# Reading > Religious Texts >  Adam And Eve, Noah And The Origion Of Man

## kiobe

Before we begin, any posts should be directly related to the thread title. Please be respectful.

Adam and Eve, Noah and the origion of man.

The catholic bible states that Adam and Eve were created aprox. 6,000 years ago in the garden of eden. Mid eastern religious texts place the Garden of Eden in Messopotamia. After the great flood, all that were left on earth were Noah and his family and theologins place the final resting place of the arc, and therefore Noah and his family in the area of what is known today as Turkey. Today, scientists have shown through DNA mapping that humanity seems to have begun in eastern Africa about 50,000 years ago. My question is, are the Old Testiment stories a kind of fable or fact and just where did we origionate from?

----------


## Scheherazade

> The catholic bible states that Adam and Eve were created aprox. *6,00* years ago in the garden of eden.


Who is your fact-checker?  :Biggrin:

----------


## kiobe

> Who is your fact-checker?


LOL, I'm making lotsa mistakes...my wife is stranded about 50 mi from home and I am on and off the phone trying to get her home. :Bawling:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Before we begin, any posts should be directly related to the thread title. Please be respectful.
> 
> Adam and Eve, Noah and the origion of man.
> 
> The catholic bible states that Adam and Eve were created aprox. 6,000 years ago in the garden of eden. Mid eastern religious texts place the Garden of Eden in Messopotamia. After the great flood, all that were left on earth were Noah and his family and theologins place the final resting place of the arc, and therefore Noah and his family in the area of what is known today as Turkey. Today, scientists have shown through DNA mapping that humanity seems to have begun in eastern Africa about 50,000 years ago. My question is, are the Old Testiment stories a kind of fable or fact and just where did we origionate from?


_Fable_ or _fact_ depends upon what the basis of your belief is - how you decide what is real or true. Non-believers will insist this is fable, believer will insist it's fact - because each of us are appealing to a different standard of "reality." I struggle with "tweaking" the biblical numbers so that they coincide with science's claims. For the record (in case this isn't obvious), I think the stories are factual. If the time is wrong (and I am generally suspicious of science's claims in terms of time), that wouldn't change the fact that these people existed. C.S. Lewis once astutely said that the Bible wouldn't pass muster as mythology - it lacks all the proper components of good myth. As well, its "heroes" are all too human to be the characters of fable - most fables contain one/two dimensional characters - the Bible's characters are very, very human.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Before we begin, any posts should be directly related to the thread title. Please be respectful.
> 
> Adam and Eve, Noah and the origion of man.
> 
> The catholic bible states that Adam and Eve were created aprox. 6,000 years ago in the garden of eden. Mid eastern religious texts place the Garden of Eden in Messopotamia. After the great flood, all that were left on earth were Noah and his family and theologins place the final resting place of the arc, and therefore Noah and his family in the area of what is known today as Turkey. Today, scientists have shown through DNA mapping that humanity seems to have begun in eastern Africa about 50,000 years ago. My question is, are the Old Testiment stories a kind of fable or fact and just where did we origionate from?


Since the Bible itself presents two slightly different accounts of the creation of the world (Genesis 1:25-17 vs Genesis 2:18-22), why would anyone take it as anything other than fable, narrated by a fallible human author?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Since the Bible itself presents two slightly different accounts of the creation of the world (Genesis 1:25-17 vs Genesis 2:18-22), why would anyone take it as anything other than fable, narrated by a fallible human author?


You're kidding, right? What in the two accounts contradicts each other in a way that reduces their credibility? Come on - two different war correspondents on different sides of a battle field may give two different accounts of the battle - are they both lying if their accounts don't agree? Chapter one of Genesis gives the _chronological_ narrative of creation; chapter two gives a more _thematic_ narrative. Its the same narrative told in two different ways.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> You're kidding, right? What in the two accounts contradicts each other in a way that reduces their credibility? Come on - two different war correspondents on different sides of a battle field may give two different accounts of the battle - are they both lying if their accounts don't agree? Chapter one of Genesis gives the _chronological_ narrative of creation; chapter two gives a more _thematic_ narrative. Its the same narrative told in two different ways.


One would expect more from God than from a war corresspondent. And the FACTS differ in the two accounts, the chronology.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> One would expect more from God than from a war corresspondent. And the FACTS differ in the two accounts, the chronology.


But you still got the point, right?

There is no chronology contradiction. If you're talking about the apparent contradiction between when plants and humans were created, chapter two deals with the creation of the _Garden of Eden_ - not of all vegetation on the earth. The accounts agree with each other.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> But you still got the point, right?
> 
> There is no chronology contradiction. If you're talking about the apparent contradiction between when plants and humans were created, chapter two deals with the creation of the _Garden of Eden_ - not of all vegetation on the earth. The accounts agree with each other.


Genesis 1: 24 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth..." That would be *THE earth, inclusive of Eden.*

Genesis 1: 25 "And God made...every thing that creepeth upon the earth"

Genesis 2: 19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed..." As Eden was part of the earth and God had already created "every thing that creepeth upon the earth," this would appear to be redundant.

And, again, the chronology differs.

----------


## MaryLupin

I am working from the 3rd edition of The New Oxford Annotated Bible (published by Oxford University Press) and the TaNaKh: A New Translation of The Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (published by The Jewish Publication Society). 

I also have a series of other texts (from a variety of cultural backgrounds) that tell the flood story, but I also know a site TalkOrigins that gives links to many of these stories. I thought that would be easier, since I assume many of you don’t have Mesopotamian and Hopi texts to hand.

(In the Torah Noah’s story begins at 6:9. The Christian version begins in the same place.)

This entry is from TalkOrigins.

The gods had decided to destroy mankind. The god Enlil warned the priest-king Ziusudra ("Long of Life") of the coming flood by speaking to a wall while Ziusudra listened at the side. He was instructed to build a great ship and carry beasts and birds upon it. Violent winds came, and a flood of rain covered the earth for seven days and nights. Then Ziusudra opened a window in the large boat, allowing sunlight to enter, and he prostrated himself before the sun-god Utu. After landing, he sacrificed a sheep and an ox and bowed before Anu and Enlil. For protecting the animals and the seed of mankind, he was granted eternal life and taken to the country of Dilmun, where the sun rises. [Hammerly-Dupuy, p. 56; Heidel, pp. 102-106]

Another site HistoryWiz provides a picture of the Sumerian tablet that carries this particular story. It also gives the summary of the story. It is remarkably like the Noah story in the Christian version of the Torah.

As you can see, flood stories are prevalent. It is a human wide story. One thing that interests me about the Sumerian version is that it is the oldest known version of the story. It is dated (see Encyclopedia Mythica Pantheon.org ) c.2000 BCE. 

Textually this makes the flood story a recurring motif and as such it works exactly like a myth.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Genesis 1: 24 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth..." That would be *THE earth, inclusive of Eden.*
> 
> Genesis 1: 25 "And God made...every thing that creepeth upon the earth"
> 
> Genesis 2: 19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed..." As Eden was part of the earth and God had already created "every thing that creepeth upon the earth," this would appear to be redundant.
> 
> And, again, the chronology differs.


Unconvincing. 

If you've ever seen a garden, I assume you would admit that a garden appears different from the landscape surrounding it. Either way, the Bible makes it clear that ch. 2 is about the creation of Eden. As well, as I have already said, ch. 2 is not intended to be a chronological chapter - it tells many things out of order. The two chapters are not meant to be identical - they are complementary.

----------


## MaryLupin

Here is a neat little table to summarize the different accounts in creation.

"The first creation account is Genesis 1:1 - 2:3, and the second account is Genesis 2:4 - 2:25. If both accounts are interpreted literally, then the sequence of events are not synchronized."

*First Genesis Account* 
Water  
Vegetation 
Sun, Moon, Stars 
Birds and Fish 
Animals and humans (male and female) 

*Second Genesis Account* 
No water (dry land) 
Sun, Moon, Stars 
Male
Animals and vegetation
Female

This is taken from LiteraryGenre

"The Creationists tend to interpret literally the first account and only the latter half of the second account. The real question is, why were there two separate creation accounts? Because there were two neighboring cutlural views regarding how everything came into being. Thus, the Hebrew people had been exposed to two cosmologies during their exile events."

The site goes on to talk about the neighboring creation accounts. It ends with this conclusion

"Conclusion - The Deeper Meaning
The deeper meaning of the Genesis creation accounts is this: the accounts served as a response to the idolatrous and polytheistic impersonal neighboring religions and cosmologies. The authors of these accounts were attempting to distinguish the personal monotheistic Hebrew religion by contrasting the infinite, omnibenevolent, loving God against the impersonal finite deities of the neighboring religions. All this was done with the power of allegory. Thus, the accounts were easy to remember so that they could be passed down through generations so that the Hebrew children would understand that while their neighboring cultures are bowing before statues, they are worshiping a true God who loves them."

I would classify this cultural interpretation. Interestingly, it does not once discuss the truth value of any of the mentioned beliefs.

----------


## Niamh

> Who is your fact-checker?


For once i cant ask this question. I've also heard this before and i think its to Do with a cardinal in hte papal state who calculated how old the world was by going through the cronology of the old Testement. I think it was sometime during the middle ages but i dont know who it was either. When people started to do Archaeology and searching the world for antiquities during the 19th century many of their finding completely contradicted this "the world is only 6,000 years ago" theory of the church.
For example, Newgrange in Ireland, thousands of miles away from Mes- was built almost 6000 years ago around the time the bible believes the world began. The skulls and bones of paleolithic man found by the edges of where the great glaciars of the ice age halted were over 10,000 years old. not to mention the neanderthal. how can this be if the bible tells us otherwise?
For these things alone i believe that _most_  of the old testement is the imaginations very talented people. But _some_ of the old testement can be read as fact. The story of the exodus from Egypt is written in hiroglyphs on one of Ramses temples in Egypt.(with out the parting of seas and staffs turning into snakes stuff).

----------


## Pendragon

Bear with me, this is related to the subject. When God created the heavens and the Earth in Genesis, He divided water from land, what science calls Pangea The Supercontinent. Later, this landmass broke up into the world as we know it today, and that can be scientifically proven. 

Given this, life begining in what we now know as Africa, and in what was called the Garden of Eden, need not clash. The land was all conected at one time. I think we can agree that the time frame of Genesis is not what it seems, and that there is a lot of time unaccounted for at all. 

There is only one creation. The second one is where God makes bodies for the spirits He has created. "Made in His own image" "God is a Spirit". Not this flesh, made of the Earth, but the Spirit.

God Bless.

Pen

----------


## JCamilo

It is not a non-believer thing. The bible here in my house, sponsored by the catholic church states it is a allegorical myth. 
I do not mind what C.S.Lewis said; A Myth is by definition the history of formation of a nation - The Genenis is exactly like this. There is considerable more humanity in Oedipus than in Abraham, Adam, Eve - Anyone would consider that the bible have texts that can be classificated as a myth. 
And the reason of why the story is a myth is not even because they are contraditory - any kid know that there is no vegetation without sunlight, so first story can not be true. And the second story just leave man without food and since we know female and male are equal, with a bit of problem there.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It is not a non-believer thing. The bible here in my house, sponsored by the catholic church states it is a allegorical myth.


Catholics do not speak for all Christians. I personally think that Popes present and prior have given away too much valuable ground by trying to argue rationality with the Naturalists.




> I do not mind what C.S.Lewis said; A Myth is by definition the history of formation of a nation - The Genenis is exactly like this. There is considerable more humanity in Oedipus than in Abraham, Adam, Eve - Anyone would consider that the bible have texts that can be classificated as a myth.


Lewis also said that the incarnation of Christ was where myth became real; in other words, just because different mythologies exist doesn't mean that none of them can be true. Lewis posited that mythologies and pagan religions that echo Christianity and Judaic monotheism were actually imitations/reflections of the one true God; that pre-Christian pagan religions _anticipated_ the incarnation of Christ - not that Christianity "borrowed" from them. As such, the point I'm trying to make (rather badly) is that the fact that the Biblical narrative resembles mythological narratives doesn't necessarily mean that it is one too - it could also mean that other mythological narratives are reflections of the one true story of creation and God.




> And the reason of why the story is a myth is not even because they are contraditory - any kid know that there is no vegetation without sunlight, so first story can not be true. And the second story just leave man without food and since we know female and male are equal, with a bit of problem there.


All celestial bodies are dim reflections/imitations of the true source of light that is provided by the presence of God Himself; His presence IS the embodiment of life force - the sun need not exist when the light of God is present to nourish vegetation. Your final sentence needs to be developed a bit more so that we can understand exactly what your two final points are.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Catholics do not speak for all Christians. I personally think that Popes present and prior have given away too much valuable ground by trying to argue rationality with the Naturalists.
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis also said that the incarnation of Christ was where myth became real; in other words, just because different mythologies exist doesn't mean that none of them can be true. Lewis posited that mythologies and pagan religions that echo Christianity and Judaic monotheism were actually imitations/reflections of the one true God; that pre-Christian pagan religions _anticipated_ the incarnation of Christ - not that Christianity "borrowed" from them. As such, the point I'm trying to make (rather badly) is that the fact that the Biblical narrative resembles mythological narratives doesn't necessarily mean that it is one too - it could also mean that other mythological narratives are reflections of the one true story of creation and God.
> 
> 
> 
> All celestial bodies are dim reflections/imitations of the true source of light that is provided by the presence of God Himself; His presence IS the embodiment of life force - the sun need not exist when the light of God is present to nourish vegetation. Your final sentence needs to be developed a bit more so that we can understand exactly what your two final points are.


You believe, which finally is all that can or need be said. Your CS Lewis quote says more - and different - I think than how you take it. We ALL see by the light of the sun. But to see by the 'light' of Christianity is to see only in a particular way and to exclude everything that is beyond the scope of that illumination.

----------


## NikolaiI

I think the creation story of the bible is a story written by people to explain the existence of the earth and universe. It is similar to Native American creation stories, among others, however, I don't think it was inspired by God. To interpret Genesis literally is like using the bible as a science textbook, which degrades its value for what it is.

Other stories in the old testament might be factual, but I think the ones in which God acts and talks with Man are fable. First there was the universe and stars, then later came the Earth from stardust, came nature and Man. Religion is a thing that we created.

What PrinceMyshkin says about Christianity is true; if we are judging it for truth, then we are judging it for truth. Truth is a concept we measure Christianity by, we don't measure truth by how much Christianity it has in it. If we do it the other way around, then we have conflicts and contradictions.

And about the bible and whether stories are fact or fable, there are some that believe the past is not fixed, any more than the future is. But about the OP, I think Adam and Eve are fable.

Why is there even this thread? The one below it covers allll of the exact same points, ideas, and everything else, and goes on for pages.....

----------


## kiobe

> Why is there even this thread? The one below it covers allll of the exact same points, ideas, and everything else, and goes on for pages.....


Well, this is not supposed to be about evolution, which is the title of the other thread. This, hopefully will be about the origion of man, not the evolution of mankind.

Anthropolgists have shown that after the initial increase in the population of the world that at one point in time there was a devistating decrease in the population and estimates are at about 2,000 people. Is there a correlation between the real decrease in population and the flood story in the bible?

----------


## NikolaiI

> Well, this is not supposed to be about evolution, which is the title of the other thread. This, hopefully will be about the origion of man, not the evolution of mankind.


Ah, you could be correct. Also, I only read the first page of that thread (was in 2004?). Another thing is how alternate topics pop up, and we want to talk about them, like how I spilled water and orange juice on the keyboard yesterday, and took it apart and cleaned it and let it dry outside.  :Wink: 

*{edit}* One of my favourite poems is Hertha, by A.C. Swinburne, forty stanzas of 5 lines each, and some very beautiful ones. It begins with

*I am that which began;
Out of me the years roll;
Out of me God and Man;
I am that which is whole;
God changes, and man, and the source of them bodily; I am the soul.*

But that is hardly the best stanza.  :Wink: 

Oh, and back to and about the thread OP; on the other thread about evolution, one person says that the genesis story doesn't specificy that it is one god; in response to this, isn't that very clear, when it says God created the heavens and Earth? One God, montheistic? 

As my mom taught me, this was an important step for monotheism, as it said that Yahweh was superior to all the polytheistic gods, that ruled this and that or caused this or that, it was greater than them, what they represented, it was in fact greater than the heavens and the earth, since it *created* them. My mom told me that this was one important function of the creation story, to establish monotheism, one God who created everything, as opposed to a lot of little gods running around.

----------


## NikolaiI

You know, I realize people could misquote on here.  :Smile:  That would be interesting...I might correct someone's spelling and grammar sometime.  :Smile: 




> Anthropolgists have shown that after the initial increase in the population of the world that at one point in time there was a devistating decrease in the population and estimates are at about 2,000 people. Is there a correlation between the real decrease in population and the flood story in the bible?


I dunno Kiobe. I remember overhearing something from the TV saying that at one point, they thought there were only 35 people on earth. No source, just the history channel.

I also heard that maybe the flood was not world-wide but only in the mesopotamic area?

----------


## kiobe

> You know, I realize people could misquote on here.  That would be interesting...I might correct someone's spelling and grammar sometime. 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno Kiobe. I remember overhearing something from the TV saying that at one point, they thought there were only 35 people on earth. No source, just the history channel.
> 
> I also heard that maybe the flood was not world-wide but only in the mesopotamic area?


I read the same things. Could it be that the bible stories are imbelished to make a point?

----------


## NikolaiI

> I read the same things. Could it be that the bible stories are imbelished to make a point?


I guess my answer is that if it is true - that the flood did not cover the entire earth as they say in the bible, but only a much smaller area - then no, the two are not correlated. The flood would not have decreased the population of the earth like that. I believe it was an entirely different reason that caused the population to go down to 35.

----------


## kiobe

Didn't Noah say that [he] could see distant mountians? This would be a biblical reference that it was a local flooding and actually not global. If the flooding was local, then the biblical begining of man would be in Messopotamia. We have to give at least some creedence to science as we wouldn't be where we are today without it. So why would the DNA maps show something completely different. A longer timeline and a starting place on a different continent.

----------


## NikolaiI

Messopotamia? I agree that it was probably a local flood, it doesn't make sense that it would be a global flood, for instance; where would the water come from, and where would it go? I think it was local but I think it was recorded as global out of ignorance and transferrence, not out of purposive hyperbole.

What do you mean by longer timeline?

I know this is off-topic, but I wonder, did the writers of the bible know that the earth was round, or did they think it was flat?




> It is not a non-believer thing. .


Of course it's not. That word doesn't mean anything.  :Wink: 




> The bible here in my house, sponsored by the catholic church states it is a allegorical myth. 
> I do not mind what C.S.Lewis said; A Myth is by definition the history of formation of a nation - The Genenis is exactly like this. There is considerable more humanity in Oedipus than in Abraham, Adam, Eve - Anyone would consider that the bible have texts that can be classificated as a myth. 
> And the reason of why the story is a myth is not even because they are contraditory - any kid know that there is no vegetation without sunlight, so first story can not be true. And the second story just leave man without food and since we know female and male are equal, with a bit of problem there.


Hm...




> All celestial bodies are dim reflections/imitations of the true source of light that is provided by the presence of God Himself; His presence IS the embodiment of life force - the sun need not exist when the light of God is present to nourish vegetation.


Can you prove this?  :Wink:

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Of course it's not. That word doesn't mean anything. 
> 
> 
> 
> Hm...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove this?



Whether he can or not there is this by Flannery O'Connor: "Faith has to take in all the other possibilities." A great heroine of mine and a deeply devout Catholic.

----------


## kiobe

> Messopotamia? I agree that it was probably a local flood, it doesn't make sense that it would be a global flood, for instance; where would the water come from, and where would it go? I think it was local but I think it was recorded as global out of ignorance and transferrence, not out of purposive hyperbole.
> 
> What do you mean by longer timeline?
> 
> I know this is off-topic, but I wonder, did the writers of the bible know that the earth was round, or did they think it was flat?


Anthropologists feel that the timeline of humanity is about 50,000 years as opposed to the biblical theroisits that believe it to be close to 6,000. 

The writers referred to the earth as having 4 corners, "the four corners of the earth". This could be a type of a saying or they may have believed that [it] was flat. Aristotle said that it was common knowlege amoung the learned, so we've known for at least 2,500 years.

----------


## Niamh

Your discussion of the flood just made me think of something. Maybe there is something in the flood story. When the glaciars melted at the end of the ice age the water had to go some where. Maybe the flood is just a sujestive reference to rising sea levels at the time? Geology shows that many land masses shrunk because of the glacial melt water. Both britain and Ireland were once part of mainland Europe and became isolated after the Ice Age. Maybe the large glacial mass that covered northern Europe aslo caused problems for contenents close by. It shaped the area of Europe and North africa as we see it today so it is possible to have caused some form of swelling in around israel and Mes-. Just a thought. Have to go and think about that a bit more.....

----------


## kiobe

> Your discussion of the flood just made me think of something. Maybe there is something in the flood story. When the glaciars melted at the end of the ice age the water had to go some where. Maybe the flood is just a sujestive reference to rising sea levels at the time? Geology shows that many land masses shrunk because of the glacial melt water. Both britain and Ireland were once part of mainland Europe and became isolated after the Ice Age. Maybe the large glacial mass that covered northern Europe aslo caused problems for contenents close by. It shaped the area of Europe and North africa as we see it today so it is possible to have caused some form of swelling in around israel and Mes-. Just a thought. Have to go and think about that a bit more.....


Good q. What's the elevation of Iraq? (formerly Messopotamia)

----------


## Pendragon

Well, back in my mountains, there is a place where I can get nice fossils of seashells, so it was once underwater. The problem is, there is only a narrow strip from which the fossils may be harvested. I love the sea, and Cape Hatteras is my favorite vacation spot. I know the Atlantic from Virginia Beach down to Myrtle Beach in SC. I've been on the Eastern Shore of both VA and MD. I know what shells look like, even what the crabs look like and older fossils. I don't know why the narrow strip is there, but it is. Flood drainage? I won't guess without facts. The facts are the fossils are there in a narrow but long strip. The rest, how they got there in such a narrow stip would be guesswork. We have enough of that already.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You believe, which finally is all that can or need be said. Your CS Lewis quote says more - and different - I think than how you take it. We ALL see by the light of the sun. But to see by the 'light' of Christianity is to see only in a particular way and to exclude everything that is beyond the scope of that illumination.


In actuality, I believe that Lewis is correct on two levels:

1. Christianity allows us to "see" the world in a way that takes the random, arbitrary and meaningless aspects of it away and instead replaces these things with a cohesive explanation as to why we're here, how we got here, why the world and human nature is like it is and what the eventual solution to the world's problems shall be.

2. The only rational way to view reality is through the "lens" of God. The illumination of Christianity does not "exclude" anything except that which is false and contrary to the character of God. Non-believers see Christianity as restrictive - but it is only restrictive of that which is harmful, selfish, evil.

And, as far as your comment about how Christianity "sees...only in a particular way...[excluding] that [which is] beyond the scope of its illumination" - tell me: what way of seeing the world doesn't do this? What perspective doesn't exclude and "see" in a paticular fashion?

----------


## spa girl

> I know this is off-topic, but I wonder, did the writers of the bible know that the earth was round, or did they think it was flat?


If god created the earth, wouldn't he know it was round? And since the writers of the bible claim to know what god did, wouldn't they also know it was round?

----------


## spa girl

Also, I see this is a religious thread started by kiobe & contains posts by kiobe AND it's lasted for THREE PAGES without being locked! Is this a record for you, kiobe? Should we be celebrating? :Biggrin:

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> 2. The only rational way to view reality is through the "lens" of God. The illumination of Christianity does not "exclude" anything except that which is false and contrary to the character of God. Non-believers see Christianity as restrictive - but it is only restrictive of that which is harmful, selfish, evil.
> 
> And, as far as your comment about how Christianity "sees...only in a particular way...[excluding] that [which is] beyond the scope of its illumination" - tell me: what way of seeing the world doesn't do this? What perspective doesn't exclude and "see" in a paticular fashion?


Re 2: I recall you saying elsewhere that Catholics do not speak for Christians or Christianity. So there is a Catholic "lens"...and Mormon, Jewish, Muslim &c. lenses.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Re 2: I recall you saying elsewhere that Catholics do not speak for Christians or Christianity. So there is a Catholic "lens"...and Mormon, Jewish, Muslim &c. lenses.


Certainly; but you appear to have missed the point I was trying to make: non-believers possess their own "lenses" (Naturalism being one of the most popular) that are equally prone to _exclude_ and _quantify_. 

Your initial criticism is another variation of the same old song-and-dance atheists often do where they try to make it seem like people who accept Christianity are viewing the world "narrowly" while they - the skeptically "enlightened" - are unencumbered likewise. That is false.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Your initial criticism is another variation of the same old song-and-dance atheists often do where they try to make it seem like people who accept Christianity are viewing the world "narrowly" while they - the skeptically "enlightened" - are unencumbered likewise. That is false.


No. "Atheists" cannot be treated as a uniform, monolithic group. They have no rituals, no process of initiation, no fixed, static text of dubious origin, no heirarchy to pass on or dictate what to believe. They are open to diverse, expanding and testable findings, e.g. astro-physics, molecular and evolutionary biology, neurophysics, chemistry, bio-chemistry &c., as well as to secular and even theological philosophy.

----------


## Derringer

> what way of seeing the world doesn't do this?


Communism. In theory, atleast.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Anthropolgists have shown that after the initial increase in the population of the world that at one point in time there was a devistating decrease in the population and estimates are at about 2,000 people. Is there a correlation between the real decrease in population and the flood story in the bible?


Since you appear to be using this data to support a literalist reading of the text could you please cite your source? The reason I ask is that as an anthropologist I must admit I have never run into any data even close to this in any of the refereed journals I have read over the years.

----------


## Dark Star

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

I'm just going to post that in regards to the issue of 'did a world flood occur'. That should pretty much end the debate and render the story of the world flood as a moral parable.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Oh, and back to and about the thread OP; on the other thread about evolution, one person says that the genesis story doesn't specificy that it is one god; in response to this, isn't that very clear, when it says God created the heavens and Earth? One God, montheistic?


This is a really good question Nikolai. There is a wonderful book called _The History of God_ by Karen Armstrong. In it she details the changes the idea of God has gone through since early Judaism. It clearly shows the development of the idea of God from "the only god that mattered" (i.e. one of many but the most powerful and the only one to which the Jewish people should attend) to "the only God." 

Think of it this way: there is a commandment "you shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:6-21). This piece of text implies there is more than one god. Would you say "don't pay attention to any other sky?" Probably not, because there is only one sky. What Deuteronomy 5:6-21 implies is that "there are many gods but you should never put any of them over Me." It doesn't even say that one of the faithful should not talk to or pray to these other gods it just says that the faithful shouldn't put those other gods ahead of the one contracted with under the Judeo-Christian faith.




> As my mom taught me, this was an important step for monotheism, as it said that Yahweh was superior to all the polytheistic gods, that ruled this and that or caused this or that, it was greater than them, what they represented, it was in fact greater than the heavens and the earth, since it *created* them. My mom told me that this was one important function of the creation story, to establish monotheism, one God who created everything, as opposed to a lot of little gods running around.


Your mother is right to say that one of the functions of the new story of god that develops as Judaism meets its pagan countrymen and women is to establish their god as the most powerful, and eventually as the only "real" god. Armstrong discusses this in her book as well.

Wikipedia has a good article about Karen Armstrong.In it is mentions that she is a Christian, so this is not a case of an atheist trying to beat up on Christianity. Rather, it seems to me, it is a case of a thinking Christian coming to terms with the difference between history and faith and realizing that one can accept the essentially metaphorical nature of the biblical texts and still be a person of faith. Even more importantly, she recognizes that religions change and that they are in fact a function of culture.

----------


## MaryLupin

> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
> 
> I'm just going to post that in regards to the issue of 'did a world flood occur'. That should pretty much end the debate and render the story of the world flood as a moral parable.


Yes. It is a good site isn't it? I think it is very likely that there were enormous floods in human history. There are several well known geologic records of horrendous flooding. In the pacific north west there was an enormous flood when Glacial Lake Missoula broke and created the Channeled Scablands. For the people (the ones who survived) it would have seemed a world devastation, of course, but that doesn't mean it was a world devastation. The fact that there are periodic horrendous flood events that are remembered and quoted in human stories does not mean it was the same event.

For example, Glacial Lake Missoula last flooded the lands out to the Pacific along the Columbia River 12,000 years ago. There are records of repetitive flooding in central Europe from the prehistoric era through the middle ages. There is evidence that there was a massive flood in the arctic circle that may have been responsible for destroying the North American populations of mammoth and other cold-climate creatures. If this is true the date for this event would be about 4,000 years ago. So even though the stories of these events may appear to be of one single event, in fact the evidence suggests that they are of different events.

One thing it does say is that the old theory of gradual geologic change must be amended to include regular catastrophic events that along with gradualism, shape the earth we know.

----------


## MaryLupin

> In actuality, I believe that Lewis is correct on two levels:
> 
> 1. Christianity allows us to "see" the world in a way that takes the random, arbitrary and meaningless aspects of it away and instead replaces these things with a cohesive explanation as to why we're here, how we got here, why the world and human nature is like it is and what the eventual solution to the world's problems shall be.


Yes. That is the purpose of a belief system...to systematize a complex and essentially inhuman world and make it more comfortable for those who don't like complex and essentially inhuman things. All belief systems do the same thing, regardless of whether they are religiously based or not.

The question of whether it allows eventual solutions is another point. All belief systems deal with "solutions." That is they reveal the "end of the story." What this does not say is whether it is accurate. So for example, if there was a belief system that suggested that time will end at the year 1000, then we know that they were inaccurate. That doesn't mean that the belief system itself didn't meet the needs of its people to know the "ending." It did. All that happened when the year 1001 came along was they redid the numbers and came up with a new "end date." They never questioned the fact that maybe the whole theory was wrong. That's the power of a belief system.




> 2. The only rational way to view reality is through the "lens" of God. The illumination of Christianity does not "exclude" anything except that which is false and contrary to the character of God. Non-believers see Christianity as restrictive - but it is only restrictive of that which is harmful, selfish, evil.


Actually there are a number of rational ways to view the world, but it depends on what is taken as evidence. For example, in your quote above it says that Christianity restricts that which is harmful, selfish and evil. If I cite the brutality of the Crusades, would not the murder, theft, and other abominations done by Christians to other Christians and to non-Christians be evidence that in fact Christianity does not restrict those traits? Or is it OK to kill, remove property and other such things if the "enemy" is "not-a-real-Christian?" What evidence will you allow that can be cited to rebuke the statement that Christianity is "only restrictive of that which is harmful, selfish, evil?"




> And, as far as your comment about how Christianity "sees...only in a particular way...[excluding] that [which is] beyond the scope of its illumination" - tell me: what way of seeing the world doesn't do this? What perspective doesn't exclude and "see" in a paticular fashion?


Yes. All belief systems do this. And every human being must see the world through some belief system or another. Our biology makes this a fundamental truth of being human. The difference between belief systems is in how well they enable human societies to function in the world of eating, sleeping, working, having and raising children, etc. (For ease, the "real world".) So if a belief system says (as many Utopian societies did in the 18th and 19th centuries- e.g. Shakers, etc) that the group must remain celibate then eventually the system is going to cave in unless it acts as a viable economic force as do many Buddhist Sanghas. If a belief system says that gravity is a myth and requires its new initiates to jump from a cliff then it will probably have a short life span. All belief systems are not created equal.

The only method we all share to judge the viability of a belief system is how it functions to support the real world where we must all eat, sleep and be comforted. This is the only rational way to judge the viability of a belief system and by that criteria there are many rational belief systems currently in operation on the earth. I say it is the only rational way because with this system all humans, regardless of beliefs about a non-corporeal world, share the corporeal world. We all have real world needs, but not all of us share the non-corporeal world. So since only the real world is fully shared then it is the only reasonable basis for human comparison.


But back to the text at hand...by this criteria, does a literalist reading of the Christian form of the Bible lead to a rational belief system?

----------


## MaryLupin

> Also, I see this is a religious thread started by kiobe & contains posts by kiobe AND it's lasted for THREE PAGES without being locked! Is this a record for you, kiobe? Should we be celebrating?


You are one funny girl! I like you. I'll finish my glass of wine in honor of this achievement? You?

----------


## MaryLupin

> Certainly; but you appear to have missed the point I was trying to make: non-believers possess their own "lenses" (Naturalism being one of the most popular) that are equally prone to _exclude_ and _quantify_. 
> 
> Your initial criticism is another variation of the same old song-and-dance atheists often do where they try to make it seem like people who accept Christianity are viewing the world "narrowly" while they - the skeptically "enlightened" - are unencumbered likewise. That is false.


Re: belief systems...see post 42 above. Not all belief systems are created equal.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Yes. That is the purpose of a belief system...to systematize a complex and essentially inhuman world and make it more comfortable for those who don't like complex and essentially inhuman things. All belief systems do the same thing, regardless of whether they are religiously based or not.


By contrast with the sometimes shrill tone and the personal venom in some of my own posts and those of a couple of the believers, what I derive from the whole of this post and others by you, is instruction in the civility of reason. Goethe wrote of love that it is "The politeness of the heart." 

What you appear to me demonstrate is a mind that loves and a heart that reasons.

----------


## Niamh

> Good q. What's the elevation of Iraq? (formerly Messopotamia)



I looked this up on the internet. It is a topographic image of Iraq. As you can see there is quite a large blue area which is the Alluvial plain. If i remember correctly from college, the blue indecates land that is barely above sea level. If the great flood did really happen then all of this land would have been under water. Geologically the topographical map above could actually admit this. the north of Iraq is mountainous so it culd also be possible that if the water levels had risen to quite a height a boat may have found itself stuck on some kind of out crop of a hill if the "tide" went out. So there could be some kind of truth to the Great flood story. As for all the animals in and ark... i think thats an exageration of what really happened told by word of mouth for hundreds(or thousands) of years.
Hope thats what you were looking for Kiobe!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No. "Atheists" cannot be treated as a uniform, monolithic group. They have no rituals, no process of initiation, no fixed, static text of dubious origin, no heirarchy to pass on or dictate what to believe. They are open to diverse, expanding and testable findings, e.g. astro-physics, molecular and evolutionary biology, neurophysics, chemistry, bio-chemistry &c., as well as to secular and even theological philosophy.


Christians are often treated as a uniform, monolithic group. Despite differences (on both sides of the fence), there are certain consistencies. And, despite your listing, atheists aren't "open" to the reality of a spiritual component of reality - so they're not as "open" as they like to fancy.




> Communism. In theory, atleast.


No - Communism entails quantifying and exculsion, just like every other viewpoint. Communism is a socio-political system that incorporates materialism/naturalism as a part of its overall world-view.




> Yes. That is the purpose of a belief system...to systematize a complex and essentially inhuman world and make it more comfortable for those who don't like complex and essentially inhuman things. All belief systems do the same thing, regardless of whether they are religiously based or not.


Belief systems are not simply "blankies" that scared children cling to - as your wording very subtly implies. Sometimes those systems are based on the reality in front of the believer. You make assumptions about the motivations of believers that minimize the value of these belief systems - as if those who reject belief systems (impossible to do, by the way) are superior in some way.




> The question of whether it allows eventual solutions is another point. All belief systems deal with "solutions." That is they reveal the "end of the story." What this does not say is whether it is accurate. So for example, if there was a belief system that suggested that time will end at the year 1000, then we know that they were inaccurate. That doesn't mean that the belief system itself didn't meet the needs of its people to know the "ending." It did. All that happened when the year 1001 came along was they redid the numbers and came up with a new "end date." They never questioned the fact that maybe the whole theory was wrong. That's the power of a belief system.


OK.




> Actually there are a number of rational ways to view the world, but it depends on what is taken as evidence. For example, in your quote above it says that Christianity restricts that which is harmful, selfish and evil. If I cite the brutality of the Crusades, would not the murder, theft, and other abominations done by Christians to other Christians and to non-Christians be evidence that in fact Christianity does not restrict those traits? Or is it OK to kill, remove property and other such things if the "enemy" is "not-a-real-Christian?" What evidence will you allow that can be cited to rebuke the statement that Christianity is "only restrictive of that which is harmful, selfish, evil?"


Here we go again - the standard attack: the Crusades. Mind finding something _after_ the 12th century to support your attack? When I speak of "Christianity" I speak of its theological points - not the human abuses enacted in (misguided) behalf of it. Try to cite something equivalent that occurred after, say, 1900. Thanks.





> Yes. All belief systems do this. And every human being must see the world through some belief system or another. Our biology makes this a fundamental truth of being human. The difference between belief systems is in how well they enable human societies to function in the world of eating, sleeping, working, having and raising children, etc. (For ease, the "real world".) So if a belief system says (as many Utopian societies did in the 18th and 19th centuries- e.g. Shakers, etc) that the group must remain celibate then eventually the system is going to cave in unless it acts as a viable economic force as do many Buddhist Sanghas. If a belief system says that gravity is a myth and requires its new initiates to jump from a cliff then it will probably have a short life span. All belief systems are not created equal.


Right: some are right, some partially so, some completely wrong.




> The only method we all share to judge the viability of a belief system is how it functions to support the real world where we must all eat, sleep and be comforted. This is the only rational way to judge the viability of a belief system and by that criteria there are many rational belief systems currently in operation on the earth. I say it is the only rational way because with this system all humans, regardless of beliefs about a non-corporeal world, share the corporeal world. We all have real world needs, but not all of us share the non-corporeal world. So since only the real world is fully shared then it is the only reasonable basis for human comparison.
> 
> 
> But back to the text at hand...by this criteria, does a literalist reading of the Christian form of the Bible lead to a rational belief system?


"Rational" is the word that really needs examining. "Rational" in terms of human logic or divine logic?

----------


## NikolaiI

I have a lot of things to say to your posts.




> Christians are often treated as a uniform, monolithic group. Despite differences (on both sides of the fence), there are certain consistencies. And, despite your listing, atheists aren't "open" to the reality of a spiritual component of reality - so they're not as "open" as they like to fancy.


I would disagree with this. I think almost everyone would. First of all, open or not open has nothing to do with it. And as an atheist, who considers terms such as atheist, theist, to be irrelevent in the extreme, and not meaningful, to say the least - I believe in a spiritual component to reality, in fact, I am closed to the idea that there is not. There is such thing as metaphysical, and let me tell you, there _are_ metaphysical philosopher atheists...please, don't forget to reply to this, I am curious as to what you really think.




> No - Communism entails quantifying and exculsion, just like every other viewpoint. Communism is a socio-political system that incorporates materialism/naturalism as a part of its overall world-view.


I am not an expert on communism, but this is politics, as is something else I will reply to a little further down the page. There are communists that believe all sorts of thing, and atheism is not a necessary component of communism. Am I correct?




> Belief systems are not simply "blankies" that scared children cling to - as your wording very subtly implies. Sometimes those systems are based on the reality in front of the believer. You make assumptions about the motivations of believers that minimize the value of these belief systems - as if those who reject belief systems (impossible to do, by the way) are superior in some way.


I apologize if I am inocorectly speaking for Mary, but I wanted to reply to this. Her wording didn't imply this at all. She said a belief system - or ontology - is how we assemble information and understand the world, or systematize, and is how we understand this information, and allows us to act in the world. Logic is one such ontology, language is another. It is for everyone, not just scared children, Redzeppelin. Considering she also said "Our biology makes this a fundamental truth of being human", I think she is on the same page with you about it being impossible to reject belief systems, and you don't need to tell her this.




> Here we go again - the standard attack: the Crusades. Mind finding something _after_ the 12th century to support your attack? When I speak of "Christianity" I speak of its theological points - not the human abuses enacted in (misguided) behalf of it. Try to cite something equivalent that occurred after, say, 1900. Thanks.


That would be politics, and I could find examples very quickly for you, but its not as important as some other things, and really your post has opened up about five different debates on different subjects, so the less the better. We can't argue five different debates on the same thread.




> Right: some are right, some partially so, some completely wrong. "Rational" is the word that really needs examining. "Rational" in terms of human logic or divine logic?



Should I say here that I think everything you believe is wrong? It would be appropriate after the first paragraph of your post. I would say that you have never thought to question what you were taught, when in fact everything you were taught was wrong. Christianity is not sole truth, we do not measure truth by Christianity. If there even is such a concept of truth - if any concept has relation to reality, then yes, truth would be the first, and the dichotomy between truth and falseness is how we structure everything - what is good and true, well there might be goodness and truth in christianity, but they are not limited to it at all - consider other religions, ontologies, maps for the world, for instance Buddhist ontology. I mean it, consider it, look it up or something. Instead, you believe in an ontology that is virtually completely wrong, one that does not hold up to critical analysis, in fact grew and developed out of millenia of psychosis (if we consider psychosis to mean, by its psychological definition, the lack of empathy). 

It is true that this last paragraph has been an almost complete imitation of things I've seen you say before - wrong, wrong, wrong. You've got it all wrong. But that is how I feel. And I hope you don't think...I don't like you, or something, because I don't know you. I never meant for this to be personal, so if you feel that everything I've said has been wrong, feel free to say it. Really, say anything you want, as long as it is interesting.

----------


## kiobe

> I looked this up on the internet. It is a topographic image of Iraq. As you can see there is quite a large blue area which is the Alluvial plain. If i remember correctly from college, the blue indecates land that is barely above sea level. If the great flood did really happen then all of this land would have been under water. Geologically the topographical map above could actually admit this. the north of Iraq is mountainous so it culd also be possible that if the water levels had risen to quite a height a boat may have found itself stuck on some kind of out crop of a hill if the "tide" went out. So there could be some kind of truth to the Great flood story. As for all the animals in and ark... i think thats an exageration of what really happened told by word of mouth for hundreds(or thousands) of years.
> Hope thats what you were looking for Kiobe!


I am going to estimate that the elevation at Bagdad is somewhere around 65 feet. The Tigres and Euphrates rivers are very slow moving rivers and travel a relatively short distance. The two rivers originate in the in the Mt. Ararat region of Turkey, where by the way theologists believe the Arc set down. With Ethiopia being a short float through the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman to the Gulf of Aden and there being the place of origion as anthropoligists believe. Is that a possibility?

----------


## MaryLupin

> I am not an expert on communism, but this is politics, as is something else I will reply to a little further down the page. There are communists that believe all sorts of thing, and atheism is not a necessary component of communism. Am I correct?


Most communists tend to be focused on the material world because they are concerned with human equality and the equal distribution of necessary goods and access to power that are required if humans are to actual live as equals in any real way. However, having said that communism is defined as 
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

American Heritage Dictionary. 

Nothing here requires a person dedicated to the idea of such an economy be any particular brand of faith.





> I apologize if I am inocorectly speaking for Mary, but I wanted to reply to this. Her wording didn't imply this at all. She said a belief system - or ontology - is how we assemble information and understand the world, or systematize, and is how we understand this information, and allows us to act in the world. Logic is one such ontology, language is another. It is for everyone, not just scared children, Redzeppelin. Considering she also said "Our biology makes this a fundamental truth of being human", I think she is on the same page with you about it being impossible to reject belief systems, and you don't need to tell her this.


Thank you for your careful reading. Indeed the clue to the universality of my statement was "our biology." Since I am a biological entity, I therefore include myself in that statement.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Belief systems are not simply "blankies" that scared children cling to - as your wording very subtly implies. Sometimes those systems are based on the reality in front of the believer. You make assumptions about the motivations of believers that minimize the value of these belief systems - as if those who reject belief systems (impossible to do, by the way) are superior in some way.


Nikolai handled this one nicely.





> Here we go again - the standard attack: the Crusades. Mind finding something _after_ the 12th century to support your attack?


You probably didn't realize this but my home in the US is an Indian Reservation. I have more Native kin than white, but I have both. How many books/articles etc. would you like to read about Christian atrocities with respect to Native American peoples? And that is just the northern Protestant based Christians. That first list doesn't touch what the Catholics did in Central and South America. And of course that is just the Americas. There are long lists of similar behaviors (by missionaries for example) in every single indigenous homeland they have "visited." And lest you think this is over, it isn't I am afraid.




> When I speak of "Christianity" I speak of its theological points - not the human abuses enacted in (misguided) behalf of it.


Let me please get this clear. Are you saying Christianity is something other than the lives of Christians? Are you saying that we must judge the value of Christianity by something other than how its adherents comport themselves in the world they share with others? 





> "Rational" is the word that really needs examining. "Rational" in terms of human logic or divine logic?


Reason, at its base, rests on shared assumptions about the nature of the shared world. Since all humans share the biological impulses/needs for comfort, food, shelter, communication, love, ecstasy, connection etc, it is the broadest possible basis for shared assumptions. A belief in God or a disbelief in a divine principle cannot possibly match this. So to base our shared assumptions (the basis for what is to be considered rational) on something that only a minority of people can share is unreasonable. Unless...unless you believe that only some people deserve inclusion.

Also you didn't address my last question. Going back to the text at hand...based on an all-inclusive basis of shared needs and assumptions, does a literalist reading of the Christian form of the Bible lead to a rational belief system?

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

Every race/belief has been attacked. Even Catholics themselves have been persecuted...and I stongly believe that the ways of missionaries have changed. Not only that, not every missionary treated natives of countries in a horrible way. Plus a lot of it in Latin America had to do with the Conquestadors, not so much religious men.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Every race/belief has been attacked. Even Catholics themselves have been persecuted...


Yes this is true. To attack others, to persecute those who have less power, these are human traits. When one group gains power over another it is inevitable that the greater power will be used to coerce. No group in human history has avoided this because it is a function of what and who we are as human creatures. Again, it is a function of our biology.




> and I stongly believe that the ways of missionaries have changed.


Does this mean you recognize that missionizing was problematic?




> Not only that, not every missionary treated natives of countries in a horrible way.


Yes, in all bad situations there is always something good. Even in the worst excesses of our shared history, the various concentration camps in the world, the massacres of one group by another, the torture prisons, etc., there is sometimes a person who helps, who has compassion. There are never whole groups of people who are evil. There is always someone who stands up for the rights of others. This is also a function of what and who we are as human animals.

The one big, in fact inescapable, problem is that the whole purpose of a mission is to change their hosts from what they are to what the missionaries think they should be. That, in its very essence, is disrespectful. 

Let me give you an example: think of a belief system that you personally abhor. Imagine for a moment a whole group of them come into your house, set up house and go about trying to convince you and your loved ones that the things you hold dear are all wrong, in fact, try to convince you that if you don't start agreeing with them you will start to suffer. You see these new people go after your friends, your children, and one by one the weak and the vulnerable are taken away from you and everything you have ever known is destroyed and made as nothing. 





> Plus a lot of it in Latin America had to do with the Conquestadors, not so much religious men.


There is quite a bit of good history about the role of the Protestant and Catholic churches and how they played a part in what happened to the indigenous people in the Americas. But very briefly, the first decision the churches had to make was whether these people were human, that is did they have souls. The Catholics decided yes they did. The reason was that this meant that they now had a mission to convert them. It was understood that this meant by force if necessary. So yes there was a military presence, but it was a military that worked at the behest of the church. 

By the way, early on the Protestant decision was that they (the natives) had no souls. This enabled slavery. One can own an animal but not a human being, so the decision made it morally OK to try and use natives as free labor. Again, politics, economics and religion were all mixed up together. Religious doctrine was used to support economic and political agendas. This history is one of the reasons why it is so important to maintain a separation between church and state.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Yes this is true. To attack others, to persecute those who have less power, these are human traits. When one group gains power over another it is inevitable that the greater power will be used to coerce. No group in human history has avoided this because it is a function of what and who we are as human creatures. Again, it is a function of our biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean you recognize that missionizing was problematic?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in all bad situations there is always something good. Even in the worst excesses of our shared history, the various concentration camps in the world, the massacres of one group by another, the torture prisons, etc., there is sometimes a person who helps, who has compassion. There are never whole groups of people who are evil. There is always someone who stands up for the rights of others. This is also a function of what and who we are as human animals.
> ...


It occurs to me that the whole of your posts, taken together, are a paean to impartial human reason, a song of encouragement to the collective human soul that has been struggling for millennia to be born, and which manifests itself in part at times in people like Nelson Mandela or Muhammad Yunus...

I read with interest your well-informed responses but am comforted most of all by the tone, a tone without animus or ego.

----------


## dzebra

> Let me please get this clear. Are you saying Christianity is something other than the lives of Christians? Are you saying that we must judge the value of Christianity by something other than how its adherents comport themselves in the world they share with others?


A similarity can be drawn between this and the Muslim terrorist attacks. The Muslims who are terrorists are very extreme and don't abide by all the teachings of Islam (Islam promotes peace strongly). Just because someone claims the name "Muslim" or "Christian" doesn't mean they are adherents. Adherents would act as the doctrines instruct.





> Reason, at its base, rests on shared assumptions about the nature of the shared world. Since all humans share the biological impulses/needs for comfort, food, shelter, communication, love, ecstasy, connection etc, it is the broadest possible basis for shared assumptions. A belief in God or a disbelief in a divine principle cannot possibly match this. So to base our shared assumptions (the basis for what is to be considered rational) on something that only a minority of people can share is unreasonable. Unless...unless you believe that only some people deserve inclusion.


I'm not sure what your main point is in this, but I'll respond to what I think it is. If your point is that Christianity is unreasonable because only a minority of people may be included, then I disagree on the basis of the nature of Christianity, which is the inclusion of all who want to be included.




> Also you didn't address my last question. Going back to the text at hand...based on an all-inclusive basis of shared needs and assumptions, does a literalist reading of the Christian form of the Bible lead to a rational belief system?


I would say yes, if a person reads the Bible and takes everything as literal (excluding the obviously figurative things, like parables and poetry and the like) then there is a logical resulting rational belief.

----------


## Niamh

> I am going to estimate that the elevation at Bagdad is somewhere around 65 feet. The Tigres and Euphrates rivers are very slow moving rivers and travel a relatively short distance. The two rivers originate in the in the Mt. Ararat region of Turkey, where by the way theologists believe the Arc set down. With Ethiopia being a short float through the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman to the Gulf of Aden and there being the place of origion as anthropoligists believe. Is that a possibility?


I think thats basiclly what i was thinking and posted but with out the mumbo jumbo geological and geographic stuff i wrote. The blue area in the Topographical map is the plain of the Tigres and Euphrates rivers. It apears to be quite flat and at sea level or almost below it. May have even been a large lake or part of the sea at one point. So if you agree with me, then there is quite possibly some evidence that there WAS at least a large expanse of water covering most of the middle and southern parts of Mes-, making it quite possible that there could have been a flood. :Thumbs Up:

----------


## MaryLupin

> I would say yes, if a person reads the Bible and takes everything as literal (excluding the obviously figurative things, like parables and poetry and the like) then there is a logical resulting rational belief.


Hey dzebra,

I am only going to respond to this part of your post for tonight. I feel rather poorly today. So I'll get back to your other points tomorrow.

The first thing is what are the criteria for judging what is "obviously figurative?" What this implies is that a literalist can pick and choose which parts of the text to obey and which not. This, by definition, is not a literalist reading. It is a selective reading based on some criteria or rule which is not specified. In some groups the unspecified rule is literally "what the preacher tells me to believe." In others it is more systematized but nevertheless there is a rule that guides which passages are to be considered literally true and which are to be considered figurative. As you can imagine these underlying rules differ vastly through time and across cultures and classes. So what I would like to determine is what is the base rule by which you are assessing what is figurative and what is not.

Second, lets look at how manageable (reasonable) a belief system and guide to behavior can be achieved by comparing a couple of passages from the King James version of the Bible.

The first passage is from Deuteronomy 18:10-12. It says "There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things [are] an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee."

The same passage found in another version of the Bible says: "Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming."

This is from theNew Advent Bible. Depending on translation, the same text can be read as "drive them out" or "kill them." 

Then there is Exodus 22:18 which says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" at least that is the rendition in the King James Bible. There are many other translations in different versions of the Bible. For a listing of just this section see this site.

OK. So now, how to construct a belief system when you don't know if to shove them out of your country or kill them all? Because the Bible says both.

Next, here is one more passage. It reads:

"Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13

So apart from the problem of interpretation of the literal meaning of a single passage there are conflicting messages. In one place it says to kill in another it says one must not kill. It is not possible to do both. Therefore it is not possible to construct a behavioral/belief system based on a purely literal reading of the Bible. This is why those who try to do this must simply ignore certain aspects of the Bible, either by only following one testament or another or by saying "well this passage is only meant figuratively."

Of course I agree with you that much of what is in the Bible was not meant literally but my point is not really that. It is that it is impossible to construct a viable behavioral/belief system from the Bible without leaving something out.

Lastly, if you take the "suffer not a witch to live" passage as a guide to behavior, would you want to live in a society where you might get hung because your neighbor's cow stopped giving milk? (An actual case.)

----------


## Virgil

> I would disagree with this. I think almost everyone would. First of all, open or not open has nothing to do with it. And as an atheist, who considers terms such as atheist, theist, to be irrelevent in the extreme, and not meaningful, to say the least - I believe in a spiritual component to reality, in fact, I am closed to the idea that there is not. There is such thing as metaphysical, and let me tell you, there _are_ metaphysical philosopher atheists...please, don't forget to reply to this, I am curious as to what you really think.


I cannot conceptualize how atheism could incorporate any spiritualism within its formulation of reality. Can you please explain that because as far as I can tell they are mutually exclusive. And which philosophers are "metaphysical atheist?"

----------


## MaryLupin

> Anthropolgists have shown that after the initial increase in the population of the world that at one point in time there was a devistating decrease in the population and estimates are at about 2,000 people. Is there a correlation between the real decrease in population and the flood story in the bible?


To repeat myself:

Where did this figure come from? Since you are using it to support a literalist reading of Genesis it is an important piece of data. You are using something that implies scientific objectivity (i.e. "Anthropologists have shown...) to support the truth value of Genesis. Please let us know where the data came from so we can explore its value for ourselves.

----------


## MaryLupin

> I cannot conceptualize how atheism could incorporate any spiritualism within its formulation of reality. Can you please explain that because as far as I can tell they are mutually exclusive. And which philosophers are "metaphysical atheist?"


I look forward to Nikolai's response but here is a tidbit from me:

For the athiests that I know who practice spiritually, they realize that states of awareness such as awe, reverence and joy are biologically based functions. As such they are a part of our evolutionary history and future. They are not to be despised but explored and developed as an integral part of what it means to live as a human being. What these people I know say is that limiting these abilities (say the experience of satori or ecstatic awe) to a single proscribed meaning and/or source (such as a god or goddess) limits our ability to learn from and make use of these abilities. By being open to the idea that we don't know where these gifts come from or what they are for, by being open to the possibility that these abilities may not come from anywhere, nor have any intrinsic for-ness, we actually do the gift more honor than the person who thinks s/he knows what it all means.

One good philosopher to read in this general area is Alasdair MacIntyre. He has a book called _Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues._

Finally, did you know that there are atheist mystics?

----------


## Virgil

> For the athiests that I know who practice spiritually, they realize that states of awareness such as awe, reverence and joy are biologically based functions.


Yes, but so do Christians, Jews, and probably every religion. Unless you deny that any physical reality exists (Bishop Berkeley immaterialism, for instance), then these are natural emotions. They are not necessarily linked to spirituality. Nicolai mentions "metaphysics" and that strikes me as completely inconguent with atheism. When he combines the words spirituality and metaphysics he is implying something beyond the physical world. 




> As such they are a part of our evolutionary history and future. They are not to be despised but explored and developed as an integral part of what it means to live as a human being. What these people I know say is that limiting these abilities (say the experience of satori or ecstatic awe) to a single proscribed meaning and/or source (such as a god or goddess) limits our ability to learn from and make use of these abilities. By being open to the idea that we don't know where these gifts come from or what they are for, by being open to the possibility that these abilities may not come from anywhere, nor have any intrinsic for-ness, we actually do the gift more honor than the person who thinks s/he knows what it all means.


But an atheist if he were consistent would have to ommit certain solutions, spiritualism for instance, as to where these gifts come from.




> One good philosopher to read in this general area is Alasdair MacIntyre. He has a book called _Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues._


I have come across his name in some reading which I now don't recall. I remember looking him up once but like many things, it has failed to be caught in that web inside my brain.  :Wink:  All I mean to say is I don't remember.  :FRlol:  I'm no expert in philosophy. Actually I'm not even a fan of philosophy for the most part. 




> Finally, did you know that there are atheist mystics?


There can be lots of things, but are they philosophically consistent? To me that sounds like cognitive dissonance.

Hey Mary, I think we got off on the wrong foot with each other, but as long as we avoid our politics, I think we can be friends.  :Smile:

----------


## MaryLupin

> Yes, but so do Christians, Jews, and probably every religion. Unless you deny that any physical reality exists (Bishop Berkeley immaterialism, for instance), then these are natural emotions. They are not necessarily linked to spirituality. Nicolai mentions "metaphysics" and that strikes me as completely inconguent with atheism. When he combines the words spirituality and metaphysics he is implying something beyond the physical world.


Metaphysics is the philosophical discipline that studies 1) first principles (i.e. ontology) and 2) the nature of reality. Spirituality is, in essence, the pursuit of what is experienced as incorporeal in nature. (Note: just because something is experienced as incorporeal doesn't mean it is.) A mystic is someone obsessed/possessed by the pursuit of this kind of feeling/experience. Nothing in any of these definitions requires one to resort to another dimension (divine or otherwise.) Reality could be such that the material (i.e. our biology) creates the sensation of ecstatic awe (the most profoundly mystical experience of which I know). In this case a metaphysical philosopher can look for first causes without ever resorting to a world independent of physical reality.

The fact that most metaphysical philosophers have resorted to some sort of god-dimension says more for the power of culture-story than it says about the logical need of such a postulated dimension.




> But an atheist if he were consistent would have to ommit certain solutions, spiritualism for instance, as to where these gifts come from.


These "gifts" may just be effects of our developing cerebral structure and patterns of organization. They might not come from anywhere, but just be an outgrowth of our biological development--an emergent property as it were.





> There can be lots of things, but are they philosophically consistent? To me that sounds like cognitive dissonance.


There is a book called _Ecstasy in Secular and Religious Experiences_ by Marghanita Laski that recounts the different experiences of spiritual ecstasy by religious and nonreligious persons. It is a *very* interesting book.

----------


## Virgil

OK, Mary, I understand what you're saying, and i can now envision a mystical atheist. However, I'm still skeptical about a metaphysical atheist. As you seem to define mysticism, it does not equate to metaphysics. Once you introduce the notion of metaphysics (a reality outside the physical world), it seems to me you have let the camel's nose in under the tent and will ultimately under philosophic (dialectic scrutiny) debate have to accept some sort of deism (even with untraditional notions) to explain metaphysical reality. Plato was certainly skeptical of the religion of his day, and yet once he was on a philosophic path of metaphysical dualism wound up with deistic interpretation of the world. I am no philosopher to perform such a debate here, nor do I have the passion. But it would be interesting.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I cannot conceptualize how atheism could incorporate any spiritualism within its formulation of reality. Can you please explain that because as far as I can tell they are mutually exclusive. And which philosophers are "metaphysical atheist?"


It's very simple. An atheist believes that there is no God or Gods, but that does not mean there are not forces of love, friendship and...positive spiritual connections, or something like that...I think these things do exist, I just think they point to a natural law, something like gravity that is invisible, and not to the Christian God, or any other god for that matter.

Others say that atheism and pantheism are identical. That's a whole other issue, but there are those who say that they are identical.

Spiritualism and spiritual are not the same thing. M-w.com has five definitions for spiritual:

1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL <spiritual needs>
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3 : concerned with religious values
4 : related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : SPIRITUALISTIC 

And only the fifth definition fully excludes atheism, if even it does. And don't forget that there are religions that are considered atheist, for instance some say Buddhism is. 

I hope this helps? What do you think about it after having read this?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> It's very simple. An atheist believes that there is no God or Gods, but that does not mean there are not forces of love, friendship and...positive spiritual connections, or something like that...I think these things do exist, I just think they point to a natural law, something like gravity that is invisible, and not to the Christian God, or any other god for that matter.
> 
> Others say that atheism and pantheism are identical. That's a whole other issue, but there are those who say that they are identical.
> 
> Spiritualism and spiritual are not the same thing. M-w.com has five definitions for spiritual:
> 
> 1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL <spiritual needs>
> 2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
> 3 : concerned with religious values
> ...


My own atheism or what I would prefer to call "scepticism," "state of wondering," in its negative attribute is a revulsion from the very detailed, fanatically adhered-to God(s) of the various established religions. Albeit Christians often speak of the "mystery of God," it seems to me that there is more obfuscation and contradiction in their concept of THE God than there is genuine mystery. 

My faith - if one would call it that - is in the possibly never to be resolved mystery of human consciousness and of the staggering complexities of the cosmos and the sub-particular world. It seems to me that in a state of _wondering, awe and not-knowing_, I am as close to knowing as I will ever get.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Yes, but so do Christians, Jews, and probably every religion. Unless you deny that any physical reality exists (Bishop Berkeley immaterialism, for instance), then these are natural emotions. They are not necessarily linked to spirituality. Nicolai mentions "metaphysics" and that strikes me as completely inconguent with atheism. When he combines the words spirituality and metaphysics he is implying something beyond the physical world. 
> 
> 
> But an atheist if he were consistent would have to ommit certain solutions, spiritualism for instance, as to where these gifts come from.
> 
> 
> I have come across his name in some reading which I now don't recall. I remember looking him up once but like many things, it has failed to be caught in that web inside my brain.  All I mean to say is I don't remember.  I'm no expert in philosophy. Actually I'm not even a fan of philosophy for the most part. 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, it seems that Mary addressed these, and again, spirituality is nothing similar to spiritualism. Spiritualism is about supernatural phenomena, ghosts, or spirits, spirituality is about spiritual health, mental and emotional health and that kind of thing. I don't really like the term spiritual, myself.

I don't really know what is the difference between the physical or corperal and non-corpereal, man. I think ideas that we have in our minds are non-corpereal, I think consciousness is non-corpereal, although it is shown that consciousness is actually an illusion, and we make decisions before we think we decide them. Also consciousness is based on the physical reality of electricity in our brains, and all that...so I don't know; but I do believe in connections such as friendship and love that are non-corpereal and that is what I would describe as metaphysical or spiritual, as well as one's connection to the universe as a whole. That's also what mystical is. So I consider metaphysical to be our non-physical connection to the world. Conscioussness, love, I think these things exist and are real, I just don't think Christianity has a claim to them.

As for metaphysical atheism, I know nothing about it, though it seems I didn't make it up. Google comes up with 650,000 hits.  :Smile:  I'd rather not read them all, or any for that matter, but I would like to continue this discussion though I don't need to be right. Walt Whitman has a poem called the "Base of all Metaphysics" where he says the base of all metaphysics is the dear love of man for his comrade, the attraction of friend to friend, etc. http://www.bartleby.com/142/42.html

One more thing about physical and non-physical, is that by the existence of the physical it creates the non-physical. Something and nothing. Also, everything in the world is connected physically, so if I wave my hand it affects everything, if that makes any sense.

----------


## Pendragon

I read through the last two pages with growing interest, and then realized I couldn't remember which thread I was on! I don't want to see this one locked, as it is very informative and interesting. So remember from time to time to tie your statements into the original crux of the thread. That way, we may perhaps pursue the current exchange of information without fear of an "off topic" lock down. 

Mary, I think, brought up that the Catholics decided the Native people had souls, and their job was to convert them. This is true, but if they wouldnt convert, they had no problem with disposing of them as heretics.

The Protestants indeed did decide that Natives had no soul. They took this from Genesis, where Cain was marked for killing his brother. They proclaim that mark was to make him a man of color. What they seemed to forget was that Jesus was a Jew, not a white man. This enabled them to justify slavery.

A good question would be: what race were Adam and Eve, other than human? If we all descended from the original two, different races of man appearing because of evolution, what did the original look like? People never think it through sometimes. Its called prejudice. 

And Mary, my great-grandfather was a full-blood member of the Cherokee Nation, and they recognize his descendents even down to me. I also have Cherokee and Afro-American blood from my mothers side of the family. I am ashamed of none of it. Its who I am.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> What they seemed to forget was that Jesus was a Jew, *not a white man.*


(Emphasis added)

*Ouch!*
Not that I especially care to be considered a "white man" except that in the minds of some, "white man" is surely synonymous with "man/person &c."

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I would disagree with this. I think almost everyone would. First of all, open or not open has nothing to do with it. And as an atheist, who considers terms such as atheist, theist, to be irrelevent in the extreme, and not meaningful, to say the least - I believe in a spiritual component to reality, in fact, I am closed to the idea that there is not. There is such thing as metaphysical, and let me tell you, there _are_ metaphysical philosopher atheists...please, don't forget to reply to this, I am curious as to what you really think.


Fine - I should have said "naturalists" instead of atheists, because Naturalism is atheistic at its base.




> I am not an expert on communism, but this is politics, as is something else I will reply to a little further down the page. There are communists that believe all sorts of thing, and atheism is not a necessary component of communism. Am I correct?


Despite what individual communists believe, ideological communism is hostile towards religion.




> I apologize if I am inocorectly speaking for Mary, but I wanted to reply to this. Her wording didn't imply this at all. She said a belief system - or ontology - is how we assemble information and understand the world, or systematize, and is how we understand this information, and allows us to act in the world. Logic is one such ontology, language is another. It is for everyone, not just scared children, Redzeppelin. Considering she also said "Our biology makes this a fundamental truth of being human", I think she is on the same page with you about it being impossible to reject belief systems, and you don't need to tell her this.


I will accept this interpretation - it is reasonable - but Mary's choice of qualifying language - "That is the purpose of a belief system...to systematize a complex and essentially inhuman world and make it more comfortable *for those who don't like complex and essentially inhuman things*" - sounds as if a critical comment is being made. If not, fine.




> That would be politics, and I could find examples very quickly for you, but its not as important as some other things, and really your post has opened up about five different debates on different subjects, so the less the better. We can't argue five different debates on the same thread.


I do not care how many examples you can come up with pertaining to inappropriate Christain behavior; no institution, no belief system, no philosophical outlook is maintained by followers flawlessly - followers who never misinterpret, misbehave, and do terrible things. I accept that Christainity has some serious historical "black eyes" - but these comments conveniently ignore the good that Christianity has brought the world. Any one of us having our flaws emphasized and our good points minimized/ignored would look pretty bad.





> Should I say here that I think everything you believe is wrong?


"Should"? You can say whatever you like. 




> It would be appropriate after the first paragraph of your post. I would say that you have never thought to question what you were taught, when in fact everything you were taught was wrong.


OK - here's where I get HIGHLY annoyed; you know _nothing_ about my spiritual journey, about the path I have walked and the progression I have gone through in my walk as a Christian; I think it _highly_ presumptuous to the point of arrogance to tell me what you _think_ I have/have not done in terms of my beliefs. Stick to something you do know something about, OK?




> Christianity is not sole truth, we do not measure truth by Christianity.


Fine - I do not ask non-Christians to accept my belief system as the "sole truth" - but I think it is, and I think most people who believe in some sort of religion believe their religion is the "truth" - is that news to you?




> If there even is such a concept of truth - if any concept has relation to reality, then yes, truth would be the first, and the dichotomy between truth and falseness is how we structure everything - what is good and true, well there might be goodness and truth in christianity, but they are not limited to it at all - consider other religions, ontologies, maps for the world, for instance Buddhist ontology. I mean it, consider it, look it up or something. Instead, you believe in an ontology that is virtually completely wrong, one that does not hold up to critical analysis, in fact grew and developed out of millenia of psychosis (if we consider psychosis to mean, by its psychological definition, the lack of empathy).


How do you know I have not closely looked at many of the world's religions already? The correct answer would be that you DON'T. I have compared other religions - they fall short. My "ontology" is wrong in your opinion - so? The "psychosis" statement is equally apt for any religion if you're going to go that route - including Buddhism.




> It is true that this last paragraph has been an almost complete imitation of things I've seen you say before - wrong, wrong, wrong. You've got it all wrong. But that is how I feel. And I hope you don't think...I don't like you, or something, because I don't know you. I never meant for this to be personal, so if you feel that everything I've said has been wrong, feel free to say it. Really, say anything you want, as long as it is interesting.


Thanks for your comments. You're free to tell me I'm wrong and that I haven't correctly explored my faith or the other faiths of the world. I'm equally free to tell you you are wrong as well.




> You probably didn't realize this but my home in the US is an Indian Reservation. I have more Native kin than white, but I have both. How many books/articles etc. would you like to read about Christian atrocities with respect to Native American peoples? And that is just the northern Protestant based Christians. That first list doesn't touch what the Catholics did in Central and South America. And of course that is just the Americas. There are long lists of similar behaviors (by missionaries for example) in every single indigenous homeland they have "visited." And lest you think this is over, it isn't I am afraid.


Instead of reeling out your endless list of Christian atrocities, why don't you tell me the point of doing so? To do what? Discredit Christianity as a valid belief system? To diminish God? Why don't we bypass all the examples and get to what it is you wish to accomplish?





> Let me please get this clear. Are you saying Christianity is something other than the lives of Christians? Are you saying that we must judge the value of Christianity by something other than how its adherents comport themselves in the world they share with others?


I am saying that how people choose to enact their "Christianity" may or may not accurately reflect what it is supposed to be as embodied in the life of Christ and the writings of the apostle Paul. You judge by the behavior of Christians who adhere to the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. Look, I don't think every priest is a child molester; I don't think every cop is a racist; I don't think every teacher is a pedophile; I don't think every politician is a "crook" - do those things exist? Yes - but I think it unfair and bordering on stereotype to take the bad and assume that the bad is all someone/thing is. Where's the balance when it comes to Christianity?




> Reason, at its base, rests on shared assumptions about the nature of the shared world. Since all humans share the biological impulses/needs for comfort, food, shelter, communication, love, ecstasy, connection etc, it is the broadest possible basis for shared assumptions. A belief in God or a disbelief in a divine principle cannot possibly match this. So to base our shared assumptions (the basis for what is to be considered rational) on something that only a minority of people can share is unreasonable. Unless...unless you believe that only some people deserve inclusion.


Rationality is a human attempt to see things through a certain "lense" - the lense of human logic. Human logic is a valid and valuable thing and I'm not trying to diminish its significance; however, when we discuss God, we discuss a being who - by the very characteristics of His existence - defies human logic. Love, by the way, often defies human logic in the things we will do because of it - honorable, noble and heroic things; terrifying, silly and ridiculous things - but I don't hear you dismissing love as a valid emotion or experience. Rationality cannot be the be-all-end-all in terms of validating reality. As well, "reasonable" is a subjective term; those who practice female genital mutilation in African countries think their practice is "reasonable"; suicide bombers think their behavior is "reasonable."




> Also you didn't address my last question. Going back to the text at hand...based on an all-inclusive basis of shared needs and assumptions, does a literalist reading of the Christian form of the Bible lead to a rational belief system?


If the Bible is the revelation of the character of God, then on one level, how can it point to rationality because the individual it is about defies rationality; on another level, the Bible does coherently explain much about human nature and life on earth that naturalism cannot explain - the questions about our origins, human suffering, existence, etc. From where I stand, the Bible lays out a picture of reality that makes rational sense to me. I understand that those who don't believe in God will disagree.

----------


## NikolaiI

The same thing applies to naturalist. To be a naturalist doesn't mean you have to disallow anything metaphysical or spiritual, you just think that it points to some kind of natural law that we do not understand yet. Like gravity. I mean, we understand gravity now but at one point we didn't. The same thing with spiritual connections between people, which I mainly consider to be love and attraction.

Yeah, I probably got carried away with that paragraph, and I apologize. I even thought about sending you a PM and apologizing there. I hope you will forgive me.

----------


## JCamilo

Redzeppelin:




> Catholics do not speak for all Christians. I personally think that Popes present and prior have given away too much valuable ground by trying to argue rationality with the Naturalists.


I never claimed Catholics speak for all christians - I just refuted the claim that taking the genesis as an allegory is something done by non-believers by poiting that a considerable group of believers do it. If others take the Genenis literaraly (when not even the Jews do all the time), it is irrelevant. 




> Lewis also said that the incarnation of Christ was where myth became real; in other words, just because different mythologies exist doesn't mean that none of them can be true. Lewis posited that mythologies and pagan religions that echo Christianity and Judaic monotheism were actually imitations/reflections of the one true God; that pre-Christian pagan religions anticipated the incarnation of Christ - not that Christianity "borrowed" from them. As such, the point I'm trying to make (rather badly) is that the fact that the Biblical narrative resembles mythological narratives doesn't necessarily mean that it is one too - it could also mean that other mythological narratives are reflections of the one true story of creation and God.


Meaning, C.S.Lewis just used a cyclical argument that only is true if we assume the Bible as the truth. If not it make no sense watsoever and I can rationally show him that myths, legends, stories and oral tradition are seen to travel from one culture to another and that would explain much better why the Hebrewish Myth owns so much to the myths older than them. 
The problem with using quote is that I could bring up Voltaire quoting the exactly opposite and we would have to take the authority as face vallue no matter what they say. Not a good idea. 




> All celestial bodies are dim reflections/imitations of the true source of light that is provided by the presence of God Himself; His presence IS the embodiment of life force - the sun need not exist when the light of God is present to nourish vegetation.


Meaning, a mythical being explains the Natural laws being not followed. That is why it is myth. 




> Your final sentence needs to be developed a bit more so that we can understand exactly what your two final points are.


Just means that a man can not exist without food (animals or plants) and the humans existed with both male and female at sametime. Meaning, we would have to take again the power of the Being God to make a man survive without food and exist without woman. Hence, a myth. A Cosmogonia. 

Virgil:

Without going futher in the Metaphysical Atheist thing I guess one close thing to this is the writer Jorge Luis Borges. He is a Metaphysical kind of writer and skeptic that did not believed in God. Some people try to claim he is agnostic but I guess they are confuding his idea of "everything is possible" as a phylosophy of life and not an aesthetic theme.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Catholics do not speak for all Christians.


This will come as a painful surprise to many of them. And then one might wonder who *does* speak for all Christians? Methodists, I suppose, do not. Nor Baptists, Anabaptists, 7th Day Adventists &c.? You've never identified which sect or group you belong to, and yet at times you do sound as if you speak for the whole of Chritianity.

Your motto: "Seems, Madam? Nay, it is" appears to be your default position. 




> Lewis also said that the incarnation of Christ was where myth became real; in other words, just because different mythologies exist doesn't mean that none of them can be true. Lewis posited...


And therein lay the integrity of the man. There will always be those who *posit*, and *those who embrace and cling to that which was posited* as if it were the last piece of flotsam after a shipwreck.

----------


## kiobe

> I read through the last two pages with growing interest, and then realized I couldn't remember which thread I was on! I don't want to see this one locked, as it is very informative and interesting. So remember from time to time to tie your statements into the original crux of the thread. That way, we may perhaps pursue the current exchange of information without fear of an "off topic" lock down. 
> 
> Mary, I think, brought up that the Catholics decided the Native people had souls, and their job was to convert them. This is true, but if they wouldnt convert, they had no problem with disposing of them as heretics.
> 
> The Protestants indeed did decide that Natives had no soul. They took this from Genesis, where Cain was marked for killing his brother. They proclaim that mark was to make him a man of color. What they seemed to forget was that Jesus was a Jew, not a white man. This enabled them to justify slavery.
> 
> A good question would be: what race were Adam and Eve, other than human? If we all descended from the original two, different races of man appearing because of evolution, what did the original look like? People never think it through sometimes. Its called prejudice. 
> 
> And Mary, my great-grandfather was a full-blood member of the Cherokee Nation, and they recognize his descendents even down to me. I also have Cherokee and Afro-American blood from my mothers side of the family. I am ashamed of none of it. Its who I am.
> ...


Good point and good question.
The word adam in Hebrew means ruddy or of a red color. It doesn't seem likely that Adam and from Adam, Eve, would be of a northern Europian, or light skin color as depicted by the paintings that belong to the catholic church. God created man in His image. To bring 'race' into the question may be impossible to answer because of the inevitable conclusion, what race is God?

----------


## Pendragon

> Good point and good question.
> The word adam in Hebrew means ruddy or of a red color. It doesn't seem likely that Adam and from Adam, Eve, would be of a northern Europian, or light skin color as depicted by the paintings that belong to the catholic church. God created man in His image. To bring 'race' into the question may be impossible to answer because of the inevitable conclusion, what race is God?


Well put. And as I have pointed out, the Bible says God is a Spirit. This doesn't mean that he could not appear in any form he chose, for in Genesis, we read that God and two angels came to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah, and he saw the three as humans. 

It has always explained why there seem to be two creations in Genesis. God simply places the already created spirits into bodies He now forms of the same material that the Earth is made of, a carbon-based system. The seeds He already planted now grow into grass and trees, and so forth. But people are certainly free to speculate as to what happened and to disagree with me. If I thought I was the only one right, I would have crossed the line of sanity. No one knows everything.

God bless.

Pen

----------


## MaryLupin

> Instead of reeling out your endless list of Christian atrocities, why don't you tell me the point of doing so? To do what? Discredit Christianity as a valid belief system? To diminish God? Why don't we bypass all the examples and get to what it is you wish to accomplish?


You asked for examples post middle ages so I complied.

----------


## NikolaiI

> You asked for examples post middle ages so I complied.


Yes, I was wondering if no-one else noticed this.

The reason I didn't say any others was because that would be politics. I wonder how many years have to go by before politics turns into history.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Rationality is a human attempt to see things through a certain "lense" - the lense of human logic. Human logic is a valid and valuable thing and I'm not trying to diminish its significance; however, when we discuss God, *we discuss a being who - by the very characteristics of His existence - defies human logic*.


Then by your definition god cannot be logically discussed. So what do you think you are doing if not logically discussing this? I mean, to discuss any text, including one that presents a religious interpretation of reality, can only be accomplished to the degree we have by a whole series of shared assumptions about our human realities. For example, I have to assume you have a body and know the feelings and basic experiences I have discussed. It is the foundation of the very possibility of discussion. Without it we have nothing. With it we have everything we need.




> Love, by the way, often defies human logic in the things we will do because of it - honorable, noble and heroic things; terrifying, silly and ridiculous things - but I don't hear you dismissing love as a valid emotion or experience.


I don't dismiss any feeling. All feelings are valid simply because they exist. It is not the feeling that is the problem, it is what we think it means when we have the feeling that causes the problems.




> Rationality cannot be the be-all-end-all in terms of validating reality.


Of course not. I never suggested it is. We have many subjective experiences that are vital to our sense of being alive. But they are subjective experiences. All we humans have in common is the objective world and events that we share. What I am saying is that only a system that we all share, that we all have access to can be the basis of a shared reality, and subjective experience, or any belief system or value system based on a principle unattainable and unknowable by human beings cannot be shared only interpreted though the minds of a few experts. This is the core of why Marx objected to religion. He saw it as the control of the means of "meaning" production by a few elite and lived out by the rest of us.




> As well, "reasonable" is a subjective term; those who practice female genital mutilation in African countries think their practice is "reasonable"; suicide bombers think their behavior is "reasonable."


Yes but that is using reason in its colloquial sense quite different from the meaning of rationality. And interestingly, the cases you mention, which are indeed horrific, are all deemed reasonable because god told them it was the right thing to do.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Yes, I was wondering if no-one else noticed this.
> 
> The reason I didn't say any others was because that would be politics. I wonder how many years have to go by before politics turns into history.


I laughed out load at this Nikolai! Funny guy. Well, having taught in different places I would say your answer depends on the depth of the education system and how fiercely people try to deny what they are doing and have done in the recent past.

----------


## MaryLupin

> ...to explain metaphysical reality. Plato was certainly skeptical of the religion of his day, and yet once he was on a philosophic path of metaphysical dualism wound up with deistic interpretation of the world. I am no philosopher to perform such a debate here, nor do I have the passion. But it would be interesting.


And this talk would be more appropriate in another forum.

----------


## MaryLupin

> I read through the last two pages with growing interest, and then realized I couldn't remember which thread I was on! I don't want to see this one locked, as it is very informative and interesting. So remember from time to time to tie your statements into the original crux of the thread. That way, we may perhaps pursue the current exchange of information without fear of an "off topic" lock down.


Quite right to point this out. 




> Mary, I think, brought up that the Catholics decided the Native people had souls, and their job was to convert them. This is true, but if they wouldnt convert, they had no problem with disposing of them as heretics.


Some of the stories are astounding in their brutality and horrific creativity,




> The Protestants indeed did decide that Natives had no soul. They took this from Genesis, where Cain was marked for killing his brother.


as are these.




> They proclaim that mark was to make him a man of color. What they seemed to forget was that Jesus was a Jew, not a white man. This enabled them to justify slavery.


I think I know what you are trying to say here...that Jesus was from an ethnic/racial group that would have meant he had black hair, brown eyes and dark brown skin. What I want to point out is that being a Jew is a multi-colored designation. That is there are white blond Jews, black Jews, even Asian Jews. In short--Jew does not equal brown.




> A good question would be: what race were Adam and Eve, other than human? If we all descended from the original two, different races of man appearing because of evolution, what did the original look like


Well if you are talking about the mitochondrial "Eve" then our "Eve" was black.

----------


## MaryLupin

> My faith - if one would call it that - is in the possibly never to be resolved mystery of human consciousness and of the staggering complexities of the cosmos and the sub-particular world. It seems to me that in a state of _wondering, awe and not-knowing_, I am as close to knowing as I will ever get.


I had a dream like this once. I woke from it suddenly, startled by fierce joy, saying over and over "I know nothing. I know nothing."

----------


## MaryLupin

> I am saying that how people choose to enact their "Christianity" may or may not accurately reflect what it is supposed to be as embodied in the life of Christ and the writings of the apostle Paul. You judge by the behavior of Christians who adhere to the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul.


So what you want to do is judge Christianity by its text alone?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Then by your definition god cannot be logically discussed. So what do you think you are doing if not logically discussing this? I mean, to discuss any text, including one that presents a religious interpretation of reality, can only be accomplished to the degree we have by a whole series of shared assumptions about our human realities. For example, I have to assume you have a body and know the feelings and basic experiences I have discussed. It is the foundation of the very possibility of discussion. Without it we have nothing. With it we have everything we need.


I'll come at this from another direction. What we can discuss about God is what He tells us about Himself in terms of His interaction with humanity throughout the episodes in the Bible. Where God begins to cease to be logical deals with the attributes that make Him God - omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotent: these terms defy human logic because there is not such superlative in human experience. But, the Bible gives us the other attributes of God - His love, kindness, mercy, justice, compassion, fairness, etc - those we can understand, as well as the commands He left us. What I'm cautioning against is the attempt to box God into the limited "box" of human reason and rationality. He won't fit - only certain parts will, but not the totality of God.




> I don't dismiss any feeling. All feelings are valid simply because they exist. It is not the feeling that is the problem, it is what we think it means when we have the feeling that causes the problems.


I didn't imply that you were "dismissing" any feelings - I'm challenging the idea that rationality establishes the legitimacy of something; love is often not rational; there are things about God that also appear to defy logic and reason - so many people toss out God because of this reason, but they're quite happy to hang onto and defend love.




> Of course not. I never suggested it is. We have many subjective experiences that are vital to our sense of being alive. But they are subjective experiences. All we humans have in common is the objective world and events that we share. What I am saying is that only a system that we all share, that we all have access to can be the basis of a shared reality, and subjective experience, or any belief system or value system based on a principle unattainable and unknowable by human beings cannot be shared only interpreted though the minds of a few experts. This is the core of why Marx objected to religion. He saw it as the control of the means of "meaning" production by a few elite and lived out by the rest of us.


God is accessible to all through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; through Christ's substitutionary death on the Cross, all people have been extended the gift of eternal life and forgiveness of their sins - all they need do is claim the gift. Yes, there are some religions that are highly stratified and put up "screens" between the believer and God where the clergy is the intermediary, but that is not what the NT teaches; as it says in Hebrews, all "may come boldly forward to the throne of God."





> Yes but that is using reason in its colloquial sense quite different from the meaning of rationality. And interestingly, the cases you mention, which are indeed horrific, are all deemed reasonable because god told them it was the right thing to do.


We interpret our facts from within the framework of our world-view. Personally, I see God as the basis of all reality, all rationality, all of what is real. Outside of God is nothing logical, rational or real. That suicide bombers can see themselves as serving God also points to the fact that anybody can see their view as "rational" and/or "reasonable." From where I'm standing, philosophies or world-views that attempt to understand/explain reality without God are irrational an unreasonable. Because you may/not agree with me, you'll shake your head and tell me I'm the one with the perception problem - but how would you really know? Don't you see the problem?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> So what you want to do is judge Christianity by its text alone?


No; I'm saying that you cannot judge it alone by the behavior of those who have misinterpreted the text or twisted it to their own means. You may judge Christians for their behavior, but Christianity itself is composed of more than simply the behavior of a reprehensible faction. If one believes in God, one must also believe in the devil - and as such, it is reasonable to assume that the devil does not sit idly by; one of his primary jobs (besides tempting us to sin) is to smear Christianity. There is no shortage of examples of his success throughout history, I am afraid.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Good point and good question.
> The word adam in Hebrew means ruddy or of a red color.


Actually, I don't think so. It has been years since I took Hebrew (and I took only one course) so I looked up the word's etymology. Here is what this site has to say about the meaning and origins of the word "adam."

Adam 
Biblical name of the first man, from Heb. adam "man," lit. "(the one formed from the) ground" (Heb. adamah "ground"); cf. L. homo "man," humanus "human," humus "earth, ground, soil." Adam's apple (1755) perhaps is an inexact translation of Heb. tappuah haadam, lit. "man's swelling," from ha-adam "the man" + tappuah "anything swollen." The allusion is to the fact that a piece of the forbidden fruit (commonly believed to be an apple) that Eve gave Adam is supposed to have stuck in his throat. To not know (someone) from Adam "not know him at all" is first recorded 1784.

Anyone out there who can answer this definitively?

----------


## MaryLupin

> No; I'm saying that you cannot judge it alone by the behavior of those *who have misinterpreted the text or twisted it to their own means.*


And here is the problem...who gets to say which interpretation is correct? On what authority? 




> You may judge Christians for their behavior, but Christianity itself is composed of more than simply the behavior of a reprehensible faction.


At what point does the size of the faction and their deeds outweigh what benefit is perceived? 




> If one believes in God, one must also believe in the devil - and as such, it is reasonable to assume that the devil does not sit idly by; one of his primary jobs (besides tempting us to sin) is to smear Christianity. There is no shortage of examples of his success throughout history, I am afraid.


Again the "correct" interpretation problem...there are a number of people who designate themselves Christian who do not believe in the reality of the devil.

----------


## MaryLupin

> God is accessible to all through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; through Christ's substitutionary death on the Cross, all people have been extended the gift of eternal life and forgiveness of their sins - all they need do is claim the gift. Yes, there are some religions that are highly stratified and put up "screens" between the believer and God where the clergy is the intermediary, but that is not what the NT teaches; as it says in Hebrews, all "may come boldly forward to the throne of God."


This won't work because of the "correct" interpretation problem. Only some people say they have direct access to the "truth" about god and how to interpret the contradictory aspects of the bible. Others rely on the directives of those few select. This means the majority of us are dependent on finding someone who can "correctly" interpret the bible and the wishes of its god. This is a kind of moral elitism. 

A point about the Protestant movement away from the truth-authority posited by and about the Catholic church: one very large reason for the Protestant Reformation was to get rid of the authority figure between a man and his god. The idea was that each man would read the bible and decide for himself. Except that wasn't the actual idea. The idea was more like "each man of substance and property will decide for his women-folk and all those who serve him." Consequently, we have myriad Christian sects all sure they have the correct interpretation of what it means to be a Christian. In my reading of the Great Awakening in the United States the bitterest fights were between various Christian religious sects. It has changed little. 

What this goes to prove is unless we can find a shared ground of experience to which all of us have direct access then we are put in the position of seeking a religious specialist to interpret reality for us. Religion can never be a equally shared ground of experience regardless of the truth value of Jesus' death and the meaning that is sometimes attributed to it. In other words, even if it were true that a man named Jesus was tortured and murdered in a political battle between long-warring groups in the lands we now know as the Middle East, and even if this man was a son of god, even then this story could not act as the basis of a shared reality for all humans because we do not all have direct access to non corporeal "truth." We cannot share each other's subjective experiences directly. So we would still have to depend on the interpretation of others (including those men and women who wrote the stories that are now called _The Bible_.)

Finally, the only way to discuss a text like the bible or the upanishads or the koran is to base the discussion of a level of shared reality equally accessible to all. Religious belief (one that needs "correct" interpretation) cannot be that ground.

----------


## Logos

> Anyone out there who can answer this definitively?


I don't know Hebrew at all, but the 
Online Etymology Dictionary is same definition  :Smile: 

and from *Encyclop&#230;dia Britannica* "Adam and Eve":

_"in Bible, the first man and woman; two versions of their creation in Genesis; in one, God created all living creatures, including both male and female humans in His own image; in the other, God created Adam from the dust of the earth (hence his name, from the Aramaic word meaning ground) and Eve from Adam's rib; both were innocent until Eve was tempted by the serpent to eat fruit of the forbidden tree of knowledge and Adam joined her; thrust out of Eden by God; account later in Genesis."_

This site shows a number of definitions and uses of the word Adam, but I don't see anything relating to a _colour_(?) just in reference to 'dust, soil, earth' etc.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> And here is the problem...who gets to say which interpretation is correct? On what authority?


Ultimately, I don't think anybody interprets the Bible with 100&#37; accuracy - because we ultimately do not understand the mind of God. The "correct" interpretation of the Bible is the one that is consistent with two things:

1. The context provided by the rest of the Bible
2. The character of God; things that contradict the character of God (suicide bombers, "Christian" protestors chanting "God hates fags!") are incorrect interpretations. 




> At what point does the size of the faction and their deeds outweigh what benefit is perceived?


What would you like yourself to be judged upon? Your lapses of character and judgment (I'm assuming you're human and have these like I do) or on the times where you were noble, honorable and admirable? The focus on the "Christian" miscreants is like a flashlight beam focused on the offenders; outside that shaft of focused light is a large contingent of humble, obedient Christians who serve the needy, contribute to their community and bring relief, aid and health services to devastated countries. But it's no fun to pay any attention to them - much easier to point at the Crusades et al.





> Again the "correct" interpretation problem...there are a number of people who designate themselves Christian who do not believe in the reality of the devil.


Well, they are ignoring what the Bible says - so their interpretation does violence to the text because it violates criteria #1 above.




> This won't work because of the "correct" interpretation problem. Only some people say they have direct access to the "truth" about god and how to interpret the contradictory aspects of the bible. Others rely on the directives of those few select. This means the majority of us are dependent on finding someone who can "correctly" interpret the bible and the wishes of its god. This is a kind of moral elitism.


Teachers can help us understand the Bible, but only the Holy Spirit can bring true understanding; hence the reality that pastors/ministers/etc may give insight, but only the Holy Spirit provides clarity. The Bible was not written to be filtered through the experts to the masses; that this happens is incorrect. The truths are there to be read by all. The better a relationship one has with God, the more likely that the believer will have a correct vision of who God is and as a consequence a correct interpretation of scripture.




> A point about the Protestant movement away from the truth-authority posited by and about the Catholic church: one very large reason for the Protestant Reformation was to get rid of the authority figure between a man and his god. The idea was that each man would read the bible and decide for himself. Except that wasn't the actual idea. The idea was more like "each man of substance and property will decide for his women-folk and all those who serve him." Consequently, we have myriad Christian sects all sure they have the correct interpretation of what it means to be a Christian. In my reading of the Great Awakening in the United States the bitterest fights were between various Christian religious sects. It has changed little.


Correct - but that doesn't mean that we despair that the Bible and Christianity have no value because of this particular set of circumstances. The Bible says certain things about who God is and what He expects of us. Theological hair-splitting is unimportant: that one accept Jesus Christ as his/her savior is the bottom line; every thing else falls into place after that.




> What this goes to prove is unless we can find a shared ground of experience to which all of us have direct access then we are put in the position of seeking a religious specialist to interpret reality for us. Religion can never be a equally shared ground of experience regardless of the truth value of Jesus' death and the meaning that is sometimes attributed to it. In other words, even if it were true that a man named Jesus was tortured and murdered in a political battle between long-warring groups in the lands we now know as the Middle East, and even if this man was a son of god, even then this story could not act as the basis of a shared reality for all humans because we do not all have direct access to non corporeal "truth." We cannot share each other's subjective experiences directly. So we would still have to depend on the interpretation of others (including those men and women who wrote the stories that are now called _The Bible_.)
> 
> Finally, the only way to discuss a text like the bible or the upanishads or the koran is to base the discussion of a level of shared reality equally accessible to all. Religious belief (one that needs "correct" interpretation) cannot be that ground.


Fine - but scripture is the transcendant word of God; discussing it as any piece of literature will only be successful to a certain extent; after that point, it will cease to make any sense because examining it outside of the context of a relationship with God tends to lead to misinterpretations. It is, after all, the revelation of a Divine Being; rational analysis will only succeed so far.

----------


## Logos

> I don't know Hebrew at all, but the 
> Online Etymology Dictionary is same definition 
> 
> and from *Encyclop&#230;dia Britannica* "Adam and Eve":
> 
> _"in Bible, the first man and woman; two versions of their creation in Genesis; in one, God created all living creatures, including both male and female humans in His own image; in the other, God created Adam from the dust of the earth (hence his name, from the Aramaic word meaning ground) and Eve from Adam's rib; both were innocent until Eve was tempted by the serpent to eat fruit of the forbidden tree of knowledge and Adam joined her; thrust out of Eden by God; account later in Genesis."_
> 
> This site shows a number of definitions and uses of the word Adam, but I don't see anything relating to a _colour_(?) just in reference to 'dust, soil, earth' etc.


And still no ref. to colour in Jewish Encyclopedia.com:
"Etymology of 'Adam.'"

The etymology of the word "Adam" is of importance. The writer of Gen. ii. 7 gives his own explanation when he says: "God formed man of dust of the ground." That is to say, the man was called "Man" or "Adam" because he was formed from the ground (adamah). ...." etc.

Wikipedia has an _uncited_ mention _no surprise there_: _"Adam's name is a reference to red earth or red clay, but it also can be interpreted as 'the one who blushes' or 'turns rosy'. etc."_

----------


## MaryLupin

> Ultimately, I don't think anybody interprets the Bible with 100% accuracy - because we ultimately do not understand the mind of God. The "correct" interpretation of the Bible is the one that is consistent with two things:
> 
> 1. The context provided by the rest of the Bible
> 2. The character of God; things that contradict the character of God (suicide bombers, "Christian" protestors chanting "God hates fags!") are incorrect interpretations.


Except of course the bible is rife with judgment against men who have sex with other men. In a Catholic interpretation of scripture  with regard to homosexuality it says of
"Gen. 19:24-28 - the Lord rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah as punishment for the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality perverts Gods covenant with humanity." This particular site has a lot of similar pieces of text-god's "compassion" to share. Given a textual-god that visits a holocaust on his own (regardless of whether it did it because of the general licentiousness or because of a particular brand of sexual expression) it seems perfectly logical that the belief system that develops from such a text would chant "God hates fags!" So how can this be incorrect...unless you want to ignore the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" bits of the Bible. And if you do, on what authority?






> What would you like yourself to be judged upon? Your lapses of character and judgment (I'm assuming you're human and have these like I do) or on the times where you were noble, honorable and admirable?


Oh I am human. I can be a mean ***** at times. But to answer your question...I am going to assume a world for a moment where I will be judged by some being capable of rendering and enforcing its assessment of me. In that world I would most defiantly want to be judged on everything I had thought, done and felt. I mean it is all me and if I am being judged then "I" want to be judged. Really, what integrity would I have if I conveniently forgot the nasty **** I have done? And lastly, in this temporarily assumed reality, cheeky ***** that I am, I would ask by what right it thought it could judge a human life when it could not live one without getting slaughtered at the age of 33.




> The focus on the "Christian" miscreants is like a flashlight beam focused on the offenders; outside that shaft of focused light is a large contingent of humble, obedient Christians who serve the needy, contribute to their community and bring relief, aid and health services to devastated countries. But it's no fun to pay any attention to them - much easier to point at the Crusades et al.


For me it is because of the cost of those services. They are never offered freely. It is a religion (like Islam) that has a strong need to convert. Anyone who, without knowing me, thinks they know more about my origins, needs, desires, purpose than I do insults me by trying to make me conform or espouse the belief. Only if I invite the discussion (as I have done here by joining this forum) can I deem it acceptable that someone should tell me "what I truly desire." I have never once in my entire life gone to someone's home, or stopped someone crossing campus, to tell them the "truth." I would never be so rude.

----------


## MaryLupin

> I don't know Hebrew at all, but the 
> Online Etymology Dictionary is same definition


Cool. Thanks Logos.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Wikipedia has an _uncited_ mention _no surprise there_: _"Adam's name is a reference to red earth or red clay, but it also can be interpreted as 'the one who blushes' or 'turns rosy'. etc."_


You know I like Wikipedia; my daughter wrote an entry on bubbles, but I have to tell you I hate it when people use "facts" to support an important argument when they don't share (or can't share) the reference so we can all do our bit for intellectual integrity and go read it for ourselves. Especially since so many people make the mistake of thinking because it is in print it's probably true.

Okay, so someone needs to call their Rabbi and ask if Adam as a word can refer to the color red, and if it does, under what contexts. Anyone have a Rabbi?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Except of course the bible is rife with judgment against men who have sex with other men. In a Catholic interpretation of scripture  with regard to homosexuality it says of
> "Gen. 19:24-28 - the Lord rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah as punishment for the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality perverts Gods covenant with humanity." This particular site has a lot of similar pieces of text-god's "compassion" to share. Given a textual-god that visits a holocaust on his own (regardless of whether it did it because of the general licentiousness or because of a particular brand of sexual expression) it seems perfectly logical that the belief system that develops from such a text would chant "God hates fags!" So how can this be incorrect...unless you want to ignore the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" bits of the Bible. And if you do, on what authority?


OK - you brought up the issue of homosexuality. The Bible lists homosexuality as sin - a choice to violate God's intenced design for human sexual relationships. People have a huge problem with the OT character of God because what they seem to want is a God who is all mercy and no justice. Because we don't fully understand the effects of sin on the human heart and psyche, we assume that God's decision to destroy Sodom is a tyrannical thing to do - but we are making that assessment based on limited information: only God knows the human heart to its depths and the full effects of sin (which, according to the Bible - leads to death - not because God "decided" that that was the penalty, but because that is the natural consequence of turning away from God [the source of all life]). I sometimes wonder if we were capable of knowing the details as God does if we might not see His choice as a mercy of sorts. I hesitate to say this because I'm sure it opens me up to all kinds of attacks, but the point I wish to stick on is that we are judging a decision by a Being who describes Himself as a God of love - if He does something like destroy a city, then I must assume He had a good reason to do so. This is what we call "faith" - the character of God being what it is dictates that any act of violence done by God is done so for a legitimate reason (though we may not be able to see this at the time - but all will be revealed someday).




> Oh I am human. I can be a mean ***** at times. But to answer your question...I am going to assume a world for a moment where I will be judged by some being capable of rendering and enforcing its assessment of me. In that world I would most defiantly want to be judged on everything I had thought, done and felt. I mean it is all me and if I am being judged then "I" want to be judged. Really, what integrity would I have if I conveniently forgot the nasty **** I have done? And lastly, in this temporarily assumed reality, cheeky ***** that I am, I would ask by what right it thought it could judge a human life when it could not live one without getting slaughtered at the age of 33.


Two issues:

1. I'm not suggesting that the bad be ignored; I'm suggesting that it be balanced by the good.

2. Christ was not killed against His will. He submitted to death because His purpose was to pay the death penalty that all of humanity earned via its sinful nature (inherited from Adam and Eve). Only the death of a sinless person could atone for the sin of all humanity. Christ died at 33 because His ministry was done and he had done what He came to do. How about this: that the Being who will judge you loved you enough to send His own Son down to redeem you whether you asked Him to or not: He offered His sinless and perfect Son so that you could have eternal life.




> For me it is because of the cost of those services. They are never offered freely. It is a religion (like Islam) that has a strong need to convert. Anyone who, without knowing me, thinks they know more about my origins, needs, desires, purpose than I do insults me by trying to make me conform or espouse the belief. Only if I invite the discussion (as I have done here by joining this forum) can I deem it acceptable that someone should tell me "what I truly desire." I have never once in my entire life gone to someone's home, or stopped someone crossing campus, to tell them the "truth." I would never be so rude.


That is not true; plenty of Christian organizations serve freely with no thought, desire, or request for return. 

Secondly: but what if you believed that it was a matter of eternal life and death? If I believed that there was a murderer hiding in your car, would you want me to warn you of my suspicion - even if I might have been mistaken in what I saw? Christians try to share the truth because it is not just "conversions" they care about - we believe that someday all will be held accountable, and those who did not hear the truth (and I believe many chances are given to us) face serious consequences.

----------


## Warm-Blooded

I have something to say 

you should believe that this is real why ..? why ?
try to contemplate how we were created , you should have been acquainted with a fact of existing since we could live in this life via our parent and our parent had been nothing except for their parent had been marred and so on ..
I then can deduce that we have entirely parent as all of you have but the parent I talked about are your father and mother either .they are , ADAM and EVE and this is a real story unlike all of those saying "we were nothing but we became everything . 
So , we must believe in GOD ...

ohh I am sorry for my bad english

----------


## MaryLupin

> Christ was not killed against His will. He submitted to death because His purpose was to pay the death penalty that all of humanity earned via its sinful nature (inherited from Adam and Eve). Only the death of a sinless person could atone for the sin of all humanity. Christ died at 33 because His ministry was done and he had done what He came to do. How about this: that the Being who will judge you loved you enough to send His own Son down to redeem you whether you asked Him to or not: He offered His sinless and perfect Son so that you could have eternal life.


From my perspective what he did (regardless of the rationale behind his behavior) is commit a kind of suicide. Martyrdom is easy. Living for a cause is much more demanding.




> Secondly: but what if you believed that it was a matter of eternal life and death?


I meant this literally. That is, accepting for a moment this world of eternal damnation is real, and real the one who would do such a thing, I would still stand by what I have become through the exigencies of living. I mean if this judge is omniscient, what good would it do to hide behind a meek face. If that is what is expected, false piety, then I don't stand a chance anyway and I would rather go down as myself than as a lie. And on my way down, I would make it clear that I too am capable of judgment.

----------


## Pendragon

> I think I know what you are trying to say here...that Jesus was from an ethnic/racial group that would have meant he had black hair, brown eyes and dark brown skin. What I want to point out is that being a Jew is a multi-colored designation. That is there are white blond Jews, black Jews, even Asian Jews. In short--Jew does not equal brown.


 Not in the time period in which Jesus was to have come, and to me, anyway, they are more olive-skined to brown, but it is a point not worth arguing. The real point is that The Protestants were just making a conveinent excuse at the moment for slavery purposes and nowadays people of every race and color may be seen in a Protestant church.

Today when I signed on the computer, I noted that The Pope has declared that there is only one true church, again.


> Well if you are talking about the mitochondrial "Eve" then our "Eve" was black.


I'll read this, thanks.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Not in the time period in which Jesus was to have come, and to me, anyway, they are more olive-skined to brown, but it is a point not worth arguing.


This is your first post (so far as I'm aware) in which you alluded to your prior statement that "Jesus was a Jew, not a white man," and to me it is a point very much worth arguing inasmuch as "white man" is so often synonymous with _the natural rulers of the earth_ or the only men worth considering AS men.




> Today when I signed on the computer, I noted that The Pope has declared that there is only one true church, again.


In which regard he closely resembles some others who post here apropos their particular church or version of Christianity.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Not in the time period in which Jesus was to have come...


Referring back to the question of the spread of Judaism prior to the Common Era...The Exile pretty much guaranteed that long before Jesus was a twinkle in his mother's eye there were Jews of myriad skin tone. The site above gives some broad sweeps. It indications the presence of large populations of Jewish people in a variety of geographic and cultural locales. With intermarrying this meant that the Judaic population was ethnically diverse while still claiming kinship through religious ideal. The later diaspora after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE just amped up an already extant trend. Jews, after all, claim a nomadic tribal origin.

----------


## Pendragon

> This is your first post (so far as I'm aware) in which you alluded to your prior statement that "Jesus was a Jew, not a white man," and to me it is a point very much worth arguing inasmuch as "white man" is so often synonymous with _the natural rulers of the earth_ or the only men worth considering AS men.


Putting it that way, and remembering that I can directly trace my decent from my great-grandfather who was a member of the Cherokee Nation, and fondly remember my half-breed grandmother, that I grew up in the 60's in a town that had decided to throw segregation out, many of my neighbors were black and respected, I will point out that I am far from prejudiced. It is my opinion that Jesus would have been a man of color, for to me, Jews of 
that era were. If someone wishes to start an argument, Jerry, I have no time for arguments. The "Master Race" stuff that lead to the Holocaust is a blot on humanity that time cannot and should not erase. It was horrible beyond words. Remember that about me, my people were deemed inferior also. Sand Creek, The Trail of Tears. and Wounded Knee come to mind.


God Bless

Pen

----------


## Redzeppelin

> From my perspective what he did (regardless of the rationale behind his behavior) is commit a kind of suicide. Martyrdom is easy. Living for a cause is much more demanding.


With all due respect, these comments reveal that you do not understand Christ's mission here on earth. He did not come here to "live for a cause" - He came here for two reasons:

1. To reveal the character of God
2. To sacrifice His spotless/sinless life as an atonement for the sin of humanity. 

Jesus picked the time of His death - His life was not cut short against His will. You may call it suicide if you wish - but please don't give me the rather glib suggestion that what Christ did was "easy" - such a comment from someone with your clear intellect would be outrageous. 





> I meant this literally. That is, accepting for a moment this world of eternal damnation is real, and real the one who would do such a thing, I would still stand by what I have become through the exigencies of living. I mean if this judge is omniscient, what good would it do to hide behind a meek face. If that is what is expected, false piety, then I don't stand a chance anyway and I would rather go down as myself than as a lie. And on my way down, I would make it clear that I too am capable of judgment.


God does not wish for "piety" - He wishes for believers to accept the gift of salvation and to enter into relationship with Him. Your vision of God is one of an arbitrary judge - as opposed to what Christianity teaches - that He desires all to be saved, and wants "obedience more than sacrifices." Once one acknowledges what God has given and sacrificed to have us with Him in heaven, it gets much easier to humble ourselves and serve such a God. I'm not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean - that your judgment is a valid as God's? Hardly. Only God sees _all_ clearly, is in command of _all_ the facts and is _completely_ impartial. In the end, _all_ will agree with His judgment.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Putting it that way, and remembering that I can directly trace my decent from my great-grandfather who was a member of the Cherokee Nation, and fondly remember my half-breed grandmother, that I grew up in the 60's in a town that had decided to throw segregation out, many of my neighbors were black and respected, I will point out that I am far from prejudiced. It is my opinion that Jesus would have been a man of color, for to me, Jews of 
> that era were. If someone wishes to start an argument, Jerry, I have no time for arguments. The "Master Race" stuff that lead to the Holocaust is a blot on humanity that time cannot and should not erase. It was horrible beyond words. Remember that about me, my people were deemed inferior also. Sand Creek, The Trail of Tears. and Wounded Knee come to mind.
> 
> 
> God Bless
> 
> Pen


It was just that the contraposition of "Jew" and "white man" struck an uncomfortable chord. I hope you can understand that.

I have encountered the fact that even in the most tolerant of folk, there is sometimes a deeply buried stereotype re Jews, and I tend to see that as the fallow ground for some new nurturer of anti-Semitism. There is a book on the subject called _The Longest Hatred._ I live with the fear that it might also be the longest-lasting.

----------


## Pendragon

> Referring back to the question of the spread of Judaism prior to the Common Era...The Exile pretty much guaranteed that long before Jesus was a twinkle in his mother's eye there were Jews of myriad skin tone. The site above gives some broad sweeps. It indications the presence of large populations of Jewish people in a variety of geographic and cultural locales. With intermarrying this meant that the Judaic population was ethnically diverse while still claiming kinship through religious ideal. The later diaspora after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE just amped up an already extant trend. Jews, after all, claim a nomadic tribal origin.


Yes, the Exile to Babylon was a way for the Jews to become mixed with other races. But Jewish Law forbids marriage to Gentiles and declares that any children born of such a union are not Jewish. By Jesus' day, The San Hedrin were strict about the laws once more and very quick to point out from whom they were descended. I'm merely pointing out that Jesus came of a race that is prone to people of color, not your average blonde hair, blue eyed white man.

Now before we get locked up, can we get back on the subject? We know that the super-continent broke up, and continental drift arranged the world as it is today. What if the flood was the catastrophe that broke the super-continent?

God Bless

Pen

----------


## kilted exile

> Now before we get locked up, can we get back on the subject? We know that the super-continent broke up, and continental drift arranged the world as it is today. What if the flood was the catastrophe that broke the super-continent?


Just wanted to address this point. We know why the super continent broke up. It was due to tectonic plate movements. The continents are still breaking up (of course at an infinitesimally slow rate)., at some stage California is going to break off from the continental US and move further northwards towards Alaska

----------


## Niamh

And i've already mentioned some possible geological evidence that might show that there may possibly been a swelling of water in Iraq. But what of the other stories in the O.T? There is so Archaeological evidence in the form of Hiroglyphs on one of the temples of Ramses in Egypt, that show there was a mass exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.(no staffs and snakes mumbo jumbo). Would anyone like to suggest a story and we can discuss if there is possible evidence behind it? I do think this thread has got great potential to be interesting if we can stick to its original purpose set by Kiobe. :Biggrin:

----------


## Son of Belial

> I'm not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean - that your judgment is a valid as God's? Hardly. Only God sees _all_ clearly, is in command of _all_ the facts and is _completely_ impartial. In the end, _all_ will agree with His judgment.


I've struggled with this argument since hearing my father quote Martin Luther's criticism of Erasmis (Your thoughts of God are too human). All the debating and discussion about this God is between humans whose thoughts can only be human. What good does it do us to discuss the unknowable counsel of God? It's unknowable! Of course we are capable of judgment as humans and are duty bound to make judgments in our lives. A fact that God must be aware of when we stand before him. Your argument suggests that we are to accept what the Bible tells us without critical thought and THAT is what creates systems of "Christians" who chant "God Hates Fags".

History is replete with examples of one group of Christians interpreting the Bible one way and calling down God's support for their position against another group of Christians who interpret the Bible another way. Who is right? How can we know for certain? At some point this whole system is revealed for what it is...a house of cards that collapses under the weight of even mild scrutiny.

You assign all these attributes to God...omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence...because this book told you to. Ultimately, this whole debate turns on the validity of this book and the historic evidence just doesn't support the popular claims of it's authorship or divine inspiration. If this is true, the entire argument collapses and it's time to talk about something else.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Ultimately, this whole debate turns on the validity of this book and the historic evidence just doesn't support the popular claims of it's authorship or divine inspiration. If this is true, the entire argument collapses and it's time to talk about something else.


As an aside: Here is a video on the death of Jerry Falwell in which Christopher Hitchens speaks. It reminds me strongly, at times, of this forum's debates.

Treasure hunt: re Hitchens' comments re Jerry Falwell...how can Falwell fit in a matchbox? 

Belialson, I agree. So what "something else" do you have in mind?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What good does it do us to discuss the unknowable counsel of God? It's unknowable!


That is the function of the Bible: it shows us God's character - the stories enable us to understand at least _some_ things about Him. That's why you can't "piecemeal" God and the Bible, the miracles, the OT and the NT, Christ's divinity, the Genesis creation apart from each other: they _interlink_. Once the Bible has no authority, then we cannot know God, and there is really no good reason for us to believe anything about Him.





> Of course we are capable of judgment as humans and are duty bound to make judgments in our lives. A fact that God must be aware of when we stand before him. Your argument suggests that we are to accept what the Bible tells us without critical thought and THAT is what creates systems of "Christians" who chant "God Hates Fags".


Our judgments are far from objective, fair, and just - because we can never completely empty ourselves of self-interest. My arguments suggest that the Bible has authority. I don't ask/expect anybody to simply take my word for what the Bible says. I arrived at my conclusions after years of reading, study and discussion with knowledgeable people. You are free to examine the Bible as much as you wish - but if the Bible has no authority, then we cannot know God.

The "God hates fags" bit is not due to accepting the Bible at its word, but misinterpreting it. The criteria I list next explain why this interpretation is invalid (it is not reflective of God's character).




> History is replete with examples of one group of Christians interpreting the Bible one way and calling down God's support for their position against another group of Christians who interpret the Bible another way. Who is right? How can we know for certain? At some point this whole system is revealed for what it is...a house of cards that collapses under the weight of even mild scrutiny.


We know who is right by two signs:
1. The interpretation is consistent with the entire Bible 
2. The interpretatin is consistent with the character of God.

Don't fault the Bible because its prone to misinterpretation - all written works are (like the US Constitution); nonetheless, the document is still valuable.




> You assign all these attributes to God...omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence...because this book told you to. Ultimately, this whole debate turns on the validity of this book and the historic evidence just doesn't support the popular claims of it's authorship or divine inspiration. If this is true, the entire argument collapses and it's time to talk about something else.


I "assign" nothing - those attributes are listed in the Bible in numerous places. So what if I got them from the Bible - what source would you suggest besides the Book that claims to be the revelation of God's character? Let's hear the "historic evidence." The Bible (NT especially) has perhaps the highest textual integrity of almost all ancient manuscripts. Those who cite "historical evidence" against its veracity assume that God gets His message to us by the same methods we value and trust. Maybe - maybe not.

----------


## kiobe

> As an aside: Here is a video on the death of Jerry Falwell in which Christopher Hitchens speaks. It reminds me strongly, at times, of this forum's debates.
> 
> Treasure hunt: re Hitchens' comments re Jerry Falwell...how can Falwell fit in a matchbox? 
> 
> Belialson, I agree. So what "something else" do you have in mind?


Why should 'we' show any tolerance or reverance regarding the passing of a man that showed no tolerance or reverance to the innocent victims of 9/11. That being said, I think we need a voice like Mr. Hitchens now more than ever.

----------


## The Atheist

> Before we begin, any posts should be directly related to the thread title. Please be respectful.
> 
> dam and Eve, Noah and the origion of man.
> 
> The catholic bible states that Adam and Eve were created aprox. 6,000 years ago in the garden of eden. Mid eastern religious texts place the Garden of Eden in Messopotamia. After the great flood, all that were left on earth were Noah and his family and theologins place the final resting place of the arc, and therefore Noah and his family in the area of what is known today as Turkey. Today, scientists have shown through DNA mapping that humanity seems to have begun in eastern Africa about 50,000 years ago. My question is, are the Old Testiment stories a kind of fable or fact and just where did we origionate from?


I've missed a fair bit of this thread and I note that you've had it explained that the RCC accepts the totally allegorical nature of the story.

One reason why the RCC gave away Gensis is because it's so demonstrably incorrect that no serious church would accept it as having any truth value beyond the parable. 

Adam and Eve were the only humans? If so, humans would have died out in three generations due to inbreeding and its associated genetic failure. Adam & Eve's grandchildren would have been gibbering mutations, although fundamentals could of course claim that god allowed for that in his manufacture and genetic rules applicable to the entire world of living tissue didn't apply then. Or, obviously in the case of Noah, when god wiped out all humans apart from Noah and his family.

Little things like that are why only a small percentage of christians worldwide believe any of Genesis is literally true*. A few minor churches which started in USA seem to be the main home of this blind acceptance of an obvious "Just So" story.

I did see one howlingly funny bit on the way through - a comment on Pangaea and its relevance to the Noah story. Given that Pangaea broke up some 250 *million* years before Noah, that's the kind of blatant error I've come to expect from YEC defenders and their allies.

* Churches which accept evolution fully include Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox, which churches make up some 77% of all non-tribal christian sects. (I have no idea what those tribal sects might believe and they are a tiny number anyway.)

link.

----------


## MaryLupin

> That being said, I think we need a voice like Mr. Hitchens now more than ever.


Kiobe!!!! We agree!!! I am going straight out to the kitchen and getting a glass of wine to celebrate.

----------


## kiobe

> Kiobe!!!! We agree!!! I am going straight out to the kitchen and getting a glass of wine to celebrate.


Yehaww, I'll meet ya there. Do you have a Petit Sirah? 

Other than a politician, I think it would be difficult to find anyone that would agree with the fat faced fool. :Smile:  

I think we got off on the wrong foot, after reading a lot of your posts we are of a very similar mind.......although, yours being more inteligent, well read and having a considerably better memory, we actually are simpatico.

----------


## kiobe

> I've missed a fair bit of this thread and I note that you've had it explained that the RCC accepts the totally allegorical nature of the story.
> 
> One reason why the RCC gave away Gensis is because it's so demonstrably incorrect that no serious church would accept it as having any truth value beyond the parable. 
> 
> Adam and Eve were the only humans? If so, humans would have died out in three generations due to inbreeding and its associated genetic failure. Adam & Eve's grandchildren would have been gibbering mutations, although fundamentals could of course claim that god allowed for that in his manufacture and genetic rules applicable to the entire world of living tissue didn't apply then. Or, obviously in the case of Noah, when god wiped out all humans apart from Noah and his family.
> 
> Little things like that are why only a small percentage of christians worldwide believe any of Genesis is literally true*. A few minor churches which started in USA seem to be the main home of this blind acceptance of an obvious "Just So" story.
> 
> I did see one howlingly funny bit on the way through - a comment on Pangaea and its relevance to the Noah story. Given that Pangaea broke up some 250 *million* years before Noah, that's the kind of blatant error I've come to expect from YEC defenders and their allies.
> ...


And a cool spring rain of common sence falls over a parched dry land giving way to the seedlings of thought. :Smile:

----------


## MaryLupin

> Yehaww, I'll meet ya there. Do you have a Petit Sirah?


I have never tried it, but since I like Shiraz I will try it. And Kiobe, thank you for the compliment.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> One reason why the RCC gave away Gensis is because it's so demonstrably incorrect that no serious church would accept it as having any truth value beyond the parable.


Perhaps the RCC's capitulation is an attempt to revise the Bible in order that it appear to reconcile with science and "reason" - a move that in reality simply tries to "edit" the handiwork of God so that Naturalists might be inclined to take the Bible more seriously (as if God needs that kind of help).




> Adam and Eve were the only humans? If so, humans would have died out in three generations due to inbreeding and its associated genetic failure. Adam & Eve's grandchildren would have been gibbering mutations, although fundamentals could of course claim that god allowed for that in his manufacture and genetic rules applicable to the entire world of living tissue didn't apply then. Or, obviously in the case of Noah, when god wiped out all humans apart from Noah and his family.


You assume that the first humans possessed an identical genetic makeup as we do today. Doubtful. God creates perfection. You'll note that it was in the book of Leviticus that we hear about the restriction against incest; there is good reason to believe that the purer genes of Adam and Eve permitted "inbreeding" without the risk of malformities. The entrance of sin affected our genetics to where - as time passed - the action of inbreeding (necessary in the beginning for obvious reasons) became untenable. But please don't assume that handiwork directly from God's hand functioned like ours does today.




> Little things like that are why only a small percentage of christians worldwide believe any of Genesis is literally true*. A few minor churches which started in USA seem to be the main home of this blind acceptance of an obvious "Just So" story.


"Blind acceptance" - right. I'll repeat myself (since you essentially do the same thing): worshipping at the altar of "reason" and "empiricism" might make one feel smarter and more "logical" - but God transcends our finite brains and what we can comprehend/understand. Just as children cannot fathom the complexities of astrophysics, don't be so sure that our vision of reality is truly correct. I know that - as a teacher - I rarely show my students ALL of the knowledge I possess; we make the mistake of assuming that the physical laws that we're aware of are the only ones that exist. We may be wrong - there is a good chance we've yet to discover God's "higher" laws of reality - higher laws that could, effectually, shatter non-believers rather limited idea of what is truly real.

----------


## MaryLupin

> You assume that the first humans possessed an identical genetic makeup as we do today. Doubtful.


So you believe in a kind of devolution? Before I start, how much do you know about the workings of genes? I mean why don't you just posit that Adam and Eve had no genes at all (along with their missing belly buttons) and that genes wormed their way into human beings from the apple.

----------


## kiobe

> Perhaps the RCC's capitulation is an attempt to revise the Bible in order that it appear to reconcile with science and "reason" - a move that in reality simply tries to "edit" the handiwork of God so that Naturalists might be inclined to take the Bible more seriously (as if God needs that kind of help).
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that the first humans possessed an identical genetic makeup as we do today. Doubtful. God creates perfection. You'll note that it was in the book of Leviticus that we hear about the restriction against incest; there is good reason to believe that the purer genes of Adam and Eve permitted "inbreeding" without the risk of malformities. The entrance of sin affected our genetics to where - as time passed - the action of inbreeding (necessary in the beginning for obvious reasons) became untenable. But please don't assume that handiwork directly from God's hand functioned like ours does today.
> 
> 
> 
> "Blind acceptance" - right. I'll repeat myself (since you essentially do the same thing): worshipping at the altar of "reason" and "empiricism" might make one feel smarter and more "logical" - but God transcends our finite brains and what we can comprehend/understand. Just as children cannot fathom the complexities of astrophysics, don't be so sure that our vision of reality is truly correct. I know that - as a teacher - I rarely show my students ALL of the knowledge I possess; we make the mistake of assuming that the physical laws that we're aware of are the only ones that exist. We may be wrong - there is a good chance we've yet to discover God's "higher" laws of reality - higher laws that could, effectually, shatter non-believers rather limited idea of what is truly real.


Hi Red, I think that the 'assumptions' fall equally on both sides as presented here by the Atheist and yourself. If I may, the Atheist, (I love capitalizing that), is assuming through scientific fact that there is a genetic breakdown or malady that occures in ALL human, plant and animal life when there is a lack of genetic diversity. This is proven to lead to, reduced fertility, genetic disorders, loss of immune system function, smaller adult size, among other issues that would lead to a collapse in humanity over an extended period. This assumption is a proven fact today but without the DNA from Adam and Eve, we will never know thier make-up. Eve was created from Adam's rib and assuming that Adam's DNA was contained in that piece of his rib, Eve would have the same DNA make-up and therefore a genetic copy of Adam. Now if Eve was a genetic copy of Adam, adam would have a twin....called Eve. If the piece of rib was used, we know today that an issue of rejection will occure if not matched properly. Non-rejection occures, usually, in family members, so we will assume that the match was a good one because thier lineage. But because of thier lineage, the issue of genetic malady resurfaces. Remember in a previous post about the 'mental contortions'a non-beliver must make in order to see where a beliver is comming from, this is what I was talking about. Now you assume, without any facts, outside the biblical text, that everything we know today didn't count back then. You assume that God made execptions for the questions that occure today. But without factual proof to support your claims.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Perhaps the RCC's capitulation is an attempt to revise the Bible in order that it appear to reconcile with science and "reason" - a move that in reality simply tries to "edit" the handiwork of God so that Naturalists might be inclined to take the Bible more seriously (as if God needs that kind of help).


That is of course a possibility, but an equally plausible - and more charitable one - might be that they have recognized some or even much validity in naturalism.





> You assume that the first humans possessed an identical genetic makeup as we do today. Doubtful. God creates perfection.


And perfection, being an absolute, cannot be improved upon so it would follow thast we would indeed have precisely the same genes as the first progenitors! 




> You'll note that it was in the book of Leviticus that we hear about the restriction against incest; there is good reason to believe that the purer genes of Adam and Eve permitted "inbreeding" without the risk of malformities. The entrance of sin affected our genetics to where - as time passed - the action of inbreeding (necessary in the beginning for obvious reasons) became untenable. But please don't assume that handiwork directly from God's hand functioned like ours does today.


It has been the habit of believers and non-believers alike to assume MUCH about the nature and true intentions of God. Why stop now?




> "Blind acceptance" - right. I'll repeat myself (since you essentially do the same thing): worshipping at the altar of "reason" and "empiricism" might make one feel smarter and more "logical" - but God transcends our finite brains and what we can comprehend/understand. Just as children cannot fathom the complexities of astrophysics, don't be so sure that our vision of reality is truly correct.


Mutatis mutandis, nor that our understanding of God is correct. 




> I know that - as a teacher - I rarely show my students ALL of the knowledge I possess; we make the mistake of assuming that the physical laws that we're aware of are the only ones that exist. We may be wrong - there is a good chance we've yet to discover God's "higher" laws of reality - higher laws that could, effectually, shatter non-believers rather limited idea of what is truly real.


How did you arrive at this calculation of the "good chance"? I can tell you with equal and possibly greater conviction that there is NO chance whatever that your truly hard-core believers are ever going to surrender one iota of their beliefs no matter what is discovered about the origins and functioning of the universe.

Like Gulliver in Lilliput, such believers are tied to the ground by innumerable puny strings, any one of which they might break but the collective force of which keep them chained & immobile.

----------


## MaryLupin

> adam would have a twin....called Eve.


Oh goody, the incest motif. Boy, does this have a long and diverse heritage in literature!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> So you believe in a kind of devolution? Before I start, how much do you know about the workings of genes? I mean why don't you just posit that Adam and Eve had no genes at all (along with their missing belly buttons) and that genes wormed their way into human beings from the apple.


In a way I do believe we have "de-evolved." Sin - that which is opposite of God's character, destroys what it comes into contact with. I believe that Adam and Eve's sin not only affected their spiritual existence, but their physical existence as well - not only would they now be subject to death and not only would their will no longer control their bodies, but they would suffer the effects of sin even to the genetic level. It's silly to assume that Adam and Eve weren't built like we are - Christianity does not teach that Adam and Eve were some kind of alien-type of creatures; they were human beings - but the only "pure" human beings that ever existed - at least for a while. Once they gave in to temptation, their bodies began to degrade. Remember that the Bible tells us that people used to live for hundreds of years - why wouldn't a purer genetic makeup also coincide with this phenomena?




> Hi Red, I think that the 'assumptions' fall equally on both sides as presented here by the Atheist and yourself. If I may, the Atheist, (I love capitalizing that), is assuming through scientific fact that there is a genetic breakdown or malady that occures in ALL human, plant and animal life when there is a lack of genetic diversity. This is proven to lead to, reduced fertility, genetic disorders, loss of immune system function, smaller adult size, among other issues that would lead to a collapse in humanity over an extended period. This assumption is a proven fact today but without the DNA from Adam and Eve, we will never know thier make-up. Eve was created from Adam's rib and assuming that Adam's DNA was contained in that piece of his rib, Eve would have the same DNA make-up and therefore a genetic copy of Adam. Now if Eve was a genetic copy of Adam, adam would have a twin....called Eve. If the piece of rib was used, we know today that an issue of rejection will occure if not matched properly. Non-rejection occures, usually, in family members, so we will assume that the match was a good one because thier lineage. But because of thier lineage, the issue of genetic malady resurfaces. Remember in a previous post about the 'mental contortions'a non-beliver must make in order to see where a beliver is comming from, this is what I was talking about. Now you assume, without any facts, outside the biblical text, that everything we know today didn't count back then. You assume that God made execptions for the questions that occure today. But without factual proof to support your claims.


Why should I assume that God built creatures with inherent flaws in them? God does not create that which deforms naturally; He creates that which is perfect in all ways; the entrance of sin into this world changed reality - all the way down to a genetic level in my opinion. This is where it gets difficult - non-believers simply see "sin" as bad choices or behavior; the Christian sees it as something that destroys all that it touches - like a cancer. God didn't "make exceptions" - His creation got "altered" by the entrance of sin into the world. When we sin and turn from God, we essentially turn towards "death" - not instant death, mind you, but a slow-motion death at all levels: physical, emotional, spiritual.




> That is of course a possibility, but an equally plausible - and more charitable one - might be that they have recognized some or even much validity in naturalism.


Perhaps - but it's still a matter of editing the Bible (a divinely inspired document) in favor of Naturalism (a human-oriented way of seeing reality).




> And perfection, being an absolute, cannot be improved upon so it would follow thast we would indeed have precisely the same genes as the first progenitors!


No - sin has degraded our genetic material. Perfection was destroyed the second Adam and Eve chose serving their own wills instead of God's.




> It has been the habit of believers and non-believers alike to assume MUCH about the nature and true intentions of God. Why stop now?


But the believer bases his assumptions on what the Bible says - the book that God left us in order that we understand some fundamental things about Him.




> How did you arrive at this calculation of the "good chance"? I can tell you with equal and possibly greater conviction that there is NO chance whatever that your truly hard-core believers are ever going to surrender one iota of their beliefs no matter what is discovered about the origins and functioning of the universe.


I make my assumptions based on a firm belief that God is who He claims to be: an omniscinet, omnipotent, omnipresent being. Follow me for a second: if God is all these things - then why wouldn't I trust Him - even in the face of that which appears to contradict Him? This discussion comes down to authority and where you place it: I place my authority in God; you place yours in humanity: fine - but humanity can never be as smart as God; as such, I think it the height of arrogance for us to think that we've unraveled the universe with our 5 senses. I believe God to be complex enough that reality as created by Him must be even more than we can currently fathom. Any being that can always have existed and can speak the universe into being is certainly capable enough of creating a reality with multiple "layers" of existence. Non-believers assume that because we haven't found them they don't exist. Many things once deemed nonexistent we have discovered do indeed exist.




> Like Gulliver in Lilliput, such believers are tied to the ground by innumerable puny strings, any one of which they might break but the collective force of which keep them chained & immobile.


That's how we Christians feel about non-believers.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"sin has degraded our genetic material"
"the book that God left us in order that we understand some fundamental things about Him."

Ah, so instead of evolution imroving the species, do you see it as slowly degrading the species?
And, presumably, early man was still near enough perfection to understand the fundamental things about God, but, when mankind had degraded enough, God saw the need to make man literate, and (over a period of a couple of thousand years) to write him a book.

It makes sense, of a sort,

----------


## Redzeppelin

> "sin has degraded our genetic material"
> "the book that God left us in order that we understand some fundamental things about Him."
> 
> Ah, so instead of evolution imroving the species, do you see it as slowly degrading the species?
> And, presumably, early man was still near enough perfection to understand the fundamental things about God, but, when mankind had degraded enough, God saw the need to make man literate, and (over a period of a couple of thousand years) to write him a book.
> 
> It makes sense, of a sort,


You have conflated two things together: genetic degradation and literacy. Two different things, totally. The presence of sin in this world is working to destroy it - on human and enviromental levels as well. The fact that God inspired a written document to give humanity a picture of Himself is an entirely different issue than what sin has done genetically to us - despite your attempt to attach them to each other and try and make God look stupid.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Red, you have conflated two things together: your arguments and God. I would never try to make God look stupid.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Red, you have conflated two things together: your arguments and God. I would never try to make God look stupid.



Your understatement is _excellent_. It's so good that I almost missed the insult. Bravo, my friend.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> In a way I do believe we have "de-evolved." Sin - that which is opposite of God's character, destroys what it comes into contact with. I believe that Adam and Eve's sin not only affected their spiritual existence, but their physical existence as well - not only would they now be subject to death and not only would their will no longer control their bodies, but they would suffer the effects of sin even to the genetic level. It's silly to assume that Adam and Eve weren't built like we are - Christianity does not teach that Adam and Eve were some kind of alien-type of creatures; they were human beings - but the only "pure" human beings that ever existed - at least for a while. Once they gave in to temptation, their bodies began to degrade. Remember that the Bible tells us that people used to live for hundreds of years - why wouldn't a purer genetic makeup also coincide with this phenomena?


In other words, those who interpreted the Bible over the years were impefect in their understanding or their moral character? Unless you bring in again the concept of God's spirit guiding them? In which case why not guide them _away_ from sin? Ah, but that's where Satan comes in, isn't it?





> Why should I assume that God built creatures with inherent flaws in them?


Then why did he not create them with the capacity to resist or see through the subtle seduction of Satan in the Garden?




> God does not create that which deforms naturally; He creates that which is perfect in all ways; the entrance of sin into this world changed reality - all the way down to a genetic level in my opinion. This is where it gets difficult - non-believers simply see "sin" as bad choices or behavior; the Christian sees it as something that destroys all that it touches - like a cancer. God didn't "make exceptions" - His creation got "altered" by the entrance of sin into the world. When we sin and turn from God, we essentially turn towards "death" - not instant death, mind you, but a slow-motion death at all levels: physical, emotional, spiritual.


But this is your closed system mode of argument again. God, being God, must do thus and thus. On the other hand God - and his purposes or ways of working - are unknowable. So you 'know' him when you approve of what he does; but call either upon Satan or on God's unknowability when confronted with such things as smallpox, malaria, AIDs, genocide or internecine warfare. 






> Perhaps - but it's still a matter of editing the Bible (a divinely inspired document) in favor of Naturalism (a human-oriented way of seeing reality).


A) We have way but the Bible's own assertions that it is "divinely inspired" and b) it has been composed of so many different versions and translations (and mis- or approximate translations), omissions and later additions, that we cannot know how closely what we now have comes to the original.





> No - sin has degraded our genetic material. Perfection was destroyed the second Adam and Eve chose serving their own wills instead of God's.


If indeed genetics works at all this way then, given the parade of sinners throughout the Bible, we have badly degenerated material - believer and non-believer alike - today.




> But the believer bases his assumptions on what the Bible says - the book that God left us in order that we understand some fundamental things about Him.


Why would God leave us a book that required or was susceptible to such diverse theological interpretations?




> I make my assumptions based on a firm belief that God is who He claims to be: an omniscinet, omnipotent, omnipresent being. Follow me for a second: if God is all these things - then why wouldn't I trust Him - even in the face of that which appears to contradict Him? This discussion comes down to authority and where you place it: I place my authority in God; you place yours in humanity: fine - but humanity can never be as smart as God; as such, I think it the height of arrogance for us to think that we've unraveled the universe with our 5 senses.


That can hardly be anywhere near as arogant as to claim to know the existence and nature of God from nothing but some imperfectly transmitted texts codified by mortals supposedly guided by the spirit of the God whose existence is known only from those ancient texts. 




> That's how we Christians feel about non-believers.


This is a response to my Lilliput analogy, a response pretty much on the level of _Nyah-nyah, I'm rubber and you're glue..._

----------


## MaryLupin

> In a way I do believe we have "de-evolved." Sin - that which is opposite of God's character, destroys what it comes into contact with. I believe that Adam and Eve's sin not only affected their spiritual existence, but their physical existence as well - not only would they now be subject to death and not only would their will no longer control their bodies, but they would suffer the effects of sin even to the genetic level. It's silly to assume that Adam and Eve weren't built like we are - Christianity does not teach that Adam and Eve were some kind of alien-type of creatures; they were human beings - but the only "pure" human beings that ever existed - at least for a while. Once they gave in to temptation, their bodies began to degrade. Remember that the Bible tells us that people used to live for hundreds of years - why wouldn't a purer genetic makeup also coincide with this phenomena?


So you will use the authority vested in science as an explanation of your own point of view (i.e. you resort to the study of genes) but without actually understanding or accepting the science behind it (I know this because if you understood the science of genetics you would never have postulated a "pure" human being). Isn't that a bit like saying one is a Christian but refusing to accept the Christ as one's savior?

Red, can't you see what you are being driven to say in order to justify what cannot be justified? You have a faith. That's fine. But it is just that, a faith. It simply is not amenable to the rules of science and logic and ultimately, to effectively use evidence such as genes, archeology, geology etc, it must be used from the foundation up. Otherwise it is as if you are just throwing the scientific words around hoping some of their authority will stick.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> In other words, those who interpreted the Bible over the years were impefect in their understanding or their moral character? Unless you bring in again the concept of God's spirit guiding them? In which case why not guide them _away_ from sin? Ah, but that's where Satan comes in, isn't it?


You're partially correct: the Holy Spirit is what guides us into understanding of both the Bible and God (John 14.26). God does try to lead us away from sin - but He cannot force us against our will: if we're determined to sin, He allows it (because He gave us a free will).





> Then why did he not create them with the capacity to resist or see through the subtle seduction of Satan in the Garden?


They had the capacity to resist and "see through" Satan's ploy. They chose not to. Sin involves a conscious act of the will to violate God's law. They knew what they were doing. The allowed Satan to bring doubt into their minds about the character of God. Same thing he's _still_ doing, by the way.





> But this is your closed system mode of argument again. God, being God, must do thus and thus. On the other hand God - and his purposes or ways of working - are unknowable. So you 'know' him when you approve of what he does; but call either upon Satan or on God's unknowability when confronted with such things as smallpox, malaria, AIDs, genocide or internecine warfare.


The "unknowability" comes in terms of why God does what He does. I don't know why He does what He does or allows - and other times I make assumptions based upon the clues the Bible gives me - which is a process that all of us engage in throughout our day: we make inferences based upon the evidence in front of us; sometimes we're right; other times we're wrong - and that because we rarely have all the facts at hand.






> A) We have way but the Bible's own assertions that it is "divinely inspired" and b) it has been composed of so many different versions and translations (and mis- or approximate translations), omissions and later additions, that we cannot know how closely what we now have comes to the original.


Biblical scholars using textual criticism have confirmed that the New Testament has a 99.5% reliability among all original language manuscripts (approximately 5000 of these) - the highest of any ancient text.




> If indeed genetics works at all this way then, given the parade of sinners throughout the Bible, we have badly degenerated material - believer and non-believer alike - today.


You better believe it.




> Why would God leave us a book that required or was susceptible to such diverse theological interpretations?


Because language is a flexible thing and He never intended His words to bring us into understanding by themselves - the Holy Spirit must guide us or we will misinterpret the Bible terribly.




> That can hardly be anywhere near as arogant as to claim to know the existence and nature of God from nothing but some imperfectly transmitted texts codified by mortals supposedly guided by the spirit of the God whose existence is known only from those ancient texts.


This argument assumes the the Being capable of speaking reality into existence had to helplessly look on while His words were mangled. I think God is capable of protecting His truth.





> This is a response to my Lilliput analogy, a response pretty much on the level of _Nyah-nyah, I'm rubber and you're glue..._


No - I'm trying to point out that the idea that someone is shackled by an ideology that won't let them think for themselves is not unique to atheists. Christians see the following of Naturalism in much the same terms.

----------


## MaryLupin

One comment about evolution...evolution does not either improve or degenerate a species. These are moral words and have no place describing the function of adaptation. A species (including the human one) adapts to changing environmental conditions and lives or it doesn't adapt and dies. Over time, the various changes demanded of a species by its environment cause "genetic drift" and ultimately speciation.

Rabbi Hillel is said to have said "He who refuses to learn deserves extinction." That is all evolution is...a body learning to live within both its limits and accepting the greater power of the world in which it is immersed. 

If we are going to use scientific ideas and terms could we please accept Hillel's observation and learn to use the terms correctly?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> So you will use the authority vested in science as an explanation of your own point of view (i.e. you resort to the study of genes) but without actually understanding or accepting the science behind it (I know this because if you understood the science of genetics you would never have postulated a "pure" human being). Isn't that a bit like saying one is a Christian but refusing to accept the Christ as one's savior?


Here we go again: your suggestion about the impossibility of what I'm suggesting is simply another way of you saying "God isn't real." My response is simply another way of saying "Yes He is." I do not need to understand the science of genetics to believe that a Divine Being does not create flawed creations. If you don't accept the existence of God with the characteristics the Bible attributes to Him, then of course everything I'm saying sounds _silly_. I get that.

You'll notice that I'm not really saying anything about how genes work - I'm simply suggesting that the restriction against incest for genetic reasons did not originally apply to the early beings God created - their genes were still "new" enough to where such things were not a concern; good grief, why would God program humanity one way and then give them the option to increase their numbers by a method that would surely have killed them off? That is illogical (unless He knew that His original "programming" would hold only for so long before the integrity of the system became contaminated too much to allow the practice to continue - hence the restriction listed in Leviticus).




> Red, can't you see what you are being driven to say in order to justify what cannot be justified? You have a faith. That's fine. But it is just that, a faith. It simply is not amenable to the rules of science and logic and ultimately, to effectively use evidence such as genes, archeology, geology etc, it must be used from the foundation up. Otherwise it is as if you are just throwing the scientific words around hoping some of their authority will stick.


I am driven to say what I say because I believe God is who He claims to be - PERIOD. And by the way, in terms of your admonishment about the sciences - have you consulted the title of this thread lately? It's in a RELIGIOUS TEXTS forum - so I'm not required to obey your rules of Naturalism. If you wish to discuss science, go ahead - but science is an insufficient tool for analyzing God. I'm not asking you to take my words as authoritative - I'm answering your points in terms of Christian theology. You should expect such in a forum of this type, with a topic such as this.

----------


## MaryLupin

> I'm answering your points in terms of Christian theology. You should expect such in a forum of this type, with a topic such as this.


I have no problem with your recourse to Christian theology. I have a problem with your recourse to science as a kind of anecdotal evidence without the respect to at least use the terms correctly. I don't agree with much of what theology says but I never make recourse to theological terms and concepts (such as baptism, exegesis, covenant, hermeneutics, transubstantiation and eucharist) without at least understanding what they mean and upon what assumptions they are founded. Otherwise I could simply say (using an old saw as an example) that Christianity is a cannibalistic faith and use the "evidence" that they drink blood and eat bodies. It might be technically true (if you accept that the wafer and wine change into the body and blood of Christ) but misses the whole point of the concept of transubstantiation and the eucharist. All such an ignorant use of these concepts shows is just that ignorance. Your misuse of the concepts of science show the same thing.

As to the last sentence I quoted...a forum of what type? I suspect there are a number of Christian people who can use scientific terminology with comprehensive understanding and respect and still understand and respect their own theology. What I am asking of you is that if you expect others to respect your greater knowledge of theological argument, then you should, in return, respect someone else's greater knowledge of scientific argument. If you use science incorrectly, surely you expect to be corrected? Just as I, if I used the concept of transubstantiation as "proof" of cannibalism would expect to be corrected.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> You'll notice that I'm not really saying anything about how genes work - I'm simply suggesting that the restriction against incest for genetic reasons did not originally apply to the early beings God created - their genes were still "new" enough to where such things were not a concern


In other words you ARE saying something about genetics, i.e. about 'new' genes operating differently from those that have been passed around some.




> good grief, why would God program humanity one way and then give them the option to increase their numbers by a method that would surely have killed them off?


Why indeed? Why would God do or not do innumerable things that, by your frequent assertions elsewhere, are not within our scope or right to know?




> I am driven to say what I say because I believe God is who He claims to be - PERIOD. And by the way, in terms of your admonishment about the sciences - have you consulted the title of this thread lately? It's in a RELIGIOUS TEXTS forum - so I'm not required to obey your rules of Naturalism.


As I read her posts Mary HAS been dealing with incongruities or improbabilities in the creation myth. But if you understand religion to exclude inconvenient truths, then perhaps you ought to say so (or have aleady done that).

----------


## MaryLupin

> And by the way, in terms of your admonishment about the sciences - have you consulted the title of this thread lately? It's in a RELIGIOUS TEXTS forum - so I'm not required to obey your rules of Naturalism.


Elsewhere you have stated that science is something that is a just a belief...that is founded on unprovable assumptions and inherently unprovable, or at least in the areas where science refutes assumptions and beliefs important to the current interpretation of the sacred. Wouldn't that make (by these terms) science ultimately an act of faith? As such it then classifies as a source of religious texts. Not that I am claiming this. I am just using your own assessment of science as "faith" based...not faith in god, of course, but faith nonetheless. So if it is just an act of faith, then it has a place here. If it is not, then it has a claim on empirical truth and can be used as evidence to refute empirical claims made on behalf of another system of thought.

Either way, science has something to say about "Adam and Eve, Noah and the Origin of Man."

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I have no problem with your recourse to Christian theology. I have a problem with your recourse to science as a kind of anecdotal evidence without the respect to at least use the terms correctly. I don't agree with much of what theology says but I never make recourse to theological terms and concepts (such as baptism, exegesis, covenant, hermeneutics, transubstantiation and eucharist) without at least understanding what they mean and upon what assumptions they are founded. Otherwise I could simply say (using an old saw as an example) that Christianity is a cannibalistic faith and use the "evidence" that they drink blood and eat bodies. It might be technically true (if you accept that the wafer and wine change into the body and blood of Christ) but misses the whole point of the concept of transubstantiation and the eucharist. All such an ignorant use of these concepts shows is just that ignorance. Your misuse of the concepts of science show the same thing.
> 
> As to the last sentence I quoted...a forum of what type? I suspect there are a number of Christian people who can use scientific terminology with comprehensive understanding and respect and still understand and respect their own theology. What I am asking of you is that if you expect others to respect your greater knowledge of theological argument, then you should, in return, respect someone else's greater knowledge of scientific argument. If you use science incorrectly, surely you expect to be corrected? Just as I, if I used the concept of transubstantiation as "proof" of cannibalism would expect to be corrected.


Why don't you help me understand where it is exactly that I used terminology or ideas "incorrectly"? Please help me see where I demonstrated a misunderstanding of scientific knowledge, please. Thank you.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> In other words you ARE saying something about genetics, i.e. about 'new' genes operating differently from those that have been passed around some.


I'm suggesting that the original human beings' bodies may have operated a bit differently due to the nature of their original construction - a construction that sin had only just begun to degrade. You and Mary both make the assumption that incest MUST logically result in malformations because that's what happens _now_. How can you know that perhaps - in the very beginning, things were different? Good grief: when it comes to Evolution, non-believers will accept any number of implausible things, but a suggestion of a genetically pure couple is unheard of? What?




> Why indeed? Why would God do or not do innumerable things that, by your frequent assertions elsewhere, are not within our scope or right to know?


But you didn't answer my question, and it deserves to be answered: why would God design us genetically to not breed with close relatives and then give our first parents no other options by which to continue to perpetuate the race? Is it that you _cannot_ answer, or _will not_?




> As I read her posts Mary HAS been dealing with incongruities or improbabilities in the creation myth. But if you understand religion to exclude inconvenient truths, then perhaps you ought to say so (or have aleady done that).


Next.




> Elsewhere you have stated that science is something that is a just a belief...that is founded on unprovable assumptions and inherently unprovable, or at least in the areas where science refutes assumptions and beliefs important to the current interpretation of the sacred. Wouldn't that make (by these terms) science ultimately an act of faith?


Close; not quite. I have never said science=faith. I have made the claim that the believing in evolution (which is unprovable, like God) requires a certain amount of faith; likewise, I have indicated that science functions on some presuppositions (i.e. Naturalism and materialism) and that part of its "evidence" consists of observations subjected to interpretive machinery which influences how the data is ultimately evaluated. When you tell me that life began billions of years ago by random chance, well - that seems to require a significant leap of faith - because fossils et al do not prove _that_.




> As such it then classifies as a source of religious texts. Not that I am claiming this. I am just using your own assessment of science as "faith" based...not faith in god, of course, but faith nonetheless. So if it is just an act of faith, then it has a place here. If it is not, then it has a claim on empirical truth and can be used as evidence to refute empirical claims made on behalf of another system of thought.


Clever - but you know I was not telling you that science had no place here - I was confronting your attitude that theology wasn't good "science." Science requires its own brand of faith (in human reason and its observational skills to unravel reality) as well as its _unproven assumptions_ (God isn't real).




> Either way, science has something to say about "Adam and Eve, Noah and the Origin of Man."


I assume it does and that that is why you're here.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Why don't you help me understand where it is exactly that I used terminology or ideas "incorrectly"? Please help me see where I demonstrated a misunderstanding of scientific knowledge, please. Thank you.


What you said: "In a way I do believe we have "de-evolved." Sin - that which is opposite of God's character, destroys what it comes into contact with. I believe that Adam and Eve's sin not only affected their spiritual existence, but their physical existence as well - not only would they now be subject to death and not only would their will no longer control their bodies, but they would suffer the effects of sin even to the genetic level. It's silly to assume that Adam and Eve weren't built like we are - Christianity does not teach that Adam and Eve were some kind of alien-type of creatures; they were human beings - but the only "pure" human beings that ever existed - at least for a while. Once they gave in to temptation, their bodies began to degrade. Remember that the Bible tells us that people used to live for hundreds of years - why wouldn't a purer genetic makeup also coincide with this phenomena?"

This the most recent. Devolution is a concept that implies directionality in adaptive change. It is the mixing of the notion of teleology with the concepts of adaptive change. This mistake is commonly made by those espousing forms of "social darwinism." Evolution (in all its changes) does not have a direction. It is change contingent upon the particulars of an organism as it copes with the conditions of its environment. Evolution as a concept cannot contain the notion of "progress" or "degradation." 

Secondly, purity in genetics is something used to discuss cross-breeding between varieties of genetic types. So for example, if you cross green bean type A and green bean type B you get a cross-breed or an "impure" example of type A and type B. If, however, the cross get stabilzed so that the new type breeds true then it is no longer an impure type A or B. With respect to human beings, impurity is not applicable. This is because we are genetically incredibly homogeneous across the spectrum (due to our extreme newness as a species), despite the variations in our phenotype. That is, we don't actually have biological races, although of course we do have social races. Purity as applied to human genetics is another example of the mixing of human notions of directionality in history and ideas of progress with what is an amoral (not immoral but amoral) function of genetics and biology. What results is often horrific, for example, eugenics and notions of "pure blood" obligations to the "race."

Finally, perfection has no place in the discussion either of phenotype or genotype. Perfection implies a transcendent standard to which the material expression can be measured. It doesn't matter whether the transcendent ideal is Plato's or Christianity's, neither have anything to do with what science measures against (repeatable experiment and predictive ability).

You can say, if you like, that Adam and Eve existed and were perfect and that we exist and are not perfect. But this has absolutely nothing to do with genes or evolution. Your only recourse is to theology. You (and those with whom you debate) must simply accept the facticity of your joint assumptions.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I'm suggesting that the original human beings' bodies may have operated a bit differently due to the nature of their original construction - a construction that sin had only just begun to degrade. You and Mary both make the assumption that incest MUST logically result in malformations because that's what happens _now_. How can you know that perhaps - in the very beginning, things were different? Good grief: when it comes to Evolution, non-believers will accept any number of implausible things, but a suggestion of a genetically pure couple is unheard of? What?


You on the other hand believe that 'God' snapped his fingers and _Hey, presto!_ the heavens and the earth were created &c. &c. You have a very elastic notion of "implausibility"!




> But you didn't answer my question, and it deserves to be answered: why would God design us genetically to not breed with close relatives and then give our first parents no other options by which to continue to perpetuate the race? Is it that you _cannot_ answer, or _will not_?


Of course I cannot answer, other than to say that there is no irrefutable evidence that 'God' did anything or even existed.




> Next.


Elsewhere I believe you refer to something Mary said as "clever" - which indeed everything of hers I have read is in the best, non-sarcastic use of the word. Yet here and elsewhere you resort to supercilious responses of the "There you go again" variety.




> Close; not quite. I have never said science=faith.


But a few sentences later you say precisely that:




> When you tell me that life began billions of years ago by random chance, well - that seems to require a significant leap of faith - because fossils et al do not prove _that_.


You will quibble perhaps that a discipline that involves "a significant leap of faith" does not equate to a faith _per se_, but it is a hair-splitting difference. A more useful difference would be that the "leaps of faith" made within science - the advocacy of an hypothesis - is always subject to *repeated* testing in a variety of circumstances by scientists other than those who made the hypothesis. A very great difference from religion, in which an ancient text, much translated from earlier versions with demonstrable omissions and additions is then taken as sufficient evidence for everything seen or unseen.




> Clever - but you know I was not telling you that science had no place here


As you are fond of telling others, read your own prior post.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> This the most recent. Devolution is a concept that implies directionality in adaptive change. It is the mixing of the notion of teleology with the concepts of adaptive change. This mistake is commonly made by those espousing forms of "social darwinism." Evolution (in all its changes) does not have a direction. It is change contingent upon the particulars of an organism as it copes with the conditions of its environment. Evolution as a concept cannot contain the notion of "progress" or "degradation."


My original use "de-evolved" was in quotation marks; I assume that most people understand that convention in written expression. The word is still understood by most educated people in indicate a degradation of some sort in terms of something lessening or decreasing from a more refined, complex state into something inferior in nature. I thought that was clear. Sorry if it wasn't.





> Secondly, purity in genetics is something used to discuss cross-breeding between varieties of genetic types. So for example, if you cross green bean type A and green bean type B you get a cross-breed or an "impure" example of type A and type B. If, however, the cross get stabilzed so that the new type breeds true then it is no longer an impure type A or B. With respect to human beings, impurity is not applicable. This is because we are genetically incredibly homogeneous across the spectrum (due to our extreme newness as a species), despite the variations in our phenotype. That is, we don't actually have biological races, although of course we do have social races. Purity as applied to human genetics is another example of the mixing of human notions of directionality in history and ideas of progress with what is an amoral (not immoral but amoral) function of genetics and biology. What results is often horrific, for example, eugenics and notions of "pure blood" obligations to the "race."


Again, if my terminology was inaccurate, excuse me - but I think what I was trying to say was still fairly obvious: leaving off the usage of "pure" in terms of genetics, I will say that Adam and Eve were "pure" beings in that nothing about their make-up would contribute to the same malformations/disorders that particular pairings today can create. Regardless of what we currently know about how genes work, I'm basing my comments off of the idea that God - as a perfectly Holy and Good being - cannot create that which will produce anything negative/malformed/"retarded"/inferior quality UNLESS there is an extenuating ingredient added into the mix - that ingredient is sin and I believe sin changed reality at every level. I understand that I have no proof for this - but I'm reasoning based on God's character as put forth in the Bible.




> Finally, perfection has no place in the discussion either of phenotype or genotype. Perfection implies a transcendent standard to which the material expression can be measured. It doesn't matter whether the transcendent ideal is Plato's or Christianity's, neither have anything to do with what science measures against (repeatable experiment and predictive ability).


OK - so we're quibbling on words; my apologies for being sloppy in my choice of words - but I wasn't discussing "purity" in terms of how science uses it - I was using it in terms of the quality of that which God creates.




> You can say, if you like, that Adam and Eve existed and were perfect and that we exist and are not perfect. But this has absolutely nothing to do with genes or evolution. Your only recourse is to theology. You (and those with whom you debate) must simply accept the facticity of your joint assumptions.


Sin - left unchecked - would destroy everything. It destroys our minds, our spirits and our bodies. God is the source of life - sin is that which is contrary to God: choosing sin is like choosing to cut yourself off from food, water, air. Once sin entered the human race, we began to "degrade" in ways that science cannot necessarily measure or understand.




> You on the other hand believe that 'God' snapped his fingers and _Hey, presto!_ the heavens and the earth were created &c. &c. You have a very elastic notion of "implausibility"!


Not the point of what I wrote; please address the point I was making more than focusing on a tiny portion.




> Of course I cannot answer, other than to say that there is no irrefutable evidence that 'God' did anything or even existed.


Still not dealing with what I said.





> Elsewhere I believe you refer to something Mary said as "clever" - which indeed everything of hers I have read is in the best, non-sarcastic use of the word. Yet here and elsewhere you resort to supercilious responses of the "There you go again" variety.


My use of the word was not sarcastic; if Mary has an issue with it s/he can take it up with me.





> But a few sentences later you say precisely that:
> When you tell me that life began billions of years ago by random chance, well - that seems to require a significant leap of faith - because fossils et al do not prove that. 
> 
> You will quibble perhaps that a discipline that involves "a significant leap of faith" does not equate to a faith _per se_, but it is a hair-splitting difference. A more useful difference would be that the "leaps of faith" made within science - the advocacy of an hypothesis - is always subject to *repeated* testing in a variety of circumstances by scientists other than those who made the hypothesis. A very great difference from religion, in which an ancient text, much translated from earlier versions with demonstrable omissions and additions is then taken as sufficient evidence for everything seen or unseen.


I have never said science=faith. I have said science requires faith in certain ways and under certain circumstances. 





> As you are fond of telling others, read your own prior post.


Thanks for the advice.

----------


## karolab

let is not forget that out time line does not equal to Gods. he created the heavens and earth in 7 days,, that is our time line, one day for him could have been 1000years,, I am a catholic and believe most of what is in the bible,, some of it I question,, but that is a good thing,, we need to be so that we read it.
karolab

----------


## Redzeppelin

> let is not forget that out time line does not equal to Gods. he created the heavens and earth in 7 days,, that is our time line, one day for him could have been 1000years,, I am a catholic and believe most of what is in the bible,, some of it I question,, but that is a good thing,, we need to be so that we read it.
> karolab


Then why didn't Genesis say "1000 years" instead of this: "And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day"?

----------


## Logos

> Elsewhere I believe you refer to something Mary said as "clever" - which indeed everything of hers I have read is in the best, non-sarcastic use of the word. Yet here and elsewhere you resort to supercilious responses of the "There you go again" variety.
> 
> ....
> 
> As you are fond of telling others, read your own prior post.


I'm using this post as an example, but this message is for everyone.

People on all 'sides' of this (and most other) Religious Texts discussions here  :Rolleyes:  have at times employed myriad _ad hominem_ approaches--discussing _each other instead of ideas_--making comments on their intellect, comparing them to animals, using negative innuendo to suggest they're inferior because of their stance, opinion(s), faith, or beliefs; and used passive aggressive posting style, been antagonistic, and used sarcasm which, in this environment, 99% of the time does not go over well.

I don't care what any of your opinions or stances are, I don't care what you believe in, but I do care that people here are treated with *respect and dignity*, and that they respect the rules. 

*I really really really wish people would get a better grasp of RULE C*  :Frown: 
.
.

----------


## kiobe

> Then why didn't Genesis say "1000 years" instead of this: "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day"?


Time lines in the bible have always been a problem for me. Liberal christians say that the 6 days to create the universe is not 6 days as we now know them. Liberals believe that they will never know the actual timeline. The early christian church stuck to thier dogma about the solar system revolving around the earth and dissenters were punished. One would think that if the universe was really created in 6 days that the first inhabatants of earth, Adam and Eve, would be aware of the 7 day week (work 6 days rest on the seventh) even though it wouldn't be called that, if a person counted the weeks going by until the sun was in the same place a year later, eventually a 364 day calendar would arise. Of course that didn't happen until 1582 and only due to the mathmatical and astronomical work done by father Christopher Clavius. It seems, that a pure and perfect human, Adam and Eve, may not have as much ability to reason as later man has proven to have.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Then why didn't Genesis say "1000 years" instead of this: "And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day"?


Perhaps because Genesis is a parable and like so much else in the Bible it is presenting things poetically, that is, as an imaginitive approximation of how things might have been. Look at the language: it employs pattern and imagery rather than the plainer, more straightforward lanuage of literal exposition.

----------


## JCamilo

> I'm suggesting that the original human beings' bodies may have operated a bit differently due to the nature of their original construction - a construction that sin had only just begun to degrade. You and Mary both make the assumption that incest MUST logically result in malformations because that's what happens _now_. How can you know that perhaps - in the very beginning, things were different? Good grief: when it comes to Evolution, non-believers will accept any number of implausible things, but a suggestion of a genetically pure couple is unheard of? What?


There is nothing implausible and it is quite reasonable to believe that homo sapiens organism worked in very similar ways that it does today since it is quite reasonable that the universe natural laws are quite the same since always. 
And the reason why someone who understands evolution won't buy a perfect couple of humans is that genetically a perfect couple would disappear among the not perfect couples. They had to be traits that are spread in more than one possible couple, the traits must be present in groups not in indivuduals. 
Also, this couple implies in Adam and Eve (or any other mythical initial couple), and evolution have showed enough evidences that it was not how it worked and all the stuff that you may classify as implausible but this is how this argument ends. 




> Close; not quite. I have never said science=faith. I have made the claim that the believing in evolution (which is unprovable, like God) requires a certain amount of faith; likewise, I have indicated that science functions on some presuppositions (i.e. Naturalism and materialism) and that part of its "evidence" consists of observations subjected to interpretive machinery which influences how the data is ultimately evaluated. When you tell me that life began billions of years ago by random chance, well - that seems to require a significant leap of faith - because fossils et al do not prove _that_.


Evolution is not unprovable. It is a fact you can see every single day of your life when you see a dog and remember about a wolf. You can not possibly mix life and universe creation with evolution which is just the diversifiction of species. 
It is true that Science have dogmatic vallues as philosophical concepts that need to be accepted as truthful, but that is old subject. For once, it is not dogmatic when dealing with facts. Science is not dogmatic about its conclusions either. Science accepts questioning. That is the difference from Faith, which is usually dogmatic not only about the principles of faith but also about description of reality (Faith does not exactly means considering all possibilities, some critics address science as not considering it all, but it is not like religious principles usually do). Futhermore, most religious principles have been contested to death and they barelly hold enough after this - Without Faith, which I find a true marvel of human mind - and the Scientific Method still works better for trying to explain in the most reasonable way and in face of the unknow they try to discover the answers rather than just accepting it as God's work. Bigger advantage in my opinion, but then I have no faith. 




> Clever - but you know I was not telling you that science had no place here - I was confronting your attitude that theology wasn't good "science." Science requires its own brand of faith (in human reason and its observational skills to unravel reality) as well as its _unproven assumptions_ (God isn't real).


I think that is a good work play. Teology is a Science if we consider the broader term where all human knowledge is called science. Who I am to discuss with Dante. But the Moderm Science, that one that we can say is a product of 19-20 century have no place for Theology (but the social study of it) and requires no faith. A scientist that believes badly in one theory will not have any force or power once it was not accepted by Scientific Standards. And individual may have faith, but the institution not. 
And please, God isn't real is not an unproven assumption. God is real is the unproven assumption as you can not prove a negative of anything unproven.

----------


## Dark Star

> And please, God isn't real is not an unproven assumption. God is real is the unproven assumption as you can not prove a negative of anything unproven.


Not to mention, science makes no claims whatsoever on the existence or non-existence of God, much like the rest of the supernatural. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Christian scientists and as we know those exist (I mean 'Christian Scientists' not the oxymoron of 'creation science' by the way).

----------


## Granny5

What a wonderful discussion! So much information. I wonder why man believes that he would ever be able to understand God and his ways. Who is to say that the Bible wasn't written as it is so that man could in some small way understand God. If one assumes that mankind's "day" is the same as God"s puts God in our world and timeframe and maybe with our limitations. I just can't imagine that. I don't really see a difference in evoluation and God creating man from earth. The Bible just says that man was formed from earth, not how and exactly how long it took. ( Unless the "day" was our 24 hour day) To be able to read other's beliefs and reasonings is a great way to understand our own faith. Although I haven't had time to read all the posts, the ones I've read are very interesting. Thank you all for sharing.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Perhaps because Genesis is a parable and like so much else in the Bible it is presenting things poetically, that is, as an imaginitive approximation of how things might have been. Look at the language: it employs pattern and imagery rather than the plainer, more straightforward lanuage of literal exposition.


Your basis for calling Genesis's creation narrative a "parable"? The use of poetic language has been used throughout history to pass on historical truths.




> There is nothing implausible and it is quite reasonable to believe that homo sapiens organism worked in very similar ways that it does today since it is quite reasonable that the universe natural laws are quite the same since always.


It is reasonable to assume so, provided that you assume that how our bodies operate _now_ and how they originally operated "fresh from the manufacturer" were identical. With the myriad of problems associated with the human body, why would we assume that "freshly" created would be the same as that suffering through thousands of years of sin?




> And the reason why someone who understands evolution won't buy a perfect couple of humans is that genetically a perfect couple would disappear among the not perfect couples. They had to be traits that are spread in more than one possible couple, the traits must be present in groups not in indivuduals.


Again - these statements are made from within a framework that either a) denies that God exists, or b) assumes that what he creates is unchanged or both. Once we make God's existence as He is described in the Bible, all these things I'm saying become entirely possible.




> Also, this couple implies in Adam and Eve (or any other mythical initial couple), and evolution have showed enough evidences that it was not how it worked and all the stuff that you may classify as implausible but this is how this argument ends.


"Mythical" in your opinon - proof please?

"This is how the argument ends" - huh? Did you just prove something and I missed it?




> Evolution is not unprovable. It is a fact you can see every single day of your life when you see a dog and remember about a wolf. You can not possibly mix life and universe creation with evolution which is just the diversifiction of species.


What is unprovable is abiogenesis - because the initial conditions cannot a) be observed or b) duplicated. Since scientific fact is (at least in part) established through verification via repeated experiment, evolution (especially abiogenesis) must be inferred from "evidence."




> It is true that Science have dogmatic vallues as philosophical concepts that need to be accepted as truthful, but that is old subject. For once, it is not dogmatic when dealing with facts. Science is not dogmatic about its conclusions either. Science accepts questioning.


Science tends to be rather dogmatic regarding the subject of God as creator. God apparently is not a "question" science is willing to consider.




> That is the difference from Faith, which is usually dogmatic not only about the principles of faith but also about description of reality (Faith does not exactly means considering all possibilities, some critics address science as not considering it all, but it is not like religious principles usually do).


Dogmatism is being painted here as something negative - and under many circumstances it can be so; however, if you know you're right, is it still dogmatism?




> Futhermore, most religious principles have been contested to death and they barelly hold enough after this - Without Faith, which I find a true marvel of human mind - and the Scientific Method still works better for trying to explain in the most reasonable way and in face of the unknow they try to discover the answers rather than just accepting it as God's work. Bigger advantage in my opinion, but then I have no faith.


The scientific method is a valuable way to examine how things work - but it is not the sole arbiter of reality. Science has not confirmed empirically all beliefs that you hold to be true. Everybody excercises faith in some aspect of their existence. You may see scientific "validity" as being an advantage over poor intangible faith, but that simply means that you need to see things to believe in them.




> I think that is a good work play. Teology is a Science if we consider the broader term where all human knowledge is called science. Who I am to discuss with Dante. But the Moderm Science, that one that we can say is a product of 19-20 century have no place for Theology (but the social study of it) and requires no faith. A scientist that believes badly in one theory will not have any force or power once it was not accepted by Scientific Standards. And individual may have faith, but the institution not. 
> And please, God isn't real is not an unproven assumption. God is real is the unproven assumption as you can not prove a negative of anything unproven.


"God isn't real" is the assumption that many atheists make, and since they generally (like you have) tout the wonders of empirical science and the factual nature of verification, I assumed that any non-believer making such a claim had some sort of evidence for his opinion.




> Not to mention, science makes no claims whatsoever on the existence or non-existence of God, much like the rest of the supernatural. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Christian scientists and as we know those exist (I mean 'Christian Scientists' not the oxymoron of 'creation science' by the way).


No oxymoron present - Christians are just as adept in scientific matters as atheists - they just posit a different source for much of what we see.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Your basis for calling Genesis's creation narrative a "parable"? The use of poetic language has been used throughout history to pass on historical truths.


Examples, if you please. And your basis for taking Genesis as literal naturalistic truth?

I am still waiting for an answer to my previous question. If, before creation, there was nothing but God, a) of what was Satan created if not God and b) what was there for Satan to imitate except God?

----------


## Dark Star

> No oxymoron present - Christians are just as adept in scientific matters as atheists - they just posit a different source for much of what we see.



On the contrary. Coming up with the conclusion (that Genesis is literal) then searching for evidence that proves that true is quite contrary to how the scientific method works (in particular when all the evidence out there points to a gradual process of evolution rather than every form of life simply being poofed into being). You're supposed to begin by examining the facts out there then reaching a conclusion -- this is how the theory of evolution was reached, NOT by saying "It exists...now let's go find the facts that prove it." This is why the majority of scientists, Christian and non-Christian, accept evolution.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> On the contrary. Coming up with the conclusion (that Genesis is literal) then searching for evidence that proves that true is quite contrary to how the scientific method works (in particular when all the evidence out there points to a gradual process of evolution rather than every form of life simply being poofed into being). You're supposed to begin by examining the facts out there then reaching a conclusion -- this is how the theory of evolution was reached, NOT by saying "It exists...now let's go find the facts that prove it." This is why the majority of scientists, Christian and non-Christian, accept evolution.


Science is no different; it begins from the Naturalistic conclusion that only what is observable and measureable is real; as such, scientific Naturalism automatically disincludes God as a possible source for reality. All systems engage in circular logic. Science pretends it's completely objective - but it's not, because it is conducted by people with subjective biases and interpretive preferences.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Examples, if you please. And your basis for taking Genesis as literal naturalistic truth?
> 
> I am still waiting for an answer to my previous question. If, before creation, there was nothing but God, a) of what was Satan created if not God and b) what was there for Satan to imitate except God?


1. From Wiki:

"[edit] Early history
Poetry was employed as a means of recording *oral history*, storytelling (epic poetry), *genealogy*, and *law*. Poetry is often closely identified with liturgy in pre-literate societies. Many of the scriptures currently held to be sacred by contemporary religious traditions with their roots in antiquity were *composed as poetry rather than prose to aid memorization and help guarantee the accuracy of oral transmission in pre-literate societies.* As a result many of the poems surviving from the ancient world are a form of *recorded cultural information about the people of the past,* and their poems are prayers or stories about religious subject matter, histories about their politics and wars, and the important organizing myths of their societies." (bolding mine - RZ)

2. Parables tend to show up to communicate things about God and/or heaven (see the parables of Christ in Matthew). The method of creation is directly linked to the character of God. If we say that God took thousands of years to create the world instead of 6 days, then we have a very different view of God - especially in terms of His power.

3. I do not know where the matter came from from which the angelic beings were created. God apparently can create matter _ex nihilo_.

----------


## kiobe

> I don't really see a difference in evoluation and God creating man from earth. The Bible just says that man was formed from earth, not how and exactly how long it took.


Interesting concept, can you expand on that thought? :Smile:

----------


## JCamilo

> It is reasonable to assume so, provided that you assume that how our bodies operate _now_ and how they originally operated "fresh from the manufacturer" were identical. With the myriad of problems associated with the human body, why would we assume that "freshly" created would be the same as that suffering through thousands of years of sin?


Yes, it is reasonable to assume it. After all you need a reason to assume otherwise and we have not any reason to believe our bodies are so different.
However this is circular, what I do not assume is: " 1 - A freshly created human, 2 - Thousands of years of sin causing any suffering." 
If I do not assume it and there is not reason for me to do so (you only do for your faith) how can it be reasonable? 





> Again - these statements are made from within a framework that either a) denies that God exists, or b) assumes that what he creates is unchanged or both. Once we make God's existence as He is described in the Bible, all these things I'm saying become entirely possible.


hmmm? The frame that assume creation is not mutable is the biblical interpretation not otherwise. The very meaning of the world evolution was the change of geology of the world and plants and living organisms. 
And I can only assume God does not exist. Your God only exist for a minority in the world, isnt so? 




> "Mythical" in your opinon - proof please?


Myths are the description of the universe or sociecity creation. That is their simple definition. If you call Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek, Hinduim, etc myths why not calling the works of the bible (of course, not the laws, the poems, etc) as myth if they fit the description. Do you understand that to only those with hewbrewish, christian and muslim faith those works are not as fantastic as the Eddas? Plus, I will mention again, even the Catholic Church labels the genesis as myth, symbolic stories, etc. What kind of proofs is this? 




> "This is how the argument ends" - huh? Did you just prove something and I missed it?


No, It means that it will get circular as you basis your entire argumentation in the notion God Exist - The Bible is right no matter what is argued against or favaroble to it and we would just lose our time arguing this matter. 





> What is unprovable is abiogenesis - because the initial conditions cannot a) be observed or b) duplicated. Since scientific fact is (at least in part) established through verification via repeated experiment, evolution (especially abiogenesis) must be inferred from "evidence."


I agre abiogenesis is not proved. Science agrees it also. It is not accepted as "natural selection" but do not forget that evolution still not life origem. 





> Science tends to be rather dogmatic regarding the subject of God as creator. God apparently is not a "question" science is willing to consider.


No, that is not true. Until the XIX the possibility of God not existing was not considered, it was a taboo. Then several areas of the bible, where used to be "evidences" of god are questioned by Lydell, Darwin, Freud, etc and the belief in god lost importance. 
Then it is not important because Science is seeking answers not a cullprint to every natural phenomen in the world. That is not a dogma of any short - religious people still only present the same argument "I think god exist", "seek the bible" which are left behind long ago. It is rather lousy to re-consider the idea just with arguments that belong to the XVIII century. 





> Dogmatism is being painted here as something negative - and under many circumstances it can be so; however, if you know you're right, is it still dogmatism?


I agree Dogmatism depends of the use of the individual to be positive or not, but to search the truth, dogmatism is often a trouble rather than a help, since it stops you from questioning. 




> The scientific method is a valuable way to examine how things work - but it is not the sole arbiter of reality.


Neither they claim it. One trait that makes the Science so trustworth is the capacity of critic to itself which is not as open in many other belief systems. 




> Science has not confirmed empirically all beliefs that you hold to be true.


Oh, please. You do not know me. I barelly have empirically beliefs of any short. And Empyrism have been long ago under critics of the philosophers and the scientific method have changed since XVIII and still do so. 




> Everybody excercises faith in some aspect of their existence.


Yes, I believe the feelings related to faith we have to experiment. That is how I support a football team and how I appreciate art. 




> You may see scientific "validity" as being an advantage over poor intangible faith, but that simply means that you need to see things to believe in them.


As if. Religious people are often trying to prove logical evidences for their faith but that just means I do not have the same faith of you. 




> "God isn't real" is the assumption that many atheists make,


That have nothing to do with Science, but old logic. You can not prove a negative because there is no afirmative evidence for you present. I can not prove Unicorns do not exist either, but since there is no evidence that they do not exist, why would I? 
In the notion of the possibility, I love it as I love Chesterton, I am not limited. Why would I stop with The God of the Bible and not all other beings I can not disprove. It includes Odin, Zeus, Tiamat, Brahma, Tupa, Ogma, Ogum, Dragons, Faeries, Gnomes, Trolls, Hercules, etc. 
The difference is that an atheist does not believe in anything supernatural while you believe in god but also exclude all rest. 





> and since they generally (like you have) tout the wonders of empirical science and the factual nature of verification, I assumed that any non-believer making such a claim had some sort of evidence for his opinion.


But it was an illogical assumption as it is anything about me talking about wonders of empirical science and factual nature of verification. 





> Science pretends it's completely objective - but it's not, because it is conducted by people with subjective biases and interpretive preferences.


Science is considerable more objective than religious systems since, what you seem to ignore, what science accepts for truth must be truth for any group, society, momment because they all can test and negate the results of any experiment. 
That is why a scientist can be faithfull and deeply religious and Science still do not aknowledge god.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Sin - left unchecked - would destroy everything. It destroys our minds, our spirits and our bodies. God is the source of life - sin is that which is contrary to God: choosing sin is like choosing to cut yourself off from food, water, air. Once sin entered the human race, we began to "degrade" in ways that science cannot necessarily measure or understand.


See my comment below re the connection of sin with free will.





> Thanks for the advice.


If indeed you have taken it, will you correct the contradiction I noted?

Whether it came about via evolution or was created by ;God, the human mind is the most astonishing thing in the known universe (and possibly the least understood). 

It is at is most godlike when
1) it chooses to behave morally, whether a) via the concept of a God who demands that of us or b) of its own choosing on the assumption that we will either live together or die together.
2) it insists on confronting the most difficult moral, philosophical and physical questions.
The big bang answers much but not everything and in a sense nothing since it leaves us with the question of what there was before the big bang - which might as well have been God.

But religion answers everything - and nothing - in somewhat the same way, since it never addresses - and indeed disclaims that it can address - the still fundamental question: _Whence and why God? What did God have in mind in allegedly creating the universe? And is God perhaps a hopeless muddle, if 

a) He/She or It is omniscient, and allowed Man free will, knowing in advance the misery that humans might bring about, even to the possible destruction of the world; and 

b) God endowed us with free will but punished us severely the moment we first used it, whereby we created original Sin which therefore is synonymous with free will._ 

In view of 2) above, the ultimate trouble, for me, with the concept of God is not that it is too difficult to imagine or to understand but that it is too easy.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Yes, it is reasonable to assume it. After all you need a reason to assume otherwise and we have not any reason to believe our bodies are so different.
> However this is circular, what I do not assume is: " 1 - A freshly created human, 2 - Thousands of years of sin causing any suffering." 
> If I do not assume it and there is not reason for me to do so (you only do for your faith) how can it be reasonable?


You're right; therefore, our conversation appears to be at an end. I haven't asked you to accept my assumptions - I'm asking you to examine the logic of my assumptions _given_ that God is who He is described to be. Pretend for a moment that that being I suggest is real - now follow my logic. What I find is that most atheists won't even dare play my game - why is that? You have an imagination - why not exercise it a bit to consider the logic of my argument?




> hmmm? The frame that assume creation is not mutable is the biblical interpretation not otherwise. The very meaning of the world evolution was the change of geology of the world and plants and living organisms. 
> And I can only assume God does not exist. Your God only exist for a minority in the world, isnt so?


Why would this matter?




> Myths are the description of the universe or sociecity creation. That is their simple definition. If you call Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek, Hinduim, etc myths why not calling the works of the bible (of course, not the laws, the poems, etc) as myth if they fit the description. Do you understand that to only those with hewbrewish, christian and muslim faith those works are not as fantastic as the Eddas? Plus, I will mention again, even the Catholic Church labels the genesis as myth, symbolic stories, etc. What kind of proofs is this?


One of the biggest differences is that the Bible is the only creation narrative that establishes where things came from; in many other belief systems' mythology, matter is already here and is involved in the creation of the "god" figures - who generally do not behave like God, but more like a human with super powers. 

The Catholic Church, as far as I am concerned, capitulated because it wants to argue apologetics on the Naturalist playing field. I'm not a Catholic so their position has zero validity with me, and Catholicism does not speak for all of Christianity.





> No, It means that it will get circular as you basis your entire argumentation in the notion God Exist - The Bible is right no matter what is argued against or favaroble to it and we would just lose our time arguing this matter.


If the Bible is RIGHT and God EXISTS then why would I even bother to to believe otherwise? You know the truth: if God exists, then it is sheer foolishness to do anything but believe in Him. Atheists make the supreme gamble when they deny His existence because they can't find Him on their terms (i.e. scientific Naturalism).




> I agre abiogenesis is not proved. Science agrees it also. It is not accepted as "natural selection" but do not forget that evolution still not life origem.


I don't follow your second sentence.





> No, that is not true. Until the XIX the possibility of God not existing was not considered, it was a taboo. Then several areas of the bible, where used to be "evidences" of god are questioned by Lydell, Darwin, Freud, etc and the belief in god lost importance. 
> Then it is not important because Science is seeking answers not a cullprint to every natural phenomen in the world. That is not a dogma of any short - religious people still only present the same argument "I think god exist", "seek the bible" which are left behind long ago. It is rather lousy to re-consider the idea just with arguments that belong to the XVIII century.


The two things you quoted Christians saying are an opinion and a piece of advice; neither are an "argument." Science has not diminished the value of religion; it thinks it has because it figured out a few of the world's mysteries erroneously attributed to God. "Hey - earthquakes don't come from God, so God must not exist!" OK - that's solid logic.




> I agree Dogmatism depends of the use of the individual to be positive or not, but to search the truth, dogmatism is often a trouble rather than a help, since it stops you from questioning.


Certainly -but what is the dogmatic attitude is arrived at because of questioning?




> Neither they claim it. One trait that makes the Science so trustworth is the capacity of critic to itself which is not as open in many other belief systems.


Belief systems are not as open to critique per se because the statements of a divine being cannot really be subjected to human revision - "well, that can't be what God meant; I'm sure he actually meant _this_."




> Oh, please. You do not know me. I barelly have empirically beliefs of any short. And Empyrism have been long ago under critics of the philosophers and the scientific method have changed since XVIII and still do so.


Are you agreeing or disagreeing?





> Yes, I believe the feelings related to faith we have to experiment. That is how I support a football team and how I appreciate art.


That's my point.





> As if. Religious people are often trying to prove logical evidences for their faith but that just means I do not have the same faith of you.


Faith in what?





> That have nothing to do with Science, but old logic. You can not prove a negative because there is no afirmative evidence for you present. I can not prove Unicorns do not exist either, but since there is no evidence that they do not exist, why would I?


I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm pointing out the assumption that atheists must make to believe as they do. Unicorns did not leave a comprehensive narrative that explains the origins of the universe, mankind, the emergence of sin, the solution for the problem and a moral law to live by. But again: I'm not suggesting this makes God real. I'm pointing out the opposing team's assumptions that something does not exist (which requires that they have an exhaustive knowledge of all that _does_ exist).




> In the notion of the possibility, I love it as I love Chesterton, I am not limited. Why would I stop with The God of the Bible and not all other beings I can not disprove. It includes Odin, Zeus, Tiamat, Brahma, Tupa, Ogma, Ogum, Dragons, Faeries, Gnomes, Trolls, Hercules, etc. 
> The difference is that an atheist does not believe in anything supernatural while you believe in god but also exclude all rest.


Because there is only one true God; the rest cannot be God. 




> Science is considerable more objective than religious systems since, what you seem to ignore, what science accepts for truth must be truth for any group, society, momment because they all can test and negate the results of any experiment. 
> That is why a scientist can be faithfull and deeply religious and Science still do not aknowledge god.


Science is objective _within_ whatever framework it chooses to operate; the foundation of the "objectivity" of science, however, is that of Naturalism; so, from the beginning, the rule has been this pretty much since the Enlightenment: science must be objective and fair - and it will do so _but inside the framework that posits that only what is measureable or observable will be considered valid evidence._ So, no matter how "objective" science may be, it has already - from the beginning - established groundrules that eliminate God as a possibility.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> See my comment below re the connection of sin with free will.
> 
> If indeed you have taken it, will you correct the contradiction I noted?
> 
> Whether it came about via evolution or was created by ;God, the human mind is the most astonishing thing in the known universe (and possibly the least understood). 
> 
> It is at is most godlike when
> 1) it chooses to behave morally, whether a) via the concept of a God who demands that of us or b) of its own choosing on the assumption that we will either live together or die together.
> 2) it insists on confronting the most difficult moral, philosophical and physical questions.
> ...


The simplest way I can deal with these issues is this: it's clear you're unhappy with how God has chosen to conduct the universe and that which He created in it; I am incapable of lessening that unhappiness with my answers because I am not God; Job - who God saw as a man best fit to demonstrate his faith - spent 30 odd chapters talking about God - but when God came and intervened and spoke to Job, Job responded thusly: 

 1 Then Job replied to the LORD : 
2 "I know that you can do all things; 
no plan of yours can be thwarted. 

3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' 
* Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, 
things too wonderful for me to know.* 

4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak; 
I will question you, 
and you shall answer me.' 

5 *My ears had heard of you 
but now my eyes have seen you.* 
6 Therefore I despise myself 
and repent in dust and ashes."

Job - who was probably closest to God (since God pointed out his righteousness to the Devil in Ch. 1) realized that seeing God pretty much shut down all he _thought_ he knew about God. We think we've got the answers - and you think you do too; I contend that if you understood and knew what God understands and knows, you would be content with the choices He's made. As a human, you cannot know all of this - and you choose to put God on trial; fine - but for those of us who believe, we know that God knows more than we do, and we trust that His judgement is good.

----------


## The Atheist

> I'm suggesting that the original human beings' science must be objective and fair - and it will do so _but inside the framework that posits that only what is measureable or observable will be considered valid evidence._


This is an interesting concept and I agree with you.

Science must deal with the measurable. 

The age of the earth - within fairly tight parameters - is completely obvious through established scientific procedures, dealing with clearly measurable effects. If you agree that science can measure the material world, how can you persist in believing the earth to be 6011 years old? That belief denies that science is even able to operate on a physical plane. Can you see the contradiction in your position?

----------


## MaryLupin

> My original use "de-evolved" was in quotation marks; I assume that most people understand that convention in written expression. The word is still understood by most educated people in indicate a degradation of some sort in terms of something lessening or decreasing from a more refined, complex state into something inferior in nature. I thought that was clear. Sorry if it wasn't.


It was clear and many "educated people" do assume the concept of evolution as something that can include concepts such as "inferior." Of course it is not actually correct. Common sense ideas of what theories like evolution mean are not often based in actual study, rather they are syncretic amalgamations of what they think evolution means and the value system they learned as children. Let me give an example. I have a niece that was taught by her parent that evolution was silly because it meant that she was descended from monkeys and "anyone with half a brain" could see that she wasn't. She went on to say that she had a soul where a monkey didn't and that was what proved evolution wrong. This is perhaps a little more extreme than the notion of evolution carried by you average "educated" person but, unfortunately, not much. I have found that education in and of itself does not equate to understanding.

----------


## MaryLupin

Red, you said this

"Science tends to be rather dogmatic regarding the subject of God as creator. God apparently is not a "question" science is willing to consider."

It is not that science won't consider the question of god but rather it cannot consider it. Have you read Nonoverlapping Magisteria by Stephen Jay Gould? It discusses this point exactly.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> This is an interesting concept and I agree with you.
> 
> Science must deal with the measurable. 
> 
> The age of the earth - within fairly tight parameters - is completely obvious through established scientific procedures, dealing with clearly measurable effects. If you agree that science can measure the material world, how can you persist in believing the earth to be 6011 years old? That belief denies that science is even able to operate on a physical plane. Can you see the contradiction in your position?



I do - and I will be honest and say that I do not know what to do with that contradiction. I am willing to believe that the 7 day creation MIGHT be allegorical in terms of time, but at this point that creates some problems for me. I believe that - as the world winds down towards the final judgment - that being a Christian will be extraordinarily uncomfortable because the facts will appear to totally and fully contradict my faith (and I think there are diabolical gears in motion to make this happen). I know I look foolish - but I'm not ready to concede defeat just yet.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Science is no different; it begins from the Naturalistic conclusion that only what is observable and measureable is real; as such, scientific Naturalism automatically disincludes God as a possible source for reality. All systems engage in circular logic. Science pretends it's completely objective - but it's not, because it is conducted by people with subjective biases and interpretive preferences.


Just a note about this idea: Charles Darwin started his life as a Christian. He was baptized and a church-goer. In fact he was considering life as a clergyman. In fact he studied theology for some years. So he was no atheist born. What changed his mind was his attention to the evidence of the world. Quoted in the article I have linked here is by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. And he did mean gradually. He didn't come to this conclusion until he had seen decades of evidence that any literal interpretation of the bible could not account for what was in the world.

By the way, I chose this site deliberately. It takes a dim view of Darwin's choice. It even has a section in it called "Darwin's Descent into Darkness" which is a little purple for my taste but there it is. Still the site does provide some basic facts. This site gives a brief taste of Darwin's autobiography.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> The simplest way I can deal with these issues is this: it's clear you're unhappy with how God has chosen to conduct the universe and that which He created in it;


No, I see no evidence that there was any supernatural being had anything to do with creation of the universe. It is patently easy to refute anything I say when you restate it to your convenience. 




> I am incapable of lessening that unhappiness with my answers because I am not God;


And yet you affected to speak as gus afent whgenb yiou assured me of his love for me! 

[/QUOTE]Job - who God saw as a man best fit to demonstrate his faith - spent 30 odd chapters talking about God - but when God came and intervened and spoke to Job, Job responded thusly: 

 1 Then Job replied to the LORD : 
2 "I know that you can do all things; 
 no plan of yours can be thwarted. 

3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' 
* Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, 
things too wonderful for me to know.* 

4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak; 
I will question you, 
and you shall answer me.' 

5 *My ears had heard of you 
but now my eyes have seen you.* 
6 Therefore I despise myself 
and repent in dust and ashes."




> Job - who was probably closest to God (since God pointed out his righteousness to the Devil in Ch. 1) realized that seeing God pretty much shut down all he _thought_ he knew about God. We think we've got the answers - and you think you do too; I contend that if you understood and knew what God understands and knows, you would be content with the choices He's made. As a human, you cannot know all of this - and you choose to put God on trial; fine - but for those of us who believe, we know that God knows more than we do, and we trust that His judgement is good.


As another human being who cannot know "what God understands and knows," neither can you defend him other than by the _a priori_ argument that as he is God he must be right.

As a student of literature you might perhaps see how Job is constructed like a short story: The boast; the challenge; the introduction of conflict; its devlopment - and its resolution. 

Depending on your point of view it is either a charming story or a gothic tale: either way, a parable, constructed to teach a lesson.

----------


## Logos

> This site gives a brief taste of Darwin's autobiography.


And this site has the entire work available online  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> No, I see no evidence that there was any supernatural being had anything to do with creation of the universe. It is patently easy to refute anything I say when you restate it to your convenience.


I did no such thing; your comments indicate a clear hostility towards God based on what He _didn't_ do (i.e. intervene in the Holocaust). OK - that's fair. What kind of evidence would convince you, by the way, that God did create the universe? Besides Him showing up personally?




> And yet you affected to speak as gus afent whgenb yiou assured me of his love for me!


John 3:16
"For God so *loved the world* that he gave his one and only Son, that *whoever* believes in him *shall not perish but have eternal life*.





> As another human being who cannot know "what God understands and knows," neither can you defend him other than by the _a priori_ argument that as he is God he must be right.


*sigh* - if God is who He claims to be, how could He be wrong? How can you be omniscient and wrong? How can God BE love and choose wrongly?




> As a student of literature you might perhaps see how Job is constructed like a short story: The boast; the challenge; the introduction of conflict; its devlopment - and its resolution.


There is a chance that this story is allegorical - that I will admit. Someday I intend to find out.




> Depending on your point of view it is either a charming story or a gothic tale: either way, a parable, constructed to teach a lesson.


I won't argue - but it also could be a true story of a man called to serve God in an astounding way: a human called upon to vindicate the character of God against the charge of a demonic being attempting to undermine God's character. Simply amazing.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I did no such thing; your comments indicate a clear hostility towards God based on what He _didn't_ do (i.e. intervene in the Holocaust). OK - that's fair. What kind of evidence would convince you, by the way, that God did create the universe? Besides Him showing up personally?


The last sounds good, although after 8-12 billion years (or even just 6,000, if you prefer) I would think that the chances are very slender.




> John 3:16
> "For God so *loved the world* that he gave his one and only Son, that *whoever* believes in him *shall not perish but have eternal life*.


So says in in the Bible by one who had or provided no evidence that that is what God was doing.




> *sigh* - if God is who He claims to be, how could He be wrong? How can you be omniscient and wrong? How can God BE love and choose wrongly?


He could be wrong in who he claims to be, i.e., in the extent of the powers he claims for himself. And if God is _sui generis_ as I believe you think he is, there can be no independent witness as to his greatness, omniscience &c.




> There is a chance that this story is allegorical - that I will admit. Someday I intend to find out.


Seriously, how do you expect to do this?




> I won't argue - but it also could be a true story of a man called to serve God in an astounding way: a human called upon to vindicate the character of God against the charge of a demonic being attempting to undermine God's character. Simply amazing.


The charge, bear in mind, was provoked by God's boast.

Although as you claim elsewhere every believer understands that he may be called upon at any time, in any way, to bear witness for God, there is no evidence whatsoever that Job was opvertly, explicitly called upon in this instance. You are using "called upon" in a metapohoric way, something endemic to much of the thinking and expression of believers. There is always the danger that we will mistake the metaphor for the thing it is meant to illustrate, that we will take it as "Gospel Truth," itself a frequently used metaphor.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The last sounds good, although after 8-12 billion years (or even just 6,000, if you prefer) I would think that the chances are very slender.


Of course - so what you're really saying is there is _no_ evidence you'd accept beyond a personal appearance. I'm willing to suggest that even if He did show up, those who disbelieve in Him would find some way to discount even that (hallucination, mass hysteria, etc).





> So says in in the Bible by one who had or provided no evidence that that is what God was doing.


My friend, you accused me of speaking for God, so I went and found Biblical support for the idea that God loves everybody and wishes for all to be saved - including you. What more do you want - more texts? You blew this one off - why should I post more?




> He could be wrong in who he claims to be, i.e., in the extent of the powers he claims for himself. And if God is _sui generis_ as I believe you think he is, there can be no independent witness as to his greatness, omniscience &c.


Impossible; God is the only being who is fully aware of the contents of His personality and character. The Bible is the record of God's interaction with humanity and there are many testaments in their to His greatness.




> Seriously, how do you expect to do this?


I intend to ask God myself (that among a few hundred other questions).




> The charge, bear in mind, was provoked by God's boast.


God's "boast" is the same of a parent proud of a child. Nothing wrong with that. (And don't come back with the idea that God "set up" Job - as if Satan was not already aware of Job and his relationship with God. Even if God had kept silent [a sort of duplicity in itself], Satan knew).




> Although as you claim elsewhere every believer understands that he may be called upon at any time, in any way, to bear witness for God, there is no evidence whatsoever that Job was opvertly, explicitly called upon in this instance. You are using "called upon" in a metapohoric way, something endemic to much of the thinking and expression of believers. There is always the danger that we will mistake the metaphor for the thing it is meant to illustrate, that we will take it as "Gospel Truth," itself a frequently used metaphor.


Job was "called upon" to demonstrate his faith as all believers are called upon to do so when put into the trap of temptation; when one refused to lose faith and give in to temptation, one is answering the call to stand up for God.
Language is largely metaphoric - whether sacred or secular in nature.

----------


## Son of Belial

I'm fascinated by the part in Job where God kills off (allows Satan to) all his family, takes away all his wealth then...after Job does what a good believer should...gives him a new wife, 20 new kids and all his wealth back. What does that say about the spiritual nature of this book?

----------


## MaryLupin

> I'm fascinated by the part in Job where God kills off (allows Satan to) all his family, takes away all his wealth then...after Job does what a good believer should...gives him a new wife, 20 new kids and all his wealth back. What does that say about the spiritual nature of this book?


I have to say that my first reaction upon reading about Job's replacement family was to think how interesting that the writers of this text considered women and children replaceable commodities. Having had a son of mine die shortly after birth, I find it a touch offensive, I must admit.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm fascinated by the part in Job where God kills off (allows Satan to) all his family, takes away all his wealth then...after Job does what a good believer should...gives him a new wife, 20 new kids and all his wealth back. What does that say about the spiritual nature of this book?






> I have to say that my first reaction upon reading about Job's replacement family was to think how interesting that the writers of this text considered women and children replaceable commodities. Having had a son of mine die shortly after birth, I find it a touch offensive, I must admit.


These are understandable criticisms; but I must add that we see death and loss very differently from a being who _creates life_. We who have no ability to create life (aside from conception) see it as the highest value - but isn't that partially because we don't understand death and we cannot "bring back" that which has passed on? We do not know what God knew about Job's family that caused Him to give such permission - but I believe that we humans sometimes look at God's plans and criticize them because His plan required a sacrifice of something that we interpret as unacceptable. I'm not downplaying the pain and suffering that goes along with catastrophic loss - but in the cosmic scheme of the attack on God's character that Satan has waged, there is much more at stake than the loss of Job's family - a loss which will eventually be restored. Death for God is never something final - the only final death is the "Second death" - the one that takes place in judgment where those who have continually refected the overtures of God will be given their will - annihilation (not _His_ will - His was that everybody be saved) . The Bible makes it clear that the suffering we endure for a short time on this earth will evaporate in the light of an eternity in God's presence.

----------


## MaryLupin

> the only final death is the "Second death" - the one that takes place in judgment where those who have continually refected the overtures of God will be given their will - annihilation (not _His_ will - His was that everybody be saved)


Actually I am not offended (oddly enough) by god's behavior in this part of the story. God acts here much like we do with our pets. People routinely separate dog/cat/bird etc families, castrate and neuter them, kill them (with the best intentions) etc. We love our pets but because we feel as if we own then, we also feel that we have the right/obligation to order their lives. Perhaps what our pets feel about what we do mirrors what we feel about what god does (imagining for a moment that there is such a being.)

No, my offense is reserved for the writers of the text and its human characters.

----------


## JCamilo

> You're right; therefore, our conversation appears to be at an end. I haven't asked you to accept my assumptions - I'm asking you to examine the logic of my assumptions _given_ that God is who He is described to be.


That is what I am doing. I using logic - And the only support of God is God himself. It is not logically acceptable either if I am you, myself or any other person. 




> Pretend for a moment that that being I suggest is real - now follow my logic. What I find is that most atheists won't even dare play my game - why is that? You have an imagination - why not exercise it a bit to consider the logic of my argument?


That is not true as well. I was raised as catholic. I played this game before and in fact, it was the reading of the Bible and the feeling that it was no different from other works that I otherwise considered fictional that I considered: If Everything is possible, why would I opt for a option that for the simple chance that I was born inside a catholic culture says it is true? 
The game was played but here the problem: When you are using an argument that is logical, the person proposing this argument is irrelevant. So, I do not need to be you, that would be accepting your subjectivness, not being objective. 





> why would this matter?


And this will be answered lately. 




> One of the biggest differences is that the Bible is the only creation narrative that establishes where things came from; in many other belief systems' mythology, matter is already here and is involved in the creation of the "god" figures - who generally do not behave like God, but more like a human with super powers.


That is not true. Matter is not present, only Chaos in the Theogony of Hesiod. And God do act like mortal all long the bible. He is angered, he is vengenceful, he is playful, he is proud, he have a kid, he talks - Human emotions and acts. 
Another point is: How a divine being behaves is variable. Your God does not behave like other people god's, but there is no reason to suppose your god is more real that theirs. 




> The Catholic Church, as far as I am concerned, capitulated because it wants to argue apologetics on the Naturalist playing field. I'm not a Catholic so their position has zero validity with me, and Catholicism does not speak for all of Christianity.


With this Those books answer for the classification of Myth. I do not equate Myth as "lies" , it is a cultural trait for me, just to be clear. 





> If the Bible is RIGHT and God EXISTS then why would I even bother to to believe otherwise?


The Bible is not Right. Literal interpretation of the bible is not even praticised by the society that wrote it but we do know evidences that (not lack of it, unlike the claim about god) all living beings did not appeared at once, the numbers in Noah flood are not right, some texts and stories in the bible are predated by symerian/babylonian stories, etc. Those things should be enough for you to already not consider the bible as all right. 




> You know the truth: if God exists, then it is sheer foolishness to do anything but believe in Him.


If Zeus exists, then it is sheer foolishness to do anything but believe him. 
This logic can be applied in this way and it would not be foolish because God would probally reward me for not being a fool and not taking any story for granted just because it is possible. He have several other things that would turn against me, but for being a fool, no. I suppose he will also understand my reasons very well. 




> Atheists make the supreme gamble when they deny His existence because they can't find Him on their terms (i.e. scientific Naturalism).


Atheists make no gamble. They do not play the game. You play the game, you refuse to believe in other 34848 probally deities to pick one. 





> I don't follow your second sentence.


Evolution does not work in life creation but the diversitification of the species so the origem of the first lifeform is not really linked to evolution. 




> The two things you quoted Christians saying are an opinion and a piece of advice; neither are an "argument." Science has not diminished the value of religion; it thinks it has because it figured out a few of the world's mysteries erroneously attributed to God. "Hey - earthquakes don't come from God, so God must not exist!" OK - that's solid logic.


Never said it was solid logic, but since the biggest logic is "Hey, the Bible is Lord's word and everything there is his true" lose credibility, faith in god was shaken. 




> Certainly -but what is the dogmatic attitude is arrived at because of questioning?


Saying something is right is not being dogmatic. Saying it is right and nothing can change it, is. 




> Belief systems are not as open to critique per se because the statements of a divine being cannot really be subjected to human revision - "well, that can't be what God meant; I'm sure he actually meant _this_."


On the contrary, The only reason to believe they can not be revised is if you believe they are dogmas that do not need to be touched. If you do not believe it, they are just like anything else created by men. 




> Are you agreeing or disagreeing?


Agreeing maybe in one part but I disagree about talking about myself. 




> Faith in what?


Religious people have faith in religion of course. You said you have faith in god, so i am talking about it. 





> I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm pointing out the assumption that atheists must make to believe as they do. Unicorns did not leave a comprehensive narrative that explains the origins of the universe, mankind, the emergence of sin, the solution for the problem and a moral law to live by.


Neither God left. The only evidence for God leaving such narrative it is the narrative itself. So far, he is like the unicorn something that does not exist for lack of any evidence positive for it. 




> But again: I'm not suggesting this makes God real. I'm pointing out the opposing team's assumptions that something does not exist (which requires that they have an exhaustive knowledge of all that _does_ exist).


Not really. My existense can be proved without you knowing all that exist. My Existence is a trait of my being not of the knowledge of other beings. 
While it is not an argument without merit - since there is a lot to know yet, everything is possible that is not your real argument. Your real argument is that "The God is believe is the only god" and "the bible is true". The truth of the bible can be tested, it is not such unknow field. 




> Because there is only one true God; the rest cannot be God.


And here is the importance of that thing about your god being a god that the majority of the world does not think it is true. A lot of people have several gods and they all talk what you do. There is no objetiveness and all arguments you build can be build to them. 
The difference between your faith and the atheist lack of faith it is that the atheist does not believe in all gods, you do not believe in all god but one. 
It is what shows the subjective experience of religion. 






> Science is objective _within_ whatever framework it chooses to operate; the foundation of the "objectivity" of science, however, is that of Naturalism; so, from the beginning, the rule has been this pretty much since the Enlightenment: science must be objective and fair - and it will do so _but inside the framework that posits that only what is measureable or observable will be considered valid evidence._ So, no matter how "objective" science may be, it has already - from the beginning - established groundrules that eliminate God as a possibility.


Not true, Science was objective before questioning God before. And it is higher degree of objetiveness because it works despite the belief of anyone. I can deny (I can not, I am not a scientist to do so, it is only an example), the black hole theory either I liked it at first, either I believe in god, either I am atheist in the same way you can with any believe you have. The results will be equally measured by the same standard which is not true in Religious beliefs that at some point ask - and I bet you agree - a Turn of Faith that does not opperated independent of the person proposing it. 
That is objetiveness - I do not deny some people even think science as perfectly objective, I just say it is more objective.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That is what I am doing. I using logic - And the only support of God is God himself. It is not logically acceptable either if I am you, myself or any other person.


Nature supports the existence of God; the existence of morality supports the existence of God; the fact that matter is not self-existant supports the existence of God; the fact that the universe is not infinite in terms of time supports the existence of God; most of the complex systems and developements in nature support the existence of God; the fact that life cannot come from nothing supports the existence of God; the occurrence of miracles supports the existence of God. The veracity of scripture supports the existence of God.




> That is not true as well. I was raised as catholic. I played this game before and in fact, it was the reading of the Bible and the feeling that it was no different from other works that I otherwise considered fictional that I considered: If Everything is possible, why would I opt for a option that for the simple chance that I was born inside a catholic culture says it is true? 
> The game was played but here the problem: When you are using an argument that is logical, the person proposing this argument is irrelevant. So, I do not need to be you, that would be accepting your subjectivness, not being objective.


As expected - you won't play along either. I'm not asking you to believe in God - I'm asking you to engage in a logical exercise that - given that God exists and exists as He is described in the Bible - certain things become very feasible based on logic applied to the "givens." Science plays this hypothetical game when it postulates evolution - but atheists won't play the game of allowing some "givens" in order to check my logic.




> That is not true. Matter is not present, only Chaos in the Theogony of Hesiod.


I cannot comment on this incomprehensible sentence. Care to restate it?




> And God do act like mortal all long the bible. He is angered, he is vengenceful, he is playful, he is proud, he have a kid, he talks - Human emotions and acts.


Our emotions are a reflection of His (not vice versa) - but His are not contaminated by our selfish judgment; God is completely just in whatever emotion He experiences. That's why Genesis says we were created in the "image" of God - not physically, but in that we share some of His characteristics.




> Another point is: How a divine being behaves is variable. Your God does not behave like other people god's, but there is no reason to suppose your god is more real that theirs.


No reason for you or they perhaps; plenty for me. "God" must have certain characteristics to answer for how the universe and human nature are constructed; not every "god" put forth fills the requirements of the God necessary for the universe we inhabit.





> The Bible is not Right.


In your opinion. So?




> Literal interpretation of the bible is not even praticised by the society that wrote it but we do know evidences that (not lack of it, unlike the claim about god) all living beings did not appeared at once, the numbers in Noah flood are not right, some texts and stories in the bible are predated by symerian/babylonian stories, etc. Those things should be enough for you to already not consider the bible as all right.


OK - so you're convinced by science of certain things that I'm not buying. So? Why does it matter to you if I take Genesis literally? You can't "cut and paste" the Bible: either it's all correct or it's all false because it is a self-referential work. Once you dismiss part of it, the rest falls down as well.




> If Zeus exists, then it is sheer foolishness to do anything but believe him. 
> This logic can be applied in this way and it would not be foolish because God would probally reward me for not being a fool and not taking any story for granted just because it is possible. He have several other things that would turn against me, but for being a fool, no. I suppose he will also understand my reasons very well.


Zeus does not fit the requirements of the God necessary to exist for the construction of the universe; as well, Zeus did not leave us a written record of his law and his experiences with humanity; Zeus did not leave us a written record that referred to actual people, locations and events that occurred in history.

The Bible states clearly that human knowledge is doomed to failure:

1 Corinthians 1:19
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 




> Atheists make no gamble. They do not play the game. You play the game, you refuse to believe in other 34848 probally deities to pick one.


Atheists engage in the ultimate gamble because if they're right - I only have my earthly consequences of living a lie. If I'm right, the consequences for the atheist are eternal. The other so-called 34848 deities are not real - none of them claimed the power that Christ did; none of them claimed to be the only path to heaven. None of them possessed the power to do what Christ did. 




> Evolution does not work in life creation but the diversitification of the species so the origem of the first lifeform is not really linked to evolution.


Evolution is a desperate attempt to try and explain God away so that we can live a more guilt-free life for our misbehaviors.




> Saying something is right is not being dogmatic. Saying it is right and nothing can change it, is.


Well, I guess God is dogmatic because He made it clear that He doesn't change and that His words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35).




> On the contrary, The only reason to believe they can not be revised is if you believe they are dogmas that do not need to be touched. If you do not believe it, they are just like anything else created by men.


Only feasible if they were _only_ created by men - but if God did the creating - oops.




> Neither God left. The only evidence for God leaving such narrative it is the narrative itself. So far, he is like the unicorn something that does not exist for lack of any evidence positive for it.


The textual integrity of the NT (99.5% - highest in ancient texts) and the Bible's ability to predict the future (as it has done a number of times) supports its veracity.





> Not really. My existense can be proved without you knowing all that exist. My Existence is a trait of my being not of the knowledge of other beings.


To say something does not exist because you can't see it or find it is to suggest that you have an exhaustive knowledge of what _is_. Whether or not you exist is irrelevant to that point.




> And here is the importance of that thing about your god being a god that the majority of the world does not think it is true. A lot of people have several gods and they all talk what you do. There is no objetiveness and all arguments you build can be build to them. 
> The difference between your faith and the atheist lack of faith it is that the atheist does not believe in all gods, you do not believe in all god but one. 
> It is what shows the subjective experience of religion.


"Majority" eh? Where do you get your numbers from? Much of the rest of this paragraph I cannot follow. Sorry.





> Not true, Science was objective before questioning God before. And it is higher degree of objetiveness because it works despite the belief of anyone. I can deny (I can not, I am not a scientist to do so, it is only an example), the black hole theory either I liked it at first, either I believe in god, either I am atheist in the same way you can with any believe you have. The results will be equally measured by the same standard which is not true in Religious beliefs that at some point ask - and I bet you agree - a Turn of Faith that does not opperated independent of the person proposing it. 
> That is objetiveness - I do not deny some people even think science as perfectly objective, I just say it is more objective.


I'm sorry, my friend, but you clearly do not understand how philosophical foundations work: all beliefs are circular in nature - we all chose a world-view that seems reasonable and then find support for it. People who are "logically argued" into leaving Christianity or joining it were already in doubt before the arguments showed up. There is no such thing as true objectivity in human beings, and atheists - despite their endless self-aggrandizing ideas that they are "clear-sighted" and "open-minded" via their rejection of the spiritual world of God is an absurdity of the highest order; it makes them equally as blind as the Christian - perhaps moreso - because the Christian will gladly admit that he views the world through the lense of Jesus Christ; the atheist wishes to believe that he wears no "lenses" at all. That is wrong - and to not be able to recognize that is the worst blindness of all.

----------


## DeathAngel

"Where did we originate from"

1) theory: evolution, from the dna strands and whatever else evolved and became biggerer beings

2) humans came from monkey-like things over time=evolution

well that's from a scientific standpoint,

the religious standpoint...uh i dunno
the whole adam n eve things just simply confuses me,
what if they were both blonde?
what if they were black haired,
what if adam was a black man!?

i dunno...

----------


## JCamilo

> Nature supports the existence of God
> the existence of morality supports the existence of God; the fact that matter is not self-existant supports the existence of God; the fact that the universe is not infinite in terms of time supports the existence of God; most of the complex systems and developements in nature support the existence of God; the fact that life cannot come from nothing supports the existence of God; the occurrence of miracles supports the existence of God. The veracity of scripture supports the existence of God.


What are those supports? By the way, Do you understand a logical principle that something can not logically be evidence of his own veracity ? When We question God's existence, the veracity of the only place that claimed his existence is questioned, so it can not be supported by it. 





> As expected - you won't play along either. I'm not asking you to believe in God - I'm asking you to engage in a logical exercise that - given that God exists and exists as He is described in the Bible - certain things become very feasible based on logic applied to the "givens."


Ridiculous. There is no need of such play while I have been there for real. And Objectivism is not thinking of both side, this is assuming both side's bias - Objectivism is following the logical argument that can be proved besides both sides. 




> Science plays this hypothetical game when it postulates evolution - but atheists won't play the game of allowing some "givens" in order to check my logic.


Evolution is a fact. It is not hypothetical. Charles Darwin did not played a game, he proposed a hypothesis that was tested by others, not himself. 




> I cannot comment on this incomprehensible sentence. Care to restate it?


You claimed most cosmogonies have already matter and not something that exist previously to matter- It is not true. Hesiod (Greek Poet) wrote a poem named Teogony and there the creation starts with Chaos, without matter. By the way, Hesiod claims -as All religious texts in the world, that he was divine inspired and there he presents what Zeus decreted - besides many things - that are his teachings and all feats. So, Zeus left writings as well. 





> Our emotions are a reflection of His (not vice versa) - but His are not contaminated by our selfish judgment; God is completely just in whatever emotion He experiences. That's why Genesis says we were created in the "image" of God - not physically, but in that we share some of His characteristics.


If we share some of his characteristics, this means he also have human characteristics. With this I believe I have dismissed our claim that God does not act like human like all other gods. 





> No reason for you or they perhaps; plenty for me. "God" must have certain characteristics to answer for how the universe and human nature are constructed; not every "god" put forth fills the requirements of the God necessary for the universe we inhabit.


Obviously this is circular - God have certains traits. To exist you must have certain traits. God is real. 




> OK - so you're convinced by science of certain things that I'm not buying.


Actually I was conviced by the bible. I noticed a strange trend of two creation sequences (already cited here), different genealogies for Jesus and disciplies that cann't agree where and what he did at sametime. I obviously noticed the bible wasn't so trusthable when I first read it when I was a teenager. Not by science. 




> So? Why does it matter to you if I take Genesis literally? You can't "cut and paste" the Bible: either it's all correct or it's all false because it is a self-referential work. Once you dismiss part of it, the rest falls down as well.


I do not matter if You take it -as I said, we do not need to discuss because you resume it all to what you believe. However we are having an argument and I know not even those who wrote the book believed in biblical literalism but that the bible could generate several different interpretations. I found them very wise as any text generate several different interpretations. 
And the second part? Ridiculous. I dismiss the truth of genisis creation routine but I really think they are accurate about having a Herodes or a Pilatos. 





> Zeus does not fit the requirements of the God necessary to exist for the construction of the universe; as well, Zeus did not leave us a written record of his law and his experiences with humanity; Zeus did not leave us a written record that referred to actual people, locations and events that occurred in history.


Neither god. The bible was writen by humans that claimed divine inspiration, just like Homer and Hesiod (and several other writers who left a record of Zeus laws and experiences) and so did Brahma, Budda, etc. 




> The Bible states clearly that human knowledge is doomed to failure:
> 
> 1 Corinthians 1:19
> For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
> 
> 1 Corinthians 1:20
> Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?


So, you are doomed to failure? Or it is the Bible, a depository of human Knowledge ?
I must repeat, there is no evidence is quoting what is doubted. 





> Atheists engage in the ultimate gamble because if they're right - I only have my earthly consequences of living a lie. If I'm right, the consequences for the atheist are eternal.


Religious people engage in the ultimate gamble, because if they're right - I only have my earthly consequences of living a lie. If I am right, the consequences for the religious ar eternal. 
Your quote can be turned against itself, it means nothing. 




> The other so-called 34848 deities are not real - none of them claimed the power that Christ did; none of them claimed to be the only path to heaven. None of them possessed the power to do what Christ did.


Sorry, but some of the probally deites have all the power Christ did. Prophecies ? That was what humans did in greece or germany. Coming back to life? Buda and Mithras keep doing it. Healing ? Our doctors do it today. What else? 





> Evolution is a desperate attempt to try and explain God away so that we can live a more guilt-free life for our misbehaviors.


That quote is silly, ridiculous and childish. Evolution is a fact. The theory that explains this fact named by Darwin Natural Selection does not states that God does not exist, it does not say his name a single time because Darwin, although turned to be atheist with time, did not wanted to upset his wife, a religious woman and avoided the subjected. 
I have a life clean without misbehaviors without god so please, do not suppose your moral highground over me or any atheist because you have a religion. Let our acts talk by us and let's see how ethical we are or not. 




> Well, I guess God is dogmatic because He made it clear that He doesn't change and that His words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35).


It is funky, because God promissed Abraham to spare Sodomo in Gomorra case a just man was found, inst? And one was and even so, God keep his act? And wait, the God of NT is slightly different from the god of NT, isnt so? 




> The textual integrity of the NT (99.5% - highest in ancient texts) and the Bible's ability to predict the future (as it has done a number of times) supports its veracity.


What is textual integrity ? What criteria is this one and how it make it more real than the Divine Comedy (100% integrity, a record!)
And I recall Bible did not predicted any future except those writen after the happened in the very own bible. 




> To say something does not exist because you can't see it or find it is to suggest that you have an exhaustive knowledge of what _is_. Whether or not you exist is irrelevant to that point.


No, the understanding of something does not equate with the perception of existence. I do not understand Radiation, I know it exist. Your proposal is not logical. 
Plus, let me remind you - You claiming 34484 other deities do not exist without having the knowledge of what is is valid from me claiming 34489 ? 




> "Majority" eh? Where do you get your numbers from? Much of the rest of this paragraph I cannot follow. Sorry.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...y_Religion.png 
As you see, no religion is supported by the majority of the population. 




> I'm sorry, my friend, but you clearly do not understand how philosophical foundations work: all beliefs are circular in nature - we all chose a world-view that seems reasonable and then find support for it.


I think that was covered 3 posts ago. I am well aware that all phylosophical systems use a principle that starts with an assumed truth. But Science objectivity is not this principle and it is a way it was assume to work.
its every simple: My opinion does not matter. I must present evidences so Everyone else in the world, now and in the future, will be able to test my results and disagree or agree with me. It is objective because it propose a system which result is judged by outsider sources than the disclaimer. You seem to think objectivity is accepting all the possibilities of a claim as truth and not testing against it. 




> People who are "logically argued" into leaving Christianity or joining it were already in doubt before the arguments showed up. There is no such thing as true objectivity in human beings, and atheists - despite their endless self-aggrandizing ideas that they are "clear-sighted" and "open-minded" via their rejection of the spiritual world of God is an absurdity of the highest order; it makes them equally as blind as the Christian - perhaps moreso - because the Christian will gladly admit that he views the world through the lense of Jesus Christ; the atheist wishes to believe that he wears no "lenses" at all. That is wrong - and to not be able to recognize that is the worst blindness of all.


You have a problem - Science is not atheist or religious. Science is a system created by most part by religious scientists. Your accusation is funny as no one is claiming true objectivity and we can certainly point when one is being just subjectivy and the only explanation they give as you do "God is real because the bible says so. The bible is real because God says so. So, both God and Bible are real". 
I also need to point your argument that atheists and scientists are to believe only in what is empiric and that is a flaw works on you also as you use the empiric evidence of the bible as evidence for God.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

It seems to me that those who believe in the God(s) - one, three or three in one - of the Old and New Testaments have a one-third chance at best of being right:

1) There is a God and the Bible is divinely inspired by him. Any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible are the result of its having passed through human hands which may have mistranslated portions of it or added or subtracted portions. Any contradictions between the Biblical account of creation and subsequent events and what has been measured and proven by science is either a) because the Bible is in part metaphorical or b) science has omitted to take into account those invisible or unmeasurable influences of God

2) There is a sentient superhuman force but we know nothing of its nature, work or intentions because the Bible is wholly the work of human authors.

3) There is no God. The Bible is ingenious fiction. Science, however incomplete or imperfect, is our only guide to understanding the past, present and future of our cosmos.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What are those supports? By the way, Do you understand a logical principle that something can not logically be evidence of his own veracity ? When We question God's existence, the veracity of the only place that claimed his existence is questioned, so it can not be supported by it.


Nothing I said is guilty of the charge this convoluted sentence puts forth. An example: the complexity and purposeful design of nature suggests a creater or designer - Christians take this to be evidence of God; atheists say that the complexity and design of nature occur randomly, through massive lengths of time. Either one could be correct - but the behavior of nature indicates that the evolutionary theory (not fact, my friend) cannot account for the construction of reality. That's one example.





> Ridiculous. There is no need of such play while I have been there for real. And Objectivism is not thinking of both side, this is assuming both side's bias - Objectivism is following the logical argument that can be proved besides both sides.


Most intellectuals aren't afraid of some hypothetical discussion. People tell me I'm this or that because of what I believe so I try to get them to follow out my logic by engaging in a hypothetical discussion that goes something like this: "Given that God exists, and given that He possesses the characteristic that the Bible attributes to Him, does it not make sense that I believe the things I do?" What I find is that most non-believers will bypass that discussion and tell me things like you have, or they will tell me "But God doesn't exist so there's no point in discussing this" - which simply tells me that they may indeed realize that - based on the givens, that my logic is sound.

Humans cannot be 100% objective. Our upbringing and cultural variables has engendered within each of us certain biases and subjective "filters" through which we view the world. Some of us acknowledge this; many of us don't.




> Evolution is a fact. It is not hypothetical. Charles Darwin did not played a game, he proposed a hypothesis that was tested by others, not himself.


Evolution is a hyothesis that scientists believe they have proven via some fossils, some speculation and some suggested ages of the earth. Evolution cannot be established as "fact" simply by virtue that we can not go back and confirm abiogenesis or evolutionary changes. Those things cannot be proven - they can only be inferred by evidence - evidence which also can be used to argue for intelligent design. In short: you're wrong.




> You claimed most cosmogonies have already matter and not something that exist previously to matter- It is not true. Hesiod (Greek Poet) wrote a poem named Teogony and there the creation starts with Chaos, without matter. By the way, Hesiod claims -as All religious texts in the world, that he was divine inspired and there he presents what Zeus decreted - besides many things - that are his teachings and all feats. So, Zeus left writings as well.


Hesiod's poem doesn't = creation myth. Most mythological cosmologies already contain matter within them from which everything else comes; only the Christian creation story establishes that before creation, there was only God and all that exists He created. Zeus cannot be God because he behaved like a depraved human whose primary goal in life was to get laid. Sorry - no being of that character could serve as a Divine Guide for humanity.




> If we share some of his characteristics, this means he also have human characteristics. With this I believe I have dismissed our claim that God does not act like human like all other gods.


We share characteristics because He gave us some of His - not vice versa. I already said this quite clearly once.




> Obviously this is circular - God have certains traits. To exist you must have certain traits. God is real.


You have simplified my comments in order to make them fallacious. The construction of the universe argues for a creator of a certain character. That's what I said and I was quite clear.




> Actually I was conviced by the bible. I noticed a strange trend of two creation sequences (already cited here), different genealogies for Jesus and disciplies that cann't agree where and what he did at sametime. I obviously noticed the bible wasn't so trusthable when I first read it when I was a teenager. Not by science.


Maybe you should have a) spent a bit more time in study, or b) consulted someone knowledgeable about your questions. 

1. The two creations sequences do not contradict each other; they offer two variations of the story - one chronological, the other thematic in nature.

2. The genealogies for Jesus are through Mary and Joseph's separate family lines - since our ancestry is established by our _two_ parents.

3. The Gospels do not contradict each other - it is generally considered to be in favor of the veracity of the scriptures that the apostles accounts differ slightly - which is the hallmark of eyewitness reporting; scholarship indicates that identical gospels would actually work against their claim of being eyewitness accounts.

Next?




> I do not matter if You take it -as I said, we do not need to discuss because you resume it all to what you believe. However we are having an argument and I know not even those who wrote the book believed in biblical literalism but that the bible could generate several different interpretations. I found them very wise as any text generate several different interpretations.


How do you know what the ancient Jews believed in terms of the Bible? 




> And the second part? Ridiculous. I dismiss the truth of genisis creation routine but I really think they are accurate about having a Herodes or a Pilatos.


Here's where you reveal your lack of understanding of the Bible: it is a unified whole - a work that is self-referential: Jesus himself refers to creation (Mark 10:6) as well as Noah (Matt 24:37-8). It all ties together - once you dismiss part of it as untrue (especially any part that has to do with God Himself) the entire thing becomes worthless.




> Neither god. The bible was writen by humans that claimed divine inspiration, just like Homer and Hesiod (and several other writers who left a record of Zeus laws and experiences) and so did Brahma, Budda, etc.


The "divine inspiration" that ancient poets claimed was possession by the "muse" - not inspiration by the god Zeus because Zeus did not inspire art - the muses did. It was a sort of "divine madness" - not the same thing as Divine Inspiration. Sorry.




> So, you are doomed to failure? Or it is the Bible, a depository of human Knowledge ?


In my attempt to answer the questions of this world outside of the framework of God? Yes, absolutely. 

No - the Bible is a divinely inspired document of the character of God.





> I must repeat, there is no evidence is quoting what is doubted.


Incomprehensible sentence.




> Religious people engage in the ultimate gamble, because if they're right - I only have my earthly consequences of living a lie. If I am right, the consequences for the religious ar eternal. 
> Your quote can be turned against itself, it means nothing.


Makes zero sense. The issue of whether or not there is a God turns ultimately on what happens when we die; if atheism is correct, then nothing happens when I die and I could have lived any kind of life I wanted without eternal repercussions. If Christianity is right, then something does happen when I die and the kind of life I led and whom I chose to serve DID matter.




> Sorry, but some of the probally deites have all the power Christ did. Prophecies ? That was what humans did in greece or germany. Coming back to life? Buda and Mithras keep doing it. Healing ? Our doctors do it today. What else?


The primary difference between the miracles of Christ and other "gods" is this:

With Christ:
1. The source of the miracle is God alone - God gets the credit.
2. The purpose of the miracle is to authenticate Jesus' claim to be the "Son of Man " (a messianic title) - authenticates the claims of the miracle worker.
3. Character of miracle is good - miracle displays a benevolent character.

With other "gods":
1. Their purpose is not benevolent but self-serving.
2. The power to do the miracle is attributed to the individual performing the miracle.

Buddhist miracles tend to focus on the aggrandizement of the individual while the biblical miracles glorify a benevolent, transcendant God.




> That quote is silly, ridiculous and childish. Evolution is a fact. The theory that explains this fact named by Darwin Natural Selection does not states that God does not exist, it does not say his name a single time because Darwin, although turned to be atheist with time, did not wanted to upset his wife, a religious woman and avoided the subjected. 
> I have a life clean without misbehaviors without god so please, do not suppose your moral highground over me or any atheist because you have a religion. Let our acts talk by us and let's see how ethical we are or not.


Evolution is not a fact. 

I gave an opinion - I'd appreciate a respectful response rather than name-calling - that's how educated, mature people disagree on a point. Thank-you.




> It is funky, because God promissed Abraham to spare Sodomo in Gomorra case a just man was found, inst? And one was and even so, God keep his act? And wait, the God of NT is slightly different from the god of NT, isnt so?


James Brown is "funky" - my comment was decidedly much more lacking in rhythm.

If you will check the end of Genesis 18, you will discover that the negotiations between God and Abraham ended here:

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak *just once more*. What if only ten can be found there?" 
He answered, "For the sake of *ten*, I will not destroy it." 

Apparently, 10 righteous men could not be found. Next?




> What is textual integrity ? What criteria is this one and how it make it more real than the Divine Comedy (100% integrity, a record!)
> And I recall Bible did not predicted any future except those writen after the happened in the very own bible.


1. Textual integrity is determined by how much of the copies of a text agree with each other in terms of language, words, even punctuation. Here:

During a 50 year time span (AD 70-120), there were 5500 original language copies of the New Testament generated. These copies demonstrate agreement 99.5% of the time. No other ancient text comes even close to that. The Divine Comedy was writen a thousand years later - _please_. Let's not compare a _medieval_ text with an _ancient_ text.

In contrast, Homer's _Illiad_  has 643 copies generated over a 500 year time span and possesses the second highest integrity: the texts agree with each other 95% of the time.

2. One example of Biblical prophecy: The book of Daniel was written towards the end of the 6th century BC, 200 years before the birth of Alexandar the Great; the book of Daniel accurately predicts in chapter 11 the breakup of Alexandar's empire. This could not have be "written into" Daniel after the fact because the canon of the Tanakh (the Jewish scriptures) had closed 100 years after the death of Daniel and the text was firmly established. There are no alternate versions of Daniel that have a different 11th chapter.




> No, the understanding of something does not equate with the perception of existence. I do not understand Radiation, I know it exist. Your proposal is not logical.


Once again, you're not reading me very closely; I did not say you "understand" everything in reality - but to claim something doesn't exist because you can't see it or see no proof of it suggests that you have an exhaustive knowledge of all that is *in* reality. The statement is logical - you may just not get it.




> Plus, let me remind you - You claiming 34484 other deities do not exist without having the knowledge of what is is valid from me claiming 34489 ?


The other deities do not fit the criteria that our universe requires in terms of a divine creator.




> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...y_Religion.png 
> As you see, no religion is supported by the majority of the population.


So? Majority doesn't equal legitimacy.




> I think that was covered 3 posts ago. I am well aware that all phylosophical systems use a principle that starts with an assumed truth. But Science objectivity is not this principle and it is a way it was assume to work.
> its every simple: My opinion does not matter. I must present evidences so Everyone else in the world, now and in the future, will be able to test my results and disagree or agree with me. It is objective because it propose a system which result is judged by outsider sources than the disclaimer. You seem to think objectivity is accepting all the possibilities of a claim as truth and not testing against it.


No: I'm denying that any philosophic world-view (including atheism) is objective in how it views reality.





> You have a problem - Science is not atheist or religious. Science is a system created by most part by religious scientists. Your accusation is funny as no one is claiming true objectivity and we can certainly point when one is being just subjectivy and the only explanation they give as you do "God is real because the bible says so. The bible is real because God says so. So, both God and Bible are real". 
> I also need to point your argument that atheists and scientists are to believe only in what is empiric and that is a flaw works on you also as you use the empiric evidence of the bible as evidence for God.


Natruralism (the dominant philosophy of science) is atheistic in nature because it denies the possibility of God.

----------


## Dark Star

We've been over this before in various topics on evolution. A _scientific theory_ is not the same as a layman's theory. It does not mean 'a guess'. And evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. From Wiki: "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity."

In essence: Evolution occurs, this is a fact. We have directly observed it occurring, and the fossil record provides mountains of proof in addition to this. The theory of evolution explains how it happens and makes predictions about what will occur in the future so it is not too far off base to refer to the theory of evolution as a 'fact'.

Also, I wish you would quit conflating evolution with abiogenesis. That's like saying 'I've found flaws in the big bang theory and therefore evolution is wrong.' The hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are two separate entities. That both happen to exist within the field of biology does not make them intrinsically tied together. The theory of evolution explains how things happened; how they began is irrelevant to the theory.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Nothing I said is guilty of the charge this convoluted sentence puts forth.


What is the point of carping at the poster's writing style? If you don't understand his point, ask for clarification. 




> An example: the complexity and purposeful design of nature suggests a creater or designer - Christians take this to be evidence of God; atheists say that the complexity and design of nature occur randomly, through massive lengths of time. Either one could be correct - but the behavior of nature indicates that the evolutionary theory (not fact, my friend) cannot account for the construction of reality. That's one example.


On the other hand, the prevalence of Malaria, Polio (until it was virtually eliminated via the application of 'naturalistic' science), Mongoloidism, Lou Gehrig's disease, &c., &c., tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, &c. &c. argue against a creator (note proper spelling) or designer other than an inept or malignant one.




> Most intellectuals aren't afraid of some hypothetical discussion. People tell me I'm this or that because of what I believe so I try to get them to follow out my logic by engaging in a hypothetical discussion that goes something like this: "Given that God exists, and given that He possesses the characteristic that the Bible attributes to Him, does it not make sense that I believe the things I do?" What I find is that most non-believers will bypass that discussion and tell me things like you have, or they will tell me "But God doesn't exist so there's no point in discussing this" - which simply tells me that they may indeed realize that - based on the givens, that my logic is sound.


But you cannot or will not provide the rock on which your beliefs rest, other than a set of books that are demonstrated by Biblical scholars to have been written by diverse hands and to have been altered by many translations of _an original that is not known._




> Humans cannot be 100% objective. Our upbringing and cultural variables has engendered within each of us certain biases and subjective "filters" through which we view the world. Some of us acknowledge this; many of us don't.


And some of us mistake these filters for the most pristine of optics. (cf your signature quotation.)

[QUOTE]Hesiod's poem doesn't = creation myth. Most mythological cosmologies already contain matter within them from which everything else comes;

Scholars have traced the roots of many of the Old Testament stories to the ancient, pagan myths of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures. In the Fertile Crescent, the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in present-day Iraq, gave birth to some of the worlds first civilizations. 
In this early flowering of civilization, many religious myths abounded, seeking 
to explain what was then unexplainable. From this context comes the oldest 
complete literary work we have, the age of which we are certain, dating back at least 7,000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lengthy narrative of heroic 
mythology that incorporates many of the religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived. 

Many of the stories in that epic were eventually incorporated into the book of Genesis. Borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh are stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world.
For more see: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm




> Here's where you reveal your lack of understanding of the Bible: it is a unified whole - a work that is self-referential


As much so as a work by some 150 authors could be, patched over, stitched, added and deleted to by e.g. Constantine and the various ecumenical councils, where various groups fought for their respective interpretations and emendations.




> The "divine inspiration" that ancient poets claimed was possession by the "muse" - not inspiration by the god Zeus because Zeus did not inspire art - the muses did. It was a sort of "divine madness" - not the same thing as Divine Inspiration. Sorry.


The difference being?

Next.




> No - the Bible is a divinely inspired document of the character of God.


According to ther Bible itself.

Next.




> The issue of whether or not there is a God turns ultimately on what happens when we die; if atheism is correct, then nothing happens when I die and I could have lived any kind of life I wanted without eternal repercussions.


Assuming of course that you cared nothing about he example you set for you children, your students, your neighbours.




> If Christianity is right, then something does happen when I die and the kind of life I led and whom I chose to serve DID matter.


As it is in primary and high-school, where your advancement is contingent on your ability to parrot the teachings you have had and to please the standards of your teachers. Is it not time for us as a species to graduate and begin to think for ourselves, ab ovo?




> If you will check the end of Genesis 18, you will discover that the negotiations between God and Abraham ended here:


Consult also his negotiations (or rather the lack thereof) when called upon to sacrifice Isaac.

Next?

----------


## NikolaiI

Yess, you have some good points, Myshkin. For instance, why is the only reason for doing the right thing to avoid suffering eternal consequences for yourself? Isn't that a bit psychopathic? I mean if it wasn't for that you wouldn't care about anyone? If Hinduism is the right religion, then that is not true devotion to God. As pantheists say, when you hurt others you are hurting yourself. I think a morality based on understanding and empathy is better.

Now I shall go sleep a long sleep, since my posts and points are so seldom replied to or heeded.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Yess, you have some good points, Myshkin. For instance, why is the only reason for doing the right thing to avoid suffering eternal consequences for yourself? Isn't that a bit psychopathic? I mean if it wasn't for that you wouldn't care about anyone? If Hinduism is the right religion, then that is not true devotion to God. As pantheists say, when you hurt others you are hurting yourself. I think a morality based on understanding and empathy is better.
> 
> Now I shall go sleep a long sleep, since my posts and points are so seldom replied to or heeded.


Wonderfully well put! Those who would do wicked were it not for their fear of eternal damnation have pretty patchy souls anyway. And what would better firm up our moral muscles than to choose to act kindly, humanely for no better reason than we have recognized the humanity in others - which is to say their capacity for suffering as we do?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> We've been over this before in various topics on evolution. A _scientific theory_ is not the same as a layman's theory. It does not mean 'a guess'. And evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. From Wiki: "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity."


Excuse my sloppiness. 

I dislike it when people use gravity in reference to the "factuality" of evolution when gravity is _here, now_ to observe and test and study; abiogenesis and evolution are not. What we have is the equivalent of a crime scene - lots of clues, but we didn't witness the murder and as such we do not know exactly what happened because the evidence is far from equivocal. 




> n essence: Evolution occurs, this is a fact. We have directly observed it occurring, and the fossil record provides mountains of proof in addition to this. The theory of evolution explains how it happens and makes predictions about what will occur in the future so it is not too far off base to refer to the theory of evolution as a 'fact'.


Evolution is occurring? Where? The fossil record shows us an outline of a creature that once was. That in and of itself is conclusive only of the fact that a creature that once _was_ now no longer _is_.




> Also, I wish you would quit conflating evolution with abiogenesis. That's like saying 'I've found flaws in the big bang theory and therefore evolution is wrong.' The hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are two separate entities. That both happen to exist within the field of biology does not make them intrinsically tied together. The theory of evolution explains how things happened; how they began is irrelevant to the theory.


Forgive my sloppiness. 

Without abiogenesis, evolutionists go where to explain the beginning of life? You can separate them if you wish, but where did evolution come from?




> What is the point of carping at the poster's writing style? If you don't understand his point, ask for clarification.


Frankly, my friend, Mary doesn't need your help. I did let him/her know I didn't understand what s/he was writing. Spare me your advice, please.




> On the other hand, the prevalence of Malaria, Polio (until it was virtually eliminated via the application of 'naturalistic' science), Mongoloidism, Lou Gehrig's disease, &c., &c., tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, &c. &c. argue against a creator (note proper spelling) or designer other than an inept or malignant one.


Sin does terrible things to reality, doesn't it?




> But you cannot or will not provide the rock on which your beliefs rest, other than a set of books that are demonstrated by Biblical scholars to have been written by diverse hands and to have been altered by many translations of _an original that is not known._


You apparently did not read my lenghty response to JCamilo, so here:

1. Textual integrity is determined by how much of the copies of a text agree with each other in terms of language, words, even punctuation. Here:

During a 50 year time span (AD 70-120), there were 5500 original language copies of the New Testament generated. These copies demonstrate agreement 99.5&#37; of the time. No other ancient text comes even close to that. 

In contrast, Homer's Illiad has 643 copies generated over a 500 year time span and possesses the second highest integrity: the texts agree with each other 95% of the time.

I can explain similar measures that indicate the validity of the OT as well, if you wish.






> And some of us mistake these filters for the most pristine of optics. (cf your signature quotation.)


_All of us_ do that - that's human nature. (Still hung up on my signature, huh?)




> Scholars have traced the roots of many of the Old Testament stories to the ancient, pagan myths of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures. In the Fertile Crescent, the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in present-day Iraq, gave birth to some of the worlds first civilizations.
> 
> In this early flowering of civilization, many religious myths abounded, seeking 
> to explain what was then unexplainable. From this context comes the oldest 
> complete literary work we have, the age of which we are certain, dating back at least 7,000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lengthy narrative of heroic 
> mythology that incorporates many of the religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived. 
> 
> Many of the stories in that epic were eventually incorporated into the book of Genesis. Borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh are stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world.[/INDENT]
> 
> ...


Is all this supposed to disprove something I believe? I'm OK with the fact that these things convince you of something. 




> The difference being?


None to you; the world to me.




> According to ther Bible itself.


Said as if there was something wrong with that.




> Assuming of course that you cared nothing about he example you set for you children, your students, your neighbours.


Such things, while important, pale next to the reality of eternal consequences - which was the point I was making and the point you decided to ignore to construct this _strawman_ attack.




> As it is in primary and high-school, where your advancement is contingent on your ability to parrot the teachings you have had and to please the standards of your teachers. Is it not time for us as a species to graduate and begin to think for ourselves, ab ovo?


Do you teach? I _do_ and I don't recall teaching my students any of this silliness. I teach my students to think for themselves. Your implication that I do not think for myself is tired, repetitive and patronizing. I'd prefer you argue more than insult.




> Consult also his negotiations (or rather the lack thereof) when called upon to sacrifice Isaac.


You ought not talk about stories that concern issues you clearly do not understand. 

Once again, you ignore the point to commit another _strawman_ attack.






> why is the only reason for doing the right thing to avoid suffering eternal consequences for yourself? Isn't that a bit psychopathic?


Who said this? I didn't. I was making a point about the "cost" of believing in God or atheism. No reference was made to "doing the right thing to avoid...eternal consequences." Re-read my post.




> I mean if it wasn't for that you wouldn't care about anyone? If Hinduism is the right religion, then that is not true devotion to God. As pantheists say, when you hurt others you are hurting yourself. I think a morality based on understanding and empathy is better.


Hinduism cannot be the "true" religion because it gives a picture of God that is a) contradictory to scripture, and b) the picture of God it gives makes God a non-transcendant being, one without a moral will.




> Now I shall go sleep a long sleep, since my posts and points are so seldom replied to or heeded.


I'm sorry my friend. Sleep well.

----------


## JCamilo

> Nothing I said is guilty of the charge this convoluted sentence puts forth. An example: the complexity and purposeful design of nature suggests a creater or designer - Christians take this to be evidence of God; atheists say that the complexity and design of nature occur randomly, through massive lengths of time. Either one could be correct - but the behavior of nature indicates that the evolutionary theory (not fact, my friend) cannot account for the construction of reality. That's one example.


This is getting boring and repetitive. Yes, in your list there was the scriptures. You just The Scriptures are evidences for God's so You did listed something to be the proof of itself. 
As the other evidences- Just because you manage to put two things in one sentence it does not mean anything. 
I won't even discuss my position but "complexity and purposeful" obviously suggest a creater , after all you already assigned without any shred of evidence the trait that you defend. It is pointless to argue if complexity do really suggest the need of a creator if you point things like this. 
Another thing: You do not seem to have any idea what Evolution is. 
The fact Evolution was noted in XVIII century. It is the species changes. It is a fact. Look a Wolf and a dog and you know domestication gave the oportunity for a specie's change. That is evolution. 
Darwin (many others before him) proposed explanation for this fact - Darwin theory name is Natural Selection. The popularization of his work labels it as Theory of Evolution, but that is just a popular mistaken call, since there is several other theories that are added to Darwin initial discovery that explain Evolution, such as those in the genetic field. 
Another mistaken is construction of Reality - Evolution does not deal with god and it is doing wonders to explain everything. 





> Most intellectuals aren't afraid of some hypothetical discussion. People tell me I'm this or that because of what I believe so I try to get them to follow out my logic by engaging in a hypothetical discussion that goes something like this: "Given that God exists, and given that He possesses the characteristic that the Bible attributes to Him, does it not make sense that I believe the things I do?" What I find is that most non-believers will bypass that discussion and tell me things like you have, or they will tell me "But God doesn't exist so there's no point in discussing this" - which simply tells me that they may indeed realize that - based on the givens, that my logic is sound.


1 - I already did. Your suposition that I can not use "suspension of disbilief" is a poor excuse for your own incapacity to think the bible just a book and see that everything is well explained as well if it is just a book. 
2 - Intelectuals do not play such games because this is sophism and several intectuals dislike it a lot. 
3 - The belief in god still make me think what is the problem with pigs. This also do not allow me to understand how an entire civilization claimed to be in several places and doing several things without a single archeological evidence. Just beliving in god does not help me at all. 




> Humans cannot be 100% objective. Our upbringing and cultural variables has engendered within each of us certain biases and subjective "filters" through which we view the world. Some of us acknowledge this; many of us don't.


Irrelevant. No one is claiming to be 100% objective (except you that said there is a book that tell us exactly what is right) but that pretending to be two interlopers in a dialogue is NOT objectivism. Objectvism is the distance from personal bias and assuming one or another which is your proposition.
And I can not be 100% objective, but I can try. 





> Evolution is a hyothesis that scientists believe they have proven via some fossils, some speculation and some suggested ages of the earth. Evolution cannot be established as "fact" simply by virtue that we can not go back and confirm abiogenesis or evolutionary changes. Those things cannot be proven - they can only be inferred by evidence - evidence which also can be used to argue for intelligent design. In short: you're wrong.


1 - You have no idea whata scientific hypothesis, theory or fact is. When a hypothesis is proven by some data (speculation is laughable) it turns in theory, so your first phrase is absolutely meaningless.
2 - Evolution is a fact. Do you see human controling breeding of cows to have stronger species ? Evolution in action. The most laughable attacks against evolution are "it is just a theory" and thinking it is related to fossiles and earth's age. (There is geological evolution, which was a big impulse to Darwin, but his work had no fossile research, he mostly used living animals he observed and colected). 
3 - I already told you abiogenesis is not evolution, it is a bit annoying how you keep bringing this stuff up. It shows no disposition for debate, just for preaching. And I do not need to go back and see evolution happening, because genetics use it today and now. Or how a children inherit his parents's defenses, etc. It is right now. 
4 - I am sure those evidences CAN be used by inteligent desing. Never denied it but Inteligent Desing is a theory that says the account of Genesis is poetic, mythical, etc and assume Evolution is real and God was only the source of life origem. In short, denial of the bible which is your defense so far. 
5 - In short, You have no idea what evolution is. 





> Hesiod's poem doesn't = creation myth.


Hesiod poem is the principal Cosmogony of western literature, It is a creation Myth (It is laughable, it tells how the universe was created, how life was created, how the rules of universe are created and organized) and it seems that you have no idea what it is, so please, reffrain from trying to argue it. 




> Most mythological cosmologies already contain matter within them from which everything else comes; only the Christian creation story establishes that before creation, there was only God and all that exists He created.


No, many have nothing of that. You seems to not know them and it is claiming it out of blue. 




> Zeus cannot be God because he behaved like a depraved human whose primary goal in life was to get laid. Sorry - no being of that character could serve as a Divine Guide for humanity.


Sorry, but if leaving woman mortals pregnant is not a divine trait, the father of Jesus certainly is very mundane. Also, that is the dude that killed all firstborn, innocent people included, once isnt? Or the same dude that had some crazy ideas about fathers having to kill their own kid? Wait, "Worship me or Die"? Beating with someone's life just for fun with a minor devil? 





> We share characteristics because He gave us some of His - not vice versa. I already said this quite clearly once.


Let's say something, if X have traits of Y, then it is safe to say Y have traits of X also. Hence, If God gave us some of his traits, he have traits that are yours. So, he do have traits that are human, do not matter if he gave it to him because the other gods you dismiss are also those who gave the traits to the mortals in the other myths. 





> You have simplified my comments in order to make them fallacious. The construction of the universe argues for a creator of a certain character. That's what I said and I was quite clear.


Sorry, your argument is simplist and easy to be show to befalacious, that is all. 




> Maybe you should have a) spent a bit more time in study, or b) consulted someone knowledgeable about your questions. 
> 
> 1. The two creations sequences do not contradict each other; they offer two variations of the story - one chronological, the other thematic in nature.


Meaning, there is two versions and in the book there is absolutely no refenrece to themes/chrnology - it is only a defense mechanism to see the book that have contradictions. 




> 2. The genealogies for Jesus are through Mary and Joseph's separate family lines - since our ancestry is established by our _two_ parents.


Isnt it funny ? Both Luke and Mathew talk about Joseph and not Mary. However, some other book had to add the invention about Heli so they can defend about this critic. The Bible had to be corrected, so funny. 




> 3. The Gospels do not contradict each other - it is generally considered to be in favor of the veracity of the scriptures that the apostles accounts differ slightly - which is the hallmark of eyewitness reporting; scholarship indicates that identical gospels would actually work against their claim of being eyewitness accounts.


There is not evidence that they are eyewitness reporting - except for Mathew that the tradition puts as the probally apostle, although something never proved. Luke certainly was not eyewitness report. But they do not differ slightly. They have no idea even where Jesus went. 
And do not invent things - If 100 people describe the same fact they would have different style but describe the same fact. The gospels describe different facts - that is the hallmark of oral tradition and legends. 




> How do you know what the ancient Jews believed in terms of the Bible?


The fact that they kept writing in the same way they wrote the books of the bible, leaving registers and registers about it? 





> Here's where you reveal your lack of understanding of the Bible: it is a unified whole - a work that is self-referential: Jesus himself refers to creation (Mark 10:6) as well as Noah (Matt 24:37-8). It all ties together - once you dismiss part of it as untrue (especially any part that has to do with God Himself) the entire thing becomes worthless.


Wake up, those who unificated the bible are the latter christians. The Jews do not even reckon the NT books and keep using the OT. And stop talking about my lack of knowledge while you think the quotations (Jesus was obviously , as the writers, educated and they know the OT books) make the whole book truth or false is giatic leap of logic that few can see before. 





> The "divine inspiration" that ancient poets claimed was possession by the "muse" - not inspiration by the god Zeus because Zeus did not inspire art - the muses did. It was a sort of "divine madness" - not the same thing as Divine Inspiration. Sorry.


Sorry, the Muses are agents and created by Zeus to inspire Mortals. It was his order to have them that way and - since that poetry was born from religious cerimonies - they are view as equating the persmission of Zeus, since he was usually - Hesiod do it, for allowing it. Errrm, next? 





> In my attempt to answer the questions of this world outside of the framework of God? Yes, absolutely. 
> 
> No - the Bible is a divinely inspired document of the character of God.


And still depository of human knowledge and thus it may be all a trick God did to lure us. Behold. 




> Makes zero sense. The issue of whether or not there is a God turns ultimately on what happens when we die; if atheism is correct, then nothing happens when I die and I could have lived any kind of life I wanted without eternal repercussions. If Christianity is right, then something does happen when I die and the kind of life I led and whom I chose to serve DID matter.


Again, Your gamble is a joke and pure sophistry. I already showed how it turns to nothing I am getting tired with the preaching. 






> The primary difference between the miracles of Christ and other "gods" is this:
> 
> With Christ:
> 1. The source of the miracle is God alone - God gets the credit.


When Zeus acted he was his own source. No difference. 




> 2. The purpose of the miracle is to authenticate Jesus' claim to be the "Son of Man " (a messianic title) - authenticates the claims of the miracle worker.


Preaching stuff - The purpose of Zeus showing power was the authenticates his position of God Rulers. No difference. 




> 3. Character of miracle is good - miracle displays a benevolent character.


>< , such as killing a tree for not having fruits when it was not time for it? 
Such miracles as turning people in salt, destroying a city, killing first-borns , etc? 
Errr, Read the bible and let's find if all feats of wonder of the biblical characters are benevolent. 




> With other "gods":
> 1. Their purpose is not benevolent but self-serving.


Yes, I suppose that Budda is self-serving.  :Crash:   :FRlol:  




> 2. The power to do the miracle is attributed to the individual performing the miracle.


Unknowledgable claim. When Zeus performed he never said it was someone else doing. 




> Buddhist miracles tend to focus on the aggrandizement of the individual while the biblical miracles glorify a benevolent, transcendant God.


Perhaps because the God of Buddist is not a tyrant over-ruling people. But what about Hinduism ? Jewish (Jesus is irrelevant to them) ? Muslims? And there goes ? 





> I gave an opinion - I'd appreciate a respectful response rather than name-calling - that's how educated, mature people disagree on a point. Thank-you.


So, next time you decide to call me immoral like you did, you should keep your opinion to yourself. 






> James Brown is "funky" - my comment was decidedly much more lacking in rhythm.
> 
> If you will check the end of Genesis 18, you will discover that the negotiations between God and Abraham ended here:
> 
> 32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak *just once more*. What if only ten can be found there?" 
> He answered, "For the sake of *ten*, I will not destroy it." 
> 
> Apparently, 10 righteous men could not be found. Next?


oK, so do you agree that OT God is unlike the NT, not forgiving, temperamental and judgmental. We can move ahead. 






> 1. Textual integrity is determined by how much of the copies of a text agree with each other in terms of language, words, even punctuation. Here:
> 
> During a 50 year time span (AD 70-120), there were 5500 original language copies of the New Testament generated. These copies demonstrate agreement 99.5% of the time. No other ancient text comes even close to that. The Divine Comedy was writen a thousand years later - _please_. Let's not compare a _medieval_ text with an _ancient_ text.


They do not even know when the gospels are written. In 70-120 they are not even selected! I know that was some flunke statistic...




> In contrast, Homer's _Illiad_  has 643 copies generated over a 500 year time span and possesses the second highest integrity: the texts agree with each other 95% of the time.


Which means Zeus exist. I knew I was write about the old bearbed guy all the time. 




> 2. One example of Biblical prophecy: The book of Daniel was written towards the end of the 6th century BC, 200 years before the birth of Alexandar the Great; the book of Daniel accurately predicts in chapter 11 the breakup of Alexandar's empire. This could not have be "written into" Daniel after the fact because the canon of the Tanakh (the Jewish scriptures) had closed 100 years after the death of Daniel and the text was firmly established. There are no alternate versions of Daniel that have a different 11th chapter.


Yes, Alexander was a example of today's individuals but I love to see this prophecy and not the interpretation of it. 
By the way, as Sto.Agostine Virgil predicted Jesus. Virgil worshiped Jupiter, Jupiter is real. 




> Once again, you're not reading me very closely; I did not say you "understand" everything in reality - but to claim something doesn't exist because you can't see it or see no proof of it suggests that you have an exhaustive knowledge of all that is *in* reality. The statement is logical - you may just not get it.


I proved to you that I know light exist because the inherent proofs light provide. Your statment is illogical but so is most of the text. 





> So? Majority doesn't equal legitimacy.


No, but that would be good to know how many people think the bible is just a book like you do with their sacred texts and gods.
That is good to see that your argument is not tolerant of the others as you claim to be and that the faults you label to atheists are actually faults of extreme religious people that seems to be fine to condem atheist for their lack of faith in their religious but forget they lack the faith in all other religions. 




> No: I'm denying that any philosophic world-view (including atheism) is objective in how it views reality.


You mix up the critic to objectivism as impossibility. Objectivism is possible. Being fanatic for it is a mistake however. 




> Natruralism (the dominant philosophy of science) is atheistic in nature because it denies the possibility of God.



Atheism that we follow today was not born from Naturalism and Science does not deny the possibility of God, that is false.(You deny this all the time when you deny all other gods, but anyways). Science just say: God does not exist, because we have no evidence for it. If we found the evidence this will change.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> This is getting boring and repetitive... Just because you manage to put two things in one sentence it does not mean anything.


Yep.




> The fact Evolution was noted in XVIII century. It is the species changes. It is a fact. Look a Wolf and a dog and you know domestication gave the oportunity for a specie's change. That is evolution.


The fact that somebody entertained the idea of evolution a few centuries ago does not legitimize it as a "fact." When I look at a wolf and a dog I see two animals that are related; that relationship does not suggest unequivocally that they are a product of evolution. That's one possible explanation (the less believable of the two in my opinion).




> Darwin (many others before him) proposed explanation for this fact - Darwin theory name is Natural Selection. The popularization of his work labels it as Theory of Evolution, but that is just a popular mistaken call, since there is several other theories that are added to Darwin initial discovery that explain Evolution, such as those in the genetic field.


It's still a theory. 




> 1 - I already did. Your suposition that I can not use "suspension of disbilief" is a poor excuse for your own incapacity to think the bible just a book and see that everything is well explained as well if it is just a book.


You won't follow the logic of my argument. That's fine. You're _begging the question_ by criticizing me for believing in the Bible when it's "just a book" - which really has yet to be proven.




> 2 - Intelectuals do not play such games because this is sophism and several intectuals dislike it a lot.


Intelligent people play "what if?" games to speculate on possibilities. I don't care about the "several intellectuals" who dislike the game; many of our greatest inventions and theories have come from smart people asking "what if?"




> 3 - The belief in god still make me think what is the problem with pigs. This also do not allow me to understand how an entire civilization claimed to be in several places and doing several things without a single archeological evidence. Just beliving in god does not help me at all.


Incomprehensible. Sorry. Needs clarification in order for me to respond.





> Irrelevant. No one is claiming to be 100&#37; objective (except you that said there is a book that tell us exactly what is right) but that pretending to be two interlopers in a dialogue is NOT objectivism. Objectvism is the distance from personal bias and assuming one or another which is your proposition.
> And I can not be 100% objective, but I can try.


The objectivity of the Bible exists because a Divine Being inspired it.




> 2 - Evolution is a fact.


No. It's not. It cannot be proven conclusively. Sorry.




> Do you see human controling breeding of cows to have stronger species ? Evolution in action. The most laughable attacks against evolution are "it is just a theory" and thinking it is related to fossiles and earth's age. (There is geological evolution, which was a big impulse to Darwin, but his work had no fossile research, he mostly used living animals he observed and colected).


What is laughable is that you have compared the human manipulation of a species with evolution - which is theorized to be the NATURAL mutations occurring in nature via natural selection. You've got to be kidding, right?




> 3 - I already told you abiogenesis is not evolution, it is a bit annoying how you keep bringing this stuff up. It shows no disposition for debate, just for preaching. And I do not need to go back and see evolution happening, because genetics use it today and now. Or how a children inherit his parents's defenses, etc. It is right now.


These things could also be evidence of a divine creator's "programming" of the human body.

Nobody's "preaching" at you; if abiogenesis didn't lead to evolution, how did evolution "start" - and where did life come from? Separate the two if you wish, but at some point, evolutionists have to deal with the origin of life.





> 5 - In short, You have no idea what evolution is.


You're free to believe so if you wish.




> Hesiod poem is the principal Cosmogony of western literature, It is a creation Myth (It is laughable, it tells how the universe was created, how life was created, how the rules of universe are created and organized) and it seems that you have no idea what it is, so please, reffrain from trying to argue it.


Here you go (from Answers.com):


The _Theogony_ (Theogonia, or Genealogy of the Gods) is a long (over 1, 000 lines) narrative description of the origin of the universe and the gods. Beginning with the aboriginal *Chaos* (Emptiness) and *Gaia* (Earth), Hesiod describes the creation of the natural world and the generations of the gods.
 (My bolding)

Like I said: most creation myths begin with matter already present. Genesis does not.





> Sorry, but if leaving woman mortals pregnant is not a divine trait, the father of Jesus certainly is very mundane. Also, that is the dude that killed all firstborn, innocent people included, once isnt? Or the same dude that had some crazy ideas about fathers having to kill their own kid? Wait, "Worship me or Die"? Beating with someone's life just for fun with a minor devil?


Joseph was not God; Mary was not God. Mary was impregnated via the Holy Spirit.

The firstborn children killed in the 10th plague of Egypt were killed by an angel.

Don't get your last two sentences. They're fairly incomprehensible.





> Let's say something, if X have traits of Y, then it is safe to say Y have traits of X also. Hence, If God gave us some of his traits, he have traits that are yours. So, he do have traits that are human, do not matter if he gave it to him because the other gods you dismiss are also those who gave the traits to the mortals in the other myths.


Fallacious logic. I do not share my son's characteristics: I gave him mine. He cannot pass characteristics of himself to me. He can only reflect a similarity between us because of what I gave him.




> Sorry, your argument is simplist and easy to be show to befalacious, that is all.


Believable if you had responded properly; you didn't.




> Meaning, there is two versions and in the book there is absolutely no refenrece to themes/chrnology - it is only a defense mechanism to see the book that have contradictions.


There are no contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2. Period.





> Isnt it funny ? Both Luke and Mathew talk about Joseph and not Mary. However, some other book had to add the invention about Heli so they can defend about this critic. The Bible had to be corrected, so funny.


You're wrong. Matthew's genealogy is for Joseph (Matt 1:16) and Luke's is for Mary (cf. Luke 3:23-38). The only "funny" thing is that in order for you to be correct, you must resort to an unprovable assertion. 




> There is not evidence that they are eyewitness reporting - except for Mathew that the tradition puts as the probally apostle, although something never proved. Luke certainly was not eyewitness report. But they do not differ slightly. They have no idea even where Jesus went. 
> And do not invent things - If 100 people describe the same fact they would have different style but describe the same fact. The gospels describe different facts - that is the hallmark of oral tradition and legends.


Give me the different "facts" please. Otherwise you're just making unsubstantiated remarks.




> Sorry, the Muses are agents and created by Zeus to inspire Mortals. It was his order to have them that way and - since that poetry was born from religious cerimonies - they are view as equating the persmission of Zeus, since he was usually - Hesiod do it, for allowing it.


Being inspired by the muses is not being inspired by Zeus unless the muses are mere "mouthpieces" for Zeus. To my understanding, they were independent beings. Nice try.




> Again, Your gamble is a joke and pure sophistry. I already showed how it turns to nothing I am getting tired with the preaching.


Those familiar with preaching would know that I've done nothing of the sort.




> Preaching stuff - The purpose of Zeus showing power was the authenticates his position of God Rulers. No difference.


Perhaps - but his immoral behavior already disqualifies him as any real contender for the title of "God."




> such as killing a tree for not having fruits when it was not time for it? 
> Such miracles as turning people in salt, destroying a city, killing first-borns , etc? 
> Errr, Read the bible and let's find if all feats of wonder of the biblical characters are benevolent.


My friend, you are just throwing up at the wall whatever you can just to see what will stick. The issue with the fig tree was to illustrate a theological truth. The "salt" bit has been said by scholars to be an idiom equivalent to "she froze from fear" and then died (since one cannot look at God in action- and she did that on her own - she was warned not to look back); the first-born was a consequence for Pharoh going back on his word and arguing with God about releasing the Jews. Had Pharoh honored God's request, no one need have suffered.




> Yes, I suppose that Budda is self-serving.


You ignored the point. _Strawman_.




> Unknowledgable claim. When Zeus performed he never said it was someone else doing.


Zeus's miracles were to bring glory to himself, to aggrandize himself.




> Perhaps because the God of Buddist is not a tyrant over-ruling people. But what about Hinduism ? Jewish (Jesus is irrelevant to them) ? Muslims? And there goes ?


God isn't a tyrant. He gave us free will and we're free to choose as we wish. He had informed us of the consequences. You're free to choose your path. Tyrants don't give choices.




> So, next time you decide to call me immoral like you did, you should keep your opinion to yourself.


I made no comment pertaining to your moral character; I confronted your name-calling and informed you that that's not how educated people debate. Moral people can name-call in a debate. I would confront such behavior regardless of your moral fiber.




> oK, so do you agree that OT God is unlike the NT, not forgiving, temperamental and judgmental. We can move ahead.


The OT and the NT provide complementary pictures of God - who is equal parts _justice_ and _mercy_.




> They do not even know when the gospels are written. In 70-120 they are not even selected! I know that was some flunke statistic...


My statements are based on scholarship - what's yours based on?




> Yes, Alexander was a example of today's individuals but I love to see this prophecy and not the interpretation of it.


Read Daniel chapter 11.




> By the way, as Sto.Agostine Virgil predicted Jesus. Virgil worshiped Jupiter, Jupiter is real.


Yes it is - a big ball of gas at approximately 318 times the mass of earth. (Wowee that's big).




> I proved to you that I know light exist because the inherent proofs light provide. Your statment is illogical but so is most of the text.


_Non sequiter._




> That is good to see that your argument is not tolerant of the others as you claim to be and that the faults you label to atheists are actually faults of extreme religious people that seems to be fine to condem atheist for their lack of faith in their religious but forget they lack the faith in all other religions.


I claimed "tolerance" - where? I've condemned nobody. Provide proof or quit making things up, please.




> You mix up the critic to objectivism as impossibility. Objectivism is possible. Being fanatic for it is a mistake however.


_Non sequiter #2._




> Atheism that we follow today was not born from Naturalism and Science does not deny the possibility of God, that is false.(You deny this all the time when you deny all other gods, but anyways). Science just say: God does not exist, because we have no evidence for it. If we found the evidence this will change.


I didn't say any of this. I said that Naturalism invloves a tacit acceptance of atheism. Saying that God doesn't exist because we can't find any evidence is like saying that there are no worlds out in the universe like ours because we can't find any. Absurd logic.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Excuse my sloppiness. 
> 
> I dislike it when people use gravity in reference to the "factuality" of evolution when gravity is _here, now_ to observe and test and study; abiogenesis and evolution are not. What we have is the equivalent of a crime scene - lots of clues, but we didn't witness the murder and as such we do not know exactly what happened because the evidence is far from equivocal.


Gravity is indeed here but was imperfectly understoof until Einstein's General Theory of Relativity




> Evolution is occurring? Where? The fossil record shows us an outline of a creature that once was. That in and of itself is conclusive only of the fact that a creature that once _was_ now no longer _is_.


If you know anything about evolution you would know that it occurs in very small steps and can only be understood or traced retroactively. Where on the other hand is God, other than in a fossil record of what men believed a very long time ago when they also believed a) that the earth was flat and b) that everything revolved around the earth: a belief come to think of it analogous to your own if we substitute "God" for "earth."




> Frankly, my friend, Mary doesn't need your help. I did let him/her know I didn't understand what s/he was writing. Spare me your advice, please.


Frankly, a) I would rather you not use the expression "my friend" when I suspect you use it condescendingly and b) Mary does not need my help. It was your cavilling at her or Camillo's expression.




> Sin does terrible things to reality, doesn't it?


"Sin" is the cause of malaria, polio, et al? What is it then that has virtually eliminated the latter?

[/QUOTE]You apparently did not read my lenghty response to JCamilo, so here:

[COLOR="Navy"]1. Textual integrity is determined by how much of the copies of a text agree with each other in terms of language, words, even punctuation. Here:

During a 50 year time span (AD 70-120), there were 5500 original language copies of the New Testament generated. These copies demonstrate agreement 99.5% of the time. No other ancient text comes even close to that. [/QUOTE]

You are staking rather a lot albeit on a very high degree of agreement between these variant texts, but ignoring the non Judaic-non Christian texts that preceded and influenced them.




> _All of us_ do that - that's human nature. (Still hung up on my signature, huh?)


Very much so. As you are fond of the straw-man objection, note CS Lewis fallacy in equating the sun - which illuminates the world equally for all of us - with Christianity, which 'shines' forth from an ancient, self-referential text but only for those who have swallowed it whole.

Next.




> Such things, while important, pale next to the reality of eternal consequences - which was the point I was making and the point you decided to ignore to construct this _strawman_ attack.


I believe you raise the Straw-man bogey almost as often as you raise that of that other bogey-man. The "eternal consequences" of which you speak apply only to the poor sinner, while those of the man or woman who delineates and acts out of his/her own moral nature may positively influence others.




> Do you teach?


No, but I did. I am retired.




> I teach my students to think for themselves. Your implication that I do not think for myself is tired, repetitive and patronizing. I'd prefer you argue more than insult.


In which case might you not be teaching them an hypocrisy since you yourself appear to believe thart there is no need for you to think for yourself but devoutly to follow every jot and tittle of what is written in scripture.




> You ought not talk about stories that concern issues you clearly do not understand.


The Bible, sir, is available in plain English, and I have read it. And but for some a priori conviction as to how to read it, I am every bit as competent to understand it as you are. It is common for people whose arguments haven't carried the day to assert that they haven't been understood - when the reality may be that they have been understood better than they'd hoped.

Next.




> Hinduism cannot be the "true" religion because it gives a picture of God that is a) contradictory to scripture, and b) the picture of God it gives makes God a non-transcendant being, one without a moral will.


That is one billion folk who have it wrong!

Next?

----------


## JCamilo

> The fact that somebody entertained the idea of evolution a few centuries ago does not legitimize it as a "fact." When I look at a wolf and a dog I see two animals that are related; that relationship does not suggest unequivocally that they are a product of evolution. That's one possible explanation (the less believable of the two in my opinion).


My God, your preaching is going to be bordeline fanatical.I did not claimed it was the age that made it a fact, but I listed those facts. Now, Dogs are not the result of wolves domestication ? If you do not want wolves, let pick the hundred species of fish, birds, cows, horses and vegetables that are breed and selected by humans and generated other species using the mechanism of natural selection.
By the way, one of big evidence that you have no idea of the rambling you are doing is beyond the notion that Natural Selection only occurs in Nature. It is a universal law, just like gravity affects affects airplanes, they affect human's experiments as well. 
By the way - Darwin started developing the Natural Selection studying...a Farm with Cow creations. There is chapters in his books dedicated to "artificial selection" because they have to obey the same rules natural selection had to. You know, a laboratory. 
Evolution is a fact, I am sorry to say that once you have no idea what it means you have not even condition to discuss it. 





> You won't follow the logic of my argument. That's fine. You're _begging the question_ by criticizing me for believing in the Bible when it's "just a book" - which really has yet to be proven.


The Burden of proof is yours. So far The Bible is a book and you must show why it must be treated differently. Some can even play the game of pretending it is like you say, but you must show reasons for us to keep believing it which you constantly fail to do so. 




> Intelligent people play "what if?" games to speculate on possibilities. I don't care about the "several intellectuals" who dislike the game; many of our greatest inventions and theories have come from smart people asking "what if?"


You care since you said intelectuals do it. Anyways - Asking What If is nice. Do it because you are dogmatic and you do not question stuff that have been questioned hundred of years before. Do it a little. 




> The objectivity of the Bible exists because a Divine Being inspired it.


Yes, preacher but Shall I not look on God's face or shall I do ? 




> What is laughable is that you have compared the human manipulation of a species with evolution - which is theorized to be the NATURAL mutations occurring in nature via natural selection. You've got to be kidding, right?


As I said, Laughable indeed. But the laugh is on you since Darwin first chapter is dedicated to the artificial selection, or natural selection under human control. Why in name of Gods, you can attack atheists for gambling the highest risk if you dismiss with such certainly a subject that you do not even read the very first chapter? 




> These things could also be evidence of a divine creator's "programming" of the human body.


And the evidence that is God is programing us he is less efficient that our moderm engineers, since the number of mistakes in his program are astounishing. 





> Here you go (from Answers.com):


The link you posted just proved you did not know Theogony as well . Remember? "Theogony doesnt = creation myth". A little google search and you already feel well to discuss it. 
Chaos exists prior to Gaia: 

"(ll. 116-138) Verily at the first Chaos came to be, but next
wide-bosomed Earth, the ever-sure foundations of all (4) the
deathless ones who hold the peaks of snowy Olympus, and dim
Tartarus in the depth of the wide-pathed Earth, and Eros (Love),
fairest among the deathless gods, who unnerves the limbs and
overcomes the mind and wise counsels of all gods and all men
within them." 

The Theogony itself. See, First Chaos. Next Earth. Like the majority of creation myths there is a nothingness before Earth. Some are considerable better than jewish myth, since they put stars before earth. 




> Joseph was not God; Mary was not God. Mary was impregnated via the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The firstborn children killed in the 10th plague of Egypt were killed by an angel.


The Holy Spirit and the Angels belong to god. His acts are similar. Trying to argue otherwise is nutts. 





> Fallacious logic. I do not share my son's characteristics: I gave him mine. He cannot pass characteristics of himself to me. He can only reflect a similarity between us because of what I gave him.


Jesus, it is irrevant the origem dude. If A = B, B = A. If Your son a hair like yours, the afirmative that you have a hair like his is not false. 





> There are no contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2. Period.


Except when we read the book. Period. 







> You're wrong. Matthew's genealogy is for Joseph (Matt 1:16) and Luke's is for Mary (cf. Luke 3:23-38). The only "funny" thing is that in order for you to be correct, you must resort to an unprovable assertion.


Really? LUKE : " 23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, " 

Lets be objective, it is the bible. It says Son of Joseph isn't ? 





> Give me the different "facts" please. Otherwise you're just making unsubstantiated remarks.


Chronology of Jesus death; who he have visited during his trial. Who have seen him first when he returned (I mean, it was so real that they forgot who saw it first); his miracles; some of them forgot the Herodian massacre of inocents...






> Being inspired by the muses is not being inspired by Zeus unless the muses are mere "mouthpieces" for Zeus. To my understanding, they were independent beings. Nice try.


O_O Do you remember that People could not have direct contact with God and thus he used angels ? Or the Holy Spirit ? 
Anyways, the muses are not independent beings, they worked for Zeus and did what they did in his honor. 




> Perhaps - but his immoral behavior already disqualifies him as any real contender for the title of "God."


Let's eliminated any God who have killed any innocent human also. 





> My friend, you are just throwing up at the wall whatever you can just to see what will stick. The issue with the fig tree was to illustrate a theological truth. The "salt" bit has been said by scholars to be an idiom equivalent to "she froze from fear" and then died (since one cannot look at God in action- and she did that on her own - she was warned not to look back); the first-born was a consequence for Pharoh going back on his word and arguing with God about releasing the Jews. Had Pharoh honored God's request, no one need have suffered.


oh, now the bible uses metaphorical texts ???? So, when it is adam and eve it is literal when it is something else it is a poetic effect...sure
Plus, I do not care if The Pharoh was the worst man on earth, that God killed hundreds that had nothing to do with his so He is a murderer of innocent people. No moral qualification. Plus, it is also written that God harderned the heart of the Pharoh, remember? He had no choice, God just showed power. 





> You ignored the point. _Strawman_.


Either you have no idea what a strawman is or you just are desperate and is starting to runaway with the modality of illogical falacies which is usually a trait of lack of argumentation. 





> Zeus's miracles were to bring glory to himself, to aggrandize himself.


So are god. Let's praise the Glory of our Lord is a usual notion of the religion in the bible. 
For a good example: 
"
4And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so. " 

God is showing off. 




> God isn't a tyrant. He gave us free will and we're free to choose as we wish. He had informed us of the consequences. You're free to choose your path. Tyrants don't give choices.


I wish the poor Pharoh didn't had his heart hardned by god...





> I made no comment pertaining to your moral character; I confronted your name-calling and informed you that that's not how educated people debate. Moral people can name-call in a debate. I would confront such behavior regardless of your moral fiber.


Such arrogance is typical of preachers. You have been mocking my posting included saying they are laughable. However You did said that all atheists are use evolution to justify our moral mishaviador and fear of punishment. You did called me immoral. And I did not called you a single name and I dare you to show where I called you anything. 




> The OT and the NT provide complementary pictures of God - who is equal parts _justice_ and _mercy_.


Yeah, sure. 




> My statements are based on scholarship - what's yours based on?


Scolarship. True scolarship tell us that the canonical NT was only put together during the times of Constantine and before it there was a considerable argument between the various sections of the new christians because the texts are not uniform neither their beliefs. 
Also, scolarship do not list hundred of gospels during the period you quoted - some doubt that even there dozen gospels written before the first century. 
Also, You do not believe in scholarship, pleasure be truthfull. 





> Read Daniel chapter 11.


_" 1Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. 

2And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. 

3And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. 

4And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those. "_

This ? 
Then... "The dating and authorship of Daniel has been a matter of great debate among Jews and Christians. The traditional view holds that the work was written by a prophet named Daniel who lived during the sixth century BC, whereas most [weasel words] modern Biblical scholars maintain that the book was written or redacted in the mid-second century BC and that most of the predictions of the book refer to events that had already occurred. A third viewpoint, based on comparison of the Hebrew and Aramaic found in Daniel to that found in more firmly dated texts, places the final editorial work in the fourth century BC." (This is wikipedia)

Jeebus! Seems like the only reason to place this book so far as 6 BC is because that is where Daniel was alive ? Those backwards prophecies are lovely. 





> I claimed "tolerance" - where? I've condemned nobody. Provide proof or quit making things up, please.


You claimed that atheists are stubborn unlike you that have that little gamble. 





> _Non sequiter #2._


Annoying. You may keep saying that only because it is impossible to have 100% of objectivism it is not possible to have any degree of objectivism but when someone get your arguments and show how illogical they are it is a non-sequitur...





> I didn't say any of this. I said that Naturalism invloves a tacit acceptance of atheism. Saying that God doesn't exist because we can't find any evidence is like saying that there are no worlds out in the universe like ours because we can't find any. Absurd logic.


No, it is simplistic logic. We may keep thinking to find god in the deepths of universe but Your God is beyond argument because it is based in presence and acts of this god , so we should have some evidence.
Oh, yesh, I forget, the bible...

----------


## JCamilo

> The Bible, sir, is available in plain English, and I have read it. And but for some a priori conviction as to how to read it, I am every bit as competent to understand it as you are. It is common for people whose arguments haven't carried the day to assert that they haven't been understood - when the reality may be that they have been understood better than they'd hoped.


C'mom, who are we kidding? 
The Bible is literal but sometimes, specially when it is something that contradicts his interpretation, it is figurative. 
He does not believe in sciece and all knowledge will be fooled by good, but he studied some place that claimed 5500 versions of the NT despite the fact that we know the NT was only put together around the III century. 
Atheists are stubborn and unable to have a broader vision but Evolution is wrong despite the fact he mix it up with abiogenesis, despite the fact we showed by his comment about artificial breeding that he did not even touched Darwin's book. 
Any evidence about the dates of writing of the bible, the authors and the textual influence in the book - which I suppose you think like me, shows up how the bible works like every book before and after, carrying within previous works - is ignored because the bible is created by god and the proof of it is the bible itself. 
Objectivism is impossible but the bible is objective. 
God have no human traits, but humans have god's traits. 
You can not dismiss the existence of something because you do not know everything that exists. Yet, he can dismiss the existense of every other deity, despite the fact he do not know everything that exists. 
We are never going to go anywhere with him and most posts are returning to "see the bible, believe in god" , "you can understand god" and "It is right and the only right is like god" that is making here pointless and not invitating to any contribution.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Maybe a lock would improve this thread somewhat.

----------


## Logos

Whiff, I think you're onto something.




> People on all 'sides' of this (and most other) Religious Texts discussions here  have at times employed myriad _ad hominem_ approaches....


It's still happening, so, I apologise if anyone was in the middle of yet another screen-long dissection of someone else's post: despite what some here might think, I am _not_ ever vigilant to hit the "Close Topic" button, I don't _like_ closing topics, but I think this one needs to be put to rest, and I think some people need to take a deep breath and just relax and please find something positive to do  :Smile:

----------

