stickin' one to the other groups.

 

Oh PLEASE, give me a break... that statement is so wrong it's not even funny, go back and look who started the thread on it's off topic roll and throwing accusations.

 

I've requested that this topic be closed or deleted, it's so far off topic I can't even stand it anymore.

 

I re-read from the beginning. The angst (for me at least) began at:

 

Post #14

"I was waiting for somebody to start this thread after finding the Mason thread and encountering Christians who use caching to prosyletize"

 

Then again Post #16

"I've always wanted to create a geocoin with freethought, science, atheism, rational thinking, etc. as the theme" (as if I am not rational thinking and have free thought. I must be ignorant and stupid right)

 

And Post #17

"They've got Christian-based coins. I say go for it!"

 

I didn't start the war. The thread's purpose clearly from the beginning was to counter the other threads. You were looking for a battle and you got one. Not sure why you are surprised.

Link to comment

I was looking for a battle?

 

No, I wasn't... others maybe, but not me. I was looking for others who had similar beliefs (or lack of). The other two threads popped up and gave me the idea to start one for us.

 

Start your own thread and battle all you want, but please do me a favor and leave this one alone.

 

My opinion is the bible was written by a pot smoking hippy and found some years later by another pot smoking hippy who took it word for word and started a trend by sharing the information as he perceived it. :)

 

We're all part of something much bigger, what that is I don't think anyone knows... We live, we die, we turn to dust and disappear - end of story.

 

It doesn't get any more detailed or in depth from me... and that is why I refuse to 'battle' this topic, it isn't worth the keystrokes.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment

I was looking for a battle?

 

No, I wasn't... others maybe, but not me. I was looking for others who had similar beliefs (or lack of). The other two threads popped up and gave me the idea to start one for us.

 

Start your own thread and battle all you want, leave this one alone.

 

I didn't quote you did I? When you pour honey all over something, don't complain when ants and bees come. (Did I just compare myself to an ant?)

Link to comment

So from what you said, myself along with other non-believers so to speak should head over to the Christian and Mason threads and do what you are doing here?

 

Sorry, I'm not that rude.

 

I've asked for these debates to stop multiple times and get back on topic... this is not the thread for religious debating any more than the other threads are.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment

So from what you said, myself along with other non-believers so to speak should head over to the Christian and Mason threads and do what you are doing here?

 

Sorry, I'm not that rude.

 

I've asked for these debates to stop multiple times and get back on topic... this is not the thread for religious debating any more than the other threads are.

 

Show me where the other threads are putting down other groups. I "GUARANTEE" that if the other threads were doing that, the same would happen over there. This thread started with angst and it looks like it will end that way.

Link to comment

This thread was NOT started with angst, you along with a couple others made it that way.

 

Don't blame me, blame yourselves.

 

I had no more ill intentions than either of the other threads that were mentioned.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment

 

I've questioned various leaders over the years with many many questions of inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are usually because of bad translation or misinterpretation. Can you point out the #1 inconsistency you are referring to. Don't need a list, just the biggest and bestest you can come up with.

I'll give you just one of many.

 

In the original language the Bible states...

JA 1:13 For God cannot be tested (tempted) by evil, and he cannot test (tempt) anyone;

But we find in .....

GE 22:1 Later God tested (tempted) Abraham.

and in

DT 8:2 Remember that the LORD your God led you through the wilderness for forty years, in order to humble you and in order to test (tempt) you

JG 2:22 I will use them to test (tempt) Israel

 

The exact same word is used in all the verse and is always translated as test or tempt depending on who does the translation. This is just one of the many inconsistencies I found as a minister once I learned to read the Bible in its true language. Inconsistencies like these in the original language can not be blamed on bad translation or misinterpretation.

Link to comment

 

I've questioned various leaders over the years with many many questions of inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are usually because of bad translation or misinterpretation. Can you point out the #1 inconsistency you are referring to. Don't need a list, just the biggest and bestest you can come up with.

I'll give you just one of many.

 

In the original language the Bible states...

JA 1:13 For God cannot be tested (tempted) by evil, and he cannot test (tempt) anyone;

But we find in .....

GE 22:1 Later God tested (tempted) Abraham.

and in

DT 8:2 Remember that the LORD your God led you through the wilderness for forty years, in order to humble you and in order to test (tempt) you

JG 2:22 I will use them to test (tempt) Israel

 

The exact same word is used in all the verse and is always translated as test or tempt depending on who does the translation. This is just one of the many inconsistencies I found as a minister once I learned to read the Bible in its true language. Inconsistencies like these in the original language can not be blamed on bad translation or misinterpretation.

 

Here are the answers. I believe this list covers everything, including the question of temptation. If you are interested that is....

 

Answers to contradictions

 

And here is the specific answer relating to tempatation

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment

...This is just one of the many inconsistencies I found as a minister once I learned to read the Bible in its true language. Inconsistencies like these in the original language can not be blamed on bad translation or misinterpretation.

 

Did you read it in it's true spirit? I don't know the nuances of the orginal language but while you have spotted an inconsitancy the real question is what's the source? Two different times of use for that same language? Difference in generations of the speakers/writeres? Different styles? Your own limited ability with the language? The poor choice of a word for a concept the author is trying to get across? The poor choice made by including that particular book in the bible as opposed to others? Or perhaps it means exaclty what it says. That also gives multiple possiblities. Your understanding is flawed, or perhaps the inconsistancy is real and clarity comes from something else either beyond your understanding, not yet found, or was just understood in the day and lost with time. Hard to say. We get to work what what survived in history. Not what really was.

 

Ignoring any of that. What did the inconsistance call into question? God? The author? The authors? Different era's the books were written in? The bible itself? If the Bible is invalidated does it invalidate God?

 

It's strange that most all of us wrestle with faith in a lot of differnet ways but a lot of the time it's the small things that point our way.

Link to comment
I 've questioned various leaders over the years with many many questions of inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are usually because of bad translation or misinterpretation. Can you point out the #1 inconsistency you are referring to. Don't need a list, just the biggest and bestest you can come up with.

 

I agree that there are some bad translations. I just don't see a "God breathed" document being susceptible to bad translations because I can't imagine a perfect God allowing that to happen to his word. The simple fact that bad translations exist to me is just one reason to question the legitimacy of the Bible as God's word.

 

One inconsistency that bugged me, though not the biggest and bestest is the concept of salvation. The fundamentalist doctrine is sola fide, or salvation by faith alone. That is supported in the Bible in numerous places especially Ephesians, Romans and John.

 

Yet some Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and others) believe that faith and good works are necessary for salvation. They point to James who tells us that faith without works is dead and Revelation that says we will be judged by our works, as well as some passages in Matthew that appear to emphasize works.

 

That is an inconsistency. There are also outright errors. Christian apologists attribute these to copyist errors, yet if it's God breathed how can copyists make errors? If God allows errors to creep into his word then that calls into question everything. How do we know which are God's words and which are those of a copyist?

Link to comment

 

Here are the answers. I believe this list covers everything, including the question of temptation. If you are interested that is....

 

Answers to contradictions

 

And here is the specific answer relating to tempatation

Yes and that was the standard answer I was told to give and gave for years. But it is based on an understanding of the English language. The Bible and thus those verse were not written in English.

If look at them in the original language that they were first written in, when English did not even yet exist, they use the exact same word which has only one meaning in the original language. Which means, to test something to its point of failure.

You see I found the flaws not in the modern language of English but in the language of the original writers. Since the flaw is in the original language it doesn't matter what modern English semantics are thrown at it. You must show prove that the word used has another meaning in its original language. I scoured countless volumes of both Greek and Hebrew texts both religous and non-religous and consulted Doctors of Theology and Linguistics from multiple Universities trying to prove myself wrong. No one could.

The flaw can be glossed over by the countless translations and retranslations of the text, but when that is stripped away the flaw glares out so loudly that it could not be ignored.

Link to comment

 

Here are the answers. I believe this list covers everything, including the question of temptation. If you are interested that is....

 

Answers to contradictions

 

And here is the specific answer relating to tempatation

Yes and that was the standard answer I was told to give and gave for years. But it is based on an understanding of the English language. The Bible and thus those verse were not written in English.

If look at them in the original language that they were first written in, when English did not even yet exist, they use the exact same word which has only one meaning in the original language. Which means, to test something to its point of failure.

You see I found the flaws not in the modern language of English but in the language of the original writers. Since the flaw is in the original language it doesn't matter what modern English semantics are thrown at it. You must show prove that the word used has another meaning in its original language. I scoured countless volumes of both Greek and Hebrew texts both religous and non-religous and consulted Doctors of Theology and Linguistics from multiple Universities trying to prove myself wrong. No one could.

The flaw can be glossed over by the countless translations and retranslations of the text, but when that is stripped away the flaw glares out so loudly that it could not be ignored.

 

If you look at the argument, the person claiming "contradiction" is using incorrect logic and not using the true translations, because the original language clearly had 2 different meanings. You will believe what you want to believe. Every contradiction claim has a viable explanation. Those that want to believe that there are contradictions will find them and those that want to believe there aren't will not... The argument is by no means unequivocal.

Link to comment

...This is just one of the many inconsistencies I found as a minister once I learned to read the Bible in its true language. Inconsistencies like these in the original language can not be blamed on bad translation or misinterpretation.

 

Did you read it in it's true spirit? I don't know the nuances of the orginal language but while you have spotted an inconsitancy the real question is what's the source? Two different times of use for that same language? Difference in generations of the speakers/writeres? Different styles? Your own limited ability with the language? The poor choice of a word for a concept the author is trying to get across? The poor choice made by including that particular book in the bible as opposed to others? Or perhaps it means exaclty what it says. That also gives multiple possiblities. Your understanding is flawed, or perhaps the inconsistancy is real and clarity comes from something else either beyond your understanding, not yet found, or was just understood in the day and lost with time. Hard to say. We get to work what what survived in history. Not what really was.

 

Ignoring any of that. What did the inconsistance call into question? God? The author? The authors? Different era's the books were written in? The bible itself? If the Bible is invalidated does it invalidate God?

 

It's strange that most all of us wrestle with faith in a lot of differnet ways but a lot of the time it's the small things that point our way.

I was a minister when I came across it for the first time. I was working on a direct translation of the Septuagint at the time. I did everything I could to prove myself wrong. I struggle with it and prayed about it endlessly. I think I was in spirit then more than I ever had been before.

Link to comment
I 've questioned various leaders over the years with many many questions of inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are usually because of bad translation or misinterpretation. Can you point out the #1 inconsistency you are referring to. Don't need a list, just the biggest and bestest you can come up with.

 

I agree that there are some bad translations. I just don't see a "God breathed" document being susceptible to bad translations because I can't imagine a perfect God allowing that to happen to his word. The simple fact that bad translations exist to me is just one reason to question the legitimacy of the Bible as God's word.

 

One inconsistency that bugged me, though not the biggest and bestest is the concept of salvation. The fundamentalist doctrine is sola fide, or salvation by faith alone. That is supported in the Bible in numerous places especially Ephesians, Romans and John.

 

Yet some Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and others) believe that faith and good works are necessary for salvation. They point to James who tells us that faith without works is dead and Revelation that says we will be judged by our works, as well as some passages in Matthew that appear to emphasize works.

 

That is an inconsistency. There are also outright errors. Christian apologists attribute these to copyist errors, yet if it's God breathed how can copyists make errors? If God allows errors to creep into his word then that calls into question everything. How do we know which are God's words and which are those of a copyist?

 

There are bibles out there that outright change the meaning of passages. People that don't know any better will be duped. I don't think it's a God issue more than it is a human problem. I think we must be responsible for what we put in our heads. There's a lot of bad information out there for sure.

Link to comment

I'm sorry but I won't discuss this any further here. Not because I can't, but because I feel this is not the proper place or time to talk about something that can have such great impact on the lives of others. I don't want to drag anyone's beliefs down in any way intentionally or not.

 

If you would like to discuss this further with me, maybe some day we can set down and do so. For me anyway, I can not and will attack another persons beliefs in a public forum like this. I was asked a direct question from someone I have come to respect a lot over the past few days. I felt I owed them a answer.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
I 've questioned various leaders over the years with many many questions of inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are usually because of bad translation or misinterpretation. Can you point out the #1 inconsistency you are referring to. Don't need a list, just the biggest and bestest you can come up with.

 

I agree that there are some bad translations. I just don't see a "God breathed" document being susceptible to bad translations because I can't imagine a perfect God allowing that to happen to his word. The simple fact that bad translations exist to me is just one reason to question the legitimacy of the Bible as God's word.

 

One inconsistency that bugged me, though not the biggest and bestest is the concept of salvation. The fundamentalist doctrine is sola fide, or salvation by faith alone. That is supported in the Bible in numerous places especially Ephesians, Romans and John.

 

Yet some Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and others) believe that faith and good works are necessary for salvation. They point to James who tells us that faith without works is dead and Revelation that says we will be judged by our works, as well as some passages in Matthew that appear to emphasize works.

 

That is an inconsistency. There are also outright errors. Christian apologists attribute these to copyist errors, yet if it's God breathed how can copyists make errors? If God allows errors to creep into his word then that calls into question everything. How do we know which are God's words and which are those of a copyist?

 

There are bibles out there that outright change the meaning of passages. People that don't know any better will be duped. I don't think it's a God issue more than it is a human problem. I think we must be responsible for what we put in our heads. There's a lot of bad information out there for sure.

 

It's a God issue because if someone is duped by a bad translation, when he gets before the "Pearly Gates" it's "tough cookies, Hell for you"...at least according to fundamentalist thinking.

Link to comment
I 've questioned various leaders over the years with many many questions of inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are usually because of bad translation or misinterpretation. Can you point out the #1 inconsistency you are referring to. Don't need a list, just the biggest and bestest you can come up with.

 

I agree that there are some bad translations. I just don't see a "God breathed" document being susceptible to bad translations because I can't imagine a perfect God allowing that to happen to his word. The simple fact that bad translations exist to me is just one reason to question the legitimacy of the Bible as God's word.

 

One inconsistency that bugged me, though not the biggest and bestest is the concept of salvation. The fundamentalist doctrine is sola fide, or salvation by faith alone. That is supported in the Bible in numerous places especially Ephesians, Romans and John.

 

Yet some Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and others) believe that faith and good works are necessary for salvation. They point to James who tells us that faith without works is dead and Revelation that says we will be judged by our works, as well as some passages in Matthew that appear to emphasize works.

 

That is an inconsistency. There are also outright errors. Christian apologists attribute these to copyist errors, yet if it's God breathed how can copyists make errors? If God allows errors to creep into his word then that calls into question everything. How do we know which are God's words and which are those of a copyist?

 

There are bibles out there that outright change the meaning of passages. People that don't know any better will be duped. I don't think it's a God issue more than it is a human problem. I think we must be responsible for what we put in our heads. There's a lot of bad information out there for sure.

 

It's a God issue because if someone is duped by a bad translation, when he gets before the "Pearly Gates" it's "tough cookies, Hell for you"...at least according to fundamentalist thinking.

 

I guess it depends on what the issue is. I think Christians can have a wide degree of latitude in certain areas. I don't think a Christian will go to hell for believing in a hybrid God/Evolution theory... As long as the main pieces are in place... But some things obviously are not open for latitude... There are people duped all the time.. Duped into believing that there is no God :):) I'm not going to be the one to say what's going to happen, but being duped and not doing your homework is not a good enough excuse in my opinion.

 

(I said I wasn't going to post anyone, but did.. Does that mean I contradicted myself or just that I'm a sucker for a fun argument?)

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment

...I was a minister when I came across it for the first time. I was working on a direct translation of the Septuagint at the time. I did everything I could to prove myself wrong. I struggle with it and prayed about it endlessly. I think I was in spirit then more than I ever had been before.

It's a hard path no matter which one we take. Actually wanting to know the truth of things seems to make it harder.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

OK, so a request to have this thread closed due to it going extremely off-topic not only gets ignored but a moderator chimes in and adds to it.

 

Lovely

 

briansnat is not a moderator for this section of the forums. His regular account is also a moderator, so sometimes it can be hard when he wants to comment in forums that he doesn't mod, and people have a tough time separating his moderator persona from his player account. But he should be able to post his thoughts and opinions just like everyone else. :)

Link to comment

OK, so a request to have this thread closed due to it going extremely off-topic not only gets ignored but a moderator chimes in and adds to it.

 

Lovely

 

briansnat is not a moderator for this section of the forums. His regular account is also a moderator, so sometimes it can be hard when he wants to comment in forums that he doesn't mod, and people have a tough time separating his moderator persona from his player account. But he should be able to post his thoughts and opinions just like everyone else. :)

 

True. I would close it as requested , but I'm not a moderator here.

Link to comment

Oh I understand completely... been in the situation many times myself. Just frustrating watching what was intended to be a harmless thread deteriorate before my eyes.

 

Also, I'm also aware that my original request wasn't ignored... just feels that way :)

 

Anyway, I should have stopped following this thread long ago.

 

Have your fun I guess, it's your baby now.

Link to comment

I don't disagree with science. What I disagree with is people taking unproven theories and trying to pass them off as science. All scientists everywhere should be disgusted by this practice. Science is all about observation, testing and proving. Telling me that life started as pond scum is pure speculation and cannot be proven and has never been proven. Believing that requires faith and is not true science.

 

You and I are in perfect agreement, until you get to the end. Up until then you are describing something called "Intelligent Design." The theory of Natural Selection -- developed to explain the observed world -- is stunning in its success (and humbling for our species). But it certainly doesn't preclude your personal decision to believe in a deity.

Link to comment

I don't disagree with science. What I disagree with is people taking unproven theories and trying to pass them off as science. All scientists everywhere should be disgusted by this practice. Science is all about observation, testing and proving. Telling me that life started as pond scum is pure speculation and cannot be proven and has never been proven. Believing that requires faith and is not true science.

 

You and I are in perfect agreement, until you get to the end. Up until then you are describing something called "Intelligent Design." The theory of Natural Selection -- developed to explain the observed world -- is stunning in its success (and humbling for our species). But it certainly doesn't preclude your personal decision to believe in a deity.

 

1) Don't don't confuse ID with a diety. You need nothing more than interested aliens with an assortment of probes. Evolution was guided, the only disagreement is on how and that's not even agreed upon within the bounds of tradational evolution.

2) Don't confuse Evolution with a "done deal". It attempts to explain things, does a resonable job of some things. Not so good on others and is always changing as better infomation comes along. it also does nothing whatsoever to preclude ID much like Newton didn't disprove relativeity when he proved his own (wrong) theory.

3) Science is a method to explain and understand everthing that is. It however is not a replacment for what is. Think of Science as a tool. Not the end result.

Link to comment

OK, so a request to have this thread closed due to it going extremely off-topic not only gets ignored but a moderator chimes in and adds to it.

 

Lovely

Sometimes moderators have to do their real jobs. If you look at my recent finds, you will see where my real job has recently taken me. I love DC and even caching in the rain while waiting to work is worth it. Sorry, I chose to cache in the little free time I had while up there.

 

Topic closed per request.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...