RIP - Steve Jobs - "Don't be trapped by dogma"

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

King Mob: I'm not arguing that Genesis 1 is a literal scientific description of the universe. If I did, I would be regarding day in the English translation to refer to a 24 hour period in time rather than to a longer period. I'm arguing that it explains the meaning of why mankind is here. The reason why the sun is placed on the fourth day of Creation according to the Genesis passage according to a good explanation I heard a number of years ago was to show that God created the sun and moon whom numerous people worshipped at that time. Pointing people away from the sun and the moon to give there true worship to the God of Creation was the reason why that is placed on the fourth day of Creation. The nature of the Hebrew in the passage is allegorical.

Oh it's clear that you aren't arguing it is literal, as arguing that is impossible to do honestly.

But your explanation as to why it's wrong does not make sense.
Why does it say that God was creating stuff out of order of the way it actually happened? Why doesn't it just say that "long ago people used to worship the moon and stars"?
What is the allegorical meaning of claiming falsely that birds and whales existed before land animals?

And most importantly, please point out were it explains why man is here, as it specially does not say anything there.

philologos wrote: »

I would presume this would answer many of your other questions as to why the Bible isn't a science book. The Bible is a description of God's character and a description of how God has related to mankind from beginning to end.

well that's a whole other kettle of fish that would raise even further, much harder questions.

philologos wrote: »

Like many books it is written in a variety of styles and contexts. I believe that the Bible communicates truth, the question that needs to be asked is how does it communicate its truth in its pages. I don't believe that Jesus' parables are intended to be taken literally, but that they communicate a deeper truth.

Hold up now, you have been claiming that the idea of a creator was logical because among other things it was taken and studied seriously for hundreds of years.

This was by people taking the bible literally as a history of the world.

So now you're saying that these people were wrong and were basing their stories on something that wasn't actually true.

philologos wrote: »

I do believe that God's commandments to mankind are to be read as such on the other hand, or that the historical books are to be read as historical claims about the nation of Israel.

Well except the ones about killing people for working on the sabbath.. or avoiding women during thier periods... or wearing two types of fabric ... or avoiding eating shrimps and dolphins...
Cause I suppose that since they doesn't make a lick of sense and can't be defended sanely, they must be analgorical, it's the only explanation.

philologos wrote: »

What I am arguing is that what is finite, must be caused of necessity. I don't see a good reason to abandon this in the case of the universe. If you want to present a case for doing so I'm definitely up for hearing.

Wierd that this is all you are able to write about my actual central point.

You keep claiming that finite things always need a cause. Now you're shifting the burden of proof.
Why do you believe that all finite things have a cause?
And how do you explain the quantum mechanical effects that produce stuff without a cause?

And then, there's the other half of my point that you've ignored as usual.
Why can't the universe be infinite in some sense and therefore be subject to the same exception you're giving to god?

As you say, since there's other far more sensible explanations that don't require a magic man, and that such an explanation has never once been the answer, I see no reason to start thinking it's one now.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

King Mob: I'm not arguing that Genesis 1 is a literal scientific description of the universe. If I did, I would be regarding day in the English translation to refer to a 24 hour period in time rather than to a longer period. I'm arguing that it explains the meaning of why mankind is here. The reason why the sun is placed on the fourth day of Creation according to the Genesis passage according to a good explanation I heard a number of years ago was to show that God created the sun and moon whom numerous people worshipped at that time. Pointing people away from the sun and the moon to give there true worship to the God of Creation was the reason why that is placed on the fourth day of Creation. The nature of the Hebrew in the passage is allegorical.

I would presume this would answer many of your other questions as to why the Bible isn't a science book. The Bible is a description of God's character and a description of how God has related to mankind from beginning to end. Like many books it is written in a variety of styles and contexts. I believe that the Bible communicates truth, the question that needs to be asked is how does it communicate its truth in its pages. I don't believe that Jesus' parables are intended to be taken literally, but that they communicate a deeper truth. I do believe that God's commandments to mankind are to be read as such on the other hand, or that the historical books are to be read as historical claims about the nation of Israel.

What I am arguing is that what is finite, must be caused of necessity. I don't see a good reason to abandon this in the case of the universe. If you want to present a case for doing so I'm definitely up for hearing.

Do you believe that the Bible means you take from it that Noah literally lived to 950 year old, and if you do do you believe he actually did?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

If the Bible is divinely inspired, that would mean that the Bible tells us truth about the character of God.

I would argue that the Bible would be true in so far as in day to day experience what it argues seems to conform to reality in a way that many other positions (including atheism as far as I see it) don't.

If it was the case that the Bible's position was fundamentally unreasonable then it wouldn't be likely that I would be a follower of Jesus today as far as I can see it.

So basically the Bible makes you feel good so you ignore all the nonsense in it?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

What I am arguing is that what is finite, must be caused of necessity. I don't see a good reason to abandon this in the case of the universe. If you want to present a case for doing so I'm definitely up for hearing.

No. You are not. You have been presented with the reasons why a "cause" based argument for god is faulty. You have done everything from ignore it to strawman it to pretending you have the people who present the faults on ignore. In other words you do everything EXCEPT "hearing" it that you can possibly get away with.

King Mob wrote: »

And then, there's the other half of my point that you've ignored as usual.

Get used to it. In fact if you press him for ignoring it long enough he will pretend you are being offensive and then pretend to put you on ignore. Ignoring the points he can not answer is sort of his forte on here.

His position is wrong for many reasons but the main three are:

1) Causality is a time related thing. The universe "before" the big bang did not have time as an attribute to our knowledge. So appealing to causality to explain the universes current form falls on it's face.

2) As you pointed out in quantum mechanics we often observe things that have no cause or as one person put it to me actually precede their causes.

3) In order to even postulate "god" as an explanation for the questions about "causes" Jakkass has to simply ignore those same questions when applied to his "god" or simply define by fiat (without any actual evidence to ascertain those attributes) that god is immune to them.

King Mob

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

His position is wrong for many reasons but the main three are:

1) Causality is a time related thing. The universe "before" the big bang did not have time as an attribute to our knowledge. So appealing to causality to explain the universes current form falls on it's face.

2) As you pointed out in quantum mechanics we often observe things that have no cause or as one person put it to me actually precede their causes.

3) In order to even postulate "god" as an explanation for the questions about "causes" Jakkass has to simply ignore those same questions when applied to his "god" or simply define by fiat (without any actual evidence to ascertain those attributes) that god is immune to them.

And don't forget that even if he is able to counter the first two with anything other than an appeal to ignorance, there's still:

4) If only infinite things can exist without a cause (which he believes God is an example of), then there are several theories that involve the universe being infinite in some sense. Like our universe being one in an infinite cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Or our universe being part of an infinite multiverse or arises from an infinite, but non intelligent thing such as quantum foam.

ed2hands

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The universe "before" the big bang did not have time as an attribute to our knowledge.

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

CerebralCortex

ed2hands wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

dmw07

ed2hands wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Evidence for what exactly? All my claim was is that to our knowledge... or mine at least.... there is no reason at this time to think that time was an attribute "before" the big bang.

So the only evidence I can offer to back up the claim that there is no reason to think time was an attribute during the pre big bang state.... is my lack of any reasons to think time was an attribute during the pre big bang state.

However maybe I have missed the force of your question so if you care to expatiate upon it I will endeavor to answer better.

ed2hands

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ~ Carl Sagan

CerebralCortex

ed2hands wrote: »

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ~ Carl Sagan

Did you read the link?

ed2hands

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Did you read the link?

Yes i did. Didn't shed any light on my question though.:)

ed2hands

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Evidence for what exactly? All my claim was is that to our knowledge... or mine at least.... there is no reason at this time to think that time was an attribute "before" the big bang.

So the only evidence I can offer to back up the claim that there is no reason to think time was an attribute during the pre big bang state.... is my lack of any reasons to think time was an attribute during the pre big bang state.

However maybe I have missed the force of your question so if you care to expatiate upon it I will endeavor to answer better.

Ta for reply. So that's a no then;)

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

Ta for reply. So that's a no then;)

If I had meant no, I would have said no. If you want to invent answers people do not hold for their own questions, why bother even asking them? Given my posting history on this forum I clearly have enough of my own words. I do not need your own inserted into my mouth too.

ed2hands

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If I had meant no, I would have said no. If you want to invent answers people do not hold for their own questions, why bother even asking them? Given my posting history on this forum I clearly have enough of my own words. I do not need your own inserted into my mouth too.

A lack of reasons to think something is true is not really evidence though.

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

A lack of reasons to think something is true is not really evidence though.

It is if your claim was only "There is a lack of reasons to think it true".

The issue here is you are attempting to have me evidence a claim I did not actually make.

If I claimed "There is nothing in my pocket" I would evidence this by showing you there is nothing in my pocket.

If I claim "There is no reason on offer to think time was an attribute of the pre-big bang state" then I evidence this by pointing to the lack of reasons on offer to think time was an attribute of the pre-big bang state.

What I am not claiming is that we know this. What I am claiming is that there is no reason to think it.

As such my claim is as evidenced as it needs to be. The claim you want me to evidence is not the one I made. I am sure we can agree that one requirement of successful discourse is that one replies to what the other person actually said, not what one imagines that person said or wants that person to have said.

MagicMarker

ed2hands wrote: »

Ta for reply. So that's a no then;)

If evidence is so important to you then perhaps you can provide some for the existence of your deity?

ed2hands

MagicMarker wrote: »

If evidence is so important to you then perhaps you can provide some for the existence of your deity?

Er i don't have a diety at the moment.:)

Genghiz Cohen

ed2hands wrote: »

Er i don't have a diety at the moment.:)

One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us.

Delirium

ed2hands wrote: »

Er i don't have a diety at the moment.:)

In the garage for the annual service? :P

Knasher

ed2hands wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

The idea that time was relative to an inertial frame is a consequence of general relativity, so the idea really comes from that (though I think there were some maths equations before that). AFAIK it is also one of the foundational ideas of quantum mechanics.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

If the Bible is divinely inspired, that would mean that the Bible tells us truth about the character of God.

I would argue that the Bible would be true in so far as in day to day experience what it argues seems to conform to reality in a way that many other positions (including atheism as far as I see it) don't.

If it was the case that the Bible's position was fundamentally unreasonable then it wouldn't be likely that I would be a follower of Jesus today as far as I can see it.

So basically the Bible makes you feel good so you ignore all the nonsense in it?

Not at all. I can trust it precisely because it makes sense from beginning to end.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. I can trust it precisely because it makes sense from beginning to end.

As long as you ignore the parts you don't like and pretend the parts you can't defend are "allegory" regardless of how silly that metaphor would be, then yea I guess that would make it always make sense.

philologos

Leaving aside the mere irony of an atheist accusing me of ignoring the Bible as God's word, there's no case for thinking this is the case. Ever since I decided to become a Christian I've been reading and re-reading God's word and aiming to apply it to my life. Claiming that an allegorical passage, is allegorical isn't surprising. Much as the way I claim that David's psalms are poetic and lyrical in fashion, or that I claim that Solomon's Proverbs are just that proverbial wisdom. The Mosaic law was judicial laws for God's people Israel, and the commands of Christ fulfilled that law and brought in a New Covenant between man and God due to the burden of mankinds sin.

Claiming that I ignore the Bible because I put significant effort into aiming to understand it correctly and live it out in what is for the most part a godless world is absurd.

There's nothing "silly" about Genesis 1 as far as I see it it conveys a great truth. God the Creator is the Lord of the universe, and we were created pretty much to love and serve Him and by extension love and serve others in our daily lives. I couldn't imagine anything less silly.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. I can trust it precisely because it makes sense from beginning to end.

Including all the bits that don't?

Again do you believe that people lived to Noah's age (centuries) as described in the Bible?

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

Leaving aside the mere irony of an atheist accusing me of ignoring the Bible as God's word, there's no case for thinking this is the case. Ever since I decided to become a Christian I've been reading and re-reading God's word and aiming to apply it to my life. Claiming that an allegorical passage, is allegorical isn't surprising. Much as the way I claim that David's psalms are poetic and lyrical in fashion, or that I claim that Solomon's Proverbs are just that proverbial wisdom. The Mosaic law was judicial laws for God's people Israel, and the commands of Christ fulfilled that law and brought in a New Covenant between man and God due to the burden of mankinds sin.

Claiming that I ignore the Bible because I put significant effort into aiming to understand it correctly and live it out in what is for the most part a godless world is absurd.

There's nothing "silly" about Genesis 1 as far as I see it it conveys a great truth. God the Creator is the Lord of the universe, and we were created pretty much to love and serve Him and by extension love and serve others in our daily lives. I couldn't imagine anything less silly.

So why does the genesis story say that birds and whales came into existence before land animals?

Why does the bible demand (of anyone at anytime) silly stuff like not talking to women during thier period and executing people for working on Saturday?

I mean there's a ton of other far more important points I've made, but you clearly have no interest in actually engaging with them. It's a waste of time trying to get you to honestly think about them.

philologos

"No interest in actually engaging with them" - I presume that means work 9 to 5?

I'm not going to be goaded into responding to every point made because I simply don't have time, but I think you have raised a number of good questions and I'm interested to getting around to them.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

"No interest in actually engaging with them" - I presume that means work 9 to 5?

I'm not going to be goaded into responding to every point made because I simply don't have time, but I think you have raised a number of good questions and I'm interested to getting around to them.

You see that excuse might fly if you didn't also post a random tangent on one of my ancillary points (which you then start to ignore) or didn't have a long posting history of ignoring points you have difficulty answering.

You say you're interested in getting around to them, but honestly, not going to hold my breath.

CerebralCortex

King Mob wrote: »

You see that excuse might fly if you didn't also post a random tangent on one of my ancillary points (which you then start to ignore) or didn't have a long posting history of ignoring points you have difficulty answering.

You say you're interested in getting around to them, but honestly, not going to hold my breath.

Classic Philologos.

sephir0th

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. I can trust it precisely because it makes sense from beginning to end.

To repeat Zombrex, Noah's Ark and Noah's age? Or are you still working to interpret that in a way that makes it not look silly.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

The case for God is already taken seriously in academia, including the Philosophy of Religion.

I think you'll find that it's only taken seriously by those people who'll be out of a job if they and their on-street colleagues can't convince enough people it's true.

Travel down the corridor, however, to meet the real philosophers or even the scientists and you'll generally find that religion is treated almost universally with derision.

philologos

sephir0th wrote: »

To repeat Zombrex, Noah's Ark and Noah's age? Or are you still working to interpret that in a way that makes it not look silly.

Noah's Ark - What is the objection? There is good reason to believe that there was a flood in the Middle East at around that time considering other narratives that arose out of the region such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. I would lead towards the understanding that it was a regional flood personally. Others might disagree and I welcome them to do so.

I'm going to ignore the last sentence because it itself is silly. It favours rash answering instead of thinking adequately about what one is going to say. I'm going to do a bit of research into the semantics of the Bible, and common interpretations and then I'll post what I think.

Likewise I'll get around to some of the questions that are posed above. I think many of them are very good.

I'll do this on the provisio that we'll leave the rhetoric aside, and that I'll look at the questions and give the best answers I possibly can to them in a reasonable timeframe.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. I can trust it precisely because it makes sense from beginning to end.

Thankfully however "making sense" is not synonymous to "being true" as I have heard a lot of delusions that technically "make sense".

If the entire wealth of evidence you have for the claims you vomit on to these boards is simply that they "make sense" to you then you are on a lot shakier ground than I ever suspected but it does at least explain why you so hastily retreat from anything remotely challenging on the subject with cop outs like "I just don't have the time". Despite 17000+ posts on this forum you never seem to "have the time" to actually answer a single challenge or request to substantiate the claims you spew.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

Noah's Ark - What is the objection? There is good reason to believe that there was a flood in the Middle East at around that time considering other narratives that arose out of the region such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. I would lead towards the understanding that it was a regional flood personally. Others might disagree and I welcome them to do so.

Well, surely the Bible disagrees with you. It was a flood which covered the entire world as high as the mountains.

King Mob

Penn wrote: »

Well, surely the Bible disagrees with you. It was a flood which covered the entire world as high as the mountains.

No you see that's an allegory, because it doesn't match reality.
But something like Noah's Ark did happen, so it's also a historical account since there's some claims that there's similar accounts.

So you see how you can use stuff to prove the bible while also ignoring the parts you can't explain.

dmw07

King Mob wrote: »

No you see that's an allegory, because it doesn't match reality.
But something like Noah's Ark did happen, so it's also a historical account since there's some claims that there's similar accounts.

So you see how you can use stuff to prove the bible while also ignoring the parts you can't explain.

I agree it's an allegory but i disagree it can be used as evidence as proof of the god, nor the correctness of the bible. You can however use it to prove it's incorrect.

We only know it's an allegory now because we have the science to disprove it. And Evolution helps to smack that story into oblivion. Before that, this now allegory was used as factual information as proof of god. Hence the fact that there is not a passage (Or any health warning) stating that this story is in fact falsely exaggerated and exponentially grown to show that god exists. But it doesn't because if the story as the bible tells it is not true, how can you claim gods existence. You can't, so the need to concoct fictitious stories to prove god gives birth, credence and credibility to the otherwise pointless bible.

Saying something like this is possible and might have maybe happened on a micro level is a cop out also and is completely clutching at straws. It still does not prove god dictated a great flood, it merely shows us that god is local and regional and that Noah saved a few animals in his surrouding area. He didn't save all the animals in the world. So gods input in saving all the animals in the world is minimal at best and completely useless at worst. Either way, it renders it meaningless of recognition in my eyes.

philologos wrote: »

Others might disagree and I welcome them to do so.

I don't disagree with your illogical vague broad understand of a specific event in the bible and i'm not going to challenge it just the same as i don't go into mental institutions and tell patients that everything they know and believe in is worthless in todays world, i'm just saying that having this view, reading this passage and getting meaning from it, is as purposeful as an ashtray on a motorbike. It's a made up story, based loosely on reality to prove an otherwise unprovable being.

dmw07

philologos wrote: »

Others might disagree and I welcome them to do so.

I just want to add that this forum is not exactly a religion philologos. People should not try to convince you of anything, especially as you have no intention of listening to them. I am certainly not going to take your throwaway comment as anything other than a pleasant and obligatory sign off because there is no way that you even mean it. If you can't see what is plainly wrong with the bible, nor even discuss it (Even when pointed out) then so be it. I don't see the point of you commenting on this forum though. Comments on Noah's arc like "What is the objection?" testify to your ignorance. I've got nothing to gain from you thinking the same as me, and more pertinently i don't care just as long as we can all get along. Unlike religions were recruitment is a necessary requirement to strengthen your weak claims. Strength in numbers. You see i can stand alone with the knowledge i have and not feel afraid or alone (from a god may i point out). Can you do the same? Hypothetically, could you live in this world as one of the few people to believe in a catholic/christian dogma? I doubt it. You would be persecuted by everything in that world not fitting with your version of how it should be according to other men. Without numbers religion has little evidence of correctness. Hypothetically, It would be pretty hard for you i'd say.

I am not here to convince you of anything. You could do the research yourself, enough people have pointed it out to you and if you do the research and come back telling me and others that the bible is the way, well best of luck to you fella. Hope it works out for you. But lets drop the pretence shall we. You are not on this forum hoping for someone to shed light, your here for something else. Perhaps your involvement on this forum is an elaborate ruse to show how ridiculous some atheists and agnostics can be in "defending" their opinion. It almost makes it look like atheism is a religion when people defend it.

I don't need to defend my opinion, as i said i can quit happily live in a religious world thinking otherwise just like B Russell, Einstein and Hawkins have and do.

I've come here to discuss things on a rational level without all the fluffy pointless jargon of religion. Why, after 17k posts are you here?



********Waits to be put on ignore, if not already on ignore********

philologos

Penn wrote: »

Well, surely the Bible disagrees with you. It was a flood which covered the entire world as high as the mountains.

The Bible in its Hebrew argues that the whole land was flooded. The word land being "eretz". That's where I'm coming from. If you wish to argue on that basis please go ahead as I'd be interested to hear and I'd be interested to be corrected.

I presume you're not particularly interested in trying to persuade me towards Young Earth Creationism, so perhaps you'd like to get to the meat of the argument as to why it is so difficult to believe that God exists?

dmw07 - I presume many people on this forum would be interested in trying to get Christians to "see the light" in atheistic speak rather than in Christian speak, that is if they truly believed that atheism was a better indication of what is true than Christianity is.

Also, evolution smacks nothing of Christianity into oblivion for reasons discussed previously. There is no reason to believe that evolution was an uncaused process. That would be inserting atheistic assumptions into the science.

As for why I do this, here's a post I made a few weeks ago about why I do this. Here's the conclusion I arrived at:

The question so much isn't really that you don't have reason to believe in the Lord Jesus. The question is whether or not you're willing to put your trust in Him. If you wish to keep living your way which ultimately results in death and condemnation that is ultimately your choice although a choice that is ultimately tragic. If you wish to accept Jesus, and live as you were created to, I can only welcome you into our family. I long that as many people in the world come into our family before they die. I long that as many people know the truth.

This is the only reason I post about Jesus on boards.ie. It's the only reason that I try to speak to my friends and colleagues about Jesus, it's because I honestly believe that Jesus will transform your life. I believe that all humankind longs to know of their eternal destiny, and their ultimate origins. Of course it is important that we care for humanity and serve their temporal needs on this earth. That's hugely important infact. However, it is not as important as the eternal need, the eternal need for Jesus Christ. I get accused of a lot of stuff from patent dishonesty, to being a Bible basher, in some cases a fundamentalist. No doubt many people on boards.ie think that I'm obnoxious and intolerant for saying that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and that nobody can come near God without accepting Him and indeed that all people (myself strongly included) are sinners and need to be saved. I'm happy to be accused of these things ultimately because I care for humanity. I want people to know Jesus and be saved.

Is that such a bad thing?

King Mob: Again, not "ignoring" the Bible at all. I'm trying to get a better grasp at trying to work out what it is communicating to me as a believer. I take if you're disappointed that I don't fit the stereotype that you've contrived.

Again, I'm happy to discuss with you, but the less rhetoric involved the better. Indeed, a good reasonable and polite discussion will make it easier for me to respond to some of your points.

Why does the bible demand (of anyone at anytime) silly stuff like not talking to women during thier period and executing people for working on Saturday?

In lieu of inevitable objections to the following it's important to note that for discussing this claim the discussion has shifted to discuss "why does God do certain things?", to why must God exist?. This is what this question requires me to do.

If I am to unpack everything into the whole scope of the Bible. It would be as so.

1. God created the world, called us to reflect Him in every way and gave us standards by which we are to live in it.
2. Mankind rejected God and intentionally failed to live by His standards, and as a result mankind is worthy of his judgement.
3. Mankind's sin is worthy of punishment and as a result we stand guilty before our Creator.
4. Jesus Christ came into the world, to stand in our place and take the punishment that we rightfully deserved for disobeying God.
5. By doing so he removed the impediment that existed between man and God, and allowed for mankind to live under grace rather than under God's rightful wrath and condemnation.
6. In terms of a Christians life, we are now free to love and serve God and to be as we were at the beginning consistently striving for the standard of Jesus Christ in this world.

Simply put the ethical standards that God has brought into the world still remain but with different consequences in the light of Christ in terms of Christianity. Paul argued that sin against God is worthy of death, in so far as God has given you life and as a result has the right to take it away. (Romans 1:28 - 32). Christ Jesus died in our place so that we can have new life, and the mercy that we are given in terms of a Christians life encourages them to live in obedience to Jesus and to serve God fully in this world in terms of telling the people the good news.

Passages of the Bible mustn't be read in isolation, but must be seen in terms of the big picture.

As for uncleanness, it likewise has to do with the standard of holiness that God desired from the Hebrew people in order for them to stand apart from God. In terms of Christ, he has abolished the difference between Jew and Gentile and as a result such laws seem to be ceremonial. Particularly as Christ in Mark chapter 7 said the following about unclean foods:

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

King Mob: Again, not "ignoring" the Bible at all. I'm trying to get a better grasp at trying to work out what it is communicating to me as a believer. I take if you're disappointed that I don't fit the stereotype that you've contrived.


Again, I'm happy to discuss with you, but the less rhetoric involved the better.

But you are ignoring the parts you don't like or can't explain.
Your last post is a prime example.

philologos wrote: »

The Bible in its Hebrew argues that the whole land was flooded. The word land being "eretz". That's where I'm coming from. If you wish to argue on that basis please go ahead as I'd be interested to hear and I'd be interested to be corrected.

Another hand waving attempt to justify a clearly silly part of the bible, which fails when you read the rest of the narrative.
The Noah story specifically says that the flood waters covered the tops of mountains only to be seen months later when the flood recedes.
Floods in real life cannot get this high.
So I've no doubt that this part of the myth will now be "metaphorical" for something (which you won't elaborate on) since there's no way to defend it as fact.
And this is just the latest example of the same tactic you've used a few times now.

You keep saying that you're interested in addressing my points yet you haven't even acknowledged them.
To sum them up:
1) Making your assumption that all finite things have a cause is foolish because a) there's nothing to support such an assumption beyond human intuitive thinking which we know is too flawed to rely on when discussing high physics and b) we know it's not actually true.

2) And then even assuming the premise you make, that only infinite things can exist without a cause, there's still the fact that there are many theories which are actually supported that explain how the universe can be infinite or be a finite part of something infinite or arise from something that is infinite but not intelligent.

So could you at least offer some basic courtesy and indicate that you've at least read those points?

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

In lieu of inevitable objections to the following it's important to note that for discussing this claim the discussion has shifted to discuss "why does God do certain things?", to why must God exist?. This is what this question requires me to do.

The discussion has only moved because you have left questions hanging while bringing up nonsensical tangents like this.

You seem to have failed to totally avoid or misunderstand the question I was asking.
You know as well as I do that shrimp and women on their periods and polyester aren't unclean things to be avoided, yet God says they are.
So why would God specifically demand that anyone should avoid these in the first place?

These are just a few examples of the silly stuff god demands.
But we'll stick to just these ones for now.

philologos

Nothing handwaving about it other than to accept that I don't fit into your stereotype concerning Christianity.

I'm going to deal with your objections one by one as I find time, and as I feel is the best way to resolve them. I'm not going to answer to suit some contrived stereotype. I'm going to answer as best as I can to explain the hope that I have in me as the Bible tells me I should (1 Peter 3:15).

That's the best that I can do, and that's what I will aim to do.

1) Making your assumption that all finite things have a cause is foolish because a) there's nothing to support such an assumption beyond human intuitive thinking which we know is too flawed to rely on when discussing high physics and b) we know it's not actually true.

I'm making my assumption on the basis of logic until I have a good enough reason so as to do otherwise. I don't see why I should apply a different criteria to looking to atheism as I do to looking at anything else.

So could you at least offer some basic courtesy and indicate that you've at least read those points?

I'm extending courtesy by trying to respond to as much as I can. Nothing more nothing less. I've read them, but I don't particularly agree that I should abandon the logic of causation and apply a whole different standard to the universe without good reason to do so.

Actually to go back to dmw07 for a minute as well:

Can you do the same? Hypothetically, could you live in this world as one of the few people to believe in a catholic/christian dogma? I doubt it.

I'm living in such a society already, where 90%+ of people don't attend a church, and of those who do there is no substantive measure to determine those whom actually believe in Christ and those who don't. Likewise of those who don't. As a result of this, I'm interested along with other Christians to tell people with love and compassion and when they are willing about the Gospel of Jesus. The results of this thus far have been surprising in that many people have asked me about Christ and about what I believe and have been relatively receptive. I've met a number of recent converts here as well which is encouraging to see. Nonetheless, there is a lot of work to do.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

The discussion has only moved because you have left questions hanging while bringing up nonsensical tangents like this.

You seem to have failed to totally avoid or misunderstand the question I was asking.
You know as well as I do that shrimp and women on their periods and polyester aren't unclean things to be avoided, yet God says they are.
So why would God specifically demand that anyone should avoid these in the first place?

These are just a few examples of the silly stuff god demands.
But we'll stick to just these ones for now.

I've answered your point concerning shrimp and other ceremonial laws. They were fulfilled at the time of Christ. Their reason for existing is discussed in the Bible. It was to allow the Hebrews to exist as a unique identity from the Gentiles. On the arrival of Christ, Jew and Gentile were one under a New Covenant agreement described in (Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8).

As a result of this, laws concerning uncleanliness were fulfilled, they had served their purpose in the plan of revelation.

Ephesians chapter 2 describes this in detail:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

I'm afraid there's no "tangents" involved. I'm dealing with your points as I have sufficient time to. This is the only way I'll be able to do it, and I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

Nothing handwaving about it other than to accept that I don't fit into your stereotype concerning Christianity.

I'm going to deal with your objections one by one as I find time, and as I feel is the best way to resolve them. I'm not going to answer to suit some contrived stereotype. I'm going to answer as best as I can to explain the hope that I have in me as the Bible tells me I should (1 Peter 3:15).

That's the best that I can do, and that's what I will aim to do.

But I'm not hodling you to a stereotype. I'm actually providing you an example of the very thing I'm saying you're doing.

You try to fob off the silliness of the Noah's Ark story by attributing it to the mistranslation of a word. But at the same time you're ignoring that the story says that the flood covered the mountains and that after a time, the floods receded to show the mountain tops.
Now this is a clear physical impossibility and the bible states it as fact and there's no other way to take that narrative.

So now, do you believe that the flood covered any area at all so that the mountains would be totally engulfed?
And assuming you don't, why does the bible say it does? A metaphor or an allegory perhaps?

philologos wrote: »

I'm making my assumption on the basis of logic until I have a good enough reason so as to do otherwise. I don't see why I should apply a different criteria to looking to atheism as I do to looking at anything else.

So what logic are you actually applying here?
Inductive logic, which has failed many a time while describing physical phenomenon?
And what about the fact that we know that there are finite things without causes. Doesn't seem logical just to ignore them.

philologos wrote: »

I'm extending courtesy by trying to respond to as much as I can. Nothing more nothing less. I've read them, but I don't particularly agree that I should abandon the logic of causation and apply a whole different standard to the universe without good reason to do so.

And you say this while ignoring the second point I made which actually addresses this point.

It meant, had you read it, that assuming we accept your unproven, untrue premise (ie, not abandoning causation) then you still have to face the facts that the universe could be infinite, part of something infinite or arise from something infinite but not intelligent.

philologos wrote: »

I've answered your point concerning shrimp and other ceremonial laws. They were fulfilled at the time of Christ. Their reason for existing is discussed in the Bible. It was to allow the Hebrews to exist as a unique identity from the Gentiles. On the arrival of Christ, Jew and Gentile were one under a New Covenant agreement described in (Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8).

As a result of this, laws concerning uncleanliness were fulfilled, they had served their purpose in the plan of revelation.

Ephesians chapter 2 describes this in detail:


I'm afraid there's no "tangents" involved. I'm dealing with your points as I have sufficient time to. This is the only way I'll be able to do it, and I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that.

But you didn't address my point, still haven't.
I was asking why were shrimp and women on their periods etc said by God to be unclean in the first place when they are not?

And if these were only falsely considered unclean so people could stand out, it seems a bit random, arbitrary and sexist.

philologos

In respect to both Creation and Noah's Ark you're disappointed that I don't just take a page out of Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis. If you find my interpretation disagreeable, tackle it with me rather than moaning about how you don't like it. I'm not going to change my beliefs to satisfy your preconceptions.

I don't feel that it is ignoring the narrative to say that there was a large flood in the Middle East at that time as other accounts can tell me.

As for the logic concerning Creation. I've been through it in previous pages. It largely has to with not being convinced that A as a cause to B can precede B, that the universe as a material thing can be uncaused or that the universe as a finite thing can be uncaused. It also seems ironic of atheists to use Ockham's Razor in order to refute the concept of God when it can be equally used in respect to postulating many universes to explain this one.

The point is I have addressed your point King Mob. Uncleanliness was a part of Hebrew law to promote the Hebrew culture as being distinct from Gentile cultures. It was also to regulate adequately what was acceptable in the Temple. You asked me why was uncleanliness in terms of food or in terms of personal cleanliness on the agenda. I answered you. As in the first case, I'm not going to change my beliefs to suit your preconceptions. If you feel I've misunderstood your question please clarify it. That'll be helpful for both of us. However, if I have dealt with it and it's just a case of you not liking what I have said, I'm not going to repeat until I give you some contrived answer that you like rather than what I actually believe. That would be absurd. By the by, it couldn't be argued to be sexist even if you desired it as there are a number of scenarios where this applies to men also.

Leviticus 15 might be good to read and compare with Leviticus 17 in respect to this. It's also important to understand that being ceremonially unclean in Hebrew society wasn't a punishment. It was a state that everyone went through on a regular basis. It was a part of the regulations behind Temple worship.

There is a difference between not liking what someone has responded to you with, and not having had a response at all. You mightn't agree with my take, that's fine, but nonetheless I've given you my opinion on the subject.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

In respect to both Creation and Noah's Ark you're disappointed that I don't just take a page out of Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis. If you find my interpretation disagreeable, tackle it with me rather than moaning about how you don't like it. I'm not going to change my beliefs to satisfy your preconceptions.

I don't feel that it is ignoring the narrative to say that there was a large flood in the Middle East at that time as other accounts can tell me.

And you failed to actually answer the questions I asked. Instead you seem to be doing exactly what you're falsly accusing me of.

I'm not assuming anything beyond what you believe already said and that you are capable of crictical thought, Hence why I conclude that you believe that the myth has a basis in reality and that you know that floods can never be big enough to cover mountains to their peaks.

So again, do you believe that the flood did go that high, and if not, why does the bible say it does.

philologos wrote: »

As for the logic concerning Creation. I've been through it in previous pages. It largely has to with not being convinced that A as a cause to B can precede B, that the universe as a material thing can be uncaused or that the universe as a finite thing can be uncaused. It also seems ironic of atheists to use Ockham's Razor in order to refute the concept of God when it can be equally used in respect to postulating many universes to explain this one.

You clearly misunderstand the point I'm making, and despite saying you're "interested in addressing it" you're now fobbing it off.

Explain precisely why you think that finite things must always have a cause.
Explain precisely why the universe cannot be in some sense infinite?

philologos wrote: »

The point is I have addressed your point King Mob. Uncleanliness was a part of Hebrew law to promote the Hebrew culture as being distinct from Gentile cultures. It was also to regulate adequately what was acceptable in the Temple. You asked me why was uncleanliness in terms of food or in terms of personal cleanliness on the agenda. I answered you. As in the first case, I'm not going to change my beliefs to suit your preconceptions. If you feel I've misunderstood your question please clarify it. That'll be helpful for both of us. However, if I have dealt with it and it's just a case of you not liking what I have said, I'm not going to repeat until I give you some contrived answer that you like rather than what I actually believe. That would be absurd. By the by, it couldn't be argued to be sexist even if you desired it as there are a number of scenarios where this applies to men also.

Leviticus 15 might be good to read and compare with Leviticus 17 in respect to this. It's also important to understand that being ceremonially unclean in Hebrew society wasn't a punishment. It was a state that everyone went through on a regular basis. It was a part of the regulations behind Temple worship.

There is a difference between not liking what someone has responded to you with, and not having had a response at all. You mightn't agree with my take, that's fine, but nonetheless I've given you my opinion on the subject.

You'll have to forgive me, I was expecting an answer that wasn't so laughably silly.
But if that's you're answer, that's the point closed I guess...

robindch

Back on topic, briefly. Here's Steve Job's sister's (gushy, but touching) eulogy which was delivered at his memorial service a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/mona-simpsons-eulogy-for-steve-jobs.html?pagewanted=all

dmw07

And off topic again, just to close mind.

philologos wrote: »

dmw07 - I presume many people on this forum would be interested in trying to get Christians to "see the light" in atheistic speak rather than in Christian speak, that is if they truly believed that atheism was a better indication of what is true than Christianity is.

evolution smacks nothing of Christianity into oblivion for reasons discussed previously. There is no reason to believe that evolution was an uncaused process. That would be inserting atheistic assumptions into the science.

As for why I do this, here's a post I made a few weeks ago about why I do this. Here's the conclusion I arrived at:

Re: see the light
If your presumption is right, I think i might be in the wrong bar. I thought this was the atheist and agnostic forum, where people who were interested in atheism and agnosticism could came to discuss and debate. I certainly didn't think that this place was a cult like domain full of brain washers with an agenda to make me think or believe what they do. I came here of my own free will expecting other like minded people. I didn't expect Christians to be here, and if they are, they are here to listen and discuss. Not give an agenda, surely? I understand it's well and good having two sides of the argument, but i think you'll find that that is not what you are doing. You are not exactly the unwanted unofficial christian mod on this forum I've asked people for advice and guidance on this forum about christianity, to mixed reception. Firstly by being ignored, then by being told you have to see for yourself(Thanks. For. That.) and then thirdly more successfully to look at a book that was not in the bible. I'd prefer if people could help me on some questions, instead of this agenda of "I believe". Show me some evidence, don't sell me an opinion.

philologos wrote: »

evolution smacks nothing of Christianity

Adam and Eve story. Proven to be a fake by evolution. Before evolution we came into being just as we are, didn't we? We no longer "believe" think/know this. They were not the first humans, nor did they eat in the garden of Eden. It was a story. A nice one. Evolution destroyed the fictitious idea of original sin though. If Adam didn't eat the apple, humans never had original sin. Adam never existed, so....... The whole reason Jesus "saved" us was perhaps made up too. Or maybe it's a metaphor. Adam and Eve is a euphemism for the first singled celled organism on this earth (Which the church cleverly knew but didn't tell anyone. Nobody likes to spoil a story and it's great fun seeing the kids discover something by themselves.), or original sin was the first singled celled organism on this earth and we humans are merely a larger abomination of that first piece of bacteria. Now exactly why did Jesus come to earth again, if it is not to save us? Why did he not come back as a bacteria, and genuinely rid of this initial sin.
Argh, The computer just says no tbh mate. From every angle it's illogical and disturbing and hurts my brain.

philologos wrote: »

There is no reason to believe that evolution was an uncaused process

Back to he cause argument i see. I'll not debate this. I'll let you rational it like so. This issue is not such a big problem for me as i don't have to make a square peg into a circular shape to fit an already predefined dogmatic shape in my head.

philologos wrote: »

As for why I do this, here's a post I made a few weeks ago about why I do this. Here's the conclusion I arrived at

Thank you for answering so frankly. I have to say i don't like your reasons for being on the forum. I find them sneaky, vindictive, manipulative and repulsive. Lines like "I long that as many people in the world come into our family" scare the crap out of me. That is some freaky thinking. The quote is particularly interesting to me though. It's one of those lines that states one thing but screams another unrelated statement.

Your being on the forum does serve a purpose though (Not only self serving) and you have as much right to be here as I( I hope i don't get a ban for being an brutal ass to you at times). I do like to read your posts, some of them but i won't be seeking any answers from you in the future as i don't think you can help me. I might drop into the christianity forum in future perhaps.

philologos wrote: »

Actually to go back to dmw07 for a minute as well:
Quote:
Can you do the same? Hypothetically, could you live in this world as one of the few people to believe in a catholic/christian dogma? I doubt it.
I'm living in such a society already, where 90%+ of people don't attend a church, and of those who do there is no substantive measure to determine those whom actually believe in Christ and those who don't..... people with love and compassion

90%+ don't go to mass, ergo i think you are 1) Making facts up without including the sample, range, geography or even religions is a bit off the wall. Oh, and it makes the statement null and void. 2) Probably focusing on one religion or idea, probably something close to (where you were born) your heart 3) More than likely your answer is regional 4) Can't base living in a predominantly religious world based on one null and void guess at how many people attend mass because a) Don't you listen to mass on the radio or tv b) Going to mass is not the complete definition of a religious person, or is it. 7) You ignore or underplay the ridiculous power and influence that religion has over health, education, politics and moral opinion in so many countries, which it should not. 8) Your last line (Further down in the original text) suggests that you are focusing on the wrong people also. If they already have love and compassion why do they need to know about Jesus. Jesus focused on the bad, outcast, miserable, weak and wicked people, and helped them. Something about the meek will inherit the earth, right? Why would someone that does not need saving (Lack of original sin, not meek nor poor neither uneducated) need Jesus...Misconception perhaps.

Anyways,

I'll not ask you any questions, bother or antagonize you any longer. You've answered some of my questions and given me far more answers from your discussion and lack of, with other people.

Best of luck in making sure those pesky atheists don't steal or rob all the good people so they can all think like you, in one house. As for me, i'd never join a group that would have me as a member so i'll watch on as a spectator and see which religions was the most wrong

philologos

I'm going to cut this down a little.

Evolution doesn't refute either the existence of Adam and Eve. I and most Reformed theology holds that humans are predisposed to sin as the Bible tells us (Romans 5:12, Genesis 6:5). It's possible that evolution was a part of divine creation, which is what many Christians including myself hold to. On the Christians in Science website and on Biologos Christian scientists offer a number of explanations of how they regard the fall in light of evolution.

On church attendance in Britain (where I now live):

The Tearfund Survey in 2007 found that only 7% of the population considered themselves as practising Christians. Ten per cent attend church weekly and two-thirds had not gone to church in the past year.

I've not made this up.

Also your claim that people's faith is based on where they are born is an example of the genetic fallacy. It also ignores the fact that most Christians live outside Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa where Christianity was most prominent. Most Christians now live in countries as minority populations. In China there has been huge growth in Christianity, and South Korea is now the 2nd largest missionary bringing nation in the world. Your statement is becoming more and more out of date each and every passing day as Christianity continues to grow globally in areas where it isn't common.

Thank you for answering so frankly. I have to say i don't like your reasons for being on the forum. I find them sneaky, vindictive, manipulative and repulsive. Lines like "I long that as many people in the world come into our family" scare the crap out of me. That is some freaky thinking. The quote is particularly interesting to me though. It's one of those lines that states one thing but screams another unrelated statement.

Your being on the forum does serve a purpose though (Not only self serving) and you have as much right to be here as I( I hope i don't get a ban for being an brutal ass to you at times). I do like to read your posts, some of them but i won't be seeking any answers from you in the future as i don't think you can help me. I might drop into the christianity forum in future perhaps.

I understand that you don't like my aims. You don't like them because you don't believe the same thing I do about Jesus. I don't see anything vindictive about offering people the chance to find out more about Jesus. My rule is that I talk to people about Him on the provisio that they want to hear about Him. In the event that they want to change the topic, that's fine. I'll gladly do so. I've had a lot of interesting questions since I moved to London though, and a lot of people who are interested in finding out more about Him on their own basis. What's so vindictive about that?

I don't think you're a "brutal ass" to me. I'm happy to listen to your POV and respond to it. That's why I post here from time to time.

I'm also happy to answer your questions, although I will answer them in my own way and when I can. Also feel free to PM me about any questions you have. That actually might be easier for me to get around to.

King Mob

Any chance you'll be getting around to my points like you said you would?
Or at least an explanation for why you are not addressing or acknowledging them?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Evolution doesn't refute either the existence of Adam and Eve. I and most Reformed theology holds that humans are predisposed to sin as the Bible tells us (Romans 5:12, Genesis 6:5). It's possible that evolution was a part of divine creation, which is what many Christians including myself hold to. On the Christians in Science website and on Biologos Christian scientists offer a number of explanations of how they regard the fall in light of evolution.

What are you views on the fact that evolutionary theory tells us that we weren't designed at all but rather we're replicators with good general fitness for that purpose? Hence our dominance.