A Question For Christians

[Shaker]

If you can understand the Bible as well as you claim to be able to, why aren't you a Christian?

It could very well be because Thrud gets (as you seem not to, based on that post) that understanding something doesn't entail agreement with or belief in it. I'm an old hand at this game and have been round the block enough times to know that there's a certain brand of theist who either implies or explicitly states that disbelief rests upon mis- or non-understanding - "If you truly understood you would believe too" is the spoken or unspoken message at the back of this - but, while no expert psychologist, enough of a student of human nature to know that there's a psychological defence mechanism in play here. It's a species of what the Greeks used to call hubris, which we know as overweening arrogance - I believe because I understand; you don't believe because you don't have my understanding.

[Khatru]

The one thing Christians find hard is to answer questions.Here are two questions they will all disagree with or rather not answer.So Christians have a go at these two questions.

 1 When did time begin according to the bible,please give scriptures and reasons.

 2 When will time end according to the bible,please give scriptures and reasons.



                             ~TW~

Doubt you'll get an answer to that.

What we do know from scriptures is that time existed before the Bible god and time will continue to exist after him.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

The one thing Christians find hard is to answer questions.Here are two questions they will all disagree with or rather not answer.So Christians have a go at these two questions.

 1 When did time begin according to the bible,please give scriptures and reasons.

 2 When will time end according to the bible,please give scriptures and reasons.


                             ~TW~

This is like asking Jews about the Messianic Era. You will be given scriptural quotes entailing what is required for the same to be recognised, but nobody knows when it will begin, and most don't really care because they have more immediate issues to attend to.

But since I am bored.....

1) Time began on the first day, because before then as  in "In the beginning..." (Genesis 1.1) there was no measurement of time.
2) Depends as to whether you choose the canonical book of Revelations, or the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It could very well be because Thrud gets (as you seem not to, based on that post) that understanding something doesn't entail agreement with or belief in it. I'm an old hand at this game and have been round the block enough times to know that there's a certain brand of theist who either implies or explicitly states that disbelief rests upon mis- or non-understanding - "If you truly understood you would believe too" is the spoken or unspoken message at the back of this - but, while no expert psychologist, enough of a student of human nature to know that there's a psychological defence mechanism in play here. It's a species of what the Greeks used to call hubris, which we know as overweening arrogance - I believe because I understand; you don't believe because you don't have my understanding.

One thing I don't get about the New atheism is that on one hand it extols ignorance in religion and at the same time argues that only atheists really understand the bible. I am slightly troubled that people who extol the virtues of Shakespeare (an old book)might also be the same people who vilify the Bible for being.....er......... an old book.

A group of people who have great difficulty believing in the self are going to have trouble with Shakespeare and would probably be better of with the manual of a meccano set.....Deluxe Box.

[Shaker]

One thing I don't get about the New atheism is that on one hand it extols ignorance in religion and at the same time argues that only atheists really understand the bible.

Whatever this "new atheism" may be, atheism does neither of those things.

I am slightly troubled that people who extol the virtues of Shakespeare (an old book)might also be the same people who vilify the Bible for being.....er......... an old book.

Nope. Shakespeare's plays were written fundamentally as entertainment, but there are so many of them and their scope is so vast that they have insightful, relevant things to say about human nature and experiences common to all of us in which we can see ourselves reflected - joy, grief, depression, jealousy, and so on. The same can be said of the Bible; but the salient difference is that nobody thinks that Shakespeare's plays contain a moral code to live by, whereas Judaeo-Christian theists think that the Bible does - not merely for like-minded people but often for those who don't accept the Bible as in any way authoritative or binding. Shakespeare describes; for theists the Bible prescribes and proscribes.

[Bubbles]

I'm not sure what new atheism is either 

[Brownie]

I found this Rose (I didn't know what it was either):
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_Atheism

[Leonard James]

I found this Rose (I didn't know what it was either):
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_Atheism

I laughed at the bit about the guy getting kicked out of his job because he moved all the Bibles to the fiction section!

The truth is that that is where they belong, although they do contain a smattering of true history, I suppose, like many historical novels.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I laughed at the bit about the guy getting kicked out of his job because he moved all the Bibles to the fiction section!

Sounds like he's more suited to Waterstones. Moving the Bibles into the fiction section make him management material.

I wouldn't work at Waterstones....all those antitheists having a sly wank in the popular science section.......

[Brownie]

I laughed at the bit about the guy getting kicked out of his job because he moved all the Bibles to the fiction section!

The truth is that that is where they belong, although they do contain a smattering of true history, I suppose, like many historical novels.

He shouldn't have been sacked but there is no reason why the Bible, along with the Q'ran and the Bhagavad Gita (and any other religious works), cannot stay in the religion and philosophy section rather than fiction.   

[Leonard James]

He shouldn't have been sacked but there is no reason why the Bible, along with the Q'ran and the Bhagavad Gita (and any other religious works), cannot stay in the religion and philosophy section rather than fiction.

Well yes, but religion and philosophy are really a sub-section of fiction.

[Brownie]

You don't have to labour the point though Len, even if you think it.
Careful Leonardo or I shall mention the H word 

[Leonard James]

You don't have to labour the point though Len, even if you think it.
Careful Leonardo or I shall mention the H word 

Saying what we think is the honest thing to do, isn't it? Call me whatever relieves your feelings. 

[floo]

Saying what we think is the honest thing to do, isn't it? Call me whatever relieves your feelings. 

 

[~TW~]

This is like asking Jews about the Messianic Era. You will be given scriptural quotes entailing what is required for the same to be recognised, but nobody knows when it will begin, and most don't really care because they have more immediate issues to attend to.

But since I am bored.....

1) Time began on the first day, because before then as  in "In the beginning..." (Genesis 1.1) there was no measurement of time.
2) Depends as to whether you choose the canonical book of Revelations, or the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter.

Not good answers but,   as an administrator on here one can understand the decline of this forum better,------- anyway the answers were provided.Look them up.

 ~TW~