Jack Chick is the man!

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would disagree. The Bible and related writings contain many different view points, none of which can be reliably shown to be an accurate transcript of the origional, and none of the Authors are known. Much of the writing is open to interpretation. A typical Christian appears to take the interpretation that either is given by someone apparently more lear ...[text shortened]... d one Christian cannot therefore logically substantiate thier beliefs as better than anothers.

The Bible and related writings contain many different view points
In a mosaic manner of speaking, of course.

none of which can be reliably shown to be an accurate transcript of the origional
Huh? You can't be serious.

and none of the Authors are known.
As in, they're all dead? The forty different authors used by the Holy Spirit all had names; all are known.

Much of the writing is open to interpretation
Thankfully, He made it so that the Bible itself is an intrepretative tool. Oh, wait, you mean "open to interpretation" as in the writings of Nostradamus or some such. Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Christianity is illogical and one Christian cannot therefore logically substantiate thier beliefs as better than anothers.
Yeah, we're all just a bunch of numbnuts, aren't we? Dimwitted imbeciles without nary a clue. Hard to imagine how we stumble through this thing, isn't it?

If you knew the first thing about the Bible, you would know that it necessarily demands to be interpreted accurately, and that God has provided everything necessary for doing just that thing. A right thing can only be done in a right way.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have no idea what your first paragraph is supposed to mean. In this case, your so-called "quantitative" differences are sufficiently large to make the interpretation of the Constitution a far more easier task than interpretation of the NT. "Reasonable people" did not call those who disagree with their interpretation of anything servants of Satan or demons or any of the other insane things Jack Chick does.

I don't know about "servants of Satan" or "demons", but one does often hear SCOTUS justices (past and present) refer to people who disagree with them as "idiots" or "dictators".

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have no idea what your first paragraph is supposed to mean. In this case, your so-called "quantitative" differences are sufficiently large to make the interpretation of the Constitution a far more easier task than interpretation of the NT. "Reasonable people" did not call those who disagree with their interpretation of anything servants of Satan or demons or any of the other insane things Jack Chick does.

"Reasonable people" did not call those who disagree with their interpretation of anything servants of Satan or demons or any of the other insane things Jack Chick does.
Coming from the king of personal attacks, that's about as funny a thing as I've ever read. We are indebted to you, sir.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]"Reasonable people" did not call those who disagree with their interpretation of anything servants of Satan or demons or any of the other insane things Jack Chick does.
Coming from the king of personal attacks, that's about as funny a thing as I've ever read. We are indebted to you, sir.[/b]

More stupidity from two simple minded, dogmatic parrots. I haven't called either of you servants of mythical creatures or other non-existent things. Neither of you are "reasonable"; you both are insufferable, intolerant fools. LH is more laughable because he tries to pretend to have some knowledge of history, law and philosophy when his posts make it clear he doesn't even know enough about any of them to fill a matchbook. At least you stay with your crazy "Secret Decoder Ring" theory, though your smugness with your own personal brand of nutjob Christianity is unique outside of an insane asylum.

BTW, both of you managed to take the thread off-topic with personal attacks while hypocritically criticizing others for doing so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
More stupidity from two simple minded, dogmatic parrots. I haven't called either of you servants of mythical creatures or other non-existent things. Neither of you are "reasonable"; you both are insufferable, intolerant fools. LH is more laughable because he tries to pretend to have some knowledge of history, law and philosophy when his posts make it cle ...[text shortened]... read off-topic with personal attacks while hypocritically criticizing others for doing so.

Ha, ha, I could not agree more, No1.

LucifersStammer and FreakingIdiot think they have a deep understanding of history and logic whilst displaying their ignorance and bias at every twist and turn.
Orfeo is another fine example of someone who seems fairly reasonable until you analyse their belief system.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why can't the same be said about the US Constitution? Or the constitution of any other country?

I dont see why not. I believe that the constitution is a shorter more consistent document but still open to interpretation, thus we have a court system to try to make the best interpretation (often biased) that they can. For example the constitution may say that everyone has the right to life. Does this allow or disallow abortion? Its all up to interpretation and any one persons interpretation is not better than anothers. However our reasons for following a constitution are sound and fairly logical and when the constitution no longer fits our needs we make changes. We also do not deny contradictions that exist. In my home country there was an entry in the constitution that both your parents must have been born in Zambia. However Zambia did not exist before 1964. Many people do not have legal fathers (illegitimate children), and many people cannot proove and often dont know where thier parents were born. After a long court case that line of the countitution has more or less been declared meaningless and is ignored.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We also do not deny contradictions that exist.

Which is why SDR theory doesn't apply to constitutions. SDR technology would enable these tedious problems to be resolved instantly; jurisprudence would be kept to a minimum.

I believe the real purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to unveil the very first Secret Decoder Ring. No sooner was it wielded than the Arians disappeared. (Well, some of them had to be butchered, but murder is SDR-compatible.)

Originally posted by howardgee
Ha, ha, I could not agree more, No1.

LucifersStammer and FreakingIdiot think they have a deep understanding of history and logic whilst displaying their ignorance and bias at every twist and turn.
Orfeo is another fine example of someone who seems fairly reasonable until you analyse their belief system.

I repeat my earlier question you never answered: how old are you anyway?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
none of which can be reliably shown to be an accurate transcript of the origional
Huh? You can't be serious.

Yes I am serious. We know of many translation and copying errors in the various versions of the English Bible. We have no way of knowing whether this did not occur with earlier translations/ copies other than a belief in devine influence.

and none of the Authors are known.
As in, they're all dead? The forty different authors used by the Holy Spirit all had names; all are known.
Anyone who has studied the Bible in detail knows that the names often listed as writters at the beggining of books are not neccessarilly the origional writers, nor do we know who most of them were anyway other than a name. Many books show signs of being written by more than one writter.

Thankfully, He made it so that the Bible itself is an intrepretative tool. Oh, wait, you mean "open to interpretation" as in the writings of Nostradamus or some such. Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You have just prooved that it is open to interpretation!

Yeah, we're all just a bunch of numbnuts, aren't we? Dimwitted imbeciles without nary a clue. Hard to imagine how we stumble through this thing, isn't it?

If you knew the first thing about the Bible, you would know that it necessarily demands to be interpreted accurately, and that God has provided everything necessary for doing just that thing. A right thing can only be done in a right way.
That implies that there is only one True Christian in the world as every Christian I have ever met has his own unique interpretation. And since God never provided me with one of those Secret Decoder Rings, I guess he just doesnt want me to know the 'first thing about the Bible'.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LH is more laughable because he tries to pretend to have some knowledge of history, law and philosophy when his posts make it clear he doesn't even know enough about any of them to fill a matchbook...., both of you managed to take the thread off-topic with personal attacks while hypocritically criticizing others for doing so.

See the irony here?

Hint: Go back over my posts in this thread and count the number of times I have made personal attacks or criticised others for doing so. Then come back and let me know who's the hypocrite here.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would disagree. The Bible and related writings contain many different view points, none of which can be reliably shown to be an accurate transcript of the origional, and none of the Authors are known. Much of the writing is open to interpretation. A typical Christian appears to take the interpretation that either is given by someone apparently more lear ...[text shortened]... d one Christian cannot therefore logically substantiate thier beliefs as better than anothers.

You really have to attend an exigetical class to understand how logical it is. And although interpretations of the bible vary from time to time, this is just because new evidence from that time emerges.

I suspect you have been misinformed on exegesis by RBHill. Exegesis is not about taking a literal examination of the bible or like others, playing with the words used. For instance, from the gospel of Luke all one can derive exegetically is that salvation is universal, that Jesus came for the poor, that Jesus is the Messiah and that the Holy Spirit moves through the Christian community.

Its best to approach the bible as an atheist (even if you're the pope) and inspect the Gospels as if they were fictional stories. This is the typical method. Its mainly fundamentalists who get it wrong...again!

Originally posted by Conrau K
You really have to attend an exigetical class to understand how logical it is. And although interpretations of the bible vary from time to time, this is just because new evidence from that time emerges.

Actually it sounds a lot more like another Secret Decoder Ring method. If it is so logical why dont they publish the results and have most Christians agreeing with them? Is it really difficult to understand? Is it controvercial?

I suspect you have been misinformed on exegesis by RBHill. Exegesis is not about taking a literal examination of the bible or like others, playing with the words used. For instance, from the gospel of Luke all one can derive exegetically is that salvation is universal, that Jesus came for the poor, that Jesus is the Messiah and that the Holy Spirit moves through the Christian community.

Its best to approach the bible as an atheist (even if you're the pope) and inspect the Gospels as if they were fictional stories. This is the typical method. Its mainly fundamentalists who get it wrong...again!
Actually I havent been informed or missinformed about exegesis, so maybe you can give me your definition of what it is.

If you approach the Bible as an athiest you can only possibly come to the one conclusion that they are largely fictional stories.

Again you accuse fundamentalists of getting it wrong but have nothing more than your own personal feelings or beliefs to back up that statement. (Unless you would like to give us a logical reason why Exegesis is more 'right' or 'better'.)

One important point not really addressed so far in these threads is that the issue is not just interpretation of the Bible but the choice of which books are in the Bible. That choice was made a long time ago but again not based on a logical method or on accuracy but rather on whether the content fitted the beliefs of the people at the time. It would therefore be perfectly reasonable for someone to take the Gospel of Judas for example and start preaching based on that and you would have no logical reason for calling him wrong but can only say that his particular beliefs differ from yours.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually it sounds a lot more like another Secret Decoder Ring method. If it is so logical why dont they publish the results and have most Christians agreeing with them? Is it really difficult to understand? Is it controvercial?

[b]I suspect you have been misinformed on exegesis by RBHill. Exegesis is not about taking a literal examination of the bible eason for calling him wrong but can only say that his particular beliefs differ from yours.[/b]

Actually it sounds a lot more like another Secret Decoder Ring method. If it is so logical why dont they publish the results and have most Christians agreeing with them? Is it really difficult to understand? Is it controvercial?

Actually, not really. It doesn't matter if the exegesis is performed by a Catholic or a Protestant both yield the same results. The theological differences between the Catholic and the Proestant do not originate from the exegesis of the text but from tradition. The results have been published. I gave them too you.

If you approach the Bible as an athiest you can only possibly come to the one conclusion that they are largely fictional stories.
Exegesis is a logical way of approaching the bible. Its not dissimilar to a historians approach.

If you approach the Bible as an athiest you can only possibly come to the one conclusion that they are largely fictional stories.

When I studies exegesis it was at the same time I studied literature. In both cases I treated the texts as fiction. I looked at the particular cadences, the associated historical circumstances of the author and so on. In this way, exegesis treats the bible not as if it were God's Word but as if it were the authors word and thoughts. This is an atheist way of looking at the bible (and is why atheists make wonderful theologians). Exegesis studies the text, not the events (like Jesus' Passion) therefore its irrelevant for an exgesist to "conclude that they are largely fictional stories".

Exgesis is better then any fundamentalists approach because it does not treat the bible as a fact, but instead a truth. 😞

As for the choice of the books, this was largely decided by the Christian community. The books which fitted what the communities knew of Jesus, were gradually assimilated. They were not "chosen" but just became popular.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Exgesis is better then any fundamentalists approach because it does not treat the bible as a fact, but instead a truth.

As I said no logical reason at all but more a statement of personal belief.

As for the choice of the books, this was largely decided by the Christian community. The books which fitted what the communities knew of Jesus, were gradually assimilated. They were not "chosen" but just became popular.
Interesting that you have studied the text of the Bible but know very little of its history.
Also why do most Christians today more or less ignore or even deny all writing outside those chosen to be in the Bible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Also why do most Christians today more or less ignore or even deny all writing outside those chosen to be in the Bible.

Probably because most Christians today have more important things in life to worry about than apocryphal Gospels.