Sunday School

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Out of curiosity has anyone ever heard a Christian claim that the Bible is the word of their God and that it is true from beginning to end? Have you ever heard a Christian say they believed the Creation story?

[Dang Martin]

Taking into consideration the idea that this Adam & Eve story is true, it sounds as if they were set up to fail.

Really think about the scenario.

This god creates humans. They do not know right from wrong. They have NO understanding of consequences. They would walk off a cliff or put their head in a tiger’s mouth, and have no idea why this was wrong, why it was a bad idea, or what would happen to them.

You tell them, “DO NOT DO THIS THING,” and all they are capable of hearing is “BLAH BLAH BLAH.”

Then, you have the INTELLIGENT idea of putting an evil tree in their midst. It’s like putting a fork in a baby’s hand, in a room with a bunch of electrical outlets.

But, wait a minute. THAT is just not dangerous enough. Let me put a TALKING SNAKE in there, too. Sure, they can’t really understand ANYTHING, because they’re borderline retarded, but this snake can GUIDE them to the tree.

And then, I’ll leave them alone.

AWESOME PLAN.

Imagine a god who is incapable of being a babysitter.

So AFTER they eat from this tree, THEN AND ONLY THEN do you give them the capability of understanding just what in the hell they did wrong. Of course, by this time it is too late.

GOD: Yea, so I did make you retarded, and I DID put a bad tree in your garden, and yea I DID allow an evil serpent to persuade you, and yea, you did NOT know about any of this until AFTER, and yea I CREATED THE ENTIRE SCENARIO MYSELF…. but YOU are responsible and YOU shall be punished for all of eternity, because…. well… BECAUSE I SAID SO.

[Simon Paynton]

@reg – “it never happened because the story is allegorical, not factual”

– it’s an allegory, or metaphor, for fact.  It’s one account of the fact of the universal human tendency to do wrong.  However, as an account, I don’t think it works very well, since its explanations are confusing and weird.

[.]

I already asked you “on whose authority” are you deciding that….Once again, who or what made you an authority on the interpretation of scripture.

I already answered you in saying I have no authority. It’s my own opinion based on the knowledge I have at this time. That’s all we can ever have.

biggest turn off for you should be Christians who say you are wrong and that you misrepresenting the Bible…

Yes I know, I used to think like them so I’m aware of what the arguments are.

 

God died because we are separated from God? When did we fall from grace?

It’s talking about human nature and the part of us that wants to be our own God. I don’t think there’s one snapshot moment that we fall from grace but I do think it’s human nature that our tendency is to want to be our own Gods.

I think the Bible contradicts you on that one. It is such an extraordinary claim….but you know what I say about extraordinary claims.  Can you point out some of the “lots of evidence” to support it. That sounds like what Ken Ham says but he is Christian who is a Biblical literalist….

There are stories of floods in other legends, and the whole 40 days and 40 nights is again part of oral tradition of that time. I don’t think it was literal. I think that given the area it was a flooding of the rivers from nearby.

I honestly haven’t seen anything Ken Ham says so I don’t know.

[Davis]

Belle Rose wrote:

No, what I’m trying to point out is that the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion.

Quick question Belle. By correct understanding…do you mean a “correct understanding” for each person? It is, after all a highly subjective activity to ascertain the intention of the author. We are missing a critically high amount of information, sometimes who the author even is, how to translate some lines, historical context, blending of factual and conceptual. A dozen people can give a dozen different answers on what the “intention of the author was” per the creation account in Genesis. So…is the correct understanding of the part of the bible how an informed person individually “ascertains the intention of the author”, that is, there are multiple correct explanations…or is there one correct one?

[.]

@Davis for example I’ve read different parts of the Bible at different times of my life under different circumstances and it “speaks” to me differently…I remember for example when I was in Guatemala and it was the first time the Bible actually came “alive” to me…It was as if it suddenly made sense. Some times I’ll listen to a sermon and it will be boring and dry and then other times I am hanging on by every word and learning something more about myself and about my relationship with God. It is subjective and it is about each individual person but at the same time there are some basic things that you can’t change for example No, I don’t believe that Genesis is literal. That doesn’t mean that I still don’t take something away from that story and what I personally think about it is that we either surrender to God, or we want to BE God. I think the Atheist position is that there is no God and it’s all up to us….that just doesn’t work for me.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I once heard Jehovah Witnesses (my old neighbors) arguing with some Mormons who were insisting that a certain prophecy in Isaiah was being misinterpreted by them. Apparently they did not know whose house they were calling on to preach.

I went out to watch…there was no way I was going to miss this. We acknowledged each other and they seemed to be trying to outwit each other in a sort of “my God is bigger than your God” argument. After a few minutes I said “But you both must know that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation”. They stopped to look at me and I continued…”Ehh..you know….like it says in 2Peter 1:20”?? I went back inside and eventually the JW’s knocked. I invited them in. Unfortunately I had “accidently” left the Book of Mormon and some of their superb knowledge based scientific  booklets on the table. I am so easily amused!!

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I think the Atheist position is that there is no God and it’s all up to us…..

Sorry Belle but that is a misrepresentation of our position. The atheist position is that we do not believe in any of the gods that we have heard about. Some, like me, go further and have decided, due to lack of any discernible evidence, that there probably are no gods.

For me, subjective evidence is only personal opinion and carries no weight as an argument of persuasion. I accept it is for many people but I could not justify it to myself. I cannot believe what I cannot believe.

BTW I have never wanted to be a god and don’t know any atheist to be that conceited that they would want to be one.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Good to see this edition of Sunday School lasted all week. Thanks everyone for your input. I better get busy for tomorrows’!!

[.]

Sorry Belle but that is a misrepresentation of our position.

I honestly don’t buy it. I’ve seen too much evidence to the contrary.

For me, subjective evidence is only personal opinion and carries not weight as an argument of persuasion.

That’s fine, but you’ll never find the so called evidence you are looking for because you yourself can’t even define what it would be. You ask for a shred of evidence and yet you can’t give me a straight answer of what would convince you.

BTW I have never wanted to be a god and don’t know any atheist to be that conceited that they would want to be one.

I don’t believe that either.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

It’s like putting a fork in a baby’s hand, in a room with a bunch of electrical outlets.

@ Dang Martin – I suppose you were listening to High Voltage when you wrote that…:-)

[.]

@regthefronkeyfarmer

I could just as easily flip it around at you and ask you on what authority you deduce that there is no evidence in any God. Is that not also your own subjective opinion based on your own knowledge?

How do you explain what happened to me?

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I could just as easily flip it around at you and ask you on what authority you deduce that there is no evidence in any God….

I am saying that I have never been able to find any evidence for any god. Because I have not I can only conclude that there is none. I just have never seen any and Christians or Muslims have never been able to show me any. They keep telling me they have but never share anything.

They all have “subjective evidence” which you have admitted to also only having. Subjective evidence is personal opinion. You believe in god based on your opinion that He exists. You have only offered your arguments for your belief. That is all any theist can do. That is why it is called “Faith”.

You still don’t have anything objective. I am not going to believe that people are able to communicate with the Creator of the Universe or are immortal based upon their assumptions. I believe they believe it but I don’t for a second.

Again, if you have anything objective please share it with us. You have said you have a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. You are claiming to be an immortal. Why would you expect us to believe such extraordinary claims just because you say so? To me it is unbelievable.

[.]

Again, if you have anything objective please share it with us.

I’m asking you for YOUR opinion of how then do you explain what happened to me? What “objective” evidence do you have to prove it wasn’t God?

[Davis]

Belle Rose wrote:

It is subjective and it is about each individual person but at the same time there are some basic things that you can’t change

I’m not sure that my question has been answered here. When you say “it is subjective and it is about each individual person” it seems as though you are saying that there is no one true interpretation. Am I right there?
Then you added a disclaimer “but at the same time there are some things that cannot change” in which case, on those particular subjects or passages, them not being able to change would mean that there is only one correct interpretation.

So to sum it up, in some passages or per some concepts that are touched on throughout the bible, there is one correct explanation that cannot change and for other parts, differing informed subjective interpretations are valid. No?

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Davis.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by Davis.

[Author]

Posts