Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[MR. Nate]

Backglass, I modified your list a bit:

* Giant ark & worldwide flood? True!
* Walking Dead? True!
* Humans turned into piles of salt? True!
* Humans walking on water? True!

As for Augustin, he had an interesting viewpoint, but a deeply flawed one, and not just on the convergence of science and miracles, either.

[OnlyAmbrose]

No no, inerrancy means the is no error in the scripture whatsoever. The Bible is 100% true and should be taken totally literal.

Exactly. 100% True, except for those parts that aren't...metaphors, etc.

We will decide which is which to fit the times.

• Giant ark & worldwide flood? Metaphor!
• Walking Dead? True!
• Humans turned into piles of salt? Metaphor!
• Humans walking on water? True!

See, it's easy! Just make it up as you go along and believe the parts you want to believe...everybody else does.

it's so easy! I could SO fall for this!

Also, i love augustine's get-out clause. I mean, i think science has proved that it's impossible to walk on water (without giant inflatable shoes, and the bible makes no mention of those) or to rise from the dead (without a defibrulator - again, no mention).
So how do they work?

I haven't read much of Augustine, but i do have my own views on the topics of literal and figurative interpretations of specific Bible passages.

Firstly, anything in the Bible must be taken in context. In any piece of writing, there are both literal and figurative ideas used by the author to convey a point. The trick, of course, is to figure out which ones are literal and which ones are figurative.

And let's face it - the books of the Bible were written by different people. Sure, they were inspired by the same God, but they were written by different people with different writing styles. So you have to take the books of the Bible in context with either themselves or books known to be written by the same author.

So let's take some examples that you cited. Walking on water.

Scientifically impossible? Certainly. Does that mean it can't be taken literally? No.

Believers who read the Bible make the basic assumption that there is an omnipotent God. That being said, this omnipotent being is certainly above the laws of physics which state the the surface tension of water is not enough to hold a man of any size.

Does that mean this passage should be taken literally? Not necessarily, but it does mean that we are not forced to take it figuratively.

So why take it literally? It's obvious that when you take this passage in context, the author, under inspiration from God, meant it to be taken literally. Throughout the Gospels, the authors refer to the "miracles" of Jesus - this implies supernatural power, which certainly would have been present is Jesus were to walk on water. Clearly, the actions of Jesus are not to be taken figuratively or symbolically. The Gospels are, after all, very much written in the context of a biography, meant to tell about Jesus' life in a literal sense, not to figuratively describe it.

I'm no biblical scholar, and I don't know what you're referring to about the piles of salt, but I'm sure that if the passage is taken in context it will be reasonably evident as to whether or not it was meant figuratively or literally.

In conclusion, I think it's folly to take any piece of writing as entirely literal, because figurative language is constantly used in almost any form of communication. Nonetheless, by taking a passage in context with the work which contains it, it should be possible to determine whether a specific phrase was meant literally or figuratively.

[Mr_Adams]

Only one thing I can disagree with you there Ambrose. I don't believe the walking on water was so much a God inspired writing as an eye witness acount

But yes, anyone who points to a biblical event and says "that's not physicly possible" is forgetting God is all powerful. He wants to turn a woman into a pillar of salt, who's gonna stop him? certanly not the laws of physics HE SET UP.

Also, I pose the question to contradict the thread's title.
"Atheists, why DON'T you believe?"

[OnlyAmbrose]

Only one thing I can disagree with you there Ambrose. I don't believe the walking on water was so much a God inspired writing as an eye witness acount

I don't think we disagree on that point

Also, I pose the question to contradict the thread's title.
"Atheists, why DON'T you believe?"

I'm going to hazard a guess at lack of evidence.

[comic boy]

Only one thing I can disagree with you there Ambrose. I don't believe the walking on water was so much a God inspired writing as an eye witness acount

But yes, anyone who points to a biblical event and says "that's not physicly possible" is forgetting God is all powerful. He wants to turn a woman into a pillar of salt, who's gonna stop him? certanly not the laws of physics HE SET UP.

Also, I pose the question to contradict the thread's title.
"Atheists, why DON'T you believe?"

I dont believe in God probably for the same reasons you dont believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Easter Bunny.

[heavycola]

Only one thing I can disagree with you there Ambrose. I don't believe the walking on water was so much a God inspired writing as an eye witness acount

But yes, anyone who points to a biblical event and says "that's not physicly possible" is forgetting God is all powerful. He wants to turn a woman into a pillar of salt, who's gonna stop him? certanly not the laws of physics HE SET UP.

Also, I pose the question to contradict the thread's title.
"Atheists, why DON'T you believe?"

We simply believe in one less god than you.

Nappy once again your loud and misplaced arrogance has given me a chuckle or two. You suggest that because you have studied contemporary biblical scholarship, you are somehow right. I don't see any problem with non-believers raising this point. Who decides which bits are metaphorical and which bits aren't? You? All-knowing contemporary biblical scholars? Me? Answer: all the above.

You are suffering from a combination of a) a different opinion and b) hubris. Not sure what you can do about that.

[Snorri1234]

Backglass, I modified your list a bit:

* Giant ark & worldwide flood? True!
* Walking Dead? True!
* Humans turned into piles of salt? True!
* Humans walking on water? True!

Ah I see. And you probably have evidence for that worldwide flood and giant ark?

[viperbitex]

Many posters are experts on why cryptologists believe and at the same time are experts on not being able to disprove bigfoot.

Why does this thread get away with being hijacked by nonbelievers? hmmm...

IF you don't believe you cannot understand why anybody does. Go study the Gimlin Film and then prove that it is wrong.

Why do you have such anger at believers. Why are you so into stating that Bigfoot does not exist, but you have no proof?

I mean who shall I believe. Cryptozoology is still going strong, and Is trustworthy, or a nonbeliever who can't show me any evidence at all or why I shouldn't believe. HMMMM I think I will choose to believe in Bigfoot, instead a person who has nothing but a possibility of living for 100 years.

[Backglass]

Backglass, I modified your list a bit:

* Giant ark & worldwide flood? True!
* Walking Dead? True!
* Humans turned into piles of salt? True!
* Humans walking on water? True!

Ah I see. And you probably have evidence for that worldwide flood and giant ark?

Hey Nate! No surprise coming from you actually. You not only drank the Kool-Aid, but are going to Kool-Aid school to learn even more about it's effects and how you can then pass it on to others.

BTW, I found the answer. Feel free to use this in future debates.

[unriggable]

Backglass, I modified your list a bit:

* Giant ark & worldwide flood? True!
* Walking Dead? True!
* Humans turned into piles of salt? True!
* Humans walking on water? True!

As for Augustin, he had an interesting viewpoint, but a deeply flawed one, and not just on the convergence of science and miracles, either.

Continue the list to voodoo and fart-powered jetpacks.

[Napoleon Ier]

Only one thing I can disagree with you there Ambrose. I don't believe the walking on water was so much a God inspired writing as an eye witness acount

But yes, anyone who points to a biblical event and says "that's not physicly possible" is forgetting God is all powerful. He wants to turn a woman into a pillar of salt, who's gonna stop him? certanly not the laws of physics HE SET UP.

Also, I pose the question to contradict the thread's title.
"Atheists, why DON'T you believe?"

We simply believe in one less god than you.

Nappy once again your loud and misplaced arrogance has given me a chuckle or two. You suggest that because you have studied contemporary biblical scholarship, you are somehow right. I don't see any problem with non-believers raising this point. Who decides which bits are metaphorical and which bits aren't? You? All-knowing contemporary biblical scholars? Me? Answer: all the above.

You are suffering from a combination of a) a different opinion and b) hubris. Not sure what you can do about that.

Its not a question of who decided, but of what is meant to be and what isn't. There are many parts of the Bible that are probably written similarily to histories which I would argue are in fact an elaborate metaphor for the struggle of the soul (ex. Joshua). Fundamentally, to say that some things are metaphorical and others not makes sense. Besides, of you manage to make literalism look shaky...well, yeah, well done...it isnt that difficult. However, these arguments arent attacking the heart of Christian doctrine, only conservative interpretations of the Bible.

[Snorri1234]

Its not a question of who decided, but of what is meant to be and what isn't. There are many parts of the Bible that are probably written similarily to histories which I would argue are in fact an elaborate metaphor for the struggle of the soul (ex. Joshua). Fundamentally, to say that some things are metaphorical and others not makes sense. Besides, of you manage to make literalism look shaky...well, yeah, well done...it isnt that difficult. However, these arguments arent attacking the heart of Christian doctrine, only conservative interpretations of the Bible.

But who decides what is metaphor and what isn't? The arguments aren't attacking the heart of christian doctrine (which is god exists and you should follow him and jesus is his son), but basically anything else. Jesus walking on water could very well be a metaphor for him being divine and doing things that nobody else can (like convincing others he is God and his son).

[OnlyAmbrose]

Given the lack of response on the part of the atheists in response to their protestations about the distinction between "miracle" and "metaphor", am I to assume that you're content on that specific subject now?

[Mr_Adams]

Hey Ambrose, this is off topic, but would your 1st name happen to be Zack(or something to which "Zack" is a nickname)? and Ambrose your last?

[OnlyAmbrose]

nope, sorry to disappoint

[Mr_Adams]

Any relation to a "Zack Ambrose" who lived in Arizona? or maybe he was from Nevada... oh well

[OnlyAmbrose]

Ambrose isn't my last name, it's my confirmation name, so I don't think so

[Mr_Adams]

oh... ok... chats not working so I can't go to callouts so I'll ask here...NE1 want to rt? just pm me with a game number, preferably flatrate...

[Backglass]

Given the lack of response on the part of the atheists in response to their protestations about the distinction between "miracle" and "metaphor", am I to assume that you're content on that specific subject now?

You know what they say about assuming.

[Mr_Adams]

Given the lack of response on the part of the atheists in response to their protestations about the distinction between "miracle" and "metaphor", am I to assume that you're content on that specific subject now?

You know what they say about assuming.

It makes an ass out of back glASS

[OnlyAmbrose]

Given the lack of response on the part of the atheists in response to their protestations about the distinction between "miracle" and "metaphor", am I to assume that you're content on that specific subject now?

You know what they say about assuming.

Well, then I'd be happy to hear your response

[Backglass]

Given the lack of response on the part of the atheists in response to their protestations about the distinction between "miracle" and "metaphor", am I to assume that you're content on that specific subject now?

You know what they say about assuming.

It makes an ass out of back glASS

Ouch! Such a witty one! You really got me!

Your fairy tale leader doesn't go for such outbursts though. Your tongue has been seized BY THE SATAN! You should probably apologize for being a bad christian like Nate did and run NOW to pray for forgiveness. Better make it an extra hour...throw in some wailing & crying while your at it to show you really mean it. Can you speak in meaningless jibberish? Thrash around on the floor while you do it...it real gets those nearby riled up!

And throw in an extra $20 on Sunday for good measure...it shows you care.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Now now, Backglass, this isn't flame wars, this is Intelleegent Konversation.

SOOOooo... if we could either admit that Ambrose is right in that passages in the Bible must be taken in context to determine if something is a miracle or metaphor and that a simple black-and-white literal-or-figurative interpretation is useless, or make a post to the contrary with a reasoned argument attached, I'd appreciate it.

[Backglass]

Now now, Backglass, this isn't flame wars, this is Intelleegent Konversation.

You are of course correct. My tongue must have been SEIZED BY THE SATAN!!!!

SOOOooo... if we could either admit that Ambrose is right in that passages in the Bible must be taken in context to determine if something is a miracle or metaphor and that a simple black-and-white literal-or-figurative interpretation is useless, or make a post to the contrary with a reasoned argument attached, I'd appreciate it.

Only if you will admit that it is entirely possible that it is ALL metaphor and none of it actually happened.

[unriggable]

Given the lack of response on the part of the atheists in response to their protestations about the distinction between "miracle" and "metaphor", am I to assume that you're content on that specific subject now?

Miracles are supernatural events that favor some people for no apparent reason, ie fifty doublesixes in a row.