Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
Hardly according to the gospel of kosta. Koine Greek phrase ei me literally means if not, and is routinely translated as except. In fact, if you look up the definition of the word but, as a conjunction it means if not, except. As a preposition it means except, as an adverb it means only.
Drawn out of context, this passage at a glance would indeed seem to say that Christ was sent only to the “lost sheep” of Israel. yet this reading arouses more questions than answers. Why, then, did Christ depart to Sidon and Tyre, well outside of Israel?
Matthew 10:5-6 clearly defines what "lost sheep of the house of Israel means:
5Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
So, whatever he was doing in Tyre and Sidon was not part of his mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Why was He seen so often teaching and speaking in the company of publicans and other persons of lowly status?
Low status is not the same as being a non-Jew (a Gentile) or a Samaritan (a Jewish apostate). Publicans were simply despised but they were also Jews, and probably counted into the "lost sheep" more than others.
Why did Christ not send away the woman of Canaan (said by Mark to be a Greek and a Syrophenician), choosing instead to engage her in a conversation philosophic?
He told her that he was only sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But she was persistent.
A conversation to which the woman apparently gave sufficient reply to move Christ to accede to her plea.
Apparently because she was willing to accept her "canine status" and get some crumbs.
An answer may be found in Mark 7:27
Mark's account is significantly different form Matthew's. First Matthew is supposed to be an eyewitness, and Mark is not. Second, the woman is described not "Greek" but as Gentile, of Syrophoenician background. In other words, of Semitic origin (Greeks are not Semites). Third, his answer regarding the children being filled first is odd considering the problem the woman presented to him.
All she asked for was for Jesus to heal her daughter. And when he made the reference to dogs eating the children's' crumbs, and she apparently accepted her "canine status", he healed her daughter. Mark makes no mention of him praising her "faith." Nor does she call Jesus the Son of David, as in Matthew.
Now, Matthew's account is also problematic as it raises the question of his familiarity with the geography of the place. (Now don't forget, he is supposedly writing "under inspiration" and therefore inerrant).
In verse 7:31 Mark states
31Again He went out from the region of Tyre, and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, within the region of Decapolis.
This is strange, just looking at the map of Tyre and Sidon and the routes available at that time. If he was in Tyre, then going to Sidon to get to Galilee was like traveling from Atlanta, Ga, to Richmond, Va, to get to Florida! Besides, Decapolis is way to the East of Galilee!
So, why should I take either of the two accounts as "factual" given that they essentially differ a great deal and seem to me more as hearsay legendary tale versions then eyewitness accounts?
Therefore, tell us learned master, what is your translation of the same passage in the Greek Orthodox Church NT
It reads that children should be staffed first, and that one shouldn't throw their food to the dogs.
What of the other Greek testaments? The Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics? Or, the Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)? The Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics? The Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)?
The other Greek Testaments are copies of the fifth century AD Codex Alexandrinus (CA), the official Greek Orthodox Church Bible. It differs from the earliest surviving versions (4th century) in many ways (otherwise known as variants). Textus Receptus in particular was a bad copy of CA, based on some late 14th century manuscripts, with some parts actually missing. They were "filled in" with Vulgate verses badly retro translated into Greek!
The Majority Text consists of a large number of manually copied manuscripts, which represent the majorly of extant Greek texts. That doesn't mean they are free of errors or contradictions or internally consistent. There are also Syrian manuscripts, copies from Greek, which complicate the picture a bit more.
How many Greek NT texts are there, anyway?) Are they all the product of conniving priests? Or, at least, incompetent boobs?
Thousands. Some have intentionally altered passages or even added verses such as 1 Tim 3:16, while others have merely unintentional copyist errors.
Scholars say that Christ was escaping the wrath of angry Jews who rejected the “bread” he offered (his “mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” as it were). But since you admit no knowledge of why Christ went to Tyre and then to Sidon, you can hardly assume that He expressly “went through” Sidon to get to Galilee, save it does give you the opportunity to cast doubt on the account of Matthew. Similarly, were the accounts by Mark and Matthew to be identical in every detail, then you would have the opportunity to allege that the “suspicious” similarity of the two texts is a sure sign of a fraudulent conspiracy among corrupt priests. ‘Tis a shopworn propaganda practice, but that’s what propagandists do, and that’s how propaganda works.
[The Greek Orthodox Church NT] “reads that children should be staffed first, and that one shouldn't throw their food to the dogs.”
That’s very similar to what Mark 7:27 and Matthew 15:26 read. But it develops that we dogs need not content ourselves with the crumbs that fall from the table of the lost children of Israel. Since they chucked the whole loaf in the trash, all we dogs need do is go dumpster diving and we can partake of the loaf rather than just the crumbs (with due apologies to my Jewish friends for the sarcasm).
[Dawkins] “said the question whether God exists (or doesn't exist) is one of the most important questions that we have to answer. Then —referring to the question asked—he said it was a scientific question and his answer was no (i.e. that by mere understanding of science one cannot say that God is a delusion).”
“The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
Dawkins states the proposition (the question whether there exists a supernatural creator), qualifies the proposition as scientific, and gives his answer (no).
”Dawkins has a peculiar, somewhat convoluted, style of speaking and writing”
The only convoluted style evident here is your torturous attempt to demonstrate that Dawkins didn’t say what he clearly did say.
You don't need scholars for that. Chapters 14 and 15 of Matthews make that clear. Whether that is the true reason or not is a different story.
But since you admit no knowledge of why Christ went to Tyre and then to Sidon, you can hardly assume that He expressly “went through” Sidon to get to Galilee
No one knows the reason he went to Tyre, or even if he ever did go there. You assume that Mat thew's story is true. I don't. I take everything in the Bible with a grain of salt.
As for going through Sidon on the (roundabout) way to Galilee, that's Mark's account. Surely you believe Mark too, don't you, even if it doesn't make sense?
Similarly, were the accounts by Mark and Matthew to be identical in every detail, then you would have the opportunity to allege that the “suspicious” similarity of the two texts is a sure sign of a fraudulent conspiracy among corrupt priests.
Yes, that would be the case if the Bible we were an actual human eyewitness account. However, believers claim the Bible was written by God, using human authors as his writing tools. In that case one would expect God to tell the same story to each and every author. But that's not the case. If the Bible is truly the words of God, then there would be perfect agreement in all versions, for God would not change his story from one author to another.
[The Greek Orthodox Church NT] “reads that children should be staffed first, and that one shouldn't throw their food to the dogs.” That’s very similar to what Mark 7:27 and Matthew 15:26 read
Yes it is, and I also made a typo: "staffed" instead of satisfied (probably changed by my spell checker) first...
But it develops that we dogs need not content ourselves with the crumbs that fall from the table of the lost children of Israel.
That's a stretch (if not a joke).
The only convoluted style evident here is your torturous attempt to demonstrate that Dawkins didn’t say what he clearly did say.
Everything Dawkins writes in his books contradicts your conclusion. I don't read his response as you do in light of his written statements on the subject. I believe he either misspoke or, more in his style, convoluted his answer by first stating that the question of God is the ultimate question.
Then he addresses the question posed to him and concludes that it is, and that such a question cannot be answered by science.
Were what you allege true, there would be no need for both a testament of Matthew and a testament of Mark. When Holy Scripture is called inspired, what is meant is that God divinely influences the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. You would have it as stenographers taking dictation for a lab report. To be expected, I suppose, from a Materialist, violently opposed to the thought that anything might be divinely inspired, but who needs duplicate lab reports.
It’s likewise more than passing strange that you are certain that Christ went “through” Sidon for the express purpose of taking a “roundabout” route to Galilee, yet can assert no other positive knowledge about Christ’s wanderings at that time. The one sure thing in an uncertain world. Your declarations simply aren’t credible . . . only self-serving.
“Everything Dawkins writes in his books contradicts your conclusion. I don't read his response as you do in light of his written statements on the subject.
“The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
A blatant denial of the patently obvious earns you no credit.
I also cited a second quote of Dawkins:
“Well the word delusion means a falsehood which is widely believed, and I think that is true of religion. It is remarkably widely believed, it’s as though almost all of the population or a substantial proportion of the population believed that they had been abducted by aliens in flying saucers. You’d call that a delusion. I think God is a similar delusion.”
This last comes from a discussion with Dawkins about his book, The God Delusion, wherein he not only declares The Judeo-Christian God to be nonexistent, but also questions the mental state of any practicing Christian.
In other venues Dawkins has gone so for as to propose that parents should not be allowed to teach their children in religious practices until the age of 16, and that any who enroll their children in church should have their children taken from them by the state.
“I believe he either misspoke . . . ”
He has been, then, misspeaking most every day of his adult life. Spin yourself dizzy.
Where does it say there is a "need" for them?
When Holy Scripture is called inspired, what is meant is that God divinely influences the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God.
Who says? Christians are not of the same opinion what "inspired" means. Of course there is no "proof" of any kind that any of it is "inspired".
Just because Paul insists "all writings" are "God-breathed" doesn't make them so, whatever it means. He coined the term, and it's mentioned nowhere else in the whole Greek Bible, nor is there a Hebrew equivalent of it in the Old Testament. Nor, for that matter, is there any definition of what qualifies as scripture.
You would have it as stenographers taking dictation for a lab report.
That's precisely how the Law was transmitted to Moses—word-by-word dictation. You should not only know that (because it's in your Bible), but also believe it unquesitonably.
It’s likewise more than passing strange that you are certain that Christ went “through” Sidon for the express purpose of taking a “roundabout” route to Galilee,
I am not certain he did. I am certain the anonymous author indetified by theChurch as "Mark" ("according to tradition") says he went from Tyre to Sidon to get to Galilee because it's written that way. Whether it's ttrue or not is a different story.
The physical location of those places is such that it would be like going from Savannah to Richmond to get to Tampa! I would call that a "roundabout" trip.
yet can assert no other positive knowledge about Christ’s wanderings at that time.
I can not be certain that Christ wondered at all, or for that matter that there was anyone like that. I can be certain that some books say he wondered and that he existed. But those books cannot be independently verified. What I find more than passing strange is that some claim it to be true under such circumstances.
The one sure thing in an uncertain world. Your declarations simply aren’t credible . . .
And yours are???
This last comes from a discussion with Dawkins about his book, The God Delusion, wherein he not only declares The Judeo-Christian God to be nonexistent, but also questions the mental state of any practicing Christian.
There is no doubt that Dawkins thinks that a belief in a deity is a delusion, but he also states that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by any means (scientific or otherwise).
So, it remains his belief which, on the absolute scale of things (i.e. God either exists or doesn't) is as (un)believable as yours is. So, why are you so scornful of his belief? It's not as if you have all the answers or, heavens!, any proof either.
In other venues Dawkins has gone so for as to propose that parents should not be allowed to teach their children in religious practices until the age of 16, and that any who enroll their children in church should have their children taken from them by the state.
That's why I don't like Dawkins. He has an ax to grind and is on a crusade of sorts.
He has been, then, misspeaking most every day of his adult life.
It's hypocrisy to accuse someone of the very thing everyone is guilty of.
Bait and switch. You take what I say in one context and then propose the response in another context. Such is the nature of propaganda and what propagandists do.
“That's precisely how the Law was transmitted to Moses—word-by-word dictation.”
The Ten Commandments, inscribed in stone, as “dictation”? I was not speaking of ten commandments inscribed in stone. I was speaking of the writing of the many books of Holy Scripture. Again, you take what I say in one context and then propose the response in another context.
“I am certain the anonymous author identified by the Church as "Mark" ("according to tradition") says he went from Tyre to Sidon to get to Galilee because it's written that way.”
”to get to” huh. Where did you get the idea for that tortured interpretation? Errantskeptics.org?
Citation please.
New International Version?
“Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.” To get to?
New Living Translation?
“Jesus left Tyre and went up to Sidon before going back to the Sea of Galilee and the region of the Ten Towns.” To get to?
English Standard Version?
“Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.” To get to?
New American Standard Bible?
“Again He went out from the region of Tyre, and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, within the region of Decapolis.” To get to?
International Standard Version?
“Then Jesus left the territory of Tyre and passed through Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the territory of the Decapolis.” To get to?
GOD'S WORD® Translation?
“Jesus then left the neighborhood of Tyre. He went through Sidon and the territory of the Ten Cities to the Sea of Galilee.” To get to?
King James Bible?
“And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
American King James Version?
“And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came to the sea of Galilee, through the middle of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
American Standard Version?
“And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.” To get to?
Bible in Basic English?
“And again he went out from Tyre, and came through Sidon to the sea of Galilee, through the country of Decapolis.” To get to?
Douay-Rheims Bible?
“And again going out of the coasts of Tyre, he came by Sidon to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
Darby Bible Translation?
“And again having left the borders of Tyre and Sidon, he came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
English Revised Version?
"And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis." To get to?
Webster's Bible Translation?
“And again, departing from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, he came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.” To get to?
Weymouth New Testament?
“Returning from the neighbourhood of Tyre, He came by way of Sidon to the Lake of Galilee, passing through the district of the Ten Towns.” To get to?
World English Bible?
“Again he departed from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the region of Decapolis.” To get to?
Young's Literal Translation?
“And again, having gone forth from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
Pathetic.
When I observe that your declarations simply aren’t credible, you respond, “And yours are???”
You’re not certain? Apparently you doubt the credibility of yours, since you voice no objection to my observation, save to seek to include my declarations with your own.
“There is no doubt that Dawkins thinks that a belief in a deity is a delusion, but he also states that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by any means (scientific or otherwise).”
Dawkins: “I think that it (the existence of a supernatural creator) is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
It seems, then, that Dawkins has a very large contradiction to explain. He cannot simply retreat to the excuse that he thinks, or that it is his belief that the existence of a supernatural creator is a scientific question. His background, his training, and his (deserved) reputation as an eminent evolutionary biologist, precludes the possibility that he would hold with intellectual honesty such beliefs or thoughts.
(Dawkins) “has an ax to grind and is on a crusade of sorts.”
Really? That runs contrary to your above assertion that Dawkins has stated that “one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God . . .” thereby separating his beliefs from his more positive declarations. When you opine, as you have in this thread, that morality comes only from human heads usually according to their narrowly defined interests; that any idea to the contrary is the product of childish adults in need maybe of some serious mental health counseling; when you suggest that talking donkeys (and presumably other OT “fantastic stories”) are proof of the principal that a lie, told often enough, acquires a semblance of truth by virtue of sheer repetition; it can hardly be thought that you are rejecting Dawkins, but rather that you are embracing his own thoughts similarly expressed. Now you wish to put some distance between he and yourself?
I reject your insistence that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption. We share neither common assumptions, nor anything like them. Discussion is not possible.
“It's hypocrisy to accuse someone of the very thing everyone is guilty of.”
Then don’t do it. Look to the beam in your own eye, Pilgrim.
I guess it takes one to know one.
The Ten Commandments, inscribed in stone, as “dictation”? I was not speaking of ten commandments inscribed in stone.
I never mentioned the Ten Commandments. Reading comprehension issues? Someone who is familiar with the Bible would immediately recognize that I spoke of the entire Law (the Torah), which was dictated to Moses word by word. If you don't know that, I suggest further reading. You ought to know what you believe in...
I was speaking of the writing of the many books of Holy Scripture.
The Jews will take issue with you on that, since only the Major Prophets are considered "inspired". Besides, the Jews insist that everything that was written after the Law was dictated to Moses by God, is basically a repetition of what's in the Law.
”to get to” huh. Where did you get the idea for that tortured interpretation? Errantskeptics.org? Citation please.
Never heard of the site, but thanks anyway. Citation? Get through, arrive at, etc. all the same thing. He went form Tyre to Sidon to reach Galilee. That's like going from Savannah to Richmond to reach Orlando.
Pathetic.
Waste of bandwidth.
You’re not certain?
Oh I am certain that you are not credible. I was asking if you knew that too.
Apparently you doubt the credibility of yours, since you voice no objection to my observation
If I voiced objection to everything you write I wild be writing a book...So I pick and choose some of the more glaring "pearls" you commit to writing.
It seems, then, that Dawkins has a very large contradiction to explain.
Only to someone with reading comprehension issues. He neither tries nor claims that God can be provoen a true or a delusion by scientific means; he states God's existence cannot be provren or disproven by any means; he states that the probability is small in his opinion that God (as we define him) exists, and he also shows that God-arguments have huge logical and scientific holes in them.
I reject your insistence that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption. We share neither common assumptions, nor anything like them. Discussion is not possible.
That's why I gave you the opportunity to save face and have the last word, but you tried to turn my generous offer into something else. In other words "You take what I say in one context and then propose the response in another context." In other words, you did the very thing you accused me of. Typical porpangadist.
If we have nothing to discuss, if any discourse is "impossible", then why do you persist? I gave you a chance the end this "discussion" and you threw it away only to admit there is nothing to discuss. That's rather stupid, imo.
FWIW, I looked up the site, and it's a misnomer (bait?). There is nothing skeptical about it, LOL.
Wow, Kosta, concise and to the point, as always. Amazing rebuttals.
If there’s anything to add, give me a ping.
YHAOS’ earlier lengthy post about how one particular religion is supposedly the only one that allowed humans to progress is basically and thoroughly debunked by the reality that other areas of the world following that religion for a longer period than Europe hasn’t experienced the same progress). Additionally, if countries like Japan can progress without adopting the religion, then it implies that progress is contingent upon methods more than beliefs.
If there’s anything specific to discuss, let me know. The threads are long and I was (and somewhat still am) tied up with an abnormally tedious workload.
It’s funny that you should find this site so unfamiliar. Going to post #1701and using your expression, “going to Sidon to get to Galilee,” the second entry I came across is errantskeptics.org. It must be, then, that Mark 7:31 is generally material for scripture scoffers?
“I never mentioned the Ten Commandments”
The only instance of which I am aware where the word of God is directly dictated and inscribed in stone. Even the relating of that story is part of divinely inspired (“Divinely breathed into”) Holy Scripture. That you would regard it as “dictation” is hardly surprising. For a materialist no further understanding is possible.
“Citation?”
Scripture and translation. Comprehension issues?
“Get through, arrive at, etc. all the same thing.”
“Does that include “to get to” and “to reach”? “All the same thing” in any context?
(Dawkins)“neither tries nor claims that God can be proven a true or a delusion by scientific means”
“I think that it (the existence of a supernatural creator, a God) is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
“If we have nothing to discuss, if any discourse is "impossible", then why do you persist?”
Why do you ask? You’ve encouraged me to continue. Now again, here you are begging for the last word. Very well, you may have the last word.
“That's why I gave you the opportunity to save face and have the last word, but you tried to turn my generous offer into something else
Generous offer? “Hasta la vista, baby” is a generous offer? Oh, I see.
From your post # 1698 - “Me begging for the last word? LOL! Never. Please continue, by all means!”
”Continue”? means “end it”? Hoo wooda thunk. Typical of the propagandist, you forget the last moment and think not of the next moment in your effort to deal with the present moment.
“That's rather stupid, imo.”
Demeaning a poster. That would be sufficient to send you whining to the RM. I will simply shrug, and consider the source.
What can I say, great minds think alike. :)
The only instance of which I am aware where the word of God is directly dictated and inscribed in stone.
You know, that doesn't surprise me at all, although it is basic knowledge.
In the Thirteen Pillars of Jewish Faith," pillar 8 states:
"The entire Torah is God-given. Every word in the Torah was dictated to Moses by God."
In fact, the The Torah Service (Seder K'riat haTorah) says
"This is the Torah that Moses put before the children of Israel, dictated by God and transcribed by Moses"
And then there is this from another Jewish site, the The Reluctant Messenger:
According to Jewish history, God dictated the Torah to Moses one letter at a time. The Levites were instructed to copy the Torah under rigorous conditions and safeguards so that they wouldn't lose a single letter
And again, in Who composed the original Torah, the Jewish sources unequivocally repeat the same message:
Unlike other prophets, Moses did not experience God's revelation as an overwhelming occurrence. It is thus written, "God spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend" (Exodus 33:11)...The entire Torah was therefore written by Moses as dictated by God. This included all the happenings recorded in it from the time of creation."
Why should I trust some "bornagainer" to tell me what the Jews know best about their scriptures? In fact, your apparent ignorance is rather appalling since the dictation of the Torah (the entire Law, all five books,) by God to Moses, letter by letter, word by word, is basic knowledge that one owuld expect from anyone who claims to be Bible literate.
Gosh, you are comedian, but don't give up your day job. :)
“I think that it (the existence of a supernatural creator, a God) is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
One more time: the question was: "Knowing science can one establish God as a delisuon?" (or words to that effect) Dawkins acknowledges the difficulty of the question of God's (non)existence, then acknowledges that the specific questions posed to him was scientific and that the answer is no, i.e. that one cannot establish that God is a delusion based on science.
Why do you ask? You’ve encouraged me to continue.
I did and I still do You are the one who insists that it is futile, that there is nothing to discuss, yet you persist. Why?
Demeaning a poster. That would be sufficient to send you whining to the RM. I will simply shrug, and consider the source.
Don't get your hopes up. There was no ad hominem. I was not demeaning anyone personally, but rather stating a general idea that persisting in futile endeavors, especially when they are recognized as having no basis, and where no further discussion is possible, as stupid. I stand by my statement.
The teaching that matrimony is a sacrament gives to a religious clergy the power to judge the lawfulness of marriages and power of ecclesiastical censure for divorce. The government of men's external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses.
The idea "thou shalt marry and be given in marriage" is corrupt and degenerate, which is an impossible immortality of a kind, but not of the persons of men.
Ecclesiastics would have men believe they are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world, or absolute resurrection from the dead, as inmates of the world; and to the end only to receive condign punishment for their contumacy of monogamy as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature.
Dawkins and his ilk ignore the greater premise and scientific fact that mammals can only evolve heterosexually.
And whether either of the philosophical combatants like it or not, this idea is supported by the book of Genesis.
The teaching that matrimony is a sacrament gives to a religious clergy the power to judge the lawfulness of marriages and power of ecclesiastical censure for divorce.
The government of men's external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses.
The idea "thou shalt marry and be given in marriage" is corrupt and degenerate, which is an impossible immortality of a kind, but not of the persons of men.
Ecclesiastics would have men believe they are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world, or absolute resurrection from the dead, as inmates of the world; and to the end only to receive condign punishment for their contumacy of monogamy as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature.
Dawkins and his ilk ignore the greater premise and scientific fact that mammals can only evolve heterosexually.
And whether either of the philosophical combatants like it or not, this idea is supported by the book of Genesis and is an absolute law found in nature.
There has never been one case of a hermaphrodite (genotype) mammal ever recorded.
I suppose you are trying to make a point?
I obviously made one, do you have any counterpoint?
You’re looking at the Lewis quote from the wrong angle entirely.
The meaning of what Lewis said is that honest men will always be driven by their honesty to want to believe what’s true, whether or not they immediately know the truth of it. In fact, sometimes honest men will not be aware that they have failed to believe truth. But their desire to believe truth will drive them to seek to know it.
Lewis did not mean that a man’s honesty can be used as an automatic truth detector.
You know, the thing about a dishonest man is that he always has to go around pretending to be honest. It’s never the other way around.
This goes all the way back to the one whom Alinsky called the original rebel. He’s a liar, but he can’t go around broadcasting that fact. He is forced to pretend to be honest. Alinsky had the same fate. But the honest man never has to go around pretending to be dishonest. Funny how it works, isn’t it?
You quote C. S. Lewis as saying “If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be; if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.”
The question is how would they know it is not true in order to not believe it? Or, conversely, how would they know it is true in order to believe it? People believe or disbelieve without knowing everything there is to know. They hope! That's what faith is. But some things are more likely than other things...and that's where intellectual honesty tips the scale. Some people trusttheir fantasy, others trust what they know.
You know, the thing about a dishonest man is that he always has to go around pretending to be honest. It’s never the other way around
People have a way of convincing themselves that what they believe is true. They almost "need" to claim the "truth." For example, when someone reads the Bible and finds something utterly wrong, they dismiss it in order not to destroys their preconceived notion of inerrant scriptures. How intellectually honest is that?
Or, they see that bible prophesies have not fulfilled yet, and those that supposedly fulfilled really didn't yet they still insist the prophesies somehow prove their faith to be "true"!
Or, you have Paul says that all writings (scriptures) are "God-breathed" (i.e. inspired) and yet he offers no proof whatsoever, for such a statement. Yet, every Christian I know believes it as a matter of "fact", which they then use to justify their beliefs. How intellectually honest is it to accept one man's opinion or unsubstantiated statement as "truth"?
It makes me think of Jim Jones and the naive, if not outright brainwashed followers of his, drinking Kool Aid and dying en masse because they "knew" the "truth."
But the honest man never has to go around pretending to be dishonest. Funny how it works, isn’t it?
Show me one person who has never been dishonest. Funny how that works, isn't it?
I’ll make it easier.
Instead of the man, let’s look at the will. There can be a will inclined to honesty or a will inclined to dishonesty.
Obviously, all men have been dishonest and only Jesus has a perfect record. But there is a sharp dichotomy between men of honest will and men of dishonest will.
In fact, this distinction illustrates a major aspect of Christ’s victory over Satan—despite the malicious attempt to destroy good creation by entangling good with evil, the two are separated like water and oil by the distinction between men with good will and men without.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.