Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity
Collapse
X
-
"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe authors of the NT and/or most of the church fathers believed Genesis was literal, and that was the standard for Christianity up until the 19th and 20th century, and remains the standard for many Christians today.
More importantly, a particular view of their nature has never been part of any creed nor has it even been brought up for discussion at a Council or Synod. Further, it should be noted that none of the great Reformed confessions make any comment on the matter of the nature of creation. Not the French Confession (1559), the Scots'Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563, 1571) or any of the others. They may stress the sovereign action of God in creating all things but the universal absence of any reference connected even remotely to the issue of the days of creation or the processes involved establishes that it was not a confessional issue in the slightest.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostYes.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIf God were real, he would be my bestest friend and give me super magical powers and make me rich.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe Creation account of the Bible, though meant to be literally true, is known to be literally false.
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostThat's not necessarily the case at all. The creation account is much more likely a reaction to the Enuma Elish. Etiologies, like the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, are exceedingly common in ANE literature. See Gordon and Rensburg's The Bible and the Ancient Near East.
Such a reading is still a literal interpretation but one which doesn't rely on symbolism or a lot of poetic elements. While historical and scientific questions may be foremost in oureverything[1]is[2].
Finally, we must keep in mind that the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is in fact a relatively modern development owing a lot to the ideals of the 19th century positivists. The point is that it is ridiculous to hold Genesis, or other parts of the Bible for that matter, to modern standards of scholarship that were unknown to it.
Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). It is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (vs. 16-17).
Genesis isn't an attempt to grapple with or answer technical scientific questions, but instead deals with matters beyond the realm of science. It seeks to bring us in touch with the eternal God and to reveal the sacred meaning of His being, His purpose and His dealings with us as He works out His holy will. Simply put, the Bible is not trying to tell us exactly HOW or WHEN God did this or that but rather, it is telling us WHY God did this.
1. And God is responsible not just for the origin of all that there is but the entire being of all that is (As Thomas Aquinas wrote in "De potentia dei" (On the Power of God), the only cause of being is the power of God and all natural causes act as instruments of that power).
2.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostPersonally, as I've made clear multiple times in the past, I see the creation account (especially the one provided in Genesis 1) as primarily being a monotheistic polemic against the various pagan cosmogonies and polytheistic myths of the people that surrounded the ancient Hebrews and were corrupting the ancient Israelis -- and that it still conveys powerful truths today. Theological truths that remain timeless. This is very similar to the view expressed by George Frederick Wright a century ago and by folks like Conrad Hyers and others today.
Such a reading is still a literal interpretation but one which doesn't rely on symbolism or a lot of poetic elements. While historical and scientific questions may be foremost in oureverything[1]is[2].
Finally, we must keep in mind that the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is in fact a relatively modern development owing a lot to the ideals of the 19th century positivists. The point is that it is ridiculous to hold Genesis, or other parts of the Bible for that matter, to modern standards of scholarship that were unknown to it.
Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). It is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (vs. 16-17).
Genesis isn't an attempt to grapple with or answer technical scientific questions, but instead deals with matters beyond the realm of science. It seeks to bring us in touch with the eternal God and to reveal the sacred meaning of His being, His purpose and His dealings with us as He works out His holy will. Simply put, the Bible is not trying to tell us exactly HOW or WHEN God did this or that but rather, it is telling us WHY God did this.
1. And God is responsible not just for the origin of all that there is but the entire being of all that is (As Thomas Aquinas wrote in "De potentia dei" (On the Power of God), the only cause of being is the power of God and all natural causes act as instruments of that power).
2.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostRight, and Adam and Eve were meant to be fictional characters as well, correct?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostPersonally, as I've made clear multiple times in the past, I see the creation account (especially the one provided in Genesis 1) as primarily being a monotheistic polemic against the various pagan cosmogonies and polytheistic myths of the people that surrounded the ancient Hebrews and were corrupting the ancient Israelis -- and that it still conveys powerful truths today. Theological truths that remain timeless. This is very similar to the view expressed by George Frederick Wright a century ago and by folks like Conrad Hyers and others today.
Such a reading is still a literal interpretation but one which doesn't rely on symbolism or a lot of poetic elements. While historical and scientific questions may be foremost in oureverything[1]is[2].
Finally, we must keep in mind that the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is in fact a relatively modern development owing a lot to the ideals of the 19th century positivists. The point is that it is ridiculous to hold Genesis, or other parts of the Bible for that matter, to modern standards of scholarship that were unknown to it.
Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). It is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (vs. 16-17).
Genesis isn't an attempt to grapple with or answer technical scientific questions, but instead deals with matters beyond the realm of science. It seeks to bring us in touch with the eternal God and to reveal the sacred meaning of His being, His purpose and His dealings with us as He works out His holy will. Simply put, the Bible is not trying to tell us exactly HOW or WHEN God did this or that but rather, it is telling us WHY God did this.
1. And God is responsible not just for the origin of all that there is but the entire being of all that is (As Thomas Aquinas wrote in "De potentia dei" (On the Power of God), the only cause of being is the power of God and all natural causes act as instruments of that power).
2.
So, after all that, is the Genesis Creation narrative literally true or allegory?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostRight, and Adam and Eve were meant to be fictional characters as well, correct?
Only with later, educated theologians, such as 'St' Augustine of Hippo, do non-literal interpretations of the creation narratives start becoming popular. One approach that seems quite popular among modern mainstream Christians is to say that Genesis 1-11 (the before-Abraham part) is 'pre-history' and different in kind from what follows, and it can be largely ignored / understood as a kind of 'just-so' story that sets the scene for the (supposedly) historical narratives that follow in the rest of the bible. This neatly allows them to accept evolution and ignore the difficult-to-defend Noah's Ark and Tower of Babel stories. A corollary of this position though is that you then can't take Paul too literally where he says sin and death came into the world through Adam, because obviously if evolution is true then death was around from the beginning and not caused by sin."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostA corollary of this position though is that you then can't take Paul too literally where he says sin and death came into the world through Adam, because obviously if evolution is true then death was around from the beginning and not caused by sin.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostBut this raises the question that if Adam's sin is an allegory, then Jesus' atonement of sin must be an allegory too.
But I don't think the argument flies, because Jesus' atonement can plausibly be explained as dealing solely for the future judgment of God in the afterlife, rather than any this-world consequences of sin (e.g. death). Although it implies that pain/death are a natural part of God's created world, so what that says about his character is open to debate.
Of course, I personally don't think the bible actually teaches substituationary atonement, and think the early Christians didn't believe in anything of the sort and that the doctrine was a creation of the theologians of the middle ages and the reformation, and that the widespreadness of the substitutionary atonement teaching within modern evangelicalism combined with overly suggestive bible translations encourages us to read that teaching into the text. I would say that in the view of the NT writers and early Christians, the way Christ helps us pass God's final judgment is that by following his teachings and example we can do the sort of things God approves of and thus pass God's final judgement (e.g. Matthew 25:31-46)."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostWell that is one of the major arguments YEC's make for why the 6 day creation story must be literal.
But I don't think the argument flies, because Jesus' atonement can plausibly be explained as dealing solely for the future judgment of God in the afterlife, rather than any this-world consequences of sin (e.g. death). Although it implies that pain/death are a natural part of God's created world, so what that says about his character is open to debate.
Of course, I personally don't think the bible actually teaches substituationary atonement, and think the early Christians didn't believe in anything of the sort and that the doctrine was a creation of the theologians of the middle ages and the reformation, and that the widespreadness of the substitutionary atonement teaching within modern evangelicalism combined with overly suggestive bible translations encourages us to read that teaching into the text. I would say that in the view of the NT writers and early Christians, the way Christ helps us pass God's final judgment is that by following his teachings and example we can do the sort of things God approves of and thus pass God's final judgement (e.g. Matthew 25:31-46).
Comment
-
The 'best' in terms of the correct interpretation of what the writers of the bible really meant and believed? Or best in terms of making for a vaguely plausible / defensible / coherent / personally satisfying theology?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
23 responses
131 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 06:22 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,123 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,246 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-22-2024, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
53 responses
420 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-11-2024, 11:01 AM |
Comment