Let's enjoy our right-wing posters while we can

This is absurd. People aren't on here disrespecting Christianity. If someone has strong faith and takes a stand based on moral values, like opposition to the death penalty, I think most people would respect that.
But if you just want to defend any completely farsical notion because those expousing it happen to be Christians, that is bordering on cultish behavior.
I just went to church and Sunday school with my mom for Mother's Day, and the Sunday school lesson was about Revelations. There was a very interesting discussion about the book, which of course is based on several visions beheld by the author, and is subject to any number of interpretations-
none of which can be stretched enough to claim the world is certain to end on May 21, 2011.
 
Prod, the May 21 prediction seems to be as valid an interpretation of scripture as any other, I guess my meaning was a little cryptic. Are you saying their interpretation of scripture is wrong? What is it about their reading of it that you find fault with?
 
It's not in the Bible. There is nothing said in the Bible that you can even construe as meaning the world will end May 2011. They are not even really interpreting.

What they are doing is applying a Bible code. Again there is no statement in scripture which says there are codes are that we are to look for them. What they are doing is using some mathematical formula or pattern to choose letters out of the text. They do this over and over again until they have some combination of letters that think they can construe as some kind of message. They are interpreting random letters.

You could do the same with a grammar book or a math book or a science book. That doesn't render grammar, math or science as invalidate. It just ridiculous.
 
When the conflicting but "valid" interpretation is that a man lives in the sky and condemns those who don't agree with him to a fiery hell, then we've really stretched the meaning of "valid" to many non-believers.

To many non-believers, interpretations of fairytales are all valid, because they are all interpretations of fairytales to begin with. Just because more people believe your fairytale version than theirs doesn't really invalidate their fairytale anymore so than it validates your fairytale.

Just try looking at it from the perspective of someone who believes that Christianity is all bogus to begin with. Why should the May 21 version be "more bogus" than the normally "bogus" beliefs?

However, if we're speaking about someone within the faith, I completely understand why you believe their beliefs to be invalid and crazy.
 
At lunch time today I saw a guy handing out flyers for this big event. You can almost sense the urgency building up!

I politely smiled
smile.gif
 
Prod, I think JohnnyM's comment is a better response than the one I would have given you:

To many non-believers, interpretations of fairytales are all valid, because they are all interpretations of fairytales to begin with.

I thought my meaning was clear but it wasn't.
 
No but what y'all were saying before is that the world ending in May was a valid Biblical interpretation. It's not. There is nothing in the Bible that you can interpret to mean that. Even if you don't believe the Bible is true in its claims at least you can spot an interpretation that is based in what is written and what is not. I don't believe in Islam but I can recognize an interpretation that is based on what the Koran says and what is not. It's not that hard. Y'all are just trying to be caustic.
 
Prod, could it be you're upset because you didn't get the secret May 21 code? I'm still waiting on you or Mona to explain how the May 21 thing is not biblically supported, which explanation you continue to duck. All anyone has said is that "we can't know this, the bible says so, even Jesus can't know."

Well apparently another group of Christians says it's all right there in the word. You refuse to tackle their assertion of divine revelation. What are you afraid of?
 
Dion, go back and read my previous posts I describe the difference between bible code and bible interpretation. I give a summary of why bible code(s) should not be considered. I also show other examples of books that can be used in the same way with the same kind of ridiculous results. Are you having a rough day?
 
Mona, I'm having a massively superb day, thanks for asking. Took my kids bowling (I look hella sexy in bowling shoes, just noticed that today), had some ice cream with the kiddos, exercised a bit, and even got a little work done too, but: moderation on the work-a-day thing, ok!

I've read your post and the summary on bible code but the other Christians seem to think it's all kosher, so to speak. Who speaks with authority on these matters? I think that's where we always land, isn't it: authority.
 
I guess I'm not understanding the argument the skeptics are trying to make here.

If they're simply re-stating the old maxim of "Given a large enough data set, a person can reach any conclusion he wishes to reach", then I suppose I can agree with that.

But it seems like they're trying to make the argument that variety of opinion, in and of itself, somehow nullifies the validity of the thing that is the object of the various opinions. The fact that a person can use large data sets (such as the bible) to reach various conclusions about the meaning does not lead to the conclusion that all such conclusions are of equal validity.

It is true, I think, that Christians and other religiously-minded people will, at some point, have to make a leap of faith. But why should a person who professes commitment to science and reason be driven in this way to make a leap of logic?...to become so totally divorced from rationalist principles that they are capable of uttering some such nonsense as "variety of opinions about X nullifies validity of X", or "the existence of a variety of opinions about X nullifies all opinions about X".

Not only is that sort of thinking demonstrably false; but there's no rational way for a person to arrive at such a position. It forces us to confront the reality that we're not dealing with people who are behaving rationally. For instance, it certainly wasn't rational thought that motivated the 9 threads calling out Christians. Such persistence gives itself away as something far more emotional than what rational thought could produce.

And I guess that's the most fascinating truth to emerge from these threads over the years: those who profess to be the most scientifically-minded, and who should therefore be the most devoted to rationalist principles, are in fact the least equipped to actually apply basic rationalist principles to the ideas they're trying to sort out.
 
Hi Gang,

I rarely post but certainly enjoy reading Hornfans. I used to stick to the Sports boards, but I enjoy wandering Quackenbush's and West Mall threads, so I stumbled upon this one.

One thing I love about our University is its diversity, and the critical thinkers it attracts and graduates. By way of full disclosure, I am a Christian. By my post, I do not want or mean to offend Christians or people who are not Christians. I wanted to attempt to answer an earlier question posed above:

"I'm very interested to know the popular Christian position on this prediction. I expect we will not have consensus on God's inerrant revelation to mankind, and I'd like to know why."

Seems like a fair inquiry and thought-provoking. Here are a few verses (taken from the New American Standard Version) from the Bible that I think are helpful, at least as to the first sentence quoted above:

Matthew 24:42 "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming."

Acts 1:6-7 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority."

Hornfans all, I am not attempting to interpret those verses, but rather to pass them along in hope of answering a question I assume is legitimate about what Christians believe.

Peace, God bless and Hook 'em.
 
In reply to McBrett's response of:

"Thanks for the post BigCountryHorn. I will only point out- that while others can and should respect your beliefs, as I do, that if they have different beliefs than you do- as I do, quoting a bible verse is not very convincing- as it is outside of what they would consider credible or good data."

Understood. I was responding to Dionysus' question/comment about what Christians believe. I assume that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible (if that's an invalid assumption, it's probably beyond the scope of this thread), so I thought the verses might be useful concerning what Christians believe. Didn't mean to suggest or convince otherwise.
 
Sure, the methodology of a scientific study could be flawed, and the researcher could intentionally or unintentionally introduced bias into the process. That is why one study will not be considered proof of the hypothesis, but must be replicated by others in other locations.
I can tell you one hypothesis which will be completely and totally proven wrong-when the sun comes up on May 22. This cult of doomsdayers will have to come up with a new theory. Can we call them idiots then?
 
i think with this thread we should all just agree that people aren't interested in serious discussions about religion.

mark david chapman once misinterpreted a text. or did he???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top