what happen to kong hee dishonesty case?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Well, so instead of challenging veracity of Jesus or the Bible, wont it be more enlightening to discuss about the message of the Bible instead of trying to prove or disprove God ?
The interpretation of the bible differs from christian to christian.
Example.
Christian A interprets the bible, studies it and concludes that baptism is needed for salvation.
Christian B interprets the bible, studies it and concludes that baptism isn't needed for salvation.
So I feel "message" of the bible is subjected to how each christian interpret.
So I wouldnt want to go into a lengthy discussion about interpretations with you because diff christians also interpet the bible differently! :)
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Anyways, thanks for enlightening me about AWARE. We should then just leave the topic as it is. Since its about Kong Hee.. and none of us are talking about him or dishonesty cases here.
About Kong Hee and prosperity gospel, it is the same thing.
It's about interpretation of the bible.
Christian A studies the bible and interpets that God wants every christian to prosper materially, spiritually and physically.
Christian B studies the bible and interprets that God does not want every christian to prosper materially, spiritually and physically.
Boils down to interpretation.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Well, so instead of challenging veracity of Jesus or the Bible, wont it be more enlightening to discuss about the message of the Bible instead of trying to prove or disprove God ?
maybe you cant see, but we can see clearly the paradoxes and inconsistencies and irrationality of the bible, like killing babies, men's testicles etc.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
The interpretation of the bible differs from christian to christian.
Example.
Christian A interprets the bible, studies it and concludes that baptism is needed for salvation.
Christian B interprets the bible, studies it and concludes that baptism isn't needed for salvation.
So I feel "message" of the bible is subjected to how each christian interpret.
So I wouldnt want to go into a lengthy discussion about interpretations with you because diff christians also interpet the bible differently! :)
Tcmc,
Let's employ your reasoning to science.
The scientific interpretation of data also differs from scientist to scientist.
Example.
Scientist A uses the scientific method, interprets the data, studies it and concludes A
Scientist B uses the scientific method, interprets the data, studies it and concludes B
So I feel "message" of science is subjected to how each scientist interpret.
So I wouldnt want to go into a lengthy discussion about scientific interpretations with you because diff scientists also interpet the data differently! :)
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Let's employ your reasoning to science.
The scientific interpretation of data also differs from scientist to scientist.
Example.
Scientist A uses the scientific method, interprets the data, studies it and concludes A
Scientist B uses the scientific method, interprets the data, studies it and concludes B
So I feel "message" of science is subjected to how each scientist interpret.
So I wouldnt want to go into a lengthy discussion about scientific interpretations with you because diff scientists also interpet the data differently! :)
BIC,
As I have mentioned, problem arises when an all-knowing Entity comes into the picture and that all parties claim that an all-knowing Entity is the one who "inspired" them to interpret in such a such a way.
Then in this case, if an all-knowing Entity is involved, only one party can be right.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Let's employ your reasoning to science.
The scientific interpretation of data also differs from scientist to scientist.
Example.
Scientist A uses the scientific method, interprets the data, studies it and concludes A
Scientist B uses the scientific method, interprets the data, studies it and concludes B
So I feel "message" of science is subjected to how each scientist interpret.
So I wouldnt want to go into a lengthy discussion about scientific interpretations with you because diff scientists also interpet the data differently! :)
This is definitely wrong. In every literature or scientific journal, there will be a materials and methods section. They are described clearly so that another scientist (any scientist) is able to replicate the experiments and obtain the same results and interpretations.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
As I have mentioned, problem arises when an all-knowing Entity comes into the picture and that all parties claim that an all-knowing Entity is the one who "inspired" them to interpret in such a such a way.
Then in this case, if an all-knowing Entity is involved, only one party can be right.
Tcmc,
Where did you get the idea of an inspired interpretation of the inspired Word of God? Nowhere does the Bible says that there is an inspired interpretation of Scripture, or that there is any person endowed with such a capability. Prove such an idea from the Bible please. Only the text of the Bible is inspired lah! See, once again you have been exposed for your lack of knowledge about what the Bible teaches. This I have empirically proven over and over again, but yet you refused to believe! Duh!
-
Originally posted by dangerboi:
This is definitely wrong. In every literature or scientific journal, there will be a materials and methods section. They are described clearly so that another scientist (any scientist) is able to replicate the experiments and obtain the same results and interpretations.
Not necessarily so. Else how do you account for why scientists disagree?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Where did you get the idea of an inspired interpretation of the inspired Word of God? Nowhere does the Bible says that there is an inspired interpretation of Scripture, or that there is any person endowed with such a capability. Prove such an idea from the Bible please. Only the text of the Bible is inspired lah! See, once again you have been exposed for your lack of knowledge about what the Bible teaches. This I have empirically proven over and over again, but yet you refused to believe! Duh!
BIC
Please dont twist your argument.
You have said before that you are 100% sure about 1) Jesus being God 2) Baptism isnt needed for salvation.
Like it or not, these are interpretations, and you claim they are 100% true (or inspired by your God).
The other camp of christians also says they are 100% sure about 1) Jesus Isn't God 2) Baptism IS needed for salvation.
These are THEIR interpretations, and they claim they are 100% true (or inspired by the same God).
This is what i meant by the problem arising.
Why different and contrasting interpretations and both claim to be truths from an all-knowing Entity?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Please dont twist your argument.
You have said before that you are 100% sure about 1) Jesus being God 2) Baptism isnt needed for salvation.
Like it or not, these are interpretations, and you claim they are 100% true (or inspired by your God).
The other camp of christians also says they are 100% sure about 1) Jesus Isn't God 2) Baptism IS needed for salvation.
These are THEIR interpretations, and they claim they are 100% true (or inspired by the same God).
This is what i meant by the problem arising.
Why different and contrasting interpretations and both claim to be truths from an all-knowing Entity?
Tcmc,
You are the one twisting the argument, not me. Christians are not claiming that they got their interpretation from God directly. In fact you have earlier conceded this point. But now you seem to eat back your own vomit. Christians are saying that they are interpreting the Word of God and arrived at different conclusions or interpretations. Why different conclusions? I already alluded to some of the reasons, and funny thing is that you also agreed with them. Yet you keep harping on a strawman argument that God is directly speaking to Christians about what each verse means. Dude, if that's how it works then there's no need for Bible helps and references liao, everyone just open the Bible and go into trance can liao lor! Duh!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
The interpretation of the bible differs from christian to christian.
Example.
Christian A interprets the bible, studies it and concludes that baptism is needed for salvation.
Christian B interprets the bible, studies it and concludes that baptism isn't needed for salvation.
So I feel "message" of the bible is subjected to how each christian interpret.
So I wouldnt want to go into a lengthy discussion about interpretations with you because diff christians also interpet the bible differently! :)
Its different interpretation with different emphasis. Some may for example, dwell more on say Acts or what nots.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
maybe you cant see, but we can see clearly the paradoxes and inconsistencies and irrationality of the bible, like killing babies, men's testicles etc.
Well, like I said, you say all you want, but you cannot prove otherwise too. And you can harp on the children and the babies. Fact is, you look at the bigger picture. The meaning behind the entire message. The context. The Consequences. Something which u fail to understand. And you dont want to acknowledge that you cannot understand things out of context. You can't just pic a verse and quote it out of context. You cannot do that.
Please dont give me one of those lame paradoxes like 'Can God create something so big he cannot lift'
Do u know the story behind King Saul and King David ? Let me guess, you going to say everything is not true and lies in the Bible. If that is so, u might as well dont believe everything you read.
At least we can look a the Bible as a history book. Becuase even now, we try to uncover some of the acheological truths behind it. We got people tireless not just trying to prove the bible, but also try and explain mankinds historical background. At least we have the Bible for some foundation for it. Unfortunately you can only see the skeptical and cynical side of things but not the positive benefecial side of things. The progress it has given for mankind. Because of that, I think you will continue to quote things out of context and insist on it in a Christian forum because you are that kind of person. How different are you from religious zealots ? I see no difference at all.
Buddhism strives on thier own paradoxes too. And they attempt to reach such enlightenment.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
You are the one twisting the argument, not me. Christians are not claiming that they got their interpretation from God directly. In fact you have earlier conceded this point. But now you seem to eat back your own vomit. Christians are saying that they are interpreting the Word of God and arrived at different conclusions or interpretations. Why different conclusions? I already alluded to some of the reasons, and funny thing is that you also agreed with them. Yet you keep harping on a strawman argument that God is directly speaking to Christians about what each verse means. Dude, if that's how it works then there's no need for Bible helps and references liao, everyone just open the Bible and go into trance can liao lor! Duh!
"Christians are not claiming that they got their interpretation from God directly. In fact you have earlier conceded this point."
BIC,
So essentially you are telling me now that your interpretation of
1) Jesus being God
2) Baptism not need for salvation
are not from God?
So if it's not from your God and that you are not guided by your God, how can you be 100% sure?
I say you twist your arguments because initially you said you ARE 100% SURE about 1) and 2). So I ASSUME, if you are 100% sure, you must have been guided by God (from God).
So tell me now how can you be 100% sure and yet tell me NOW that it is not from your God?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Its different interpretation with different emphasis. Some may for example, dwell more on say Acts or what nots.
Sure I agree
Like how some christians interpret the verses that Jesus isn't God, and some christians interpret the verses that Jesus is God.
Cheers :)
Different interpretations! I agre!
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Well, like I said, you say all you want, but you cannot prove otherwise too. And you can harp on the children and the babies. Fact is, you look at the bigger picture. The meaning behind the entire message. The context. The Consequences. Something which u fail to understand. And you dont want to acknowledge that you cannot understand things out of context. You can't just pic a verse and quote it out of context. You cannot do that.
Please dont give me one of those lame paradoxes like 'Can God create something so big he cannot lift'
Do u know the story behind King Saul and King David ? Let me guess, you going to say everything is not true and lies in the Bible. If that is so, u might as well dont believe everything you read.
At least we can look a the Bible as a history book. Becuase even now, we try to uncover some of the acheological truths behind it. We got people tireless not just trying to prove the bible, but also try and explain mankinds historical background. At least we have the Bible for some foundation for it. Unfortunately you can only see the skeptical and cynical side of things but not the positive benefecial side of things. The progress it has given for mankind. Because of that, I think you will continue to quote things out of context and insist on it in a Christian forum because you are that kind of person. How different are you from religious zealots ? I see no difference at all.
Buddhism strives on thier own paradoxes too. And they attempt to reach such enlightenment.
BM
Sorry.
As much as you like to ignore the paradox of 'Can God create something so big he cannot lift', the paradox still exists.
It doesnt mean if you ignore it, it will go away.
This is called the Omnipotenet Paradox.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BM
Sorry.
As much as you like to ignore the paradox of 'Can God create something so big he cannot lift', the paradox still exists.
It doesnt mean if you ignore it, it will go away.
This is called the Omnipotenet Paradox.
First of all, are already prescribing limitations to this omnipotent being. When U prescrib with it limitations, you are already subjecting this supreme entity into your world view.
Its like asking the question : What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object ?
I am not ignoring it. They have been answered over n over n over n over again.
But as long as you subscribe your worldview and limitations on it, you WILL have the paradox.
I might as well say, if Humans can create something we cannot lift, and then we create something to LIFT what we cannot lift, paradox solved. And how do we know it ? Because we understand the mind and the limitations of humans.
-
And answering paradoxes, Buddhism strives on the paradoxes. Its like a paradox of paradoxes. But it cannot be explained. Well, they can attempt to, but it requires years of meditation, understasnding.... combined with thier precepts.. experiences and what nots.
No one can reach such enlightenment or experience or spirituality, by just reading the words without deeper understanding of the meaning behind it. Which in truth, there is NO easy way out. You have to go through the process. And how such process is determiend by these Enlightened people like Buddha or Jesus to try and put it into words so you and me can try to attain such an experience.
You think these people took them a few years to reach that level ? No.. it takes them years.. decades... or even until death.
So who am I or you .. or who are we to claim paradoxes when we ourselves didnt even go through such a journey ourselves to understand the deeper meaning in such short time when these people have spent thier entire life to do it.
-
Anyways, you know what I am trying to say. As you can see in the WiKi link itself, even the word itself has problem describing omnipotence. If my explaination is too simple, you can read the link for more detailed explaination with big words. It at least explains it in a great more detail.
You got these great minds and thinkers since centuries trying to answer the very question they pose to themselves and even up until now, there is no real answer.
Again I emphasise that we have yet to reach that level of enlightenment to be able to answer the questions of the universe. So until then, the paradoxes are only paradoxes when you want it to be a paradox.
There is a very good book called, 'If the Universe is the answer, What is the Question?' And its a good read.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
"Christians are not claiming that they got their interpretation from God directly. In fact you have earlier conceded this point."
BIC,
So essentially you are telling me now that your interpretation of
1) Jesus being God
2) Baptism not need for salvation
are not from God?
So if it's not from your God and that you are not guided by your God, how can you be 100% sure?
I say you twist your arguments because initially you said you ARE 100% SURE about 1) and 2). So I ASSUME, if you are 100% sure, you must have been guided by God (from God).
So tell me now how can you be 100% sure and yet tell me NOW that it is not from your God?
Tcmc,
It's from the Bible lah! But of course the Bible is God's Word to us. But what I am refuting is your silly strawman idea that Christians are hearing directly from God as to what the Bible means. There is no such thing as an inspired interpretation of God's Word, geddit? So you assume? Now what did Jacky say about ASSume? You just made an ass out of yourself by assume things and then whacking your own strawman.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BM
Sorry.
As much as you like to ignore the paradox of 'Can God create something so big he cannot lift', the paradox still exists.
It doesnt mean if you ignore it, it will go away.
This is called the Omnipotenet Paradox.
Sorry, it's not a paradox, it's the atheist's silly caricature of God based on his own ignorance of what the Bible teach and inability to think critically.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
It's from the Bible lah! But of course the Bible is God's Word to us. But what I am refuting is your silly strawman idea that Christians are hearing directly from God as to what the Bible means. There is no such thing as an inspired interpretation of God's Word, geddit? So you assume? Now what did Jacky say about ASSume? You just made an ass out of yourself by assume things and then whacking your own strawman.
Oh. So YOU are saying --
You are 100% SURE
1) Jesus is God
but this interpretation of yours is not from God, but it is from the bible but the bible is from God?
Serious? I realise you like to change words.
Clarify please clearly -
Is your interpretation that Jesus is God, from God or the Bible? And if its from the Bible, is the Bible from God Himself?
!
PLEASE CLARIFY!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Oh. So YOU are saying --
You are 100% SURE
1) Jesus is God
but this interpretation of yours is not from God, but it is from the bible but the bible is from God?
Serious? I realise you like to change words.
Clarify please clearly -
Is your interpretation that Jesus is God, from God or the Bible? And if its from the Bible, is the Bible from God Himself?
!
PLEASE CLARIFY!
As usual you FAILED to read. I already said that the Bible is God's Word to us. As such we have to read it and interpret it using accepted rules of hermeneutics (which you obviously have no clue about!) and understanding of genres (which again you know next to nothing about). Anyway, the words of the Bible is God inspired. The interpretation is mine. And I believe my interpretation is correct because it takes the most natural and plain sense meaning, and because it does not conflict with other passages, and it can explain apparent conflicts with other passages, and it is consistent with and does not contradict the accepted creeds of the faith.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
First of all, are already prescribing limitations to this omnipotent being. When U prescrib with it limitations, you are already subjecting this supreme entity into your world view.
Its like asking the question : What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object ?
I am not ignoring it. They have been answered over n over n over n over again.
But as long as you subscribe your worldview and limitations on it, you WILL have the paradox.
I might as well say, if Humans can create something we cannot lift, and then we create something to LIFT what we cannot lift, paradox solved. And how do we know it ? Because we understand the mind and the limitations of humans.
still no answer to the qns
I am trying very hard to look for the answers, but to no avail. diverting attention away from the qns. humans? humans? why shift attention to humans when who is the omnipotent and omniscient god? again diverting attention away from the issue. of course humans got limitation, are you saying the same for god too? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
As usual you FAILED to read. I already said that the Bible is God's Word to us. As such we have to read it and interpret it using accepted rules of hermeneutics (which you obviously have no clue about!) and understanding of genres (which again you know next to nothing about). Anyway, the words of the Bible is God inspired. The interpretation is mine. And I believe my interpretation is correct because it takes the most natural and plain sense meaning, and because it does not conflict with other passages, and it can explain apparent conflicts with other passages, and it is consistent with and does not contradict the accepted creeds of the faith.
Sigh
You initially said - 100% sure - from bible - bible from god - 100% sure - from bible - bible from god
Sorry I admit I am not skilful enough to argue you out of your circular logic.
We can end this interpretation discussion
At the end of the day you choose
1. To acknowledge that there are different interpretations by different christians about all christian doctrines, and yours is not necessary correct because all of of us are not 100% sure.
OR
2. Just say your interpretation is the correct one, although you did not provide a method to prove that your methods are different from the rest of the christians.
:)
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Sigh
You initially said - 100% sure - from bible - bible from god - 100% sure - from bible - bible from god
Sorry I admit I am not skilful enough to argue you out of your circular logic.
We can end this interpretation discussion
At the end of the day you choose
1. To acknowledge that there are different interpretations by different christians about all christian doctrines, and yours is not necessary correct because all of of us are not 100% sure.
OR
2. Just say your interpretation is the correct one, although you did not provide a method to prove that your methods are different from the rest of the christians.
:)
Tcmc,
Problem is that you can't even recognise what a circular argument is! LOL!
Anyway, you commit the fallacy of false dilemma. I acknowledge the EXISTENCE of differing interpretations, but I do not subscribe to the silly idea that all differing interpretations are equally valid or true or that we CANNOT know for sure. If this is the case, then you must also entertain the idea that all forms of communication is moot liao. If I say you are an idiot will you say that you are not sure what I meant? Duh! Again I said that each man must prove his own interpretation. There are accepted methods of Bible interpretation (which you are blissfully ignorant of) to be used but often times the principle of GIGO applies, or the person is not rigorous enough in his exegesis.