Originally posted by Steveyboy:Sorry, the book of genesis is a chapter of the bible that I find it the hardest to believe in. The story of our creation cannot be that simplistic. Anyway, here's an interesting documentary I watched recently of a biblical scholar of what she thought of the Garden of Eden:-
There are many people who do not find Genesis hard to believe at all. The creation account in Genesis is simplistic? What do you mean by that? Compared to what? I have already commented on this scholar who hardly deserves to be considered "Biblical" in the true sense of the word. She is a nonbeliever and admitted atheist, it is no wonder that what she promotes here undermine the truthfulness of the Bible. But this is not just an ad hominem attack, her ideas can be refuted as well.
See http://www.christiandoctrine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=768:bbc2-the-bibles-buried-secrets-part-three-the-real-garden-of-eden-more-nonsense&catid=176:history&Itemid=552
@BroInChrist
Of course she is a biblical scholar. Bear in mind that biblical scholars are not theologians and I trust her view point more than a theologian because they are unbiased and in fact, very logical. I read the 'rebuttal' and I am sorry, I find it biased and half of it was a character assassination and I think such fresh views would elicit such response and it may make the writer seemed angry. An angry response to me means that the writer was provoked by fear. Is there a less biased review of the program?
Originally posted by Steveyboy:@BroInChrist
Of course she is a biblical scholar. Bear in mind that biblical scholars are not theologians and I trust her view point more than a theologian because they are unbiased and in fact, very logical. I read the 'rebuttal' and I am sorry, I find it biased and half of it was a character assassination and I think such fresh views would elicit such response and it may make the writer seemed angry. An angry response to me means that the writer was provoked by fear. Is there a less biased review of the program?
What makes you think that these non-believing Biblical scholars are unbiasd? An atheist is 100% biased against God to begin with.
@BroInChrist - Well, its very easy to see non-believing Biblical scholars are unbiased -they base their research on scriptural, archaelogical and socio-political conditions of the time the bible was written. Theologians based theirs on fixed established theological beliefs. Even if the Atheist doesn't believe in God like Dr Francesca, she's saying that based upon research and archaelogical findings. They don't come up with it arbitrarily. You may not agree with Dr Francesca but you cannot really deny that her findings and her summary is compelling and believable.
Originally posted by Steveyboy:@BroInChrist - Well, its very easy to see non-believing Biblical scholars are unbiased -they base their research on scriptural, archaelogical and socio-political conditions of the time the bible was written. Theologians based theirs on fixed established theological beliefs. Even if the Atheist doesn't believe in God like Dr Francesca, she's saying that based upon research and archaelogical findings. They don't come up with it arbitrarily. You may not agree with Dr Francesca but you cannot really deny that her findings and her summary is compelling and believable.
It is easy to say that it is easy to see that nonbelieving so-called Bible scholars are unbiased, question is, is it true that they are unbiased? What about other Bible scholars who disagree with her? It is fallacious to allege that believing Bible scholars are biased and their conclusions cannot be trusted simply because they are believers. It would be very naive to think that nonbelievers are objective and nonbiased simply because they are nonbelievers. Truth is, there is no such thing as an unbiased person. Such a creature does not exist in reality. So long as you are human you are biased. Recognition of such bias is more important than denial of it.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It is easy to say that it is easy to see that nonbelieving so-called Bible scholars are unbiased, question is, is it true that they are unbiased? What about other Bible scholars who disagree with her? It is fallacious to allege that believing Bible scholars are biased and their conclusions cannot be trusted simply because they are believers. It would be very naive to think that nonbelievers are objective and nonbiased simply because they are nonbelievers. Truth is, there is no such thing as an unbiased person. Such a creature does not exist in reality. So long as you are human you are biased. Recognition of such bias is more important than denial of it.
seems like broinchrist knows a lot of "truth"
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It is easy to say that it is easy to see that nonbelieving so-called Bible scholars are unbiased, question is, is it true that they are unbiased? What about other Bible scholars who disagree with her? It is fallacious to allege that believing Bible scholars are biased and their conclusions cannot be trusted simply because they are believers. It would be very naive to think that nonbelievers are objective and nonbiased simply because they are nonbelievers. Truth is, there is no such thing as an unbiased person. Such a creature does not exist in reality. So long as you are human you are biased. Recognition of such bias is more important than denial of it.
Dear BroInChrist,
I didn't say that bible scholars are unbiased. I said that they present their research based on scriptural, archaelogical and socio-political conditions of the time the bible was written. Theologians based theirs on fixed established theological beliefs. Therefore, for me it would seem that the scholars are more compelling. You may not agree with that, its ok but that's what I think right now. It has really got nothing to do with bias or non-bias.
Originally posted by zeus29:seems like broinchrist knows a lot of "truth"
Sarcasm is no substitute for an argument.
Originally posted by Steveyboy:Dear BroInChrist,
I didn't say that bible scholars are unbiased. I said that they present their research based on scriptural, archaelogical and socio-political conditions of the time the bible was written. Theologians based theirs on fixed established theological beliefs. Therefore, for me it would seem that the scholars are more compelling. You may not agree with that, its ok but that's what I think right now. It has really got nothing to do with bias or non-bias.
It is fallacious to think that one is either a Bible scholar or a theologian, and see it as one vs the other as you have done so here. Has it ever occurred to you that many theologians are also Bible scholars? A fine example is http://richardbauckham.co.uk/
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Truth is, there is no such thing as an unbiased person. Such a creature does not exist in reality. So long as you are human you are biased. Recognition of such bias is more important than denial of it.
in Buddhism, there are three form of poisons for suffering(mental). greed, hatred and folly.
greed is related to attachment/clinging to what's yours or mine. it can also be clinging to a certain view.
hatred is related to discrimination/bias thinking to things that one dislike.
folly is related to delusion, ignorance and also wandering thoughts of thinking too much.
they can be a gradual path. first are mostly attained by arahats, second by bodhisattvas and third by Buddhas.
so getting rid of discrimination/bias-ness is one of the aim in Buddhism. Buddhas/mahasattvas do not have bias-ness/dualism.
/\
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Sarcasm is no substitute for an argument.
There's no argument. What constitutes a win or lose? Just different perspectives, no?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:It is fallacious to think that one is either a Bible scholar or a theologian, and see it as one vs the other as you have done so here. Has it ever occurred to you that many theologians are also Bible scholars? A fine example is http://richardbauckham.co.uk/
Dear BroInChrist,
Well, actually I didn't know there was a difference until I started talking to you. I am sure there are theologians who are bible scholars. Anyway, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter really. We have sort of diverted from the topic here. I was talking about reincarnation so it has got nothing to do with bible scholars.
Originally posted by zeus29:There's no argument. What constitutes a win or lose? Just different perspectives, no?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Indeed that was no argument at all, it was just pure sarcasm. Yet another either/or fallacy? A different perspective can also be a wrong perspective.
Huh? so my "sarcasm" is the center of the entire thread? What was the real argument? And what is right or wrong perspective? If You wear red glasses, you see things red. Another wears blue sees things blue. Who's right and who's wrong?
Originally posted by zeus29:Huh? so my "sarcasm" is the center of the entire thread? What was the real argument? And what is right or wrong perspective? If You wear red glasses, you see things red. Another wears blue sees things blue. Who's right and who's wrong?