Notices
Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: Not reading God’s Word right, is just wrong. No talking snak

  1. #1 Not reading God’s Word right, is just wrong. No talking snak 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Not reading God’s Word right, is just wrong. No talking snakes! Thanks. Would not be pleasing to God.


    At the time of the writings of scripture, those who directed scribes were also poets and song writers.

    The idea of using a talking snake is a message to readers that what follows must be taken with a grain of salt because it is based on an impossible beginning.

    That is also why they emphasize WORD, that the reader is to look for the true meaning of the words given.

    It should be read an archetypal rendition of a best guess for man‘s beginnings, in terms of morals sense. A term that requires knowledge of good and evil. A sense we all cherish in ourselves and would not give up.

    All Gods offer a philosophy.
    All political Gods offer a philosophy.
    All philosophies are a blueprint to a good life.

    No philosophy of the Gods with miracle abilities, has as yet over shadowed the political Gods that others offer.

    Man, as King, is proving to be winning, over the man following God. That is how it should be. After all, the first God’s name was uttered by a man. God then gave man Honor, for being the first to recognize that reality for living souls did not end on terra firma, and that Man was the first that could understand God’s philosophy.

    Jesus wanted us all to step up and pick a side.

    In a way we all do.
    Trouble is, this place, like Babble, just has too many sides.

    How can the world elect or recognize a true God when they are not even holding an election?
    Political debates end in elections. What is the religious establishment waiting for.
    Are we afraid to put God to the dreaded TEST. Risk another genocide? God forbid.

    Do not feel special thought. The political Gods are just as afraid of One that would lead them.

    Why then are we all deciding to live with this fear when the reward of peace and security can be had for the price of an election?

    Just a great way to kill time I guess.

    I digress.

    In conclusion, to read scripture literally without knowing the true context and idioms of the original words and language forces one to truly believe in the impossible and unnatural. The Bible begins with a talking serpent and ends with ten headed monster. A clear indication from the compilers of scripture to not take the Bible literally.

    Regards
    DL


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24
    "Reading God’s Word right, is just wrong."

    Exactly ... reading it at all is a crime against humanity ! [I mean that]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere near Beetlegeuse
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Apollyon
    ...reading it at all is a crime against humanity...
    I personally subscribe to the view that one should have read a book before one can comment on its veracity, or meaning, or truth value. So even though I am an atheist, I would urge anyone who wants to have an opinion about it to actually read the book first. Having done that you are free to choose whether to worship it or to use it as toilet paper. Deciding before reading is illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    The Bible begins with a talking serpent and ends with ten headed monster. A clear indication from the compilers of scripture to not take the Bible literally.
    That seems to be one reasonable interpretation. But there are many books we do not take literally; no one actually believes Lord of the Rings is true. Not taking a book literally is no bar to it having some value. Has your reading given you any insight into human nature, morality, ethics, how to build relationships, the responsibilities parents have to their children, the right way to be a King, human rights or any other topic of your own choosing?
    Everything the laws of the universe do not prohibit must finally happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    The Bible begins with a talking serpent and ends with ten headed monster. A clear indication from the compilers of scripture to not take the Bible literally.
    funny but we're talking about multiple books here, it is as if i took a row of books made the first mein kampf and the last the satanic bible and just wrote off the entire stack as insane
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Apollyon
    "Reading God’s Word right, is just wrong."

    Exactly ... reading it at all is a crime against humanity ! [I mean that]
    Are you talking about all Bibles ?

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by numbers
    Quote Originally Posted by Apollyon
    ...reading it at all is a crime against humanity...
    I personally subscribe to the view that one should have read a book before one can comment on its veracity, or meaning, or truth value. So even though I am an atheist, I would urge anyone who wants to have an opinion about it to actually read the book first. Having done that you are free to choose whether to worship it or to use it as toilet paper. Deciding before reading is illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    The Bible begins with a talking serpent and ends with ten headed monster. A clear indication from the compilers of scripture to not take the Bible literally.
    That seems to be one reasonable interpretation. But there are many books we do not take literally; no one actually believes Lord of the Rings is true. Not taking a book literally is no bar to it having some value. Has your reading given you any insight into human nature, morality, ethics, how to build relationships, the responsibilities parents have to their children, the right way to be a King, human rights or any other topic of your own choosing?
    All Bibles have value for thought. None should be taken literally.

    They are meant as guides to thinking, not guides to God.

    No religious or political God has yet to end slavery or the lowest level of a demographic pyramid. To date all have failed in this task.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    The Bible begins with a talking serpent and ends with ten headed monster. A clear indication from the compilers of scripture to not take the Bible literally.
    funny but we're talking about multiple books here, it is as if i took a row of books made the first mein kampf and the last the satanic bible and just wrote off the entire stack as insane
    Who said insane?

    Is this insane perhaps?


    Deuteronomy 21
    18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
    19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
    20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
    21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    I always find this argument of metaphorical interpretation a hard pill to swallow. Who are you to decide what is taken only metaphorically and what isn't literal? Is this the word of God or not?
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    I always find this argument of metaphorical interpretation a hard pill to swallow. Who are you to decide what is taken only metaphorically and what isn't literal? Is this the word of God or not?
    Why? Human authors typically write their stuff with the intention that it be understood in a variety of ways. In fact to do otherwise is to make a product that is flat, stale, uninteresting and uninspired. Surely God is capable of talents similar to human writers and surely He knows how it will be interpreted. This is not to say that His word cannot be twisted to an evil end but that for those who read with sincerity it is written by God to have the greatest beneficial effect.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    I always find this argument of metaphorical interpretation a hard pill to swallow. Who are you to decide what is taken only metaphorically and what isn't literal? Is this the word of God or not?
    More important is what do you think?
    Would your God advise such?

    Give your opinion and I shall return with mine.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    I always find this argument of metaphorical interpretation a hard pill to swallow. Who are you to decide what is taken only metaphorically and what isn't literal? Is this the word of God or not?
    Why? Human authors typically write their stuff with the intention that it be understood in a variety of ways. In fact to do otherwise is to make a product that is flat, stale, uninteresting and uninspired. Surely God is capable of talents similar to human writers and surely He knows how it will be interpreted. This is not to say that His word cannot be twisted to an evil end but that for those who read with sincerity it is written by God to have the greatest beneficial effect.
    God does not write. He inspires only.
    Was the writer inspired by God here or by those who paid for the work?

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Why? Human authors typically write their stuff with the intention that it be understood in a variety of ways.
    So it isn't the word of God, and the human writers are not merely the messengers of the objective divine truth?

    Point being, I would think that scripture from such an entity would be a little more definitive in its intention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am

    More important is what do you think?
    Would your God advise such?
    See above on that. As for the books themselves, I think they're historical works of fiction that merit study and devotion, considering their cultural significance and impact on a massive variety of human undertaking (architecture, art, music, poetry, etc.).
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Why? Human authors typically write their stuff with the intention that it be understood in a variety of ways. In fact to do otherwise is to make a product that is flat, stale, uninteresting and uninspired. Surely God is capable of talents similar to human writers and surely He knows how it will be interpreted. This is not to say that His word cannot be twisted to an evil end but that for those who read with sincerity it is written by God to have the greatest beneficial effect.
    So it isn't the word of God, and the human writers are not merely the messengers of the objective divine truth?
    Huh?

    So if Scripture is the word of God and written by God using human beings as his writing instruments, then why would we expect God to write something that is so flat, stale, uninteresting and uninspired like the writing of amature human writers with no talent and thus unable to write in such a way that their words have many meanings and implications. Not only do I think that this is quite unlikely but the plain evidence is that the Biblical writings are quite the opposite: multi-dimentional and so pregnant with meanings and implications that the words inspire so many new ideas and connections and that no two people see quite the same thing in them, JUST like the BEST of human literature and poetry.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Point being, I would think that scripture from such an entity would be a little more definitive in its intention.
    Point being that the writings of such an entity would fustrate the heck out of the kind of stuffed shirts that would like to keep the "message of God" tightly under their own control and serving their own interests.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Not reading God’s Word right, is just wrong. No talking  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Not reading God’s Word right, is just wrong. No talking snakes! Thanks. Would not be pleasing to God.


    At the time of the writings of scripture, those who directed scribes were also poets and song writers.

    The idea of using a talking snake is a message to readers that what follows must be taken with a grain of salt because it is based on an impossible beginning.

    That is also why they emphasize WORD, that the reader is to look for the true meaning of the words given.

    It should be read an archetypal rendition of a best guess for man‘s beginnings, in terms of morals sense. A term that requires knowledge of good and evil. A sense we all cherish in ourselves and would not give up.

    All Gods offer a philosophy.
    All political Gods offer a philosophy.
    All philosophies are a blueprint to a good life.

    No philosophy of the Gods with miracle abilities, has as yet over shadowed the political Gods that others offer.

    Man, as King, is proving to be winning, over the man following God. That is how it should be. After all, the first God’s name was uttered by a man. God then gave man Honor, for being the first to recognize that reality for living souls did not end on terra firma, and that Man was the first that could understand God’s philosophy.

    Jesus wanted us all to step up and pick a side.

    In a way we all do.
    Trouble is, this place, like Babble, just has too many sides.

    How can the world elect or recognize a true God when they are not even holding an election?
    Political debates end in elections. What is the religious establishment waiting for.
    Are we afraid to put God to the dreaded TEST. Risk another genocide? God forbid.

    Do not feel special thought. The political Gods are just as afraid of One that would lead them.

    Why then are we all deciding to live with this fear when the reward of peace and security can be had for the price of an election?

    Just a great way to kill time I guess.

    I digress.

    In conclusion, to read scripture literally without knowing the true context and idioms of the original words and language forces one to truly believe in the impossible and unnatural. The Bible begins with a talking serpent and ends with ten headed monster. A clear indication from the compilers of scripture to not take the Bible literally.

    Regards
    DL
    In short, viewing scriptural injunctions homogeneously as opposed to primary considerations and secondary considerations always provides a good depiction of an unphilosophical fanatic or a a good excuse to disregard such injunctions ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Huh?

    So if Scripture is the word of God and written by God using human beings as his writing instruments, then why would we expect God to write something that is so flat, stale, uninteresting and uninspired like the writing of amature human writers with no talent and thus unable to write in such a way that their words have many meanings and implications. Not only do I think that this is quite unlikely but the plain evidence is that the Biblical writings are quite the opposite: multi-dimentional and so pregnant with meanings and implications that the words inspire so many new ideas and connections and that no two people see quite the same thing in them, JUST like the BEST of human literature and poetry.
    I just don't buy that parallelism. Interpretative literature, poetry, and art are not with the inclination to set the ground rules of life as we know it. They inspire and imbue an innate liking for aesthetic jubilation - we like the emotions they invoke, what meanings we individually derive from them, and so on.

    Is this the method and manner that the imaginary celestial dictator wishes to entrench law and order in the world he's created? He deliberately intends for his words and motives to remain ambiguous and subjective so mortals can go to war in dispute over whatever plan each sect thinks this god has in store for them?

    Point being that the writings of such an entity would fustrate the heck out of the kind of stuffed shirts that would like to keep the "message of God" tightly under their own control and serving their own interests.
    Precisely as it should. Then they are granted less validity in carrying out their self-interests. Israel and Palestine cannot come to terms with a 50/50 land split (which, historically, isn't 100% fair and perfect, but let's take that as a means of resolve) because each side thinks that God wants them to have all of it.
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    So if Scripture is the word of God and written by God using human beings as his writing instruments, then why would we expect God to write something that is so flat, stale, uninteresting and uninspired like the writing of amature human writers with no talent and thus unable to write in such a way that their words have many meanings and implications. Not only do I think that this is quite unlikely but the plain evidence is that the Biblical writings are quite the opposite: multi-dimentional and so pregnant with meanings and implications that the words inspire so many new ideas and connections and that no two people see quite the same thing in them, JUST like the BEST of human literature and poetry.
    Interpretative literature, poetry, and art are not with the inclination to set the ground rules of life as we know it.
    Agreed thus your supposition that this is the purpose of Scripture is what must be rejected. Life is ultimately not about rules. Children have to have rules for their own protection. But they must eventually graduate from rules to principles and the art of applying them in a dynamically changing set of relationships.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    They inspire and imbue an innate liking for aesthetic jubilation - we like the emotions they invoke, what meanings we individually derive from them, and so on.
    No you cannot restrict the purpose of human literature to the aesthetic any more than you can restrict the purpose of television to comedy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Is this the method and manner that the imaginary celestial dictator wishes to entrench law and order in the world he's created?
    If the "method and manner" does not fit, then perhaps the fault is in seeing Him as a dictator with that sort of intention, in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    He deliberately intends for his words and motives to remain ambiguous and subjective so mortals can go to war in dispute over whatever plan each sect thinks this god has in store for them?
    Yes!!! Because as terrible as war may be, there is an alternative that is much much worse. Try to envision mankind united in a uniform system of thought and an unbreakable system of social order, which because of the innate nature of man must ultimately be a system of institutionalized exploitation of the weak and abuse of the innocent. This I believe was the nature of the world portrayed in the Biblical account in the time before the flood. Thus what immediately follows in Genesis 11 is:

    "Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. ...And they said, 'Come let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.' ...And the Lord said, 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.' So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the earth..."

    Here we find the lie in the typical argument made by organized religion that, "God is not a God of confusion" (and thus you have to decide which of these myriad denominations is right so you can be on the "right side"). AND here we also see that God is directly responsible for the diversity of human thought, culture and religion which can certainly be blaimed for the existence of that terrible evil known as war.

    Now we may indeed take this as a reason to see the God of the Bible as perverse and diabolical... UNLESS it occurs to you that it may be man that is perverse and it God who seeks our salvation and thus what was done was for a very good reason. Thus I suggest that the diversity of human thought is actually essential for the salvation of mankind for a world where war is possible is also a world where freedom is possible - a world where change for the better is possible because the lone nonconformist CAN fight against the system, bring the truth to light so that injustices are stopped and the world changes for the better.

    Would God do things in this way? Well if God really is the author of the mind blowing diversity to be found in the universe in which we live, both in the neverending diversity and peculiarity of objects we find in the heavens and species of organisms we find on the earth, then we must admit that this would actually seem to be God's perferred modus operandi. Furthermore with a little understanding of science we also see how necessary is the genetic diversity of a species and this might cause us to wonder if the diversity of human thought might be just as necessary to our survival as a civilization.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Point being that the writings of such an entity would fustrate the heck out of the kind of stuffed shirts that would like to keep the "message of God" tightly under their own control and serving their own interests.
    Precisely as it should. Then they are granted less validity in carrying out their self-interests. Israel and Palestine cannot come to terms with a 50/50 land split (which, historically, isn't 100% fair and perfect, but let's take that as a means of resolve) because each side thinks that God wants them to have all of it.
    Correct but the fault lies not in God but in human beings who would adopt any prop for their selfishness and self-righteousness, if not by "God's will" then by legality and moral rectitude and if not that then by Reason and Logic, and if not that then by Right of Nature and Need, and if not that then by Might and Power.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Agreed thus your supposition that this is the purpose of Scripture is what must be rejected.
    What, setting the ground rules for mortality? That is the main tenet of the holy books, yes. After the atrocities of the Old Testament, in particular, the new version makes the concept of Hell a central theme to underly all transpirations, with fiery torture and misery being a means of punishment to uphold said law and rule.


    No you cannot restrict the purpose of human literature to the aesthetic any more than you can restrict the purpose of television to comedy.
    You're equivocating the meaning of "aesthetic"; in this regard, I mean it merely as the art of invoking emotional appeal. That can extend well beyond surface perceptions, which is what you're taking "aesthetic" to be here.


    If the "method and manner" does not fit, then perhaps the fault is in seeing Him as a dictator with that sort of intention, in the first place.
    He would fit the definition in every sense of the word.

    At least you can escape North Korea through death. It's only after you die in religion that the real fun begins.

    Yes!!! Because as terrible as war may be, there is an alternative that is much much worse. Try to envision mankind united in a uniform system of thought and an unbreakable system of social order, which because of the innate nature of man must ultimately be a system of institutionalized exploitation of the weak and abuse of the innocent.
    I don't accept this premise. There is no "either or" scenario, where I have to choose between war or total conformism. In fact, it's in times of peace and tolerance that human expression and the trading of ideas can flourish.

    Correct but the fault lies not in God but in human beings who would adopt any prop for their selfishness and self-righteousness, if not by "God's will" then by legality and moral rectitude and if not that then by Reason and Logic, and if not that then by Right of Nature and Need, and if not that then by Might and Power.
    Of course it doesn't lie with God. I don't believe in God, so that would be ridiculous.

    I abbreviated a good deal of your post, so let me know if you think I missed a crucial point of yours.
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    He would fit the definition in every sense of the word.
    And who would that be? This being that you don't believe in any more than I do?

    So you don't believe in the God, that I believe in, because you don't believe that this God, that you don't believe in, is anything like, the God that I believe in?

    sure...... ok....... (shrug)


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Yes!!! Because as terrible as war may be, there is an alternative that is much much worse. Try to envision mankind united in a uniform system of thought and an unbreakable system of social order, which because of the innate nature of man must ultimately be a system of institutionalized exploitation of the weak and abuse of the innocent.
    I don't accept this premise. There is no "either or" scenario, where I have to choose between war or total conformism. In fact, it's in times of peace and tolerance that human expression and the trading of ideas can flourish.
    I adopt no such premise. I merely observe the obvious connections between war, the diversity of human thought, culture and religion, and the possibilities for freedom and social change. I would certainly not say that God or this diversity is truly the cause of war at all, but the selfish and and self-righteous tendencies of human beings who will always adopt any convenient justification for taking what they want. If however, you want to argue that freedom and social change are historically possible without a diversity of human thought, I will be quite happy to take on such a debate that I cannot lose.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    And who would that be? This being that you don't believe in any more than I do? :bugeye:
    Who else? Are you saying it's a fallacy to use a personal pronoun like "he" in reference to a fictional character?

    So you don't believe in the God, that I believe in, because you don't believe that this God, that you don't believe in, is anything like, the God that I believe in?

    sure...... ok....... (shrug)
    Complete non sequitur. Why would my reason for disbelieving in God be because you believe differently?

    I adopt no such premise.
    You do. You stated that war is the "alternative" to conformism and cultural impotency.

    If however, you want to argue that freedom and social change are historically possible without a diversity of human thought, I will be quite happy to take on such a debate that I cannot lose.
    How could human conceptions be possible without human thought? Not exactly a provoking postulation you've offered me.
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Why? Human authors typically write their stuff with the intention that it be understood in a variety of ways.
    So it isn't the word of God, and the human writers are not merely the messengers of the objective divine truth?

    Point being, I would think that scripture from such an entity would be a little more definitive in its intention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am

    More important is what do you think?
    Would your God advise such?
    See above on that. As for the books themselves, I think they're historical works of fiction that merit study and devotion, considering their cultural significance and impact on a massive variety of human undertaking (architecture, art, music, poetry, etc.).
    Devotion.

    To a book. Not the God in it?

    LOL

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Not reading God’s Word right, is just wrong. No talking 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Not reading God’s Word right, is just wrong. No talking snakes! Thanks. Would not be pleasing to God.


    At the time of the writings of scripture, those who directed scribes were also poets and song writers.

    The idea of using a talking snake is a message to readers that what follows must be taken with a grain of salt because it is based on an impossible beginning.

    That is also why they emphasize WORD, that the reader is to look for the true meaning of the words given.

    It should be read an archetypal rendition of a best guess for man‘s beginnings, in terms of morals sense. A term that requires knowledge of good and evil. A sense we all cherish in ourselves and would not give up.

    All Gods offer a philosophy.
    All political Gods offer a philosophy.
    All philosophies are a blueprint to a good life.

    No philosophy of the Gods with miracle abilities, has as yet over shadowed the political Gods that others offer.

    Man, as King, is proving to be winning, over the man following God. That is how it should be. After all, the first God’s name was uttered by a man. God then gave man Honor, for being the first to recognize that reality for living souls did not end on terra firma, and that Man was the first that could understand God’s philosophy.

    Jesus wanted us all to step up and pick a side.

    In a way we all do.
    Trouble is, this place, like Babble, just has too many sides.

    How can the world elect or recognize a true God when they are not even holding an election?
    Political debates end in elections. What is the religious establishment waiting for.
    Are we afraid to put God to the dreaded TEST. Risk another genocide? God forbid.

    Do not feel special thought. The political Gods are just as afraid of One that would lead them.

    Why then are we all deciding to live with this fear when the reward of peace and security can be had for the price of an election?

    Just a great way to kill time I guess.

    I digress.

    In conclusion, to read scripture literally without knowing the true context and idioms of the original words and language forces one to truly believe in the impossible and unnatural. The Bible begins with a talking serpent and ends with ten headed monster. A clear indication from the compilers of scripture to not take the Bible literally.

    Regards
    DL
    In short, viewing scriptural injunctions homogeneously as opposed to primary considerations and secondary considerations always provides a good depiction of an unphilosophical fanatic or a a good excuse to disregard such injunctions ....
    English is good.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    And who would that be? This being that you don't believe in any more than I do?
    Who else? Are you saying it's a fallacy to use a personal pronoun like "he" in reference to a fictional character?
    No. Do you often get into arguments about the characteristics of fictional characters, let alone about the characteristics of OTHER PEOPLE's fictional characters?


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    So you don't believe in the God, that I believe in, because you don't believe that this God, that you don't believe in, is anything like, the God that I believe in?

    sure...... ok....... (shrug)
    Complete non sequitur. Why would my reason for disbelieving in God be because you believe differently?
    Yep you've got it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    I adopt no such premise.
    You do. You stated that war is the "alternative" to conformism and cultural
    impotency.
    Nope. How interesting to hear the distorted echo of my words in an empty skull.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    If however, you want to argue that freedom and social change are historically possible without a diversity of human thought, I will be quite happy to take on such a debate that I cannot lose.
    How could human conceptions be possible without human thought? Not exactly a provoking postulation you've offered me.
    Uh huh. All of your moronic paraphrases are equally lacking in any insight whatsoever.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Not reading God’s Word right, is just wrong. No talking  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Not reading God’s Word right, is just wrong. No talking snakes! Thanks. Would not be pleasing to God.


    At the time of the writings of scripture, those who directed scribes were also poets and song writers.

    The idea of using a talking snake is a message to readers that what follows must be taken with a grain of salt because it is based on an impossible beginning.

    That is also why they emphasize WORD, that the reader is to look for the true meaning of the words given.

    It should be read an archetypal rendition of a best guess for man‘s beginnings, in terms of morals sense. A term that requires knowledge of good and evil. A sense we all cherish in ourselves and would not give up.

    All Gods offer a philosophy.
    All political Gods offer a philosophy.
    All philosophies are a blueprint to a good life.

    No philosophy of the Gods with miracle abilities, has as yet over shadowed the political Gods that others offer.

    Man, as King, is proving to be winning, over the man following God. That is how it should be. After all, the first God’s name was uttered by a man. God then gave man Honor, for being the first to recognize that reality for living souls did not end on terra firma, and that Man was the first that could understand God’s philosophy.

    Jesus wanted us all to step up and pick a side.

    In a way we all do.
    Trouble is, this place, like Babble, just has too many sides.

    How can the world elect or recognize a true God when they are not even holding an election?
    Political debates end in elections. What is the religious establishment waiting for.
    Are we afraid to put God to the dreaded TEST. Risk another genocide? God forbid.

    Do not feel special thought. The political Gods are just as afraid of One that would lead them.

    Why then are we all deciding to live with this fear when the reward of peace and security can be had for the price of an election?

    Just a great way to kill time I guess.

    I digress.

    In conclusion, to read scripture literally without knowing the true context and idioms of the original words and language forces one to truly believe in the impossible and unnatural. The Bible begins with a talking serpent and ends with ten headed monster. A clear indication from the compilers of scripture to not take the Bible literally.

    Regards
    DL
    I'm beginning to think you should go and talk these ideas over with a shrink, seriously they will help you.

    There is a BIG difference between people who put across their theories and state them as such to people who put across their theories and say that it is the truth.

    It is people with this sort of mind set who do a lot of harm and create wars.

    The reason these types of people cause misery is because they are adamant they are right and take great pains in propagating their ideas with the aim of influencing others. When they are faced with someone who disagrees with them, or an alternative viewpoint they turn nasty.

    Greatest I Am, you need to face up to the possibility that your theories might be incorrect.
    You are making claims about something which you cannot prove to be correct.
    There are young people on this forum who might be looking for answers.
    In that case it would be better if you began your ideas with 'In my opinion' or 'I believe' instead of stating things as a fact.

    Also you have made highly insulting remarks about Jesus and have been insulting to anybody who regards Jesus as valuable.

    Do you really need to be so vulgar in order to express your views or is your ultimate motive on here to upset other people?

    It seems possible that may be the case considering you seem to keep posting the same things all over the forum.

    I am wondering whether you are a troll
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    And who would that be? This being that you don't believe in any more than I do?
    Who else? Are you saying it's a fallacy to use a personal pronoun like "he" in reference to a fictional character?
    No. Do you often get into arguments about the characteristics of fictional characters, let alone about the characteristics of OTHER PEOPLE's fictional characters?


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    So you don't believe in the God, that I believe in, because you don't believe that this God, that you don't believe in, is anything like, the God that I believe in?

    sure...... ok....... (shrug)
    Complete non sequitur. Why would my reason for disbelieving in God be because you believe differently?
    Yep you've got it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    I adopt no such premise.
    You do. You stated that war is the "alternative" to conformism and cultural
    impotency.
    Nope. How interesting to hear the distorted echo of my words in an empty skull.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    If however, you want to argue that freedom and social change are historically possible without a diversity of human thought, I will be quite happy to take on such a debate that I cannot lose.
    How could human conceptions be possible without human thought? Not exactly a provoking postulation you've offered me.
    Uh huh. All of your moronic paraphrases are equally lacking in any insight whatsoever.
    So Mckain

    Above we have an excellent example of you being nasty and insulting towards another member on the forum who has the right to express their opinion and view as much as you do.

    I don't see Reider calling you names or being insulting and nasty towards you.

    But you think it is acceptable?

    Do you think it is acceptable for other forum members to behave the way you do?

    So how come when they do, you are the first to step in and shoot them down?

    Does that not appear to be hypocritical and the practice of double standards to you?

    I would have expected a moderator to set an example and use a better method to argue if they think another person might be wrong.

    How can you expect to command respect from anyone on this forum, when you so blatantly and explicitly behave in such a way?

    I look forward to your answer.
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    So Mckain

    Above we have an excellent example of you being nasty and insulting towards another member on the forum who has the right to express their opinion and view as much as you do.

    I don't see Reider calling you names or being insulting and nasty towards you.
    I consider his tactic of replacing my words with his moronic version of them to be very insulting and nasty.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Do you think it is acceptable for other forum members to behave the way you do?
    I put up with it all the time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    So how come when they do, you are the first to step in and shoot them down?

    Does that not appear to be hypocritical and the practice of double standards to you?
    You are free to call me on this as much as I am free to call you on this. I don't think it is hypocritical or a double standard unless I take a moderator action against someone for doing the same thing that I am doing. I admit that it is difficult to see where the lines are drawn in this sub-section of the forum and I am sympathetic to your fustration.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    I would have expected a moderator to set an example and use a better method to argue if they think another person might be wrong.

    How can you expect to command respect from anyone on this forum, when you so blatantly and explicitly behave in such a way?

    I look forward to your answer.
    Ah well, it looks like if they were expecting that making me a moderator would improve my behavior, I guess they made a big mistake. LOL

    But I will apologize when someone can show me that I have stepped over the line or made a blunder. Can you do the same?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Not reading God’s Word right, is just wrong. No talking 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am

    English is good.

    Regards
    DL
    yes
    for a particular time, place and circumstance .....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    No. Do you often get into arguments about the characteristics of fictional characters, let alone about the characteristics of OTHER PEOPLE's fictional characters?
    When said fictional characters are taken seriously and play as large a role in social affairs as these ones do, yes, because they thereby affect my life. It would be neglectful not to talk about such concerns.

    Yep you've got it.
    That wasn't a yes or no question. You made a non sequitur. Why would my reason for disbelieving in God be because you believe differently?

    Nope. How interesting to hear the distorted echo of my words in an empty skull.
    Again, you did: "Yes!!! Because as terrible as war may be, there is an alternative that is much much worse. Try to envision mankind united in a uniform system of thought and an unbreakable system of social order, which because of the innate nature of man must ultimately be a system of institutionalized exploitation of the weak and abuse of the innocent."

    Said "alternative" is in contrast to war, needless to...well, it would be needless to say, but apparently it is, indeed, needed. "Because as terrible as war may be" is inferring that strife and human conflict is the preferable half of the overarching dichotomy.

    Uh huh. All of your moronic paraphrases are equally lacking in any insight whatsoever.
    You're dodging the responsibility of supporting your point. You posited that "that freedom and social change are [not] historically possible without a diversity of human thought." How is this controversial in any form or manner?

    And spare me the dramatics and ad hominem remarks. I'm not interested in the emotional affairs of debates.
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    When said fictional characters are taken seriously and play as large a role in social affairs as these ones do, yes, because they thereby affect my life. It would be neglectful not to talk about such concerns.
    Ah so what you mean is because other people's beliefs affect your life then you think that gives you the right to dictate what they must believe. Poppycock!


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Why would my reason for disbelieving in God be because you believe differently?
    Why indeed? Which is why I agreed that your argument was non sequitur. Look I could care less whether you believe in God or what your reasons for that may be. But the train of thought in your responses to me were nonsensical.

    You doubted that "God" would write things intending them to be interpreted in different ways because that would not serve the purpose of a dictator. So I said that the fact that He does write this way means that this is not His purpose. Then here is where your thinking goes screwy, for you then insist that God can only have the purpose that you say that he has even though you say that you don't believe any such being exists.

    It is kind of like this. You look at the track of a particle in a photograph and argue that this must be a hoax because the picture makes it clear that it is an electron sized particle but its behavior is not that of a particle with a negative charge. So I explain that this is the track of a positron which has the same mass as an electron but with a positive charge. You then contradict this saying no it has a negative charge, and therefore the photograph must be a hoax. This does not quite convey the full absurdity of your responses, but it was worth a try.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Again, you did: "Yes!!! Because as terrible as war may be, there is an alternative that is much much worse. Try to envision mankind united in a uniform system of thought and an unbreakable system of social order, which because of the innate nature of man must ultimately be a system of institutionalized exploitation of the weak and abuse of the innocent."

    Said "alternative" is in contrast to war, needless to...well, it would be needless to say, but apparently it is, indeed, needed. "Because as terrible as war may be" is inferring that strife and human conflict is the preferable half of the overarching dichotomy.
    The alternative is in the context of human behavior and historical circumstance. A humanity united under a social structure with iron control over humanity may indeed have no war but that is not a preferable alternative. It is better endure the possibility of war (which human nature makes inevitable) if it means you also have the possibility for positive social change. Unless you want to argue that freedom and positive social change is possible without diversity in human thought then your noises about false dichotomies is meaningless. I certainly have no intention of arguing that peace is impossible where there a diversity of human thought for that is where I see hope for the future of man. The point is that given the nature of man such a diversity of language, culture and religion, and the resulting divisions of power, HAS historically created the opportunities and pretexts for war.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    You're dodging the responsibility of supporting your point. You posited that "that freedom and social change are [not] historically possible without a diversity of human thought." How is this controversial in any form or manner?
    Supporting what point? You agree with one point and absurdly modify the other. Where is the responsibility of supporting either of these?


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    I'm not interested in the emotional affairs of debates.
    And I am equally uninterested in defending your modifications of my statements. They are not what I said and therefore I will not argue them. That is simply a discussion you are having with yourself.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Ah so what you mean is because other people's beliefs affect your life then you think that gives you the right to dictate what they must believe. Poppycock!
    You give me far too much credit. No, my verbiage does not effectively command others to obey under my whim, unless you're speaking on my powers of persuasion from first-hand experience because you find it hard to resist my mind-controlling drone.

    If that's the case with you, then keep on the good fight. Everyone else is, of course, free to believe what they choose, and this is obviously so, or else there wouldn't be a problem for me to speak up about.

    Why indeed? Which is why I agreed that your argument was non sequitur.
    Do tell; this is a new point. What portion does not cohere with the conclusion? Cite specifically, as I did with yours.

    You doubted that "God" would write things intending them to be interpreted in different ways because that would not serve the purpose of a dictator. So I said that the fact that He does write this way means that this is not His purpose.
    Oh, his incentive doesn't matter if the actions are what they are. The dear leader of North Korea most likely does not see himself as an unjust man, but that hardly makes a difference for the political prisoners of Camp 22.

    Then here is where your thinking goes screwy, for you then insist that God can only have the purpose that you say that he has even though you say that you don't believe any such being exists.
    Yes, I'm arguing on the basis that if he were to exist, so and so would be the variables. I didn't think this needed to be said, either. It's like calling out a scientist for arguing against the basis of intelligent design. "You don't believe in creationism, so why are you even talking about it?!"

    It is kind of like this. You look at the track of a particle in a photograph and argue that this must be a hoax because the picture makes it clear that it is an electron sized particle but its behavior is not that of a particle with a negative charge. So I explain that this is the track of a positron which has the same mass as an electron but with a positive charge. You then contradict this saying no it has a negative charge, and therefore the photograph must be a hoax. This does not quite convey the full absurdity of your responses, but it was worth a try.
    Except we have proof of the trajectories of subatomic particles, so one could tangibly provide evidence to objectively disprove the naysayer. The same is not analogous to an exchange on theism.

    The alternative is in the context of human behavior and historical circumstance. A humanity united under a social structure with iron control over humanity may indeed have no war but that is not a preferable alternative.
    Precisely. The preferable alternative to total conformism is, therefore, a reality with war, which is what I correctly characterized in my rejection of such an ultimatum.

    Supporting what point? You agree with one point and absurdly modify the other. Where is the responsibility of supporting either of these?
    Your point amounted to human conceptions being impossible without human thought. You keep insisting that this is not an accurate depiction of what you said: "...freedom and social change are [not] historically possible without a diversity of human thought."

    "Freedom and social change" are human conceptions, so that's what you proposed.

    And I am equally uninterested in defending your modifications of my statements. They are not what I said and therefore I will not argue them.
    You just did.
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    I think we are stalled here because none of your responses make any sense to me. You respond with unconnected nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    It's like calling out a scientist for arguing against the basis of intelligent design. "You don't believe in creationism, so why are you even talking about it?!"
    Nonsense. Your argument is like a creationist saying that natural selection doesn't work because it is a random process. You patiently explain that it is not a completely random process but he keeps repeating, no its a random process therefore it doesn't work. Of course the discussion is stalled when faced with such absurdity.

    It is like responding to my claim that there is an earth sized planet with low surface albedo at ten times the distance from the sun as neptune, by saying that there is no such planet because it is is only at a fifth that distance from the sun and so we would be able to detect an effect on the orbit of pluto. This makes no sense. Whether there is such a planet such as you describe is a seperate question from whether there is a planet such as I describe. Likewise whether there is such a God as you describe is a seperate question of whether there is such a God as I describe. So we both agree that the God that you describe does not exist, but it is a non sequiteur to conclude that the God that I describe therefore does not exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Except we have proof of the trajectories of subatomic particles, so one could tangibly provide evidence to objectively disprove the naysayer. The same is not analogous to an exchange on theism.
    So because you have no proof for someone's claim that something exists, means that you can assert anything you want about that thing in order to contradict anything they may say about it. That makes no sense. Simply say that you see no justification for believing that the thing exists and leave it at that. But it is just queer to simultaneously hold the conviction that God does not exist and that God has certain characteristics. You made a lot more sense when you said, "Of course it doesn't lie with God. I don't believe in God, so that would be ridiculous." You should also say, "Of course I don't believe God has such characteristics. I don't believe in God, so that would be ridiculous."
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain



    But I will apologize when someone can show me that I have stepped over the line or made a blunder. Can you do the same?
    I knew that you would turn this around to me, because you're a sly and devious player.

    We are discussing your behavior Mckain, which is disgraceful coming from a moderator.

    The respect you govern from this forum is nil.

    And yes I would apologise if i thought someone deserved it, alas most don't.
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    But I will apologize when someone can show me that I have stepped over the line or made a blunder. Can you do the same?
    I knew that you would turn this around to me, because you're a sly and devious player.
    Why thank you!


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    We are discussing your behavior Mckain, which is disgraceful coming from a moderator.
    You can discuss my behavior as a poster in this forum, if you must, and I will respond in kind.

    BUT, my behavior as a moderator isn't up for discussion in this place, but only in another forum to which you are not invited. That is the natural order of all police work. I am answerable to everyone in this forum but not directly to you but only indirectly through those that have authority over me and with me. I shouldn't even explain this, and the fact that I do could be taken to mean that I am not a very good policeman. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by treating you as a small child who does not understand such things.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    The respect you govern from this forum is nil.
    Correction: your respect for me on this forum is nil. But what you seem to be blind to, is the fact that people don't measure me by this but you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    And yes I would apologise if i thought someone deserved it, alas most don't.
    I didn't ask for your apology. I asked if you were capable. I doesn't surprise me in the least that you cannot answer yes to that simple question.


    While your criticism means nothing to me, I would be remiss if I did not now warn you.

    <moderator warning: It is time to go back to the topic of the thread.>
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    And the topic of the OP concerns how we are suppose to digest that which is written in the Bible.

    It is interesting that non-believers cannot accept the idea that not everything in the Bible can be taken literally. One of the basic rules of Bible understanding is that if it makes sense in a literal interpretation, then go with it that way. If it doesn't make sense that way, the look for a meaning within that makes sense. This is a huge oversimplification, but it is generally a way that Bible scholars look at it.

    I think one of the first things Bible detractors do is fail to recognize that the most recent writing in the Bible is nearly 2,000 years old from a culture that was vastly different from ours, in a language that is vastly different from ours. And that is the New Testament. Some of the writings of the Old Testament go back about another 1,500 years.

    To think that the writers would have had the knowledge and vocabulary of those of us in the 21st Century, is just plain unreasonable. How would you explain the automobile to Moses if you could go back to 1,500 BC and talk to him about today?
    How would you explain, on the one hand, the internal combustion engine or electricity and battery power of an electrical vehicle. Moses would probably ridicule you as much as you ridicule his writing. Explain the various versions of railroads to him.

    Even assuming that God did create the Universe from that which did not appear, even we today don't know how that might have been accomplished. And you somehow expect God to have explained it to Moses in such a way that we could fully understand today? You are demanding of someone who existed 3,500 years ago that he have greater knowledge and understanding of physics than we have today.

    I am of the opinion that there are still a few things which we do not understand enough to explain them. Plus, don't think we would really be able to understand if some person from 3,500 years in the future came back to explain something to us. If we were then to turn around and try to explain it to others, we would probably not even have words in our vocabulary to explain them. We would have to make metaphorical word pictures.

    The main thing that causes problems in reading the Bible today is trying to put it directly into the context of the 21st Century without first trying to understand it in the context of the culture and language in which it originated.

    That is how our reading of the Bible can be "wrong."
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It is interesting that non-believers cannot accept the idea that not everything in the Bible can be taken literally. One of the basic rules of Bible understanding is that if it makes sense in a literal interpretation, then go with it that way. If it doesn't make sense that way, the look for a meaning within that makes sense.
    This is precisely the fallacy I speak of. If something is inconsistent or insensible, it isn't considered an invalidation; it's glossed over as not being "literal". Is it not literal when birds are created before reptiles in the sequence of creation? That's not mere metaphor - you would have to change that in its entirety to cohere with what science says on that matter.

    I don't consider myself a "Bible detractor", by the way. I do have a copy of it. Again, I appreciate the literature and the influence it has wielded on civilization throughout the eras. I just don't take the content realistically.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Nonsense. Your argument is like...

    It is like responding to...
    You're ceasing to address my points. All you did was say a mere, "No!" and then filibuster on with two analogies that simply say, "Look how wrong I think you are" more elaborately without actually delving into anything I said - until the very last part:

    Likewise whether there is such a God as you describe is a seperate question of whether there is such a God as I describe. So we both agree that the God that you describe does not exist, but it is a non sequiteur to conclude that the God that I describe therefore does not exist.
    That's not a non sequitur; the characterizations of mind-surveillance and the grant of absolute power is, by definition, a dictator. You're simply trying to not see the concept of God in such a light, but that doesn't suddenly mean that we're branching out of monotheism here.

    So because you have no proof for someone's claim that something exists, means that you can assert anything you want about that thing in order to contradict anything they may say about it. That makes no sense.
    Of course it does. Not existing is even more grounds for contradiction because there's more to it that is not.

    Simply say that you see no justification for believing that the thing exists and leave it at that. But it is just queer to simultaneously hold the conviction that God does not exist and that God has certain characteristics.
    I already explained this: "Yes, I'm arguing on the basis that if he were to exist, so and so would be the variables."

    Since so many are with the premise that this god does exist, one must share their plane in order to have a discussion about the matter in saying, "Even if this were true, ______________ is why it would be bad." God not existing in the first place is another subject altogether. If you want to debate the feasibility of creationism and whatnot, I implore you to dig up an old thread about it.
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    You're ceasing to address my points. All you did was say a mere, "No!" and then filibuster on with two analogies that simply say, "Look how wrong I think you are" more elaborately without actually delving into anything I said
    I don't see any points at all. There is nothing there to delve into except the passages of your own mind which you can explore on your own.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Likewise whether there is such a God as you describe is a seperate question of whether there is such a God as I describe. So we both agree that the God that you describe does not exist, but it is a non sequiteur to conclude that the God that I describe therefore does not exist.
    That's not a non sequitur;
    On that we shall forever disagree, and thus on that point we shall remain completely stalled.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    the characterizations of mind-surveillance and the grant of absolute power is, by definition, a dictator. You're simply trying to not see the concept of God in such a light, but that doesn't suddenly mean that we're branching out of monotheism here.
    I am agreeing that this hypothetical god you describe does not exist. That this has nothing to do with anything other than this hypothetical god you describe isn't a question of polytheism, for an increase in the number hypothetical gods does not increase the number of actual gods.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    So because you have no proof for someone's claim that something exists, means that you can assert anything you want about that thing in order to contradict anything they may say about it. That makes no sense.
    Of course it does.
    It makes no sense to me. And thus we have another disagreement which will not change however much you repeat yourself and thus this is another point on which our discussion is stalled.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Simply say that you see no justification for believing that the thing exists and leave it at that. But it is just queer to simultaneously hold the conviction that God does not exist and that God has certain characteristics.
    I already explained this: "Yes, I'm arguing on the basis that if he were to exist, so and so would be the variables."
    Not in a manner that makes the slightest bit of sense to me.

    I suggest that you are constructing arguments/disproofs of God that are very much like the the proofs for God that is constructed by many theists. Your arguments are convincing only to yourself and those who already agree with you, just as these proofs for the exsitence of God convince only the theists who construct them and those who already agree with them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Since so many are with the premise that this god does exist, one must share their plane in order to have a discussion about the matter in saying, "Even if this were true, ______________ is why it would be bad." God not existing in the first place is another subject altogether.
    I don't think you are sharing any "planes" at all, but only playing games inside your own head. I am sure your rational justifications give you immense satisfaction but they provide no basis for a discussion.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I don't see any points at all. There is nothing there to delve into except the passages of your own mind which you can explore on your own.
    All of the following, you denied, and did not follow up on:

    The main tenet of the holy books is to dictate the laws of morality (you previously stated that such a "supposition that this is the purpose of Scripture is what must be rejected").

    The application of God fulfills the servile impulse, and the nature of the aforementioned laws befits the definition of a dictator.

    War is not the "alternative" to conformism and cultural impotency, as you said.

    Assuming, for the argument, the celestial ruler's tangible and real existence in order to posit on what the surrender of rationale to faith would morally implicate is not at odds with disbelief in the first place.

    Likewise whether there is such a God as you describe is a seperate question of whether there is such a God as I describe. So we both agree that the God that you describe does not exist, but it is a non sequiteur to conclude that the God that I describe therefore does not exist.
    A non sequitur is an incoherent conclusion to a premise. The aforementioned attributes are in regards to a monotheistic belief system, so that's not only incorrect by deriving the steps out for you, it's incorrect by definition. There cannot possibly be a false administration of one god to the other because there aren't enough numbers to qualify a duel application in the first place.

    No, your argument, in order to hold any water, needs to be directed on why this being does not fulfill the definition of a tyrannical entity.

    I am agreeing that this hypothetical god you describe does not exist. That this has nothing to do with anything other than this hypothetical god you describe isn't a question of polytheism, for an increase in the number hypothetical gods does not increase the number of actual gods.
    You've just contradicted yourself, on two fronts.


    1.) Since there are no "actual gods" that are provable (by your admission), the distinction between abstract and concrete entities cannot hold.

    2.) If you don't believe in my hypothetical god, then, according to the logic you tried at me, you cannot characterize it, since it doesn't exist. As you said, "Do you often get into arguments about the characteristics of fictional characters, let alone about the characteristics of OTHER PEOPLE's fictional characters?"

    I suggest that you are constructing arguments/disproofs of God that are very much like the the proofs for God that is constructed by many theists.
    Straw man. At no event did I ever assert that I'm disproving God. I direct you to my post in another thread on the subject of Richard Dawkins:

    "...one cannot actually disprove God, so we have to resort to the high level of the improbability of it. To put this in perspective, the same goes for fairies and unicorns and hobbits.

    "So, while he does not (and cannot) logically say, 'There is definitely no God,' he can say, 'There is no evidence or reason to believe in God, so I can feasibly discount such an existence until proven otherwise.' Since hedging your bet against God's existence is such a safe stance, you are effectively atheist."
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Reidar
    Straw man. At no event did I ever assert that I'm disproving God.
    How conveniently you ignore words (like argument) in the things other people say.

    In any case, your will to stubbornly repeat yourself easily exceeds my will to do the same. But then again, it is probably easier for you with this habit you have of selectively ignoring what other people say.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    reidar wrote:
    The main tenet of the holy books is to dictate the laws of morality (you previously stated that such a "supposition that this is the purpose of Scripture is what must be rejected").
    Well, this is really wrong and shows a complete lack of understanding of the Bible. The Bible is about God's relationship with people. It tells us what the problem is and how to fix it.

    The Bible does not dictate any laws of morality. It merely tells us what behaviors please God and what behaviors displease God. It shows us that we are not able to please God in all of our activities, thus estranging ourselves from Him. The Bible then tells us about God's free gift of reconciliation through salvation in Jesus Christ.

    Our morality is actually dictated by our social customs and our legal systems. We collectively establish our own morality which may or may not conform to what God has listed as His preferences. If God actually dictated moral behavior, then all would follow it. Since we all violate God's preferences, one must consider that no behavior is dictated. (Well, ok, one might consider that instinctual behavior is dictated, but I don't think that actually plays into a morality scene.)

    When we violate moral codes, it is the legal system or social pressure or natural consequences which enforce any sanctions that may be meted out.

    Reidar also quotes a Dawkins stupidity:

    "...one cannot actually disprove God, so we have to resort to the high level of the improbability of it. To put this in perspective, the same goes for fairies and unicorns and hobbits.
    This is the opposite of saying I can prove God exists because fish and mammals and birds exist.

    No one is remotely successfully promoting beliefs in fairies, unicorns or hobbits. To compare something that two thirds of the people in the world believe with three things that no one believes is just plain spurious and dishonest. That is not perspective but rather a classic example of non-sequiter which is better defined as something that is not related to that which went before it. Like saying, "Speaking of basketball," when we were really talking about something else.

    It would appear to me that reider is one of those people whose vast knowledge of religion comes from extensive study of what non-religious people have to say about religion rather than what the religious say about religion. I wonder how much reidar would you like it, if the only thing I knew about him was what Mitchell had to say about him?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    How conveniently you ignore words (like argument) in the things other people say.
    If I had ignored your words, I could not have pointed out your inherent contradiction of commenting on what you propose my imaginary idea of God to be. I ask you, "Do you often get into arguments about the characteristics of fictional characters, let alone about the characteristics of OTHER PEOPLE's fictional characters?"

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, this is really wrong and shows a complete lack of understanding of the Bible. The Bible is about God's relationship with people. It tells us what the problem is and how to fix it.

    The Bible does not dictate any laws of morality. It merely tells us what behaviors please God and what behaviors displease God.
    That would be affirming laws of morality. The behaviors that please and displease God (the centrality thereby qualifying the role of a dictator, in my view) are, by definition, God's law. Theology would see our social customs and legal system based upon that. If it didn't, there would be no debate over abortion and other moral issues.

    No one is remotely successfully promoting beliefs in fairies, unicorns or hobbits. To compare something that two thirds of the people in the world believe with three things that no one believes is just plain spurious and dishonest.
    Majority apprehension is cause for validation...how? More people believing in gods than in fairies and unicorns doesn't bring the former closer to reality.

    What you cite as seemingly incompatible attributes are exactly the points of the parallel. An example that everyone would take to be silly and unbelievable is compared to a concept that is equally infeasible - the only difference being exactly what you said, that more people believe in it.

    By the way, I wasn't quoting Dawkins. Those were my words in regards to Dawkins.

    It would appear to me that reider is one of those people whose vast knowledge of religion comes from extensive study of what non-religious people have to say about religion rather than what the religious say about religion. I wonder how much reidar would you like it, if the only thing I knew about him was what Mitchell had to say about him?
    *Reidar

    And yes, I do read theist authors, actually. In particular, I point to William James' classic works, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature and The Meaning of Truth. I've read much of the hotel Bible stashed in my drawer one boring night in...I believe it was Tahoe, when I was about 11, and I plan on getting my blasphemous hands on a copy of the Qur'an next. More informally, I have Muhammad Ali's very religious memoir, Soul of a Butterfly, which was a nice, poetic read.

    By comparison, the only atheist book I've read even a little of is The God Delusion, which I actually bought for someone else. It didn't have much that I didn't already know from simply hearing someone like Christopher Hitchens speak (by Dawkins' own words, I don't believe I was the intended audience), so I got very little from it.
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Reidar defends himself:

    By the way, I wasn't quoting Dawkins. Those were my words in regards to Dawkins.
    In response to what I earlier thought had been attributed to Dawkins which was:

    "...one cannot actually disprove God, so we have to resort to the high level of the improbability of it. To put this in perspective, the same goes for fairies and unicorns and hobbits.
    Well, let us look at a direct quote from The God Delusion in which Dawkins is talking about a friend on Page 52:

    "He regards God as no more probable than the tooth fairy. You can't disprove either hypothesis, and both are equally improbable."
    Well, perhaps you paraphrased Dawkins instead of directly quoting him. But from the post on this thread, it is not obvious that you are quoting yourself rather than Dawkins. However, it remains obvious as to where you derived this line of thinking.

    But I still say there is no logic in this thinking. The fact that you cannot prove or disprove the tooth fairy has no bearing on the odds of whether there is a God. As I said before, this is the exact opposite and no more valid than claiming that since the eagle exists, therefore, God exists. The odds of Gods existence are neither enhanced nor diminished by the existence or non existence of something else. There is no basis in logic whereby one can come to that kind of a conclusion. To rephrase: The fact that unicorns do not exist does not enhance your argument of God's non-existence to me any more than the fact that eagles do exist enhances my argument that God exists to you. These are true non-sequiter's -- it does not follow.

    You seemingly fail to understand that it is your (and Dawkins' friend's) opinion that the existence of God is improbable. That is not quite enough to trump the opinion of believers who think it is highly probable that God exists. You merely have a standoff between opinions. I do not know how anyone could actually develop a math formula which would accurately calculate the odds nor what the factors to consider in the formula would include.

    Meanwhile, I am not sure that extensive reading of William James is going to give you much perspective on today's discussions. William James died in 1910. Not that I would say this invalidates what he may have written, but I am not sure he was considered a major Christian apologist even of his time and certainly he was not addressing the hot topics of we have here nearly a century later with the knowledge we have gained these, lo, almost 100 years. In a rather cursory search, I am unable to find if James was even aware of Relativity at the time of his death which has a major influence on much of modern thinking.

    Science has has a profound impact on the non-scientific schools of thought including philosophy and religion. Just as science must adapt to new knowledge, so must all other schools of thought. Even in Christian circles there are new discoveries of archeology or ancient literature which impact and alter Bible understanding.

    I should think if one were really interested in contemporary Christian opinion and addressment of current issues and apologetic topics, one would have to consider people such as Josh McDowell (josh.org) or Greg Koukl (str.org) or John Oakes (evidenceforchristianity.org).

    I do not agree with everything any of these guys or their contributors have to say, but I think they do better represent current Christian apologetics than James or even C.S. Lewis for that matter.

    I invite anyone to visit any or all of those sites and look up the current hot topics in the exchanges between Christians and atheists/agnostics. You might even catch me as having quoted (without citing -- called plagerism) or paraphrasing things those people have said. There may be topics which you cannot find on all those sites since each tends to have a slightly different emphasis. I do think, however, it would be highly beneficial for atheists and agnostics to read things these people have to say on reliability of the Bible before showing their own lack of study on the topic.

    But just as I read Dawkins through the bias of a Christian filter and automatically call B.S. on most of it, I would certainly expect atheists to read articles on these sites through the bias of an atheist filter. Even so, I think it would help keep atheist and agnostics from making stupid claims about what Christians believe. And you may well find misconceptions on those sites about what atheists and agnostics believe which you would want to attempt to correct.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, perhaps you paraphrased Dawkins instead of directly quoting him.
    Yes, this is what I meant, as a "for the record" deal. I didn't mean that I wasn't echoing Dawkins' sentiments.

    But I still say there is no logic in this thinking. The fact that you cannot prove or disprove the tooth fairy has no bearing on the odds of whether there is a God.
    Oh, definitely not. God doesn't exist because of the improbability of those other things. They're analogous variables, not causal factors. To say that God does not exist because fairies don't would be a non sequitur.

    The way it enhances my argument is merely to demonstrate how saying "you can't prove this does not exist" can still be grounds to make a definite conclusion about said existence. We can't disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, but since we have no evidence of one, we can affirm one way.

    It's more than a mere opinion when it's a statement decided by evidence. Most religious people wouldn't debate that, for a lack of evidence is the point of faith in the first place.

    Meanwhile, I am not sure that extensive reading of William James is going to give you much perspective on today's discussions.
    I don't claim that. I was letting on that I'm not predisposed to automatically discounting a point of view on the opposing side of me.

    And thank you for the recommendations. I'm not, however, impressed with the bit on archaeological discoveries. Every single one of them has been discarded as a legitimate connection to Biblical proof. How many arks of Noah have supposedly been found, now?

    Again, let me know if I missed anything crucial.
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Reidar wrote:

    I'm not, however, impressed with the bit on archaeological discoveries. Every single one of them has been discarded as a legitimate connection to Biblical proof.
    Are you sure you know what you are claiming here? I think just the opposite is true. Below is a link to a general story concerning archeological findings that support the existence of people and places mentioned in the Bible. It includes links to other articles which discuss other findings. I cannot help but wonder what it is you think archeology has uncovered in support of the Bible that has been discarded as providing Biblical proofs.

    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

    Reidar then asks:

    How many arks of Noah have supposedly been found, now?
    This seems to be putting the hat on the other head. You are suggesting that because Noah's Ark has not been found, it is highly probable that it does not exist. And this is after taking great pains to say the lack of evidence for something does not invalidate its possible existence. But, is this not the same argument that anti-evolutionists use in suggesting that because numerous missing links remain missing, they probably do not exist?

    In the case of Noah's Ark, unless it was miraculously preserved by some process -- even fossilization -- it is highly likely that it has decomposed into nothingness by now. So, while I could agree that it is highly unlikely that we will find Noah's Ark, I don't know what that has to do with the things that have been found.

    Has everything in the Bible been verified by archaeology? Certainly not. But there is a huge difference in an unconfirmed report in an historical writing and the unconfirmed conjectures of a theory.

    I suppose you can cling to the idea that unconfirmed mentions of people or places in Bible are problematic. But they are no more or less problematic to Bible accuracy than are the so called missing links in evolution.

    The lack of fossils for the missing links do not cast doubt upon the fossils that have been found. The lack of archaeological confirmation of some things in the Bible does not negate the confirmations which have been made.

    I am surprised that a person who seems to be somewhat knowledgeable, as you seem, is completely unaware of the things in the Bible which were in doubt at some point in time have been subsequently proven to be accurate by archaeology.

    I would sincerely encourage you to do some research in the area of the Bible and archeological even beyond the article which I listed above. Archaeology, as you may realize, is science. I think your statement is born in a serious lack of study in this area. ere you better informed, I think you would realize your seeming suggestion that nothing in archaeology proves anything in the Bible is vastly contrary to fact.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Are you sure you know what you are claiming here? I think just the opposite is true. Below is a link to a general story concerning archeological findings that support the existence of people and places mentioned in the Bible. It includes links to other articles which discuss other findings.
    Looks like circumstantial reasoning to me. They point to archeology that just happens to coincide with something described in scripture - which isn't so far-fetched when you consider that the Bible itself is historically ancient. It's not any different than works of fiction today being set in real-life cities or including actual public figures. I would expect a story taking place in _____ B.C. to reflect the actual times of the day.


    I cannot help but wonder what it is you think archeology has uncovered in support of the Bible that has been discarded as providing Biblical proofs.
    Noah's Ark, the Garden of Eden, the tomb of Jesus, Sodom and Gomorrah, the James Ossuary, etc.

    This seems to be putting the hat on the other head. You are suggesting that because Noah's Ark has not been found, it is highly probable that it does not exist.
    That wasn't what I was saying, although the onus is on it to be found in order for it to be plausible through the doubts that already exist, yes. I was poking fun at the number of times that they've supposedly uncovered Noah's Ark, only to have the news of it fade away from the sensationalism until the next discovery.

    Has everything in the Bible been verified by archaeology? Certainly not. But there is a huge difference in an unconfirmed report in an historical writing and the unconfirmed conjectures of a theory.
    It seems to me that the essential ones - the smoking guns that atheists would otherwise scoff at the existence of - just so happen to be the instances of which there is no evidence of.

    The lack of fossils for the missing links do not cast doubt upon the fossils that have been found. The lack of archaeological confirmation of some things in the Bible does not negate the confirmations which have been made.
    Evolution is a verifiable fact of biology, so missing links are assumed to be just as you described. The Bible's authenticity is the direct opposite of that; indeed, if it weren't, there would be no concept of faith.

    I would sincerely encourage you to do some research in the area of the Bible and archeological even beyond the article which I listed above.
    'Tis a never-ending journey for me.
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Re Reidar's last post:

    In other words, there is no evidence which you will accept as evidence.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    I did say "proof", not mere "evidence". But yes, I already named some of the smoking guns (Noah's Ark, the Garden of Eden, the tomb of Jesus, Sodom and Gomorrah, the James Ossuary) that would certainly be evidential beyond a coinciding observation of what were contemporary settings and names for that time. The ones I suggested have at least some association with the supernatural depictions that make these holy books assuredly fiction. Simply taking note of a historically verified culture or city doesn't provide evidence for the very portions that call for it the most.
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, then, in the same way, providing me with fossil A (reptilian) and fossil G (avian) does not particularly convince me that fossils B, C, D, E and F linking fossil A to fossil G exit.

    Even so, I do not see the word "proof" in any of your posts. In your other post you did speak in terms of evidence:

    It seems to me that the essential ones - the smoking guns that atheists would otherwise scoff at the existence of - just so happen to be the instances of which there is no evidence of.
    Just as it can reasonably be concluded that not all connecting fossils will be uncovered because many of them were either never fossilized or for some reason have not survived (and we have absolutely no evidence that they ever existed), evolution considers the existing ones enough to connect to dots.

    I am not exactly sure how discovering that there really was an Hittite civilization is a fortuitous discovery and can be discounted as a coincidental accident of timing as you earlier suggested. I have no idea what kind of thinking suggests that if the Bible says a person or a place or a group of people existed and archaeologists uncover evidence of such people or find such a place where the Bible says it was, it can be discounted as mere coincidence.

    I suppose the question boils down to when you have a number of claims, what percentage of them must be substantiated to allow one to consider that the unsubstantiated ones may have some credibility? There is evidence numerous places on earth of catastrophic floods and evidence that life has survived them.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman Reidar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27
    It should when physical aspects of the fossil spectrum gradually cohere in a consecutive manner, thereby fitting within the explanation of the evolutionary process.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Even so, I do not see the word "proof" in any of your posts.
    It was my initial statement on archeology: "Every single one of them has been discarded as a legitimate connection to Biblical proof."

    The fossil record doesn't need a 100% completion rate so we can proclaim, "Aha! Evolution finally has merit." The systematic alterations that are observable through consecutively-occurring instances of time provide more than enough plausibility. Of such precision has this proven to be that it would be startling if said missing links eventually turned out to not fit the proposed conjecture, rather than the other way around.

    Biblical relics that would be representative of the most unbelievable, supernatural facets have none of that working in conjunction with them. We don't expect anything of them because there's been no prior evidence for them. The onus is entirely on such a finding to revolutionize the field. On the other side, we have physically observed evolution on the microbial level, such as the development of antibiotic resistances in bacteria, and in the fossil record, like instances of fish that are identical to their predecessors except for having morphed primitive forelimb arrangements similar to amphibian patterns.

    I am not exactly sure how discovering that there really was an Hittite civilization is a fortuitous discovery and can be discounted as a coincidental accident of timing as you earlier suggested.
    Coincidental timing? Certainly not. It's no coincidence that various settings, aspects of culture, and other palpable, real-life components of the appropriate eras are part of its lore.
    A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •