Evolution and a supreme being.

IamtheWalrus

Read this and marvel:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution.htm

Ush1

mylastparadigm wrote: »

can you use science to argue against the existence of a god?

i mean to address the idea of a prime mover and the beginning of things.

now, you might suggest multiverse/collapsing universe theories and all and sunder. but if you apply occams razor, those theories look very complicated. forgive my simple mind.

logically, if a god preexisted nature and science, isnt this all just a futile discussion?

That "God" would have to be very complex indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

nozzferrahhtoo

My points exactly Hence clearly at the core/base of Christianity is a claim there is a god to have done the revealing. Which is why I maintained that it was this claim and not the bible that was the primary basis for their postulations.

The rest I likely could not have said better myself.

Seachmall

mylastparadigm wrote: »

can you use science to argue against the existence of a god?

God is not in the scientific realm.

now, you might suggest multiverse/collapsing universe theories and all and sunder. but if you apply occams razor, those theories look very complicated. forgive my simple mind.

Occam's Razor isn't about how complicated a conclusion is, it's about the assumptions required to reach such a conclusion.

Gurgle

Question:

mylastparadigm wrote:

can you use science to argue against the existence of a god?

Answer (post #2):

bluewolf wrote: »

No.
Well, I'm glad we wrapped that one up pretty quickly.

Followed by 17 pages and 255 posts (and counting)

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote: »

Answer (post #2):

Well that was the answer to a different question. You can't use evolution to argue against the existence of God - it's simply not in its scope to do so - however you can argue against the existence of God when you have all science to draw from, in particular quantum physics.

Of course, prior to the development of quantum physics you could have used (Newtonian) science argue for the existence of God and perhaps in the future a new discovery will bring us back to that line. Or not.

But by then we'll probably all have our answer by then - one way or another - anyway

mongoman

Man, some people certainly have a lot of time on their hands. An unanswerable question indeed and yet ironically many possess an almost God-like/infallible certainty that they alone are right.

mickrock

bluewolf wrote: »

No.


Well, I'm glad we wrapped that one up pretty quickly.

Why isn't it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

Pushtrak

mickrock wrote: »

Why isn't it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

Those who accept evolution (reality) just can no longer accept biblical literalism (at least on this). Religion has adapted, or I should say certain religious people have adapted. It seems logical, but the reality demonstrates that it isn't enough.

See, now, the canard is that the whole Adam and Eve with original sin is a metaphor or somesuch. That they are to be representative of humanity as a whole I think is supposed to be the idea.

Feck knows why the bible couldn't just say man in a general sense, and try to make the bible timeless rather than having these post hoc justifications.

mickrock

Pushtrak wrote: »

Those who accept evolution (reality) just can no longer accept biblical literalism (at least on this). Religion has adapted, or I should say certain religious people have adapted. It seems logical, but the reality demonstrates that it isn't enough.

I can see why the reality of evolution isn't enough to prove the absence of a god but it would be at least be an argument in its favour.

This is what confuses me about post #2 which got 85 thanks.

Anyway, I'd be inclined towards pantheism myself, where God is everything that is, and not a supreme being.

The Corinthian

Pushtrak wrote: »

Those who accept evolution (reality) just can no longer accept biblical literalism (at least on this). Religion has adapted, or I should say certain religious people have adapted. It seems logical, but the reality demonstrates that it isn't enough.

However disproving 'revealed' religion does not disprove the existence of God - be that God a bloke with a beard, or some anthropomorphic personification of a creator who pushed the first domino, as it were. It just disproves the version of that God as described by 'revealed' religion. Don't confuse the two concepts.

The theory of Evolution cannot actually deal with that as it is out of the scope of what it is meant to describe. To argue against the existence of such a Primum Movens, you have to look elsewhere in science, principally at quantum physics.

mylastparadigm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I St Paul ... understood the value of marketing to people who wanted to keep their foreskins and eat pork...

that was funny.

Seachmall

mickrock wrote: »

I can see why the reality of evolution isn't enough to prove the absence of a god but it would be at least be an argument in its favour.

It proves that life doesn't require an intelligent designer to have become as complex as it is. This counters what was popularly believed, and is still believed by some, but it doesn't have any impact on the discussion of God in general.


It really comes down to how you understand God and His impact on the world.

If you believe life was created as is and that our current complexity requires a designer it shows this isn't true.

If you believe that life started from simple beginnings but it's evolution must have been guided to reach the complexity it is at it shows this isn't true (more specifically, natural selection shows this isn't true).

If you believe God to be a spectator of sorts, someone who can intervene in life but didn't necessarily, then evolution has no impact on your beliefs.


In short: the more specific your belief in God is in relation to goings-on of the world the more likely that evolution or some other scientific idea contradicts it, but keep it general enough and science will have no reason to cross your path.

mickrock

mickrock wrote: »

Why isn't it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

Because the two have nothing to do with each other?

Pedant

bluewolf wrote: »

Because the two have nothing to do with each other?

Well, it can disprove a personal god, but not a deistic god (i.e., that god created the universe and then abandoned it). If you can disprove a personal god you can disprove the Abrahamic god.

/thread.

Pedant

Pedant wrote: »

Well, it can disprove a personal god, but not a deistic god (i.e., that god created the universe and then abandoned it). If you can disprove a personal god you can disprove the Abrahamic god.

/thread.

It could disprove that a god created us as we are or intervened in our evolution, but beyond that...?
I mean, the workaround for abrahamic believers is that the universe was created and evolution just started off then naturally. Not much disproving there
I think at best you could say it "disproves" some characteristics but not all

dirtyden

Pedant wrote: »

Well, it can disprove a personal god, but not a deistic god (i.e., that god created the universe and then abandoned it). If you can disprove a personal god you can disprove the Abrahamic god.

/thread.

That is if you make the assumption that you know what someone else's personal interpretation of God is. I don't think you are suggesting that but that is the logic I am implying from that statement.

bnt

bluewolf wrote: »

It could disprove that a god created us as we are or intervened in our evolution, but beyond that...?

I don't understand this expectation that we have to "disprove God". I'm not even convinced that I have to care about the possibility. If he/she/it wants my attention, he/she/it knows where to find me, allegedly.

bnt

bnt wrote: »

I don't understand this expectation that we have to "disprove God".

me neither, but if you wanted to, I don't think this would be a good starting place...

mickrock

bluewolf wrote: »

It could disprove that a god created us as we are or intervened in our evolution, but beyond that...?

So are you now saying that it IS logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

steddyeddy

In fairness I follow the evolution hypothesis and I have clear reasons why. I also dont have a problem with people following the god hypothesis. I do have a problem with the level of fanatacisim in america for instance and I can say for a fact some of the fanaftics over there are standing in the way of science. For instance the stem cell debate.

When religion doesnt stand in the way of science then I dont have a problem with what people want to believe.

mickrock

mickrock wrote: »

So are you now saying that it IS logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

No, I'm still saying quite the opposite

steddyeddy

mickrock wrote: »

So are you now saying that it IS logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

Well I wouldnt use it to argue against the existnece of god but it does disprove that god created man in his image.

Corkfeen

mickrock wrote: »

So are you now saying that it IS logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

Did you read what she said at all? It was fairly clear.

Seachmall

Pedant wrote: »

Well, it can disprove a personal god, but not a deistic god (i.e., that god created the universe and then abandoned it). If you can disprove a personal god you can disprove the Abrahamic god.

/thread.

It can disprove a specific claim about God or His actions but that isn't the same as disproving God entirely.

These claims are based on human interpretations of certain books, which we know can be fallible.

steddyeddy

I think the fact that we are risen ape rather than fallen angel carries far more positive connotations.

mickrock

Corkfeen wrote: »

Did you read what she said at all? It was fairly clear.

It was as clear as muddy water.

She made some vague statements but didn't give any details of her thinking.

Pushtrak

The Corinthian wrote: »

However disproving 'revealed' religion does not disprove the existence of God - be that God a bloke with a beard, or some anthropomorphic personification of a creator who pushed the first domino, as it were. It just disproves the version of that God as described by 'revealed' religion. Don't confuse the two concepts.

Honestly, in any discussion of religion, god one is talking about what people believe, which is the revealed religion. The interventionist god is going way beyond "Oh, we have an issue with the prime mover". I don't feel appropriately equipped for discussions on such things. See below.

The theory of Evolution cannot actually deal with that as it is out of the scope of what it is meant to describe. To argue against the existence of such a Primum Movens, you have to look elsewhere in science, principally at quantum physics.

Indeed. A subject that is in its infancy. I've looked in to other aspects of science, but quantum physics... Hm, yeah, haven't really gone there.

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness I follow the evolution hypothesis and I have clear reasons why.

Theory. And that is in the scientific usage which isn't the same as the general usage of hypothesis.

steddyeddy

Pushtrak wrote: »

Honestly, in any discussion of religion, god one is talking about what people believe, which is the revealed religion. The interventionist god is going way beyond "Oh, we have an issue with the prime mover". I don't feel appropriately equipped for discussions on such things. See below.

Indeed. A subject that is in its infancy. I've looked in to other aspects of science, but quantum physics... Hm, yeah, haven't really gone there.

Theory. And that is in the scientific usage which isn't the same as the general usage of hypothesis.

It doesnt matter how its worded for me it makes the most sense. I was speaking in scientific terms. I do consider that the hypothesis fruitful enough to become a theory.

Pushtrak

steddyeddy wrote: »

It doesnt matter how its worded for me it makes the most sense. I was speaking in scientific terms. I do consider that the hypothesis fruitful enough to become a theory.

No... The only place I find evolution called a hypothesis is on religious apologist sites. It is baffling that one who accepts evolution would use the term. Find a site that doesn't have ministries, or some religious connotation that calls evolution a hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

steddyeddy

Pushtrak wrote: »

No... The only place I find evolution called a hypothesis is on religious apologist sites. It is baffling that one who accepts evolution would use the term. Find a site that doesn't have ministries, or some religious connotation that calls evolution a hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

I accept evolution as a fact. I cant put it simpler than that.

philologos

I'm going to try go through this quickly. Apologies if I miss some of then nuances of your posts. I believe there is much to be responded both in Pushtrak's posts, and The Corinthian (EDIT: will post in response to The Corinthian's post about Christianity in the morning). I'm sure there's much to be responded in many more posts, but my time is finite, and I believe I can try and hit as many birds with one stone as I've done in previous posts.

Pushtrak wrote: »

And one stacks the deck if one says "Oh, that is true by reasoning type A, type B, type C, et cetera" and "Oh that was true for its time". Whatever is in the book will be justified, even if that justification is to gloss over it.

Not at all. It's rather simple.

Can I see reason to believe in God's word around me? The answer is absolutely yes. I see evidence of God's word being faithful about sin, more faithful than any account of the secular world in respect to human wrongdoing. I see evidence of absolute morality in the world, and I see solid logical reason for the necessity of a Creator, and indeed if that creation is necessary, then this universe, us included was created with an intention, and a purpose. Indeed, I can see the Bible, time and time again being faithful in respect to historical truth in the Near East, and in respect to archaeology. I can see the Bible being faithful in respect to the existence and life of Jesus, I can see the Bible being faithful in respect to the history of the early church, and I can see the importance of the Resurrection in making solid sense of what happened outside Jerusalem all those years ago. In comparison to any other ancient text that exists in the world today, the reality is that the New Testament is textually the most trustworthy on the basis of manuscripts. In Jesus, I see over 300 prophesies in the Old Testament fulfilled. In Jesus, I see a logical resolution to the problem of sin. The Gospel, makes clear sense to me, that's why I defend it. I present God's word, because I'm assured that by believing it, people can come to know the living God by faith.

Indeed, in Ireland while I was at university, I saw people encounter Jesus Christ for the first time through what God inspired us to do in our Christian Unions. On a mission team in the UK about a year and a half ago when I was serving with other students in Britain, I saw people who were from closed countries enthusiastic about Jesus. Now in London, I see people come to Jesus. Even if the rest of society clearly rejects Him, I can be thankful that God is at work, and is saving many, and many further afield also.

Simply put, it's your choice as to whether or not you desire to investigate what case there is for Jesus in a clear and impartial manner. I'm more than happy to walk through the Gospel with you via PM if you want to take up that opportunity.

It's not about stacking anything. It's a simple case that we have an account that claims to be God's word, why should I trust it?

The simple fact of the matter is that there are plenty of reasons as to why people believe and trust in the Gospel, and I can show you step by step as to what my reasons are.

It is likely that you will reject it. I doubt it will be on any intellectual grounds. The reality is that the world largely hates Jesus, and will rebel against His authority. Even the religious elite of Jesus' day never knew God.

Pushtrak wrote: »

And if there isn't an absolute standard of truth?

If that is so, I've wasted my life.

Logically, that doesn't make much sense though. Having no standard of absolute truth would mean that we would be drowned in subjectivity. Ultimately outside of your head, my head, and the head of Billy down the road there is something true, there is something real whether we like it or not.

The only thing I have in common in respect to my beliefs with atheists and agnostics is that I believe that there is reality independent of our minds, and indeed, people are deluded.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Oh, on the issue of absolute truth... Is something morally good because it god said so? Or would something be morally good independent of that?

It is good because God has determined what is best for us in His Creation.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I tend to assume it because it has been shown to be the case time and time again. I don't wish to bog this thread down with more on this. You say you are knowledgeable on it so that's that.

I guess all these guys are just closeted atheists then?

Surely the idea that it is impossible to be a scientists and believe in Jesus is absurd?

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm sorry. This constant cognitive dissonance is just something I'll not be able to get past.

Is looking to the Hebrew text (by means of a concordance) of the passage in order to get a better understanding is "cognitive dissonance"?

Should I be sorry that I take the Bible seriously, and I want to try and understand it as God has revealed it to us? Indeed, I guess that most Christian and Jewish thinkers who have ever written about this passage were simply wrong?

Surely something is a miss with that thinking?

Pushtrak wrote: »

I have no doubt of any of that. I think the problem you'll find when talking to atheists like myself though is we may end up talking past each other. What I mean by this is it is trying to espouse the virtues of a particular god to a person who doesn't think any such entity exists.

If we talk past each other so be it. I'm going to present what is Biblical, and I'm going to give the reasons that I have for it. I don't guarantee anything about whether or not you receive the Gospel. I hope for your own good that you do. I hope that you will come to Jesus, and I hope that God will dwell richly in you. I long that you come to know the truth about reality, precisely because I do not want you to be condemned.

The idea that Christianity cannot absolutely transform the life of an atheist or an agnostic is factually unsound though

Pushtrak wrote: »

There are two steps to the problem. The problem of "Oh there is a god? I don't see anything to suggest this" and then to prove it is the particular deity that you or any other apologist will care to present.

I agree. That's why we look to the case for Jesus Christ, and we look to the case for the Gospel being true. That's why I bring up things such as the resurrection of Jesus, or how the New Testament is written, and manuscript evidence. That's why I bring up the particulars of Christianity as well as the generic claims that are made.

I'm more than happy to present my reason for believing in Jesus Christ, and I'm more than happy to present the evidence for my position.

Each argument that demonstrates that God's existence is more probable than not is a part of a framework of indicatory evidence for the Gospel. Absolute proof lies in the realm of mathematics. Evidence is simply what points towards what is likely to be true. Evidence is the reason why I trust in Jesus, and I can be confident that His word is true. It's not something I believe in blindly by any account.

In an interview with William Lane Craig for his interview with Lee Strobel, he says the following about the role of evidence in faith.

"Ultimately, the way a Christian really knews that Christianity is true is through the self-authenticating witness of God's Spirit," he said. "The Holy Spirit whispers to our spirit that we belong to God. That's one of His roles. Other evidence although still valid, is basically confirmatory."
Craig thought for a moment then asked, "You know Peter Grant, don't you?" I replied that, yes, I was a friend of the Atlanta pastor. "Well", Craig said, "he came up with this great illustration of how this works.
"Let's say that you're going to the office to see if your boss is in. You see his car in the parking lot. You ask the secretary if he's in, and she says, 'Yes, I just spoke with him'. You see the light from under his offic door. You listen and hear his voice on the telephone. On the basis of this evidence, you have good grounds for concluding that your boss is in his office.
"But you could do something quite different. You could go to the door and knock on it and meet the boss face-to-face, At that point, the evidence of the car in the parking lot, the secretary's testimony, the light under the door, the voice on the telephone. On the basis of all this evidence, you have good grounds for concluding that your boss is in his office.
"But you could do something quite different. You could go to the door and knock on it and meet the boss face-to-face. At that point, the evidence of the car in the parking lot, the secretary's testimony, the light under the door, the voice on the telephone - all of that would still be perfectly valid, but it would take a secondary role- take a secondary role, because you've now met the boss face to face.
"And in the same way, when we've met God, so to speak face-to-face, all of the arguments and evidence for His existence - though still perfectly valid - take a secondary role. They now become confirmatory of what God Himself has shown us in a supernatural way through the witness of the Holy Spirit in our hearts"

Pushtrak wrote: »

The very types of arguments you can present derived from your holy book is something that can be presented by any adherent of any other faith, in short.

See above.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Religion has fundamentally adapted to reality as it gets perceived. I've often pondered if the free will VS determinism debate was to get to a point that it was a mainstay of thought that religion would be fine with its loss and come up with some reasoning behind it, and maybe even find verses to support this. Also, were intelligent life to be found on other planets, would verses that showed we should have expected this be pointed out.

Firstly, I'm not arguing for a vague concept of "religion". I'm arguing for Biblical Christianity. I'm not going to defend any other faith. Perhaps we could make sure that we stick to referring to it as such rather than "religion".

The reality is from the early church, Christians understood Genesis by and large in a poetic manner. One could throw Augustine of Hippo, or Origen of Jerusalem into the mix. I've demonstrated to you how Genesis shows clear signs of being such. You've not presented why you think my position on it is wrong, which I'm more than happy to listen to.

However as I asked above, objecting because I take the Bible seriously enough to walk through it and look at its structure is a bit absurd surely?

Pushtrak wrote: »

The type of interventionist deity that did all the trickery of the bible should certainly have the wisdom to see that perhaps a more up to date demonstration would be in order. This hasn't happened. No, instead those of faith will see the doubting Thomas as weak for not having faith.

What "trickery"?

Pushtrak wrote: »

There is something rather than nothing. We exist. We don't know what was at the beginning. Not quite ready to just stop questioning with appeals to the supernatural.

Logically, it's not difficult. When we start looking within Creation to see what qualities we find, and when we start investigating the Biblical claims, there's more than enough to look to a concept of God. Very easily in fact.

Pushtrak wrote: »

The essence of the infinite regression is there was something rather than nothing. Even assuming a god at this point, one would have a long way to go to prove that it was not a deistic type of god. The problem with many apologists, such as William Lane Craig is they try to defend a being in terms of a deistic god, and then jump from there to the god of the bible. It isn't employing logic particularly well, as I see it.

I don't see the logic in claiming that a deistic God is any more likely. In fact there's plenty against it. One could ask very serious questions about why a God who took so much as an interest to create the world would not take an active interest in Creation.

Why is a deistic God any more likely? - I don't agree that William Lane Craig does jump from a deistic God to the God of Christianity. In fact he's presented quite a bit of work looking at the claims of Christianity including the Resurrection of Jesus as have quite a number of Christian apologists such as Gary Habermas. The Resurrection of Jesus very very clearly makes God a personal God, so personal that He Himself came into the world to die in our place on the cross to put our sinful nature to death, and rise again to bring us to eternal life in Him.


I'm going to take advantage of some posts on boards.ie already posted about these topics below. Firstly, I also want to say something else. If I am going to discuss the Bible with people, I'm reluctant about posting through lists of quotes that people have simply googled. I could do the same in respect to your posts. I don't, I expect the same from you. I'll give these a go quickly:

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'll provide some verses on some things here. The list will not be exhaustive.
Slavery
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

In 2009, I posted a series of posts on the Atheism & Agnosticism forum, what I would suggest you do if you're interested in this topic, is have a look and post your objections to them. Or indeed, PM me.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Rape
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB) If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

(This could be in either)
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

These quotes are from evilbible.com. Again, I'm not going to be going through googled lists again in this thread. I expect you to post on the basis of your own reading. How did I know? RichieC posted the exact same list a few months ago.

On the same thread as the one where I discuss slavery - You'll find from posts 195 through to posts 198 that the very topic of Deuteronomy 22 is discussed.

Pushtrak wrote: »

A bit of mixed messages on whether or not the OT still applies, really... http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

Present your own argument on this, and I will gladly repond. I'm surprised that alleged freethinkers blindly google these lists anyway.

Pushtrak wrote: »

What is one to make of this? It is Romans 1:3..
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Some more from Romans.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

^ Er, no.

What's your point? - That passage does not say anything about being bound to the Law of Moses.

I suggest looking to 2 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 8, or Jeremiah 31, that's for a start.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Not necessarily. I'll only use this in the case of people I do know. Otherwise, I wouldn't expect anything from a given person.

This is an appeal to subjectivity though.

I doubt that firstly, particularly if there was a severe violation of human rights involved.

How exactly?

Pushtrak wrote: »

If there was an absolute moral law, this would imply a type of morality that is ageless. One that is perfect in all times and in all locations. This renders any defense of time, location or anything for things in the bible moot. You are shoehorning yourself in to a position I would really not like to be. You will have to declare such things as I have posted above are moral laws, as given by a perfect moral law giver.

I think it is ageless. In fact there is plenty of reason to suggest that it is ageless. What is wrong is wrong eternally. Good and evil are null and void if they are just what people like or don't like. Absolutely meaningless.

Pushtrak wrote: »

If there was an interventionist absolute perfect moral law giver creator entity I would expect better than what is presented in the bible. A lot better.

It seems like you've just copied and pasted verses from a Google search. Can I suggest that you read the Bible for yourself, and do some research for yourself. Then we can talk about what you think is moral or immoral. I believe that I can easily defend the Biblical text, even those passages you cited. You can tell when you have too many posts on boards.ie when you can just quote from previous posts

Pushtrak wrote: »

I took the bibles understanding of sin, and you were saying sin is in the world as if this was an argument for the existence of god. It isn't.

See what I've said above.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Please. I have seen this point be rebutted. I don't want to trawl through that thread again to find it, but from what I recall, there was a million or so people who'd go to a guy who proclaimed to be born of a virgin. I'm sure you recall this. The specific thing that was being replied to was about 11 people being so fanatical to a person.

Well, I certainly haven't. All I've seen is people ignoring the actual circumstances of the Resurrection by posting about completely unrelated events, as you've just done below.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'll leave it to this to make the point people will do crazy things in the name of what they believe. You might expect in more rational times people would be more sane. http://listverse.com/2007/09/15/top-10-cults/

See?

Pushtrak wrote: »

Honestly, I can't say I know much on the issue of when the books were written up. I have already got a backlog of books to read, so it will be some time before I get to actually read up on the subject. At some point, it'll be a discussion I'm willing to entertain. In the meantime... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTPk9dp_uxk

I don't have an infinite amount of time to invest in watching videos, or going through googled lists. Present your own position.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Considering neither of us really know the exact circumstances in which the bible was written, how many people involved, over how long, asking for one person to account what they'd do is kind of missing the point.

We know quite a bit about it, and there's a lot of scholarship done on the subject. You could just accept that you've got it wrong about the Bible's authenticity surely?

Pushtrak

There are still plenty of people out there who think of evolution as a hypothesis in the sense that it is a guess. There are such people on this forum. Sorry that I'm a pedant and will point out that it isn't just a hypothesis. I'd much rather clarity be presented than it for someone to come in, see evolution classified as a hypothesis that people take as fact.

steddyeddy

Pushtrak wrote: »

There are still plenty of people out there who think of evolution as a hypothesis in the sense that it is a guess. There are such people on this forum. Sorry that I'm a pedant and will point out that it isn't just a hypothesis. I'd much rather clarity be presented than it for someone to come in, see evolution classified as a hypothesis that people take as fact.

Fair enough I do think its a fact and I can give reasons why I think so if needed.

Turtwig

Steadyeddy, if I may, you believe evolution is a fact in the same way the earth going around the sun is a fact, in the same way that all swans are white is a fact. Nothing further needed to be said.

mickrock

Jernal wrote: »

Steadyeddy, if I may, you believe evolution is a fact in the same way the earth going around the sun is a fact, in the same way that all swans are white is a fact. Nothing further needed to be said.

All swans aren't white.

Turtwig

mickrock wrote: »

All swans aren't white.

It was a Popper reference.

The Corinthian

Pushtrak wrote: »

Honestly, in any discussion of religion, god one is talking about what people believe, which is the revealed religion. The interventionist god is going way beyond "Oh, we have an issue with the prime mover". I don't feel appropriately equipped for discussions on such things. See below.

Well the OP was pretty specific; can evolution disprove the existence of God and the answer is no, as per response #2. Evolution can punch serious holes in a literal Biblical (and the texts of other revealed religions) explanation of the universe, but that's about it. It logically does not even contribute to a disproof of the existence of God.

The argument for a Primum Movens has been around since Aristotle. It's not that important to revealed religions because they've already accepted the existence of God or gods based upon their various sacred texts and traditions and has been treated more as a complimentary proof over the ages.

It became more important during the Enlightenment, as Newtonian physics rose in dominance, giving rise to the 'clockwork universe' model - which actually needs a Primum Movens to get the ball rolling. It was during this period of history that Deism, which broadly speaking accepts the existence of God but rejects revealed religion, became particularly popular.

Quantum physics knocks the Primum Movens on the head, not only shattering the clockwork model, but in that it can demonstrate that you don't actually need anyone to get the ball rolling - it'll happen anyway. Needless to say, this new science upset a lot of people, not least of all Albert Einstein, who was ironically instrumental in creating it and famously criticized it by saying that "God does not play with dice".

But that's another discussion, because that's not what the OP asked - instead his/her question was indeed answered in response #2. So it's not important that you're not equipped to discuss it in any detail, because we don't actually need to discuss it in any detail here. Or at all, because one can answer the OP's question simply with knowledge of evolutionary theory.

philologos

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, let's be honest here, it is all nonsense. Whatever about some occult truth that would lead us to discover the existence of a divine creator, where divine really is just a place-holder term for something we've not yet explained empirically, the whole 'revealed truth' stuff really is little more than mythology.

The question is, it is logical that there is an intelligent first cause (God) to the universe? - If so, then the Christian position is more defensible than mere myth. Myth can't be argued for. The only explanatory power it has is in the story that it can tell. The Gospel, engages with the real world.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Our history is full of 'revealed truths', fanciful mythologies that often borrow from other mythologies (*cough*Gilgamesh*cough*), inconsistencies (*cough*gospels*cough*), historical porkies (*cough*Israelites in Egypt*cough*) and suspect edits (*cough*Satanic Verses *cough*).

Which "suspect edits"? - The New Testament has been shown through Biblical scholarship to be more authentic (as it was in its original form) than any other ancient document. See this link.

As for "historical porkies". Something is not historically false unless it has been demonstrated to be such. Many people used to claim that the existence of Nazareth was false until an ancient settlement was unearthed there in 2009.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Objectively, the whole Jesus story (presuming some shred of historical validity) reads as bizarre as Scientology's 'Incident II' story; a rabbi and his followers go around Judea freeloading as they go along, from what I can make out, until the rabbi gets into trouble with the local authorities and gets nailed to a tree. Just before this he tells his followers that he's "the son of God, but don't tell anyone" (yeah, right), then his body 'vanishes' and he rises from the dead and where he is only seen by said followers and maybe some other unrecorded (apart from their account) event. Then the followers able to go back to a life of carrying the Word of God and freeloading - talk about saving the firm.

Not quite. Jesus presents clear teaching to those around Him, and is arrested precisely because the Gospel He was proclaiming was offensive.

By the by, Mark's Gospel explains exactly why Jesus initially tells people not to say that He was the Son of God rather clearly in chapter 9:

Mark 9:9 wrote:

And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

Jesus clearly said this because the world was not ready to hear this, at least without misunderstanding the Gospel. Indeed, the disciples show that they don't understand this themselves in the next verse.

Mark 9:10 wrote:

So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead might mean.

It will be at the Resurrection where Jesus' word is seen.

Indeed, I can be confident and say "yeah, right" about this. It makes perfect sense.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And let's be clear, Christianity was just another Jewish sect at the start, were it not for St Paul (who understood the value of marketing to people who wanted to keep their foreskins and eat pork) it probably would have remains so, perhaps resembling something more akin to Islam and have faded into historical obscurity.

That isn't true at all by the way. Jesus proclaimed the Gospel to Gentiles - (John 4, Mark 5, Mark 7, Mark 8, and Matthew chapter 8). Indeed Peter proclaimed the Gospel to the Gentiles if one looks to Acts 10. If you look to Mark chapter 7, Jesus declared all foods clean.

It's simply not true Biblically or historically that Paul was the first to tell the Gentiles about Christianity. Indeed, it was the Apostles as a whole who sent him there (Acts 13).

Indeed, the Old Testament even suggests that Gentiles would worship God and that the Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles, and indeed that all nations would believe in Him.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So let's be perfectly honest about this. On balance it's pretty safe to say that Men did the 'revealing'. Perhaps as a means of explaining the natural World and where they came from. Perhaps as a means to make a living. But divine knowledge? Only in our vanity.

I don't see how what you've said is an argument against Christianity. Much of what you've said about the Bible is wrong.

The Corinthian

philologos wrote: »

I believe there is much to be responded both in Pushtrak's posts, and The Corinthian (EDIT: will post in response to The Corinthian's post about Christianity in the morning).

I'm not really looking forward to that, largely because it will involve vast slabs of religious texts and other circular proofs which ultimately boil down to a simple point; either you believe it or you don't.

And ultimately you do and I don't, and my disinterest in converting you to my point of view is only matched by my disinterest in having to read through your attempts to convert me to your point of view.

It's not that I am avoiding argument or debate where I may be wrong, it's just that I've both seen and had these discussions before and they always play out the same.

So feel free to response, but I don't think it'll go anywhere.

Edit: You got in there first, I see.

philologos

^^ It doesn't matter whether you think it'll go anywhere. What I was interested in, was in countering mainly the claim that Paul changed Christianity to reach to Gentiles. This isn't true at all, and it is good to put that straight. The Gospel from the very beginning was good news to all nations.

You present a criticism of the Gospel, I'm responding to your criticism. Many of the claims you've posted are simply wrong about the New Testament. I think it's fair that I can point that out.

There's nothing "circular" about saying, let's look at what the Bible says, and look to external reasons as to why that is a reliable text, and why that can be trusted.

I'm not really looking forward to that, largely because it will involve vast slabs of religious texts and other circular proofs which ultimately boil down to a simple point; either you believe it or you don't.

What do you expect? - You're claiming things about the Bible. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to show that you're not accurately presenting Christianity by referring to it.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I believe I can try and hit as many birds with one stone as I've done in previous posts.

I am sure you will given the quantity in all your previous posts has been precisely "none". A trend I see no reason to expect a change in now.

philologos wrote: »

Can I see reason to believe in God's word around me? The answer is absolutely yes.

Clearly. We all knew that already. The question however is not whether YOU can see reasons, but whether you can discuss them, show them, explain them or present them. The answer to that is "absolutely no" as previous discussions you hare run away from have clearly shown.

philologos wrote: »

If that is so, I've wasted my life.

NOW you are on to something.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

The question is, it is logical that there is an intelligent first cause (God) to the universe?

And the answer is likely "No" to that question, though you do not want to consider that it seems. Causality is time based so any discussion of causality has to include time. Time is an attribute of the universe in it's current form (post expansion - post big bang). Therefore any discussion we have about the universe "before" that point will not be time based and your whole Christianity Crutch of appeals to time and causality simply fall away.

And that's before one even addresses you sneaking in the word "intelligent" there. Just because you feel the need to terminate your own causality based and wholly imagined infinite regress... this does not mean you suddenly get to declare based on nothing that that termination has to be at an intelligent entity.

So it is really "double fail" from the outset on your post here. Worse you have had this explained to you numerous times before but of course you just turn tail and run off to a new thread every time that happens crying about how everyone is being so mean to you.

The Corinthian

philologos wrote: »

Myth can't be argued for.

Of course it can. You should hear some of the arguments that parents use to perpetuate their children's belief in Santa.

Which "suspect edits"? - The New Testament has been shown through Biblical scholarship to be more authentic (as it was in its original form) than any other ancient document. See this link.

I was discussing revealed religions in general and you'll note that the example of edits I gave was from the Quaran. Indeed, I covered or touched on a lot more than Christianity in my post.

As for "historical porkies". Something is not historically false unless it has been demonstrated to be such. Many people used to claim that the existence of Nazareth was false until an ancient settlement was unearthed there in 2009.

Again, I was citing the Jewish Torah (although the same text exists in the Christian Bible) as my example. I never questioned anything about the existence of Nazareth and the example I gave was that the Jews were ever in Egypt as described in the story of Moses. All archaeological evidence that I'm aware of says they weren't.

Not quite. Jesus presents clear teaching to those around Him, and is arrested precisely because the Gospel He was proclaiming was offensive.

And so begin the circular arguments. What is written in the [INSERT SACRED TEXT NAME] is true because this is what's written in it.

By the by, Mark's Gospel explains exactly why Jesus initially tells people not to say that He was the Son of God rather clearly in chapter 9:

No. Mark's Gospel claims an explanation, allegedly given by Jesus, on why to keep quiet on the son of God claim. Which hardly invalidates my point as we're back to the same circular argument of backing up a suspect text with evidence from same suspect text.

hat isn't true at all by the way. Jesus proclaimed the Gospel to Gentiles - (John 4, Mark 5, Mark 7, Mark 8, and Matthew chapter 8). Indeed Peter proclaimed the Gospel to the Gentiles if one looks to Acts 10. If you look to Mark chapter 7, Jesus declared all foods clean.

He may have allegedly said that, but that did not stop many of his more prominent followers attempt to impose Jewish tradition on gentiles converting and this was a bone of contention in the early Church (Gal 2:14):

But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before all, "If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize?"

So that there was a difference in ideology in the very early Church is pretty much historically accepted and in the end St Paul won that struggle and with it the power to shape the direction of the very early Church.

But let me guess; he only directed it as Jesus would have wanted? History is written by the victors comes to mind.

It's simply not true Biblically or historically that Paul was the first to tell the Gentiles about Christianity.

I never said he was. I just said he was good at marketing it to gentiles.

I don't see how what you've said is an argument against Christianity. Much of what you've said about the Bible is wrong.

And you've spent your entire post using only the New Testament as your source of argument (with the brief exception of one pie chart). The problem there is that even if it has been faithfully transcribed without error, edit or omission through to the present day (which is arguable), it does not change the fact that it tells a tale that cannot be verified externally.

I do not doubt that many of the historical references in it are verifiable. I do not doubt that the proof of many of the people cited in it can be found elsewhere. Neither do I doubt that it reads well and has a lot of good philosophical ideas.

But I do doubt the tales of miracles and magic, witnessed by no one other than a small group with a vested interest in having such tales believed and with absolutely no independent or external evidence to support them.

Bottom line is either you choose to believe it or you don't. Either you trust it or you don't. And so simply quoting it by way of proof is not going to get us anywhere - I know you accept it as credible proof, but I don't.

The Corinthian

philologos wrote: »

There's nothing "circular" about saying, let's look at what the Bible says, and look to external reasons as to why that is a reliable text, and why that can be trusted.

Let me put it another way; why would you accept the Bible and not the Quaran? After all, historically the latter is far more verifiable (apart from the magical stuff) and may be quoted ad nauseum to support itself, just as you are doing so with the New Testament. It too is as consistent and contains quite a few philosophical ideas that 'make sense'.

Or the Book of Mormon? Or the Torah? Or the Epic of Gilgamesh?

It ultimately comes down to your decision to accept the Bible, a leap of faith, that becomes the basic axiom upon which all your arguments are built. And honestly, I wish you well with that - whatever floats your boat, as far as I'm concerned - but to argue on the basis of an axiom that I do not share is pointless. Preach to the converted.

mylastparadigm

Pedant wrote: »

Well, it can disprove a personal god, but not a deistic god (i.e., that god created the universe and then abandoned it). If you can disprove a personal god you can disprove the Abrahamic god.

/thread.

id be very interested in your theorem for that one.

so you are not against a god in general, just the one that people like?

Stiffler2

mylastparadigm wrote: »

I have a question.

While darwins theory of evolution employs logic to argue against the idea of creationism - that man and women appeared in the garden of eden - is it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?

I am your new god, bow down before me


Where the F**K did I leave that collection plate actually..........

nozzferrahhtoo

Stiffler2 wrote: »

I am your new god, bow down before me

What is it about people establishing religions that they can not wait to either get people to bend over or drop to their knees?

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

Can I see reason to believe in God's word around me? The answer is absolutely yes. I see evidence of God's word being faithful about sin

I honestly don't even know what this means.

and I see solid logical reason for the necessity of a Creator, and indeed if that creation is necessary, then this universe, us included was created with an intention, and a purpose.

The prime mover argument, basically?

Indeed, I can see the Bible, time and time again being faithful in respect to

So, some of the incidental things reflected what was going on at the time. The only one of the ones you mention that make this important in the religious context is the miracles in the bible, including the resurrection. As for all the other details, if I were to write a religious book now with aspects depicting things of the world, it would no more vindicate the miracles than they do in the case of the bible.

In Jesus, I see over 300 prophesies in the Old Testament fulfilled.

Have you not considered that there is an element of self fulfilling prophecy involved?

In Jesus, I see a logical resolution to the problem of sin.

Is this to say you follow religion for the comfort in the idea that people get punished for wrongdoing in the afterlife? I honestly don't see a logical resolution to the problem of sin. No matter the wrongs one does as long as they pray to Jesus they are forgiven is the message. I don't think this is an effective means of dealing with sin. Nor is eternal punishment for a finite crime logical.

Logically, that doesn't make much sense though. Having no standard of absolute truth would mean that we would be drowned in subjectivity.

So what are these absolute truths that are universal to show that we aren't drowning in subjectivity? From this, there must be things we all agree on

Ultimately outside of your head, my head, and the head of Billy down the road there is something true, there is something real whether we like it or not.

How can you hold there there is an absolute truth that binds us all that is common to us all, yet it is seen here that you are pointing out to the very awash of subjectivity you propose to be against.

It seems very much like if I were to say that I would walk somewhere to get some exercise and I'm going to drive my car because I need to get more petrol. It doesn't work.

The only thing I have in common in respect to my beliefs with atheists and agnostics is that I believe that there is reality independent of our minds, and indeed, people are deluded.

Or in short, you aren't a solipsist.

It is good because God has determined what is best for us in His Creation.

This is troublesome water. It is a "whatever god says goes". This is a dangerous proposition as it validates all those people who think they hear god telling them to kill their children or to do any thing. Dominionists with a particular view of Revelations would be one of the worst things that could happen on this planet, as an example off the top of my head.

I guess all these guys are just closeted atheists then?

Surely the idea that it is impossible to be a scientists and believe in Jesus is absurd?

A scientist and believe in Jesus? I had no doubt of this type of thing occurring. But when I am discussing religion with people on forums, I don't assume them to be
1) A scientist.
2) Interested in following up what the science actually says.

In these discussions it is good to see where a person is coming from. Surely, you too when discussing religion have certain things you find worthwhile as groundwork in a discussion. This isn't strange, surely?

Is looking to the Hebrew text (by means of a concordance) of the passage in order to get a better understanding is "cognitive dissonance"?

Ok, I'll deal with what you said in reference to gods image... For clarity I'll requote it and address it.

Flawed argument. The Hebrew text when it speaks of God's image, the word used is t'selem, which can be rendered as reflection. It's that we have a likeness to God, insofar as we are able to commune with Him, and we were created to reflect, or be an image which bears His standards in the world. This is why the next section speaks of man's dominion.

The pertinent bit being t'selem. I keep coming across it identified as in the image of.

Should I be sorry that I take the Bible seriously, and I want to try and understand it as God has revealed it to us?

No, of course you shouldn't be sorry about that.

Indeed, I guess that most Christian and Jewish thinkers who have ever written about this passage were simply wrong?

Well, theologians of some faith or another are just as devoted. By believing what any one of them say you disbelieve that of another.

I agree. That's why we look to the case for Jesus Christ, and we look to the case for the Gospel being true. That's why I bring up things such as the resurrection of Jesus, or how the New Testament is written, and manuscript evidence. That's why I bring up the particulars of Christianity as well as the generic claims that are made.

I think I already pointed out in reference to the resurrection that it is my intent when I can to take a look in detail at the evidence for the resurrection. Was your primary source of the resurrection the bible? Or, perhaps a better question might be did you have much in the way of additional reference material to support the bible? On what basis is your belief in the resurrection, in short.

"And in the same way, when we've met God, so to speak face-to-face, all of the arguments and evidence for His existence - though still perfectly valid - take a secondary role. They now become confirmatory of what God Himself has shown us in a supernatural way through the witness of the Holy Spirit in our hearts"

Can you not see that this type of argumentation does nothing more than preach to the converted? It is presuppositional apologetics mixed with confirmation bias.

Firstly, I'm not arguing for a vague concept of "religion". I'm arguing for Biblical Christianity. I'm not going to defend any other faith. Perhaps we could make sure that we stick to referring to it as such rather than "religion".

When I make a point that applies to more than one thing I find it best to speak about it in the terms that I'm addressing it. If I was to say something that applies to all religion and say it were true of Biblical Christianity I'd be called out on it and rightly so.

The reality is from the early church, Christians understood Genesis by and large in a poetic manner.

No, no they didn't. If they did, why would things against the flat earth model, geocentrism, et cetera be treated as heresy? It was treated as literal. The biblical literalists of today? They had reason to believe the bible was literal. They didn't know any better because it was a book of its time.

I don't see the logic in claiming that a deistic God is any more likely. In fact there's plenty against it. One could ask very serious questions about why a God who took so much as an interest to create the world would not take an active interest in Creation.

No more irrational than supposing that it is so powerful and really cares about what life on this insignificant planet (in cosmic terms) does on a day to day basis. And that it has somewhere for us to go after death.

In 2009, I posted a series of posts on the Atheism & Agnosticism forum, what I would suggest you do if you're interested in this topic, is have a look and post your objections to them. Or indeed, PM me.

I'm sure you would agree that slavery is a bad idea. Instead of it outlining that it is wrong to own a slave, it never says any such thing. It advocates regulation in terms of slaves beaten should be allowed go free. Instead, the bible, even today can and is used to justify the practice of slavery. Wouldn't a great deal of harm have been prevented if a more moral approach to discussing slavery was exercised in the bible?

Present your own argument on this, and I will gladly repond. I'm surprised that alleged freethinkers blindly google these lists anyway.

There wasn't a whole lot on that link. The question "Is the OT still applicable, or did the NT over rule it?" has been answered both yes and no in the bible. Which is the absolute truth? Oh, by the very fact it is presented both ways, does this not mitigate it from being absolute truth in either sense?

What's your point? - That passage does not say anything about being bound to the Law of Moses.

It is trying to make an assertion that all know god.

How exactly?

Someone who is wronged is going to have an emotional reaction, assuming they have emotions with which to react. So, that person being wronged is not going to respond to such in a positive way. Hence, appeal to subjectivity. You aren't making the case for objective when you make it about one person responding to a direct influence.

I think it is ageless. In fact there is plenty of reason to suggest that it is ageless. What is wrong is wrong eternally. Good and evil are null and void if they are just what people like or don't like. Absolutely meaningless.

So, slavery for instance with regulation is acceptable? And maybe if said slave was to be released (on account of the slave owner not following regulations) should we hearken to Exodus 21:11? You pointed out this in the thread you linked to.

11 And if he does not do these three unto her, then shall she go out free, without money.

And should the death penalty be something we consider? Is the death penalty something that is absolute and changeless or are we beyond this now?

12 “He that smiteth a man so that he die shall be surely put to death.
13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand, then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die.
15 “And he that smiteth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death.
16 “And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he shall be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
17 “And he that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Well, I certainly haven't. All I've seen is people ignoring the actual circumstances of the Resurrection by posting about completely unrelated events, as you've just done below.

Actually, your post was more peripheral to the resurrection. It was about the propagation of the message, and why would adherents try to spread a message without being confident in the veracity of that message. This is an easy point to address, by doing so by providing evidence.

philologos

I'm going to focus on The Corinthian's posts for now, and I will get to Pushtrak's post tomorrow considering it is quite a bit more meaty.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course it can. You should hear some of the arguments that parents use to perpetuate their children's belief in Santa.

As much as you mightn't like to hear this. But there's no comparison between believing in a Creator God, the necessity which brought all things into existence, and Santa.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I was discussing revealed religions in general and you'll note that the example of edits I gave was from the Quaran. Indeed, I covered or touched on a lot more than Christianity in my post.

Which is probably why lumping all religions into one generic concept isn't a great idea.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again, I was citing the Jewish Torah (although the same text exists in the Christian Bible) as my example. I never questioned anything about the existence of Nazareth and the example I gave was that the Jews were ever in Egypt as described in the story of Moses. All archaeological evidence that I'm aware of says they weren't.

The reason I brought up Nazareth was because people claimed that Nazareth never existed and was ahistorical right up to the point when it was demonstrated that Nazareth existed. The fact that we don't have any archaeological evidence concerning the Exodus yet, is not a sign that there won't be. Indeed, there are many events in the Biblical text that have been substantiated by archaeology. There is a whole lot of areas where archaeology can show the Bible to be accurate concerning history. It seems like you're being highly selective in this case.

In fact, a mere walk around many of the exhibits in the British Museum in London for example would show you that much.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And so begin the circular arguments. What is written in the [INSERT SACRED TEXT NAME] is true because this is what's written in it.

No. Mark's Gospel claims an explanation, allegedly given by Jesus, on why to keep quiet on the son of God claim. Which hardly invalidates my point as we're back to the same circular argument of backing up a suspect text with evidence from same suspect text.

You don't get to pull that line of argument in this case, and I'll explain why. If you make claims about the Gospel which aren't even Biblical, I have the right to challenge them and will. The reason I do, is simply so that people won't be deceived in respect to it.

Let me post your claim again:

The Corinthian wrote:

Objectively, the whole Jesus story (presuming some shred of historical validity) reads as bizarre as Scientology's 'Incident II' story; a rabbi and his followers go around Judea freeloading as they go along, from what I can make out, until the rabbi gets into trouble with the local authorities and gets nailed to a tree. Just before this he tells his followers that he's "the son of God, but don't tell anyone" (yeah, right), then his body 'vanishes' and he rises from the dead and where he is only seen by said followers and maybe some other unrecorded (apart from their account) event. Then the followers able to go back to a life of carrying the Word of God and freeloading - talk about saving the firm.

It's surely off to say that it is circular to argue against your claim. Where did you get that Jesus tells His followers that He's the Son of God from if not from the Bible? In this case, it's fair game for me to point to Mark's Gospel and say that you're mistaken. It is very clearly explained as to why Jesus told people not to claim that He was the Son of God prior to the Resurrection. It is because Jesus wanted to ensure that people understood the full Gospel before explaining it to others.

The Corinthian wrote: »

He may have allegedly said that, but that did not stop many of his more prominent followers attempt to impose Jewish tradition on gentiles converting and this was a bone of contention in the early Church (Gal 2:14):

Have you read the whole of Galatians? If so it would tell you primarily why it was unbiblical. Christianity was both for Jews and for Gentiles. That was clear right from the beginning. In fact it was clear from Abraham that all nations would be blessed through Him (Genesis 12). This was fulfilled through Jesus (Galatians 3). Jesus made explicitly clear that the Gospel was for all, Jews and Gentiles, the Apostles made explicitly clear that the Gospel was for all, Jews and Gentiles. The Old Testament makes clear that the Gospel was for all, Jews and Gentiles.

Biblically, I can point to passage after passage showing this to be the truth.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So that there was a difference in ideology in the very early Church is pretty much historically accepted and in the end St Paul won that struggle and with it the power to shape the direction of the very early Church.

You mean, that there were Christians who preached the Gospels, and false teachers as Jesus told us there would be? (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Matthew 7). There are people who don't teach a Biblical Gospel in churches all over the globe. That's why I don't defend denominations, I simply defend the clear Gospel truth that Jesus Christ died to save sinners (Mark 10:45, Romans 5, 1 Timothy 1:15) and I desperately hope that people will believe and trust in Him for their own good, and encourage those who have become Christians to keep going.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But let me guess; he only directed it as Jesus would have wanted? History is written by the victors comes to mind.

It's nothing about "victors". We have Jesus' words in the New Testament, and indeed they are likely to be His word, and they match up with the history that we have, and the manuscripts we have are more textually reliable than any other ancient historical text.

Indeed, good that you mentioned Paul and Galatians, because the dating of that book, and the account of Paul's life that we find in it, serve as strong reason as to why the Gospel is not likely to be a forgery or fiction.

The time is very short considering Paul was a convert to Christianity - Galatians was written in 54AD, Jesus Christ died in 33AD. Let's do some maths on the events that Paul describes in chapters 1 and 2, and by the by the vast majority of Biblical scholars regard it as Paul's work before you try to take a stab at its authenticity.

54AD - Galatians written
Y - Time between these events and authoring Galatians.
14 years after his stay with Peter - Paul went to Jerusalem with Titus and Barnabas (Galatians 2:1)
3 years after X - stayed with Peter for 15 days (Galatians 1:18)
X - Paul converted
Apostles begin to evangelise
~33AD - Jesus crucified and resurrected

Considering Paul was a convert, how much time does that leave between Jesus' death, and Paul in Galatia? How much time does it really leave for the Gospel to be conjured up? That's even if we take late dates concerning authorship of Galatians.

It is also worth considering the Y variable of time between the events that Paul describes and the authorship of Galatians.

Atheists can claim what they will about the Bible, but the question is does it really hold up given the evidence.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said he was. I just said he was good at marketing it to gentiles.

Are you sure about that?

The Corinthian wrote:

And let's be clear, Christianity was just another Jewish sect at the start, were it not for St Paul (who understood the value of marketing to people who wanted to keep their foreskins and eat pork) it probably would have remains so, perhaps resembling something more akin to Islam and have faded into historical obscurity.

That's a falsehood. Jesus Christ declared all foods clean (Mark 7) as a part of the New Covenant agreement between God and man. Paul didn't change the Gospel, as much as people might like to argue so. The Gospel was declared to Gentiles long long before Paul. Indeed, another example from Acts is Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40).

Paul was an evangelist who gave His entire life to serving Jesus selflessly. He literally had nothing to gain from his ministry other than death.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And you've spent your entire post using only the New Testament as your source of argument (with the brief exception of one pie chart). The problem there is that even if it has been faithfully transcribed without error, edit or omission through to the present day (which is arguable), it does not change the fact that it tells a tale that cannot be verified externally.

You brought the New Testament into this argument. I'm simply pointing out how you have misread the New Testament, and I'm interested in pointing this out lest people believe falsehoods about it. You said that Paul changed Christianity, I've shown you that many people preached the things he did well before him. You said that it was somehow suspicious that Jesus told people not to say he was the Son of God, I've shown you Biblically why He said that according to Mark's Gospel.

Simply put, if you make a claim about the New Testament, I'm entitled to quote it to correct you.

On other fronts, I've presented quite a few of my reasons for belief in the Gospel, and I'm quite happy to go through them with anyone. Quite a number of them, are simply about why we can believe in the Bible in the light of reality. Simply put, looking to Scripture, and seeing how reasonable it is in the real world.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But I do doubt the tales of miracles and magic, witnessed by no one other than a small group with a vested interest in having such tales believed and with absolutely no independent or external evidence to support them.

This issue comes down very simply to Creation.

I can expect miracles if there is a God who has created all things, and is involved in it.

If there is no God, naturally, I won't expect anyone to be active in anything. Many many more logical issues arise in the wake of rejecting God - both on a level of understanding origins, and also on a level of understanding the mechanics of how ethical behaviour is fundamentally based on objective rights and wrongs.

Atheism in attempting to dismantle quite a number of things which make perfectly good sense, has left a void which is devoid of sense, reason, or explanatory power, insofar as there is actually plenty to point to God's existence.

I don't hold back in respect to atheism - because firstly, it is fundamentally dangerous in respect to peoples salvation, and secondly because it undermines what is true.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Bottom line is either you choose to believe it or you don't. Either you trust it or you don't. And so simply quoting it by way of proof is not going to get us anywhere - I know you accept it as credible proof, but I don't.

This isn't true either. I'm an example of how God rescued an agnostic. I rejected Jesus Christ for most of my life, I never knew Him. Thankfully, He rescued me, and I now believe in His word, and I now long that people will be saved.

I care little about whether the world regards me for being an idiot for that, because this world is perishing, and judgement is coming. I just want to warn of that, and I just want to explain the reasons why I can believe and trust in the Gospel truth of Jesus, and indeed why all mankind can too.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Let me put it another way; why would you accept the Bible and not the Quaran? After all, historically the latter is far more verifiable (apart from the magical stuff) and may be quoted ad nauseum to support itself, just as you are doing so with the New Testament. It too is as consistent and contains quite a few philosophical ideas that 'make sense'

I'd love to see the basis of that opinion, because I don't think I or many other people would share that assumption. The New Testament, is the most authentic ancient text we have, and it points very clearly to historical realities in a number of ways in which the Qur'an doesn't.

You'll find some of my main objections to Islam on the Islam forum. That's where it is best discussed.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or the Book of Mormon? Or the Torah? Or the Epic of Gilgamesh?

You do realise that Christians believe in the entire Jewish Biblical text?
As for Mormonism, I've engaged with Mormons on that subject before, I have reason to disagree with Mormonism as much as I have reason to disagree strongly with atheism.

As for the Epic of Gilgamesh, you'll have to explain your point a bit more in respect to that.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It ultimately comes down to your decision to accept the Bible, a leap of faith, that becomes the basic axiom upon which all your arguments are built. And honestly, I wish you well with that - whatever floats your boat, as far as I'm concerned - but to argue on the basis of an axiom that I do not share is pointless. Preach to the converted.

Faith is simply the trust that I have in the Gospel. - My faith is not blind, it's based on quite a number of reasons, which I have posted extensively on boards.ie over the last 5 years since I have accepted the Gospel of Jesus. It's simply false to say that I've not presented any, and it is simply false to suggest that there isn't any solid reason as to why Christians believe in Jesus. I'm more than happy to go through my reasons for believing in Jesus again.

As much as you say "preach to the converted", actually quite a number of people who were non-believers are being saved by hearing and listening to Jesus. I'm one of them, there are others around me. The assurance that faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10) is as true as ever despite what people might say. People are being rescued by Christ's grace from condemnation in hell. I can be enthusiastic about that possibility.

Moreover, it is a pleasure to discuss with people who are willing to at least give the Gospel a sound hearing even if they disagree.

I'm glad I could take the opportunity to point to some of the New Testament passages which give a fuller idea of many of the objections you spoke of.